Thanks to Bill Mason from Engineering and Technology, Dr. Ashok Agrawal from Engineering and Technology, and Dr. Greg Boyd from the Polytechnic Institute at SEMO for their great help in my sabbatical project. I would also like to acknowledge Ken Boyer, former FV faculty member in English, and Joe Dunne, MCC English faculty and current CTL director, who helped develop my sabbatical proposal.
This is final report of my Spring 2000 sabbatical project at St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley. It involved an academic integration of Engineering and Technology (specifically the 2+2 BSIT program with SEMO) and English Report Writing. This project had several related purposes:
LAB REPORT, RESEARCH REPORT, EVALUATION GUIDELINES 2
SEMO & ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY FACULTY AT FV 3
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 13
I started my sabbatical project well before the spring semester 2000. I contacted members of the faculty from Florissant Valley, Meramec and Forest Park who regularly teach the course to get their input. These numbers are few since each campus has limited offerings of this course. Of the four full-time teachers across the district who regularly taught English 103 in the past, two no longer are teaching the course. Ken Boyer from FV retired and Joe Dunne from MCC is currently serving as staff development coordinator for his campus. One other full-time faculty at FV, Jim Sodon, who taught the course at FV is serving as department chair, and Vicki Perkins is current developmental English coordinator. Greg Marshall from Meramec is currently teaching report writing. Ken and Joe, however, were very supportive of my project and offered their help. Carol Neiderlander from FP saw a need for improvement in the course offering, but wanted to see my completed project before she would give her support to it. For the most part, I worked on my own with the help of the Engineering and Technology faculty for the bulk of the project.
Revising an English department course offering according to already agreed-upon district-wide course profiles and newer industry high-tech expectations alone is a major undertaking. The district profiles for this course (see Appendix A) are general and sketchy at best. They do not help an instructor, especially a new one, understand what exactly needs to be taught, or how to go about the job. It mentions that the course emphasizes writing for particular audiences to solve "real world" writing problems, but doesn't go into any detail or give ideas as to how to achieve that goal. I have written a new department syllabus for Report Writing that does address some of these concerns while adhering to the agreed-upon district course profiles. See Appendix B. Of course, this set of learning objectives will have to be brought before the district English faculty before any current profiles can be affected. There could be some additions, deletions, etc., as the faculty discuss this "stepchild" course.
In order to integrate academics: Engineering and Technology career programs, 2+2 IT program and the English report writing course, I had several to do a number of activities. I met with Dr. Ashok Agrawal, chair of the Engineering and Technology department, before the semester and discussed my sabbatical proposal with him. He felt that there was a real need in his department for a closer connection with the writing department. Most of the instructors want Report Writing required for their two-year career programs. One of the strongest advocates for this requirement is Professor William Mason, the director of the 2+2 program.
LAB REPORT, RESEARCH REPORT, EVALUATION GUIDELINES
Also before the semester started, I met with Dr. Greg Boyd, from Southeast Missouri State University, on the recommendation of Professor Bill Mason. Dr. Boyd was teaching UI 410, a "capstone" project class, which was meeting at FV four weekends during the spring semester 2000. His students were in the 2+2 program with FV, SEMO and UMSL. The course requires each student to do an original research project at his/her individual workplace, and then write a report that Dr. Boyd thought I could help him with. We met prior to his first class meeting, went over his syllabus and report requirements and then planned a course of action for the semester involving the writing. I helped him divide the assignment into integral writing parts and devised rubrics and criteria sheets for each stage of the final report. Specifically, I suggested that he divide the major parts of the project into two or three that would have to be submitted along the way of the semester, like a hypothesis worksheet, a proposal, and the final written report. See Appendix C.
Each of the earlier writing assignments would be completing a part of the final report. The students also had an oral presentation that would have to be made to their supervisors at the workplace. Dr. Boyd made final changes and we came up with some helpful, applicable materials for his students. Later Dr. Boyd found out that this course was going to be assessed during the current assessment cycle. The university wanted him to use criteria sheets and rubrics, so he felt he was in good shape for this course because of the help I had given him. I agreed to work with his students two of the four Saturdays they were meeting, help students individually in between classes, and make some contacts with the FV writing center staff for them to get help along the way. Before the class started I created some tip and style sheets to help them write their reports. These can also be used by other faculty also with other E & T courses that require reports. See Appendix D. I also gave the students a list of web sites with report writing instructions and support. See Appendix E.
SEMO & ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY FACULTY AT FV
Southeast Missouri State University UI410 Class
During the first class meeting, I introduced myself and gave them an idea of the kind of help they could expect. At the second class meeting, I worked with the students in regular class to explain the idea of writing a hypothesis statement on a worksheet they were given, which was to be turned in that day to Dr. Boyd. I took the class to the newest Engineering computer lab with the students for the rest of the class and helped them write proposals for their company project contact people. I spent some time on using the word processor's automatic features to make the formatting, etc., easier for them. Several of the students submitted early drafts by email to me for suggestions. At the third class meeting, I worked with students individually for the most part. I did work with the class as a whole to help them use the automatic features of the word processor so their reports would be page numbered correctly, they would be able to construct tables of contents and effective graphics, and set up sections and page breaks for inserting appendices, etc. At the fourth and final class meeting, I met for about an hour with students and Dr. Boyd on Friday evening, May 5, to see how the students fared with their check sheets (mostly done by pre-arranged visits to tutors in the writing center). Then after the class ended, on May 17, 2000, I traveled to Cape Girardeau to meet with Dr. Boyd and several other SEMO Polytechnic Institute professors. Dr. Boyd and I evaluated the final written reports submitted by the students in UI 410. Dr. Ralph Pittman, Dr. Brennan, and Dr. Michael Courbat, Dr. Boyd and I discussed some of writing concerns that students writing technical reports have. Some of these were unclear documentation format (SEMO-Polytechnic requires APA), evaluation methods, rubrics, and style concerns. These were fairly much the same as our FV faculty and students' concerns.
Dr. Boyd and I used the evaluation checklist for the final report that we had made up before the start of the class to score the papers. As we ran into questions and concerns, we made notes for revising class teaching, handouts and checklist for the next time it is offered. The grading took approximately five hours for 26 reports. Dr. Boyd thought it was time-consuming but in my own experience, I thought it went pretty fast for that many papers, each approximately 30 pages long. The overall results were very good. There were no failing papers, and the two or so that got Cs earned the lower grade not because of poor writing but rather because of lack of content or poor data analysis or not enough time put into critical thinking.
Other FV Engineering and Technology Faculty
During the semester I had the opportunity to attend meetings with the E&T staff. I also met individually with several of the faculty to consult on specific writing problems. Linda Miller showed me some written reports that she received in her engineering class from the CASS students. I read them over and made suggestions for the next report. One of the suggestions was for her to use a good previous student report with name blacked out (on a different lesson but which required a similar report format) to demonstrate in class or perhaps even distribute to the students. She might also show them a poor report and go over some of the recurring problems in class. Second-language students especially need a pattern or template upon which to model their current assignment. Native students benefit from this type of modeling also.
Dr. Ashok Agrawal gave me materials for an introductory program to Engineering & Technology Curricula that is being used in South Carolina (SC ATE) and asked me to look over them for a later discussion. Later I agreed to work with him on this project. I attended a meeting of the Gateway to Technology on May 9, 2000. I signed on as the English instructor with several other faculty from other disciplines to design a "bridge" or developmental program here at FV for our Engineering and Technology curricula. I spent the summer meeting with these other faculty and some from another preparatory academy group who were designing two other "bridge" programs in general education. I convened the meetings of the Gateway committee, contacted the other faculty, wrote the English 030 part of the program as a type of developmental report writing, and wrote the notes from each meeting. We turned in a report to Chris Stephens on August 1, 2000, which will be included in his report to the president about all three developmental bridge programs. Preparation for the project is currently ongoing with a meeting scheduled September 11, 2000, for the participants to have sessions with two leaders of the original SC ATE project.
Dan Landiss gave me materials from a Mecomtronics program that the E&T department is planning to start sometime in the near future. I told him my main concern with the program was the 2-credit-hour modules. It may be difficult to get full-time English instructors to work with the program if they couldn't easily make a full load with the modules. I discussed the modules with Jim Sodon, the chair of the English department, who said he would do what he could to accommodate the new program. As it turns out, the developmental bridge and accelerated college programs have worked out a system with individualized one-credit-hour modules, so there is already a precedent for the program. I also met with Dan Landiss on March 6, 2000, to go over some lab reports of his CASS students in EE 132. He was concerned about the quality of their writing and wanted my advice on how to get them to improve. I recommended that he have his students use the Writing Center to get help before they submitted reports. In fact, I suggested that he require it or at least make it a condition for getting an A or B, which he decided to do. I also took a set of these reports with me to get an overall idea of the problems he was dealing with. Most of these CASS students are ESL speakers and poor writers of English. They have already finished their required English courses, so they need something in addition to the requirements. I told him about my earlier recommendations to Linda Miller from Engineering for the same set of students.
I also met with Rich Unger on March 6, 2000, and gave him some ideas for evaluating technology/vocational/career students' writing. I showed him a sample rubric and criteria check sheet that he could adapt for his purposes. He is currently taking a graduate course in Evaluating Career/Vocational Students work and he wasn't exactly sure how a rubric could help although his instructor wanted him to use them. He thought he could use my idea for his current writing assignment.
Before the summer semester 2000, Terrance Freeman from Engineering and I met to discuss his assigned writing for two classes, Statics and Dynamics, that he would be teaching during that semester. We discussed the types of writing assignments he wanted to have for each class and the requirements he wanted to build in, and devised some grading rubrics according to his requirements. I met with each of his classes on the second day of the summer semester and distributed several handouts to help them with writing reports for the class, and the grading rubrics for the final assignments. I gave them some tips for effective field and library research and answered several questions about the writing assignments. They were having a library tour directly afterwards, so the timing was very effective for them.
Meeting with Report Writing instructors from other campuses to get their input for the general framework of an on-line Report Writing course that would be adaptable for various career and transfer programs with the addition of modules from other career programs was not easily accomplished. I met two of the report-writing instructors from the Engineering and Polytechnic school at SEMO when I visited the campus in May. We discussed the differences in the way the course is taught from within an engineering/technology department and from a typical English or communications department. I have several handouts that they gave me from their classes on file in my office. They were too lengthy for inclusion as an appendix in this report. I visited the English department while I was there but the department chair told me that no one from English was currently teaching the class. I did contact the one instructor, Dr. Robert Zeller, who taught "professional writing" and got materials from him. They were not very useful for my project. However, he is currently revising his course to make it a more general technical writing course. The new materials are not yet available. See Appendix F.
I visited University of Missouri-Columbia in June, but again there was no one in English currently teaching report writing. It is being offered as a Professional Writing course online. I did get the name of a professor, Dr. Timothy Matterer, the course designer who later emailed me with some information. I also heard from the assistant to the Director of Composition from Missouri University, Dr. Dana Kinnison, who told me they no longer offer Technical Writing as a course through English. See their emails and materials in Appendix G.
Although I wanted to complete the online framework for the report-writing course before my sabbatical semester ended, I became aware of the new Blackboard software that the college was buying during that same semester. So On April 17, 2000, I attended the whole-day college-wide training course for Blackboard, a program the college bought to make web course creation more standardized and professional. However, I was not given clearance to work on the course until well after the semester ended. I am presently creating the online web framework for a college-wide Report writing class, which should be ready in Blackboard format for E&T students by fall 2001. It will include several means of assessment to ensure that the course is teaching students current industry standards in technical writing. My Report Writing materials are currently available online through my college web site: users.stlcc.edu/nadams.
I found that the articulation agreements were no longer on our campus and instead were housed in the Vice-chancellor for Education's office. I discussed the situation with Pat Donohue, who suggested that I get the course profiles (or syllabi) from the colleges involved with the 2+2 program and make note of any inconsistencies. I agreed that would be the best course of action since the actual articulation agreements must be made by the College administrators.
Report Writing Course Offering
Many students are not getting Report Writing as their second semester composition class even though the college catalog recommends or highly recommends the course in several career areas. There are not enough class offerings, usually one day and one night usually, to have the course available for career students who have to fit it into their tight schedules. However, the numbers of students enrolled in the course has improved during the 2000 fall semester with 19 in the day session and 21 in the evening session.
Technical Writing vs. Business and Other Report Writing
Students in Engineering and Technology programs need to have a more technical type of writing instruction than do students in business, legal technology, graphics communication, nursing and other career programs. It is helpful for these students to have the assignments form an organized and cohesive series. They must learn how to create graphics, tables, charts and other technical kinds of report materials, using the most current technology. They must be very familiar with the most commonly used document formats, and they must be able to disseminate their documents electronically, in various ways like email, attachments in MS Office applications, html, xtml, etc. They must also be trained to work on problem-based assignments in teams in order to simulate the workplace writing environment as closely as possible.
Report Writing Assignment Organization For High Tech World
Many students in Engineering & Technology claim they are proficient in word processing, page layout, presentation and spreadsheet programs. Most have some experience in all of these. However, they all need to learn how to use the automatic features of the word-processor, like find-replace, table of contents generator, index generator, list generator, thesaurus, spelling and grammar checkers in order to make best use of the computer in writing. When they enter their fields of work, they will have to write for a very technically oriented workplace. Instructors themselves must be able to use these programs in order to teach their students how to do so. Any instructor teaching Report Writing must be proficient with computer technology.
A main insight gained from this sabbatical is that the writing assignments in Report Writing need to be grounded in real-life work situations. In addition, each writing assignment should be preparation for the next assignment. Career students especially must be able to want to see the purpose for their work and what they will be learning from the lesson. Memos, letters and reports can easily be worked into a semester-long unit that has meaningful impact on the students. The final report or main report of the semester should be an eight-to-twelve page unified, significant piece. It should include tables, graphs, photos, pictures, etc. This longer assignment can be broken into parts during the semester so that students do not become too easily demoralized by one longer paper. They must be prepared for the longer papers required in their fields by transfer institutions. And finally, they should have some assignments that require them to think, plan, report orally, and write in teams.
Critical Thinking
E&T students respond well to critical thinking assignments grounded in their fields of interest. Writing is critical thinking in action. Instructors must learn to break down difficult tasks so that students can think their way through the assignment. For example, in the UI 410 class, the research report hypothesis was difficult for many students. Dr. Boyd and I broke down the hypothesis into steps and created a worksheet for them to fill out before the hypothesis was due. See Appendix C. The worksheet was very helpful to the students and Dr. Boyd intends to continue its use in his class. One of his colleagues at SEMO liked it also and wanted to use it in class. These sorts of aids can be used in many different classes to help students with the critical thinking components.
Writing in Engineering and Technology Classes
Students in E & T classes often approach writing tasks as a one-time "all nighter" chore that they have to get through. Instructors give the assignments sometime toward the start of the semester and expect the paper or papers at a point or points during the semester. E & T instructors can make it somewhat clearer and easier for their students if they come up with progressive tasks, rubrics and checklists for each assignment as it is given. Students know then what is expected of them and can self-evaluate whether or not they are doing what is expected of them. Also, instructors don't always show students good or even poor samples of assignments to let them see how the various reports are put together. Modeling is a crucial need in this course. Report writing students in the CASS program especially need lots of sample papers for modeling language.
Writing in UI 410 class and other 2+2 FV/SEMO classes
The main assignment in the UI410 class is a research report, a fairly lengthy one, with table of contents, several cover pages, several chapters, an appendix, etc. I convinced Dr. Boyd to have the students do a proposal of their project first that incorporated the Introductory Chapter of their final report. It was very helpful to the students to do the short proposal report first because they had to think out the proposed research in order to put it in writing. It helped with critical thinking as well as formatting a report. Our students at FV need to experience writing longer reports so that they are ready for their transfer institution's requirements, much the same as those at SEMO.
Articulation Agreements
The current articulation agreements need to be reissued and reinforced with other public four-year institutions in Missouri. However, there are several problems that are barriers in this regard. The agreements are not resident in the English department now. All of them are filed in the Vice-Chancellor for Education's office downtown at the College Center. I was advised by Dr. Pat Donohue that it would be best to gather as many course descriptions as possible and then compare our report writing offering to the others. The problem is that Report Writing is called many different titles and has several different course number designations. It is taught in several different departments at other colleges.
When I visited SEMO in May, I went to the English department to get one of their syllabi/course descriptions. They didn't have anything current. The course is also taught in the engineering department so it was difficult to find a similar course designation. Dr. Robert Zeller at SEMO was very helpful and gave me some input about report writing there. He is one of only a few who teach the class. He made it clear he prefers the science writing component, and he didn't even know who was teaching the course in the Polytechnic institute or if it was being currently offered. There is little or no communication between departments there and at other colleges. I have enclosed the syllabus for En 301 (Writing for Science and Technology) in Appendix F. The Engineering course is called JEC 210 Engineering Communications and is a junior-level course. The same scenario was true at the University of Missouri Columbia, the University of Missouri St. Louis, and the University of Missouri Rolla. The English department at Columbia calls its class Professional Writing (EN 162. It is currently being offered only online. ) I tried to make contacts with people at Central Missouri State and other state colleges but so far have been unsuccessful. See Appendix G for the course descriptions and materials from the University of Missouri system schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Report Writing should be offered online in addition to the regular offerings to accommodate as many students as possible. More instructors need to be trained as report writing instructors. Better communication between departments of English and Engineering and Technology about improved means of teaching writing is needed. Perhaps several meetings a year between English instructors and the E&T staff would be helpful. There is currently an effective and congenial connection following this sabbatical project. I plan to continue it and hope that others will do the same in the future.
The advising staff needs to be informed each semester about the necessity of English 103 for the 2+2 FV/SEMO students. Many students are still having to take the course after they have already graduated from FV, either at FV or UMSL. Too many English 102 substitutions are allowed to take place for the English 103 requirement.
Report Writing pedagogy should incorporate the newest technology available and teamwork. .Students must be able to write longer reports (about ten pages) in order to do the kinds of writing required of them in transfer E & T courses, like 20-30 page reports. The longer, documented research report should be the culminating final paper in all report-writing classes.
Finally, the English 103 district profiles need upgrading. I will submit my proposed revision of our departmental syllabus to our department chair at FV, who can take it to the other campus chairs for advisement. It can be discussed at assessment meetings during the fall or spring semesters.
My sabbatical project was a profitable one for me in knowledge and experience gained. It should also profit our campus and the college at large from the academic connections that were made and subsequent materials produced as a result of these connections. The most important impact should be on students who need to make report writing an integral part of their career education.
Appendix A
Current English 103 Department Syllabus
Proposed Revised/Updated English 103 Department Syllabus
Appendix C
Writing Materials designed for UI 410 (2+2 FV/SEMO Class)
Appendix D
Engineering and Technology Writing Style and Tip Sheets
Websites for Report Writing
Writing for Science and Technology Materials from SEMO and Emails
University of Missouri Columbia Professional Writing Materials and Emails
University of Missouri St. Louis Engineering Communications Course Description
University of Missouri Rolla Technical Writing Course Descriptions
------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley
English Department Course of Study Outline 2000-2001
Report Writing: ENG 103 3 credits
Course Description
This course offers instruction in the kinds of writing required in fields such as business, technology, and health science. Students plan, write, and revise letters, memos, reports, abstracts, and other forms of practical writing. Emphasis is given to writing for particular audiences to solve "real world" writing problems.
Course Requirements
Course Prerequisites:
ENG:100 or ENG:101 wit a grade of "C" or better or departmental approval.
Entry Test Requirements: none
Course Corequisites: none
Original Course Approval Date: 03/16/84
Learning Objectives (goals):
The Report Writing student should
Expected Performance Outcomes (measurable):
Minimum Course Requirements:
Suggested Text
Kolin, Philip. Successful Writing at Work. 6th Ed. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2001.
Successful Writing at Work is a serviceable text for the first two years of college writing. It provides a reasonable review of fundamentals in its opening chapters: audience analysis, purpose, style, words, sentences, paragraphs, rhetorical modes, characteristics of job-related writing, collaborative writing at work, and then focuses on a diversity of report writing applications, including informal and formal reports, survey forms, proposals, instructions, abstracts, e-mail, faxes, and promotional literature. The research chapters contain substantial content and can be easily supplemented. It also includes chapters on using the internet, designing visuals and making effective oral presentations at work. Each chapter has a generous number of exercises with appropriate range in level of difficulty.
Suggested Course Outline
The instructor should regard the following outline as providing general guidelines for approaching the course. Individualizing the course objectives with a specific class may require some changes in sequence and emphasis.
| Week 1 |
Course Overview & Communications for Workplace Review course goals, syllabus, and grading rubrics Diagnostic writing; Roles, audiences, purposes, formats, subjects Writing Process; intro, body, conclusion; memos Chapter 1 "Getting Started: Writing and Your Career" and Chapter 2 "The Writing Process at Work" |
| Week 2-3 |
Types of Writing, Purposes, Formats Thesis and purpose statements Ways to express purpose and identify purpose; letters Language that persuades; critical thinking and problem-based learning; team writing ; paragraphs, sentences, words Chapter 3 "Collaborative Writing and Meetings at Work" ; Chapter 4 "Writing Memos, Faxes, and E-mail" ; Chapter 5 "Letter Writing: Some Basics"; Chapter 6 "Types of Business Letters" |
| Weeks 4-6 |
Organizational Approaches and Styles and Instruction-Writing Choosing organization and style dependent on purpose and audience Related writing principles affecting style " Chapter 11 "Designing Successful Documents, Including Internet Web Sites"; Chapter 12 ""Designing Visuals"; Chapter 13 "Writing Instructions"; " A Writer’s Brief Guide to Paragraphs, Sentences, and Words" 671-686 |
| Weeks 7-8 |
Short/Informal Reports Findings: inferences, conclusions, recommendations Establishing and quantifying criteria; selecting organizational approach; summary and paraphrase; planning and making short oral reports Chapter 15 "Writing Effective Short Reports"; Chapter 17 "Making Successful Presentations at Work" |
| Weeks 9-12 |
Planning and Writing the Research Report Selecting problem-solving topic; researching topic; identifying issues to be investigated; finding source information; preparing a working bibliography; notetaking; focusing on audience and purpose for report; writing proposal for research report; progress reports Chapter 8 "Doing Research: Finding and Using Print, On-Line, and Internet Information Sources"; Chapter 14 "Writing Winning Proposals"; Chapter 16 "Writing Careful Long Reports |
| Weeks 13-14 |
Designing/Formatting/Editing the Effective Document Writing outlines; table of contents; MLA documentation format; works cited page; proper acknowledgement of sources; abstracts and summary; page numbering; headers and footers; using automatic features of word processor Chapter 9 "Documenting Sources"; Chapter 10 "Summarizing Material" |
| Weeks 15-16 |
Getting a Job Job searching; self-evaluation of strengths and weaknesses; application/cover letters; résumé styles; interviewing; thank-you, refusal, and acceptance letters; Chapter 7 "How to Get a Job: Résumés, Letters, Applications; Chapter11 "Designing Web Sites"--Benefits of a Web site,etc. 448-455 |
| Week 17 | Exams and Conferences |
WRITING REPORTS
http://www.io.com/~hcexres/tcm1603/acchtml/acctoc.html
NASA Educational Materials
http://catalog.core.nasa.gov/core.nsf/webtoc?openview&start=1&count=1000
NASA Report Writing
http://ltid.grc.nasa.gov/Publishing/editing/vidcover.htm
Designing Readable Documents
http://www.units.muohio.edu/mcs/suppctr/lis/mcisdocumentation/ReadableDocs/index.htm
Research Documentation
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/cgos/idx_basic.html
Library of the Workplace
http://cord.org/workplacelibrary/
SCIENCE AND MATH LINKS
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/scied/science.html
(Teaching Writing in Engineering and Science)
http://filebox.vt.edu/eng/mech/writing/handbook/index.html
LINKS TO WWW SITES ON SPREADSHEETS, CHARTS, AND GRAPHING TIPS
(A good general information site for graphing and a graphing tutorial)
http://learn.lincoln.ac.nz/comn102/graph_tute/gph_menu.htm
(A PowerPoint slide presentation on graphing)
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/are012/lecture/lectur11/sld002.htm
("The Spreadsheet Page")
(Using Excel to graph and analyze data)
http://www.bridgewater.edu/cescc/acadcomp/ExcelDataAnalysis
EN 301. Writing for Science and Technology. Practice in design and writing of technical and scientific literature, such as abstracts, lab notebooks, feasibility studies, research proposals, and reports for journals and conferences. Prerequisite: EN 140. Pre or corequisite: EN 105 or appropriate score on University Placement Test. (3)
Course Title Professional Writing Course Number 162
Last Effective Term Current Credit Hours 3
Description Introduction to the communication required in any professional field, including basic letters and resumes, reviews, reports, and electronic networking, culminating in an extensive report and a related oral presentation. Prerequisite: English 20.
Engineering Communications
JEC 210 Engineering Communications (3)
Prerequisites: English 10 and junior standing. Persistent concerns of grammar and style. Analysis and discussion of clear sentence and paragraph structure and of organization in complete technical documents. Guidelines for effective layout and graphics. Examples and exercises stressing audience analysis, graphic aids, editing, and readability. Videotaped work in oral presentation of technical projects. Writing assignments include descriptions of mechanisms, process instructions, basic proposals, letters and memos, and a long formal report.