pjd@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (dr. funk) (01/25/89)
Just a few new comments on engineering students and communication skills.
1. Our engineering school requires all of its students to take a technical
writing course. This course is associated with one particular lab course
in the major department. The students submit their lab reports to the
tech writing guys for review, editting, etc. Although the lectures are
taken as a joke, the practice and review process is very helpful.
2. I teach the lab course which co-ordinates with the tech writing class.
The students get a "World War III" briefing on day one about the need
for good communication skills. The bottom line is, "Your communications
reflect who you are. If you can't spell and consistently use bad grammar,
you are sloppy, apparently stupid and deserve to be stuck in an entry
level programming/logic design job." Heavy handed? Yes. (I worked in
industry, too, so flames to /dev/null.)
3. I also teach the senior projects course. The documentation is every bit
as important as the technical work. In fact, if the write-up stinks,
typically the grade will stink, too. (See comment 2 above.) Students must
also make a spoken presentation of their project work (20 to 30 minutes.)
The quality of the presentations improved dramatically when:
a. The tech writing course was put in place,
b. The instructor in design methodologies required formal presentations,
c. We mandated the use of transparencies and gave hints about good
presentation style.
Frankly, I'm proud of what we have accomplished.
4. Why do I have to teach people remedial communication skills in the junior
and senior year of university? And, at a "selective" university to boot?
All I know is that Sister Gertrude would kick butt until her seventh grade
students could speak and write grammatically (and that included us budding
juvenile delinquents, too. :-) God bless that woman!
paul j. drongowski usenet: {decvax,sun,att}!cwjcc!pjd!pjd
case western reserve university csnet: pjd@alpha.ces.cwru.edudykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/26/89)
In article <412@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> pjd@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (dr. funk) writes: >2. I teach the lab course which co-ordinates with the tech writing class. > The students get a "World War III" briefing on day one about the need > for good communication skills. The bottom line is, "Your communications > reflect who you are. If you can't spell and consistently use bad grammar, > you are sloppy, apparently stupid and deserve to be stuck in an entry > level programming/logic design job." Heavy handed? Yes. (I worked in > industry, too, so flames to /dev/null.) This isn't intended as a flame, so I hope you don't pipe it to /dev/null, but I have at least one gripe with heavy-handed teaching styles, which is that as far as I can tell, and from my own experience, most of the people on the high tail of the curve (i.e. the people who need instruction in that area less) are going to be instantly turned off, and have a very frustrating and counterproductive experience. I'm sure many of the people on the net can remember learning experiences in which they refused to put forth any unnecessary effort for reasons similar to this. If a teacher starts off by essentially insulting the top students (the insult is implicit - i think the example sentences you use up there would be taken as insulting when directed towards someone with good communications skills), I think that this would instantly set an adversarial tone for the class, which I don't think is good in any case. Also, just because it's only the top students (the ones without the communications problem) for whom the warning is less necessary, it doesn't mean the other students are going to be any less insulted. The other thing that irks me about heavy-handedness in teachers is that very often they are wrong. Not necessarily any more often than more personable teachers, but compare "you should probably do it this way, since it's more convenient for me to read" with "IN COLLEGE, YOU WOULD INSTANTLY BE FAILED FOR THIS, SO I'M FAILING YOU FOR YOUR OWN GOOD." In the former case, no harm done. In the latter, someone's academic record is scarred, they're week is ruined, and they've been educationally traumatized. And all because some idiot high school teacher doesn't realize that no, despite what he remembers from his/her experience at Matchbook U., college professors no longer fail students for having their papers stapled together with a horizontal rather than a vertical staple, or even for having their text displaced 1/4 of an inch to the right. I don't mean this to be insulting, and obviously this isn't the same thing - telling student they should learn how to write well is a fairly harmless recommendation, and a good idea in any case. But WWIII strategies may do more harm than good. >4. Why do I have to teach people remedial communication skills in the junior > and senior year of university? And, at a "selective" university to boot? > All I know is that Sister Gertrude would kick butt until her seventh grade > students could speak and write grammatically (and that included us budding > juvenile delinquents, too. :-) God bless that woman! I have a feeling that some of Sister Gertrude's students are the ones who accept blindly everything they've been taught, and wander around for the rest of their lives trying to "correct" everyone else. Some of my favorite examples: never use quotation marks unless you're quoting someone; never begin a sentence with the word "it"; always put punctuation inside the quotation marks; never use the word "got". These are rules that usually involve words like "always" and "never" and which vary considerably between teachers (you can get a good showing for either 'always' or 'never' with "do you put a comma after 'foo' in the sentence 'please buy me some bar, foo[,] and baz'"). The upshot of all this being that I think the World War III style is in general a lousy way to teach, and I'm glad that it wasn't the prevalent style while I was brought up because if it had been, I would probably be in jail or a mental institution right now, or maybe even worse, an airport. -Dan p.s. i won't direct flames to /dev/null, but send them by mail please - especially all the grammar and spelling flames i know i'm going to get from all of Sister Gertrude's loyal disciples. p.p.s. i didn't intend this as a flame against the orginal poster, since for all i know he has a good relationship with his students. i only meant to criticize heavy-handed WWIII teaching in general.
hunt@kevin.CES.CWRU.Edu (Francie Hunt) (01/27/89)
In article <5823@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >In article <412@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> pjd@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (dr. funk) writes: >>2. I teach the lab course which co-ordinates with the tech writing class. >> The students get a "World War III" briefing on day one about the need >> for good communication skills. The bottom line is, "Your communications >> reflect who you are. If you can't spell and consistently use bad grammar, >> you are sloppy, apparently stupid and deserve to be stuck in an entry >> level programming/logic design job." Heavy handed? Yes. (I worked in >> industry, too, so flames to /dev/null.) > >If a teacher >starts off by essentially insulting the top students (the insult is >implicit - i think the example sentences you use up there would be taken >as insulting when directed towards someone with good communications skills), >I think that this would instantly set an adversarial tone for the class, But, if you have good communication skills, why should you feel insulted by this? All he is saying there is: "This is the way the world works. You are judged by how you communicate. I will give you the chance to learn how to communicate technically, so that you don't learn the hard way on your first job. I expect you to work hard at this, since you have chosen this as your major field." > The other thing that irks me about heavy-handedness in teachers is >that very often they are wrong. Not necessarily any more often than >more personable teachers, but compare "you should probably do it this way, >since it's more convenient for me to read" with "IN COLLEGE, YOU WOULD >INSTANTLY BE FAILED FOR THIS, SO I'M FAILING YOU FOR YOUR OWN GOOD." In >the former case, no harm done. In the latter, someone's academic record >is scarred, they're week is ruined, and they've been educationally traumatized. -^^^^^- their (they're = they are) The problem with a lot of students is that if you don't say it MUST be done a certain way, they complain if any points are taken off for style since you didn't specify the exact format. I try to give students leeway in their assignments, but it irks me when they turn in sloppy work and then claim that I shouldn't mark them down because I didn't say things should be done in such and so format. > I don't mean this to be insulting, and obviously this isn't the same >thing - telling student they should learn how to write well is a fairly >harmless recommendation, and a good idea in any case. But WWIII strategies >may do more harm than good. A harmless recommendation? How about a necessary requirement to success! Students may hate it at the time, since most of their classes don't require much in the way of communication skills, but many of our students have returned and thanked us for requiring them to learn to present their work in an understandable manner. >The upshot of all this being that I think the World War III style >is in general a lousy way to teach, and I'm glad that it wasn't the >prevalent style while I was brought up because if it had been, I would >probably be in jail or a mental institution right now, or maybe even worse, >an airport. >p.p.s. i didn't intend this as a flame against the orginal poster, since > for all i know he has a good relationship with his students. i only > meant to criticize heavy-handed WWIII teaching in general. Prof Drongowski is widely regarded by our students as one of the best d*mn teachers in our school. The problem with net.communication is that you only see the words, you don't get a glimpse of the personality behind them. His students know that he is tough, but very fair, and that he expects them to work for their grades. Too bad that most universities don't recognize or reward teaching as the valuable (and necessary) contribution that it is. By the way, I teach the design methodology course he mentioned. I have a different style, but I also give my students a "This is your life" speech early in the semester to impress on them the importance of commitment to working on their projects in the class. If this is their chosen field, by golly, they should put their all into it, and not try to slide by with the minimum amount of work. Francie Hunt Assistant Professor, Computer Engineering and Science Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106 hunt@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/27/89)
In article <416@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> hunt@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Francie Hunt) writes: >But, if you have good communication skills, why should you feel >insulted by this? I'm not taking issue with the statement. I agree, there's no reason to feel insulted by the statement that communications skills are important. But there IS reason to feel insulted by someone's telling you that communications skills are important. The implication is that you don't already know that, and that you don't have good communications skills. This implication may not be intended, may not be explicit, and may even be very feeble. But it's present, and it's going to be taken as insulting, especially when the statement is delivered militantly (again, as the original poster (Drongowski) has verified, his style isn't really well described as militant). How would you feel if a colleague walked up to you and "informed" you that, in case you didn't realize it already, you can't take as literal truth everything you read in the newspaper? >> The other thing that irks me about heavy-handedness in teachers is >>that very often they are wrong. Not necessarily any more often than >>more personable teachers, but compare "you should probably do it this way, >>since it's more convenient for me to read" with "IN COLLEGE, YOU WOULD >>INSTANTLY BE FAILED FOR THIS, SO I'M FAILING YOU FOR YOUR OWN GOOD." In >>the former case, no harm done. In the latter, someone's academic record >>is scarred, they're week is ruined, and they've been educationally > -^^^^^- > their (they're = they are) Oh, hey, a little typo. See, this is exactly it. Everyone's going to be insulted by being told something they already know. Like me, for instance. I know that's a typo. I know how the sentence originally read. And I know that if I read it somewhere, I'd be more willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, rather than risk responding with something that's technically correct, perfectly defensible, but ultimately both insulting and non-productive. >The problem with a lot of students is that if you don't say it MUST be done >a certain way, they complain if any points are taken off for style >since you didn't specify the exact format. So? You'll get the complaints either way. Would you feel better failing students for not having their staple alignment correct, or failing them for turning in their paper in magic marker? I hope the latter. Both cases are exaggerated to make it obvious, but I'd think it would feel better from a teacher's point of view to take off for something the student did wrong, than to take off for something the teacher did wrong. >> I don't mean this to be insulting, and obviously this isn't the same >>thing - telling student they should learn how to write well is a fairly >>harmless recommendation, and a good idea in any case. But WWIII strategies >>may do more harm than good. > >A harmless recommendation? How about a necessary requirement to success! Telling students that they should learn how to write is a necessary requirement for success? Maybe writing ability is a necessary requirement for success (in an idealistic sense), but you're seemingly presuming that no one can learn to write well without being told that it's important. I'm sure there are plenty of counterexamples to this - writers, teachers, engineers, and whoever else - who have never been given the "writing is important" speech but who nevertheless write well. >>The upshot of all this being that I think the World War III style >>is in general a lousy way to teach... >>p.p.s. i didn't intend this as a flame against the orginal poster, since >> for all i know he has a good relationship with his students. >Prof Drongowski is widely regarded by our students as one of the best >d*mn teachers in our school. The problem with net.communication is >that you only see the words, you don't get a glimpse of the personality >behind them. I'm sure. I only meant to use his message as a starting point. I didn't mean to draw any conclusions about his teaching style. He seems not to have taken offense. >By the way, I teach the design methodology course he mentioned. I >have a different style, but I also give my students a "This is your >life" speech early in the semester to impress on them the importance of >commitment to working on their projects in the class. If this is their >chosen field, by golly, they should put their all into it, and not try >to slide by with the minimum amount of work. Okay, since this is a recurring theme, let me hit on it one more time. I do not dispute the value of writing ability, pride in one's work, etc. And I'm not saying a "this is your life" speech is necessarily counterproductive. But I don't think that there's any good reason to believe that the way to impress upon students that writing is important is a heavy-handed speech. Again, I don't mean this as a comment either on your or on Professor Drongowski's teaching style. But I think that heavy-handedness and in general the assume-the-worst approach is going to alienate a lot of people, in teaching and in posting to the net. -Dan
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (01/27/89)
< ".... < If you can't spell and consistently use bad grammar, < you are sloppy, apparently stupid and deserve to be stuck in an entry < level programming/logic design job." Do you really dispprove of students who can't consistently use bad grammar? I wonder if ambiguous sentences rank among your pet peeves. :-) -- Daniel R. Levy UNIX(R) mail: att!ttbcad!levy AT&T Bell Laboratories 5555 West Touhy Avenue Any opinions expressed in the message above are Skokie, Illinois 60077 mine, and not necessarily AT&T's.
skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) (01/28/89)
Often, teachers don't emphasize the need for clear writing skills because they don't have them. (The dean of an engineering college in a well- respected university used to brag that he hadn't learned to write till he was in grad school, so his students didn't need to learn.) When they do, they often emphasize the aspects of writing which teach people: to hate writing; to think that it is something which can be done by tech writers; to think that it is something different from thinking; to get obsessed with odd aspects of it. Those aspects are things like "correct" grammar, spelling, formatting. I'm ecstatic that people are taking an interest in writing, and that people in engineering schools are trying to teach it, but I wish they realized it's more than Sister Mary Discipline taught you in eighth grade. -- -Trish "...cleansed (919)230-0809 of oratory, formulas, choruses, laments, static skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu crowding the wires..." -A. Rich