Communicative Competence in Technical Oral Presentation: That “Magic“ Perceived by ESL Educators versus Content Experts

Authors: Ena Bhattacharyya, Zullina H. Shaari

Abstract:

Till date, English as a Second Language (ESL) educators involved in teaching language and communication to engineering students face an uphill task in developing graduate communicative competency. This challenge is accentuated by the apparent lack of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) materials for engineering students in the engineering curriculum. As such, most ESL educators are forced to play multiple roles. They don tasks such as curriculum designers, material writers and teachers with limited knowledge of the disciplinary content. Previous research indicates that prospective professional engineers should possess some sub-sets of competency: technical, linguistic oral immediacy, meta-cognitive and rhetorical explanatory competence. Another study revealed that engineering students need to be equipped with technical and linguistic oral immediacy competence. However, little is known whether these competency needs are in line with the educators- perceptions of communicative competence. This paper examines the best mix of communicative competence subsets that create the magic for engineering students in technical oral presentations. For the purpose of this study, two groups of educators were interviewed. These educators were language and communication lecturers involved in teaching a speaking course and content experts who assess students- technical oral presentations at tertiary level. The findings indicate that these two groups differ in their perceptions

Keywords: Communicative competence, Content experts, Educators, Technical Oral Presentations

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1063084

References:

[1] Venkatesan, P., & Ravenell, R. (2011). What is the most important skill/quality in the engineering workplace? (The way I see it) Potentials, IEEE Xplore, 30(3), 6-8.
[2] Lailawati Mohd. Salleh. (2008). Communicative Competence: A Malaysian Perspective. Human Communication. A Publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 11(3), 303-312.
[3] Hovde, M. R. (2005). Preparing students for global engineering workplace communication. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Indiana Sectional Conference DeKalb, IL.
[4] Cunningham, D. (2008), Core competency skills for technical communicators. Professional Communication Conference IPCC,IEEE International, 1-6.
[5] Bhattacharyya, E. (2012). Communicative Competence: Novice versus Professional Engineers- Perceptions, Proceedings at ICSBS 2012: International Conference on Social and Behavioral Sciences, 6-7 December, Penang, Malaysia, (in process).
[6] Robinson, M. A., Sparrow, P. R., Clegg, C. and Birdi,K. (2005). Design engineering competencies: future requirements and predicted changes in the forthcoming decade. Design Studies, 26,123-153. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.004
[7] Dannels, D. P. (2009). Features of success in engineering design presentations: A call for rhetorical knowledge. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23, 399-427.
[8] Kalaimani, R., & Kaliamoorthy, S. (2007). Using IT to improve the oral and aural performance of Tamil language students by developing metacognitive skills. In Chitra Shegar & Ridzuan Bin Abdul Rahim (Eds.), Redesigning pedagogy:Voices of practitioners (pp. 157). Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia.
[9] Bhattacharyya, E. and Sargunan, R. (2009). The Technical Oral Presentation Skills and Attributes in Engineering Education: Stakeholder Perceptions and University Preparation in a Malaysian Context, 20th Annual Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference, 1029-1036.
[10] Isohella, S. (2010), What Working Life Requires: An Approach to a Technical Communication Competency Model. Professional Communication Conference IPCC, IEEE International, 310-314.
[11] Hyland, K. (2007). English for Specific Purposes: Some Influences and Impact. In: J, Cummins and C. Davidson (eds.). International Handbook of English Language Teaching, US: Springer. 15, 391-402.
[12] Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395.
[13] Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
[14] Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G., (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. A practical handbook. London: Sage Publications.
[15] Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative enquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
[16] Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design:Qualitative,quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
[17] Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Desgining and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. California: SAGE Publications.
[18] Sharma, S. D. (2007). Textbook of scientific and technical communication writing for engineers and professionals, Retrieved from http://www.ebookdb.org/reading/54G3GE38247A1C1217G0G269Textb ook-of-Scientific-and-Technical-Communication-Writing-for- Engineers-and-Professionals
[19] Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centred Approach. Cambridge University Press.