Structural Competence In Engineering Technical Oral Presentations – A Linguistic Dimension

Abstract

To be a member of a Community of Practice, one needs not only grasp the required technical genre but be linguistically competent and more importantly, be understood by the professionals in the said realm. This study, as part of a bigger study, accentuates one of the essential communicative competence constructs, i.e. the structural competence as required in technical oral presentations, an everyday communicative event expected of engineers in workplace environment. In communicating effectively, graduates not only need to master the oral competency of technical genre but champion structural competence embodied within presentations to accelerate audience understanding who stem from diverse technical or non-technical background. The study which takes on a mixed method design approach uses SPSS to analyze 25 items within the structural content construct and qualitative feedback obtained from stakeholders (graduates, language lecturers, engineering lecturers and employers) involved in technical oral presentation. The quantitative data findings indicated the importance to be clear, precise, coherent during the elaboration of a content. The quantitative findings suggest that engineers equated higher importance to such structural features in a presentation. The qualitative analysis indicates the importance for speakers to utilize transition words and phrases, sectional referencing, syntax, structured explanation, simplified details and evidence, and methodological and holistic explanation to indicate the linguistic and syntactical features necessary for graduates to communicate competently during such workplace related oral communicative events. Pedagogical implications are discussed to enrich the teaching and learning of structural competence, genre and language use vital for effective professional workplace technical oral presentations.

Keywords: Educationlanguagetechnical oral presentationscommunicative competencestructural competence

Introduction

Communication skills imply particular workplace oral, non-verbal and listening communication skills in different context with different people. As communicative skills acquisition is included in all universities curricula, the undoubted fact is assumed that the majority of graduates are good at communication (Lavrysh, 2017). However, the opposite is in actual fact. Studies resonate graduates umpteenth communication challenges from university-to-workplace transition, where graduates face difficulties as they transition from a member of the academic community to that as a member of a professional Community of Practice (COP), vis-à-vis, as a member of the professional engineering community (Artemeva, 2009; Ashford et al., 2017; Wingate, 2015). COP encapsulates shared mutual interest and a common ground for members from different backgrounds (i.e. academic and professional community) to learn, communicate, practice and relate to engineering practices commonly acknowledged among the practitioners in the said community (Lave & Wenger, 1991, 1998). In this context, the shared knowledge held among the different COP is the mutual involvement in an everyday workplace related oral communicative event, i.e. technical oral presentations, which are a norm and part of the job description for engineers.

Problem Statement

Despite its crucial impotance as a fundamental soft skill, much discord prevails among prospective employers on graduates apparent lack of communication skills in workplace environments, there still exusts the gap on communicative ability of graduates in the workplace (Bhattacharyya, 2014; Garces& Black, 2015; Rahman, Omar, Mustafa, Jusoh, &Romaiha, 2016; Selvadurai, Choy, &Maros, 2012; Walther, Miller, &Sochacka, 2017). Why is such discord prevalent among employers when graduates have been exposed to communication skills in their English Language subjects since primary to secondary schiool education? Why are our graduates lacking in the said soft skill? What aspect of linguistic competence is actually missing in their communicative ability when required to communicate in any form of oral communicative event? Graven & Lerman (2003) expresses similar concerns over what cognitive processes (i.e. learning) that occurs when members are situated together since primary school days. The concern of communicative competence among learners in ESL classrooms is felt globally over the language repertoire is questionable (Friedrich & Matsuda, 2010; Khajavy, Ghonsooly, Hosseini Fatemi, & Choi, 2016; Williams, 2017). What then is the language repertoire necessary to enhance the graduates communicative ability to present, deliver and communicate effectively with confidence in varied professional and technical settings?

To attain an insight on the said dilemna, it is imperative to understand the notion of communication skills. Communication skills essentailly denotes an interplay of linguistic norms set in a communicative context. It indicates a speaker’s ability to interact technical knowledge on a specialized field with people (Bagarić&Djigunović, 2007; Jarosz & Ilene J. Busch-Vishniac., 2006; Louhiala-Salminen&Kankaanranta, 2011; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Learning to communicate effectively is not limited to the ability of delivering better reports and presentations, but learning how to communicate with people from different positions, disciplines, and even walks of life. It indicates one’s ability to express oneself effectively, in written/oral reports and when working with different groups of people (Brunhaver, Korte, Barley, & Sheppard, 2017; Verderber, Verderber, &Sellnow, 2013). For effective communication to take place in any form of oral communicative events (such as technical oral presentations), adequate structures, discourse and rhetorical features are required to make meaning understood in a presentation (Fareen, 2017; Herman, Hall, Kuzawa, Wahlin, & Faure, 2017). However, despite the inclusion of communication skills in the curricula, studies indicate graduates still indicate the gap in linguistic repertoire necessary to present clearly and confidently to the audience (Lavrysh, 2017; Moore & Morton, 2017). The importance of communication skills as part of the national curricula is undoubted but the reality of graduates communicative competence warrants the need for a revisit to ensure continued sustenance of human capital necessary for national economic development plans (Eleventh Malaysian Plan 11MP, 2015). This study aims to investigate that gap on pertinent linguistic and structural features necessaryfor graduates to acquire the required communicative competence in the professional context.

Technical oral presentations denote formal presentations presented to a varied audience comprising either experts, non-experts or a blend of both. What then are the communicative challenges from a linguistic perspective as faced by would-be presenters when presenting to a varied audience in a professional workplace environment? The perspective from various stakeholders’ are shared to understand this linguistic phenomenon within an engineering realm. What are the structural competencies expected of graduates of the 21st century to communicate competently during critique sessions within technical oral presentations?

Being technically competent, does not solely imply one’s mastery of technical jargon but the ability to structure sentences with the apt choice of selected words to reinforce, emphasize or create an impact of a certain point addressed to the audience. In fact, for presenters to be considered competent, presenters need to exhibit knowledge of the syntax and appropriate language use required in the context of a presentation integrated within socio-cultural boundaries. In other words, presenters need to exhibit both knowledge of presentation competence, mastery of presentation language exhibited with socio-cultural awareness of the audiences’ needs. This notion of being linguistically competent as pointed out by Hymes (1972) is mirrored in Celce-Murcia’s (2007) model of communicative competence which embeds linguistic, strategic and socio-cultural competence.

This implies that to be understood, one not only needs to integrate and exploit second language use through communicative strategies but possess the knowledge and skills on the use of grammatical competence in oral presentations. Thus, for graduates to be understood, linguistic knowledge and competence in the use of grammar, diction, use of language, discourse markers within the context are among some of the basic features for presentations professional success. In this respect, it is vital that graduates are not only equipped with the focused target academic language needs necessary for specific and professional practice (Hyland, 2006; Sheldon, 2004) but more importantly possess syntactic knowledge and skills and other dimensions of language as a system are then realistically treated within the context of social reality and not in isolation (Newby, 2017).

Structural competence, as a sub-set of communicative competence, is a syntactical construct which emphasizes structural layout, coherence and the ability of a speaker to focus on the core issue of a presentation (Celce-Murcia, 2007).Structural competence refers to thematic consistency, holistic markers, accuracy and clarity. Such structural features enable graduates to signal audience the different sections of discussion in a presentation. Structural markers like “the next point…”, “this shows the… ”, “I am going to explain about the…”and “…this brings the next point of discussion…” which cues the audience on the movement from one part of the presentation to another section (Koch, 2010). Such use of transitional words, phrases and sentences help achieve a coherent flow in the presentation.

Thus, in making meaning and conveying a message effectively in technical oral presentation, graduates must possess the knowledge, utilize the appropriate choice of words and structured in a coherent flow to align to audience’s needs. Linguistic and structural competences as sub-sets of communicative competence are necessary conventions expected of graduates to be able to handle both written and oral language in academic or professional context (Oman, 2017). However, the challenge lies in the ability to identify the necessary structural features required in such professional context and setting. Studies accentuate the need for present day graduates require the necessary linguistic and structural features to be able to compete as a “global” specialist to eventually facilitate fruitful coherent communication and resolutions at the workplace (Carter-Thomas & Rowley-Jolivet, 2003; Lavrysh, 2017; Šipka, 2017). In such oral assessments, the study aims to understand if there are structural competencies that need to be enhanced and better understood by graduates as required in technical oral presentations.

Research Questions

As there is limited literature available on the structural competence devices necessary to facilitate successful presentations, this study (as part of a larger study) seeks to address the following research question:

• What are the structural competency features deemed necessary by stakeholders (i.e. graduates, engineers, language lecturers and engineering lecturers) to create an effective technical oral presentation?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to investigate the perceptions of structural competence necessary to facilitate successful presentations as deemed by the stakeholders.

Research Methods

In order to examine the structural features necessary for effective technical oral presentations, the researcher employed a mixed method approach. A quantitative survey was first utilized among 240 graduates and 66 engineers involved in technical oral presentations to identify the necessary structural items required technical oral presentation. For the purpose of this study, the researcher will elaborate only on the content stage of a presentation. The content construct comprises of the introduction stage, the while presentation stage and the conclusion stage of the content construct. The use of questionnaire survey method permits an understanding of the overall picture through the collection of a large amount of data within a short time frame (Dillman, 2002). Subsequently, interviews via the snowballing technique was carried out among final year technical oral presentation graduates, final year engineering lecturers, language lecturers and engineers who were selected as external examiners for the said presentations. These external examiners were appointed by the university based on their experience in the industry. Interviews are conducted to clarify issues that require further explanation not available in a quantitative survey. Interviews explores the “range and different representations of an issue” which would not be possible in a quantitative survey (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000, p. 41). Interviews provide “actual words of people in the study, offer different perspectives and provide a complex picture of the situation” (Creswell, 2008, p. 552). Interviews were conducted until saturation point is achieved. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data is a common feature in mixed method design (Creswell, 2008).

The questionnaire adapted several items from various established communicative competence instruments by (Morreale et al., 1991) and oral presentation rubric presentation criteria by (Bradney, 2000).The researcher applied Dillman’s (2000) four stages of pre-testing the research instrument (questionnaire and interview question) prior to the actual study. The four stages advocated of pre-testing included review by content experts, interviews with non-research participants and incorporating comments provided, pilot test and a final check with the non-research participants. 25 items were finally itemized for the questionnaire using a 5 point Likert scale rubricstarting with “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”to identify the linguistic and structural items in a technical oral presentation. The structural and linguistic contents were categorized in the content construct of the questionnaire. The questionnaire based 22 out of the 25 items from Bradney (2000) and 3 items from Morreale et al., (1991). The reliability and validity of the 25 items within the said content construct was within the acceptable range of 0.87 to 0.90.Alpha values recorded higher than 0.6 value can be noted as reliable items (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Malhotra, 2004).

The content construct adapted 7 structural items for the Introduction Stage (introduction or lead-in, title of project presentation, problem statement, relevance of presentation, research methodology, clear objectives and familiarity with topic through literature review). There were 10 items adapted for the While Presentation Stage (clear content, ensure coherence by smooth transition, visual aids effectively used, good verbal communication techniques, organisation of content, format, appropriate numbering, length appropriate, content appropriate and summary in one or two points). The Conclusion Stage comprised 5 adapted items (clear summary, purpose reiterated, importance repeated, inclusion of cost factor analysis, and closing statements). The remaining 3 items were chosen from Morreale et al., (1991) such as competency factor 1, 2 and 3 on topic, thesis statement and use of supporting details. The SPSS software was used to analyze the validity and reliability together with the mean, standard deviation and importance of each item.

The study also generated views from selected participants from the academic (26 graduates; 13 lecturers and 6 language lecturers) and professional engineering community (12 engineers). The participants were willing to volunteer and share their insight and experience in technical oral presentation. Participants were free to leave the study if they wished to do so. Each interview session lasted for about 40 minutes. The participants were asked to give their views on the essential linguistic and structural devices necessary to ensure effective delivery of technical oral presentations in a formal context

Findings

The subsequent section elaborates the said groups’ perceptions toward the content construct with focus on the structural competence items, a sub-set of communicative competence listed within technical oral presentations. Both quantitative and qualitative data are triangulated to validate the views of stakeholders involved in the study.

Conclusion

In order for graduates to accentuate communicative competence during oral communicative events, it is necessary that graduates possess a wide repertoire of linguistic and structural feature which needs to be applied within the professional context and befitting to the society. Graduates are required to accentuate detailed and methodological explanation and justification validated by scientific and rationale evidence in order to communicate a viewpoint or message in a presentation. Findings and excerpts from both quantitative and qualitative research tool reinstate the importance of structural and linguistic competence in technical oral presentations. One factor that differentiates the engineer’s input from members of the academic community is the stress on cost factor analysis. The issue of cost savings is of high priority in the professional and business oriented environment. Thus, it is important for graduates to be cost transparent in presentations. Graduates need to accentuate methodological and sequential structured explanations in order to be understood in a presentation. Such measures must be verbalized and more importantly, be embedded in the teaching and learning of technical presentation in the classrooms. Presentations must also factor in the need for explanation of technical terminology with relevant literature. In addition, details are required to validate the assumptions or conclusions of findings. To engineers, the lack of which warrants further questioning and clarification. It is envisaged that when such structural competency features are applied in the content construct of a technical oral presentation, better understanding is achieved by members of a technical or non-technical audience in a professional context. In conclusion, graduates need to verbalize such structural and linguistic competence in order to be considered as being communicatively competent during such professional context.

Acknowledgments

Sincere appreciation is accorded to the Research University for funding the study as part of the researcher’s Staff Development Program (SDP). Appreciation and thanks is also mentioned to all respondents who have participated in the study.

References

1. Anthony, Laurence.Orr, Thomas.Yamazaki, Atsuko K. (2007). Signaling transitions in oral presentations: Language and strategies.. Paper presented at the Professional Communication Conference,
2. Artemeva, Natasha. (2009). Stories of becoming: A study of novice engineers learning genres of their profession. Genre in a changing world,, 158-178
3. Ashford, Theresa. (2017). Sustainability Focused CoP: enabling transformative education Implementing Communities of Practice. in Higher Education, 281-302
4. Awang, Halizah.&Ramly, Ishak. (2008). Creative thinking skill approach through problem-based learning: Pedagogy and practice in the engineering classroom. International journal of human and social sciences,, 40(1), 18-23
5. Bagarić, Vesna.&Djigunović, JelenaMihaljević. (2007). Defining communicative competence.. Metodika,, 40(1), 94-103
6. Bauer, Martin W.Gaskell, George. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. A practical handbook.
7. Bhattacharyya, E. (2014). A case study of stakeholder perceptions on communicative competence in engineering technical oral presentation.
8. Bradney, David D. (2000). Organizing and managing successful technical presentations.. Journal of Industrial Technology,, 40(4), 1-7
9. Brunhaver, Samantha R.Korte, Russell F.Barley, Stephen R.Sheppard, Sheri D. (2017). Bridging the gaps between engineering education and practice US engineering in the global economy:
10. Carter-Thomas, Shirley.Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth. (2003). Analysing the scientific conference presentation (CP), A methodological overview of a multimodal genre. ASp. la revue du GERAS(39-40),, 59-72
11. Celce-Murcia, Marianne. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching.. In Eva AlcónSoler& Maria Pilar SafontJordà (Eds.), Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, 41-57
12. Chiavaroli, Neville. (2017). Knowing how we know: an epistemological rationale for the medical humanities.. Medical education,, 40(1), 13-21
13. Clay, Jenifer. (2016). Design thinking and performance improvement intervention selection and design: Theory in action.
14. Creswell, John W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning,conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
15. Dillman, Don A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method.
16. Dillman, Don A. (2002). Draft of navigating the rapids of change: Some observations on survey methodology in the early 21st Century (Draft of Presidential Address to American Association for Public Opinion Research annual meeting). from American Association for Public Opinion Research http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers/AAPOR%20Presidential%20Address.pdf
17. Driver, Rosalind.Newton, Paul.Osborne, Jonathan. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.. Science education,, 40(3), 287-312
18. (2008). Eleventh Malaysian Plan 11MP, 2016–2020 (2015). Anchoring Growth on People. Kuala Lumpur Eunson,
19. Fareen, Jabbar Al Muzzamil. (2017). English for Placement Purposes: Developing a Needs Based Course for Meeting the Employment Demands of IT Industries.. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics,, 40(1), 49-66
20. Freeley, Austin J.Steinberg, David L. (2009). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making (12th ed.).
21. Friedrich, Patricia.Matsuda, Aya. (2010). When five words are not enough: A conceptual and terminological discussion of English as a lingua franca.. International Multilingual Research Journal,, 40(1), 20-30
22. Garces, Helen.Black, Esther P. (2015). Corporate communication strategies are applicable for teaching non-science communication skills to pharmaceutical sciences PhD students.. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning,, 40(2), 265-272
23. Graven, Mellony.&Lerman, Stephen. (2003). Wenger, E.(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,, 40(2), 185-194
24. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
25. Herman, Jennifer L.Hall, Lynn.Kuzawa, Deborah.Wahlin, Leah.Faure, Mary. (2017). Writing as Knowing: Creative Knowing Through Multiple Messaging Modes. in an Engineering Technical Communications Course Creative Ways of Knowing in Engineering, 99-120
26. Hyland, Ken. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book:
27. Hymes, Dell. (1972). On communicative competence (J.B.Pride& J. Holmes Eds.).
28. Jarosz, Jeffrey P.Busch-Vishniac, Ilene J. (2006). A Topical Analysis of Mechanical Engineering Curricula.. Journal of Engineering Education,, 40(3), 241-248
29. Kalpana, R. (2017). Asian Research Consortium.. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,, 40(1), 1059-1066
30. Khajavy, Gholam Hassan.Ghonsooly, Behzad.Fatemi, Hosseini.Azar, .Choi, Charles W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context.. Tesol Quarterly,, 40(1), 154-180
31. Koch, Arthur. (2010). Speaking with a purpose (8th ed.).
32. Lave, Jean.Wenger, Etienne. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge university press.
33. Lave, Jean.Wenger, Etienne. (1998). Communities of practice. Retrieved
34. Lavrysh, Yuliana. (2017). SOFT SKILLS ACQUISITION THROUGH ESP CLASSES AT TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes,, 40(3), 517-525
35. Louhiala-Salminen, Leena.&Kankaanranta, Anne. (2011). Professional communication in a global business context: The notion of global communicative competence.. IEEE Transactions on professional communication,, 40(3), 244-262
36. Malhotra, N K. (2004). Marketing research: An applied orientation (4th ed.).
37. Mann, Henry B.Whitney, Donald R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The annals of mathematical statistics,, 50-60
38. Marjorie, T Davis. (2010). Assessing technical communication within engineering contexts.. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,, 40(1), 33-45
39. McKnight, P E.&Najab, J. (2010). Mann‐Whitney U Test. CorsiniEncyclopedia of Psychology.
40. Mikic, Borjana.Grasso, Domenico. (2002). Socially‐Relevant Design: The TOYtech Project at Smith College.. Journal of Engineering Education,, 40(3), 319-326
41. Moore, Tim.Morton, Janne. (2017). The myth of job readiness? Written communication, employability, and the ‘skills gap’in higher education.. Studies in Higher Education,, 40(3), 591-609
42. Morreale, S P.Awtrey, Conrad C.Johnson, Ruth Hulbert.Morley, Donald D.Moore, Micheal R.Tatum, Donna Surges.Taylor, K Phillip. (1991). The competent speaker: A short course on assessing public speaking competence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association,
43. Newby, David. (2017). Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices. Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics, 40, 15-32
44. Newstetter, Wendy C. (2005). Designing cognitive apprenticeships for biomedical engineering.. Journal of Engineering Education,, 40(2), 207-213
45. Oman, Hajibah. (2017). GENRE-BASED lNSTRUCTION FOR ESP. The English Teacher,, 40
46. Padmanabhan, G.&Katti, Dinesh. (2002). Using community-based projects in civil engineering capstone courses.. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice,, 40(1), 12-18
47. Palaniappan, Ananda Kumar. (2007). SPSS untukpenyelidikanpendidikan. Puchong,
48. Palaniappan, Ananda Kumar. (2009). Penyelidikandan SPSS (PASW).
49. Rahman, NurHayatiAbd.Omar, Hapiza.Mustafa, Tismazammi.Jusoh, Zuraini.&Romaiha, Noor Rafhati. (2016). Graduate Employability: What Went Wrong?. Paper presented at the Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS
50. Riccomini, Donald R. (2010). Technical Communication: English Skills for Engineers:
51. Schulz, Bernd. (2008). The importance of soft skills: Education beyond academic knowledge.. Nawa: Journal of Language & Communication,, 40(1)
52. Sekaran, Uma. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach
53. Selvadurai, Sivapalan.Choy, Er Ah.&Maros, Marlyna. (2012). Generic skills of prospective graduates from the employers’ perspectives.. Asian Social Science,, 40(12), 295-
54. Sheldon, Leslie Elmer. (2004). Directions for the Future: Issues in English for Academic Purposes: Peter Lang.
55. Šipka, Danko. (2017). Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian Heritage Speakers in Four Major US Metropolitan Areas: Resources for the Attainment of Full Professional Linguistic Proficiency. East/West:. Journal of Ukrainian Studies,, 40(1), 33-61
56. Tenopir, Carol.King, Donald W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers:
57. Venkatesan, P.&Ravenell, R. (2011). What is the most important skill/quality in the engineering workplace? [The way I see it] Potentials,. IEEE Xplore,, 40(3), 6-8
58. Verderber, Kathleen S.Verderber, Rudolph F.&Sellnow, Deanna D. (2013). Communicate! : Cengage Learning.
59. Waljee, Jennifer F.Larson, Bradley P.Chang, Kate Wan-Chu.Ono, Shimpei.Holland, Amy L.Haase, Steven C.Chung, Kevin C. (2012). Developing the Art of Scientific Presentation.. The Journal of Hand Surgery,, 40(12), 2580-2588
60. Walther, Joachim.Miller, Shari E.&Sochacka, Nicola W. (2017). A model of empathy in engineering as a core skill, practice orientation, and professional way of being.. Journal of Engineering Education,, 40(1), 123-148
61. Warin, Bruno.Kolski, Christophe.&Sagar, Mouldi. (2011). Framework for the evolution of acquiring knowledge modules to integrate the acquisition of high-level cognitive skills and professional competencies: Principles and case studies.. Computers & Education,, 40(2), 1595-1614
62. Wenger, Etienne.McDermott, Richard Arnold.Snyder, William. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge:
63. Wilcoxon, Frank. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods.. Biometrics bulletin,, 40(6), 80-83
64. Williams, Clay H. (2017). English Outside of the Classroom Teaching English in East Asia, 167-184
65. Wingate, Ursula. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice (Vol. 42): Multilingual Matters.
66. Wolf, Mikyung Kim.Kao, Jenny.Griffin, Noelle.Herman, Joan L.Bachman, Patina L.Chang, Sandy M.Farnsworth, Tim. (2008). Issues in Assessing English Language Learners: English Language Proficiency Measures and Accommodation Uses.. CRESST Report 732. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)., 40