Prima de Riesgo Sobrestimada.

As instructors, we are clearly aware that engineers spend a good bit of their professional day reading specific documents, such as correspondence and technical reports. However, we don’t emphasize the reading of those same documents in our classes. And while some might argue that instructors actually do require reading technical documents in their professional writing classes and those elements are just not emphasized on the syllabus because they do not have specific assignments connected to the reading requirements, the truth is that the instructors themselves admit that they do not weigh reading very heavily in their classes. And this practice is not uncommon in composition classrooms. When Michael Bunn asked composition instructors if they view reading and writing as connected activities, all the instructors who answered the question responded yes; but the same instructors admitted that they do not all teach the

connection between reading and writing to their students. This trend continues in the technical communication classroom, as indicated by the data from this research project. Instructors are clearly aware of the reading requirements of professional engineers, but they do not mandate or even provide opportunities for their students to read the types of documents that will be required in their future professional careers.

Obviously, there is a disconnect between what we as instructors know and what we are practicing in the technical writing classroom. We are aware that reading is essential as part of composition pedagogy. The connection between reading and composition is so compelling that in 2012, the SIG was formed at CCCC to study “The Role of Reading in Composition Studies.” The WPA also acknowledges this connection by including reading in the Writing Program Administrators Outcomes Statement. Not only does WPA provide outcomes categorized as “Critical Thinking, Reading, and Composing,” but the organization also calls for faculty to teach

students “strategies for reading a range of texts in their fields” (WPA). The standards are set for first year composition, classes that typically have a range of majors and interests. Yet when technical communication instructors have a class that is geared towards a specific discipline – something most composition classes do not have the advantage of – we do not emphasize reading technical documents, the very documents that the future engineers will read in their professional careers.

While there are different logical reasons for the lack of reading in technical writing classes, as instructors of technical writing, technical communication, and professional writings, we must change the reading requirements in our classes. To make positive changes for our students, we have an obligation to incorporate reading relevant to engineering into our classes. Including reading in our technical writing classes will benefit the students in multiple ways; primarily, students will learn how to read technical documents, something that is not currently taught to potential engineers. Students are not typically exposed to technical documents in other composition classes. Instead, first year composition students are exposed to academic essays, narratives, and multimodal writing. But engineers are required to read different types of

documents in their careers, such as technical reports, management reports, and proposals. Since students are not exposed to technical documents in other composition classes, much less taught to read the documents, it is important that we as instructors of technical writing take the time to teach students the differences between standard academic and technical writing. And the best way to illustrate the differences between the types of writing is to emphasize reading and evaluation of the documents.

Reading also helps students understand the writing process for technical documents because it forces them to become members of the audience. Readers must work to understand the

meaning and organization of documents, and as they do, they start to identify the characteristics of writing that are effective in technical documents but that may not be as effective in the

traditional academic writing the students have previously been exposed to. When students look at information from the lens of the audience, they are better able to understand the intricacies that technical writing requires for effective communication, and, as a result, apply those

characteristics to their own writing. Instead of writing only as the writer, the student writes as someone who understands and appreciates the audience, a skill that is often missing in

professional engineers’ writing.

Also, by including reading in our classes, we can help students understand that their writing is not a stand-alone process. While the technical documents are not considered part of the academic conversation, they are part of the professional engineering conversation, a conversation that our students would benefit from learning since they will be expected to be members of that very conversation when they graduate. As Alder-Kassner and Estrem conclude, “to produce a successful reading, readers must engage in a dialogue between genre conventions and their ideas” (37). We cannot expect students to understand the dialogue, much less be active participants, if they are not required to read the technical documents used to convey the substance of the discussion.