The field of mechanical engineering is undergoing tremendous development in the wake of technological advancement worldwide. Every institution of higher learning is trying to incorporate best practices into their system to ensure that the students grow to be well-informed professionals when they ultimately join the labor market Maier & Rowan (22). However, not so many of these institutions are teaching their students to grow up into holistic individuals with admirable capabilities for oral and written literature. Most of the schools emphasize on writing, literature identified through research to teaching their students. Oral skills have been ignored for long. The job market is filled with mechanical engineering instructors who poorly pass instructions to their juniors in the field. Engineering is more or less a practical discipline where subjects interact majorly in the field and workshops rather than in offices and boardrooms. There is a need, therefore, for the students to be properly trained on oral skills just as they are trained or written skills.
Oral skills have emerged to be critical in all fields of engineering including mechanical engineering. The recognition is vindicated by recent moves by some of the institutions of higher learning to incorporate “effective communication skills” in their curriculum (Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas 53). Analyzing spoken presentations given by mechanical engineering students, shows that convincing also includes the ability of the student to choose both the structure of their talks and the use of personal pronouns during the presentation. Oral presentation increases the chances of establishing a rapport between the presenter and his audience. These choices are of great benefit to the student undertaking such a practical course.
The mechanical engineering field is focusing its attention to educational outputs rather than the traditional method of educational inputs as regards curriculum content. The outcome-forming subject of this attention relates to both knowledge and skills as triggered by requirements of the profession (Palmer & Ferguson 94). The field has experienced oral presentation becoming a fundamental part of the assessment. However, it continues to play a minor role in comparison to written presentation. For instance, some universities will only grant 15% as a maximum grade for the oral presentation while writing presentation will amerce the remaining 70%. The imbalance in weighting the two modes of communication is a further reflection of how written communication is considered superior to oral communication. Written communication is imparted to students as if it's the only method through which disciplinary knowledge is learned and communicated.
Winsor’s report (7) argues both the professionals and the students feel that data should speak for itself. They see oral presentation as a communication skill filled with rhetoric and is very unconvincing. The reality is different from these assertions, oral communication should be emphasized because they portray the presentation as a person taking full responsibility and showing participation in the research (Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas 60). On the contrary, written communication is more passive, and the presenter does not take an active role in the research and its presentation. The presentation can be structured on numeric and facts without any biases of belief, practice, or discourse.
Another myth surrounding written communication as opposed to verbal is expressed by Darling (27). Giving examples of staff instructions and feedback to students, she illustrates the idea that the data, especially those involving numeric are preferable to oral communication because they cannot be misinterpreted. Those students who chose this mode for presenting their designs often avoided reference to themselves instead focused their presentation on the subject under study. She also emphasizes this even further by saying that students who use oral presentation to discuss their designs are unconvincing, as they do not maintain eye contact with the audience. However, Darling’s assertion cannot be right in all cases. If an oral presentation risked being misinterpreted, it provides an avenue for clarification from the presenter rather than a third party who may clarify the data using his beliefs.
Nonetheless, it is these challenges that are discussed by those opposed of the oral communication in mechanical engineering that need to be handled by universities. They should train students, for instance, on the interpersonal dimension of oral presentation. The training also needs to focus on the kind of language that the student should use during the presentation (Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas 59). These institutions need to shy away from training students on how to make notes that pass messages. Instead, the focus should be directed on how to present these notes practically to the audience. After all, they will not pass instructions in the fields using paper when implementing the design on the fields.
Conclusion
In the face of current curriculum reform in mechanical engineering field, institutions of higher learning need to reconsider the place of oral communication in the curriculum. Students need to be nurtured in such a manner that they can effectively use their knowledge to communicate both orally or in writing and should be able to use these skills beyond the classroom. The dangers of concentrating on written communication are multifaceted. However, the most dangerous is that our future lecturer will not be able to teach mechanical engineering orally effectively. Instead, they will come to class and start reading written notes to students something they can do in their free time from the library. Students, professionals, and all stakeholders must be able to read effectively, listen, write, and speak. These virtues will only be attained if we train our students on how to apply both oral and written communication skills in their design presentations.
Work Cited
Darling, A. L. “Public presentations in mechanical engineering and the discourse of
Technology”, Communication Education, 2005, 54 (1), 20-33. Print.
Maier, H. R., & Rowan, T. 2007, “ Increasing student engagement with graduate attributes”,
Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 2007 13 (1), 21-29. Print.
Palmer, S., & Ferguson, C. “ Improving outcomes-based engineering education in
Australia”, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 2008, 14 (2), 91-103. Print.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. “The rhetoric of conference paper introductions:
Context, argument, and interaction”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2005, 15 (1), 45-70. Print.
Winsor, D. Writing Like an Engineer: A Rhetorical Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Press,
Marwah, NJ. 1996. Print.
