Speech: An Enhancement
to (Technical) Writing
JOHN PIIRTO
University Writing Program
University of Colorado at Boulder
ABSTRACT
Industry today wants engineers who are not only technically profi-
cient, but who also can speak and write well. The problem is that
engineering students do not get many opportunities to practice
these skills in their crowded curricula. The educational strategy in
the following article suggests that incorporating a formal or semi-
formal speech into a (technical) writing assignment can improve a
student’s speaking and writing proficiency.
I. INTRODUCTION
—strong communication skills required as the job will involve exten-
sive interaction with many other teams (IBM)
—strong written and verbal skills required (Hewlett Packard)
—Requirement: Excellent communication skills (Park Scientific In-
struments)
Industry today wants engineers who can write and speak well.
One only has to look at current job announcements. But since engi-
neering curricula are technical in nature and impacted by the grow-
ing body of technical knowledge to be learned, it is difficult for en-
gineering students to develop these talents.
Evans1 informs us that first year English students and first year
Engineering students enter with similar skills, but the latter write
little and reads poor examples in texts over the course of four years.
These “… engineering students write poorly because they do not
practice enough.” This lack of practice and skill development may
account for their attitudes, for at this stage in their education engi-
neering students hold negative attitudes toward developing these
skills.2 They further question the value of humanities and the im-
portance of oral skills.3 Another research team found that engineer-
ing students view writing as apart from the real work of engineer-
ing.4 Thus “It is not surprising that professional engineers have not
been well prepared to deal with the communication demands of the
marketplace.” 5
Yet, it is critical that we try to build these skills into the curricu-
lum. Kulacki6 suggests why. According to his research, there is a new
“Emerging” engineer, one separate from the “Current or Past” engi-
neer. The Current or Past engineer is a “technical expert who solves
a problem and writes a report.” The new Emerging engineer “Man-
ages people or a process, and must communicate results to others in
writing, graphically or orally.” Working engineers corroborate this
January 2000
idea. Engineering graduates now in the work force look back on
their college education and “believe that there should be greater em-
phasis in oral communications and technical writing skills.” 7
The following pedagogical strategy—to incorporate a formal or
semi-formal speech into an engineering student’s technical writing
class—works to improve a student’s oral skills. At the same time, on
a rhetorical level, creating and giving a speech helps the student’s
writing skills. In other words the two not only compliment each
other, but elevate both oral and writing skills to a higher level than
each could achieve alone. And significantly, this approach will not
add another course to the already crowded curriculum.
II. BACKGROUND THEORY
Tradition shows us that colleges treat these two bodies of exper-
tise, speech and writing, as separate entities. One only has to look at
a college course catalog. A substantial amount of research suggests,
however, that speech and writing are strongly related.
L.S. Vygotsky,8 early pioneer in the field of human communica-
tion, informs us that students have a much harder time writing than
speaking because the audience is imaginary or absent. A speech will
provide this audience. He also created the term “inner speech,” as-
serting that “Usually we say to ourselves what we are going to write.
Inner speech goes to paper in a first draft.” 9 James Britton,10 another
seminal authority in the field, informs us that to offer succeeding
representations of knowledge [speech, writing a paper] causes the
knowledge to undergo successive modification. He further believes
that speech and reaction through speech can enhance all learning.11
In his exhaustive study, Biber12 found “no single, absolute difference
between speech and writing in English.” And on a practical level,
the Council of Biology Editors13 believes that speech and writing
are closely linked elements in the transmission of knowledge.
“From an organizational point of view, planning an article and
planning a talk are identical up to a certain point.” Given the peda-
gogical problems outlined in the introduction, and the firm footing
theory has provided, the following model uses an integrated ap-
proach; more specifically, it adds a speech component to a technical
writing assignment.
III. METHOD
The method behind the assignment is fairly straightforward. At
some point during the drafting process, preferably just after the stu-
dents have completed a first draft of their papers, the instructor will
require the students to make a short (five to eight minute) presenta-
tion of their work in progress—a speech. These presentations
Journal of Engineering Education 21
should be treated more formally than informally. That is, the stu-
dent is not simply to read his or her draft to the class and ask, “Are
there any questions?” On the contrary, the student is to employ
those tactics that make for a successful presentation:
● Introduction—the introduction is made up of three parts: the
issue, the thesis, and the reasons that support the thesis.14
● Issue—The speaker here is basically asking a question and
providing a context for the thesis (the answer to the ques-
tion). For example, suppose there are tremendous parking
problems on the campus and the proposal is to build a five
story parking structure. The speaker could relate some statis-
tics or create a brief scenario, then ask whether the proposal
will solve the problem.
● Thesis—The thesis, in a declarative succinct sentence, in-
forms the audience exactly what the speech will be about, the
informed opinion of the speaker. For example, the parking
structure will only create more parking problems thus should
not be built.
● Reasons—This final element of the opening promises a
structure of support for the speaker’s opinion. For example,
“I will cover three points …”
As can be seen, these elements of a good speech also make up a
fine strategy in creating an opening for a written work. In an intro-
ductory paragraph, the author will try to attract the reading audi-
ence, set forth a clear thesis, and follow with a list of the points to be
covered in the body.
● Body—This section calls for the speaker to follow the outline
just mentioned in the “reasons” above. In order for the audi-
ence to be able to comprehend the arguments easily, the
speaker should employ effective topic sentences, obvious
transitions (“Now that I’ve discussed point one …”), and
perhaps present charts or other visual aids.
These speech techniques are integral to informing and persuad-
ing the audience; yet it’s also axiomatic that these strategies are fun-
damental to good writing, e.g., a good piece of writing will use topic
sentences, analysis, examples, transitions, and come to conclusions.
● Conclusion and Q & A—Finally, the speaker will have to sum
up what he or she has said, signal to the audience that the
speech is over, and discuss possible responses to the ideas.
The subsequent question and answer period is of incredible
value, for it is here that the speaker must confront a live audi-
ence. So often a student will write without the concept of au-
dience, even when the instructor stresses the concept. This is
because most often the “audience” consists of a single person,
the instructor. After a speech, however, the live audience will
ask questions about points that were unclear, questions con-
cerning the logic, and questions about gaps in the knowl-
edge. This live audience with its many points of view, pro-
vides information that the student can then use in the
process of revising the final draft of the paper.
IV. RESULTS
At the completion of the assignment, engineering students in
twelve writing classes were asked in a short survey to offer their
comments on this approach. All responses were confidential. No
quantitative analyses were collected. Students were asked to write
22 Journal of Engineering Education
subjectively about whether or not the addition of a speech helped
their (1) oral skills and (2) written skills.
Oral—The two most common words to appear in this section
were “experience,” and “practice.” Some students commented that
they would never have chosen to give a speech, but were glad they
did. In other words, many felt that apart from the results, just doing
it was in itself valuable. They realize they’re far from perfect, but the
only way to improve is through practice. In fact, certain students
claimed the experience was helpful because it made them realize
that they really need further help. Other responses were more spe-
cific, such as “helped develop eye contact;” “worked on tone and in-
flection;” “helped me eliminate annoying mannerisms.” Many
claimed they now felt more confident, though others were more re-
alistic, stating that practice, practice, practice is necessary.
Written—The responses to whether or not a speech helped to
increase writing skills were more varied. Obviously if a student an-
swered “No” to the question, he or she did not offer a written com-
ment. But this was rare, for most answered “Yes,” and their re-
sponses were in line with the goals of the assignment. Logic:
“Helped test strengths of the argument;” “clarified logic;” “helped
me work on the logic.” Organization: “I organized my thoughts
better;” “organize my thoughts;” “better concept of structure.” Au-
dience: “made me write in a manner so you don’t lose people;” “focus
on audience;” “organize thoughts for a listener, then reader.” Final-
ly, the question and answer portion of the speech caused certain
students to say that they were forced to rethink issues and deal with
the counter-arguments.
Two random notes: One student marked “No,” that the speech
had no helpful effect on his writing, yet in the editorial space wrote
extensively about why it did help. Another claimed it “helped a
great deal” but was at a loss to explain why.
V. DISCUSSION
If university engineering programs are to turn out graduates that
engineering firms are eager to hire, it is clear that today technical
knowledge is not enough. Engineering firms want facile communi-
cators. Adding a speech may cause a certain degree of dread in stu-
dents, and certainly adds a modicum of work for the instructor;
however, it also adds depth to the students’ communication skills.
“For the person who is a proficient speaker and writer, the two
modes of communication seem to be bound together in a system of
subtle and complex relationships, they are both alike and different,
both well articulated and interrelated.” 15 If an instructor can teach
students to comprehend this idea, then these students can become
more proficient at both.
More importantly, however, is the need to teach students the
correlation between critical thinking and the significance of com-
munication. The assignment works on this level also. Stuart Sig-
man16 informs us that “to study the consequentiality of communica-
tion, one must be willing to examine multiple iterations of an event
or event type, not a single event.” In other words, as a student ex-
poses the work to multiple formats—a draft, a speech, or a final
paper—he or she will better understand its consequence, and there-
by glimpse the very nature of communication. If a student can learn
this important concept, he or she should be able to fulfill what in-
dustry desires in its engineers.
January 2000
 REFERENCES

1. Evans, M.D., “Student and Faculty Guide to Improved Technical

Writing,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Prac-
tice, vol. 121, no. 2, 1995, pp. 114–122.
2. Salabia, J.F., and T. Krisher, “Developing Competent Civil Engi-
neering Writers,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, vol. 119, no. 1, 1993, pp. 71–74.
3. Koehn, E., “Practitioner and Student Recommendations for an En-
gineering Curriculum,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 84, no. 3,
1995, pp. 241–248.
4. Hawkins, S., M.B. Coney, and K.E. Bystrom, “Incidental Writing
in the Engineering Classroom,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 85,
no. 1, 1996, pp. 27–33.
5. Manuel-Dupont, S., “Writing Across the Curriculum in an Engi-
neering Program,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 85, no. 1, 1996,
pp. 35–40.
6. Kulacki, F.A., and E.C. Vlachos, “Downsizing the Curriculum: A
Proposed Baccalaureate Program and Contextual Basis,” Journal of Engi-
neering Education, vol. 84, no. 3, 1995, pp. 225–234.
7. Ref. 2, p. 246.
8. Vygotsky, L.S., Thought and Language, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
1962.
9. Ref. 7, p. 144.
10. Britton, J., Language and Learning, Boynton/Cook Publishers,
Portsmouth, NH, 1970.
11. Barnes. D., J. Britton, and M. Torbe, “Talking to Learn,” Lan-
guage, the Learner and the School, 3rd ed., Penguin Books, Middlesex, Eng-
land, 1986, pp. 91–130.
12. Biber, D., Variations Across Speech and Writing, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, 1988.
13. Committee on Graduate Training in Scientific Writing, Wood-
ford, F.P. (ed.), Scientific Writing for Graduate Students, Rockefeller Uni-
versity Press, New York, 1968.
14. Norgaard, R., Ideas in Action, Harper Collins, New York, 1994.
15. Kroll, B., “Developmental Relationships Between Speaking and
Writing,” Speaking Writing Relationships, B. Kroll and R. Vann (eds.),
National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL, 1981, pp. 32–54.
16. Sigman, S.J., and W. Leeds-Hurwitz, “(Re)situating Social Com-
munication in Consequentiality,” The Consequentiality of Communication,
S.J. Sigman (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1995,
pp. 227–230.

January 2000 Journal of Engineering Education 23