![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Engineers communicate multimodally using written and visual communication, but there is not much theorizing on why they do so and how. This essay, therefore, examines why engineers communicate multimodally, what, in the context of representing engineering realities, are the strengths and weaknesses of written and visual communication, and how, based on an understanding of these strengths and weaknesses, one can consider using the strengths of each form of communication to address weaknesses in the other. Doing so can possibly enable one to demonstrate for engineering majors how they can, with greater effectiveness, communicate multimodally for representing well engineering realities.
Lie of the Land: Limited Theorizing, Limited Understanding
There have been some specific attempts as in the case of Winsor (1996) in a subfield of English Studies like professional and technical communication for examining how engineers write. There is also some scholarship that tends to give visual communication some amount of attention. For instance, Hutto (2007) discusses the manner in which engineers use visual communication in the invention process of their writing. Haas and Witte (2001) refer, although in passing, to the use of both visual and written communication in engineering documentation when they discuss the embodied writing practices of engineers.
Within the field of engineering itself, there is scholarship that shows a general awareness of the weakness of “Engineering students” “in written and oral communication skills” and the need for programmatic methods for improving the writing skills of engineers (McGrann, Sharon, & Laferty, 2005). There is also some awareness of the importance of specifically visual communication in engineering discourses. For instance, Akorede (2009), while offering advice for writing an engineering report, makes a reference, in passing, for including a schematic. Fox (2005) on the other hand, in a general manner, points out the importance of graphics in the discourses of engineering. Garmendia et al. (2007) also refer to visual communication in engineering from the perspective of engineering pedagogy when they point out difficulties students have in using visual communication for solving engineering problems. They discuss an assignment where students were required to construct a whole diagram correctly from its individual pieces. While doing so, they unpack the manner in which students responded to the assignment and explain how some of those attempts may have kept them back. However, Garmendia et al. as well do not explore the manner in which written and visual communication work for representing engineering realities and why, based on how both forms work, putting together the individual pieces for creating a visual whole may present for students some inherent difficulties. (See section on counterintuitive processes that can come in the way of putting together pieces of engineered objects, for a possible explanation of the difficulties students may have experienced in putting these pieces together.)
Engineering departments as well may put out pedagogical materials that primarily focus on writing and make some brief observations on the use of graphics without substantively theorizing those observations. For instance, the guide for writing lab reports from the Engineering program at the University of Minnesota, under the section, “Graphic Numbering,” makes the following observations: “This document uses visuals. Each graphic, such as figures, tables, pictures, equations, etc, is labeled and numbered sequentially. Word will manage this task for you—search Help for Captions and Cross-references” (University of Minnesota Mechanical Engineering, 2013, p. 5). Later the document includes as well a crude graphic while describing an experiment (University of Minnesota Mechanical Engineering, 2013, p. 10). However, there are no observations on the manner in which one should use visual forms to represent those engineering realities and how the visuals and the written text should interact with each other for better representing those realities.
On occasion, one may encounter a brief discussion or so that demonstrates concern for integrating visual and written communication, but it generally does not go very far. For instance, in the University of Portland Donald Shipley School of Engineering Writing for Engineers document, under General Guidelines, the section on visual communication offers various instructions for placing visual representations, numbering them, minimizing the use of arrows, creating clear labels, and so forth. Once again the document does not offer a rationale for these rules or discuss the relationship the visual forms governed by these rules have with the written text.
In the section on Lab Reports as well, this document makes some general observations as follows about how visual texts should be placed without explaining why: “III.B.6. Figures and Tables—There are two recognized methods for presenting figures and tables. They can either be placed together at the end of the body of the report, or each figure and table can be placed separately immediately after it is first cited in the text. (Please refer to Figures and Tables section II.C.)” (p. 11). The section on Proposals under “Appendix B: Examples of Graphs” as well makes some observations about using graphs to present data (University of Minnesota Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 25) in the form of abbreviated written text but again without substantively theorizing as to how engineering majors should integrate the written content (abbreviated text) with the visual layout through information mapping. In addition, the document does not as well address substantive visual forms such as engineering drawings and diagrams that communicate engineering content and how such visual forms communicating engineering content should be integrated with the written text.
Pointing out the need for theorizing a pedagogy for teaching Engineering majors visual communication, a Carnegie Institute report on the use of visual communication in Engineering says that one of the “main findings” of this report indicates that “the students [who were part of this research enquiry] seemed to think that visual communication had little bearing on their engineering work, [and] all … faculty interviewees and the Assistant Dean saw room for improvement” in students' visual communication skills.” According to the faculty, “the key issues students struggle with when creating project reports, PowerPoint presentations, and other visual communication materials have to do with organizing and visualizing information, keeping written and visual materials consistent and coherent, and understanding audience” (Posniak & Monti, 2013, p. 3). “Students [also] have difficulty creating drawings and visually representing their technical ideas. They tend to make drawings that are confusing, not sufficiently informative, or not clearly related to the ideas they are trying to illustrate” (Posniak & Monti, 2013, p. 7).
The report also mentions that faculty to some extent understand the need for visual communication for engineering majors: “Our interviewees agreed that engineering students excel at technical skills but lack visual and verbal communication skills” (Posniak & Monti, 2013, p. 6). Faculty at CMU can see the difficulty this can cause in the area of design. They observe that “this is a problem in Engineering Design, where students must communicate their understanding of how a product will work” (Posniak & Monti, 2013, p. 7). Faculty, while not discussing visual representations such as drawings, in the context of information mapping where written information (both numbers and words) is visually organized, point out that
… [s]tudents often fail to effectively integrate the verbal and visual elements of their documents. Prof. Nourbakhsh, for instance, finds that his students tend to write verbal explanations that do not in fact support the ideas in the accompanying charts and tables, resulting in “disjointed” reports lacking “semantic grounding.” Other professors voiced similar concerns about students' failure to interpret their data with clear, succinct written descriptions. (Posniak & Monti, 2013, p. 7)
However, despite these difficulties, there is not much evidence of teaching that emphasizes the integration of written and visual communication in this report:
While the professors we spoke to saw the importance of good visual communication, they did not include visual communication as a separate “line item” in their grading criteria. The key expectation is that students communicate their ideas clearly. They consider visual design to be important in supporting this function, but not on its own merits. Visual communication skills are not taught explicitly, but some professors give their students visual guidelines documents to be used as reference. (Posniak & Monti, 2013, p. 8)
Finally, Technical Writing courses as well, including sections dedicated for Engineering majors or sections that, in addition to students from other disciplines also include Engineering majors, generally focus on written communication and do not give visual communication adequate importance. They may have a chapter or so on visual communication that may offer some brief information on drawings or page layout. In addition, the teacher may possibly make students read a book like Robyn Williams' The Non Designer's Design Book (2008) and address features related to page layout such as alignment and proximity or, among other things, ways of improving the clarity through a principle like contrast. However, Williams' book does not discuss how various engineering-specific visual forms such as drawings and figures should be used in particular contexts for communicating engineering content.
The Work of Engineering
Engineers solve problems by, among other things, designing material objects that function in space three dimensionally. They, therefore, need to learn the subject matter related to these objects and the physical processes underlying those objects. Engineers work intimately with objective mind independent realities involving the world of external material realities and the embodied realities of human consciousness. While engaging with these realities, they manipulate them in numerous ways for solving problems in culture and society.
Engineers do not just unpack various aspects of material realities in order to understand how these realities exist and function in their natural state (such as the characteristics of a material or how a material responds to variables like heat), they manipulate these realities in order to produce objects that create new realities. These objects, entities that function in space, have come together based on complex scientific logic. When, therefore, engineers produce an electric generator, they have not just explored the laws of Physics, Math, and the nature of various substances, they have also manipulated the rules underlying these domains of knowledge for producing an object that can, for instance, produce electricity. Much of the work engineers do, therefore, comprises creating new realities in the form of creatively designed objects and maintaining and repairing those objects in order to keep them in good condition. When, therefore, engineers communicate, they should be able to clearly represent engineered objects and the processes underlying those objects.
Representing Engineering Realities Inaccurately: Arbitrary Relationships, Embedded Constraints
Writing, though, has inherent constraints that keep it from representing well spatial realities. As de Sassure (1955) argued, the relationship between signifiers (words) and signifieds (what they represent) is arbitrary. (See also Kraemer's (2009) idea of the hypnotic effects of language.) For instance, if one uses the word bird to describe creatures that fly, the relationship between that word and creatures that fly is arbitrary. There is no logical reason why another term should not describe creatures that fly. If culture had decided otherwise, fish could be the signifier that represents creatures that fly and bird the one that represents creatures that swim. That is also why signifiers that refer to the same signified can vary from language to language. While in English the term for referring to creatures that fly is bird, in Tamil it is paravai.
Having arbitrary relationships as the basis for representing reality should not pose a problem because, those arbitrary relationships, based on culture and convention, are in a manner of speaking set in stone, at least for a while. The word bird in English, while it may have been somewhat different in old English, is the word that has been in use for centuries to describe creatures that fly. Although the relationship is arbitrary, convention based on culture cements the signifier and signified and unless cultural changes happen, convention keeps them glued to each other indefinitely. When something remains unchanged like that for a while, through repeated usage, people internalize the meaning a particular signifier has acquired and one becomes synonymous with the other even if the relationship between the signifier and signified is arbitrary. Native English speakers, for instance, do not think of whether the term bird refers to creatures that fly. They use that term tacitly while referring to creatures that fly because they have grown up using that term to refer to creatures that fly.
Hence, such tacit knowledge of various signifiers enables signifiers, even if they are arbitrarily connected to the signified, to be immediately available to the user when needed—either when someone, as speaker, needs to use the signifier or as listener needs to decode the meanings of various signifiers. For these reasons as well, when signifiers are used, the mind, in response tacitly generates a readily available referent/s and generally connects the signifier to a referent immediately and tacitly. When the word car is used, the mind generates tacitly a certain concept or idea of an automobile able to move on its own power that tacitly attaches itself to the signifier without any effort on the part of the user. While in conversations, people may ask questions to clarify what the other has said about such things as the kind of car one is referring to, generally the process of communication flows smoothly because our minds, in response to those signifiers that operate tacitly as well, automatically and tacitly generate referents for the signifiers when used either as speaker or listener.
However, using signifiers based on arbitrary relationships becomes somewhat problematic while communicating engineering realities involving objects and processes that operate in space three dimensionally. These are precise realities involving particular shapes and measurements and any inaccuracies will result in catastrophic situations. At its simplest, if the description of a screw for holding together two pieces in an engineered object is not precise, a screw that is manufactured based on an imprecise description will not thread into the opening where it needs to thread for holding the two pieces together. On a bigger scale, inaccuracies will result in catastrophic events where cylinders may explode, bridges may develop structural deficiencies, and so forth.
Writing, in using signifiers whose relationship with the signified is arbitrary, offers the mind the space to respond imaginatively, something that can lead to inaccurate representation. When the signifier bird is used by someone, because of its arbitrary relationship with the signified, the listener's mind, in response, may bring up, based on the user's predilections and background knowledge, a certain idea of a type of bird or concept of a bird that may or may not match the type or idea of a bird that the signifier was expected to represent. Such lack of accuracy can result in inaccurate visualizations. Such potential for inaccuracy is as well compounded by the fact that writing when it operates on its own unimodally refers to other signifiers which in turn refer to other signifiers. When representation is solely based on chains of signifiers that do not directly refer to the signified, the mind may build a picture of the signified that may be somewhat different from how the signified actually appears.
The arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the signified can also cause other difficulties that could as well possibly produce inaccurate representations. If, for instance, a description of an object uses an excessive amount of words, the need to process all those words can possibly be overwhelming and can potentially cause the listener to form inaccurate visualizations. If, therefore, one were to use writing to refer to a screw, it may take a lot more words to describe the shapes and dimensions of different aspects of a particular type of screw. Or if one were to use only words to create a narrative that describes the schematics of a circuit board, a written description may necessitate the use of a lot of words which, in possibly overwhelming the reader, again may make it even more difficult to visualize how the entire circuit board looks.
Finally, because of the arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the signified, there are certain aspects of material realities that are just difficult to describe using words. How, for instance, would one accurately describe flowing movements such as curves that have to be precisely machined to certain measurements for creating a boat's hull. If one were to describe the curved side panel of a toy steam engine merely using words, it would be difficult, even if measurements for particular points where the shifts in the curve occur are given, to visualize the panel's curve as it gradually slopes down. Difficulties in being able to visualize something can potentially as well result in inaccurate visualizations.
As the following description from Maritain (1937) demonstrates, a visualization based only on words can produce an inaccurate understanding of the signified:
Suppose that a scientist, shut up in a ground-glass bell, in which he received by radio the scientific information on which he worked, learnt one day of the existence of a certain machine capable of projecting its own weight to a height three-hundred times greater than its own. He would have difficulty in even approximating to the idea of this machine, unknown in itself, as a sort of catapult constructed in accord with given data; whose image he would make more precise and correct in the degree to which he was supplied with new information. If he learnt that this machine presented the features of what men call memory, i.e. modified in the degree to which it functioned its way of functioning and of responding to stimuli, which was not the case with the instrument he had himself reconstructed, he would perhaps resolve the difficulty by endowing the space occupied by it with some new dimension, according to which the past of this machine was conserved and modified in some invisible way its structure. We others, who walk about in streets and lodge in inns, are able to know that this machine in question is called — a flea. The scientist could not know this, but the construction which he incessantly remodelled (from top to bottom in the stress of hours of “crisis”) would present at each instant the sum of all the measurable properties enclosed in the flea and actually known by it. (p. 199)
In a rather modest in class visualization exercise in a Technical Writing for Engineers course, I asked Engineering majors to draw pictures based on a description another student from another class at an earlier time had written without any pictures. The student had analyzed and described a Swiss Army Knife with its various components, and his written description or analysis, because it did not use visualizations of the subject matter, was difficult to read. I asked students to read the following section of the description where the student had described the can opener, one of the implements in the knife, and then draw a picture of this part:
The can opener is formed of one piece of satin-finished stainless steel, milled to form two arm-like apertures that curve toward each other; one arm is significantly longer than the other, lending it a shape not unlike that of a hook. It is intended to cut open the tops of conventional vacuum-sealed cans. The implement is 3.68cm long, 1.38cm wide at its widest point, and is 0.16cm thick. Unlike the knife blade, the can opener's tang portion flows directly into its external shape with no distinct break. In similar fashion to the tang of the blade, the can opener's tang is rounded at the rear for easy rotation but flat on either side to promote locking in the open and closed positions. The overall form of the implement is comprised of two prongs, one significantly longer than the other. The shorter prong is on the inner side of the knife, such that it is completely hidden from view when the implement is in the closed position. The longer prong form the bulk of the tool, and curves up and over the shorter prong, with a distance of 0.60cm between them; short prong is 0.64cm long, while the longer one stretches to approximately 2.18cm. The side of the implement that is positioned closest to the nearest face of the knife handle is carved with the same 1.30cm fingernail groove featured on the knife blade. Once the longer prong is sharpened, this tool is intended to be used to shear off the lids of canned goods; the short prong is placed under the can's rim as a guide, while the sharpened longer prong pierces the can.
In response, students produced a range of visual forms that were somewhat different from each other. The students interpreted the written description of the can opener in different ways and no two students produced exactly the same visualization. (See Appendix for some of those visualizations.)
Representing Engineering Realities Inaccurately: Linear (Chronological) Writing, Counter Intuitive Objects
This tendency to be creative and, as a result, inaccurate as well, is possibly aided by the fact that writing as a form also functions counter intuitively as, in a linear manner, it tries to put together the individual pieces for visualizing engineered objects. If one were to describe in writing a machine one would use sentences for forming a narrative that would describe the machine's different parts. For creating a visual picture of the written description though, one will have to visualize the individual parts by putting together information incrementally (by adding one visualized part after another) in a linear manner in order to create a complex whole.
Polanyi and Prosch, though, argue that reality operates on different levels with different principles defining the operations of reality at each level. For instance, in the game of chess there is a set of rules that defines the rules of chess. A chess piece such as a pawn can only do certain things on the chess board such as move forward in any direction by one square on the board. A pawn cannot jump two squares as it moves forward. On the other hand, the strategies that chess players use are different from the rules that define the functioning of a pawn. The strategies define how the rules will be applied as each player plays the game (pp. 49–50). In other words, the strategy will determine how the rules controlling the movements of a pawn will be used such as whether a pawn will be moved forward to the next square or if it will be moved diagonally to the immediate square ahead to either the left or the right.
In the case of engineered objects, the rules that govern the creation and functioning of different parts are different from the manner in which the machine functions when these parts come together to form an object. For instance, an internal combustion engine may comprise different parts such as valves, and so forth. The rules that govern the creation and operation of these valves are not the same as the rules that govern the operation of the power plant. The power plant operating on a different logic will define how the valve functions. If, for instance, a valve can open and shut X times per second, then how the power plant utilizes the valve can determine, within the permissible conditions, at what temperatures and speeds the valve will open and shut a certain number of times.
But just by looking at the shape, operation, and functioning of a valve or other such pieces that comprise a power plant one cannot intuitively reach an understanding of the shape and functioning of the power plant itself. In that sense, it would be counter intuitive if one were to try to visualize engineered objects based on an understanding of one part followed by another and another in order to develop a sense of the whole object. Not being able to intuitively form a picture of the object based on its individual parts makes it counter intuitive to visualize the whole based on the individual parts. It would, therefore, as well be counter intuitive to form a picture of the entire power plant by, as writing does, incrementally adding one piece of information followed by another as one describes the various parts that make up the object. The problems with attempting to visualize an object incrementally and, hence, in a counterintuitive manner as well can also be aggravated by the fact that it may be rather difficult in the first place for all the reasons mentioned earlier in the previous section to visualize the individual parts accurately. To then try to visualize as well the whole based on a possibly not so accurate visualization of the individual parts would, to say the least, make it problematic to visualize the whole accurately.
Such incremental putting together of signifieds consciously for visualizing pictures also, in another sense, goes against the manner in which, in Polanyi and Prosch's view, mental processes need to function if they are to create meaningful representations. According to Polanyi and Prosch, the process by which these signifiers are put together is tacit and so fast that they cannot be replaced by any conscious methodology. In order, therefore, for people to produce meaningful representations, Polanyi and Prosch argue that they cannot think about particular words consciously and then consciously decide how words should come together for forming meaningful language: The putting together needs to happen tacitly. Quoting Lorenz, Polanyi and Prosch (1975) say, “the speed and complexity of tacit integration far exceeds the operations of any explicit selection of supporting evidence” (p. 42). Hence,
[s]uch integration cannot be replaced by any explicit mechanical procedure. And even if one could paraphrase the cognitive content of an integration, the sensory quality which conveys this content cannot be made explicit. It can only be lived, it can only be dwelt in. (p. 41)
When we, for instance, look at a face, we put together a lot of signifying features tacitly to recognize the face. Focusing on one feature at a time will cause us to miss the whole. When, therefore, readers as well try to visualize the whole incrementally, they are also attempting to put together the pieces consciously. That may interrupt the tacit processes necessary for putting together the piece correctly as a meaningful whole. (All the above reasons may possibly be, among other things, why Garmendia's students experienced difficulties when they were required to combine the individual pieces into a correct meaningful visual whole.)
All the above difficulties can be further exacerbated by the fact that while representing engineering realities, one may encounter words, sometimes specialized ones, that may not supply the signifieds readily and tacitly. It may be so because these signifiers, in being used occasionally or rarely, may not be in one's tacit domain for use immediately and tacitly. If that is the case, it would not only be difficult, for all the various reasons mentioned earlier, to describe, for instance, the spine and a representative filament in a feather with precision, it would be doubly challenging if the signifiers do not bring up readily available referents. One, instead, would have to struggle to bring up the referents consciously, instead of tacitly, and, following that, consciously attempt to construct a global picture using those referents.
Representing Reality Directly: Visual Representations as Substitute Signifieds Functioning as Reality Anchors
In order, therefore, to represent well-engineered objects and the multidimensional and repetitive processes underlying the operations of those objects, it would greatly help if representations of the object can instantiate the object and its operations instead of the reader having to put together the whole incrementally and consciously. (I refer to processes as being repetitive because engineered objects, in not possessing intentionality, something which is a function of those who operate them, do exactly what they were created for again and again through various operations that happen simultaneously.) Visual communication in this sense has an advantage over written communication in that it is able to instantiate various parts and aspects of an object and the processes underlying the object.
Visual communication can instantiate reality and function as a substitute for the signified because, unlike written communication, in visual communication, the relationship between the signifier and the signified is based on the principle of imitation and, hence, not arbitrary but direct. When a person draws a tree, that representation is based on a real life image of a tree. One does not, as in the case of writing, need to do any extra work to visualize the signified; it has already been visualized. In being based on the principle of imitation, visual representations, unlike written communication where words refer to other words, do not need to refer to other visual representations for communicating meaning. Instead, through mimesis, they are able to function as substitutes for the signifieds and represent engineering realities as they exist in space.
Hence, an exploded diagram of a piece of machinery will be able to represent certain salient aspects of the machine simultaneously so that one is not only able to see various parts individually but one also sees the interactions of the parts simultaneously. The representation offers a global understanding of how all the parts come together in order to form a whole entity with its own metalogic. The representation may have devices such as arrows, and so forth, pointing in a certain direction for representing both the parts and how those parts function. Even if one were to focus on one aspect of the representation and forget the whole, the whole, in being instantiated as well, makes itself readily available for readers instead of readers having to incrementally and consciously visualize it. The instantiation is precise because by presenting reality as it is directly through mimesis, it puts constraints on the mind and keeps the mind from using its imagination and straying afield. Visual communication, in that sense, restricts the imagination, by not referring to other signifiers but, instead, directly to the signified itself. In doing so, it acts as a reality anchor that substitutes for the signifieds of the written narrative.
The field of engineering as well, therefore, in a variety of ways acknowledges the importance of visual representation in engineering communication. For instance, there is the genre of engineering notes where manufacturers will offer product information with visuals illustrating the product (Figure 1):
Engineering notes allow a reviewer to check the design, fabrication, and installation of a specific device or system.
A typical engineering note includes design calculations and manufacturers data reports. Also, the engineering note includes precautions as well as operating procedures necessary for the safe use of the device or system. (ESH&Q at Fermilab (US Department of Energy), 2015)
Following is an example of one:
Stripping out the high modes with a mandrel allows a technician to measure the signal strength of the LED source more accurately, which propagates into and along the fibre link.
Such notes can involve informal writing as well when engineers, as they do field work, will write notes informally with diagrams illustrating objects and physical entities that their work involves. Similarly, the following NASA (1994) guidelines for documentation insist on the inclusion of visuals as follows:
A system, payload, or component assembly shall be completely defined by means of drawings, including lists, schematics, wiring diagrams, and specifications, to ensure that components fabricated are in accordance with the design. The documentation information shall serve as a permanent record. (p. 1)
The field of engineering, therefore, uses as well a variety of both formal (e.g., line diagrams and schematics) and informal (drawings, e.g., in engineering notes) visual representations. Depending on, for instance, the kind of visual representation, one could get different kinds of instantiations for representing the object. A three-dimensional figure may offer the entire object as it appears multidimensionally in space as opposed to one-dimensional instantiations that will instantiate flat representations offering representations of certain aspects of the object in certain ways. Each type of instantiation, while possessing certain strengths, may instantiate prominently certain aspects of the object. For instance, while a line drawing can outline the shape of an entire object, a “[a] mechanical schematic diagram drawing [on the other hand] illustrates the operational sequence or arrangement of a mechanical device. Dimensions and relative sizes of items may be shown to indicate mechanical relationship” (NASA, 1994, p. 49). Similarly, an orthographic representation of an object can offer two-dimensional views of how a structure may appear; isometric views go further and can offer three-dimensional views of the object.
Visual Representations: Some Limitations
Visualizations, despite communicating directly based on the principle of mimesis, have other constraints that keep them from communicating all aspects of engineering subject matter easily and clearly. For one, if there were no writing, it would be very difficult and voluminous to use only visual representations to represent reality if in the first place that can be done at all. If one had to represent different oak trees based only on visual representation, it would be rather difficult and take a fair amount of skill for producing imitations that accurately show the differences between these subspecies.
Second, visual communication in the context of engineered objects, may not easily communicate all aspects of the realities that comprise engineering subject matter. While they represent well signifieds comprising spatial material realities, it is hard for such representations to visualize abstract principles. Such principles, while underlying the functioning of three-dimensional spatial realities, in being abstract, are not necessarily spatial. For instance, it would be difficult to communicate visually abstract concepts such as love, and, in the context of engineering, physical laws, and scientific logic salient for the functioning of those realities. It would, therefore, take a fair amount of work to visually represent, with only pictures, a scientific principle like pie.
Finally, writing also has the ability to make precise observations that spatial visualizations may not. One can draw with precision and to proportion the shapes comprising a valve, but one will need words and numbers to specify measurements and describe precisely aspects of the valve such as its material properties. For the above reasons, while instantiations, through mimesis, represent spatial realities well, those same principles may not be strong in such areas of representation as numerical accuracy, and so forth. That is why one could argue one finds the following statement emphasizing the importance of writing in a document on engineering communication issued by an Engineering School:
When used effectively, figures and tables are an aid to, but not a substitute for, written text. As such, figures and tables should be cited in the text of a report, and their most important aspects should be discussed in writing. It is not sufficient to merely cite a figure without describing its salient aspects. (University of Portland Donald P. Shipley School of Engineering, p. 6)
Visualizing Content: Page Layout and Information Mapping
It is, therefore, important, in light of the manner in which Engineering as a field functions, that one explores ways by which one can, first, develop in Engineering majors visual communication skills and, following that develop as well skills for better synthesizing visual and written communication. At one end of the spectrum, of course, one can include in engineering writing courses, greater emphasis on techniques involving visual organization for spatially organizing written communication. Students could be instructed on how to represent information using visual organization to break up written content in the form of tables, boxes, and other such techniques involving page layout.
When written information is broken up spatially through information mapping, it can reframe somewhat the chronological nature of writing. Even if the information within the individual boxes, columns, and so forth are offered incrementally (chronologically), the individual categories themselves are organized spatially. In doing so, the individual categories can to some extent instantiate the global structure of that piece of narrative spatially. In the context of courses focused on engineering students, such organization can take higher levels of sophistication through the use of categories such as side bars, Notes, and so forth. Again, this does not mean one can do away with content communicated through chronological writing. Beyond a certain point, it would be very difficult to read longer pieces of text if they are presented only in the form of tables, boxes, columns, and so forth.
Besides, while the earlier use of visualizations make students aware of the advantages of visualizations, they do not necessarily address the issue of teaching Engineering majors to communicate engineering content using engineering-specific visual forms such as photographs, different types of drawings, and so forth; neither does teaching students to spatially organize writing teach them strategies for synthesizing engineering-specific visual forms with written content. There is, therefore, a need for not only teaching students visual design involving information mapping using devices such as graphs and charts but, more importantly, also about using devices such as line diagrams, schematics, pictures, and so forth, that visually communicate engineering content. One could then also teach Engineering majors how to effectively combine these devices with the writing.
Clarity, Not Redundancy: Using Visual Representations as Instantiated Signifieds
If students can see written communication as signifiers and visual communication as the substitute signifieds of written communication (with both forms of communication having different strengths and weaknesses), they may reach the realization that using both forms, instead of being a redundancy, results in communication that is clear and complete. While in writing words refer to other words, giving the visual form completes the communication by giving the referent as it appears in time and space and, as a result, not referring to more words. One can attempt to communicate this point to students by making the use of visuals mandatory. For the assignment on writing descriptions referred to earlier, in later classes I said that although students would not be graded on how well the visuals functioned they would still need to use visuals. I also controlled the assignment in such a way that I made the object available. It was a wooden toy, a steam engine replica that engineering majors could, using their cell phones, photograph and insert into their Word documents.
It must be noted that even if one makes it mandatory for students to use visual content, it is possible that some may produce narrative that leans heavily toward one form of communication or the other because of, among other things, the unconscious premise that the object can speak for itself. Jeyaraj (2004), for instance, has argued that subject matter experts, assuming that the object can speak for itself, view form and content separately. What is important is content, and as long as one knows form as in grammatically correct English, the content or object will effortlessly speak through the form. Writing is seen as being merely associated with form that can communicate content with ease effortlessly. In other words, if writing can communicate content effortlessly, why then concern oneself with offering visual representations as well if just the written text can do the job. (Jeyaraj points out as well, that such a view ignores the manner in which form and content are related in how they represent various aspects of subject matter.) The same type of thinking can also influence students to use visual forms at the expense of written narrative. If content can be communicated directly and unproblematically, one can just offer the visual form and not concern oneself about the written form and, following that, synthesizing effectively visual and written form and content.
Engineering majors, while communicating multimodally, depending on the manner in which they used visual representations as instantiated signifieds, were able to produce narratives with different levels of clarity. Some used visualizations for more effectively representing different aspects of the object and, based on the appropriateness of the pictures used, created multimodal narratives of a higher quality. For instance, while describing the wheel assembly of the toy steam engine, a student, after offering a global view, gave as well a localized side view of the wheel assembly of the steam engine. Because of having offered a visual of this subcomponent, the student may have been able to notice various salient aspects of this subset and give in writing more salient information such as measurements not available within the visuals. Following is the written text accompanied by the global and other visuals the student offered:
Components of a toy steam locomotive (numbers correspond to figure 1 below):
1. Two piece frame to provide support and a building foundation
2.Cabin and coal bunker
3. Engine body and supports
4. Angled grate called a “cow catcher”
5. Couplers
6. Wheel and axle system
7. Coupling rod system
8. Coupler or hitching system
Functional Description
Frame
Like most vehicles, a steam locomotive will be constructed on a sturdy frame or base. The toy's frame will function as the main building block to which all other main assembly parts will connect. The frame consists of two pieces, top and bottom.
Parts. Bottom Frame: 12 ½″ base length × 1 ⅛″ tall × 12 ¼″ top length with a 1 ¼″ long slant sloping down from top to bottom on one end.
Top Frame: 12 ¼″ base length × 2/8″ thick × 11 3/16″ top length × 2 ½″ wide with a 2/8″ long slant sloping down from top to bottom.
Construction. Both frame pieces are made of lightly stained wood. The frame bottom and frame top are placed flush with each other on their nonsloping ends. The frame bottom is centered and glued to the frame top using a “but” joint, a joint that “buts” two pieces together without the use of fitted slots to join pieces together. The bottom frame has four ⅖″ diameter holes drilled into it ½″ above the base. They are placed at 1 ⅝″, 4 ½″, 8″, and 10 ⅝″ intervals from the nonsloping rear. A ½″ diameter hole is drilled at 6″ from the rear and ¾″ above the base. The frame is at the core of the toy and will be utilized by the other train components as a base to attach to (Figure 2).
Following is another description from the same student:
Wheels and Axles
A steam locomotive rolls smoothly over rail road tracks by using a wheel and axle system (… .). Each pair of wheels is connected by one axle that is attached to the frame of the train. The axles are attached in a way that allows it to rotate smoothly, thus allowing the wheels to roll forward or backward with little resistance. The toy train mimics this capability through its axle and wheel system located at the bottom of the toy and connected to the bottom frame.
Parts. Four wheels: a disc with 1 3/8″ diameter × 3/8″ thick.
Two driving wheels: a disc with 1 3/8″ diameter × 3/8″ thick.
Four Axles: rods 2″ long × 2/5″ diameter.
Assembly. Each axle is made of wood and dark stained. They are each inserted into a hole in the bottom frame. Each wheel is dark stained and made of wood. They will have a 1/8″ deep hole drilled in the center on one side. The two driving wheels will each have an additional hole drilled on the other side approximately ½″ from the outside edge, 3/8″ in diameter, and 1/8″ deep. After each axle is run through the bottom frame, a wheel is placed on each end like a cap. The axle rod fits into the hole of the wheel and is secured with glue (Figure 9).
Coupling Rods
Coupling rods on a steam locomotive are part of a system of mechanisms that push the wheels forward along the track. A series of internal arms relay motion from the steam driven crank shaft to these external coupling rods that in turn push the wheels forward …. The toy's coupling rod system is composed of two coupling rods, each with a long arm, a short arm, and three pins. When attached to the moving wheels, the coupling rods move in a back and forth motion that simulates real steam locomotives coupling rods pressing the wheels forward on the track. Instead of actually pushing the wheels forward, the toy's coupling rods are pulled by the wheels when the toy is push forward simulating that they are pushing the train onward (Figure 10).
Parts. Two long arms: 4 5/8″ long × ¼″ thick × ½″ wide.
Two short arms: 1 1/8″ long × 7/16″ thick × 3/8″ wide.
Two sets of connecting pins: Pin A—3/8″ diameter × 3/8″ long, Pin B—½″ diameter × 3/8″ long.
Construction. The long arm is made of wood, has a light stain, and has two 3/8″ holes completely drilled through it at ¼″ from each end of the arm. The long arm is then connected to the front driving wheel by placing pin A through the arm and into the driving wheel's hole. It is then secured with glue.
The long arm extends toward the back of the train and connects at its second hole to one hole of the short arm which has a pair of 3/8″ holes drilled ¼″ from each end. The short arm, made of wood with a light stain, is positioned at a 45 ° angle and is placed behind the long arm. It is then connected by placing another pin A through the long arm and into the short arm. The pin is then secured with glue. To finish the coupling rod assembly, the short arm is then attached to the frame of the toy at its other end by driving pin B through the hole and into the bottom frame.
It is also possible that the some students, as mentioned earlier, for among other reasons such as lack of time, and so forth, assuming that the visual form can easily communicate content effortlessly, may not understand that there are aspects of engineering realities that need more detailed visual and written representation. This scenario as well happened with a student who offered some detailed information through the visuals by presenting a global view from the side and the top of the toy without offering more localized shots of its various sub components. While there was a fair amount of information (e.g., measurements) within the visuals and the writing as well, there were places where the writer could have offered more information visually about the section comprising the wheel assembly. Doing so may have also made the writer better aware of the features of the wheel assembly and enabled the writer to offer more information through the writing as well. Having an understanding of the manner in which different visual representations work could have made the writer aware as well that, in addition to offering a blueprint, offering a different type of visual representation of the steam engine and the wheel assembly could have also enabled the writer to represent the object better. If readers had not viewed the visual representations offered by the previous student, it raises the question as to how well they would have been able to follow the second student's visual representations. Following are the visuals and along with them some of the writing the student produced:
2.2.4 Running gear. For the purposes of this description, the axles are numbered starting at 1 in the front, and moving toward the rear, counting upwards by whole numbers. Each axle goes through the beam laterally at a 90 ° angle. The axles rotate freely, but do not change angle with respect to the beam. The axles with wheels have a standard width of 2.38″ and diameter of 0.25″. All wheels have diameter 1.25″ and width 0.25″. The edges are slightly rounded.
Axle 1 has a wheel on each side. Each wheel is connected off-center to a driving rod for the purposes of locomotion.
Axle 2 has one wheel on each side.
Axle 3 has no wheels, only a cam on each side, designed to translate its rotational motion into linear motion in the rod, in order to power the wheels on Axle 1. The rod is 4.2″ long and 0.25 wide and 0.25 tall.
Axles 4 identical to Axle 2, with one wheel on each side.
Axle 5 is also identical to Axle 2.
The running gear is symmetrical on the left and right sides, that is, any movement that happens on one side is mirrored to the other side because the wheels are fixed on their axles.
Some of the illustrations he gives elsewhere in his description are as follows:
3.0 Dimensions and Blueprints
Below figures show the dimensions of the product. Units are in inches unless otherwise specified. These diagrams are available as DWG, VSD, PDF, or image files upon request. Also refer to the cover of this document for an illustration of the finished product. 
Finally, it is possible that some students may miss a fair amount of information because of not using adequate visual forms and written text. Again possibly also operating, among other things, unconsciously off the premise that visual and written form can represent content unproblematically, they may miss offering a fair amount of information.
Conclusion
There is not a lot of understanding of why engineering discourses need to communicate multimodally or the strengths and weaknesses of visual and written communication in the context of engineering communication. I have unpacked the reasons why engineering discourses need to communicate multimodally, pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of visual and written communication in the context engineering communication, and examined how the strengths of each medium can address weaknesses in the other. Finally I have brought up pedagogical examples from student assignments to demonstrate how if engineering majors view multimodal communication as not a redundancy but as something that can increase clarity, that can improve the quality of engineering communication and enable engineering majors to more effectively represent well engineering realities multimodally. Improving engineering communication in this manner can make the world a better place.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
| Akorede, M. F. (2009) Guidelines for writing an undergraduate engineering project. IEEE Potentials. 10–15. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Corning Cable Systems. (2010). Multimode link testing based on choice of fibre patch cords (Applications Engineering Note AEN-E 03 revision 1). Berlin, Germany: Author. Google Scholar | |
| de Sassure, F. (1955) Course in general linguistics, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar | |
| ESH&Q at Fermilab (US Department of Energy). (2015). Engineering notes. Retrieved from http://esh.fnal.gov/xms/Engineering-Notes. Google Scholar | |
| Fox, S. (2005) Serious graphics: How a picture can make it or break it. IEE Engineering Management. 47. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Garmendia, M., Guisasola, J., Sierra, E. (2007) First year engineering students' difficulties in visualization and drawing tasks. European Journal of Engineering Education 32(3): 315–323. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Haas, C., Witte, S. P. (2001) Writing as an embodied practice: The case of engineering standards. The Journal of Business and Technical Communication 15(4): 413–457. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
| Hutto, D. (2007) Graphics and invention in engineering writing. Technical Communication 54(1): 88–98. Google Scholar | ISI | |
| Jeyaraj, J. (2004) Liminality and othering: The issue of rhetorical authority in technical discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 20(10): 9–38. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
| Kraemer, W. (2009) The hypnotic literary genre: Poetry, trance, and hypnotext, Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest (UMI Microfilm 3376839). Google Scholar | |
| Maritain, J. (1937) The degrees of knowledge, London, England: Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press. Google Scholar | |
| McGrann, R. T. R., Sharon, F. B., & Lafferty, M. E. (2005). Collaborative partnerships: Writing in the engineering classroom (using undergraduate course assistants from the English department to improve the writing skills of engineering students). 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S2E-42, Indianapolis. Google Scholar | |
| NASA. (1994). Engineering drawing standards manual (GSFC X-673-64-1F). Greenbelt, MD: NASA. Google Scholar | |
| Polanyi, M., Prosch, H. (1975) Meaning, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Google Scholar | |
| Posniak, M., & Monti, C. (2013). Attitudes towards visual communication and design education within the engineering community at the Carnegie Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://chrismonti.net/files/Client%20Report.pdf. Google Scholar | |
| University of Minnesota Mechanical Engineering. (2013). Student writing guide: Lab reports. Retrieved from http://www.me.umn.edu/education/undergraduate/writing/MESWG-Lab.1.5.pdf. Google Scholar | |
| University of Portland Donald P. Shipley School of Engineering. Writing for engineers. Retrieved from http://www.up.edu/showimage/show.aspx?file=20198. Google Scholar | |
| Williams, R. (2008) The non-designer's design book, Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press. Google Scholar | |
| Winsor, D. (1996) Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum and Associates. Google Scholar |
Author Biography
Joseph Jeyaraj was formerly an engineering faculty and currently teaches in the Professional and Technical Writing Program in the English Department in the New York City College of Technology, City University of New York. He has published in various forums such as College Composition and Communication, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Pretexts: Literary and Cultural Studies, and Technical Communication Quarterly and also in collections by IEEE, Baywood Press, etc. He has also presented in various international, national, and regional conferences such as The Conference on College Composition and Communication, The Conference for the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, and the International Professional Communication Conference. His research and teaching interests include Technical and Professional Writing, Human Computer Interfaces and Interactions, Narrative, and the larger field of Writing and Rhetoric.