- Email: [email protected]
Oxford English for electrical and mechanical engineering
Pergamon
English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 325-327, 1996 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain 0889-4906/96 $15.00 + 0.00
Review OXFORD ENGLISH FOR ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING. Eric H. Glendinning and Norman Glendinning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 190 pp.
Reviewed by Christine B. Feak Although it is not presented as such, Oxford English for Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (EME) seems to be an updated version of Eric Glendinning's 1973 text in the Focus series entitled English in Mechanical Engineering. The new text has been expanded to include Electrical Engineering, a rather curious expansion given the differences in the subject matter of the two fields. However, there is perhaps sufficient overlap between the two areas to justify combining them. Another clear difference between the two texts is the shift away from simple mechanical topics such as force and levers towards complex machines such as washing machines, lawn mowers, and robots. What is most noticeably similar between the two texts, though, is the approach. The 1973 text was largely based on the concept of Information Transfer (IT) introduced by Widdowson (1979), who argued that transferring information from the non-verbal mode to the verbal (and vice versa) is a useful tool in the teaching of a second or foreign language, especially for specific purposes. The methodological power and appeal of IT is undeniable (Swales & Feak 1995), and it is not surprising that it rapidly became part of mainstream ESP/EST pedagogical activity and is a core element in the Focus series. In EME, Glendinning and Glendinning have attempted to create a place for IT in the 1990s by exploiting expertly done diagrams, graphs, and tables and capitalizing on the interplay between verbal and non-verbal material. EME is an intermediate all-skills text aimed at students who have a basic command of English, but want or need to work on language skills required in an engineering context. The emphasis of the text is not on teaching grammar, but rather on helping students develop skills in reading, writing, listening, and speaking as well as on highlighting aspects of English that could be useful for aspiring or perhaps practicing engineers. The text is designed to be used either in the classroom or for self study, and listening cassettes and an answer book accompany the text. However, this review concerns only the textbook itself. The text consists of 30 units, each of which focus on a particular topic within Mechanical Engineering (ME) or Electrical Engineering (EE), with topics 325
:526
Review
tending more towards the former. The topics can roughly be broken down into three types personal topics of students and practicing engineers, general topics such as safety or engineering materials, and technical topics including lawn mowers, robotics, lasers, and maglev trains. As would be expected, technical topics are the most common type by far. Units are short, with some as short as two pages. The longest units are no more than eight pages in length. The text concludes with a glossary of engineering terms and abbreviations as they have been used in the text. This glossary not only provides definitions, but also the unit and task numbers where each term is used and phonetic representations of the British pronunciation of the term. Each unit begins with an activity called "Tuning in", the purpose of which is to prepare students for the topic featured in the unit. The preparatory activities, which vary between individual and group work, range from listing ideas and answering questions to identifying devices and labelling diagrams. Most units contain exercises in the different skill areas. In a typical unit, students would work on both reading and writing, as well as specific aspects of language useful to mechanical or electrical engineers. In addition, although reading is emphasized most of all, several units focus on speaking and/or listening. One of the most striking features of the text is the diagrams, which tend to be the focal point of most units. The quality and variety of this non-verbal material is first-rate, giving the text a professional look and feel that will appeal to both instructors and students. Students are generally asked to examine a diagram and then either answer some rather straightforward comprehension questions, do some controlled writing, or perhaps practice a particular grammatical structure. In keeping with the IT approach, the diagrams often form the basis for writing activities or language study. This approach is useful in that it can help students generate sentences. However, the major drawback is that IT tends to promote the rather mechanical verbalization of information presented via nonverbal means, and as such fails to encourage students to use language in a thoughtful, creative way. For instance, in Unit 12, a writing task asks students to simply generate comparative statements about a conventional bicycle and a technologically improved one. Generating comparative sentences can be useful if students are just learning a particular structure, but users of E M E are assumed to have a basic foundation in grammar. A better task would have asked students to compare the two bicycles and then decide for what type of person or what set of circumstances one bicycle might be preferable to the other. In short, the students should have been asked to use the information, not simply restate it. Moreover, in Unit 26 ("Graphs") students are instructed to look at graphic displays and answer questions about discrete points. In the writing task for this same unit (which is almost identical to a guided writing exercise on page 75 of the 1973 text) students simply need to fill in the blanks of sentences that describe obvious aspects of the graph. This type of exercise is not in the best interest of students. Rather than giving the impression that a discussion of a body of data is merely an exercise in restating what is obvious from a non-verbal display, the authors should have guided users of the text
Review
527
towards the production of a thoughtful commentary. The unit does not suggest how one might order the points in a data discussion, nor does it suggest that it would be useful to explain why the graph depicting load versus extension takes the shape it does. Throughout, the authors have missed opportunities to take the material one step farther and encourage a more interesting and challenging use of language. The text might be most useful in an EFL setting for students whose study of English has perhaps been grounded in the study of literature or even rote memorization, but who need some familiarity with language structures common in an EE or ME setting. The ideal student would be one well into his or her ME/EE studies or one who is already working in the field, since the text presupposes a certain amount of technical knowledge. At the very least, the student should have some background in science and/or general engineering. Since it is aimed at controlled use of language, the book might work well in a highly structured class taught by a somewhat traditional instructor. An EFL instructor who may not feel entirely comfortable with the idea of teaching ESP could use this book relatively easily since the range of correct responses in most of the tasks and other activities is somewhat limited. An experienced ESP instructor, on the other hand, would probably feel the need to supplement the text heavily with tasks that would encourage engaging and effective use of language, rather than simple manipulation of language forms.
REFERENCES Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1995). From information transfer to data commentary. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text, Vol. 1. (The Journal of TESOL France, 2, 2). Paris: TESOL France. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christine Feak, a lecturer at the English Language Institute of the University of Michigan, has worked with engineering students for many years. She is co-author of Academic writing for graduate students: a course for nonnative speakers of English (Univ. of Michigan Press, 1994).
English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 325-327, 1996 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain 0889-4906/96 $15.00 + 0.00
Review OXFORD ENGLISH FOR ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING. Eric H. Glendinning and Norman Glendinning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 190 pp.
Reviewed by Christine B. Feak Although it is not presented as such, Oxford English for Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (EME) seems to be an updated version of Eric Glendinning's 1973 text in the Focus series entitled English in Mechanical Engineering. The new text has been expanded to include Electrical Engineering, a rather curious expansion given the differences in the subject matter of the two fields. However, there is perhaps sufficient overlap between the two areas to justify combining them. Another clear difference between the two texts is the shift away from simple mechanical topics such as force and levers towards complex machines such as washing machines, lawn mowers, and robots. What is most noticeably similar between the two texts, though, is the approach. The 1973 text was largely based on the concept of Information Transfer (IT) introduced by Widdowson (1979), who argued that transferring information from the non-verbal mode to the verbal (and vice versa) is a useful tool in the teaching of a second or foreign language, especially for specific purposes. The methodological power and appeal of IT is undeniable (Swales & Feak 1995), and it is not surprising that it rapidly became part of mainstream ESP/EST pedagogical activity and is a core element in the Focus series. In EME, Glendinning and Glendinning have attempted to create a place for IT in the 1990s by exploiting expertly done diagrams, graphs, and tables and capitalizing on the interplay between verbal and non-verbal material. EME is an intermediate all-skills text aimed at students who have a basic command of English, but want or need to work on language skills required in an engineering context. The emphasis of the text is not on teaching grammar, but rather on helping students develop skills in reading, writing, listening, and speaking as well as on highlighting aspects of English that could be useful for aspiring or perhaps practicing engineers. The text is designed to be used either in the classroom or for self study, and listening cassettes and an answer book accompany the text. However, this review concerns only the textbook itself. The text consists of 30 units, each of which focus on a particular topic within Mechanical Engineering (ME) or Electrical Engineering (EE), with topics 325
:526
Review
tending more towards the former. The topics can roughly be broken down into three types personal topics of students and practicing engineers, general topics such as safety or engineering materials, and technical topics including lawn mowers, robotics, lasers, and maglev trains. As would be expected, technical topics are the most common type by far. Units are short, with some as short as two pages. The longest units are no more than eight pages in length. The text concludes with a glossary of engineering terms and abbreviations as they have been used in the text. This glossary not only provides definitions, but also the unit and task numbers where each term is used and phonetic representations of the British pronunciation of the term. Each unit begins with an activity called "Tuning in", the purpose of which is to prepare students for the topic featured in the unit. The preparatory activities, which vary between individual and group work, range from listing ideas and answering questions to identifying devices and labelling diagrams. Most units contain exercises in the different skill areas. In a typical unit, students would work on both reading and writing, as well as specific aspects of language useful to mechanical or electrical engineers. In addition, although reading is emphasized most of all, several units focus on speaking and/or listening. One of the most striking features of the text is the diagrams, which tend to be the focal point of most units. The quality and variety of this non-verbal material is first-rate, giving the text a professional look and feel that will appeal to both instructors and students. Students are generally asked to examine a diagram and then either answer some rather straightforward comprehension questions, do some controlled writing, or perhaps practice a particular grammatical structure. In keeping with the IT approach, the diagrams often form the basis for writing activities or language study. This approach is useful in that it can help students generate sentences. However, the major drawback is that IT tends to promote the rather mechanical verbalization of information presented via nonverbal means, and as such fails to encourage students to use language in a thoughtful, creative way. For instance, in Unit 12, a writing task asks students to simply generate comparative statements about a conventional bicycle and a technologically improved one. Generating comparative sentences can be useful if students are just learning a particular structure, but users of E M E are assumed to have a basic foundation in grammar. A better task would have asked students to compare the two bicycles and then decide for what type of person or what set of circumstances one bicycle might be preferable to the other. In short, the students should have been asked to use the information, not simply restate it. Moreover, in Unit 26 ("Graphs") students are instructed to look at graphic displays and answer questions about discrete points. In the writing task for this same unit (which is almost identical to a guided writing exercise on page 75 of the 1973 text) students simply need to fill in the blanks of sentences that describe obvious aspects of the graph. This type of exercise is not in the best interest of students. Rather than giving the impression that a discussion of a body of data is merely an exercise in restating what is obvious from a non-verbal display, the authors should have guided users of the text
Review
527
towards the production of a thoughtful commentary. The unit does not suggest how one might order the points in a data discussion, nor does it suggest that it would be useful to explain why the graph depicting load versus extension takes the shape it does. Throughout, the authors have missed opportunities to take the material one step farther and encourage a more interesting and challenging use of language. The text might be most useful in an EFL setting for students whose study of English has perhaps been grounded in the study of literature or even rote memorization, but who need some familiarity with language structures common in an EE or ME setting. The ideal student would be one well into his or her ME/EE studies or one who is already working in the field, since the text presupposes a certain amount of technical knowledge. At the very least, the student should have some background in science and/or general engineering. Since it is aimed at controlled use of language, the book might work well in a highly structured class taught by a somewhat traditional instructor. An EFL instructor who may not feel entirely comfortable with the idea of teaching ESP could use this book relatively easily since the range of correct responses in most of the tasks and other activities is somewhat limited. An experienced ESP instructor, on the other hand, would probably feel the need to supplement the text heavily with tasks that would encourage engaging and effective use of language, rather than simple manipulation of language forms.
REFERENCES Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1995). From information transfer to data commentary. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text, Vol. 1. (The Journal of TESOL France, 2, 2). Paris: TESOL France. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christine Feak, a lecturer at the English Language Institute of the University of Michigan, has worked with engineering students for many years. She is co-author of Academic writing for graduate students: a course for nonnative speakers of English (Univ. of Michigan Press, 1994).