Rhetorical Analysis of a Research Paper in the Field of Engineering
Knowledge Decay in an Engineering Mechanics Sequence by Brock E. Barry et al, 2016 caught my attention as a future engineering student because it questioned how much engineering knowledge students are able to retain over a summer break. The purpose of this rhetorical essay is to break down how the author is communicating the five aspects of rhetorical analysis. The audience, author, exigence, convention and use of appeals all play a crucial role in helping the reader understand original research as well as how to write and format this research.
The demographics of the intended audience are educators within the engineering field as well as the faculty in the U.S. Military Academy (USMA). The authors bring awareness to the faculty’s concern over this issue in retention loss and proceed with the research with an intention to answer the faculty’s concerns. In doing this the research was able to reach not just the faculty but an even larger audience of teachers and students within the engineering field that are interested in learning the issues within engineering education and practice. They also used jargon found in engineering courses such as “stress/retention” which only engineering majors would know (Brock E. Barry et al., p. 1). This audience of educators can take away better ways to teach the material and students can take away better ways to study to remember and understand the material which works as a benefit to both.
The information regarding the authors is found in the bottom of the first page. Based on their titles which consist of Brock E. Barry who has his Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering and P.E as well as J. Ledlie Klosky with a Ph.D and P.E and William C. Graves, who has his P.E in Engineering Mechanics we can tell they are more than just professors. They are also affiliated with the U.S. Military Academy (USMA). This amount of education allows them to not just master the topic but also allows them to understand the best ways to teach this topic while getting feedback from each other. From their experience they are able to analyze what works best and what doesn’t in order to tackle the issue at hand. This paper was published in the Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice which this research plays a part of.
There is an urgency to find out the problem at hand in which the faculty members are explicit about having concerns because of the visible retention loss they claim to see in students after summer breaks. The faculty turned to the researchers who were able to answer their question. From answering the question the research instead led to a more purposeful question involving not just the majority of students but the minority. They concluded there was almost no meaningful retention loss with the majority of students remembering the previously taught material. But there was still a minority of students that did show minor retention loss leading the researchers to question why.
This paper uses IMRaD format with the sections being labeled. Within the introduction the researchers first give some background and state the question. They also give a literature review in which they specify their question and associate it with a specific group using the CARS model which are engineering educators and students by researching a question to a problem. After explaining why their research is needed the next section is labeled methodology. Here they briefly explain what information is incorporated into the figures. The figures shown consist of graphs and tables all with different colors and labels in order for the reader to understand their research. From here a result is arrived at where they answer the question using their statistics. After discussing their solution they also arrive at a new question within theirconclusion giving light to a new research question. This format follows IMRaD since it labels the problem, method, result, discussion and conclusion.
Brock E. Barry et al., (2016) use of ethos and logos creates a paper that’s not just credible but also backed up by facts and studies. In the beginning of the paper next to the authors and his peers’ names it shows their titles and level of education. The authors are aware of what they are researching and have mastered this subject making them trustworthy. Ethos throughout the paper is also shown by their jargon and credibility. The paper is filled with figures in the methodology section where their research is shown. The figures consist of graphs and tables which are all labeled as well as with some having colors in order to specify their data. From this data they are able to get the statistics in order to arrive at a solution. Logos is communicated not just in the detailed figures but also in the reasoning, which derives from these figures. Without these figures that contain all their research and information, the solution they reached would be unreliable. Since they used logos their research is now provable and can also lead others to do the same methods in order to reach the same solution. The authors did not show any pathos in their paper, only ethos and logos.
Within this rhetorical analysis we are able to analyze the strategies the authors used in order to communicate their research with the reader. The five aspects consisted of understanding who the audience was, in this case educators and students interested in the education of engineering as well as the faculty in the U.S. Military Academy (USMA). The authors whose titles and affiliations were shown in order to show they are trustworthy sources. The exigence shown through the faculty members’ concerns. The conventions used such as IMRaD format and CARS. As well as the appeals ethos and logos which are all essential to creating a research paper that allows the reader to understand and interpret all the information on the paper. This paper is a perfect example for future engineers to follow such as myself whether in my academic or professional life in order to communicate my research with others in a clear and organized manner.
Reference
Barry, B. E., Graves, W. C., & Klosky, J. L. (2017). Knowledge Decay in an Engineering Mechanics Sequence. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice. https://doi-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000319.
