Questions facing Technical Communication as a Discipline (Paper 2, ODU 810).

Rhetoric > Technical Communication

Questions facing Technical Communication as a Discipline

NASA Job

The biggest and most vexing question facing Technical Communication is agreeing on the answer to a simple definition: “what is it?”  Philip Rubens, of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, wrote in 1981 by starting to say what it is not. Technical Communication is not writing that supports technology or technological activities (Rubens, 43).  Cited by NASA, he defines Technical Communication as “an empirical methodology that reaches into communicology, contemporary discourse theory, and even ethics, which […] offers a way for defining audiences, purposes, and by extension, the domain of technical communication with a great deal of precision.”
Rubens' notes were on the heels of  Donovan and McClelland's 1980 treatise offering “Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition” for all composition teachers, but those especially applicable for Technical Communications include “writing as a process,” “the experiential approach,” and “basic writing” (Fulkerton, 656).

The next question facing Technical Communication as a discipline in the academy is its relevance to students not necessarily committed to writing (i.e., not English majors). In 1999, Durst noted that college students are “career-oriented pragmatists who view writing as a difficult but potentially useful technology” (Fulkerton, 664).  A year later, Janice Lauer modeled the documentation process by tracking a “single student paper through its growth and reprints the final copy” (Fulkerton, 657).
Donovan and McClelland's “Eight Approaches..." of 1980 were expanded to twelve approaches in 2001 (Fulkerton 656).

The challenge for Technical Communication

The third and most academically challenging issue facing acceptance of Technical Communication as a subdiscipline of rhetoric is by helping college undergraduates understand the value of writing a formal, well-researched essay (Buckman, 2007). They need to see that prospective employers expect that someone with a bachelor’s degree should be able to write lucid materials for distribution or publication, but that expectation is often not satisfied (Hart, 2008). Nearly 50 years ago, the CCCH concluded that it is impossible to provide a basis verifying a teacher’s competence or expertise on subject matter skills, classroom habits and style (CCCH, 1959). Recent views offer that good teaching engenders creative assessments, “leaving space for the student to become fully active, to learn and grow” (Case, 2002).  

What’s the answer?

As early as possible in the writing curriculum, students who see the usefulness of writing not tied to reading literature should be made abundantly aware that valid undergraduate college-level student essays are self-assessments not reliant on an instructor-determined grade. When students select writing topics then aim towards “real-word” (authentic) application, these opportunities effectively improve grades, provide professional writing experiences, and better prepare students to enter the workforce. Factors for motivating students to write include knowing “who one is writing for…, why one is writing…, when one is writing…, and how much control one is allowed in the writing” (italics by the author; Hutchings, 2006). A study of how assessments impact college students concluded that academics required a “much more thorough accounting of student motivations and heeding them” (Lord, 2007).

However, difficulties in standardizing collegiate assessments include considering a broad range of writing requirements from different professors. Some researchers believe that that the writer’s topic directs the outcome, and therefore the assessment (Ruth and Murphy, p. 410). Students’ become confused when faced with differing and, perhaps, conflicting, writing guidelines (Lea and Street, 1998). Grades resulting from such writing classes provide meaningless assessments. Neither the student, faculty (other than those grading the papers), nor administration have any understanding of the grade’s basis.

Results in the Field

The college-level communications and composition courses I teach stress writing-as-process over writing-as-product, as recommended by Wolcott. Writing-as-product takes the human audience out of the cycle, whereas providing a process for understanding the topic allows the Technical Communicator to offer “multidimensional scales seem[ingly] particularly appropriate when dealing with stimuli like words, illustrations, or other abstract concepts” to clarify and personalize the material (Ruben 44).

The CCCH Committee on Assessment believes students should:

•  demonstrate writing skills through repeated outlines, drafts and revisions;
•  write based on real-world [authentic] practice;
•  be informed about the purposes of assessment;

Willa Wolcott notes that, “In the real world, product is all we can share with each other” (p. 44). Technical Writing is a reiterative, process-based exercise. However, academic grading of writing skills is based on one product or outcome at a time, breaking the whole into parts (grammar, spelling, research and citation, composition).

Significance

Technical Communication utilized through in-house or public publication has passed an assessment beyond the power of an instructor. Those usage and editorial choices are made by professional editors or businesspeople not affiliated with the college whose objective is to clearly and effectively share technical knowledge for a defined purpose. These students can see how real-world assessments of their writing can impact actual decisions in business, technology, science, medicine, and other fields that rely on clear Technical Communications, thereby boosting the students’ relationship with their choice of studying or working in this discipline.

References

Case, R. (Fall, 2002). Plato’s Premise: Fostering Student Autonomy. Thought & Action. NEA, Washington, DC., from http://www2.nea.org/he/heta02/images/f02p33.pdf

CCCH (1959). Determining the Quality of Composition/Communication Teaching. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 10, No. 3, Panel and Workshop Reports. CCCC Tenth Annual Meeting, 1959 (Oct., 1959), pp. 146-148, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/354355

CCCH (1995). Writing Assessment: A Position Statement Author(s): CCCC Committee on Assessment. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 46, No. 3, (Oct., 1995), pp. 430-437, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/358714

Fulkerton, Richard (Jun., 2005). Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 56, No 4 (Jun., 2005). Pp. 654-687. http://www.jstor.org.stable/30037890

Hart (Peter D.) Research Associates, Inc (2008). How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning? Employers' Views on the Accountability Challenge. Washington, DC. Association of American Colleges and Universities. 9 pp. (ED499718)

Hutchings, C (Aug., 2006). Reaching students: lessons from a writing centre. Higher Education Research & Development, 25, Issue 3, from EBSCO database.

Lea, M. R.; Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education; Vol. 23 Issue 2, p157-172, 16p, from EBSCO database.

Lord, R. (September, 2007). Writing Assessment at Plymouth State College. Writing Across the Curriculum, 18, http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol5/lord.pdf

Rubens Philip M. (Mar., 1981). Technical Communication: Notes Toward Defining a Discipline. Department of Language, Literature and Communication, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, from nasa_techdocs. https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19810013425

Ruth, L, & Murphy, S (1984). Designing topics for writing assessment: problems of meaning.  Journal College Composition and Communication, 35, from JSTOR.

Skerrett, Allison; Bomer, Randy (Mar. 2011). Borderzones in Adolescent’s Literary Practices: Connecting Out-of-School Literacies to the Reading Curriculum. Urban Education, 2011 46: 1256. DOI: 10.1177/0042085911398920, http://uex.sagepup.com/content/46/6/1256

Wolcott, W. (Feb., 1987). Writing Instruction and Assessment: The Need for Interplay between Process and Product. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 40-46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/357585