My approach to this week’s readings is grounded in my experiences as a teacher. As I mentioned at last week’s meeting, I am taking this course while teaching technical writing for the first time, which intensifies the pedagogical-minded approach I generally employ as I read for class.  In addition, pedagogical concerns are at the forefront of this week’s readings. As I read, I found myself returning to one question: If technical writing is truly “one-third writing proficiency, one-third problem-solving skill, and one-third ability to work with other people” (Rutter 21), what are the most effective uses of the limited time my students and I share over the course of the semester?

Requiring students to correct 150 sentences during the first week of class, as the instructor for the 1924 technical writing class highlighted in Sullivan’s study did, certainly does not qualify. Both Rutter and Miller suggest rhetoric is the way to go, and as Connors’ history demonstrates, rhetorical theory has been a part of technical writing instruction since the 1950s (13).

Miller’s article, in particular, successfully argues the value of a rhetorically based approach to technical writing pedagogy. Rutter’s article places technical writing within the traditions of the liberal arts and rhetoric itself – a solid argument, to be sure, but one that is familiar to me. Miller’s focus on Aristotelian rhetoric is new to me, and can be summed up in her emphasis on rhetoric as conduct: “An understanding of practical rhetoric as conduct provides what a techne cannot: a locus for questioning, for criticism, for distinguishing good practices from bad” (69).

Miller’s article also highlights a number of concerns I have as a novice technical writing instructor. Specifically, I have wondered about how to talk about what Miller terms “nonacademic writing practices” in the classroom. I believe students view technical writing as a practical course, relatively speaking, for its emphasis on nonacademic genres. Although I have some experience working for a corporation, I do not have direct experience with some of the genres I am asking my students to work with. I do want my students to be aware of how writing works in the “real world,” which will require me to do additional research.

Furthermore, Miller argues that we should not blindingly accept these nonacademic writing practices, but rather that we should question them: “We ought not, in other words, simply design our courses and curricula to replicate existing practices, taking them for granted and seeking to make them more efficient on their own terms, making our students ‘more valuable to industry’. . .” (69). I do not want my students to leave the class without having utilized their critical thinking skills, but I believe that in order to question these practices, students must first have a firm grasp on them.

While this week’s readings do not provide direct answers to my question, they do provide a framework for my course. Keeping rhetorical theory in mind as I design classroom activities will provide a solid set of principles for me to draw upon. Although the textbook I use does not specifically mention rhetoric, it does focus on audience awareness as key to communication.

Finally, as I read through Sullivan’s description of Valentine’s utilitarian approach to writing instruction, I was struck by his explanation of the usefulness of peer review. Simply put, workplace writing will require students to write for an audience other than their teachers (205). I am definitely going to mention this during our first peer review session this week.

Works Cited

Connors, Robert J. “The Rise of Technical Writing in America.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 3-19. Print.

Miller, Carolyn. “What’s Practical about Technical Writing?” Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings from the Field. Ed. Tim Peeples. New York: Longman, 2003. 61-70. Print.

Rutter, Russell. “History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 20-34. Print.

Sullivan, Patricia. “After the Great War: Utility, Humanities, and Tracings From a Technical Writing Class in the 1920s.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 26.2 (2012): 202-228. PDF.