6: Cultures & Classrooms
Reading through the PWE guides for teaching ENGL 304 and 305, I found several things interesting. In 304, the guide states that two elements to understanding the rhetorical situation include, “How organizational structure affects the writing that happens within it” and “The different strategies for good-news communications and bad-news communication,” and that the course “must pay attention not only to what students should write, but to how and why writing happens in specific contexts for specific purposes” (ENGL 304, 1.2, p. 4–5). Both courses focus on preparing students, through abstract role-playing type assignments, for the workplace and situations they will encounter once they’ve entered a career. Wilson echoes the call for abstract workplace-type assignments in his article, as well.
I thought the bad-news letter writing scenario is a great assignment (ENGL 304, 2.18, p. 26). I think it would be very hard, though! But it’s a perfect exercise. Practice without having to imagine, too hard, about the situation. It brings the writer directly into the situation and demands they think thoroughly and critically about their response.
At the outset of reading the ENGL 305 guidelines, I wondered: How is 305 going to be different from 304? At first glance, both courses seemed very similar—other than the usability test assignment, which was new to 305. But the overarching question through which my reading was then filtered was: How do “Technical Writing” (ENGL 305) and “Business and Professional Writing” (ENGL 304) differ? Another difference I did find, in comparing the two sets of guidelines, were the points listed in 305 for “Understanding the rhetorical situation of technical writing”: “Issues in translation from experts to lay readers” and “How to write for multiple, simultaneous audiences”—these two bullets differed from the ENGL 304 handling of the rhetorical situation. These points seem more complex compared to ENGL 304′s dealing with the rhetorical situation, which seems more basic. Does the technical communicator have more responsibility compared to the business or professional writer?
One of the course goals in ENGL 305 is the ability to “evaluate and modify a document to ensure its usability and accessibility for an audience”—this point had me wondering: Does this mean the technical communicator has greater authorship? Or a better command of their topics? What is a technical communication student getting through the course goals outlined that is different from what a business and professional communication student is getting through the goals of ENG 304? In many places the course guidelines exactly echoed each other. Generally, it seems one of the greatest challenges facing an ENGL 304 or 305 course is taking these guidelines and implementing them properly in the classroom, following the schedule of readings and assignments and inspiring the students as much as possible to fully engage with each assignment.
In Wilson’s article, a concept we’ve discussed before came up again. He writes: “Does using industry as a model and bending communication theories and pedagogies to fit the needs of industry put our loyalties too much on the side of industry?” (78) Presumably, this question came up when we read Thralls, Blyler, and Miller, all of whom Wilson references. Basically, the question is: who’s leading who? Are academics teaching too much to industry? Is industry pushing the academy? How should it be? Should industry have such a significant influence on learning in the classroom? It seems like it should. But what are the arguments against that? Again, I know we’ve talked about this in class before and I’m finding it a hard argument to wrap my mind around.
On page 87, Wilson writes, “The workplace (even more so the postmodern workplace) does not come in a neat package like some assignments or end-of-chapter exercises. Teaching our students to view the world as if it does constrains their thinking and their ability to see new possibilities.” I agree with this. But I maintain that even teaching in a postmodern way and giving postmodern assignments that encourage thinking outside the box, beyond the black and white or right and wrong, will still never fully-prepare students for the actual workplace. Because instructors cannot predict the situations that will come up within in the multitude of workplaces and scenarios within those workplaces. But yes, I agree with Wilson that it is essential that instructors help students realize the workplace will never be delivered in a neat little package.
My idealistic nature reared its head as I read Bosley’s “Cross-Cultural Collaboration.” I found her observations to be spot-on and infuriating—she mentions in her introduction to the article that Americans have “fixed assumptions that we are at the center of everything.” I find that declaration to be so true and agree with Bosley that “we can no longer maintain that perspective,” for “to do so limits us in profound and dangerous ways” (467). I’ve also always held, like Bosley addresses, that Americans are driven too much by individualistic competitiveness and not enough by “cooperative learning” (469). That is the idealist in me. I feel like all things in moderation are better than extremism, that collaboration and team work (and more importantly, avoiding partisan-style modes of operation) are ultimately more productive and beneficial than pitting people (employees, students, etc) against each other. Of course, I’ve been put in my place many times in the past from those who side more with Euro-North Americans’ belief “that intra-group competition increases productivity” (Bosley 469). I struggle with how to create a balance—a bit of competitive spirit certainly never hurt anyone, but…can’t we all just be friends? Let’s drop the ethnocentric individualism and acknowledge and familiarize ourselves with the multitude of cultures by which we’re surrounded.
WORKS CITED
Bosley, Deborah S. “Cross-Cultural Collaboration.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 466–474. Print.
PWE guides for teaching ENGL 304 & 305 (2011).
Wilson, Greg. “Technical Communication and Late Capitalism: Considering a Postmodern Technical Communication Pedagogy.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 15.1 (2001): 72–99. PDF.