What we teach and what they use: Teaching and learning in scientific and technical communication programs and beyond

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 37-61

  Brady, Ann ^a  

^a MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Academy to workplace transition; Composing; Invention; Longitudinal multiple case study; Problem solving; Rhetoric; Scientific and technical communication pedagogy

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751327238     PISSN: 10506519     EISSN: 15524574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1050651906293529     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Agar, M. H. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. In Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods (Vol. 4, pp. 11-73). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2. Anson, C. M., & Forsberg, L. L. (2003). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. In T. Peeples (Ed.), Professional writing and rhetoric: Readings from thefield (pp. 388-410). New York: Longman.
3. Atwill, J. (1998). Rhetoric reclaimed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4. Bizzell, P. (1980). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. PRE/TEXT, 3, 213-243.
5. Berthoff, A. E. (1971). The problem of problem solving. College Composition and Communication, 22, 237-242.
6. Burnett, R. E. (2005). Technical communication. Boston: Wadsworth.
7. Detienne, M., & Vernant, J. (1974). Cunning intelligence in Greek culture and society (J. Lloyd, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Doheny-Farina, S. (1986). Writing in an emerging organization: An ethnographic study. Written Communication, 3, 158-185.
9. Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35, 155-170.
10. Enos, R. L. (2002). Literacy in Athens during the Archaic period. In J. M. Atwill & J. M. Lauer (Eds.), Perspectives on rhetorical invention (pp. 176-191). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
11. Enos, R. L., & Lauer, J. (1992). The meaning of heuristic in Aristotle's Rhetoric and its implications for contemporary rhetorical theory. In S. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 79-87). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
12. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
13. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive theory process of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
14. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436-445.
15. Harrison, T. M. (2004). Frameworks for the study of writing in organizational contexts. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 255-267). New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Harrison, T. M., & Debs, M. B. (1998). Conceptualizing the organizational role of technical communicators: A systems approach. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2 (2). 5-21.
17. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Johnson, R. R. (1997). Audience involved: Towards a participatory theory of writing. Computers and Composition, 14, 361-376.
19. Johnson, R. R. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
20. Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2005). Technical communication today. New York: Pearson Longman.
21. Kolin, P. C. (2006). Successful writing at work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22. Lannon, J. M. (2006). Technical communication. New York: Pearson Longman.
23. Lauer, J. (1979). Toward a metatheory of heuristic procedures. College Composition and Communication, 30, 268-269.
24. Lutz, J. A. (1989). Writers in organizations and how they learn the image: Theory, research, and implications. In C. B. Matalene (Ed.), Worlds of writing: Teaching and learning in discourse communities of work (pp. 113-135). New York: Random House.
25. Mac Kinnon, J. (1993). Developing writing ability in a mature, writing-intensive organization. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 41-55). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
26. McIsaac, C., & Aschauer, A. B. (1990). Proposal writing at Atherton Jordan, Inc.: An ethnographic study. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 527-560.
27. Miller, C. (1985). Invention in technical and scientific discourse: A prospective study. In M. G. Moran & D. Journet (Eds.), Research in technical communication (pp. 117-156). Amityville, NY: Greenwood.
28. Paradis, J., Dobrin, D., & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon, ITD: Notes on the writing environment of an R&D organization. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 281-307). New York: Guilford.
29. Reep, D. C. (2006). Technical writing: Principles, strategies, and readings. New York: Pearson Longman.
30. Searles, G. J. (2006). Workplace communications: The basics. New York: Pearson Longman.
31. Selzer, J. (2004). The composing process of an engineer. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 317-324). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Spilka, R. (2003). Orality and literacy in the workplace: Process-and text-based strategies for multiple-audience adaptation. In T. Peeples (Ed.), Professional writing and rhetoric: Readings from the field (pp. 146-170). New York: Longman. (Reprinted from Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4(1), 44-67, 1990)
33. Winsor, D. A. (1998). Rhetorical practices in technical work. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12, 343-370.
34. Woolever, K. R. (2005). Writing for the technical professions. New York: Pearson Longman.
35. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.