Explicitly Teaching Five Technical Genres to English First-Language Adults in a Multi-Major Technical Writing Course
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58213/ell.v4i2.55Keywords:
technical writing, explicit teaching, the study of genres, writing that is technicalAbstract
My research focuses on students who speak English as their first language and are currently enrolled in a technical writing class open to students from many majors. I will report in this post on the outcomes of teaching these students five distinct types of technical writing. In this case, the students in issue have English as their mother tongue. Previous experimental research has shown that it is useful to explicitly teach academic writing to adults who speak English as their first language. The findings of the research have proved this.
In contrast, no research on technical writing has ever been conducted compared to this study's level of depth and breadth. In order to investigate these effects, I employed a strategy that included a few different research approaches. In order to present a more comprehensive, in-depth characterization of the 534 texts authored by 316 student authors, this approach consisted of a control-group quasi-experimental design with a qualitative analysis. These were the components that made up the strategy. According to the findings, the participants in the genre workshop created writings with a significantly higher sensitivity to audience, purpose, structure, design, style, and editing than those generated by participants who were taught using more traditional approaches. Participants displayed a superior awareness of audience, aim, and editing while working within the framework of technical genres in the job materials text type instead of the procedures text type. This was the case when comparing the two text types. When contrasting the two different forms of text, this was the result.
References
Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research in direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle: Educational Achievement Systems.
Adamson, H. D. (1992). Social and processing constraints on relative clauses. American Speech, 67(2), 123-133. http://dx.doi.org /10.2307/455450
Beach, R. (1992). Experimental and descriptive research methods in composition. In G. Kirsch & P.
A. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology i composition research. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.
Blakeslee, A. M. (2001). Bridging the workplace and the academy: Teaching professional genre through classroom-workplace collaborations. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(2), 169-192. http://dx.doi.org /10.1207/s15427625tcq1002_4
Boettger, R. K., & Wulff, S. (2014). The naked truth about the naked this: Investigating grammatical prescriptivism in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 115- 140. http://dx.doi.org /10.1080/10572252.2013.803919
Borman, G., Hewes, G. M., Overmann, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125-230. http://dx.doi.org /10.3102/00346543073002125
Boyles, N. N. (2002). Teaching written response to text: Constructing quality answers to open- ended comprehension questions (2nd ed.). Gainesville, FL: Maupin House.
Carter, M., Ferzli, M., & Wiebe, E. (2004). Teaching genre to English first-language adults: A study of the laboratory report. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(4), 395-419.
Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom.
New York: The Guildford Press.
Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing Genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Devitt, A. J. (2009). Teaching critical genre awareness. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 337-351). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearing House.
Fahnestock, J. (1993). Genre and rhetorical craft. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 265- 271.
Finegan, E. & Biber, D. (2001). Register variation and social dialect variation: The registe axiom. In P. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation (pp. 235-267). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univesrity Press
Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres.
Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 222-249.
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (1996). Learning to write professionally: "Situated learning" and the transition from university to professional discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10(4), 395-427. http://dx.doi.org / 10.1177/1050651996010004001
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (2000). Write where you are: Situating learning to write in university and workplace settings. In P. Dias & A. Pare (Eds.), Transactions Writing in Academic and Workplace Settings. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genre and simulations of genres. Written Communication, 11(2), 193-226.
http://dx.doi.org /10.1177/0741088394011002002
Fries, C. C. (1940). American English Grammar. New York: Appleton-Century Company.
Hardy, J. A., & Römer, U. (2013). Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: a multi- dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 8(2), 183-207. doi: doi:10.3366/cor.2013.0040
Hengst, J. A., & Miller, P. J. (1999). The heterogeneity of discourse genres: Implications for development. World Englishes, 18(3), 325-341..http://dx.doi.org /10.1111/1467-971X.00147
Hubert, K. M. (1976). Teaching and writing popular fiction: Horror, adventure, mystery, and romance. New York: Virgil Books.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722. http://dx.doi.org / 10.2307/3587930
Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density.
Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23-62. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2012). Technical communication today (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Markel, M. (2012). Technical Communication (10th ed.). New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Martin, J. R., & Rothery, J. (1980). Writing project report, Number 1. Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney.
Meloncon, L., & England, P. (2011). The current status of contingent faculty in technical and professional communication. College English, 73(4), 396-408.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterl Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167. http://dx.doi.org / 10.1080/00335638409383686
Moni, R. W., Hryciw, P. P., & Moni, K. B. (2006). Using explicit teaching to improve how bioscience students write to the lay public. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(167-175). http://dx.doi.org /10.1152/advan.00111.2006
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: effects of sel explanation and direct instruction.
Child Development, 77(1), 1-15. http://dx.doi.org /10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00852.x
Römer, U. (2009a). English in academia: does nativeness matter? Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20(2), 89-100.
Römer, U. (2009b). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 141-163.
Schryer, C. F. (1993). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10(2), 200-234. http://dx.doi.org / 10.1177/0741088393010002003
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Walker, K. (1999). Using genre theory to teach students engineering lab report writing: A collaborative approach. IEEE Transactions for Professional Communication, 42(1), 12-18. http://dx.doi.org /10.1109/47.749363
Walker, K. (2002). Theoretical foundations for website design courses. Technical Communication Quarterly, 42(1), 61-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1101_3
Watkins, C., & Slocum, T. (2004). The components of direct instruction. In N. E. Marchand- Martella, T. A. Slocum & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to direct instruction (pp. 28-65). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Watt, J., & van den Burg, S. (1995). Research Methods for Communication Science. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
White, E. M. (1995). Assigning, responding, evaluating: A writing teacher's guide. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Wilder, L., & Wolfe, J. (2009). Sharing the tacit rhetorical knowledge of the literacy scholar: The effects of making disciplinary conventions explicit in undergraduate writing about literature courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(2), 170-209.
Williams, J. M., & Colomb, G. G. (1993). The case for explicit teaching: Why what you don’t know won't help you. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 252-264.
Wolfe, J. (2009). How technical communication textbooks fail engineering students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 351-375. http://dx.doi.org /10.1080/10572250903149662
Wulff, S., Römer, U., & Swales, J. M. (2012). Attended/unattended this in academic student writing: Quantitative and qualitative
erspectives. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 129-158. http://dx.doi.org /10.1515/cllt-2012-0006
