skip to main content
10.1145/3233756.3233958acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Examining Instructor Feedback in Professional and Technical Communication Service Courses

Authors Info & Claims
Published:03 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Professional and Technical Communication (PTC) instructors give students feedback on assignments like resumes and cover letters; however, these feedback practices are based on lore, not empirical research. This paper presents preliminary data from an ongoing study of 25 experienced PTC instructors. The first three interviews show that while each instructor wants students to understand audience, instructors do not always consider PTC's goals of teaching problem-solving, meeting employers' needs, or preparing students to become change agents.

References

  1. Swarts, J. (2008). Together with technology: writing review, enculturation, and technological mediation. Baywood Pub, Amityville, N.Y.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Still, B., & Koerber, A. (2010). Listening to students: A usability evaluation of instructor commentary. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24 (2), 206--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Taylor, S. S. (2011). 'I really don't know what he meant by that': How well do engineering students understand teachers' comments on their writing Technical Communication Quarterly, 20 (2), 139--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, P., Bergman, B., Bradley, L., Gustafsson, M., & Matzke, A. (2010). Peer reviewing across the Atlantic: Patterns and trends in L1 and L2 comments made in an asynchronous online collaborative learning exchange between technical communication students in Sweden and in the United States. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24 (3), 296--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Still, B. (2006). Talking to students: Embedded voice commenting as a tool for critiquing student writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20 (4), 460--475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing: Exploring digitally mediated identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30 (3), 378--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Lisa Melonçon. (in press). Critical postscript: On the future of the service course in technical and professional communication. Programmatic Perspectives 10, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Veltsos, J. R. (2017). Gamification in the business communication course. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80 (2), 194--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Finseth, C. (2015). Theorycrafting the classroom: Constructing the introductory technical communication course as a game. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 45 (3), 243--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Lucas, K., & Rawlins, J. D. (2015). The competency pivot: Introducing a revised approach to the business communication curriculum. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78 (2), 167--193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Spilka, R. (1993). Influencing workplace practice: A challenge for professional writing specialists in academia. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 207--219). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Randazzo, C. (2016). Where do they go? Students' sources of résumé advice, and implications for critically reimagining the résumé assignment. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 278--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Martin-Lacroux, C., & Lacroux, A. (2017). Do employers forgive applicants' bad spelling in résumés? Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80 (3), 321--335.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Melonçon, L., & England, P. (2011). The current status of contingent faculty in technical and professional communication. College English, 73 (4), 396--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Examining Instructor Feedback in Professional and Technical Communication Service Courses

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGDOC '18: Proceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication
      August 2018
      169 pages
      ISBN:9781450359351
      DOI:10.1145/3233756

      Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 3 August 2018

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • extended-abstract
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGDOC '18 Paper Acceptance Rate44of65submissions,68%Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader