Production Courses
Many of the courses focused on skill building and learning computer processes that would be of value in the workplace. They were further categorized as follows:
· Document and Graphic Design Courses: skill-building in desktop publishing and graphic design programs
· Publications Management Courses: the nuts and bolts of producing technical publications, such as editing, layout and visual design principles, as well as scheduling and budgeting
· Specialized Writing Courses: focusing on a specific genre in technical communication such as proposal or report writing
· Introductory Writing Courses: introductory technical writing
Computer Literacy Classes
These courses attempted to teach about computer technologies as related to broader theories such as reading, writing, or even psychology. For example, a class dealing with visual design might incorporate topics such as the “human visual system” or “theories of perception and attention.”
Courses Situating Technology in Historical, Political, and Social Contexts
The purpose of this type of instruction was to transcend the “skill-based approach” in order to help students understand how technology shapes societal, historical, or political issues and how “implementing and using computer technologies are fundamentally ideological acts.”
Selber felt that teachers might be “reluctant to engage in a critical examination of our culture’s technological foundation.” Many explanations were given as to why computers were being incorporated into the curricula. Besides the common rationale that teaching technological skills would increase students’ marketability, other reasons given included the necessity of building required skills necessary for technical communication activities, improving students’ writing, and promoting collaboration.
By examining how computers were being used in the classroom, Selber hoped teachers would prepare students who were “literate and responsible users of computer technology.” He discussed three main challenges that teachers might consider when answering the question, “Why are computers used in our curricula?”
Challenge #1: Balancing Technological with Literacy and Humanistic Concerns
Although the most common reason cited for teaching technology was to help to prepare students for their future employment, Selber felt that if this was the main focus, teachers would lose sight of the literacy and humanistic issues that are also important. When planning programs and course offerings, he stressed the importance of balancing the different types of classes that are outlined above.
Challenge #2: Re-Envisioning our Computer-Related Curricula
He also felt that current programs and classes needed to be examined to determine if enough emphasis was being given to humanistic and literacy issues in teaching technology. Selber said that “too often we integrate computers in our classrooms without a critical rethinking of how they might inhibit our instructional goals.”
Challenge #3: Educating Teachers who Use Computers in Their Classrooms
He also encouraged faculty, staff, and graduate assistants to learn how to incorporate computers into the classroom. Selber found very little guidance for doing so, and he called this “shortsighted.” Because of the rapid changes in technology, he cautioned instructors to not only keep pace with the change, but to function as “technology critics and reformers” and to understand how to responsibly teach technology to their students.
11 comments:
We've talked about some of these issues in our earlier ethics discussion. I can't speak about other programs, but MSU's TC program has seemed to me to offer a lot of opportunities to incorporate topics beyond the purely technical. Just looking at what we've covered in this class: history of the TC field, ethics, rhetoric, cultural awareness,we've done a lot more than address computer technology and how to use it. I don't think that means that this essay is outdated, but rather than some people in the field are trying to encourage thoughtful and aware TC students and professionals.
I agree with Jane in that this master's program covers more than just technical topics which is very important to train well-rounded technical communication professionals. This article is obviously outdated in the technical aspects that were studied in 1994. I would be interested in reading an updated version of this article to see how the programs have changed what they teach and where they place importance.
Since I am not in the TC master's program I can not comment on the changes that have happened over the last decade or so. I just thought it was interesting to find the article defending the computer in 1994. I am thankful to be in the computer age that I am in. Where we are learning everthing on the computer, from communicating, to learning new interfacing. This class has expecially opened my eyes to all aspects of TC. I do think the article is out dated.
Really interesting article with a good perspective. I am glad that colleges and schools are expanding their range of tools they consider basic knowledge that students should be taught, such as history, political science and the use of computers. It makes the student well-rouded and more engaged in the chosen field of study, since the student possess a broader worldview and an overall perspective. In terms of PC usage: children in pre-school learn how to use computers in our time. PC's have become a necessary tool for communication.
Interesting to read this while we are preparing our GPACW proposals. In many ways, this parallels what GPACW is doing with their next conference--incorporating new technologies into pedagogy. Pedagogical studies ought to consider new practices as well as new technologies and how they enrich and broaden the study of not only technical communication, but all areas of academic scholarship. Staying current in technology is not an easy task--especially in today's technology laden world. But staying current in anything takes time and effort and that really is what I pulled from this article.
This article seems like a natural extension of the shift toward humanism in technical communication. I'm surprised that classes still weren't very humanistic in 1994, seeing as the tech comm rhetorical movement had been well underway by that time. Things move pretty slow, I guess. But fast forward 14 years and I agree with the other commenters--technical communication education, as least here, seems to fully explore the rhetorical angle, in addition to "skill" building. It's a good time to be a tech comm student.
I'm glad that topics such as this are being researched and discussed. I enjoyed our discussion of this at the beginning of the semester, but I'm glad to see there is research being conducted on the topic (even if it is rather outdated). It would be interesting to see what research has been done since then, and what conclusions have been arrived at and how the situation has changed since then: if it better, worse, or comparable.
Pretty good article, although I question its relevance considering the piece is 14 years old. The theories it brushes upon are timeless but I wish it was more recent. I like MSU's program -- as so far it seems to engage students in the exploration of new technologies and how they can improve the practice of tech comm.
This article is still relevant to what is occurring in the academe today even thou it was written in 1994. The use of technology is not reserved to the computer networking programs or such any more as we all know but is widely used across many programs and disciplines. Many programs not only utilize the technology for Word Processing but also teach it.
The class discussion and the essay brought up a good question; what is more important learning and mastering the technology or learning critical thinking and rhetorical communication skills. In ideal world we would say both, and is what many of us strive to do in our own studies; to learn new technologies and process and analyze the content. Thou I believe that for many students, critical thinking and rhetorical communication skills should not be neglected in the hype of the next emerging technology. The students first of all need to know how to eloquently present their arguments and options and then can learn how to display them through various technologies. If one does not know how to express their viewpoint, not technology is going to help!
I would say that the program at MSU does contain a wide spectrum of Technical Communication skills needed for the workplace. I do think that the tools sometimes outweigh the purpose, though. By this I mean that we sometimes focus on how to use various technology, but then allow such autonomy in the classroom that we skip certain professional practices; manual writing definitely is something I've yet to really explore, even if the policies and procedures are there, I haven't been tested enough in the writing of manuals (for large corporations, for example), so I would like to see this program extend that practice to the classroom in a more indepth way.
Due to the ever-changing technology that we, the technical communicators, use in the workplace and in class, it is impossible not to place a strong emphasis on it in teaching. I believe that while the technology changes, the current classrooms should still teach the current tools, because dramatic changes in this technology rarely occur over short periods of time.
I felt like this comment in the summary: Selber said that “too often we integrate computers in our classrooms without a critical rethinking of how they might inhibit our instructional goals,” really went along with the article on Politics of the Interface that Gary and I summarized earlier in the semester. Selber was commenting that we should take a critical approach to technology, because sometimes it does not advance goals, it does have the possibility to inhibit. Good summary!
Post a Comment