Re: What do you think?

["Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- EXPERSOFT -dot- COM>]

Nancy Hoft wrote:
>...to do an informal review of ...a book for instructors of
>tech. writing in a college
>setting....I was left so
>incredulous by some statements that I had to write....

I've read a lot of responses to this post already this morning,
and at the risk of sounding like I'm saying "me too"... ME TOO!
;-)

That said, lessee if I can actually *add* to the discussion.

>Snipet One -- Question: Do you agree that the majority of technical
>communication is paper-based?
>
>"Still other instructors have consciously decided against using
>computers in their classrooms, and they have had good reasons for
>doing so....Second, these
>instructors argue that their courses are intended to teach technical
>communication, not computer literacy."

There are several issues here; and as Theresa Marchwinski pointed
out, the paragraph isn't particularly well constructed.

But the first point I'd like to make is... well... pardon me if
I have the wrong impression of academia -- I'm only an occasional
visitor to that arena, but isn't the entire point to prepare
students for the <hrhrm> *future*??? And yes, probably, most of
the technical information available today is paper based; but is
this likely to continue??? Can a writing *program* legitimately ignore
electronic information delivery strategies just because the
majority of technical information is delivered on paper *today*????

Secondly, I'm unsure that teaching students *what* to produce
without providing them with the *means* to produce it is the
best approach. I can understand a writing class wanting to
concentrate on writing. No problem. But an understanding of
the technology used to produce the information is essential
if the student is to leave academia well prepared to enter
the corporate arena.

>Snipet Two -- Question:  What do you think of the word "forbidding"?

At the very beginning of my training and writing career, I learned
to avoid presenting the reader/student with value judgements. These
judgements (e.g., "very often forbidding to" or "one of the most
confusing operations" or "it's really easy to") color the readers
perceptions and are detrimental to the learning process. Whether
the author believes the statement to be true or not is irrelevant.

>Snipet Three -- Do you think that your employers will be willing to
>train new hires in technical communication on how to use a computer
>to do their jobs?

Ten years ago, maybe. Today? Nope. Why bother when there are scads
of computer literate writers out there?

In short, I think the snipets reflect an appalling short-sightedness
and closed-mindedness -- qualities that will certainly contriubute
to its unqualified success in the academic community!  <G,D,& R!!!>
;-)




-Sue Gallagher               http://pw1.netcom.com/~gscale/susanwg/
sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com     http://www.expersoft.com

The _Guide_ is definitive.
Reality is frequently inaccurate.  --Douglas Adams

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html