Superimposing R.E.A.L. principles on the project writing pyramid: A paradigm shift in teaching professional writing
AbstractInstitutions of Higher Education introduced professional writing classes as a way of preparing students for on-the-job-writing. To better accomplish the goal as well as to get a more consistent output from these classes that require the writing of a project proposal or report, writing teachers may want to incorporate R.E.A.L. principles onto the Find-Test-Deliver pedagogical triangle that mark the three phases of their project writing courses. When any of the R.E.A.L principles, where R stands for Reader oriented, E for Extensively researched, A for Actionable solution and L for Looped composition are ignored or improperly transposed on the project writing pyramid, the writing output suffers and is neither workplace oriented nor academically satisfying. The article offers insights into the rationale behind the principles and suggestions on how teachers could incorporate them into their teaching. The article grows out of the author's experiences and insights from being Marketing Director and Technical communicator at corporate houses as well as a teacher of business and technical writing at DeVry University, University of Maryland University College, University of Minnesota, Cogswell Polytechnical College, and Rutgers University.
Ballantine, B. D. ( 2010). English and Engineering, Pedagogy and Politics. In Franke, D., Reid, A., & DiRenzo, A. (Eds.) Design discourse: composing and revising programs in professional and technical writing. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse, 219-240.
Bauer-Wolf, J. (2018). Overconfident Students, Dubious Employers. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/23/study-students-believe-they-are-prepared-workplace-employers-disagree
Bhola, S. & Dhanawade, S. (2013). Higher Education and Employability - A Review. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Bizzell, P. (1982). Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know About Writing. Pre/Text 3, 213- 43.
Bourelle, T. (2012). Bridging the Gap between the Technical Communication Classroom and the Internship: Teaching Social Consciousness and Real-World Writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 42(2), 183–197.
Carradini, S. (2019). Artist Communication: An Interdisciplinary Business and Professional Communication Course. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 133-152.
Di Renzo, A. ( 2002). The Great Instauration: Restoring Professional and Technical Writing to the Humanities. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 32 (1), 45-57.
Di Renzo, A. (2010). The Third Way: PTW and the Liberal Arts in the New Knowledge Society. In Franke, D., Reid, A., & DiRenzo, A. (Eds.) Design discourse: composing and revising programs in professional and technical writing. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse, 243-254.
Faigley, L., & Miller, T. P. (1982). What we learn from writing on the job. College English, 44 (6), 557-569.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1977). Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing Process. College English, 39(4), 449-461.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32 (4), 365-387.
Franke, D. (2010). Curriculum, Genre and Resistance: Revising Identity in a Professional Writing Community in Franke, D., Reid, A., & DiRenzo, A. (Eds.) Design discourse: composing and revising programs in professional and technical writing. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse, 113-131.
Franke, D., Reid, A., & DiRenzo, A. (Eds.). (2010). Design Discourse: Composing and revising programs in professional and technical writing. Fort Collins: WAC Clearinghouse.
Grace, J. A. (2008). Working knowledge: Composition and the teaching of professional writing (Order No. 3322310). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (89291648).
Halpern, J. W. (1981). What should we be teaching students in business writing? The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 18 (3), 39-53.
Hancock, P., Howieson, B., Kavanagh, M., Kent, J., Tempone, I., & Segal, N. (2009). Accounting for the future: more than numbers. Australian Teaching and Learning Council, 11-80.
Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education & Management, 6 (1), 3-17.
Henze, B., Sharer, W., & Tovey, J. (2010). Disciplinary Identities: Professional Writing, Rhetorical Studies, and Rethinking "English." In Franke, D., Reid, A., & DiRenzo, A. (Eds.) Design discourse: composing and revising programs in professional and technical writing. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse, 63-86.
Herndl, C. (1993). Teaching Discourse and Reproducing Culture: A Critique of Research and Pedagogy in Professional and Non-Academic Writing. College Composition and Communication,44 (3), 349-363.
Jackson, D. (2013). Business Graduate Employability–Where Are We Going Wrong? Higher Education Research & Development 32 (5), 776-90.
Jeansonne, J. J. (1996). The paradigm shift in technical writing textbook pedagogy (Order No. 9730444). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304303405)
Lannon, J. and Gurak. L. (2013). Strategies for Technical Communication in the Workplace, 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
Lawrence, H. Y., Lussos, R. G., & Clark, J. A. (2019). Rhetorics of Proposal Writing: Lessons for Pedagogy in Research and Real-World Practice. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49 (1), 33-50.
Le Maistre, C., and A. Paré. (2004) . Learning in Two Communities: The Challenge for Universities and Workplaces. Journal of Workplace Learning 16 (1/2), 44–52.
Matthew, E. G. (2016). Measuring the writing improvement of undergraduate business students in hybrid and face-to-face business communication courses: A comparative study (Order No. 10106846). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1787217811).
Mentkowski, M., Rogers, G., Doherty, A., Loacker, G., Hart, J.R., Rickards, W., O'Brien, K., Riordan, T., Sharkey, S., Cromwell, L., Diez, M., Bartels, J., & Roth, J. (2000). Learning that lasts: Integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and beyond.
Moore, T. & Morton J. (2017). The myth of job readiness? Written communication, employability, and the ‘skills gap' in higher education, Studies in Higher Education,42 (3), 591-609.
Mourshed, M., D. Farrell, and D. Barton. (2012). Education to Employment: Designing a System That Works. Boston: McKinsey.
Murray, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not product. The Leaflet 71 (3), 11-14.
Price, S. W. (1985). A Synthesis of Materials for using the Process Approach to Teaching Professional Writing (Business, Technical) (Order No. 8525564). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (303387214).
Reid, A. (2010). The Write Brain: Professional Writing in the Post-Knowledge Economy. In Franke, D., Reid, A., & DiRenzo, A. (Eds.) Design discourse: composing and revising programs in professional and technical writing. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse, 254-75.
Russell, D. R. (2007). Rethinking the articulation between business and technical communication and writing in the disciplines: Useful avenues for teaching and research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21, 248-277.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Copyrights for articles published in International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.