DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 427 327 CS 216 588

TITLE The Ecology, the Environment, and the Evolution of TechnicalCommunication. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of theCouncil for Programs in Technical and ScientificCommunication (25th, Lewes, Delaware, October 15-17, 1998).

INSTITUTION Council for Programs in Technical and ScientificCommunication.

PUB DATE 1999-03-00NOTE 95p.PUB TYPE Collected Works Proceedings (021)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Distance Education; *Ecology; *Environment; Environmental

Education; Higher Education; Internet; *ProfessionalDevelopment; Scientific and Technical Information; *ServiceLearning; *Technical Writing

IDENTIFIERS Historical Background

ABSTRACTThis proceedings presents 40 papers delivered at the 1998

annual meeting of the Council for Programs in Technical and ScientificCommunication (CPTSC). Papers in the proceedings are divided into sections onthe Ecology of Technology; Environmental Shifts; and Evolving Perspectives.Representative papers in the proceedings include: "Mixing Oil and Water:Integrating Writing, Design, and the New Technology" (Neil Kleinman);Distance Learning, Service Learning, and Programs in Technical and ScientificCommunication: Finding Common Ground for Program Growth" (Bill Macgregor);"Teaching on the Net: Are We Ready?" (Nancy Allen); "Computer ClassroomPractice in Technical Communication" (Stuart Selber); "Using TechnicalCommunication Faculty to Expand the Continuum of Instruction" (MarianBarchilon); "Extending a Hand to Our Stakeholders: Examining the Risks ofService-Learning Courses in Technical Communication Programs" (Roger Munger);"The Job Search Process as a Step toward Career Affiliation" (PetePraetorius); "The Problem with Certificate Programs" (Sherry Burgus Little);"Anticipating Standard Skills Assessment in Technical Communication Programs"(Ken Price); "A Plea to Make History More a Part of Current Curriculum"(Karen Rossi Schnakenberg); "The Programmatic Challenges That ComplicateInternational Collaboration" (Judith Ramey and Mary Coney); and The'Greening' of Technical Communication: The Environment as a ProgrammaticStakeholder" (Henrietta Nickels Shirk). Appendixes contain the program,distinguished service awards, minutes and treasurer's report, conferenceparticipants, and a list of CPTSC members for 1998. (RS)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

The Ecology, the Environment, and the Evolutionof Technical Communication

Proceedings 199825th Annual Conference

Lewes, Delaware

syq

Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific CommunicationU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Resent-II and ImpfocamontEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)This document has been reproduced careceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

C Minor changes have been made toImprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thiodocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

c. 4.4

TO THE EDUCiTIONALWESOURCESINFORMATION CEhrrER (ERIC)

About CPTSCPurpose: The Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication was founded in

1973 to (1) promote programs in technical and scientific communication, (2) promote research

in technical and scientific communication, (3) develop opportunities for the exchange of ideasand information concerning programs, research, and career opportunities, (4) assist in thedevelopment and evaluation of new programs in technical and scientific communication, ifrequested, and (5) promote exchange of information between this organization and interested

parties.

Annual conference: CPTSC holds an annual conference featuring roundtable discussions of

position papers submitted by members. The proceedings include the position papers. Authorshave the option of developing their papers after the meeting into more detailed versions.

Program reviews: CPTSC offers program reviews. The reviews involve intensive self-study as

well as site visits by external reviewers. Information is available at the CPTSC website.

Website: CPTSC maintains a website at http://www.hu.mtu.edu/cptsc/This site includes the constitution, information on conferences and membership, a forum fordiscussion of distance education, and other organizational and program information.

Listserv: CPTSC's listserv is CPTSC-LTo subscribe, send an electronic mail message to listserv@clvm.clarkson.eduKeep the subject line of the message blank and delete your signature block if you use one.

In the first line of the message type subscribe CFTSC-L Your Name

CPTSC OfficersPresidentVice PresidentSecretaryTreasurerMembers at Large

Past President

1996-1998Stephen BernhardtCarole YeeJennie DautermannHenrietta ShirkDeborah BosleyCarolyn RudeStuart SelberDan Riordan

1998-2000Deborah AndrewsCarolyn RudeJennie DautermannKaren Rossi SchnakenbergPamela EckerBruce May lathStuart SelberStephen Bernhardt

About the 25th Annual ConferenceThis conference was held at the Virden Center of the University of Delaware in Lewes. Thesetting in the "first town in the first state," where the Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean meet, andwhere nature trails and bird sanctuaries welcome visitors, inspired the conference theme, "TheEcology, the Environment, and the Evolution of Technical Communication." The setting and25th anniversary of CPTSC inspired the reference to the meeting as "Silver CPTSC by the Sea."

At the conference, CPTSC presented its first "Distinguished Service Awards," recognizing three

people who have offered valued leadership: Tom Pearsall, Virginia Book, and Marilyn Samuels.

Upcoming Conferences1999: October 14-16, Santa Fe, NM

2000: October 19-21, Menomonie, WI

Host universities: New Mexico TechNew Mexico State University

Host university: University of Wisconsin Stout

II CPTSC BY THE SEA1998

The Ecology, the Environment, and the Evolutionof Technical Communication

Proceedings 199825th Annual Conference

Lewes, Delaware

C

Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication

Acknowledgments: ProceedingsConference Logo Sherri Johnson (Enigma Graphics)Frame Maker Assistance Edie Temple, Clay Spinuzzi, Keith WolfePage Design Stacia PickleCover Design Robin GambleProceedings Editor Carolyn Rude

Acknowledgments: ConferenceProgram Chair Deborah BosleyConference Organizers

and Local Hosts Deborah Andrews, Li li Fox-VelezKeynote Address R. John BrockmannOpening Session Address Neil Kleinman, Nancy Kaplan, and Ed GoldBanquet Host Steve BernhardtBanquet Addresses Tom Pearsall, Dan RiordanDessert Party Host Jim HenryWebsite Information Pete PraetoriusProgram Design Rebecca WorleyRegistration Chris KeirsteadMousepads Steve Bernhardt

Donations to Support the ConferenceAddison Wesley LongmanAllyn & BaconPrentice HallUniversity of Delaware

College of Arts and SciencesDeparttnent of English

© 1999 Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific CommunicationPrinted in the United States of America at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409

Papers may be reproduced for educational purposes without permission of the Council forPrograms in Technical and Scientific Communication if the author and CPTSC are credited.

Contents

Keynote PresentationExploding Steamboats, Senate Debates, and Technical Reports:The Convergence of Technology, Politics, and Rhetoric in the Steamboat Bill of 1838 1

R. John Brockmann

Opening Session AddressMixing Oil & Water: Integrating Writing, Design, and the New Technology 3

Neil Kleinman

The Ecology of Technology

Learning about Distance LearningA 7:1 Student/Teacher Ratio at a State University? A Virtual Environment ina Technical Writing Course Makes it Possible 15

Jim Heng, Guyn McVay, and Ginger Montecino

Distance Learning, Service Learning, and Programs in Technical & ScientificCommunication: Finding Common Ground for Program Growth 17

Bill Macgregor

Offering Online Graduate Programs in Technical Communication: An Opportunityto Place Technical Communication at the Center of Outreach Programs 19

Nang M. O'Rourke

Teaching with the InternetTeaching on the Net: Are We Ready? 20

Nang Allen

Getting InvolvedThe Web Site as a Technical Communication Program Interface 22Greg Wickliff

Reflections on Course Design: Challenges of the Web 23Hareiet

Constructing ProgramsConstructing Communication-Friendly Computing Environments for Our Programs 26

Don Ptyne

Evolving with Technology: Software Proficiency as a Programmatic Concern 27Shelby Rosiak

Computer Classroom Practice in Technical Communication 28

Stuart Selber

Helping Students Develop Expertise in Information Design 29Karen A. Schriver

CPTSC Proceedings 1998 Contents

6

Environmental Shifts

Crossing University Boundaries

Using Technical Communication Faculty to Expandthe Continuum of Instruction 33

Marian Barchilon

Boundary Breakers: Cross-Department/Cross-College Program Development 35Rebecca C. Burnett

Challenges in Teaching Communication Skills Within an Engineering Curriculum 37Sook Fun Lim

Toward Symbiosis between Engineering and Technical Writing 38Summer Smith

Examining Service Learning

Making the "Invisible Discourse" of Service Visible 40James M. Dubinsky

Extending a Hand to Our Stakeholders: Examining the Risks ofService-Learning Courses in Technical Communication Programs 44

Roger Munger

A Political Ecology of Service in Technical Communication Programs 45William J. Williamson

Working with Community StakeholdersEmbedding Industry Documents in Technical Communication Programs 46

Lisa Daidone, Julie Dyke

Do We Have a Community Here? The Stakeholder Ecology of TechnicalCommunication Programs, Related Industries, and Their Legal Departments 47

Bruce Maylath

The Job Search Process as a Step toward Career Affiliation 48Pete Praetorius

What is Keeping Practitioners and Academics from Meeting in the Middle? 49Dale Sullivan

Swimming in Other Waters

Charting an Evolutionary Path for Certificate Programs 51Lu Rehling

Swimming with the Bottom Feeders: Life, Times and Disciplinary Isolationof the Two-Year College Technical Communication Program 53

Katherine Staples

Program Ecology, Program Diversity, Program Change 54Mike Keene

The Problem with Certificate Programs 55Sherry Burps Little

iv Contents CPTSC Proceedings 19987

Evolving PerspectivesDefining, Assessing, and Positioning Our Programs

What's in a Name? Just as Shakespeare Pondered Long Ago, Let's Revisit the Question 59

Sandra W. Harner

Anticipating Standard Skills Assessment in Technical Communication Programs 60Ken Price

Evangelizing for the Profession: How Can We Spread the Wordabout Technical Communication? 61

Gerald J. Savage

Evolution and Ethics: The Dilemma of a Small Technical Communication Program 64Celia Patterson

Re-Introducing our HistoryA Plea to Make History More a Part of Current Curriculum 65

Karin Rossi Schnakenberg

Programmatic Directions of a Social Perspective Focusing on Action 67Carolyn Rude

Out from Beneath the Underdog: Toward a History of Technical and ScientificCommunication in the American Academy, 1950-2000 68

Robert R. Johnson

Encouraging International OutreachA Rose is a Rose is a RoseOr is It? Forgoing Denotation of Field-Specific Global AccessPrograms to Encourage Diverse University, Industry, and Government Participation 71

Ty Herrington

Meeting the Needs of a Global Community: Technical Translation Answering the Call 72Elkabeth Pass, Mike Zerbe

The Programmatic Challenges that Complicate International Collaboration 73Judith Ramey, Mag Coney

The Development of Graduate Concentrations and International Partnershipsin Technical and Professional Communication Programs 74

Herb Smith

Challenging Our EnvironmentGrazing Through the Food Chain: Symbiosis in the Land of Science Writing 75

Ann Jennings

The "Greening" of Technical Communication: The Environment as a ProgrammaticStakeholder 76

Henrietta Nickels Shirk

AppendixesProgram 79

Distinguished Service Awards 81

Minutes and Treasurer's Report 82

Conference Participants 86

CPTSC Members 1998 87

CPTSC Proceedings 1998 Contents v

Exploding Steamboats, Senate Debates, and TechnicalReports: The Convergence of Technology, Politics, and

Rhetoric in the Steamboat Bill of 1838Ar4!.

R. John Brockmann

A rather sloppy X removed lines seven totwelve in the seven-page S. 1. draft bill con-sidered by the Senate in January 1838. The Xoccurred in the seventh section of the firstbill to be considered in that second session ofCongress; a bill tentatively entitled

'To provide for the better securio of the lives of

passengers on board of vesseh propelled in whole

or in part by steam."Dates on the document in the NationalArchives suggest that the X was placed onthe page during a meeting of the Select Sen-ate Committee chaired by the HonorableFelix Grundy of Tennessee.

8 boat es Tank or when the Jul& boat or noel stall be mopped

for the purpow cl discluriing or takiog in cargo, fuel, or pas.

7 sawn, he or the all awes soden: go ainseture qf said sod

panvit il) shall the engine of said boat or teasel in

motion sufficient to the and give the necessary sop.

ply of water, and to the steam do 'n said kilo to what

it is when thc is under headway, and, at the same

12 time, in cli calor shall open the safety-valve, 30 as.1, kecg 5se.

Figure 1. The X in Unes 7 to 12 in Section 7 from Draft Bill S. 1., 25thCongress, Second Session, January 9th 1838

Note: This shortpiece is the

introduction tomy forthcoming

book.

The way Senator Grundy handled this S. 1.Bill and worked his Senate Select Committeein 1837 and 1838 was "fast-tracking" indeed.A short twenty-four hours elapsed from thetime President Van Buren re-introduced thetopic of safety aboard steam vessels in hisState of the Union message to Congress onTuesday December 5th to the time Grundywas able to both frame its legislative languageand get the Senate to create a Select Commit-tee to consider the bill on December 6th. Sixweeks later, the Select Committee made thisX on the draft legislation and sent theamended bill back to the Senate for a vote onWednesday January 24th.

CP7SC Proceedings 1998

University of Delaware

In this simple X, three worlds converge.There was certainly the public hysteria thatarose from the dozens of lives lost in theekplosions of steamboat boilers. Thesedeaths gripped the public attention in theUnited States for over a decade becauseAmericans were caught in a paradox feelingthat steamboats were one of the first techno-logical breakthroughs of the 19th centurya"gift from God" 1 yet they were alsoinstruments of destruction killing and maim-ing dozens of passengers and crew. On thevery eve of the debate on Senate Bill S. 1., theCharleston Mercury editorialized:2

We seer the migh0 despotism of steam to roll

over us with the cold and grinding regularibl of

fate, and, shutting our ears to the shrieks of itsvictims, congratulate ourselves that on the whole

we are more powed'ul, rich, and civilked that

could have been without it. The communio are

[sic] responsible for the use thry make of this

power, so vast both for good and evil...

while far to the west and north, the Chicago

American chimed in:3Here is another horrid list to be added to the

sacnfices of human life, which are not almost

constantly occurring on our steamboats. Can or

will nothing be done to stey an evil whose fre-

queng and devastation are making it as a pes-

tilence among us?

This paradox of steamship technologyreached deep into the American soul surfac-ing for decades in song, story, and folklore,and the explosions and deaths were repeat-edly splashed across the front page of ante-

1. The Rev. James T Austin in 1839 qt. in Meier,Hugo A. "Technology and Democracy," in Technology

and Change. John G. Burke and Marshall C. Eakin(eds.) San Francisco: Boyd and Fraser, 1979: 212.

2. Charleston Mercnry 26 (4328) (November 6, 1837):

3. Chicago _American August 26, 1837: 3.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 1

R. John Brockmann, Exploding Steamboats, Senate Debates, and Technical Reports

bellum newspapers. National politics andattempts to rectify the safety aboard steam-boats rose and fell with this hysteria andinvolved such national figures as PresidentsAndrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren andSenators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts,John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, FelixGrundy of Tennessee, and Thomas Benton ofMissouri. Attempts to deal with these disasterswere made in four separate Congresses.

Also converging in the X on the page of Sen-ate Bill S. 1 was the world of steamboat tech-nology in its earliest decades; after all, the firststeamboat on the Western waters, Shreve'sWashington, had only made its maiden voyage in1816. Yet, within three decades after the steam-boat's appearance in the West, the muddy riv-ers, the cast iron, the poorly trained engineers,and the mistaken understanding of steampower all combined to create a lethal mixturethat killed nearly 3000 people.

Finally, in the inked-X converges the rhetoricof technological persuasion used by a group ofnationally reputed scientists at the FranklinInstitute in Philadelphia when they producedthe first federally funded report to Congressfocusing upon a technological catastrophe. Thereports on the Three Mile Island catastropheand the Challenger 0-Ring explosion find theirfountainhead in this collaborative report man-aged by the grandson of Benjamin Franklin,Alexander Dallas Bache. Bache's General Reportwas characterized by one eminent historian ofantebellum technology, Professor Bruce Sin-clair, in the following way:1

There was no question of the report's theoretical

soundness, just as its practical value was obvious.

It was also cast in near-peect form to secure leg-

islative actions.

However, Professor Sinclair's 1966 analysisof Bache's General Report failed to follow thetrail of the report once it left the hands of itsauthors at the mechanic's institute in Philadel-

1. Sinclair, Bruce. Early Research at the Franklin Institute:

The Investigation into the Causes of Steam Boiler Explosions,

1830-1857. Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute,1966, 19.

2

phia and was printed and distributed inWashington DC to senators and congress-man. Did the General Report secure legislativeaction, or was its message lost in the hysteriasurrounding the steamboat explosions suchas described in the following letter to the edi-tor during the considerations of the Bill2:

For someyears past ourfeelings and .rympathies

have been almost daily wrought lOon b, the

recithl of the most shocking and heart-rending

accounts of the destruction of human life by the

explosion of steam-boilers, and lately these

shocking occurrences 6opear morefrequent. If it

is in the power of human ingenuiry to prevent it,

no effort or expense should be spared to effect

this most desirable object. The ease and advan-

tages arisingfrom convgance by steam make it

of thefirst importance that it should be rendered

We. By this kind of convgance the legislative

bodies of our country, and our wives and chil-

dren, are daily convged from one section of the

country to another, andfrom the present state of

things, one's mind is in a continual state of dis-

tressing doubt whether thg will ever meet the

friend, the wife, or child, that the y part with on

board of a steamboat.

How were the logic, reason, and masterfulrhetorical arrangement arising from the col-laborative work of the best technologicalresearchers at the time received by a realaudience of senators and congressman,steamboat engineers and inspectors, boatowners and passengers in 1837 and 1838?Could the report be understood in a nationsimultaneously grappling with the problemsof slavery, border disputes with British Can-ada, and a deep financial depression?

The X created by two strokes of an ink penin 1838 can be seen and touched today in theNational Archives. The question, however, ishow does the knowledge of the politics, thetechnology, and the rhetoric of 1838 touch ustoday in this first decade of a new millen-nium.

2. Letter to the Editor, National Intel4gencer. 26 (7923):

7/6/38, p. 3.

1 0CP7SC Proceedings 1998

Mixing Oil & Water:Writing, Design and the New Technology

ritt.

For Bill Kinser,

a designer who

loved reading

and writing. Hewas there at the

beginning.

Note: For thispaper, I am indebt to Sean

Cohenboth forhis story and hisdisagreements.He reminds me

that theintegration of

words and imagesis possibleif not

now, soon.

Neil Kleinman School of Communications DesignThe University of Baltimore

ProlOgUelLet me start with a story.

Sean Cohen graduated from our master'sprogram in publications design after arrivingwith an undergraduate degree in painting andEnglish. A man of many talents, he is awriter, graphic designer, and web designer,who also teaches courses in interactivedesign. The story begins with a phone con-versation on the day he started his new job asmultimedia specialist at the Hubble SpaceTelescope Project.

Here is his story in his own words:Boss: Hi, I see here on your resume that you

are a designer.Sean: Sure, but I code too, uh, you know

and I also write. (Screaming inside,"THAT IS WHY YOU HIREDME!")

Boss: Are you a programmer?Sean: Well, not really, I do javascript, lingo,

etc. I do scripting...not C++ or javacoding. I also write the narrative andcaptions that go with the site.

Boss: (a pause) Are you a programmer or adesigner or a writer?

Sean: I like to be in the place where pro-gramming, writing, and design meet(using his "I believe in happiness"voice).

Boss: They don't meet.Sean: I'm sorry?Boss: They don't meet. That is what I am

trying to get from you.Sean: I am sorry, somehow I am not under-

standing.Boss: (sigh) The programmers work on the

left side of the building. The designers

1.This paper will also be published in The Imageand the Word, ed. Nancy Allen. Forthcoming.

CPTSC Proceedings 1998

Sean:Boss:

Sean:Boss:

Sean:Boss:

Sean:

Boss:

Sean:Boss:

Sean:

Boss:Sean:

Boss:Sean:

Boss:

Sean:Boss:

Sean:Boss:

work on the right. And the writerswork in another building altogether.Oh.They don't meet. We were wonderingwho to put you with. If you go withthe programmers, you'll be in theirmeetings.And if I go with the designers?They don't talk to the programmers.They don't meet.And if I go with the writers?They don't talk to the programmersor the designers.Are we talking about who shows upto what meetings?Yes. And also where your office willbe.I get an office?No. A cubicle. Sorry. (She actuallysounds sorry.)Is there any cubicle space in the mid-dle?What do you mean?Is there any space in the middle, youknow, where I could go and talk toprogrammers OR designers OR writ-ers if I wanted?Why would you want that?Uhm, heh heh. (He begins to panic.)IS there space in the middle?Maybe we should discuss this in per-son. (She sounds a little miffed.)Ok, uh-No, we'll just put you in another divi-sion, ok?UhmmThat's how we will solve this. (Andthen clipped) Thank you.

So that is how Sean Cohen got to be in hisown division.

3

Something's HappeningI tell you this story because it explains a

great deal about what is happening aroundus: the changing requirements for jobs andthe new experiences, expectations, and tal-ents people bring to their work. The newdigital mediafirst, desktop publishing and,now, web design and digital editing in allmediaare re-shaping what we know aboutwriting, reading, and design (Kleinman 30).They are making us rethink how we expressourselves, make our ideas public, and incor-porate words, images, action, and sound(Kleinman 51-7).

Is there a place where programming, writing, and

design meet? That's not something one wouldhave asked even as recently as five years ago.The nature of our discourse is changing; per-haps in fact, it has already changed. The skillswe need to communicate, create, and teachare changing too. Few of us now can workwithout our computers and word-processingprograms, without access to the web forresearch and the web for classwork and pro-fessional work space, and without email tocommunicate short notes and lengthy essays.

These changes signal more than changes inthe tools we use to write. Bit by bit, we arediscovering that the new media are changingthe way we express ourselves: what we thinkto say, how we think to say it, and the audi-ence we say it to. We don't limit our publicand private narratives to type on paper (Nun-berg 133). With that, we must learn a newway of telling stories, as well as learn a newway of reading them. We are able now towrite, design, and display ideas using a richrange of media that incorporate sound,image, words, motion, and hypertext links.There is a growing body of literature thatexists in electronic space, that was written tofit "naturally" in that environment. It nowneeds to be read, needs to be understood,and needs to be explained. The problem isthat most readers will need to re-think theway they read and need to recreate the waythey evaluate what they are reading. What'scalled for are forms of analysis different from

Ideinman, Mixing Oil & Water

those many of us learned when we were stu-dents. We shall all need to get preparedproducers of this new work, teachers, andstudents alike.

* * * *

New forms of analysis? That seems ratherextreme. To understand why it's not, remem-ber the way we were first taught to analyze apoem. After reading "Sir Patrick Spence," theteacher asked what now seems the obviousquestion: "The poem begins with a scene atthe royal court. Does the rest of the poembreak up into scenes? What are they?"(Brooks and Warren 14).

The question means little in a world ofhypermedia. Where does one find the begin-ning? It seems to change each time one starts.How does one look for the orderly progres-sion of scenes? Scenes, sections, or phrasesemerge often by surprise and not in a regu-larly predictable pattern. Later when we areasked to study a poet's intention and mean-ing, we face the same dilemma. Shown twoversions of a poem, one an early draft and theother a version that "is approaching the fin-ished form," we're told to "write an accountof the development of the poem" (Brooksand Warren 625). The question assumes thatwe can tease out the author's intent. Itassumes, in fact, that there is an author whois in charge.

For better or for worse, the poet isresponsible for his poem. He canalways reject any ideas, images, phrases,etc., that come into his head.... And inthe end, if a poet feels that a poemdoesn't represent him...he can alwaysburn it. His veto is absolute. (Brooksand Warren 610-11)

For the moment, we're asked to weigh in onthe side of the author, the rights he has andthe powers he's likely to assert. The reader isonly a bystander. He can twiddle his thumbsbut can do little else since it's the author whomust decide that the work is finished andfixed. By the time the reader gets his handson it, the composition phase is complete. It'sonly then that the reader's job begins.

4 12 CP7SC Proceedings 1998

Kleinman, Mixing Oil & Water

What, though, if we were to weigh in onthe side of the reader? That is, after all, whathypermedia encourages us to do. "Hyper-text...creates an active, even intrusive reader"(Landow 71), a reader who leans across theauthor's desktop and suggests, just as thework is being "composed," how it might bearranged or changed. Here's a very differentattitude towards the author, the reader, andthe text itself Nothing is final. Nothing isfixed, and the author's role is somethingshort of absolute.

What of the teacher's original assignment?Write an account of the development of the poem? It

is nearly impossible to point to "a finishedform" and equally difficult to decide who isresponsible for the poem's development.Things have become a lot more fluid.

The requirements of the new media andtheir effect on the analysis of graphic designare equally apparent. Read for example JanWhite's quite good book, Editing by Design:Word-and-Picture Communication for Editors and

Designers. Writing about how to design to tiefacing pages together, White presents an ele-gantly designed two page spread: on the left,we see a young boy peering through a cut-outin a wall; the boy is looking towards the outertrim of the book. On the right, we find thetext which begins with a nicely balancedheading"Look ahead" (White 27); theheading is positioned to look in a directionopposite to that of the boy's gaze. The rule,we are told, is: "Link facing pages by implica-tion of meaning." This is classic print designadvice. Design enhances the story. The fac-ing pages contain and define the words andimage; they establish meaning through fixedform, fixed comparisons, and fixed contrasts.

Good print design stops us so we canadmire each spread, so we can follow thestory that is unfolding as we read. Web designis up to something else: it wants to get thereader to move, to jump from layer to layer,to skip and bounce from one part of the"information structure" to another. Itencourages us to navigate easily, quickly, and

CPTSC Proceedings 1998

confidently among levels of information.What can be more different?

A page of print is a container, inviting us tostop awhile so we can appreciate the meaningthat's right in front of us. A web page is a"portal," suggesting passage somewhere else.Where that trip leads is not easy to predictsince it is not entirely in the hands of thedesigner or the writer. After all, in hyperme-dia, the "User" has some authority to decidewhat's next. He can "choose his...waythrough the metatext...and...create linksbetween documents written by others"(Landow 71).

What remains of the old aesthetic and thetraditional authorities we've normally associ-ated with the roles of author and designer?What aesthetic rules do we have to help usunderstand how to promote navigation,"readability," and a visual balance that suc-cessfully ties dynamic pages? Like their stu-dents, many faculty will need to learn a formof analysis that makes sense in this medium.

Sometimes, the literature of this newmedia seems incomprehensible, frustrating,annoying, even downright perverse (Klein-man 31-3). Sometimes, its humor, wit, andsurprising connections remind us of ideasand ways of seeing that seem dreamlike andliberating. Perhaps most often, reading workin the new media is exciting because it sug-gests new ways of saying things that we mighttry.

First, though, we need to learn how to readall of these visual, verbal and aural messagesso we can help ourselves and our studentsexploit them. Where is Pound's ABC of Read-ing when we need it? Until we have such abook, we shall have to proceed by trial anderror. People will learn what they need tolearn so that they can do what they must do.As in most enterprises, the aesthetic standardremains a few steps behind the practice.

Sean Cohen can't do the kind of webdesign that's required of him if he does notknow how to design, program, and write.

1 3

But once he knows how to design, program,and write, he will find that there are things hecan saythings he wants to saythat hecould not say when he was working only atone level of the "text." At the same time, ashe works in a medium that is more accessibleto a variety of users, he'll find that what hewants to say will change as he recognizes thevariety and differences in his audience.

Something HappenedHow did we get here? For several generations,

literature was read as being the best thoughts,as Alexander Pope explained, "ne'er so wellexpressed" ("An Essay on Criticism" 298) or,as Matthew Arnold one-hundred and fiftyyears later proclaimed, "the best that isknown and thought" (283). One didn't"teach" literature because that was, to put itsimply, what gentlemen read. The book wasan extension of culture because it was thelanguage of culture. One learned about liter-ature, especially contemporary literature, inthe same way one learned the social gracesby participating in "society."

By the late nineteenth century, it wasbecoming apparent that there were simplytoo many books being written and too fewmen of discernment available to sort out thebetter ones. What such a proliferation of badliterature might mean for culture was any-one's guess, but some suspected it did notbode well for culture. It argued for critics andfor anthologies so that some "authority"might regulate the state of affairs. Soexplained, Francis Turner Palgrave, whoseGolden Treasury was the best seller of its time:

Reading tends to become only anotherkind of gossip. Everything is to be read,and everything only once; a book is nomore a treasure to be kept and studiedand known by heart, as the truly charm-ing phrase has it....

Really, the more books, the betterpossible selection for the readers; buteach fills so little time in an age whenevery one reads, that it is natural to turnto the next on the table. I may notice

6

14

Kleinman, Mixing Oil & Water

that this summary process, this inabilityto read even novelties more than once,leads to a truly mean and miserable falsejudgment on many books once justlystudied and enjoyed. (Palgrave 453)By the late nineteenth century, it became

clear that anthologies by themselves wouldnot suffice, and, early in the twentieth cen-tury, Sir Walter Raleigh of Oxford Universitywas named the first professor of English. Ashe somewhat apologetically explained to afriend,

If any young man could found a societywhere people speak only what theythink and tell only what they knowinthe first words that come to handthatwould be, at last, a school of literature.

But of course we must carry on.Prophets are no good: they get pupilsand imitators and start silly fashions.God forgive us all! If I am accused onJudgment day of teaching literature, Ishall plead that I never believed in it andthat I maintained a wife and children....(quoted in Kernan, Death of Literature 1)Raleigh was arguing for a new study of lit-

eraturethe study of "living literature"which he thought should replace the study ofthe classics. It seemed rather revolutionary atthe time.

What was central to the agenda of Raleigh,Palgrave, Arnold, and Pope was that eachin his own wayemphasized the text, theprinted document in which the best thoughtswere fixed in literature and then transmittedfrom one generation to the next. Thisemphasis was true for succeeding genera-tions and succeeding revolutions. Thus whenBrooks and Warren published U nderstandingPoetry, the book that helped to establish NewCriticism as the literary approach of the 50sand 60s, they explained that the "emphasisshould be kept on the poem as a poem"(Brooks and Warren ix).

...though one may consider a poem as aninstance of historical or ethical docu-mentation, the poem in itself, if litera-ture is to be studied as literature,

CPTSC Proceedings 1998

Kleinman, Mixing Oil & Water

remains finally the object for study.Moreover, even if the interest is in thepoem as a historical or ethical docu-ment, there is a prior consideration: onemust grasp the poem as a literary con-struct before it can offer any real illumi-nation as a document. (Brooks andWarren iv)They meant to cut away what they took to

be the over-growth of irrelevant commen-tary, social interpretation, and classical com-parisons that had been the contributions ofRaleigh, Arnold, and Palgrave, but like them,they also based their criticism on the printedobject, the "literary construct," as the thingthat should be examined. A new aestheti-cism? Perhaps. But still it was one that .depended upon the same medium that theVictorians built their criticism on. It turnsout that it is difficult to build an entirely newedifice when one must use the stones fromthe last one.

So successively, each generation of teach-ers of literature has centered its discussionson print-based literature (Kernan, The Deathof Literature 9,15; Bolter 153-6). What elsemight one do since so much of the literaryrecord had been fixed in print for the last fivehundred years? It is true, though, that the lit-erary tradition was fraying at the edgesfora number of reasons. The impact of the newmedia of television, radio, and print advertis-ing was becoming more apparent, as McLu-han and others reminded us, during the '60sand '70s. The tools of a new technology werebeing taken more seriously as anyone whothumbed through the Whole Earth Catalog(1968) was bound to see. And, the "literatureof the streets," mediated by television, streetpamphlets, and folk music, culminated in thesummer of 1968, and moved the 60s genera-tion even further from a text-based literature.At every turn, we were told, or shown, thattechnology, media, culture, and artnot tomention politics and social changewereconnected.

Still, departments of English and literaturedid not budge. Their curriculum was fixed in

CPT5C Proceedings .1998

the literary approaches of the previous gener-ation. Even post-modern criticism is a print-based discourse, developing analyses of thetext, discussing intertextuality using theprinted medium, talking about the death ofprint and print-bound literature even as thepost-modern critics used the print mediumto publish the obituary (Kernan, The Death ofLiterature 213; Bolter 161-4; Landow 2-7,30-34). The first hint of change was to comewhen, as George Landow put it, "critical the-orists...have...a new laboratory, in addition tothe conventional library of printed texts, inwhich to test their ideas of critical theory"(3). The laboratory was the personal com-puter and the software associated with hyper-text and hypermedia. For many, the AppleComputer, which became available in 1977,gave them their first chance to see what sucha lab might look like although it would beanother decade before they heard abouthypertext.

Beginning SomewhereSometimes beginnings start in the oddest

places. In 1978, the University of Balti-morea small "upper-level" universitystarted a graduate program that "integrated"writing and design and used, as best it could,some of the early computer-based design andtypography systems then available. Lookingback, we can rationalize why we created thisprogram: our sense of where things weregoing, our curiosity, our interest in the ideasof McLuhan, and our desire to "play" withthese new forms of expressions.

Many of us also felt a certain degree ofpowerlessness: no one seemed to care whatEnglish teachers had to say; English majorsgraduated with a depressing lassitude andpassivity (who wanted what they knew?); andsome of us felt that our writing was too oftentaken over by designers who shaped it inways that seemed to make what we wroteunreadable. Like factory workers of the nine-teenth century, we only asked to control themeans of production. A curriculum thattaught writers "how to design," or, at least,

15 7

"how to talk to designers" seemed the solu-tion, and a curriculum that taught designers"how to behave" when dealing with wordsseemed useful.

What was, probably, the most importantforce to make us take a chance with such arisky curriculum was that we needed to figureout a way of surviving. Issues of survivalalways have a way of getting one's attention.Because we were an upper-division univer-sity, we had no composition and rhetoriccourses to justify our existence. And, there-fore, we couldn't have been a service pro-gram even if we'd wanted to be! Because ouruniversity was small and appealed to workingclass students interested primarily in a practi-cal education, we had few majors. Withoutstudents interested in what we taught, thereseemed to be little time left before we woulddwindle to nothing.

There was good news too. Because wewere a small university, we had no art depart-ment, communications programs, not even acomputer science program, so we had no oneto compete with. Like Defoe's RobinsonCrusoe, we built our curriculum taking piecesfrom the debris we found about us. No onestopped us as we created our curriculum inwriting and design because no one thought itwould work and no one cared.

By the mid-80s, we added video to themix, and in the mid-90s we added hyperme-dia, multimedia and, more recently, webdesign. In 1998, we started a post-master'sdegree program, a doctorate in communica-tions design that takes up questions of mar-keting, business development, andentrepreneurship and considers how todevelop new publication that take advantageof the new and old media, at the same timethat students polish their skills in design,writing, and digital technology.

To absorb all of this, we've grown. Startingin 1978 with a faculty of about eight in asmall English department, we now have 17teaching in the programs offered within,what's now named, the School of Communi-cations Design. This faculty teach in a range

8

Kleinman, Mang Oil & Water

of disciplinescreative writing, technicaland professional writing, graphic design,videography and radio, communications the-ory and practice, literary criticism and theoryand language analysis, social and economichistory, law, electronic publishing, hyperme-dia and interface design, business practicesand marketing. Along with this faculty, theSchool now has three professionals with sig-nificant competence in computer graphics,interface design, computer programming andsystems management, and video and audioproduction. In addition we have three labsin graphics, video, and hypermedia.

The change has been considerable. Litera-ture and writing faculty now teach with fac-ulty trained in videography, design,hypermedia, and programming. Faculty usedto blackboards, typewriters, and pencils nowwork in an environment of computer labsand video and digital editing suites. Wordsand images are treated together, and bothfaculty and students try to learn a languagethat tries to combine very different aesthet-ics, assumptions, and values. It appears thatwe've been able to fashion a place where pro-gramming, writing and design do meet.

Telling the Truth and Moving OnIt all sounds pretty impressive. The truth is

a bit more complicated than the rhetoric.Like so many experimenters, we've managedto build a laboratory, but we've not yet cre-ated what we hoped toan environment inwhich we integrate word and image, create anew language and a new form of expression,and understand the theory behind this inte-gration. Perhaps there is one simple reasonan explanation that tells us much about thetransition we are all going through: as a pro-gram, we are still very much influenced bythe "print culture" which we grew up in.

Many in our English literature faculty weretrained in New Critical theory, and that the-ory is still embedded in our nervous systems.It reveals itself almost reflexively when welook at a "text." We read and teach the post-moderns. Nevertheless, somewhere in our

16 CPT5C Proceedings 1998

Kleinman, Mix Mg Oil & Water

literary psyches, many of us still look to the"literary construct" as the object to be stud-ied. Our design faculty are also locked intothe print culture. Their design aesthetic hasbeen shaped by 500 years of print and printtypography. They too feel a bit uncomfort-able when forced to deal with dynamic pagesof hypermedia, limited arrays of typographicforms, and an inability to "fix" their designso that they can predict what the "viewer"will see.

Where Do We Go From Here?Although we've come a long way in the last

twenty years, it is important to admit that westill don't have answers to many of the ques-tions. Far from it! In fact, we're only nowbeginning to learn some of the questions.There are so many questions to deal with, buttwo of the most important relate to the pas-sionate, often ferocious, interaction betweentwo forms of discoursethe first repre-sented by the way we communicate when wewrite and the second represented by the waywe communicate when we design.

las it possible to integrate the wordand the image?It is unpleasant to admit this, but integrat-

ing words and images is a rather subversiveact, especially if the images begin to moveand the words are both text and sound. W. J.T. Mitchell neatly describes the struggle:

Among the most interesting and com-plex versions of this struggle [betweenword and image] is what might be calledthe relationship of subversion, in whichlanguage or imagery looks into its ownheart and finds lurking there its oppositenumber. One version of this relationhas haunted the philosophy of languagesince the rise of empiricism, the suspi-cion that beneath words, beneath ideas,the ultimate reference in the mind is theimage, the impression of outward expe-rience printed, painted, or reflected inthe surface of consciousness. ...

CPTSC Proceedings 1998

...mhe relationship between wordsand images reflects, within the realm ofrepresentation, signification, and com-munication, the relations we positbetween symbols and the world, signsand their meanings. We imagine the gulfbetween words and images to be as wideas the one between words and things,between (in the largest sense) cultureand nathre. (43)Sometimes, the gulf between words and

images seems pretty wide and very deep.Taken together, words and images create

an unstable tension between the narrativestructure of verbal and visual material. Theverbal presents ideas in a time-bound dis-course: the reader does not take in informa-tion instantly; he must be both patient andcurioussufficiently curious to want to waitto hear the story as it unfolds. The visual isinstantly displayed and instantly understood.The viewer takes it all in at one glance andbegins to draw conclusions from what shesees. One feels the tension between these twowhen students present their work to bejudged. The writers feel unloved and unread.Because it takes so long to appreciate whatthey've achieved, they are greeted by politesilence. In contrast, the designers receiveinstant gratificationand applause.

When the two are placed together, the ver-bal is, too often, at a distinct disadvantage. Itdoes not have sufficient power over theimaginationperhaps because the imagina-tion is fueled by the energy of our dreamswhich are, for the most part, visual (Freud347).

If the verbal is almost always overwhelmedby the visual, then why would we want toteach ourselves and our students to "inte-grate" writing and design? The easy answer isthat we have no choice. The new mediamakes such integration inevitable. Fewer andfewer writers and readers over the nextdecade or so will be comfortable with textthat is merely limited to typographic form.They will insist upon the dynamic of thevisual and verbal being connected. (Once the

17 9

eye is trained or prepared for this integrationit becomes difficult for the eye to return tothe rather placid forms of simple text onpaper.)

The easy answer to why we've begun towork among these forms, as I've said, is thatwe had no choice. The hard answer is thatthis is the time for people who have beentrained to think about creative expression,rhetoric, and persuasion to think about theaesthetic that these new media demand. If wedon't, who will? The software engineer? Thewriter lamenting the lost authority she oncetook for granted? The designer in control of"the work" but timid around declarativestatements? If we believe that there are aes-thetic values, narrative traditions, and ways oftelling stories that we'd like to see continuedin the new media, we must learn how to usethe media and help to shape it as a creativeand humane form of expression.

2.15 it possible for designers, writers,hypermedia designers, and teachersof literature to work together?The tension between the verbal and the

visual repeats itself in the relationshipbetween the commentators or critics and themakers or designers. This tension is reflected,writes Mitchell, in a "compulsion to conceiveof the relation between words and images inpolitical terms, as a struggle for territory, acontest of rival ideologies..." (43). He is right.If struggle between word and image is "polit-ical," you can only imagine what it must belike between writers and designers. It is diffi-cult to mix those who are committed to thecraft of producing new workwhether they'redesigners or writers or poetswith thosewho find pleasure in commenting on the workthat others have produced. One finds, asMitchell predicts, "a struggle for territoryand a contest of rival ideologies."

Put simply, the critic analyzes anddescribes. At its best, her criticism or com-mentary provides a descriptive overlay thatpoints to an actionthe act of making orpresenting that which was made. Thedesigner (or the creative writer) makes and

10

Kleinman, Mi"A'ing Oil & Water

presents objects that are more nearly action.Perhaps, in fact, the web designer comescloser to true action when he works in thedynamic, almost mimetic space of the web.

Designers and critics seem to operate intwo very different worlds. How can theywork in the same department or teach thesame students?

If we don't learn how to collaborate in thisnew niedia, we will have learned nothingalthough the price and pain of collaborationis high. Those who follow "a craft" generallyhave a low opinion of theorists: how, theywonder, can anyone know what the workmeans if they can't do it? "Oh, yes, they cantalk the talk, but can they walk the walk?" Onthe other side, those who follow theory oftensee practitioners as blind moles who dig theirholes in the earth without a larger sense ofpurpose and plan. Yes, they say, each piece isgood, but how will it fit into other work andother purposes? And if it does, and towhat end? "Good technique, but nothing tosay!"

It is because of the differences betweenthe makers and the commentators, betweencreators and critics, that there is every reasonto struggle to keep them together, talkingand making. Like linking Aristoleans and Pla-tonists, one ends up with an education thatcombines an appreciation of the particularand an understanding of the whole. Again,Professor Mitchell provides part of theanswer to why it is important to bring writersand designers together:

[The struggle between word and image]carries the fundamental contradictionsof our culture into the heart of theoret-ical discourse itself. The point, then, isnot to heal the split between words andimages, but to see what interests andpowers it serves. This view can only behad, of course, from a standpoint whichbegins with skepticism about the ade-quacy of any particular theory of therelation of words and images, but whichalso preserves an intuitive conviction

CP7SC Proceedings 1998

Kleinman, Mixing Oil & Water

that there is some difference that is fun-damental....

...Perhaps the redemption of the imag-ination lies in accepting the fact that wecreate much of our world out of the dia-logue between verbal and pictorial rep-resentation, and that our task is not torenounce this dialogue in favor of adirect assault on nature but to see thatnature already informs both sides of theconversation. (44-6)The electronic space pushes us to maintain

that dialogue and forces us to learn how toappreciate the inevitable struggle betweenthese two forms of discourse. This strug-glea civilized version of combatis prob-ably impossible to simulate in a classroom ifboth writers and designers, critics and cre-ators, those committed to print and thoseengaged in the digital, are not in the class-room together. Who would take seriously anargument in which the two contenders arenot present to deliver the blows and receivethem in turn?

Samuel Johnson, who knew somethingabout writing, reading, and publishing, onceremarked that "you can never be wise unlessyou love reading" (qtd. in Kernan, SamuelJohnson 219). Here is a wonderful and curiousthought. Certainly it is one worthy of thegreat dictionary maker, the man who'd read"every" printed book of his time so that hecould catalogue and organize their words.But for us now, it would be odd to believethat civilization is based upon the printedword or that knowledge can only come fromreading. `Wereaders of books ...are soliterate," Walter Ong reminds us, "that it isvery difficult for us to conceive of an oraluniverse of communication or thoughtexcept as a variant of a literate universe"(Ong 2).

The question now is: Can we envision apost-literate culture in which knowledge andwisdom emerge from a love of reading, writ-ing, and design that depend less on print and

cPrsc Proceedings 1998

more on new media for expression andmeaning? To say that wisdom only comesthrough reading is to forget the role ofSocrates or Homer or others who playedtheir lives out in a pre-literate time. Perhapswe will find wisdom in a "post-literate" cul-ture, one that combines words, images, andsound in a quite different syntax from theone we now use. Until then, we shall need towork to build more places where program-ming, writing, and design meet.

Works CitedArnold, Matthew. "The Function of Criti-

cism at the Present Time." Lectures andEssays in Criticism. Ed. R. H. Super. AnnArbor: U of Michigan P, 1962.258-85.

Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space. Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum Assoc., 1991.

Brooks, Cleanth, and Robert Penn Warren.UnderstandingPoetry. Rev. ed. New York:

Holt, 1950.Freud, Sigmund. The Intetpretation of Dreams.

New York: Avon Books, 1965.Kernan, Alvin. The Death of Literature. New

Haven: Yale UR 1990.. Printing Technology, Letters and Samuel

Johnson. 1987. Rpt.as Samuel Johnson & theImpact of Print. Paper ed. Princeton: Prin-ceton UP, 1989.

Kleinman, Neil. "The Digital RevolutionAin't So Bad." CEAMAGazine 10 (1997):30-59.

Landow, George. Hjpertext. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins UP, 1992.

McLuhan, Marshall. U nderstanding Media.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Mitchell, W. J. T. Iconology. Chicago: U of Chi-cago P, 1986.

Nunberg, Geoffrey. "Farewell to the Infor-mation Age." The Future of the Book. Ed.Geoffrey Nunberg. Berkeley: U of Cali-fornia P, 1996.103-33.

Ong, Walter. Orali0 and Literary. New York:Methuen, 1982.

Palgrave, Francis Turner. "On Readers in1760 and 1860." The Golden Treasury. 1861.

19

Rpt. as Penguin Classic. Ed. ChristopherRicks. London: Penguin, 1991. 451-54.

Pope, Alexander. "An Essay on Criticism."Pope's Poetical Works. Ed. Herbert Davis.London: Oxford UP, 1966. 64-85.

Pound, Ezra. ABC of Reading. The New Clas-sics Series. New York: New Directions,n.d.

White, Jan. Editing by Design. New York:Bowker, 1974.

BiographyNeil Kleinman writes on law, literature,

and the impact of technology on society. Aprofessor of English and CommunicationsDesign at the University of Baltimore, heteaches courses on literature, writing, propa-ganda, and economics. In 1978, he was aprincipal architect of the master's in publica-tions design and, in 1998, of a proposal for adoctor of communications design. He isdirector of the doctoral program, director ofthe Institute for Language, Technology, andPublications Design, and co-director of theSchool of Communications Design. He hasa Ph.D. in English literature from the Univer-sity of Connecticut and a J.D. from the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania.

2 0

Aleinman, Mixing Oil & Water

12 CP7SC Proceedings 1998

Alikii$41WAMCWThe Ecology of Technology

Learning about Distance LearningA 7:1 Studentfreacher Ratio at a State University? A Virtual Environment in a Technical WritingCourse Makes it Possible . . .

Jim Henry Gwyn McVay, and Ginger Montecino

Distance Learning, Service Learning, and Programs in Technical & Scientific Communication:Finding Common Ground for Program Growth

Bill Macgregor

Offering Online Graduate Programs in Technical Communication: An Opportunity to PlaceTechnical Communication at the Center of Outreach Programs

Nancy M. O'Rourke

Teaching with the InternetTeaching on the Net: Are We Ready?

Nancy Allen

Getting InvolvedThe Web Site as a Technical Communication Program InterfaceGreg Wickliff

Reflections on Course Design: Challenges of the WebHarriet Wilkins

Constructing ProgramsConstructing Communication-Friendly Computing Environments for Our Programs

Don Payne

Evolving with Technology: Software Proficiency as a Programmatic ConcernShelby Rosiak

Computer Classroom Practice in Technical CommunicationStuart Selber

Helping Students Develop Expertise in Information DesignKaren A. Schriver

21CPTSC Proceedings 1998

A 7:1 Student/Teacher Ratio at a State University?A Virtual Environment in a Technical Writing Course

Makes it Possible . . .

Virtualcollaborationallows course

design to draw onthe expertise ofmore than one

instructor.Students learn

digital publishingand work culture

aspects of thedigital workplace.

.$6114

Jim HenryGwyn McVayGinger Montecino

In part because so many courses in techni-cal communication take place in computerlabs, technical communication teachers havebeen among the first to embrace the "decen-tered" classroom in which the authority forconceptualizing, generating, and evaluatingstudent projects is more dispersed than in"teacher-centered" classrooms. The sponta-neous mini-collaborations that take placeamong students in computer classrooms fuelsuch decentering to pave the way for broaderstudent collaborations. Yet almost always,teaching assignments and course staffing inour postsecondary institutions are predicatedon a one-instructor-per-classroom modelinherited from an earlier era in education.Our position is that programs in technicaland scientific communication should beimagining and fostering course designs thatcan draw on the expertise of more than oneinstructor by incorporating virtual collabora-tors.

When we consider the dramatic expansionin the epistemologies informing technicalcommunication courses in recent years, theneed for multiple course instructors loomsall the more compelling. Plural instructorscan articulate a range of epistemologies thatany one singular instructor would be hard-pressed to articulate. As illustration, we willdiscuss briefly our collaboration in coursedesign and implementation of an upper-divi-sion course in technical and report writingwith the theme "Collaborating to Write theEnvironment."

Our collaboration began when Jim, asenior professor who for several yearsworked as a technical writer in pre-WWWindustry and whose research now focuses onapplying critical theories of authorship to theinterpretation of practicing writerswork-place writing ethnographies, applied for a

CPTSC Proceedings 19981)2

George Mason UniversityGeorge Mason UniversityGeorge Mason University

research assistant to enhance the informationtechnology aspects of his course. Gwyn, agraduating poet in our department's MFAprOgram who as a teenager began coding onher father's Commodore 64, was selected toassist Jim in redesigning his course syllabus.She taught him how to manage asynchro-nous electronic discussions on the univer-sity's WebForum and how to approach andteach PowerPoint to students. Together, theyexpanded Jim's term project option of aWWW home page from previous years toinclude collaborative web-based projectsfocused on the environment, supported bylinks on the e-syllabus established by Gwynas part of her research. (Visit http://mason.gmu.edu/jhenry/eng410.httnl.)

As they redesigned the syllabus, they rec-ognized the need for enhancing students'critical readings of the WWW as these stu-dents would be composing their ownprojects for this medium. They turned toGinger, a colleague in the Dean's office of theCollege of Arts and Sciences and long-timewriting instructor in the English Departmentwho was one of the university's pioneers indistance instruction and who now teachesInternet Literacy in New Century College.Says Ginger: Many of us are spending moretime during our scholarly/professional workin a digital environment. Some of our stu-dents, already in the work force, are beingexpected to be able to operate in thisever-changing environment. Incorporatingthe various forms of digital publishing, aswell as exposure to various work cultureaspects of operating in this environment, arenecessary components of a technical and sci-entific communication curriculum. To bestmeet the needs of such a curriculum, stu-dents need to engage in class activities whichgive them the opportunity to effectively

Ecology of Technology: Distance Learning 15

engage in professional email and net-meetingdiscussions. They also need to create andsend professional email documents, to workcollaboratively online on workplace-typeprojects, and to publish Web-based docu-ments.

Jim and Gwyn incorporated Ginger intothe course by linking an assignment on criti-cal interpretation of the WWW during thesecond week of the course to Ginger's homepage, which includes extensive prompts forsuch critical interpretations. (Visit http://osfl .gmu.edu/montecin.) Thus Ginger willbe virtually "present" throughout the courseas a subject matter expert on online commu-nications and critical uses of digitized envi-ronments in technical and scientific settings.Gwyn will be virtually present during thecourse through the syllabus itself, since sheresearched valuable URLs and incorporatedlinks to them. Gwyn and Jim have decided,moreover, to allocate some of Gwyn'sresearch time to virtual availability in the fallwhen the course will take place.

Of course, the "real" student-teacher ratioin this course will remain 22:1. But we hopethe contours of our virtual collaborationmight spark ideas among other instructors intechnical and scientific courses for richer dis-cursive environments that enhance students'critical repertoires as both interpreters andproducers in a digitized world.

Henry, McVay, Monteano, Kauai Collaboration

2 3

16 Ecology of Technology: Distance Learning CPTSC Proceedings 1998

Programs intechnical and

scientificcommunication

have anopportunity andresponsibility toexert leadershipin both distance

leaming andservice leaming.

Distance Learning, Service Learning, and Programsin Technical and Scientific Communication:

Finding Common Ground for Program Growth

William Macgregor Montana Tech of the University of Montana

Programs in technical and scientific com-munication hold a rare advantage in the insti-tutional politics of change in highereducation. For one thing, in contrast to manyacademic disciplines, technical and scientificcommunications programs seem to thrive onchange. For another, the kinds of changeshigher education currently faces are a closematch for the key descriptors applied to ourprogram mission(s)-turning our colleagues'(and our administrations') eyes to us for insti-tution-level leadership. Universities and col-leges run (and sometimes succumb to) therisk of turning into ivory towers of Babel-institutions characterized by the esoteric bab-ble that competes for attention and resourcesboth from within and outside the institution.Not only does the real contest behind thisimage undermine the institution's ability tofunction, but the image itself damages thecredibility of the institution among its vari-ous external constituencies. Technical andscientific communications programs explic-itly claim as their domain of skill and knowl-edge the taming of technological andscientific change, and the transport of tech-nological skill and scientific knowledge fromone discipline to another, and from theenclosed laboratories of the initiates to thebroader citizenry that depends on both thediversity and the dynamics of knowledge toparticipate effectively in public life.

At Montana Tech of the University ofMontana, a small engineering college in aremote area of the Northern Rockies (for-merly the Montana School of Mines), a newlyestablished M.S. degree in Technical Com-munications has offered opportunities toexplore ways for the parent department, Pro-fessional and Technical Communications, touse its mission to claim some unexpectedareas of leadership within the institution, and

CPTSC Proceedings 1998

in relation to the institution's major constitu-encies. As such, this program's experience, asit evolves, may resonate for other programswithin the CPTSC venue that are vying toposition themselves to survive, maintain, orgrow in an era of institutional downsizing.

Embracing OppositesBy embracing distance learning, technical

communicationwith its historic use oftechnological delivery of its own instruc-tional materials, and its use of communica-tion technologies as an essential part of itssubject mattercan be recognized as a natu-ral leader for institutional efforts to expanddistance learning. On the other hand, byembracing service learning, technical com-municationin its tradition of integratingtheory and practice among specialized com-munities (the experiential educationthrust)provides a perfect home for.a widerange of service learning efforts of valueboth to students and to the institution's abil-ity to truly engage with its home community.

I would assert that the most significantdevelopment possible for PTC programs inthe next decade may be their assertion ofownership of the strange nexus of seeminglyopposing "movements": the learning-at-a-distance, technologically mediated, and dis-tinctly careerist thrust of distance education,and the warm-fuzzy, touchy-feely, liberal-artsy, do-gooder thrust of service learning.What more natural ground for the constitu-ents of CPTSC to own and patrol than thehard and unsettling and contradictory Realitythat at once accommodates the limitations(and opportunities) of communication medi-ated through newly available technologicalchannels, and the necessities (and opportuni-ties) of engaging with community constitu-encies by bringing community-based service

Ecology of Technology: Distance Learning 17

Macgrega; Common Ground of Distance Learning and Service Learning

opportunitieswhich are also, of course,learning opportunitiesinto the structure ofthe classroom.

From opposite ends of the spectrum thisconcept seems to attract immediate (and usu-ally surprised) attention. John Wallace, one ofthe founding members of The Invisible Col-lege (a faculty-based service learning organi-zation), had exactly this reaction when theidea was presented to him. He told me he"was struck also with your analogy with Con-trol Data's Plato project, where they createdstore-front learning centers where peoplecould access the technologies, and possibleadaptations of this for a university presencein low-income communities." He noted thatuniversities have a very explicit role to play inensuring that distance learning opportunitiesare not limited to those who can afford toown the delivery technologies. Though Wal-lace didn't carry his insight into notions ofdiscipline-specific roles, I assert that this iswhere technical communicators can (andshould) assume key leadership.

At the other end of the intersection, thelatest rising star on the horizon of distancelearning opportunities, the Western Gover-nors University (now going by the nameGovernors Open University) took "service"as one of its founding principles: to serve anunderserved population with higher educa-tion opportunities (largely in the remotespaces of the American West). And yet, when(as a member of WGU's Associate of ArtsProgram Council) I presented the prospectof building service learning into the structureof the degree programs offered by the insti-tution, it seemed to strike the council mem-bers, as well as the WGU staffers, not only asa total surprise, but also as exactly the rightthing to do. Within the next year, the pro-gram council expects to develop and reviewperformance descriptions and programrequirements articulating WGU's servicelearning certification: this strange marriageof remotely delivered instruction and inti-mately engaged, community-involved learn-ing. The opportunities are ripe for technical

18 Ecology of Technology: Distance Learning

communicators to enter through this dooras learners, as researchers, as course develop-ers and deliverersand to move from heretoward community-based service-learningactivities.

Programs in technical and scientific com-munication must assume a more central rolein institutions that are attempting to takeadvantage of the opportunities afforded bythese growing trends of distance and servicelearning. Not to do so sacrifices both oppor-tunities and responsibilities.

Work CitedWallace, John. Email to author. June 24,

1998. Online. Internet.

o 5CP7SC Proceedings 1998

Offering Online Graduate Programs in TechnicalCommunication: An Opportunity to Place Technical

Communication at the Center of Outreach Programs

Online technicalcommunicationprograms couldmodel outreach

curricula. Hybridpedagogies help

to establish socialand cultural

components ofcourses.

Nancy M. O'Rourke

Last year I raised questions about thesocio-cultural complications that might arisefrom a master's degree in technical commu-nication offered only by online distance edu-cation, that is, completion of an M.S. with noface-to-face component. I argued that anideal transactional, dialogic model of techni-cal communication in the classroom wouldbe compromised by lack of the sense of com-munity that an online degree program mightdisintegrate. I suggested that careful thoughtand planning is in order before throwingtogether a program and putting it online.

Following a complete redesign of all ourprograms as we switch from quarters tosemesters in 1998-99, we did prepare anonline graduate degree program in technicalcommunication. At Utah State we now havethe Board of Regents approval to offer thisdegree. We also have been teaching some sec-tions of English 101 classes completelyonline since Winter Quarter of 1995.

This year, I talk about combining a varietyof delivery methods that would strengthensuch a distance education program and thepotential impact that online technical com-munication programs may have on other out-reach programs offered through the internet.Indeed, online technical communication pro-grams could move to the center of otheronline programs, modeling outreach pro-grams in curriculum development andassessment. Rather than being marginalized,as technical communication is in some uni-versities, our field has great potential inbecoming central to not only the depart-ments in which they are housed, but also thehigher education institutions at large. This isnew territory, only partially explored. How-ever, some literature faculty at Utah State arebeginning to offer their courses as a hybrid offace-to-face and interactive online communi-

CPTSC Proceedings .1998

Utah State University

cation, discussions, assignments, and second-ary materials, for example, on a course webpage designed specifically for and accessibletdonly that course.

As you aware, my agenda is to ensure thatthe online classroom preserves the culturaland socially constructive quality that so manyof us have struggled to build in our face-to-face classrooms in order to prepare our stu-dents for operating efficiently in the workplace. In our program design, I believe wehave partially achieved that goal by identify-ing and offering courses as hybrid, face-toface, or totally online.

26 Ecology of Technology: Distance Learning 19

Our programsneed to preparenow for shifts to

Internet teachingso that practices

support ourprogram goals.

CPTSC is theorganization to

evaluate theInternet as a

teachingenvironment.

Teaching on the Net: Are We Ready?

Nancy Allen

A major topic of conversation on net-works and in the hallways these days is teach-ing courses on the net, that is, courses thatare conducted over a computerized networkrather than in a classroom and for which stu-dents earn college credit. Many institutionsare conducting selected courses online, andin some cases entire colleges exist as onlineinstitutions.

Some Advantages of Teaching onthe Net

Typically, teachers seem to be enthusiasticabout teaching courses on the net because ofthe advantages these classes offer for meet-ing course goals. For example courses taughtonline:

Offer students an experience that insome ways simulates the workplace;

Can be designed to meet individualizedstudent needs;

Encourage students to work indepen-dently but also to communicate withothers;

Put emphasis on students' learning andactivity as opposed to on a teacher'stalking.

Educational administrators also supportteaching courses online. For educationalinstitutions, Internet courses offer:

A way to compete with corporate orcommercially run courses that arealready drawing students away from col-lege campuses, a concern teachers andadministrators have in common;

The opportunity to reach students whocouldn't otherwise enroll.

20 Ecology of Technology: Teaching with the Internet

Eastern Michigan University

Disadvantages of Teaching on theNet

However, we also read and hear forecastsconcerning online courses that sound likewarnings, as though this is the latest menacethreatening our teaching. Along with theadvantages, teachers may be looking at:

Increased class size. Administratorssometimes believe a teacher can teachmany times the number of students perclass online that they can handle in aface-to-face classroom. Class sizeincreases translate to salary moneysaved for participating institutions.

Diminishing employment opportunitiesfor teaching professionals.

Dramatic changes in learning and teach-ing, which entail new learning andteaching methods for teachers.

Technology that is constantly changing.

Questions We FaceTechnical communication is an area that

seems particularly suited for teaching on theInternet since students in this major will bedoing much of their professional workonline. Economic pressures from institutionsand demands from the workplace combineto increase the demands for online courses.As technical communication teachers, then,we are faced with questions such as these:

What sorts of classroom environmentswill we be expected to use effectively?

What support will be available for learn-ing about good pedagogy in these envi-ronments?

How soon will these changes becomewidespread?

27 CP7SC Proceedings 1998

Allen, Teaching on the Net

Will a large scale move to online educa-tion, in which most or all of the coursesin our programs are held online, supportour teaching goals or undercut them?

Does our enthusiasm for teaching withcomputers open opportunities or doesit set us up to shoot ourselves in thefoot, wounding our programs and pro-fession?

It's clear, I think, that changes are alreadyoccurring and that the trend will grow stron-ger. What's important for our programs is toprepare now for these shifts, to be proactive,so that positive practices that support ourprogram goals will be the practices that areput in place. And it seems to me that thisorganization, CPTSC, because of its concernwith TC programs, is exactly the one to eval-uate the Internet as a teaching environmentas thoroughly as possible. We need to estab-lish in what ways online environments willcontribute usefully to our programs and forwhich purposes we need face-to-face envi-ronments for particular kinds of learning totake place. Collaborative skills are a case inpoint. Is face-to-face interaction necessary tosuccessful collaboration or is it simply aromantic remnant of a past time? Do our stu-dents, in fact, need both kinds of experiences,face to face and online, to gain the subtleskills that are part of collaboration in and outof the workplace?

I believe that each of these environmentsis important to our teaching, varying withtopic and course goals. I also believe that, nomatter which side of the argument we are on,our profession needs to prepare now. I wouldlike to propose that CPTSC lead the way bypreparing a position statement and guidelinesfor online teaching that represent our pro-grams, its teachers, and its students. Thoughwe may not be ready to prepare a statementand guidelines now, we can begin workingtoward these goals.

CPTSC Proceedings 1998

Things We Can Do To PrepareWe can begin by developing a discussion

and then documents that would:

Compile our experiences, those alreadyaccumulated and more as we proceed.

Extract insights from our experiencesand begin to prepare a position state-ment and guidelines for InternetCourses.

Define general goals for teaching tech-nical communication courses online.

Specify goals that will lend themselveswell to online courses and those that willnot.

Provide evidence of how a specific envi-ronment is necessary to achieving a par-ticular teaching goal.

Refine our statement and guidelines aswe learn more.

Place our discussion and, eventually, ourposition statement and guidelines on theCPTSC website as a resource.

On the website our discussion and guide-lines can help others in planning courses; aposition statement would be supported byevidence from our experience and could beused in discussing needs and plans withadministrators.

The classroom is changing. Let's get readyfor it.

0 CLicology of Technology: Teaching with the Internet 21

A program website can give

students a voicein the program,

build facultyconsensus in thedepartment, and

serve as aresource for the

profession andalumni.

Getting Involved The Web Site as a TechnicalCommunication Program Interface

Greg Wickliff

As a teacher in and now coordinator of thetechnical/professional writing programs atUNC Charlotte, my students have long had avoice in the evolution of the programitsdesign, implementation, and evaluation.Since 1991, Deborah Bosley, Meg Morgan,and I have developed an undergraduateminor, a graduate certificate program, and agraduate concentration for M.A.s in English.Through word-of-mouth, internships, bro-chures, and class projects, we have sought toreach out to new student bases, expanding aswe do, the range of media we use to advertisethe program. But my students have beeneffectively involved in program in ways thatgo beyond advertising and consumerism.They act as a volunteer contract writers forinnumerable client-based writing projects.The assemble course portfolios that evolvecollaboratively into job-search portfolios.The seek out, complete, and evaluate writinginternship experiences each semester. Ourprogram has formally represented itself tostudents, faculty, and the community through1) a departmental newsletter (designed, writ-ten, and produced by my students), 2) a pro-gram brochure developed collaboratively bythe faculty with advice from students, and 3)most recently, a World Wide Web site.

The website itself has served effectively asdynamic "interface" for the program, by giv-ing student authors and editors a sense ofownership, of active participation and part-nership in the program. An original HTMLprototype for the site was designed by stu-dent interns. This prototype was in part rede-signed and added onto by students enrolledin my publishing and user documentationcourses. Their revisions, in turn, were editedby students in my technical editing course.And of course, as faculty supervisor andmaintenance person for the site, my own

22 Ecology of Technology' Teaching with the Internet

University of North Carolina - Charlotte

ideas about the design and revision have beenincorporated as well. Hoping to use the siteto reach outside the circle of current techni-cal communication students and faculty, Ihave also sought to use the site build facultyconsensus about the program within theEnglish Department, by including the siteHTML files as products in our ongoingdepartment-wide writing assessment project.In a related effort, I am currently co-author-ing a paper on website assessment withanother faculty member within the depart-ment, but someone outside of the technicalwriting program itself.

Finally, I, my colleagues, and my students,have sought to design the website in a waythat it might be useful for program alumni,for prospective students, and for others inthe greater Charlotte technical communica-tion profession. By inviting program alumnito send us URLs that link to their resumes, bylisting their email addresses, by posting joband internship notices online, and by includ-ing links to other technical communicationresources locally and across the globe, wehope to make the site a first choice for areaprofessionals performing research in andabout technical communication.

In short, a dynamic and evolving technicalcommunication program website can andshould do much more than advertise courselistings. The design of the site itself should beviewed a point of inquiry for writing andediting classroom projects, for usability test-ing, for student interns, for faculty bothwithin and beyond the program, and fortechnical communication professionals atlarge.

CP7SC Proceedings 1998

Reflections on Course Design: Challenges of the Web

Onsite coursedesign places

student cases atthe center ofcoursework.

Ways to achieveshared projects

and the complexreasoning of

workplace casesare still being

explored.

Harriet A. Wilkins IUPUI, School of Engineering and Technologyand School of Liberal Arts

When my colleagues and I talk about dis-tributed course delivery via the web, we areusually enthusiastic and full of positiveexpectations. We talk about better servingthe busy, working students who are themajority in our pre-professional technicalwriting classes by making it possible for themto work at times that fit into their lives ratherthan requiring that they come to the univer-sity on a set schedule. We talk about the pos-sibilities for individualization and forstudents' selecting aspects of the course thatare particularly relevant for them. We talkabout new student populations that we mightbe able to reach. We talk about the approvalwe will receive from administrators who areadvocating such courses.

But when we actually began to redesignone of our courses for web delivery, we dis-covered that working in the new mediummeans loss as well as gain. For us, it meansthe loss of the basic principle of coursedesign that has guided our work for a dozenyears or so. For us, it means giving up acourse design that places student cases at thecenter of coursework, a course design inwhich students' sharing of circumstances andrhetorical strategies and works in progress isthe major activity of almost every class ses-sion. For us, it means a shift in the balance ofauthority among student, instructor, andtextbook.

Several sources of ideas guided our devel-opment of our current course design in the1980s. Work in composition studies (e.g.,Emig; Gere) helped us see the importance ofcollaboration in writing. The advice of J.C.Mathes and Dwight Stevenson, the authorsof the textbook we use for our engineeringstudents, helped us focus course content onrhetorical principles and student projects ontopics of their own choosing. Studies in

CPTSC Proceedings 1998

3 0

everyday cognition and situated learning (e.g.,Lave; Rogoff and Lave) convinced us that inorder to help our students begin to becomeeffective writers in workplaces we should usemethods of "cognitive apprenticeship" to"...enculturate [them] into authentic practicesthrough activity and social interaction..."(Brown, Collins, and Duguid 37).

Thus, for both rhetorical and pedagogicalreasons, the context for writing, the situa-tions within which workplace writing occurs,is the frame for class discussion and activitysurrounding student projects. In our techni-cal writing classrooms, students share infor-mation with each other about the real (orsimulated) circumstances for their docu-ments and offer advice to one another abouttheir developing texts. This conversationtakes many forms: instructor-directed whole-class discussion of student cases, small groupdiscussion of particular issues about studentcases, role-playing by students of the audi-ences for a classmate's report, guided studentoral or written responses to drafts of otherstudents' work. The "content" of technicalwritingidentifying and analyzing audi-ences, selecting and arranging information,designing effective layouts, choosing appro-priate language, revising to meet reader needsand expectationsis never considered inisolation from developing projects. Onemight say the question is always the same:Will this text work for these people in thiscontext? In a variety of ways, students helpone another answer this question about theirdeveloping texts.

One of the benefits of this course design isthat students build a collection of storiesabout writing situations, most of them basedon the real experiences of their class col-leagues, to serve as the basis of their knowl-edge of workplace writing. By the time they

Ecology of Technology: Teaching with the Internet 23

have completed the course, they have morethan their own set of experiences in develop-ing documents for particular circumstancesand audiences (three to five, depending onthe course); they also have vicarious knowl-edge of another twenty or so cases withwhich their class colleagues were dealing.These cases and their colleagues' efforts toprepare effective documents for those cir-cumstances become the narrative basethewar storiesfor their own developingknowledge. Their knowledge about technicalwriting, about both the processes and theproducts, is thus grounded in their own expe-rience and that of their class colleagues. Asgrounded and situated, as a set of stories ofactual circumstances, their knowledge oftechnical writing is flexible and can continueto grow as their base of experience expands;it is not based on a set of principlesabstracted from actual experience.

In technical writing classrooms built onthis design, authority is distributed amongstudents, instructor, and textbook. Studentsare the authorities on the circumstances, thepeople, the purposes, the content for theirdocuments. The instructor's authority is thatof a more experienced practitioner whoknows more questions to ask about situa-tions and audiences and intentions and infor-mation. The instructor and the textbook areauthorities on conventional practices andtypical ways to solve rhetorical and designissues.

In an electronic context, however, much ofour current classroom activity is inappropri-ate, if not impossible. On a listserv or con-ference, even one with membershiprestricted to members of the class, we cannotask students to talk about situations in eithertheir current or past places of employment:another participant might print out the con-versation, and it would no longer be confi-dential. In the classroom, on the other hand,talk is transitory and not recorded. We do notconsider it safe to ask students to post draftsof documents about organizational issues toa communal address, even to a class address

24 Ecology o