Agboka, Godwin Y., and Isidore K. Dorpenyo. “Curricular Efforts in Technical Communication After the Social Justice Turn.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 36, no. 1, Jan. 2022, pp. 38–70, doi:10.1177/10506519211044195.

In this article, Agboka and Dorpenyo argue that professional writing courses must endorse social justice as one of their core mandates. They call for instructors and students to “acknowledge the roles technical communication plays in legitimizing and sustaining injustice, oppression, and marginalization,” and they encourage readers to adapt their programmatic and institutional practices to bolster social justice in the professional writing field (39).

Alexander, Jonathan, et al. “Toward Wayfinding: A Metaphor for Understanding Writing Experiences.” Written Communication, vol. 3, no. 1, 2020, pp. 104-131, doi:10.1177/0741088319882325.

In this article, Alexander et al. analyze four major approaches to and metaphors for the study of writing experience (i.e., worlds apart, literacy in the wild, ecologies and networks, and transfer). After identifying the gaps in each approach, Alexander et al. then propose the alternative concept of wayfinding as a metaphor that helps “emphasize how writers navigate their own writing development, skills acquisition, and changing knowledge about writing over time.” Wayfinding also “emphasizes how writers encounter a continuous potentiality in writing and how they navigate unanticipated challenges and opportunities.”

Aull, Laura. “Linguistic Markers of stance and Genre in Upper-Level Student Writing.” Written Communication, vol. 36, no. 2, 2019, pp. 267-295, doi:10.1177/07410883318819472.

In this article, Aull “explores stance marker use between two important genre families in higher education—persuasive argumentative writing and analytic explanatory writing—based on corpus linguistic analysis of late undergraduate and early graduate-level writing in the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP).” In particular, Aull’s analysis expands stance analysis to also consider how stance markers differ across genres, such as argumentative and explanatory writing.

Ballentine, Brian D. “Writing in the Disciplines versus Corporate Workplaces: On the Importance of Conflicting Disciplinary Discourses in the Open Source Movement and the Value of Intellectual Property.” Across the Disciplines, 19 Jan. 2009, doi:https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2009.6.2.15.

In this article, Ballentine confronts the inflexible binary between open- and “close-“source materials (i.e., corporate-founded materials), particularly where intellectual property is concerned. Ballentine examines the definition, application, and cultural implications of open-source material, while also proposing a nuanced method of facilitating critical student engagement with said material.

Basgier, Christopher. “Extra-Disciplinary Writing in the Disciplines: Towards a Metageneric Pedagogy.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 11, no. 2, 2014, doi: 10.37514/ATD-J.2014.11.2.04.

In this article, Basgier analyzes pedagogical situations in which both majors and non-majors engage in extra-disciplinary writing. Basgier champions the use of a “metagenre approach,” which “coordinates multiple genres according to their similar ways of knowing, doing, and writing.” The author’s conclusion is that metagenre can be a useful tool for instructors in the disciplines to “integrate conflicting motives across disciplinary and extra-disciplinary writing assignments by emphasizing their common ways of building and shaping knowledge.”

Bennett, Kristin C., and Mark A. Hannah. “Transforming the Rights-Based Encounter: Disability Rights, Disability Justice, and the Ethics of Access.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 36, no. 3, 2022, pp. 326-354, doi:10.1177/10506519221087960.

In this article, Bennett and Hannah interrogate the rights-based discourse that upholds ableism in institutional contexts. Built upon previous disability studies work done in the field, Bennett and Hannah then offer “guidelines and a critical vocabulary for bridging legal rights and social justice concerns to inspire ethical articulations of disability access needed for transformative change.” In particular, the authors advocate the following:

Shifting from rights-based to justice-based discourse in TPC disability studies
“Reframing Access as a collective endeavor”
“Moving from equality to equity”
“Challenging capitalist productivity through disabled leadership”
“Exchanging standard embodiments for considerations of difference”
“Recognizing the connection between disability and other marginalized identities”

Blumner, Jacob, et al. “Bringing Students into the Loop: A Faculty Feedback Program.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 4, no. 1, 21 June 2007, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2007.4.1.07.

In this article, Blumner et al. describe a model of collaboration between instructors, student tutors, and students to improve instructors’ curricula and pedagogies. In this model, “students [tutor] faculty on drafts of the writing assignments they have designed for their own students.” This model acknowledges the truth that students “bring years of experience as stakeholders in their own educations” and cannot function as passive recipients of classroom knowledge. Blumner et al.’s study explores the great degree to which greater collaboration between instructors and students/student tutors can benefit assignment development and revision.

Boettger, Ryan K., and Lindsay Emory Moore. “Analyzing Error Perception and Recognition Among Professional Communication Practitioners and Academics.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 4, Dec. 2018, pp. 462–484, doi:10.1177/2329490618803740.

In this study, Boettger and Moore investigate the varied botheration levels among 303 nonacademic professionals and academics working in professional communication fields in response to the perception of errors in professional and technical communication. The two conclude that botheration level covaried with individuals’ ability to identify error, gender, job type, and years working in the field. In general, however, nonacademic professionals tended to be more bothered by errors than academics.

Brammer, Charlotte, et al. “Culture Shock: Teaching Writing Within Interdisciplinary Contact Zones.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 5, no. 1, 2008, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2008.5.1.04.

In this article, Brammer et al. advocate for greater communication across disciplines, as commonalities in learning-to-write strategies may reveal and promote greater cohesion among disciplinary writing ideologies. In particular, Brammer et al. advocate the following three tenets:

“Awareness: recognizing that the particular beliefs and practices of a discipline may differ from those of other disciplines”
“Knowledge: learning about others’ values, particularly regarding the definition and practice of writing”
“Skills: altering perceptions and even communication strategies based on awareness and knowledge”

Bump, Jerome. “Metaphor, Creativity, and Technical Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 36, no. 4, Dec. 1985, pp. 444-453, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/357863.

In this article, Bump assesses the use of pointed metaphor, figurative language, and general creativity in technical writing. He asserts that figurative language is essential in scientific creativity, as well as in the effective communication of technical information to non-specialist audiences. However, the author also concedes that figurative language must be employed both cautiously and consciously to yield positive results in professional writing. Therefore, Bump examines how the use of figurative language can be mindfully cultivated among students through several targeted activities.

Bezemer, Jeff, and Gunther Kress. “Writing in Multimodal Texts: A Social Semiotic Account of Designs for Learning.” Written Communication, vol. 25, no. 2, Apr. 2008, pp. 166-195, DOI: 10.1177/0741088307313177.

In this article, Bezemer and Kress examine the increased multi-modality of learning resources and this phenomenon’s effect upon notions of “design” and “principles of composition” in the classroom. Through their semiotic research, Bezemer and Kress explore two central issues: 1.) “the principles underlying the design of multimodal ensembles” and 2.) “the potential epistemological and pedagogic effects of multimodal designs.” Furthermore, the two researchers provide detailed definitions of core rhetorical, social, and semiotic terms, including “sign makers and signs,” “interest,” “modes,” “medium,” “site of display,” “frame and genre,” and “design”—definitions that are useful to frame their research and may even benefit students of composition.

Carillo, Ellen C. “Engaging Sources through Reading-Writing Connections Across the Disciplines.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 13, no. 2, 2016, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2016.13.2.06.

In this article, Carillo confronts student plagiarism through the lens of enhanced pedagogical support, arguing that plagiarism is a symptom of limited critical assessment and reading-writing connection skills. Carillo argues that instructors should focus on developing critical reading-writing connective skills among students to help them interact more productively with sources across students. After investigating several assignment models through which this kind of work can be done, Carillo then explores how broader campus initiatives/support can aid students in learning how to “critically assess, read, and respond to sources through the act of writing.”

Colton, Jared S., and Rebecca Walton. “Disability as Insight into Social Justice Pedagogy in Technical Communication.” The Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy, CUNY Academic Commons, no. 8, 17 Dec. 2015, jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/disability-as-insight-into-social-justice-pedagogy-in-technical-communication/.

In this article, Colton and Walton explore the manifold student-facing benefits of explicitly incorporating discussions of inclusivity, accessibility, and social justice in TPC courses. After administering a technical communication course framed around discussions of disability, Colton then surveyed students on their perspectives on and ability to engage with social justice in the field of TPC. Colton organizes these reported benefits into the three following categories:

“Reasons to engage in inclusive, accessible communication design: being a more proficient and valuable technical communicator; doing what is ethical.”
“Ability to engage in inclusive, accessible communication design by recognizing exclusionary practices and identifying ways to make communication more inclusive to people with disabilities, in terms of both usability and representation.”
“Awareness of connections between social justice and technical communication beyond issues specific to disabilities.”

Consillio, Jennifer, and Sheila M. Kennedy. “Using Mindfulness as a Heuristic for Writing Evaluation: Transforming Pedagogy and Quality of Experience.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 16, no. 1, 31 March 2019, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2019.16.1.04.

In this article, Consillio and Kennedy apply mindfulness—a key facet of cultivating “self-awareness, attention, and optimal learning experiences”—to writing evaluation, resulting in “a new, innovative, mindfulness-based writing evaluation process and pedagogy, widely applicable across disciplines. Consillio and Kennedy then identify the manifold ways their Mindfulness Grading Agreement Process (MGAP) benefits classroom spaces, including the following: 

Cultivates “student agency, creative risk-taking, and intrinsic motivation
Promotes “enhanced potentiality for transfer of learning through more co-created reflection” 
Fosters “pedagogy grounded in collaborative evaluation processes, privileging quality of experience for teaching-learning writing and student agency.”

In addition to their theoretical frameworks, supportive research, and observed results, Consillio and Kennedy also provide detailed models and how-to guides for incorporating MGAP into composition classrooms.

Cox, Matthew B. “Working Closets: Mapping Queer Professional Discourses and Why Professional Communication Studies Need Queer Rhetorics.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 33, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 1–25, doi:10.1177/1050651918798691.

In this article, Cox analyzes interviews of LGBT individuals working at “a large national discount retailer” using queer rhetorics as a theoretical frame to define a theory he dubs “working closets.” Cox finds that LGBT professionals negotiate workplaces that exist in a historical and sociological context that is heteronormative, and that those negotiations include myriad relationships, rhetorical strategies, and instances of defining and resisting identities. This series of negotiations, in turn, constitutes a “working closet.” In reproducing and describing these interviews, Cox grounds his finding in discrete actions and contexts. His most optimistic conclusion is that, because “working closets” exist in a professional context that is more dominated by heteronormative history and social structures, the models and examples of what TPC pedagogy often calls “contexts,” “audiences,” and “problem-solving” are especially visible and meaningful. This article enthusiastically joins a conversation among TPC teachers and cultural theorists, and Cox grounds his conclusions in detailed explanations of his theoretical frame, research methods, and evidence.

Croft, James, et al. “Writing in the Disciplines and Student Pre-professional Identity: An Exploratory Study.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 16, no. 2, 2019, pp. 34-54, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2019.16.2.09.

In this article, Croft et al. examine the relationship between writing in undergraduate courses, writing in the disciplines, and the development of students’ pre-professional identities. Through their study, Croft et al. discover that the degree to which writing contributes to the creation of students’ pre-professional identities depends upon four factors: 1.) “whether the course was in the student’s major,” 2.) “how professionally authentic the students perceived the writing in the course to be relative to other course activities,” 3.) “the extent to which the instructor works through the disciplinary writing process with the students,” and 4.) “the extent to which the student already has a PPI.” Croft et al. then describe myriad activities across courses that had varying effects upon students’ pre-professional identities, thereby providing models for other instructors.

Davila, Bethany. “The Inevitability of ‘Standard’ English: Discursive Constructions of Standard Language Ideologies.” Written Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, 2016, pp. 127-148, doi:10.1177/0741088316632186.

In this article, Davila explores the perpetuating treatment of English as standard, normal, natural, non-interfering, and widely accessible in composition courses—a treatment that “undermines the field’s efforts to challenge standard English’s ongoing privileged position.” After exploring specific ways in which discursive practices of standard language ideologies uphold this harmful linguistic/cultural hierarchy, Davila then proposes ways to resist, challenge, and reverse this hierarchy in the field of English composition education.

Diab, Rahsa, et al. “Making Commitments to Racial Justice Actionable.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 10, no. 3, 7 Aug. 2013, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2013.10.3.10.

In this article, Diab et al. put forth a framework built to make a commitment to racial justice actionable through a dialectic balance of self-work and work-with-others. The authors locate much of these productive dialogues within spaces of disturbance, advocating for a “willingness to be disturbed” in actionable anti-racist discourse. Finally, Diab et al. “engage the political, systemic, and enduring nature of racism as we together chart an educational frame that counters the macro-logics of oppression enacted daily through micro-inequities.”

Doan, Sara. “Teaching Workplace Genre Ecologies and Pedagogical Goals Through Résumés and Cover Letters.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 4, Dec. 2021, pp. 294–317, doi:10.1177/23294906211031810.

In this article, Doan explores how to reconcile business communication pedagogy values with current concerns among career-minded students (e.g., personal branding, LinkedIn, applicant tracking systems (ATS), etc.) when teaching résumés and cover letters. Doan suggests that instructors “[shift] from overemphasizing formatting and checklists and toward understanding job applications as a workplace genre ecologies to encourage deeper learning” (294).

Driscoll, Dana Lynn. “Connected, Disconnected, or Uncertain: Student Attitudes about Future Writing Contexts and Perceptions of Transfer from First Year Writing to the Disciplines.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 8, no. 2, 2011, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2011.8.2.07.

In this article, Driscoll investigates the relationship between 1.) student attitudes and motivation and 2.) theories of transfer (i.e., “how much knowledge from one context is used or adapted in new contexts”). Driscoll finds that “students’ attitudes about their future disciplinary writing contexts and definitions of writing relate to their beliefs about their ability to transfer writing knowledge to new contexts”—a connection that can be wielded to more pointedly enhance post-course transfer. The author then identifies four categories of students that can be used to target methods of motivation: 1.) explicitly connected, 2.) implicitly connected, 3.) uncertain, and 4.) disconnected. Driscoll finishes her article by exploring several pedagogical techniques that can foster positive student attitudes and, in turn, encourage broad interdisciplinary transfer.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn, et al. “Genre Knowledge and Writing Development: Results from the Writing Transfer Project.” Written Communication, vol. 37, no. 1, 2020, pp. 69-103, doi:10.1177/0741088319882313.

In this article, Driscoll et al. use “a mixed-methods, multi-institutional design of general education writing courses at four institutions” to assert that “both simplistic and nuanced genre knowledge promote writing development across disciplines. Driscoll et al. “propose an expanded view of Tardy’s four genre knowledge components” (i.e., formal knowledge, process knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and subject matter knowledge), and they advocate for these components’ cultivation via three central activities: 1.) “writing for non classroom audiences,” 2.) “using source texts explicitly to join existing disciplinary conversations,” and 3.) “cultivating two types of metacognitive awareness (awareness of the writing strategies used to complete specific tasks and awareness of one’s levels of proficiency in particular types of writing knowledge).” 

Driscoll, Dana Lynn, and Daewoo Jin. “The Box Under the Bed: How Learner Epistemologies Shape Writing Transfer.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 15, no. 4, 2018, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2018.15.4.19.

In this article, Driscoll and Jin. examine the interaction between learner epistemologies (i.e., how an individual thinks about knowledge and the nature of knowing) and writing transfer (i.e., the ability to effectively apply skills from one writing context to another). Using a “box under the bed” metaphor, Driscoll and Jin. identify and define several types of transfer epistemologies (e.g. omnidirectional knowledge builder, unidirectional knowledge builder, fatalist, and combinations of these types), explore how these transfer epistemologies relate to writing transfer, and examine how these transfer epistemologies develop and change over time. Driscoll and Jin. argue that discussing with students about their unique epistemological frameworks may help instructors understand how to communicate the relevance and use of their course material.

Evans-Tokaryk, Tyler. “Academic Integrity, Remix Culture, Globalization: A Canadian Case Study of Student and Faculty Perceptions of Plagiarism.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 11, no. 2, 2014, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2014.11.2.07.

In this article, Evans-Tokaryk explores the effect globalization and remix culture have on students’ and instructors’ perceptions/definitions of plagiarism. As a result of his case study, Evans-Tokaryk “argues that universities need to revisit their definitions of plagiarism and adjust their policies accordingly,” thereby “[making]  individual disciplines more accountable for the way they teach citation practices, appropriate source use, and rhetorical strategies for engaging in the scholarly conversation.” By vesting greater power in individual disciplines, Evans-Tokaryk claims that said disciplines can better support students learning to effectively use sources in writing.

Garner, Benjamin, and Nathan Shank. “Student Perceptions of a Revise and Resubmit Policy for Writing Assignments.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 3, Sept. 2018, pp. 351–367, doi:10.1177/2329490618784962.

In this article, Garner and Shank stress the benefits of requiring assignment revisions to improve students’ writing in professional genres, thereby endorsing a rigorous process pedagogy that values the ability to write recursively over the written product. Garner and Shank not only survey students’ learning-focused perception towards revision opportunities, but they also provide practical approaches toward and considerations for implementing revision assignments in the classroom.

Haswell, Richard. “The Complexities of Responding to Student Writing; or, Looking for Shortcuts via the Road of Excess.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 3, no. 1, 2006, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2006.3.1.02.

In this article, Haswell examines instructor feedback on student work, primarily in terms of “shortcuts” (i.e., “check sheets, correction symbols, computer style checkers, etc.”) and their effect on the improvement of student writing. Haswell explores the complexities in various feedback-related elements (i.e., regulation, consumption, production, representation, and identity) before delivering specific recommendations for particular shortcuts, revision methods, efficiency, and maximized effect.

Hegbloom, Maria, et al. “Student Voices on Writing.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 14, no. 2, 2017, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2017.14.2.01.

In this article, Hegbloom et al. ask students to describe what they perceive to have been their “best piece of college writing” and, from said data, identify four themes: 1.) paper attributes, 2.) reflections on the process, 3.) actions taken by students, and 4.) actions taken by the instructor. Hegbloom et al. then examine how pedagogical practices impact student perceptions of achievement, describing “how faculty members across the disciplines can attend to both the cognitive and affective domains of writing to best help their students achieve good writing.”

Hiller, Tammy Bunn, and Amy B. Hietapelto. “Contract Grading: Encouraging Commitment to the Learning Process through Voice in the Evaluation Process.” Journal of Management Education, vol. 25, no. 6, Dec. 2001.

In this article, Hiller and Hietapelto advocate for the institution of contract grading in the writing classroom as a method of more aptly engaging students in the learning process. The authors assert that contract grading increases students’ ability “to retain more information, make better use of information, and be more highly motivated to learn than in teacher-directed learning environments.” Not only does this article explore the manifold benefits of contract grading, but it also “discusses in depth how to implement contract grading efficiently and effectively.”

Hitt, Allison. “Foregrounding Accessibility Through (Inclusive) Universal Design in Professional Communication Curricula.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 52–65, doi:10.1177/2329490617739884.

In this article, Hitt advocates for an expanded role of universal design (UD) in professional communication courses, both as a topic of discussion and as a pedagogical approach. Hitt emphasizes the rhetorical situatedness of accessibility—not simply viewing it as a required tool of accommodation—and offers a host of UD strategies to foreground accessibility in professional communication curricula.

Note: Universal design (UD) refers to “a spatial theory that emphasizes the importance for all spaces to be physically accessible to all people—both disabled and nondisabled” (52). It is based on the idea that “if spaces and products are made accessible to disabled users, they will meet the needs of all users” (55).

Hocks, Mary E. “Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 54, no. 4, 2003, pp. 629–56, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3594188.

In this article, Hocks asserts the importance of visual and digital rhetoric in today’s rhetoric, composition, and technical writing studies. She articulates how all writers today engage in “internetworked writing,” which intertwines the production, interaction, and publication of writing in the virtual sphere—both in class and in the professional world. Due to the ubiquitous nature of multimedia technologies and visual rhetoric, Hocks argues for a particular approach to rhetorical instruction that introduces visual rhetoric as an iterative, situation- and audience-minded design process.

Hull, Glynda A., and Mark Evan Nelson. “Locating the Semiotic Power of Multimodality.” Written Communication, vol. 22, no. 2, April 2005, pp. 224-261, doi:10.1177/0741088304274170.

In this article, Hull and Nelson explore the specific elements that contribute to the expressive power of multimodal texts—power that extends beyond the academic sphere (i.e., “real-world contexts). Hull and Nelson argue for continued research into multimodal affordances, and they perform their own “fine-grained multimodal analysis” of a multimodal storytelling piece to “[reveal] semiotic relationships between and among different, co-present modes.”

Ihara, Rachel, and Ann Del Principe. “What We Mean When We Talk about Reading: Rethinking the Purposes and Contexts of College Reading.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 15, no. 2, 2018, doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2018.15.2.06.

In this article, Ihara and Del Principe analyze faculty attitudes toward assigned readings and student reading habits to advocate for greater awareness of the contexts and purposes for reading. Ihara and Del Principe identify unproductive perceptions about student reading (e.g., reading is something students “either ‘do’ or ‘don’t do,’ or do well or poorly”), and instead “draw attention to the ways that different purposes for reading shape reading behaviors for students and faculty alike.”

Inoue, Asao B. “Community-Based Assessment Pedagogy.” Assessing Writing, vol. 9, no. 3, 2004, pp. 208–238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.12.001. 

In this article, Inoue advocates for a restructuring of student assessment practices “based on a recursive framework of writing, assessment, and reflection activities that move students toward productive praxis.” Inoue details his implementation of student-centered assessment over the course of three semesters, describing his method of instilling student control of and investment in “writing assignments, their instructions, assessment criteria, and the practices and reflective activities that go along with their writing.” As a result, this alternative grading method is quantitatively proven to “[encourage] a community of writers that are implicated in each others’ writing and assessment practices, and gets them to critically engage with these practices.”

Kelly, Stephanie, and Jorge Gaytan. “The Effect of Instructors’ Immediate Behaviors and Clarity on Student Writing Apprehension.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 83, no. 1, Mar. 2020, pp. 96–109, doi:10.1177/2329490619868822.

In this article, Kelly and Gaytan examine the way communication skills can be severely hampered by an individual’s writing apprehension, or the negative (often anxious) attitudes an individual has toward writing. Therefore, Kelly and Gaytan outline ways instructors can adjust their communicative behaviors—a combination of verbal and nonverbal communication cues used in the face-to-face classroom—to intervene upon individuals’ writing apprehension, thereby allowing them to write more effectively.

Knight, Melinda. “Creating Authentic Learning Experiences in the Business and Professional Communication Classroom.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 2, June 2021, pp. 87–88, doi:10.1177/23294906211015320.

In this article, Knight gives the gist of three research studies about how to bridge the gap between business communication education and business communication in the “real-world” and how to facilitate a fairer evaluation system for business writing. In the first and third research studies, authors explore the disconnect that exists between what is taught in professional communication courses and the needs of the business industry. They hold that this disconnect exists due to the artificial environment necessitated by classroom conditions, which limits students’ ability to navigate real-world professional communication tasks. The second research study analyzes whether language features affect instructor assessment of student writing. The author uses a case analysis to argue that instructors should make all evaluation criteria explicit.

Kumar, Rita, Brenda Refaei. “Problem-Based Learning Pedagogy Fosters Students’ Critical Thinking About Writing.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, vol. 11, no. 2, September 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1670

In this article, Kumar and Refaei explore the benefits of problem-based learning (PBL) pedagogy in the composition classroom—particularly as these benefits pertain to students’ critical thinking. Furthermore, these authors identify concrete areas of skill development that may aid students’ critical thinking in the field of professional writing.

Lawrence, Holly. “Personal, Reflective Writing: A Strategy for Teaching Business Students to Write.” Business Communication Quarterly, vol. 76, no. 2, June 2013, pp. 192-206, doi:10.1177/1080569913478155.

In this article, Lawrence “looks at pedagogy and theory that informs the use of personal, reflective writing exercises in composition and management and suggests the relevance of these same practices in business communication classrooms today. Building on relevant pedagogical theory and practice, the author also makes the claim that personal reflective writing exercises can make students better writers and more effective managers and leaders. The article concludes with sample exercises that readers might try in their own business communication classrooms.”

Meloncon, Lisa. “Orienting Access in Our Business and Professional Communication Classrooms.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 34–51, doi:10.1177/2329490617739885.

In this article, Meloncon explores a new theory that applies disability studies to business and professional communication, a theory she calls “orienting access,” or “a theoretical approach where an instructor critically orients herself or himself to begin pedagogical applications and curricular design from the point of access” (42). Meloncon holds that professional communication instructors should reflect upon their current pedagogies and consider alternate pedagogies to ensure accessibility and inclusivity for all students, which Meloncon specifically models throughout the piece.

Pope-Ruark. “Design Thinking in Technical and Professional Communication: Four Perspectives.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 33, no. 4, 2019, pp. 437-455, doi: 10.1177/1050651919854094.

In this article, Pope-Ruark interviews four TPC scholar-professors about how design thinking—or a human-centered framework for design that uses recursive, often collaborative steps of empathizing, definition, ideation, prototype development, and testing—can apply to professional communication courses. These interviews address the following questions:

What is design thinking?
What are the pros and cons of design thinking (both as a process itself and in the context of TPC classrooms)?
How can design thinking help students confront rhetorical challenges and complex problems?
How is design thinking currently manifesting in TPC programs, and how should it manifest (or not manifest)?

However, each scholar addresses this question set from unique perspectives: 1.) process, 2.) usability and user design, 3.) technical communication, and 4.) industry and programmatic perspectives.

Read, Sarah, and Michael J. Michaud. “Writing about Writing and the Multimajor Professional Writing Course.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 66, no. 3, 2015, pp. 427–57, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43490937.

In this article, Read and Michaud assert that the pedagogical approach known as writing about writing (WAW) and rhetorical transferability are key to expanding the often narrow genre focus of multi-major professional writing (MMPW) courses. As a result, the authors argue for instructors to adopt a pedagogical framework they refer to as “WAW-PW,” or “writing across writing – professional writing,” which they explore in depth throughout their piece.

Slomp, David, et al. “Scaffolding for Independence: Writing-as-Problem-Solving Pedagogy.” The English Journal, vol. 108, no. 2, 2018, pp. 84–94, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26610261.

In this article, Slomp performs a composition-focused pedagogical analysis of the Horizon Writing Project—a collaborative research project emerging from a mentorship program for language arts teachers in Alberta, Canada, and their grade school students. As a result of his study, Slomp affirms the importance of scaffolding, process writing, and writing-as-problem-solving in composition classrooms. Slomp then goes on to examine 1.) the most successful pedagogical design features in writing classrooms, 2.) the metacognitive sub-components developed by writing-as-process methodology, and 3.) the step-by-step design of the Horizon Writing Project as a model for collegiate composition classroom assignments.

West, Sara. “Confronting Negative Narratives: The Challenges of Teaching Professional Social Media Use.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 80, no. 4, Dec. 2017, pp. 409–425, doi:10.1177/2329490617723118.

In this article, West investigates students’ frequent reticence to critically engage with the professional use of social media—a reticence that often stems from negative cultural narratives surrounding social media. She suggests that students often view social media as unprofessional or tied only to reputation management. However, West asserts that the instruction of professional social media is essential to students’ post-graduate success in the professional world and that students must be made aware of the wide range of professional uses of social media (i.e., “professionalization, networking, collaboration, disaster response, […] information transfer,” etc.). Therefore, West confronts these student-posed challenges to teaching social media in the professional communications classroom and gives five suggestions for successfully implementing social media.

Yu, Han. “A Study of Engineering Students’ Intercultural Competence and Its Implications for Teaching.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 55, no. 2, June 2012, pp. 185-201, doi: 10.1109/TPC.2012.2186657.

In this article, Yu addresses the rapid globalization of the U.S. engineering industry by studying 272 engineering undergraduates’ intercultural competence (here, measured in intercultural sensitivity and awareness). Yu finds that the study’s participants exhibited “a vague and passive awareness of intercultural communication”—meaning that students generally acknowledge the importance and existence of intercultural communication skills but lack competence in said skills (194). Given the ever-increasing necessity of intercultural communication skills and engineering students’ weaknesses in them, Yu then outlines a cultural-general approach to intercultural pedagogy in engineering communication courses that best serve engineering students’ needs.