How do we teach usability? An Investigation of Usability Instruction in Technical Communication

This dissertation investigates the curricular implementation of usability instruction in technical communication. Though there are a plethora of publications and studies on usability in technical communication, little discussion focuses on usability instruction in the classroom or its implementation in the curriculum. Thus, this exploratory qualitative research seeks to contribute to a better understanding about technical communication students' and instructors' knowledge of and experiences with usability practices in the classroom, the challenges that impacted their usability efforts, and their recommendations on how their efforts could be improved. The study results demonstrate the need for more productive discussion on this issue and for developing more effective strategies for implementing usability in the classroom.

International teachers in the American classroom : deposing the myth of monolingualism

An international graduate teaching assistant‘s way of speaking may pose a challenge for college students enrolled in STEM courses at American universities. Students commonly complain that unfamiliar accents interfere with their ability to comprehend the IGTA or that they have difficulty making sense of the IGTA‘s use of words or phrasing. These frustrations are echoed by parents who pay tuition bills. The issue has provoked state and national legislative debates over universities‘ use of IGTAs. However, potentially productive debates and interventions have been stalemated due to the failure to confront deeply embedded myths and cultural models that devalue otherness and privilege dominant peoples, processes, and knowledge. My research implements a method of inquiry designed to identify and challenge these cultural frameworks in order to create an ideological/cultural context that will facilitate rather than impede the valuable efforts that are already in place. Discourse theorist Paul Gee‘s concepts of master myth, cultural models, and meta-knowledge offer analytical tools that I have adapted in a unique research approach emphasizing triangulation of both analytic methods and data sites. I examine debates over IGTA‘s use of language in the classroom among policy-makers, parents of college students, and scholars and teachers. First, the article "Teach Impediment" provides a particularly lucid account of the public debate over IGTAs. My analysis evidences the cultural hold of the master myth of monolingualism in public policy-making. Second, Michigan Technological University‘s email listserve Parentnet is analyzed to identify cultural models supporting monolingualism implicit in everyday conversation. Third, a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy forum is analyzed to explore whether scholars and teachers who draw on communication and linguistic research overcome the ideological biases identified in earlier chapters. My analysis indicates that a persistent ideological bias plays out in these data sites, despite explicit claims by invested speakers to the contrary. This bias is a key reason why monolingualism remains so tenaciously a part of educational practice. Because irrational expectations and derogatory assumptions have gone unchallenged, little progress has been made despite decades of earnest work and good intentions. Therefore, my recommendations focus on what we say not what we intend.

Subverting the subject position : toward a new discourse about students as writers and engineering students as technical communicators

There is ample evidence of a longstanding and pervasive discourse positioning students, and engineering students in particular, as “bad writers.” This is a discourse perpetuated within the academy, the workplace, and society at large. But what are the effects of this discourse? Are students aware faculty harbor the belief students can’t write? Is student writing or confidence in their writing influenced by the negative tone of the discourse? This dissertation attempts to demonstrate that a discourse disparaging student writing exists among faculty, across disciplines, but particularly within the engineering disciplines, as well as to identify the reach of that discourse through the deployment of two attitudinal surveys—one for students, across disciplines, at Michigan Technological University and one for faculty, across disciplines at universities and colleges both within the United States and internationally. This project seeks to contribute to a more accurate and productive discourse about engineering students, and more broadly, all students, as writers—one that focuses on competencies rather than incompetence, one that encourages faculty to find new ways to characterize students as writers, and encourages faculty to recognize the limits of the utility of practitioner lore.