The literature on formative text evaluation pays scant attention to the revision phase following data collection. This article describes a small-scale experiment in which five professional writers were asked to revise brochure fragments on the basis of feedback from readers. The feedback consisted of readers' comments, selected from the results of a pretest of the brochures, regarding their acceptance of the information and their appreciation of text elements. Despite the wide variety of solutions that resulted, some interesting tendencies were found: In response to problems with factual acceptance, writers often decided to add information; in response to problems with normative acceptance, they often chose to substitute material; and in response to appreciation problems, they either deleted the problematic passage or substituted a different phrase.

To find out more about the communication needs of people in business, the author sent questionnaires to 2,200 chief executive officers (CEOs) and directors of personnel or training. I received 207 answers. Respondents believe that oral communication before a small group is important and that principles of communication should be stressed over formats for letters and memos. They believe reading and editing, as well as grammar skills, are very important. In many respects, the results of this survey are similar to those of others done across the country in the past 20 years, but there are some comments on reading, editing, and writing letters with bad news that were not part of earlier surveys.

This study investigates the effects of case and traditional assignments on the writing products and processes of community college students. Specifically, each of 57 first-year business students in three sections of a business composition course wrote in response to either (a) two traditional assignments, (b) two short case scenario assignments, or (c) two lengthy, elaborated case assignments. Participants' letters were scored using a performance criteria rating scale for determining both overall quality and specific trait quality. Results indicate that the case assignments generally produced more effective writing products than did traditional paradigm assignments. Results also indicate that the elaborated case assignments generally produced better writing products than did the short case scenarios. However, results also suggest that the writing of participants who already possess business-related experience was not as affected by assignment type as the writing of inexperienced participants. Finally, qualitative measures suggest that the writing processes and attitudes of participants. completing the case assignments were highly sensitive to audience and context, whereas the processes and attitudes of participants completing the traditional assignments were highly sensitive to organization, format, and correctness.

Research in business disciplines about work-force diversity has been inadequate in terms of precise conceptualization and theoretical grounding. Two psychological paradigms from training literature (cognitive and affective) are examined here, but, because of their inability to explain the sources and significance of organization-level change, sociological paradigms about dominance and intergroup dynamics are presented as viable theoretical supplements. Substantive sharing of power with diverse or nontraditional employees hitherto marginalized in U.S. organizations is proposed as one potentially effective response to managing work-force diversity. Systemwide structural changes in U.S. organizations of today are recommended for optimizing diversity.

Peer Reviewed

Mohan Limaye presents two important concerns in his insightful response to my article [“Categorizing Professional Discourse: Engineering, Administrative, and Technical/Professional Writing,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 6:1 (January 1992), pp. 5–37]. I wish to comment on these points and also to submit a correction to the text of the article.

Many teachers believe that lecture combined with individual writing assignments is the best method for teaching written business communication. In contrast, a second teaching method is the random assignment of students in written communication classes to cooperative learning groups. The author recently completed a study at Oklahoma State University comparing the effectiveness of straight lecture and cooperative learning group methods of teaching junior and senior college-level written business communication. Comments on diary sheets by students in cooperative learning groups indicated maturation in the area of interpersonal relationship skills—an unanticipated aspect of the study. The cooperative learning group method is recommended for teaching written business communication because it provides students an opportunity to learn to work cooperatively and share ideas in groups. No attempt is made to present the study, but suggestions and procedures for effectively structuring and implementing cooperative learning groups, including copies of handouts, are provided to encourage instructors to foster cooperative learning in written business communication.