Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines. I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices. For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction. And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether. Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon. In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: “How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?” Historically, we haven’t done this well. As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines.I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices.For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction.And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether.Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon.In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: "How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?"Historically, we haven't done this well.As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines.I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices.For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction.And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether.Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon.In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: "How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?"Historically, we haven't done this well.As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines.I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices.For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction.And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether.Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon.In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: "How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?"Historically, we haven't done this well.As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines.I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices.For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction.And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether.Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon.In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: "How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?"Historically, we haven't done this well.As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines.I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices.For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction.And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether.Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon.In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: "How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?"Historically, we haven't done this well.As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines.I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices.For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction.And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether.Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon.In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: "How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?"Historically, we haven't done this well.As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines.I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices.For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction.And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether.Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon.In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: "How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?"Historically, we haven't done this well.As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

This article develops a framework for rhetorical inquiry that builds on the concept of wicked problems as conceptualized through social policy and design studies research. Responding to technical communication scholarship that calls for increased engagement with public issues and controversies, the author specifically discusses a writing course that used the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a basis for teaching problem-based rhetorical invention, document production, interdisciplinary collaboration, and professional development. The framework described in this article ultimately offers a heuristic for students to research and write about ill-defined problems that must be addressed in time but that demand sustained engagement over time—activities that begin in the classroom but ideally continue to develop throughout their personal and professional lives.

Abstract This article explores the boundaries of technical communication as knowledge work in the emerging era of social media. Analyzing the results of an annual survey offered each year from 2008 until 2011, the study reports on how knowledge workers use publicly available online services to support their work. The study proposes a distinction between sites and services when studying social media in knowledge work and concludes with an exploration of implications for technical communication pedagogy. Keywords: genreknowledge workonline servicessocial media Notes Note. Data from Divine, Ferro, and Zachry (Citation2011). Note. Empty cells represent questions not asked in the indicated year. Note. Bold values represent the highest percentage of participants reporting a single site in a given year. Note. Bold represents sites that were reported by 15% or more of all participants in 2011. Note. Data from Ferro and Zachry (p. 949). Additional informationNotes on contributorsToni Ferro Toni Ferro is a PhD candidate in the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering at the University of Washington. She received her MS in human-centered design engineering at the University of Washington and her BS in general engineering at the University of Redlands. Mark Zachry Mark Zachry is a professor in the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering at the University of Washington. His research areas include the communicative practices of organizations and the design of systems to support collaboration.

This essay argues the benefits of a critical service-learning project in which English Language Learners and developmental writing students documented the stories of Holocaust survivors for a campus-based resource center at a two-year college. The authors demonstrate the importance of designing service-learning projects that promote reciprocity and sustained collaboration among participants and stress the need to structure such projects to meet the needs of community college students.

In this follow up to “From Obscurity to Valuable Contributor: A Case for Critical Service-Learning,” the authors detail how they collaborate in order to produce a successful project through the interviewing of Holocaust survivors. In this description, readers learn about the planning, interviews, and the final product produced by the students – with examples of student writing and photographs. As reference for educators looking to develop their own projects, the article covers how to build an authentic relationship across diverse communities, generate content knowledge and design classroom curriculum, and provides a chart detailing the collaboration and activities that educators can use as a template for organizing their own projects.

These researchers examine how questions function in a corpus of eleven writing center conferences conducted by experienced tutors. They analyze the 690 questions generated in these conferences: 81% (562) from tutors and 19% (128) from students. Using a coding scheme developed from prior research on questions in math, science, and other kinds of quantitative tutoring, they categorized tutors’ and students’ questions. The researchers found that questions in writing center conferences serve a number of instructional and conversational functions. Questions allow tutors and students to fill in their knowledge deficits and check each other’s understanding. They also allow tutors (and occasionally students) to facilitate the dialogue of writing center conferences and attend to students’ engagement. In addition, tutors use questions to help students clarify what they want to say, identify problems with what they have written, and brainstorm. Based on this analysis, the authors make some recommendations for tutor training. 85891-Writing Center-text.indd 37 3/10/14 2:52 PM Thompson & Mackiewicz | Questioning in Writing Center Conferences 38 Introduction To resist the role of teacher-surrogate in favor of the role of helpful peer or collaborator, to get students to do the talking, and generally to achieve a student-centered focus, tutors have been advised to use questions as primary tutoring strategies in writing center conferences (Brooks; Harris). In other words, tutors are supposed to use questions to indirectly guide students to improving their writing. In these oftenidealistic conceptions of writing center conferences, questions are “real,” genuinely reflecting an interest in who the students are and what they want to say rather than leading students to a particular point of view. Moreover, students’ satisfaction with writing center conferences has been connected to their perceptions of having their questions answered (Thompson, Whyte, Shannon, Muse, Miller, Chappell, & Whigham; Thonus, “Tutor and Student Assessments”). Tutors are supposed to encourage students to ask questions freely, and it is assumed that students will ask more questions in writing center conferences than in the classroom (Harris). However, beyond encouraging students to talk and beyond directing tutors toward students’ areas of confusion, questions are important prompts for learning and for maintaining students’ engagement in writing center conferences. Research about question asking and answering in the classroom has typically focused on how teachers can pose questions to enhance critical thinking for students. This research has shown that the dialogic Socratic method, with its back-and-forth questions and answers, is a more effective teaching strategy than didactic teacher talk (Rose, Bhembe, Siler, Srivastava, & VanLehn; see also Kintsch; Tienken, Goldberg, & DiRocco). Today questioning is one of the most frequently used classroom teaching techniques, with elementary and high school teachers asking as many as 300 to 400 questions per day (Tienken, Goldberg, & DiRocco). Research suggests that if used effectively either in the classroom or in one-to-one tutorials, questions can enhance students’ learning in at least three ways. First, as shown in Socrates’s questioning of his student about the concept of justice, questions can direct students in their efforts to “construct and reconstruct knowledge and understanding” (Smith & Higgins 486). By discussing what they are thinking with a more expert tutor or teacher, students engage in self-explanation, a process shown to deepen their understanding (Chi; Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser; Chi, De Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher; Rose, Bhembe, Siler, Srivastava, & VanLehn). Second, questions can enhance students’ motivation, stimulate curiosity, and encourage active participation in learning (Lustick; Smith & Higgins). 85891-Writing Center-text.indd 38 3/10/14 2:52 PM The Writing Center Journal 33.2 | Fall/Winter 2014 39 Third, teachers’ and tutors’ questions may become models for selfquestioning, important for students in regulating their own learning processes. Further, in both the classroom and in tutorials such as writing center conferences, learning typically occurs within a conversational context, and along with stimulating understanding, questions are vital linguistic components of an educational conversation. Besides helping tutors identify what students do not know, questions allow tutors to understand students’ goals for coming to the writing center and to politely facilitate the flow of the tutorial conversation. We will consider all of these types of questions in this article. We examined how questions function in a corpus of eleven writing center conferences conducted by experienced tutors. In these eleven conferences, we found a total of 690 questions, mostly asked by tutors but some asked by students as well. Incorporating research about questions in classroom teaching, we adapted a scheme for analyzing questions in tutorials that was developed by the psychologist and linguist Arthur C. Graesser and his associates. This scheme has been used to analyze questions in math, science, and other kinds of quantitative tutoring, with a range of students from elementary school to college (Golding, Graesser, & Millis; Graesser, Baggett, & Williams; Graesser, Bowers, Hacker, & Person; Graesser & Franklin; Graesser & McMahen; Graesser & Olde; Graesser & Person; Graesser, Person, & Huber; Graesser, Person, & Magliano; Graesser, Roberts, & Hackett-Renner; Person, Graesser, Magliano, & Kreuz). Through our analysis, we show how questions can function in writing center conferences so that we and our tutors can understand the potential impact of questions on students’ learning and, subsequently, pose questions more consciously. Previous research about questions in writing center conferences has focused on what questions reveal about tutors’ roles and control over conferences. For example, Kevin M. Davis, Nancy Hayward, Kathleen R. Hunter, & David Wallace analyzed four types of “conversational moves” (47) teachers use in classroom discourse—structuring the interaction, soliciting responses, responding, and reacting—to determine the extent to which tutors took on teacher roles. According to Davis, Hayward, Hunter, & Wallace, tutors are usually in control of conferences, but sometimes they do assume less teacher-like and more conversant-like roles (see also Willa Wolcott’s “Talking It Over: A Qualitative Study of Writing Center Conferencing”). Susan R. Blau, John Hall, & Tracy Strauss considered the nature of the collaboration that occurs in writing center conferences by analyzing “three recurring rhetorical strategies” (22) relating to tutors’ directiveness—questioning, echoing, and using qualifiers. They found that in conferences considered satisfactory, tutors 85891-Writing Center-text.indd 39 3/10/14 2:52 PM Thompson & Mackiewicz | Questioning in Writing Center Conferences 40 demonstrated “informed flexibility” (38) in the strategies they used. Other studies have evaluated tutors’ use of mitigated and unmitigated interrogatives (Thonus, “Dominance in Academic Writing Tutorials”), “question–answer interrogation sequences” (Thonus, “What Are the Differences” 231), and leading versus open questions (Severino). A few studies have included questions in analyzing tutors’ politeness strategies (Bell & Youmans) and self-presentation (Murphy). These studies of writing center conferences tend to analyze questions as signals of assumed role and that role’s concomitant right to control the discourse as opposed to examining all the ways questions can function—including but not restricted to the ways they help construct role and maintain control. We analyzed questions to determine the extent to which experienced tutors ask questions that push students’ thinking, check their understanding, facilitate conversation, and model the types of questions students should ask of themselves in order to assess and develop their own writing. Simultaneously, we speculated on the relationships between questioning and students’ and tutors’ roles. After delineating the question types we found, we examined question-answer patterns according to initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) instructional dialogue (Mehan), a classroom discourse pattern largely unexamined in writing center research (for an exception, see Porter). We examined writing center variations on the IRE pattern, showing how experienced tutors used different types of leading and scaffolding questions in tandem with common-ground questions in a cycle of promoting students’ thinking and engagement and of checking students’ comprehension.

e p r o v e d t r u e . D i s c i p l i n a r y e x p e r t i s e d i d r e s u l t in increased tutor directiveness, but this directiveness was used to facilitate rather than hinder effective collaboration.

Tiffany Rousculp's Rhetoric of Respect: Recogniz ing Change at a Community Writing Center (2014) is an important book for writing center studies.Not only does Rousculp draw our attention to widely-growing though seldom-recognized community writing centers, but she also helps us see the positioning involved in making these centers sites of social change.This positioning she calls a "rhetoric of respect," or "a different type of relationship, one that is grounded in perception of worth, in esteem for another-as well as for the self" (pp.24-25).Using ecocomposition theory to recognize change, Rousculp contributes to a deeper understanding of micro-changes that emerge and are sustained over time through conditions of flexibility, self-awareness, uncertainty, failure, collaboration, and relationship.These conditions characterize many campus and community writing centers and can be cultivated to greater degrees .when we recognize their purposeful impact for our everyday, local work.Through metaphors of ecocompositionorganism, environment, relationship, place, web-Rousculp identifies and shows the importance of attending to moments of transformation for

“Sharing” is a ubiquitous yet largely unexamined term in composition scholarship and practice. Scholars and teachers use the term widely to talk about practices such as peer review, collaboration, and student-teacher conferences, all of which have been used to support the relevance of composition as a social and communal act. Yet, as this article demonstrates, sharing has been aligned historically with assumptions and values that emphasize individual productivity at the cost of exploring the affective and ethical costs of social engagement and interaction. This article investigates tensions in the historical practices of sharing that create openings for alternative ways to understand and value the complex encounters writers undergo when they interact in the space of the writing classroom. Specifically, the article explores how sharing might be revised in composition studies to draw attention to the affective, corporeal, and ethical consequences of interpersonal contact.

In this interview, Jess Enoch talks with Cheryl Glenn about her professional career as a leading scholar in feminist rhetorical studies. Through their exchange, Cheryl discusses the emergence of feminist historiography in our field; she identifies important trends in feminist research, and she pinpoints areas of scholarship that feminist rhetoricians might continue to explore. They conclude the interview with Cheryl underscoring the importance of feminist community building, collaboration, and mentorship.

This program profile examines the storied and conflicted five-decade genealogy of the Stony Brook University writing program. From the points of view of former administrators of this program who were faculty members during two of its most significant transitional periods, the authors make a case for the utmost importance of faculty community and reflectiveness, discourse-empowered advocacy, and shared governance to the well-being of postsecondary writing programs. In this context, the profile maintains a particular focus on disciplinary identity formation, including its effects on curriculum, working conditions, and placement and assessment practices.

This essay considers the long-standing challenges, in both practice and theory, to collaborative writing in the first-year classroom. I argue that Hannah Arendt’s concepts of plurality and natality are useful frameworks for thinking constructively and practically about teaching argumentative writing through collaboration. I explore these concepts in terms of foundational scholarship on written collaboration, such as Candace Spigelman’s work on writing groups and intellectual property, as well as recent considerations of evolving technological resources (Howard). Ultimately, thinking through Arendt, I offer examples from my own classroom practice, and also generate a series of questions designed to support instructors’ incorporation of collaborative writing and thinking across their own diverse contexts. My goal here is not to suggest that there is a singular “best practice,” but rather to demonstrate the ways in which Arendtian concepts can foster complex and scaffolded pedagogies of collaboration in the first-year classroom.

Research problem: The project management of virtual teams differs from that of traditional ones. Traditional project risks, such as complexity, the uncertainty of factors influencing the project, and the high interdependency of project tasks must be managed alongside changed temporal, geographic, and cultural dimensions. Only a few studies have investigated the effect of critical technological issues, such as wrong tool selection or limited internet access on performance as well as team and team member satisfaction in virtual work settings. Research questions: How do critical technology-related issues concerning the selection and use of web-based tools influence the performance and satisfaction of virtual project teams? Literature review: Instead of categorizing virtual teams as a type of team that contrasts with traditional or face-to-face teams, the focus has shifted to virtualness as a characteristic present in all teams. Project teamwork is often integrated in university degree programs in order to prepare students appropriately for real-life projects. While these student teams are often not geographically spread across countries, they have a high degree of virtualness because of their diverse team composition, the necessity for working at different places, and the limited face-to-face meeting opportunities. Performance, effectiveness, and satisfaction are central issues in the evaluation and measurement of project teams: Team performance is often evaluated on the basis of acceptance of a specified output by a customer. Through specific mediating processes, team performance can alternatively be assessed by inquiring the team's perception on their performance. Effectiveness can be defined as the achievement of clear goals and objectives and it is often related to the team's performance. Finally, satisfaction can be defined as having three dimensions-satisfaction with the team, the satisfaction of meeting customer needs, and general satisfaction with extrinsic rewards and work. Technology use is substantial for distributed teamwork and can be assessed by the extent to which it supports communication, collaboration, and project-management tasks. Methodology: Fifteen teams were observed and interviewed over a two-year period. The resulting data were analyzed using a Grounded Theory approach, which revealed how the selection and use of tools for communication, collaboration, and project management in the different project activities influenced the team's performance. Results and conclusions: Our results contribute to practice by providing a number of guidelines for the management of virtual teams as well as knowledge required by companies wishing to launch projects with virtual teams. Differing performances of teams can, in many cases, be attributed to such conditions as: internet availability and bandwidth; lack of training for certain tools; the selection and appropriate use of tools; integrated tool support for task management; as well as the promotion of transparency about progress made. It was found that restrictions in internet access of even a single member within a team limited the team's technological choices, which affected the team's performance.

This study explores a comprehensive sample of experimental and quasi-experimental research within five leading technical communication journals over a 20-year period. Exploratory studies can overview how a method has evolved within a field, highlighting how it has advanced understanding of communication and identifying areas for further inquiry. Research questions: (1) How has experimental research in technical communication journals developed over the 20-year period? Specifically, how much is being published, which journals publish experiments, what topics are being explored, and what fields are informing this research? (2) What content characterizes experimental research in technical communication? Specifically, how explicit are the research questions/hypotheses, are the results of pilot studies reported, what are the sample sizes and populations used, and what measures do researchers use? (3) Who publishes experimental research in technical communication? Specifically, which authors and affiliates are most associated with experimental research, and how does the sample's gender and authorship distribution compare to existing research? Literature review: We first address how scholars have assessed research in technical communication and how these findings implicate experimental research. We then review features of other exploratory studies that inform this study's design. Methodology: We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 137 experiments, a comprehensive sample identified from a corpus of 2,118 refereed papers published from 1992 to 2011. We coded 14 variables related to the causal relationships that the experiments addressed and who produced the research. We subjected the data to multiple statistical measures, including contingency table analysis and correspondence analysis. Results and conclusions: Over the 20 years, the journals published experimental research at a consistent rate. This could indicate that these methods have a stable presence in the field, or a discouraging sign that output is not on the rise despite calls from leading scholars. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (TPC) emerged as a strong producer of experiments, publishing 45% of the sample. TPC was also associated with most recent experiments, assuming this role from Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, which was associated with early experiments. In addition, TPC, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, and Technical Communication correlated with experiments on collaboration, pedagogy, and intercultural communication, respectively. The results also revealed that recent experiments reported significantly more explicit research question/hypotheses and pilot studies, an encouraging sign for the quality of future experiments. Finally, Spyridakis published the most experiments over the past 20 years, and researchers at the University of Washington and the University of Twente were the top affiliates associated with output. The configuration of both of these institutions' programs, which seem to align with a traditional science model, might suggest how the evolution of technical communication programs impacts the type of research that its affiliates produce. Our results are limited by the small, though comprehensive, sample and the exploratory natures of measures like correspondence analysis. Future research could use the proposed framework to investigate the evolution of other research methods in technical communication, strengthening our body of knowledge.

Research problem: No study has observed the argumentative choices and appeals used by professional designers to support their claims as they engage in decision-making sessions. In particular, we do not know how user-derived data are applied by professional designers in their decision-making arguments. Research questions: (1) What kinds of evidence and appeals do advocates of user-centered design use when supporting claims within design decision-making sessions? (2) How do evidence and appeals used by professional designers compare to evidence and appeals used by previously studied novice designers? Literature review: Previous research of user-centered design that also incorporates data-driven personas has concluded that while some observed groups dedicated to user-centered design see personas as a way to further improve upon user-centered design methods, personas rarely become an integrated part of the design process and are often not incorporated in recommended ways. Prior research of decision-making within the design process has concluded that decision-making is a highly variable, but often deeply collaborative activity that can be assessed through a variety of argumentative lenses, including the Toulmin model of argument. Methodology: In this case study, a one-week, onsite exploratory observation was conducted in the workplace of professional designers. All meetings were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Postobservation interviews were also conducted with the participants. A discourse-based analysis was conducted on the transcriptions to identify the various types of rhetorical appeals and evidence used by the designers during their decision-making meetings. Results and conclusions: This onsite observation found that this particular group of designers supported about 50% of their claims with evidence, with 5.1% of the evidence in support of a claim referencing user data, and 33.4% of evidence in support of a claim referencing the designer's own opinion. These results suggest, among other things, that personas (the key user-centered design tool used by the observed group) are perhaps not necessarily a helpful rhetorical tool for persuasion in decision-making meetings, that designers who conduct user research are more likely to reference user data in support of claims, that these designers might have a broad notion of what constitutes user data, and that prior experience can serve as a powerful persuasive force. In addition, appeals to user data were the least common type of appeal employed by the novice and professional designers. However, this exploratory study is limited by the condensed observation time and its single group of designers. Future studies may use the methodology established here to explore the uses of evidence of additional groups.

Higher education researchers have called for systemic changes in graduate education, their concerns fueled in part by poor attrition and completion rates and dismal academic job markets.Many have recommended that universities provide writing support for doctoral students at the dissertation stage. Writing researchers have an opportunity to inform these discussions. However,more research is needed to understand how graduate students’ experiences with research writing differ across disciplines and how they experience responses to their research writing from advisors, graduate peers, and journal reviewers. This study utilizes systems theory to examine one nonnative English–speaking student writing for publication as part of an environmental sciencesdoctoral program. Data consist of field interviews, semi-structured and text-based interviews with students and program faculty, and side-by-side comparison of textual revisions. Theresults describe ways traditional notions of dissertations as individual research conflicted with collaborative writing processes in the sciences and affected how the student received responses tohis writing. Additionally, this study examines the “information flow” of feedback, identifying instances in which the student was isolated from possible feedback sources and difficulties thestudent encountered in adapting past feedback to complete novel tasks. This study points to key ways writing researchers can inform current efforts to restructure doctoral research through further systems-based explorations into students’ writing experiences and models of program design that better leverage potential sources of feedback.

Although rhetoric and composition has long engaged with emerging digital technologies, historians in our field have not yet in large part entered these conversations. In this special issue, we present four essays by scholars building digital historiographic projects, each of which directly addresses values and concerns that lie at the heart of critical practice in rhetoric and composition: engaging underrepresented and marginalized communities; taking up critically important questions regarding historiographic investigation; and emphasizing collaboration among both scholars and stakeholder groups. Together, these essays contribute significantly to the still nascent conversation regarding how the digital intersects with the historical.

This article recounts how a university-community collaborative challenged prevailing assumptions about parents as barriers to the provision of gender and sexuality information to their children, allowing for the recognition of parents as critical stakeholders and partners in sexual literacy work with youth. We provide evidence that parents’ support for inclusive sexuality education uniquely situates them to educate and advocate for young people around these issues, and in so doing we hope to disrupt the rhetoric that casts parents in the United States as solely gatekeepers when it comes to young people’s access to information about the broad spectrum of human sexuality.

This article highlights Education/Connection/Action (ECA), a locally developed community pedagogy deployed at a youth activism summer camp that served as a site for a community/academic teaching and research collaboration. Youth considered connections between a set of issues, including a local ban on Ethnic Studies, the School-to-Prison Pipeline, and Youth Sexuality, Health, and Rights. They drew from lived and learned literacies to inform participatory media projects that critically and creatively address restrictions on access to local knowledges and information with particular relevance to youth sexuality, health, and rights (broadly defined). In highlighting youth voices, desires, and needs across distinct youth communities, their collaborative productions demonstrate coalitional potential and a collective call for change.

Youth perspectives are routinely absent from research and policy initiatives. This article presents a project that infuses youth participation, training and mentorship into the research process and teaches youth how to become policy advocates. Empower Latino Youth (ELAYO) studies the individual and systemic factors impacting sexuality and childbearing among Latino youth and seeks to reduce negative stereotypes and elevate the social standing of Latino youth. As a team-in-training, ELAYO provides adolescents, undergraduate and graduate students the opportunity to develop research skills while learning the importance of linking science to policy. This paper was developed in collaboration with Latino youth.

This article presents the authors’ innovative approach to the challenges of teaching students in a large lecture survey course to perform effective close readings, and sets forth a rigorous qualitative assessment of students’ learning. It describes a combination of teaching strategies integrated to encourage students’ skills acquisition as well as content mastery, and to make the course writing intensive without also being grading intensive. It demonstrates the effectiveness of these strategies by analyzing evidence of student learning. The authors advocate for an instructional model that gives students ample opportunity for active learning and for practicing close reading skills. The authors conclude with a brief coda calling for more scholarship and reflection on faculty-graduate student collaboration in both scholarship and teaching.

Research problem: Due to globalization and the increased availability of online collaboration tools, individuals are now likely to work together in settings where computers are their primary mode of communication. However, because communication characteristics are different in virtual team settings, especially when they are text based, communication problems, such as deception, arise. Recent research found that deceptive individuals in virtual teams can have a negative impact on group task performance, and it recognized that in addition to the communication medium, task and group characteristics, such as task complexity and group member experience, are important influences in these settings. However, the impacts of these additional influences have not been empirically examined. Research question: Does group members' experience with each other and task complexity affect their deception detection accuracy and task performance in a computer-mediated communication setting? Literature review: Previous literature has shown that deceivers are an important influence on computer-mediated groups. However, few studies have compared different group settings, and no studies have empirically tested the impact that task and group characteristics, such as task complexity and group member experience, have on these types of groups. Methodology: An experiment was designed to test the effect of group member experience and task complexity on computer-mediated groups facing deception. Two-hundred fifty-six undergraduates (256) were selected for the experiment. Results and conclusions: Quantitative analysis, which included multivariate analysis of variance, revealed that (a) groups performing a low-complexity task were better at detecting deception than were groups performing a high-complexity task, (b) groups with members who had experience with each other had higher task performance than did inexperienced groups, and (c) experienced groups did not have higher accuracy in detecting deception than did inexperienced groups. These results highlight the importance of understanding the different affects that task complexity and group member experience have on virtual teams facing deception, and they provide insight into what practices can help minimize the impact of interactive computer-mediated deception.

Poroi 9,2 (

Research problem: Although much research exists on virtual worlds, very few studies focus on professional virtual worlds used for working in a global setting. Research questions: (1) How do global managers currently use and experience professional virtual worlds (Virtual Worlds) as a communication media for global work? and (2) How do these Virtual Worlds support global and professional communication in a geographically distributed context? Literature review: We reviewed Virtual World literature in the area of social sciences, education, and games. Little research has been conducted on Virtual Worlds for workgroups. But those studies support the assumption that Virtual Worlds are suitable for global distributed work as a collaboration and communication medium. Methodology: With an explorative and qualitative interview research approach, we conducted 47 semi-structured interviews with virtual world vendors, researchers, and managers using virtual worlds in their work. Data were analyzed based on Grounded Theory Analysis methods. Results and conclusions: The results show four different use cases applied for professional Virtual Worlds: small team meetings, trainings, community building, and conferences. Furthermore, our findings confirm Virtual World literature that states that the professional Virtual World as a communication and collaboration tool supports geographically distributed work as well as visualization and learning in a global context.

At the heart of the redesign of Higher Education qualifications in South Africa lies the issue of increasing evidence of student difficulties in integrating different forms of knowledge. This article proposes that in order to design curricula and pedagogy which better prepare our graduates for legitimate participation in the world of work, we need to understand what that participation might look like. Using a Bernsteinian (Bernstein 1996, 2000) conceptual framework, a research study was conducted which entailed mapping the knowledge integration practices of final year multidisciplinary engineering diploma students in a situated learning environment. The intention of the research was to illuminate the nature of and relationship between the different forms of knowledge evident in actual practice. The concurrent analysis of discursive practices representing complex knowledge integration reveals that in addition to forms of meaning-making associated with traditional engineering disciplines, successful practice is dependent on the ability to draw on a range of oral and written individual ‘repertoires’, as well as those of a collective ‘reservoir’ that stretches beyond the academy: the invisible community of users on the Internet. The complex praxis and concomitant discourses described in this article suggest we need to see integration of knowledge as more than that of language and content, or concept and context, rather as a system of ‘collaboration’ at multiple levels.

This article analyses two examples of embedded academic writing and language provision within Art and Design (A&D) degree programmes in Animation and Fashion Textiles. The provision took the form of interventions to develop the students’ writing as part of their studio practice, specifically to help them generate concepts and develop studio-based design work. As such, the writing in these interventions formed part of a repertoire of strategies or tools for the development of design, and so was not focused on traditional academic writing (in the form of essays). The interventions were the product of close collaboration with specialist lecturers from the degree courses and were co-taught with them. We drew on practices and priorities from the studio disciplines and were informed by broadly Academic Literacies and Critical Pedagogy approaches, as well as ideas from Bakhtin (1981) and Freire (1996) on dialogue, and Medway (1996) on writing in art and design. This article finds that in terms of engagement and confidence with studio-based writing, the interventions had a transformative impact on the students. It also finds that where the interventions were most successful, dialogue played a number of key roles. The paper highlights the value of working on a form of studio-writing that is relatively unexamined; the transformative potential of embedded work like this; and the benefits of dialogue and collaboration inherent in this kind of intervention.

When, why, and how do college students come to value their writing as intellectual property? How do their conceptions of intellectual property reflect broader understandings and personal engagements with concepts of authorship, collaboration, identification, and capital? We address these questions based on findings from the Stanford Study of Writing, a five-year longitudinal cohort study that examined students’ writing, writing development, and attitudes toward writing throughout their college years and one year beyond. Drawing in particular from interview data, we trace relationships between students’ complex and creative negotiations with intellectual property and shaping tensions within the academy, arguing for renewed pedagogical approaches that affirm students’ writerly agency as consumers and producers of intellectual property.

This essay explores the pedagogical lessons of student-inmate peer reviews conducted during a prison outreach project in a first-year composition class. Collaborative writing between inmates and students reveals the positive outcomes that can result from strong mutuality in community-based learning relationships. Through a qualitative analysis of student reflection papers and prisoner oral reflections, this essay shows how an emphasis on the personal during this project did not preclude systemic considerations, but rather produced productive, political outcomes. This essay concludes with a response from my community partner—a prisoner in a medium security facility and participant in the peer reviews. We hope to demonstrate how a reciprocal, relationship-based orientation can facilitate not only productive community-based learning outcomes for students and communities, but also a new type of scholarship—one more thoroughly enriched by community voices.

This article includes excerpts and information about Mother Tongue/Idioma materno, a published anthology created in collaboration with authors and Program Gemini Ink, a San Antonio-based literary arts organization and independent literary center in South Texas.

Service-learning courses have typically encouraged students to write for or about communities. Such courses rarely involve students writing with the communities they serve, despite the growing number of opportunities for collaboration afforded by digital media. Scholarship on collaborative writing with communities in service-learning courses is scarce; research on collaboration using digital, multimodal texts is more so. Arguing that digital technologies have the potential to make service-learning more reciprocal and effective for all participants, this article 1) suggests that digital spaces are an underutilized technology in community-university partnerships; 2) discusses common barriers to using digital mediums collaboratively; and 3) recommends a set of best practices for introducing collaborative digital writing into service-learning courses.

Reviews Carruthers, Mary, ed., Rhetoric Beyond Words: Delight and Persuasion in theArts oftheMiddleAges. (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, ed. Alastair Minnis). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. xii + 316 pp. ISBN 9780521515306. Carruthers' edited collection shows how rhetorical theory informs and is informed by the visual, mechanical, and performative arts of the Mid­ dle Ages, with origins in the classical rhetorical tradition. This collection is groundbreaking in several ways: 1) by demonstrating the interconnected­ ness of medieval genres of rhetoric, 2) by expanding the canon of rhetorical texts, from classical origins to later adaptations, and 3) by suggesting av­ enues for further research across disciplinary lines. Thus, it transforms our understanding of rhetoric and expands it to new areas, especially oral and written performance in the Middle Ages. This collection will also appeal to those interested in medieval cultural studies through the study of verbal, visual, and performative arts as rhetoric. Paul Binski's essay, "'Working by words alone': the architect, scholas­ ticism and rhetoric in thirteenth-century France," opens the collection by relating thirteenth-century scholastic and rhetorical discourse and architec­ ture as influential on High Gothic architecture. Not only were architectural terms imported into rhetorical treatises, but also the architect as auctor, cre­ ator, master of a craft, was elevated to a new plane of authority. Central to this authority is that of planning, envisioning in the mind, foreknowing the work to be constructed, a skill required of both rhetor and architect. In "Grammar and rhetoric in late medieval polyphony: modern meta­ phor or old simile," Margaret Bent takes cross-disciplinary applications of rhetoric into the realm of performance by exploring intersections among terms employed in medieval music and grammar and rhetoric. Shared terminology, such as definitions, metaphors, and similes parallel musical structures. Other correspondences between rhetoric and music include the parts of an oration in arrangement and punctuation in notation, rhetoric in and as performance art. "Nature's forge and mechanical production: writing, reading and per­ forming song" continues this theme. Elizabeth Eva Leach develops the metaphor of the forge through collaborative invention in song, challenging Rhetorica, Vol. XXXI, Issue 2, pp. 220-237, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2013 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/RH.2013.31.2.220. Reviews 221 a common assumption that pieces were written first by a solitary composer or lyricist and then rehearsed by singers. Instead, she argues for "viewing the musical trace as a series of more or less precise memorial notae from which singers invent a collaborative (simultaneous) performance" (72). Her findings corroborate research on early modern theatre, as she explains in the latter half of her essay, thus broadening and transcending genre lines through a concept of composing process with parallels in two performance arts. Lucy Freeman Sandler's essay, "Rhetorical strategies in the pictorial im­ agery of fourteenth-century manuscripts: the case of the Bohun psalters," in­ troduces rare evidence of a rhetorical appeal from artists to patrons, through illuminations of psalters commissioned by the Bohun earls of Essex in the fourteenth century. Two artists, both Augustinian friars, employ images that relate biblical scenes to social and political matters relevant to their pa­ trons, thereby providing moral and theological counsel in devotional prac­ tice. Thus, the rhetoric of the art mirrors that of the drama, in which reader becomes actor: "For the Bohuns, reading and recitation of the psalms or the Hours of the Virgin, a devotional exercise that was repeated over and over, was associated with study of the fundamental narratives of human and sacred history in the Old and New Testaments in pictorial form" (117). This parallel opens pathways for research on intersections among private devotion, art and drama. Similarly, in "Do actions speak louder than words? The scope and role of pronuntiatio in the Latin rhetorical tradition, with special reference to the Cistercians," Jan M. Ziolkowski takes up the theme of performance in the Latin rhetorical tradition through actio (gesture) and pronuntiatio (elocution...

This article develops a theoretical understanding of the processes involved in the co-construction of a written text by a teacher and student from a Vygotskian perspective. Drawing on cultural-historical and sociocultural theories of writing and Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), this case study of a student and teacher interaction in a UK secondary school examines the social mediation of collaborative activity in the negotiation of meaning.While expressivist process theories of writing focus on the development of the authentic voice of the writer, this article contends that the development of a student’s writing abilities requires active intervention by a teacher within a constructed zone of development. Writing is viewed as a situated activity system that involves a dialectical tension between thought and the act of composition.Finally, the article will argue that the recursive and complex nature of writing development is an integral tool in the learner’s own agency in creating a social environment for development.

Welcome to Double HelixSeattle has its double helix pedestrian bridge.The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) outside Chicago has its gold-colored double helix staircase within the Proton Pagoda

This poster reports data from a pilot study of communication practices in the microblogging site Twitter. A content analysis was conducted on a random sample of 50 tweets from the #hpv (human papillomavirus) stream in order to determine any recurring practices such as use of links, retweets, uses of the @ symbol, and other phenomena. The pilot study found that, unlike studies conducted on communication patterns in Twitter streams, the participants in the #hpv stream use it to primarily broadcast information as opposed to interacting and conversing with one another, and collaboration, while present indirectly, is minimal. The researcher plans to expand the sample set to 900 tweets and continue the process of content analysis in order to determine more solid findings for practices of communication in this space. The researcher also plans to examine other spaces relevant to the exchange of information on HPV, conduct content analyses for them, and compare them to the findings on Twitter. The goal is to use these findings for both health and technical communication so that better systems can be designed to optimize the power of participant generated information spaces.

This article discusses the largest and most complex international learning-by-doing project to date—a project involving translation from Danish and Dutch into English and editing into American English alongside a project involving writing, usability testing, and translation from English into Dutch and into French. The complexity of the undertaking proved to be a central element in the students' learning, as the collaboration closely resembles the complexity of international documentation workplaces of language service providers.

The article reviews the impact of digital environments on written modes and practices, with a focus on online collaborative works and “born digital” creations. Examples of these works and relevant Web sites are provided, in addition to learning activities for involving students in electronic environments. The pervasiveness of electronic contexts in our public and private lives means that writers and teachers of writing are now able to rethink all genres of communicative activity, written or spoken, and how these are deeply influenced or entirely reformed by digital media.

This article discusses creativity within the classroom with a focus on creative writing. First, it reviews concepts of creativity in the educational literature and a previous study on how science teachers fostered “small c” creativity in their classrooms. Small-c creativity values the kind of thinking that produces new ideas in learners but is not necessarily historically important to any field or domain. It can be argued that when educators help their students excel at thinking creatively every day, it assists them in more frequently producing creative products. Using this theoretical lens, an analytical study framework was developed from a review of the literature stating that teachers who foster small-c creativity: (1) support divergent thinking; (2) accept learning artifacts that are novel; (3) nurture collaboration in which individual kinds of creativity are supported; (4) provide choices in what is an acceptable response; and (5) include lesson guidelines that enhance learning and self-confidence. Findings of the science study were applied to the writing classroom, as five poet-teachers were interviewed regarding their beliefs about small-c creativity. The themes that emerged within the teacher interviews are discussed. The piece concludes with recommendations for writing teachers geared to help them foster small-c creativity in their classrooms.

Advances in computer coding and Internet technology are drastically redefining publishing and literature itself. This article examines how e-literature, literary texts dependent on code, differs from and works to supplement traditionally printed literature. In particular, e-literature alters traditional concepts of authorship and readership. A coded interface requires the input of a reader to generate a text; the resulting text is therefore a collaboration between the reader and the author, resulting in a change each time the text is read. . The article examines how hypertext pioneers have explored the possibilities offered by computer coding and the Internet, expanding the limits of literary creation and altering the very definition of literature itself.