Abstract

Abstract Abstract This article reports on classroom research designed to answer questions about authority—how institutions and disciplines, broadly conceived, influence teachers' ability to abnegate authority and how students' experiences influence their perceptions of authority in a business writing and a first-year composition class. The theoretical framework is derived from research about institutional and disciplinary influences on these two areas of study. This framework and our results lead us to speculate about the ways in which our students' experience of the institution and expectations of the classes and their intentions for using the material taught in the classes may have thwarted our attempt to share authority in our classrooms. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge the help of our undergraduate and graduate associates, MO and JB. They not only attended every one of our classes but also conducted our interviews. This particular study would not have been possible without them. Additional informationNotes on contributorsJean LutzJean Lutz, also an associate professor of English, directs two technical communication programs at Miami University. She is coeditor of The Practice of Technical and Scientific Communication. She has published in collections and journals, including College English and Research in the Teaching of English.Mary FullerMary Fuller, associate professor of English and Director of the Ohio Writing Project, has coauthored Literature: Options for Reading and Writing and published essays in collections and journals, including National Middle School Journal, Writing Program Administrator, and National Writing Project Quarterly.

Journal
Technical Communication Quarterly
Published
2007-04-01
DOI
10.1207/s15427625tcq1602_3
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (28) · 8 in this index

  1. Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow.
  2. Anson, C. (1999). Reflective reading: Developing thoughtful ways to respond to students' writing. In C. R. Co…
  3. Anson, C. & Brown, R. (1991). Large-scale portfolio assessment: Ideological sensitivity and institutional cha…
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Show all 28 →
  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. Dubinsky, J. ( Ed.). (2004). Teaching technical communication: Critical issues for the classroom. New York: B…
  5. 10.2307/358815
  6. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans). New York: Herder and Herder.
  7. Fuller, M. & Lutz, J. (2002). Constructing authority: Student responses and classroom discourse. In E. Barton…
  8. Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  9. Gorden, R. (1975). Interviewing: Strategy, technique, and tactics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
  10. 10.2307/358988
  11. College English
  12. 10.1177/108056999806100209
  13. Miles, M. & Hauberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  14. 10.1075/jnlh.1.4.01rep
    Journal of Narrative: A Life History  
  15. 10.2307/358390
  16. Technical Communication Quarterly
  17. Patton, M. (1991). Qualitative and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  18. 10.1080/03634529109378821
    Communication Education  
  19. 10.3200/CHNG.37.3.50-57
    Change  
  20. Stubbs , M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  21. Technical Communication Quarterly
  22. Weiler, K. (1988). Women teaching for change: Gender, class & power. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
  23. Journal of Business and Technical Communication