RE: Tech Writing Curriculum

Subject: RE: Tech Writing Curriculum
From: "Ehr, Meg" <Meg -dot- Ehr -at- smartworks -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:34:29 -0500

My perspective on the tools thing:

Twice in my convoluted academic career, I took courses in document
design/DTP. The first was when I was in (non-TW) grad school (I could relate
it tangentially to my actual program of study), and was part of a grad
program in TW. The second was several years later, after I decided to become
a TW, and was one of the basic required classes for a certificate program.

The major difference between the two classes was the proportion of design
theory instruction to tools training.

In class #1, we focused on document design, and learned just enough about
the tool (PageMaker) to apply those principles. Our textbooks were 100% on
document design; for the tool portion, the prof taught us just the parts we
needed.

Class #2, however, was very tool-focused. Our textbook was a third-party
tutorial-type manual for the tool (PM again), although it did include some
limited coverage of design, typography, etc.

Class #1 was the better class, by far. Sure, I learned some PM, but far more
important was learning the basics of design, typography,
legibility/readability, etc. Those are the same regardless of the tools I
use. I could have taken a training class in PageMaker for far less than the
tuition for class #2 (heck, I could have bought the program!), and it would
have done me just as much good. (I do admit that someone with no design
knowledge probably got more out of class #2 than I did.)

I can learn any tool I have to, even if that means learning it on my own --
which it usually does. In fact, of all the tools I know, PM is the only one
I've ever learned in a class -- and I have yet to need it anywhere other
than in a classroom.

Ideally, students should leave a program knowing what types of tools are
used in the field, and should have some familiarity with at least one of
each basic type (word processor, page layout, graphics, etc.). Heck, have
them play with trial versions of RH, Frame, etc. -- isn't that what we
Whirlers often tell folks to do when they need to learn the software? But
given the speed with which tools change, and the variety that employers
actually use, I don't think courses devoted to specific tools are
particularly vital in an academic TW program.

Meg Ehr

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ and check it out.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.


Previous by Author: RE: What Gives!!!
Next by Author: RE: Ethics: Charge for mandatory lunch event
Previous by Thread: RE: Tech Writing Curriculum
Next by Thread: RE: Tech Writing Curriculum


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads