Doheny-Farina’s article demonstrates the problems and benefits of writing as a group. Technical writers must be aware of the viewpoints and rhetoric of other members of the group and respect and accommodate them. Although these viewpoints may clash, compromise can yield a better document. Doheny-Farina goes on to emphasize this in his section on implications for teaching.
The Writing for Publication article actually iterates a lot of what I learned in WRIT 5500. I also think it was useful for TC to talk about exactly what sort of articles they look for. I imagine that it is very helpful for professionals.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Week 5
I can see myself coming back to Rude’s article in the future. So far, I think it presents the most practical and applicable theories of all the articles assigned. Just because a project is doable, doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be done. Rude brings several issues to light, including pro/con arguments versus feasibility arguments, hypothesis versus question based proposals, addressing all conceivable issues in a report, and a list of criteria for decision making. It’s an article that covers, what I think, are several important aspects of writing effective reports and proposals.
Selzer wrote a rather interesting article, but I think it is of limited applicability. Everyone’s composing process is different, so what works for Nelson may not work for everyone. Even Selzer concedes this point. However, I did think that the section on Nelson’s invention process deserves attention. Once again, we have another article that really drives home the importance of the audience in technical writing.
Allen et. al had something really interesting as well. It was pretty neat to hear different composing processes from groups of people. Although, I feel that the article is far to old and needs to be updated. I am certain that technology has introduced vast changes to the way groups collaborate on a writing project. Unfortunately, I feel that I have never been a part of a decent group project, as they have often been disorganized messes of members who cannot write well or contribute equitably. Because of that, I normally prefer to work on my own, but I am looking forward to working members of a graduate writing program.
Selzer wrote a rather interesting article, but I think it is of limited applicability. Everyone’s composing process is different, so what works for Nelson may not work for everyone. Even Selzer concedes this point. However, I did think that the section on Nelson’s invention process deserves attention. Once again, we have another article that really drives home the importance of the audience in technical writing.
Allen et. al had something really interesting as well. It was pretty neat to hear different composing processes from groups of people. Although, I feel that the article is far to old and needs to be updated. I am certain that technology has introduced vast changes to the way groups collaborate on a writing project. Unfortunately, I feel that I have never been a part of a decent group project, as they have often been disorganized messes of members who cannot write well or contribute equitably. Because of that, I normally prefer to work on my own, but I am looking forward to working members of a graduate writing program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
