Syllabus

Course Information

Intro to Prof & Tech Writing
ENG2700, D001, Fall 2022
Thursdays, 2:00pm-5:20pm
N601B

Contact and Office Hours

Professor Ellis
Office Hours: Thursdays, 5:20pm-6:20pm in Namm N520 or by appointment.
Email: jellis@citytech.cuny.edu
Blog: https://dynamicsubspace.net

Course Description

ENG2700 introduces students to the fields of technical and professional writing, which are also referred to collectively as Technical Communication. Students will learn about the practical work in the profession along with the theoretical concerns underpinning that work. They will engage the legal and ethical considerations of being technical communicators. They will learn how to be dynamic practitioners who adapt tools to fulfill their own workflows while developing life-long learning savvy to meet future career and workplace challenges. Finally, they will have opportunities to imagine themselves as the professionals that they want to be. Students will be able to demonstrate their learning through participation, weekly writing assignments, projects, and a final portfolio showcasing their best work and thoughtful work process.

Learning Objectives and Prerequisites

ENG2700 Course Learning Outcomes

Expectations of Students

  • As a rule of thumb, students should spend twice as much time per week as the credit hours of a class on assigned readings, homework, and projects. Since this is a four hour class, students should expect to spend eight hours per week on these things. Due to some projects being smaller and others larger, these six hours per week can be thought of as on average–sometimes you might need to spend less than six hours per week and other times you might need to spend more.
  • Each student should be meeting deadlines on assignments and following through on all team-based responsibilities volunteered or delegated. But, in the event that you can’t follow through on something, you should email Prof. Ellis and your teammates about the situation. While all situations don’t have to be explained (e.g., a personal emergency), each communication about not fulfilling a responsibility should include concrete and specific asks–may I have this much extra time, may I deliver this file to you by this date and time, etc. Politeness (e.g., please and thank you) and professionalism (being collegial, respectful, clear, etc.) can go a long way!
  • No one should suffer in silence in our class. Put another way: communication is key to your success in the class. Students should email Prof. Ellis or visit weekly office hours to discuss the class, assignments, and teamwork. Especially considering the collaborative work, it is imperative that each team keep Prof. Ellis in the loop about any challenges or problems within a team so that he can arrange an intervention. Additionally, maintain communication with your teammates about your availability, completing tasks, asking questions, etc.

Required Texts

Required Resources

  • A notebook for writing notes about your readings and taking notes during each class. Never leave home without it!
  • Computer access, word processing software, and a means of saving your work securely.
  • Access to a printer.
  • Access to your City Tech email, which is checked daily.
  • Access and accounts at https://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu and other designated web sites.
  • Cloud-based storage for saving a backup of all your work.
  • Google Drive/Gmail account for assignments and collaborative writing.
  • Other communication software or services that are freely available and decided on by each team (e.g., Microsoft Teams, Discord, Slack, text messaging, phone calls, etc.).

Grade Distribution

Participation, 10%

Students are expected to participate in class discussions, assignments, and group work. Sustained and regular contributions to the activity of the class earns a student the full participation grade, but less engagement on a sustained basis yields a lesser grade. Participation includes working individually, speaking during discussion, giving extemporaneous responses about your work, working with others in pairs or groups, and contributing to peer review. Regular and on-time arrival to class is encouraged as this gives you more chance of participation. Please note that there isn’t any hiding in our class–I am always observing and making notes even if I don’t call out an individual’s lack of contributions.

Weekly Reading Reports, 15%

At the beginning of each class, students will have about 20 minutes to write about that week’s readings. The aim is to report on what was read, how it relates to technical and professional writing, and what utility some of its ideas might have to the individual student’s academic and professional work. The minimal output for these assignments is 250 words. The expectation over time is to exceed regularly that low word-count bar. A grade is assigned based on the report’s responding to the readings and the best effort applied towards the word count.

Class Deliverables, 25%

There are a number of project deliverables spread throughout the semester, including an email, formal letter, memo, proposal, report, technical description, technical definition, technical manual, and technical manual user testing report. Each of these deliverables will be introduced during class and students will begin working on them during class with a goal of completing a draft of the assignment by an assigned due date for collection for a grade and peer review for revision for the final portfolio. A grade is assigned for these first drafts based on their being on-time, completeness, adhering to directions, and quality of writing. Each deliverable equally applies towards this portion of each student’s final grade.

Final Portfolio, 50%

The final portfolio collects three components of each class project assignment–the original draft, the revised draft, and a reflection essay of 250-words or more that explains the purpose of the document, how it was created, and what key elements were revised and why. The portfolio should be collated as a PDF with a cover page, table of contents, and a section for each deliverable (including original draft, revised draft, and reflection essay). A grade is assigned based on the completeness of the portfolio, the quality of the revisions based on peer-review feedback, and thought put into each reflection.

Attendance and Lateness Policy

The expectation for successful and respectful college students is to arrive on time and attend all classes. Following City Tech’s policy, attendance is recorded and reported for each class meeting. Attendance and class participation are essential and excessive absences may affect the final grade. Students who simply stop attending will receive a grade of “WU” (unofficial withdrawal – attended at least once).

Policy for Late Work

Due dates for weekly assignments and major projects are provided on the schedule below. Assignments submitted late will incur a 10-point grade reduction for each day they are late. No assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Students are encouraged to talk with Prof. Ellis should anything interfere with their ability to complete work in a timely manner.

Required Format for Papers

All formal writing and citations should follow APA guidelines (see the Purdue OWL APA section for more information: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html). Remember in your research paper that quoting is far more persuasive than paraphrasing, and in either case, your use of others ideas or writing must be properly cited to give credit where credit is due and to maintain your own academic integrity.

Accessibility Statement

City Tech is committed to supporting the educational goals of enrolled students with disabilities in the areas of enrollment, academic advisement, tutoring, assistive technologies and testing accommodations. If you have or think you may have a disability, you may be eligible for reasonable accommodations or academic adjustments as provided under applicable federal, state and city laws. You may also request services for temporary conditions or medical issues under certain circumstances. If you have questions about your eligibility or would like to seek accommodation services or academic adjustments, you can leave a voicemail at 718 260 5143, send an email to Accessibility@citytech.cuny.edu or visit the Center’s website at http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/accessibility/ for more information.

College Policy on Academic Integrity

Students who work with information, ideas, and texts owe their audience and sources accuracy and honesty in using, crediting, and citing sources. As a community of intellectual and professional workers, the College recognizes its responsibility for providing instruction in information literacy and academic integrity, offering models of good practice, and responding vigilantly and appropriately to infractions of academic integrity. Accordingly, academic dishonesty is prohibited in CUNY and at New York City College of Technology, and is punishable by penalties, including failing grades, suspension, and expulsion. The complete text of the College policy on Academic Integrity may be found in the Academic Catalog here.

Diversity and Inclusive Education Statement

This course welcomes students from all backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. In accordance with the City Tech and CUNY missions, this course intends to provide an atmosphere of inclusion, respect, and the mutual appreciation of differences so that together we can create an environment in which all students can flourish. It is the instructor’s goal to provide materials and activities that are welcoming and accommodating of diversity in all of its forms, including race, gender identity and presentation, ethnicity, national origin, religion, cultural identity, socioeconomic background, sexuality and sexual orientation, ability, neurodivergence, age, and etc. Your instructor is committed to equity and actively seeks ways to challenge institutional racism, sexism, ableism and other forms of prejudice. Your input is encouraged and appreciated. If a dynamic that you observe or experience in the course concerns you, you may respectfully inform your instructor without fear of how your concerns will affect your grade.  Let your instructor know how to improve the effectiveness of the course for you personally, or for other students or student groups. We acknowledge that NYCCT is located on the traditional homelands of the Canarsie and Lenape peoples.

Tentative Schedule

Week 1, Thursday, Aug. 25

Discuss syllabus, assignments, and schedule.

Set expectations for students and professor.

Week 2, Thursday, Sept. 1

This week’s focus: What is Professional and Technical Writing, and what is its history?

This week’s readings (to be completed before coming to class):

O’Hara, Jr., F. M. (2001). A brief history of technical communication. In STC’s 48th annual conference proceedings (pp. 500–504). Arlington, Va.: Society for Technical Communication. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20120907071237/http://www.msubillings.edu/cotfaculty/fullon/_notes/History%20of%20Technical%20Communication%20(2).pdf

Durack, K. T. (2003). From the moon to the microchip: fifty years of technical communication. Technical Communication, 50(4), 571-584. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A111165974/AONE?u=cuny_nytc&sid=AONE&xid=dd12e91b

Week 3, Thursday, Sept. 8

This week’s deliverable: Email.

This week’s readings:

Blythe, S., Lauer, C. & Curran P. G. (2014). Professional and technical communication in a web 2.0 world. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(4), 265-287. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=98026404&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Portwood-Stacer, L. (2016, Apr. 26). How to email your professor (without being annoying af). Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@lportwoodstacer/how-to-email-your-professor-without-being-annoying-af-cf64ae0e4087#.1m6lc0rkd

Special Issue of Intercom on Tech Comm’s Core Competencies (pages 6-24):

Hester, C. (2017). Laying the groundwork: project planning and project analysis. Intercom, 64(3), 6-8. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/intercom/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Intercom_V64N3_Mar2017_Web.pdf

Houser, A. (2017). Content development. Intercom, 64(3), 9-10. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/intercom/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Intercom_V64N3_Mar2017_Web.pdf

Baehr, C. (2017). Organizational design. Intercom, 64(3), 11-12. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/intercom/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Intercom_V64N3_Mar2017_Web.pdf

Houser, A. (2017). Written communication. Intercom, 64(3), 13-14. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/intercom/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Intercom_V64N3_Mar2017_Web.pdf

Gillenwater, J. (2017). Visual communication. Intercom, 64(3), 15-17. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/intercom/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Intercom_V64N3_Mar2017_Web.pdf

Brown-Hoekstra, K. (2017). Reviewing and editing. Intercom, 64(3), 18-20. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/intercom/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Intercom_V64N3_Mar2017_Web.pdf

Agnew, B. (2017). Content management. Intercom, 64(3), 21-23. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/intercom/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Intercom_V64N3_Mar2017_Web.pdf Agnew, B. (2017). Production and delivery. Intercom, 64(3), 24. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/intercom/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Intercom_V64N3_Mar2017_Web.pdf

Week 4, Thursday, Sept. 15

This week’s deliverable: Letters.

Previous week’s deliverable due.

This week’s readings:

Purdue Online Writing Lab. (n.d.) Writing the basic business letter. Purdue Online Writing Lab. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/professional_technical_writing/basic_business_letters/index.html

Gourley, C. (2002, Oct.). The art of letter writing. Writing, 25(2), 4. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7472727&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Victor, D. (2016, Oct. 16). How to write a cover letter people will actually read. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/business/how-to-write-a-cover-letter-that-stands-out.html

Myers, M. (2004). The million dollar letter: some hints on how to write one. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 34(1&2), 133-143. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=13839199&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Week 5, Thursday, Sept. 22

This week’s deliverable: Memos.

Previous week’s deliverable due.

Amare, N. & Brammer, C. (2005). Perceptions of memo quality: a case study of engineering practitioners, professors, and students. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35(2), 179-190. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=16913948&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Purdue Online Writing Lab. (n.d.). Memos (audience and purpose, parts of a memo, format, and sample memo). Purdue Online Writing Lab. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/professional_technical_writing/memos/index.html

Rice-Bailey, T. (2016). The role and value of technical communicators: technical communicators and subject matter experts weigh in. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 230-243. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=118415281&site=ehost-live&scope=site

NB: On Thursday, Sept. 29 classes follow a Monday schedule.

Week 6, Thursday, Oct. 6

This week’s deliverable: Proposals.

Previous week’s deliverable due.

This week’s readings:

Grove, L. K. (2004). Finding Funding: Writing Winning Proposals for Research Funds. Technical Communication, 51(1), 25–35. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12396238&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Johnson-Sheehan, R. (n.d.). Planning and Organizing Proposals and Technical Reports. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_engineering/indot_workshop_resources_for_engineers/documents/20080628094326_727.pdf

Meloncon, L. (2010). Answering the Call: Toward a History of Proposals. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 40(1), 29–50. http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=47410776&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Week 7, Thursday, Oct. 13

This week’s deliverable: Reports.

This week’s readings:

Johnson-Sheehan, R. (n.d.). Planning and Organizing Proposals and Technical Reports. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_engineering/indot_workshop_resources_for_engineers/documents/20080628094326_727.pdf

Pringle, K. & Williams, S. The future is the past: has technical communication arrived as a profession? Technical Communication, 52(3), 361-370. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=17643687&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Vassallo, P. (2002). REPORTING FOR RESULTS: Creating a Checklist. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 59(3), 317. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7695050&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Week 8, Thursday, Oct. 20

This week’s focus: Reports (continued).

This week’s readings:

Pflugfelder, E. H. (2017). Reddit’s “explain like I’m five”: technical descriptions in the wild. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 25-41. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120809455&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Munroe, R. (2012). Up goer five. XKCD.com. Retrieved from https://xkcd.com/1133/

STC Board of Directors. (1998, September). Ethical principles. Society of Technical Communicators. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/about-stc/ethical-principles/

Ross. D. G. (2017). Why ethics?: interpreting “ethics” and what STC’s ethical principles (can) do. Intercom, November/December, 29-32. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20180814201246/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-pNCXmvaWSQJ:https://www.stc.org/intercom/2017/12/why-ethics-interpreting-ethics-and-what-stcs-ethical-principles-can-do/&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0

Week 9, Thursday, Oct. 27

This week’s deliverable: Technical Descriptions.

Previous week’s deliverable due.

This week’s readings:

Hirst, R. (2003). Scientific jargon, good and bad. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33(3), 201-229. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=12281083&site=ehost-live&scope=site

McMurrey, D. (2017). Extended definition: get your project approved and funded. Online Technical Writing. Retrieved from https://mcmassociates.io/textbook/def.html

Mackiewicz, J. (2004). What technical writing students should know about typeface personality. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34(1&2), 113-131. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=13839193&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Week 10, Thursday, Nov. 3

This week’s deliverable: Technical Definitions.

Previous week’s deliverable due.

This week’s readings:

McMurrey, D. (2017). User guides: tell them how to operate it! Online Technical Writing. Retrieved from https://mcmassociates.io/textbook/user_guides.html

Hallenbeck, S. (2012). User Agency, Technical Communication, and the 19th-Century Woman Bicyclist. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(4), 290–306. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=78238073&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Wang, J. & Wang, H. (2015). From a marketplace to a cultural space: online meme as an operational unit of cultural transmission. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 45(3), 261-274. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=103279933&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Week 11, Thursday, Nov. 10

This week’s deliverable: Technical Manuals.

Previous week’s deliverable due.

This week’s readings:

Beck, C. E. (1993). The STC code and the ethics framework. Technical Communication, 40(3), n.p.. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=cuny_nytc&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA14507087&sid=classroomWidget&asid=1b149c55#.W3N02ssu8GA.link

Colton, J. S., Holmes, S., & Walwema, J. From NoobGuides to #OpKKK: ethics of Anonymous’ tactical technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 59-75. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120809457&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Week 12, Thursday, Nov. 17

This week’s deliverable: User Testing Report.

Previous week’s deliverable due.

This week’s readings:

Russell, D. R. (2007). Rethinking the articulation between business and technical communication and writing in the disciplines: useful avenues for teaching and research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(3), 248-277. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1050651907300452

Mara, A. & Hawk, B. (2010). Posthuman rhetorics and technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 1-10. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=49152778&site=ehost-live&scope=site

NB: No class on Thursday, Nov. 24.

Week 13, Thursday, Dec. 1

This week’s focus: Final Portfolio.

Previous week’s deliverable due.

This week’s readings:

Carter, M., Ferzli, M. & Wiebe, E. N. (2007). Writing to learn by learning to write in the disciplines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(3), 278-302. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1050651907300466

Albers, M. J. (2005). The future of technical communication: introduction to this special issue. Technical Communication, 52(3), 267-272. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=cuny_nytc&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA134961823&sid=classroomWidget&asid=0c67d7ea#.W3EH0AmG9Ms.link

Week 14, Thursday, Dec. 8

This week’s focus: Studio Time.

This week’s readings:

Ferro, T. & Zachry, M. (2014). Technical communication unbound: knowledge work, social media, and emergent communicative practices. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 6-21. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=93008875&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Verzosa Hurley, E. & Hea, A. (2014). The rhetoric of reach. preparing students for technical communication in the age of social media. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 55-68. Retrieved from http://citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=93008878&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Week 15, Thursday, Dec. 15

Final portfolio is due Thursday, Dec. 15 by the end of class FOR EXTRA CREDIT!

Final portfolio is due by the last day of the semester on Wednesday, Dec. 21 FOR REGULAR CREDIT!

This week’s readings:

Magyar, M. (1993). Science fiction for technical communicators. Proceedings Professional Communication Conference, The New Face of Technical Communication: People, Processes, Products (pp. 107-111). Philadelphia, PA: IEEE. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/document/593787/

Chiang, Ted (2013). The truth of fact, the truth of feeling. Subterranean Press. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20150104225212/https:/subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2013/the_truth_of_fact_the_truth_of_feeling_by_ted_chiang