Balancing Methodological Openness and Control in TPC-UX Pedagogy
Pages 31 - 40
Abstract
This experience report describes a six-week unit at the intersection of technical and professional communication and user experience design (TPC-UX). Drawing on the work of Patricia Sullivan and Thomas Kent, it argues for a paralogic hermeneutic approach to TPC-UX pedagogy and illustrates how the Double Diamond design process can be used to scaffold assignments and create methodological balance. It also describes how commonplace TPC assignments---such as the technology tutorial---can be reframed according to user experience methods. Details about readings and deliverables are included.
References
[1]
18F Methods. (n.d.). Example usability test script. U.S. General Services Administration. https://guides.18f.gov/ux-guide/usability-test-script/
[2]
Alhadreti, O., & Mayhew, P. (2017). To intervene or not to intervene: An investigation of three think-aloud protocols in usability testing. Journal of Usability Studies, 12(3) 111--132. https://uxpajournal.org/intervene-think-aloud-protocols-usability-testing/
[3]
Alhadreti, O., & Mayhew, P. (2018). Are two pairs of eyes better than one? A comparison of concurrent think-aloud and co-participation methods in usability testing. Journal of Usability Studies, 13(4), 177--195. https://uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/pdf/JUS_Alhadreti_August2018.pdf
[4]
Bay, J., Becker, M., Clark, A., Mast, E., Robb, B., & Torres, K. (2022). User experience in the professional and technical writing major: Pedagogical approaches and student perspectives. In K. Crane & K. Cargile Cook (Eds.), User experience as innovative academic practice (pp. 265--284). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado.
[5]
Buley L. (2013). The user experience team of one: A research and design survival guide. Rosenfeld Media.
[6]
British Design Council (2023). The double diamond: A universally accepted depiction of the design process. Design Council. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/
[7]
Brumberger, E., & Lauer, C. (2020). A day in the life: Personas of professional communicators at work. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 50(3), 308--335.
[8]
Cargile Cook, K., & Crane, K. (2022). Beyond lore: UX as data-driven practice. In K. Crane & K. Cargile Cook (Eds.), User experience as innovative academic practice (pp. 25--37). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado.
[9]
Getto, G., & Flanagan, S. (2022). Localizing UX advocacy and accountability: Using personas to amplify user agency. Technical Communication, 69(4), 97--113.
[10]
Haswell, R. H. (2005). NCTE/CCCC's recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22(2), 198--223.
[11]
Howard, T. W. (2015). Are personas really usable? Communication Design Quarterly, 3(2), 20--26.
[12]
Hunter, P. T. (2024). Toward TPC-UX: UX topics in TPC journals 2013--2022. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 54(3), 3243--56.
[13]
Johnson, R. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. SUNY Press.
[14]
Johnson, R. R., Salvo, M. J., & Zoetewey, M. W. (2007). User-centered technology in participatory culture: Two decades "Beyond a narrow conception of usability testing." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4), 320--332.
[15]
Jones, N. N., Moore, K. R., & Walton, R. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211--229.
[16]
Kartch, F. (2017). Narrative interviewing. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 4, 1073--1075. SAGE Publications, Inc
[17]
Kent, T. (1989). Paralogic hermeneutics and the possibilities of rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 24--42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/465679
[18]
Kent, T. (1993). Paralogic rhetoric: A theory of communicative interaction. Bucknell UP.
[19]
Krug, S. (2009). Rocket surgery made easy: The do-it-yourself guide to finding and fixing usability problems. New Riders.
[20]
Lane, L. (2021). Interstitial design processes: How design thinking and social design processes bridge theory and practice in TPC pedagogy. In M. J. Klein (Ed.), Effective teaching of technical communication: Theory, practice, and application (pp. 29--44). University Press of Colorado.
[21]
Lauer, C., & Brumberger, E. (2016). Technical communication as user experience in a broadening industry landscape. Technical Communication, 63(3), 248--264. https://www.stc.org/techcomm/2016/08/01/technical-communication-as-user-experience-in-a-broadening-industry-landscape/
[22]
Lotier, K. (2021). Postprocess postmortem. University Press of Colorado.
[23]
Mara, A. (2020). UX on the go: A flexible guide to user experience design. Routledge.
[24]
Meloncon, L. (2017). Embodied personas for a mobile world. Technical Communication, 64(1), 50--65. http://www.writeprofessionally.org/content-manage/files/2017/11/personas.pdf
[25]
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books. (Originally published as The Psychology of Everyday Things in 1988.)
[26]
Redish, J. (2010). Technical communication and usability: Intertwined strands and mutual influences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(3), 191--201.
[27]
Redish, J., & Barnum, C. (2011). Overlap, influence, intertwining: The interplay of UX and technical communication. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), 90--101. https://uxpajournal.org/overlap-influence-intertwining-the-interplay-of-ux-and-technical-communication/
[28]
Rivers, N., & Söderlund, L. (2016). Speculative usability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(1), 125--146.
[29]
Robertson, I., & Kortum, P. (2020). Validity of three discount methods for measuring perceived usability. Journal of Usability Studies, 16(1), 13--28. https://uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/pdf/JUS_Robertson_Nov2020.pdf
[30]
Rose, E. J., & Schreiber, J. (2021). User experience and technical communication: Beyond intertwining. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 343--349.
[31]
Rose, E. J., & Tenenberg, J. (2018). Poor poor dumb mouths, and bid them speak for me: Theorizing the use of personas in practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 161--174.
[32]
Rose, E. J., & Turner, H. N. (2023a). The paradigm shift to UX and the durability of usability in TPC. Technical Communication Quarterly, 0(0), 1--12.
[33]
Rose, E. J., & Turner, H. N. (2023b). Trust the process: A scalable model for UX pedagogy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 0(0), 1--28.
[34]
Salvo, M. J. (2001). Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 273--290.
[35]
Sauro, J., & Zarolia, P. (2017). SUPR-Qm: A questionnaire to measure the mobile app user experience. Journal of Usability Studies, 10(2), 68--86. https://uxpajournal.org/supr-qm-measure-mobile-ux/
[36]
Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389--411.
[37]
St.Amant, K. (2017). Of content, context, and conveyance: Editorial. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(1), 4--7.
[38]
Suchman, L. (1985). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Xerox.
[39]
Sullivan, P. (1989). Beyond a narrow conception of usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(4), 256--264.
[40]
Sullivan, P. (2017). Beckon, encounter, experience: The danger of control and the promise of encounters in the study of user experience. In L. Potts & M. J. Salvo (Eds.), Rhetoric and experience architecture (pp. 17--40). Parlor Press.
[41]
Sullivan, P., & Moore, K. (2013). Time talk: On small changes that enact infrastructural mentoring for undergraduate women in technical fields. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43(3), 333--354.
[42]
Tham, J., Howard, T., & Verhulsdonck, G. (2022). Extending design thinking, content strategy, and artificial intelligence into technical communication and user experience design programs: Further pedagogical implications. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 52(4), 428--459.
[43]
Tham, J. & Thominet, L. (2022). Introduction to design thinking & keywords. In J. C. K. Tham (Ed.), Keywords in design thinking: A lexical primer for technical communicators & designers (pp. 3--17). University Press of Colorado.
[44]
Thralls, C., & Blyler, N. R. (1993). The social perspective and pedagogy in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 2(3), 249--270.
[45]
University of Michigan's Office of Research Ethics & Compliance (n.d.). Informed consent guidelines and templates. University of Michigan. https://research-compliance.umich.edu/informed-consent-guidelines
[46]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Informed consent FAQs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/index.html
[47]
Verhulsdonck, G., Howard, T., & Tham, J. (2021). Investigating the impact of design thinking, content strategy, and artificial intelligence: A "streams" approach for technical communication and user experience. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 468--492.
[48]
Wolfe, J., & Powell, E. (2014). Strategies for dealing with slacker and underperforming teammates in class projects. 2014 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 1--8.
[49]
Zhou, Q. (2014). "That usability course": What technical communication programs get wrong about usability and how to fix it. Communication Design Quarterly, 2(3), 25--27.
Index Terms
- Balancing Methodological Openness and Control in TPC-UX Pedagogy
Recommendations
Pedagogy for engaging diverse students in computing: four effective methods (abstract only)
SIGCSE '13: Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science educationFour research-supported teaching methods can make your computing courses more effective through improved student learning, comprehension, and motivation.
This workshop introduces and provides experience with those four methods: 1. Collaborative learning,...
Including teaching ethics into pedagogy: preparing information systems students to meet global challenges of real business settings
Special Issue on EthicompThis paper's discusses five real business capstone projects that were designed to provide an educational experiential learning to include ethics and professionalism in the pedagogy. This class comprised senior undergraduate Computer Science (CS) and ...
Pedagogy that Supports Computer Science for All
Special Section on ML Education and Regular ArticlesThe Computer Science (CS) for All movement has taken hold of the United States and CS education is rapidly expanding across nations throughout the world. Yet, as curricula and professional development opportunities are developed, key questions remain ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2025 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 23 January 2025
Published in SIGDOC-CDQ Volume 12, Issue 3
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 3Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)3
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in