There is often only so much one can do in an undergraduate classroom, especially when teaching freshmen and sophomores. Getting them over the hump of passive versus active voice can sometimes feel like a sisyphean task. For every two steps forward, some kid will be lingering five steps back. God bless ’em.
Where, then, does Kira Dreher’s excellent contribution, “Engaging Plain Language in the Technical Communication Classroom,” fit into our own Comm classes? Dreher argues for the explicit linking, in the classroom, between plain language, social justice, and access to information as part of the dialogue between instructor and student. In turn, I argue that although the lessons may not appear to sink in, introducing these concepts in our classrooms is not only do-able, it’s necessary.
As Dreher writes, “plain language has become a critical and highly relevant site where students can grapple” with the theories, practices, and effects of communication in their own disciplines (46). Otherwise disengaged students perk up and start paying attention when you bring their attention to the various ways in which the communication practices being taught in the classroom have real-world effects on individuals, especially when it comes to social justice. All communication is inescapably political, with questions of power, privilege, and access a part of every communicative act. Demonstrating this in the classroom is a necessary first step to teaching plain language; it makes the ideas of clarity, concision, and design much more relevant for students.
As part of her excellent article, Dreher includes several suggested exercises for instructors to use in their own classrooms. One which we could productively use within our own Comm classrooms might be “Example 3: Plain Language in Specific Fields,” which begins on page 60. We don’t have necessarily have students whose educational and work careers will focus on the concept of “technical” communication, but each one of our students will be called upon to write plainly in their own field. In this exercise, students are asked to research plain language requirements in their own fields and to consider how these specific requirements contrast against such resources as plainlanguage.gov. Making these sorts of direct links demonstrates to students that the strategies we teach in class — active voice, clarity, concision, information design — are more than just ways to keep them busy over the course of a semester.
We do our students a disfavor if we fail to discuss plain language in the classroom, as there’s no guarantee that they’ll be exposed to these ideas once they leave our purview (one hopes otherwise, regardless). Ensuring that it’s a clear part of their earliest education at the university level means that they have the chance to carry these ideas with them as they move towards their career goals.
Barbara Shaddix 