Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Garvey 1

DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

9 June 2011 Antonio Ceraso, Instructor Erin Ashley Mink Garvey Annotations for Project 2 Revised/Final

Introduction to Cross-Cultural Technical Communication Course My Cross-Cultural Technical Communication course at a typical American community college is targeted toward L2 English speakers and writers, as well as native speakers and writers, who are interested in preparing technical documents for cross-cultural settings, either in the USA or abroad. As such, I've made my course readings, materials, and student assignments as cross-cultural in nature as possible while still also teaching them the essentials of technical communication. I've based my hypothetical class on information I've gleaned from my current Technical Writing course and the readings we've completed for it, the Johnson-Sheehan textbook we'll be using for my class, and sample syllabi for similar technical communication courses I have seen elsewhere. What is likely the bedrock of my class is students' numerous opportunities for exposure to, and exercise in, writing various types of technical communication pieces. Like the textbook we will be using for our course, I, too, tried to take a scaffolding approach to my students' assignments, making them progressively more challenging and worth more points for their grades. Also, due to the crosscultural focus of the class, I deemed it critical to make as many of the assignments as cross-cultural or diverse-focused as possible. For the purposes of my class, I defined cross-cultural and diverse contexts strictly in differences of the audience's country of origin, nationality, or ethnicity, but of course, writers can define these concepts differently, by using such other social identifiers like age, gender, education level, class, and the like. Additionally, by giving students multiple writing assignments, I sought to equip them with a variety of documents that they'd be able to use as their final portfolio for this class and, ultimately, as part of their immediate, post-college career preparation. The first statement in my course learning goals alludes to the textbook's major sub-sections that we will be covering in class through our readings and through students' writing assignments. Additionally, I made specific mention of students learning rhetorical and discourse strategies as part of this class so that they would know that they would learn how to appropriately read their audiences in order to better anticipate their needs and more effectively communicate to them, the latter being especially important for a cross- cultural and diverse readership. The aims of my coursefor students to be able to compose pieces for diverse audiences, compose and revise pieces in accordance with the document's audience's rhetorical and discourse needs, and use the language and conventions of Standard American English in technical piecesare also heavily colored by my own experiences as a current student of technical communication and from the cross-cultural focus of the Johnson-Sheehan textbook. Explanation of Week-by-Week Course Trajectory and Assignments Like the Johnson-Sheehan textbook, I, too, tried to take a scaffolding approach to the course. I also wanted to introduce the major course project, the analytical report, early in the quarter so students would have ample time to work on its various aspects, ask questions, and apply classroom learningsespecially the theoretical ones related to cross-cultural awareness and appropriacy strategiesto their reports. Week One

Garvey 2

As seems to be the norm for many classes, the first week is devoted to covering the basics of the course content, which is why we covered the topic's basic elements and its process early on. Also, due to this course being cross-culturally focused and targeted, we also will begin our discussions of cross-cultural considerations early in the quarter so students can begin to think about how their documents need to be written in ways appropriate to their specific or targeted audiences. These considerations include familiarity with Standard American English, differences in values systems, and different interpretations of icons and images, for example. Additionally, early on we will also cover aspects of user analysis and discourse strategies, since it will be important for students to learn how to first understand and read their readers and their needs before jumping into any extensive writing assignments. This user analysis corresponds to my students' first writing assignment in week two, wherein they will be researching a country or culture for whom they'll be targeting their analytical report and in their document, and will explain the differences and similarities in the texts prepared by members of that community and the students' own expectations for how particular texts should be written. Students are asked to arrive at these differences or similarities after finding two texts written by people from the particular country or culture for whom they'll be addressing their final project. This juncture could be an appropriate time to incorporate Kaplan's somewhat prejudicial idea of contrastive rhetorics in an in-class exercise, such as comparing different countries' media outlets' coverage of the same story, such as the recent Osama bin Laden killing. We could have an inclass discussion related to how (or why) various languages' media cover stories differently, in terms of their writing flow and content, if not also the visual aesthetics of the piece as well. Another way to showcase textual differences between cross-cultural contexts might include taking a document that was written in several languages, such as an instruction guide, and ask a native speaker to translate it for the class, and, if applicable, explain why some icons or images differ (or are the same) as those featured in the English edition. Having these in-class analyses will better acclimate students to the types and kinds of analysis that I am looking for in their subsequent assignments. This first assignment also asks students to note any differences in the texts' content, organization, style, and design, too. Here I've also introduced the major course project, the analytical report, so students can begin to think about it early on. I'm asking students to write an analytical report, in English, for either a specific country of users or culture of users, in the USA or abroad. We'll be revisiting this assignment throughout the quarter as students learn how to prepare various front and back matter related to the project, such as executive summaries, memos, white papers, or technical descriptions. Throughout the quarter, I'll also ask students to use these other assignments as stepping stones toward their completion of the final analytical report project. Week Two Continuing from week one's attempts at laying the groundwork for a study of technical communication, in week two I've planned to talk about the ethics involved in the field of study and how it has evolved dramatically with the advances in technology and globalization worldwide. Many college classes that are even somewhat implicated by the business world require an ethics component, so it comes as no surprise that that's also the case with my theoretical class. Though I didn't include it on my syllabus, it could also make for interesting class conversation if I assign them the well-known Katz reading about the ethic of expediency

Garvey 3

and how that relates to technical communication. Like many other students, my students, too, would likely remember that Katz reading (and our subsequent discussion) for years to come! As I mentioned in week one, my students' first writing assignment also comes in week two, as I ask them to begin to do a preliminary user analysis (though I don't call it that) for the country or culture of users for whom they'd like to write their analytical report. It's obviously important for students to begin to understand their readers and their readers' needs before they start preparing documents for them, so I thought it was logical for this assignment to occur early on. In week two, I'll also begin introducing my students to various genres of technical communication, specifically letters/memos and technical definitions. Knowing how to write an effective letter/memo will be a skill that students will likely be able to apply outside my classroom, and it will also be the standard type of correspondence I'll expect from my students (unless specified otherwise). Additionally, I've chosen to cover technical definitions early in the quarter because students will be able to begin to brainstorm different ways of defining content related to their final projects and subsequently learn how to incorporate these definitions effectively into their documentsor, alternatively, learn how to define content appropriately for their users, based on their needs or the appropriate rhetoric and discourse of the document. When we cover technical definitions in-class, I envision giving students a similar type of exercise that we completed in WRD521, wherein students are all given the same prompt and are asked to theoretically write some type of communication material, such as a website or a brochure, and to define key concepts. Due to my class's cross-cultural focus, it would make sense to place students in a somewhat politicized context and ask them to define slightly abstract concepts that they might encounter during the course of their context examination, such as culture or standard of living. For example, I might give the students the following prompt and ask them to define globalization and culture for a website for college students: Situation: You work as a writer and document planner for the Policy Analysis department of UNICEF. UNICEF has recently undertaken an initiative for educating young college students, ages 18-20, about the plight of other college students around the world, particularly in the Middle East, who have been affected by the recent governmental uprisings and regime collapses. The MacArthur Foundation just conducted a study that determined that most young college students outside the Middle East aren't aware of the uprisings and collapses and don't care to learn, though. Thus, UNICEF is asking you to write a web page that puts the context into understandable terms for non-Middle Eastern young college students, focusing primarily on how these young teens' lives have been affected by their government's uprisings or collapses. You are tasked with writing expended definitions for two terms, culture and standard of living, as they relate to the plight of Middle Eastern college students. Just as when we completed a similar exercise in WRD521, asking students to compose expanded definitions for these concepts will challenge them to think outside the box while also considering their users' needs and knowledge base. Week Three Week three, like week two, also combines more bedrock information about the field of technical

Garvey 4

communication with genre-based information. Here, we will be examining the persuasion and style of Standard American English and how technical communicators are expected to be able to employ each appropriately and effectively for their documents. The discussion about SAE will be especially important given my course's focus on cross-cultural audiences because oftentimes native English writers might have fallen into habits of using language that is inaccessible to L2 audiences because it is laden with jargon or slang or is rife with colloquialisms or grammatical errors that impede understanding. At the same time, the discussion about SAE will also be beneficial to my L2 writers in my class because they will also get a refresher on American English grammar, style, and persuasiontopics that they might have learned about either experientially or through formalized, in-class instruction. Formally devoting time to discussing these topics will, ideally, help bridge whatever gaps may exist between my L2 and native speaker writers in class and get everyone on a more equal knowledge base of SAE and SAE style. Should I notice that there are significant differences among my L2 students' English acquisition levels, I will follow-up with each of them individually and, depending on the institutional resources available to me, might refer them to other institutional offices who could provide supplementary writing support, such as a writing center or peer tutor. The genre that we'll explore in week three is white papers, which I've chosen due to their abilities to inform key decision-makers or clients about important issues in a relatively quick format. Willerton's Writing White Papers in High Tech Industries: Perspectives from the Field also showed white papers' abilities to be both informative and persuasive, depending on their usage context, which ties-in well with my students' focus on being effectively (and appropriately) informative and persuasive in their documents for their cross-cultural audiences (192-193). The dual objective/persuasive nature of white papers, as Willerton points out, could also bring about interesting discussions in class as we talk about various cultures' differing ways of persuading and informing audiences and which techniques or rhetorical strategies are or are not used. I also envision that students would be able to create white papers in advance of their analytical reports, perhaps as a way to garner attention and interest in the topic that they'll be exploring for their analytical report (while also insisting or arguing for the necessity of creating the analytical report that explores their topic in greater detail). Week Four Week four explores document design and the genre of executive summaries or abstracts. Document design is typically a pillar of technical communicationor at least in the minds of technically communication textbook authors who, more often than not, devote at least a chapter to the topic. Document design can be complicated for cross-cultural audiences, however, as writers must make additional considerations that writers for more homogeneous audiences might not have to make, such as how text should flow (right-to-left versus left-to-right), which icons or pictures might be offensive (some animals are religiously revered in some cultures, whereas in others, they might be a sports mascot), or which colors to use (that, again, might be restricted in some colors and used extensively in others). Continuing the discussion from week three, this week's first writing assignment asks students to create a white paper that explores the country or culture they're examining's persuasion strategies. It also asks students to describe what typical citizens from the country or culture under examination would find persuasivethat is, which tactics, how things are or aren't said, that sort of thingand which tactics they'd actually find offensive. This assignment supports my

Garvey 5

scaffolding approach because it will force students to research actual, culturally-sound ways of persuasion specific to their audience. It also ties-in with the user analysis they (informally) conducted for week two. I would suggest that my students look at various media outlets for their specific context or, if possible, even consider informally interviewing community members to gain a better insight into the context's persuasion strategies. This week's second writing assignment follows our discussion of the genre of executive summaries/abstracts, which students might encounter more frequently as they prepare to compose their analytical reports than the white papers we examined the week before. The assignment asks students to examine an international company's website that is intended to work cross-culturally and explain why you believe the site is culturally shallow or culturally deep, examine if the website designers made adjustments on the site to suit various cultures' different expectations, and offer suggestions for how the website's design could be improved, or made more effective, for its targeted audience(s) (269). This assignment also has straightforward tie-in to my students' final projects because they will be expected to compose their final projects in ways that are both effective and, perhaps more importantly, appropriate for their audiences. Giving students an opportunity to write an executive summary of their findings will also be beneficial because they will be expected to include an executive summary or abstract in the front matter of their analytical report. Week Five Week five explores issues of usability, giving special consideration to how technical communicators may have to consider these issues differently for their cross-cultural audiences and contexts, and we also talk about the genres that are typically present in what JohnsonSheehan calls the front matter of analytical reports. Though there aren't any out-of-class writing assignments for this week, I've given my students a heads-up that we will be having an inclass exercise and discussion about issues of usability in cross-cultural contexts. Here, students could contribute their findings regarding their specific country or culture under examination, for whom they are preparing their final analytical reports, and they could also divulge how issues of usability are unique for their targeted audiences. Usability issues also are important to consider for my L2 and L1 students as we go through the various stages and levels of revising and editing. Nicole Loorbach et al's Adding Motivational Elements to an Instruction Manual for Seniors: Effects on Usability and Motivation showed how one group of users (seniors) were affected by challenged by instruction sets that contained or lacked key componentssuch as motivational elements or an index/table of contentsand the researchers didn't realize their guides lacked key aspects until their end-users brought it to their attention (350). Such is part of the reason why I am placing such a high value on workshopping; many times, students might not realize how their writing could be unclear (or misinterpreted, given our cross-cultural focus) until it is brought to their attention by an outside reader. It will have been helpful, I imagine, at this point in the class for us to have explored the style of form of Standard American English in technical communication. We'll also revisit issues of usability as we conduct a few peer workshopping days in class, as students will have the opportunity to provide usability feedback for some of their peers' technical pieces that they'll later submit in their portfolios.

Garvey 6

We'll also be exploring the front matter of analytical reports, which includes the relatively straightforward components of writing the letter or memo of transmittal (or cover letter) to accompany the report, the title page, introduction, abstract or executive summary, and the table of contents. By this point in the course, we'll have already covered the genre of executive summaries/abstracts, and Johnson-Sheehan offers extensive, explicit examples of the other front matter components in chapter 23; by comparison, the other components seem like they would be ones that students could easily grasp with little instruction from me. Week Six Week six's readings will take us into additional genres of technical communication, specifically technical descriptions and documentation. Johnson-Sheehan explains that many manufacturers typically use technical descriptions for quality control or sales purposes and that they also use their descriptions to establish an archetype, or ideal, against which future products can be measured and tested (516). Additionally, Johnson-Sheehan lists the following as basic features or components of technical descriptions: a specific and precise title, an introduction with an overall description, a description of features/functions/or stages of a process, the use of senses/similes/metaphors/and analogies, graphics, and a conclusion that shows the thing/place/process in action (517). Johnson-Sheehan also writes that if your description is embedded in a larger document, such as a report or proposal, you will likely need to adjust the content, organization, style, and design to suit the larger document (517). Because my students will later be writing a proposal, and then an analytical report for their final project, I've asked them to complete a draft of a section of their report into a technical description for two specific audiencesso two different descriptions, totalpaying particular attention to the issues of SAE style, form, and grammar that we'll have already discussed by this point in the class. I think this writing assignment will give my students a good opportunity to think about the different ways that they might frame a technical description, given their audience and their needs, while still taking into account the cultural considerations that they'll need to be mindful of for their targeted audience. The second part of week six is devoted to documentation, which will spill over into week seven, given our upcoming first peer workshopping day that will also occur during week seven. The instructions and documentation chapter features a section specifically focusing on planning for cross-cultural readers and contexts when preparing and writing documentation and/or instruction sets and offers verbal and visual guidance, such as reminding students to use basic English and to be wary of the icons or images they use (out of cultural sensitivity and awareness) (565). As a follow-up to the documentation chapter, I'm asking students to research the culture or country they're targeting for their analytical report and to find out how documentation is written and designed in that particular context, looking specifically for examples of documentation. Though my students won't be writing an instruction or documentation set, I still think that it's important to include this chapter in our class, since it has such a presence among technical writing. Additionally, I think students will benefit from doing the research on their targeted context insomuch that they will gain more cultural cognizance and familiarity while also still learning about the documentation genre of technical communication. They'll ultimately be able to take their learnings about this particular technical genre as they go on to prepare their subsequent writings.

Garvey 7

Week Seven As mentioned in week six, week seven includes spill-over from the documentation chapter as well as our first peer portfolio workshopping day. Many instructors have written about the value of peer workshops, and this can be especially true in L2 contexts, wherein L2 students can help other L2 students better their written or verbal competencies. Though my technical communication course will be a combination of L2 and L1 speakers, I nonetheless think that my students will be able to offer some valuable feedback to their peersespecially as it relates to issues of usabilityand because of this, I've detailed in my syllabus that if students fail to participate in the peer workshopping days, they will automatically receive zero credit for their class participation grade. (To be fair, I also did that as a failsafe to ensure that students will come to class that day. I've had some experiences as an undergraduate where, if students knew that we were workshopping, they wouldn't show up because they didn't feel it was worth their time. In advance of our peer workshopping days, I'll also provide students with guidelines for what their workshopping should accomplish and how they can give and receive constructive criticism to their peers, in an effort to make the workshopping days as productive as possible). By this point in the quarter, students will have already submitted to me their assignments for weeks two through six, so I have asked them to bring copies for everyone in their peer workshop groups, along with the feedback that I gave them after they initially submitted their assignments. Ultimately, the goal in doing the peer workshopping is to get students engaged with their writing and to challenge them to think of ways to better connect with their cross-cultural audiences through their writing. It's often helpful to have a fresh set of eyes examine one's writings, and I think this will be especially true for the cross-cultural contexts for whom my students are writing, as well. Students will be able to take their peers' suggestions and incorporate them into their final editions of their writing assignments, which they will then submit to me as part of their final portfolio during finals week. I'll also ask students to send me a quick one-paragraph email that explains how successful they think their peer workshopping experience was and details the contributions of each group member. I'll also include this as part of their participation grade. Earlier in this memo, I alluded to the value that I've placed on my peer workshopping days, and part of that is colored by Selzer's, Winsor's, and Rude's arguments about the academy needing to do an about-face with how we are teaching our up-and-coming technical communicators, implying that writing and decision-making is something that can be done swiftly. By workshopping, I will be teaching students that writing is a recursive process, not just an end product. Selzers article took Rudes argument one step further by examining it to real-life circumstances: by doing a case-study on one engineers linear writing process. Selzer found it particularly intriguing that his subject (Nelson) spent much of his writing time as would a professional or skilled academic writer, devoting it to [inventing] content in detail and through various schemata of invention, [arranging] content carefully and consciously [shaping] his style and nearly always writing alone (322). To Selzers surprise, Nelson spent very little time doing any in-depth revision, so the author accordingly suggested that it may in technical

Garvey 8

writing courses be worth attending to the writing process in much the same way That means that instead of ignoring invention and planning, as nearly all technical writing texts now do, teachers might direct students to various ways of developing, selecting, and arranging content. It means that technical writing teachers might begin to modify students writing processes (not just correct their products) by examining their students plans, outlines, rough drafts, and revisions, consequently calling for instructors to teach their technical communicators through a writing-as-a-process, not writing-as-a-product philosophy (322). Though of course I would still give my students end comments and grades on their writings, by having them submit their assignments to me once, then workshop, and then submit again their final editions, I will be able to do what Selzer suggestsdirect them to various ways of developing their content and not merely tell them what they need to edit. Moreover, asking for peer feedback via workshops, or having me check-in on the students progress, would help give students the types of feedback necessary to help them determine if their writings were embodying the type of convincing social knowledge that Winsor talked about, while also speaking to Selzers idea that technical communication should be re-considered through a writing-as-a-process vein (343, 322). Week Eight Following our peer workshopping in week seven, in week eight, we will begin the home-stretch of the quarter by exploring the most substantial (or significant) genres of technical communication that the Johnson-Sheehan book discusses: proposals and analytical reports. Johnson-Sheehan lists an introduction, a description of the current situation, a description of the project plan, a review of qualifications, a discussions of costs and benefits, graphics, and budget as typical parts of proposals (591). As a follow-up to our discussion on proposals, though students might not be initially familiar with proposals, I venture that many will have at least heard of a costs/benefits analysis, which is why I'm asking them to draft a costs/benefits analysis that could tie-in to their analytical report. Some people automatically assume that costs and benefits are strictly empirical or monetary, so I will make a specific point of instructing them of the other, equally important, soft costs and benefits that could arise in given situations. In this assignment, I'm also reminding them to pay attention to their audience's cultural-specific discourse strategies as they relate to high or low culture. I think this could be an interesting and perhaps challenging assignment for my students, especially when considering their context's cultural strategies, and similar to the other assignments we'll have had earlier in the quarter, students could feasibly include their costs/benefits analysis into their final analytical report. Rude's work on inquiry ties-in well at this point in the quarter, as the author explored the various ways in which the report genre shapes and transmits knowledge related to what she qualified as the three most pervasive types of problems--those theoretical, empirical, or practical--she argued that many, if not most, technical writers easily fall into the IMRD (introduction, methods, results, and discussion) structure trap, even when this genre is inappropriate for the problem they are reviewing (75, 72). Both she and Rutter call for a reconsideration of rhetoric and technical communication, asserting that [textbook discussions] therefore imply that the process of making decisions can ignore factors that do not lend themselves readily to quantification and calculation. A rhetorical approach to inquiry and

Garvey 9

reason could broaden the scope of analysis to include all the factors that may determine the success of a decision (89, my emphasis). Complex practical problems that require action, she says, are neither matters of fact that can be solved by calculation or experiment nor matters of value that can be solved by advocacy to change beliefs. Rather, they require a rhetorical method of inquiry that can accommodate fact and value as well as situatedness and uncertainty (89). Thus, my students' cost/benefit analysis assignment that takes into consideration crosscultural contexts would be one example of a rhetorical approach to inquiry and reason. The second part of week eight focuses on preparing the back matter of analytical reports, which clearly complements the front matter we examined earlier. Johnson-Sheehan lists appendices, glossaries of terms, and calculations as typical back matter components (694). Just like with earlier writing assignments, students will be able to incorporate these back matter components into their final analytical reports throughout the quarter. Week Nine Week nine will be when we put the finishing touches on our quarter-long discussion of students' final projects, their cross-cultural analytical reports. By this point in the quarter, they will have read many sections from chapter twenty-three, so while they will be assigned to read the chapter again, it will likely be just a refresher for them at this point. This is strategic, as well, since I will want them to spend the rest of their quarter working on completing their draft of their analytical report and on improving their writing assignments from earlier in the quarter. The only assignment for week nine is a draft of their completed analytical report, which, in theory, by this point in the quarter, they will have worked on for the past eight weeks. JohnsonSheehan, like many in the technical communication field, offer the following components as standard of the analytical report genre: an introduction, a methodology or research plan, results, a discussion of the results, and conclusions or recommendations (660). Like many others, he refers to this as the IMRaD approach (660). Just as he does elsewhere in his textbook, here, too, he makes the concession that the IMRaD pattern for reports is flexible and should be adapted to the specific situations in which you are writing. [] Like patterns for other documents, the IMRaD pattern is not a formula to be followed strictly. Rather, it is a guide to help you organize the information you have collected (660-1). Johnson-Sheehan, like Rude, remind writers that IMRaD is not a prescriptive formula to blindly use but something that, if used, can be adapted to suit one's needs. Johnson-Sheehan also lists the various types of analytical reports, which includes research reports, empirical research reports, completion reports, recommendation reports, and feasibility reports (660-1). For the purposes of my students' assignments, I'll be asking them to complete research reports, wherein they'll present the findings of a study and stress the causes and effects of problems or trends, showing how events in the past have developed into the current situation (661). As part of their analytical report, I'll be asking students to include the typical front matter components we'll have already discussed by week nine, an executive summary/abstract of their findings, the technical description they wrote (using the description most relevant to their intended audience for this report), and the technical definition they wrote (again, the definition most relevant to their intended audience). I'll also ask students to articulate, in their memo or letter of transmittal that will accompany their report, exactly who their intended audience is and what the students have learned about their context's culturally-specific rhetoric and discourse

Garvey 10

strategies and outline how the students have written their document appropriately for their context. Ultimately, the analytical report will be a final summation and application of the many technical genres we'll have explored throughout our ten weeks together. Week Ten Our final week together will be devoted exclusively to peer workshopping, with one day devoted to the writing assignments students will have completed since week seven and the other exclusively to students' analytical reports, since they will be far more comprehensive and consequently, will take more time to review in-class. Just as before, earlier in the quarter, I will ask students to bring ample copies for their peer reviewers and to also bring along my comments to the workshop. Students will be expected to attend and fully participate in the peer workshop process, else they will lose all their participation credit for the quarter. Week Eleven/Finals Week In lieu of a written exam, I'm asking students to submit a portfolio of their all their writing assignments for the quarter, both the original submissions and the revisions. Seeing the before and after editions of my students' writings will help me assess how seriously they took the peer workshopping process and how much their technical writing skills have progressed (or not) since the beginning of the quarter. Having this complete picture will also permit me to see how much the students have researched and gained cultural competence in the community for whom they have written and studied all quarter long in preparation of their analytical report assignment. Concluding Remarks Since technical communication has become increasingly global in nature, due to many companies and organizations increasing their scope to one more ecumenical in nature and less insular, I think there is a real place and value in globalizing technical communication courses, which was my attempt here. That said, blending technical communication instruction with a cross-cultural awareness and focus is not an easy or straightforward task, even when using a textbook like that of Johnson-Sheehan, who specifically tries to include cross-cultural elements in his work. Because of this, students might stand to benefit from doing supplementary research related to their context they're examining, but I don't think it is a feasible goal to accomplish in an already-packed ten-week quarter, and perhaps even less so for 200-level undergraduate students at a community college. Additionally, if given more time in the quarter, or perhaps in a different class setting altogether, my students and I could also explore elements of cross-cultural technical communication in the USA but focus specifically on culturally-different discourse communities, such as writing for the nontechnical general public. This broader definition of culturally diverse could expand the breadth of a crosscultural technical communication course and allow students to see that their readers don't have to be from different countries to have different cultures, which would impact the way they, as readers, communicate with them, their audience.