Teaching Evidence-Based Writing Using Corporate Blogs

242 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2013

Teaching Case

Teaching Evidence-Based Writing Using Corporate Blogs

—CHIEN-CHING LEE

Abstract—Teaching problem: Students’ written assignments show that they tend to list ideas rather than provideevidence-based arguments. This might be because they do not have a framework to base their arguments on.Research question: Does the communication model framework help students to write evidence-based argumentswhen evaluating the communicative effectiveness in corporate blogs? Situating the case: The ability to engage inargument from evidence is one of the Next Generation Science Standards for scientific and engineering practices.Thus, it is important for engineering students to know how to present evidence-based arguments. The communicationmodel framework was introduced to provide students with a framework to base their arguments on. This frameworkbuilds on the genre-based and academic literacies approaches to teaching writing. More companies are now usingcorporate blogs (an open, participatory, and globally networked social media tool) to engage stakeholders directlyacross multiple contexts. The framework is useful in analyzing evolving genres like corporate blogs because it isnot only structured but also flexible. About the case: This teaching case describes the use of the communicationmodel framework as the basis for students’ arguments. The framework was used in a general writing course forengineering students. Working in groups, the students used the framework for their oral practice critique and theircritique assignment on a given piece of academic writing or corporate blog. They also had to write a reflection paperindividually at the end of the course. Results: Overall, the mixed groups and international students groups made astronger attempt to apply the framework compared to the Singaporean student groups. The students’ educationalbackgrounds, the group dynamics within the group, and the nature of the discussions affected the level of adoptionof the framework in their writing. Conclusions: This teaching case reflects the value of mixed group, face-to-facediscussions, and personal reflection in teaching students evidence-based writing, and calls for more researchon flexible frameworks as genres evolve.

Index Terms—Communication model framework, corporate blog, evidence-based arguments, first-yearundergraduates, teaching of writing.

INTRODUCTION

Educators often lament that undergraduateshave poor writing skills; common complaintsinclude that students “tell” rather than reportknowledge [1] or reproduce lecture content [2],and present unsubstantiated, incoherent, andungrammatical arguments [2], [3]. The reasonsfor students’ poor writing may lie beyond a lackof skills, especially for first-year undergraduates.First-year undergraduates may not be aware ofthe differences between high-school writing andundergraduate writing [2], [3]. Their writing oftenreflects surface learning where they reproduce thelecture notes in their assignment, rather than deeplearning where they synthesize ideas from multiplesources. My own observations of student writingover two decades show that students’ writingseems to be narrative like (linear and chronological)rather than evidence-based (evidence provided to

Manuscript received May 24, 2012; revised June 24, 2013;accepted July 04, 2013. Date of publication August 01, 2013;date of current version November 20, 2013.The author is with the Language and CommunicationCenter, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, NanyangTechnological University, Singapore 637332 (email:[email protected]).

IEEE 10.1109/TPC.2013.2273117

support a claim). In addition, students’ writingtends to be writer centered (they write for theirown understanding) rather than reader centered(making the effort to make their writing coherent totheir readers). Another possible reason for the lackof evidence-based argument in their writing is theaim of first-year general writing courses. In manyinstitutions, the aim of these writing courses is toensure that students have a good foundation in themechanics of writing so that they would be able toundertake undergraduate education successfully.The importance of mastering the mechanics iscritical in light of the increase in the number ofinternational students whose first language isnot English. For many educators, evidence-basedwriting should be taught in more advanced writingcourses in order not to compromise the time spenton helping these students master the mechanicsof writing. In reality, however, with constraintsin manpower and time, this might mean thatevidence-based writing is never taught. Even inwriting classrooms where evidence-based writingis taught, students are required to write essayson different topics which require them to do acertain amount of research. The research processin writing the essays hones students’ researchskills but may not cultivate students’ ability towrite evidence-based arguments. This is because

0361-1434 © 2013 IEEE

LEE: TEACHING EVIDENCE-BASED WRITING USING CORPORATE BLOGS 243

students are not given any framework to base theirarguments on in their prewriting discussions orwriting. Evidence-based writing, however, is animportant skill that engineering students need tolearn early in their undergraduate education. In[4], Staker, Meier, and Hand identified the abilityto engage in argument from evidence as one of theNext Generation Science Standards for scientificand engineering practices. Thus, this teaching casedescribes the use of the communication modelframework as the basis for students’ arguments.The framework was used in a general writing coursefor engineering students. Working in groups, thestudents used the framework to write a critique ona given piece of academic writing or corporate blog.

The information and analysis presented in thispaper is based on the observations of a reflectivepractitioner and not the outcome of a formalresearch study. After using the framework for foursemesters and continuously revising the coursecontent based on observations, feedback frommy colleagues and students, and the quality ofthe students’ written assignments, I wanted toexplore the following research question: Does thecommunication model framework help studentswrite evidence-based arguments when evaluatingthe communicative effectiveness in corporateblogs? The communication model frameworkrefers to the analysis of communication actsusing the six components of the model: context,participants, purpose, channel, noise, andfeedback [5]. Evidence-based arguments referto arguments with a claim-evidence paragraphstructure [4]. Communicative effectiveness refersto the company’s ability to align its businessmessages to its audience via proper analysis of thecontext and purpose of the communication, andthe channel used, in order to reduce noise in thecommunication and increase positive feedback fromits readers. A corporate blog is a social media toolthat is open, participatory, and globally networkedwhere the company engages stakeholders directlyacross multiple contexts [6]. Blogs are very usefultools since they provide a single multimedia andinteractive platform for companies to conduct viralmarketing, market research, customer support, andcrisis communication in real time while catering toseparate, specialized audiences.

In the following sections, I will situate the teachingcase in the literature, present the methodologyused to collect data about it, describe the teachingproblem and the resulting solution, and closeby stating the implications, limitations, andsuggestions for future research.

SITUATING THE TEACHING CASEThe purpose of this section is to identify the keyresearch and theories that guided it. I will firstpresent how the literature was selected, the theoriesthat influenced the development of the curriculum,and justify why I used the communication modelframework to teach students evidence-basedwriting.

Selection of Literature to Review I searchedonline sources for information regarding the mainkeywords in the research question using theNTU “One Search” engine which turns in resultsfrom databases, journals, e-books, books, anddissertations. Keyword search phrases included“communication effectiveness,” “corporate blogs,”“how to teach arguments,” “communicationmodel,” “genre analysis,” “academic writing,” and“approaches to teaching academic writing.”

I shall now elaborate on two important keywordsin my research question: corporate blogs andevidence-based argument.

Corporate Blogs In recent years, more companiesare embarking on using blogs to interact directlywith their customers [7]. The user-generatedcontent in the blogs increases customers’interaction with the company and this translatesto an increase in customer satisfaction [8], brandloyalty, market share, and profits [9]. Past researchhave investigated various aspects of corporateblogs like the relationship between the type ofpostings and the level of consumer engagement[8]; the orientation of blogs and its effect on brandcommunication [9]; the blog-user satisfactionaspects [10], [11]; and the impact of corporate blogson organizational social capital [12]. However, thereis a lack of research on the communicative aspectin corporate blogs [13]. In my search on “corporateblogs,” there were many results on how to designeffective blogs, and tips on effective corporatecommunication. However, there is not muchinformation on effective corporate communicationspecific to corporate blogs. In addition, educatorsseldom teach the communicative aspect incorporate blogs because blogs, being a socialmedia tool, consist of so many interactive featuresand networked links that it is difficult to providea structure for students’ analysis. Hence, I amproposing the communication model frameworkto help students evaluate the communicativeeffectiveness in corporate blogs.

Evidence-Based Arguments The ability to engagein argument from evidence is one of the Next


TABLE IMAPPING THE ARISTOTLE AND TOULMIN FORMS OF ARGUMENT TO THE EVIDENCE-BASED ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Generation Science Standards for scientific andengineering practices [4]. Thus, it is importantfor engineering students to know how to presentevidence-based arguments. Arguments have aclaim-evidence (data reasoning) paragraphstructure where students present their data andexplain their reasoning on how the evidencesupports their claims [14]. Students, however,often have problems presenting good arguments.A source of the problem stems from students’misconception about what constitutes argument.One common misconception students have aboutargument is that it is similar to a debate. However,these two terms have different nuances. Debatesare persuasive in nature, and often involve usingemotional appeals to persuade readers that thestated position is correct. Argument writing, onthe other hand, strives to present clear evidenceto support claims made and making the case forthe argument based on the merit of the argument[15]. Other problems that students often commit inargument writing are: the inability to understandthe context or the nuances for the argument clearenough to make clear and valid claims, presentingstrong data and reasoning to support the claimstaking into account other points of views, andwriting in an objective manner [16].

Two heuristics that are useful to teach studentsevidence-based writing are the Aristotle andToulmin forms of argument [17]. Both forms ofargument complement each other (Table I) sincethey emphasize that writers have to developtheir ideas clearly and objectively, using crediblecitations. Both forms of argument are also dialogicin nature since they encourage writers to respecttheir audience’s intellect and to analyze theiraudience’s stand on a topic, their doubts, and toaddress those doubts in a compelling and ethicalmanner. The Aristotle form of argument consistsof three components: logos (logical development ofideas), ethos (credible and trustworthy presentationof ideas), and pathos (measured emotional appeal tothe audience). The Aristotle form of argument raiseswriters’ awareness about the danger of making

fallacious statements in all three components ofthe argument. The Toulmin form of argumentbrings the idea of a dialogic argument (with theaudience) further by requiring writers to questionthe validity of their claim via the warrant andbacking, addressing the audience’s rebuttals, andqualifying the evidence writers present to supporttheir claim. The Toulmin form of argument hassix components: claim (the position or conclusionof the argument), grounds (reasons supportingthe claim), warrant (the principle or chain ofreasoning connecting the grounds to the claim),backing (reasons supporting the warrant), rebuttal(exceptions to the claim), and qualification (thedegree of conditionality asserted). For this course,however, only three components were taught—theclaim, grounds, and warrant. I chose to focuson these three components because I had onlysix weeks to teach the students evidence-basedwriting. So I was concerned that if I covered toomuch material, the students would be overwhelmedwith too much information that they would settlefor surface learning rather than deep learning.

In the following sections, I elaborate on the twodominant approaches in the teaching of academicwriting before proceeding to justify why I usedthe communication model framework to teachstudents evidence-based writing when evaluatingthe communicative effectiveness in corporate blogs.

EAP and the Genre-Based Approach Swalesdefined genre as:

comprising a class of communicative events,the members of which share some set ofcommunicative purposes. These purposes arerecognized by the expert members of the parentdiscourse community and thereby constitutethe rationale for the genre. This rationaleshapes the schematic structure of the genreand influences and constrains the choice ofcontent and style. [18, p. 58]

The genre-based approach in teaching writing thusinvolves three elements—the social motivation of


the texts, the cognitive organizational structuresand the lexico-grammatical functions of thediscourse [19]. The social motivation of the textsrefers to whole texts being classified according totheir social purpose. The cognitive organizationalstructures and lexico-grammatical functions of thediscourse are closely linked to each other becausethe cognitive operations reflect the linguisticmeans to achieve the communicative function. Twopedagogies to defining and analyzing social genrethat influenced writing framework are the systemicfunctional analysis (SFL) and English for SpecificPurposes (ESP) pedagogies.

SFL claims that genres can be identified in termsof its schematic structure because each genrehas certain cognitive and lexico-grammaticalcharacteristics. In addition, these characteristicsalign with the schematic structure of the genrethrough a mediating concept called “register” thatrelates language to the social context through thevariables of field, tenor, and mode [20]. The fieldof the discourse refers to the nature of the socialaction taking place while the tenor of the discourserefers to the nature of the participants in terms oftheir statuses and roles. The mode of discourse,on the other hand, refers to the channel (spokenor written) and the rhetorical modes (persuasive,expository, or didactic) of the discourse. The ESPframework to analyzing social genre, however,relates to the creation and reporting of knowledgewithin particular disciplines. Students need toknow the cognitive patterns of textual organizationfor each type of social genre since each has itsown conventionalized schematic structures, andthese structures are expressed using specializedvocabulary related to addressing and appealingto the audience for the purpose targeted. Forexample, a technical proposal requires a particularschematic structure and the content of the proposalis expressed using specialized vocabulary inpersuasive language.

In summary, the SFL and ESP pedagogies involveteaching students the social motivation, cognitiveorganizational structure, and linguistic realizationsof the discourse. However, the SFL pedagogyfocuses on the use of register as the mediatoracross multiple contexts and channels for variousaudiences while the ESP pedagogy focuses onteaching students the use of conventionalizedschematic structure and specialized vocabularyappropriate to the specific discourse communitythe writing is meant for.

Academic Literacies (AL) The AL approachoriginates from practice-oriented research notablyby [21]. In their 1998 paper, their findings revealedthat academic staff often found students’ writingproblematic because faculty and students hadcontrasting expectations of student writing acrossthe disciplines. In programs that integrate anumber of disciplinary approaches, the study foundthat one of the major causes for the differencein expectations was due to the epistemologicaldifferences underlying the different disciplinesthat affected the structure and argument requiredin each discipline. Two quotes taken from thefindings include “in history, the use of evidence isparticularly important” or “in English we are lookingfor clarity of expression” [21, p. 162]. Hence, the ALframework advocates a more dialogic frameworkcompared to the traditional genre framework inteaching academic writing, focusing on issues ofidentity, power, and authority in student writingacross the disciplines.

The following section explains how thecommunication model framework builds on thegenre-based and AL approaches, and justifies whyI used it to teach my students evidence-basedwriting.

Communication Model There are six componentsin the communication model: context, audience,purpose, channel, noise, and feedback [5]. Inanalyzing the context of the communication,students have to take into account the social(nature of the relationships between and amongparticipants), historical (previous communicationthat has taken place), physical (location,environmental conditions, and time of thecommunication), psychological (the mood andfeelings of the participants), and cultural (thebeliefs, values, attitudes, and social hierarchiesof the participants) aspects of the communicationbetween the participants (the company and usersof the corporate blog). For example, in a classroom(physical context) for a core course (historicalcontext), the participants are the students and thetutor (social context). The students do their bestto excel in the course and tutors do their best toteach the course well (psychological context) usingstudent- or teacher-centered pedagogies (culturalcontext). The intended messages that participants(senders and receivers/audience of the messages)send to each other should be clear. The messagescould, however, be distorted due to internal noisecaused by differences in the participants’ beliefs,feelings, and attitudes; or external noise from theparticipants’ environments. In terms of channel,


the sender of the message could choose to conveythe message via verbal and/or visual channels.In doing so, the sender needs to be aware of thestrengths and weaknesses of each channel. A goodindicator of the effectiveness of the communicationcan be gathered from the feedback received fromthe receiver of the message. If the feedback receivedmatches the message conveyed, then the noiselevel in the communication is probably low andvice-versa. Even though there are six componentsin the communication model, the model viewsthe communication process as systemic. Thecomponents interplay with each other wherestudents need to:

analyze the context or communicationsituation and think actively about possiblecommunication choices available (channel),adapt the message (purpose) to inform, amuse,persuade or influence the (audience) in order toreduce the level of noise in the communicationand increase the possibility of getting relevantfeedback. [22, p. 46]

Justification for Using the CommunicationModel Framework in Teaching Evidence-BasedWriting Evidence-based writing is dialogicand calls for a clear and credible presentationof the writer’s claims and evidence to thetarget audience. The communication modelframework is also dialogic and could help writerspresent their evidence by taking into accountnot only the context, audience, purpose, andchannel (as in the genre-based approach) of thecommunication but also the noise and feedbackin the communication (as in the AL approach). Inaddition, the communication model framework isnot only structured (has six components to helpstudents plan their writing) but is also flexible(can be used to analyze any communicationact). These characteristics of the framework areparticularly helpful to analyze corporate blogswhich are “evolving into multiple genres, meetingdifferent exigencies for different rhetors” [23, p.9]. Furthermore, the framework introduced for thewritten section would also be used for the spokensection taught in the second half of the course.The communication model framework was adoptedsince the framework was suitable for the writtenand spoken sections of the course.

METHODOLOGY

The aim of this case was to explore this researchquestion: Does the communication modelframework help students write evidence-based

arguments when evaluating the communicativeeffectiveness in corporate blogs? This sectionpresents the methodology used to collect data forthis teaching case.

Participants The students were studentsfrom my four tutorial classes, taking EffectiveCommunication, a first-year core engineeringcourse in a university in Singapore. A majorityof the Singaporean students have GCSE “A” levelqualifications and a minority has InternationalBaccalaureate qualifications. The internationalstudents have the equivalent qualifications fromtheir native Asian countries. Since the case wasperformed within the context of normal teachingduties, the case has been approved under expeditedreview by the Institutional Review Board of myuniversity.

How Data Were Collected This case is not aformal research study but a teaching case where,as a reflective practitioner, I continually revisedthe course content over four semesters with theaim of addressing my research question: Does thecommunication model framework help studentswrite evidence-based arguments when evaluatingthe communicative effectiveness in corporate blogs?

Revisions to the course content were made basedon my observations, on the students’ oral practicecritique on a corporate blog (week 7 of the course),evaluation on the students’ written critiqueassignment (week 8), and reflection paper (week11); and student feedback during the tutorials andinformal consultations with me.

The information presented in this paper is basedon summarized data collected from my classes forthe fourth semester. Data for the students’ oralcritique were based on comments I wrote in mynotebook while they were doing their presentations.Common weaknesses in the students’ oral critiquewere identified and consolidated from my tutorialclasses. Data for the written critique assignmentwere based on the critiques submitted by threegroups of students who chose to do a critique on agiven corporate blog. (The other groups chose tocritique the given academic writing text.)

The data were analyzed for the students’ abilityto provide a brief explanation of the context,audience and purpose of the communication, andstatement of a clear thesis in the introduction;a clear claim-evidence structure in the bodyparagraphs; and a strong summary of the pointsmade in the conclusion. The critique also had to


conform to the characteristics of academic writingwhere academic writing is thesis driven; requires alogical and systematic development of ideas withcitations; and uses an objective, concise and formalstyle of writing. Data from the reflection paperswere analyzed based on recurring themes thatappeared in the papers regarding writing and/orelectronically mediated business commmunication(EMBC). The data for all of the assignments wereonly analyzed after the semester was over toaddress ethical considerations.

ABOUT THE TEACHING CASE

This section presents the case of teaching studentsevidence-based writing in their critique assignmentby first describing the problem this case wastrying to address, and then the course withinwhich the critique assignment was developedand implemented, along with the results of theimplementation.

Teaching Problem The students’ writtenassignments over the past semesters show thatstudents tend to list ideas rather than provideevidence-based arguments. This might be becausethe first-year undergraduates are not awareof the differences between high-school writingand undergraduate writing [2], [3]. High-schoolwriting focuses on presenting a topic sentence andsupporting ideas but undergraduate writing needsto go beyond the mechanics. Topic sentences needto be phrased as claims, and students need topresent evidence to support their claims. Anotherpossible reason for the lack of evidence-basedarguments in their writing could be the lack of aframework (especially in general writing courses)for students to base their arguments on. Thus, thecurriculum has to consider providing students witha framework to evaluate the given texts and theirown writing, and to enhance their ability to presentevidence-based arguments.

Teaching Constraints In designing thecurriculum for the first six weeks of the course, Ihad these practical constraints:

• The first two sections of the course have to bedelivered over a period of six weeks in a one-hourlecture and one-hour tutorial per week mode.

• Typical class sizes for a lecture and a tutorialwere about 500–600 students and 30 students,on average, per semester, respectively.

• The cohort taking this course consists mainlyof Singaporean students whose first language is

English and a sizeable percentage of internationalstudents whose first language is not English.

Thus, there was a need to offer course contentthat was pitched at a level that is not considered“remedial” to the Singaporean students or toodifficult for the international students. Thepedagogy used to engage the students must alsobe suitable for large classes, and the frameworkchosen must also be suitable for the spoken sectionof the course which was taught in the second halfof the semester.

About the Course The Effective Communicationcourse was a 2-credit first-year core courseoffered to undergraduate engineering students.This course preceded a discipline-specific writingcourse that students take in their second year. Theaims of the course were to introduce students tothe principles and processes underlying effectivecommunication, help students recognize whatconstitutes effective expository and persuasive oraland written communication, and equip studentswith the skills to communicate ideas effectively inspeech and writing in a variety of settings.

I taught the course as part of my normal teachingresponsibilities so no special budget or release timewas needed. I lectured the first half of the course onthe General Principles of Communication (Lectures1–3) and Effective Written Communication (Lectures4–6) and my colleague lectured the second half ofthe course on Effective Spoken Communication(Lectures 7–14). The tutorials were taught byme and other communication skills colleagues.Since this course had a very large student cohort(about 2000 students per year), tutors followed thegiven course materials closely in order to ensurestandardization in delivery across the classes.

The course did not use any textbooks. Availabletextbooks on the market regarding academicwriting were too basic since they mainly catered toforeign language students. A textbook consistingof compiled materials from various sources wasused for two semesters previously but it was notwell received as the students mentioned that theycould not see a direct link between the content inthe textbook and the critique assignment. Thus,a list of references was provided at the end of thePowerPoint slides for each lecture for students toexplore the lecture content further if they wereinterested.

The section on General Principles of Communicationcovered the different components of the


communication model framework. In Lecture 1, Iintroduced students to the first two components ofthe communication model: context and audience.The tutorial focused on various scenarios whichshowed how a lack of analysis of both componentsresulted in ineffective communication. The secondlecture focused on formulating a specific purposeor thesis. Effective communication is about gettingthe specific purpose of the communication acrossto the audience [24] and to do so, students needto have a clear thesis. The second tutorial thusfocused on getting students to analyze scenariosusing the context and audience components of thecommunication model, and formulating a thesisas to whether the communication was effectiveor ineffective. The third lecture focused on thenoise (anything that distorts the clarity of thecommunication), feedback and channel (subsumedunder noise) components. The common way todiscuss noise is based on external and internal noise[5]. However, I chose to focus on four common typesof noise I found in my students’ communication(differences in perception, inappropriate analysisof a context, inappropriate choice of channel, andintercultural misunderstandings) for a deeper andmore focused discussion that the students couldrelate to. Feedback was not taught explicitly sinceit is difficult to take on the role of the receiver inmany communication scenarios since each receiverhas different profiles. Feedback was thus seenas a gauge with regard to the level of noise inthe communication. For example, if the feedbackreceived did not match the message sent at all,the noise level in the communication is consideredhigh and vice-versa. The tutorial included a sampleof student writing in which the students had toanalyze the writing using the communicationmodel framework, formulate a thesis on its(in)effectiveness, and rewrite it in groups. In orderto impress on them the reader-centered nature ofcommunication, the students had to list questionsthey had in their mind when they read the othergroups’ answers and share these questions in class.

The section on Effective Written Communicationpresented how the framework can be applied inacademic writing, and EMBC. Academic writingand EMBC were chosen as the genres to be taughtbecause the students will engage increasingly inacademic writing in the course of their study anda majority of the students participate activelyin student activities which require them tocommunicate with external business organizations.In Lecture 4, the students were taught to plan theirwriting in line with the context, audience, purpose,

channel, and characteristics of academic writingfollowing [25]. If the students do not conformto these characteristics, the noise level in theiressay will be high and the reader (the professor)will have difficulty understanding their writing(feedback). I also introduced them to the Aristotleand Toulmin forms of argument. The tutorial thusfocused on identifying whether the expository andpersuasive texts given were effective or ineffectiveusing the communication model framework. InLecture 5, I touched on the context, audience,purposes, and channel of EMBC, including thecharacteristics of business writing following [6]. Thetutorial touched on identifying the effectiveness ofdifferent business messages using the framework.In Lecture 6, I touched on three types of businessmessages which are commonly used in companies[6]—instant messaging, emails, and corporateblogs. The students presented their critique orallyon a corporate blog of their choice in tutorial sixfollowing the assignment guidelines (Fig. 1). Eachpresentation was about five to seven minutes. Thepresentation was not graded. I provided each groupwith feedback after each presentation and gavethem a general summary of things to take note ofat the end of the tutorial. The students wrote theircritique assignment using the same guidelines andsubmitted it in week 8. The deliverable for Lectures1 through 6 was a 1000-word critique assignmentwritten in groups of four to five students. (Thestudents chose their own group members.) I hadstudents write a critique assignment rather thanan academic essay on a title of their choice becauseI only had six weeks of lecture. Thus, I wanted theassignment to focus on two aspects: the studentsneeded to use the framework as a basis for theirargument, and their paragraphs must have theclaim-evidence structure. It was easier to do sowhen the students had the same text to critique onso that they could focus on these two aspects ratherthan spend time researching their topic, a skillwhich many of them were already familiar with inhigh school. The critique assignment was assessedfollowing the guidelines in Fig. 1 and marked forcontent, organization, and language.

The section on Effective Spoken Communicationis elaborated briefly here since it is not thefocus of this paper. This section uses the samecommunication model framework as the writtencomponent, and builds on skills learnt in thewritten component, such as audience-centeredcommunication, having a clear thesis, and makingevidence-based arguments. The students learntabout the context, audience, purpose, channel,


TABLE IICOURSE OUTLINE FOR THE FIRST SIX WEEKS OF THE COURSE

Fig. 1. Guidelines for writing the critique.

and noise in making expository and persuasivepublic speeches. These included topics on thefeatures of expository and persuasive speeches,analyzing the audience’s needs, managing stagefright, articulation and projection, paralanguage,and nonverbal communication. The deliverable forthis section was a three-minute individual oralpresentation where students presented a preparedexpository or persuasive speech on a topic oftheir own choice. This topic had to be aligned totheir classmates’ (the audience in the assignmentinstructions) interests.

The reflection paper was a 450- to 500-wordindividual assignment written at the end of thesemester. It served as a summative and reflectivepiece of work. It required the students to elaborateon two main insights they have learnt from the

course. In relating their personal communicationexperiences, they had to analyze what they feltwent wrong in the communication, and how theycould improve their communication in the futurebased on what they learnt in the course.

Process for Developing and Piloting the WrittenComponent of the Course The course developedover a period of four semesters. Two prominentchanges made to the course were the time spent onteaching academic writing, and the focus on onetype of EMBC, that is, the corporate blog.

One prominent change made was the time spenton teaching academic writing. In the first twosemesters that I taught the course, there was onlyone lecture on academic writing, and two lectureson business writing. The emphasis on businesswriting was because I felt that students were more


familiar with academic writing than businesswriting. In the following two semesters, however,I revised the time spent on teaching these twogenres. I received feedback from the students andfellow tutors that the course was too content-heavyand more elaboration on the academic writingcomponent would be helpful to students in writingtheir critique. Thus, the lecture on academic writingwas stretched to two weeks. The content for Lecture4 remained the same while Lecture 5 focused onteaching students to revise their writing for noisespecifically for weak claims, fallacies, irrelevantsupporting ideas, and informal or personal writingstyle. These weaknesses were common problemsthat I saw in students’ writing. The second changemade was the decision to focus on just one typeof business writing, that is, the corporate blog.Since the time spent on teaching EMBC has beenshortened to one week, it made sense to teach justone type of business writing rather than three. Thecorporate blog was chosen compared to email orinstant messaging since it allows students to seefor themselves how noise and feedback in the blogaffected the effectiveness of the communication.

The following section provides a brief walkthroughon Lecture 6 which is the focus of this teachingcase.

Integration of Corporate Blogs into the CourseIn Lecture 6, I showed them how to deconstructcorporate blogs using the communication modelframework. I told them that the context in whichbusiness communication takes place is to developrelationships with customers. In addition, theaudience in business communication is variedand yet specialized. The purposes of businesscommunication also vary, ranging from viralmarketing to crisis management. Furthermore,there are various channels to convey businessmessages, for example, letters and emails. Thebusiness messages in these channels, however,have common characteristics according to [6]. Themessages are audience centered (messages areexpressed in terms of the customers’ benefits),emphasize the positive (what the company cando rather than cannot do), credible, objective,courteous, and clear. Electronically mediatedbusiness messages, such as corporate blogs, aredigitized and, thus, not only have multimediacapability, but also have the advantage of beingaccessible anytime, anyplace. Business messagesthat do not match the context, audience, purpose,and characteristics of the channel are considerednoise in the communication. A high level of noise

in the communication reduces the quantity andquality of feedback received.

I then went through with them two corporate blogs:one effective and the other ineffective. An exampleof the discussion for the effective corporate blogis given below. I showed the students a blog by afamous company. I highlighted to them that thiswas an effective corporate blog. One of the reasonsis that the blog targeted a closed community(potential and current customers). Thus, thecompany had an audience broad enough to justifythe effort in maintaining a corporate blog (thereare users who are at various stages of familiaritywith the company’s wide range of software) butnarrow enough to have common interests tocontinue posting on the blog. Information in the“about us” section further revealed the contextfor the communication between the company andits readers. The information revealed that theblog (physical context) was created because thecompany’s software developers wanted to get toknow the users of the products better, and to havea meaningful conversation with them (social andhistorical contexts). In addition, the developers werevery excited about sharing what they knew withthe users (psychological context) as they wantedthe community (the customers) to participatewith them in the development of future software(cultural context). The blog’s tag-line reinforcedthe purpose of the blog since it stated that thedevelopers wanted to talk about their work butlisten to the users.

Furthermore, the blog fulfilled the characteristics ofEMBC, thus reducing the level of noise in the blog.The information in the blog was audience centered,catering to the readers’ needs. For example,there were three forums that the readers couldparticipate in—“coffeehouse” for technical novices,“tech off” and “coding4fun” for more technicalreaders, and site feedback for the readers to providefeedback regarding the blog. The postings werealso categorized as “most recent,” “most viewed,”and “top” postings to cater to the readers’ desireto read the latest and more popular posts. Theblog also utilized the multimedia capability of adigitized channel by using videos rather than text topresent the products. The use of videos to explainthe features of the software greatly reduced theinformation load on readers. Furthermore, thereaders could converse with the developers viaa synchronous forum (twitter) or asynchronousforums like “coffeehouse,” and “tech off.” Inaddition, it was easy for readers to navigate tothe information that interested them since all of


the columns and postings had short descriptivetitles. The blog also managed to emphasize thepositive. The company could deal with somereaders’ complaints professionally because thecompany had a clear posting policy. The postingsin the blog were also credible because the readersknew that they were conversing with the actualdevelopers of the products, who knew the productsinside out. The developers also wrote their repliesin a conversational and clear style, according tothe level of technicality required in the forumsthe readers were posting in. All of these effortshave garnered positive feedback from the readersas the number of new users increased every day,current discussion threads were growing withnew postings, and new discussion threads werebeing created. In summary, the corporate blogwas an effective blog because the blog developersconsidered the context, audience, purpose, andchannel of the communication, and this reducednoise in the communication and garnered thempositive feedback.

Results The research question for this teachingcase was: Does the communication modelframework help students write evidence-basedarguments when evaluating the communicativeeffectiveness in corporate blogs? The followingobservations were taken from the students’“practice” critique, the critique assignment,reflection papers, and feedback during informalconsultations with me or in class.

Observations From the Students’ Practice Critique:The students presented a critique orally on acorporate blog of their choice in week 7 followingthe assignment guidelines. Overall, the students’practice critique showed that though the uptakein using the framework varied between groups,the students were making the effort to use theframework in their critique. Some of the studentswere very diligent in going through the lectureslides and incorporating many keywords from theslides in their presentations. However, many ofthem were listing ideas following the componentsof the framework, and had not progressed to usingthe framework as the basis for their arguments.Evidence of this is reflected in their thesis. Onegroup used three components of the frameworkas the claims to support their thesis that the blogwas effective: The blog was effective because itused good context (claim 1), purpose (claim 2), andchannel (claim 3). However, they did not realizethat the claims overlapped each other becausethe context of the communication provided therationale for the purpose of the message, and the

channel chosen to communicate the message.Another group was better at forming their thesis:The blog was effective because it was purposespecific (claim 1), user friendly (claim 2), andcredible (claim 3). The claims do not overlap andvarious components of the framework could beused as the basis for their argument.

Their presentations also show that they havenot fully internalized the claim-data-reasoningstructure in their argument. For example, eventhough they mentioned several categories ofaudience, they did not provide data (specificexamples) from the blog itself. Instead, they justprovided a plausible general explanation basedon their assumptions. For some groups, specificexamples were provided from the blog but theydid not provide the reasoning to explain how theexamples supported the claim. For example: “Theblog was effective because the interface was suitablefor the targeted audience (claim). The Disney blogused bright colours and cute pictures (evidence).”They did not explain how using bright colours andcute pictures attracted the attention of the intendedaudience—parents and young children.

Furthermore, many of their critiques focused on theuser-satisfaction aspects of the blog such as theblog’s interactive features, and did not incorporatethe characteristics of business communication.When I highlighted this at the end of the tutorial,many groups mentioned that they were morefamiliar with personal blogs and, thus, chose tohighlight features that were available in personalblogs. I mentioned that they have to incorporate thebusiness communication aspect in their critiquebecause the corporate blog is first and foremost abusiness message, and as a digitized channel, itwas an additional advantage.

In summary, the students’ presentations showthat they preferred to stick to what they weremore familiar with rather than to attempt to usethe framework as the basis of their argumentsor to integrate the characteristics of businesscommunication in their critique. This hesitanceis understandable because in tutorials four andfive, students mainly analyzed the given texts onecomponent of the framework at a time, and werenot required to structure their arguments followingthe assignment guidelines. Thus, this was their firstattempt in aligning their ideas to the assignmentguidelines. Another possible reason for the varieduptake in using the framework could be becausethe presentations were informal, ungraded, andlasted only about 5–7 minutes per group. Thus,


some of the students did not take the presentationsseriously. The students appreciated the feedbackafter their presentations since they mentioned thatnow they knew what they should focus on whenwriting their critique. I also noticed many studentstaking notes as I gave them feedback as they knewthat I was modeling to them how to structure theirarguments for the critique assignment.

Observations From the Critique Assignment: Thethree groups that chose to critique the blogconsisted of one mixed group (consisting ofSingaporean and international students), oneSingaporean group, and one international studentsgroup.

The critique by the mixed group had a clear thesis.There was also a strong attempt to justify theirclaims using relevant examples from the blog.However, their reasoning on how the evidencesupported the claims made was unclear since theyused complex sentence structures (to keep to the1000-word limit), resulting in unclear links betweenphrases in the same sentence. There were alsomoderate expression and language issues in thecritique which affected the clarity of their critique.

The critique from the Singaporean group did nothave a clear thesis since their claims overlapped.The claims stated were: There was no continuity tothe discussion in the blog, there were inadequateinteractions on the blog, and there was noise inthe blog which distracted the readers. Althoughthe students did not use the components of theframework for their claims like what happened inthe practice critique, their claims still overlapped.This was because one of the reasons for theinadequate interactions in the blog (claim 2) wasdue to the lack of continuity in the discussionthreads (claim 1), and the reason for the lackof continuity in the discussion was because thediscussions did not meet the readers’ interestsor needs (claim 3). In addition, even though theevidence presented for each claim was relevant,there was a lack of logical development of ideas atthe essay level because the evidence presented wasrepetitive. Their critique seems to reflect some formof work distribution among the group memberswhere three members each wrote the claim andevidence for one point, and the other member editedthe critique for language. The compiler/editor in thegroup, however, failed to revise for coherence sincethe critique lacked flow (did not tell a compellingstory). There were also minor expression issues inthe critique.

The critique from the international students groupshowed that they had a clear thesis. Their writingproblems were more at the paragraph level wherethe link between ideas in the same paragraphwas unclear. The authors made claims withoutproviding the evidence to support the claims(in italics) such as “the blogger predominantlypost products, covering a myopic perspective ofthe products,” and their reasoning was based onassumptions like “the blogger could have omittedcertain reviews by other users.” There were alsomoderate expression and language issues in thecritique.

Overall, the students’ critiques show that there wasa stronger attempt by the mixed and internationalstudents groups to use the communication modelframework as the basis for their argumentscompared to the Singaporean group, whichconcurs with the findings in [26] on how students’prior knowledge affects their adoption of newapproaches to teaching writing. The frameworkdid not, however, help improve the students’language proficiency. (And it was not meant to doso since it is mainly a heuristic.) Feedback from amixed group who came to see me for consultationon the critique assignment provided insight onthe Singaporean students’ hesitance to use theframework. The Singaporean students askedwhether the framework was necessary for writingthe critique. They mentioned that the assignmentwas similar to their “A” level General Paper as thearguments followed a claim-evidence structure.Hence, they felt that it was not necessary to usethe framework. The international students, on theother hand, have not taken the General Paper andappreciated having a structure to follow, and aframework to base their arguments on. I remindedthem that General Paper essays were persuasivein nature while the course focused on argumentswhere readers are convinced regarding claims madesolely based on the merits of the evidence presented[15]. Thus, the framework was introduced for themto use as the basis for their arguments. AnotherSingaporean student in the group mentioned thatwriting the critique required a lot of work. WhenI prompted him to explain what he meant, hementioned that they had a lot of discussions withintheir group but they could not agree on who wasright and who was wrong, and they came to seeme because they wanted to know whether theywere on the right track. I reassured them that adiversity of opinions is a good thing in academicwriting since this meant that they were developingtheir reader-centered writing skills when replying


to their group members’ questions. I then explainedagain how they could use the framework as thebasis of their arguments in the critique. A generalobservation across the groups also revealed thatthe Singaporean students were often the compilerin the groups since they were perceived to havea stronger command of the English language.However, they were not necessarily the leaders intheir groups. This was because the internationalstudents in many groups were very proactive andcommitted in doing the assignment. This contrastsfindings in [27] which mentioned that the studentswho had a stronger command of the languagebecame the natural leaders in most mixed groupteams. The nature of the discussions might alsohave affected the richness of the discussions.The mixed and international student groups,for example, held face-to-face discussions (asseen from the attendance log sheet) whereas theSingaporean group held online discussions.

Observations From the Reflection Papers: Amajority of the students mentioned that one ofthe main things that they learnt from the coursewas the importance of being thesis driven in theirwriting. They mentioned that being thesis drivenhelped them to write more coherently. An exampleof a reflection by an international student is shown:

The theory is very useful in doing my minor inbusiness. As in business subject, we studentsare required to be effectively write down ourideas in forms of essays. As before studyingthis module, my writing is so bad that I musttake English Proficiency (a remedial no-credit)course, most probably because there is noorganization in my style of writing. I tend towrite “on the flow,” writing according whatcrosses my mind without organizing themcarefully. But then, as I tried to implement thistheory, the result is getting quite satisfyingmarks in my writing assignments. Beforestarting to write the essay, I plan what thingsthat I write in the essay, using the thesis-drivenessay method, giving sources of facts thatstated in the essay, and details needed tosupport my statements. Being concise yetunderstandable, logical, and avoiding usage ofcontracted forms helped me a lot, giving mepositive comments from my tutors.

With regard to EMBC, one student involved inmaintaining the webpage of a private school duringher vacation break mentioned that being awareabout the characteristics of EMBC helped her toadopt a reader-centered attitude, and emphasize

the positive in her communication with the webpagereaders. Instead of just listing the facts about theprivate school on the webpage, she learnt that shehad to use phrases that highlighted the readers’benefits if they enrolled in the school. In addition,even though the critique was on corporate blogs,a few students found the communication modelframework useful in helping them to write emails,another common EMBC channel. One studentmentioned that she became more confident inher role as Business Manager for the upcomingfreshmen camp after learning about EMBC. Shementioned that before attending the lectures, shehad difficulty crafting emails and unknowingly, thecontent she wrote often lacked clear topic sentencesand were tampered with incoherent paragraphs.With the high level of noise, the recipients had ahard time deciphering her message. After learningabout EMBC, she was now capable of crafting awell-structured and coherent email to sponsors,and was receiving more positive feedback from thesponsors.

The students’ reflections seem to show that thecommunication model framework did help providestudents with a framework to plan their writing,particularly in making their writing thesis driven.In addition, the framework helped some studentstransfer their understanding of the characteristicsof EMBC from corporate blogs to emails.

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This section concludes the teaching case bydescribing the implications of this case to teachingand research, by examining the limitations of theframework, and by suggesting some ideas for futureresearch.

Conclusions This teaching case hoped toaddress the lack of evidence-based argumentin students’ writing by providing students withthe communication model framework to basetheir arguments on. I would like to offer a fewrecommendations for teaching evidence-basedwriting based on the observations of this study.

• The students’ perception of what constitutesargument writing affected the adoption levelof the framework in their critique. Thus, astronger emphasis on the definition of argumentwriting, the differences between persuasivewriting and argument writing, and how theframework provides students with a basis for


their arguments must be made in the beginningof the course.

• The value of discussions within the groupis priceless since it reinforces the dialogicnature of arguments, and writing. In addition,mixed groups seem to have richer and deeperdiscussions since the members come fromdifferent educational backgrounds and, thus,provide an authentic forum for students torealize the importance of being reader centered,and to revise their writing to be more readercentered. Face-to-face discussions also seem tofacilitate deeper discussions better compared toonline discussions.

• More time could be spent on getting studentsto practice using the claim-evidence paragraphstructure in their arguments. The lectures on theframework could be condensed to two weeks,thus freeing up more time to elaborate on theAristotle and Toulmin forms of argument, inrelation to writing claim-evidence paragraphs.The tutorials on these two forms of argumentcould then start one week earlier and providestudents with more practice and teacherfeedback in writing claim-evidence paragraphs.Students will naturally want to stick to what theyare already familiar with but with more practicein writing claim-evidence paragraphs using theframework, the possibility of students using theframework in their arguments will increase.

• It is important for students to reflect on theirlearning to enhance the possibility of transferringlearning to other courses, and areas of their life.In this course, the students were taught to applythe framework in academic writing, EMBC, andpublic speaking. The reflection paper assignmentthat students were required to submit at theend of the course “forced” students to stop andreflect on what they have learned in this coursein relation to their personal life. Without thereflection paper assignment, students mightnot realize the utility of the framework in othercourses, and areas of their life. In short, once thecourse was over, the framework would also beerased from their memory.

Limitations I acknowledge that there are severallimitations in this study. The communicationmodel framework is a heuristic tool that helps

students engage in a dialog with their readers whenpresenting their arguments. The framework doesnot profess to help students improve their languageproficiency. In addition, the level of students’adoption of the framework in the students’ writtencritique was influenced by group dynamics since itwas a group assignment. The level of adoption couldbe different if it was an individual assignment.Furthermore, interaction with the students on theirwriting was quite limited since each tutorial lastedonly one hour per week. In addition, the studentswhose assignments I am reviewing for this casewere students in my tutorial classes. This mighthave influenced what the students wrote in theirreflection papers.

Suggestions for Future Research Going forward,more studies could be carried out on the use of thecommunication model framework to teach studentsthe rhetorical complexities in other traditionaland electronically mediated genres, and how thisunderstanding translates to more effective writingin the professional and technical communicationlandscape. Flexible frameworks, such as thecommunication model framework, are importantbecause genres are evolving, driven by needs notjust in universities but also in the workplace.Corporate blogs, for example, exemplify the:

blurred boundaries, pluralized workplaces,hybrid identities and complex interactionsbetween diverse local and global discourses.[28, p. 495]

With flexible frameworks, such as thecommunication model framework, writing teacherscould teach students not only the mechanics ofwriting, but also renew students’ appreciationof academic writing as dialogic, and developstudents’ global communicative competence.Global communicative competence consists ofthree layers: multicultural knowledge, competencein English, and the writer’s business knowledge[29]. A consolidation of best practices, cases, andresearch in various multicultural contexts gleanedfrom such studies could be a rich resource forwriting and communication teachers to refer toand build on, lending further import to the needfor flexible frameworks in teaching students globalcommunicative competence.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Scardamalia and B. Bereiter, “Research on written composition,” in Handbook of Research on Teaching, M.C. Wittrock, Ed. New York: American Educational Research Association, 1986, pp. 778–803.


[2] A. Baldwin and E. Koh, “Enhancing student engagement in large, non-disciplinary first year survey courses,”Int.J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 113–121, 2012.

[3] S. Evans and B. Morrison, “The first term at university: Implications for EAP,” ELT J., vol. 65, no. 4, pp.387–397, 2011.

[4] J. Staker, L. N. Meier, and B. Hand. (2012). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argumentin science writing. [Online]. Available: http://learningcenter.nsta.org/products/symposia_seminars/NSTA/files/QuestionsClaimsandEvidence_12-17-2012.pdf

[5] R. F. Verderber and K. S. Verderber, Communicate!, 12th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2007.[6] C. L. Bovee and J. V. Thill, Business Communication Today, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall/Pearson, 2008.[7] J. Nail. (2006). Why Corporate Blogs are the Future of PR. [Online]. Available: http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=WwF4kij1jBI[8] V. Ahuja and Y. Medury, “Corporate blogs as e-CRM tools—Building consumer engagement through content

management,” Database Market. Customer Strategy Manage., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 91–105, 2010.[9] R. H. Tsiotsou, I. D. Rigopoulou, and J. D. Kehagias, “Tracing customer orientation and marketing capabilities

through retailers’ website: A strategic approach to internet marketing,” J. Target., Meas. Anal. Market., vol. 18,no. 2, pp. 79–94, 2010.

[10] C. C. Hsieh, P. L. Kuo, S. C. Yang, and S. H. Lin, “Assessing blog-user satisfaction using the expectation anddisconfirmation approach,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 26, pp. 1434–1444, 2010.

[11] S. S. Graham and B. Whalen, “Mode, medium, and genre: A case study of decisions in new-media design,” J.Bus. Tech. Commun., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 65–91, 2008.

[12] C. Baehr and K. Alex-Brown, “Assessing the value of corporate blogs: A social capital perspective,” IEEE Trans.Prof. Commun., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 358–369, Dec. 2010.

[13] N. L. Reinsch, Jr. and J. W. Turner, “Ari, r u there? Reorienting business communication for a technologicalera,” J. Bus. Tech. Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 339–356, 2006.

[14] R. Driver, P. Newton, and J. Osborne, “Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms,” Sci.Educ., vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 287–312, 2000.

[15] C. Tucker. (2012). Common core standards: Teaching argument writing. [Online]. Available: http://dartmouth.edu/writing-speech/teaching/first-year-writing-pedagogies-mthods-design/teaching-argument

[16] Institute for Writing and Rhetoric, Dartmouth College. (2013). Teaching argument. [Online]. Available: http://dartmouth.edu/writing-speech/teaching/first-year-writing-pedagogies-methods-design/teaching-argument

[17] J. D. Ramage, J. C. Bean, and J. Johnson, Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Readings, 9th ed. Boston,MA: Pearson Education, 2012.

[18] J. M. Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1990.

[19] I. Bruce, Academic Writing and Genre: A Systematic Analysis. New York: Continuum, 2008.[20] M. A. K. Halliday, Language as a Social Semiotic. London, UK: Edward Arnold, 1978.[21] M. R. Lea and B. V. Street, “Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach,” Studies

Higher Educ., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 157–172, 2006.[22] H. L. Goodall, Jr., S. Goodall, and J. Schiefelbein, Business and Professional Communication in the Global

Workplace. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010.[23] C. R. Miller and D. Shepherd. Blogging as social action: A genre analysis of the weblog, Into the Blogosphere.

[Online]. Available: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogging_as_social_action_pf.html[24] J.-L. Doumont, “Three laws of professional communication,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 45, no. 4,

pp. 291–296, Dec. 2005.[25] D. Soles, The Essentials of Academic Writing, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2010.[26] L. Bednar, “Using a research in technical and scientific communication class to teach essential workplace

skills,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 363–377, Dec. 2012.[27] P. Zemliansky, “Achieving experiential cross-cultural training through a virtual teams project,” IEEE Trans.

Prof. Commun., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 275–286, Sep. 2012.[28] D. Starke-Meyerring, “Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for global literacies in professional

communication programs,” J. Bus. Tech. Commun., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 468–499, 2005.[29] L. Louhiala-Salminen and A. Kankaanranta, “Professional communication in a global business context:

The notion of global communicative competence,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 244–262,Sep. 2011.

Chien-Ching Lee is a lecturer in the Language andCommunication Center, School of Humanities and SocialSciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Herresearch interests are in business and technical communication,visual communication, and design thinking and writing.

Teaching Evidence-Based Writing Using Corporate Blogs

Documents

Transcript of Teaching Evidence-Based Writing Using Corporate Blogs