Main Article Content
Complex health and medical contexts demand not only responsive, mutable research but also responsive, flexible pedagogies. Arguing for a shift from the dominant conception of pedagogy as a pre-planned, linear scaffold, this article proposes instead an approach—called Lego™ Learning—that re-conceptualizes instructional content as self-standing, short-term units or modules, much like Lego™ bricks. Because such modules have self-contained learning objectives and corresponding tasks, they can be shifted within a course or across courses as-needed. This approach allows rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM) instructional content to respond to, and prepare students for, the ever-changing exigencies and contexts of RHM-related work. It also encourages collaborations across classes, institutions, and other contexts. In this entry, we frame our discussion around four learning outcomes and teaching practices that can be facilitated through this approach, and we provide an extended example of an ongoing cross-institutional partnership that employs Lego™ Learning.
Angeli, Elizabeth. 2018. Rhetorical work in emergency medical services. Routledge.
Bay, Jennifer & Sullivan, Patricia (2021). Researching home-based technical and professional
communication: Emerging structures and methods. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 35(1), 167-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920959185
Bowdon, Melody A. (2014). Tweeting an ethos: Emergency messaging, social media, and
teaching technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23, 35–54.
Brizee, Alan. (2020). What happens when we fall? Resilient community-based research. Journal
of Technical Writing and Communication, 50(4), 339-375.
Campbell, Lillian. (2018). The Rhetoric of Health and Medicine as a ‘teaching subject’: Lessons from the medical humanities and simulation pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2018.1401348
Choi, Bernard & Pak, Anita (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med, 29(6), 351–364.
Crabtree, Robbin D., & Sapp, David Alan. (2005). Technical communication, participatory
action research, and global civic engagement: A teaching, research, and social action collaboration in Kenya. REFLECTIONS: A Journal of Rhetoric, Civic Writing and Service Learning, 4(2), 9–33.
Ding, Huiling. (2020). Crowdsourcing, social media, and intercultural communication about
Zika: Use contextualized research to bridge the digital divide in global health
intervention. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 50(2), 141-166.
Ding, Huiling (2014). Rhetoric of a global epidemic: Transcultural communication about SARS.
Southern Illinois University Press.
Gouge, Catherine C. (2018). Health humanities baccalaureate programs and the rhetoric of health
and medicine. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(1), 21-32. https://doi-org.wv-o ursus-proxy02.ursus.maine.edu/10.1080/10572252.2017.1402566
Heifferon, Barbara (2008). Pandemics or pandemonium: Rhetorical and ethical preparation for
Avian Flu. In Barbara Heifferon & Stuart C. Brown (Eds.), Rhetoric of Healthcare: Essays toward a New Disciplinary Inquiry. Hampton Press.
Hopton, Sarah Beth & Walton, Rebecca (2019). Rigidity and flexibility: The dual nature of
communicating care for Vietnamese Agent Orange Victims. Present tense, 7(3). 1-8
Kenzie, Daniel & McCall, Mary (2018). Teaching writing for the health professions:
Disciplinary intersections and pedagogical practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(1), 64-79. https://doi-org.wv-o-ursus-proxy02.ursus.maine.edu/10.1080/10572252.2017.1402573
Kimball, Miles A. (2017). Tactical Technical Communication. Technical Communication
Quarterly, 26(1), 1-7, DOI: 10.1080/10572252.2017.1259428
Kuehl, Rebecca A., Anderson, Jenn, Mehltretter Drury, Sara A., Holman, Amanda, Hunt, Cerise,
& Leighter, Jay L. (2020). Creating a multidisciplinary dialogue about community-based participatory research partnerships in health and medicine. Rhetoric of Health & Medicine, 3(1), 93-132.
Kuehl, Rebecca A., Drury, Sara A. Mehltretter, & Anderson, Jenn (2015). Civic engagement and
public health issues: Community support for breastfeeding through rhetoric and health communication collaborations. Communication Quarterly, 63(5), 510-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1103598
Langstraat, Lisa, & Bowdon, Melody (2011). Service-learning and critical emotion studies: On
the perils of empathy and the politics of compassion. Michigan Journal of Community
Landau, Jamie & Thornton, Davi Johnson (2015). Teaching rhetoric of health and medicine to
undergraduate: Citizens, interdisciplinarity, and affect. Communication Quarterly, 63(5), 527-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1103602
Lanius, Candice, Weber, Ryan, Spiegle, Jackie, Roinson, Joy, & Potts, Robin. (2020). Drawing
on personas: How user personas affect creativity. Technical Communication, 67(4),
Meloncon, Lisa & Frost, Erin A. (2015). Charting an emerging field: The rhetorics of health and
medicine and its importance in communication design. Communication Design Quarterly, 3(4), 7-14.
Molloy, Cathryn, Beemer, Cristy, Bennett, Jeffrey, Green, Ann, Johnson, Jenell, Kessler, Molly, Novotny, Maria, & Siegel-Finer, Bryna. (2018). A dialogue on possibilities for embodied methodologies in the rhetoric of health & medicine. Rhetoric of Health & Medicine, 1(3
Scott, J.Blake & Meloncon, Lisa (2018). Manifesting methodologies for the rhetoric of health
& medicine. In Lisa Meloncon & J. Blake Scott (Eds.). Methodologies for the Rhetoric of Health & Medicine (pp. 1-23). Routledge.
Scott, J. Blake (2004). Rearticulting civic engagement through cultural studies and
service-learning. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(3), 289-306, DOI: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1303_4
Socolow, Michael J. (2020). Derailed by poor messaging. Inside Higher Ed.
St.Amant, Kirk (2021). Creating scripts for crisis communication: COVID-19 and beyond.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 35(1), 126-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920959191
St.Amant, Kirk. (2019). The cultural context for communicating care. Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, 49(4), 367–382.
St.Amant, Kirk & Graham, S. Scott. (2019). Research that resonates: A perspective on durable
and portable approaches to scholarship in technical communication and rhetoric of
science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 2-13.
St.Amant, Kirk. (2015). Culture and the contextualization of care: A prototype-based approach to
developing health and medical visuals for international audiences. Communication
Design Quarterly, 3(2): 38-47.
Walton, Rebecca & Hopton, Sarah Beth. (2018). “‘All Vietnamese Men Are Brothers’:
Rhetorical strategies and community engagement practices used to support victims of agent orange.” Technical Communication, 65(3), 309–325.
Walton, Rebecca. & Jones, Natasha N. (2013). Navigating increasingly cross-cultural,
cross-disciplinary, and cross-organizational contexts to support social justice. Communication Design Quarterly,1, 31-35.
Walton, Rebecca, Zraly, Maggie & Mugengana, Jean Pierre (2015). Value and validity:
Navigating messiness in a community-based research project in Rwanda. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 45-69.
Williams, Robin (2015). The non-designers’ design book. Peachpit Press.