In the field of intercultural business and technical communication, intercultural communication has been a regular topic in curriculum for decades; various teaching approaches exist for developing students’ cultural awareness and helping them achieve a theoretical understanding about the concept of culture, cultural differences, and cultural conflict. But quite often teaching and learning are limited in the classroom context, although it is true that study abroad programs are available for a small group of students. As a result, students do not have enough opportunities to interact with members of other cultures, which limits students’ potentials for gaining intercultural competence. This study explores the rhetorical nature of simulations, defines the perspective of using activity theory as a framework to understand the learning process occurring in simulations, and provides an intercultural simulation example to explain how instructors can incorporate simulations into the business and technical communication curriculum.
AgbokaG. (2012).
Liberating intercultural technical communication from “large culture” ideologies: Constructing culture discursively. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
42(2), 159–181.
2.
AgbokaG. Y. (2013).
Participatory localization: A social justice approach to navigating unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 28–49.
3.
AldrichC. (2004). Simulations and the future of learning.
San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.
4.
BalzottiJ.RawlinsJ. D. (2016).
Client-based pedagogy meets workplace simulation: Developing social processes in the Arisoph case study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
59(2), 140–152.
5.
BarnumC. M.LiH. (2006).
Chinese and American technical communication: A cross-cultural comparison of differences. Technical Communication,
53(2), 143–166.
6.
BattistaA. (2015).
Activity theory and analyzing learning in simulations. Simulation & Gaming,
46(2), 187–196. doi:10.1177/1046878115598481.
7.
BogostI. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
8.
CampbellL. (2017).
Simulation genres and student uptake: The patient health record in clinical nursing simulations. Written Communication,
34(3), 255–279.
9.
CantR. P.CooperS. J. (2017).
Use of simulation-based learning in undergraduate nurse education: An umbrella systematic review. Nurse Education Today,
49, 63–71. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.015.
10.
CantrellM. A.FranklinA.LeightonK.CarlsonA. (2017).
The evidence in simulation-based learning experiences in nursing education and practice: An umbrella review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing,
13(12), 634–667.
11.
CrookallD.AraiK. (Eds.). (1995). Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures: ISAGA at a watershed.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
12.
CrookallD.SaundersD. (1989). Communication and simulation.
Clevedon, England:
Multilingual.
13.
DingH. (2010).
Technical communication instruction in China: Localized programs and alternative models. Technical Communication Quarterly,
19, 300–317.
14.
DingH.SavageG. (2013).
Guest editors’ introduction: New directions in intercultural professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22, 1–9.
15.
de JongM.WarmelinkH. (2017).
Oasistan: An intercultural role-playing simulation game to recognize cultural dimensions. Simulation and Gaming,
48(2), 178–198.
16.
EngeströmY. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.
Helsinki, Finland:
Orienta-Konsultit.
17.
EymanD. (2008).
Computer gaming and technical communication: An ecological framework. Technical Communication,
55, 242–250.
18.
FisherD. (2007).
CMS-based simulations in the writing classroom: Evoking genre through game play. Computers and Composition,
24(2), 179–197.
19.
FowlerS. M.MumfordM. G. (Eds.). (1995). Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods: Volume 1.
Boston, MA:
Intercultural Press.
20.
FowlerS. M.PuschM. D. (2010).
Intercultural simulation games: A review (of the United States and beyond). Simulation & Gaming,
41(1), 94–115.
21.
FrostE. A. (2013).
Transcultural risk communication on Dauphin Island: An analysis of ironically located responses to the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 50–66.
22.
GudykunstW. B.ModyB. (2002). Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
23.
HertelJ.MillisB. J. (2002). Using simulations to promote learning in higher education: An introduction.
Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
24.
HofstedeG. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
London, England:
McGraw-Hill.
IsmailN.SabapathyC. (2016).
Workplace simulation: An integrated approach to training university students in professional communication. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,
79(4), 487–510.
27.
MaylathB.VandepitteS.MinacoriP.IsohellaS.MoustenB.HumbleyJ. (2013).
Managing complexity: A technical communication translation case study in multilateral international collaboration. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 67–84.
28.
PeacheyP. (2010). The application of ‘activity theory’ in the design of educational simulation games. In ZemlianskyP.WilcoxD. (Eds.), Design and implementation of educational games: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 154–167).
Hershey, NY:
Information Science Reference.
29.
RehlingL. (2005).
Teaching in a high-tech conference room: Academic adaptation and workplace simulations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
19(1), 98–113.
30.
RoundtreeA. (2014). Computer simulation, rhetoric, and the scientific imagination: How virtual evidence shapes science in the making and in the news.
Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
31.
RussellD. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In PetragliaJ. (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51–78).
Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
32.
RussellD. (1997).
Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication,
14(4), 504–554.
33.
RussellD.FisherD. (2009). Online, multimedia case studies for professional education: Revisioning concepts of genre recognition. In GiltrowJ.SteinD. (Eds.), Theories of genre and the internet (pp. 163–191).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
Benjamins.
34.
SaundersP. (1997).
Experiential learning, cases, and simulations in business communication. Business Communication Quarterly,
60(1), 97–114.
35.
SiskD. (1995). Simulation games as training tools. In FowlerS. M.MumfordM. G. (Eds.), Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods (pp. 81–92, Vol.
1,).
Boston, MA:
Intercultural Press.
36.
SpinuzziC. (1996).
Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly,
5(3), 295–308.
37.
St. AmantK. (2010). Thinking globally, teaching locally: Understanding the changing nature of technical communication in an age of globalization. In ThatcherB.St. AmantK. (Eds.), Teaching intercultural rhetoric and technical communication: Theories, curriculum, pedagogies, and practices (pp. 1–11).
Amityville, NY:
Baywood.
38.
SunH. (2006).
The triumph of users: Achieving cultural usability goals with user localization. Technical Communication Quarterly,
15(4), 457–481.
39.
SunH. (2012). Cross-cultural technology design: Creating culture-sensitive technology for local users.
New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
40.
ThatcherB. L. (2000).
Writing policies and procedures in a U.S./South American context. Technical Communication Quarterly,
9(4), 365–399.
41.
ThatcherB.St. Amant, K. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching intercultural rhetoric and technical communication: Theories, curriculum, pedagogies and practices.
Amityville, NY:
Baywoord.
VeeA. (2010).
Procedural rhetoric and expression. Journal of Advanced Composition,
30(1/2), 337–350.
44.
WangJ. (2008).
Toward a critical perspective of culture: Contrast or compare rhetorics?Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
38(2), 133–148.
45.
WangJ. (2010).
Convergence in the rhetorical pattern of directness and indirectness in Chinese and U.S. business letters. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
24(1), 91–120.
46.
WarrenJ. N.Luctkar-FludeM.GodfreyC.LukewichJ. (2016).
A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation-based education on satisfaction and learning outcomes in nurse practitioner programs. Nurse Education Today,
46, 99–108.
47.
WigginsB. E. (2012).
Toward a model for intercultural communication in simulations. Simulation & Gaming,
43(4), 550–572.
48.
Yamagata-LynchL. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments.
New York, NY:
Springer.
