Plain language functions in two ways in the communications classroom: first, it is incumbent upon the instructor to use plain language while instructing students; second, that same instructor must teach their students the use of plain language.

Plainlanguage.gov defines it as “writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience” (from the Plain Writing Act of 2010). Here, it’s noted that plain language is audience-specific: what’s clear and concise for some will not be clear and concise for all. In terms of the classroom, then, it’s a case of meeting our students wherever they are, remembering that in the college classroom our students come from a wide variety of backgrounds, both cultural and educational. Operationally, then, plain language must be multifaceted within the rhetorical confines of a single classroom; ways in which plain language can be utilized include the verbal lecture, supplemental materials, and class activities. Even during independent work, it’s important for the instructor to remain available for students, read and able to answer questions about the concepts, activities, and assignments in a way that accesses the student’s ability to understand.

According to Kira Dreher, in “Engaging Plain Language in the Technical Communication Classroom,” plain language is “an opportunity” to “interrogate assumptions about social justice, ‘plainness,’ and access” with students (46). In the BizCom classroom where I teach, the opportunity, as described by Dreher, is somewhat limited. By and large, in my class of undergraduates, I am teaching freshmen and sophomores who are still in the process of developing a more nuanced understanding of how effective communication works, both in their own writings as well as in the documentation produced by outside entities like corporations. What, then, does plain language mean in practical terms?

Dreher notes that “in plain language, the relationship between writer and reader can reflect an ‘I-You’ relationship rather than “I-it,” allowing the writer to partner or dialogue with the reader” (50). Even if not labelled as such in the classroom, this particular concern of plain language is central to BizCom pedagogy as we spend much of our time discussing the importance of user-centered design and writing for goodwill. Dreher goes on to remind the reader that “using plain language doesn’t guarantee ethical communication,” an issue which is ever-present in the undergraduate BizCom classroom (50). Unless instructed otherwise, when tasked to deal with a “scandal” in a fictional company, students sometimes chose deceit and obfuscation instead of dealing with the issue plainly and fairly; reminding students of the ethical consequences of their work is necessary to ensure that they do not fall into this particular rhetorical trap.

Of interest to students in the BizCom classroom are issues regarding social justice. Explicitly linking what they learn in the classroom to the real-world issues they face elsewhere stimulates student interest in the concept of plain language, even if it’s not introduced to them as such. Dreher says that “framing plain language in the terms of persuasion can reveal more clearly the stakeholders, socio-political implications, and assumptions about language and clarity” (56). When we teach our students about tone, audience, goodwill, concision, and presenting negative news, we are teaching them important plain language concepts. Taking the time to point out how these concepts are linked to social justice issues, and the need to treat everyone equitably and equally, works to create the association between communication and the real-life issues we all must face. Our goal as instructors must be to try and foster the set of conditions which will allow our students to grow and develop as individuals and adults, and plain language provides a potential way of doing so.