I came across this post on academic jargon while reading a higher ed blog post. The post reminded me of something I had read describing introductory texts in my own discipline (psychology). The comment was that there were more new words per page (or some unit of content) in the typical introductory psych text than in a foreign language textbook. The comparison was intended to explain why reading such material could be difficult for students. When I taught this class, I saw part of my job as explaining what such terms meant. I did give some thought to the role that jargon serves and decided that there was some value in declaring specific terminology for two reasons – a) a specific terminology (jargon) allows the assignment of meaning to words and b) a specific terminology allows efficient communication among practitioners.
The best I can do to explain what I mean by specific meaning is to offer an example. One challenge you have in teaching a content area such as psychology is that students know something about the subject matter. They interpret what is said in reference to their personal experiences which is often helpful, but they may also popularized interpretations of terms that have a specific meaning within the discipline. For example, abbreviations such as IQ are used more broadly than what the meaning of the abbreviation warrants and some common terms (e.g., reinforcement) are used imprecisely according to the formal definition.
As to my second argument, jargon is not jargon to those who use such terms as an efficient way to communicate.
Given these two issues, communication in introductory higher ed courses presents some interesting challenges. How completely should beginning learners be brought into the ways of communicating of the field? A vocabulary allowing efficient and accurate communication is certainly helpful when extended interaction is the goal, but what approach is most appropriate when some portion of the students will take no additional courses in the discipline and have no interest in vocational preparation in the field. This gets to the question of how to teach a course that is a self-contained overview of a field for some and an introduction to experiences that will follow for others. No easy answer here.
Jargon is not limited to academics in higher ed. It appears within pretty much any group. For example, K-12 educators I follow online frequently refer to their PLN or complain about how their district is pursuing PD. (PLN – personal learning network, PD – professional development). I suppose these abbreviations would be similar to my IQ example, although the issue with IQ is that there is a general use of the term that seems to have different popularized and professional meanings. It is not that the abbreviation has no meaning. I am guessing many who come across PD or PLN would have no clue as to what meaning was intended. The reference to “reflection” is another favorite annoyance. It is a word all would recognize, but the educational use is unique. If you think there is value in taking time to think about something, just say so.
I think this issue is only an issue when communicating between groups with different experiences. This is a more general version of my previous description of the challenges in teaching a course to some who will take only this course and others who will continue on to take others. Personal awareness of jargon should exist. If the intent is to develop an understanding of new terms, then use of jargon is useful if the interpretation of the terms is also included. If the intent is to communicate most efficiently with the most general audience, jargon has less of a useful role.