Technical Communication and Training: How Similar Are They?

How similar are technical communication and training?  Although some characterize the two as nearly identical, a closer look at their occupational cultures suggests several subtle, but significant, differences exist.  

My recent article, Different Approaches to Similar Challenges: An Analysis of the Occupational Cultures of the Disciplines of Technical Communication and Training, published in the second quarter 2012 issue of the IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, explores these differences.  

Here’s the abstract of the article:

Problem:  Perhaps it is presumptuous of Technical Communicators to assume that, because some of their skills that might be employed in developing and delivering training materials, that those skills alone are qualifications to work in training, much less the source by which the processes of Training might be examined.  Using data from one survey and one interview-based studies of the work of Technical Communication and Training groups, as well as participation on committees responsible for certification examinations for Technical Communicators and Trainers, this tutorial analyzes differences in the occupational cultures of the two fields.
Key Concepts:  The work differs: Technical Communicators produce content that explains how to perform tasks; trainers produce programs that develop skills that a third party can verify.  To do so, Technical Communicators follow a process that emphasizes writing and production; Trainers follow a process that emphasizes the analysis of intended goals and evaluation of whether those goals have been achieved.  The guiding philosophy of Technical Communication is usability; the guiding philosophy of Training is performance.  Although both disciplines are rooted in cognitive psychology, the primary intellectual roots of Technical Communication are in rhetoric and composition, while the primary intellectual roots are in education.  The preferred research methods of Technical Communication are critical; the preferred research methods of Trainers are empirical qualitative and quantitative methods.
Key Lessons: As a result, Technical Communication professionals and researchers who want to work in Training should approach the field in a culturally appropriate way by (1) recognizing distinctions between a communication product and a training program, (2) recognizing distinctions in work processes, (3) recognizing distinctions in language, (4) recognizing differences in values and (5) acknowledging that an academic discipline of training exists.  

To see the complete article, visit http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=47.  (Note: Only free to members of the IEEE Professional Communication Society and to those entering through university libraries with a subscription to IEEExplore.)

Order Books, Including Informal Learning Basics

Informal Learning Basics	e-Learning Handbook	Training Design Basics
Advanced Web-based Training	Designing E-Learning	Techniques for Technical Communicators
Information And Document Design: Varieties on Recent Research (2nd edition)		An Overview of Online Learning (2nd edition)

A New Book Is on the Way

Informal Learning Basics, my newest book from ASTD Press, should hit bookshelves at the end of May. 

This book, which explores one of the hottest topics in training today, describes how training and development and other Human Resources professionals can better harness informal learning.  By some accounts, informal learning—in which learners define some combination of the process, location, purpose, and content of learning and may or may not be conscious that learning occurred—provides as much as 70 percent of all learning in the workplace with little or no involvement of training and development professionals.   

So readers have realistic expectations and plans for the application of informal learning in the workplace, the book first describes how informal learning works and identifies how to use it effectively at key touch points in the life cycle of a job.  Then, to help readers harness the power of informal learning, this book describes how readers can support 22 specific types of group and individual informal learning,  how social, enterprise and other instructional technologies can assist in those efforts, and how to evaluate informal learning.  Each chapter includes exercises that help readers apply the concepts presented in the book and worksheets that readers can use when planning informal learning efforts in their organizations.

Keep checking this blog for updates on the publication.  

New Case Study about Training Evaluation

New Hire Scorecards at Discover Financial Services, recently published in Training Magazine online and co-written by my student Alexis Belair and I, describes how Discover Financial Services (the Discover card people) developed a series of scorecards, reports that visually report the progress of their new hire training programs.   

Written with the close cooperation of Jon Kaplan, a training director at Discover, and Doug Anderson, manager of this project, this case study not only describes the report, but also describes the challenges, costs, and development resources needed to prepare these reports.  

Read the entire case at  http://www.trainingmag.com/article/case-study-new-hire-scorecards-discover-financial-services.

How Different Are Millenials--Really?

As I wrote in an earlier post, perhaps some of the discussions about the differences between Millenials and other generations might be basic generational differences that have existed throughout time, rather than completely unique characteristics of this generation.

Here's another piece of evidence to support this alternative view.  In his analysis of three years' of the Allstate/National Journal Heartland poll, Ronald Brownstein found that Millenials, "fabled for preferring variety to stability, also echoed that sentiment" were nearly as likely to seek job stability (that is, a long-term job with a single employer) as those in other age brackets.  

Read his analysis at http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/what-the-great-recession-wrought-the-state-of-the-us-in-3-years-of-polls/251010/.

Of Complexity, Ignorance, and Educators

Now here’s a scary thought:

“The less people know about important complex issues such as the economy, energy consumption and the environment, the more they want to avoid becoming well-informed, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association. “

So reads a press release about a recently published study that explores the links between awareness of social issues and dependence on and trust in government.   Researchers at the University of Western Ontario and other universities reached these conclusions following a series of studies in the US and Canada.   

Researchers presented participants with simple and complex descriptions of the same problem and found that people reading the more complex description felt higher levels of helplessness.  One of the conclusions that co-researcher Aaron C. Kay, reported was that:

“people tend to respond by psychologically ‘outsourcing’ the issue to the government”   

So what does this mean for educators, especially those who teach complex issues and like to emphasize critical thinking?  The authors suggest:  

“Beyond just downplaying the catastrophic, doomsday aspects to their messages, educators may want to consider explaining issues in ways that make them easily digestible and understandable, with a clear emphasis on local, individual-level causes.” 

To learn more, check out Ignorance Is Bliss When it Comes to Challenging Social Issues at  http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/11/ignorance.aspx. 

Management Training for Nonprofit Executives

Philanthropists are giving Human Resources a good name.

According to reporter Stephanie Strom, some major philanthropists are requiring that the leaders of organizations they fund participate in management training as a condition of the funding. 

Although many nonprofit executives rightfully resist such intrusion of donors on everyday operations, many of those interviewed by Strom appreciated this type of advice. The donors recognized that, although the organizations they fund are passionate about their goals, some minimize the role of management practices and principles in achieving those goals.  As Strom writes:

“People in this sector, just like scientists and doctors, get promoted because of their issue expertise and then no one really ever teaches them how to manage,” said Jerry Hauser, the center’s chief executive and a former consultant at McKinsey & Company. “Then it becomes a vicious cycle, where the next generation coming up in an organization comes up under someone who doesn’t know how to manage.”

Following training, the nonprofit executives gained new insights into their operations and devised new ways to more effectively achieve goals and prepare for the future.  

To read the entire article--and learn about some specialized sources of management training for nonprofit executives--visit 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/business/philanthropists-start-requiring-management-courses-to-keep-nonprofits-productive.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all. 

Looks like it's really going to happen!

Just finished reviewing the edits for my next book, Informal Learning Basics.

Comes out this spring.

Updates and teasers as publication gets closer.

Caught My Eye: Yet Another Discussion of the Flawed Millenials

In the past week, I’ve read a few pieces that address the strengths and flaws of millenials.

One was a paper from a master’s student.  Like much work by early researchers, despite the endless flurry of statistics, this one relied  more on emotion than fact in drawing its arguments.  The earnest student cited statistic after statistic to make the case that young people are heavy users of social media.

The student tried to put this into a broader social perspective.  Among the many points raised were that social media lets adolescents interact with strangers online without the knowledge of their parents.

I pointed out that it’s only in the last 20 or 30 years that young people have been housebound and monitored like prisoners.  100 years ago, many 15 and 16 year olds were already married.  Of those who weren’t, many were 1 of 7 or 8 or 10 or 15 children (like my grandparents).  With that many children, parents did simply could not follow the doings of each child the way they can when they have just 1 or 2 children.

This historical perspective is what seems to get lost in all of these discussions about Millenials.

One important part of the historical perspective is that we tend to forget that nearly every emerging generation in the past 100 years has been decried for one reason or another.

In her essay, A Generation of Slackers? Not So Much (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/weekinreview/29graduates.html?ref=weekinreview, New York Times, May 28, 2011), Catherine Rampell notes that

It’s worth remembering that to some extent, these accusations of laziness and narcissism in “kids these days” are nothing new — they’ve been levied against Generation X, Baby Boomers and many generations before them. Even Aristotle and Plato were said to have expressed similar feelings about the slacker youth of their times. 

In other words, one of the issues that is often lost in our quickness to judge the rising generation is the historical perspective.  This perspective could balance conclusions in several ways:

• Placing the family situation of young people into the larger perspective of time.  Some of the issues that people raise are unique to this generation.  Consider parents’ involvement with their adolescents.  Parents always loved their adolescents but, as a  result of several generations of slow change as well as longer education cycles, longer life spans, and smaller families, they are playing a guardian role longer than in the past and often with more attentiveness to this role.  So role-based expectations have also shifted.  What parents expect to know about their Millenial children might differ from what parents expected to know about their Boomer and Generation X children, much less what parents expected to know about their Depression-era children.  
• Placing social phenomena attributed to the current generation into the larger perspective of time.  For example, an applicant for a degree program once said that we had a responsibility to study educational technology because of all the social phenomena affecting children.  I asked which phenomena.  She first mentioned crime—“there’s so much crime these days.”  But crime rates in the past decade have been far lower than those 20 to 40 years ago.  Perhaps the perception of crime is high but that’s not the same as actual physical threats.  

Somehow, the discussions about Millenials seems to lack this type of perspective.  The truth is:

• Growing up always has its struggles.  What differs across time and people is what each person struggled with.  
• Part of those struggles arise from the times in which the young people were born and raised.  Some were born and raised in hard times; others during years of relative peace and prosperity.  This has a general effect on people because it establishes some of the social norms and values that guide people the rest of their lives.
• Some of those struggles have nothing to do with the times; they have everything to do with the individual circumstances.  Some people grew up in relatively comfortable home situations (define comfort however you choose); others had difficult circumstances (define difficult however you choose, too).   This happened  in every generation until now and is likely to continue in every generation to come.  
• Young people tend to have a higher level of comfort adopting new technologies (though this is not universal).  In this generation, it’s social media.  In previous generations, it was AOL Instant Messenger, personal computers in general and even telephones.  Yet no matter how strong the presumed attachment of the young people to these technologies, the technologies are only a part of their lives.  They do not define them.

So many people who write and research generational issues seem to lose this perspective.

Certainly journalists should write about young people and researchers should study them.  How young people adopt technology could affect the way that people use it tomorrow.

But more than technology (which is what I study) or attitudinal issues of millenials, the primary reason that journalists should write about Millenials and resesarchers should study them is that we apparently have forgotten the experience ourselves as we have aged.

And perhaps it’s that lack of empathy that prevents us from embracing Millenials.  Rampell suggested this at the beginning of her essay:

YOU’D think there would be a little sympathy. This month, college graduates are jumping into the job market, only to land on their parents’ couches: the unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds is a whopping 17.6 percent.
The reaction from many older Americans? This generation had it coming.

Tweckling

A few months ago, a colleague sent an e-mail to several people discussing the problem of people tweeting during presentations.

First, the Incident
The issue is a timely one in light of a live interview with Steve Martin at New York’s 92nd Street Y.  The interview by New York Times writer Deborah Solomon focused on Martin’s new novel, and she picked up on a number of points in the book when asking him questions.

But the audience wanted a “star” interview, asking him about his career as a comedian, not his recent work as a novelist focusing on the art world.  The increasingly frustrated audience (located not only onsite, but also through simulcast in locations around the country) tweeted up a storm and one of the events’ producers eventually informed the interviewer that the audience was losing patience with her line of questions.

The Y eventually sent an apology and a $50 gift certificate to all who attended, claiming that the interview didn’t live up to its “standard of excellence.” (For those  who aren’t familiar with it, this series of lectures is one of the best known in New York City and, simulcasts started in response to people in other cities wishing to join the experience.)

The Arts Beat blog of the New York Times reports on the incident (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/readers-weigh-in-on-ys-decision-to-give-refunds-for-steve-martin-interview/?ref=design).  Some people agree with the gesture.

But others question it, pointing out that people who attend other disappointing lectures, movies, and similar performances rarely receive apologies, much less refunds.

More significantly, some people question whether the role of the audience in this situation, noting that the success of the Y lectures is that they do not pander to audience wishes.

The Bigger Picture
Edu-blogger Steve Wheeler puts this individual incident into a broader perspective in his blog entry, Weapon of Mass Detraction (http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2009/12/weapon-of-mass-distraction.html) from December 2009.

Wheeler describes a few incidents in which impatient audiences tweet their frustration with a speaker.  In some instances, the speaker is admittedly off-the-mark in targeting the presentation.

But in other instances, the problems plaguing the speaker are beyond his or her control, such as non-functioning audio and restrictions placed on the speaker by the conference producer.

Wheeler labels this phenomenon as tweckling.

Wheeler focuses on the rudeness of the behavior. And it is.

But, more fundamentally, this seems to be a question of publicly vocalizing their conclusions before the speaker has reached his or hers.

That does not excuse speakers from the responsibility for engaging their audiences or conference producers from providing the pre-presentation guidance and on-site audiovisual support that speakers need to successfully do so.

But it would be nice if audiences were to meet speakers half way, and give them a bit of a benefit of the doubt before tweeting their dissatisfaction.

Realistically, though, as long as conference producers increasingly promote tweeting during their events, tweckling is an additional reality that all speakers need to face.

CSTD Thought Leader Presentation

Last winter, the planners of the 2010 CSTD Conference asked me to give a "Thought Leader" presentation.  Although my ego was boosted by the invitation, my mind was a bit flummoxed, as the conference planners let me choose the topic.   So someone considers me a thought leader, but about what  no one has any idea.

Of course, the planners wanted a topic soon after inviting me so I made up something broad and general--staying relevant--hoping that clarity would hit me as I actually prepared the presentation.

That was last spring, when I was finishing up my sabbatical and immersed in data from others' and my studies that paint a startlingly different view of the current state of training than is generally acknowledged.  That data points to a training system in which employers are increasingly less invested in developing their employees and in which workers assume the balance of the investment--that is, if they want to remain employed.

Although the situation scares me a bit, I also see a lot of opportunity for training professionals, although much of that opportunity will be outside of the employer-provided network of trainers.  I also think that this situation can empower workers to take more control of their own careers.  That, in turn, can lead to more satisfying careers.  But I think that we also need a system that provides that support and, as far as I can tell, no such system really exists.

At least, not yet.

The result was a presentation about whose technical content I feel quite secure.  But I had no idea how others would react to the presentation.

The e-Learning Guy posted the first reaction online and it's generally positive.

http://elearningguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/cstd-reflections-saul-carliner-and.html 

I'm anxiously awaiting the official survey responses to get a sense of how the rest of the audience felt.

A copy of the visuals is provided here, though I'm not sure that, on their own, they fully deliver the message.

http://education.concordia.ca/~scarliner/recentmaterials.html

CSTD Research-to-Practice Day

I hosted the second CSTD Research-to-Practice Day this year.

Responses generally seem positive.

Check out this thorough review by the e-Learning Guy at:

http://elearningguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/cstd-conference-my-day-1-summary.html

Corporate Responsibility, Possible Money Grabs, and the ROI of Tutoring: News Stirring Thought about Workplace Learning

• Business owner Paul Downs wonders "Do I owe my employees a career path? Although he wants to retain employees and found that specialist workers are the most productive, he wonders what happens when workers "top out" on the career paths within his company.  He voices a concern that many employers feel--but concludes the value of supporting his workers outweighs the costs.  Read his thoughts at http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/do-i-owe-my-employees-a-career-path/?ref=business.
• Jeanne Meister and Karie Willyerd make 10 predictions about the future of training in a recent posting on ASTD's Learning Circuits.  Most of the post focuses on the of technology in the future of workplace learning.  But they present more of an enthusiastic rather than critical look at the technology. For example, they see 3-D applications as a low-cost alternative to labs, without addressing the sometimes considerable cost of developing the software-based simulations.  Similarly, they talk about the increasing role of mobile apps but fail to link it to the larger--and ongoing--conversation about supporting performance and transferring training, which is the real process by which these applications for mobile devices offer value to learning.

They also note the role that public policy plays in encouraging workplace learning, and talk about individual learning accounts that some jurisdictions are offering their taxpayers.  But once again, they fail to demonstrate critical thinking about these accounts.  Meister and Willyerd present the accounts as additional revenue sources for tuition for workplace learning.  Why should workers pay their own cash for training on proprietary skills and products that only benefit the employer, when they could invest those funds in a neutral third-party provider who would provide the worker with durable, transferable skills that would make the worker attractive to all employers?  

In terms of the future of trainers, Meister and Willyerd advocate for mostly clerical role: accrediting workers' skills, saying that workers won't necessarily demonstrate competency through courses but, rather, through on-the-job activities. Meister and Willyerd present that certification responsibility as an exciting role--and the primary viable option for trainers.  But they only partially describe exactly what that role is for trainers.  Reading between the lines, if this role is similar to the role that Meister saw for in-the-trenches trainers at corporate universities, one real possibility of this view is that primary role of in-the-trenches trainers under this vision is to serve as contract administrators and trainers of on-the-job coaches—kind of like a specialized purchasing team for training.  This is hardly the "strategic partner" who has a "seat at the corporate table"  view advocated by the trade press and actively explored by strategic HRD research and theory.

Read the full article at http://www.astd.org/LC/2010/0710_meister.htm.

• Although, ostensibly about parents purchasing tutoring services for their children (a booming industry, which grew 5 percent last year, despite the recession and cuts to schools), Paul Sullivan’s exploration of the “returns” on such tutoring offers some glimpses into the challenges of tallying the ROI of training.   For example, some parents come to tutoring with unrealistic expectations—that the only successful outcome is acceptan999ce to an Ivy League school. I was also surprised by the fees that some of the Manhattan-based tutors charge—as high as 8 times the rate of many contract instructional designers and technical writers. Check out Sullivan’s analysis at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/your-money/21wealth.html?hpw=&pagewanted=all. Visited August 21, 2010.

Reflections on Museums 3: Different Ways of Learning from Museums

In their extended study of museum visitors, Falk and Dierking found that people can learn a lot from museums, but they often learned a lot about subjects they were already interested in.  And perhaps there’s some truth in that.

When reflecting on our visits to museums, I realized that existing interests played a key role in choosing which museums we visited, as well as what we saw in them.  In some cases, we both had an interest in seeing a museum, like le Musee des Arts Decoratifs in Paris.  In other instances, the interests of one of us drove the choice of museum and the other acquiesced, such as my partner’s interest in seeing el Museo de Traje (clothing) in Spain and my interest in seeing the history museums in every city we visited.  Similarly, within museums, our interests drove our choice of exhibitions to visit.  In the Neues Museum in Berlin, we visited Nefertiti’s bust because of my partner’s interest, just as we chose to visit the galleries on the early history of Berlin in the Story of Berlin because of my interest in that subject.

What I also observed, however, was that the interest of one partner helped inspire interest in the other.  My partner’s interest in clothing and Nefertiti drove mine.  I probably acquired more new knowledge than him in these instances because my knowledge base was likely more limited than his.  By the same token, my partner acquired much more basic knowledge about the history of Berlin and Germany because I had more than he did.  In those instances, the more knowledgeable partner still learned, but it was fill-in knowledge, filling in holes in our existing knowledge bases.

More than the subject, I also observed that each of us took advantage of different learning resources offered by the museums.  To gain factual knowledge, my partner preferred the audio guides while I preferred the labels.

Part of this preference was practical; his native language is Spanish and all museums offered audio guides in his native language but few labels.  In contrast, my native language is English and most museums offered labels in my language.

The other practical consideration is speed; one can read more quickly than one can listen.  I found this true even when I read labels in Spanish and French, which are not my native languages and which I cannot read as quickly as English.

That said, I also learned that the information available from labels did not match that provided by the audio guides.  In any given instance, one provided more extensive information, though which channel did so varied among institutions.

We rarely took advantage of human tour guides except when required.  Once again, this was practical.  In some instances, tours were not available.  When they were, we could only take tours when they were scheduled, which often conflicted with our plans.  Or the tours were not conducted in languages we could easily understand.  Part of this is a self-service orientation; we prefer to do things on our own.

But when we did follow a tour guide, we found that they added a depth of knowledge not available in either the labels or audio guides.

Most of the museums also offered touch screen computers, with access to additional content about the exhibitions and their objects; we almost never used them.  In some instances, that resulted from the line-ups at the computers.  In other instances, the computers were slow or not working.  And that formed our attitudes.

One exception was the history museum in Valencia, where the computers presented acted out scenes from history in viewers’ choices of Spanish or English. I watched some of these, but because of the same time consideration as with audio guides, did not watch many.

I observed other visitors and noted that some would tour together, stop and discuss an object or case, then move on; others went at their own pace and occasionally joined one another (our plan), some read most or all of the labels (like me) while others concentrated more on the objects themselves (my partner).

And the two saw and learned different things. My partner would often mention something to me and I’d wonder where he had seen it, because he saw something I missed.  That wouldn’t be so bad, but because I read so closely, I thought I had been a thorough visitor.  I was fooling myself.

For designers of online and informal learning programs, these observations suggest many take-away issues:

• When given a choice, people will choose what interests them the most.
• To expand the horizon of choices, note that people will accompany friends and follow their suggestions—at first to be polite, but they often benefit from the choice.  
• In such situations, the two learners do not learn the same things because they’re working with different bases of knowledge.   
• Given a choice of learning media, people will choose the medium that best suits their preferences and needs.  
• Unless the design of the content on those different media is coordinated (it usually is not—the two are likely designed by different people at different times), the material presented will differ.  As a result, what people learn will differ depending on their choice of medium.  
• Even when visiting the same space, however, different learners will approach that space differently (some read, some look, some discuss).  As a result, even when the learning experience is designed to cover a single body of material, when people approach it in their own way, they each see different things.  Those differences go beyond different perspectives; different visitors see entirely different things.  One person will see something the other misses and vice versa.  

In terms of informal learning, what this means is that it’s only useful if we don’t care about the specifics that people learn.  But if we do care, then informal learning might not be most appropriate because each person leaves having had experienced different content, much less with a different understanding of the subject.  For building a basic body of knowledge, informal learning probably doesn’t make much sense.   It prevents people from building the common basis of knowledge that permits knowledgeable participation in a conversation.

For building a personalized base of knowledge, as is necessary for building expertise, informal learning is terrific because it allows a person to tailor knowledge to his or her own needs.  And because the learner is constantly tailoring knowledge to his or her own needs, they’re also choosing what they don’t learn—and that’s always something to learn later.  Perhaps that’s why true experts always say that they don’t know anything about the field.  They know what they’ve chosen not to learn yet.  That they can label what they don’t know is what makes them experts.  

Next post:  Lessons for information architecture from the spatial design of museums.