atw: Re: Media and preference: the unravelling thread

I wanted to discuss the instructional media and instructional technology
aspects separately (which I studied at Uni) but haven't because I have
been too rushed this week. Shame, because I love that aspect of teaching
theory and practice - finding and exploiting whatever tools are at your
disposal to impart or teach people. Ultimately the conclusions at the
end of the course structure was to use whatever was available to you,
from a stick to the most complex items, anything can be useful to teach
knowledge if you are creative and have imagination.
 
One practical demonstration included a puppet (mit ventriloquist a'la
Wassa - oh dear), overhead projector slides (hand done - remember them?)
a boomerang, cutaway carburettor, handout notes and a variety of other
items. It was discussing the venturi effect and flight. I got full marks
for that. Anyway. I wish I was still teaching just for the ability to
creatively use a variety of media to hold the attention of young people
while instructing them. That was the best part after seeing the lights
go "on".
 
There is an entire sub-field of academic study with nicely empiric
research available, and lots of it aimed at the subjects raised by
Geoffrey here; the trouble is accessing it from the public sphere is
awkward, it really is (or well, was) hidden-net and a bit esoteric
stuff. I found it fascinating. Brian, you would probably be satiated by
some of the stuff I studied when compiling my final essays and project
assignments. In fact the courses I did  (you know that would be yikes -
1996) first really introduced me to the use of computers and helped
realise for me the changes they would bring to our lives. Now, I wonder
which carton all my notes and papers are in? Probably a dusty one! 
 
Alright, Take care;

Warren 


 

________________________________

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey
Marnell
Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 08:46
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Media and preference: the unravelling thread



Hello austechies,

 

A good dinner-party conversation starts at A and moves through the
alphabet; a good argument shouldn't. So let me clarify what my point was
and what is wasn't.

 

It was not an argument about language

Language is, and has always been, in flux. Some usage that many of us
were taught in primary school as wrong is now quite conventional: that
is, it is accepted by the majority and passes unremarked. Like it or
not, some (but certainly not all) the language practices of today's
younger folk will make it into conventional language at some time, and
at that time, technical writers will adopt that usage. Yes, we write for
our audiences, and if we want to maximise the efficacy of our
communication, we don't (and won't) write in ways that users will find
quaint, artificial, archaic or stilted, even if at some time those ways
were conventional, expected, and considered by many to be correct, right
and inviolable.

 

But I was not suggesting we distance ourselves from the language of
younger folk (or of any group).

 

It was not an argument about paper versus online

Yes, I used the paper versus online issue in my initial posting. But
that was simply to provide some concreteness to the argument (and also
because it was the only relevant, media-specific scientific research I
have been able to find on the issue of media choice). But to focus on
this issue is to be distracted by the trees in the forest and not to see
the forest. Perhaps presenting the argument in abstract logical notation
might have prevented this particular side-thread ;-).

 

It was an argument about media choice and reader preferences

In abstract form, here is what I was getting at: if medium A (whatever
that might be) is better at communicating information (however judged:
by comprehension tests, performance success, learning outcomes or
whatever) than medium B (whatever that might be), should this be a
consideration that overrides widespread reader preference for medium B
in some situations? I thought so, and gave cases where death and injury
are possible as ones where user preferences should play second fiddle.

 

Some considered this conclusion unexceptional, and I was glad to hear
that. I was hoping that most technical writers would find it so. But
Tony's argument in his Southern Communicator article suggested that
reader preferences should take priority, and his claim, in a subsequent
posting to this thread, that readers should be king seems to back up
this interpretation.

 

But the argument remains largely theoretical until we have some rigorous
way of determining that one medium "is better at communicating
information" than another. And that was the point of my second question
(also lost in the trees, to some). A lot more research needs to be done
on this. And it goes both ways. Note that I didn't ask what has Tony
done to prove that wikis, podcasts, mash-ups or whatever are better at
communicating than user guides and online help. I asked what has our
profession done to establish scientifically rigorous ways for
determining that one medium is more efficacious in such and such
circumstances than another. Cognitive psychologists have produced
numerous studies to show that paper is superior to online in
comprehension testing. This is only a start for us. It gives us a bare
minimum to go on. In order to avoid outright subjectivity in our choice
of media (if communicative efficiency, rather than secondary issues such
as cost or ease of maintenance are primary) we need some criteria for
assessing the relative merits of all the media at our disposal. And the
onus falls on all of us, not just on Tony. Readers of Tony's article
might conclude that he has to prove to us the benefits of a wiki (or
whatever) over, say, standard online help. But the argument goes both
ways. Those who think that standard online help provides more effective
communication than a wiki (as I do) need to prove the point. The problem
is that there is scant research available to inform our decisions.

 

Topics anew

Tony's paper is rich in discussion points. Here is one: let's suppose
(for the sake of argument) that many users don't read product
documentation. (Tony says that no-one does, but this is clearly an
exaggeration.)  Do they not read product documentation because of the
media we use to present it to them (which seems to be Tony's point)? Or
do they not read product documentation because it's product
documentation? Many of us, on buying, say, a new mobile phone, start
playing with it straight away, without consulting the accompanying
documentation. And many of us are satisfied with the features we
discover for ourselves, and never encounter or play with the less
obvious features (features described in the product documentation). Will
such folk start consulting product documentation if it were delivered in
other media (a wiki, podcast, YouTube movie, or whatever)? Or will they
continue doing what they have usually done: learn by doing. So perhaps
the issue is not the medium but the sort of information the medium
contains.

 

Cheers

 

Geoffrey Marnell

Principal Consultant

Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd

T: +61 3 9596 3456

F: +61 3 9596 3625

W: www.abelard.com.au <http://www.abelard.com.au>

Other related posts: