Once you have demonstrated that you can critically use search tools to locate relevant research, you need to be able to prove that you can assess the usefulness and validity of that research. To do so you will select a published journal article, a book chapter, or a research piece that focuses on a professional communication issue (Click here for a Selection of appropriate sources).
Using the techniques discussed in Assessing Research in the Course Calendar, write a critical assessment of the article you selected.
The following text demonstrates the type of analysis that would meet the requirements for Project 2. It is an assessment of Chapter 3 ("Learning," pp. 33-68) of a book on the TPC standard reading list: Marlana Coe, Human Factors for Technical Communicators. Please remember to review the project description to determine how you are supposed to select a parent article.
The following tabular outline illustrates my preliminary reading and note-taking for this chapter. Once I have completed this task, I will:
Make a list of the major works and authors cited.
Review those works and authors (I think there are ten) that are directly cited in the piece.
Examine those materials, primary sources, to assess the accuracy of Coe’s interpretation of their work.
Collect the results of that examination.
Review my outline to combine any similar problems.
Based on all of those steps, I’ll then decide how I will write my critical assessment of this piece.
You should realize that you do NOT have to take the same approach; I’m just being excessively organized, as the example in our class reading was, to demonstrate how I would assess each aspect of this piece.
Tabular Outline|
Paragraph Number |
Topic |
Suggested Question |
Motivate the Question |
|
1 |
Tech Comm helps readers learn |
Learning is a relatively permanent change in behavior as a result of experience. "Relatively" seems like a pretty tepid word. Also, one wonders how broad the term "experience" is? |
For this definition to work, experience needs to include "cerebral" experience. |
|
4 |
How users learn = learning theory and styles; what = knowledge; why = motivation |
Do these three items represent the structure of the remaining chapter? |
Two problems are evident, even in a cursory glance at the chapter. First, Learning theory and learning styles are presented as two separate topics and they occupy most of the chapter. Thus, the last two categories receive little attention. |
|
5 |
Two categories of learning theorists: behaviorists and Gestaltists. |
Note 1 refers to learning styles, not theories? |
No reference to this in Further Readings |
|
|
|
Given the list for note 2, which are which? The note implies that the list is ONLY behaviorists. |
Of the seven theorists offered, only three—Skinner, Guthrie, and Hull—appear in the Further Reading section. Although it is likely that Hull is a behaviorist, one would have to read the work to determine if that is correct. Both Skinner and Pavlov are well known behaviorists. |
|
6 |
cognitive learning theory concentrates on mental acts we cannot directly observe |
Note 3: of the four references only Piaget appears in the Further Reading. |
This lack of documentation and inconsistency of citing sources makes me suspect the accuracy of the research presented here. Note that this is VERY early in my assessment process. |
|
7 |
"We" stitch (interesting sewing metaphor) a blend of six components |
Again, a problem with references. Neither reference appears in the further reading list |
Why are these the relevant components? Where did the list come from? What’s their importance? |
|
8 |
learning comes from experience |
Well, the Coe model seems to propose that learning relies on direct sensory experience. |
We can "experience" war, the French Revolution, scuba diving, and the like by reading, watching a film, or some other enactment. We can definitely "learn" without direct experience. |
|
12 |
Illustration of the components of experience |
The reference to Figure 3.1 does little to allay my fears. It is too programmatic and does not admit of a "human" element |
We react to stimuli in very different ways. Overt reactions indicate that we have assesses the stimuli in some cognitive fashion; covert reactions usually indicate "muscle" memory, rather than cognition. Our reactions to traffic situations provide a good example. |
|
Notice that I have NOT felt compelled to respond to every paragraph. | |||
|
14 |
we store our experiences by creating or modifying schema |
Although that accounts for storage, it leaves the larger issue of what really constitutes learning up for grabs. |
Coe’s bio-mechanical model sees learning as taking in, processing, and storing data for later retrieval and comparison. Real learning, I would argue, means taking data and turning it into something novel. Otherwise human behavior reduced to database retrieval? |
|
18 |
information must leverage users’ schemata |
A good idea. For example, if a software user knows how to use SAVE AS in one program, they can apply that schemata to the same function in other programs. |
Coe seems to confuse schemata and metaphors, as well as other culturally dependent aspects of language. |
|
19 |
use metaphor, etc. |
Some cultures do not have the concept of metaphors or they use them in ways that differ from our culture. |
Japanese IBM site and the definition of default could be a good example here. |
|
20-21 |
schemata building |
Still a difficulty for international audiences; works well with a limited or knowledgeable one |
Using knowledge of printing techniques to explain a new color separation proofing machine. |
|
23 |
comparison of person to Pavlov’s dog |
schemata for muscle memory differ from those needed for cognitive responses |
One does not react to a read passage in a Pavlovian fashion. If it’s sad, one cries. But, that reaction isn’t Pavlovian? |
|
24 |
habit strength rests on the connection between stimulus and response. |
How does one define "habit strength"? |
What characterizes this concept? Where does it come from? |
|
27-28 |
how to reform habits |
leveraging existing habits and schemata makes sense |
How would Coe square this idea with the relatively large changes that occur in most software programs. The shift from Word 5 to 6, for example, changed 218 commands. Bet you didn’t know there were that many! |
|
34-38 |
how to use reinforcement |
good list of reinforcement techniques |
Where does it come from? Since Coe introduced this chapter with a discussion of psychologists, why don’t we know who to attribute these techniques to? |
|
39-42 |
role of interference |
good discussion of this concept, as well as suggestions for applying |
Again, where does it come from? Since Coe introduced this chapter with a discussion of psychologists, why don’t we know who to attribute these techniques to? |
|
43-47 |
user curves |
the three curves are presented without support. |
Why select these three? Where does the technical information user curve come from? Interestingly, note 5 appears in both the Notes and the Further Reading; the first time this occurs in this chapter. Why such a rich reference to this one author? |
|
49 |
stages on the technical information user curve |
Five sounds like a nice number. Thankfully, note 6 does demonstrate that Coe reviewed some possible stages in the curve. |
I should check both sources to see how Coe conflated them. |
|
57 |
Piagetian learning theory |
Coe cites P. observations on thesis, antithesis, synthesis as primary to learning |
See 59 |
|
58 |
P. and the move to scientific reasoning |
I’m unconvinced that scientific reasoning is the apogee of human development. |
This position seems to ignore other significant reasoning styles: rhetorical, syllogistic, computational, and the like. |
|
59 |
More on Piaget |
Coe admits that P.’s work focuses on small children but says that it can be applied to any learning condition. |
Although Coe’s observation can be supported, I think P. would not think highly of this perception. To make the leap from pre-schoolers to the kinds of learners implied at 43-48, above would be difficult. |
|
66 |
outsider identified |
Why was this not attempted in 43-48 above. Surely one could posit an outsider there. |
It is also possible that an outsider could be placed either closer to the line or on it in some useful way. That is, one could argue that a dyslexic reader could still be placed somewhere along either line rather than isolated as Coe suggests. |
|
67 |
Erikson’s psychosocial curve |
Since Coe dismisses four of the elements of this curve, shouldn’t she have given a more detailed rationale for having done so? How do we know she kept the most relevant? |
Again, ambiguities in Note 9 make this reference suspect. |
|
73-77 |
Using the curves to define audience |
It’s a nice idea but needs considerably more detail. |
For example, how does one justify the conclusions Coe reaches for each profile? I would guess that a close reading of Piaget and Erikson would reveal some of it; but, how does that tie into the information curve? Further, what are all of these curves plotted against? What and where are the scales? |
|
79 |
learning styles indicate how we learn |
No argument here |
Do these styles include all known possibilities? How would I discover that? |
|
81 |
Right-left brain |
Mostly rejected on biological basis |
The model, while it seems to work in most cases, has recently been challenged based on new monitoring techniques that reveal ambiguous brain wave patterns not seen before. |
|
84-85 |
definitions of knowledge |
There are many competing definitions of knowledge. |
Where did these definitions come from> |
|
90-95 |
Feedback’s use |
A good summary of feedback but tied to the Shannon and Weaver model without attribution. |
The explanation of feedback works fine in a mathematical model of communication. No one, however, has been able to successfully define either "noise" or "feedback" in terms of human communication. What are the characteristics of noise and feedback in information intended for a reader? |
|
96+ |
Maslow’s needs and motivation |
Most motivation is self-directed in some way. |
Why has she selected Maslow? |
In the opening paragraph to her chapter on learning, Marlana Coe offers the premise that technical communicators have "the responsibility of helping users learn." She further defines "learning" as "a relatively permanent change in behavior as the result of experience." While I find the idea that information professionals help their audience(s) learn a compelling one, three troubling inconsistencies and oversights mar this chapter. First, the division between, and rationale for, citations included under "Further Reading" and "Notes" seems unclear; in addition, the lack of citations for some texts makes verifying sources impossible. Second, the overall discussion and presentation of the application of learning theories, as well as their role in technical communication, seems flawed. Finally, combining these theories as a heuristic for helping users learn seems arbitrary in a variety of ways. The remainder of this paper examines these three problems.
Division and Rationale for Citations
Without cataloging every instance of missing or ambiguous citations, the overall difficulties include the fact that "Further Reading" offers two dozen references and the ten "Notes" offer 22 references. Of the latter, only six appear in "Further Reading," which leaves 16 notes unaccounted for and potentially inaccessible to other researchers. Although this general lack of accurate citation hinders research, the lack of two specific references—Bruner and Erikson—cast doubt on the accuracy of the text, a point that will be explored further later in this paper.
Of the remaining 14 unaccounted for references many seem to cover the same topic and could be especially germane to any evaluation of the author’s knowledge of learning and cognitive theories. Finally, at least one reference (Note 1, Theory into Practice) refers the reader to an inoperable website, a circumstance that emphasizes the uncertain nature of web-based information. In this instance, the author should have recognized that the presence of a tilde in the uniform resource locator (url) indicated a personal webpage, the most likely kind of resource to have a short lifespan.
Overall Discussion and Presentation of Learning Theory
This chapter takes as its central premise that technical communicators must be teachers. To help them understand this role, the author offers a selection of behavioral and cognitive theories and maps some of the concepts found in these theories onto the "Technical Communication User Curve." While no one would argue with the role technical communicators play in helping users learn, once one reviews the underlying research offered in this text, it is difficult to accept the author’s arguments.
For example, in every instance, the suggested curves are plotted in space without any indication of the units represented along either axis. Further, the entire argument rests on the initial placement for the "five distinct stages" of user development the author attributes to a relatively unknown author, M. L. Shneider, whose work, ironically, appears in a text edited by one of the premier contemporary human factor researchers—Ben Shneiderman. The idea that one can create a hierarchy of user behaviors is an old one, and it relies on the assumption that user "states" continuously change from less to more experienced and rejects the possibility that some regression can occur. Despite years of argument, no one currently agrees on the characteristics of these supposed "stages."
The placement of an "outsider" in the proposed curve is equally problematic because outsiders, or outliers, can be placed anywhere along a curve. In fact, in a normal statistical distribution, outliers occur at both ends of the curve, although some statistical analysis methods, such as Galileo studies, may suggest other placement possibilities.
Once the "Technical Communication User Curve" is questioned, its relationship to the other "curves" also must be investigated. In this text, the lack of references makes such an examination a difficult task. Since only one researcher, Piaget, has a citation in the "Further Reading" section, an analysis of that text does indicate that he relies on the four stages of cognitive development offered by Coe. However, even Piaget recognizes that his theory refers to "child" development and admits that several criticisms must be considered in applying his theory: all children do not attain the highest development stage, his theory may apply only to specific tasks, the stages might be regressive, and the theory does not account for students failure to apply old, known knowledge to novel situations. Coe seems to have ignored Piaget’s own advice!
Interestingly, Coe offers only one obscure reference to Jerome Bruner while discussing Piaget. That inclusion seems odd because most discussions of learning theory focuses on three theorists: Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, and Lev Vigotsky. Instead of considering all of these theorists, certainly an author’s prerogative, Coe relies on Erik Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development. Since Coe does not provide a reference for Erikson, I reviewed a number of texts until I found this theory articulated in Childhood and Society. The major difference between Coe and Erikson’s representations of this theory involves the exact number of stages; Coe offers four, Erikson eight. Erikson further differentiates these into childhood and adult stages, neither of which have four units. In fact, Coe has borrowed from both groups, mixing childhood and adult behaviors in odd ways, to accommodate her theory.
In summary, Coe posits that technical communicators can help users learn by applying the combination of theoretical curves from learning theory with one she constructs based on the work of a single human factors author. In no instance does she inform her readers how the curves’ structure is derived or how they have been plotted against specific units. This lack of specificity calls her premise into serious question.
Arbitrary Heuristic for Applying Theories
Given the observations in the above discussion, it should be obvious that any attempts to use these curves to help a writer understand how to help a user learn will offer little assistance. For instance, in Coe’s example of applying the curves (p. 54-55), she plots a line across all three curves and posits that a writer can use this plot to develop ways that will help users learn. But, this example leaves many unanswered questions: How did the author select any of the plot points? Why is the plot a straight line? Can a plot be regressive? What useful conclusions can one draw from the position of the line and its relationship to the curves? Can those conclusions be converted into teaching techniques that a writer can actually apply?
The basic problem with the concept the author offers is that she has drawn too eclectically from a number of behavioral and cognitive theorists, and she has applied their work inaccurately. This is not to suggest that Coe consciously mislead her readers; instead, I suggest that she has simply overlooked more powerful relationships—like the one among Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky—in favor of other researchers. Finally, I would like to point out that the early difficulties I discussed concerning poor documentation may have contributed to some of the inaccuracies found in this text. For example, the lack of an Erikson reference could indicate that the author relied on sources other than Erikson, the original theorist, as a source for that theory. Coe’s confusion concerning the exact number of stages posited by Erikson could be attributed to such a behavior.
Concluding Remarks
Since Coe's text focuses on the application of human factor principles to technical communication, one should logically expect that focus to underlie the entire text. While learning theory certainly is of interest of human factors engineers, their interest is usually much more pragmatic: how can people learn to use a specific product or process. Technical writers, in contrast, need to know about certain areas of human behavior that promise to help readers understand texts that support using products or processes. The division between product/process development and information support still remains in this equation. Coe’s work can narrow that division, as well as the gap between author and reader, by helping technical communicators understand how people learn. This chapter, however, fails to achieve its stated purpose because of its inadequate documentation, its flawed presentation of behavioral theory, and the arbitrary character of the heuristic it develops for applying those theories.
End of Page
Last modified: