I am studying how rhetoric is applied in help environments and how digital multimedia compares to traditional multimedia and hypermedia. In more detail, I am examining the rhetoric in six common help files (three for general word processing and three for specialized art production) looking for ideas that work and other ideas that do not work.

I am also examining and documenting empirical studies I have run with faculty from Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, comparing how traditional multimedia compares to digital multimedia and how digital multimedia compares with hypermedia in CBT environment. During 1996-97 we tested approximately 150 students in three classes, comparing GUI preferences, and test scores in these different environments. In detail, we designed five different graphical user interfaces, and tested each with the students for preference (we also compared these interfaces with an already existing multimedia instructional setting that included tape and slides). The vast majority of students (61%) preferred an interface that resembled an operators' panel over one that was basically stolen from Encarta (20%). Approximately 5% preferred the old tape-slide interface. In terms of instruction, we found that given exactly identical environments except that one was hyper and the other was digital multimedia, we found that the students working in the hyper environment missed four-times as many questions as the other group. This test has been run twice with the same results both times. This project is complete and is being written up for publication. (back to top)

I am examining the professional communications industry with an eye toward understanding what professional and software skills industry is demanding and what working professional communicators actually do.

In this study of 1200 job listings posted nationally, I examined what professional skills industry was requesting, what software skills industry was requesting, and what the professional writers would actually be doing. In brief, industry wants writers/editors (obvious). Just as important, however, 58% of the positions listed wanted publishing skills (not desktop publishing--major project publishing) and exotic software skills (RoboHELP, Illustrator, FrameMaker, etc.).

More often than not, professional writers are publications managers, with significant documentation and software skills. Of some interest, only a handful of the positions I studied mentioned proposal writing and only one of the 1200 mentioned report writing.

This research is being documented for publication in Intercom. I must say that I think this says a great deal about what we are teaching as compares to what we might be teaching. (back to top)

I am examining approaches to applying Cognitive Apprenticeship instruction to professional writing courses. In addition, I am looking at what technical writing programs are teaching compared to what they might be teaching. I feel that many of us are not providing the instruction our students need. We say that we teach the theoretical skills our students need to be able to adapt in the future, but too many of our students find that they have to adapt before they can even go to work.

One of the arguments I commonly hear from scholars is "There is no point in teaching software; it will be obsolete in six-months." In fact, that is a myth. I make a point of buying each new word processing, desktop publishing, visual design, multimedia, help file authoring software as soon as they become available. The only significant change I have seen in any of these areas occurred when Windows replaced DOS. Even that change was easily absorbed. Students who understand the theories underlying the above applications can quickly adapt from manufacturer to manufacturer and from application to application. Students that leave school knowing only WordPerfect and PageMaker simply do not have the skills they need to step into the workplace and perform. (back to top)