Computer trainers and technical writers responsible for instructing end users on the proper use of in-house computer systems are challenged with a task that is becoming increasingly complex and vital to an organization's efficiency. Since in-house computer systems are custom-designed for use within organizations, classroom trainers, writers, and other technical communicators must provide comprehensive classroom instruction and documentation for users. This article cites recent research on computer training and writing strategies in the technical communication and instructional technology fields, and how these strategies can be used by technical communicators to instruct users of in-house computer systems. An in-house computer training model is presented to help technical communicators design in-house computer training sessions, improve existing sessions, and create and revise in-house, instructional computer user documentation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarrH. H., Information Centers: The IBM Model vs. Practice, MIS Quarterly, 11: 3, pp. 325–365, 1987.
2.
ForesterT. and MorrisonP., Computer Ethics: Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990.
3.
CoxS., Change and Stress in the Modern Office, Further Education Unit Department of Education and Science, London, 1986.
4.
GuimaraesT. and RamanujamV., Personal Computing Trends and Problems: An Empirical Study, MIS Quarterly, 10: 2, pp. 179–185, 1986.
5.
PrumperJ.FreeseM.ZapfD., and BrodbeckF. C., Errors in Computerized Office Work: Difference between Novice and Expert Users, SIGCHI Bulletin, 23: 2, pp. 63–66, 1991.
6.
FreeseM. and AltmannA., The Treatment of Errors in Learning and Training, in Developing Skills with Information Technology, BainbridgeL. and QuintanillaRuiz S. A. (eds.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 65–86, 1989.
7.
El ShazlyH. E., and DurnadD. E., User Training Is Necessary Throughout the SDLC, Journal of Systems Management, 42: 8, pp. 6–8, 1991.
8.
RossettA., Training Needs Assessment, Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1987.
9.
KaufmanR., A Possible Taxonomy of Needs Assessment, Educational Technology, 17: 11, pp. 60–64, 1977.
10.
ThiagarajanS., How to Avoid ID, Performance and Instruction Journal, 24: 5, p. 5, 1985.
11.
TessmerM., Environment Analysis: The Neglected Stage of Instructional Design, Educational Technology Research and Development, 38: 1, pp. 55–64, 1989.
12.
GagneR. M.BriggsL. J., and WagerW., Principles of Instructional Design, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1988.
13.
MullinsM., Embedded Training: A Bibliography, Technical Communication, 36: 1, pp. 19–22, 1988.
14.
MirelB.FeinbergS., and AllmendingerL., Designing Manuals for Active Learning Styles, Technical Communication, 38: 1, pp. 75–88, 1991.
15.
SharerL., User Training: Less is More, Datamation, pp. 175–182, July 1983.
16.
ReitmanP., Streamlining Your Documentation Using Quick References, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 31: 2, pp. 75–83, 1988.
17.
BostromR. P.OlfmanL., and SeinM. K., The Importance of Learning Style in End-User Training, MIS Quarterly, 14: 1, pp. 101–116, 1990.
18.
GistM. E.SchwoererC., and RosenB., Effects of Alternative Training Methods on Self-Efficacy and Performance in Computer Software Training, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 6, pp. 884–891, 1989.
19.
MassoudS. L., Computer Attitudes and Computer Knowledge of Adult Students, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7: 3, pp. 269–291, 1991.
20.
BloomA. J. and HautaluomaJ. E., Anxiety Management Training as A Strategy for Enhancing Computer User Performance, Computers in Human Behavior, 6, pp. 337–349, 1990.
21.
DavisD. L. and DavisD. F., The Effects of Training Techniques and Personal Characteristics on Training End Users of Information Systems, Journal of Management Information Systems, 7: 2, pp. 93–110, 1990.
22.
OlfmanL. and BostrumR. P., End-User Software Training: An Experimental Comparison of Methods to Enhance Motivation, Journal of Information Systems, 1, pp. 249–266, 1991.
23.
TessmerM.JonassenD., and CaverlyD. C., A Nonprogrammer's Guide to Designing Instruction for Microcomputers, Libraries Unlimited, Inc., Englewood, Colorado, 1989.
24.
GangerR. E., Computer-Based Training Works, Personnel Journal, 69: 9, pp. 85–91, 1991.
25.
NordenboS. E., Teaching Computer Technology to Adult Computer Novices. Normative Didactics Based on Adults Perception of Information Technology, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 34: 4, pp. 243–258, 1990.
26.
ZemkeR. and ZemkeS., 30 Things We Know for Sure about Adult Learning, Training, 25: 7, pp. 57–61, 1988.
27.
CrossK. P., Adults as Learners, Jossey-Bass Publishers, London, 1981.
28.
CarrollJ. M., The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990.
29.
CharneyD. and RederL., Studies of Elaboration in Instructional Texts, in Effective Documentation—What We Have Learned from Research, Doheny-FarinaS. (ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 47–72, 1987.
30.
PiedmontM., Put Computer Software Training $$$ to Better Use, Personnel, 68: 11, p. 13, 1991.
31.
CarrollJ. M., Minimalist Training, Datamation, pp. 125–136, November 1, 1984.
32.
DieliM., The Usability Process: Why Iterative Design Works, IEEE Transactions On Professional Communication, 32: 4, pp. 272–278, 1989.
33.
DollW. J. and TorkzadehG., The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction, MIS Quarterly, 12: 2, pp. 258–274, 1989.
34.
Etezadi-AmoliJ. and FarhoomandA. F., On End-user Computer Satisfaction, MIS Quarterly, 15: 1, pp. 1–4, 1991.
