What does education often do? It makes a straight-cut ditch of a free, meandering brook. -- Henry David Thoreau

By discussing the modern technical communicator's audience with the presumption that they are individuals reading text, many technical communication theorists vastly limit and underestimate the role of the technical communicator. Indeed, Billie J. Wahlstrom writes that as new technologies have been developed over the years, "[technical communicators] have adopted an ahistorical approach . . . largely ignoring . . . luminal eras when changes in communications technologies caused profound cultural transformations" (Walstrom 131). [1] Moreover, arguments in technical communication theory frequently miss the fact that even though they can become wildly divergent, they may all seem appropriate to certain audiences and in certain situations. For example, Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver's The Mathematical Theory of Communication outlines a theory of communication in seeming contradiction to Carolyn R. Miller's in "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing." But despite this conflict, we still find value in both of these theories. How is this possible? Are there any unifying theories that allow for such divergent theories to coexist? Indeed there are, but they require us to look at technical communication in a different way than what is presently assumed in technical communication discourse.

I would argue that technical communication is a form of education. [2] As technical communicators we do not merely ask a reader (or viewer, user, or whoever) to elicit a certain response naively after interacting with something we produce, we strive for audience cognition. Through our documents we attempt to make our audience understand the design and operational philosophy of a computer program or machine (or whatever else), so that they can apply one instruction to another situation. If the technical writer, for example, writes a computer training manual, then the technical writer almost without exception has in mind creating a document that is consulted once (perhaps per topic, or perhaps as a whole) and educates the reader so she does not need to revisit the manual each time she encounters the same or a similar problem. In this example the user no longer needs to consult the manual after the technical writer has adequately taught her how to use the software and when she is ready to apply her education. Of course technical writers may write so that a reader can solve an immediate problem, but they also write so that the reader will be able to apply what they've learned in the text without revisiting the text infinitely. An instruction for one button's function, for example, should, if possible, suggest to the audience what another button will do based on understanding the layout or design philosophy of a given program, a task the technical communicator inherently does (at least assuming she is relatively competent). John M. Carroll and Mary Beth Rosson call computer learners "innocent in the extreme" in that "each feature of a computer system may indeed have a sensible design rationale from the viewpoint of the system's engineer, but this rationale is frequently far beyond the grasp of the new user . . . 'word processor,' so far as we know, is not a natural concept" (82). The function of a technical communicator, therefore, is to teach design rationale to the user, and not simply answer the question, "What does this button do?"

It should be noted that the claim that technical communication is a form of education is not a call for a new form of technical communication; rather, I would argue this philosophy already exists and is practiced in the field, however little it is understood or directly addressed in theory. For example, David Goodwin's call to motivate the reader by forming a narrative in which she can be vicariously become the hero highlights an appreciation of the reader's cognitive processes [3], but this discussion falls short in its application to media other than written text. To better understand the limitations of most discourse on the subject of technical communication, we need to acknowledge the current role(s) technical communicators face in the workplace. Technical communication is not simply writing manuals or procedurals, as is assumed in much discourse on the subject. And even in the realm of technical writing, theorists largely ignore the visual forms of technical communication that modern practitioners use. Tools "writers" use because they are cognizant, however subconsciously, of a larger ideal the technical communicator operates under: that of educator.

Of course, both theorists and practitioners understand that modern technical communication is not only found in the form of a text-based operation manual. Technical communication is also graphic user interface (GUI) design. It is website and kiosk design. It is designing communication tools for non-sighted people, or for those who speak foreign languages. It is building online help systems and writing science articles. It is using words and pictures and devices to communicate technical information with practically every one of the human senses. As mentioned above, even in that most traditional form of technical communication -- the operation manual -- the technical communicator often chooses to use illustrations to bring certain ideas across. But where is this discussion in technical communication theory? When do the theorists discuss when and why a "writer" reverts to (or, conversely, relies almost solely upon) using diagrams in their operation manuals?

Ironically, technical communication theorists themselves often use diagrams to demonstrate their theory while not explicitly acknowledging non-written forms of technical communication in their argument and how they affect "audience." [4] This lack of discussion is a large omission, either due to oversight on the part of the theorist (perhaps because of the relative infancy of the field), reluctance due to the decided complexity this issue adds to technical communication theory, or the flawed notion that a discussion on written communication is implicitly a discussion on all forms of communication. Writing about the general reluctance to confront such inconsistencies through the rise of computer technology in particular, Henrietta Nickels Shirk states, "[technical communicators] are extremely anxious about how they are to function successfully in the evolving computer-based world of technical communication" (361). I would suggest that this anxiety stems in part from the limitations that communication theories concerned with the writer/text/reader relationship have in application to visual and auditory communication. Moreover, theorists may imply that a discussion of written discourse is inherently a discussion on other forms of communication, but experience tells us that simply substituting "user" for "reader" or "hyper-text" for "written text" is inadequate. For example, Walter Ong's "The Writer's Audience is Always A Fiction" (frequently cited by technical communication theorists) creates a dichotomy between audiences of written material and audiences of spoken material, thereby suggesting that theories regarding written communication are not directly applicable to other forms of communication. But if the technical communicator uses tools largely underrepresented (or entirely none-existent) in current theories of technical communication, what theories can she review to better understand her role in the field? How can she find theories that tell her why she naturally feels compelled to use forms of communication other than written text?

In this paper, I will argue that technical communication can greatly benefit from educational psychology discourse, for with a full understanding of the human cognitive process we can better understand our tools and our audience. We can understand why we naturally feel compelled to diverge from text-based communication at times, and what direction our field can take in the future. I will show that a study of technical communication as strictly a study in the way a writer affects a reader only deals with one part of the field, for it only deals with one type of learner.

Educational psychology (and more particularly cognitive psychology) is defined as a "study [of] the mental processes that occur in perception, memory, and thought. Cognitive psychologists "emphasize mind instead of behavior -- knowing instead of responding . . .[and they] seek to determine how our thoughts, knowledge, and interpretations influence our ability to acquire information, solve problems, and make plans" (Seamon and Kenrick 163). Of course, the exact formula with which educational psychology should interact with the other generally accepted fields (rhetoric, the meaning of science) within technical communication theory is indefinable, as the tools and projects for a technical communicator are extremely dynamic, varying not only by the individual practitioner, but down to the smallest details within projects. Despite this (or perhaps because of this) complexity, it is paramount that we understand how it is to effectively teach a multiplicity of learners.

Indeed, there are many arguments that get temptingly close to defining technical communications as a form of education. Many arguments regarding the role of the mock reader or the role of the discourse community, for example, have an implicit discussion on the power of the technical communicator as educator, but perhaps a more explicit approach is warranted.

In an effort to highlight the educational nature of effective technical communication, I will discuss the application of educational psychologist Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences within the context of some contemporary technical communication theorists. Gardner's theory is, in fact, a theory largely informed by educational psychologist Piaget's theories of cognitive growth in the child. Furthermore, I would like to suggest that theories regarding the way people learn as established in education and psychology (and in particular Gardner's theories) are actually invoked by the technical communicator, however subconsciously. Lastly, I will suggest a path-forward for technical communication theory that includes theories which discuss the way individuals (and groups) learn, so that technical communicators might better understand and serve their audience in the field.

Technical Communicator as Educator: Gardner's Multiple Intelligences

Gardner introduces a theory that posits seven forms of human intelligence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal (Frames 73-276). These intelligences, found in varying degrees in all people, form cognitive entry points for translating experience into understanding. Individuals tend to prefer a particular intelligence, and when they experience learning through their favored intelligence, cognition becomes more immediate and profound (Gardner Disciplined Mind 185-6).[5] Gardner writes of the intelligences: "Owing to heredity, early training, or, in all probability a constant interaction between these factors, some individuals will develop certain intelligences far more than others; but every normal individual should develop each intelligence to some extent, given but a modest opportunity to do so " (Frames 278). Also, some people, perhaps because of a particular disability (deafness or blindness, for example) may de-emphasize a particular type of "intelligence," [6] just as some people may be genius in certain types of intelligences (Mozart for musical intelligence, or Frank Lloyd Wright for spatial intelligence). However, as mentioned earlier most people tend to favor at least one of the intelligences. With that said, it is necessary to provide an overview of these different intelligences in order to see how an understanding of each may be suggested by some work in the field and in theory.

Linguistic Intelligence

Linguistic intelligence is a form of intelligence discussed at length by many technical communication theorists. This type of intelligence is defined by a student's highly developed auditory, reading and/or writing skills (Teele 27). This type of learner prefers reading or listening cognitive entry points, and enjoys rhetorical discussion. With its disciplinary background English departments, technical communication has generally aligned itself with this type of learning. The English department deals in words and their power over the reader in the form of literature. The English department deals with linguistics and grammar to define language. The resulting definition of the role of technical communicator from this field of study is therefore understandably limited to the creator of written artifacts or the reader of those artifacts. These artifacts include manuals to written instructions on graphical user interfaces. For this type of learner, discussions surrounding the fictionalized reader are absolutely pertinent and compelling.

Walter J. Ong in "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction" forms a model of communication very much in-line with linguistic intelligence. In fact, Ong's differentiation of audience in written communication versus oral communication highlights two forms of communication that exist within the linguistic intelligence. With this differentiation we can begin to see the complexities inherent in teaching to multiple intelligences, that even within a single intelligence there are many different approaches to communication, many different subtopics worthy of exploration. Certainly technical communicators need to understand the linguistic type of learner [7] to better understand what motivates her and what allows her to learn. But, as stated before, we need to understand the other types of learner as well.

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence

The Logical-mathematical learners are those who have "sensitivity to mathematical patterns and regularities . . ." (Gardner Frames 126). These learners enjoy order, and like sequential directions. These learners are similar to the types of learners Shannon and Weaver (Mathematical Theory of Communication) and Janice C. Redish [8]("Understanding Readers") implicitly discuss in their works. The job of the technical communicator in these works is to communicate fact in a logical order, as free from noise as possible. Mathematician Henri PoincarŽ described the way mathematicians (assumed as logical-mathematical learners) learn in the following way:

A mathematical demonstration is not simply a single juxtaposition of syllogisms, it is syllogisms placed in a certain order, and the order in which these elements are placed is much more important than the elements themselves. If I have a feeling, the intuition, so to speak, of this order, so as to perceive at a glance the reasoning as a whole, I need no longer fear [I will miss an element in the syllogism]. (PoincarŽ in Gardner Frames, 137).

The needs of this type of learner, though obviously representing some key aspects from the type of learner suggested by Shannon and Weaver, is decidedly more complex than their implied definition. Indeed, this type of learner does not learn by simply a noiseless transfer of data; rather, as suggested by Redish, the design and layout of communication is equally important to this type of learner. For example, in an operation manual, a logical sequence of instructions is important to the learner -- but so is an understandable layout. Poor layouts could be a form of "noise" as discussed in the Shannon and Weaver model, but this is a fairly liberal interpretation of noise. Shannon and Weaver discuss (and diagram) noise as acting on outside the production of a document. Good layout, however, happens concurrent to the production of a message and helps to transmit the message, not act against it.

As well, when something cannot be easily explained in written text, the technical communicator should rely on graphics to get her point across to provide cognitive entry points for logical-mathematical learners [9]. It should be noted that this aspect of the logical-mathematical intelligence is also an element of the spatial intelligence discussed in the next section, highlighting the point that intelligences frequently overlap.

Skilled technical communicators naturally invoke this type of learner when they have reached limits of English (or any other language) to describe a particular function or to invoke a particular response (an option English departments and theorists rarely address or have the opportunity to use). [10]

Spatial Intelligence

Spatial learners think in images and pictures (Teele 34). Like mathematical-logical learners, charts and diagrams are a particularly good method for educating this type of learner. But charts and diagrams are not the only entry point for spatial learners, for Gardner suggests that they can easily visualize objects described in text. Indeed, Gardner writes, "Central to spatial intelligence are the capacities to perceive the visual world accurately, to perform transformations and modifications upon one's initial perceptions . . ." (Gardner 173). Spatial learners easily translate icons into operations in a computer program, or correlate schematics to an actual machine in space.

Touching on the subject of spatial intelligence, Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin in "Immediacy, Hypermediacy, and Remediation," suggest a role for the technical communicator rooted in multiple senses (and by extension, multiple intelligences). According to Bolter and Grusin, the end result of computer communication is that "there should be no difference between seeing [something like] a painting in person and on the computer screen . . ." (Bolter 45). This remediation (as Bolter and Grusin call it), could be seen as a grand vision for technical communicators in which they create works that are as transparent as possible to real world scenarios. Images can be a type of this transparency, for they can provide a more transparent representation of a painting than can an article on the painting, and technical communication theorists should address this issue [11]

Musical Intelligence

Simply stated, musical learners are sensitive to sound. This type of intelligence is manifest in technical communications in several different ways. Computer operating systems often use different sounds to cue the computer user to a completed or failed operation. Multimedia CDs and websites often use music to evoke a certain mood. This type of learning (or communicating) is not readily addressed by technical communication theorists. As mentioned earlier in this paper, Walter Ong, implies that writing is in fact communication removed from sound, as his argument centers around the differences between the rhetoric of the orator versus the rhetoric of the writer. Though Ong's argument is more precisely concerned with the way the writer must invoke an audience because she cannot see her audience the way in which an orator can, it is still worth noting the way in which Ong establishes a dichotomy between orators and writers -- a dichotomy with which modern technical communicators with their full range of communication tools cannot and should not relate. Is the "Beep" of Microsoft Windows a form of communication? Indeed it is. Like written text, it is constructed to communicate via a fictionalized audience, but unlike written text it responds to the user. I would suggest this type of intelligence to be largely under-explored by technical communication theorists, or else portrayed as something outside the scope of technical communicators, as in Ong's argument.

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence

Bodily-kinesthetic learners are those who process information through body sensations (Teele 38). "For long term memory [to] occur [in this type of learner,] the brain has to be activated through movement" (Teele 40). Though again, technical communication theorists rarely overtly address this type of learner, technical communicators readily use tools that are definitive methods for teaching to bodily-kinesthetic learners. Why do airline manufacturers build a cockpit mock-up to train pilots instead of simply providing a pilot with a manual of airplane operation? They are built to address bodily-kinesthetic education. It is generally understood that there are some environments that a manual cannot accurately or easily reproduce, no matter how good the reader, as well as the fact that there are certain sensations manuals cannot reproduce that are valuable in cognition How would a manual accurately describe the sensation a pilot might feel on the yoke of her aircraft when flying through an unexpected turbulence? And how would a pilot in training know her physical response was adequate for mitigating the turbulence? Texts do not provide the physical feedback loop that bodily-kinesthetic learners require for understanding. And while cockpit mock-ups might seem an exotic example of this type of communication, a more common example is found in the touch-screen kiosk found at malls and trade shows the world over. And looking into the future of technical communication, haptic [12] devices will surely begin to be more and more common, and the ability for the communicator to function in this environment will require her to understand the needs of this particular type of learner.

Like musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is under-addressed in technical communication theory, perhaps due to the relative infancy of devices that can produce physical output/input sensations. But as these tools are developed, technical communication theory should begin to address the types of learners who use these tools as their cognitive point-of-entry.

Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Intelligences

Intrapersonal learners have a "deep knowledge of [his or her] own feeling life" (Gardner Frames 239). Simply put, these types of learners prefer to learn by themselves, to relate things to their own personal experiences and understand how to apply their experiences in private. Opposite to the intrapersonal learners is, predictably, the interpersonal learner. For the intrapersonal learner, the prime motivator is "the ability to notice and make distinctions among other individuals . . ." (Gardner Frame 239). These types of learners adopt understanding based on conversations with peers. Interpersonal intelligence is, at its most basic interpretation, close to what is suggested by James P. Zappen's discourse community, though of course Zappen stresses textual discourse communities.

These "personal intelligences," as Gardner groups them, are a bit atypical when compared with the other forms of intelligence outlined above, for they are not as obviously tied to certain senses. But certainly it seems that for the technical communicator, the discussion on whether individual learners have extroverted or introverted cognitive processes is an interesting and valid discussion in relation to the other intelligences (i.e. does one learn more readily using intrapersonal learning techniques in combination with bodily-kinesthetic techniques?) and technical communication theory should deal with this relationship.

The "Reader" as Learner: A Culmination of Theory

It is easy to see ways in which we, as technical communicators, use these different types of intelligences to communicate. We understand, however implicitly, that effective communication requires different tools for different people and different situations. It is also easy to see that given the current role of the technical communicator, it is limiting to call the audience of a technical communicator a "reader," for they rightly experience communication in a number of different forms. Instead, I would suggest theorists begin to address audience as a group open to all sorts of communication forms (representing all types of intelligences), to equip the growing technical communication community with theories that address all aspects of their profession. Furthermore, I suggest that we teach technical communicators the importance of learning about their audience, not stricty in a demographic sense, but in a cognitive sense, so that technical communicators can create for different types of learners. In this way, spatial learners will no longer be relegated to learning via strictly text, just as linguistic learners will not be relegated to learning via musical cues. The more intelligences the technical communicator understands and creates for, the more complete the educational experience (Gardner Disciplined Mind 186-9).

Conclusion and Suggested Path Forward

This discussion on the role of education in technical communication is far from complete. Moreover, I am not suggesting that educational psychology is the panacea for technical communication in its search for perfect communication (if such a thing exists), just as I am not arguing that Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is the key take-away from a study of educational theory in relation to technical communication. Like technical communication theory, educational psychology theories can become wildly divergent and contradictory. Instead, this discourse is only a suggestion that understanding how technical communication can be most effective may be accomplished by looking at technical communication as a form of education. How successfully one learns to do a task outlined in a manual is, at its heart, a question of how effective the manual is as instruction, and instructional effectiveness has been the focus of educational psychologists for many years.

I would suggest that discussing the field of technical communication as primarily a form of writing is myopic, as its practice in the field is actually (unbelievably) more complex. We need to begin to adapt theory to account for all of the ways technical communication is incarnated. This may mean that technical communication theory will be ever more specialized to account for the differing ways we communicate with our audience, but this evolution is natural if uncomfortable. Computer science theory has become specialized in this way, as have Mathematics and Engineering. Gone are the days when one can simply pursue an advanced degree in "Science." Our field, as we begin to understand it more, will as well become highly specialized, for specialization fosters accuracy and care to specific issues that impact the field.

Lastly, technical communicators of the future will not and should not limit their approach to the user/reader/learner by defining some standard of communication set-forth by random user sampling. This approach helps to define audience, but as Gardner's theories above suggest, even an audience of demographically similar people consists of individual learners requiring different forms of teaching.

Gardner writes that with the advent of the computer, "For the first time in human history, it is easy to envision a mass educational environment where instruction can be truly individual. Computers can be programmed so that they present information and stimulate interactions that are appropriate for each student . . ." (Gardner "Complete Tutor" 13). With computers, diagrams, and other assorted communication tools readily in use it is important for technical communication theorists to address the multiple ways in which people learn to better equip practitioners in the field. The better we understand the ways in which to best communicate and facilitate cognition, the more successful our field.

Works Cited

Ainsworth, Shaaron. "The Functions of Multiple Representations." Computers & Education 33 (1999): 131-152.

Bolter, Jay David, Grusin, Richard. Remediation. Cambridge, MA: 1999.

Carroll, John M., Rosson, Mary Beth. "Paradox of the Active User." Interface Thought. Ed. John M. Carroll. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1987. 80-111.

Gardner, Howard. "The Complete Tutor." Technos Vol. 9, No. 3 (2000): 10-3.

---. The Disciplined Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1999.

---. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1983.

Goodwin, David. "Emplotting the Reader: Motivation and Technical Documentation." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, Vol 21(1991): 99-115.

Miller, Carolyn R. "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing." College English Vol 40, No. 6 (1979): 610-7.

Ong, Walter J. "The Writer's Audience is Always a Fiction." PMLA 90 (1975): 9-21.

Reder, Lynne M. "Techniques Available to Author, Teacher, and Reader to Improve Retention of Main Ideas of a Chapter." Think and Learning Skills Vol. 2. Ed. Susan F. Chipman, Judith W. Segal. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985. 37-64.

Redish, Janice. "Understanding Readers." Techniques for Technical Communicators. Ed. Carol M. Barnum and Saul Carliner. New York: Macmillian, 1993. 15-41.

Seamon, John G., Kenrick, Douglas T. Psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hill. 1992.

Shannon, Claude E., Weaver, Warren. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949.

Shirk, Henrietta Nickels. "New Roles for Technical Communicators in the Computer Age." Computers and Technical Communication: Pedagogical and Programmatic Perspectives. Ed. Stuart A. Selber. Greenwich/London: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1997. 353-73.

Silver, Harvey F., Strong, Richard W., Perini, Matthew J. So Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 2000.

Suchman, Lucy A. Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1987.

Teele, Sue. Rainbows of Intelligence: Exploring How Students Learn. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. 2000.

Wahlstrom, Billie J. "Teaching and Learning Communities: Locating Literacy, Agency, and Authority in a Digital Domain." Computers and Technical Communication: Pedagogical and Programmatic Perspectives. Ed. Stuart A. Selber. Greenwich/London: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1997. 129-45.

Wolffe, Robert, Robinson, HeljŠ, Grant, Jean Marie. "Creating Multiple Procedures From Multiple Intelligences." Catalyst for Change 28 (1998): 15-16.

Zappen, James P. "The Discourse Community in Scientific and Technical Communication: Institutional and Social Views." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, Vol. 19 (1989): 1-11.

[1] Wahlstrom's primary argument, it should be noted, is that technical communication education does not adequately address the social and ethical role of the technical communicator, an argument not discussed at length in this article.

[2] I use "education" here in a broader sense than what is commonly referred to as "training," for the tools I will suggest to foster education in technical communication apply equally to that of the trainer, GUI designer, or technical writer; however, the notion of technical communicator as educator is perhaps most clearly understood by the practicing trainer.

[3] In "Emplotting the Reader"

[4] One of the few acknowledgements of non-writing forms of technical communication appears to come from the use of "audience" instead of simply "reader" in technical communication theory, but such discussions of audience quickly devolve into a discussion of simply readers.

[5] The foundation for favoring particular intelligences in individuals is attributed largely to biological events that occur during cognitive development, according to Gardner (Frames 31-58).

[6] Intelligences, as defined by Gardner, are not necessarily equivalent to particular senses, and as Gardner states, "the intelligences are by their very nature capable of realization (at least, in part) through more than one sensory system" (Frames 68). However, many of the teaching techniques created to suit particular intelligences are.

[7] I use "learner" here (and elsewhere in this paper) as a synonym for one who prefers a particular intelligence for cognition. Therefore, a "linguistic learner" is an individual whose primary cognitive entry point is via salient features of the linguistic intelligence.

[8] Redish makes a curious argument about learning when she states "in the workplace, people most often 'read to do' rather than 'read to learn' . . ." (4), which is a problematic dichotomy in that to do something people must necessarily have learned it.

[9]Interestingly, many communication theorists incarnate graphics, (like Shannon and Weaver) to demonstrate the structure of their text-based theory of communication, certainly suggesting their belief in the power of graphics for communicating to certain types of learners.

[10] Concrete poetry and the eye in the narrative of William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury are perhaps the few exceptions to this general rule.

[11] This notion is of course hotly debated, but I here assume Bolter and Grusin's argument for the sake of discussion.

[12] The prototypical example of a haptic (force-feedback) device is a surgeon's glove which allows a surgeon to operate on an individual in another room -- the surgeon's hand moves a robot hand in the operating room, and as the robot arm's scalpel slices a patient's skin, the feeling of resistance is transferred to the remote surgeon so that she knows how deep she is cutting based on the resistance she feels via the glove.