It’s traditional at this time of year to make resolutions to better our lives. We can apply this tradition to our professional lives as well. I am resolving to communicate better by using and dispelling buzz words in our profession and I encourage you to join me.
The greatest enemy of communication is the illusion of it. This enemy not only is to be battled during a training activity, but in the business end of ID as well. This blog is about concepts and terms related to ID, commonly used, and frequently misunderstood and some strategies to combat the enemy.
We often mistake fluency (we both use the words easily) with comprehension (we both have the same meaning for the words). My guess is that because I understand what something means to me that everyone else shares the same meaning.
To avoid guessing, we need to listen carefully to key words or phrases (think buzz words) that are related to the instructional design process as we talk to customers, clients and subject matter experts (SMEs).
The need for clarity is especially critical when developing requirements within mandating documents. Life’s irony will happen when an analytically gifted assessor arrives to see how well you are living into the requirements you helped to create and he or she says “ that’s not what that means!”. The following are examples from my work-life.
What were they thinking?
The ADDIE “Model”
Your customer says, “I want you to develop the training using the “ADDIE Model”. As Yoda said to young Skywalker, “Be afraid, be very afraid!” If the devil is in the details, this is the devil incarnate. The ADDIE Model is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional system development. There is no original, fully elaborated model. So, how is one to implement a model with no delineated processes?
One thing is consistent, as Michael Molenda (1) shares “What everyone agrees on is that ADDIE is an acronym referring to the major processes that comprise the generic ISD process: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.”
“The” Systematic Approach to Training
For clarity, a systematic approach to training is one of many instructional design models. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) model in DOE Handbook 1078-94 “A” Systematic Approach to Training. DOE recognizes that there is more than one way, as they offer DOE Handbook 1074-95, Alternative Systematic Approaches to training.
The Training and Development Handbook (2) says it in a pretty straight forward way, “The fact is, there is no single, universally accepted instructional design model.” If you’re going to agree to such a commitment, get clarification as to which model the customer has in mind (if any).
Andrews & Goodson (3) conducted a comparative analysis of instructional design models. Starting with 60 possible models, 40 contained sufficient theoretical underpinnings, purpose and use, and a degree of documentation to meet the generally agreed upon “major processes” of an ID model.
University/college instruction design degree programs seem to favor the Dick & Carey ID model. If you ever consider expanding an ID career outside of Hanford you might consider familiarizing yourself with this model.
Formal training refers to the student’s attire. Men must where a white shirt and tie; women a dress of a length longer than the knees. Absurdity aside, you will not find a generally accepted definition for “formal” training. A Site committee chairperson was once asked what formal training meant when discussing requirements for a safety related program and the reply was, “completion of the training is auditable in the Training Records System”. Other meanings include: implemented with a stand-up classroom methodology, includes a written examination, or developed using an instructional design model. Find out if you are going to need to be a good tailor! (Pun intended)
“Active learning element”
Active learning was a buzz term for a movement to encourage instruction away from the instructional method of stand-up lecture. According to Wikipedia, “Active learning is an umbrella term that Jose Castillo invented and it refers to several models of instruction that focus the responsibility of learning, on learners. Bonwell and Eison (1991) popularized this approach to instruction. This "buzz word" of the 1980s became their 1990s report to the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE). In this report they discuss a variety of methodologies for promoting "active learning." My take, get away from the lecture, but this leaves a plethora of choices; find out which one(s)
OK. Let’s make it clear we are not talking about the Reiki treatment method. A Site safety program once required “hands-on” training for beryllium workers. I thought it would be great to have all the students make an ashtray from beryllium. What a great way for the learners to get to know the physical properties of that metal! It turns out the intention was to include practice dawning and doffing protective equipment. If you can substitute “practice with feedback” for hands-on I think you will be in close proximity of the desired outcome. Further, a good learning objective will define the level of proficiency to be obtained. Beware of defining an instructional method before the instructional objectives have been determined.
Training to “understanding”
Understanding is considered one of those taboo words when developing learning objectives because understanding is a state of mind not a behavior and not measureable or observable. All kinds of alarms should go off in your head if your customer or requirement specifies achievement of understanding. Get your subject matter expert (SME) or interpretive authority on board and get expectations clarified before doing anything else.
The goal to achieve “effective training” begs for some quantifiable level of achievement. The clarification the customer needs to provide is to what degree? Make sure it is measurable and those in authority sign off on the metric that is going to measure if your training is going to be effective enough.
“Consistent training is critical…
This statement has the same flaw as “practice makes perfect”. Just like practice can result in a permanent correct or incorrect behavior, consistent training can be consistently good or bad. Considering the infinite number of possible human behaviors there are relatively few that must be consistent; calling 911 for emergency help might be one example. It is almost like saying there is only one way to teach and one way to learn. Beware of business or political agendas hidden behind such claims that may be contaminated by bias. I submit that behaviors that demand consistency will be nearly self-evident during the analysis phase of instructional design.
A General Method for Clarification – No Guessing
When we listen to someone talk, the brain is constantly making assumptions – hundreds of them. Each word, gesture, inflection, and tone of voice is interpreted, but not always as the speaker intended. We usually are not aware of the fact we are selecting one meaning from a number of possibilities.
Once the “buzz word bell” starts ringing in your ears, make a physical or mental note to get clarification. I suggest using one of the following:
Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing in the context of your situation what does __________________ mean to you?
Or, Do you mind if I ask, when you say ______________, what does that mean to you in the context of what you are trying to achieve?
Test the Depth of Knowledge
Ask a question about a detail surrounding the buzz word. For example if the customer wants you to apply “adult learning principles” you could ask, “So I can address your needs, which adult principle(s) do you think is/are the most important? In this way you can find out if there is any expectations and how to meet them. If there aren’t any, suggest a couple; like design the training to maximize the need to be self-directing.
Endorse Your Design Model
Get Buy-In for your ID process. I suggest it is nonsensical to define which instructional methods are to be employed (hands-on) before an analysis is conducted and instructional objectives are developed. If you have an internal procedure or process get support for its application; it may even be mandatory to follow it. After all, a systematic approach is the only method proven to lead to effective and efficient training.
Best in the New Year,
1. Molenda Michael (2003) In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. Performance Improvement, May June 2003. Available on line @ http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/courses/ilt/ilt0004/insearchofelusiveaddie.pdf
2. Training and Development Handbook. A Guide to Human Resource Development (1987) Robert L. Craig Editor and Chief. Third Edition. American Society for Training and Development. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, New York. Page 199.
3. In Anglin, Gary, J. (1995). Instructional Technology Past, Present and Future. Second Edition.Englewood Colorado, Libraries Unlimited Inc.