By: Dr. Conrad Gottfredson
Note: This blog is the second in a series of articles looking
at traditional Instructional Systems Design (ISD) practices through the lens of
a “performance-first” mindset. Click here to access the introductory blog to
this series: “Methodology Matters: A Performance-Based Instructional Design
Methodology”.
In 1978, I took my first graduate-level course in Instructional
Systems Design. At the time, I was an Undergraduate Research Trainee (URT) for
the department of Instructional Science. The first lesson in that course taught
me how to write measurable learning objectives. Our textbook was titled Preparing
Instructional Objectives: A Critical Tool in the Development of Effective
Instruction (written by Robert Mager). For the next six years, I wrote
hundreds of Mager-perfect objectives. I was a true believer. But after graduate
school, when I awakened to the realities of workplace learning, things changed.
As I looked at learning objectives through a “performance-first” lens, I recognized
that I needed to rethink their role.
Fast forward to more current times, when our team was asked
to help an organization restructure a key course to meet the requirements of
all 5 Moments of Need. It was a traditional 5-day course with over a thousand
slides and 270 traditional learning objectives. Focused on safety, this course
had the overall performance requirement of enabling participants with the
skills they needed to safely secure information, facilities, and people.
The first thing we did was conduct a Rapid Workflow Analysis
(RWA). We identified 56 job tasks that participants needed to perform in their
security roles and the 51 supporting knowledge topics they needed to understand
as they performed the various steps within those 56 tasks.
We also conducted a Critical Impact of Failure Analysis with
key stakeholders to rate every task and knowledge topic using a modified version
of the following rubric:
- More than 80% of the learning objectives were focused on knowledge rather than performance. Only 52 of the 270 learning objectives related directly to actual job tasks.
- Significant workflow performance areas were missed. The existing 52 performance-focused learning objectives addressed only 30% of the job tasks we identified through the RWA.
- There was a significant imbalance of learning objectives for knowledge topics. Although the remaining 218 objectives only missed 15% of the 51 supporting knowledge topics, objectives were micro-focused and contributed to cognitive overload: 20% of them included 10 to 25 learning objectives per concept.
- The most significant indictment of the course design was that 70% of the high-risk job tasks (where the critical impact of failure was significant to catastrophic) had been missed entirely (one of which included the potential for loss of life).
- Lastly, we determined that 40% of the 270 learning objectives could be met exclusively within the workflow – as people worked – rather than during the 5-day course.
| Procedural Workflow Tasks | Principle-Based Workflow Tasks |
| Contact the injured or ill employee. | Establish performance expectations. |
| Arrange for a case management meeting. | Align employees’ goals. |
| Hold a meeting. | Develop employees’ job descriptions. |
| Engage in and communicate about your treatment plan. | Set company expectations. |
| Document ongoing management in the employee health record. | Set educational goals. |
| Maintain connection with an employee off work (manager/supervisor). | Conduct one-on-one meetings. |
| Gather case information from the manager/supervisor. | Conduct annual performance appraisals. |
| Request medical documentation. | Discuss employees’ impact on workplace and culture. |
| Provide medical documentation. | Provide quarterly goals updates. |
| Receive medical documentation. | Conduct department meetings. |
| Send reports. | Promote learning. |
| Report injury, illness, and/or challenges for remaining at work. | Provide support and resources. |
| Conduct a triage assessment. | Monitor employees’ progress. |
| Determine the appropriate EDMP stream. | Assign mentorship opportunities. |
| Enroll an employee. | Review comparative reports. |
| Make a triage report. | Plan job shadowing opportunities. |
| Identify barriers to returning to/staying at work. | Set employee development plans. |
| Obtain medical assessment and/or treatment. | Motivate employees. |
| Resolve wage and benefit issues. | Provide networking opportunities. |
| Assemble the case team. | Empower employees. |
| Refer to healthcare services. | Celebrate employees’ success. |
A critical initial step in a performance-first approach to
instructional design is to identify the job tasks that a work team needs to
perform in their flow of work; then, organize those tasks into workflow
processes that represent how the work is done. It is at this job task level
that the work is performed. These tasks should become the performance targets
we adopt in the solutions we develop.
Effective Performance Must be Supported by
Knowledge
A performance-first approach doesn’t ignore the acquisition
of knowledge. Knowledge and experience are fundamental to effective performance
in the flow of work. We know that knowledge is best retained and retrieved when
it is anchored to specific areas of performance (e.g., job tasks). And in a
performance-first approach, a specific skill is the combination of a job task
with its supporting knowledge.
The following example is excerpted from a Learning
Experience and Performance (LEaP) plan. It shows a set of skills that regional
sales directors need to grow their markets via external activities. The
supporting knowledge topics are mapped to each of the tasks. For example, the
skill of “network in your region” requires performers to complete the steps of
the first task with an understanding of the first four supporting knowledge
topics in the lower half of the table.
The point here is that although a performance-first approach
focuses on the ability of a work team to successfully perform job tasks, effective
performance also requires each task to be performed with an understanding of
the key knowledge that supports it.
Real Learning Requires Experience
The learning solutions we create (synchronous or
asynchronous) – whether eLearning, virtual learning, micro-learning, instructor-led
or any other type of learning – represent just the beginning of the learning
process. Real learning occurs in the flow of work, over time, where experience
is developed. Expertise requires experience. When I had my heart valve
replaced, I wasn’t concerned about the classes my surgical team members had
taken. I wanted to know about their experience: how many surgeries they had
done and their success rates.
Ask yourself, “Do learning objectives that are written
upfront (to guide the design and development of the solutions we create and
implement) truly address the continuous development of experience in the flow
of work? Do they naturally lead us to skill development that is task-based and reinforced
with supporting knowledge? Do they ensure that we address the full range of
performance requirements?”
It is our responsibility to constantly challenge our
traditions against the backdrop of the here and now. I know this blog is
questioning an area of instructional design that is a long-standing and deeply
held practice. Please know that my intention here has been to provide a view
for you to consider. We have found what we believe is a better, faster, and
more reliable way: Rapid Workflow Analysis (RWA). It provides us a prioritized
view of the job tasks and related supporting knowledge that work teams need to
do and understand to perform effectively. More to come on this RWA process in
another blog.
Copyright © 2022 by APPLY Synergies, LLC
All Rights Reserved.
