What is Training & Development?

Training & Development is a vast area of study. Topics include instructional design models, levels of evaluation to measure the success of the design, strategies to gain management and stakeholder support, and the study of how each of those  impact the success of course implementation and the transfer of learning. There are examples that demonstrate how valued and supported T&D programs contribute to an improved corporate culture by engaging employees, encouraging collaboration and increasing quality and service.

Engaging and effective learning solutions are developed with thoughtful process. A lot of time can be wasted  on poor organization, direction, and communication. There are risks related to expectation, cultural support, regulation, and often times resources. Once the design and implementation of a course is complete, the success is measured in layers to determine its effectiveness. Creating a culture rich in learning and development opportunities improves the bottom line. However, there are many stigmas related to the profession and often T&D programs are the first to be cut from companies struggling to engage their employees and innovate their services.

Companies that invest in cultures of continued learning and development, through disciplined T&D programs, ultimately gain dividends realized in engaged, innovative, and high performing employees; ultimately, resulting in the execution of stronger and more successful business plans.

So where are we going with all of this? I want to explore and collect all of that here in resources that highlight the best of T&D theory and implementation, and then offer my two-cents and analysis of why these approaches are effective.

Instructional Design Models

What is an instructional design (ID) model and which one is right for your culture and project? ID models provide the framework and checkpoints necessary to produce quality training courses.  Deciding which one is right for your project and culture will take some research and perhaps some customization. The most commonly known and used model is ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate). This is a valuable model that encourages ID professionals to build in a linear, systematic approach. Personally, I see great value in learning and using this model as an “out of the box” framework for new IDs. The model inherently teaches designers to thoroughly analyze a training need and the solution’s expected results. The analysis phase often includes interviews with managers, subject matter experts (SME), resource gathering and the identification of the ideal knowledge, skills, and attitudes (K,S,A) learners must be able to demonstrate in order for the learning objectives to be met.

The design and development phase are often done solely by the ID professional. This can take hours, days, weeks, or months depending on the size of the learning need project. Often designers feel pressure to perfect the course design in these phases before emerging to show their progress and design. I’ve generally approached this model with outlines that chronologically order the K, S, A associated with the objectives the learner must demonstrate. Once the outline is prepared, I’ve gone about drafting the practices and course material. This phase can be a risk in my opinion. If the ID does not have a crystal clear understanding of the learning need, or stakeholder expectations a lot of time can be wasted. The ID may emerge before the implementation phase looking for stakeholder sign off only to discover they have missed something, or the stakeholder has new or additional feedback that will need to be included in the design. This generally results in more time and additional resources in order to implement and begin evaluating the learning solution.

Once the implementation phase is reached, most IDs can attest to the fact that even the most thorough of course designs will need adjustments and improvements after implementation. Sometimes activities don’t go the way we anticipated, or learners don’t react the way we expected. Occasionally, it is discovered that something was not communicated properly by the stakeholders or SMEs, and the design needs further reworking and design.

What most ID professionals begin to learn is that this linear process isn’t linear at all; in fact, it is more of an ongoing cycle, especially in a culture of continuous improvement and innovation. In the time spent squirreled away in the design and development phases, processes changes and stakeholder expectations may change or evolve. Some ID professionals may become frustrated with this constant evolution and disenchanted by the idea that they are unable to officially cross off a project and move on. Others learn quickly that this is part of the profession and should be embraced. These are some of the known weaknesses of the ADDIE model.

In today’s business economy, processes change and improve rapidly, collaboration is key, and time is a limited resource. A newly emerging design model called the successive approximation model (SAM) incorporates these important cultural shifts. The advantages of this model are the acknowledgment of the need for feedback and reiteration, as well as the incorporation of multiple points of view in the design and development phases. The book, Leaving ADDIE for SAM and the Leaving ADDIE for SAM Field Guide, provide the justification and reasoning for the evolving model, as well as actionable items to incorporate this approximation model in your design.

In my opinion, the SAM model’s acknowledgement of ADDIEs shortcomings is its primary appeal. Designing with the SAM model encourages IDs to include SMEs and stakeholders in not only the analysis, but also in the design and development of the course material. It recognizes that while the designer should be driving the process, others have invaluable input that will bring the course design closer to its intended purpose sooner. I appreciate the model’s encouragement of transparency and collaboration because it results a course with more depth, which stakeholders are more likely to support because of their involvement in the process.

SAM has its shortcomings as well. The drive to continue the successive approximation model, even after all of the players have agreed on an approach, is meant to broaden idea generation but it can also add unnecessary time to the design and frustrate anyone not fully engaged in the process. It also expects a lot from stakeholders and SMEs including time and creative collaboration. It can be difficult to get everyone in the room at the same time and to get SMEs to be open and honest in front of their management.

Personally, I have found success by blending the two models. As a list maker and general organization fanatic, I appreciate the linear approach of ADDIE. However, I am also someone who appreciates cutting through politics and collaborating to create solutions that incorporate multiple points of view. I appreciate the input of others and feel it is important to include stakeholders as often as possible to ensure successful implementation. Other professionals agree creating custom frameworks that blend the successes of multiple models to meet the needs of various projects or cultures is an acceptable alternative. The more you experience you have and the more you explore the various models, the more tools you will have as an ID. There are rarely one size fits all solutions in learning; and therefore, there are rarely one size fits all models of design.

Management & Cultural Support

Can companies afford not to invest in the learning and development of their staff? The article, How Corporate Learning Drives Competitive Advantage identifies a common concern about the value placed on T&D programs in business. It also identifies how different companies have come to realize T&D, or the lack there of, impacts the overall success and competitive advantage of a company.  The article does an excellent job of identifying and describing the levels in which T&D can be applied to corporate culture, as well as the benefits of each layer.

At level one, or incidental training, employees receive on-the-job training. The role of training is to teach the tasks of the job and provide employees just-in-time instruction and best practices to complete their daily work. This is effective for task oriented jobs, and makes the best of limited resources. However, this level lacks depth and often does not provide employees the big-picture understanding they need to anticipate change or contribute to solutions that increase interdepartmental efficiencies.

The second level of T&D is often realized when management in entry-level positions no longer have the resources to provide training in high turn-over positions. The company begins to invest in professional training programs where courses are designed and developed using models of instructional design (ID), but resources are still limited and design projects often take a lot of time. Depending on the level of skill and discipline of the professional IDs, performance will increase in areas where the training is applied, and some big picture abilities and understanding may emerge, especially among centralized training groups where processes and best practices are shared interdepartmentally.

At the third level, true management and cultural support emerges. When the T&D program has support and is integrated into the way problems are addressed and solved, employees are empowered to contribute in meaningful ways. The fourth level is the cultural realization that true integrated learning can identify the formula needed to develop talent over time. It acknowledges the process and understands that no single learning solution will transform every learner. It empowers the T&D program to bring all of the company’s resources together to develop new employees systematically with coaching, evaluation, and reflection.  It encourages employees to try and to share failures in order to strengthen not only their future attempts but those of their peers. It makes learning and failure OK, this is where innovation is born. Companies cannot compete with evolving markets if their staff and culture are not comfortable with the process of learning and evolving.

As the global economy expands, the companies who embrace and incorporate this advanced level of employee development will innovate and remain relevant. Gone are the days of static work environments and CEOs who know everything. Technological advances in communication have made today’s generation open to transparency, feedback and progress. If a company chooses to limit the power and knowledge to only the highest levels of management, the products and services offered will most likely never improve and eventually become obsolete.

 

Instructional Design: The Needs Analysis

Oftentimes, eager stakeholders and restrictive timelines may make it tempting to jump right into a project. However, a thorough learning needs analysis can provide you and your stakeholders the clarity and direction the project needs before meeting with subject matter experts (SME) and beginning the skills and knowledge assessment.

The A.D.D.I.E (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) model of instructional design (ID) is a classic framework. It is the most commonly known and used model and captures the essence of the profession. It’s a linear design model that begins with analysis.  Often this phase of ADDIE focuses on the analysis of learner and the content; it identifies the needed knowledge, skills, and desired behaviors the design will aim to satisfy. These are key variables in ID; however, in my opinion this model doesn’t place enough value on the analysis of the request.

T&D departments are often approached with problems that cannot be resolved with training, or are perhaps not ready for training solutions. It can be difficult to provide a consultation that ends in disappointment for a stakeholder, but it is far more detrimental in the long-run to take on projects that cannot provide the results they were looking for. Depending on the size, reputation, and proven success of your program you may have to work harder to educate stakeholders during this critical step in the ID process. Trust that the waste of resources and lack of results will be a bigger disappointment than an honest and forthright discussion about effective strategy and alternatives to meet their needs.

The article Analysis in Instructional Design by Donald Clark contains many interesting variations of the analysis model. I really appreciate his identification of the need for a front-end analysis. He quotes, “Analysis is the study we do in order to figure out what to do” – Allison Rossett & Kendra Sheldon (2001) and in my experience, this study should be done with your stakeholders.  Most of the questions Clark suggests can only really be answered by the requestor:

• Desired business need or result
• Performance requirements that supports desired business outcome
• What must be learned
• The standards of performance
• Who needs to improve their performance

Once these things have been identified with you stakeholder, your consultation can help to answer the remaining questions:

• If a learning process will fulfill the desired business need
• How the learning process will occur

Cathy Moore is an internationally recognized training designer, she has published an easy to understand video that can be used to direct the conversation between you and your stakeholders. This analysis framework answers the question, “Is training really the answer?”

Using a framework like this during your initial conversations with stakeholders will help to guide your consultation. Being deliberate in your questioning and working through this systematically ensures the right approach is taken to develop a solution. Not every consultation will lead to a course, and walking your stakeholder through this line if thinking will help manage their expectations early on. Eventually, providing meaningful consultations and only taking on projects that can benefit from training will build trust with stakeholders and make better use of the often limited resources of our T&D programs. Do not cut corners or overlook the importance of a thorough front-end analysis.

Image source: http://www.growthengineering.co.uk/training-needs-analysis/

What is an Instructional Designer?

ASU Instructional Designers

Right-brain/ Left-brain Pseudoscience

Most of us have heard the claim that people are either right-brain or left-brain dominant. The internet is full of claims that your personality is shaped by your brain type. The purpose of this post is to investigate common internet claims and assumptions like those found in this online article and survey. As well as the scientific analysis of this claim being discussed in the article, “The Truth About The Left Brain / Right Brain Relationship” published on npr.org.

Many so called experts claim that by identifying the differences in brain dominance, we can become more aware of how our brain dominance affects the way we learn. This suggests that we can alter our study methods and shape our lives to suit our brain dominance.

The claim states that left-brain dominate people tend to be more analytical, sequential, logical, and cautious. Whereas, those that are right-brain dominate tend to be more emotional, intuitive, spontaneous, and artistic. Some “experts” also suggest that left handed individuals are more likely to be right-brained; however, I can testify my left-handed daughter is a list maker like me.

If it were true that hemispheric dominance impacted our personalities, we certainly should be interested in knowing which side of our brain is controlling our personality. This knowledge would empower us to make choices that would better suit our natural preferences. However, this claim falls under the category of pseudoscience. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, it is defined as something that pretends to be science but without any real scientific approach to proving its authenticity.

The truth is, we’re just not that simple. True Neuroscientists know this claim does not hold water. In fact a new term has been coined to reference the way society has begun to oversimplify the scientific advances and discoveries being made in neuroscience today… folk-science.

The truth is folk-science is challenging genuine neuroscience discoveries because in general, genuine neuroscience developments are too complex for most people to apply to every-day life and understanding. By oversimplifying the discoveries of neuroscience, people can make personal connections to the material and apply it to their every day lives.

True neuroscience developments have found that particular sections of the brain can influence certain abilities and functions. Brain surgeons have been testing areas of the brain by temporarily freezing the identified areas to make sure they would be safe to remove. It is also true that particular areas of the brain contribute to functions both involuntary, like breathing and blood pressure, and voluntary like some motor functions.

What may have contributed to the claim that “left hemispheric dominance” suggests a more rational personality, and preference for organization and order, could be data obtained from brain imaging studies that show language and tool use, both functions that require organized and analytical approaches, are primarily lateralized to the left hemisphere.

There was also some evidence that the voice variations that accompany different emotional content or intentions are classically attributed to the right hemisphere. Classical attributions like this could have contributed to claims that people with right hemispheric preferences are more in tune with their feelings and the feelings of others. However even when a function is referenced as “lateralized to a particular hemisphere” they are rarely if ever solely credited with any function or conceptual understanding entirely.

Our brains are incredibly complex, scientists continue to make incredible discoveries and observations that illustrate the absurd nature of the oversimplified claim that a person’s personality is influenced by a preference of brain hemisphere. We could not possibly prefer one side of our brain over the other, and the functions controlled within our brain go far beyond personality.

If personalities fell within these two easily identifiable and one dimensional classifications, people would be far less complex. Raising children, educating youth, and our roles in society would be structured specifically around these two personality types. With today’s technology we’d be able to identify “right-brain” and “left-brain” thinkers early on and structure their learning and role in society specifically to their strengths.

It’s true people develop preferences, and we can find commonality among certain characteristics of our personality, but we should not be classified by one particular preference. We are not solely list makers, organizers, artists, or carefree individuals. We identify ourselves with a wide range of interests, experiences, strengths, weaknesses, and relationships. Our personalities are developed over time by an accumulation of experiences and relationships, and no two personalities are developed or effected in the exact same way by any one influence.

As for our brains, they certainly do have an impact on our personalities but not in the oversimplified manner projected by this claim. Our brains and their incredibly complex nature are only beginning to share their secrets through developing technology and neuroscience.

For those that identify with the advice outlined by this very popular claim, I recommend keeping a realistic point-of-view and understanding that your preferences do not make you a type. I recommend that you do not pigeon hole yourself as a “type”. Furthermore, understand that “types” are more static than “preferences,” we can alter our preferences and learn to appreciate things in spite of them. Whereas, “types” constrain us and imply that we are something, beyond our control; instead, understand that if you are list maker, you can also learn to appreciate being spontaneous when the time is right. If you fancy yourself a care-free spirit who lives on the edge of life but are always finding yourself late or forgetful, do not fret you can learn to keep a schedule when it matters.

While it may at times seem tempting to oversimplify yourself to seek the easy answers to challenges in your life, embrace the complex nature of your being and find solace in the truth that you are not confined by a single functioning hemisphere within your brain, instead you are only limited by your own desire to develop the skills you lack.

 

Training & Development Professional Skills

The ATD Competency Model™