This is a comprehensive reflection that details my journey through Educational Technology (EDTEC) Master’s program at San Diego State University (SDSU) and the ideas that have been most influential on my work, life and future aspirations as a performance technologist, including:
After spending two years studying educational technology I cannot identify any aspects that I do not like; however, I have fallen most in love with the following educational technology aspects:
Since my enrollment in SDSU’s EDTEC program, I have constantly struggled with answering the question, “What is educational technology?” After providing what I feel is a brief, but adequate explanation, I am frustrated by the response I receive, “Oh, so it’s just training.” Our field being labeled “just training” is something which I’ve accepted, and now that my course of study is almost finished, I find that this inability to clearly define educational technology, its ambiguity, is at the core of what makes me love it. Yes, it is training, but it is not just training; it is performance technology that uses authentic solution systems to solve, or take advantage of, genuine problems or opportunities, which may or may not include traditional training. I love this aspect because each project is different, which provides a challenge, and sometimes even dynamically defined, eliciting unique experiences with processes, analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation considerations, and producing end products that are always different. Not only does this allow me to work with a variety of people and subject matters, but different technologies as well, leading to my second love.
In my undergraduate studies at Ithaca College, I learned about many technologies; however, there were few opportunities to apply them in educational technology projects. The EDTEC program afforded me many experiences to learn cutting-edge technologies, even those relatively simple but extremely valuable to use, such as wikis and weblogs. I love this aspect of educational technology because it has impacted my skills, knowledge, and confidence as a performance technologist and instructional designer, and opened my eyes to a world of potential solutions that will influence the growth of performance technology in the future. I also love this aspect of educational technology because the application of state-of-the art technologies is widely used by peers, teammates, professors, and practitioners, ensuring collaboration and communication for the duration of a project, even at a distance, which is a trend I particularly appreciated as a commuter student from Los Angeles. Exposure to cutting-edge technologies also encourages the application of principles and theories introduced in academia to create authentic learning experiences, the last educational technology aspect I love.
The last aspect of educational technology I will eternally love is the grounded, academic reasoning that justifies the production of contextual and engaging learning interactions. I love this aspect because it is sensible to design using principles that stem from a blend of credible, valid resources, including: pedagogy, psychology, epistemology, and practice. This aspect is observed in practice and will always continue to advance, consequently innovating future performance and instructional technology projects. I also love the potential for using sound reasoning in coordination with technologies to elicit motivated learners of all ages who enjoy gaining and retaining skills and knowledge.
My three loves of educational technology stem from illuminating ideas I discovered throughout my journey in EDTEC, and are the foundation for my future career in the performance technology field.
[back to top]
Throughout the EDTEC program, I was exposed to several theories, models, concepts, principles, methods, and trends in educational technology, some related to each other and some not, and some relevant to my career goals and some not. Performance technology is the school of thought I have holistically embraced because of its influence on my current knowledge, practice, and future aspirations. Several illuminating ideas have created and contributed to performance technology, including those in which I am most interested:
Performance technology (PT) is defined as, “A set of methods and processes for solving problems, or realizing opportunities, related to the performance of people, groups and organizations” (ISPI in A. Rossett, personal communication, August 30, 2006). The typical PT process involves partnering with an organization to understand their goals and circumstances, selecting and building appropriate interventions into solution systems, and documenting the business results achieved (A. Rossett, personal communication, August 30, 2006). Performance analysis (PA) is at the root of the process, enabling practitioners to select solution systems that improve performance, show a return-on-investment and help achieve strategic business goals. Rossett (1999) presents PA concepts and methods for conducting a pithy PA, including: choosing sources and methods of data collection based on the situation, identifying optimal and actual performance, defining the gap between the optimal and actual performance, and exposing the genuine reasons for performance or non-performance.
The most illuminating PT idea is in its essence: solution systems are necessary to effectively solve the unique problems and opportunities encountered by organizations today, and should be designed with a holistic approach rather than training alone. Many concepts and methods have been introduced based on the preference of using solution systems to achieve performance goals. Specifically, blended learning, performance support and electronic performance support system (EPSS) concepts have had the greatest impact on my educational technology career. These concepts share the same theoretical foundation and have advanced the credibility and validity of the PT field. Blended learning is defined as integrating “seemingly opposite approaches, such as formal and informal learning, face-to-face and online experiences, directed paths and reliance on self-direction, and digital references and collegial connections, in order to achieve individual and organizational goals” (Rossett & Frazee, 2003). Blended learning interventions consist of three types: bookend, field and anchor, all providing learners with a system of tools from which to choose to better perform (Rossett & Frazee). The PT ideology is also applied to blended learning projects, as they typically start with conducting a PA to determine appropriate solution systems, which reflect genuine needs and opportunities (Rossett & Frazee). A common PT project is building an electronic performance support system (EPSS), a computerized, or online, system that offers a buffet of job aids or performance support tools (PST) from which learners can choose (McManus & Rossett, 2006). The PST concept was originally introduced as job aids, also known as tools that guide, inform and aid in performing a task. As technology has progressed so have job aids, and now the advanced job aids are considered performance support tools. Rossett and Schafer (2007) explain effective methods for planning, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating PST and/or EPSS projects in their book, Job Aids and Performance Support: Moving from Knowledge in the Classroom to Knowledge Everywhere. This book also reinforced the key concept that performance support must be designed to meet the learners’ needs to motivate them to continuously use the systems available to them.
Moreover, the assumption behind all blended learning, PST and EPSS interventions is that they will be designed based on authentic organizational contexts and used to solve unique problems or opportunities; however, just distributing the systems is not enough to elicit learner participation. This reveals my next illuminating idea: apply relevant instructional design principles to create learning options that people will be motivated to use. Since my introduction to CLAM, it is the model I have applied to every project I have completed. CLAM, or Contextually authentic, Learner focused, Attention riveting, Message extends, is a tactic used to design a variety of instructional interventions including blended learning systems, PST and EPSS (A. Rossett, personal communication, October 4, 2006). Rossett (personal communication, October 4, 2006) explains that contextually authentic is acquired by creating real-life contexts and problems, learner focused is accomplished by considering the intricacies of the audience, including knowledge levels and personal goals, attention riveting is achieved by grabbing and holding attention via a compelling experience, and message extends is afforded by extending the experience any one instructional event and integrating the content to encourage continuous use, reflection and performance. These CLAM concepts are supported by the PT ideology as well as several instructional design principles.
Another group of illuminating ideas related to PT are key instructional and motivational practitioner-oriented principles, which serve as the foundation for designing blended learning interventions, PST, EPSS, and CLAM. Clark’s and Mayer’s (2003) eLearning and the Science of Instruction book presents a myriad of general design principles to be applied to technology-based projects. Two of these principles reflect the importance of contextual, meaningful, realistic, and engaging learning interactions:
Related motivational principles are based on Keller’s ARCS, or Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction, model, focusing on intrinsic (intangible or value-based awards) rather than extrinsic (tangible awards or incentives) motivation. The motivation principles most valuable to PT blended learning, PST and EPSS projects that adhere to the CLAM and ARCS models are:
The PT philosophy, which encourages conducting a performance analysis to choose and create authentic solution systems, has had, and will continue to have, immense influence on my educational technology career. There are many reasons why I love these ideas that illuminate PT.
[back to top]
My undergraduate studies focused on organizational strategies for impacting the bottom line and improving business interactions within organizations; PT focuses on impacting this bottom line specifically by improving people and organizational performance. I am naturally attracted to the PT ideology because it fits nicely with what I already know and find pragmatic, as well as fulfills my philanthropist desires to help and motivate people to learn as well as perform.
The rapidly spreading PT philosophy puts a spin on the traditional instructional design methodology and indicates a potential paradigm shift for the training field. This shift is almost inevitable because of PT’s ability to relate analysis, design and evaluation to business goals and strategies, and participating in, and experiencing, this change is an opportunity to which I look forward the most. PT is compelling because of its ability to be used for a variety of circumstances, including both commercial and organizational. PT also offers the possibility for increased involvement in projects with new roles for instructional designers, including: analyst, system integrator, customer educator, partner, process consultant, and intervention broker (A. Rossett, personal communication, August 30, 2006). Some of the most stimulating aspects of PT for me are:
My love for performance analysis (PA) stems from its sensibility, applicability and variability. PA is a compelling and worthy method with which to start each project because it encourages data-based decision making, it can be completed quickly, a variety of sources and methods can be used to collect data, and it helps to determine effective solution systems for any organizational or individual need or opportunity. Throughout my EDTEC experience, I have been stimulated and satisfied by the use of PA as a starting point for every project, especially because this was one aspect of instructional design in which I was most interested since my first instructional design course at Ithaca College. PA also empowers us to help organizations and employees to solve genuine problems, rather than pushing the typically dreaded, ineffective training on them. Furthermore, I am intrigued by the opportunities that future technologies will bring to make PA a more efficient, streamlined process. Gayeski (2004) presents some of the existing methods for integrating mobile technologies with PA and instructional design, such as using a mobile device (like a PDA or BlackBerry) to record interviews and expert processes, and develop immediate solutions. PT will inevitably grow to be more sophisticated as technologies advance in the future.
The PT concept that solutions should be systems of interventions rather than individual training instances immediately attracted me because it eliminates the “just training” reputation. Moreover, as PT continues to grow in popularity and more organizations invest in solution systems, more employees will realize that learning is more about knowing when and how to find the answers required to perform, than it is to attend a single training event which may, or may not, have relevance to their current jobs or personal goals. I find the concept of solution systems to be worthy, compelling and real because of the growing body of literature that provides examples, best practices, and evidence of improved performance and satisfaction among employees. The idea of using solution systems satisfies and stimulates me for two reasons: 1) the infinite opportunities to create innovative solutions and 2) the ability to authentically integrate technologies to meet the needs and goals of an organization. Solution systems in practice empower people to use a variety of methods to solve their problems while on-the-job, and this fulfills the desire for self-efficacy and autonomy, which is a fundamental truth about the human condition.
My love for the concepts of, and methods for, blended learning interventions, PST and EPSS, stem from and solidify my embracement of the solution systems concept. These three learning system strategies have proved to be worthy and compelling to my work and life because of the successes I have experienced with analyzing, designing and developing blended learning, PST and EPSS projects (see the data-based decision making and cognitive artifacts in my standards matrix). Blended learning, PST and EPSS also empower me to help people perform more effectively and efficiently, and create memorable learning experiences that enable learners to apply skills on-the-job. They have the ability to empower their users to find answers when and where necessary, as well as providing learning opportunities anytime and anywhere. PST and EPSS, in particular, are worthy of application in the PT field because not only are they currently widely accepted, but they are continuously gaining popularity, especially among those organizations relying on voluntary, and even paying, customers. My desires to be influential and active within the PT field were awakened after I learned about and experienced blended learning, PST and EPSS. Furthermore, I am stimulated by the success stories presented by credible resources, and the possibility of these functional interventions being mindlessly used by people in everyday life. The ideas of blended learning, PST and EPSS have also sparked my passion to know, as I constantly want to learn more about them, how they work, what motivates people to use them, what trends exist in relation to them, and what technologies can be used to develop them. There is minimal existing research, which presents another opportunity that excites me about the future of PT academia.
I was initially attracted to the concept of authentic and real-world learning interactions because of my positive experiences with realistic and meaningful education. After studying PT, solution systems, the CLAM model, blended learning, PST, and EPSS more closely, I have discovered a new level of love for contextual learning, specifically because of its ability to:
Most importantly, the CLAM model and the concept of authentic and realistic learning sparked my desire to create innovative solutions using a variety and blend of technologies. I immediately fell in love with the instructional and motivational design principles that provide a framework for CLAM and contextual learning, specifically because of their validity and credibility, evidence-based nature, and theoretical foundation. I have also found that my love for practitioner-oriented principles is deep and still growing because there is a wide variety from which to choose, and they are easily applied in practice.
Although I have provided the preceding comprehensive rationale, this is just a sampling of the reasons that contribute to my love for PT and future aspirations and goals in the PT field.
[back to top]
Change is inevitable and should be embraced in the PT field. I plan to bring the abovementioned illuminating ideas into the real world of action with changing technologies, cultures, and economics by exploiting the adaptability, sustainability and stability of PT. In my studies, I have experienced PT’s ability to sustain the tide of constantly changing technologies, especially for the following reasons:
PT will need to refine its communication and collaboration strategies to adapt to changing cultures, especially to encourage their acceptance among unfamiliar users. It will be necessary to inform people of the importance of enhanced education, learning and performance, as well as persuade some organizational cultures to embrace the PT ideology; however, I am confident that they will recognize its rationality and credibility. I also believe in PT’s stability if our economic status was to change because organizations will always need their employees to perform effectively and efficiently, requiring some funding for PT interventions. PT’s stability is further ensured because of its roots in instructional design, which was introduced during World War II’s economic insecurities, and exemplifies the importance of training and performance.
PT has enabled me to think about technologies for learning in many new and innovative ways, specifically with the application of PT to technologies like learning, knowledge and customer management systems. My knowledge and perception of PT and its endless opportunities will continue to be impacted in the future, especially with the advancement of mobile devices and wireless connectivity. PT will continue to use technologies in innovative ways by initially building on Gayeski’s (2004) mobile instructional design strategies and eventually introducing new ways to streamline PT processes, collaboration and communication across the world.
I plan to protect PT from inappropriate application and ethical abuse by participating in professional associations, such as the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) and American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), and helping to monitor PT projects, especially those released on the Internet with no professional affiliations. I will also encourage colleagues and clients to act with ethical behavior and stay up-to-date with PT literature and trends.
It is difficult for me to picture a world without a necessity for PT, PA, solution systems, authentic and contextual learning experiences, and instructional and motivational design principles; however, if one idea might become stale I would be prepared to retire it and use it as resourceful foundation on which to base my future practice. If any of the ideas might not be able to withstand the automation and advancement of technology, it would be the bookend and anchor blended learning methods, because one day there may no longer be a need for traditional training at all.
I plan to ensure I know if PT continues to warrant my subscription as “True Believer/Ardent Follower” by:
I most look forward to the ensuing changes from the advancement of literature regarding areas of PT not currently focused on, including: development, implementation, and evaluation of PT interventions.
[back to top]
Gayeski, D. (2004, November). Goin’ mobile. Training & Development Magazine, 46-51.
Keller, J. & Burkman, E. (1994). Motivation Principles. In M. Fleming & W.H. Levie, Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed., pp. 3-50). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
McManus, P. & Rossett, A. (2006, February). Performance support tools: Delivering value when and where it is needed. Performance Improvement, 45, 2, 8-16.
Rossett, A. (1999). First things fast: A handbook for performance analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfieffer.
Rossett, A. & Schafer, L. (2007). Job aids and performance support: Moving from knowledge in the classroom to knowledge everywhere. San Fransisco, CA: Pfieffer.
Rossett, A. & Frazee, R. (2006). Blended learning opportunities. American Management Association.
[back to top]
| › | my love for educational technology, |
| › | illuminating ideas from my journey, |
| › | my love for these illumitating ideas, and |
| › | how I plan to cope with change. |
After spending two years studying educational technology I cannot identify any aspects that I do not like; however, I have fallen most in love with the following educational technology aspects:
| › | the unique nature of the field: its focus is not just on training, but also performance technology, analysis and improvement; |
| › | the opportunities afforded by state-of-the-art technologies, especially for collaboration and communication; and, |
| › | the ideology of, and academia behind, producing contextual and engaging learning interactions based on the parameters of the situation. |
Since my enrollment in SDSU’s EDTEC program, I have constantly struggled with answering the question, “What is educational technology?” After providing what I feel is a brief, but adequate explanation, I am frustrated by the response I receive, “Oh, so it’s just training.” Our field being labeled “just training” is something which I’ve accepted, and now that my course of study is almost finished, I find that this inability to clearly define educational technology, its ambiguity, is at the core of what makes me love it. Yes, it is training, but it is not just training; it is performance technology that uses authentic solution systems to solve, or take advantage of, genuine problems or opportunities, which may or may not include traditional training. I love this aspect because each project is different, which provides a challenge, and sometimes even dynamically defined, eliciting unique experiences with processes, analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation considerations, and producing end products that are always different. Not only does this allow me to work with a variety of people and subject matters, but different technologies as well, leading to my second love.
In my undergraduate studies at Ithaca College, I learned about many technologies; however, there were few opportunities to apply them in educational technology projects. The EDTEC program afforded me many experiences to learn cutting-edge technologies, even those relatively simple but extremely valuable to use, such as wikis and weblogs. I love this aspect of educational technology because it has impacted my skills, knowledge, and confidence as a performance technologist and instructional designer, and opened my eyes to a world of potential solutions that will influence the growth of performance technology in the future. I also love this aspect of educational technology because the application of state-of-the art technologies is widely used by peers, teammates, professors, and practitioners, ensuring collaboration and communication for the duration of a project, even at a distance, which is a trend I particularly appreciated as a commuter student from Los Angeles. Exposure to cutting-edge technologies also encourages the application of principles and theories introduced in academia to create authentic learning experiences, the last educational technology aspect I love.
The last aspect of educational technology I will eternally love is the grounded, academic reasoning that justifies the production of contextual and engaging learning interactions. I love this aspect because it is sensible to design using principles that stem from a blend of credible, valid resources, including: pedagogy, psychology, epistemology, and practice. This aspect is observed in practice and will always continue to advance, consequently innovating future performance and instructional technology projects. I also love the potential for using sound reasoning in coordination with technologies to elicit motivated learners of all ages who enjoy gaining and retaining skills and knowledge.
My three loves of educational technology stem from illuminating ideas I discovered throughout my journey in EDTEC, and are the foundation for my future career in the performance technology field.
[back to top]
Throughout the EDTEC program, I was exposed to several theories, models, concepts, principles, methods, and trends in educational technology, some related to each other and some not, and some relevant to my career goals and some not. Performance technology is the school of thought I have holistically embraced because of its influence on my current knowledge, practice, and future aspirations. Several illuminating ideas have created and contributed to performance technology, including those in which I am most interested:
| › | performance analysis to exposes genuine needs and opportunities enabling practitioners to suggest appropriate interventions, |
| › | solutions should be systems rather than single instructional events, |
| › | special design considerations should be applied to PT projects like blended learning interventions, performance support tools and EPSS, |
| › | authentic and real-world interactions and experiences should be integrated into solution systems, and |
| › | instructional and motivational design principles should be applied to elicit a meaningful and contextual learning experience. |
Performance technology (PT) is defined as, “A set of methods and processes for solving problems, or realizing opportunities, related to the performance of people, groups and organizations” (ISPI in A. Rossett, personal communication, August 30, 2006). The typical PT process involves partnering with an organization to understand their goals and circumstances, selecting and building appropriate interventions into solution systems, and documenting the business results achieved (A. Rossett, personal communication, August 30, 2006). Performance analysis (PA) is at the root of the process, enabling practitioners to select solution systems that improve performance, show a return-on-investment and help achieve strategic business goals. Rossett (1999) presents PA concepts and methods for conducting a pithy PA, including: choosing sources and methods of data collection based on the situation, identifying optimal and actual performance, defining the gap between the optimal and actual performance, and exposing the genuine reasons for performance or non-performance.
The most illuminating PT idea is in its essence: solution systems are necessary to effectively solve the unique problems and opportunities encountered by organizations today, and should be designed with a holistic approach rather than training alone. Many concepts and methods have been introduced based on the preference of using solution systems to achieve performance goals. Specifically, blended learning, performance support and electronic performance support system (EPSS) concepts have had the greatest impact on my educational technology career. These concepts share the same theoretical foundation and have advanced the credibility and validity of the PT field. Blended learning is defined as integrating “seemingly opposite approaches, such as formal and informal learning, face-to-face and online experiences, directed paths and reliance on self-direction, and digital references and collegial connections, in order to achieve individual and organizational goals” (Rossett & Frazee, 2003). Blended learning interventions consist of three types: bookend, field and anchor, all providing learners with a system of tools from which to choose to better perform (Rossett & Frazee). The PT ideology is also applied to blended learning projects, as they typically start with conducting a PA to determine appropriate solution systems, which reflect genuine needs and opportunities (Rossett & Frazee). A common PT project is building an electronic performance support system (EPSS), a computerized, or online, system that offers a buffet of job aids or performance support tools (PST) from which learners can choose (McManus & Rossett, 2006). The PST concept was originally introduced as job aids, also known as tools that guide, inform and aid in performing a task. As technology has progressed so have job aids, and now the advanced job aids are considered performance support tools. Rossett and Schafer (2007) explain effective methods for planning, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating PST and/or EPSS projects in their book, Job Aids and Performance Support: Moving from Knowledge in the Classroom to Knowledge Everywhere. This book also reinforced the key concept that performance support must be designed to meet the learners’ needs to motivate them to continuously use the systems available to them.
Moreover, the assumption behind all blended learning, PST and EPSS interventions is that they will be designed based on authentic organizational contexts and used to solve unique problems or opportunities; however, just distributing the systems is not enough to elicit learner participation. This reveals my next illuminating idea: apply relevant instructional design principles to create learning options that people will be motivated to use. Since my introduction to CLAM, it is the model I have applied to every project I have completed. CLAM, or Contextually authentic, Learner focused, Attention riveting, Message extends, is a tactic used to design a variety of instructional interventions including blended learning systems, PST and EPSS (A. Rossett, personal communication, October 4, 2006). Rossett (personal communication, October 4, 2006) explains that contextually authentic is acquired by creating real-life contexts and problems, learner focused is accomplished by considering the intricacies of the audience, including knowledge levels and personal goals, attention riveting is achieved by grabbing and holding attention via a compelling experience, and message extends is afforded by extending the experience any one instructional event and integrating the content to encourage continuous use, reflection and performance. These CLAM concepts are supported by the PT ideology as well as several instructional design principles.
Another group of illuminating ideas related to PT are key instructional and motivational practitioner-oriented principles, which serve as the foundation for designing blended learning interventions, PST, EPSS, and CLAM. Clark’s and Mayer’s (2003) eLearning and the Science of Instruction book presents a myriad of general design principles to be applied to technology-based projects. Two of these principles reflect the importance of contextual, meaningful, realistic, and engaging learning interactions:
| 1. | the worked example principle, use job-realistic or varied worked examples, and |
| 2. | the practice principle, build interactions to mirror the job (Clark & Mayer, 2003). |
Related motivational principles are based on Keller’s ARCS, or Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction, model, focusing on intrinsic (intangible or value-based awards) rather than extrinsic (tangible awards or incentives) motivation. The motivation principles most valuable to PT blended learning, PST and EPSS projects that adhere to the CLAM and ARCS models are:
| › | “use interesting pictures to gain and maintain learner attention in instructional text;” |
| › | “strengthen the students’ motivation to learn by building relationships between the content and objectives of the instruction and the learner’s needs and desires;” |
| › | establish “a clear relationship between the instructional objectives and the student’s goals to increase the motivation to learn;” |
| › | “use analogies or metaphors to connect the present material to processes, concepts, skills already familiar to learner;” |
| › | include the opportunity to apply newly acquired skills in a meaningful way to contribute to intrinsic satisfaction; |
| › | “promote feelings of accomplishment by including in the instructional materials exercises or problems that require the application of the new knowledge or skills to solve;” and, |
| › | “produce a perception of natural consequences by using an exercise or simulation that resembles real world application” (Keller & Burkman, 1994, pp.10-12, 23-24, 46). |
The PT philosophy, which encourages conducting a performance analysis to choose and create authentic solution systems, has had, and will continue to have, immense influence on my educational technology career. There are many reasons why I love these ideas that illuminate PT.
[back to top]
My undergraduate studies focused on organizational strategies for impacting the bottom line and improving business interactions within organizations; PT focuses on impacting this bottom line specifically by improving people and organizational performance. I am naturally attracted to the PT ideology because it fits nicely with what I already know and find pragmatic, as well as fulfills my philanthropist desires to help and motivate people to learn as well as perform.
The rapidly spreading PT philosophy puts a spin on the traditional instructional design methodology and indicates a potential paradigm shift for the training field. This shift is almost inevitable because of PT’s ability to relate analysis, design and evaluation to business goals and strategies, and participating in, and experiencing, this change is an opportunity to which I look forward the most. PT is compelling because of its ability to be used for a variety of circumstances, including both commercial and organizational. PT also offers the possibility for increased involvement in projects with new roles for instructional designers, including: analyst, system integrator, customer educator, partner, process consultant, and intervention broker (A. Rossett, personal communication, August 30, 2006). Some of the most stimulating aspects of PT for me are:
| › | it is individually and organizationally driven, requiring the consideration of strategy, needs, contexts and measurements, |
| › | it follows systematic, but not rigidly or linearly defined, analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation processes, and |
| › | its potential to eliminate the need for instructional transfer. |
My love for performance analysis (PA) stems from its sensibility, applicability and variability. PA is a compelling and worthy method with which to start each project because it encourages data-based decision making, it can be completed quickly, a variety of sources and methods can be used to collect data, and it helps to determine effective solution systems for any organizational or individual need or opportunity. Throughout my EDTEC experience, I have been stimulated and satisfied by the use of PA as a starting point for every project, especially because this was one aspect of instructional design in which I was most interested since my first instructional design course at Ithaca College. PA also empowers us to help organizations and employees to solve genuine problems, rather than pushing the typically dreaded, ineffective training on them. Furthermore, I am intrigued by the opportunities that future technologies will bring to make PA a more efficient, streamlined process. Gayeski (2004) presents some of the existing methods for integrating mobile technologies with PA and instructional design, such as using a mobile device (like a PDA or BlackBerry) to record interviews and expert processes, and develop immediate solutions. PT will inevitably grow to be more sophisticated as technologies advance in the future.
The PT concept that solutions should be systems of interventions rather than individual training instances immediately attracted me because it eliminates the “just training” reputation. Moreover, as PT continues to grow in popularity and more organizations invest in solution systems, more employees will realize that learning is more about knowing when and how to find the answers required to perform, than it is to attend a single training event which may, or may not, have relevance to their current jobs or personal goals. I find the concept of solution systems to be worthy, compelling and real because of the growing body of literature that provides examples, best practices, and evidence of improved performance and satisfaction among employees. The idea of using solution systems satisfies and stimulates me for two reasons: 1) the infinite opportunities to create innovative solutions and 2) the ability to authentically integrate technologies to meet the needs and goals of an organization. Solution systems in practice empower people to use a variety of methods to solve their problems while on-the-job, and this fulfills the desire for self-efficacy and autonomy, which is a fundamental truth about the human condition.
My love for the concepts of, and methods for, blended learning interventions, PST and EPSS, stem from and solidify my embracement of the solution systems concept. These three learning system strategies have proved to be worthy and compelling to my work and life because of the successes I have experienced with analyzing, designing and developing blended learning, PST and EPSS projects (see the data-based decision making and cognitive artifacts in my standards matrix). Blended learning, PST and EPSS also empower me to help people perform more effectively and efficiently, and create memorable learning experiences that enable learners to apply skills on-the-job. They have the ability to empower their users to find answers when and where necessary, as well as providing learning opportunities anytime and anywhere. PST and EPSS, in particular, are worthy of application in the PT field because not only are they currently widely accepted, but they are continuously gaining popularity, especially among those organizations relying on voluntary, and even paying, customers. My desires to be influential and active within the PT field were awakened after I learned about and experienced blended learning, PST and EPSS. Furthermore, I am stimulated by the success stories presented by credible resources, and the possibility of these functional interventions being mindlessly used by people in everyday life. The ideas of blended learning, PST and EPSS have also sparked my passion to know, as I constantly want to learn more about them, how they work, what motivates people to use them, what trends exist in relation to them, and what technologies can be used to develop them. There is minimal existing research, which presents another opportunity that excites me about the future of PT academia.
I was initially attracted to the concept of authentic and real-world learning interactions because of my positive experiences with realistic and meaningful education. After studying PT, solution systems, the CLAM model, blended learning, PST, and EPSS more closely, I have discovered a new level of love for contextual learning, specifically because of its ability to:
| › | eliminate the need to answer the common question, “What’s the purpose of this?”; |
| › | motivate learners and improve their attitudes about instruction; and, |
| › | empower people to remember and learn things important to them. |
Most importantly, the CLAM model and the concept of authentic and realistic learning sparked my desire to create innovative solutions using a variety and blend of technologies. I immediately fell in love with the instructional and motivational design principles that provide a framework for CLAM and contextual learning, specifically because of their validity and credibility, evidence-based nature, and theoretical foundation. I have also found that my love for practitioner-oriented principles is deep and still growing because there is a wide variety from which to choose, and they are easily applied in practice.
Although I have provided the preceding comprehensive rationale, this is just a sampling of the reasons that contribute to my love for PT and future aspirations and goals in the PT field.
[back to top]
Change is inevitable and should be embraced in the PT field. I plan to bring the abovementioned illuminating ideas into the real world of action with changing technologies, cultures, and economics by exploiting the adaptability, sustainability and stability of PT. In my studies, I have experienced PT’s ability to sustain the tide of constantly changing technologies, especially for the following reasons:
| › | the current capability to apply its concepts, methods, and principles to a range of technologies, and |
| › | software and development tools are progressively easier to use, making PT projects easier create and distribute. |
PT will need to refine its communication and collaboration strategies to adapt to changing cultures, especially to encourage their acceptance among unfamiliar users. It will be necessary to inform people of the importance of enhanced education, learning and performance, as well as persuade some organizational cultures to embrace the PT ideology; however, I am confident that they will recognize its rationality and credibility. I also believe in PT’s stability if our economic status was to change because organizations will always need their employees to perform effectively and efficiently, requiring some funding for PT interventions. PT’s stability is further ensured because of its roots in instructional design, which was introduced during World War II’s economic insecurities, and exemplifies the importance of training and performance.
PT has enabled me to think about technologies for learning in many new and innovative ways, specifically with the application of PT to technologies like learning, knowledge and customer management systems. My knowledge and perception of PT and its endless opportunities will continue to be impacted in the future, especially with the advancement of mobile devices and wireless connectivity. PT will continue to use technologies in innovative ways by initially building on Gayeski’s (2004) mobile instructional design strategies and eventually introducing new ways to streamline PT processes, collaboration and communication across the world.
I plan to protect PT from inappropriate application and ethical abuse by participating in professional associations, such as the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) and American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), and helping to monitor PT projects, especially those released on the Internet with no professional affiliations. I will also encourage colleagues and clients to act with ethical behavior and stay up-to-date with PT literature and trends.
It is difficult for me to picture a world without a necessity for PT, PA, solution systems, authentic and contextual learning experiences, and instructional and motivational design principles; however, if one idea might become stale I would be prepared to retire it and use it as resourceful foundation on which to base my future practice. If any of the ideas might not be able to withstand the automation and advancement of technology, it would be the bookend and anchor blended learning methods, because one day there may no longer be a need for traditional training at all.
I plan to ensure I know if PT continues to warrant my subscription as “True Believer/Ardent Follower” by:
| › | following the academic and professional literature as it continues to advance and grow, |
| › | seeking and applying new best practices, and |
| › | continuing my membership in professional associations and ensuring they continue to grow, develop and embrace new technologies, concepts, methods. |
I most look forward to the ensuing changes from the advancement of literature regarding areas of PT not currently focused on, including: development, implementation, and evaluation of PT interventions.
[back to top]
References
Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Gayeski, D. (2004, November). Goin’ mobile. Training & Development Magazine, 46-51.
Keller, J. & Burkman, E. (1994). Motivation Principles. In M. Fleming & W.H. Levie, Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed., pp. 3-50). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
McManus, P. & Rossett, A. (2006, February). Performance support tools: Delivering value when and where it is needed. Performance Improvement, 45, 2, 8-16.
Rossett, A. (1999). First things fast: A handbook for performance analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfieffer.
Rossett, A. & Schafer, L. (2007). Job aids and performance support: Moving from knowledge in the classroom to knowledge everywhere. San Fransisco, CA: Pfieffer.
Rossett, A. & Frazee, R. (2006). Blended learning opportunities. American Management Association.
[back to top]