IDs Use Standards: Ensures Context Sensitivity

Standards are the measures that IDs use when determining whether they will sign-off on a learning solution they have created, or not – whether their name goes on the final product.

The competent instructional designer/developer (ID) ensures context sensitivity.

Little things can be jarring; they jangle the nerves and create distractions.  Little things out of context can become blow up disproportionately to become flaming issues.  

P-20 education and workplace (adult education) often come to loggerheads over terms simply because their contexts and expectations based on context differ.  One of the highly touted differences between childhood education (pedagogy) and adult education (andragogy) is the undeniable fact that adults bring years of experience.  

(Side note: having worked with special needs children and children of abuse and poverty, I content that children bring significant experience to their learning, especially their P-20 learning as well... experience is the essential difference according to experts.)  

Creating learning without considering the learner’s previous experience is futile at best.  This may be the reason that so many courses spend the first twenty-to-thirty percent of the course defining and building common experience bases.  During this time early in the course, the instructor and learners get acquainted, learn about each other’s jobs and roles and experiences, discover the course goals compared to the learner’s goals, and map out the course’s structure.  Along the way, they discover whether there are potential barriers such as language, technology, physical environment, or just a mis-match between learner and course intent. 

Why spend that much precious time setting context?  Because, context is important.  In fact, learning will not occur until the learner sees a need for it (also see; The Teachable Moment).   When learners have context, they learn. When context is missing, they struggle.

For a moment, consider the impact of requiring a course with 25%-30% of it’s content focused on US laws, regulations or code.  Contextually, this is important for learners within the United States.  However, does it work in Puerto Rico, China, Australia, Canada, India, Greece, Switzerland, or Sweden?  Language differences aside, the issue of laws, regulations and codes needs to addressed in order for the rest of learning to be effective outside the US. This an essential context issue. 

Now, consider the impact of words.  The US government has enacted the Plain Language Act [http://www.plainlanguage.gov/] requiring government agencies to write in ways that avoid confusion.   They are improving, but the task is monumental.   Very few courses start out by defining the reading level.  Even fewer courses intentionally choice a ‘voice’ for their course.  Yet, both reading level and voice can impact learners’ ability to learn. 

Case Study #1: Fun and Games

Once upon a time many decades ago, (before web-based everything) our intrepid instructional designer had the opportunity to work on a CD-based learning game.  The project team included a skilled technical writer.   This writer started his participation in the project by asking what we (the project team) wanted our learner/player to hear in their head when they played.  It took the team awhile to work it through.  Eventually, it was clear.  We wanted to game to come across as “fun”, even though it was teaching highly technical terms.   The writer re-worked every sentence in the games material to echo that “fun” idea.  What magic did he employ?  I’m still not sure.  Technical writers are valuable members of instructional design teams, because they bring an impartial eye to context and the language of that context.

Case Study #1: Developmental Delayed Hispanic Young Adults

In another time and place, an instructional designer was asked to build a computer skills lab for developmentally delayed young adults (17-21) whose primary language was Spanish, but did speak some English and needed to build technology-specific language in both Spanish and English.  They needed to be able to access computers to write emails and text messages, visit websites such as sports and hobbies, and they need to be able to computer play games.  They needed to be able to talk with their peers and co-workers about using computers.  The course designed a very repeatable lab which each learner could do multiple times to strengthen his or her skills (keyboard, mouse, and language skills).  The lab provided them with many different job aids on binder-ring.  Each index card for the ring had a term in both English and Spanish, a short explanation (under 10 words) in both English and Spanish, and a picture of the computer part or term.  For this learning, the context was concrete and factual.  The learners loved it and loved having job aids that they could share.  The shareable nature of the cards provided context for them across learning, work, and home.

Definition of a Standard – Ensure Context Sensitivity

Consider the definition and performances listed for The Institute for Performance Improvement (TIfPI’s) standard Ensures Context Sensitivity.

Definition: considers the conditions and circumstances that are relevant to the learning content, event, process, and outcomes.

Performances that demonstrate this standard:

• Creates solutions that acknowledge:
§  Culture
§  Prior experience
§  Relationships to work
§  Variability in content
• Verifies that materials reflect the capabilities of audience (e.g., readability, language localization, plain language, global English, physical capabilities, technology limitations, etc.).
• Maps to other learning opportunities
• Aligns content with learning objectives and desired outcomes

Individuals applying for learning solution certifications with marks and badges will be asked to describe ways in which he or she accomplished at least 3:4 performances (required) one of which must be:

• Creates solutions that acknowledge:
§  Culture
§  Prior experience
§  Relationships to work
§  Variability in content

Can you see yourself doing these performances?  Can you see yourself doing at least the three of the four required performances with every learning solution?  

Can you see other IDs doing these performances, perhaps differently, but still doing them?  If so, you need to consider applying for a learning solutions development credential.  Get the ID CertificationHandbook and visit www.tifpi.org for more information.

Want a list of all nine IDstandards?   

Would you like to know about the study -- a practice analysis -- that TIfPI Practice Leaders did to generate and validate nine standards, including Elicits Performance Practice?   Would you like a copy of the infographic with standards and learning solution certification types?   

IDs Use Standards: Elicits Performance Practice

 

ID Standards are the measures that IDs use when determining whether they will sign-off on a learning solution they have created, or not – whether their name goes on the final product. They are the hallmark of the master instructional designer craftsman.

The competent instructional designer/developer (ID) elicits performance practice:

There is an old saying, "practice makes perfect." 

At the heart of learning is change, particularly performance change.  If there is no change in performance, learning is questionable.  Therefore, practice within the learning event is an important element that allows the learner, instructor (when used), and ID to recognize whether change is occurring.

 

Eliciting performance practice is so important that it appears in the nine very different learning theories and theorists reviewed for the ID Practice Analysis.

Table of Instructional Design Theorist & Elicits Performance Practice

Learning theories hone in one or more specific elements of practice or the practice environment.   For some, practice is all about the thinking steps, while others elicit discovery.  For still others it’s about integration and application.  For others it’s about demonstrating mastery.  Each theory and theorist promotes different aspects of eliciting performance practice as an essential function of their theories or philosophic approaches.   However, competent instructional designers pick and choose; they use the focus that is most appropriate for the learner and the situation in which the learner must learn.  Therefore, the ID certifications do not focus on the theory, but on whether the ID demonstrates selecting techniques that promote performance practice. Reviewers do not judge the appropriateness of those techniques, merely determine whether the candidate has shown that they did provide performance practice. 

The Serious Elearning Manifesto lists the following hallmarks of effective elearning:

·         Performance focused

·         Meaningful to learners

·         Engagement driven

·         Authentic context

·         Realistic decisions

·         Individualized challenges

·         Spaced practices

·         Real-world consequences.

Taken together, they describe a practice environment that provides not just random activities but focused practices that reflect the world of learner – that elicits performance practice in the e-world as preparation for real world work.

Performance practice is just as important in instructor-led training (ILT), coaching and mentoring, goal- or problem-based scenarios, serious learning games, or any of the other learning solution types.  

Case Study:  Impacting real world decision

Once upon a time (all to recently), an instructional designer was asked to design an elearning solution that “taught” staff about the organizational structure – the divisions, groups, subgroups and their leaders.  Of course, this course’s learning objectives focused on identifying who to contact in various parts of the organization.  Since so many high-level executives had to buy into this course, it was important that the course be “outstanding” and that it showcase each division and group to their advantage.

Our intrepid ID had concerns about whether this was quality learning, even as the course was being designed and built.  There were no decisions to make, no real-world consequences, and the only challenge available was remembering the name of the group or division that did a given type of work.  However, everyone does need to recognize the key groups and divisions within their organization, so that information was authentic.   In addition, this ID had created something similar many decades ago (when elearning was in its infancy) that taught state employees about the structures of the legislative, judicial, executive branches in which they worked.  These concepts were highly valued by the employees taking that first elearning course, so maybe this new solution would be just as valuable… or maybe not.  

Definition of a Standard – Elicits Performance Practice

Consider the definition and performances listed for The Institute for Performance Improvement (TIfPI’s) standard Elicits Performance Practice.

Definition: ensures that the learning environment and practice opportunities reflect the actual environment in which the performance will occur.

Performances that demonstrate this standard for an ID certification: 

• Creates practice opportunities that mimic work tasks and work processes.

• Chooses elements of the “real” work environment, tools, and technology to include in the practice learning environment. 

• Scripts steps and interactions. 

• Creates the full spectrum of support materials to ensure that learning occurs. Note that any one solution may not require the use of all 6 performances listed.  

• Describes for the learner what the practice opportunities will be.

• Creates practice opportunities that connect learner’s real work to the learning process and outcomes.

Can you see yourself doing these performances?  Can you see yourself doing at least the two required performances with every learning solution?  Can you see other IDs doing these performances, perhaps differently, but still doing them?  If so, you need to consider applying for a learning solutions development credential.  Get the ID Certification Handbook  at www.tifpi.org.

Individual IDs applying for learning solution certifications with marks and badges will be asked to describe ways in which he or she accomplished at least the following two required performances (and preferably more):

• Creates practice opportunities that mimic work tasks and work processes.

• Chooses elements of the “real” work environment, tools, and technology to include in the practice learning environment. 

Want a list of all 9 ID standards?  

Would you like to know about the study -- a practice analysis -- that TIfPI Practice Leaders did to generate and validate nine standards, including Elicits Performance Practice?   Would you like a copy of the infographic withstandards and learning solution certification types?

ID Standards: Aligns Solution

Standards are different from theories or models.  Standards speak to the ways that competent professionals judge their own work and that of their peers.  Yes, the interwoven nature of standards, theories, and models gets tangled and convoluted. We are discussing here the internal standards that competent IDs use. That those standards emerged from theory and development models is true, but they are different from both theories and models.  For IDs, these standards are also international in nature, being used by learning experts around the world.  Think of these standards as lens describing the effectiveness and quality of the learning solution.  Each ID applies many lens to their work as he or she moves through the cycle that is learning solution development.

Standards are the measures that IDs use when determining whether they will sign-off on a learning solution, or not – whether their name goes on the final product.

The competent instructional designer/developer (ID) aligns the solution:

Alignment has become a buzzword. Amazingly, it looks different from different angles.  However,
different perspectives really does mean that alignment is a key function of learning solution
development.  It’s is a real function of the work.

In fact, this the standard was rated as very highly important in a survey of learning practitioners,
where it received an average of 3.9 out of 4.0 points. 

Obviously, one of the challenges in creating learning solutions is aligning them to the needs of the organization and the learner.  This external alignment ensures that the learning solution is really needed and will be used.  However, alignment does not end there.

IDs building learning solutions check, double-check, and triple-check that the parts of each learning
solution work together.  They check that learning objectives actually guide the learning – that they
are do-able and actionable. They ensure that those objectives really are the work outcomes needed on the job.  They check that learning in one solution connects appropriately learning in another solution.  If all the elements are not aligned, they modify the solution to create better alignment. 

Case Study:

An executive working with an external ID took exception to the word “align”
in a learning outcome.  She said that the word made her think of a pilot lining
airplane up for landing or bringing a ship into dock – that it was a purely
physical act, like hammering nails, and not at all intellectual. She changed the
outcome to “understands”. 

 

Some executive decisions are the other kind of alignment – aligning the
learning with the needs of the organization.  In this case, the alignment
adjustment needed to be using a verb from Bloom’s Taxonomy because higher education is stuck with that paradigm and judged on their use of a limited list of verbs.    No matter how much this expert ID distrusts objectives using the verb “understand”, the objective needed to fit the organization’s accreditation
requirements even more than her personal standard for objectives, and this organization was
comfortable with the use of understand as a knowledge-testing function rather than a performance-
assessment function.

From the beginning to the end of a learning solution development project, IDs drive for better
alignment whether that is alignment of activities and assessments to objectives (internal alignment
within the course) or alignment of the learning solution to the organization’s needs (external to the
course) or alignment between courses (curriculum alignment).  One and feel that that the prize has
been won, when the learner experiences internal alignment that blows them away.  

Definition of a Standard

Consider the definition and performances listed for The Institute for Performance Improvement (TIfPI’s) Aligns Solution

Definition:  To create or change relationships among parts of the solution (internal to the solution) or between the solution and its parent organization or sponsors (external to the solution).

Performances that demonstrate this domain for a Solution Development Badge:

·         Maps the instructional elements to defined project and audience requirements.

·         Sequences learning elements and content appropriately for defined learners.

·         Modifies planned instructional elements in order to make those elements more effective.

·         Selects appropriate content for the solution.

·         Maps content to appropriate instructional elements. 

Note that any one solution may not require the use of all 5 performances listed.  Individuals applying for learning solution badges will be asked to describe how they demonstrated at least 3:9 
performances, one of which must be:

·         Maps the instructional elements to defined project and audience requirements.   

Can you see yourself doing these performances?  Can you see yourself doing at least 3 of these
performances with every learning solution?  Can you see other IDs doing these performances,
perhaps differently, but still doing them?  If so, you need to consider applying for a learning solutions development credential.  Go to https://tifpi.wildapricot.org/IDBadges.

Want a list of all 9 ID standards?  Go to http://tinyurl.com/nqjwm2g.

Would you like to know about the study -- a practice analysis -- that TIfPI Practice Leaders did to generate and validate nine standards, including Aligns Solution?  Go to http://tinyurl.com/pd69xw5.

ID Standards: Addresses Sustainability

Standards are different from theories or models.  Standards about the ways competent professionals that judge their own work and that of their peers. 

For instructional designers (IDs), theories are filters that create mental models and structures for what learners need to have in place in order to learn.  As such, theories are not standards.  However, they do create a common language around the application of that theory.  Over time, theory-in-practice creates a mental model about how that theory should play out when applied.  IDs have learned how to mix-and-match theories to take the best of multiple theories in order to create better and better learning solutions.  We (for I am an ID, as well) have created an internal set of standards that cross multiple theories.  The theories are not the standard, our mental model of combined theories is.

Similarly, product and instructional solution development models such as ISD, ADDIE, SAM, Agile, Lean, or Six-Sigma proscribe techniques for moving the learning solution idea from idea to delivered learning.  They create a common language around the process of building learning solutions.  

Experienced IDs use the stages of development and tools of those stages as markers to guide them in determining whether the emerging learning solution meets their own personal standards.  

Yes, the interwoven nature of standards, theories, and models gets tangled and convoluted.

We are discussing here the internal standards that competent IDs use. That those standards emerged from theory and development models is true, but they are different from both theories and models.  Think of them as lens describing the effectiveness and quality of the learning solution.  Each ID applies many lens to their work as he or she moves through the cycle that is learning solution development.

Standards are the measures that IDs use when determining whether they will sign-off on a learning solution, or not – whether their name goes on the final product.

The competent instructional designer/developer (ID) addresses sustainability (of the learning solution).

At first, "sustainability" seems to be a lesser standard than, say, Aligns Solution, Engages Learning, or Assesses Performance. As the ID Badge Team at TIfPI worked on defining ID standards and performance, this standard seemed to not fit, even though surveyed practitioners indicated that they did do this work frequently and that it was important.  Over and over again, this one was tough to define and describe.  Then, suddenly, it came into focus; it made perfect sense.  None of wants to engage in the development of a learning solution that will not be valued.  We value our work and our time, we want our products to be valued.  Therefore, we all address sustainability. 

Strangely, sustainability is something that instructional designers 

and developers address from the moment that they are engaged in planning a learning solution and continue to address throughout the development project right up to the end.  Yet, it is one that we do not talk about with other IDs.

Consider a typical engagement start.  A sponsor or project lead meets with the ID to introduce the project.  Right away, the ID starts asking questions about the purpose of the project and how it the learning solution will be deployed.  In the back of his or her mind, the ID is also asking themselves whether this is the right project for them, whether the resources are available, and whether the timeline is reasonable.  They are addressing sustainability of the learning solution project -- can I do this.  If it do-able, the ID moves on to other issues.  If not, he or she begins negotiating (time, content, tools, others involvement, etc.)

Even while trying to determine that the project is viable, competent IDs are also asking questions about the how the learning solution will be deployed.  They ask about the size of the audience, the connection between the course and the work, the preparation that learners will have before the course, and the follow-up ensuring transfer.  Here IDs validate both short-term sustainability of the course – that it can be deployed and delivered a few times.  They also check that there will be a long-term need for the learning solution -- that it solves a problem over time and that the first learners can demonstrate change so that future learners will want to come to the course. 

When the learning solution project has been negotiated and accepted, development beings.  While the negotiations and acceptance may be very short and very informal, they do exist for everyone. 

During development, competent IDs continue to work toward that end goal of a sustainable learning solution that meets the need and draws in learners over time.  This includes seeking appropriate content, identifying ways to improve the content, building more robust and less expensive courses, and creating a learning solution that is easy to maintain over time.

Case Study: the Case of the Unsustainable Learning Solution

Once upon a time, there was a young and idealistic ID called in to develop a course for a highly technical software that was still just an idea.  The sponsor was a respected scientist and corporate executive who wanted an instructor-led course that would teach programmers, data base administrators, systems architects, and content developers enough about the scientific field that they could build the software, database, interfaces, and manage complex content sources.  When asked about the details of the course’s audience, the ID discovered that each audience needed a slightly different class, as the software under development grew.  The course content stayed the same, but the tools used for activities would be different at different stages of the software development project.  The only instructor would be the scientist and the course would need to change between every delivery.  The size of the audience that would receive this highly customized courses?  Ten to fifteen people at each of five stages. 

Sustainability Question: Is it feasible to customize a course to this degree for an audience that is this small?  Probably not.  Yet this course was done. 

The point in addressing sustainability is to make the unwise or improbable solution workable and reasonable.

After some discussion, our ID discovered that the basic content and activities would be static.  Our ID discovered that course activities could be done through a variety of online tools (without the yet-to-be-designed software.)  The expert simply wanted learners to do exercises in the new software (in a DEV environment) as it developed, but continually emerging activities would have the same purpose as those done through the online tools.  Our ID also knew that new software systems often failed on the day that you really needed them to work, as well.  Therefore, using a DEV version of a software could make a course activity unviable. The key to sustainability was in the online tools. 

Solution: This course was developed only once using the online tools for individual activities. Then, it could be tweaked at every re-delivery of the course adding in equivalent activities using the DEV environment tools as those tools emerged. If DEV wasn't functioning on the day of the class, the original activities would continue to be available with the online tools.  Designed with only the smallest of tweaks between classes, the expert himself could modify the participant materials adding new versions for each activity while keeping the original version in the materials – adding exercise 2B, while keeping 2A.  During class the instructor could simply define which activity (2A or 2B) was being used that day based on whether DEV was functioning correctly or not.   Each round of delivery added one or more new activities (2B, 3B, 6B) depending on what had been developed and was functional at each stage.  Each course could be unique, while the overall work effort to maintain the course materials was low.

It worked.  It was a sustainable course over several years during times of high change.  Addressing sustainability moved this improbably course from 'can't do it' to 'done and working.'

Do ID's address sustainability?  Yes, all the time.  Every day.  Every project.  Every learning solution.

Definition of a Standard

Consider the definition and performances for Addresses Sustainability as listed for The Institute for Performance Improvement (ITIfPI's) ID Badges.

Definition:  Considers the best usage of resources (time, money, materials, staffing, technologies, etc.) now and in the future.

Performances that demonstrate this standard for a Solution Domain Badge (one or more of the following):

• Selects tools and methods that can be replicated at minimal costs and time.
• Builds in techniques that allow subject experts and instructors to modify the learning solution without requiring the solution to go through a complete revision cycle for each modification.
• Recommends tools and techniques that improve the learner’s learning environment and better match the learner’s needs.
• Recommends tools and techniques that improve the learning solution’s cost effectiveness.
• Leverages content, solution development processes, and solutions for reuse and for lowest cost of reproduction.
• Develops solutions that can be turned over to a different team that will support or teach it over time.
• Develops solutions that include planned future review cycles.
• Remediates expensive one-time solutions with follow-up that allows learners to access elements of that learning solution.
• Explains improvements to original learning design where such improvement created savings, improved learning, improved functionality, generated better data to the sponsors.

Note that any one solution may not require the use of all 9 performances listed.  Individuals applying for ID badges will be asked to describe how they demonstrated at least 4:9 performances.

Can you see yourself doing these performances?  Can you see yourself doing at least 4 of these performances with every learning solution?  Can you see other IDs doing these performances, perhaps differently, but still doing them?  If so, you need to consider applying for a learning solutions development credential.  Go to www.tifpi.org/idbadges.

Want a list of all 9 ID standards?   

Would you like to know about the study -- a practice analysis -- that TIfPI Practice Leaders did to generate and validate nine standards, including Addresses Sustainability?  Go to www.tifpi.org/whitepaper_ID.

The State of Instructional Design in 2014

You may have seen the serious elearning manifesto.  It opens an important discussion in the instructional design and development world.  It also underlines the chaos that exists in that field; a cohesive field would not need a manifesto that addresses only a fraction of the work within the field – only the e-learning portion, in this case. It also begs the question of why a manifesto is needed and creates a tension between ‘typical’ elearning and ‘serious’ elearning.  This manifesto underscores the fact that field of instructional design and development has charlatans, wannabes, the tired masses, and top-notch professionals – within just the learning portion of the field.

The Instructional Design and Development Workforce Marketplace  

From the market perspective, instructional design and development (ID) is a diverse, fragmented, and undifferentiated market.  This is an international marketplace workforce with a wide variety of skill levels competing against each other for work and recognition. Whether instructional designers and developers work as internal consultants (a.k.a. staff) or as external consultants, they struggle with the fallout from this complex market. 

What is a diverse, fragmented, and undifferentiated market?

Diverse

Instructional designers and developers (IDs) work in every industry from military to social work, from finance work to entertainment, from government to energy, and everything in between.  IDs work for non-profits, military, government, colleges and universities, public schools, every industry every invented, as well as consulting house that serve the world.    They may be one-person self-supporting businesses or they may members of large teams working multi-million dollar projects and every workplace variation in between.  Diversity in workplace creates a huge variance requirements and expectations.

IDs come to the field through two paths – higher education degreed and lateral movers with subject field experience.  While the degreed members are on the rise, the vast majority of the field comes in with native talent and expertise in an industry’s content field.   This highly diverse background experience makes it difficult to compare even entry-level candidates. 

Then, there is the work itself.  Some IDs specialize in one type of solution – just elearning, or just instructor-led, for example.  Others are tasked with creating unique solution sets that address specific needs.  Some are expected to be expert technical writers, while others are expected to be graphic artists and technologists, and some must be everything to everyone.  Some use complex software to create their solutions, with others work with minimal resources in very resource-restrictive environments.  Diverse working environments and expectations create uneven and often unrealistic expectations in employers.

Geography, industry, the size of organization all work to create a very diverse workforce. In addition, this is a creative workforce that often brings the diversity of the creative -- music, art, color, flow, drama, and more. 

Fragmented

US Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) list one role within the Professional and Services sector, the Training and Development Specialist. There is no national labor role for Instructional Designer or Instructional Developer or Instructional Technologist, even though there are degree programs in colleges and universities across the United States and around the world.  However, BLS indicates that the demand for Training and Development Specialists in expect to increase by 15% between 2012 and 2020, adding more than 35,000 new jobs in the United States alone.  That this important government organization does not even recognize the field of instructional design and development creates disenfranchisement, as well as misunderstandings between employers and workers. 

Within the field, there is a certain amount of distrust between instructional designers based on training.  Those with degrees, tend to trust and value IDs with degrees more than those who come to the field without.  The lateral movers with field experience tend to distrust the degreed practitioner who brings academic knowledge of learning theory, but is weak in business acumen.  Since different backgrounds mean that individuals come with different languages and ways to describe their work, the wedge of terminology creates an internal fragmentation.  

Undifferentiated

Check out the job boards for Instructional Designer.  A quick review of job listings will show that most instructional designer job listings are wish lists consisting of a general statement of work asking IDs to be all things to all people – especially, senior leadership.  These job descriptions go on to list a smorgasbord of tools in which the ID must be an expert.  Then, the typical ID job listing is capped off with a need for expertise in a specific development methodology – ADDIE, lean, six-sigma, SAM, etc. – and perhaps even the need to be an expert in the business field, as well.

Add to this, the growth of off-shoring in instructional design and development.  Many employers are willing to choose the cheapest ID resources for their project rather than choosing the ID that best matches their work. 

To this, we can add the fact that there are dozens of names for similar roles – Instructional Designer, Learning Developer, Elearning Developer, Learning Specialist, Learning Developer, Learning Analyst, Learning Architect, Learning Strategist, Education Specialist, and more.  In some cases, there is an implied career progress with position titles mark I, II, III, IV. 

As with every workforce, there are charlatans.  Unless a manager or client is, themselves, and instructional designer, they will find it difficult to distinguish the professional who produces quality work from the charlatan with a good line of schmooze.   This inability to discriminate is the greatest challenge in the industry and increases the fragmentation.

Standards Guide Capability Building

A key to building cohesion, capability, and capacity within any distressed workforce would be defining standards.   The Institute for Performance Improvement, L3C (TIfPI, www.tifpi.org) has just completed a practice analysis of instructional designers.  Watch for the whitepaper, coming soon. 

Out of this analysis comes a set of nine international, theory-free, model-free standards for learning solution development.  Note that these standards focus on development and do not include front-end analysis (needs assessments), delivery, project management, content management, or technology.  Starting with a definition of development standards focuses the field on production standards.  

TIfPI’s instructional design and development experts working with TIfPI’s credentialing experts defined a series of certifications for the learning and solution development portion of the field.  These nineteen certifications are microcredentials – a credential focuses on a subset of the greater field. Whereas a full certification addresses the breadth of the field, microcredentials, often called endorsements, highlight a strength in a specific area.  Today, these credentials have digital icons, called digital badges, which allow credential earners to promote their qualifications through social media.  For more on these credentials see https://tifpi.wildapricot.org/IDBadges.

Coming soon…

Watch this space for more on the emerging international, theory-free, model-free ID standards and access to the practice analysis behind these credentials, or attend the free webinar, Overview of ID Badges.   

Watch for the next in the series -- How Standards Build ID Workforce Capability.