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.

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.