Public Promise of Certification

Every credential (certification, degree, license, accreditation) makes public promises.  There may be specific promises to each credential, all credentials make three basic promises:                                     

• the credential holder will be better off with the credential than without
• the industry will be better off with a credential providing standards for practitioners
• the general public (those receiving services from the credential holder) will be able to see and experience a difference in services received by credential holders.  

Yes, those are positive differences.  There's no point in doing this if the difference is negative.

That is, a public promise of any credential (certification, in particular) is that the world is a better place because that credential exists.

Now, comes the challenge of measuring, and proving that the promises have been met.

The individual is better off 

How might we know that an individual credential holder has benefited from the certification?

• Gets work in the field 
• Gets promotions or get promotions sooner
• Receives higher pay than an uncredentialed person 
• Is perceived as valued and valuable 

Work

Many instructional designers look at themselves and say, "I have work; therefore, I don't need a certification".  They might be consultants working through staffing and consulting houses or they might have full employment or they may be working irregularly as independents.  They have work. So, they don't see a need for credentials, because they are working today. 

However, as individuals mature and their skills increase, they find themselves competing against the newcomers.  Now, newcomers keep the field fresh.  They also help keep the pay scale down. Without a credential, it can be more and more difficult to ask for the higher salaries and promotions that different your experience from that of a newcomer.

In addition, hot new tools, theories, and methodologies comes along.  As IDs we enjoy the energy that these innovations bring to our field.  However, regardless of experience, innovations also dumped back to beginning competing against the least experienced members of the field.  This becomes a career form of that board game, Chutes and Ladders (Milton Bradley; Hasbro) or Snakes and Ladders (UK).  Without an external third-party endorsement of ones skills, the instructional design field is much like Chutes and Ladders. ID's work hard to demonstrate their skills, build credibility, learn new tools/theories/methods and generally stay on top of their field.  That is, each ID works to climb their individual career ladder through demonstration of work and skill.  Then, along comes a 'chute' -- a new elearning tool, a new learning theory, a new development methodology, the need to be a project manager as well as an ID, etc., etc.

In addition, having work today, does not mean that one will be employed in the future.  That next chute could simply be a downsizing or recession.

Credentials do not guarantee that you as an individual will have work; however, they do work toward demonstrating that their credential holders have jobs and better jobs than those who are not credentialed.  In a world with credentialed players, the non-credentialed player is the one who is more competing for work less successfully.

Promotion

Promotion is a harder concept in the instructional design world.  A few very large full-employment situations do have levels of instructional design (ID-1, 2,3 or Learning Analyst, ID, Learning Architect, etc.).  These organizations typically have more than fifty instructional designers, making it worth their time to different skill levels.  Otherwise, employers seldom make different skill levels or provide promotions.

Independent consultants do not see promotions at all in their career.  In fact, any beginning learning consultant can bill themselves as a Learning Architect or Learning Strategist, if they want to be known as such.  They is no requirement that they demonstrate advanced experience levels in order to use an advanced level title.

Consultants who subcontract through staffing or consulting houses seldom see an opportunity to move up to a higher rung in these organization’s temporary hire career ladder.  At best an ID may become a Sr. ID on their payment scale.  More about pay in a moment.

In the world of promotions, the movement upward is tied to pay and respect -- the next two public promises for IDs.  Job titles are one reflection of promotion.  Check out the job boards.  Instructional designers have very few job titles that differentiate skill level.  You’ll seldom see listing for and ID-3, Learning Architect or Learning Strategist.  Our field is weak in promote-ability.  

Higher Pay

Everyone wants better pay.  Advanced degrees and credentials are often used as hallmarks of advancing skill that warrant better pay.   Strangely enough, individuals coming out of college with a doctoral degree often find themselves making entry level salaries.   A degree does not constitute higher pay.

Internal consultant IDs usually see an annual salary increase along with bonuses.  Meanwhile, external consultants subcontracting through staffing/consulting houses fight for $5 an hour increases and more balanced projects (ones that don’t require 60 hours a week for 6 weeks, then leave them without work for 6 months).  The independent consultant building a practice usually works that 60-hour week in order to manage the administration and marketing of their business (themselves) and is able to bill at a rate acceptable to their clientele.  That is, their first year or two of projects bill a very low rates.  Slowly, over time, they are able to increase their rates and create a form of increasing pay scale.

In this mixed pay environment, credentials will eventually lead the credential holder to an position of where they can prove their worth and ask for higher salaries.  Certified individuals often do see the benefit of being certified, because industry values the certification process.  Certifications, especially evidence-based certifications, are deemed to demonstrate business acumen, while college degrees tend to be de-valued as being more academic than business orient.  Certification can make a difference in your paycheck.

Valued and Valuable

Everyone wants to be valued by their employer whether that is a full-employer supervisor or manager or a consulting client.  Proving ones value to an employer is usually all about doing the work first.   This means that anyone changing jobs or entering the field finds it difficult to demonstrate enough value to generate interest in hiring them.  We have all been in that position and asked that question: “how do I get my first job, when I have no experience to show for it?”

Now, think about being 50 years old with 25 years of experience and losing your job.  Suddenly, with massive experience, you are back in the soup with newbies trying desperately to land a job (or client).

Your experience has been devalued by the process of losing your job.   You are worthless… and expensive.  Who wants to hire a 50-year old ID?  In 2007 -2011, this was a common phenomenon due to recession.  By the cyclic laws finance, it will happen again every 10-15 years.  

What do evidence-based certifications provide that experience and degrees do not?

They provide a third-party review that validates that work meets standards.   The field must value the standards, of course.  This is a challenge for the instructional design and development world, because they have been a poor cousin to human resources whipped about by the winds of changing technologies, theories, and methodologies.  Just visit some of the social media discussion boards, everyone and their brother is promote a new theory, a new technology, or a modified methodology guaranteed to make your development more effective.  Into this chaotic stewpot, The Institute for Performance Improvement (www.tifpi.org) has provided a series evidence-based certifications specifically for instructional designers and developers.  These certifications are based on work that the ID has already done and measures that work as “insufficient”, “acceptable” or “outstanding” against nine standards.

Certified individuals can use their certification as a platform to demonstrate value.  Individuals with evidence-based certifications reviewed by field experts can ‘talk up’ the fact that their work has been reviewed and validated by experts.  This provides immediate proven value and increases ones valuableness to clients and employers.

The industry will be better off

The second set of public promises are to the industry (and employers) receiving credential holders. Credentials purport to improve the industry by setting standards  and ensuring that credential holders meet those standards.  Where the credential is evidence-based (i.e., based on work samples rather than on testing), the industry has proof that an individual has produce work to standards at least once.

While this is not proof that the individual will always do work to standards, it does increase the chances that they want to work at that level and will strive to produce work that is at least that good and, perhaps, better.

Every field has charlatans, individuals who talk a good line of schmooze but delivery poorly.  These may be individuals who are great sales people – great at selling themselves, at any rate – or just individuals who have learned how to play the smoke and mirrors game to give appearance that they are producing work, while getting others to cover for them.  

Well-structured certifications take this into account and provide techniques that will allow them to not certify individuals whose work does not warrant it.  How?  The following is not a comprehensive list, but it will show some key techniques used to weed out the charlatans.

• Blind reviews – a review where the reviewer does not know the person whose work is being reviewed and does not know who else may also be reviewing that individual’s work (a double-blind review).  Blind reviews mean that reviewer must judge the work, not the individual, their rank, or popularity.  
• Rubrics – a written description of what performances or outputs of a performance demonstrate working to standard.  Combined with any kind of expert review, rubrics provide a clear structure for evaluation of work.
• Standards –set a minimal expectation for the field.  Standards are set through a job/task analysis or a practice analysis.  These standards, then, become the measure of success in acquiring a credential, whether that success is a passing score on a knowledge test or passing rating on an evidence-based rubric in a double-blind review.    
• Proof of eligibility (e.g., experience, degrees, specific courses or schooling, passing scores and pre-test, etc.).  Where the goals is to demonstrate advanced skills, the eligibility requirements can be quite intense.  Where the goal is to set a minimal bar, the eligibility requirements will be less intense.  
• Evidence – in a testing-based certification, the evidence is knowledge validated through testing.  However, evidence-based certifications require proof of real work done for real clients.  Evidence here usually combines a reflection (an essay about the way that the candidate met that standard on the project submitted) plus artifacts or exhibits that demonstrate the standards. 
• Attestations – this letter from a client or supervisor usually attests to the fact that the individual candidate did do the work that he or she is submitting.  Attestations provide a level of assurance that the work is original and valid.  Attestations are important when working to ‘spec’ is not desired or when candidates are not given equally valid possible cases or projects against which they are measured (think of the college entrance essays).  Attestations provide a measure of reality.   
• Code of Ethics – every field has inherent ethical standards for everything from client’s information security to finances to legalities.  A signed agreement to the fields code of ethics is a starting point that says the individual pledge to behaving ethically.  However, that does not guarantee ethical behavior.  Therefore, organizations backing certifications must be empowered to respond to non-ethical behavior by removing individuals who demonstrate that they did not live up to their pledge. 
• Continuing education – certifications are time-delimited.  Some are annual, while others may be on 3-, 5-, or even 7-year renewal cycles.  Continuing education is one of the keys to renewal.  It is proof that the individual, once certified, does not sit on their laurels, but continues to grow within the field. When they ceased to grow and contribute, their certification ends.  

For a full-spectrum list of credential development techniques, consider taking courses in credential development.  Dr. Judith Hale provides a free webinar, Overview of Credentialing, that will start you down the credentialing path.  The point here is that the certification credential process is designed to bring the qualified individuals acclaim for their skills while weeding out those who do not qualify.

The general public

In every profession, there is a general public who receive the work of field and is served by individuals in the field, but who really do not know enough about the field to make informed judgments.  They know what they like and they may or may not be able to describe what they need.

Those personal perspectives are their (our) points of reference or personal needs lenses are the general public’s basis for judgment of the work in the field and practitioners.

Consider your own response to medical advice, for example.  Unless you were trained in medicine, your response is about personal perspectives and not about the science of the field.  Your personal needs lenses inform you whether you are receiving the medical care that you need and want… or not.
Likewise, as instructional designers and developers work with clients (internal or external), their work is evaluated and valued by a ‘public’ who are viewing it through their own personal needs lenses and not through the lens of work quality or working to standards.  ID’s often roll their eyes at the requests that they get from clients, but this is all about the fact that the client is unaware that their personal need lenses are interfering with their ability to get what they need.

What IDs (and any certified professional) wants is for their professional expertise to be acknowledged and valued by the general public.

In return, the general public appreciates certifications and other credentials as way to validate the practitioner in front of them has valid experience and will (probably) give them the best advice available.

Certifications help the general public feel that they are getting the best of the field; they increase confidence by the public in the practitioner.  They also ease the relationship between the certificant and the client-of-the-day by increasing that client’s confidence in them.

Are you certifiable? 

We have considered the role of the public promise of credentials (certifications, in particular) to individuals seeking certification, to the industry and employers of those certified and not certified in the field, and to the general public.  

What insights or ah-ha’s did you have while reading this?

Where these the promises you would have expected from a certification?  If not, what would you have expected?

One statement that comes up often when a new certification, like the ID certification, rolls out is: ‘Is this in demand by employers?’  Of course, for a new certification, it is not, yet, in demand.  However, this is an opportunity to be on the leading edge or on the trailing middle.   Individuals who step up to early certification build the base that causes employers and the general public to begin to, first, ‘prefer’ those who are certified and, eventually, ‘require’ the certification.  Individuals who wait, find themselves in the unenviable position of having to play catch-up when the field moves to requiring a certification.

So, are you a certifiable ID?  Check out the eligibility requires, the rubrics, the standards, and the process for application to this evidence-based credential in one of 15 different learning solutions.

Remember, you can acquire multiple ID certifications to build up your portfolio.  Each certification comes with a mark and badge.  I am now an ID (SEL) – the mark for Instructional Designer/ Developer of Synchronous Elearning.   

Join the ranks of certified IDs.  Learn how to use your current work projects to demonstrate that work to standards and deserve to be valued as an competent instructional designer or developer.

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?

IDs Use Standards: Assesses Performance

Standards are different from theories or models; they are internal lens that competent IDs use when evaluating their effectiveness and quality of the learning solution they develop.  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.  What standards do you use?

The competent instructional designer/developer (ID) assesses performance during learning:

For many, the word “assessment” equals “test”, preferably a multiple choice test.  However, there are many kinds of assessments –observation, track learning outcomes (mastery),
measurement, checklists, attestations, record assessment (e.g., polls, surveys, self-
assessments, tests, interactive activities in elearning modules, checklists, observation 
worksheet, etc.) and many different blends of those techniques.

Assessment is challenging under any condition and becomes more so within the boundaries of the learning environment.  Assessment is the ID’s opportunity to determine whether learners developed new skills and knowledges.   In creating assessments, the ID must consider 

the limitations and unique opportunities of the learning solution.  For example, self- 

contained asynchronous elearning has different assessment opportunities than does a 

coaching situation or a simulation.  In one case, there is a computer to track and measure; 

in the other, there is a human.  Both bring unique characteristics to the assessment.  Either way a rubric needs to be developed to ensure fair evaluation of all learners. 

Once the assessment tools and related rubrics have been developed, they must be tested themselves.  That is, a part of ID’s job is to test the assessment to ensure that the assessment really does assess the learning outcomes and that the scoring rubrics are fair. 

Assessment is one of the more complex portions of the ID’s work, and, often, one of the least valued. 

Case Study:  

Once upon a time, a relatively experienced ID got the assignment-of-her-life
 – to build a goal-based scenario for 24 non-traditional software programmers who would be doing code maintenance (a different process than creating new code).  The participants would be non-traditional programmers – individuals without college degrees in computer science who had received an intensive 
8-week programming language immersion.  The goal-based scenario would provide them with a mock environment of the work they would be doing and would assess their strengths in order to place them appropriately within the organization.

In a way, a goal-based scenario (also called a war-game) is a one big assessment supported by a resource-rich environment that includes text, video, 
coaching, process support, and more.  In this case, the participant 
programmers received six or seven mini-scenarios called a service ticket point (STP). The STPs were handed out over five days, so that participants never had more than 3 STPs at once, and never less than 1 STP.   Each STP reflected a typical code 
maintenance issue.  The task was for each participant in this onsite classroom-based 
war-room to identify each code issue, resolve it and document the resolution. 

Assessment included a checklist that coaches used to review the work with each individual.  The rubrics for this coached assessment could be standard across all service ticket points, 

but each mini-scenario had different skills and knowledges to demonstrate through 

resolution of the problem.   

The real challenge for this assessment had to do with the technology itself.  In order for two dozen students to simultaneously access a software system to identify and resolve a problem, each one of them had to have a separate instance of the software.  In order to have the software, available with the same problems in each instance, a programmer had to capture one version of the software and “back out” all the revisions that had bug fixes for the problems identified.  Then twenty-four copies of that older broken software environment had to be installed so that they did not conflict with current software environments.  Once installed, each had to be tested to be sure that the code was broken in the key spots and that that instance did not conflict with other instances.  Once those broken software environments were available, participants could apply their newly developed programming language skills to solving the problem.  Event coaches (expert programmers) could see how each participant had resolved the problem and could provide feedback on the way that the code was written. 

Defining the assessment environment, setting it up, and testing it was key.  However, the ID was not a programmer herself.  The ID’s role was to get the experts in these environments to do the detailed work of preparing the broken software instance, replicating, and testing it. 

Individual learners acquired a portfolio of scenarios that they had solved.  Some were able to solve all seven scenarios in five days, while others only completed five scenarios (the minimum requirement).  By allowing learners to work at their own speed, the coaches learned more about each participant’s approach to problems.  These insights helped the coaches recommend placement on specific software teams. 

This was a very complex learning and assessment solution with its complexity starting at the beginning – the need for participants to build skills in programming and problem-solving and then demonstrate that they could do the work. The complexity continued through the development of mock service tickets, the coaching evaluation rubrics, preparation of the system, preparation of the coaches, and validation that each individual completed at least the five minimum service tickets.   

In addition, the work was real-world work that could be assessed in a standardized way.  That assessment results were used to assist with placement of the newly minted coders was a bonus.  

Definition of a Standard

Consider the definition and performances listed for The Institute for Performance Improvement (TIfPI’s) Assesses Performance (during learning).

Definition:  evaluate what the learner does within the learning environment using a specific set of criteria as the measure or standard for the learner’s progress.

Performances that demonstrate this standard for a Solution Domain Badge:

·         Creates metrics or rubrics that guide the assessment of performance within the learning environment

·       Creates effective assessment tools⁽¹⁾ to support the assessment process.
·       Creates instructions for using the performance tools.
·       Pilot tests tools to assure that the tool measured the appropriate performance.
·       Modifies tools based on feedback from pilot testing.
·       Ensures that resulting data drives feedback to the learner, to the instructor, to the

     sponsoring organization, or to the instructional design process for future modification. 

(1)      Assessment tools may include any technique to observe, track, measure, or record assessment (e.g., polls, surveys, self-assessments, tests, interactive activities in elearning modules, checklists, observation worksheet, etc.)

Note that any one solution may not require the use of all 6 performances listed.  Individuals applying for learning solution badges will be asked to describe how they demonstrated at 

least 3:6 performances, two of which must be:

o   Creates metrics or rubrics that guide the assessment of performance within the learning environment.

o   Creates effective assessment tool(s) to support the assessment process.  

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 becoming 

certified in learning solution development.  Attend the next Overview of ID Badges free 

webinar.

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 Assesses performance?

www.tifpi.org 

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.