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 Use Standards: Collaborates and Partners

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) collaborates and partners:

Whom do you include on your learning solution development team?  Subject/content experts?  Project sponsors?  A other IDs working on specific parts and pieces of the whole?  Perhaps more importantly, have you ever developed a learning solution that did NOT require some degree of collaboration and partnership?

At its most basic, collaboration is working together for a creative end product, while partnering is sharing risk.  In the business world, risk tends to be related to finances (on budget), which also translate to ‘on time’, within staffing and resourcing, and producing the desired end product (or better). 

Who on your teams share the risk of an instructional design and development project.   Consider what each of these players brings to your projects that helps manage the risks of that project:

• Sponsoring manager or executive
• Subject/content experts
• Project lead, manager, or executive
• Learning technologist
• Graphic artist
• Audio/videographer
• Technical writer
• Other instructional designers

Typically, what are the risks in a learning project?  For example, consider the impact of not being able to work with subject expert who can give you the time and materials you need.  Or, consider the times when the sponsor made decisions without understanding the impact, then required rework when the results were not acceptable.   Think about a time when the project had a specialist such as graphic artist, videographer, or technical writer was not included in the project, only to require much more time for a lower quality product.  Now, think of time when you worked with another ID who wasn’t quite holding up their end of the project.  What was the impact?  And, a time when the IDs were in tune with each other and going the extra mile together?  What was the impact of that?  Or, consider the management of the project.  Have you ever played both the instructional designer and the project manager roles, simultaneously?  Have you worked on large projects with a strong project manager?  Were the risks handled differently?  Risk is an essential element of learning solution development projects and the right team makes all the difference.

Look at the list of partners one more time.  Notice the number of partners that there for “creative” purposes – visuals, sound, animation, quality writing.  Collaboration, by the definition, is working together for a creative purpose.  We sometimes forget that instructional design and development are creative endeavors.   Check out Business Insider article, The Difference Between Creativity and Innovation, by Andrew (Drew) C. Marshall, and innovation consultant, of Principal of Primed Associates, an innovation consultancy.

“Creativity is about unleashing the potential of the mind to conceive new ideas. […] Innovation is about introducing change into relatively stable systems. It’s also concerned with the work required to make an idea viable.”

Instructional design is a premier example of creativity and innovation… or can be, when it is well done.   There is creativity in the design. Then more creativity is by all those partners added during development.  Then, if done right, the learning solution unleashes new potentials in the mind of the learner as well.  (A vote for learning as a creative act.)  Add in the innovations.  For learning to be effective, the learning solution itself is a change that is introduced in a relatively stable system, whether we consider that system the individual learner or the business.  Innovation is also the work required to make an idea viable.  Anyone who has worked on a learning solution that is addressing a unique challenge (e.g., tight timelines, limited resources, new and untested technologies, new methodologies, new theoretical basis) knows that much creativity is required for the problem identification and ideation of a solution, and that more creativity and innovation are required to make it real.   Yes, instructional design is a creative and innovative field and most learning solutions require creativity and innovation. 

The greater the degree of creativity and innovation involved, the more important the collaborations and partnerships become.  In systems (businesses) that are risk-adverse, the work of partnering may take over the work of collaborating.  That is, a key challenge of a high-risk project in a risk-adverse organization is that the partnership work takes over in an attempt to minimize the risks and preempts the creative-innovative work, which effectively stalls the project. 

The quality of an end-product learning solution is directly related to quality of collaborations and partnerships involved. 

Case Study:  

Once upon a time long, long ago (well, 15 years ago, anyway), a team of instructional designers was called in to create a learning solution for 5,000 industry-specific software installation project managers around the world.  Their company was installing a project management software to help bring down the cost of software installations.  The team was called in 60 days before ‘go live’ on the project management software (and the end of the calendar year) and 45 days before the first training course needed to occur.  The challenges of this project included a short timeline, new technology, a process definition that had not defined key actors current or future roles, and the fact that one could not bring in 5,000 people into headquarters in the last 15 days of the calendar year, when most employees had already scheduled their vacations.  In addition, the essential processes, steps, functions, actions (i.e., the course content) required of software users was not, yet, defined and would continue to change during the 6 months following ‘go live’ as new software modules were added.  

The learning solution design and development team brought the essential number of learners down to 500 who were key, and 150 high-profile project executives (PEs) that were essential and began brainstorming solutions that would work best for this group.  In the end, the solution created an electronic performance support (EPS or EPSS) that allowed subject experts to change process documentation and provided supporting information such as screen shots, video clips of key steps, diagrams, and a process workflow that matched the audience’s essential workflow from initiating a project to closing it.  Since these projects were multimillion-dollar projects, the project financial officers were key to project success; they tracked staffing hours, deliverables, invoiced clients and tracked payments.  They were the stability of a project that would run for several years.  Therefore, they were trained as coaches to the PEs and set up with a 2-hour webinar that would get their PEs started.  The solution set both creative and innovative in that nothing like that had been done in this company and the technologies involved were emerging.  

This was a high-risk project with many opportunities for failure.  Luckily, the organization involved was risk-tolerant and willing to provide partners who actively helped the team work through the issues.  The design and development team were experienced at creative-innovate designs and solutions under tight timelines. Together they made it happen.

This project was unique in so many ways.  However, many instructional design and development projects are just that – unique.  Collaborative creativity and innovation paired with strong partners working toward an essential goal are key hallmarks of almost all learning solutions. 

Definition of a Standard – Collaborates and Partners 

Consider the definition and performances listed for The Institute for Performance Improvement (TIfPI’s) standard, Collaborates and Partners.

Definition:  Works jointly with sponsors and other members of the solution development team to develop the solution.Performances that demonstrate this standard for a Solution Domain Badge: 

• Addresses sponsor’s issues and needs by listening to requests for modifications, offering solutions to modification requests, and reporting progress.

• Participates in the project team through: 
1. Identification of project issues
2. Meeting attendance
3. Regular reporting
4. Generating ideas to resolve issues, improve sustainability, and enhance learning solution.

• Negotiates changes to solution involving other team members during development and solution testing.

• Plans solution product tests that validate with the sponsor and intended audience that the right solution elements have been developed.

• Executes product tests including reporting results of tests.

• Works with content experts to identify content, relevant work processes and procedures, and appropriate feedback and assessment technique.

Note that any one solution may not require the use of all 6 performances listed.  Individuals applying for learning solution certifications with marks and badges will be asked to describe how he or she demonstrated at least 3:5 performances, one of which must be: identifies key partners and collaborators by role.

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.  Get the IDCertification Handbook or just visit www.tifpi.org.

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 Collaborates and Partners?   Would you like a copy of the infographic with standards and learning solution certification types?  Download these doucuments.  

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: 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.