HPT Models and Concepts

Human Performance Technology exploration continues today with concepts and models. In the first reading, Welmoth, Prigmore, and Bray (2010) explore some of the major models in HPT. Then, Brethower (1999) discusses the relationship of general systems theory and behavioral psychology with regard to HPT. I'll finish up with some of my own observations.

First, let's take a look at the models, beginning with some of the early ones. Thomas Gilbert started things off in the field of HPT by stressing the importance of removing environmental barriers to performance. However, it was Joe Harless who gave us one of our first HPT models. His focus was on front-end analysis and the ADDIE stages. Later, Robert Mager's model brings in the notion of objectives focused on what you want the learner to be able to do. He provided a chart to help analyze the perceived performance problems. Geary Rummler's contribution was his focus on organizational performance, as well as individual performance.

Beyond these early ones, models can be classified as diagnostic models, process models, or holistic models. In simplest terms, diagnostic models tell us where to use HPT, while process models tell us how to use HPT. Holistic models are integrated. The four diagnostic models used as examples include William Deterline's Performer-Centered HPT Model, David Wile's Synthesized HPT Model, Tosti and Jackson's Multiple-level Model, and Danny Langdon's Language of Work Model. Many of the early models were process models. You can identify a process model by looking for five characteristics that are usually present in them. These include:

• Linear or sequential method
• Phased or grouped activities
• Gap analysis
• Intervention-oriented
• Including a feedback mechanism

 Finally, holistic models are non-linear, with overlapping domains. Examples include the Holistic HTP Model and the Three-Dimensional HPT Model. The bad news is that none of these models apply to every situation. We still have to use our critical thinking skills to determine which one to apply or adjust for the task at hand.

Underlying the models are two major concepts HPT is built upon. General Systems Theory isn't really just one concept. It actually borrows from many different concepts from many different fields. To make things simpler, Brethower (1999) conveniently breaks it up into seven principles. These are:

• Open systems - resources need to come from outside
• Information processing - exactly what it sounds like
• Guided systems - energy is directed
• Adaptive systems - also what it sounds like
• Energy channeling - prioritizing
• Environmental intelligence - understanding the environment
• Subsystem Maximization - limitations imposed by environment

Behavioral psychology relates back to behaviorism. There seems to be no end to the ways behaviorism can be linked back to every aspect of IT. In this case, it is used to determine why people do what people do. Once we know that, we can link it back to general systems theory, which tells us what people need to do to thrive, and come up with good solutions to performance problems.

Half of my professional life is spent designing and/or maintaining professional development programs and resources. When I look at my own methods of addressing performance problems, I notice I tend toward the process models more than the diagnostic models. I'm not completely sure why, and will have to give that some thought. Perhaps, it is simply that I'm new to all this. There is some evidence that novices need the crutch of a process to follow until they are confident enough to branch out from that. Maybe the rapid design world I live in does not allow me the time to think diagnostically. It will be interesting to see how I develop in this topic area as I continue with my program.

Resources

Brethower, D. M. (1999). General systems theory and behavioral psychology. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of Human Performance Technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 67-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer. 

Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010). HPT models In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 5-26). Silver Spring, MD: International Soceity for Performance Improvement.

What is HPT and How Do You Do It?

There might be a pattern to all of this. I've seen a lot of articles and discussions in social media about whether or not universities should offer, much less require, courses in the foundations of IST. After exploring these foundations over the past several weeks, I have to say I am on the side of offering the courses. This exploration has been eye-opening for me and helped me understand my field better. After this week's readings, I'm seeing how all the topics flow into each other.

A few weeks were devoted to the theories underlying instructional technology - behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist theories - as well as where these fit into the history of IT. These theories popped up again in the readings about Human Performance Technology (HPT). Reading the history of HPT was like re-reading the history of the IT field. Both Ferond (2006) and Stolovitch (2007) cover the historical foundations of this popular area of IT.

Once upon a time, people learned how to do their jobs through apprenticeships. This remained the same for a very long time, much like methods of teaching in education. Then came the Industrial Revolution. There were lots of theories about how to increase the productivity of workers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  By the nineteenth century people figured out that miserable employees weren't productive, and we need a literate workforce. That second point tied back into the history of IT again, because education is required for literacy. Frederick Taylor promoted the idea of employees as extensions of the machines being used in the factories where they worked.

Eventually, the focus switched to the worker, much like the focus in education turned to the learner. this happened in the 20s and 30s. HPT became goal-oriented rather than productivity-oriented. Notice that this is also around the time that behaviorist theory was developing with John Watson. In fact, the father of HPT Thomas Gilbert was a graduate student of B. F. Skinner. When cognitivist theorists started exploring how it is that learners learn, they were also influencing the field of HPT and performance improvement as managers tried to determine why learning wasn't always enough to get the results they wanted. Robert Mager influenced education with his focus on instructional objectives, but he also influenced HPT by suggesting training wasn't always the answer. As with education, HPT felt the influence of the audiovisual movement and changes brought about during World War II.

The field of HPT inspired the formation of professional organizations. Just as DAVI experienced a major shift in focus and became AECT, the National Society of Programmed Instruction (NSPI) became the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) after an influx of businesspeople into the organization. Both education and HPT are also being influenced by our age of questioning. While instructional technologists question whether we might need some new theories, HPT experts are questioning whether they might need some new models. This brings us right back to the trends and issues readings of the past couple of weeks.

Pershing (2006) and Van Tiem, et. al. (2004) take a look at different models and approaches to HPT. It's interesting to compare the two definitions of HPT these authors offer. Van Tiem, et. al. (2004) is pretty straightforward. "PT is a systematic, comprehensive approach to improving job performance" (p. 6). Pershing (2006) gets a little more verbose with it. The definition given here is "the study and ethical practice of improving productivity in organizations by designing and developing effective interventions that are results-oriented, comprehensive, and systemic" (p. 6). They both agree on it being comprehensive, a point that seemed to be criticized in the articles blasting ISD recently.

Pershing's Performance Improvement Model begins with perception analysis, where one asks who, how, and why. Then, one looks at the mission, goals, and objectives of the organization. This includes looking at values, norms, culture, structure, performance, and environment. Next comes performance analysis. Pershing stresses the importance of moving from a macro vision to a micro vision in this part of the process. Then, one selects the best interventions. Out of these interventions, which are the most feasible? Only then does design, development, and implementation come into play. Finally, evaluation is conducted and feedback given. While this model may at first appear linear, Pershing (2006) is quick to write, "At any given time in the process, one may have taken five steps forward and have to go back two or three steps to collect and analyze new data and change or modify responses to those data" (p. 27).

The Human Performance Technology Model described by Van Tiem, et. al. (2004) begins with performance analysis. This stage includes a look at the organizations, the gaps, and the environment. Next comes cause analysis, followed by intervention selection, design, and development. This is followed by implementation of interventions, which is then followed by evaluation. On the whole, these two models do not appear that different. They both are heavily modeled after the ADDIE approach. I can imagine the people complaining about ISD having plenty to say against both of these models. Yet, all of the authors this week seem to think HPT isn't going anywhere.

It is apparent from these readings that the history and theories of HPT and educational technology have coincided significantly. There are obviously many different views of how this performance improvement thing should be done. Some think it is time for a change. Others think it's all good. Now that we are a few years beyond these articles, I find it interesting to note that HPT has come full circle. For the past couple of years, the idea of apprenticeship has been making a comeback in the research, theory, and practice of workplace development. It will be interesting to see where the future leads us.

References

Ferond, C. (2006). The origins and evolution of human performance technology. In Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 155-187). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Pershing, J. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.) (2006), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 5-34). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Stolovitch, H. D. (2007). The development and evolution of human performance improvement In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 134-146). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Education.

Van Tiem, D. M., Mosely, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2004). Performance technology - defined. In Fundamentals of performance technology. (pp. 2-20). Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.

The Two Debates

People love to to debate issues. Apparently, the movers and shakers of instructional technology are no different. This has been evidenced by the interesting back and forth between Clark and Kozma regarding the place of media in instructional technology. Another issue addressed in this week's readings involved whether or not ISD is dead. Both issues brought up some interesting questions.

First, does media play a role in learning in and of itself? Apparently, back in the 80s, Richard Clark wrote an article claiming that media have no impact on learning. In fact, it is instructional method that is holds the key. A decade later, Robert Kozma (1994) doesn't really argue this claim, but he does suggest an obligation (or at least an opportunity) to make media impact learning. He thinks researcher's holding on to Behaviorist beliefs is the key to why this has not happened yet. He argues that research needs to embrace a more cognitivist and constructivist point of view to move forward. He supports his argument by exploring ThinkerTools and the Jasper Woodbury Series. He calls for researchers to search for what causes learning to occur. He calls practitioners to design media that produces new methods.

This challenge does not go unanswered. Clark (1994) responds with an article of his own in response both to Kozma and his other critics. He states that his claim that media have no real effect on learning is not new news. Many others established this fact before him. One challenge he received was that it was the attributes of media that influenced learning, not the whole of media. Clark responds that if another attribute achieves the same goal, then it cannot be the attribute that influenced the learning. He further states that if multiple attributes achieve the same goal, then we have a responsibility to choose the least expensive route. Many critics stated that method and media are the same. His response is that any given medium is capable of a number of methods. Another argument is that research has shown learning benefits from different media. His response to that is those studies failed to control for method of instruction. One critic argued that his claim that method of instruction is the key was empirical. Clark did not argue, but stated the claim was just a hypothesis. Throughout the rest of his article, he basically says the same thing in several different ways. Essentially, he continues to assert that research does not control for instructional methods when determining the success of media for learning.

Another hot debate in the field is whether or not ISD is dead. One thing was clear from my readings. Ron Zemke really likes the phrase "stripped to its shorts" to refer to the intrinsic place of ADDIE within ISD. The phrase shows up in both the articles. The April 2000 article touches on some of the arguments given by trainers who believe ISD's time has passed. The first argument is that it is too slow of a process. The second argument is that it doesn't ever really reach its goal. Third, the solutions it produces are not good ones. Finally, it is stuck in the past. The follow up article in February 2002 summarizes some of the debate that happened following that article. Some argued that ISD isn't the problem, but the way it is used. Some argued the complaints were about older versions of ISD. While some criticize what they see as a linear, systematic method with not enough flexibility, others felt that it provided a sense of professionalism. Still others argued that the problem was not enough ISD, not too much.

With regard to the media debate, I don't believe I agree with Clark or Kozma. If I had to agree with something, I would say I lean toward Clark's view that method is more important than media. I don't believe media can ever truly replace human interaction, though some advancements in artificial intelligence make me wonder. I certainly do not agree that we should force media to replace method, any more than I believe we should design online learning around the tools we want to use rather than choosing the best tools for the content. I think media is a necessary enhancement to method for learning. It's like the Benadryl IV they give you prior to a procedure requiring twilight sleep (where you are sedated but conscious, and don't remember it afterwards). The Benadryl makes the anesthesia work better, but you don't want to have the procedure done on the Benadryl alone.

As for the ISD debate, I simply cannot relate to it. Perhaps, this debate sparked changes in the field that addressed all these problems, because instructional design today seems to be very flexible. I was always taught that ADDIE was a guide, not really a model, and as we have seen in all the different models throughout the history of the field, not everyone considers it a linear process. I've seen ISD correct the same kinds of problems the articles were discussing. For example, the statements about training that didn't produce results struck me as strange. I use instructional design to correct that problem. I've not ever seen it cause the problem. So, maybe I've just been spoiled by getting my education at a time when these issues aren't related to IST, or maybe my experiences simply do not match other people's. It will be interesting to see what others have to say about it.

References

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21- 29.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42-53.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. ETR&D, 42(2), 7-19.

Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26-34.

Is History Repeating?

This week I'm exploring the big picture history of Instructional Technology. Two themes emerged as I read through the material. First, new technologies are slow to find their ways into the hearts and classrooms of everyday teachers, particularly in the K-12 environment. Second, Europe has consistently been ahead of the United States with regard to adopting new technologies into the educational systems.

Michael Molenda (2008) takes his readers through the history beginning with the Sophists, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They were some of the first to emphasize the importance of cognition and critical thinking. Later, Comenius introduced us to classroom management and the importance of play as a tool for learning. Then, came the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, opening us up to new worlds of educational media.

New forms of media mark the milestones of IT history from that point forward. Molenda (2008) starts with slide projectors using handpainted slides and oil lamps until the oil lamps were replaced by incandescent bulbs. He says, "Silent films began to be used in schools as early as 1910' (p. 6). This led to catalogs of available films and educational museums. Eventually, folks figured out that the media was not as important as how the media was used, this was the same conclusion people came to with regard to the teaching machines of Behaviorism. Yet, Reiser (2007) reminds us that not everyone thought that way. He states that some people felt teachers were just another tool, not the primary mover in the instructional transaction.

In 1910 the phonograph brought sound into availability to add to the visual elements. Unfortunately, the educational system preferred the visuals without sound so that teachers could modify them for individual purposes. All this new media and the discussion about how to best use it led to the development of organizations devoted to audiovisuals in the 1920s. Then came educational radio. This one was a hit. Yet, it still wasn't really incorporated into lesson plans, again because teachers didn't find it flexible enough. All of these forms of media were quite popular in Europe, particularly Britain and France. The big names with regard to educational radio were the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), NHK in Japan, and CBC in Canada. In the U.S., Reiser (2007) states that "while the field continued to grow, the educational community at large was not greatly affected by that growth" (p. 19).

World War II created a successful platform for the use of films for educational and propaganda purposes for all parties involved. The military uses of media had a tremendous impact on instructional technology, as this was the context where best practices for instruction were tested and studied. That said, Molenda (2008) states, "Most of the basic research on visual and auditory perception has been done outside the field of educational technology" (p. 9). Despite its use in adult settings, K-12 teachers were not jumping on the bandwagon. They claimed a lack of convenient accessibility to the materials as a barrier.

The BBC found itself, once again, in the forefront with educational television as early as the 1930s. The war had a large influence on this medium, as well. By the 1950s educational television was being broadcast directly in schools in Britain, Canada, and the U.S. Cognitivism changed the way TV was being used in the classrooms. Rather than just replacing lecture, it was suggested that TV become more participative. As television became a common item, it's value as a tool in developing countries became apparent. At the same time, television for instruction in the U. S. was waning due to cost and resistance by teachers. Then, came the 80's and the advent of widespread computer use. At the same time models for instructional technology were becoming more widespread. The creation of new audio-visuals and other products became a separate area of specialization.

Molenda (2008) focuses on the various paradigm shifts throughout the history from behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism, to a blending of the the three. The latter had much to do with computers in education. Once again, we see the pattern of teachers not really using them in day-to-day instruction. Reiser (2007) states that they had little influence as late as the mid 90s. What struck me as I was reading this was that computers actually came to my school system before educational television, and I was in relatively small schools. My graduating class was only 210 people. I took my first computer class in 1988. It was at least three years later before they installed televisions in our homerooms to broadcast a student news program. They were short-lived.

Then came the Internet. Once again, Britain jumped on this new technology and its value for education with its Open University. Now, distance education is everywhere, but many traditional universities are slow to offer entire degree programs via distance learning. However, they have been quick to incorporate these technologies in their face-to-face programs. Is history repeating itself? It does not appear so. What makes this medium different? Why did the other types of media have such a hard time breaking into mainstream education, while Internet-based technologies have been embraced? Reiser (2007) has a few theories. He believes their versatility and interactivity play a role. What do you think?

Molenda, M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merriënboer, & M. P. Dirscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-20). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Reiser, R. A. (2007). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 17-34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.