9
Training Design and Considerations in the Use of Instructor-Led, Web-Based Training of Adults
Introduction
Although there are many models of training design, one common model follows the acronym of ADDIE. Each successive initial represents the steps of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. Rigorous adherence to the principles underlying these five steps is an effective common model path for developing instruction in any context. A full description of how to apply these principles can be found in the book, The Systematic Design of Instruction (Dick et al., 2005).
To distill the discussion of the training development process to its basic elements, we look at the who, what, when, where, why, and how of training development. Subsequently, the discussion addresses some of the issues inherent in the use of three common methodologies currently used in safety training: instructor-led training (ILT), Web-based training (WBT), and on-the-job training (OJT). To introduce how effective safety training is developed and implemented, I first question who will be trained.
Who
Who will be taking this training? In training terms, this group of people is termed the target audience. Each member of a target audience comes to training with preexisting knowledge, behaviors, abilities, and attitudes. This information is rarely known or demonstrated. Despite the heterogeneity of any population, prior knowledge of your audience is extremely useful when developing or delivering training.
Your target audience’s preexisting behaviors and abilities may align with meeting your instructional goal. These may be as rudimentary as being able to converse in the instructional language, write, or read or as complex as technical proficiency in the safe operation of lasers. However, other behaviors may be counter to your instructional goal. Knowing what behaviors and abilities are present can help when framing course content and instructional methodology.
Prior knowledge of the instructional topic may be found in your target population, ranging from highly detailed procedural knowledge to vague misconceptions of how to safely operate lasers and every possible permutation thereof. Attempting to instruct without knowing the prior knowledge of your audience limits the possibility of linking new information with existing information, correcting misconception, and constructing new understanding.
The attitudes of your audience toward the content you will be teaching, the way in which you deliver the instruction, and even the training organization itself are crucial to the success of your training. Some audiences find PowerPoint lectures boring, while others do not appreciate small group simulations or a presenter with a poor reputation. The tools you use, how you present the content, and who presents the content are likely to be most effective if they meet the expectations of your audience.
As you might imagine, knowing what your audience brings to the table can dramatically alter the instructional methodology.
What
Training in laser safety, as with all training, begins with a clear instructional goal (the what). Behaviors that prevent the loss of life, health, and property define safety practices. Therefore, good safety training instructional goals describe observable safe behaviors. Although it may be important for a learner to know or understand certain information regarding laser operation, ultimately it is the correct application of that knowledge that results in safety. For instance, a laser operator may know how to correctly place beam blocks, but without translating this knowledge into action, an unsafe condition arises. If the operator is to be trained in the correct placement of beam blocks, a head knowledge of beam block placement is not adequate. In this example, a clear instructional goal, aligned with the desired outcome, states precisely that on completing the course of instruction the operator will demonstrate the correct placement of beam blocks.
Stating what the learner will be able to demonstrate is a first step in defining the instructional goal. The next step is to define the conditions under which the safe behavior will be performed. The variety of lasers and contexts in which lasers are used creates an array of conditions that may vary the process for correctly placing beam blocks. Unless the planned instruction will cover all contexts for the placement of beam blocks, the instructional goal needs to define the specific performance context (location, laser type, tools available, personal protective equipment needed, etc.).
After defining the desired end behavior and the context in which it will be performed, a final area requires clarification. Suppose on reaching the end of the instruction, the learner declares himself or herself able to correctly place beam blocks in the defined context. From the instructor’s perspective, there is little basis for denying the operator’s claim because there is no communicated criteria for correct placement. To have a basis for evaluating training effectiveness, learner retention, and instructor efficacy, there must be a clear behavioral standard against which to compare the learner’s new behaviors.
Before developing any instruction, establish instructional goals that define desired behaviors, the context in which those behaviors will be demonstrated, and the criteria by which the behaviors will be judged. Failing to delineate these three components will result in a breakdown of the instructional process.
When
When should training take place? In asking this question, it may be important to consider factors such as the time of day when training occurs, whether it is delivered inside or outside the work day, how many times a year, and so on. Some of these factors may be outside a training manager’s control. However, a careful analysis of when the safe behaviors need to be performed and a subsequent alignment of the training to support the temporal parameters of the job will make for more effective training. For instance, if the performance context requires the behavior be demonstrated 20 times in the course of a morning but never in the afternoon, then the training context is most effective by attempting to mimic this behavior pattern during the morning.
Though the external timing of when training takes place is pertinent to learning, the more complex question addresses when trainees are most receptive to learning. In the field of education, there is a term used to describe the moment at which the learner is receptive due to an opportune set of circumstances. This is termed a teachable moment. Another concept defines the moment when an unexpected outcome occurs. This is called expectation failure (Schank, 2002). In addressing the question regarding when employees learn most effectively, I would state that the most effective learning moment occurs when expectation failure occurs and the learner wants to understand why. Effective training strives to create these moments. Many of the factors influencing when training occurs operate outside the control of trainers and training developers. However, they can influence what happens within the defined time frame of training. The best training is the best training because it generates failures of expectation, drawing the learner into the learning process.
Where
There are two wheres of instruction important to training. The first is the context in which the training is used. This is called the performance context. When developing the instructional goal, the performance context is considered to define which environmental factors are critical to the desired behavior. However, beyond these factors, it is useful to know other performance context factors that may influence the learner’s ability to put training to use. These factors might include elements such as managerial support, the physical condition of the facility or equipment, and the social dimensions of the work environment. Although not an all-inclusive list, some understanding of whether the training will be supported by the performance context helps making decisions about instructional design.
The second where of training is the training environment itself, also referred to as the learning context. The greater the discrepancy between the learning context and the performance context, the less likely it is that training will transfer to the job. Practical constraints to delivering training in the training performance environment may exist, though it is often the ideal training situation. If the goal is to have beam blocks set in such and such a manner with a certain laser in a certain facility, then the best training will simulate beam block setting in such and such a manner with the desired laser in the desired facility. Although the ability to generalize behaviors to a variety of contexts may be more valuable than knowing one set of behaviors specific to one context, in general the more inclusive the instructional goal is, the more complex the resulting instruction will need to be to successfully meet the goal. Conversely, the more narrowly performance behavior can be defined and then paralleled in training, typically transfer from training to performance and is more direct.
Why
Why training? Another way to ask this question is, What is determining the need for training? In the safety training industry, regulations and standards often require documented communication of safety processes and policies. In some cases, training might be appropriate in satisfying these mandates. Similarly, there may be organizational goals to reduce incidents, lost workdays, and the like that are based in good business practice. Again, sometimes the pursuit of these goals is served through specific training initiatives. However, it is wise to consider when there is an institutional push for new training, if in fact training will deliver the desired change in behavior. A careful analysis of the factors underlying current unsafe practices may reveal that there are other latent organizational weaknesses that permit an unsafe environment to exist, and training is unlikely to have the desired effect. In creating effective training, it is important to determine early on that training can be effective in addressing a given problem.
How
Having laid a foundation of who the target audience is, what specific goal will be addressed by training, and when and where to deliver training, we now have a basis for addressing how training might be implemented. Somewhat anticlimactically, however, there is no single definitive methodology for great training. However, aiming for alignment between performance and training contexts is a useful guiding principle as decisions are made about how to deliver information and practice new behaviors. Three common contexts in which training occurs are ILT, WBT, and OJT. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses and is covered here. However, regardless of the method, there are some common instructional components summarized next that are typically a part of good instruction (Dick et al., 2005).
Summary Of Learning Components IN A Typical Instructional Strategy
Preinstructional activities
Gain attention and motivate learners
Describe objectives
Describe and promote recall of prerequisite skills
Content presentation
Content
Examples
Learner participation
Practice
Feedback
Evaluation
Entry behavior test
Pretest
Posttest
Follow-through activities
Memory aids for retention
Transfer considerations
In brief, preinstructional activities set up the delivery of the core content. Gaining the attention of the learner and motivating the learner to engage in the new content is colloquially referred to as hooking the audience. This is a prime opportunity in which to create the previously noted expectation failure. It is also helpful for the learner to have a clear sense of what he or she will be expected to know and be able to do at the conclusion of the instruction (objectives) and to understand what prior knowledge or skills will be needed to assimilate the new material.
Content presentation contains the new material and examples of how to apply procedures, stories showing how the new behavior is effective, and so on. This leads directly to learner participation in which the new content is manipulated in a manner that aligns with the instructional goal. Feedback is provided in this stage, and the learner is coached toward performing to a certain standard.
Evaluation does not always occur in the three ways noted in the summary, although a posttest is most often present. However, effective training will often evaluate entry behaviors to ascertain whether learners have the basic information needed to assimilate new content. Also, pretesting provides a baseline measure against which final performance can be assessed. This is critical for measuring training effectiveness. Typically, if only a posttest is given, the end of a course assessment simply measures knowledge transfer under the assumption that learners did not know any of the information coming into the course. This may be reasonable in many cases. However, a good assessment program, aligned with the instructional goal, looks beyond knowledge transfer to behavioral change. As a side note, organizations often look at training effectiveness as it translates to improved organizational performance. For more on this and further discussion of evaluation, see Donald Kirkpatrick and James Kirkpatrick’s Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (2006).
Considerations In Instructor-Led Training
Instructors do make a difference in training effectiveness. An exceptional instructor is often the essential factor in making a course great. Conversely, a poor instructor can dramatically degrade a learning experience. An instructor’s content knowledge and teaching experience are tied closely to his or her effectiveness as an instructor, but of themselves do not guarantee quality instruction. What gives ILT its value is a good instructor’s ability to connect content to learners’ needs, knowledge, and backgrounds. In addition, as the instructor draws a group of learners into the process of creating meaning from the presented information, there is a synergistic learning dynamic that results, capitalizing on the social aspects of ILT.
Depending on how ILT is designed, some of its strengths lie in using familiar learning strategies, a classroom environment dedicated to instruction, the potential for customized instruction, and access to a master of the material. ILT has an additional benefit of being able to be revised relatively easily. As the content evolves, an instructor can add or subtract material to accommodate the changes. In general, an instructor-led course can be developed in a shorter time frame than instruction delivered through other methods. This is in part due to the instructor’s often serving as the expert in the subject matter as well as the de facto instructional designer and developer. Finally, every set of learners in a classroom has a unique mix of characteristics that create sometimes dramatic differences in the target audience. A strength of ILT, with a good instructor, is the ability to flexibly use those differences to enhance the instructional process rather than allowing them to serve as limitations.
The weaknesses of ILT largely tie to not only costs for materials and the instructor’s time, but also indirect costs such as room rental, learners’ time away from producing a product, and travel costs. In addition, instructors can be in only one place at a time, limiting the number of times a course can be offered in a given time frame. If there are a large number of students to be trained in a short period of time, this can be a substantial drawback. Also once the course is over, it may be difficult to personally access an instructor’s expertise, so there is a limited window of time in which learning must be accomplished. Because not all people learn at the same rate, this can also be problematic if new standards of behavior must be established in a short time frame. Finally, the effectiveness of ILT decreases as the number of learners per instructional session increases. Thoroughly understanding our target audience to effectively meet the instructional goal becomes increasingly difficult as the learning population grows in number and inherent diversity. Therefore, the scalability of ILT can become an issue.
Considerations In Web-Based Training
The label Web-based training encompasses a variety of strategies for using the communication capabilities of networked computers. For the sake of this discussion, I focus on general issues related to WBT rather than dissecting each variation.
The strength of WBT rests in on-demand access to training, scalability, and long-term cost reduction as compared to ILT. WBT development often requires technically skilled specialists with high pay rates. However, beyond the up-front development costs and those associated with putting a technological infrastructure in place, there are minimal costs associated with the maintenance and ongoing delivery of instruction. Also, there is theoretically no limit to the number of people who can access a Web-based course, assuming the infrastructure can handle the data flow. Perhaps its greatest strength, however, resides in the learner’s ability to access information needed when the need is immediate. This is sometimes referred to as just-in-time training and aligns with the teachable moment concept introduced earlier.
Major weaknesses of WBT are its reliance on software and hardware that changes regularly, its reduced ability to be revised cheaply and quickly (compared with ILT), and its incapacity to provide specific feedback attuned to the unique needs of the individual learner. The reliance on changing software and hardware creates ongoing compatibility issues, necessitating upgrades to ensure that the training is readily available to a wide variety of learners accessing the information from a variety of workstations. Likewise, because many Web-based courses have customized multimedia assets or learning interactions (video or audio files, animations, branching scenarios, etc.), a content change can involve hours of technical revisions. Web-based instruction tends to be inherently cookie cutter in its delivery, unable to morph to the unique characteristics of an individual learner, much less a diverse population of learners. However, this same attribute can be considered a positive characteristic when the content is standardized and must be consistently delivered, as in compliance-driven industries.
Unless the performance environment involves the use of a computer, there can be a considerable misalignment between the performance context and a WBT context. Good instruction strives to align the learning context with the performance context. As the availability of realistic Web-based scenarios and simulations increases, context discrepancy in WBT may decrease. Until that point, however, although there are potential cost savings by using WBT, there may be minimal behavioral transfer from one context to the other. This reiterates the principle that the methodology used to deliver training must align with the instructional goal and that the instructional goal must clearly delineate the context in which the desired behavior is to be performed.
Often, WBT takes place in the context of the learners’ typical working environment, and this is indeed a potential strength of the method in that it does not necessitate travel costs that might be associated with ILT. But, the typical work environment also has a host of distractions (phones ringing, colleague interruptions, intermittent computer access, etc.) that can interfere with the effectiveness of the training. There are clearly some trade-offs to consider in choosing WBT and some challenges to address if it is the chosen strategy.
ILT offers a defined time and space in which there is a social expectation to participate in the learning process. WBT, on the other hand, often leaves the learner isolated from a social context, and participation is subject to the individual’s intrinsic motivation. Motivating a learner to engage in the learning process in a WBT environment is a major challenge, often addressed through mandates with an associated reward or punishment system. Even so, participation rates are traditionally lower in socially isolated WBT than in more socially contextualized learning. WBT that capitalizes on the use of peer-to-peer technologies has a demonstrably greater effectiveness than individual WBT.
WBT technologies are undergoing a tremendous evolution with a major thrust toward reducing the time needed to generate a training product through the use of rapid e-learning software. It will be interesting to see if the ability of WBT to address the diverse needs of large training audiences will evolve to a greater degree also.
On-The-Job Training
Chapter 10 presents the discussion of OJT.
REFERENCES
Dick, W., Carey, L., and Carey, J. O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. and Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Schank, R. (2002). Designing World-Class E-Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.