While these commercials are entertaining, coming from an English and media background, I tend to look at these ads a little differently. Back in 1984, Apple really did change the way advertisements were made. They took a cinematic approach to their ad that has been copied for almost 30 years and pushed advertisers to sell their products differently. If you’re interested in reading more about the history of that commercial, take a look at this paper by Ted Friedman.

As we enter into this weekend, think about how much advertising and propoganda students are subject to in today’s world of mobile devices and always on access to information. Do your students recognize what they are being sold? Is it a product or an image? A “way of life” or something tangible that they can have and touch? What kinds of conversations do we, as teachers, need to have with students around the role of the constant stream of media that is a part of our lives. Regardless of the subject you teach, you have an opportunity to ask some questions about the messages that your students see in the advertising this weekend. Frank Baker, a noted media literacy specialist, has compiled a list of questions around the Super Bowl ads that could be a starting point for class discussions next week. I encourage you to check them out.

Through the article Min Kyu addresses four types of technology-enhanced learning environments to meet his goal of delineating how these environments can promote the design of workplace learning (2011). Through this case study, the author identifies both performance problems and solutions, but spends the bulk of the article writing about the different solutions that were implemented. What I found interesting about the approach is that there were multiple interventions provided for all employees to better meet their learning needs. At any point, an employee could turn to a variety of systems to provide the information or learning module that they need at any given moment. Providing these multiple layers of support differentiates for learning styles as well as serving immediate needs in the field.

The first TELE created was an Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) designed to provide on-demand access to information and learning tools to enable a worker in their positions (2011). In this instance the company integrated this system through PDA’s allowing for on and offline access at any moment that would ultimately allow the employee to serve the customers better. Min Kyu defines this as “planned learning”, and in this system, it replaced much of the training efforts around new regulations and policies by allowing employees to look up pertinent information at any time. This reminded me of a recent change in teaching practice to move towards a more engaged student by teaching them less of the “facts” of a lesson and instead bringing in more of the thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving. Basically, if it is “Googleable”, is it really something that should be assessed or are those facts a means to a greater end than whether or not the student can regurgitate information.

The second environment deals with more formalized learning in the form of modules that can be completed in a short time. Min Kyu refers to this as e-learning, and in the end, the information that is housed in these modules becomes part of the EPSS and accessible at any moment. The author didn’t clarify this point in the article, but I think one of the most meaningful ways that this process could occur for an employee would be through a scaffolding system where the employee would need to complete the module and learning exercises first and then have them integrated in their EPSS account. This would provide motivation for completing the module and then would give them continued access to the information once the module is completed.

The third environment is known as a knowledge management system (KMS). This is an online space where employees can share information with each other offering advice, coaching and experience to colleagues. Defined as informal learning, a KMS provides a record of the knowledge that these employees have of the business and gives new employees the resources to learn about their positions in the workplace rather than in a classroom. I can see how mentoring and e-coaching become more manageable and accessible in this kind of online system and could provide much needed support amongst all employee groups.

The final environment is a Community of Practice (CoP) that is similar to the KMS system in that its purpose is to connect people. In this case an online community is created with a team leader and those who report to him or her. It’s a platform for information to be shared and discussed resulting in more incidental learning based on circumstance and immediate need.

Having multiple ways of accessing information can be of great use to learners, but I also wonder how effective the systems will be if they don’t interact well together. In my own experience in school districts, I can access information in many different ways but each of these ways seem to be in a silo so I have to get one piece of information here, but then I have to go somewhere else to get other information that I need for that same project or problem. Even if I had everything in one spot, if it’s not organized well, I’d still have problems finding what I need. I think this is where the system’s design comes into play and the interoperability must be part of the design process from the very beginning.

References

Min Kyu, K. (2011). Technology-enhanced learning environments to solve performance problems: a case of a Korean company. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 55(1), 37-41.

When the authors wrote about culture, they framed it in two very important ways. First, they addressed the need to be cognizant of the differences in cultures as the world becomes more and more global. In the classroom, it’s important to recognize and respect the values and ideas of all cultures that one encounters. This is no different in the HPT models that consultants work with in organizations. Global cultures play a huge role in how organizations, whether large or small, do their work.

Secondly, they paid special attention to the fact that all projects will come with their own biases and assumptions that are not only found in the consultants working with the organization, but also that are built into the HPT models as well. I found this to be especially interesting in that some of these assumptions are created because of the context in which the model was created. They point out that every model that has been created around performance improvement was done out of necessity due to a problem or challenge that needed a different approach.

To get around these biases and assumptions, the authors have suggested two HPT tools to help consultants understand organizational culture and begin a successful change management process. The first of these is the cultural audit that will help consultants quickly get to know the culture of a new organization. The second is to always go back to the fact that performance is ultimately a part of a system. If we can fully understand the system, we can then modify the existing models that we have and adapt them to the needs of the organizational culture with which we are working.

Taking the cultural recognition one step further, they then outlined three different cultural models and explained how a basic systems model could be altered to fit the needs of the organization. In each of the models, particularist, collectivist, and ascriptive, the focus was on the relationship between the workers, the objectives, and the supervisors. Each change in culture brought about new relationships among these elements and ultimately, that relationship becomes the point at which we can address the differences in culture.

The final thing that really struck me goes back to the discussions we had last week inside of Blackboard. With all the models available to us, how does one choose the most appropriate one for the task. Addison and Wittkuhn suggest that, “any model is really no more than a working hypothesis that has to prove its usefulness every time” (2001). This single phrase helped me reconsider my current thinking around all of the models that we have seen. They are each a starting point that can and should be altered based on the needs that arise in any given project. I think this is true for any organizational structure that is on the journey to performance improvement regardless of size.

Recognizing cultural differences both globally and organizationally is crucial as accessibility to information and learning opportunities become increasingly global. More than anything, this article has reinforced this concept and has helped me make some connections between many of the models we have been studying. Identifying bias and assumptions are challenging tasks, but they are also vital to the instructional design process.

References

Addison, R., & Wittkuhn, K. (2001). HPT: the culture factor. Performance Improvement, 40(3), 14-19. ]]> http://blog.mrbassonline.com/2012/01/hpt-the-culture-factor/feed/ 0 http://blog.mrbassonline.com/2012/01/performance-support-for-performance-analysis/ http://blog.mrbassonline.com/2012/01/performance-support-for-performance-analysis/#comments Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:15:27 +0000 Bill Bass http://blog.mrbassonline.com/?p=675

The following is the first article response for my IT520 class (Performance Technology) I’ve enrolled in at SIUE. Over the spring semester, I will be posting all of these reflections as appropriate.

In their article, “Performance Support for Performance Analysis” (2004), authors Scott Schaffer (Purdue University) and Ian Douglas (Florida State University) outline a project being done at the Learning Systems Institute at Florida State University where software is being created to support performance analysts as they work with organizations using human performance technology. The software project was started because of an apparent lack of such software that was flexible enough to meet the needs of advanced analysts, while at the same time providing enough scaffolding for novice analysts by providing examples, support and insight into the process. In the process, Schaffer and Douglas are, “developing a performance analysis model for a set of tools configured by users based on the analysis processes that they are most comfortable with or want to experiment with.” (2004, p. 35) In essence, they are creating a piece of software that is flexible enough to allow analysts to use their own language and structures, but that will also give them guidance and an organizational structure that is search-able and object-oriented allowing for reuse of prior resources and analysis.

In this article, a diagram defined the major components of an object-oriented performance support system process. Looking at the diagram there are definitely some parallels between this one and the diagram of the Pershing Performance Improvement Process found in our textbook (Pershing, 2006) but the article seems to simplify it significantly. In the article, there are really only three steps to the planning process: define problem or opportunity, analyze, select solution blend. They then move into the building phase to begin the creation through the software. My initial reaction to this process is that it’s limiting because it seems to focus on finding a problem and fixing it, rather than focusing on creating performance systems as Pershing recommends in chapter 1. (2006)

The biggest benefit of the software seems to be the database of previous client implementations and solutions as well as past analysis of other performance improvement projects. I can definitely see how creating a search-able database would help in future projects. It also would provide the ability to make detailed notes about specific project allowing the analyst to reflect on successes and challenges after projects are complete, while at the same time, providing the transparency for both the client and any team members during the course of the project.

If I were in the position of analyzing an organization, I could definitely use the guidance of a generic system that would help me determine needs and solutions and organize myself. As I gain more experience, the ability to customize the software to meet my needs would be very beneficial in my work. As I read the article, I was surprised that the authors insinuated that there were few other software options available that were not created to solve a very specific problem. I also wonder what other support structures are available for performance analysts. I’m sure they are plentiful and well designed but, according to the authors, there’s definitely a need for a customizable solution that allows the team members the ability to share knowledge and build upon past experiences.

References

• Pershing, J. A. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
• Schaffer, S., & Douglas, I. (2004). “Performance support for performance analysis”. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 48(2), 34-39.

Upon graduating, I took nine months before returning to the classroom and establishing my “paperless classroom” in 2004. One of the things that I’m grateful for is that I use my degree on a daily basis and it has guided much of my career including being an adjunct professor. Now I find myself back in the classroom as a grad student enrolled in the Web-based Learning certificate that didn’t exist when I was enrolled before. This spring I am taking a class called Performance Technology. We are in our first week and I find it fascinating. I’m just getting started, but I’m seeing even more of the big picture when looking at the inner workings of districts and schools that I read about and work with. As a part of the class, we are required to find various articles dealing with our text and write summaries and reactions to them. I plan to post them on this blog to document my learning and thinking.

In my district we are heavy users of Grant Wiggings, Understanding by Design framework. He refers to this basic concept as A-M-T, Acquire, Make Meaning and Transfer. When we look at mentor texts with students, regardless of the medium, we are acquiring understanding and knowledge. It is strictly fact finding and information gathering. That acquisition will then lead to students making meaning of that knowledge. Whether that’s through creating a video or writing a piece, they are taking the knowledge of the skill or concept that they’ve acquired and using it for an assignment based on something that we’ve asked them to do. This scaffolding gives them practice with the tool and moves their understanding more towards something that they begin to know. However, “knowing” can’t be the end goal. Even having an understanding can’t be where this ends. Until students transfer this knowledge, skill or concept to their own world and to their own work, independent of a teacher-driven assignment, I’m not sure that they “own” the knowledge, skill or concept.

As I think about this series and the course of events that have led to it, I can’t help but reflect on the idea of all of the knowledge that I’ve “borrowed” from this group. It’s expanded my understanding of mentor texts and of the role that they play in the classroom. When I started blogging with my students 8 years ago, I did so to make for a more authentic learning experience by giving them the opportunity for an audience. We floundered through it and I got better through experimentation and looking to my own mentors online. When we tried our first podcast that year, it was because of the mentors that were experimenting at that time as well. Each of these forays into the world of digital writing and creating provided me with the opportunity to borrow my understanding of content, process and technique from others.

I know that my thinking is incomplete here, but I’m spending a great deal of time considering how this fits into what I’ve been writing about the past week.

More on mentor texts this week from:

Katie DiCesare at Creative Literacy
Troy Hicks at Digital Writing, Digital Teaching
Kevin Hodgson at Kevin’s Meandering Mind
Tony Keefer at Atychiphobia and
Franki Sibberson at A Year of Reading

All posts are being aggregated at Mentor Texts in the Digital Writing Workshop.

The last of the three types of mentoring that I think of when I look at students creations is kind of a combination of the other two, (content and technique). This last mentoring type is “process”. Last year, some high school art students created a promotional video for our district film festival. To create this video they spent around 8 hours drawing the logo for the festival and then we sped it up so that the entire drawing took about 90 seconds. Here’s their video:

I love watching that video.

When we published the video for the festival, I sent the link to Franki’s who shared it with her daughter. She found inspiration and wanted to share her own process as well as try the technique. Valentine’s Day was coming and she was going to decorate a Valentine’s Day box so she set up a camera and recorded her own creation process. She then sped up her video and shared it out.

What’s equally neat about this is not only did a student creation inspire another student. I went back and showed the Valentine’s Day box video to the students who created the first video who were then inspired to continue creating other videos. The recursiveness of these videos and the sharing that can occur is astounding to me as I think about the possibilities.

As I’ve said before, I think it’s really important to understand, recognize and embrace the inspiration that students can get from each other. As a classroom teacher, I think that’s why I always liked the peer editing so much. When I first started teaching I would ask students to give fairly surface level feedback on their classmates writing. But I remember the first time that I added one question to my response sheet; “What inspired you about this piece?” It was as if I had just given my students permission to connect with the writing of their peers and given them a stake in it. That one question changed the way I ran my workshop and my students responded. I think the best part was that they weren’t writing for me anymore. They were writing to inspire each other and it changed the nature of writing in my classroom. It wasn’t magical and it certainly didn’t work every time for every writing that my students did. But when it did work… Wow.

More on mentor texts this week from:

Katie DiCesare at Creative Literacy
Troy Hicks at Digital Writing, Digital Teaching
Kevin Hodgson at Kevin’s Meandering Mind
Tony Keefer at Atychiphobia and
Franki Sibberson at A Year of Reading

All posts are being aggregated at Mentor Texts in the Digital Writing Workshop.

The following video is one created by a group of  elementary students who were  studying ancient Egypt and tasked with telling a story about an event. Rather than write a paper, they chose to tell their story through clay-mation and create their own video. With support for their technology integrator and teacher, they created a storyboard to guide them through their story and began the revising and rewriting until they had it just the way they wanted. By their own admission, they hadn’t ever written that much for an assignment ever before.

Once they had written the story and felt ready they immediately began diving into the clay to make the characters. This was the fun stuff. The stuff they could do without planning, or so they thought. Having never created an animated movie before, they had no idea what was in store for them. They knew they had a story inside that they had written out, but making it come to life in clay was a completely different thing. To guide them, their teacher had them look for examples to show them how to go about making an animated video. They found a few and got started, but after only a few frames, they realized they needed more direction and turned to the teacher for help. The teacher, who had also never created animation before called in reinforcements in the form of the building’s technology integrator. Without this available support, there’s a very real chance that the project would have died right there as the teacher was not what you’d consider a techy. This is the end result.

From where I sit, this was a successful project. The students told their story and showed their understanding and ability to transfer their knowledge to a new medium. However, there are many lessons to be learned through this project’s story including:

1. The students who created this video were creative and resourceful, but they didn’t create clay-mation. They had seen it somewhere and it it had inspired them to try something new. In one of their minds they had a mentor piece that guided them to this point.
2. We can’t assume that because something has to do with computers that students will be able to do it without support. They needed feedback, guidance and instruction to be successful.
3. Bringing in new mediums can change the scope of a project making it more challenging or complex.
4. When given choice and opportunity, students can and will create content that surpasses what we had envisioned.

My next example is from a middle school. In this student’s class they were reading, To Build A Fire, by Jack London. In this case, the student was talented when it came to drawing and also wanted to create an animated story taking an excerpt from the book as her inspiration. She had seen animation techniques and wanted to try something a little more advanced and ambitious. This is her creation.

In this case, the student was inspired by technique as well as content and went about creating because of it. She knew of the techniques and chose to put them to work in their own project.

When a work (be that a video, text or other medium) leads someone to explore a space that is unfamiliar to them and gives them guidance, it can most certainly be classified as a ment0r to the new work. Whether it’s mentoring content, technique or both, these are the basis for much of the creation going on in today’s world.

As this series goes on, it strikes me that each of us involved are adding to the thinking of and mentoring each other through our writing. Thinking about Kevin’s example of the choose your own adventures through video, or Tony’s project with his kids, I will take these “mentor texts” with me as I work with teachers and add to their thinking while they add to mine. The more I think about this subject, the more I see the inspiration that mentor texts can bring to students.

Tomorrow I will pull in the final way that mentor texts can influence the decisions that our students make and inspire them to create. Until then, be sure to check out the posts of the others participating in the series and please, let us know if you are thinking/writing about mentor texts as we are. We want to learn from you.

More on mentor texts this week from:

Katie DiCesare at Creative Literacy
Troy Hicks at Digital Writing, Digital Teaching
Kevin Hodgson at Kevin’s Meandering Mind
Tony Keefer at Atychiphobia and
Franki Sibberson at A Year of Reading

All posts are being aggregated at Mentor Texts in the Digital Writing Workshop.

Trying to be as stealth as I could, I observed him out of the corner of my eye so he wouldn’t stop and I followed him through the rest of his home tour. Hysterically, he was talking about the colors of the walls and the “possibilities” for each room. Asking his bear questions about why he wanted to live here and what kind of work the bear did, it suddenly dawned on me where all this was coming from. On New Years Eve we were with some friends and HGTV was on with one of those shows where they take perspective buyers to different houses and they decide which one they were going to buy. In each home they take a tour of the house, talking about possibilities and the layout. While at the time he seemed far more interested in playing with his friends, this brief interaction with a TV show that was “on in the background” made an impression on him and inspired him to make his own creation.

We haven’t shared it or put it online and probably won’t, but simply the process of creating has changed his way of thinking just a little. When I put him to bed I asked him how his video went. He told me that it was fun to do and his bear learned a lot about the house, (The kid is seriously funny!!) but that next time he’d do it better. I didn’t push to find out what his version of “better” entails, but it was clear that he had learned about not only the technical side (he thought the video was too jumpy), but also about the creative process and he was thinking about what he would do next time.

The timing of this couldn’t have been better. Sometimes those mentor texts that we find aren’t even at the forefront of our thought processes. Of course we need to be meaningful in our choices as we model for students, but at the same time, I think we need to honor our students’ choices of where they find their own inspiration for the things they create.

More on mentor texts this week from:

Katie DiCesare at Creative Literacy
Troy Hicks at Digital Writing, Digital Teaching
Kevin Hodgson at Kevin’s Meandering Mind
Tony Keefer at Atychiphobia and
Franki Sibberson at A Year of Reading

All posts are being aggregated at Mentor Texts in the Digital Writing Workshop.