I’m Playing with Some Ds
I used to talk about my deepest level of Analysis of the Covert-Cognitive Tasks with Master Performers as 2 Ds – but since my last book – published in November 2020 – I’ve been thinking about 3 Ds.
Previously I just used Discriminations and Decisions – when I talked or presented or taught my approach to ISD Analysis – but I felt there was perhaps a nuanced step in between. Hence the 3 Ds.
So – as the graphic above suggests – I’m playing with the notion of 3 Ds – and I thought I’d share.
This all relates to how I go about – and have gone about for the 42 years in the biz – of teasing out from the Master Performers when it comes down to creating the Instructional Content about Avoiding the barriers to Ideal Performance in the 1st Place; and
Making Discriminations (To Me) is all about… being Situationally Aware as a Performer regarding what the Process Performance Requires and recognizing any/all Gaps … ASAP. Is it okay – or not? What’s not right?
Discriminations between what “should be” and “what is” in place in the Context – I believe is a major differentiator of Master Performers and non-Master Performers.
Over the past 20 years (of my 42 in the biz) I would use the EPPI Fishbone to ask about that.
1st I’d look at the Process Itself. Is this Standard Work – as the Lean-SixSigma folks might call it? Is that going to meet the need or will it need to be adjusted for some (and what) reasons?
Then 2nd I’d look at the Environmental Enablers. Are they all adequate to the Process that will be used – Standard Work Process – or not?
3rd I’d look at myself and the other Process Players. Do we have what we collectively need – and are we assigned correctly? Maybe I’m “a bit off” today with a bad head cold – and I need someone else to play my typical role. Or someone else is off – literally or figuratively. A missing team members. Or more than one.
Making Determinations (To Me) is all about… dealing with what my “Discriminations” told me I’d need to deal with – if any. If none then skip all of the rest of this. But if not – then…
I’d want to Determine what options were available … A … B … C … etc. They all must meet the criteria required by the needs of the Outputs to be produced, by the Process to be employed. What Process should be used.
What Environmental Enablers are needed and do we have them and if not – where and how do we get them?
What Human Enablers are needed that are different – or the same but MIA for today’s work. Or tomorrow’s. Or throughout the performance of the Process. What are the alternatives for dealing with that?
Making Decisions (To Me) is all about…
Choosing the right Alternative as Plan A (so to speak); and which Alternative will be Plan B?
The Performance Task Route to a Worthy Output – isn’t always as simple as A-B-C.
And the specifics of Who, What, When, Where and How to do this differently than the Standard Work might have been done – and does “the Why” need to be given to certain parties – “BDA – Before-During-and/or After” we Perform Tasks to Produce Outputs to Stakeholder Requirements?
Do we need anyone’s Permission to vary or will we just seek Forgiveness later?
The 3 Ds
Do Master Performers need to do all of these 3 Ds if they discover while doing the 1st D that the Situation calls for a non-Standard approach? A change?
Should non-Master Performers be taught how to do this – for each Performance Output & set of associated Tasks?
Do Developers need to tease this out when they create performance-based Instruction (Job Aids and/or Training)? Do they need it when creating “Worked Examples” for use in the INFO & DEMO portions of their Designs?
Decisions – Decisions – Decisions.
Based on Discriminations and Determinations.
That’s my current thinking – when asked to think about how I create components of Instruction – such as information and demonstrations using “worked examples” before Application Exercises – in the flow of INFOs-DEMOs-APPOs on a Lesson Map.
I initial learn about the Outputs and Tasks and Gaps – and the Enabling K/Ss in the Analysis Phase from the Analysis Team – and get approval from the Project Steering Team. Then I work with those same sets of data when working out a Design in the Design Phase and get approval from the Project Steering Team.
Then the Developers work with the Master Performers from the Analysis and Design Teams, plus additional Master Performers, to develop the INFOs and DEMOs often using “worked examples” – and after creating the APPOs (Application Exercise) where we provide the Instruction – in a Backward Development manner from the Lesson Maps.
See the longer video near the end of this post of how I used a set of building graphics to show a “worked example” for the Design Output called a Lesson Map – like the example above.
Fairly Short Video
This video is 3:05 minutes in length.
As those of you who have read my recent book may know – I believe that Instructional Analysis should happen in every Phase of the ISPI Process – and not all one point in the process. It a layering approach – much like a bricklayer in some sense.
My framework for that…
And that it’s up to the ISD Analyst to uncover the ThoughtFlow in the WorkFlow – during those Phases…
A Longer Video
… of my 2019 webinar I did for the BABS Chapter of ISPI – where I use a “building graphic” several times to share a “worked example” for creating a Lesson Map – one of three levels of Design in my ISD Methods branded as MCD – Modular Curriculum Development/Acquisition.
Note: this video is 64:16 minutes in length.
My Latest Book
Conducting performance-based Instructional Analysis: Analysis Should Occur in Every Phase of an Instructional Systems Design & Development Effort Targeted at High Stakes Performance – published November 2020.
Available as a Kindle and a Paperback at Amazon – here.
Pingback: Old Made New – Tried and Tested Practices for Learning Pros | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance