And then as an Instructional Architect – I tend to configure them for Instructional Purposes to the ends of Performance Competence back-on-the-job.
I did so last year when thinking about “HOW” I’ve been conducting Cognitive Task Analysis since my early days in the field when I discovered that every time I had a team of Master Performers assembled and working together – that they would keep adding to each other’s thoughts about Performance Outputs, Measures, Tasks, Roles & Responsibilities and then the Gaps and the Probable Causes. However…
Just because you can bring a group of Master Performers to consensus – does not make them right.
But – who else would you ask?
And in my attempts to get my Analysis data Accurate, Complete, and Appropriate – so that my Instructional Content – in Job Aids and/or Training would likewise be Accurate, Complete, and Appropriate – I learned to always suspect the Completeness – and worked my Process and Practices to ALWAYS attempt to address that huge issue.
Now when I do an Instructional Development effort – I always try to “anchor” my efforts using the overt, Behavioral Tasks from my Analysis efforts.
And in the Design efforts lay-out the configuration, depth, mode and media off of that Analysis data.
And then finally, in the Development effort, use both the Analysis and Design data to determine the covert Cognitive Tasks, necessary before, during, and after the Behavioral Tasks – in the Process, or Workstream, or the WorkFlow, or whatever you call that.
Same diff – as we used to say – back in the day.
My 2021 Book addressed this.
From the Foreword…
See all of my books on my Amazon Authors Page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B08JQC4C4V