Goals of educators today are consistent across content areas, levels and geographic boundaries: determine performance expectations of the workforce or other life roles, assure that teaching and learning focus on these intended expectations, and document learning results. With efforts to set state, occupational or organizational-wide standards for performance and incorporate varied innovative teaching and delivery strategies, such goals become fragmented without a consistent communication tool or common language of learning design. Without a systemic, systematic and consistent framework of design (a common language) for bringing these changes to the frontlines of teaching and learning, no substantial differences in the quality of education will result.
When a common design framework is adopted, educators can more efficiently determine industry-endorsed performance expectations, build learning and teaching plans that bring those expectations to the classroom or learning experience, and document results that are recognized across institutional lines.
As programs and training are regularly re-evaluated for currency and "necessity" (especially in the age of accountability and budget shortfalls), the validity of learning comes into question. Why does such a program exist? Is there a need for a new program? What is the best way to ensure what we?re doing actually needs to be done? What is the best way to find out what needs to be done?
Analyzing an occupation, or life role for that matter, can be done with a variety of methods, but one process in particular is called "DACUM," an abbreviation for Developing A CurriculUM.
In The DACUM Connection, Robert Norton says that DACUM "involves expert workers?the local men and women with reputations for being ?the best? at their jobs. These workers share what they do and how they do it. Their descriptions are in the language of the occupation. That means you find out exactly what they do and what happens on the worksite."
Results from a DACUM include a graphic chart (or profile) of the tasks required in a current or future occupation or life role. The process accounts for knowledge required, skills and trends in the workplace. It involves a panel of experts and a trained DACUM facilitator.
This process of identifying the performance expectations of workers provides a solid, valid foundation for curriculum/training development. It maximizes worker input and buy-in. It is efficient; a typical DACUM lasts two days. Surveys are generated and sent to the larger workforce in the occupation?verifying results of the panel with a larger population.
Other forms of occupational analysis exist, such as occupational profiling through research into job titles, subject matter experts and the WorkKeys Profiling System developed by ACT. Fortunately, there is some consistency in the descriptive language of what to call the results of such analyses: duties and tasks. These words are often recognized across instructional design languages and offer a valid beginning to the design of curriculum and/or training.
What comes next? How are these expectations brought to the frontlines?
Community colleges have often worked in partnership with business and industry to identify performance expectations and then develop curriculum based on those expectations. Workforce development is not new and has been defined (by Margaret Forde in a 2002 article in The Community College Journal) as providing "current and future employees with the education, training, competencies and skills that employers need to maintain high performance in a competitive market environment." But, is there a way to do this more efficiently, so expectations and results can be easily shared and recognized across stakeholder lines? Is there a consistent and better way to show how skills identified during occupational analyses are actually being addressed in the classroom or learning environment?
It?s no mystery that educators speak different languages when it comes to the design of curriculum, in fact some faculty are proud of their differences and boast of academic freedom in the classroom?one where expectations are still hidden in the mind of the hallowed professor, and learners still have to wonder if what they?re doing will "get them" an A. These varied "learning languages" persist and can thrive in local school cultures steeped in tradition and habit. The term "objective," for example, may mean one thing for one teacher but something completely different to another. The word "competency" alone offers multiple meanings, as well as "assessment" and "outcomes."
Campuses across the country are often unable to have curriculum discussions within their own faculty departments, let alone across district and state lines, simply because of semantics. Or if they do have a discussion, the first part may be spent on what exactly to call a curriculum element and what is meant by the element. Talking to business and industry about performance expectations adds another layer of confusion, as they may use a completely different set of concepts and terms.
Workforce development advocates at colleges have become experts in interpreting the various learning languages of the world. Is this time well spent for both the college and business? In the examination of 27 colleges and universities, it was found that "even arriving at a common language to use in considering issues of teaching, assessment, and learning can be a struggle," according to James Roth, Mark Gromko, Susan McGury and David Wissman in "Making Student Learning Central: Principles and Practices for Implementation."
The idea of a "framework" or larger picture of curriculum construction has been explored through the identification of basic frameworks that "form different belief systems about how curriculum should be constructed and learning experiences organized," wrote Ruth Stiehl and Les Lewchuck in a 2002 League for Innovation in the Community College Learning Abstract. Working within the learning-centered outcomes framework, "one can see clearly where teaching begins... What should these students be able to do out there in real-life roles that we?re responsible for teaching in here, in this course or program?" This framework supports specification of performance expectations, rather than a "content framework" that uses content as a starting point for curriculum development.
This is not to say that colleges aren?t already making strides to streamline the curriculum development process or effectively prepare their students for a competitive market environment.
A performance-based model for curriculum design, resting within a learning-centered framework and ideally an organization that values learning, has "forced" teachers such as Christine Bruseth to develop competencies that help learners and herself identify expectations before the course begins.
"There is no more guessing," says Bruseth, a dental hygiene instructor from the Wisconsin Technical College System. "Rambling is gone, and instruction has a focus. I can focus my energies on creative teaching methods that incorporate different learning styles instead of spending all my time trying to figure out what to teach."
A model can assure, just like a strategic plan, that teaching and learning focus on intended expectations?expectations made valid from a quality occupational analysis as mentioned earlier and expectations known and made public in advance. A consistent model of learning design assures that teaching and learning focus on the intended expectations identified by an occupational analysis.
In the case of Alliant Energy, a major power supplier in the midwestern United States, focusing on intended training outcomes such as competencies is a life or death situation. Catastrophic events could happen if learning focuses on something else besides intended performance expectations derived from a close look at what is needed to succeed, especially when safety is involved. Direct application of valid learning outcomes is essential; little room for error exists on the floor of a power plant. Here, a model detailed with competencies, performance expectations, learning objectives and assessment tasks provides building blocks for learning plans that bring outcomes to the frontlines of any learning environment. A model provides the roadmap for teachers or designers, just as the learning plan provides a guide for the student.
Several community colleges have made great strides in adopting a common language and model for learning and training design. Moraine Park Technical College in Wisconsin, George Brown College in Ontario and Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland, for example, have adopted a particular model of design developed and used by technical and community college instructors since 1992. Originally a product from the Wisconsin Technical College System, the Worldwide Instructional Design System (WIDS) model provides a strategic plan for learning and assessment design?both at the course and program level.
Growing out of this need for a common language, WIDS became one of the first widely adopted models of design. It is currently being used by all colleges within the Wisconsin Technical College System, 25 of 28 community colleges in Michigan, and organizations in more than 33 states and 10 foreign countries. Most importantly, this model was designed by teachers for teachers within a learning-centered framework.
Mott Community College in Flint, Michigan, for example, needed a consistent model of design for their courses, and with the advent of distance learning and open-entry/open-exit courses, the WIDS model fit. They?ve been using it for at least four years.
In this model, the teacher or designer first works to create skills at different performance levels. Broadest are the larger or macro exit learning outcomes?transferable skills called core abilities (skills like communication, problem solving and critical thinking) that all learners need regardless of occupational or life roles?program outcomes and general education outcomes. These types of outcomes are often determined at the institutional level, noted in mission statements and thought to be integrated into daily classroom activities. But, often they are not explicitly stated, nor are they assessed or documented.
At the next level, competencies describe major discipline or occupationally specific skills. Ideally, they should be driven from an occupational analysis such as a DACUM. Each competency is a significant outcome and written at the application level or above, clarified by performance standards specifying criteria and conditions for assessment. In most cases, competencies reflect higher order thinking skills of synthesis, analysis and evaluation.
Learning objectives are the enabling instructional outcomes. They describe the lower level, supporting knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to master a given competency. They are focused on a substantial outcome, not meaningless "tiny tasks" often thought to be associated with the reductionist approach to curriculum design.
Once developed, the teacher or designer organizes these elements to create curriculum documents such as course or program outcome summaries, learning and teaching plans, syllabi, and assessment tasks, including scoring checklists and/or rubrics. As a result of the design process and generation of learner documents, learners set out with a clear vision of the requirements?ahead of time?for successful completion of the course or program. These form the learning and teaching plans that bring performance expectations to the frontline, as learning activities are designed specifically with the learner and the end result in mind.
A model can only go so far. Since many instructional design models exist, how do we know that learners achieve the intended learning outcomes? What can learners show for this achievement?
Documents generated around a clear performance-based model provide the basis of proof?clear learning outcomes and documentation of achievement level attained for each outcome. Learners have "competency report cards," as one teacher said, written in a language familiar to the student, institution and potential employers. Students have evidence documenting observed behavior of the core abilities or "soft skills" attained. They have artifacts.
Graduates from Moraine Park Technical College in Wisconsin, for example, exit a program with a grade based on achievement of competencies (an explanation of that grade in performance terms via assessment checklists or rubrics), and at least one artifact per program outcome. Since the fall of 2000, the college requires all students enrolled in a program of 45 credits or more to complete an "Assessment Portfolio" ?a collection of artifacts (completed course work, Web page, written essay, reflection, etc.) that shows skill development. The college has clearly specified program outcomes, general education outcomes and direct measures of learning for all occupational programs. Educators here believe that student achievement can be measured through an outcome assessment process, providing qualitative and quantitative documentation of student learning.
Northcentral Technical College in Wisconsin also has "exit assessments" by program, such as internships, capstone courses and portfolios that measure program outcomes (using criteria). They believe there is a "connection between the WIDS Model and good exit assessments" because the model ensures:
- objective and observable criteria
- assessment tools (scoring guides) that reflect the criteria of the competencies
- objective assessment tools across employers
- employer, peer, faculty and self assessment
Educators today are trying to design and provide nimble and responsive learning environments based on performance expectations from the workforce and other life roles. How educators go about doing this and what they believe about how curriculum should be constructed is not yet fully understood, but certain goals remain clear: find out what is expected, assure that teaching and learning focus on these expectations, and document learning results. Using a good performance-based model provides a strategic plan for organizing these expectations?a comprehensive framework for design of learning and assessment.
A good model provides a common language, asks about the validity of learning and shows results, often in the form of artifacts or assessment tasks. Such a model, used within a learning-centered framework, allows for varied innovative teaching and delivery strategies without sacrificing organizational-wide goals. It provides the common language that is so desperately needed to move us forward in the new discussions about learning.
The following resources were used in the preparation of this article.
"Community Colleges?the Center of the Workforce Development Universe," The Community College Journal. 72(6), 32-35, by Margaret L. Forde (2002)
The DACUM Connection, Columbus: Center on Education and Training for Employment, The Ohio State University, Robert Norton (2001)
"Making Student Learning Central: Principles and Practices for Implementation," In Susan Van Kollenburg (Ed.), A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement, Chicago: The Higher Learning Commission, James Roth, Mark Gromko, Susan McGury, and David Wissmann (2001)
"Reconstructing the College Curriculum," League for Innovation in the Community College Learning Abstract, 5(6). Available: http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/learning/lelabs0602.html, Ruth Stiehl and Les Lewchuk (2002 June)
Robin Soine is the associate director, WIDS, Wisconsin Technical College System Foundation. For more information about the WIDS Model, contact Soine at 800-677-9437 or soiner@wids.org.
