LV‘WW LL'7" ' ‘Efl‘fiw'g' hmnw 5‘ 53" W 1M. ' ‘i‘ L --.—a.” mm‘. - M...— .....- A... _ .... Wt 3H3'fi fi" ‘tl 3!: a J‘Nh, 73:}: ' >3 ‘fii' ' i ' 'l ' H “'1'“ " , 6" .I'g 3' 1‘ ‘ ' ‘ I:' ‘13; .:. ”It“ ‘ u! ‘ h ,. ' o 2. i: J'Lt‘, , .- 3’. ... ‘... 1' )1‘9‘.‘ {3L '1? b‘bhfi'“ I z} } 3*5‘ ,- .. | l '1'" '35 : '!;'§"I Slim!!! M ‘33‘3‘3' "“Ii ”11,, "’0 ‘ ’\ " - ' .15'3‘ ‘. .:" "‘ .. ..... ‘Efiill -ufli'} 3 : ML“ fi.:' ez'm ‘ ”m” -”3 LfggJI. - .° ..L " file: ' - - -.":zs':‘z" } 3%"; 733133 Lw’L* :uLwLqu-w }‘~ ELL “3‘". ‘ " 5.5%3‘3331': ”2- " 3‘13 3:3 : . ~L‘ - L. LLML'L :erLLLn‘Ls 3'LL‘ LL -+LL:LL ‘fi‘{ ‘1 ”(‘5’ :3' g“? 521“" ,a l o . 3 '3 a} ‘g-t ""EJQL 3: 'l v 34'}. 6“,? [‘(.‘ 43“: T, 315 I ‘3 L .I'.f"¢:‘3‘£3"3:E§";3!‘§i‘ff-' $23 3 ‘:“" Efflrhl‘ISMFLTE ' " """‘ " 2:384! '3‘: : '3‘ '13" 31"}.‘1["3u"!§ ' 4'3‘1 *4 :. . 3W3 ' f L - ' ' 3- L “ ' “‘3 o l 4' I: 3 ($15: 1:“ J 4- 3" h— t. or '}m‘ .351 ”1315‘- -. {‘3 {WT} ‘ ,:‘fi :3 - [I ' .‘s'é: “‘ , M £35“; 5': L "”3 5533“ "" in ' if?“ I ‘3’ ' ; K ' Wig?” ' 'l 3“"? I “‘35 ‘i‘ t (fflF-i' Viki“ ;";:L" l .. ‘ :.:». ."‘:“~! mm“: :3" fiflé'fi' £3€%§g 3% LL 1‘ $2.12" .. J M”; x 2.2“" . 7...: - . .- 4% v .0 2. “a: L M . " . "13' - 'dizsli‘flnéi} “3‘3 ”I"; ..:...-.-, --: .‘¥ L m- L , a: .. 3?; ‘11 LLLL’LL 53513;“ W iii’§’§l£z$,LL‘{:L"'L§ L: i 3‘ L”&3 fiflfi‘rxuf' "'3‘%i"3“' '“ 1'33“}? NU L51!" - 3;.“ .( {£22. . O” U h. L L --~-- LSLM ‘E r. I “hair“ '1L"l{’ .EsI-rfl‘f‘“ .n‘ s ' ' 3 . 1-! ‘3 ‘ ‘23:} “"3133; 1 LL WLLLL L I ' r ' A" ' g t o o . "73 LLLWLLLCWMMLW%#M¢L L%q LLLWLQ‘W‘” Lfifimflw ' 313313! .3, (LL; “113113. H 3: f '3“ 11:“ P! ubfii‘vp fit 1" 23‘ L” WVW‘L . 1539433 8’ 9131 I uth’fiilfl 13 “xi”! ‘31 ii, 131'} 3 2:9” .. :fix' ' "... “ *"" "“L‘U “"31 3‘" w": L "‘31? {‘35} % “11"sz IL I'.‘ 3‘ ‘ 13‘" :W: 1:15, f 3 duliimuuh.‘ 3:, . ‘- j M 1:13 3’ HM; i ‘5th '3'“: 1:3 M "NH: 3; (5!, I L é‘ LP‘E a; . (. L iii? 35313;" "v“..- v «33W au—o - ...L 333.5 :33 UK w}: VVVV ..i‘ lf'thk 4L5"? ‘“ L L 33'3" ‘3'!" =~ LLL‘LY' .L" “11333331333“ rag“ , Lam L M .L: , jin- h‘. !';" J " Llhilri‘h $53,? g“ “1'3: "'." 33": :13; :H‘Slz’wfifl‘}, $3! Ti'i'i'?‘g"%l3 L L: a W1? 5 . :33 4'571‘LL ,L “L L x'Lh LWLflml LHLL “A LL""‘L ‘13‘3’ ' IfltLéif: llllllllllllll“ll\llllllllflllllHLMWW 3 12931 - i ' This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Entry Level Competencies for Team Members and Supervisors/Managers on Instructional Development Teams in Business and Industry presented by Madeline Jean Trimby has been accepted towards fulfillment i. of the requirements for PhD degree in Counseling, Educational ' Psychology and Special Education (major: Educa- tional Systems Development) MMajor. professor j; Date M/ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-1277 1 MSU LIBRARIES n RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in 500E drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. @yas'ss/Qr‘qw » kn? ~- mm Copyright by Madeline Jean Trimby 1981 ENTRY LEVEL COMPETENCIES FOR TEAM MEMBERS AND SUPERVISORS/MANAGERS ON INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT TEAMS IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY By Madeline Jean Trimby A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Educational Systems Development 1981 C7//"/';,T) ABSTRACT ENTRY LEVEL COMPETENCIES FOR TEAM MEMBERS AND SUPERVISORS/MANAGERS ON INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT TEAMS IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY By Madeline Jean Trimby This study was undertaken to identify the most important entry level instructional development (ID) competencies required in a variety of business and industry settings, as perceived by those responsible for supervising the instructional developers. These essential competencies, carefully selected based on pre- vious studies, were investigated for team members and for super- visors/managers. The identification of such basic competencies should be of value to academic institutions with ID preparation programs whose students are interested in entering business or industrial settings, as well as to the businesses and industries concerned. In addition to determining the most important competencies for the two specified entry level positions, the study also investigated whether type of business or industry; principal function of the instructional development, training, or human resource development unit; and size of that unit were important factors that were related to the competencies desired. Results showed that these were not important variables, except with regard to equipment in scientific manufacturing organizations. Madeline Jean Trimby Questionnaires were sent to three hundred members of the Senior Trainers interest group of the American Society for Training and Development, to gather data. Responses were re- ceived from 162 participants (54 percent); 127 of these were useable for analysis. The data was analyzed by tabulating the mean for the over- all importance of each competency, so as to rank order the entire list. Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to determine if any differences between the means were statis- tically significant. An intraclass correlation was used to estimate reliability of ratings across raters. In addition, a two-way multivariate analysis of covariance, with unit size as the covariate and 3 211221 planned comparisons for the main effects of type of organization and function of unit, was com- puted. Analysis of the results showed that the highest ranked com- petencies dealt with interpersonal communication skills, such as listening effectively, attitude formation, adapting to differing situations, and establishing credibility with a group. Desired competencies were different for team members than for super- visors/managers. Most of the competencies were considered important, as evidenced by high ratings given, and should be considered by preparation programs and employing organizations. To my parents, Robert H. and Dorothy E. Trimby ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank the members of her committee, Dr. Castelle G. Gentry (Chairman), Dr. Kent L. Gustafson, Dr. Stanley Stark, and Dr. Stephen L. Yelon, for their valuable suggestions, assistance and guidance in this project and throughout the entire doctoral experience. In addition, special thanks go to Dr. Kenneth Dickie, from Western Michigan University, and Dr.%John Childs, from Wayne State University, for their interest and assistance in the study. Thanks also are due to Jan Vredevoogd, a statistical consul- tant, who greatly assisted with the statistical procedures and analyses in the study. And last, but not least, recognition is given to Clara Steier, a fellow doctoral student, for her friendship, under- standing, counsel and encouragment as we progressed through the doctoral program. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES .......... . ..................... ..vi LIST OF TABLES. ........ . ...................... ..vii LIST OF APPENDICES ............................. viii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ................................. 1 Significance of the Study.. .............. ...1 Purpose of the Study...... ............... ...4 The Research Questions ...... . ........... ....5 Hypotheses Tested ........................... 6 AsswnptionSOO0.0.0....OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.9 LimitationSOOOOOOO ...... 00.0.0000... ..... .010 Definition of Terms.. ........ . ............. 11 Overview of the Study ...................... 13 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... . ................ 15 Competency-Based Instruction ............... 15 Instructional Developers in Business and Industry ............. . ............. 18 Conferences/Meetings Held ................ 21 Previous Studies ......................... 22 Factors to Consider in Moving from Academia to Business and Industry ...... 27 Human Resourse Development ................. 34 The Adult Learner .......................... 37 Summary .................................... 41 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES ................. 44 Development of the Instrument .............. 45 Sampling Procedure ........... . ............. 49 Data Collection ............................ 50 Treatment of Data .......................... 51 Dependent/Independent Variables .......... 51 Analysis Procedures ...................... 52 Summary .................................... 57 iv IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ........ ..59 Introduction ..... . ......................... 59 Questionnaires Received............ ........ 60 Characteristics of the Population..........61 Primary Function of Unit.................63 Number of Employees in Unit.... .......... 64 Ranking of Competencies ....... . ............ 64 Reliability of Raters........... ........... 77 Results of Type of Business or Industry Effect ........ . ................. 79 Results of Primary Function of Development Unit Effect.... .......... ....85 Results of Size of the Development Unit Effect............ ................ ..87 Summary..... ............................... 88 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...91 Summary.... ................... 'L ............ 91 Conclusions ............ . ......... . ......... 94 Recommendations ............................ 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................. 104 APPENDICES ................................ 114 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Chart Comparing Various Factors Between Education (Academia) and Training (Business/Industry) ........ 29 2. Continuing Education: The Role of the Professional Organization - A Theoretical Framework.............42 vi Table 0 o o o o o o o .... O 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Page Useable Cases by Grouping Competencies Into Sets ...... 54 Number of Respondents by Type of Organization ......... 62 Training as Primary Function .......................... 63 Education as Primary Function ......................... 63 Development as Primary Function ....................... 64 Number of Employees in Unit ........................... 65 Number of Developers Supervised ....................... 66 Ranking of Competencies for Team Members .............. 68 Ranking of Competenices for Supervisors/Managers ...... 73 Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance of Ranked Competencies ........................................ 76 Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients .................. 78 Significant Differences of Team Member Entry Level Competencies by Type of Organization ................ 82 Significant Differences of Supervisors/Managers Entry Level Competencies by Type of Organization .......... 83 vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A - Survey Instrument Used. .......................... 116 B - First Cover Letter ............................... 122 C - Second Cover Letter .............................. 124 D - Postcards Sent ........ . ......... . ................ 126 E - Participants Willing to be Credited for Responding ................................. 128 'I'I I Additional Competencies Suggested by Respondents .................................... 132 viii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Significance of the Study Competence involves the skills, knowledge, values, atti- tudes and abilities necessary for effective performance of a task or activity. It is the demonstrated ability to perform or accomplish a given assignment, task, job or position. Success- ful functioning in a position or role is viewed as the final test of professional effectiveness, and as such, is used to judge whether the standards of a profession are being upheld. The determination and measurement of such competencies often form the basis of certification programs for professions, and also serve as the basis for many modern job descriptions. The identification of essential job competencies can be of great value to individuals who want to plan their own systematic acquisition of increased competence to prepare themselves for future positions. Ever expanding technological developments, especially ad- . vances in communications technology, coupled with societal needs and demands for accountability, have led to increasing emphasis on competency-based education (Klingstedt, 1972; Burke, gt 31; ‘5irca 1975,; Elam, 1971). This emphasis may be seen not only in the education profession, but in the public and private sectors of business/industry and other professions as well. The public cry for accountability and greater relevance in education and 1 2 training also calls for minimizing waste in the learning process by clearly defining goals and objectives and developing crite- rion tests for demonstrating proficiency (Wall/Williams, 1972; AACTE Committee, 1974; Klingstedt, 1972). Like many other professions, persons in instructional devel- opment have been concerned with identifying the most appropriate competencies for practitioners in that field. Various commit- tees, especially within the Association for Educational Communi- cations and Technology (AECT) and the American Society for Train- ing and Development (ASTD), have spent many hours over several years developing lists of competencies (Galey, 1980; McCullough, 1981). For example, in January, 1981, the Division of Instruc- tional Development of AECT surveyed its members regarding "Competencies for the Instructional Development Practitioner." This resulted in a list of functional competencies that respon- dents felt any experienced ID practitioner should possess (Di- vision of Instructional Development/AECT, 1980). In a similar but unrelated activity, leaders from instruc- tional development academic preparation programs and business and industry, met in May, 1979, at a Symposium in St. Charles, Illinois to discuss instructional development competencies desired by business and industry and to suggest how these com- petencies might be acquired by instructional development trainees. These interactions were continued and separated at a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles, California, in March, 1980. A third meeting of the group was held in Florida in November of 1980. 3 A third parallel, but again unrelated activity was an invi- tational conference on "Academic Preparation of Practitioners in Training and Development/Human Resource Development," held in Washington, D.C., in December, 1979. The purpose of the confer- ence was to "Identify and discuss current academic programs that either prepare students for employment in a training and develop- ment function in the public, private or volunteer sector, or pro- vide professional development for persons already in the field" (Report of the Invitational Conference...,1979: 6). A second invitational conference of the group was held in February, 1981, in Williamsburg, Virginia. In addition, several individual ses- sions on similar or related topics have been held or are being planned for future conventions by such organizations as the Asso- ciation for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), and the National Society for Performance and Instruction (NSPI). Whereas the above-mentioned groups were all interested in identifying core competencies (in one form or another), each meeting had other topics on the agenda as well. It is assumed ' that because of the various other topics being covered, and because of the amount of time needed to complete a study of the competencies, such lists were not generated by the groups. The objective of the current study was to determine the competencies needed, especially at an entry level, for instruc- tional developers in business and industrial settings. This study should be of prime importance to professional preparation programs whose graduates wish to be employed within business and 4 industry. The curriculum, from formal coursework, to projects and internships, and other learning experiences can be coordinat- ed with the skills expected for successfully performing tasks on the job in the future. If the results from the study are utiliz- ed in this way, the study should also be of interest to poten- tial employers of these graduates, especially as the graduates are more apt to have the competencies being sought by the em- ployers. In addition, this study should be of interest to com— mittees within the Association for Educational Communications and Technology which are currently in the process of determining competencies for the entire field of educational technology. Purpose of the Study This study was undertaken to identify the most important entry level instructional development (ID) competencies required in a variety of business and industry settings, as perceived by those responsible for hiring and/or supervising the instruc- tional developers. Recognizing that each organization would have unique characteristics and requirements, it was the objec- tive of this study to identify common entry level competencies that were considered essential for team members as well as for persons in management or supervisory positions in an instruc— tional development, training, or human resource development unit. The identification of such basic competencies should be of value to academic institutions with ID preparation programs whose students are interested in going into business and 5 industrial settings. The educational experiences of these students can be coordinated with the identified desired compe- tencies. The study should also be of value to the businesses and industries concerned, in that they will have a better idea of what skills to expect from ID graduates. The unique compe- tencies for each company could then be identified for inclusion in employee orientation programs within the individual firms. The Researchgguestions This study was designed to answer the following questions: 1. From a given list of competencies, which com- petencies are seen as most important for two entry level positions (team member and super- visor/manager) on instructional development teams in business and industry, as viewed by those who hire and/or supervise personnel in these positions? 2. Does the type of business or industry (i.e. industrial manufacturing, scientific manu- facturing, merchandizing, or service organi- zation) make a difference in terms of the entry level competencies desired for either team members or supervisory/management personnel on an instructional development team? 3. Does the principal function (i.e. training, education, or development) of an instructional 6 development, training, or human resource devel- opment unit influence the entry level compe— tencies desired for either team members or supervisory/management personnel in that unit? Is the sjzg_of an instructional development, training, or human resource development unit an important variable in the entry level competen— cies desired for either team members or super- visory/management personnel in that unit? Hypotheses Tested In order to investigate the preceding questions, the following null hypotheses were formulated: H01 H02 H03 There is no difference in the mean ratings among the competencies listed in this study as desired entry level competencies (as perceived by those who hire and/or supervise) for team members on an instructional development team in business and industry. There is no difference in the mean ratings among the competencies listed in this study as desired entry level competencies (as perceived by those who hire and/or supervise) for super- visors/managers on an instructional development team in business and industry. There is no significant difference between 7 entry level instructional development competen- cies in the areas of: 1) management of the development unit and process, 2) identifying needs for program development, 3) planning pro- gram content, 4) designing and producing mater- ials, 5) conducting training programs, 6) eval- uation and follow-up, and 7) general competen- cies desired for team members from one type of business or industrial setting to another. H04 There is no significant difference between HOS entry level instructional development competen- cies in the areas of: 1) management of the development unit and process, 2) identifying needs for program development, 3) planning pro- gram content, 4) designing and producing mater- ials, 5) conducting training programs, 6) eval- uation and follow—up, and 7) general competen- cies desired for supervisory/management person- ggl from one type of business or industrial setting to another. There is no significant relationship between entry level instructional development competen- cies in the areas of: 1) management of the development unit and process, 2) identifying needs for program development, 3) planning pro- gram content, 4) designing and producing mater- ials, 5) conducting training programs, 6) eval- H06 H07 8 uation and follow-up, and 7) general competen- cies desired for team members and the principal function (training, education, or development) of the instructional development, training, or human resource development unit. There is no significant relationship between entry level instructional development competen- cies in the areas of: 1) management of the development unit and process, 2) identifying needs for program development, 3) planning pro- gram content, 4) designing and producing mater- ials, 5) conducting training programs, 6) eval- uation and follow-up, and 7) general competen- cies desired for supervisogy/management,person- .521 and the principal function (training, edu- cation, or development) of the instructional development, training, or human resource devel- opment unit. There is no significant relationship between entry level instructional development competen- cies in the areas of: 1) management of the deveTOpment unit and process, 2) identifying needs for program development, 3) planning pro- gram content, 4) designing and producing mater- ials, 5) conducting training programs, 6) eval- uation and follow-up, and 7) general competen- cies desired for team members and the size of H08 The 9 the instructional development, training, or human resource development unit. There is no significant relationship between entry level instructional development competen- cies in the areas of: 1) management of the development unit and process, 2) identifying needs for program development, 3) planning pro- gram content, 4) designing and producing mater- ials, 5) conducting training programs, 6) eval- uation and follow-up, and 7) general competen- cies desired for supervisory/managementAperson- “psi and the 5153 of the instructional develop- ment, training, or human resource development unit. Assumptions following were the basic theoretical or conceptual foundations behind this study: 1. That determining if there are common perceptions held . .by employers or supervisors regarding instructional development competencies that cross business and industry lines, and identifying what these competencies are, is worthwhile. That the persons to be contacted in the study would be able to provide the information needed to determine what those competencies are. That the respondents and researcher would have a mutual 10 understanding of the terminology, concepts, and compe- tencies being used. 4. That the respondents would answer accurately and that they would take the necessary time to thoughtfully answer the questionnaire. Limitations The biggest limitation of the study is that it was a survey, and as such was highly dependent on subjective per- ceptions of respondents. In addition, the sample was drawn only from members of one national organization (American Society for Training and Develop- ment) and therefore looked at only a selected group in business and industry. Thirdly, information was requested from those who hire and/or supervise rather than from those who actually perform the work. Thus, the competencies listed by supervisors could be those viewed as ideal, or as assumed to be used, while they in . fact may not be the ones used by practitioners. However, since the researcher was interested in the entry level competencies for someone hiring into an organization, the survey was directed at those who do the hiring. Finally, it is important to note that the researcher chose not to study the areas of educational, health care, military or governmental agencies, which also employ instructional developers. 11 Definition of Terms The majority of terms used in the study are based on definitions found in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Special operational definitions were drawn from the field, and are as follows: Instructional develgpment - a systematic approach to analyzing instructional problems and the design, production, trial, evaluation and utilization of a complete system of instruction as a solution to a problem. Instructional developer - a person who utilizes a specific process to analyze and solve an instructional problem, to improve instruction, to work toward educational change, and to improve and facilitate learning. "A skilled professional who is able to organize and manage learning, information, and communication systems" (Ferrington, 1980:16). Also known in the literature as: instructional technologist, instructional designer, educational technologist, media specialist, trainer, training developer, or performance technologist. (Note: there is not common agreement of this term., Some persons may use these terms interchangeably, but may be describing someone quite different.) Subject matter expert (SME) - a person who is very knowledgeable about the content for a particular instructional unit or area. This person thus provides the content used in the design and development process on an instructional development 12 team, and also later reviews materials and test items for that team. Also known as:’ content specialist (CS), content expert (CE). Team member - an instructional developer who works with other instructional developers and subject matter experts as a group to develop training in an instructional development, training, or human resource development unit. Supervisor/Manager - a person who is the chief administrator of an instructional development, training, or human resource development team and as such is in charge of the operation of that team. Has overall responsibility for the conceptualization, design and completion of projects, as well as the scheduling of the project, personnel schedules, activity deadlines and budget considerations. Also known as: project manager, program manager. Business - all gainful activity that involves the buying and selling of commodities or services with the intent to generate profit. Industry - the production and manufacture of goods and commodities, especially on a large scale. Training - learning experiences or activities that are designed to facilitate, strengthen or improve performance on the job. Education - learning experiences or activities that prepare people for new or different jobs in the future, especially within an organization. 13 Development - learning experiences or activities that prepare employees so they can respond to new organizational needs or goals that arise. Competency - the skills, knowledge, values attitudes and abilities necessary for effective performance of a task or activity; the capacity to perform this task or activity. Entry level - the point at which a person comes into or joins a group; the beginning rank in a hierarchy based on ability, achievement and/or experience. AECT - Association for Educational Communications and Technology. An organization whose goal is "to improve education through the systematic planning, application and production of communications media for instruction" (Akey, 1980: 464). ASID - American Society for Training and Development. An "educational society for persons engaged in the training and development of business, industry, education and government personnel" (Akey, 1980: 189). fl§£l.‘ National Society for Performance and Instruction. An international organization "concerned with achieving effective performance analysis and management, system deveIOpment and implementation“ (Akey, 1980: 530). Overview of the Study The background for the study was developed in Chapter I. This background included: the significance of the study, its purpose, research questions investigated, hypotheses tested, its 14 underlying assumptions and limitations, definition of terms, and an overview of the dissertation. A review of the research literature related to the study is presented in Chapter II. This review is divided into four major areas: (1) Competency-based instruction, (2) Instructional developers in business and industry, (3) Human resource development, and (4) The adult learner. A brief summary concludes the chapter. In Chapter III the.design of the study is presented. It includes descriptions of: the development of the research instrument, the sampling procedure for selection of partici- pants, the collection of data, how the data was treated, and a summary of the chapter. The results of analyses of the data are presented in Chapter IV. Statistical procedures used are described and the results given. In Chapter V the summary, conclusions and recommendations are reported. These include recommendations for further studies as well as for use of the data presented. 1 Following Chapter V are the Bibliography and Appendices. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Demands for accountability and relevance in education and training have affected the teaching/learning situation in all types of educational settings, whether they be in the public, private, or higher education sector, or in the business and in- dustrial sector. Emphasis on standards and measurable ways of meeting these standards, especially through certification of competent individuals, also has increased in many professions. Practitioners have found that technological advances are multi- plying so rapidly that it is difficult to keep up with even the advances in one's own field. These factors, plus the increasing interest on the part of many instructional developers in explor- ing career possibilities in business and industry (where such careers are labelled human resource development, with a strong emphasis on the adult learner), formulate the reason for divide ing the review of literature in this chapter into the following. parts: (1) Competency-based instruction, (2) Instructional developers in business and industry, (3) Human resource devel- opment, and (4) The adult learner. A brief summary concludes the chapter. Competency:8ased Instruction "In the past thirty years a powerful general approach to 15 16 instructional development has evolved in the United States. It is known by a number of different names--competency-based in- struction, performance-oriented instruction, instructional sys- tems development, and criterion-referenced instruction" (Whit- more, 1981: 9). The basic goal of this type of instruction is the mastery of the material by 311 qualified trainees, in spite of differences in entry skills and abilities (Shoemaker, 1976). In order to do this, the training has to be learner—centered and provide the flexibility and learning resources so that each learner can achieve the objectives on an individual basis...thus providing the necessary freedom for individual learning styles (Short, 1981; Shoemaker, 1976; Cram, 1975; Whitmore, 1981). In addition, feedback is provided so that the learner knows where s/he is in the system (Cram, 1975; Patton, 1980-81; AACTE Com- mittee..., 1974) and opportunity is provided to practice the skills being taught (Cram, 1975). Measuring the outcomes of such instruction is more difficult than for conventional in- struction, especially in terms of the time required to adminis- ter the tests, and constraints due to lack of resources (Oliver, 1980). In addition, providing job-like situations for testing and specifying measureable criteria for success may be problems that affect the validity of the performance test development; and such problems as environmental influences, situational in- fluences, test instrumentation, the sampling process and exami- nee reactive effects may affect the reliability of the tests (Oliver, 1980). The critical incident technique, whereby a critical incident is presented and the learner shows how s/he 17 would solve that problem by making use of the knowledge and skill a particular competency contains is one device that is being found most appropriate as a criterion-referenced perfor- mance test (Knowles, 1977a). The essential element is that the learner's skill or knowledge level is compared to previously clearly specified objectives, which have been made available to all concerned, rather than being compared to other learners (Cram, 1975; Elam, 1971; Burke, g§_plp_ccirca 1975:). Whitmore (1981) sees the reason for applying modern in- structional technology to our instructional programs as simple and straightforward: It is more cost-effective than conven- tional instruction. He gives the following three characteris- tics of instructional programs that make them cost-effective: 1. Mastery Progression Standards. Learners mdst meet a mastery standard on each skill they learn before they can move on to learn the next skill... There have been some instances in which mastery standards produced so much improvement that the poorest of mastery _learners performed better than the best of conventional learners... 2. Self-Paced Progression. Each learner advances at his own individual rate of learning... Forcing learners to learn on someone else's schedule is not efficient... In a fully self-paced program, some learners finish before others, but all learners learn the same amount, that is, they all meet the same standards... 3. Job Relevance. Learners learn all the skills and only those skills refifiired for them to perform effectively on the job. This requirement is met by analyzing the job for which training is designed... Graduates of job relevant programs start their job experience at a much 18 higher level of proficiency and show less growth because they start much closer to the highest possible proficiency level. (Whitmore, 1981: 9-10) In fact, he sees job relevance as the characteristic of cost-effective training programs with the biggest payoff. Pruning out the unneeded content produces not only savings in training, but also gains in job performance (the “stuff" on which business growth is built) (Whitmore, 1981). Instructional Developgrs in Business and Industry Employment possibilities for instructional developers in public, private, and higher education settings are tightening, due in part to declining enrollments, rising costs, and reduced resources. Consequently, increasing numbers of graduates are turning to business and industry as a viable employment Option (Diamond/Durzo, 1981; Spitzer, 1979; Ferrington, 1980; Nash/- Ducharme, 1978). According to Darryl L. Sink, who annually compiles employment trends for media graduates for the Associa- tion for Educational Communications and Technology, this trend first was noticeable in his 1976-1977 study, when he reported "...we may be on the threshold of a new trend: Media positions in business and industry are emerging" (Sink, 1978: 44). His study the next year continued to support the trend; last year's study again confirmed the trend, as one fifth of the graduates in the study took jobs in business and industry. And although he was reporting media graduates in general, this same report 19 showed an increase of more than 300 percent over the past two years of the media graduates who are performing in instructional development positions (Sink, 1980: 36). The increased accep- tance of such graduates on the part of business and industry, as well as the positive experiences of the graduates once they have spent some time on the job will undoubtedly influence future graduates as they consider this option. One reason for the acceptance of instructional developers by firms in business and industry is the rapid growth experienc- ed by these firms in the size and complexity of their training programs. "It is estimated that business and industry invest over $100 billion annually in training their employees" (Corri- gan, 1980: 328). General Motors now spends over $1 billion annually on training; AT&T and IBM over $750 million every year in training programs (Thomas, 1981). Literally millions of employees have participated in industry's education and training programs, whether on company time or after-hours (Schwaller, 1980). Because of this growth the firms are relying to an in- creasing degree on professionally trained instructional devel- . opers to assist their subject matter experts in preparing effective, efficient and relevant instruction (Spitzer, 1979). In addition, such combinations of personnel also assist in more cost-effective operations for the company, thereby assist- ing in maintaining the highest possible profit margin, not only in monetary terms but in human potential as well (cHitchensg, 1981; Nitsos, 1981; Stein, 1981). Tied in with the profit mar- gin is productivity. Organizations want more productivity from 20 their employees, and the employees in turn want more satisfac- tion from their work (White, 1979). Rutt (1981) feels that the increased hiring of instructional developers in industry stems from the following personnel needs, which he claims will affect performance and ultimately productivity: (1) the need to accom- odate the turnover of increasingly mobile employees, (2) the need to accomodate changes in knowledge and skills required by a business, (3) the need to improve the skills and knowledge of employees to meet the needs of a particular business. To these general needs, Schwaller (1980) contributes such specific ones as: (1) specific training programs designed to reduce the time taken to learn a new job, thus saving money for the company (with industry allocating approximately 10% of its education budget for this type of training); (2) the need to achieve, maintain, and improve quality standards while improving speed of production; and (3) education and training programs needed to introduce new manufacturing methods or to standardize current ones (with industry spending approximately 74% of its education budget in this area). As pointed out by Luxenberg, "Education I as a business tool is becoming increasingly important, a neces- sary way for companies to maintain their competitive positions (Loxenberg, 1980: 317). And finally, McQuigg (1980) feels that there is a growing tendency among business and industry to view one's employees as a resource, and money spent in training and development as an investment rather than an expense. 21 Conferences/Meetings Held That there is interest in exploring the possible inter- actions between academic programs and business and industry is evidenced by several conferences and meetings that have been held at the national level. For example, a Symposium was held ‘in late May, 1979, in St. Charles, Illinois. In attendance were leaders in business and industry and academic preparation pro- grams, who examined instructional development competencies de- sired by business and industry and suggested how these competen- cies might be acquired by instructional development trainees. These interactions were continued at a follow-up meeting held in Los Angeles, California, in March, 1980, where both the list of attendees and topics discussed were expanded.' A third meeting of the group was held in Florida in November of 1980. Although a tentative list of desired competencies was generated from the first meeting, as both the size of the group and interest in various topics expanded, the desired competencies were no longer the prime topic for discussion. A similar invitational conference on "Academic Preparation. of Practitioners in Training and Development/Human Resource De- velopment" was held in Washington, D.C., in December, 1979. The purpose of the conference was to "Identify and discuss current academic programs that either prepare students for employment in a training and development function in the public, private or volunteer sector, or provide professional development for per- sons already in the field" (Report of the Invitational Confer- ence..., 1979: 6). The second invitational conference was held 22 in February, 1981, in Williamsburg, Virginia, to discuss the theoretical models underlying various college and university pro- grams that have or are planning curricula to prepare human re- ‘ source development (HRD) practitioners. 0f the colleges and uni- versities that accepted the invitation to participate, 222 sub- mitted papers, twenty of which were actually presented and dis- cussed. Basic conclusions of participants at the conference were that: (1) the present, broad and interdisciplinary status of the field across the country is more of an asset than a hin- drance (for both students and schools), (2) there is a need for further identification of core competencies for HRD profession- als, (3) there is little interest in trying to converge on any kind of curriculum standards, although they did express interest in reducing semantic differences, and (4) they thought that basic philosophy/beliefs/values might be more clearly analyzed and put into writing by schools for this field (Olson, 1981). In addition to such invitational meetings, several individ- ual sessions on similar or related topics have been held or are being planned for future conventions by such organizations as I the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), and the National Society for Performance and Instruction (NSPI). Previous Studies As for studies completed, there are several national organ- izations that have sponsored studies in this area. A key, early 23 study, entitled Jobs in Instructional Media was sponsored by AECT. It used Functional Job Analysis to "analyze jobs and set up guidelines for job structures and training curricula for work performed in the field" (Wallington, pp 31, 1970: 1). A more recent study supported by ASTD, entitled A Study of Professional Training and Development Roles and Competencies, aimed “to define the basic skills, knowledge, understanding, and other attributes required of professionals for effective perform- ance of training and development activities" (Pinto, Walker, 1978: 2). The list of activities developed was given to nation- al ASTD members who were asked to rate the activities for fre- quency and importance. A statistical factor analysis was used to determine common dimensions of trainer behavior, which were later grouped into nine basic categories or major activity areas (see White, 1979). The information generated was then developed into a self-assessment program (see ASTD, A Self-Development Process..., 1979) to enable the practitioner to continue his/her professional growth. In 1980, a subcommittee within the Division of Instruc- tional Development (DID) of AECT conducted a pilot study of an inventory of competencies desired for business and industry instructional developers. It is that pilot study, the results of which were reported to the subcommittee at the AECT national convention on April 23, 1980, that partially formed the basis of this present study. This researcher assisted the chairperson of that project with compilation of statistics from that survey and also attended the committee meeting where the committee members 24 agreed that the present study would be an appropriate follow-up to their deliberations. Other studies include a survey conducted in late 1978 by personnel at Ferris State College of the technical and develop- ment skills requested by various industrial organizations that employ graduates of their four year Learning Resources Careers Program (Jorgensen, 1979). The results from the Ferris State study correspond to results reported at a session of the AECT Convention on March 6, 1979, of a study conducted by personnel from San Diego State Universtiy (Rossett, 1979). A more recent study of industry in the greater San Fran- cisco Bay area also yielded results similiar to the ASTD study (Deden-Parker, 1981). "Specifically the three competencies rated most highly on the national survey-~design of specific programs to meet specific needs, establishment and maintenance of good relationships with clients, and determination of program content--were congruent with our fifth-, first-, and seventh- rated competencies respectively... The congruence of our results with those of the more exhaustively researched and literature- . derived ASTD study suggests that our findings have some validity and generalizability over both a variety of sites and at least a few years" (Deden-Parker, 1981: 25-26). She also points out that "at the bottom of both lists come the use of computer pro- gramming skills or any form of computer-assisted instruction (p.25). Another study completed was a follow-up study of Instruc- tional Systems doctoral graduates from Florida State University, 25 in order to identify the competencies used by alumni from that program (Florida State University, 1979). In 1979, Leslie Streit studied and analyzed competencies needed by educational technologists in six occupational settings as he attempted to identify what skills educational technolo- gists need for job mobility (Streit, 1979; Streit, 1980). He found that technologists, whatever their jobs, in whatever occupational setting, are more alike than different in the skills and competencies they need. According to Streit: They have a common goal: to facilitate human learning. And they all need a high level of organizational and personnel management skills. ,Additionally, busi- ness and industry technologists are very active in the design and production of materials to assist management in de- veTOping human resources. Most business training centers do not place a high priority on the logistics of media, but do expend a great deal of effort in eval- uating and selecting resources. Business and industry also stress the importance of keeping management, the public, and training content specialists informed. (Streit, 1981: 28) And finally, another AECT subcommittee recently surveyed Division of Instructional Development members regarding "Compe- tencies for the Instructional Development Practitioner“ -- a list of functional competencies that any experienced ID practi- tioner should possess. ”These competencies apply to Instruc- tional Development Specialists, regardless of their professional training, experience, or current level or type of employment" (Galey, 1980: 27). The competencies were divided into twenty- three basic areas, with knowledge, performance, and evaluation 26 compenents identified for each area (Galey, 1980). Thus, there obviously is interest in identifying competencies that should be possessed by instructional deveTOpers. Below are reported the basic differences between the present study and those cited previously: (1) The present study deals with a specific job or role (that of instructional develop- er), rather than media jobs or roles in general, as with the JIM study or the Pinto/Walker study. And whereas some of the other studies do deal specifically with instructional developers, the target population surveyed in those studies differed from the re- spondents identified here. For example, the Deden-Parker study dealt only with respondents from the San Francisco Bay area, and the San Diego study was similarly geographically limited, where- as the present study was national in scope. The Florida State University study was only of graduates from their instructional development program; whereas the present study surveyed members of the ASTD Senior Trainers interest group who are working in business and industry. (2) The present study surveyed persons in a position to hire and/or supervise instructional developers to determine the competencies that they saw as relevant entry level skile for success on the job. The Florida State Univer- sity study surveyed only doctoral graduates from their program as to what competencies existed in the alumni's work; AECT sur- veyed current practicing instructional developers to determine competencies needed for experienced developers; and Streit sur- veyed practicing educational technologists to determine compe- tencies in a number of occupational settings. 27 The present study is similar to the others in that the instrument generated for the DID pilot study formed the basis for the questionnaire used in this study. In addition, the lists of competencies generated by the Business and Industry Symposium, the JIM study, the Pinto/Walker study, Streit's study, the California studies, the Ferris State College study, and the AECT Subcommittee were all examined and analyzed in order to determine which competencies should be included. Factors to Consider in Moving from Academia to Business and Industny Besides the competencies necessary in order to enter busi- ness and industry as an instructional developer, the graduate of a professional preparation program should be aware of other potential differences between academia (or "formal education") and business and industry (or "training situations"). The read- er is referred to the chart in Figure 1 for an enumeration of these differences. There is always a danger in making sweeping generaliza- tions, and so it must be remembered that while the factors in the chart may be true of many or even most educational settings and training settings, there will obviously be "exceptions to the rule.” However, in reviewing the literature, these factors were the ones most often mentioned as being representative of and the "greatest differences in" those settings, by the authors indicated. It is strongly recommended that the factors be con- 28 sidered and weighed at some point before making the decision to enter business and industry (or an educational setting). In addition to the factors discussed in the chart the pros- pective business and industry instructional developer might do well to ask him/herself the following major questions posed by Rosenberg (1981): 1. 10. Do I understand the nature of the business world and the differences between business and academia (training and education)? Am I well trained to work in a non-school setting? Can I work independently and in groups? Can I communicate effectively, both in the verbal and written form? Have I resolved my position along the media-instructional development continuum? Am I willing to accept increased supervision? Am I willing to work an eight hour day, fifty weeks a year? Have I researched the job market accurately so that I know what I am looking for? Have I developed a resume which is short and to-the-point; which reflects my abilities and accomplishments? Can I convince an employer of my abilities and value in an interview of less than one-half hour? 29 Ramsay etaaeamom Aeneas eoue=___a3 Amamfiv Laapaam Afimmfiv macegm\puammoa Amamfiv LaNBPam Aommfiv cease.._az Aomasv ecaaeamom cowuoecomcfi to mmuczom accept; A.mswu cm>o mamasou mg» saw: xgoz uozcwucou cwmgu cw meow: meanest“ Pacowuwncm m>eg has use mmmxopasw m:P::_a:ou one memccmmp gases» =m>m .umumpmcnnon new mumwcmee_ m_ acwcwcchv .cowupmoaocq Ecmunuccgm .mcwcvmgu on go: xms to Ace copuzpom "meopnoea mocmecomcma nowumguico .umpcmpco appmcopueuzcm on we: xoe mmpuwcopea .uwmoca “mmpam “mucom co copuaavcumvu "mmow>cwm mm:_cauucezcez Assumzuch mmm: mamv A.aa_a atone apo>Puc_mc a to» seem uoca uwsmcoom.:m cw use amzu «any mmcmm mg“ cw Egmuuucogm use mcwccmwp cases» cm>m .m—_me mcwp mzopcm> mcwcm>ou .Egmu -mcop we copuwuaumv .cowupmoaocq ecwuumcoo .cowuzpom _wcopueuzcm cm saw; mswpaocn pecowucuaum “mgop>w:mn sooemmwpu .Acowunzqu mcpccwmp \meaguaaa Paeoaaaeaasv copamozuo use mcwcwmc» Ampeo mo< copamuanu ”eovuoacum:_ cu gomogan< ”saw: umccwucou cowam~wcmmco mo covuocze Acaewca Am AN AH A>mhm=oz~\mmmzam:mv wszH wz~mmm coo umcmacosm m? mmcaoo up om .xmcos mp appeemuwp weep .mcwccmmp apes: open cmueo use mcmccmmo .As__eeae macs memoxea mom cmov .oao mxmmu upmwumam a seam, ca “hav>wuu:coca “cowuosccn mxuwcaumm non “mommmcucw acopem. .mecmmp “Pane mza ;p_3 a~m>wm=—uxm amoepo Puma .mcvcpmcu mg“ cmumw zoom mm: on use a—pmzma mew coccmmp m_p_xm om .umumpmt inch m? cowuoacumcn Azcumzccw mmmc.m:mv .mczo; twosome “comm; zme macwuzum .uuee cw "mmcsou m :mpcogm on m>wucmucw a_ua_s .mcpc_aau toe mama z—Pmsma smegma; .uum "copawcmoomc “mmcmcm gmxppmowc=u= pocowuaoauu .m~m>w_ one coaca> .co_uuzcum:w cmame mach .mucmuaum co m:_u:ma -mu .umw: on ac: ace to has coccmmp m—ppxm ow .Agmnon to sesame a. as easepaav emcee once my cowuuzcumcfi Ampso ao< cowunozcm "cowuoscumcm com :owuouwpaem new "coccmmp o» umou "cocewmp to eoaae>_aoz "mu:m_n:< "ucmuaum mca an emceemp mpppxm we mm: AN Am Am As 31 Aomasv uaascamom “Hesse madam “Hesse gouasoPOHW Aommfiv couaaa Assess madam .mamfiv La~e_am Aommfiv mcmncwmom comamscowcH mo oucaom accept; .ucmucou uoowgam on» to» macmaxm cmuuoeiuumnnzm co ape; —pv3 can Aacaupamcouv amp—apumam pmco_a -uscumcp cm to egos an ass umppmwuoam mcvcpach .mmammw acmemaecms co mmpmm ;a_3 coccmucou co agape: cw pouwcsumu appeama we acmucou “mpmapuce xmmu co comma mp =o_uu:gum=H .mcpccmmp awacmpcmaxo ”meowmmzum_u umzapaumpoc mmcwccmmp to mmuempcmaxm amen :o mcwzocu .ucmso>_o>cw cmzcemp m>paum “cwucmvco nemmmoogag macs appogocmo .muoe xco>Pqu cow macwppogo mace» cops: .moem peupgnmcmowm our: a cm>o mcmxgoz to mucmmaogu so» on has Eacmoca pwcowuoacamcH Axcumzucu mmmcpmamv .cmuume “cowaam ecu cw comem> ppm: dawn: »_pm:m= we cmsommu Fe:o_a_umch .ccmmp on com: mucmnzum was: easy comma o» mccpn couochmcp peg: co mcoe women on has mucm>mpmc xppoczppau use appmucme unopm>mn one was“ muwaou chmcmm «so: .xcm>wmuwc= m>wmmma :mumo .Auumwnzm new pm>mp mecca co mcpccmaouv use» one an mucmczpm oomuoofi to Esswxes z_pm=m= Ampsm mo< =o_umu:um "wmwucwqu caucus -uuannsm ”ucmucoo amazoo ”pewsm>Fo>c_ custom; "pumae_\uumucou acmuzum mo mNFm Ass Ace Am Am 32 Asmasva~aso .xup>vummgo moose» acute mmuczcmme to zuw_wae—_u>m new mcmccmmp u—aum :a_z mcwxco: we mace—pmgu .sa__saeu_coaa —chm>c o» m:_a=n_cu -cou m? mcpcwecu me asap we appevumamm .mpnmpwa>m Aflmmfiv o~c=o\u=oEm_o apwumwg xppezm: moccaommc Assess aa~8_am AHmmHv o~c=a AHmmHV maca;m\uummmom Asmasv oNL=o\e=oeeco Afimmfiv o~e=o Assess La~»_am cowamscomcm to ouczom accept; Pewucmcve can Pmuwcgumh .mewu acocm a cw pop a gmppasouum use «NP. -cemco “mocwpwepa agave .zapcogusm to mmcpp opacwwmu soc» eczou tween: mcovmpomu :mueo ”apnoea cmzmw >5 once an cu ago wees mcomwuma Axcumzu: mmmcpmamv .»a_>Paoocu :maEwu has mmoczommc to soap was .xu_cosa:o gmaopm>mu mo xen— .=opa_eaaa to a_acaea .Axcumzucw\mmocpm:n cu mcogsou u.:eov muamesa eaaPs_P caste .oa umcogcm on xppwwc Ho: awe mmcwp nos?» "Ammcozo umwmmc o» nmezuuzcum men meoPHQNV icoacov zopm m_ manage .xumcosuzm Pescow o: co mpuu_— m>wz awe Logo—m>wu "mmmHuPEEcu an meme on o» yea egos mco_mpumo Ampsm au< copumuzum "sasseaaaau Ams “mmungmmL $0 eoaaauo_P< Ass "Amu:_mcam:ou 2;: oasah Ams "mcmzoa m:_xms -:o_m_umo ANH 33 Asmafiv momu_z Ass .a .Hmmflv o~a=o\e=o5aao =.mu_emcmn can Acepmm cw Acamsccw :u_3 mumaeoo uocceu...co_aeo:uu= .mcovuaum> ugosm "mesa; mawcwmmu “Hmmgv momupz m:o_aaucmswmwc ago: .mpopucmumcu Poscom no case mucowcma -xm ucm>mpmc co umumpa aflmmfiv o~g=o\uco2u_c m_ zppmzm: agave: «to: .mmwgouczon Pacovuanwcamco macaw; mucommm to mapammc cwumcpeommwu to; avenge; Assess LaNHsam Lav eaaueou a.us._ caste .Agogsupau cmucmvcoummEouuao= mpeom map acme coppm~wce so on» mapm; he: cacao meow cw co .copuwmoa popucmcpm m.:o_u um~wcmmco ogu mmNPwams .zuw>_au:coca mommmsu new xpuuocwu u? mmmpcz eaapes spews; as as xpmxpp we: m? nucmmmwz Aacumzucwmmwwuwwamv Assess o~aso ”Hesse o~a=o\e=o5aao :owuescomcH mo moczom acmewca .mcowumum> gonzo. mom new osoo ow Seamus» “acme icosp>cm cmxmpmg one: .umg_:amc »P_m=m= mpepwcmumcu oweocmum Pegged .muumnoca acmsqo_m>mu ocwccommc copamELowcw mcvpocwewmm_u so; A»P;m_; cmueov umccwzmm .copuuoppaaa apcmpogum new guceomoe co ummmn wee mcmmcou use xu_~_n_umcouuvmuuqum m? a? mcopun~wcmmco acne cw mM=mgaupao umucmwcou ewzucpav ummocaoocm m? :ucemmmm Ampeo no :ovueoznm "muwewcma use sae_am Rom "meowuwucoo unexcoz AmH "totem: meaaaeaeaao Res "mmmuw>auum mo mapzmmc to copumcwemmmwo Ana ugucmommc mucmzoa me=u_au< Amfl 34 Human Resource Development The terms "education" and "training" mean quite different things to different people (Phillips, 1981), leading many or- ganizations to use a combination of the terms (i.e. "education and training" or "education-training") to avoid having to differ- entiate between the two. However, some authors do try to spec- ify the differences, as they define the terms in the following ways: education "...is the activity (or process) that permits us to 'know about' something... education leads to comprehension and understanding" (Billings, 1981) "...is concerned with cognitive skills" (Harmon, 1981) "...is generally applied to the development of information, concepts, and intellectual abilities“ (Schwaller, 1980) "...encompasses all those activities which prepare an individual to function in a wide range of situations at some point in the future" (Phillips, 1981) whereas training "...is the activity (or process) that permits us to 'do something'... training leads to competence, to the ability to do something, to manipu- lative skill" (Billings, 1971) "...is concerned with modifying observable behavior" (Harmon, 1981) "...suggests skills acquisition through repetition in performance" (Schwaller, 1980) "...is primarily igncerned with the improvement of immediate on-the-job performance" (Phillips, 1981). Nadler has taken these two activities (education and training) and combined them with a third activity, development, to define a newer, more inclusive term, "human resource development." To him, human resource development (HRD) means a series of organ- ized activities, conducted within a specified time, and designed to produce behavioral change (Nadler, 1979). His definitions for the three major activities are as follows: Training - "those activities which are designed to improve performance on the job the employee is presently doing or is being hired to do“ (Nadler, 1979:40). Education - "those HRD activities which are designed to improve the overall competence of the employee in a specific direction and beyond the job now held" (Nadler, 1979: 60). (For a predetermined different position in the organi- zation.) Development - "is concerned with preparing the employee so he can move with the organization as it develops, changes and grows. The result could be a new job at a higher level or an expansion of the current activities of the employee into new fields which are as yet undetermined" (Nadler, 1979: 88). 36 In both training and education, the directions of the individual and the organization are identifiable, whereas the directions of development are not as clearly defined--and cannot be stated in specific behavioral terminology--since the job is in the future and will evolve as the organization develops and moves through its life cycle. The focus of both training and education is on the learner as an individual, whereas development focuses on the organization as well as on the individual. In order to perform the three activities listed above, three generalized roles are identified by Nadler. These are: specialist in solving learning problems, consultant, and admin- istrator. Sub-roles within these categories are: Learning Specialist Instructor Curriculum Builder Methods and Materials DevelOper Consultant Advocate Expert Stimulator Change Agent Administrator Developer: Personnel Supervisor: On-Going Programs Maintainer: Community Relations Arranger: Facilities, Finance (Nadler, 1979: 151) Thus, as a learning specialist, the trainer must be able to em- ploy all the techniques associated with the systematic design of instruction, and also know the strengths and limitations of, as well as being able to utilize, a variety of instructional tech- niques. Being able to adapt instructional procedures to the level of sophistication of the learners, and effective use of appropriate media also are necessary. 37 As a consultant, the trainer must: take a position on learning resources and HRD programs, be able to answer questions and have definite responses to an identified problem, and be able to support his/her opinions with evidence and justifica- tion. In addition, the trainer must be able to serve as an instigator in getting management to explore HRD directions and as a change agent by assisting management in diagnosing and planning for change (identifying appropriate goals for change and in developing a strategy for change.) And finally, as an administrator, the trainer is involved with managing and guiding the functioning and development of a HRD program. This involves the ability to select and train personnel as trainers, to supervise the HRD activity, to maintain lines of communication with individuals to whom the administrator relates (both inside and outside the organiza- tion), and to plan, develop, budget for, and operate (or arrange for) appropriate facilities. The Adult Learner Since the instructional develOper working in business and industry is dealing primarily with the adult learner, a brief review of some of the more important considerations about adult learners that trainers need to know and practice is in order. The underlying principles of andragogy (the art and science of helping adults learn), as formulated by Knowles, are: As a person matures (1) his self-concept moves from one of being a dependent per- sonality toward one of being a self- directing human being; (2) he accumulates 38 a growing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasing resource for learn- ing; (3) his readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to the developmen- tal tasks of his social roles; (4) his time perspective changes from one of postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of application, and accordingly his orientation towards learning shifts from one of subject-centeredness to one of problem-centeredness. (Knowles, 1970: 39) Important considerations about adult learners presented and elaborated upon by Grabowski (1980), are the following: 1. Adult learners differ in ability. a) Adults differ in ability to learn as well as in the rate at which they learn. b) This implies that no single method or technique of instruction will effectively reach all the learners. c) Approaches which provide for active learner participation work best because learners normally prefer active involvement in learning. d) Active involvement gives the learner a sense of autonomy. e) Active sharing in the responsibility for learning will give the learner a feeling of commitment towards it. Adult learners possess rich and relevant backgrounds and experiences. a) Adult learning must take these experiences b) d) 39 into consideration as they are a resource for learning as well as a foundation for new learning. Adults generally see themselves as having control or being self-directed and want to be treated accordingly. Many adults have some misgivings about their ability to learn, especially if they have been away from formal schooling for some time. Many adults have a fear of taking tests. ConseQuently, the kinds of tests they prefer are the kind they can correct and grade themselves. Whatever techniques of instruction are used, it is important to provide adults with immediate feedback and reinforcement, particularly at the start of a new learning activity. Motivation is important in adult learning. 60 Usually there is no single reason why an adult participates in learning, but a combination of reasons. Kinds of reasons for learning are closely connected to the needs of the adults as well as the developmental cycle stage in their lives. 40 c) The adult may be: Goal-oriented -- specific objectives in mind when undertaking learning. Activity-oriented -- participate for the opportunity of being involved in the learning process. Learning-oriented -- participate for the sake of knowledge itself. d) Knowing why an adult is participating can be helpful to an instructor (it will make a difference in the approaches used). With some overlap to the considerations listed above, studies cited by Hull/DeSanctis (1979) list the following considerations about the adult as a learner: 1. About 80 percent of American adults are involved annually in one or more organized learning activities (seven hours or more in length); 15 percent initiate their own learning. 2. Adults are goal-oriented (that is, intentionality is a major character- istic of their learning). 3. Adults prefer to pace and control the character of their learning experi- ences. Adults have varied learning patterns. Adults devote up to 900 hours on a single learning project, averaging 156 hours. 6. Most adults prefer to study at home, although numerous other settings and arrangements are used including colleges and universities, public schools, public agencies, business and industry, voluntary organiza- tions, and so on. 7. Adult learners are more likely to be members of organizations. 8. Adult learners who participate in institutionally sponsored programs 01-h o o 41 have as their objective a job or increased income. 9. Adult learners are found with all kinds of demographic characteristics. (Hull/DeSanctis, 1979: 14) In addition to his underlying assumptions for andragogy, Knowles has developed a theoretical framework for the continuing education of adults, contrasting six traditional assumptions about education with what he perceives as required new modern assumptions. This framework is presented in Figure 2. Sumnary Demands for accountability and relevance in education and training have led to increased emphasis on the competence of practitioners in a number of professions. Competency-based in- struction, with its goal of mastery of material by all qualified learners, in spite of their differences in entry skills and abil- ities, has been one result of this emphasis. A learner-centered approach, clearly specified objectives, flexibility, a variety of learning resources, feedback, the opportunity to practice the skills being taught, and performance tests to measure the out- i come are all characteristics of this approach to instructional programs. Declining enrollments, rising costs and reduced resources in public, private and higher education settings have led many instructional developers to turn to business and industry for employment. Such factors as the rapid growth in the size and complexity of training programs, emphasis on cost-effective operations, the profit motive, interest in productivity, rapid 42 .00>n0w00 magma. HH< .:Ofiwmwsh0m £003 0000fi0m0m .0:00Q0H0>0n 000 00000009 00. 000.com 0000005< .Hmcnso0 unmsmoao>0a 0:0 mcwcfimna .mnma unawhhmoo 33.3.00 0.08.3000 500 0.. 0. .00... 20.... 0. 000. I .0000. 30.000000"... 0... 1 «0.0.00. ....00 .0 0.000000 0.0000. .0000 0.2.0.00. 0.. 00.0.0. 0. ......0300000. 0.... .. 5.0000000 .. 00.0 -.00800 .0000 .2. 000.00.? ......«00 .0... ..000...0.0>00 0.00.0003... M... 05.03 0. 00.00M00 0.0. 0.30.00. 0.. .0... 0.500.. 0. 3.0500000“... 0 0.... .. .0...0...0 200.00.300.00 0.330.. 0. 0.... 2083.300 0.00.0 00.0.... u0.00..000 ..0. 0000 0... N0. .000»... 0.2.0.0... 0.. .0 000000300000 0... 00.0.. 0.. 5......000000. 0 0.... .. . $003033... M53003 0. 03.000000 00000000.. 8.00. .0... 00.0 60?...0... 0.006....00. .M... -0000. .00....00 60.0.00... 003.00.... 60009.00... 60.0.30... .000... .30.. .00....000. 00.0.0.0 b.0500 0.2000 ..0 0.0.0050 0. 3.3700000. 00.. .. .u... .500. .0 0.0.3.0.... 0.. 0......0 00.0.80 0.2.000. 0.0.. 000 «0.030. 00.00.00 ...00 .0 0......0 0... 00.0000 0.3.003 0.00.0003... 0.0.. 0. 000000.093 ”0. .0000. 00.00.... 0. ....05000000. 0.... .— 00.0.3.0... 0... 0. 00.0. 000......» 0... ..0. 02.0.0000 0.0. 00.000.000.00 000.000.. .0 0.0000. .0... 000 0. 3......000000. 0.... .. A 0:00.. ..0. 0.0.2.0030 0.00. 0. 03.3000 .0 .0000. .00....000000 00 3.00000.— ,.0.....0..E. 0. 0.00.0.0. 0.. 00.0.0.0 .00... .00..0...0 0.... 0..00< . 0.003 030.0 0 0. 0000.20 .0 00.2.0000 0... ..0. 0...... .. 0.. 00002.0 3.0.3.0000 .0 0.00.... 0 0. 3.00.. .0 03.0000“. «0.05.000 0... 0. 8.0.0 0 .00..» 0.. 00.. 50.000 .06 .m 4000.00.00 .00...00 0.00.0080... .0 0.0.50... 000 00:00. 0 0. 0000000 2.00.. 000.00 0.0.0000 000.000.. 000.0.. 0.00.0030... . £22.03 0000....... .020: ...... .. .000... 00.. 00.... 0. 0000.000000 .00... .0 0.00.00. 0. 02.00.0000 0.0 50......» 00.3 a .0 000.0000. «0.0.00. 00...: .....00.0...0 .000. 000... 00.0.. 00.00.04 .0 000...... 00.0000. 00.. 3.3.00... .. 0.0... 0.0.. ....3 000.00. 0 .3 0000...... 000 .0.....0 £000.32... .0 52.0.00“... .0 00000.... 0 0. 00....000... ... 00000.3. ...00 0. ......0 00.. 0000.305. ......00 000 2.3 000 I 00000.. 3300.000 0 0000 0.... 0. 0. 00300000 .0 000000.. 0.... A 0.0.. ..0. 0.0.30.0... 0. 00.0.0000 .0 .0000. ...0mm0aa000 0... 00.0.0.0 0. 0.. 3.00.. 0. 000.0 0... 0. 0.000.... ”0.0.0.0. 0.... . .....aq..000..00.. .0033: 020 ...0... 0. 3.000 .0 0030000.... “.0. 05.000 0... "0.0.0 0... .0 3.3.0030 -0. 0... 0. 00.0.0.0 .0 00.0.0000 0.... .00....00 0 000.030 0. 2.00.. 00...... 0000 .0000 ....0. 0. 000.00 0.00.0080... < 0.0.300 0.00.3050 .0. .00.0..0 ..0 0.00.0003 .0800. 0 0. 3.00.0...0 .000. 000... 000.... ”0.0.0.0.. .0000... 0. 000000. 0 0.0... 0.....0 0.... 035.300.. .0 00.0 0.5000... .0 00000.... a 0. 02.0000”. . ...000000 0......0..00.300..: 0 0000 -0... 0. 0. 00.2.0000 .0 0.000.... 00... 00' 00.30.0090 0.00.0020... 0 00.000:00=00= 000000.003 0.0002 000200.000... 0.00.208... .00.. .2085. .0 5.8.2.. .0 0003025.”. 20:00....» < ZO.h mup>cwm + mcw~_ucmsocmz me. mm. mu. mm. He. mu. em. mow>emm m> mcv~wucmzucmz mm. mm. um. no. mo. me. we. .wzcmz .pum m> .wzcwz .u:~ mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. we. Agumzucm Lo mmm:_m:m mo ma»- mN. mm. mm. mm. ma. om. mo. Acopmmmcmmg mppmu cwzuwzv p_=: co JNPm a Lo 0 L0 L L8 L Lo L to a co L Lo .cwemwm .c?=m_m. .LP=m_m cvemwm .Lwcm_m .Lecmwm .Lwcawm A hum a bum m hum 4 Cum m hum N hum H hum zo-<-zb >m mmuuzuhmmzou A~>U4 >mhzu mmmzmz zm_ mo. 6:8 an “cauLLL=m_mk 4H. La. mm. ma. ma. em. mo. DL== Lo =OLLU==L szs_LL Hm. mL. em. we. me. LL. mm. 06L>me + .Lscaz .ch m> mu_>gmm + mcp~wccmgung LL. mm. «L. me. me. 8H. LN. 66L>me m> uewNLucagoLaz am. oh. Leo. Hm. em. mm. «No. .Laemz ._am m> .Lzeaz .ncL am. 0L. mm. Hm. mm. mm. mo. zLum=u=L Lo Lmaewmam Lo mash mo. no. om. 3L. 83. mm. mm. A=OLLLLLLLL L__wu cpguwzv p_== Lo «NLW L La L L0 L L8 L L8 L L8 L L8 L L0 .LL=m_m .LLemLm .L_=mrm .chmwm .L_=mpm .chawm .L_=mwm N hum e hum m hum v Hum m hum N bum H hum zo~p<-zh >m mmuuzuhmmzou 4m>m4 >mhzu mamomu¢=m Lo mmuzmmmmumo hz¢’ $3 §.t§b§'¢£pfe94§§ ° 9 ‘v o .0 ‘ 4 o 0 Q q t v 4' ~9 =éff <34§16\! g? ~§£491§E duff SHRR s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 j s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 I s 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 i s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 i l 5 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 I 1 l s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 f I s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 i s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 ' s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 3; 4 1.- s 4 3 2 1 a 5 4 3 2 1 Z: I 3 1 ll ' 1 1 1| 5 4 3 2 1 if s 4 3 2 1 E) . a? s 4 3 2 1 ‘1 s 4 3 2 1 ll . )1 s 4 3 2 1 s s 4 3 2 1 z. 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 ”it s 4 3 2 1 1: .- 4 Q5 5; !§ 1‘ s 4 3 2 1 V s 4 3 2 1 ; s 4 3 2 1 ii 5 4 3 2 1 , s 4 3 2 1 3': s 4 3 2 1 i s 4 3 2 1 1) s 4 3 2 1 1‘ i s 4 3 2 1 g s 4 3 2 1 , s 4 3 2 1 ' 5 4 3 2 1 y s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 , s 4 3 2 1 ‘ s 4 3 2 1 . s 4 3 2 1 f s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 ‘ i i s 4 3 2 1 g s 4 3 2 1 '; ‘ TEM men ’ SUPERVISOR/minosflt )I ll. DESIGNING AND PRODUCING HAQERIALS: (cont'd) 12. 13. l‘. h. 1. To evaluate the effectiveness of hired consultants. Other (specify): CONDUCTING TNAINING PROGRAMS: b. c. d. .4 t. !o prepare specifications for organising the physical environment. to prepare specifications for the acqui- sition of appropriate hardware. To conduct group presentations. To use equipment effectively. To establish credibility with the group. Other(specify): EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP: b. To gather data describing program effec- tiveness during developmental stages (formative evaluation). To gather data to validate programs after program has been presented (summative ' evaluation). 6. :0 9. To plan a comprehensive program evaluation process. To use evaluation data for program revision. To design evaluation instruments to assess the effectiveness of a program. To design instruments to measure participants' accomplishments. To evaluate the training development process. To determine the cost benefits of training programs. Other (specify): GENERAL COMPETENCIES: b. To analyze development/training research data. To keep abreast of current theoretical thought and research directions. . To design research studies to test existing and new instruccional systems. (cont'd) 119 IlAflfflllzI 9 Q . J? ¢f' :3? 3i}? 2“ 3° .4‘ ~‘o‘ 3° 4? ” fi‘» dfifgc§~ 5 4 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 l 5 ‘ 3 2 1 5 O 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 l 5 ‘ 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 1 S ‘ 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 ‘ 3 2 1 TEAM MEMBER SUPERVISOR/MANAGE! M . U N H 34 3 2 1 5'4 3 2 1 54 32 1 54 32 1 SUPERVISOR/MANAGER . 5214:3211. murmurs: (cont'd) d. To consult effectively with subject matter exper e. To possess subject matter expertise in content area to be developed. f. To adapt to differing situations. 9. To listen effectively. h. ofm ction st awareness level with the following concepts 1) corporate goals and objectives 2) types of business ownership 3) marketing and sales 4) production and manufacturing 5) corporate budgeting 6) profit and loss 7) other (specify): rm HMII SUPIIVIsoalHANAGEl . O s k ” ' 9 § x V e ' C! 3’ <§}§'¢;UF° C, C3 6' 41;? 62;? 2* 3° 4"? ”3".“ ~°°.«° 4’“ 2‘3? g ~ §~ éx o~ ¢ x fmféx ox 5 4 3 2 1 5 d 3 2 1 u a u N H u . u N r- ... . Other (specify): 5 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 ' 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 s 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 TEAM MEMBER SUPERVISOR/HANAGXR' May I cgive credit to you and your company by listing your name(s) on an knowledgment page? V0 Are you interested in receiving a copy of the results of the study? i D Name: Company Name: Address: City. State: ZIP CODE THANK YOU! Thank you for your time and responses. the enclosed, stamped. self-addressed Madeline Please return the completed inventory (in envelope) J. Trimby, Specialist College of Education 133 Erickson Ha Michigan State University I 48824 East LanSing, M 120 APPENDIX B FIRST COVER LETTER 121 APPENDIX B MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY wuss: o: momma - msrsucnanl. sesouscrs cram EAST mono - momma - 44424 133 Erickson Hall April 16. 1981 Dear ASTD Senior Trainer: Most companies are interested in providing training/human development programs that are effective. efficient and relevant. ‘ My task is to identify the job skills or competencies viewed by trainers as most essential for gntgy level positions for instructional developers. or persons responsible for developing training programs. The results of this study should assist you in: l) recruitment (hiring). 2) job descriptions. and 3) personnel assessment. and should also decrease on-the-job training required. The enclosed inventory includes competencies generated by groups of trainers about what skills instructional developers should have in business and industry. I want to find out how much those who supervise developers agree or disagree. If you feel that you are not in such a position. would you give this inventory to the appropriate person in your organization? The results from these inventories will be made available to programs that train instructional developers. so that graduates will more closely meet your needs. The inventories have.acode number that will be used for follow-up procedures. but data reported out of this study will not be tied to individual names or organizations. However. I would like to give credit to you for your help by listing your name and your company's name in an acknowledgment list in my final report. Therefore. please check the appropriate box at the end of the inventory to indicate whether or not you wish that information to be included. Please also indicate whether you would like a copy of the results of the study. At first glance the inventory may look long. but pilot tests have shown that it takes about 15 minutes to finish. Please use the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope to return the inventory. It would be very helpful to me if I could receive your response by April 28. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely. Research Adviser. 1Tvoaiicg. 'Eandsn ’29 Madeline J. Trimby Castelle G. Gentry, Director Specialist, Dean's Office Educational Systems Development (517) 3SS-l752 (517) 353-0726 122 APPENDIX C SECOND COVER LETTER 123 APPENDIX C 133 Erickson Hall MST LMUW ' IKHIGAN ' GIN L MICKOGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘055 May 18. 1981 Dear ASTD Senior Trainer: Perhaps you have misplaced or forgotten to complete the inventory you received from as several weeks ago. It is extremely important to me that I r c iv these inventories as soon as possible. Consequently. I am enclosing another copy of the inventory to facilitate the return of your opinion regarding the competencies. Your help is needed in determining the most important competencies for entry level instructional developers. or'persons responsible for developing training programs. The inventory takes only about 15 minutes to complete and yet your response is very isportant to the success of the study. Your time and cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely. Research Adviser. . O mamyfiwfia afi Madeline J. Trimby Caetelle G. Gentry, Director Specialist, Dean's Office Educational Systems Development (517) 355-1752 (517) 353-0726 124 APPENDIX D ' POSTCARDS SENT 125 APPENDIX D June 9, 1981 Dear ASTD Senior Trainer: I still haven't received your response to the inventory regarding . entry level instructional/training development competencies...and I need your response to make the study a success. Please help! Sincerely, O Madeline J. Trimby (517) 355-1752 D-l: First Reminder Postcard April 30, 1981 Dear ASTD Senior Trainer: Just a friendly reminder that I need your participation in the research project regarding entry level instructional development/ training development competencies. Please complete and return the inventory that was mailed to you on April 16th. If you have already returned the inventory, consider this card a thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Madeline J. Trimby (517) 355-1752 D-Z: Final Reminder Postcard 126 APPENDIX E PARTICIPANTS WILLING TO BE CREDITED FOR RESPONDING 127 APPENDIX E PARTICIPANTS WILLING TO BE CREDITED FOR RESPONDING Name of Organization: Advanced Systems, Inc. Advanced Techndlogy Laboratories AM Multigraphics Amdahl Corporation American Express American Manufacturing Company of Texas American Savings Bank Arby's, Inc. Arthur Andersen and Company Audio Visual Results Avco Aerostructures Berol Corporation Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Mich. Bobby McGee's USA, Inc. Boehringer Ingelheim, Ltd. Boise Cascade Corporation Boston Gas Company Burns International Security Services, Inc. H.E. Butt Grocery Company Central Illinois Light Company CF Industries Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. Clearfield Job Corps Connecticut General Corporation Conoco, Inc. Creative Interchange Creative Universal Dayton' 5 Company Detroit Bank Corporation Domino's Pizza, Inc. Dover Corporation/Elevator Div. Dow Chemical, USA Eastern Air Lines, Inc. Eastman Kodak Electronic Data Systems Corporation Electronics Association of Calif. Elk Corporation Employers Mutual Companies EMS Entex, Inc. Equitable Savings Factory Mutual Engineering 128 Name of Person Responding: Odin Nestgaard Meredith L. Hard Kayetta Slocun Linda L. Thompson Dennis J. Stewart James B. Frazier Frederick J. Collett Andrew F. Arvay, III Maurice Coleman Lee Hancock Roxanne P. Willert Dayle E. Rado Mary Ann Motyka Mari A. Faistenhammer K.D. Nichmann Ann Ritter Susan Horwitz Craig A. Bussey Andrea Patton Harold w. Wissink William G. Eppel Mary Ann Allison John w. Jeppson 1. Gail Howard H.w. Swaim Arthur E. North Fredrick w. Wicks Mitch Hammer Linda Conat Donald E. Dufek Joe Jenkins Willard B. Maxwell Lewis v. Lash Mabelle I. Parrinello Bob Hunsberger Erik R. Lindstedt Forrest Reynolds Charles Summers Ken Haff Geralyn Burke Lynn Hatfield Ellen Gold 129 APPENDIX E - Continued Name of Organization: Farmland Industries Federal Express Federal Reserve Bank First National Bank Atlanta First National Bank Cincinnati Fluor Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Fox & Jacobs General Dynamics/Electric Boat Div. General Foods Corporation General Motors Assembly Division General Signal Corporation General Telephone Co. of Illinois G.F. Business Equipment/Crenlo Div. Gilbarco, Inc. Gimbels Midwest Grain Terminal Association Harley Davidson Motor Company Home Owners Warranty Company Informatics, Inc. ‘ ITT North Electric Kaiser Aluminum Levi Strauss International Los Angeles Times Mannesmann Tally Merck, Sharp & Dohme Merrill Lynch Miles Lab., Inc./Ames Div. 3M Company Mohawk Parthways Girl Scout Council Moore Business Systems Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. National Bank of North America Naus & Newlyn, Inc. NCTI New Wales Chemicals, Inc. NL Career Development Center/NL Industries NL Chemicals/NL Industries NTS Research Corporation Organizational Systems, Inc. Payco American Corporation Pay'n Save Corporation Philadelphia Life Insurance Company Pitney Bowes, Inc. Pizza Inn, Inc. Ponderosa System, Inc. PPG Industries Public Service Indiana Name of Person Responding: John Griffith John R. Herbek W.L. Thompson Dianne Huckins Robert E. Schultz Enrique A. Cancino John G. Peiser E.A. Sylvia, Jr. Lloyd K. Davis William Herlihy William R. Favro Alan J. Wentz Gene Campbell George A. Gates Gail E. Stoddard Irene Molitor James Kasper Delores Eldridge Susan Gould James A. Cook Mike Spalding Betty Martin-Lewis Jeff Fink Sue Vitale Dana Gaines Melissa Leifer J.A. Jackson Milton Fronsoe, Jr. Sally A. Bouton Kirk Asplin Nicholas J. Scalzo Bruce D. Zimmerman Jamie B. Telegadis Vernon L. Hamm, Jr. Thomas Macklin Richard T. Barnes, Jr. D.A. Kirsner Oougald L. MacMillan Richard J. Lamberski Victor M. Kline Jack Pachuta Gregory Diven W.H. Turley Charles H. Kinney Bill Curley William T. Pace Eli Vega Gail A. Morrison 130 APPENDIX E - Continued Name of Organization: Name of Person Responding: Public Service Company of N.H. Gary N. Arnold Quality Control Circles, Inc. Roma Rieker Quiktrip Corporation Ruth Crane Rapidata, Inc. JoAnn C. Dixon Raytheon Company R.A. Kaplowitz Resorts International/Hotel Casino Gilbert H. Hatcher Shirlee Manufacturing Company Thomas R. Koch Shop-n-Go Markets Stan Helmkamp Southeast Banking Corporation Pidge Diehl Southern Railway System Joseph L. Gelmini Stouffer Foods Corporation Joseph Girolamo Taco Bell James Baron Target Stores Jari Holland Telemedia Michael I. Hirsch Tenneco Oil Company/P&M R.H. Woods Thiokol/Wasatch Div. William E. Jones Thompson Recruitment Advertising Linda Green United California Bank ------ United Information Systems/United Lyn Barrie Telecom United Research Company Martin C. Becker Union Carbide Corporation J.H. Victorson Utah International, Inc. William G. Aboud Wang Laboratories, Inc. John R. Grausam Westinghouse Electric Robert T. Scott Wheat-First Securities R. Wendell Williams Williams Brothers Engineering Leigh Flowe Zale Corporation/Zale Div. Bob Williams Zapata Corporation Robert A. Jones APPENDIX F ADDITIONAL COMPETENCIES SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS 131 (Note: APPENDIX F ADDITIONAL COMPETENCIES SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS The following competencies were added by respondents to the sections indicated, in the blank marked “Other: These headings correspond to the section on the questionnaire by the same name.) 8. MANAGEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT UNIT AND PROCESS: 10. . To demonstrate tranquility during adversity. . To establish evaluative measures of unit/program effective- ness. To obey orders to the letter. . To understand "line" needs. To develop a replacement. . To establish career development goals and objectives of trainers. To provide advance training opportunities for the development team. To prepare long and short term goals for individual staff members. . IDENTIFYING NEEDS FOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT: . Fluency in Spanish, Lao-Vietnamese, Farsi. . Recognizing the difference in "informed“ input and casual remarks or guesses. . To communicte program needs to manager from team member's information and data. To stay abreast of program developments. PLANNING PROGRAM CONTENT: 'thQOU'DD C . Communicate with line--other staff. Additional languages skills in reading and writing. . Technical (subject) knowledge. . Apply concepts of behavior modification to course. . Provide flow line for field with corporate departments. . To build in several Options for program presentation. 132 133 APPENDIX F - Continued 11. DESIGNING AND PRODUCING MATERIALS: 0'90 . To produce course workbooks and other handouts. . To be able to produce A no. 1 videotape materials--shoot and edit. . Willing to work 3 shifts--Saturdays & overtime. To produce work on flipcharts. To produce instructor guides or participant written materials. Conduct follow-ups and evaluations. . Train supervisors and managers to do 1 through 8. (Refers to Competencies 11e1 through 11e8--havin to do with producing the various types of materials 12. CONDUCTING TRAINING PROGRAMS: a. b. c. Be punctual at all times--no exceptions, no excuses. To follow schedules and agendae. To establish appropriate communication in relation to training program. 13. EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP: a. b. c. Communicate results to management. To observe accurately the students progress. To use cost data for budget forecasting/requests. 14. GENERAL COMPETENCIES: a. b. C. Loyalty to company._ Function at awareness level with concepts of free enterprise economics. Function at awareness level with concepts of contract vs. non-contract work groups. nIcqunN 51m: UNIV. LIBRARIES llWWWlllWlHllllllllllllllllllllll”“lllHlNlWll 31293103945774