One of the foundational components of an instructional course is the learning objectives that form the goals for both learner and instructor. Learning objectives define the knowledge, skills, and abilities that a learner should be able to demonstrate upon successful completion of the course. But learning objectives also target the specific depth of knowledge, skills and abilities that will be covered in the course. Bloom’s Taxonomy has helped us quantify the depth and breadth of instructional content. Instructional designers and instructors each carefully consider the depth and breadth that is appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the course.
As competency models are developed, modelers will also consider the depth and breadth of the knowledge, skill, and abilities that need to be demonstrated to show proficiency. As competencies are defined it is not only important to define a structure that represents the categorical groups and definitions but also the performance statements or demonstrated behaviors that will help in the evaluation of the competency.
While instructional courses and competency models provide statements (objectives) to assist in the evaluation of success, competency proficiency is not measured by the successful completion of a course. Here’s an example,
As a journalism major at the University of Kentucky, I was required to take a course in layout and design. The purpose of the course was to teach the theory and practice of well designed newspaper pages so that the most important stories received the right placement, that pages were balanced in their appearance. Stories, photographs and advertisements were combined on the page to fit the space in a way that gave the right placement and space to the most important elements. I did very well in the course.
After graduating, I was hired as the sports editor for a local weekly newspaper where my first day was also the one day in the week the paper went to press. When I arrived I learned the rest of the staff had written the stories for the sports page but I was going to need to layout the page and have it ready for paste up. All I had to do was layout one page. Other staff members would take care of the rest of the paper.
As the clocked ticked by I struggled to make the stories, photographs and advertisements fit. The rest of the newspaper staff finished all of the pages of the that week’s edition long before I was able to get one page done. Finally, very early in the morning I was able to get everything to work on the page and was able to go home.
I learned then that while I had passed the layout and design course in college, I really didn’t know how to layout and design a newspaper page. I had passed the course but I was not competent in the knowledge, skills and abilities to do it well. I think I learned more that first night at the newspaper about layout and design than any one could have taught me in a simulated environment.
As competency models are constructed to provide definitions and performance statements that aid in evaluation they are often also mapped to instructional courses that will support that attainment of a competency. But it is important to remember, the successful completion of a course does not make someone competent. The learner may very well be proficient upon completion of a course, but proficiency is not a guaranteed.
Looking back on Dr. Orndorf’s course at UK, I’m sure that I could have worked harder to ensure that I was able to apply the principles he taught us in a real world situation. I could have worked harder to understand that in a real environment the photograph is not always the size you plan for; or there may be more ads than you’d like there to be. In a simulated environment it was too easy to make it work, especially without the intensity of a real deadline and writers who didn’t want to see their stories cut down to fit.
This example shows a glimpse of why competency models should be structured to go beyond the mapping of competencies to courses and plan for tools to help evaluate the employee’s true proficiency.
What tools have you used to help evaluate true proficiency in a given competency?
This is a very good writeup. I am currently doing a module on competency mapping from the Indian society for training and development . Though in competency models, the focus is on the person rather than the task, in the unviersity it would indicate that a person knows something and not actually do something which can only be tested in a real life evironment.
I would go a step further. Unfortunaely, the education system is too knolwedge centric instead of being skill centric. Skills can be tested only in real life einvironment and then advanced knowledge should be imparted like in sports instead of it being the other way around.
There are many career misfits in the United states itself. Competency models should be further made skill centric and ensure that that the right person gets the right job which is its primarly objective. The mapping may be done for a role but it is tested only in real life. I feel that competency models can be actively used for lateral career transition, which in some cases is the esssence of talent management- http://mypyp.wordpress.com/