ISSUES

The committee has taken too long to deliver the first workshop. The design was faulty (incomplete needs assessment, workshop too long, too many students per facilitator) and poorly implemented (no advance preparation, no follow-up to assess transfer). The activities were not made relevant to workplace situations, diminishing the transfer of learning from workshop to workplace. The committee failed to include students in the needs analysis, design, and implementation. There were no dissemination activities to generate interest and relevance.

The culture of this school system is hierarchical and centralized. Administrators make decisions "downtown" and mandate them to the schools for compliance, minimizing motivation for teamwork. The committee does not display the necessary team building, communication, and problem solving skills to create the workshop.

The project lacks effective leadership. Mavis Barrett neglected her leadership role and Terry Kirkland lacks the experience to be an effective leader. Dr. Cranston did not personally stress the importance of the project to the committee members, resulting in a lack of commitment, missed deadlines, and patchwork modifications.

Using the SCANS report to design the needs analysis was a good decision. However, the needs analysis results did not identify gaps between skills needed and skills possessed by teen employees and did not include key stakeholders (e. g., students, parents, counselors).

The formative evaluation did not:

• include a representative sample of the target population;
• follow the design;
• evaluate the complete workshop plan;
• use the best data gathering techniques; nor
• adequately determine whether students achieved the objectives.

PERSPECTIVES

The school board wants to look good for the public. They may inject themselves into the process if there is an opportunity for positive media exposure.

The system administrators display a lack of involvement in the project. Their role is making policy and tasking others with implementing it. They have an interest in the success of this project, but don't show a commitment to it.

Mavis Barrett, as committee chair, should show commitment to the project, but doesn't. She places a higher priority on her other duties. She acknowledges the interest of the powers downtown, but her behavior is not supportive. The principal is absent, so we don't know his/her perspective.

Jane Pruitt, as lead business teacher, believes that she knows what is best for teens entering the workplace. She resents the presence of Kirkland, feels her status as an expert is in jeopardy, and attempts to build blocking alliances with other team members.

There are no performance incentives for the committee members; their motivation is low.

Terry Kirkland is partially able to help the committee understand instructional systems design. He wants to succeed, but is unable to recognize the problems he is facing and the errors he is making.

The students have little or no interest in the project. College bound students have more interest in preparing for college entrance exams. None of the students can see the relevance of the workshops.

The business community wants the schools to produce workers who meet their needs.

KNOWLEDGE THE KEY PLAYERS HAVE AND KNOWLEDGE THEY NEED

All of the committee members need to have knowledge of:

• the ISD process;
• team building and communication;
• the project's priority; and
• additional stakeholder input.

They should know learner characteristics, but their design indicates they may not. They know classroom management; they need to know change agency processes for generating interest and buy-in to the project, both for themselves and for the students. The committee needs more stakeholder representation.

Terry Kirkland has ISD knowledge, but needs knowledge and experience in performance technology, change agency, project management, and team building. Without these he will remain unable to read the corporate culture, focus the design efforts, or meet milestones.

Jane Pruitt has knowledge of the school's business courses. The mismatch between her proposal and Kirkland's needs analysis indicates she does not know what employers currently want. She needs a better understanding of current needs in the workplace, as well as how needs vary among students.

Mavis Barrett is able to manage crises in the school, but does not show commitment to the project. She must keep the committee focused and on schedule, as well as follow-up to monitor progress. She needs to understand how her actions affect committee members' attitudes.

Jim Cranston knows that the committee needs ISD input, but doesn't understand the scope of the problems plaguing the committee. He displays his enthusiasm to Kirkland, but doesn't recognize that the committee also needs to see his enthusiasm and commitment.

ACTION PLAN

There are numerous opportunities for improvement through the use of ISD processes. However, in this situation an intervention to correct systemic problems is the first priority.

Mavis Barrett should reconstitute the committee by adding stakeholders who are missing: representatives of the student body, the business community, and the counselor staff as a minimum. This will add perspectives and dilute blocking behavior. The current committee members should stay on and share their experience and insights. There should be incentives to encourage excellent performance. The chairperson should quickly replace members who fail to support the project.

Dr. Cranston should demonstrate his enthusiasm and commitment by hosting a kickoff meeting for the new committee. The committee should participate in team building activities.

The committee should thoroughly evaluate the March workshop to determine how stakeholders view the results. The committee will need a new needs analysis; they should use the SCANS Report to design the analysis. The analysis should include stakeholders missing from the first needs assessment and should identify and quantify gaps between skills needed and skills possessed by teen employees in different workplaces.

The new design should take into account, as a minimum, the new needs analysis, the evaluation of the first workshop, learner characteristics, the learning environment, and the results of a rigorous formative evaluation. The formative evaluation should use a representative sample of students and mirror the design as closely as possible. The implementation plan should include dissemination activities to generate interest and relevance for all students.

ANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES

The action plan requires that all the participants understand the strengths and weaknesses of the first workshop. This will require skill to motivate each person to change for the better and not react negatively. An outside expert with credible knowledge and experience must plan and implement this intervention.

Selecting additional committee members will provide new insights. Adding students to the committee will increase dissemination through the student body and help to refocus the instruction on the learners.

Dr. Cranston's endorsement of the project will ensure that Mavis Barrett treats the project as a high priority. With both of them as strong supporters, Jane Pruitt will become motivated to meet their expectations and will become a committed team member. Terry Kirkland will be able to effectively bring ISD into the project.

A new needs analysis will identify gaps in the students' knowledge and focus the training on actual shortcomings. Revising the training will allow the students to establish relevance between the workshop objectives and their "real life" needs, and it will enhance retention and transfer of the material.

If the committee fails to implement the action plan, the project will either die or cause friction and discontent in the school. The school environment will continue to be one in which each person operates in isolation and confusion; the students will model this behavior when they go into outside workplaces. Employers will continue to complain that the schools are not doing their job. They will be right.

COMMON PROVOCATEUR QUESTION:

It appears that one of Terry's major failings, as with so many instructional designers, was in not conducting any sort of context analysis to describe the organizational, socio-cultural context in which this process was to be played out. How should she have done this? What do you believe that she would have found? How would that have affected the design of the instructional/learning activities that were used to engage the students?

ANSWER:

Terry Kirkland's failure to do a context analysis is documented in our first response. She should have begun her work with a context analysis derived from discussions, interviews, and surveys with key participants and stakeholders and from observations in the school and the community.

We recommend a three-view context model consisting of the

1. Orienting Context (the world in which the training will be developed);
2. Training Context (the world in which the training will be delivered); and
3. Transfer Context (the world in which the benefits of the training will be practiced) (Tessmer and Richey, 1996).

In the orienting context she would have found:

• the central office aloof regarding the project and unfocused regarding her role;
• low goal congruence among committee members;
• lack of motivation and incentives;
• lack of student involvement;
• skepticism within the committee on Terry's value to the project;
• key stakeholders not represented;
• committee commitment to a plan that was not student-centered; and
• no project plan (tasks, milestones, responsibilities, etc.).

In the training context she would have found:

• an overloaded school calendar;
• a hectic environment;
• students unaware of the project or its relevance to them; and
• untapped resources (e. g., counselors, student government).

In the transfer context she would have found:

• a wide range of skill requirements (e. g., workplace full-time, workplace part-time, college).

Had she done a context analysis, she would have been better prepared to deal with the shortcomings, constraints, and inhibiting factors that were present. Her credibility would have been much greater, as would her rapport and influence with the committee. The result would have been learning activities that were relevant to student needs, desired by the students, and transferable to beyond-school tasks.

SPECIFIC PROVOCATEUR QUESTION (Supplied by Martin Ryder):

Please compare your own action plan against that proposed by the Workplace Readiness Project Committee, using the following criteria:

• Will it fit within the constraints of the project (i.e. a small grant for a series of workshops?)
• How does your plan better address the target population of high schoolers emerging into the job market.
• Is it grounded in the context of practical activity?

Feel free to take issue with any of these criteria in your response, suggesting criteria which you feel may be more pertinent to the case. If your own action plan is not sufficiently developed for this analysis, please use Terry Kirkland's plan in your response.

ANSWER:

Our action plan addresses the principal flaws in the project. It is based on a context analysis and a needs analysis that includes all key stakeholders. It achieves an excellent fit within the constraints of the project -- a small grant for a series of workshops -- by leveraging existing resources that were overlooked by the original committee. Any further activity that doesn't make maximum use of available resources and information will lead to a waste of time, effort, and money. The prudent choices are to implement our plan or cancel the project.

The first task will be to develop a project management plan that establishes tasks, timelines, and budget. Better project management and leadership will keep the project on target, on schedule, and within budget. This in turn will lead to practical, timely results from a motivated project committee.

The new needs analysis will document gaps in skills and knowledge from the perspectives of employers, faculty, students, and parents. These insights will be the basis for learning activities that are tailored to actual needs. An assumption of the plan is that there will be a range of needs that will require a range of learning activities.

Design and development following the needs analysis will be more responsive to the students' needs, and therefore more beneficial, than the first workshop. A more focused and more relevant product could well be the basis for additional grant money as employers begin to see positive results from the workshops.

The workshops will emphasize activities that have a high probability of transfer of learning into the workplace. The activities will be practical, both in their relevance to post-secondary learner needs and in the feasibility of developing them within the school context.