Seven issues to consider when designing training curricula

9

Performance Improvement, vol. 49, no. 7, August 2010©2010 International Society for Performance Improvement

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.20161

SEVEN ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN DESIGNING TRAINING CURRICULA

Jennie Phillips, MA

Most organizations focus on one-off training solutions to address a single workplace learning

need at a single time rather than integrating learning and nonlearning interventions to help

staff develop increasingly complex levels of expertise specific to their jobs. Curriculum is a

long-term, integrated approach to training in which workers take several related courses over a

period of time. This article presents seven design issues that distinguish curriculum design from

course design.

BECAUSE MANY FUNCTIONS have responsibility for responding to workplace learning needs, most organiza-tions typically offer an eclectic mix of training curricula and instructional courses. These courses are often one-offs—that is, a single course meant to address a single need at a single point in time, like a workshop on how to add animation to a PowerPoint presentation or a seminar on emotional intelligence at the annual sales meeting.

Training events that address a single need at a single time, however, fail to address the larger challenges of building and sustaining long-term improvements to work performance by helping workers develop increas-ingly complex levels of expertise and skills that different workers apply in different ways, depending on the nature of their jobs. Indeed, one-off training events usually ad-dress just one type of skill, such as sales or technology, rather than integrating pieces, as is most often feasible only by having learners go through a series of interrelated courses.

Such a long-term, integrated approach to training that involves workers taking several related courses over a period of time is called a curriculum. Curriculum design is the process followed to design these interrelated series of courses.

Although curriculum design is similar to the instruc-tional design process for single courses, its process and considerations are different in several ways. For example, the output of a curriculum design effort is a road map to

several courses and noninstructional interventions that together build the desired skills rather than designs for specific courses and noninstructional interventions that are typical of instructional design efforts. Furthermore, the time frame for developing and implementing a cur-riculum may extend from months to years, while the time frame for developing and implementing a single course is usually much shorter.

Although instructional curricula design is an im-portant skill, it seems to receive little attention in the instructional design literature. For example, best-selling instructional design texts, like Dick, Carey, and Carey’s The Systematic Design of Instruction (2008) and Smith and Ragan’s Instructional Design (2004) focus exclusively on course design.

This article begins the process of filling the gap in the literature by presenting seven design issues that distin-guish curriculum design from course design.

ISSUE 1: DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A CURRICULUM AND A COURSEA curriculum is an organized program of study designed to meet a broad or complex learning objective, such as preparing a learner to become a licensed physician, become a certified computer network technician, or man-age all ongoing business operations during a civil emer-gency. It usually incorporates several courses and other learning events and resources.

PFI20161.indd 9PFI20161.indd 9 8/2/10 11:57:18 AM8/2/10 11:57:18 AM

10 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • AUGUST 2010

Although most people theoretically know the difference between curricula and courses, in practice many people confuse the two. The problem is especially noticeable in discussions of blended learning, in which instructional designers plan several related learning programs that work together to address a set of objectives. One of the most typical designs for blended learning in training is to have learners take prerequisite courses online. After demonstrating competency with the prerequisite objec-tives, learners attend a subsequent course, usually planned for the classroom. “Although many people think of blended learning [like this] as a course design strategy,” Driscoll and Carliner (2005) explain, “it is actually a cur-riculum strategy. That is, blended learning looks at not just a single course but at a series of courses and learning events that work together to achieve a larger learning objective” (p. 88).

In addition to blended learning, electronic perfor-mance support systems are examples of curricula. These electronic environments provide employees with advice, information, and learning experiences to help them per-form their job while demanding minimal support from others (Raybould, 1996). They are examples of curricula because they are organized programs of study, using dif-ferent interventions to meet the needs of different levels of users, such as courses to introduce concepts, job aids to provide reminders, and on-screen prompts to coach users.

Training curricula focus on developing a set of com-petencies needed to perform a particular job. Because these competencies are often developed over time, cur-ricula are usually intended to be taken over an extended period of time—possibly as many as four or five years to complete.

Common curricula in training and development contexts are sales training, management development, and leadership development. These usually have several courses, some taken at the learner’s pace and others taken in a classroom, as well as developmental experiences.

In contrast, a course is a single learning program. Courses usually address just one or two competencies and cover specific learning objectives. Examples of objectives covered by a course are treating the H1N1 virus, planning for computer networks in learning management systems, and maintaining contact with staff during a civil emer-gency. A course also often includes several sections, com-monly called units or lessons (other names are used too). In many instances, courses may be taken in a single ses-sion (especially training courses), but some are designed for several sessions.

In addition, many methodologies for assessing the ef-fectiveness of training interventions focus on assessing

the quality of program learning objectives rather than the more broadly stated goals and objectives of curri-cula. Although methods for assessing the effectiveness of entire curricula exist in other branches of educa-tion, similar methodologies are needed for training and performance improvement professionals. For example, satisfaction surveys, a widely used practice in train-ing evaluation, tend to assess satisfaction with only an individual learning program, not an entire curriculum. Similarly, tests of learning tend to focus on the objec-tives of a single course. Methodologies for assessing return on investment seem well suited for evaluating curricula.

ISSUE 2: WHEN STARTING A CURRICULUM DESIGN PROJECT, BROADEN THE FOCUS OF THE NEEDS ASSESSMENTThe general process for designing and developing a cur-riculum is the same as that for designing and developing a course. However, subtle differences exist at each phase, starting with the needs assessment.

Three differences distinguish the needs assessment for a course and those for a curriculum. The first is es-tablishing a mission for the curriculum. In contrast to individual courses, which are intended to achieve well-defined learning objectives, curricula are intended to achieve broader goals or missions. A mission articulates the purpose of the curriculum, that is, what learners should be able to do upon completing their programs of study and the attitudes and values they should possess at that time (Gardiner, 2007). For example, a course on nursing practice might address the objective, “To analyze each body system for changes and responses to disease, fluctuating states of health, environmental stresses, and the aging process” (Keating, 2005, p. 183). In contrast, a nursing curriculum would address a broader range of skills and materials and might include the mission as well: “To prepare compassionate nurses and nurse leaders to meet the health care needs of their communities and society” (Keating, 2005, p. 180).

The difference between these two examples lies in their scope. The course objective is specific, describing the skills and knowledge required for patient examina-tion and diagnosis only. Other facets of nursing are not accounted for, such as human biology, pharmacology, and the ethics of health care. The mission statement, however, is written generally enough to encompass each of these aspects and more.


Performance Improvement • Volume 49 • Number 7 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 11

The mission given to a curriculum should align with the mission and strategic goals of the organization for which it is being developed. In the nursing example, the mission would serve the broader organizational goals of a school of nursing. For example, Keating (2005) linked the goals of the nursing curriculum described in issue 1 with these values from an institutional mission:

Value the professional role of nursing and interdisci-plinary collaboration in health care delivery

Commit to lifelong learning through continued education

Synthesize knowledge from other disciplines to de-velop intellectual and social knowledge and skills that apply to nursing

Apply advanced nursing skills and knowledge to pro-vide competent and compassionate nursing care

Contribute to the development of the nursing profes-sion through application of scientifi c processes and theory. (p. 182)

The second difference between a needs assessment for a course and that for a curriculum is the focus on competencies—general statements describing a qual-ity required to perform a particular job, often to be developed over time. Like learning objectives, compe-tencies describe the learner’s desired performance. The main distinction is that learning objectives are written so that they can be measured, whereas competencies are written to be more general (Hartel & Foegeding, 2004). Whereas mission statements are broadly used to describe the purpose of the program, competencies are used to identify the general skills, knowledge, and attitudes of students who are completing the program (Hartel & Foegeding, 2004). Competencies encompass several specific learning objectives that might be cov-ered in one or more courses and are described in terms of performance.

Here is an example of a competency covered in the curriculum of the nursing school: “Apply basic health and biological science concepts to the provision and support of health care services.” Note that the competency in this example provides more detail about learning outcomes than a mission statement but less detail than the learn-ing objectives. In contrast to the specific, tightly worded learning objectives of a single course, curriculum compe-tencies are broad and can be addressed in several courses in the curriculum (Frere, 2009).

Those who are developing training curricula intended to develop the competencies needed in a common job can check the Developing a Curriculum Database at Ohio State University (http://www.dacumohiostate.com/). This database lists the competencies needed in many job cat-egories and could provide a start in developing a list of competencies for an organization-specific curriculum.

The third significant difference between conducting a needs assessment for a course and a curriculum is that curriculum almost always addresses several audiences. In contrast, many courses often target one or two well-defined groups of learners who have a need to develop competence in a particular subject area and are likely to take most, if not all, of the course.

Although curricula are intended for several groups of learners, their interests are overlapping, not identical, so not all learners are expected to take all of the learning programs in the curriculum. For example, some sales training curricula start with required courses that all students must take to develop the basic competencies needed with the content. Afterward, learners choose from a series of elective courses to help them learn sales tech-niques appropriate to their positions. For example, in a large telecommunications company, some students might specialize in selling to large enterprises, and others will specialize in selling to small and medium enterprises.

Consider, too, the different learners addressed by a curriculum on emergency management. Such a cur-riculum might target physical security, media personnel, information technology experts, and incident coordina-tors. It would provide all of these critical emergency staff with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies effectively and efficiently. An introductory course would address basic competencies for managing in an emergency and would be intended for all participants. Subsequent courses would be intended for people playing particular roles in the emergency. For example, a course on physical security would target those responsible for evacuating personnel and securing an area. A course on media relations would target those responsible for communicating the details of the emergency to the general public.

The mission given to a curriculum should align with the mission and strategic goals of the organization for which it is being developed.



specified objectives rather than other students (Design Shop, 2009)

Assessments for curricula take a broader focus, con-sidering the extent to which learners have integrated the knowledge and attitudes that the curriculum promotes. Because the evaluations for individual courses in a cur-riculum can assess the extent to which learners have mastered particular skills, no additional criterion-refer-enced assessments are needed. Rather, a broader tool that assesses the extent to which learners have mastered all of the competencies in a curriculum serves as a more effec-tive assessment of learning.

When determining what to assess, consider the three main classes of evaluation (McNamara, n.d.; “Evaluate Programs,” 2007):

Goals based,• which evaluates how programs are meet-ing predetermined goals. For example, an HIV/AIDS awareness program aimed at decreasing infection rates would use goals-based evaluation to determine if infection rates have changed.

Process based,• which evaluates how the program pro-duces its results. If HIV/AIDS rates have not changed, process-based examination would examine how the program was implemented to identify obstacles to meeting their goals.

Outcome based,• which determines the overall effects or outcomes of the program relative to the competencies and goals that have been established. Outcome-based evaluation of the HIV/AIDS program could examine factors in terms of learning (such as increased knowl-edge about HIV/AIDS transmission) or conditions (such as increased use of condoms).

Outcome-based evaluation suits curriculum design well because its focus is on the student’s learning out-comes. This is important considering that the curriculum is designed based on the learner’s needs. In addition, the approach is holistic, and implementation is ongoing and cyclical (“Evaluate Programs,” 2007). Given that the cur-riculum must satisfy a broad scope of needs and develop-ment and is an iterative and drawn-out process, outcome-based evaluation fulfills both needs. This method is also consistent with other widely recognized evaluation strate-gies, including formative and summative evaluations.

A widely used outcomes-based assessment is certifica-tion. Well-designed certifications assess not only learners’ abilities to master the content needed to perform but also their ability to perform. For example, many of the certifications of trainers have both a knowledge exam to assess learners’ intellectual mastery of the content and skills assessments to assess learners’ abilities to perform in a real-world setting.

ISSUE 3: FOCUS ON LEARNING GOALS RATHER THAN LEARNING OBJECTIVESJust as course designers establish requirements after con-ducting a needs assessment, so do curriculum designers. The first task in establishing requirements is to develop goals that correspond to the material and its desired achievements.

When designing courses, instructional designers write measurable learning objectives that state what learners should be able to do after completing the course. These objectives define, in turn, which content the course must cover, as well as the focus of that content (Clark, 2004). Consider this example of a learning objective for a proj-ect management course: “Describes the four stages of the project life cycle using text and graphs.” Notice that the objective describes a behavior that can be externally observed and measured, as is typical of all learning ob-jectives.

In contrast, when designing curricula, instructional designers prepare broadly stated aims such as program competencies and learning goals. These goals describe general learning outcomes and may or may not be mea-surable (Clark, 2004). In contrast to the example of the learning objective for a project management course that was just presented, consider this learning goal for a project management curriculum: “Apply decision-aiding models when selecting a project.” This goal is broader than the observable and measurable behavior of a learning objec-tive. As a result, others may not be able to observe and measure the goal in the same way they might measure and observe a learning objective.

ISSUE 4: DESIGN HOLISTIC EVALUATIONSAfter establishing goals for the curriculum, designers establish the second set of requirements: evaluations for the curriculum. As course designers prepare criterion-referenced tests immediately after writing objectives—and before preparing the content—to “visualize” what effective performance of the objectives looks like (Mager, 1997), so curriculum designers should prepare curriculum evalua-tions to visualize what effective completion of the curricu-lum might look like. With these visualizations, curriculum designers can design courses that teach to the test and increase the likelihood that learners can achieve the goals.

Assessments for courses generally focus exclusively on assessing the extent to which learners have mastered objectives, for which the only type of appropriate as-sessment is criterion referenced. Criterion-referenced evaluation measures how well learners perform against



A road map shows all of the courses and resources in the curriculum, as well as the pathways the learners might take through the curriculum. Figure 1 is an example of a curriculum road map for practitioners in year 1 of the emergency management training program.

Determining the sequence of content in curriculum design is similar to developing a taxonomy in informa-tion architecture. A taxonomy is a type of conceptual framework that is used to categorize and structure con-tent within a defined scope (“Understanding Information Taxonomy Helps Build Better Apps,” 2003). In a taxonomy,

Schalock (2000) explains there are four different types of outcome based evaluations. First, there is program evaluation, which studies current and target person and program-referenced outcomes and their use. Second is effectiveness evaluation, which examines the extent a program has met its stated goals and objectives. Third is impact evaluation, which determines if the program made an effect in contrast to no program or a different program. Fourth is policy evaluation, which examines the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness of policy outcomes.

For a complete evaluation using all four types, consider the evaluation of an emergency management curriculum. Goals-based evaluation could be addressed through a program evaluation that contrasts existing competency levels of the staff trained on entry into the curriculum with those on exit. Effectiveness evaluation could exam-ine how the competency levels of the trained staff com-pare with those of staff in similar organizations. Impact evaluation could contrast the competency levels of staff who were trained with those who were not. And policy evaluation could examine the ability of the organization to meet legislative and industry standards for emergency management.

ISSUE 5: DESIGN A CURRICULUM ROAD MAP, NOT A COURSE BLUEPRINTAfter (1) establishing the requirements for the curriculum, (2) identifying the goals—that is, the general knowledge, skills, and attitudes learners should develop through the curriculum—and (3) establishing a means for evaluating the extent to which learners have developed them, the next step is to begin to design a curriculum that addresses these needs and requirements.

According to Driscoll and Carliner (2005), the design for a curriculum should take learners from knowing nothing about the content to a level where they are ap-propriately competent with it. Appropriately competent means that learners can demonstrate mastery relevant to the way in which they will use the material in their work. A curriculum does so through a series of courses and related materials.

The curriculum design identifies these different courses and related materials, including the paths that different types of learners might take through that con-tent. Because it is merely focused on where people learn what and the path learners take from knowing nothing to having appropriate competence, the design plans for cur-ricula are less specific than those for courses.

Curricula designs are high-level designs. They identify each course and related resources in the curriculum, such as job aids.

Curricula designs are high-level designs. They identify each course and related resources in the curriculum, such as job aids.

FIGURE 1. EXAMPLE OF A CURRICULUM ROAD MAP FOR AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TRAINING

PROGRAM

Note. BCP � business continuity planning, BEM � basic emergency management, EXER � exercise, ICS � incident command system, RESP � response.



product and is usually funded in its entirety. In contrast, a curriculum has several courses, some of which are intended to be taken for several months or even a year or more after the initial ones. As a result, courses in a curriculum are implemented one at a time, in phases, as the first group of learners to go through a curriculum need them. This phased implementation process can take months but often extends over years.

Not surprisingly, because development of a curricu-lum might occur over several years and therefore several budgeting cycles, not all of the funding for developing and implementing the courses in a curriculum might be allocated at the start. Funding might come one or two courses at a time, although this slows their development.

ISSUE 7: DESIGNING CURRICULA REQUIRES AN IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING OF THE MANY USES OF THE CONTENT IN ITCurriculum designers need a detailed understanding of the content covered in the curriculum. So do course designers, but the need for this in-depth understanding differs. In general, instructional designers need detailed knowledge of a subject because they have to teach it. Designers need to present the content to learners, antici-pate questions that learners might raise, and be prepared to answer them.

In contrast, curriculum designers need a detailed understanding of the content in the curriculum because they must build and reinforce relationships among the content. At the least, curriculum designers identify in which course prerequisite information is presented and alert designers of the different courses in the curriculum to these links (which might include several different de-signers) and how to address the overlap.

information is grouped together in units (categories) that establish how each unit interrelates with one another and are then assembled into a hierarchal framework. The sequencing of content in a curriculum is similar, in that it also involves grouping information (training competencies) together into units (courses), establish-ing interrelationships between content (such as planned repetition versus redundancy), and sequencing units into hierarchical road map.

For each course and resource, curriculum plans also provide enough detailed description so that course de-signers can prepare detailed course designs. These details include (Driscoll & Carliner, 2005):

A one-sentence statement of purpose of the course 1. or resource that ties the program to the values of the organization.

Prerequisite skills needed for the course or to use the 2. resource.

Main (terminal) learning objectives (or competencies) 3. addressed by the course or resource, as well as one additional level of depth of objectives (supporting or enabling objectives).

Format of the content, such as a course, job aid, or 4. user’s guide. In addition to describing the format, the plans should identify the expectations underlying these formats and whether the design will meet those expectations. Specific expectations refer to the type of content to be covered, the manner in which the content is presented, the structure of the content, and the writing style. For example, in a classroom-training course, learners expect the course to begin with an introduction covering the agenda of the course and classroom procedures, include a combination of con-tent and exercises, and conclude with some sort of self-assessment. They expect clear, explanatory com-munication. In contrast, a job aid is intended only to provide a brief reminder and would be presented as a card, sign, or some similar printed format. The piece is usually brief and can fit into a pocket. The commu-nication—or writing—style is telegraphic; if learners need details, they look elsewhere.

Medium used to deliver the material such as online 5. (asynchronous), online Webcast (synchronous), print, or classroom.

ISSUE 6: PLAN FOR A PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRICULUMThe process of designing and developing a course usu-ally takes weeks or months, because a course is a single

Curriculum designers need a detailed understanding of the content in the curriculum because they must build and reinforce relationships among the content.



customization courses typically address issues that arise only after the product has been in wide use for several months or even years. In such instances, curriculum designers prepare what they can to meet the immediate need and prepare the rest later.

Curriculum design, in sum, requires equal parts of blue-sky vision and an appreciation for on-the-ground realities.

References

Clark, D.R. (2004). A quick guide to writing learning objectives. NWLink.com. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/templates/objectivetool.html.

Design Shop. (2009). Assessment purposes. Retrieved August 12, 2009 from http://www.edtech.vt.edu/edtech/id/assess/purposes.html.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2008). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Driscoll, M., & Carliner, S. (2005). Advanced Web-based train-ing strategies: Unlocking instructionally sound online learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Evaluate programs: Outcome evaluation. (2007). Instructional Assessment Resources, University of Texas. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/assessment/iar/programs/plan/types/outcomes.php.

Frere, C. (2009). Developing student learning outcomes/competency-based curriculum. School of Dentistry, West Virginia University. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/admin/facultydev/Assessment%20Material/Developing%20A%20Competency%20Based%20Curriculum%20%28Frere%29.html.

Gardiner, L. (2007). Designing a college curriculum. St. Petersburg, FL: National Academy for Academic Leadership. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.thenationalacademy.org/readings/designing.html.

Hartel, R.W., & Foegeding, E.A. (2004). Learning: Objectives, competencies or outcomes. Journal of Food Science Education, 3, 69–70.

Hughes, M. (2009, May). Architecting user assistance topics for reuse: Case examples in DITA. UX Matters. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2009/05/architecting-user-assistance-topics-for-reuse-case-examples-in-dita.php.

Keating, S.B. (2005). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

At the most, curriculum designers might purposely plan to repeat the same content in several different courses and resources. For example, a product training curriculum might repeat the same product description in separate courses for the marketing, research and de-velopment, and customer service teams. Although the focus of the content might differ in each course, each describes the same content and should use the same explanation.

At the least, a curriculum designer can alert the design-ers of individual courses and advise them where to find the centralized description that should be used. At the most, a curriculum designer might need to oversee the design of a database where this reusable content is stored (Hughes, 2009). This content includes passages that can be reused, as well as pictures, video clips, exercises, and other resources.

A course in a firefighting curriculum, for example, might reuse a video from a first aid course that demonstrates the impact of toxic fumes. A hazardous materials course might also use this video segment. Similarly, the firefighting course might reuse pictures depicting the different types of fires from a course on fire suppression. Exercises on emer-gency communications may be used in a course on incident management and one on safety and communications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING CURRICULA IN THE REAL WORLDAlthough this article presents the process for developing a curriculum as a sequence of activities, the activities often occur out of sequence in the real world. For example, sup-pose a subject matter expert (SME) is unavailable during a needs assessment. Sticking to the process would mean delaying the project until the SME becomes available. In the real world, that might not be not practical, and the curriculum designer might have enough content expertise to work without this outside guidance. So a real-world curriculum designer would make a best effort to complete the designs without the availability of the SME and would make revisions later, if needed, when the SME becomes available.

Similarly, in some cases, designing an entire curricu-lum at one time might be impossible because some of the material underlying the curriculum is not yet known. This is especially true for training curricula related to new products, in which some of the advanced troubleshoot-ing and customization courses cannot be designed with the introductory and intermediate courses that must be announced when the product comes to market. That is because the introductory and intermediate courses usu-ally address known issues; advanced troubleshooting and



JENNIE PHILLIPS, MA, is an emergency management training officer with the Canadian federal gov-ernment in Ottawa, Ontario. Her work builds on her previous experience in emergency management for the Privy Council Office, the civil service group that supports the prime minister. Prior to her work in emergency management, she worked with the integration of information and communications technology for international development on projects in Chandigarh, India, and Manzini, Swaziland. She also leads a grassroots international advocacy group, awear.ca. She holds a master’s degree in educational technology from Concordia University and a bachelor’s degree in science from the University of Waterloo. She may be reached at [email protected].

Mager, R. (1997). Making instruction work (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.

McNamara, C. (n.d.). Basic guide to program evaluation. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.mapnp.org/library/evaluatn/fnl_eval.htm.

Raybould, B. (1996, February–March). EPSS: A definition. Technical and Skills Training, 1–5.

Schalock, R. (2000). Outcome –based evaluation (2nd ed.). Springer.

Smith, P. & Ragan, T.J. (2004). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Understanding information taxonomy helps build better apps.(2003, June 25). Techrepublic. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100–10878_11–5055268.html.


Seven issues to consider when designing training curricula

Documents

Transcript of Seven issues to consider when designing training curricula