Organizational learning theories

My dissertation not only looks at distributed group collaboration, but also how that effects organizational learning. The following is my discussion on organizational learning, including how I differentiate knowledge management from organizational learning.


Organizational Learning Theories

There are two prevailing schools of learning theory at the organizational level. The first is based on the idea of organizational knowledge management in which knowledge is codified into information which the organization and individuals can access, monitor, acquire, and store (Allee, 1997; Contu & Willmott, 2003; Raelin, 2008). Similar to Kolb’s (1980) apprehensive and comprehensive knowledge, this school of organizational learning theorizes that the process of codification creates knowledge which can be stored and accessed for use when needed by those within the organization (Raelin; Yakhlef, 2002). Organizational knowledge then becomes the aggregate of individuals’ knowledge and experience (Allee, 1997; Cook & Yanow, 1995). As Raelin describes DiBella, Nevis, and Gould’s three-step approach to organizational learning from a knowledge management perspective, knowledge is acquired, shared, and utilized by members of the organization. Rouwette and Vennix (2008) describe the information processing approach used within knowledge management which includes attention to identification of problems, encoding information so group members create shared meaning, store information perceived as valuable which creates organizational memory, create informational retrieval processes, create workspace processes that support organizational culture, and create communication structures that support sense-making and feedback from individuals and groups within the organization.

Knowledge management based theories of organizational learning begins with codified knowledge that can be retrieved and stored from members of the organization (Cook & Brown, 1999, Nonaka, 1994). For knowledge to be useful, therefore, individuals need to be able to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Knowledge that cannot be codified would not be useful to the organization as knowledge would not be able to be retrieved and stored for use by others within the organization. As a result, organizational processes need to be structured so that tacit information can be transformed into codified knowledge thus resulting in organizational learning. Using Anderson’s ACT cognitive model, Nonaka explains, “declarative knowledge has to be transformed into procedural knowledge in order for cognitive skills to develop…it can be argued that transformation is bidirectional (p. 18).” In other words, codified knowledge needs to be in a form that fits into organizational procedures, but also organizational procedures can produce knowledge that then needs to be codified for organizational use.

My working definition of knowledge management is the access, monitoring, acquisition, and storage of organizational information which is codified into a common format in order for those within the organization to participate in sense-making, group decision making and problem solving, and the creation of shared mental models at the group, departmental, and organizational level. While organizational learning may need to access some forms of knowledge management, organizational learning is not synonymous with knowledge management. In addition, not all organizational learning requires knowledge management, although knowledge management might augment organizational learning.

The second school of organizational learning theory is based on organizational members’ social and cultural interaction with the environment, often through the establishment of communities of practice within the workplace (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Cook & Brown, 1999; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Nonaka, 1994). Those within this school of organizational learning believe that learning within the organization is not based on individuals possessing needed knowledge, but rather learning is a construction of knowledge within the organizational environment. Cook and Yanow go one step further by placing learning into the organizational culture which establishes patterns of activity that create knowledge. They define organizational learning as, “acquiring, sustaining or changing of intersubjective meaning and/or the artifactual vehicles of their expression and transmission, through the collective actions of the group (p.280).” In other words, it is the interaction with the environment, stimulated through organizational practices such as collaborative writing, project management, and both formal and informal group discussions that create organizational learning opportunities. These work activities, both cognitive and social, create both tacit and explicit knowledge through social interaction and the organization of work patterns (Cook & Brown, 1999).

Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne (2003) further define the organizational learning process as “ a social process mediated by artifacts. This view thus emphasizes the importance of culture, communication, and group activities in organizations (p. 843).” While the first model presented above (knowledge management) assumes that knowledge is created and possessed at the individual level and is then dispersed collectively at the group and organizational level, this second model (constructed knowledge) theorizes that there are different types of knowledge created at each level (individual, group, and organizational). Organizational learning, therefore, is influenced by the social environment, organizational culture, and work patterns that are the result of political influences within the organization’s powerstructure (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Nonaka, 1994). As a result, not all organizational knowledge can be culled and transferred to others within the organization (often through training) because the knowledge is imbedded in organizational practices and culture.

Both Cook (1995, 1999) and Nonaka (1994) concluded that there is implicit or tacit knowledge that is created within the confines of organizational boundaries. Looking at work patterns in various industries, they both concluded that knowledge is created through perspective taking, meaning making, and dialog necessitated when there was dissonance or differences in understanding within the work patterns. Perspective, meaning, and the form that communication takes are dictated by culture. In this study, we will use Cook & Yanow’s definition of culture:

We define culture in application to organizations as a set of values, beliefs, and meanings, together with the artifacts of their expression and transmission (such as myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals and ritual objects), that are created. Inherited, shared, and transmitted within one group of people (p. 388).”

Therefore, those who adhere to the second theory of organizational learning would conclude that organizational learning is bounded by organizational values, beliefs, and meaning, and transmitted and stored using organizational forms, formats, and processes that create the myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals, and ritual objects that become organizational artifacts representing the organizational culture. As a result, knowledge that is embedded within the organizational culture, would change when used outside of the environment in which it was created. Knowledge, therefore, can be dynamic as its affordance is dynamic (Cook & Brown, 1999).

The second theory of organizational learning has broader implications as knowledge could be created and transmitted both formally and informally. In the knowledge management perspective of organizational learning, knowledge is viewed as something that can be stagnate and captured for others outside of the culture and environment in which it was created. In the constructed perspective of organizational learning, knowledge may be converted from implicit to explicit formats, but any knowledge captured would need to be modified (or recreated) for a specific environment. As such, the process of knowledge creation could be learned, but the content would change depending on the environment.

Organizational learning is distinguishable from knowledge management. Organizational learning may not result in operational or behavioral changes at the individual, group, or even organizational level, and as such may be difficult to measure. In fact, Cook & Yanow (1995) give examples in which organizational learning may make subgroups or individuals less productive. Rather, organizational learning is the interaction that results in deeper knowledge and understanding at the organizational level. For this study, I will use Cook & Yanow’s definition of organizational learning:

The acquiring, sustaining or changing of intersubjective meanings and/or the artifactual vehicles of their expression and transmission, through the collective actions of the group.

References:


Akgun, A., Lynn, G., & Byrne, J. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 56 (7), 839-868.

Allee, V. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organizational Science (2003) 14 (3), 283-296.

Cook, S. & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4), 381-400.

Cook, S & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (4), 373-390.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Nonaka, I (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Raelin, J. (2008). Work-Based Learning. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.

Incorporating assessment into a constructivism based instructional design

Michael Hanley's 15th and 16th installment of instructional design had me thinking about assessment. In the two installments, Michael introduces a flexible instructional design model that fits will with constructivism. However, as I commented on his blog, there is little discussion of what assessment tools can be used that will maintain the level of flexible learning. He asked if I had any suggestions.

In fact, when I teach introduction to distance learning, this is an area that I work at developing with my students. The following is a compilation of the notes I give my students with some additional updates based on my own experience:

The assessment-learning connection

Sometimes, students need to be pushed to go beyond their comfort zone. If we want our students to succeed in the real world, at some point they will need to learn how to take initiative and risks. Those are the employees that are rewarded with promotions and greater responsibilities. However, there will be some students (for a variety of reasons including lack of confidence, maturity, background, personality) that will always avoid risk of failure. Constructivist activities, especially those designed for distance learning, generally allow students to step out of these fears into a supportive environment that allows them to risk failure as long as there are supports in place to help them if they do fail. These supports include instructional support (either preparing them for the experience or using the experience as a stepping stone for further targeted instruction), emotional support (empowering students when they make mistakes rather than leaving them with a sense of humiliation, building confidence by finding success in making mistakes or errors and learning from them or working through them), community support (making sure members know what their role is and creating an atmosphere that will build trust), and support in setting goals and processes to achieve them (helping students to make choices that are presented to them, helping them to develop time management skills with a timeline or structure within which to work, giving clear expectations for any activity and being flexible--or not--depending on the student needs).

In looking at assessment, there often is little attention given to trust and trust-building activities. Often assessment and evaluation leave students feeling "set-up" initially, feeling betrayed. This is something that can happen much easier in distance learning than in a traditional class, as there are no social cues as can be found in a traditional class room. It is important, therefore, that any constructivist learning instructional design with an analysis of the current level of trust between the various "presences"--teacher, students, community, and discipline (Phillips). In all instructional designs, the designer should analyze (either implicitly or explicitly) how trust will be impacted, supported, maintained, and developed. You may need to explicitly identify assessments and activities that will undermine trust (e.g. a reflective blog on identifying weaknesses and solutions for a group that can be seen by a supervisor and used in promotional considerations).

Looking at the variety of activities that can be used in a flexible instructional design like the models proposed by Phillips and Sims & Jones (2002), there needs to be a variety of ways to assess learning. The differences in activities help to provide different types of learning for different learning needs. Likewise, different types of assessment will address the different ways that people apply their learning and demonstrate their knowledge.

Assessment Tools

We all know the traditional ways that we assess learning in the classroom: quizzes (multiple choice), joint projects, etc... In the classroom, especially at the elementary and middle school levels, we can see the class dynamics; we have social cues to indicate to us when a student "gets it". But this is not always true in distributed, distance, or adult learning. Technology can distort feedback (both receiving and giving). In addition, the time delay for feedback can be both positive (giving time for students to reflect) and negative (frustrating students when they are stuck with no visible means of support). So, for distance learning, not only is it important to determine the best way to assess student learning (what did they really learn and how well did they learn it) but also the best way to provide evaluation so administrators, parents, employers, other faculty, and the students themselves understand how well they met the expected outcomes and those areas in which there needs to be improvement. As assessment tools are chosen and created, try to think of these questions: how can the learning activity be justified to all stakeholders (e.g. the $500 spent on a video conference with the Baseball Hall of Fame)? What type of feedback will help focus student learning? What did students really learn (e.g. in addition to the content, perhaps communication and technology skills, problem solving and group skills, and understanding of the world outside of the classroom) and how can this be documented? How will the skills students have learned benefit them in their future? Did the learning activity allow them to use what they have learned immediately, or will there be a delay (need to practice or reflection, for example) before they can demonstrate their understanding? Will assessment be a part of the learning or is it used to measure learning for outside stakeholders?

If we follow the advice given by constructivist researchers, the best activities for learning are ill-defined, action based, with multiple possible outcomes. As such, will a multiple choice test be appropriate to measure student learning and outcomes? The reality is that our current educational system requires that we test in a time efficient way, which is multiple choice or "objective" testing. As a result, as teachers, we feel compelled to use these tests to prepare our students. So how do we resolve these competing forces?

In a traditional classroom, where there are pressures for standardized test scores, therefore, a combination of assessment tools can be used. Follow-up classroom activities that lead to objective testing with student presentations on what has been learned, application of constructivist concepts to a traditional classroom activity, and application of constructivist skills (critical thinking, situating learning, perspective taking) in other contexts that fit a traditional classroom assessment requirement.

In non-traditional classrooms (i.e. online learning, self-directed learning), on the other hand, assessment tools must match the teaching approach: reflective journals, online discussions, group work and presentations, projects, papers. Grading rubrics help to guide students in terms of expectations. Written feedback from both instructors and peers also help to establish expectations and perceived learning outcomes. I use written feedback and a holistic approach to grading (which is used on your SAT, GRE, and GMAT written sections). Others feel more comfortable using a rubric, especially when there are multiple instructors for the same class or course. More and more, I have seen departments that work together in training and developing group standards through feedback and triangulating grading among evaluators.

A number of researchers have also suggested including student input in developing the assessment tools (McLoughlin & Luca, 2001). The co-creation of assessment tools means students are not only constructing their learning, but they are aware as they do so of how they will be able to demonstrate their level of learning and stakeholders' expectations.

Some samples of alternative assessment that was developed by my students can be found on my web page in the right hand margin under Evaluation Rubrics. Over the next few posts I will include some examples of how I incorporate flexibility into my own assessments and the guidelines I use for my own assessment tools.


References

McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. (2001). Quality in online delivery: What does it mean for assessment in e-learning environments? Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/mcloughlinc2.pdf

Phillips, R. (2004). The design dimensions of e-learning. Presented December, 2004 at ASCILITE Conference in Perth, Australia. Available at http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/phillips.pdf

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding: Reconceptualising Instructional Design for Online Learning. Proceedings of the 2002 ascilite conference: winds of change in the sea of learning: charting the course of digital education. Internet: Available from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf

Experiential Learning

Michael Hanley has had a great series on Instructional Design. The 13th posting had a model which reminded me a lot of the Kolb Model of experiential learning. So I decided to post here a part of my Dissertation Proposal on Kolb's model:

Kolb’s experiential learning model is one explanation of how individuals might learn from their experience (Kolb, 1984). There are four basic stages to Kolb’s model. In the first stage, concrete experience, an individual experiences some phenomenon, such as a meeting, collaborative process, training, or reading new product material. Kolb also identifies this stage as one of problem finding. During the next two stages, reflective observation and abstract conceptualization, the individual reconstructs the experience internally and develops hypotheses or generalizations that can be used in future situations. In other words, individuals ask questions and look for answers during these two stages. In the final stage, active experimentation, individuals apply their generalizations or hypotheses to diverse contexts, reformulating their generalizations based on the outcomes as they repeat the cycle for each context. The final stage, Kolb also categorized as the portrayal of knowledge, in which concepts are verified, developed in a way to communicate to others, and explored through various contexts and situations so they eventually will be incorporated into new concrete experiences.

Kolb (1984) also distinguished between two types of knowledge: apprehension and comprehension. Apprehensive knowledge is the intuitive process that happens as we experience the world. Apprehensive knowledge makes us aware of what we are experiencing and perceive our world, although it may not have meaning. Comprehensive knowledge is the abstract ideas and understanding we create based on our experience. “Apprehension of experience is a personal subjective process that cannot be known by others except by the communication to them of the comprehensions that we use to describe our immediate experience. Comprehension, on the other hand, is an objective social process, a tool of culture”(p. 105). It is the apprehensive knowledge, communicated through shared concepts, known as concepts or comprehensive knowledge, that companies would like to capture since this is the intangible know-how that an individual brings to a situation. Putting this into the context of Kolb’s model, it is possible that the collaborative writing process helps individuals create a deeper level of apprehensive knowledge through social interaction that requires apprehensive knowledge be transformed to comprehensive knowledge. Transforming personal knowledge that is a result of experience (apprehensive knowledge) into social knowledge requires common symbols, culture, social structures, and images; in other words, comprehensive knowledge. Likewise, comprehensive knowledge is irrelevant without personal knowledge or experience (apprehensive knowledge) to mediate understanding (Kolb). The collaborative writing process may give group members the opportunity to utilize both apprehensive and comprehensive knowledge. If language works as a medium of thought through the use of inner speech, as a mediator of thought through discourse, and as a tool though the generation of thoughts and knowledge systems (Nelson, 1996), in studying collaborative writing, there is a chance to understand the multiple use of language in developing thoughts, apprehensive, and comprehensive knowledge, at the individual and group level.

Kolb, David. Experiential Learning: Experience as a the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.

Nelson, Katherine. Language in Cognitive Development: The Emergence of the Mediated Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

My e-learning book shelf

Michael Hanley had an interesting post in which he listed his top e-learning books. As I commented on his blog, I was surprised that he would have an elearning "booklist" as I found that most written about elearning is out of date by the time it is published.

Michael's comment back was:

I take your point about information remaining current, but if you have a look at the list, you’ll see that the texts reflect aspects of learning and development that don’t change - at least not *that* quickly. Luckily I am at this stage in my career where I have the skills to critically analyze any piece of information (analog or digital) and evaluate its relevance and currency, so I’m not too bothered about that...

...As I mentioned in my blog post, this library is my knowledge well: magazines and journals are equally a valued learning resource for me: I also subscribe to a range of electronic and print media, as well as reading blogs and wikis etc.

In another way, this shelf is a tangible representation of my personal growth and history as an e-learning pro. Some of those text has been with me for quite a while and they’re not going anywhere, anytime soon.

So what do you keep on YOUR shelf, whether it be physical or virtual?

This gave me a different perspective on what he was asking. So I compliled a list of books I have near me at all times when I am designing, researching, or teaching elearning.

Elearning design:

• Garrison, D. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. I like the way the framework looks at the instructor, student, and technology as equal partners in learning. This also has the best section on elearning research of any text (elearning or research) I've read to date.
• Snyder, I (Editor) (2002). Silicon Literacies. Routledge. A nice collection of studies on different forms of elearning for multiple levels of learners.
• Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This is a good overview of multiple learning theories that create the learning environment that can be used in elearning. What I like about this is that it is not a "one size fits all" but gives various learning theories that might work better in one environment (level of education, discipline, technology) over another.
• Anything by Dewey. Everytime I read one of his books, written from the turn of the century to the 1930's, I am surprised how relevant it is to elearning. He bridged the formal learning with the learning environment and the informal learning.
• Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. It is important to read ALL of this book, not just taking out bits and pieces. I find that the experiential learning model he presents in the book is ideally suited for elearning. This is the basis for all of my instructional designs.

Culture: As I feel culture (organizational, society, discipline) plays a big role in how elearning should be set up, I have four books that give a foundation that all instructional designers should keep in mind when developing elearning and a fifth that helps put the global communication skills and challenges in mind:

• Hall, E. (1983). The Dance of Life: the other dimension of time.
• Hall, E. (1966). The Hidden Dimension.
• Hall, E. (1959). The Silent Language.
• Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture.
• Schmidt, W., Conaway, R., Easton, S., and Wardrope, W. (2007). LA, CA: Sage.

Writing: We are becoming more and more of a text based society and the concept of "writing" has become important in elearning. However, we have to look at the new ways of writing and the impact it will have on learning and how we design elearning. These are the books I always go back to as I look at written interaction between students in elearning enviroments and the impact that elearning has on writing and reading.

• Selber, Stuart, (2004) Multiliteracies for a Digital Age, Southern Illinois University Press. This has a good discussion of the impact of the digital age on writing and reading. It includes how students might react to an electronic format for learning and assumptions we can make about what the students comes in with into the elearning environment.
• Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in diciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. This is especially important for instructional designers that may be designing elearning outside of their own training, expertise, or discipline. Basically, this book looks at the impact that disciplinary culture has on what is acceptable writing style (for that subject), the nature of written communication within a community of practice, and the understanding of what knowledge is.
• Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Pare, A. (1999). Worlds Apart: Acting and Writing in Academic and Workplace Contexts. This is especially good for those that work in both academic and workplace environments. The authers looked at the different purposes, styles, and expections within academic and workplace writing environments. Although it is primarily a "writing" text, it gives good insight into the differences in learning within both environments.

why I'm not blogging as often

Many of my regular readers will notice that I'm not posting as often. I have decided that I need to complete my dissertation this year. This means focusing on transcribing tapes of interviews (about 10-11 hours worth still to go) and then analyzing the data. Things are shaping up nicely from the data, but it will take a lot of time along with my teaching and family life. In addition, my daughter will be graduating from middle school this year, and both she and my son will be preparing for a number of required standardized tests. This means a lot more driving to pick them up after school, taking more time out of my life.

I will try to post at least once a week, because the blogging does help me with sorting out ideas that come up from my data as I work on the dissertation, my teaching as I experiment with things in the classroom, and my family. In fact, Ken Allen just had a posting that I would like to respond to when I have the chance. But I need to set my priorities, so I am going to limit myself to one post a week.

Response to Ken Allen's post

Ken had a post about the educational system and the tendency to blame educational woes on the teachers. I find too often there is finger pointing from parents, administrators, teachers, and even the students without any dialogue when something goes wrong.

A recent incident with my daughter's school trip is a perfect example of what is happening in the US educational system. The trip was changed because of the economic downturn and some changes in available accommodations.

A couple of weeks before, there was an incident in physical education class when a substitute teacher (who also happens to be a parent) had the group of 13-14 year olds play tug of war. Now, even I know that was a recipe for disaster. However, when a couple of the girls were hurt during tug of war, this teacher told the administration that the class had deep seated problems because the yelling match that resulted could not just because some of the girls were hurt. Any of you who have 13-14 year olds know that this teacher was either trying to take the pressure off himself or really doesn't "get" teens.

As a result of this incident, when the class trip needed a change, the administration decided it would make the decision without discussing it with the parents or students because the class "had issues" that they didn't want to irrupt again. They told students during recess of the change then sent a letter home to the parents. The implication, of course, was that the parents would act like a group of 13-14 year olds and that we could not be trusted to discuss the situation (although we are supposed to chaperon and shell out the money for the class trip).

Needless to say, the parents were upset. The teacher, who did not really have a say in this, was the contact person between the children, the administration, and the parents. However, she could have been more forceful in insisting there be a parent meeting. Nor have any of the parents ever been consulted about the "incident" (perhaps because then the administration would need to justify having a substitute teacher who is not certified and obviously has no real understanding of "safety" in the gym class.

So who is to blame? Everyone. Parents don't push for the meeting (as a group) with the teachers and administrators and rather allow for any problems to be resolved "privately." We are better off than some classes because my daughter's class does tend to share information amongst each other. Our kids are to blame for expecting their parents will resolve any problems they have, rather than working with the teacher and administration to resolve differences between class members. Administrators are to blame for pitting parent against teacher, teacher against parent, parent against parent, anything to take the pressure off of having to facilitate some difficult and long conversations. And the teachers are to blame to think that the classroom is their domain so therefore, parents should have no say. I have worked and dealt with teachers who feel superior to a parent because the teacher is a trained pedagogist. While a parent might not know pedagogy, they do know their child. Working with a parent, sharing each others knowledge (the teacher of what is "normal" at a given age and different ways to address it, and the parent who knows the child) a teacher can be much more effective.

So let's stop finger pointing and start talking. Let's look for the long range solution that will need contribution from all parties.

The choice of instructional design impacts skill development

Tony Karrer commented in the previous post that the skills I identified would be difficult to "teach". However, the real question is will those skills be difficult to learn?

I think these skills will 1) need to be developed over time, and 2) need to be learned by doing (not just "taught") with support from instructors. There are many models that would be appropriate for learning these skills such as experiential learning, activity theory, cognitive apprenticeship, communities of practice, inquiry-based learning. All of these models include certain attributes.

1. Students have an active role in their learning so they are responsible for the outcomes.
2. The instructor is responsible for creating a realistic environment from which students learn. In a work situation, the instructor does not create the environment, but rather makes the student aware of the environment in which they are learning.
3. The instructor helps to focus student attention on the situation (environment), identifying problems or gaps between what is known and the ultimate learning goal, supports student learning by providing resources (print, electronic, expert, learning structure) to scaffold student learning, and a combination of "doing", reflecting, analyzing, and application.
4. Interaction between the content, the environment, peers, and experts that help the learner to see different perspectives, try out different and new skills, and provide the learner motivation to learn.
   

Many of the skills I outlined in the previous post require time to develop using each of these aspects of instructional design. Each of the models I mentioned are different in structure and measurement, but they each have these 4 factors that will be needed to develop skills in the future.