Development Times for Instructor- Led Learning (ILT)
30
Development Times for Instructor- Led Learning (ILT) A Chapman Alliance, Learning Brief November 2007 By Bryan Chapman, Chief Learning Strategist [email protected] www.chapmanalliance.com Abstract: For many years I’ve cited sources from Training Magazine and ASTD, that development of instructor-led training takes, on average, 34 hours of development for one finished hour of ILT (Training Magazine) or 40 hours to one (ASTD). A Chapman Alliance client asked us to re-check these development ratios and also gain some further specificity about how time is spent during development. The data shown here was collected from a representative sampling of companies who create corporate, instructor- led training. This information should be shared to benefit all. Thanks to our client (anonymous) for sponsoring this information. © 2007. Chapman Alliance LLC. You are welcome to freely use these slides for internal training, conference presentations, citations in academic research, whitepapers, etc. as long as you credit the source. This information may not be copied, reproduced or included in materials that are sold “for profit” without written permission of Chapman Alliance.
Transcript of Development Times for Instructor- Led Learning (ILT)
Development Times for Instructor-Led Learning (ILT)
A Chapman Alliance, Learning Brief
November 2007 By Bryan Chapman, Chief Learning Strategist
[email protected] www.chapmanalliance.com
Abstract: For many years I’ve cited sources from Training Magazine and ASTD, that development of instructor-led training takes, on average, 34 hours of development for one finished hour of ILT (Training Magazine) or 40 hours to one (ASTD). A Chapman Alliance client asked us to re-check these development ratios and also gain some further specificity about how time is spent during development. The data shown here was collected from a representative sampling of companies who create corporate, instructor-led training. This information should be shared to benefit all. Thanks to our client (anonymous) for sponsoring this information.
© 2007. Chapman Alliance LLC. You are welcome to freely use these slides for internal training, conference presentations, citations in academic research, whitepapers, etc. as long as you credit the source. This information may not be copied, reproduced or included in materials that are sold “for profit” without written permission of Chapman Alliance.
Development of Instructor-Led Training (ILT) Overall Times and Ranges
Research data collected: November, 2007, by Chapman Alliance
36:1 Definition of ILT: Respondents were asked to state the number of hours it takes to create one, finished hour of instructor-led, classroom-based, face-to-face training. Audience: 132 respondents. Mostly corporate, internal development of ILT; some academic; some professional ILT developers (vendors) Scope: Respondents were asked how long it takes to Analyze, Design, and Develop ILT including the time it takes to work with Subject Matter Experts (in people hours). In addition to estimating overall time, respondents were asked to itemize how the time is divided (coming next) Validation: As a snapshot in time, with a new set of respondents, the result is similar to the numbers reported by Training Magazine (34:1) and ASTD (40:1)!an additional study to help us understand what is happening out there.
10:1 Low Range
to 72:1 High Range
20% Student Guide Development
21% PowerPoint Development
13% Front-End Analysis/
Data Collection, Working with SME’s
8% Test and Exam
Creation
13% Instructional Design, Objectives, Outlining, Writing Content, etc.
6% Other Development
Tasks
11% Lesson Plan Development
8% Creation of
handout materials
n=132
Development of Instructor-Led Training (ILT) Itemized Development Tasks
Research data collected: November, 2007, by Chapman Alliance
20% Student Guide Development
21% PowerPoint Development
13% Front-End Analysis/
Data Collection, Working with SME’s
8% Test and Exam
Creation
13% Instructional Design, Objectives, Outlining, Writing Content, etc.
6% Other Development
Tasks
11% Lesson Plan Development
8% Creation of
handout materials
n=132
See next slide for “Other” tasks
Development of Instructor-Led Training (ILT) Itemized Development Tasks, with hours overlay
Research data collected: November, 2007, by Chapman Alliance
36 Total Hours
4.8 hours
4.6 hours
3.8 hours
3.0 hours 7.2 hours
7.6 hours
2.8 hours
2.3 hours
Development of Instructor-Led Training (ILT)
Research data collected: November, 2007, by Chapman Alliance
Other Tasks (delineated in the other category by respondents):
• Project Management • Subject Matter Expert/Stakeholder Review • Glossary Development • FAQ Development • Internal Peer Review • Media Production • Creation of Lab Exercises • Job Aid Development • Pre-work Development • Set up Collaboration Site for Post ILT communication among
learners • Validation
Research data collected: November, 2007, by Chapman Alliance
Development of Instructor-Led Training (ILT) Cost Estimates, using assumed, compensation rate and average development times
$2,880 *** Assuming an average developer rate of $50 per hour, and factoring in a multiplier of 60% for administrative overhead, management, benefits, etc. for a total burdened rate of $80 per hour. NOTE: This number will need to be adjusted for your organization, depending on your current, average rate for instructional developers. The calculation is as follows: Rate of development = (average rate of pay for developers) X (general and administrative overhead) X 36 (average time it takes to create one finished hour of ILT). For this example, the equation is $50 X 1.60 (overhead) X 36 = $2,880
To produce one, finished hour of Instructor-Led Training
Research data collected: November, 2007, by Chapman Alliance
Development of Instructor-Led Training (ILT) Cost Estimates, using assumed, compensation rate and average development times
Task 1-hour ILT course 5-hour ILT course 10-hour ILT course Analysis $384 $1,920 $3,840 Instructional Design $368 $1,840 $3,680 Lesson Plans $304 $1,520 $3,040 Handouts $240 $1,200 $2,400 Student Guides $576 $2,880 $5,760 PowerPoint $608 $3,040 $6,080 Tests and Exams $224 $1,120 $2,240 Other $176 $880 $1,760
Total $2,880 $14,400 $28,800 *** Assuming $80 per hour in burdened pay and 36 hour average development time
NOTE: The numbers above assume that all tasks are repeated for each hour of instruction. The study did not explore the efficiency and reduction of time for longer courses. This would be a good topic for a future study.
Please contact Chapman Alliance if you have a learning question or issue you’d like to sponsor, especially information that would benefit the entire industry. Custom research also available. Contact Information Bryan Chapman Chief Learning Strategist Chapman Alliance (801) 568-7011 [email protected] www.chapmanalliance.com
• Learning Briefs
• White Paper Development • Custom Research
We’d like to thank all of you who took the time to respond to this survey and encourage all to participate in future
surveys and case study research
Unbelievable - How toLearn to Speak a ForeignLanguage in 10 Days
How to Speed Up Your PC -Tricks Manufacturers Don'tWant You to Know
The Secret to Getting ThinNo Matter What You Eat
Back to previous page
Colleges looking beyondthe lectureBy Daniel de Vise, Published: February 15
The lecture hall is under attack.
Science, math and engineering departments at manyuniversities are abandoning or retooling the lectureas a style of teaching, worried that it’s drivingstudents away.
The faculty at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has dedicated this academic year to findingalternatives to the lecture in those subjects. Johns Hopkins, Harvard University and even the WhiteHouse have hosted events in which scholars have assailed the lecture.
Lecture classrooms are the big-box retailers of academia, paragons of efficiency. One professor canteach hundreds of students in a single room, trailed by a retinue of teaching assistants.
But higher-education leaders increasingly blame the format for high attrition in science and mathclasses. They say the lecture is a turn-off, higher education at its most passive, leading to frustrationand bad grades in highly challenging disciplines.
“Just because teachers say something at the front of the room doesn’t mean that students learn,” saidDiane Bunce, a chemistry professor at Catholic University known for signature lessons on thechemistry of Thanksgiving dinners and hangovers. “Learning doesn’t happen in the physical spacebetween the instructor and the student. Learning happens in the student’s mind.”
One goal of the reform movement is to break up vast classrooms. Initiatives at American, Catholicand George Washington universities and across the University System of Maryland are dividing200-student lectures into 50-student “studios” and 20-student seminars.
But just as important, experts say, is to rethink the way large classes are taught: to improve, if notreplace, the lecture model. Faculty are learning to make courses more active by seeding them withquestions, ask-your-neighbor discussions and instant surveys.
This ferment is also rippling through lecture halls in the humanities. But policymakers and university
leaders are giving the question extra attention in science, technology, engineering and math, the fieldscollectively known as STEM.
About one-third of students enter college aspiring to STEM majors. Of that group, less than halfcomplete a degree in a STEM field. Some migrate to the humanities. Others drop out.
There are myriad reasons for the mass exodus. The material is demanding. Math-science professorstend to be tough graders. Not everyone can go to a top-flight medical school.
An evolving vision
But college leaders are turning a critical eye to the lecture itself.
“We need to think about what happens when students have a bad experience with the course work,”Freeman Hrabowski, president of the University of Maryland Baltimore County, said last month in aspeech at Johns Hopkins.
The lecture backlash signals an evolving vision of college as participatory exercise. Gone are the dayswhen the professor could recite a textbook in class. The watchword of today is “active learning.”Students are working experiments, solving problems, answering questions — or at least registering anopinion on an interactive “smartboard” with an electronic clicker.
Since the 1990s, research on pedagogy has shifted from what instructors teach to what students learn.And studies have shown students in traditional lecture courses learn comparatively little.
“You have a professor reading a book to you. It should be insulting,” said Harvard physicist EricMazur. “But this model is so ingrained.” Mazur has developed an interactive teaching techniquecalled peer instruction, in which the lecture is broken into chunks. Between topics, Mazur posesquestions and students work together to answer them.
The anti-lecture movement is fueled, too, by the proliferation of online lectures, which threaten themonopoly on learning long held by bricks-and-mortar campuses.
To stage a lecture today, it is no longer necessary for either professor or student to enter a classroom.Instead, they can connect via YouTube or iTunes.
( See great online lectures on science, language and more — then and add your favorites to thelist .)
General education lecture courses vary little from one university to the next. Students know they canlog on to their laptops and watch the very same lecture — or a better one by a celebrity professor at arival university.
The spread of online courses has raised the currency of top faculty at Harvard, Yale and MIT, whonow lecture to the world. But this transformation also has reduced the lecture to a commodity that canbe bought or shared. University leaders view the format with rising unease.
“It’s not as satisfying an experience as we would like the students to have,” said Scott Zeger, vice
provost for research at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
A dominant method
For all the talk of change, the lecture remains the dominant teaching method across a broad range offirst- and second-year math and science courses. The current generation of faculty grew up with thelecture. For them, it is comfortable and familiar. Some students, too, favor a format that doesn’trequire them to speak.
Large lecture courses taught by star faculty remain coveted tickets at the nation’s top universities.Some material — psychology, history, Shakespeare — might even be suited to the format.
“If we want to get that whole human being out at the other end, we have to offer them a variety ofexperiences. And the lecture is part of it,” said Hartmut Doebel, a GWU biologist. “I don’t think wewill ever get away from it completely.”
Doebel has redesigned an introductory lecture course as an interactive studio class, with 48 studentsworking around tables in groups of six to nine, part of a Teaching & Learning Collaborative at theFoggy Bottom campus.
Seeking improvement
Other scholars are working to improve, rather than replace, the lecture model. Not surprisingly,college leaders are looking for initiatives that can be scaled up — cheaply — to large classrooms.
At Johns Hopkins, Zeger oversees the Gateway Sciences Initiative and monitors 10 redesignedcourses that might hold the future of math-science instruction there.
In one new course, chemistry instructor Jane Greco records her lectures and posts them online ashomework, a popular new use for the derided tool. Greco uses her time in the lecture hall as a sort of“office hours for everybody,” an interactive discussion of the lab experiment students completed in theprevious session.
One goal, she said, is “to separate out what you’re getting in our classroom that you can’t get online.”
In another experimental course, engineer Michael Falk teaches computer programming to a class of24. He, too, has put lectures online. Class time is devoted to writing programs and solving problems,with students working together and posting solutions on a projected screen.
A new biology course had 22 freshmen fan out across campus last fall for dirt samples, from whicheach student culled a new and heretofore unknown virus. Now, the class has picked one virus forgenetic mapping.
One recent afternoon, instructor Emily Fisher led a discussion of genome sequencing while colleagueJoel Schildbach sat among the students, questioning and cajoling, bridging the roles of teacher, pupiland coach.
“You can’t hang back,” he told the class, during a lull. “You’ve got to talk. You’ve got to argue.
You’ve got to contribute.”
Active learning is hard work. Students say the interactive classes are more taxing than any lecture.
“It’s me doing it myself, so I have to know exactly what I’m doing,” said Jillian Tse, 18, a freshmanfrom Burtonsville. Her virus, named Manatee, was chosen by the class for sequencing.
Tse contrasts the experience to the sleepy chemistry lecture she endured last fall: “You kind of just satthere and listened.”
Not all the ideas are new. At the University of Maryland College Park, engineering professorseliminated introductory lecture courses in 1991. Since then, students have spent the crucial first yearengaged in actual engineering, building swing sets, helicopters and hovercrafts.
“What generally used to happen, almost across the country, was that the very first experience a studentwould have with engineering was a very large lecture hall,” said Kevin Calabro, an engineeringinstructor in College Park. “And I think a ton of students were turned off.”
Read more from The Washington Post:
Interracial marriage rates soar as attitudes change
George Huguely defense theory in Yeardley Love death
Md. Del. Hogan a ‘no’ vote on same-sex marriage
A long dispute over D.C. mental health system nears an end
Sponsored LinksThe Art Institute OnlineTurn Your Passion Into Your Profession. Learn More Today.AIonline.edu
Argosy UniversityApply to Argosy University Today - Now in 19 Locations Nationwide.visit.argosy.edu
Top 2012 Online GrantsGrant Funding May Be Available See if You Qualify!PellGrants.ClassesandCareers.com
Buy a link here
© The Washington Post Company
Tuckman’s Team Development Model
Achieve effective and satisfying results
Members find solutions to problems using appropriate controls
TASKS PERFORMING
Members agree about roles and processes for problem solving
Members work collaboratively
Members care about each other
The group establishes a unique identity
Members are interdependent
NORMING Identifying power and
control issues
Gaining skills in communication
Identifying resources
Decisions are made through negotiation and consensus building
STORMING
Establish base level expectations
Identify similarities
Agreeing on common goals
Expressing differences of ideas, feelings, and opinions
Reacting to leadership
Members independent or counterdependent
FORMING BEHAVIORS Making contact and bonding
Developing trust
Members dependent
Each step builds on the previous one. Each step prepares for the performing stage. Skipping any step effect performing negatively. With every new challenge, the process repeats
Stages of Team Development
Stage 1: “Forming”
Stage 2: “Storming”
Stage 3: “Norming”
Stage 4: “Performing”
Individuals are not clear on what they’re supposed to do.
The mission isn’t owned by the group.
Wondering where we’re going.
No trust yet. High learning. No group history; unfamiliar with group members.
Norms of the team are not established.
People check one another out.
People are not committed to the team.
Roles and responsibilities are articulated.
Agendas are displayed. Problems solving doesn’t work well.
People want to modify the team’s mission.
Trying new ideas. Splinter groups form. People set boundaries. Anxiety abounds. People push for position and power.
Competition is high. Cliques drive the team. Little team spirit. Lots of personal attacks. Level of participation by members is at its highest (for some) and its lowest (for some).
Success occurs. Team has all the resources for doing the job.
Appreciation and trust build. Purpose is well defined. Feedback is high, well-received, and objective.
Team confidence is high. Leader reinforces team behavior.
Members self-reinforce team norms.
Hidden agendas become open.
Team is creative. More individual motivation. Team gains commitment from all members on direction and goals.
Tea members feel very motivated.
Individuals defer to team needs.
No surprises. Little waste. Very efficient team operations.
Team members have objective outlook.
Individuals take pleasure in the success of the team – big wins.
“We” versus “I” orientation. High pride in the team. High openness and support. High empathy. High trust in everyone. Superior team performance. OK to risk confrontation.
Action Steps: “Forming” to
“Storming” Action Steps: “Storming” to
“Norming” Action Steps: “Norming” to
“Performing” Set a mission. Set goals. Establish roles. Recognize need to move out of “forming” stage.
Leader must be directive. Figure ways to build trust. Define a reward structure. Take risks. Bring group together periodically to work on common tasks.
Assert power. Decide once and for all to be on the team.
Team leader should actively support and reinforce team behavior, facilitate the group for wins, create positive environment.
Leader must ask for and expect results. Recognize, publicize team wins. Agree on individuals’ roles and responsibilities.
Buy into objectives and activities. Listen to each other. Set and take team time together. Everyone works actively to set a supportive environment.
Have the vision: “We can succeed!” Request and accept feedback. Build trust by honoring commitments.
Maintain traditions. Praise and flatter each other. Self-evaluate without a fuss. Share leadership role in team based on who does what the best.
Share rewards and successes. Communicate all the time. Share responsibility. Delegate freely within the team. Commit time to the team. Keep raising the bar – new, higher goals. Be selective of new team members; train to maintain the tea m spirit.
