This week’s readings were interesting to me because my undergraduate degree is in psychology. The articles reminded me of industrial and organizational psychology courses I took some time ago. I feel that I/O psychology and Human Performance Technology are similar because they focus on influencing or improving behavior in the workplace by reviewing current procedures and implementing processes to affect overall performance to increase productivity and to improve individual and group performance. (Cherry, 2019)
It is hard to believe that this field is so young. I thought that some of these elements would have come from behaviorism in which the learner’s desired behavior is the ultimate outcome for the instruction. In the case of HPT, it is the environment that is examined so that obstacles can be removed to improve learning and increase performance. I guess this could be considered environmental approach to learning. If the distraction or barriers are removed, then learning should also improve.
Some of the early pioneers had slightly different views on HPT. Robert Mager’s three principles wanted learners to show performance by achieving a certain standard under certain conditions. I think this is interesting since some of our theories had indicated the learning was for us to fit into our environment. This HPT concept talks about setting up the right environment for the student to learn the required information. (Wilmoth et al.,2010). This makes me think that the current environment of standardized testing that needs improving. Can standardized testing be taken in an actual environment? What if standardized test like GRE were taken in context of real-life events?
In addition to Mager’s model, Rummler’s nine principles with three levels were of interest. This model seems very familiar with the consideration of the organization, processes, and people. I feel the effects at work when one of more of these levels is not in sync. (Wilmoth et al.,2010). Gilbert’s behavior engineering model on the other hand, looks at six influences of behavior that affect performance. The first three (date, instruments, incentives) are grouped under the environment while the other three (knowledge, capacity, ad motives) deal with the people themselves. I believe these were easy to understand to flow into everything we are incorporating with the learning theories. This is fascinating because anyone of these factors can significantly change learning. If the incentives being offered are the not the right ones, then the person may not be motivated to learn or perform. Another example could be that the individual does not have the knowledge to use the equipment or tools so learning to perform a task is ineffective. (Van Tiem et al, 2004)
References:
Cherry, K., (2019). The basics of Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-industrial-organizational-psychology-2795302.
Van Tiem, D. M., Mosely, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2004). Performance technology-defined. In D. M. Van Tiem, J. L. Moseley, & J. C. Dessinger (Eds.), Fundamentals of performance technology (pp. 2-20). Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.
Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010). HPT models. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 5-26). Silver Spring, MD: International Society for Performance Improvement.
Ed's Reflections for IU courses 
3 replies on “Week 10 Blog – Human Performance Technology”
Hi Ed,
I really liked your idea of authentic sills assessment for the GRE. I would even go above and beyond that and encourage the same for the GED. Imagine if we evaluated certain jobs for their general knowledge skills and allowed that employer to sign off on a portion of the GED for an employee “student”.
Many who never finished High School feel less of a person because they didn’t finish. They would love to get their GED, but now feel too stupid to try. For a few folks that I have assisted through the process, they were amazed that much of their learned life skills were beyond what the GED required. It was self-image boosting for them to realize that they weren’t dumb, and THAT knowledge was transformative.
Authentic assessments? – I love the idea.
-km
LikeLike
Ed,
Your insights into Human Performance Technology helped me gain a better understanding of the field. You are absolutely right – HPT does seem to share a lot of similarities with industrial and organizational psychology. My background is more in education rather than psychology, so I do not have as much experience with HPT. I do think some elements of the field evolved from behaviorism, so your suspicion is correct. Pershing discussed the relationship in his article this week. This is another reason why it’s so wonderful to reach other’s blog posts – I am able to learn both from your experiences, previous education, and the readings that you chose to read this week.
-Shanna Sanders
LikeLike
Ed,
I was also an undergraduate psychology major and then studied leadership in my master’s degree. I also found the topic this week of Human Performance Technology (HPT) related to my prior education in psychology and leadership. I believe that is why I find HPT to be so fascinating.
I also found it interesting how connected HPT and IT are. You mentioned the six influences on behavior that affect performance, with the one group being the environment. The environment is a major factor in many of the learning theories we have studied this semester. Also, you mentioned the incentives for learning may not be motivating, this reminds me of Behaviorism. All of the theories and concepts we have learned throughout this course seem to be interconnected. It is interesting to learn how they all connect.
LikeLike