Comments on: Figuring things out (the plodding edition) http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/archives/1696?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=figuring-things-out-the-plodding-edition Dave Ferguson's interests, ideas, notions, tangents Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:15:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dave’s Whiteboard » Blog Archive » Analyzing tasks with paradigming http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/archives/1696/comment-page-1#comment-12166 Dave’s Whiteboard » Blog Archive » Analyzing tasks with paradigming Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:47:40 +0000 http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/?p=1696#comment-12166 [...] Analysis via paradigming « Previous post in this series [...] [...] Analysis via paradigming « Previous post in this series [...]

]]> By: Dave http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/archives/1696/comment-page-1#comment-12137 Dave Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:21:53 +0000 http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/?p=1696#comment-12137 Shanta: depending on the expert, I often show the paradigm as "something I use to help me see the process." I don't try to sell her on using it. For procedural / systematic tasks, though, many experts get the point right away. This decision has me using Fireworks a lot more than I normally do... Shanta: depending on the expert, I often show the paradigm as “something I use to help me see the process.” I don’t try to sell her on using it. For procedural / systematic tasks, though, many experts get the point right away.

This decision has me using Fireworks a lot more than I normally do…

]]> By: Shanta Rohse http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/archives/1696/comment-page-1#comment-12135 Shanta Rohse Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:42:07 +0000 http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/?p=1696#comment-12135 When I first read this post, <em>paradigming</em> struck me as a tool a trainer and subject matter expert might find useful to define a procedure together. I used to develop procedural training using our prevailing method of now-that-we've-talked-I'll-put-something-down-on-paper-you-tell-me-if-I-got-it-right, an approach I thought was too nuanced for discussion that needed systematic. Of course, we all were unreformed behaviourists. Look forward to your examples on on Monday Blog Carnival. A few wildy-coloured graphics set just the right festive tone! When I first read this post, paradigming struck me as a tool a trainer and subject matter expert might find useful to define a procedure together. I used to develop procedural training using our prevailing method of now-that-we’ve-talked-I’ll-put-something-down-on-paper-you-tell-me-if-I-got-it-right, an approach I thought was too nuanced for discussion that needed systematic. Of course, we all were unreformed behaviourists.

Look forward to your examples on on Monday Blog Carnival. A few wildy-coloured graphics set just the right festive tone!

]]> By: Dave http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/archives/1696/comment-page-1#comment-12131 Dave Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:28:33 +0000 http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/?p=1696#comment-12131 Last things first: My self-description is slightly tongue in cheek. A lot of major contributors to the International Society for Performance Improvement (<a href="http://www.ispi.org" rel="nofollow">ISPI</a>) had / have their roots in behavioral psychology. Tom Gilbert, for example, studied under B. F. Skinner at one point. All I really mean by "Reform Behaviorist" is that I tend to focus on observable behavior. I actually believe there <i>are</i> internal states like attitude and motivation; I just have no idea how to influence them directly. Rah-rah stuff and inspirational posters just depress me. As for your question about many possible stimuli in a given situation: in general, yes, I've used paradigming even when the behavior in question had many discriminations or generalizations. I developed a paradigm for a command-line version of an email system, back before graphic interfaces. There were all kinds of places where the stimulus was a screen prompt: <b>Command?</b> The response was "decide what to do next." That led to a <i>giant</i> discrimination: list my mail, read an item in the list, open my address book, change my password, even sign off. And what I haven't shown yet is that you combine these as needed; many tasks involve chains leading to discriminations leading to chains leading to generalizations and discriminations, and so on. <img src="http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Staples/s0020797_sc7?$sku$" align=left width="225"/>I used to sketch my paradigms on 8.5 x 14 sheets of greenbar printer paper (which tells you how long I've been doing this--the printers were <i>everywhere</i> in my office). I should point out this is an <i>analysis</i> tool--though it's also handy for double-checking things with your subject-matter expert. Let's say there were 25 possible actions that could follows that "Command?" prompt. I might develop eight or ten job aids, each covering a few related actions. I'm planning to put up a couple of simplified examples as my contribution to Monday's blog carnival (it takes me a while to make these wildly-colored graphics). Last things first:

My self-description is slightly tongue in cheek. A lot of major contributors to the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) had / have their roots in behavioral psychology. Tom Gilbert, for example, studied under B. F. Skinner at one point.

All I really mean by “Reform Behaviorist” is that I tend to focus on observable behavior. I actually believe there are internal states like attitude and motivation; I just have no idea how to influence them directly. Rah-rah stuff and inspirational posters just depress me.

As for your question about many possible stimuli in a given situation: in general, yes, I’ve used paradigming even when the behavior in question had many discriminations or generalizations. I developed a paradigm for a command-line version of an email system, back before graphic interfaces. There were all kinds of places where the stimulus was a screen prompt: Command?

The response was “decide what to do next.” That led to a giant discrimination: list my mail, read an item in the list, open my address book, change my password, even sign off.

And what I haven’t shown yet is that you combine these as needed; many tasks involve chains leading to discriminations leading to chains leading to generalizations and discriminations, and so on.

I used to sketch my paradigms on 8.5 x 14 sheets of greenbar printer paper (which tells you how long I’ve been doing this–the printers were everywhere in my office).

I should point out this is an analysis tool–though it’s also handy for double-checking things with your subject-matter expert. Let’s say there were 25 possible actions that could follows that “Command?” prompt. I might develop eight or ten job aids, each covering a few related actions.

I’m planning to put up a couple of simplified examples as my contribution to Monday’s blog carnival (it takes me a while to make these wildly-colored graphics).

]]> By: Shanta Rohse http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/archives/1696/comment-page-1#comment-12130 Shanta Rohse Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:10:33 +0000 http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/?p=1696#comment-12130 Dave, does this approach look at those instances in which a single stimulus has numerous responses -- something that might be called,say, decision behaviour? E.g., the stuff that would have preceded paid in cash, paid w/ credit card? P.S. What is a <em>reformed</em> behaviourist? Dave, does this approach look at those instances in which a single stimulus has numerous responses — something that might be called,say, decision behaviour? E.g., the stuff that would have preceded paid in cash, paid w/ credit card?

P.S. What is a reformed behaviourist?

]]>