View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

K12 Practitioners' Experiences Implementing Human Performance Improvement: Processes, Products, and Potentials

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: K12 Practitioners' Experiences Implementing Human Performance Improvement: Processes, Products, and Potentials
Language: English
Authors: Arrington, T. Logan (ORCID 0000-0002-9093-3378), Steele, Kaila C., Moore, Alison L., Withrow, Nikol
Source: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning. Jan 2023 67(1):32-41.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Elementary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Teaching Experience, Performance Technology, Instructional Design, Technology Uses in Education
DOI: 10.1007/s11528-022-00774-1
ISSN: 8756-3894
1559-7075
Abstract: This case study using collaborative autoethnographic methods explores the experiences of two K12 practitioners as they implemented, and continue to implement, human performance improvement (HPI) in their professional practice. The connection between HPI and instructional design and technology is well documented, but there is not much empirical work examining how the HPI process is utilized in K12 organizations. Using practitioner reflections and semi-structured interviews, our team identified three themes that categorized practitioners' experiences: 1. How practitioners conduct HPI, 2. The outcomes of HPI, and 3. Why one should use HPI. Differences between the two practitioners were also discussed. Overall, we concluded that there is a definitive place for HPI in a K12 setting as it can result in meaningful organizational change, save time when diagnosing problems, and empower educators. We conclude with the realization that not all practitioners will be able to adopt this approach within their organizations seamlessly.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1361468
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFrBa8QfcVuoXZ1vepAMrERAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAD8j-uVXQOnDvpZqgIBEICBm5x2ChWpsKrQ9PXeTE8tlQrz4YAo-_qyQr1mPG-BSFZFMuoyaUEbcauOEG39Uw4TSjwf0ENInTe9ARPqtnsk9i1OQnm1JebolkEfBkOnjyO1hyF-9d_cYq92ihDI9IMMsdAt7oyGIPkGHvK2J2YjvlK_E6Q4QPR3ILi1ilQce-dGgDBdLkJ-nc_5bEBySeijU6Edcfdy0GIWXYie
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161209264;ttr01jan.23;2023Jan11.04:36;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161209264-1">K12 Practitioners' Experiences Implementing Human Performance Improvement: Processes, Products, and Potentials </title> <p>This case study using collaborative autoethnographic methods explores the experiences of two K12 practitioners as they implemented, and continue to implement, human performance improvement (HPI) in their professional practice. The connection between HPI and instructional design and technology is well documented, but there is not much empirical work examining how the HPI process is utilized in K12 organizations. Using practitioner reflections and semi-structured interviews, our team identified three themes that categorized practitioners' experiences: 1. How practitioners conduct HPI, 2. The outcomes of HPI, and 3. Why one should use HPI. Differences between the two practitioners were also discussed. Overall, we concluded that there is a definitive place for HPI in a K12 setting as it can result in meaningful organizational change, save time when diagnosing problems, and empower educators. We conclude with the realization that not all practitioners will be able to adopt this approach within their organizations seamlessly.</p> <p>Keywords: Human performance improvement; Human performance technology; K12; Case study; Autoethnography</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Human Performance Improvement (HPI) is "the science and art of improving people, process, performance, organizations, and ultimately society" (Van Tiem et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref1">38</reflink>]). The HPI model provides a systemic and systematic method for investigating and solving performance problems (Van Tiem et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref2">38</reflink>]). At a high level, the HPI model roughly mirrors the ADDIE process, which practitioners often use in Instructional Design and Technology (IDT), as both are initiated by an effort to support identified issues in performance (Foshay et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]; Rothwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]). Both ADDIE and the HPI model are data-driven and iterative, with practitioners of each discipline making ongoing design decisions based on data for continual improvement, and alignment through all phases and components is vital to successfully applying both approaches (Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref5">36</reflink>]). Those using ADDIE typically focus on gaps in skills and knowledge and use instruction (or job aids) to address them. Practitioners of HPI, however, focus on many kinds of gaps and consider both instructional and non-instructional interventions to support individuals' performance (Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]). The HPI process necessitates a systemic perspective as one examines the problem or opportunity through the lenses of the various systems at play (i.e., worker, work, workplace, and world; Rothwell, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]). However, instructional designers should also employ the same systems perspectives as they work through the instructional design process (Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>]). Most commonly, the processes and approaches used within HPI are affiliated with business and industry. Despite the benefits that the HPI approach offers systems, organizations, and personnel, often HPI is not applied within the K12 setting.</p> <p>While there are cases of HPI being used in or connected to K12 around the world (Arrington et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>]; Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]; Moore, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]), this beneficial approach is not as widely implemented as in other sectors of the workforce (e.g., Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref12">19</reflink>]). However, the components underpinning HPI have been integrated into various levels of K12, such as systems thinking (Arrington et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]; Shaked & Schechter, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>]). HPI is a systemic and systematic approach that empowers practitioners to investigate real-world issues and apply tailored solutions. Through strategic data collection, practitioners across organizations and disciplines are able to solve problems in an objective manner. The iterative nature of HPI encourages practitioners to engage in the model's phases continually, thus ensuring ongoing evaluation, modification, and improvement. The application of this approach is especially important in the K12 setting, an extremely complex series of systems that are beholden to multiple societal and political standards and expectations. In the following section, we review the relationship between HPI and IDT before examining the relationship between HPI and K12 practice.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-2">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161209264-3">HPI and IDT</hd> <p>The relationship between HPI and instructional design and technology (IDT) has been long considered since the roots of each approach are grounded in similar methodologies (Foshay et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>]). Foshay et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]) posited that the skillset utilized for HPI helps instructional designers identify gaps in performance, work with individuals across varying roles within an organization, and recommend solutions that address all aspects of the problem. Thus, instructional designers will be better suited to serve in their role if they are familiar with HPI. Supporting this, Stefaniak ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref17">37</reflink>]) argued for using performance improvement models when conducting a needs assessment, as these models help ensure a systemic approach. Examples include utilizing Gilbert's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]) Behavioral Engineering Model (BEM) to assist in examining the causes of needs or using Rothwell's ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref19">30</reflink>]) Environmental Analysis Framework to understand better the organization you are investigating and how learners impact and interact with the environment (Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Considering how elements of HPI can inform IDT, several scholars have discussed how the tenets of HPI should be integrated into the formal training of learning and performance. Dick and Wager ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]) highlighted how one particular instructional design program responded to the need of performance technologists. Klein and Fox ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref22">16</reflink>]) surveyed faculty and practitioners to identify the most important performance improvement competencies for graduates of IDT programs. They concluded that the common skills within a performance systems analysis (i.e., analyzing performance problems and identifying aligned causes) were necessary. Additionally, IDT graduates should be able to identify recommendations (both instructional and non-instructional) that address the specific identified causes and evaluate the impact of those interventions. Recently, Giacumo and Breman ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref23">9</reflink>]) investigated the types of models that practitioners of IDT and HPI in the field were using in their professional practices. Among the most popular was the performance systems analysis model, which is tied to the initial steps of the HPI model. The need for IDT graduates to be informed of HPI is well described. Typically, graduates of IDT programs go on to serve in a variety of roles within a variety of contexts, where the approaches implemented may be dependent upon that context (Giacumo & Breman, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-4">HPI and K12</hd> <p>The need for HPI to be applied in K12 has long been recognized. Medlin ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]) described how teachers are performance technologists. Hirumi ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]) provided a model on how to train and better prepare performance technologists for work in a K12 context, which hinged on the intricacies of these systems and the need for individuals to work within them. Additionally, Moore ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>]) explored how HPI could be used as a framework for supporting teachers as they implemented technical interventions for performance issues. Through this investigation, Moore argued for the role of the performer (i.e., teachers) in the construction and selection of the interventions, especially when those interventions were tools that the performers had to use. However, the argument can be made that these conclusions are not exclusive to teachers alone. While there are examples of stories from K12 (e.g., Moore & Kaminski, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]), empirical studies from this audience are lacking. One recent study by Kang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]) investigated how HPI standards related to teacher behavior in South Korea. They found a relationship between teachers' class goal achievement and the HPI standards. Specifically, there was a relationship between the HPI process and class goal achievement, which was mediated by strengths in understanding the principles of HPI. The authors concluded that awareness of HPI can benefit teachers' professional practice.</p> <p>While HPI is a valuable method, it is not often reported within the K12 literature. However, some core components of HPI are, such as systems thinking (e.g., Arrington et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]; Norqvist & Ärlestig, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]; Shaked & Schechter, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>]). While not directly describing the HPI process, Shaked and Schechter ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]) examined how systems thinking was present in Israeli K12 administrators' decision-making processes. Administrators considered multiple solutions when addressing problems, investigated the consequences of the potential solutions, and selected appropriate information to inform their process. While these principals were considering things systemically, which is an underpinning of HPI, they were not engaged in a systematic process, which is another hallmark of HPI.</p> <p>There is support for the use of HPI within K12, and likely this approach is being used within these settings, but there is not a substantial amount of empirical work that explores the experiences of individuals implementing these processes and what changes they make within themselves and their environments. Thus, our study aims to address this gap. This study aimed to explore the experiences of two K12 practitioners as they implemented the HPI model within their respective organizations. To examine their experiences, we investigated the following research question:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do K12 practitioners describe their experiences of implementing the HPI model within their organizations?</item> </ulist> <p>In addition to examining K12 practitioners' experiences collectively, we were also interested in any differences.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-5">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161209264-6">Design</hd> <p>We based much of our study design on McDonald et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref34">20</reflink>]). Thus, to explore these K12 practitioners' experiences implementing the HPI process, we employed a case study design (Merriam, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref35">22</reflink>]), borrowing elements of autoethnography. We utilized a case study design as these practitioners' experiences cannot be considered outside of their specific contexts (Patton & Patton, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]; Yin, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref37">39</reflink>]). A convenience sample of two K12 practitioners was identified, and a case study was most appropriate to gain a holistic understanding of their experiences applying the HPI approach (Patton & Patton, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]). Additionally, elements of autoethnography allowed us to utilize data collected from the K12 practitioners (i.e., interviews), as well as from their personal experiences (i.e., reflective prompts and their perceptions throughout data analysis) to tell a more thorough story (Mardis et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]). Additionally, we can provide a richer story by providing the experiences of two different practitioners (Poulos, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref40">29</reflink>]). Furthermore, augmenting with perspectives of authors who have not had the same experiences, but do possess the background knowledge and experiences of implementing HPI in other settings, this partial form of collaborative autoethnography strengthened the descriptions of these experiences (Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-7">Case Contexts and Participants</hd> <p>The scope of this case was the implementation of the HPI process by two K12 practitioners, Kaila and Nikol (Nikki). Both practitioners were exposed to the field of HPI through a course within their educational specialist's programs at a regional comprehensive university in the southeastern United States. The purpose of the course is to introduce students to the HPI method and provide an opportunity to practice applying the systematic approach. Within this course, we introduced the Performance Improvement / HPT Model (Van Tiem et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]) to the participants, who implemented a performance systems analysis targeting a specific performance need or opportunity in an authentic manner. Logan and Alison collaboratively designed and taught this course (Chanmugam & Gerlach, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>]). The following are descriptions of Kaila and Nikki and their initial HPI efforts.</p> <p>Kaila is an educator located in the southeastern United States with 13 years of experience in K12 education, having held the positions of teacher, instructional technology specialist, student information coordinator, and director of accountability. As the director of accountability for a K12 charter district, she supervises 18 registrars at 18 different school campuses. When Kaila began supervising the registrars, she immediately noticed that central office staff had negative perceptions about the registrars' behavior. Having identified the registrars' low morale and reputation as a performance problem, she began applying the HPI model and collected and analyzed climate survey, interview, and human resources data on the registrars. Through data analysis, she identified four causes of the negativity within the registrar group and, using HPI, she addressed each of the causes through an intervention. After a year, Kaila was monitoring the efficacy of the applied interventions and adjusting solutions per an updated round of data collection. The scenario surrounding Kaila's implementation of HPI was included in previous work as a learning tool (Arrington et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nikki is also an educator located in the southeastern United States with 13 years of K12 experience. Additionally, she has 13 years of non-K12 experience, including nine in an educational nonprofit. She has served as an instructional coach at the school level, focusing on college and career academy schools. Nikki utilized HPI to identify a performance problem within the school and found that the implementation of the academy model of shifting educational practice from a traditional high school to that of an academy approach was not progressing. An immediate assumption of the administration team was that the challenge was a training issue. She convinced the team to allow her to utilize the HPI model to identify other potential performance areas that may have been of greater impact (e.g., unclear expectations in the environment). Seven months after initiating the HPI process, Nikki had implemented targeted solutions and was monitoring the in-progress interventions. Additionally, due to the success of her initial HPI initiative, she was planning to scale the application of HPI to other schools throughout the district.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-8">Data Collection</hd> <p>Our data collection processes took two forms. First, Kaila and Nikki reflected over several prompts (drafted by Logan and Alison) that asked about one specific instance in which they applied the HPI process within their organizations. Kaila and Nikki were asked, for example, "What were your experiences in implementing the HPI model?" and "How did you identify a problem?" These reflective prompts helped us identify one finite experience in which to examine how the HPI process was implemented. Afterward, Logan and Alison interviewed them in two semi-structured interviews through Zoom. These interviews lasted approximately an hour and dove deeper into HPI's role in their professional practice and the more intricate details of its application. Example interview questions included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Who do you involve when implementing the HPI process?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the challenges to implementing HPI for you and your organization?</item> <p></p> <item> What are some of the benefits of implementing HPI for you and your organization?</item> </ulist> <p>Logan led both interviews while Alison took detailed notes and asked follow-up questions near the interviews' conclusions.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-9">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The six-phase analysis of our data was related to exploring Kaila's and Nikki's experiences implementing HPI. Upon completing the interviews, we uploaded the recordings into an auto transcription service (otter.ai) and then reviewed the transcripts against the recordings to check for accuracy. Phase 1 of analysis involved the four authors reading through both reflections and interview transcripts independently. Through a descriptive coding approach (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]), we individually generated descriptive notes that summarized the topics within the data sources. In Phase 2, we met and discussed our individual notes, which resulted in the generation of our first iteration of codes. Our first consensus resulted in 11 parent codes with 36 child and grandchild codes that the group agreed upon. With the establishment of this initial codebook, we began Phase 3 of analysis, and we all individually coded the same data source with the codebook. We used word processing software's comment features to apply the codes to statements within this source. After this coding process, we met again and discussed the codebook. In this Phase 4 discussion, we found that we applied the codes in a comparable manner and only refined the names of some codes to be clearer.</p> <p>Next, we commenced Phase 5, and our team divided the remaining data sources and coded them using the updated codebook. After completing this coding step, we met and discussed our process again in Phase 6. From this consensus-building stage, we grouped our codes into nine categories. We further organized these nine categories and established three themes. Table 1 depicts the categories that fit within three themes.</p> <p>Table 1 Themes and Categories</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Themes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Categories</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>How practitioners conduct HPI</p></td><td align="left"><p>They implemented the full HPI process</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>They described <italic>how</italic> they implement(ed) the HPI approach</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>They experienced/identified challenges when implementing the HPI approach in a real-world setting</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>They demonstrated evidence of the best practices of HPI</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>The outcomes of HPI</p></td><td align="left"><p>They saw successful outcomes from their HPI Project</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>They acknowledged HPI impacting their professional practice</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Why one should use HPI</p></td><td align="left"><p>They acknowledged a need for HPI in the K12 setting</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>They saw benefits to implementing the HPI approach</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0161209264-10">Findings</hd> <p>One research question guided this study, and it addressed K12 practitioners' descriptions of their experiences in implementing the HPI approach within their professional practice. In addition, we also explored the differences between the two practitioners' lived experiences. This section will present the findings that emerged from our analysis of the qualitative data.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-11">Research Question: How do K12 Practitioners Describe their Experiences of Implementing the HP...</hd> <p>Out of our analysis, three themes became apparent regarding the practitioners' descriptions of their HPI implementation efforts. First, they explained <emph>how</emph> they conducted HPI within their workplaces. Second, they described the outcomes that resulted from their implementation of HPI. Third, they shared reasons why HPI should be utilized. Each of these themes is discussed in detail below.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-12">How Practitioners Conduct HPI</hd> <p>Kaila and Nikki both discussed how they followed and implemented the HPI model. This included steps such as identifying the problem, collecting data systematically and systemically, identifying causes at the individual and environmental levels, and selecting aligned solutions. Each also discussed how they returned to their identified performance problem and evaluated the impact of the intervention(s) they suggested. Much of their discussions were centered around ensuring that the correct data was collected. For example, Nikki discussed opportunities where the data collection process went awry, <emph>"I felt like the questions may have not been the best. So we went back and fine-tuned questions, and we sent it back out on Monday, to see if we could get a better scale of [the potential causes]."</emph> This was one of the challenges encountered, but one that was easily mitigated.</p> <p>Kaila and Nikki also described how they had to implement the HPI process (i.e., what types of things had to happen for them to actually follow the steps of the model). First, both discussed making the argument in their organizations that the problems they were analyzing were not necessarily caused by a lack of knowledge. Nikki exemplified this point by explaining, <emph>"I had to share articles and additional resources to get the team to think beyond training to get them to consider my HPI process."</emph> Additionally, both mentioned how performers could be skeptical and cautious of this process. However, they each found ways to mitigate this problem. For example, Nikki described the importance of getting several voices at the table in order for her HPI process to be successful. She stated, <emph>"I think it has to be the administrative team. And it has to be the practitioner, whether it's the teacher or the person in the classroom... You've got to get those key people in the room, as well to make any progress towards this."</emph> In addition to communicating with multiple stakeholders, buy-in emerged as a notable factor of their HPI initiatives. Each spoke about having to cultivate buy-in with groups within their organizations as they worked through the process, as well as buy-in being a result of them communicating effectively about what they were doing and the impact it was having (i.e., the results of their HPI efforts). For example, Kaila met regularly with her supervisor to discuss recent data and progress towards addressing the performance problem. Similarly, in order to kickstart the HPI process, Nikki gained the trust of teachers by meeting with them individually and outlining her full plan.</p> <p>Within this theme, both individuals also identified the cyclical nature of HPI. Neither Kaila nor Nikki viewed this case as an instance of them implementing solutions and then moving on. Instead, they periodically revisited their identified performance problems and the metrics that they used. For example, Kaila used the same data instruments that defined the performance gap a year later to determine if there was significant improvement, and Nikki collected various data including surveys and interviews from the performers and other stakeholders to update the solutions. Coinciding with this, they both viewed the case as an opportunity to continue to dive deeper into the performance problems and potential issues they caused by implementing their solutions. Kaila stated, <emph>"Since my original implementation, I have collected additional data and am currently implementing two new interventions to address one problem discovered based off of the data collected."</emph> Each of these individuals is demonstrating that performance improvement is truly a process that is never completed.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-13">The Outcomes of HPI</hd> <p>In addition to describing how they implemented the HPI process, Kaila and Nikki also recounted the lasting impacts that resulted from their efforts. Interestingly, they both discussed outcomes that occurred within their organizations and within themselves. Regarding the organization, each found that their school, and the respective stakeholders, eventually bought into the HPI process. This transformation in organizational mindset provided them with more opportunities to implement and disseminate HPI throughout their organizations. Now armed with their leadership's interest and backing, Nikki is planning future initiatives and has already scaled her HPI efforts to the district level. Similarly, Kaila and her supervisor are collaboratively working to implement two new interventions within her school. Vital in securing this upper-level support, however, was first being able to demonstrate measurable change. Both Kaila and Nikki documented <emph>"tremendous"</emph> improved performance through their respective HPI efforts, which directly gained leaders' attention. <emph>"Getting the buy-in and gathering the data is that huge chunk,"</emph> said Nikki. <emph>"Sometimes people don't want to respond to you, but once they've experienced it [measurable change], they can see the shift."</emph></p> <p>Pertaining to the changes they acknowledged within themselves, both attributed practicing HPI to further developing key skills in their professional practice. First, they see themselves continuously implementing the HPI approach. In looking forward in their careers, Kaila and Nikki explained that HPI is a valuable addition to their skillset, and they plan to leverage the HPI model to solve problems and institute change with data. Second, and closely related to the first, they also see strong development in their systems thinking. This is evident when Nikki stated, <emph>"It's made me a better, not only instructional coach, but also a better educator. Because you don't assume anything, you don't skim the top, you really peel those layers back."</emph> Being able to consider the broader organizational landscape of a performance problem enables them to look to data and apply critical thinking and creativity within their work, whether it be HPI-related or not. Third, they claimed the HPI approach made their work lives easier, thus helping them feel more confident about their professional selves. As stated, the HPI model presents a systemic and systematic framework for addressing performance problems in real-world settings. Both applied the model within their workplaces, which afforded them a data-driven path that led to large-scale change. The HPI process focuses the practitioner on the most relevant elements affecting the problem—the root causes. This strategic, streamlined plan saves practitioners time by avoiding random or unrelated factors.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-14">Why One Should Use HPI</hd> <p>While the process and the outcomes were extremely important within their experiences, both acknowledged the need for HPI in the K12 setting. Kaila recounted her success as a somewhat transferable indicator by explaining, <emph>"If HPI created and continues to generate this kind of improvement in one department, I believe that K12 settings across the state could also be improved tremendously using HPI."</emph> Similarly, Nikki discussed ways that learning about the HPI process would benefit both teachers and leaders. For teachers, she stated, <emph>"...if I can impact the classroom teacher to think through this process, they also won't make assumptions about their students and about their practice."</emph> For leaders, Nikki mentioned that this approach could help them also counter assumptions and <emph>"...take the blinders off"</emph> as they (i.e., teachers and leaders) address performance issues within their organizations with preconceived notions about the causes of the problems. Lastly, Nikki summarized that she felt HPI afforded them the means to tell the full story of what is going on within a performance problem context, which is incredibly important.</p> <p>Both elaborated on why they believed that HPI belongs in K12 and the benefits of the approach. For example, each highlighted how the HPI process offers objectivity. Kaila referred to this idea in the sense of removing personal feelings and said, <emph>"One of the greatest benefits of HPI is that it removes personal feelings about human performance problems and forces you to look at them objectively using data, and then provides potential solutions and interventions for the root causes determined using the data collected."</emph> Nikki also highlighted this concept by focusing on the data-driven features of HPI, <emph>"Because HPI is documented in detail, it can also give K12 organizations better, more accurate, ways to discuss change."</emph> Each of these practitioners also described the systemic nature of HPI as a reason it should be used in K12 settings. Nikki also mentioned how, <emph>"You get a glimpse at not just one area, but then you see some of the other areas. So it's like, here's the big elephant in the room, we can address. And once we do that, here are some other things [impacting our performance]."</emph> Kaila emphasized that the systemic nature allows for simplicity when all aspects are considered. She stated, <emph>"...just because using that [systemic] process, studying everything, and some of the interventions seem so simple."</emph> The best summary for this theme comes from Kaila, who stated, <emph>"It is a proven process that works, and if it works in business industries, it will certainly work in K12 education settings."</emph></p> <hd id="AN0161209264-15">Differences between these Two Practitioners' Experiences</hd> <p>In addition to the similarities across the practitioners' experiences, their recollections of implementing HPI were also peppered with divergent elements. These differences between the two accounts provided an interesting contrast. First, Kaila implemented the HPI approach with a performer group that directly reported to them. Because of this facet, she mostly indicated that she was engaging in the HPI process alone, though she had the support of her supervisor. She also stated, <emph>"...it was really me and my department, and though I was supported [by my supervisor], nobody was really right there in it with me doing the work with me."</emph> Nikki, on the other hand, was extremely collaborative in the methods that she used to conduct HPI, even involving the performer group in solution selection. She stated, <emph>"Teachers were given a voice within my problem solution process and their buy-in to the final solution was huge. While they were nervous... they felt so supported... [and] it was easy for them to adopt the new ways."</emph> Additionally, Nikki communicated the results of the HPI process throughout her organization, to both leaders and performers. This transparency also may have been required as she did encounter several hiccups in her HPI process. In comparison, Kaila did not share directly with the performers that she was engaging in the HPI process, nor did she have to keep her leadership informed on a regular basis. Additionally, the process for Kaila was less turbulent than for Nikki. Due to these factors, Kaila noted that she felt she had support and buy-in on the process throughout, whereas Nikki noted she had to earn it, which may explain the reliance on communication. This component might be explained by the level of control that each individual possessed within their environments. Lastly, Nikki has experienced an additional unique outcome through implementing HPI. Because of the individual context, this approach—and its successes—has resulted in securing several external partnerships between her school district and organizations in the community.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Our intent was to explore the experiences of two K12 practitioners as they implemented, and continue to implement, the HPI process within their organizations. Based on our findings (Table 2), we believe that HPI belongs in K12. Kang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref46">14</reflink>]) described how HPI standards are related to classroom goal achievement, and Medlin ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]) discussed how teachers are actually performance technologists. However, based on Kaila's and Nikki's perspectives, it seems that K12 practitioners are not given agency to implement this process often at the organizational level. Their organizations may not be fully practicing the HPI approach in response to an observable problem, as evidenced by the perspectives identified above. Instead, as is frequently the case across disciplines, organizations may often default to training as a solution to a multitude of performance issues. Anecdotally, from our collective experiences, we believe this is the case more often than not in K12 organizations. As Giacumo and Breman ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]) highlighted, there is a need for models and approaches to be taught in the contexts in which they will be applied.</p> <p>Table 2 Summary of Findings and Main Takeaways</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Findings</p></th><th align="left"><p>Main Takeaways</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>HPI has a place within the K12 space</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers, administrators, and other K12 practitioners would benefit from learning HPI</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>HPI can be implemented by novices with great impact</p></td><td align="left"><p>While we should support novices as they learn the complex skills that underpin the HPI process, they still can institute big change within their organizations, whether they are in a position of control or not</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>HPI is a time-saver</p></td><td align="left"><p>While from the outside, HPI may seem like a time-intensive process, it saves time as it truly tackles the problem. Individuals within K12 environments may have to communicate this to leadership or decision-makers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The underpinnings of HPI (e.g., systems thinking) empower educators</p></td><td align="left"><p>Disseminating HPI to others and communicating the process within K12 can empower practitioners</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>HPI likely won't be without obstacles</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers may be told to "stay in their lane" and most likely a practitioner instituting this process within a K12 organization will encounter challenges or barriers, but there are some ways to work around it</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Interestingly, within Theme 1, we saw the International Society for Performance Improvement ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]) Human Performance Technology standards at play. Specifically, when Kaila and Nikki spoke about using the model (e.g., identifying problems, collecting data, etc.), they referenced the skills of Standards 5–10. The behaviors that they described as necessary in order to implement HPI (e.g., collaborating, communicating results, etc.) reflect Standards 1–4. This finding indicates that these standards easily apply in the K12 setting, and that even while not taught the standards directly, K12 practitioners can confidently provide evidence of them.</p> <p>While both are seasoned K12 practitioners, they were novices to the HPI approach at the onset of their HPI efforts. Even in their first application of the HPI process, however, they both generated measurable change for their organizations. Additionally, Nikki was working within a system where she did not have control over the performers and thus had to maximize all documented change to gain buy-in from all levels of collaborators. We posit that HPI can be successfully applied by HPI novices given that the person is an expert within their organization or has strong knowledge surrounding the problem context. Kang ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]) noted that when HPI consultants worked with their clients, they often conflated organizational and environmental factors. However, in this case, where those implementing the HPI process were familiar with the organization, this same conflation did not occur. This distinction is crucially important for determining that the ideal and current performances are coming from the organization and the environment respectfully. Additionally, while having authority within the organization is helpful, it is not required for meaningful change to occur.</p> <p>Oftentimes, HPI is considered a time-consuming process. Marker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>]) discussed this while advocating for a different visual depiction of the model. Much like misconceptions of the ADDIE process, the HPI model is not a locked linear process (i.e., people sometimes believe they cannot return to steps, they cannot evaluate as they progress, etc.). Unsurprisingly, the HPI approach is also a timesaver if done correctly because it actually addresses the core issue. In a system where problems are often assumed to be knowledge issues, this model can help practitioners diagnose the root causes and save time by implementing targeted and appropriate solutions—rather than exploring only peripheral symptoms.</p> <p>Both practitioners highlight how HPI impacted their ability to use and make meaning of data. The HPI process has the potential to empower educators within their organizations to become more data-savvy. In this, HPI supports K12 practitioners in a comparable way as action research, as an iterative, data-driven method of investigation used to identify actionable solutions to issues that are situated within their spheres of influence (Abaci & Pershing, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]; Mertler, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]). K12 practitioners are currently inundated with data and data-driven initiatives; however, this is often focused on making decisions at the classroom, subject, or grade-band level (Kaufman et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>]; Schifter et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref55">33</reflink>]). Because of the systemic perspective underlying HPI, practitioners can consider the various systems and look to data across them to make a more holistically-informed decision. This is consistent with other literature that looked specifically at systems thinking and its impact on various K12 practitioners. For example, Arrington and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]) found that K12 practitioners attributed gaining an understanding of systems thinking to a better relationship with data. So, it should be no surprise that HPI can positively influence practitioners' relationships with and uses of data.</p> <p>Without detracting from our enthusiastic endorsement of the use of HPI in K12, we want to conclude by acknowledging the unfortunate reality for some. Not every K12 practitioner works within an organization where these types of ideas will be welcomed. Pearlstein ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]) identified this issue when talking about corporate organizations. There can be instances where practitioners meet roadblocks or are simply told "no" by leadership when trying to utilize this process. We offer several recommendations, but by no means are they all-encompassing nor guaranteed to work. First, practitioners can find a <emph>champion</emph> within the organization who can help them institute this change. This person should likely be an opinion leader who has some sway with the organization's leadership. Second, practitioners can rely on data to help make their case. A demonstrated data-backed argument is more difficult to deny. Third, we recommend combining the two recommendations. Practitioners can network and look for similar organizations that have addressed alike issues. Aument and Conley ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>]) emphasized the need for practitioners to write about engaging in the HPI process to further the field. These types of cases provide more evidence for best practices and overcoming challenges, which other HPI practitioners can benefit from. This need is especially important in the K12 setting—where the experiences from other K12 cases may help convince leadership that is unwilling to explore these options because there are so few examples.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-17">Limitations</hd> <p>Throughout the span of this research, we identified various limitations. First, the two authors of this piece who we investigated (i.e., Kaila and Nikki) shared characteristics that may have limited the scope and findings of this study. For example, they both received their introduction to the field of HPI through the same graduate course within the same graduate program, which was facilitated by the same two instructors (i.e., Logan and Alison), albeit during different semesters. Both individuals read the same textbook, participated in similar course exercises, and, of course, completed the same semester-long HPI project at their respective organizations. With this case study reporting on the experiences of two K12 practitioners who possess similar formal training in the HPI method, there is potential bias in the findings. Additionally, the professional roles of these authors may have limited the scope of this study. Although the two overarching experiences diverged at times, likely due to unique contextual factors, the two experiences presented in this piece stem from two experienced K12 practitioners. Kaila was an administrator within a K12 district office and would be considered within leadership. Nikki held a unique K12 position as she served as both a classroom teacher, for a number of courses, and an instructional coach (i.e., she supported other teachers as they attempted to implement specific initiatives). The two practitioners present experiences of applying the HPI approach within a K12 setting.</p> <p>Second, this piece utilized an autoethnographic approach, in that the two authors served as both researchers and participants in collaboration with two additional researchers. The autoethnographic component informed their work in all facets of this project. For example, their initial coding and subsequent analysis negotiation discussions reflected their deep familiarity with and connection to the content at hand (i.e., interview transcripts and written reflections). Due to this nature, the current study is firmly situated within their personal experiences, as well as within the context of their organizations. Therefore, all findings must be considered through the unique lens of the case described.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-18">Conclusion and Future Research</hd> <p>As mentioned previously, K12 organizations are complex, multi-faceted systems, where there is a need for systemic understanding coupled with data-driven decision making. HPI is that coupling. There is a definitive need for more studies on the application of HPI in K12 contexts. While the process itself can be considered context independent, evidence within specific contexts will be beneficial to encourage adoption (i.e., leaders are more likely to implement this approach if they see other successful cases). Primarily, we argue there is a substantial need for more research on the impacts and outcomes of HPI on K12 organizations.</p> <p>Secondly, we believe that additional studies investigating the experiences of those who learn and apply HPI from different contexts would be beneficial. Other instructors likely use a variety of strategies to teach HPI, and the resulting learning experiences could be equally rich and enlightening or perhaps impact individuals' professional practice differently. There could be an investigation into how this type of content could be delivered outside a graduate-level course. Would there be similar outcomes or findings when K12 practitioners learn these concepts through professional development in school or district-based contexts? Additionally, more research on the application of HPI in K12 in different geographical contexts would be beneficial.</p> <p>Thirdly, future research efforts could explore the experiences of varied K12 personnel who engage in the HPI process. For example, many students of the HPI course that sparked the current project are classroom teachers within a K12 setting. A study focusing solely on K12 classroom teachers implementing the HPI method to address a performance problem within their organizations may reveal if teachers have the same experiences in applying HPI. Further, such a study could also shed light on the effect of the HPI process within a K12 context.</p> <p>Fourthly, future research studies could investigate how implementing HPI in K12 changes practitioners over time. For example, as these practitioners become more experienced HPI practitioners, how will their practices change (i.e., as they transition from novice HPI practitioners to expert practitioners)? This could be accomplished through longitudinal studies examining these practitioners.</p> <p>Lastly, we recommend that future studies begin to look at the relationship between K12 practitioners implementing HPI and the outcomes of their overarching system (i.e., organization). Over time, does the continual implementation of HPI yield measurable long-term improvements within the system, even within areas that the practitioner is not directly impacting? There are a variety of directions that research in HPI and K12 can pursue, yet they are all promising and have the potential to impact practice positively.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-19">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161209264-20">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-21">Research Involving Human Participants</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-22">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0161209264-23">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0161209264-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref52" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abaci S, Pershing JA. Research and theory as necessary tools for organizational training and performance improvement practitioners. TechTrends. 2017; 61; 1: 19-25. 10.1007/s11528-016-0123-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arrington TL, Moore AL, Bagdy LM. K12 practitioners' perceptions of learning from failure, creativity, and systems thinking: A collective case study. Tech Trends. 2021; 65: 636-645. 10.1007/s11528-021-00596-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arrington, T. L, Moore, A. L, Steele, K. C, & Klein, J. D. (2022). The value of human performance improvement in instructional design and technology. In J. E. Stefaniak & R. M. Reese (Eds.), The instructional design trainer's guide: Authentic practices and considerations for mentoring ID and ed tech professionals (1st ed, pp. 161–169). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003109938-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref58" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aument K, Conley Q. Transforming theory to practice: Integrating evidence-based practices in Human Performance Improvement. Performance Improvement. 2018; 57; 3: 26-33. 10.1002/pfi.21724</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref41" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chang, H, Ngunjiri, F. W, & Hernandez, K.-A. C. (2013). Collaborative autoethnography. Left Coast Press, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref43" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chanmugam, A, & Gerlach, B. (2013). A co-teaching model for developing future educators' teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 25(1), 110–117. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016491. Accessed 13 May 2022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dick W, Wager W. Preparing performance technologists: The role of universities. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 1997; 10; 1: 55-63. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1997.tb00030.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Foshay, W. R, Villachica, S. W, & Stepich, D. A. (2014). Cousins but not twins: Instructional design and human performance technology in the workplace. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref23" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Giacumo LA, Breman J. Trends and implications of models, frameworks, and approaches used by instructional designers in workplace learning and performance improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2021; 34; 2: 131-170. 10.1002/piq.21349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert, T. F. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. HRD Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirumi A. What performance technologists should know about public education: Implications for professional development and training. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 1995; 8; 4: 89-114. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1995.tb00702.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI). (n.d.) CPT Performance Standards. Retrieved May 13, 2022, https://ispi.org/page/CPTStandards.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang S. What do HPT consultants do for performance analysis?. TechTrends. 2017; 61; 1: 32-45. 10.1007/s11528-016-0129-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang SP, Huh Y, Kim JK. Application of human performance technology (HPT) standards for school teachers in Korea. Asia-Pacific Collaborative Education Journal. 2020; 16; 1: 1-15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, T. E, Graham, C. R, Picciano, A. G, Popham, J. A, & Wiley, D. (2014). Data-driven decision making in the K-12 classroom. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed, pp. 337–346). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein JD, Fox EJ. Performance improvement competencies for instructional technologists. TechTrends. 2004; 48; 2: 22-25. 10.1007/bf02762539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marker A, Villachica SW, Stepich DA, Allen D, Stanton L. An updated framework for human performance improvement in the workplace: The spiral HPI framework. Performance Improvement. 2014; 53; 1: 10-23. 10.1002/pfi.21389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mardis, M. A, Hofman, E. S, & Rich, P. J. (2014). Trends and issues in qualitative research methods. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed, pp. 173–194). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin F, Hall HA IV, Blakely A, Gayford MC, Gunter E. The HPT model applied to a kayak company's registration process. Performance Improvement. 2009; 48; 3: 26-35. 10.1002/pfi.20061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald JK, Stefaniak J, Rich PJ. Expecting the unexpected: A collaborative autoethnography of instructors' experiences teaching advanced Instructional Design. TechTrends. 2022; 66; 1: 90-101. 10.1007/s11528-021-00677-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medlin PL. Teachers as performance technologists. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 1990; 3; 4: 34-39. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1990.tb00475.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mertler, C. A. (2020). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (6th ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore AK, Kaminski JM. Working with your local school district: A tale of two cities. Performance Improvement. 2011; 50; 4: 26-30. 10.1002/pfi.20210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, J. (2004). Designing and implementing performance technology for teachers. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2C59J</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norqvist, L, & Ärlestig, H. (2020). Systems thinking in school organizations–perspectives from various leadership levels. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-02-2020-0031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. Q, & Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearlstein RB. Why HPT will continue to be a hard sell. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2012; 25; 1: 75-84. 10.1002/piq.20132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulos, C. N. (2021). Essentials of autoethnography. APA. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000222-000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothwell, W. J. (2005). Beyond training and development (2nd ed.). AMACOM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothwell WJ, Hohne CK, King SB. Human performance improvement. 2007; Butterworth-Heinemann</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schifter, C. C, Natarajan, U, Ketelhut, D. J, & Kirchgessner, A. (2014). Data-driven decision making: Facilitating teacher use of student data to inform classroom instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 419–432. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1058372. Accessed 13 May 2022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaked H, Schechter C. Exploring systems thinking in school principals' decision-making. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2019; 22; 5: 573-596. 10.1080/13603124.2018.1481533</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaked, H, & Schechter, C. (2020). Systems thinking leadership: New explorations for school improvement. Management in Education, 34(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020620907327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak, J. E. (2018). Performance Technology. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology (1st ed.). Available at https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/performance%5ftechnology. Accessed 13 May 2022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak JE. Needs assessment for learning and performance: Theory, process, and practice. 2021; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Tiem, D. M, Moseley, J. L, & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing results through people, process, and organizations (3rd ed.). International Society for Performance Improvement.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By T. Logan Arrington; Kaila C. Steele; Alison L. Moore and Nikol Withrow</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1361468
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: K12 Practitioners' Experiences Implementing Human Performance Improvement: Processes, Products, and Potentials
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Arrington%2C+T%2E+Logan%22">Arrington, T. Logan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9093-3378">0000-0002-9093-3378</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Steele%2C+Kaila+C%2E%22">Steele, Kaila C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moore%2C+Alison+L%2E%22">Moore, Alison L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Withrow%2C+Nikol%22">Withrow, Nikol</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22TechTrends%3A+Linking+Research+and+Practice+to+Improve+Learning%22"><i>TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning</i></searchLink>. Jan 2023 67(1):32-41.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Technology%22">Performance Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11528-022-00774-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-3894<br />1559-7075
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This case study using collaborative autoethnographic methods explores the experiences of two K12 practitioners as they implemented, and continue to implement, human performance improvement (HPI) in their professional practice. The connection between HPI and instructional design and technology is well documented, but there is not much empirical work examining how the HPI process is utilized in K12 organizations. Using practitioner reflections and semi-structured interviews, our team identified three themes that categorized practitioners' experiences: 1. How practitioners conduct HPI, 2. The outcomes of HPI, and 3. Why one should use HPI. Differences between the two practitioners were also discussed. Overall, we concluded that there is a definitive place for HPI in a K12 setting as it can result in meaningful organizational change, save time when diagnosing problems, and empower educators. We conclude with the realization that not all practitioners will be able to adopt this approach within their organizations seamlessly.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1361468
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1361468
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11528-022-00774-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 32
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: K12 Practitioners' Experiences Implementing Human Performance Improvement: Processes, Products, and Potentials
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Arrington, T. Logan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Steele, Kaila C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moore, Alison L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Withrow, Nikol
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-3894
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1559-7075
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 67
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1