IST@IUB
R621: Needs Analysis and Assessment (Sections 22111 & 12440)
Fall 2010
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Class Time:
Aug 30 (Mon) – Dec 11 (Sat) (No class during Thanksgiving Day holidays)
Instructor:
Dr. Yonjoo Cho (EDUC 2232)
Weekly Chat Sessions:
Wednesdays at 8:00 pm
Communications:
choyonj@indiana.edu
Office Hours:
Mondays at 1:30 – 3:00 pm (appointment requested for other times)
Teaching Assistants:
Clare Chen (chen22@indiana.edu)
Course Access:
http://oncourse.iu.edu; https://www.indiana.edu/~istr621/cho10fall/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Course Description
This course centers on theories, cases, and practices of analyzing needs in organizations. The identification of
needs is a starting point for organizational and instructional development activities. The process of conducting
needs analysis has a greater impact on performance improvement by attending to the context in the organization.
Included are the frameworks and methodology for carrying out needs analysis including three levels of analysis,
learner analysis, task analysis, and organizational analysis as well as needs analysis methods including PEST and
SWOT, and Force-Field Analysis.
Course Goals
The goals of the course include:
1.
2.
3.
To identify theories and cases of needs analysis in organizations
To carry out needs analysis including learner analysis, task analysis, and organizational analysis
To use needs analysis methods (PEST, SWOT, and Force-Field Analysis) to a real organization’s
performance needs
Core Competencies
By the end of the semester, the students will be able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Set needs analysis within one of the four sociological paradigms of organizational analysis (Brains,
Machines, Psychic Prisons, and Flux) to identify the role and functions of needs analysts in the
organization
Locate performance needs in the organization by analyzing example cases
Position needs analysis within the process of three level of analysis including learner analysis, task
analysis, and organizational analysis
Explain data collection (interviews and survey) and data analysis (qualitative and quantitative) methods
for needs analysis
Explain needs analysis methods including PEST, SWOT, and Force-Field Analysis
Use needs analysis methods to create a complete report of a select organization’s performance needs
Reflect on theories of needs analysis on the basis of field experience
1
Textsbooks and Resources
Required Textbooks
Morgan, G (2006). Images of organization (updated edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Recommended Textbook
Pershing, J. A. (Ed.) (2006). Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Synchronous Chats
We will have weekly synchronous chats using Breeze (Adobe Connect) to discuss course content and issues.
Course Assignments
Students will complete five assignments during the semester:
1.
[Organizational analysis] A group project for which the class is divided into four groups. This involves
reading and preparing for a presentation (of 10 slides). Each of four groups will choose one of the four
paradigms of organizational analysis (Brains, Machines, Psychic Prisons, and Flux). Students show how
they captured the author’s sociological perspective to the needs analyst perspective.
2.
[Case study] Groups of students will prepare for a presentation on a case study of needs analysis practiced
in various organizations. In their presentations, students are expected to show their mastery of basic
concepts and knowledge of needs analysis.
3.
[Needs analysis report] Teams of students work on the needs analysis project which identifies
performance needs in the organization, collects and analyzes data, draws conclusions, and makes
recommendations in the final report. The project consists of an actual needs analysis, carried out for a
“real world” client organization. Outside organizations, profit or non-profit, are preferred for the
student’s hands-on field experience.
4.
[Reflection] Individual students are required to write a reflection paper. This end-of-class reflection paper
reflects on the needs analysis process from a perspective of what learning and changes have occurred in
line with the field and team work experiences.
Weekly Participation
Each week you are expected to participate in the Oncourse discussion forum. The forum will be used to establish
various viewpoints of the field and to post discussions. To do this, you are expected to post “questions for
discussion” (ONE on a required reading). What it means is that you read the required readings carefully and create
pointed and thoughtful questions so that you can have meaningful discussions with your classmates.
In addition, you are expected to provide your comments and feedback (ONE) on other class members' questions. It
is highly recommended that you post your questions for discussion no later than Thursday of each week, allowing
you and others to view and react to all initial inputs.
Your weekly participation grade will be based on the quality AND the quantity of your online discussions
throughout the course. Our TA and I will assign "value points" each week based on the quality and the quantity of
discussions. See “discussions” for detailed criteria in the web-based syllabus in Oncourse.
Grading Criteria and Due Dates
Four deliverables plus weekly participation are required in this course. Please see each assignment and schedule
for more specific information. Post your deliverable in the Oncourse Assignments by Sunday 11:55 pm EST.
2
Deliverable Topic
Points
Due
1
Group Presentation on Organizational Analysis
20
Week 4
2
Case Study Analysis (group)
10
(Choose one in October)
3
Needs Analysis Report (with the organization’s feedback)
40
Dec 12 (Sun)
4
Reflection Paper (individual)
10
Dec 15 (Wed)
Weekly participation (individual)
20
Weekly participation
plus
Total:
100
Each student or group will be given a feedback sheet informing them of the strengths and weaknesses revealed in
group and individual assignments. No incompletes will be awarded unless there is an emergency.
Grading Policy
The following grading policy has been adopted for graduate courses in the School of Education
(http://www.indiana.edu/~bulletin/iu/educ_grad/2005-2007/policies.shtml#grading). The percentages in
parentheses were added by the instructor.
A (95-99%)
=
Outstanding achievement. Unusually complete command of the course content.
A- (90-94%)
=
Excellent achievement. Very thorough command of course content.
B+ (86-89%)
=
Very good achievement. Thorough command of course material.
B (83-85%)
=
Good achievement. Solid, acceptable performance.
B- (80-82%)
=
Fair achievement. Acceptable performance.
C+ (77-79%)
=
Not wholly satisfactory achievement. Marginal performance on the requirements.
C (73-76%)
=
Marginal achievement. Minimally acceptable performance on course assignments.
C-
=
Courses with a grade of C- or lower may not be counted in graduate programs.
Be certain that you understand the evaluation criteria before you begin any of the projects. The side headings in
the feedback sheets are both the criteria for the deliverables and checklist for contents to be included in all
assignments.
Plagiarism and Original Work
We expect that you will turn in original work (your own or that of your team) for every part of every deliverable in
this course. We also expect that you make every effort to acquaint yourself with both the IU Code of Student
Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct, the concept of plagiarism (start with the required departmental tutorial
"Understanding Plagiarism"), and the ways in which you must both credit the work of others and avoid presenting
that work as your own (start with the resources from the Campus Writing Program and reference the APA style
guide).
Team project work containing plagiarized material will be awarded a grade of F. At the discretion of the instructor,
the project may be turned back to the team for correction of the problem before a specified deadline and regraded for a grade equivalent to or lower than the grade the project would have otherwise received. If your
individual work is discovered to be plagiarized or to contain plagiarized material, you will receive a failing grade for
the course. These policies cover written and graphical work, and all work assigned in the course.
3
Required Readings
Week 1
Cho, Y. (2002). Needs assessment of KAIST MBA and areas of improvement. The Self-Evaluation Report by the
AACSB Business Accreditation (pp. 69-83). Seoul: KAIST Business School.
Week 2
Altschuld, J. W., & Lepicki, T. L. (2010). Needs assessment. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving
performance in the workplace, vol. 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 771-791).
Silver Spring, MD: International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
Morgan, G (2006). Images of organization (updated edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (Select one chapter)
Sleezer, C. M., & Russ-Eft, D. (2010). Needs assessment. In J. L. Moseley & J. C. Dessinger (Eds.), Handbook of
improving performance in the workplace, vol. 3: Measurement and evaluation (pp. 97-112). Silver Spring, MD:
International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
Week 2 - Optional
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and
society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474.
Moore, M. L., & Dutton, P. (1978). Training needs analysis: Review and critique. Academy of Management Review,
3, 532-545.
Week 3
Altschuld, J. W. (2004). Emerging dimensions of needs assessment. Performance Improvement, 43(1), 10-15.
Morgan, G (2006). Images of organization (updated edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (Work on one chapter)
Warner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2009). Assessing HRD needs. In Human Resource Development (4th ed.) (pp. 104137). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Week 3 - Optional
Noe, R. A. (2008). Needs assessment. In Employee training and development (4th ed.) (pp. 89-122). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Week 4
Morgan, G (2006). Images of organization (updated edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Week 5
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. K. (2007). Task analysis. In Designing effective instruction (5th
ed.) (pp. 74-101). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Week 5 – Optional
Bell, H. H., Andrews, D. H., & Wulfeck II, W. H. (2010). Behavioral task analysis. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.),
Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 1: Instructional design and training delivery (pp.
184-226). Silver Spring, MD: International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
Villachica, S. W., & Stone, D. I. (2010). Cognitive task analysis. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of
improving performance in the workplace, vol. 1: Instructional design and training delivery (pp. 227-258). Silver
Spring, MD: International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
4
Week 6
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. K. (2007). Learner and contextual analysis. In Designing
effective instruction (5th ed.) (pp. 52-73). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Week 7
Pershing, J. L. (2006). Interviewing to analyze and evaluate human performance technology. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.),
Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 780-794). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Marrelli, A. F. (2010). Data collection. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the
workplace, vol. 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 792-816). Silver Spring, MD:
International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
Week 8
Lee, S. H. (2006). Constructing effective questionnaires. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance
technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 760-779). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Ritter, L. A., & Sue, V. M. (2007). Introduction to using online surveys. New Directions for evaluation, 115, 5-14.
Week 9
Gilmore, E. R. (2006). Using content analysis in human performance technology. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook
of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 819-836). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Pershing, J. A., Warren, S. J., & Rowe, D. T. (2006). Observation methods for human performance technology. In J.
A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 795-818). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Week 10
Lin, H. (2006). Ethical applications of technology in HRD: A PEST analysis and implications. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 91-106.
Schildhouse, J. (2006, Winter). An interview with Willis D. Pugh. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 2-3.
Week 11
Leigh, D. (2010). SWOT analysis. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the
workplace, vol. 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 115-140). Silver Spring, MD:
International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
Week 11 - Optional
Chermack, T. J., & Kasshanna, B. K. (2007). The use and misuse of SWOT analysis and implications for HRD
professionals. Human Resource Development International, 10(4), 383-399.
Week 12
Aquila, A. (2004). Let the force be with you. Accounting Today, 18(10), 8-9.
Schwering, R. E. (2003). Focusing leadership through force field analysis: new variations on a venerable planning
tool. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(7), 361-370.
Week 12 - Optional
Baulcomb, J. S. (2003). Management of change through force field analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 11,
275-280.
Thomas, J. (1985). Force field analysis: A new way to evaluate your strategy. Long Range Planning, 18(6), 54-59.
5
Case Studies
Bates, R. A., & Holton, E. F. III. (2002). Art and science in challenging needs assessments. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 15(1), 111-130.
Brush, T., Sugar, W., & Brush, J. (2007). Andrew Brown and Deborah Frye: Evaluating online instruction. In P. A.
Ertmer & J. Quinn (Eds.), The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (3rd ed.) (pp. 248-253). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Casey, M. S., & Doverspike, D. (2005). Training needs analysis and evaluation for new technologies through the use
of problem-based inquiry. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(1), 110-124.
Clarke, N. (2003). The politics of training needs analysis. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(4), 141-153.
Peterson, T. O., & Peterson, C. M. (2004). From felt need to actual need: A multi-method multi-sample approach to
needs assessment. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(1), 5-21.
Sleezer, C. M., & Spector, M. (2006). Assessing training needs of HIV program providers. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 19(3), 89-105.
Sleezer, C. M., Kelsey, K. D., & Wood. T. E. (2008). Three reflections on assessing safety training needs: A case
study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 103-118.
Swart, W., & Kaufman, R. (2009). Developing performance data for making useful faculty and leadership decisions:
Needs assessment as a vehicle. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(3), 71-82.
R621 Proposed Course Schedule
Week
1
8/30 – 9/5
2
9/6 – 9/12
3
9/13 – 9/19
4
9/20 – 9/26
Presentation and Discussion Topics
Reading
Deliverable
Course Overview
Forming four Groups on
organizational analysis (chapters 2, 4, Cho (2002)
7 & 8)
Case Discussion
Needs assessment:
Definitions and concepts
Altschuld & Lepicki (2010);
Sleezer & Russ-Eft (2010)
Needs assessment: Dimensions
Altschuld (2004); Werner &
Organizational analysis: Why and how DeSimont (2009)
Organizational analysis
Morgan (2006)
Group presentations
(Assignments in Oncourse)
5
9/27 – 10/3
Task analysis
Morrison et al. (2007)
One page proposal
6
10/4 – 10/10
Learner analysis
Morrison et al. (2007)
Case study 1
Permission letter
7
10/11 – 10/17
Data collection methods: interviews
8
10/18 – 10/24
Data collection methods: Survey
Lee (2006); Ritter & Sue (2007)
Case study 3
Mid-term evaluation
9
10/25 – 10/31
Data collection methods:
Observations & content analysis
Gilmore (2006); Pershing et al.
(2006)
Case study 4
Pershing (2006); Marrelli (2010) Case study 2
6
10
11/1 – 11/7
Needs analysis methods:
PEST Analysis & frame factors
11
11/8 – 11/14
Needs analysis methods:
SWOT Analysis
Leigh (2010)
12
11/15 – 11/21
Needs analysis methods:
Force-field Analysis
CSFs
Aquila (2004); Schwering (2003)
13
11/22 – 11/28
Thanksgiving Day holidays (no class!)
14
11/29 – 12/5
Pilot project
15
12/6 – 12/12
How to write a NA report and
transmission letter
Frame reflection paper
16
12/13 – 12/19
Lin (2006); Schildhouse (2006)
NA Report due Sun, Dec 12,
11:55 EST
Client Feedback AND
Reflection paper due
Wed, Dec 15, 11:55 EST
Reflections
7
Name: ___________________
Grade:
R621 FEEDBACK SHEET: ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS (20%)
1.
Clarity of goals of organizational analysis
2.
Effectiveness of introduction
3.
Clarity of theoretical basis of paradigm
4.
Clarity of paradigm and its characteristics (i.e. how you would recognize the paradigm)
5.
Effectiveness of examples of paradigm at work
6.
Clarity of conclusions and relation to needs analysis
7.
Meshing of paradigm to concerns of needs analysts
8.
Interactive discussion points (new)
9.
References/Bibliography
10. Professionalism of presentation
11. General remarks
(Note: Sections in bold type are key to grade.)
Name: _____________________
Grade:
R621 FEEDBACK SHEET: NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT (40%)
1.
Transmission letter (paper-clipped to the front of report)
2.
Report - format and professional appearance
3.
Title page, table of contents, executive summary and acknowledgments
4.
INTRODUCTION
5.
AIM (Scope)
6.
BACKGROUND of organization/department as context of problem(s) (PEST Analysis)
7.
FRAME FACTORS (NA project, organization, and consultant)
8.
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
9.
DATA ANALYSIS (Using the information gathered from project methodology)
a.
Internal and External Analysis (SWOT Analysis)
10. FINDINGS (including reasons, interactions, and data tables)
11. MIGRATION STRATEGY (i.e., Force Field Analysis including figure with title, key, scale, and options)
a.
b.
Current State (with current core competencies and capabilities)
Future State(s) - needs identified (with future core competencies and capabilities)
12. RECOMMENDATIONS each with their own rationale, CSFs, and implementation phases
13. Appendices (as necessary) all directly referred to in body of report
14. General comments on the Report as a whole
(Note: Sections in bold are key to grade.)
Name: ____________________
R621 FEEDBACK SHEET: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS (10%)
1.
Title Page
2.
Table of Contents
3.
Introduction
4.
Explanation of analysis process
5.
Results of the case
6.
Discussion points
7.
Conclusion(s)
(Note: Sections in bold are key to grade.)
Grade: ____
Name: ____________________
R621 FEEDBACK SHEET: REFLECTION PAPER (10%)
1.
Title Page
2.
Introduction and aim of the paper
3.
Key points made
4.
Conclusion(s)
5.
References if any
(Note: Sections in bold type are key to grade.)
Grade: ____