Readers of my postings in the MUS Newsletter and on LinkedIn should easily recognize the importance I place on competency-based apprenticeships. In various formats, I’ve outlined the features of a competency-based apprenticeship, consistent with the consulting work being done with clients, and reported during a recent MUS Learning Lab. Of importance for implementing competency-based apprenticeships is ensuring the effectiveness of the OJT component, which we address through our use of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT).
What is often overlooked when implementing a competency-based apprenticeship is the related technical instruction (RTI) component, which focuses on the learning that occurs outside of the work setting, oftentimes referred to as the classroom component. Indeed, addressing the RTI component has puzzled and, to a certain extent mystified, many apprenticeship administrators, especially when the apprenticeship has been designed from a time-based perspective. Various resources refer to RTI as either representing the essential knowledge of the occupation, or the link between the theory and practice, or the information that provides the “why” for the OJT.
Let’s face it, overall, guidance about RTI has been lacking, which can be problematic when, for instance, trainees question the relevance of certain assigned learning activities and there is limited accountability in response. One instance comes to mind when a welding apprentice, early on, anxiously wondered why there was such an emphasis on math, which was the most difficult academic subject for him back in high school. Such trainee anxiety, without a clear explanation and rationale, is the basis for the trainee losing interest and possibly withdrawing from the program.
Here are some assumptions we share with clients to help de-mystify the RTI aspect of apprenticeships, particularly from a competency-based perspective:
A. The long-used term Related Technical Instruction itself is woefully out of date. The expansion of apprenticeships and the changing nature of work suggest the limitations of this term. Thus, we simply use the term Related Instruction.
B. We define Related Instruction as the prerequisite and contextual information essential to learn the tasks of the job or occupation. As a result, we recognize that the Related Instruction includes areas of knowledge, skills, and individual competencies.
C. Related Instruction must be accountable by explicitly showing the relevance of an instructional activity to the job or occupation This is a critical assumption because it clarifies upfront what are the expectations for trainees.
D. Related Instruction in the best case should be limited in scope, carefully using aspects of resources that are relevant to the tasks.
E. All apprenticeship stakeholders, including trainees, should have full awareness of what is expected for the Related Instruction and how it connects with their learning in the work setting.
F. Finally, we assume there is a bit of folly in identifying a minimum number of learning hours up front, such as done in many apprenticeship agreements. We know this is a reality for some agreements. In practice, each apprenticeship has its own set of knowledge, skills, and competencies, and identifying this information should be derived from the tasks to be learned, not on opinions of individuals who consider what seems important to learn without a context.
From these assumptions, we use the following process to identify the Related Instruction:
1. Conduct a job analysis to identify the tasks of the job or occupation.
2. Ask what are the essential prerequisite and contextual areas of knowledge, skills, and competencies for each task?
3. Review what resource instructional programs are available to address the identified knowledge, skills, and competencies.
4. Develop a cross-walk table that connects the tasks, areas of knowledge, skills, and competencies, and the instructional resources.
5. Set up a management system that displays the cross-walk table.
6. Share the cross-walk table with stakeholders and oversight agencies to explain the approach taken to address the Related Instruction and estimated time requirements.
7. Provide access to the management system so that trainees, instructors, mentors, and administrators all can monitor progress.
8. Ensure mastery of the Related Instruction before trainees engage in the S-OJT, as appropriate.
9. Revisit the cross-walk table to identify changes in the tasks, required knowledge, skills, and competencies, and effectiveness of the instructional resources.
One of the most frequently posed questions about apprenticeships we hear from management is: “How long will the program take?” While previous approaches to RTI have been somewhat predictable timewise, the length of time oftentimes extends unnecessarily. A hallmark of competency-based apprenticeships in general, using a more strategic approach to the Related Instruction, is a reduction in length of program time, all the while increasing the learning effectiveness. As I reported during our recent Learning Lab session, nothing beats using a competency-based approach when trainees report confidence in their ability to perform and, at the same time, having trainers report confidence in their trainees’ abilities to perform. Accomplishing these outcomes, and doing so in the most efficient way possible, justifies our preference for competency-based apprenticeships.
Please contact me if you’re interested in learning more about our approach to competency-based apprenticeships, designing the S-OJT component, and as discussed here, planning the related instruction. I hope the discussion has in fact de-mystified the Related Instruction component, though we recognize our perspective requires more intense scrutiny of instructional resources. I’d also be pleased to share more about the cross-walk table mentioned in the process, which is a planning approach we’ve not seen anyone else use, and is integrated in our SiTUATE platform, accessible to all users.
