Case Study #1

Dr. John Doe was hired to be the Occupational Learning and Development (OD&L) director to enhance the teaching and learning process for employees at XYZ car manufacturing facility. The XYZ car factory has two manufacturing plants. One is located in Pennsylvania and is responsible for final assembly of the vehicle. The other factory is located in Tennessee and is responsible for building the transmission and engine for the vehicles assembled in PA.

Dr. John Doe was the company’s choice for this position because he was highly qualified in the area of curriculum and course development, and his performance at a somewhat smaller company was outstanding. The company Dr. Doe came from was known for its occupational learning and development team, which was attributed to a well-planned learning management system used by all support groups, for example, quality, safety, finance and any department in need of course development and training.

In contrast, XYZ car factory was in curriculum disarray. The company has a centralized reporting structure, and the OD&L department is a training clearinghouse responsible for tracking employees’ coursework and training, their tested outcomes and evaluations, and signal to support groups when re-fresher training is needed. The support groups are responsible for delivering their discipline-specific courses, but are not necessarily trained in adult learning theory, course developmentor course outcomes. In addition, support groups ‘take-on’ the responsibility of conducting training as an ‘add-on’ to their already hectic schedules.

Specifically the safety course offerings are not tracked well. It is not easy to tell when employees were due for refresher training. It was not clear if competence was obtained at the end of the courses being offered, as course objectives and outcomes were not clearly defined. The OD&L group encouraged them to use on-line simulation-type training that tracked their competence level by taking a test at the end, since they did not have adequate resources to deliver face-to-face training or coursework. If someone had missed training due to absenteeism, the system to offer a ‘make-up’ course was unreliable and employees fell through the cracks. New employee training orientation was reliable, as the employee could not start work until completing it. However, job-specific training was conducted haphazardly as sometimes the supervisor had the time to dedicate to the employee and at other times the supervisor permitted a more experienced operator to train the new employee. The management at XYZ car factory construed the content of their courses to be ideal because it was flexible enough to not interfere with production, but realized that the courses being offered were not delivered in a consistent manner. The management of the support groups (safety, quality, finance) felt the chaotic course tracking and lack of tracking student outcomes was placing them in a very vulnerable position. Each individual department resorted to tracking their own training specific to their discipline as a means of ‘back-up’, even though this was clearly the job of the OD&L department. The support groups in PA and in TN were unable to generate the necessary leadership to bridge the gap between theory and practice, but were able to at least make enough of a fuss for a new curriculum director to be hired.

In this case:

The recommended curriculum for safety course offerings is recommended by the EH&S department based on hazard analysis and OSHA requirements.

The written curriculum does not really work together as a overall ‘system’ rather is viewed as individual courses or trainings that must be completed. The individual courses do not relate back to an overall company specific ‘curriculum’, there is no common thread.

The supported curriculum waivers, meaning training takes a back-seat if dire production events utilize resources dedicated to training.

The tested curriculum is just assumed to be working. However, no one has had the time to research any linkages between accident rates and scores on tests following training. This is most likely because the training is not delivered or tested in a standardized way. There has been little agreement on which courses must show a demonstration of skill (or whom determines the ‘demonstration’ was adequate) and which courses just require a written test at the end.

The learned curriculum denotes any changes in values, perception or behavior as a result of having completed the course. One way to accomplish this may be to take a participant survey at the end of the class. Currently, this company does not really solicit feedback from students regarding training because they know they do not have the time to fix any of their suggestions.

The hidden curriculum, meaning the challenges an employee faces during the class can be easily connected to and exacerbated by things happening outside the class on the front line. The employees learn a lot about the ‘ways things are really done’ from other employees, in the case of XYZ Company there is a level of mistrust between the workforce and management.

Some of the responsibilities of the new OD&L Director were developed by XYZ car factory’s upper management and are listed below:

Responsibilities / The extent to which the OD&L group will …
Culture / Establish a set of standard operating procedures and routines for delivered coursework.
Discipline / Protect the support groups by helping ‘fight’ for adequate time to deliver training, by working with operations to minimize detractors to their focus on course development and teaching time.
Resources / Provide support groups with material and works with support group management to ensure professional development funds necessary for the successful execution of their training/instructor roles are available.
Curriculum, instruction, assessment / Is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
Focus / Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals at the forefront of the company’s attention.
Situational Awareness / Is aware of the details and undercurrents in the operation of the company and uses this information to address current and potential problems.

In view of the information covered in the ‘content’ section of D2L this week, please consider the following questions:

  • As the new OD&L director, what is your first step in bringing ‘calm’ to the chaotic and worrisome state of the curriculum?
  • What is the first thing you would do to help the Safety Department?
  • To what extent to you believe a written curriculum for this company would help the various disciplines?
  • Do you feel that the intentional curriculum of the safety department would be prescriptive or descriptive, or a combination of both?
  • What roles do the recommended curriculum and hidden curriculum play in developing the intentional curriculum?

This case study is a modified version of the case study provided in the book Curriculum Leadership: Strategies for Development and Implementation, pages 2 – 33. The authors of the book are Allan Glatthorn, Floyd Boschee, Bruce Whitehead and BonniBoschee. The modifications included shifting the tone of the case study from a school setting to an industrialized setting specific to safety.