···
–
Okay, I’ll bite. How come Bryan has responded to my
post but I have yet to see it?
Help! My reference signals are going
bonkers! (Or else my perceptions are really out of whack.)
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf
Of Bryan Thalhammer
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004
4:03 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Toward A Theory of
Human Performance
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.12.17.1430
CST)]
Fred,
“lack of a robust theory of human performance” and “outcomes or effects of
behavior, not behavior itself”
The thing I see here about PCT relating to
Performance Improvement is the relative perception of the acceptable levels of
a performance. We talk about task analyses, process flow, and appropriate
measures, but these seem outside of the actual performance as done and
perceived by the actor. I have designed job aids, instructional materials,
process flow charts, etc. but in each case, designers, managers, and employees
have to at least talk it through, even though it is quite nicely documented in
the SOPs or steps on the page or screen. In fact, I have even witnessed people
acting out the steps prior to putting them into action. So, what seems
necessary is for the necessary control systems and reference levels to be in
place before performance can be improved.
PCT offers a theory of performance that is
perception-based, not behavior-based (that is, a perception of the behavior is
personal, and not able to be truly represented outside the Self-System as
needs analyses, task analyses, and gap analyses). Since those reports are
outside to the actor and from the point of view of a “privileged onlooker”
they are artificial perceptions that do not (not even may not)
equal the perceptions of the actor in a particular job. What PCT offers is, in
my opinion, not what people from an HPT perspective are looking for. It
offers a relative rather than a logical-positivist standard, and suggests that
we cannot know what a person is REALLY doing, when we observe a performance.
This would put knots the stomachs of most Magerian instructional designers and
their clients. They want certainty, I think…
Performance according to your short
summary sounds like an artifact of the actual live performance, the outcomes. I
have suggested that the CSGnet is that kind of artifact, where people
contribute posts as a means of controlling subsequent word streams for
acceptable content (replies, aligned statements, etc.). How the outcomes
(artifacts: verbal description by an observer, transcript, video or
report) are judged differently by an outside observer than by the person
doing the actions that got those outcomes, and may not totally be in the
feedback loop with the same reference levels as those of the actor. In short,
performance as seen by the actor is not the same as the performance described,
which I think we all know, but clients with a more traditional approach may not
appreciate that difference. Clearly, we PCTers do not accept that
“telling” someone how to perform is the same as “being
able” to perform (telling is not teaching)–there is more going on in a
person’s performance than simple execution of commands.
This is the perennial problem of offering
PCT theories to a Behaviorist corporate culture, I think: Can we get relativist
point of view to make sense with a logical-positivist point of view? I have
more questions than answers, but I thought I would try posting on this.
Cheers!
–Bryan
[From Fred Nickols (2004.12.17.1155 EST)]
–
I’ve been mulling over what I see as
a problem with a professional practice area known as Human Performance
Technology (HPT). One of its shortcomings, as I see it, is its lack of a
robust theory of human performance. Instead of an explicit and particular
theory of human performance, HPT points to General Systems Theory (GST) and
various theories associated with psychology, sociology and organizational
behavior as its theoretical basis. I also happen to think that PCT would
make a much better theoretical basis and, at the very least, ought to be added
to the theory base of HPT. I have no idea what would be involved in
formulating and articulating a theory of human performance – or a theory
of anything else for that matter – hence my questions.
To qualify as a theory, let’s say a
fairly comprehensive and robust theory, what criteria would a purported theory
have to satisfy? Who would it have to satisfy? How could you tell
if some set of statements, arguments, evidence, frameworks, principles,
examples, etc., was or wasn’t a theory?
Before dashing off any responses to my
query, here is a little elaboration on what I mean by “human
performance”: By “performance,” especially human performance,
I am referring to the outcomes or effects of behavior, not behavior
itself. These are also known variously as “accomplishments”
(Tom Gilbert) and “achievements” (Gilbert Ryle). These
effects, I believe, are part of the closed-loop that enables behavior to
control perception but they are separate from the behaving individual.
Anyhow, what are the minimum criteria an
exposition would have to meet in order to qualify as a “theory”?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf
Of Bruce Gregory
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004
11:21 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: What PCT is (and is not)
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1217.1120)]
Bill Powers (2004.12.17.0250 MST)
I think it is better to stick to the circuit-diagram level and not try to
explain anything in terms of neurons. All we need to know about neurons is
whether they can perform the kinds of basic operations needed to implement
functions at the block-diagram level. I think that question was settled
long ago. We need to know WHAT the brain does at the block-diagram level
before we can make any sense of HOW it does it.
The only place where it’s difficult to explain where reference signals
come
from is the top level. At all other levels, reference signals for lower
systems are generated as the means by which a higher-order system acts to
correct its own errors. At the top level, anyone’s guess is as good as any
other since we don’t have any data. Why worry about it until we do have
data?
Thanks, Bill for this very succinct statement of what PCT is and what it is
not. PCT is a way of modeling human behavior using block-diagrams that
incorporate negative feedback. The models are hierarchical and the initial
conditions for any particular model are the reference settings for the highest
levels in the model. Keeping these few principles in mind might save a lot of
wasted verbiage.
/x-tad-smaller>/fontfamily>
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.