Page 35 - International Journal of Process Educaiton (Special Issue)
P. 35
performance of learning.” The model offered in Table 2 any area of performance. These include, getting a handle
shows us exactly how to do that – by targeting the aspects on performance: the Performance Model, continuum of
of learning. Even greater, however, is the efficacy of the performance levels, performance analysis and assessment,
Theory of Performance when the performance in question performance assessment, and a preparation worksheet.
is learning itself; “improving one component of the learning
performance will improve other components of the learning Improving Performance of and Within a
performance” (Apple & Ellis, 2015). This means, for Discipline
example, that as we accept greater responsibility for our
learning, we are able to make better choices when faced with Performance at a disciplinary level can also be improved.
life challenges; and that as we elevate our level of learning, The Performance Model suggests a schema for how that
we have a greater sense of our own efficacy as learners. might be done or where the pertinent scholarship might
focus:
Performance and Tools
Identity: Develop a profile for the discipline's key
The concept of performance is prevalent within Process areas of performance.
Education; so much so that “PE” could also stand for
“Performance Education.” Because nearly any aspect Knowledge: Clarify/create performance criteria and
of learning is both a process and potential performance, measures in the discipline.
Process Educators have created and use a wide variety
of tools that target performance. More than 50 such tools Learning Skills: Identify and rank the critical
are available in the Student Success Toolbox (Pacific learning skills for the discipline.
Crest, 2011). Between the text and its supporting web
site, there are tools that support the analysis, planning, Context: Challenge disciplinary performances in
and improvement of performance in the following: new and novel situations.
learning, reading, writing, assessing, problem solving,
collaborating, and communicating. Additional tools are Personal Factors: Develop strategies to address the
available to support the analysis and improvement of discipline's most common risk factors (those factors
that jeopardize success within the discipline).
References
Academy of Process Educators. (2015). What is Process Education? Retrieved from http://www.processeducation.org/
bifold_010809.pdf.
Apple, D. K., Beyerlein, S. W., Leise, C., & Baehr, M. (2007). Classification of learning skills. In S. W. Beyerlein,
C. Holmes, & D. K. Apple (Eds.), Faculty guidebook: A comprehensive tool for improving faculty performance
(4th ed.). Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
Apple, D. K., Duncan, W., & Ellis, W. (2016). Key learner characteristics that produce academic success. Hampton,
NH: Pacific Crest. Retrieved from: http://www.pcrest.com/research/success_021116.pdf
Apple, D. K., & Ellis, W. (2015). Learning how to learn: Improving the performance of learning. International
Journal of Process Education, 7(1).
Apple, D. K., Morgan, J., & Hintze, D. (2013). Learning to learn: Becoming a self-grower. Hampton, NH: Pacific
Crest.
Bobrowski, P. (2007). Bloom's taxonomy: Expanding its meaning. In S. W. Beyerlein, C. Holmes, & D. K. Apple
(Eds.), Faculty guidebook: A comprehensive tool for improving faculty performance (4th ed.). Lisle, IL: Pacific
Crest.
Elger, D. (2007). Theory of performance. In S. W. Beyerlein, C. Holmes, & D. K. Apple (Eds.), Faculty guidebook:
A comprehensive tool for improving faculty performance (4th ed.). Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
Horton, J. (2015). Identifying at-risk factors that affect college student success. International Journal of Process
Education, 7(1).
Mettauer, J. (2002). Life vision portfolio. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
International Journal of Process Education (February 2016, Volume 8 Issue 1) 33
