VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 8 POSTED ON: 5/11/2012
ON Sequencing: The logic used in sequencing is the logic of reality. That is, the best way to learn how to do something is to learn it within the same process and chaos that you would use on the job. Therefore the sequencing of the EO has followed the logical path that the tasks would be performed on the job, with learning content designed with complexity and real-life in it. EO 0013 sequenced steps (refer to the scalar boxes and re-arrange to replicate this sequence): 1. Provide a Pre reading Pkg: Provide a reading package that includes the WHY, a List of terms and definitions*, DL methods, media, processes, sample products, and case studies demonstrating how all this is performance measured*. Time: 2 X 40 mins. Bloom : Knowledge (acquisition) 2. Introduction to EO 0013: The Readers Digest Why: The use of DL in hybrid learning solutions* has been proven extremely efficient and effective in meeting both the quality* and quantity* control challenges of the current CF. Advantages: Proven +ROI (examples), overall cost savings (examples), less class size limitations in synchronous, no class size limits in asynchronous, reduces residency days, version control (standardizes content and message across trades/corps/sqns/ships), allows learners more time at home/home unit, and some data shows that immersive and/or high fidelity type DL is a very effective cognitive warm up for future psychomotor activities (increases pass rates and average time to competency = more throughput.) Disadvantages: requires more upfront investment (time, $, more complex skill sets), hard to sell given the crap DL we’ve been exposed to, and forces QS-TP institutions to adjust, increased MITE tracking admin, change: makes people have to think differently than “the way it’s always been” In order to better promote DL as a learning option, TDOs should be well prepared to “advise” during the CFITES design phase, the pros/cons/processes/products of DL... Therefore this EO will set out to systematically provide you the tools to do just that. Time: 1X 40 min period. Bloom: affective domain (values DL as an option, given the “why”) In advising on DL, the logical steps are, 3. T018 Demo Potential DL Options: board members will not be able to grasp the current realm of the possible, including the now proven benefits and cost savings, etc, without showing them samples of DL projects, including the “content” itself, how it was made, how the product is performance measured across a gammet of metrics, and what tools/IT config/support the learner needs to use it. What’s in it for them as instructor/SME/TE staff/MA/bean counter? i) show product X: demo use, look and feel, interactivity, purpose, assessment, followed by technical specs, production specs, method/media, and related “why” information ii) show product Y and Z, and compare/contrast pro/cons of using one product/process over others. iii) learning activity: give the students a few scenario based problems. Have them apply the concepts and information above to the scenarios. Have a confirming activity (same). Then EC Time: 3 X 40 mins plus EC (time) Bloom: demonstrate/apply 4. T0017 Communicate with SME: the SMEs present in the board setting will normally have some experience with DL as a learner, but will have limited understanding in “the back end” of DL (design/development, processes, products, IT, SW/HW, Perf Measurement Frameworks (PMF). They need to know this. The demo will allow them to see all this within “the realm of the possible” in a DL context and start warming up to the option instead of hanging onto their past negative DL experiences. The TDO in this EO is both gaining the necessary info from the SMEs on the course and current trg strategies and giving the SME new insight on DL as a potential future option. This communication is in steps: i) Familiarize with the course : Before going into the decision cycle of “to DL or not to DL” as it pertains to the TP/course at hand, the TDO should have already gained insight on how the course would potentially benefit/suffer from a DL application and so, “Famil with course” comes first in this EO. (Homework or 2 X 40 min reading period (for TP) plus 1 X 40 mins (talks with SMEs, gets into current TP, analyses and synthesizes info/options, brainstorms, discovers roadblocks, discovers potential......tinkering) Bloom: analysis ii) Expectation Mgmt: The board needs to know that 5 days of DL is approximately 6 months of work for a 5-8 person team, etc, and manage expectations in terms of these realities and the realities of current shortages of DL production teams in CF. Don’t bring out the DL tool if there is no DL capability foreseen in the future for that course. Discuss with SMEs, get their inputs, knowledge. Time: 1 X 40 mins; Bloom: application iii) DL decision Tool: Once the TDO can run the DL decision tool comfortably across the course at hand, and they’ve confirmed that there is DL production capacity for that course/school, they should bring out the tool and present it to the board. TDO explains use, and guides the team through. Simulation in class. Time: 2 X 40 mins spread throughout the EOs discussed in the TPWB, as its EO by EO or Tp by Tp. 5. Identify DL options (media/method): factoring in applicable elements of andragogical theory, costs, throughput considerations, and school and staff factors, the TDO guides the board through the DL discussion process up to the point of identifying 2-4 options that are the best case scenario for the course at hand (ex 1: low fidelity flash animations for DL part of winter ops trg (low throughput, slow ROI, quick production release (need it now), TE has flash capability, and staff have some experience in it; ex 2 immersive VBS scenario captures for hasty attack drills in a high throughput course, simulated moving picture worth 1000 words, hard to choreograph and video record “actors”, etc) Learning activity: given scenarios with detailed factor information, challenges, considerations, identify optimal DL options..... Time : 5 X 40 for class discussion, presentation of factors inc PMF, and practice “identification” in groups. Next 5 X 40: confirmation : given 3-4 complex scenarios, “identify” on your own. Time: (10 X 40 mins) Bloom: analysis/synthesis/application 6. Select DL option: Referring back to all previous discussions, inputs, docs, caps/lims, factos, guide the SMEs to select the optimal DL option, obtaining buy in from the SMEs as owners of the process and more importantly, the decision. Articulate the key points in EO sheets, ROD, to allow guidance for TE staffs (development, delivery) Time: 1 X 40 min period; Bloom: deduction?? 7. Complete Feasibility Assessment IAW SOPS (sample below) Time 2 X 40 mins Bloom : answer the Q’s?? ALSC Project Feasibility Assessment V2.0 Title of Project Leo II A4M Finalization Date (Day/Month/Year) 22 Feb 2011 Client (School) Armour School Prepared by: Capt. T Schnurr ALSC Ref: ALSC Courseware Analysis Process Standard Operating Procedures DNDLearn Aim 1. The objective of this document is to assist in determining if a project, to be undertaken by the Courseware Development section of ALSC is in a ready state to be developed. Project Signing Authority Security and Feasibility Assessment Acknowledgment Name Signature Date Quality Assurance <<Signed>> 22 Feb 2011 Capt T. Schnurr QA Comments regarding suitability: This is a very important project, as it will be used by all crewmen in all 3 regts, prior to deployment, prior to courses, and for refresher trg etc. It is also not starting from zero, but an upgrade of an existing product. Name Signature Date ALSC Signing Authority: <<Signed>> RANK, NAME ALSC Signing Authority comments regarding suitability: Based upon the assessment, this project IS/ IS NOT approved for development. Client By signing, below, I acknowledge as the signing authority for this project that I have read and understand the intent of CANFORGEN 038/8 SJS 007 122025Z Feb 08 which deals with Information Security (with specific mention to TTPs), accept the potential security risks associated with placing this content in a non-secure domain. Name Signature Date Client or School Signing <<Signed>> Authority RANK, NAME Brief Project Description: To upgrade the Leo II A4M to the actual vehicle. When the simulation was made in Oct 2010 is was based on photographs and notes made by crewmen training on the Leo II in Germany. The result was a 90% solution that is not completely accurate compared to the actual Leo IIA4M. This project will take the V1 of the simulation and upgrade it in regards to correct functionality, accuracy, and missing components. This upgrade is of particular importance, since there is usually no opportunity to train turret crew on an actual Leo II A4M prior to first exposure to the real tank in theatre. This allows crew to practice drills and procedures. This will result in the following benefits: 1. Training can be conducted pre-deployment. 2. Less risk to crew safety, as they will have knowledge of equipment & drills before they mount the tank in theatre. 3. Crew will have better working knowledge of procedures prior to hands on resulting in less equipment damage. 4. Virtual practise will reduce overall time to train on actual Leo II. 1. Factors Question/Point Response Additional Comments Client Who is the project OPI for the Capt R Bulley Client? Are they available for the duration of the project? Identify second POC for the WO Moreau project should the OPI be unavailable Is SME support currently available Yes – Jim Foster, WO Moreau for the project and for the duration of the project.? Who? Who is the Signing Authority for Maj B Corbett the project? Prioritization Will this project reduce residency It has the potential if it is used Factors for students? prior to actual trg. Will this project increase capacity? No Will this project target a stressed No trade? Content Is the project a course or a training Training Aid aid? Are the Qualification Standard TP is not approved. Not an issue as drills and (QS) and Training Plan (TP) components are known. current? Is there a TP review planned? N/A Are the TP PO’s in alignment with Yes the QS? Are lesson plans available and In progress Not an issue as drills and current? components are known. If lesson plans are not available do N/A the TP EOs sheets accurately indicate the exact content and is the ref available electronically? Are there measurable objectives Yes assigned to the EO/EdO teaching points in the TP? Are there timings assigned to the N/A EO/EdO teaching points in theTP? Are necessary references and Yes manuals available? Are there any copyright issues? No Briefly describe the content (e.g. Procedural theoretical, procedural, technical, etc ) . What is the delivery method of the project (e.g. DNDLearn)? How long is the course now? N/A For an existing DL course, how N/A long is it now? For an existing DL course, how N/A many Modules now? Security Does the content have any security No issues that would affect distribution? Target What is the student throughput of Eventually all turret crews from Population the project? all 3 regiments If the project is a course, how N/A many serials are conducted in a year? Where will the students take In classroom, and can also access and/or access this training (e.g. at the access at work or from home home on internet, at work on DWAN)? What is the student demographic Primarily mid-20s and older. (e.g. mature, young, computer Mix of computer-literate and literate, etc)? This will help semi-computer literate determine instructional strategies. 2. Indicate the Training Plans with all Performance Objectives (POs) and Enabling Objectives (EOs) this project would affected: (Example in blue; add rows as required) Training Plan PO EO ARMY DIRECT FIRE SPECIALIST 405 01 LEOPARD IIA4M CREW COMMANDER GUNNERY 401 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09 “ 402 01,02,03,04,05,06 LEOPARD IIA4M GUNNER 401 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12 “ 402 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,10 3. If this project will reduce residency, indicate the PO, EO, and time that will be reduced: (Example in blue; add rows as required) PO EO Time N/A 4. In examining the Training Plan, will the Learning Outcomes be of the TP POs and EOs be met by this project? This project is the most appropriate, given the constraints (financial, lack of access to the tank). There is not enough budget to acquire a full-blown simulator, so low-cost options must be pursued. 5. In examining the Training Plan desired Learning Outcomes, is this project the most appropriate means of delivering this learning? Yes. It will allow crews in units across Canada and in theatre to train and refresh on the LeoCIIA4. 6. Recommended instructional strategy : The instructional strategy is to develop an updated Flash-based asset that emulates the LeoIIA4 turret. The interface will have a mock-up of all control units, with context-sensitive pop-ups that describe the buttons, and a multi-function display that emulates the real equipment. 7. Recommended instructional media: Flash asset for online or classroom instruction 8. Technical requirements: The asset will comprise Flash animations and 3D animations as the primary content. It will be contained in a stand-alone interface that will be delivered via DNDLearn. 9. Draft estimate of effort and time: XXX hours Document name: .xls Project Type Modules Time in minutes from the TP Design/Dev Ratio Hrs (hrs dev/hr learning) Asset 1 N/A *NOTE* Total hours for design and development are a rough estimate based upon data from previous projects. The Design Phase of the project once initiated, will provide a more accurate estimate of time and effort.
Pages to are hidden for
"On Sequencing"Please download to view full document