1 / 13

CPM Media Selection Process and Potential Future Software Capabilities Danette Likens AIM Team

CPM Media Selection Process and Potential Future Software Capabilities Danette Likens AIM Team. 4 April 2012. It doesn't matter how sound the media strategy if the design strategy is flawed. NETCINST 1500.6 – FEA Guidance including Media Selection.

Jims
Download Presentation

CPM Media Selection Process and Potential Future Software Capabilities Danette Likens AIM Team

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CPM Media Selection Process and Potential Future Software Capabilities Danette Likens AIM Team 4 April 2012

  2. It doesn't matter how sound the media strategy if the design strategy is flawed

  3. NETCINST 1500.6 – FEA Guidance including Media Selection • Manual process utilizing Excel spreadsheets and complex algorithm • Lacks scientific support • Not user friendly • Ambiguous in media selection / recommendation process • Easily manipulated • Subjective input • Creates excessive workload for user

  4. Proposed Process • Simple and scientifically supported model • Meets the needs of N9 media selection and media evaluation tasks • Utilizes data elements already captured in CPM (no additional workload on the user) • Current input is subjective – proposed input is objective • This approach will solidify the process and remove possibility of manipulating data to justify the desired media strategy

  5. Proposed Process(contd) • Elements used in the media selection criteria could: • Be used to explore and validate emerging technologies for inclusion as viable media options • Cross multiple platforms not yet explored • Be used to guide assessment of learning outcomes (Bloom, 1942)

  6. Data Elements & Supporting Theory • Knowledge Proficiency Level (KPL) (Bloom’s Taxonomy) (Bloom, 1956) • Skill Proficiency Level (SPL) • Verb (Domains of Learning) (Gagné, 1972) • Content Type (Clark, 2007) • Cognitive Level (Clark, 2007)

  7. How it Works • The learning domain is determined based on the Verb used in the task (Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor) (Gagné, 1972) • Although some verbs may cross domains, those utilized tend to be repetitive within a job to show a process, procedure, principle, concept, or fact based training element • Combining the Content Type with the Learning Domain defines the learning context without the use of the objective, conditions, or standard (Gagné, 1972; Bloom, et al, 1956)

  8. How it Works(contd) • Adding elements from the Cognitive Level ensures proper media delivery mode is selected and further delineates alternate choices without having to populate and analyze large amounts of data per task • Adding the KPL and SPL level to the verb domain and content type lends to the level of interactivity needed to adequately train or perform

  9. Process Description • CPM aggregates data elements for each module, lesson, section giving recommended strategy for each • Media strategy tables are used to direct system to media recommendation (see handout) • An overarching recommendation is provided for the course. • Potential / estimated reduction in efficacy (based on primary learning domain) will display for alternate or less recommended media

  10. Example • If all sections within a lesson are best as CBT, the lesson recommendation would be CBT. If 3 out of 5 sections are CBT and 2 are ILT, blended would be recommended for the lesson with alternates for total CBT and/or total ILT • Potential reduction in efficacy displays for alternate solutions (based on learning domain)

  11. Validation • Assessment data should be utilized as part of the overall design strategy to validate outcomes (Bloom, 1942) • Testing results can validate transference of knowledge as well as KPL/SPL, allowing detection/identification of faults within the curriculum design strategy • Post course assessments and Fleet feedback can validate Return on Investment (level 3 & 4) (Kirkpatrick, 1998)

  12. Questions?

  13. References • Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay. • Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives book 1: Cognitive domain. Longman, NY: Longman. • Bloom, B. S. (1942).Test reliability for what? Journal of Educational Psychology,33(7), 517-526. • Clark, R. C. (2007). Developing technical training (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer • Gagne, R. (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange 3(1), 1-8. • Kirkpatrick, (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

More Related