130 likes | 217 Views
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.
E N D
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 • 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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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