Task+Analysis+Work+in+Progress+Page

7 Mar NEW version of Advise...on DL Scalar



7 Feb 11 - Version



7 Feb 2011 (post Skype conference version of Advise on DL) [BW - requires sequencing (Rubric suggests bottom to top sequencing) A-I think they're close. {Paula thinks bottom to up sequencing is good now, can go with it) {Paula: note, above on the big scalar (I SAY ABOVE), should our main T011 say "advise {TE} on ...design"? Or should we say "advise board members (knowing theres ideally  TE, MA, and related stakeholders at the table)? advise the client? (with my intent being here, one where we can glue this last step in board process to  include TE advisory once the board is done, and the TE is actually building the content).....whatever we decide here, our lower T013 "advise X on DL" should be consistent  with the above decision, both above and in the follow on {lower} scalar, below. I recommend "advise board members", you guys, for the reasoning above. You guys?

- recommend change T020 to "Identify appropriate DL media/method" A- Agreed {Paula agreed} - recommend T#019 first knowledge "Sch support, throughout (A-should read throughput), tasks, equip, instr ability" be broken into 3 knowledge: -TE facility capabilities and limitations -TE instructional staff competencies -TE learner throughout parameters (A-should read throughput - as in # of students per FY), [Brad - I have no idea why it got changed to throughout - I know this is throughput. Sorry]

{Paula}: agree with the breakout of the three, as above, and. Can we say "learner throughput considerations (vice parameters)".......I am not hard on this one however, parameters works. Brad pls make the final call and do er up as wikki man. - recommend add skill something like "competence in instructional media" or "use instructional media" below T#018 (if the TDO cannot use these media/methods to some degree demonstrating could prove to be damaging.] A - Not sure...I advise on a lot of things I haven't done - and can't do). I think they just need to be knoledgable enough to pass on the rpos and cons of each method/ media. Pauala can be the heavy here .[Brad - OK, I agree, they do not have to know how to "use" but we should define some level of competence] {Paula} : agree, Brad. The heavy......Annette I miss my little cowpoke.

What I think is T018 should read "demo" in the spirit of having the TDO provide a short visual demo of existing DL products/uses and while doing so, explain: a. how the sample products were made (animation using flash, 3D animated model, game engine, video, interactive courseware etc), what they are used for (learner demo, immersive "practice", matching exercises, virtual install/uninstall, load/unload, analysis, synthesis, memory (radio procedure), spatial appreciation (terrain, speed/time., driving, flying, shooting....). I think this is the essence of the "demo" tasking as I would want it to be...You guys? b. why that method/media was used (very briefly touch on learning theory, bloom, etc). Our biggest failure is not providing the board member "the why"; they  arent dumb, and they will see the TDO as a credibile advisor  c. doing the above so that the board can "see" the applications and start to think about what kind of instructional strategy is possible for their course: in the board!!

And, I fully agree Brad, our TDO cant feel real confident demoing that stuff above, without supporting knowledges, recommended as below: (with intent included): A- Paula I think you're exactly right, DEMO is the right word we're looking for. Then advise on which one works best fot the content, learners and infrastructure. I like it.

K 0001 : DL Production Media (Software, Production Aides): 1. knowing what product basically can do for you, what product gives the best "cognitive bang for the buck" (ie., Flash is cheap (CFITES Optimum Efficency) can be used in a plethora of learning products across Bloom's taxonomy and in behaviorist, cognitive, and constructivist spirits. It should be used in the bulk of CF DL, whereas  mini-sims (VBS, Steel beast, etc, etc, game engines and branching scenario technologies/(more complex artificial intelligence (AI) programming, should be  "on a case by case basis". Ex., the combat estimate flash product, now established, can be upgraded with branching scenarios (more programming), for  analysis/synthesis planning/learning for Majors who are becoming Company 2ICs.  Production Requires competent flash programmers, graphic artists, IDs......the TDO need not know tactically how to program or storyboard, but has to guide the growing and  mgmt of the DL capability......some TDOs will need more than others based on the team set-up, resouces, and deadlines.....TDO roles defined by CF/MA.

K 0001. DL Product Methodology (Uses/Applications/Limitations) 1. the cost/futility of using in design/development: - LMS/bandwidth reqmts (big flashy crap or Flash?) - easy/complex programming/use by team - average/special skillsets needed by production team/the learner? - basic/special PCs needed (at production end or learner end?)

Other Scalar Inputs by Paula: recommend re-ordering of some tasks: a. recommend T#0018 be the first column, with the above Knowledges inserted and "DL media/methods" removed (its essence captured above) b. recommend T#017 be second, as after the TDO does his demo brief, they can get more granular on what the board specifically can do with DL (using the "DL or not to DL" training aide (paulas old attachment), and drive down into commmunicating with the board SMES.  c. recommend next column is T#020 then T#021, then T#019 as we would identify the media/method, then select (and articulate the option in the TP "Guidance to Instructional  Staff/Methodology before we would complete a feasibility identified report (which is the last check before investing time, money and production hours into a product:  the FA verifies there will school committement, 2 way comms betwee team and School, the classification of content (for internet), the final check before handed to a production team, the last step in the board.  Paula good to go.

WITH MOST CHANGES: 2012 / 11 FEB 2011





3 Feb 2011 version

PLACE YOUR TASK ANALYSIS DRAFTS HERE

03 Feb {Paula} as per skype {paula/brad}, plus a few other adjustments: NOTE my "belay last.." 1. request belay my "req bring T011 (advise on design) up one level", where its at now, it sits in the board process (where it shold be happening and isnt now !!!) 2. remove T017 Advise on Quantity Control (it will show up in intent, in little DL scalar, maybe renamed.....) otherwise, I have looked all over and can run with it. thanks brad, for the great work here.

26 Jan 11 14:40 EST: [posted by ANNETTE, PAULA & BRAD] 1. Collated and Edited versions of High Level Task Analysis. 2. (NOTE: in this version there are some subordinate elements, such as suggested EOs, left out. this is to ensure the high level tasks are easily readable). 3. There are TWO(2) versions. One is Oriented in the traditional **Instruction**-centric manner, the other is for **Process** oriented viewers.







Paula's SCALARs uploaded 26 Jan 13:30

Edited 26 Jan AC [Annette] v1 of my brainstorming for the Design/ Dev phases. I suppose this is my idea of a more learner centric version of some POs that a BQC learner would need, based on my 'experience' ** Brainstorming session for BQC ** ** Design Phase ** ** PO **** 001– Define Control Documents (QSP, QS, TP) ** ** EOs - Describe differences in Navy/ Army/ Air/ Sp ** ** Construct a PO statement and Stds statement (verbs matter) ** ** Describe authorities (Life Cycle of QS, players (school house, instructors, etc) ** ** IM of documents (version control, access,) **  ** PO **** 002- Conduct a QSP **  ** EOs- Prepare a Brief **  ** SME Support (motivate, support with document completion, translating ID principles – how to grp tasks and sequence of trg, what a scalar looks like) **  ** Educate board members on ID theory (learner centric, interactive, DL vs F2F) **  ** Instruct on methods, media **  ** Instruct on evaluation **  ** Managing course timeline vs resources aval **  ** Develop a an efficient crse sched **  ** PO **** 003- Resource Mgmt **  ** Development Phase **  ** PO **** 001- What is a Lesson Plan? **  ** EOs- Authorities **  ** IM **  ** Create lesson objectives **  ** Define LP/ TPs/ confirmation considerations **  ** Develop solutions for overcoming training challenges (safety, costs of equipment) **

Edited 21 Jan BW

Brad's first thoughts via mindmap. Yes, assessment is in there but I haven't thought about how to ensure its performance (actual practical) centric in this version. Also, I have left out all consideration for costing, procurement, etc. My thoughts were this should be handled separately as another PO since contracts/procurement is a costing consideration and these should be given fair and reasonable treatment as another PO. So, I'll try to put this in the template Paula sent between now and Wed am.