7.+TDO+BQC+Scenario+Work+(Part+1+of+Assignment)

THIS VERSION V3 IAW ELLENS REQUEST for more context and original scalar (PAULA)

ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION ALL BELOW THIS LINE IS OUT OF DATE INFORMATION

THIS VERSION 1738 EST. Only change to T011 remains ( I think). PLEASE CHECK.

FINAL VERSION 1433 EST - WILL BE SENT VIA EMAIL TO E ROSE 1700 EST. {PAULA: see email for last runover, typos)

Annette, Brad, request please comment agree/disagree on Paula's recommended changes to text and stuff, below in green. I am in a stalemate as to whether I edit the doc or wait. Still havent uploaded a doc successfully, so I have pasted recc's below.

Analysis Report

THIS version is 1235 EST 11 Feb 2010.

THIS version is 1610 EST 12 Feb 2011.

T**HIS version is 0857 EST 13 FEB 2011 - REQUIRES learner profile APPENDIX to be completed.**

And for your consideration, from Ellen's Rubric for this assignment on BlackBoard.


 * = Criteria = ||  ** Baseline ** ||  ** Satisfactory **  ||  ** Exemplary **  ||
 * Your Analysis Report specifies the overall goal of the instruction. ||  o ||  o  ||  o  ||
 * Your Analysis Report correctly indicates the form of analysis required for the instructional goal: task analysis, content analysis, or both. ||  o ||  o  ||  o  ||
 * Your Analysis Report includes a complete procedural task analysis (showing steps, and, if necessary, sub-steps and elements); //and/or// a complete content analysis, showing topics and, if necessary, sub-topics and elements, presented in either outline or flowchart form. ||  o ||  o  ||  o  ||
 * Your Analysis Report includes a learning hierarchy, identifying prerequisite relationships among tasks and/or content and showing the order in which items must be taught (bottom to top). ||  o ||  o  ||  o  ||
 * Your Analysis Report identifies the characteristics of your target population that are important to consider for this instruction. ||  o || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o  || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o  ||
 * Your Analysis Report identifies the sources you used to obtain information about your target population. || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o  || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o  ||
 * Your Analysis Report contains a summary of the important characteristics of your target population. || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o  || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o  ||
 * Your Analysis Report is clearly written and well laid out. || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o  || <span style="display: block; margin-bottom: 3pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;"> o  ||

THIS TEXT BELOW THIS LINE IS THE TEXT IN THE ATTACHMENT ABOVE. FIGURE ARE NOT IN THIS TEXT BUT THEY ARE IN THE ATTACHMENT.

{Paula's last few pts SAT FEB 12} :

1. recommend take out the whole "guiding principles sentence", cleaner, easier (In yellow now). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">2. my last ref:

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">Jardine, P. (2010). “The Army Learning Support Center: The Army Model for Canadian Forces Alternative Training Delivery (ATD) & {“Content”} Modernization. (presented online during the 2010 Canadian Forces Training Development Branch Association (CFTDBA) Annual Conference). Retrieved from []

3. page 4 para 2: recommend change to:

T his project focuses on the adapted CFITES model as presented by Jardine at the 2010 TDO Conference. The model suggests TDO BQC shift its training focus from largely theory based ADDIE constructs to more learner-centric and content-centric practical applications and processes that solve operational problems.

4. page 3 para 2: Do we need the period after the bracket below, before the new sentence?

However, it is not always the case that these systems work together as a recent systems-environment analysis has shown. (B. White, personal communication, 10 February 2010) New TDOs now have little ability to apply the concepts of these two important components of the CF training system in unison, although they intertwine in real life almost daily.

5. do I need a ref where I cited the origins of TDO Branch "official inception" in 1981?6.

6. happy with scalars as Brad and Annette want em.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">6. good to go, happy with whateve the rest of ye go with. I have looked over and am right proud of our work.

Running Head: A RE-EXAMINATION

Analysis Report:

A Re-examination of

Canadian Forces

Training Development Instruction

Annette Cunningham

Paula Jardine

Bradley White

ED6223 Assignment 1

This paper synthesizes the project work of Annette Cunningham, Bradley White, and Paula Jardine in their practical pursuit of increased understanding of the “D” in instructional design. The aim of this paper is to present the above authors’ project work which involved the analysis of a specific component of the Canadian Forces (CF) Training Development Officer (TDO) Basic Qualifying Course (BQC) Qualification Standard (QS). A short background is provided to situate the reader in useful context. Training Development is a CF occupation that has continuously evolved on a number of fronts since its official inception in 1981. Changes in understanding about how we learn and communicate, advances in learning technologies and the demands of the CF mission in Afghanistan have been key catalysts behind a recent “re-thinking” of the TDO occupation, training and job focus. The authors, despite working in the somewhat separate worlds of Navy, Army and Air Force, share a relatively similar learner-centric viewpoint on the desired state of future TDO training and work and the CF Individual Training and Education System (CFITES) to which they are the technical "keepers of the keys". This viewpoint was broadly articulated in a model and presented at the CF TDO Branch Annual Conference (online, Fall 2010) by Paula Jardine. The idea behind the model is not new, but based on both the concepts articulate by Anderson (2010) and Rosset (2010) as presented at the 2010 TDO online conference, as well as four years of action research at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown. Essentially, the model is simply an application of learner-centricity to the present CFITES Quality Control cycle, a version of the ADDIE construct. (<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">Dick & Carey, 1996; Brown & Green, 2010, p.7) As with other ADDIE modelled training development systems CFITES is prone to a bureaucratic or technicist application which some have argued loses touch with the learner themselves. (Brown & Green, 2010, p.13) In current TDO training the two primary components of CFITES, Quality Control and Quantity Control, are taught as if they were separate gears in a system that never touch. Quality Control is<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> the system of processes used to design, develop, conduct and evaluate the IT&E system. The Quantity Control component is designed to manage //personnel// and resources with respect to IT&E needs. (Manual of Individual Training and Education, vol. 1, 2009) The Quality Control system is intended to be synchronized with the Quantity Control factors of learner throughput, instructional resources, training costs, and related quantitative factors. (<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">Manual of Individual Training and Education, vol.1, 2009, p.9) However, it is not always the case that these systems work together as a recent systems-environment analysis has shown. (B. White, personal communication, 10 February 2010) New TDOs now have little ability to apply the concepts of these two important components of the CF training system in unison, although they intertwine in real life almost daily. For the last eight years the demands of the mission in Afghanistan as well as personnel shortages caused by fiscal restraint over the preceding decade forced the CF to re-examine the CFITES Quantity Control cycle. Simply put, the supply of trained soldiers could not keep up with the demand for them. One viable solution came in the form of increased production of quality, industry-standard distance learning (DL) packages for high throughput courses aimed at ranks, occupations and job specialties that were under-strength. When this solution was applied, CF instructors, normally saddled with content development while equipped with minimal instructional design training, were supported by a DL team to create professionally designed and developed learning content. The use of DL strategies yielded successes for critical throughput challenges and, as a second order effect, caused some TDOs to modify their application of the Quality Control cycle in a more learner-centric manner. During the above events, TDO comfort zones in Dewey's "linking science" (Brown and Green, 2010, p.5) were challenged past the writing of formatted Qualification Standards (QSs) and Training Plans (TPs) into the world of designing quality learner-centric, highly distributable e-learning. Quality met Quantity in a real life, operational problem. To meet the challenges of developing these learning products many TDOs developed similar but uncoordinated and informal models, many of them through trial and error. Some have begun to formalize these models. This project focuses on the ALSC ATD Model (Jardine, 2010). The model suggests TDO BQC shift its training focus from largely theory based ADDIE constructs to more learner-centric and content-centric practical applications and processes that solve operational problems. The CFITES Quality Control cycle, from the Manual of Individual Training and Education, vol.1, is presented below in figure 1. As we can see, the importance of the learner is not depicted as inherently present. Figure 1: the CF Quality Control System Model This model, redrawn as figure 2, shows the close relationship between the learner and the learner's content by placing these factors at the centre of the system.

Figure 2: A Revised System model In this project scenario the authors tackle what has become a very theory- and knowledge-centric design of the //a priori// essential training program for TDOs. To date, training for TDOs has revolved around the process of analyzing training needs and putting together prescription plans for improving upon issues in training. While our primary job is design and development of learning, we are trained to have to load our long term memories with conceptual knowledge in design and then, once we are faced with a design issue after training is completed, we unload our conceptual knowledge and try to apply it. This scenario, will use both proven and new instructional design (ID) methods to analyze, design and plan for better training in design and development. The work is based on a few guiding principles [if we say this we must list them OR just take the “few guiding principles” out], not the least of which is that the training has to be situated and relevant. As a full analysis of the TDO BQC is not possible within the scope of this project, a component of the training has been selected as the subject of this analysis. This component of TDO training is “Advise board members on DL production”. The desire to focus on applied design and development was considered and thus a component with deep design and development implications was selected. The overall goal of this instruction is to enable TDOs to professionally advise Training Plan Writing Board (TPWB) members on DL as an instructional strategy with a variety of potential media and methods, such that the finished product, the training plan (TP), contains useful, accurate and timely guidance to instructional staff. In order to fully determine what the training may look like it is necessary to know who the learners are. To determine a BQC learner's approach to learning and instruction a number of factors, sources and personal experiences were considered. It is known that students preparing for the BQC are far from 'empty vessels' (Brown & Green, 2011). They instead have a wide variety of education, personal and work related experiences from which to draw. Students have undergone a rigorous selection process for the TDO occupation that has ensured they have a certain standard of professionalism and academic achievement. This selection process and the military's health and fitness regulations have allowed us to not weigh heavily on any of the first level or physical health stage of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Brown & Green, 73). It is known that these learners have begun university level training and have at least five years in the military environment, including the training environment – and that they have been successful. It has also been considered that they are a captive audience but are highly motivated to succeed. For the information that is not have readily available objective resources, such as university transcripts, previous course reports, and CF appraisals in the form of Personnel Evaluation Reports (PERs) exist that will help to find it. For more affective attributes it is suggested that learners provide small biographies and that pre-course interviews will be conducted. For what is unknown, assumptions and suppositions have been made. Ultimately, it is important that this learner profile be allowed to exist as a a working, living, evolving document. Smith & Ragan's ( DATE, as cited in ED 6223 2011WI_ED BlackBoard Course Content. 2011) ‘Outline of Learner Characteristics’ was chosen as a framework to follow. It provided structure within which to logically list all important fac tors. Pertinent information was added while factors that did not apply to our military learners was removed. Elements for consideration according to CF methods of collecting Target Population Data were also added. (CFITES, Vol 4) The chart, found in Appendix A, is the optimal picture of the learners that will be on the next BQC. This report contains a scalar (flowchart) that is the result of a Task Analysis. This scalar, figure 3, is a depiction of each task and supporting task required of the Training Development Officer in the performance of the Design and Development phases of the CF model of instructional design. This scalar shows operational components as performed according to procedure but also contains some supporting knowledge states. (Brown & Green, 2011, p.58) Tasks in this diagram adhere to the CF definition of task: each task is a “discrete segment of work, performed by an individual”. (CF Manual of Individual Training and Education, vol 1(1), 20XX) The task analysis was completely re-engineered by the authors based on their experiences with DL and modern CF training operations. Following from the Task Analysis, the authors conducted an Instructional Analysis of one task. Figure 4 depicts task 013, “Advise board members on DL”. However, figure 4 displays tasks and supporting elements in order of learning hierarchy, or sequence, and was constructed after this task underwent instructional analysis.

Figure 3: - Task Analysis Scalar of Design and Develop for TDO BQC (note dotted Task #XX, expanded below in figure 4)

Figure 4 - Instructional Analysis Scalar of Task 013 Advise board members on DL

The overall instructional strategy recommended for this EO? (is this a task or now an EO?).... is a blended one involving both synchronous and asynchronous DL, a short residency/class portion (involving discussion groups, syndicate level and individual projects), and a scaffolded On the Job Training (OJT) phase. **[Brad thinks this is slightly out of place – this is part of the next phase of the assignment. This is not in the rubric]** The next stage of this work will involve translating this analysis into recommended design and development strategies. The work completed in the analysis of the TDO BQC and outlined in this report sets the ground work for these future steps but will yield significant food for thought for the TDO Branch as it moves into the future. It is imperative that newly trained TDOs keep abreast of changing trends, technology, and CF operational catalysts.

References Anderson, T. (2010). //Three Generations of Distance Education: Pedagogy, Challenges, and Opportunities//. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/terrya/three- generations-of-distance-education-pedagogy-challenges-and-opportunities Brown A. & Green, T. (2011). //The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice//. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Canadian Forces Manual of Individual Training and Education System, volume 4: Design of Instruction Programmes – A-P9-050-000/PT-004. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/pub/lib-bib/cfites-eng.asp Canadian Forces Manual and Individual Training and Education, volume 1 – A-P9-050- 000/PT-Z01. (2009). Retrieved from __ [] __ bib/cfites-eng.asp <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman,serif; font-style: normal;">Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif; font-style: normal;">(4th Ed.). New York: Harper <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Collins College Publishers.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">Jardine, P. (2010). “The Army Learning Support Center: The Army Model for Canadian Forces Alternative Training Delivery (ATD) & {“Content”} Modernization. Retrieved from

[]

Park, J. (2008). A Profile of the Canadian Forces. Perspectives (Catalogue no. 75-001-X). July. Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001- x/2008107/pdf/10657-eng.pdf

Rosset, A. (2010) Online briefing. [Recording and slides from presentation to Canadian Forces Training Development Branch Association Seminar, 20 Oct 2010]. Retrieved from []

//__**OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE OLD VERSIONS BELOW THIS LINE**__//

This paper synthesizes the project work of Annette Cunningham, Bradley White, and Paula Jardine in their practical pursuit of increased understanding of the “d” in instructional design. The aim of this paper is to present the above authors’ project work which involved the analysis of a specific component of the Canadian Forces (CF) Training Development Officer (TDO) Basic Qualifying Course (BQC) Qualification Standard (QS). A short background is provided to situate the reader in useful context.

"Training Development” is a CF trade that has continuously evolved on a number of fronts since its official inception in 1981 (Ref: "TDO Branch History"...whoever gets first!) . Key catalysts behind a recent “re-thinking” of the TDO trade in terms of TDO training and follow on job focus have been changes in how we learn and communicate as a population, advances in learning technologies and the CF mission in Afghanistan. The authors, despite working in the somewhat separate worlds of Army, Navy, and Air Force, share a relatively similar overall learner-centric viewpoint on the “desired state” of the future TDO and the CF Individual Training and Education System (CFITES) to which they are the technical "keepers of the keys". This viewpoint was broadly articulated in a model and presented at the CF TDO Branch Annual Conference (online, Fall 2010) by Paula Jardine. The idea behind the model is not new, but based on both the concepts of Anderson (Anderson, 2010) and Rosset (Rosset, 2010) as presentated at the 2010 TDO online conference, as well as four years of action research at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown. Esssentially, the model is simply an application of "learner-centricity" to the present CFITES "Quality Control" cycle (which essentially replicates the ADDIE construct). Learner-centricity is presently somewhat of an abstract concept, lost in a somewhat bureaucratic application of the CFITES Quality Control (ADDIE) cycle.

In current TDO training in CFITES, the two "cycles" of "Quality Control" and "Quantity Control" are "taught" as if they were separate gears in a system that never touch. The Quality Control system which encapsulates {quality} design; development; conduct/assessment; evaluation and validation, should be synchronized with the Quantity Control factors of learner throughput, instructional resources, training costs, and related quantitative factors. New TDOs now have little ability to apply the concepts of these two important compontents of the CF training system in unison, although they intertwine in real life almost daily.

For the last eight years the demands of Afghanistan forced a re-look at the CFITES Quantity Control cycle when "trained soldier supply" could not keep up with "trained soldier demand". One viable solution came in the form of increased production of quality, industry standard distance learning (DL) packages for high throughput courses aimed at "under-strength ranks/trades/specialities". The CF instructor, normally saddled with content development while equipped with minimal instructional design training, was now supported by a professional DL team to create professionally designed and developed learning content. The use of DL strategies yielded successes for critical throughput challenges, and as a second order effect, caused a re-thinking of the CFITES {ADDIE} Quality Control (QC) Cycle towards a more "learner-centric" focus.

During the above events, TDO comfort zones in the "linking science" were challenged past the writing of formatted Qualification Standards (QSs) and Training Plans (TPs) into the world of designing quality learner-centric, highly distributable e-learning. Quality met Quantity in a real life, operational problem. To meet the challenges of developing these learning products many TDOs developed similar but uncoordinated and informal models, many of them through trial and error. Some have begun to formalize these models. This project focuses on the ALSC ATD Model (Jardine 2010). The model suggests TDO BQC shift its training focus from largely theory based ADDIE constructs to more learner centric, " content centric" practical applications and processes that solve operational problems.

The original CFITES quality control cycle (based on the ADDIE construct) is presented below. As we can see, the learner is not inherently present.

"Insert traditional CFITES ADDIE (QC Cycle)"

This model, redrawn, to show the close relationship between the learner and the learner's "content", at the center of the system.

.

In this project scenario the authors will tackle what has become a very theory and knowledge centric design of an otherwise essential program of training for TDOs in the CF. To date, training for TDOs has revolved around the process of analyzing training needs and putting together prescription plans for improving upon issues in training. While our primary job is design and development of learning, we almost always have to load our long term memories with conceptual knowledge in design and then, once we are faced with a real design issue, we have to unload our conceptual knowledge and try to apply it. In this scenario, we will attempt to use both proven and new ID methods to analyse, design and plan for better training in design and development. We will base our work on a few guiding principles, not the least of which is that the training has to be situated and relevant. As a full analysis of the TDO BQC is not possible within the scope of this project, a very select component of the training is the subject of this analysis, and would have been “the first nut to crack”, in the re-analysis of the TDO Basic Course. This component of TDO training is “Advise board members on DL production” (!! Whatever we decide in TA: Paula).

This report contains a scalar/flowchart that is the result of a Task Analysis. This scalar (figure 1 – **To be finalized based on inputs at Skype conference 31 Jan 11 - version 2 on wiki 7 Feb 11**) is a depiction of each task and supporting task required of the Training Development Officer in the performance of the Design and Development phases of the CF model of instructional design. This scalar shows operational components as performed according to procedure but also contains some supporting knowledge states. (Brown & Green, 2011, p.58) Tasks in this diagram adhere to the CF definition of task: each task is a “discrete segment of work, performed by an individual”. (CF Manual of Individual Training and Education, vol 1(1), 20XX) Figure 2 depicts task 00X, “Advise TE on DL” (**As discussed 7 Feb 2011 - Annette's modified scalar - requires IA mods to sequencing**). Figure 2, however, displays tasks and supporting elements in order of learning hierarchy, or sequence, and was constructed after this task underwent instructional analysis.

Target population: here I think, guys...[Annette -Thurs]

In order to determine a BQC learner's approach to instruction we considered a number of factors, sources and our own personal experiences. We know that students preparing for the BQC are far from 'empty vessels' (Brown & Green, 2011). They instead have a wide variety of education and personal and work related experiences from which to draw from.

Students have undergone a rigorous selection process for our profession that has ensured students have a certain standard of professionalism and academic achievement. This selection process and the military's hea;th and fitness regulations have allowed us to not weigh heavily on any of the first level or Physical Health stage of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Brown & Green, 73). We already know that these learners have begun university level training and have at least five years in the military environment, including the training environment – and have been successful. We know they are a captive audience, but are highly motivated to succeed.

For the information that we do not have readily available we have thought of objective resources to find it; transcripts, reports, etc. For more affective attributes we have suggested biographies and pre-course interviews. For what is unknown, we have taken our best guesses and will allow the document to be a working, living, evolving document.

As a group, we chose the Smith & Ragan ‘Outline of Learner Characteristics’ from the ED 6223 2011WI_ED BlackBoard Course Content as a strong example to follow. It allowed us to logically list all factors we thought important. We then added pertinent information, and deleted factors that did not apply to our military learners. We also added some Target Population Data (CFITES, Vol 4).

The chart as found in Annex A is the group’s best guess as to learners that will be on the next BQC. It provides factors we wish to consider in the next step of design and where to find the information we do not yet have. It will have a positive affect on the effectiveness and efficiency of the completed course. <span style="color: #993366; font-family: Times New Roman; line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> **NOTE: I'm adding some CFITES stuff (vol 4 para 11 on Target Population) to v2 and making into an Annex format. Not sure how that will work - nor am I sure how to ref CFITES - I see our two are different;).**


 * The overall goal of this instruction is to enable TDOs to professionally advise TPWB members on Distance Learning (DL) as an instructional strategy, such that the finished product (TP), contains useful, accurate, and timely guidance to instructional staff . **
 * As follows, two visual depictions (scalars) of a segment of the TDO course are presented. Figure 1 represents the Performance Objectives s (POs) of "Design" and "Develop" **
 * {instructional programs....wording..), and represents the author's high level Task Analysis. The task analysis was completely re-engineered by the authors based on their experiences with DL and modern CF training operations. Subordinate to, and within the above POs, the authors conducted an instructional analysis of one task, namely "Advise on DL ....{name has to be the same everywhere}. As below: **


 * Figure 1: - Task Analysis Scalar of "Design and Develop" POs from TDO BQC (note dotted Task #XX, expanded below) **
 * Figure 2 - Instructional Analysis Scalar of Task #XXX Advise X on DL" **
 * (The scalars are presented in two separate figures to allow a logical layout and spacing, and enable easier reading/understanding). **
 * The learning relationships in the figure 2 scalar are bottom to top, left to right. The overall instructional strategy recommended for this EO? (is this a task or now an EO?).... is a blended one involving both synchronous and asynchronous DL, a short residency/class portion (involving discussion groups, syndicate level and individual projects), and a scaffolded On the Job Training (OJT) phase. **


 * Summary **
 * In summary, it is hoped the work completed in the analysis of the TDO BQC as conducted by the authors and outlined in this report yields significant food for thought for the TDO Branch as it moves into the future. It is imperative that newly trained TDOs keep abreast of changing trends, technology, and CF operational "catalysts". Such an analysis of the TDO BQC is suggested as a start point. **
 * Bibliography/References[?] **


 * Brown A. & Green, T. (2011). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.**
 * Park, J. (2008). A Profile of the Canadian Forces. //Perspectives// (Catalogue no. 75-001-X). July. Statistics Canada. Retrieved from [] **
 * Canadian Forces Manual of Individual Training and Education System (CFITES), Vol 4 //Design of Instruction Programmes//. Retrieved 9 Feb 2011 from [] **


 * Canadian Forces Manual and Individual Training and Education - A-P9-050-000/PT-Z01. (2009) Retrieved from []**

Anderson, G. (2010). Three Generations of Distance Education: Pedagogy, Challenges, and Opportunities. Retrieved from [] Rosset, A. (2010). Online Brief provided via CFTDBA email correspondence (XXX). (©2010 Allison Rossett)


 * END ESSAY**