Download as PPSX, PPTX
Uploaded byPete Manwell
Instructional plan and presentation
The document outlines a structured plan for developing a mentor-training course aimed at qualified master training specialists in the U.S. Navy. It details several phases, including planning, objectives, implementation, and evaluation, with a focus on course duration, delivery methods, and assessment techniques. Additionally, it references various evaluation models to ensure ongoing improvements based on learner feedback.
More Related Content
Similar to Instructional plan and presentation
Instructional plan and presentation
- 1. Peter M. Manwell CUR/516 9/21/2015 Dr.Shirley Burnett
- 2. Introduction Interview withLearning Site Lead. Needs Analysis Response to interview questions.
- 3. Phase 1 -Planning Course Description Target Audience Delivery Modality Length of Course Course Goals
- 4. Course Description Purpose: toenhance the mentor-training qualification strategy currently used in the designation of US Navy Master Training Specialists at Center for Personal and Professional Development, Learning Site Dam Neck, VA
- 5. Target Audience QualifiedMaster Training Specialists at CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck.
- 6. Delivery Modality andLength of Course Modality Instructor-led classroom and mentor- facilitated activities. Course Length Six weeks.
- 7. Course Goals For MTSdesignated staff to effectively manager the: Instructor Evaluation Program, In-Service Training Program, and MTS Program.
- 8. Phase II –Objectives Training Methods Instructional Strategies and Activities Instructional Technologies and Resources Objectives with Corresponding Goals
- 9. Phase III – ImplementationPlan Course Length Implementation personnel Resources needed Implementation details Quizzes, knowledge test and performance test
- 10. Implementation Schedule Events/Steps ProjectedStart Projected Completion Needs Assessment 9/21/2015 10/2/2015 Plan Phase 10/5/2015 10/16/2015 Analyze Phase 10/19/2015 10/30/2015 Design Phase 11/2/2015 11/13/2015 Develop Phase 11/16/2015 12/18/2015 Implement Phase 1/4/2016 2/26/2015 Evaluate Phase 6/6/2016 7/29/2016 Maintain Phase 8/1/2016 Ongoing
- 11. Phase IV -Evaluation Plan Formative evaluation Performed throughout development Summative evaluation Performed at the end of Implementation Phase and on-going
- 12. Formative Evaluation Smithand Ragan Evaluation Model (Smith and Ragan, 2004) Design Reviews Expert Reviews Learner Validation On-Going Evaluation
- 13. Summative Evaluation Adoptionof Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation Model (Kirkpatrick, 1994) Level 1 – Reaction Level 2 – Learning Level 3 – Transfer Level 4 – Results Reaction Learning Transfer Results
- 14. Maintain Response toEvaluation Phan data Instructors submit interim change recommendations Developer includes response to data and interim change recommendations in future changes or revisions to the course Analyze Design DevelopImplement Maintain
- 15. Conclusion Needs AnalysisInterview Development Description Phase I – Planning Phase II – Objectives Phase III – Implementation Phase IV – Evaluation Phase V – Maintain Final Recommendation
- 16. References Brown, A.,& Green, T. D. (2011). The Essentials of Instructional Design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hodell, C. (2011). ISD From the Ground Up: No-nonsense approach to instructional design (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. Wlodkowski, R. J. (2010). Teaching Intensive and Accelerated Courses: instruction that motivates learning. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Editor's Notes
- #3 Introduction Needs Analysis Lieutenant Commander Michele Ewing is our Learning-Site Lead; the senior officer in charge. She approached me to discuss a training need to close a performance gap in our Master Training Specialist Program (MTS). I met in her office, 1 October 2014 to interview her to identify the perceived performance problem and possible solution. LCDR Ewing voiced concerns about the quality of the MTS mentoring and boarding process. In her capacity as Learning-Site Lead, she observed deficiencies in the quality of course and site management function over time. She also believes the program had become less robust over the prior 12-24 months due to a decline in knowledge and experience of the mentor network and MTS board membership. The Learning Site Lead had been briefed by her predecessor 12 months previously that the MTS Program was then robust and meeting the training needs of the site. The Learning-Site Lead asked me into her office to discuss the situation. I interviewed LCDR Ewing using sample questions from our textbook as a guide originally developed by Robert Mager .
- #4 In Phase I , I will cover Course Description, Target Audience, Delivery Modality, Length of Course and Course Goals.
- #5 Course Description The purpose of the MTS Supplemental Training Course is to enhance the mentor-training qualification strategy currently used in the designation of US Navy Master Training Specialists at Center for Personal and Professional Development, Learning Site Dam Neck, VA.. This supplemental course will equip currently designated MTS personnel with knowledge, skill, and abilities, to effectively and efficiently perform the duties and tasks required to manage a US Navy learning site. This course is needed to correct management duties and tasks currently not meeting established US Navy learning site performance standards.
- #6 Target Audience The target audience for this course will be qualified Master Training Specialists at CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck.
- #7 Delivery modality and length of course The delivery method will be instructor-led classroom and mentor-facilitated activities. The length of the course will be six weeks: alternating between three instructor-led classroom sessions, and three mentor-facilitated activity sessions.
- #8 Goal 1.0 Master Training Specialists at CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck shall effectively manage the Instructor Evaluation Program. Goal 2.0 Master Training Specialists at CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck shall effectively manage the In-Service Training (IST) Program. Goal 3.0 Master Training Specialists at CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck shall effectively manage the Master Training Specialist (MTS) Qualification Program.
- #9 A. Training Methods: This course will use project-based and collaborative learning delivery methods to achieve the course goals and objectives. The course will use simulated management and reporting tasks currently required by CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck. B. Instructional Strategies and Activities: This course will use instructor-led delivery for knowledge material leading to project-based and collaborative activities simulating actual CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck management tasks. C. Instructional Technologies and Resources: The course will use Instructor-Led instruction with PowerPoint presentations. Also, learners will have a Trainee Guide with instructional sheets to support mentor/facilitator collaborative simulation activities. Goal 1.0 Master Training Specialists at CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck shall effectively manage the Instructor Evaluation Program. Upon successful completion of this course learners shall: Objective 1.1 Perform instructor indoctrination and certification management tasks, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NETCINST 1500.5 Objective 1.2 Perform instructor qualification management tasks, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NETCINST 1500.5 Objective 1.3 Perform Instructor Evaluation Program periodic management reports, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NETCINST 1500.5 Goal 2.0 Master Training Specialists at CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck shall effectively manage the In-Service Training (IST) Program. Upon successful completion of this course learners shall: Objective 2.1 Perform In-Service Training instructional tasks, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NAVEDTRA 135C. Objective 2.2 Perform In-Service Training management tasks, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NAVEDTRA 135C. Objective 2.3 Perform In-Service Training Program periodic management reports, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NAVEDTRA 135C. Goal 3.0 Master Training Specialists at CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck shall effectively manage the Master Training Specialist (MTS) Qualification Program. Upon successful completion of this course learners shall: Objective 3.1 Perform MTS mentor management tasks, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NAVEDTRA 43100-7. Objective 3.2 Perform MTS Qualification Board management tasks, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NAVEDTRA 43100-7. Objective 3.3 Provide MTS Program periodic management reports, to support CPPD Learning Site Dam Neck, in accordance with NAVEDTRA 43100-7.
- #10 Phase III – Implementation Plan A. Implementation Plan Time and Personnel 1. Total length of time for course: Convening every six months for 8 Weeks. 2. Anticipated start date: 1/4/2016 B. Individuals involved with implementation: 1. Instructors - 2 2. Facilitators - 3 3. Learners – 10 C. Resources needed and materials that must be prepared: 1. Lesson Plans 2. Trainee Guides 3. Instructional Sheets (Information, Diagram, Assignment, Job, and Outlines) 4. Instructional Media Material (PowerPoint Presentations) 5. Quizzes (Ten question – multiple choice) 6. Final Knowledge Test (25 questions – multiple choice/short answer) 7. Final Performance Test (Case Study Analysis of Learning Site Problem) D. Details of how the plan will be implemented: 1. Communication Plan 2. Implementation Plan for building interest and commitment 3. Participant Selection Criteria: a. Instructors. Senior Instructors qualified as MTS. b. Facilitators. Senior Instructors qualified as MTS. c. Learners. Recently qualified MTS. E. Formative assessments for assessing learner knowledge: 1. Week One Quiz 2. Week Three Quiz 3. Week Five Quiz
- #12 Phase IV – Evaluation Plan A. Criteria for determining whether the goals, objectives, and overall outcomes of the course or training session will be met: 1. Evaluation of course goals, objectives, and overall outcomes of the course will be met utilizing the following criteria and methods: a. Formative assessment using the Smith and Ragan Valuation Model. b. Summative assessment using the Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Evaluation Model. B. Assessment instruments that must be created: 1. Formative assessment instruments: a. Learning Standards Office Design Review Rubric. b. Subject Master Expert Review Rubric. c. Learning Standards Office Learner Validation Rubric. d. Learning Standards Office On-Going Assessment Rubric. 2. Summative assessment instruments: a. Learner Reaction Survey b. Learner Knowledge and Performance Tests. c. Learner Knowledge Transfer Survey. d. Supervisor Attitude and Perceptions Survey. C. Assessment overview of how that information will be used for future decisions regarding the efficacy and additional offerings of the course or training session. 1. Assessment Overview. Formative and Summative assessment data will be used to analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of the development process, course content, and learner attainment of the course goals and objectives.
- #13 Formative Evaluation Method: Adoption of Smith and Ragan Evaluation Model Purpose: to determine the weakness in the instructional process so that revisions can be made to make them more effective and efficient during development (Smith and Ragan, 2004). a. Design Reviews. Independent review by external Learning Standards Office at completion of the Design Phase. b. Expert Reviews. Independent review by external Subject Matter Experts at completion of Course Pilot. c. Learner Validation. Independent analysis by external Learning Standards office of Learner Reaction Surveys at completion of Course Pilot. d. On-Going Evaluation. Independent analysis by Learning Standards Office of on-going survey data during Implementation Phase.
- #14 Summative Evaluation Adoption of Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation Model Purpose: to evaluate the effectiveness of training programs—specifically, training programs in industry adapted to this intervention (Kirkpatrick, 1994) a. Level 1 – Reaction. Learner survey consisting of 25 questions designed to measure the learner’s reaction to the instruction. b. Level 2 – Learning. Learner/Class averages of knowledge quizzes and test with performance test to measure learner acquisition of learning content. c. Level 3 – Transfer. Learner survey at graduation plus six months to measure learner attitudes and perceptions of learning transfer to the workplace. d. Level 4 – Results. Survey administered to supervisors to measure attitudes and perceptions of learner skills in the workplace and attainment of course goals
- #15 Phase V - Maintain 1. Begins after course has been implemented. 2. Learning Site Lead and Developer determine if a change or revision is needed. a. If a change is necessary developer develops a change implementation letter. b. If a revision is necessary developer begins new course development cycle.
- #16 Conclusion This project began with an interview with the Learning Site Lead for CPPD LS Dam Neck. In that interview several performance gaps had been observed by her. We further discussed possible solutions to these performance gaps and concluded supplemental training for the learning site’s Master Training Specialists was needed. Additionally, we agreed to begin the planning phase of a curriculum development process to identify the personnel and resources to implement such an intervention. The process consisted of five phases. These phases include: planning, objectives identification, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance phase. If the learning site will support this intervention and allow us to continue with the development process we project starting in October 2015, piloting the course in early January 2016 and full implementation by the June 2016. This intervention is necessary to develop our staff to full management skill potential. If not implemented our staff management performance gaps will continue to underperform and not meet expectations. We strongly recommend approval of the plan and the granting of permission to commence its implementation.