final training program version 1

DWH Weather Support

2012

Preparing for instruction Training William Hennix

© William Hennix

Implementation Plan

Contents

Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................................ 2

Module Overview and Description: ......................................................................................................... 3

Learner Analysis: .............................................................................................................................. 3

Instructional Context: .......................................................................................................................... 3

Summary of modifications: .................................................................................................................. 4

Course Syllabus ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Course title: Collaboration ................................................................................................................ 5

Lesson Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Instruction ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Performance Objective: ....................................................................................................................... 7

Materials: ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Performance Evaluation: ...................................................................................................................... 8

Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Detailed Task Analysis Part 1 .................................................................................................................. 9

Detailed Task Analysis Part 2 ................................................................................................................ 10

Detailed Task Analysis Part 3 ................................................................................................................ 11

Evaluation Process ................................................................................................................................ 12

Alignment to the Five Levels of Evaluation ....................................................................................... 13

Alignment of Unit Goals to the evaluation process ............................................................................. 14

Evaluation Tools and Materials .......................................................................................................... 14

Summary of modifications: ................................................................................................................ 15

Implementation and Evaluation Report .................................................................................................. 16

Module Overview and Description:.................................................................................................... 16

Description of Implementation ........................................................................................................... 16

Attachments 1 Training Module ............................................................................................................ 18

Reference .............................................................................................................................................. 54

© William Hennix

Module Overview and Description:

Create an instruction designed to improve working relationship between the subject matter expert

(SME) and the instructional designer (ID) The responsibility of the SMEs is to provide IDs with

the information required for the course. The SMEs assist with identifying learning objectives,

and reviewing instructional design for accuracy. It is critical for the ID to effectively

communicate and collaborate with SMEs to ensure the information provided is accurate and

satisfy the stated objectives for the program. The stated purpose of this course is to provide the

tools to enable IDs to facilitate training projects with SMEs.

Learner Analysis:

The general characteristics of the target audience for the training are retired military personal.

The target group is over the age of 40 years. Members have been in their respective field for over

20 years. Two of the four members have a bachelor’s degree; all the members have attended

training the trainer course offered by the United States Air Force. All four members have

functioned as supervisors and managers of operational weather units throughout the Department

of Defense (DoD). Each member has been responsible for developing and delivering training

programs to DoD personal. Each member has developed and implemented training in the last 10

years.

Instructional Context:

The instruction will be created using Adobe Captivate 6. The Captivate presentation will

include short quizzes dispersed throughout the presentation to assess the learners understanding

of the information provided. The use quizzes will provide the learner with a formative

assessment for the learner to determine if they understand the content prior to advancing to the

next level of instructions. The program will upload to an organizational share drive for easy

access at the work center.

© William Hennix

Summary of modifications:

The location of the information will be controlled an access only from the work site. The logic

behind the control environment some of the material is sensitive to emulate real world situations.

The program will be tailor for aviation weather support; the current training is generic in nature.

An additional objective is preparing the SME to work with the ID. The training program will be

dual training were the SME and ID reverse roles to improve on communication and the training

process.

© William Hennix

Course Syllabus

Course title: Collaboration

Course description: The purpose of the course is to increase collaboration efforts between

Instructional Designers, Subject Matter Experts, and Training Facilitators through

communication and team building. The course will increase the awareness of the job attributes of

each of the team members to increase understanding of the roles each group plays in the

development of a training program.

Prerequisite: Instructional Designers, Subject Matter Experts, and Training Facilitators

Course objectives. Improve collaboration among team members involved in the development of

training programs for the department of defense. The course will enlighten each member of all

three areas of interest in the development process. The course focuses on improving

communication, providing insight to the duties of each position and relating the responsibilities

between team members.

Course Modules:

1. Instructional Designer

2. Subject Matter Expert

3. Facilitator

Course location

Weather Station

Class size

Four

Course length

One hour per module

© William Hennix

Course schedule

Flexible

Attendance Policy

Mandatory for all ID, trainers and SME

Grading policy

Pass 80% accuracy

Test

Multiple choices, Fill in the blank and mix and match question

Name of Instructor

Mr. William Hennix

Instructional Methods

Virtual interactive training

Tools, Equipment and Supplies

Adobe Reader, Laptop, desktop computer and sound system

© William Hennix

Lesson Plan

Instructional Designer

Virtual Class Date 10/18/2012

Instructor William Hennix

Course Title: Collaboration

Lesson Title: Communication

Instruction

Review the videos and the handouts discussing the communication process for developing

training programs. Each member will review and complete all three modules. Each module is

designed to provide insight to the responsibility of key stakeholder associated with a training

project. You will understand the responsibility of an Instructional Designer, a Subject Matter

Expert and a Facilitator. Learn how to collaborate with each team member by understand their

role and responsibility

Performance Objective:

Improve collaboration among team members involved in the development of training programs

for the department of defense. The course will enlighten each member of all three areas of

interest in the development process. The course focuses on improving communication, providing

insight to the duties of each position and relating the responsibilities between team members.

Each member will understand and perform the duties in each position. The primary objective is

to foster teamwork among the primary members responsible for a training project.

Materials:

Air Force Instruction 36-2201

Air Force Handbook 36-2235v3

© William Hennix



Presentation: PowerPoint presentation and video clips

Participation: Mandatory for members of the training development project

Performance Evaluation:

Completion of all three modules with a passing score of 80%

Summary

An important concept in developing effective training programs in putting together a team of

individuals who are committed to achieving the same goals. Part of the process of developing

collaboration is having a group that works well together and is moving in the same direction.

The viewpoint of SME is a key component in the selection process; they have a direct effect on

the development of training projects (Truxillo, Paronto, Collins, & Sulzer, 2004).

The important aspect of the training program is to enlighten all parties on their difference and

similarities on training development on a particular subject. Those that perform the job versus

those that supervise and those serve as trainers each position views a task different and as a result

will affect the final training product (Truxillo, Paronto, Collins, & Sulzer, 2004). This training

program is designed to minimize the differences and enhance the similarities (Truxillo, Paronto,

Collins, & Sulzer, 2004).

© William Hennix

Detailed Task Analysis Part 1

Job Frequency Annual

Task Importance Very

Sub task

Learning Domain

Cognitive Application

Psychomotor Mechanism

Affective Valuing

Conditions Criterion Standards

Pass the assessment

test with 80% accuracy

Instructional Design Process

Project Management

Communication

Given access to a

computer a copy of

Air Force Instruction

36-2201 Air Force

Handbook 36-2235v3

Air Force Handbook

36-2235v6 Air Force

Handbook 36-2235v11

Understand the

responsibility of an ID

and how to collaborate

with team members

© William Hennix




Sub task

Learning Domain



Affective Valuing


Pass the assessment


Given access to a

computer a copy of


36-2201 Air Force

Handbook 36-2235v3

Air Force Handbook

36-2235v6 Air Force

Handbook 36-2235v11

Subject Matter Expert

Project Management

Communication

Understand the

responsibility of the

SME and how to

collaborate with team

members

© William Hennix




Sub task

Learning Domain



Affective Valuing


Pass the assessment


Facilitator

Project Management

Communication

Given access to a

computer a copy of


36-2201 Air Force

Handbook 36-2235v3

Air Force Handbook

36-2235v6 Air Force

Handbook 36-2235v11

Understand the

responsibility of the

Facilitator and how to

collaborate with team

members

© William Hennix

Evaluation Process

According to Rothwell and Kazanas (1998), instruction is not finalized until the students

have demonstrated they have increased their knowledge level from the information provided by

the instructor and the materials included in the course. Rothwell and Kazanas (1998) also stated

evaluations are not completely empirical objective. A large part of the process relies on human

judgment and decisions. The process is based on the data collected and analyzed to determine if

the methods and materials used achieve the stated objectives (Rothwell & Kazanas, 1998).

The first part of the evaluation process will include a pre-course questionnaire. The

questions are designed to measure the students increase understanding of responsibility (IUR) by

developing a baseline for the training program. The questions will focus on what the students

currently understand about the responsibilities of team members involved in developing or

upgrading training programs. They will be ask to rate their understanding of three specific job

positions and the responsibilities associated with those positions. At the end of the module, the

students will be asked the same questions to determine if their IUR has increased or decreased.

Another aspect of the evaluation process will be the formative stage. Using Gronlund

(1998) Assessment of student achievement as a guided there will be several multiple-choice

questions written at the application level. The question will be designed to measure a higher level

of learning. The process includes asking question that requires the student to apply what they

have learned in order to answer the questions. The significance of the application level response

on multiple-choice questions is the answers are not available verbatim from the instructions. The

final level of evaluation question will be true false with the understanding the question will be

based on the understanding of the information present from peer-reviewed articles and the

textbooks and government regulations associated with the program.

© William Hennix

Another level of question that would be part of the evaluation process is matching

question. The question will focus on basic definitions within the learning domains. The question

for the learning domains will serve as guided responses to help the students understand the basic

concept of designing training programs at certain levels. The program and the question for the

learning domain are not intended to make all members designers but to relate the differences in

the levels.

Alignment to the Five Levels of Evaluation

When evaluating and comparing the program to Dr. Kirkpatrick’s five levels we have to

review the process as individual elements and as a group to understand the complete package.

We will begin with level five, return on investment. The pre-course and post-course

questionnaires are designed to increase the value of any training program by fostering

cooperation between key stakeholders. The questionnaires purpose to bring awareness of what

each team member is responsible for and how that plays a part of the overall picture. Level four

sets the groundwork for level five. The training program and evaluation process for the program

is based on one main factor understanding of responsibility of team members. The program was

not designed to make each member an expert in all areas but to reduce the stress of working in

teams. We reduce the stress level through enlightening all members on how their part of the

puzzle relates to the whole project. Educating all team members on what each members job

consist brings an understanding to the process. When all members understand the roles and

responsibilities of key, stakeholders they spend more time completing their area to match the

core objectives to training personnel at the appropriate level.

Level three and two are addressed within the evaluation process using multiple choice

and true and false questions. The questions are not written on the lower level of the learning

© William Hennix

domain, requiring memorization. The question are deigned to challenge the students ability to

apply the information given within the context of the question. No response in the multiple-

choice question would be directly located within the lesson. The student would have to apply

what was learned to determine the appropriate response. The final area related to two and three

are the matching questions for the learning domains. This area is design to measure basic

understanding of the learning domains.

The final and most important area with Dr. Kirkpatrick evaluation level one. This level

will also be measure within the pre and post questionnaires. The question will be written to ask

questions related to working environments and group projects along with current stress levels

related directly to past training projects.

Alignment of Unit Goals to the evaluation process

1. Improve collaboration among team members.

a. Pre and Post module questionnaire

b. Multiple choice questions

2. The course will enlighten each member of all three areas of interest in the development

process.

a. Multiple choice questions

b. True and false questions

3. The course focuses on improving communication,

a. Matching questions

b. Multiple choice questions

4. Providing insight to the duties of each position

a. Pre and Post questionnaire

b. True and False questions

5. The responsibilities between team members.

a. Pre and Post questionnaires

Evaluation Tools and Materials

The evaluation tools used was Adobe Captive 6. Each question was assigned a point

value based on the level of difficultly of the question. The information for the questions was

based on peer-reviewed articles, handouts, information and material provided to the students.

© William Hennix

Attachments:

1. http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFH36-2235V1.pdf





Summary of modifications:

The main modification to the original training program was an expansion to include the

facilitators as part of the process. The facilitators were add because they are the ones who have to

communicate what was created to the students in a style and format the student can comprehend.

Many courses developed for on-line can be adapted for short seminars or workshops. It is

important that everyone be consulted on a training project to increase the opportunity for

success.

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFH36-2235V1.pdf





© William Hennix

Implementation and Evaluation Report

Module Overview and Description:

The purpose of the module was to create an instructional project designed to improve working

relationship between the instructional designers, the subject matter experts and the facilitators.

The project provides a brief overview of the responsibilities of each of the main three

participants responsible for the design and implementation of a training program. It also

addressed the major models associated with training. The module provided a link between each

of the participants to increase the level of collaboration through understanding. It is critical for

the instructional designers to communicate and collaborate with subject matter experts to ensure

the information provided is accurate and it satisfies the stated objectives for the program.

Description of Implementation

The program was implemented through several methods. Using Adobe Captivate 6.0 the training

program was designed and distributed several ways. There was a computer-generated version of

the training program. The computer version was self-pace using Adobe reader as the platform of

choice. The software had built in evaluations designed to be administer after the module was

completed providing an instead response to the student. A second method was a video version

using MP4 video as the preferred platform supported by a test generated on Adobe PDF. The

final back version was a hard copy of the program including the test that was sent electronically

to all of the students in Microsoft Word.

Analysis of Evaluation Data

Prior to the module, the learners had a basic understanding of the process of developing training

programs from the subject matter experts’ position and from the facilitators’ position and each

© William Hennix

member have develop training programs based on the two previous position. The students’

attention focused on the program but from novice level and not from an advance student level.

The course task analysis will need to be adjusted to reflect the change. The course achieved it

overall objective. The objective was to increase collaboration among team members through

knowledge awareness of each team member’s job. The information was fine but I have to fine-

tune it to insure everyone who participates understands the basic concept of training from a

trainers view. I have discovered that many SME have limited understanding of the training

process. For future projects, I need to insure the SME understands or help the SME understand

the basics of training from an ID perspective.

Increase expansion of the ADDIE principles

Explain the difference between a facilitator and an instructor

© William Hennix

Attachments 1 Training Module

Slide 1

© William Hennix

Slide 2

© William Hennix

Slide 3

© William Hennix

Slide 4

© William Hennix

Slide 5

© William Hennix

Slide 6

© William Hennix

Slide 7

© William Hennix

Slide 8

© William Hennix

Slide 9

© William Hennix

Slide 10

© William Hennix

Slide 11

© William Hennix

Slide 12

© William Hennix

Slide 13

© William Hennix

Slide 14

© William Hennix

Slide 15

© William Hennix

Slide 16

© William Hennix

Slide 17

© William Hennix

Slide 18

© William Hennix

Slide 19

© William Hennix

Attachments 1 Training Module Question

Slide 1 Text Captions: True/False Acting without assistance is part of the Cognitive Learning Domain A) True B) False

© William Hennix

Slide 2 Text Captions: Sequence Arrange in sequence A) Subject Matter Expert B) Facilitator C) Instructional Designer

© William Hennix

Slide 4 - FIST Text Captions: True/False Knowledge building is based on the availability of new information and technology. A) True B) False

© William Hennix

Slide 5 Text Captions: True/False The negative side of the instructional design process is focusing on achieving measurable goals that increase knowledge and awareness A) True B) False

© William Hennix

Slide 6 Text Captions: Fill-In-The-Blank Complete the sentence below by filling in the blanks. There are three main parts to the training program SME, ID and Facilitators. phrase

© William Hennix

Slide 7 Text Captions: True/False If a student’s knowledge is not increased, ID can use the task analysis to determine if any steps where missed in the training program A) True B) False

© William Hennix

Slide 8 Text Captions: True/False Each detail associated with the training program is written in a format designed to increase the knowledge level of the student and meet all the objectives set forth in the training plan A) True B) False

© William Hennix

Slide 9 Text Captions: Multiple Choice The instructional development focus as two models within its area A) Instructional Design Method B) Training for Impact C) Systematic Design of Instruction D) Systematic Training Model

© William Hennix

Slide 10 Text Captions: Fill-In-The-Blank Complete the sentence below by filling in the blanks. The level of knowledge and skill of management and workers play a direct role in the effectiveness and acceptability of any training program.

© William Hennix

Slide 11 Text Captions: Multiple Choice The performance focus has three models associated with its core A) Training for Performance System B) Systematic Training Model C) Training for Impact D) Instructional Design Method E) Performance Based Instruction

© William Hennix

Slide 13 Text Captions: True/False The intrinsic rewards for motivate students can empower students to achieve better results A) True B) False

© William Hennix

Slide 14 Text Captions: Matching Match the following Column 1 Training for Performance System Performance Based Instruction Training for Impact Instructional Design Method Systematic Design of Instruction Column 2 A) TPS B) PBI C) TP D) IDM E) SDI

© William Hennix

Slide 15 Text Captions: True/False The facilitators of the information do not share their knowledge A) True B) False

© William Hennix

Slide 16 Text Captions: Fill-In-The-Blank Complete the sentence below by filling in the blanks. People who are motivated to learn and are self- directed are will do well in an on-line environment

© William Hennix

Slide 17 Text Captions: True/False The philosophy with using the learning domains enables the designer to develop assessments that reflect the level of understanding associated with a particular level within the domain. A) True B) False

© William Hennix

Reference

Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (1999). Assesment essentials. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,

inc.

Chang, I., & Chang, W. (2012). The effect of student learning motivation on learning

satisfaction. International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 4(3), 281-305.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/921995037?accountid=35812

Conrad, C., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Strategic Organzational Communication (6th ed.). Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth.

Cowell, C., Hopkins, P.C., McWhorter, R., & Jorden, D.L (2006, November). Alternative

training models. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(4).

Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2006). Project management:The managerial process (3rd ed.).

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Grounlund, N. E. (1998). Assessment of student achievement (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA,

USA: A Viacom Company.

Grupe, F. H., & Connolly, F. W. (1995). Grownups are different: Computer training for adult

learners. Journal of Systems Management, 46(1), 58-58.


Miner, J.E. (2010). Air Force Instruction 36-2201. USAF

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective

instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Musial, D., Thomas, J., & Nieminen, G. (2008). Foundations of meaningful educational

assessment. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Patricia, C.P. (2002). Air Force Handbook 36-2235v3. USAF


© William Hennix


Stiggs, R., & Chappuis, J. (2012). An Introduction to student-involved assessment for learning

Thornton, B., “Chris” Mattocks, ,T.C., & Thornton, L. (2001). Empowerment: A method of

motivating adult learners. Journal of Adult Education, 29(1), 1-10.


(6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Truxillo, D. M., Paronto, M. E., Collins, M., & Sulzer, J. L. (2004). Effects of subject matter

expert viewpoint on job analysis results. Public Personnel Management , 33 .

Washington, DC, United States of America.

United States Air Force. (2010). Air Force Instruction 36-2201. USAF.

final training program version 1

Documents