Post 10: Feedback on Course Projects
Randy,
Concerning your Learner Analysis, I have to agree with Scott. You should be categorizing your
general characteristics from your specific characteristics. Looking at an example on E-reserves
on candle making, the instructor made clear distinctions between the characteristics within their
analysis. From what I can tell though, it seems that this exercise is limited to all ages; however,
an age limit might want to be considered. For instance, “Ages 13 and up,” or you might even
want an ending age such as 72 (depending on the individual).
I do however like what you did with your environmental analysis. These factors do usually play
a role in the lifters performance. Unfortunately I had completely forgotten this section and need
to add this into my own project (so thanks for the indirect help, lol).
It appears that you are still working on your contextual analysis; but when working on this
section, and subsections, be sure to reference previous projects, this may aid in a basic format
you can utilize to assist you in completing your analysis.
I was unsure about what was being conveyed within your last grouping, categorized under topic,
with subgroups named pre lift, list, post lift, concepts, etc. It almost sounds like these are your
goals. Am I correct? Are these your goals? The only reason as to why I ask this is because, if
you say something like, the learner will know how to lift, the learner will appreciate lifting
concepts, the lifter will know the do’s and don’ts of benching.
I’m hoping this helps
Post 12: Feedback on Course Project
Looking at Dave’s strategies for critiquing classmate’s projects link, I was compelled to use the
option. “Make Comments about the strengths and weaknesses of your own work based on your
reading of other projects.”
Looking at your first 3 pages, specifying and ranking your goals, it really appears that you have
done this quite well. This is modeled within several previous course projects. I really enjoyed
your section “refining goals again.” This allowed me to see your reasoning behind selecting and
omitting of previous goals.
Within your task analysis, I do like the subsection you have concerning breathing. I think that
you emphasizing that cue is important. I have something similar to that in my project; however,
the way yours is structured seems better than the my own.
I have a few questions concerning a few thing in your task analysis though:
1. How is flat bench press, considered a total workout?
a. Isn’t this more of an isolated exercise?
2. I see in iii.A.3, in your task analysis, that you mention wearing gloves. Do you think that an
overview of possible materials could fall into a category of its own?
a. For instance, within mine, and also within the project instructing candle making, a list of
materials is used to allow the learner to realize what all can be used for the task at hand.
1. I noticed that when I really looked at possible items incorporated within my topic, that another
subsection could be implemented.
2. I feel that adding this subsection strengthened my project. Also, concerning bench pressing,
you might want to ask your SME whether materials such as wrist wraps, weight belts, boards, or
even chains are used.
Post 16: Feedback on Course Project
Ok, I've fixed one here. Could someone take another one of her 100% accuracies that doesn't
quite work and revise it? Does anyone see that I'm also referring to your project? Could you
offer an example to us from other projects of this same "problem"?
Objective 2.2
After reading a short description of a junction box, learners will explain the purpose of a junction
box with 100% accuracy.
Ignorant to the purpose or benefits of a junction box, I am not sure whether or not this
proficiency level should be this high. Dave emphasizes that 100% accuracy should be used
when concerning life or death issues; however, this does not seem too fatal. Perhaps the
proficiency level could be adjusted to 85 or 90%. Even though this does not portray an absolute
understanding or mastery of a junction box, it still offers a high enough level of
comprehension/understanding concerning this issue. Also, if you truly want the learner to gain a
better understanding of a junction box (just my opinion), you might even want to consider having
the learner paraphrase the importance of a junction box, rather than choosing between a listing
of items.
From the list of five items, circle two that accurately state why we use junction
boxes.
Within my objective:
Objective 1.1
Given 20 images of good and poor conditioned materials, the learner will identify the good
conditioned materials at 90% accuracy
I made this mistake quite a few times within my instruction. For tasks that were elementary or
knowledge based, I tended to set high proficiency levels on subjects/tasks that were not
detrimental to one’s health. This is going to be something I intend on revising, followed by other
things.
Post 17: Feedback on Course Project
Julie,
Even though this is not the primary focus of this checkpoint, you may want to extend on your
problem identification section. Within the rubric, it states in order to receive full credit for the
section, the section must:
1. Identified appropriate method
2. describes process
3. correct implementation
4. Provide thorough analysis
Your ranking of goals, contextual analysis, as well as your task analysis looks great!
Concerning the goals and objective segment of your project, it is probably safe to say that your
goals are properly defined, “stating the word know, value, or appreciate.” However, concerning
your objectives, the objectives are not demonstrating a Mager objective. Mager objectives are
supposed to contain:
1. Conditions of environment
2. Behavioral Verb
3. Proficiency level
Within your documentation, none of your objectives contain a proficiency level. Stated within
the rubric, Each objective is a complete Mager objective (including measureable verb, relevant
conditions, and appropriate criteria) OR Gronlund objective (including clearly stated general
objective and appropriate descriptors); objectives clearly address goals
Reviewing your labeling, linking the task analysis to your objectives, as well as the classification
of your performance, this section appeared to be pretty accurate.
Regarding your generative strategy section, it would appear that a step was overlooked. Within
the rubric, it states:
1. Appropriate strategies are designed for each objective with strong and clear documentation of
prescription type
2. content-referenced explanation of initial presentation and generative strategy
The prescription in which you chose to use within each objective, was not mentioned/stated.
Pertaining to your writing of test items, you did an excellent job matching your test item to the
objective.
I hope this feedback is helpful.
Post 18: Feedback on Course Project
Randy,
Let me start by saying, the goals that you used, are labeled correctly, and I am able to
understand what is to be achieved through this goal. Great job.
Concerning your objectives however, it would appear that none of your objectives are Mager
objectives.
1. Conditions of the environment
2. Behavioral verb
3. Proficiency level
Lacking a proficiency level, your objectives are not meeting the rubrics criteria, reverencing full
points within this section. Within the rubric it states, Each objective is a complete Mager
objective (including measureable verb, relevant conditions, and appropriate criteria) OR
Gronlund objective (including clearly stated general objective and appropriate descriptors);
objectives clearly address goals
1. Within test item 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, I see that you listed your proficiency level within your test item,
you more so than likely should move this within your objective section.
Your objectives appear to be classified correctly, regarding the matrix; however, I do not see
where your objectives refer to your task analysis. Within the rubric, it also states, “All objectives
are correctly referenced to the content/task analysis.”
Pertaining to your test item matching your objectives, this appears to be done quite well;
however, be careful when writing your generative strategies. The reason as to why I’m saying
be careful within generative strategy 1.1, your strategy is matching the test item.
Concerning your sequencing strategy, I understand why you selected what you selected;
however, you should be more thorough in how you came to that conclusion. After all , within the
rubric it states to select appropriate sequencing and provide thorough documentation.
Applying to your preinstructional strategy as well, your Strategy must be appropriate and
supported by substantial rationale for selection.
I hope this helps.