MSHR 6625 Week 4 Learning Objectives Set Example

Six Objectives Any Observer Could Check Against a Closed Ticket: Learning Objectives for Completing Asset Fields on Mobile Work Orders, Each With Performance, Condition, Criterion and a Bloom Level

Student Name

Walden University

MSHR 6625: Building Human Capital Through Training and Development

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Six Objectives Any Observer Could Check Against a Closed Ticket: Learning Objectives for Completing Asset Fields on Mobile Work Orders, Each With Performance, Condition, Criterion and a Bloom Level

Purpose

The needs assessment and gap memo found one genuine skill gap among Mill Creek Water District's field technicians: recording asset IDs and selecting pipe materials correctly on mobile work orders. These objectives cover that gap and nothing else. Each is written in the three-part form Mager (1997) proposed: a performance, meaning what the learner will do; a condition, meaning the circumstances under which they will do it; and a criterion, meaning how well. Each is also assigned a level from the revised taxonomy of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), whose six levels climb from recall to original design, so that the training activities can be matched to the level the job requires.

Terminal Objective

Given a completed field job on a hydrant, valve or water main and a tablet in the truck, the technician closes the mobile work order with every mandatory asset field correct before leaving the site, in at least 19 of 20 consecutive orders as verified against the asset record. Level: applying.

Enabling Objectives

Table 1

Enabling Objectives for Asset-Field Completion

Composite utility. Criteria are proposed and should be confirmed with crew supervisors.

Why These Levels

The terminal objective is set at applying because the job requires technicians to use known procedures correctly in varied field conditions, not to invent new ones. Objective 1 is set at remembering because the five mandatory fields are a short list technicians should know without looking. Objective 3 is set at analyzing because choosing among similar pipe materials requires comparing features, such as color, wall thickness and markings, not just recalling a name. Objective 5 is set at evaluating because technicians must judge whether a completed order is correct, a step that the needs assessment found was often skipped.

None of the objectives is set at creating, because the job does not ask technicians to design anything. Setting a higher level than the job requires would lengthen the training without improving performance.

How Each Objective Can Be Checked

Each objective has a criterion that a trained observer could check. The terminal objective can be checked directly against closed tickets in the mobile system, compared with the asset record. Objectives 2 and 3 can be checked in a practice session with photographs or samples. Objective 5 can be checked by reviewing orders for blank fields. Kraiger et al. (1993) proposed matching each measure to the kind of learning it targets, so a practical skill is judged by doing rather than by a written test; every criterion here measures performance.

How Crew Leads Will Use the Objectives

Crew leads, not professional trainers, will deliver the sessions. The objectives give them a clear standard for each session: they will know what the technician should be able to do by the end and how to tell whether they can. The coaching checklist for each session repeats the criteria in plain words, such as "found the ID stamp on 9 of 10 hydrants," so a crew lead can record the result without interpreting the objective. This keeps assessment consistent across twelve crew leads, which matters because the design relies on many people delivering the same program in slightly different settings and at different times of day.

Deliberately Excluded

The objectives do not cover syncing, photographs or general tablet use. The needs assessment found those were equipment and process problems, not skill gaps, and the gap memo routed them to IT, fleet and the field operations manager. Including them would turn a focused program back into the general tablet training the manager first requested.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311

Mager, R. F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Center for Effective Performance.