| Course | MSHR 6625 Building Human Capital Through Training and Development |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Peer reply |
| Length | About 360 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSHR 6625 Week 7
Week 7 Discussion: Responses to Classmates' Training Designs
Does the Activity Ask for What the Objective Promises? Two Peer Replies Checking Objective and Activity Alignment on Bloom's Taxonomy and Proposing One Activity Swap Each
Reply to Jasmine
Jasmine, your de-escalation program for the transit agency's customer service staff has a strong objective: given an escalating complaint at the counter, the agent calms the customer using the agency's four-step approach. On the revised Bloom's taxonomy, that is applying, and arguably analyzing, since the agent must read the customer's state and choose a step (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Your activity, a slide lecture followed by a multiple-choice quiz, sits at remembering. Learners who pass the quiz will be able to name the four steps, but nothing in the session asks them to use the steps on an angry person.
One swap would close most of the gap: replace the quiz with three short role-plays, each with a classmate playing a customer at a different level of anger, and a checklist an observer completes. The lecture can stay as preparation, shortened to leave time for the role-plays, and the quiz could move to a short pre-reading check before the session. Kraiger et al. (1993) argued that skill-based outcomes should be assessed through performance rather than recall, so the role-plays would also give you better evidence for your evaluation.
Reply to Grant
Grant, your forklift recertification program has the reverse problem in one place. Your objective for the inspection module asks operators to list the eight pre-shift inspection points, which is remembering. Your activity has them inspect a forklift with three planted faults and decide whether it is safe to operate, which is evaluating. The activity is better than the objective. I would raise the objective to match it: given a forklift with possible faults, the operator completes the pre-shift inspection and correctly decides whether to tag it out. That way, your assessment measures what the activity actually teaches, the objective names the judgment the job really requires and operators cannot pass simply by reciting a list. Mager (1997) recommended writing the criterion so it states how well the learner must perform; "correctly identifies all planted faults" would give your observers a clear standard.
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.
What the MSHR 6625 Week 7 instructions ask for
Week 7 asks you to review classmates' training designs for alignment between objectives and activities. For each classmate, identify the objective and the activity meant to teach it, and place both on the revised Bloom's taxonomy. Explain the mismatch plainly, including whether the activity falls short of the objective or goes beyond it. Propose one specific change that would close the gap, either to the activity or to the objective. Support your suggestion with research on learning outcomes or objectives where it helps. Keep each reply short and focused on a single change, and make sure the two replies cover different kinds of mismatch so the thread sees both directions.
How the MSHR 6625 Week 7 example is put together
The first reply places a de-escalation objective at applying or analyzing and a lecture and quiz at remembering, citing Anderson and Krathwohl, and proposes three role-plays with an observer checklist, shortening the lecture and moving the quiz to pre-reading, citing Kraiger and colleagues. The second reply finds a forklift inspection activity at evaluating and an objective at remembering, recommends raising the objective to match the activity and suggests a criterion of correctly identifying all planted faults, citing Mager on stating how well the learner must perform. Each reply ends with exactly one activity change, which keeps the advice usable. Neither reply runs much past a short paragraph pair.
MSHR 6625 Week 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Peer replies earn credit for a precise diagnosis and a usable fix. Placing both the objective and the activity on the same taxonomy is weighted heavily, because it shows the mismatch rather than asserting it. Recognizing that mismatches can run in either direction shows understanding. A single, specific change is more useful than a list of suggestions. Research cited to support the change adds weight. Replies that praise a design without examining alignment, offer general advice or propose several changes at once tend to receive lower marks. Brevity matters in a discussion thread, and each reply should be easy to act on within a day. Naming the taxonomy level for both objective and activity is what makes the diagnosis checkable.
Common MSHR 6625 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
For each classmate's design, write down the objective and the activity side by side. Ask what level of thinking each one requires: remembering, applying, analyzing, evaluating. If the levels differ, you have found the mismatch. Then decide which side should move. Usually the activity needs to rise to the objective, but sometimes a strong activity shows that the objective was set too low. Suggest one concrete change. Students often comment on the design in general without naming a specific mismatch. Others propose a full redesign, which a classmate cannot easily use. If you are unsure where an activity sits on the taxonomy, our writers can help you place it. Keep each reply to one diagnosis and one fix.
Get a MSHR 6625 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send both classmate posts along with the week's reply instructions and rubric. Two replies, each naming an alignment gap and one feasible swap, come back in 24 to 48 hours, the first without charge. Classmates are addressed through their designs only, and no name from your section is repeated.
More MSHR 6625 papers and MS in Human Resource Management samples
- MSHR 6625 Week 1: Training Need Discussion Post
- MSHR 6625 Week 2: Training Needs Assessment
- MSHR 6625 Week 3: Performance Gap Memo
- MSHR 6625 Week 4: Learning Objectives Set
- MSHR 6625 Week 5: Training Design Brief
- MSHR 6625 Week 6: Training Facilitator Guide
- MSHR 6625 Week 8: Training Evaluation Plan
- MSHR 6625 Week 9: Training Transfer Memo
- MSHR 6625 Week 10: Training Pilot Review
- MSHR 6625 Week 11: Training Program Proposal
- MHRM 6101 Week 7: HRIS Question Inventory Brief
- MSHR 6610 Week 7: Transition Gap Peer Replies
- MHRM 6902 Week 7: Six-Category Mapping Pass
- MHRM 6601 Week 7: Team Incentive Design
MSHR 6625 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MSHR 6625 Week 7 sample paper?
Both alignment replies are shown below and are free to read.
What does the MSHR 6625 Week 7 reply check?
Whether each training activity asks for the level of thinking its objective promises.
What mismatch does the first reply find?
An objective at applying or analyzing taught through a lecture and a quiz at remembering.
What change does it propose?
Three observed role-plays with a checklist in place of the quiz.
How is the second mismatch different?
The activity, inspecting a forklift with planted faults, is set higher than the objective.