A. TABLE OF CONTENTS
C. OVERVIEW LINKING BACK TO DESIGN IN ASSIGNMENT 1
D. STATEMENT ABOUT THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
E. EXPLANATION OF THE LEARNING GOAL
F. IDENTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF LESSON OBJECTIVES
G. EXPLANATION OF LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS
H. IDENTIFICATION OF THE RANGE OF KNOWLEDGE
I. OUTLINE OF THE SESSION PLAN
J. EXPLANATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE
K. ARGUMENT FOR THE NEED FOR THE INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE
L. EXPLANATION OF THE INFORMATION PROCESSING CONTRIBUTION
The purpose of this assignment is to critically appraise the facilitator guide for the Rail Safety Induction training, which has been discussed in Assignment 1. The appraisal of this resource will illustrate and support my chosen theoretical perspective; the constructivist philosophy of learning, coupled with Gagne’s prescriptive model of instruction; with particular reference to the nine instructional events. The assignment will be presented under key topic headings and include in the Appendices a Session Plan and the Facilitator Guide for reference.
As mentioned in Assignment 1, the purpose of the training program, Rail Safety Induction, is to provide all Queensland Rail staff and contractors with a general knowledge of railway related risks and hazards within the rail corridor. This need for training was brought about by the introduction of the new Rail Safety Act 2010. The new Rail Safety Act defines the term, ‘rail safety worker’. Under this new definition, a rail safety worker must be able to show competency in what they are doing. Showing competency means showing national accreditation for any work performed in the rail environment. The session plan and Facilitator Guide discussed and provided in this assignment is Level 1 of 3 levels of required competency. All Queensland Rail Staff and Contractors must attend Level 1 training.
D. A STATEMENT ABOUT MY THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework that underpins my approach to the design of the Rail Safety Induction training including the facilitator guide and session plan is: ‘Constructivism’ and Gagne’s prescriptive model of instructional events.
As mentioned in Assignment 1, the instructional model used to analyse and design the learning program is based on Smith and Ragan’s (2005) Instructional Design Process model, which includes Analysis, strategy and evaluation.
E. AN EXPLANATION OF THE LEARNING GOAL AND HOW IT ALIGNS TO THE THEORETICAL APPROACH
The learning goal states:
The aim of this course is to provide all Queensland Rail staff with safety awareness when working in or visiting any area that has train operations. Participants will be introduced to common terms used in the Rail Corridor, hazards and risks in the Rail Corridor, electrical safety, recognise and report unsafe situations, access requirements and understand the limitations of what this course provides.
This learning goal aligns with the theoretical concept of Constructivism because it considers that when teaching adults, ‘constructivism encourages educators to value the knowledge and experience participants bring to learning and provide experiences that help students build on their current knowledge.’ (Krause, Bochner, Duchesne, 2nd ed, 2003, p. 183).
The learning goal also states a series of topics that the learner will be introduced to. These topics form the learning objectives, which will be part of the prescribed model of instruction.
F. A CLEAR IDENTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF LESSON OBJECTIVES
The Learning objectives for the Rail Safety Induction Program are:
← Identify and name common track and electrical terms relating to working safely in the Rail Corridor.
← Provide a...
References: Krause, K., Bochner, S., Duchesne, S. (2003). Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. Victoria: Thomson.
Rill, C. (2008). Supplantive vs Generative. http://www.personal.psu.edu/cdr189/blogs/the_aspiring_30_second_elevator_speech/2008/10/supplantive-vs-generative.html
Smith, Patricia L
Please join StudyMode to read the full document