Thank you for your time.
Here is the proposal for Group B. Since the discussion board seems to be here, I'll list the 4th edition.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
In reply to anonfirstname18 anonlastname18
Re: Dear Mr. N : Group B Proposal (Coaching Process)
Dear Mr. N：
Thank you for posting the draft proposal for Group B.
The discussion is to be held in this forum, so I will repost what I posted in the previous forum under the dashed line.
Additional suggestions will be listed below it.
〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜
I looked at the "Usage Improvement Proposal", "Course Content Evaluation Chart", and three types of screen transition diagrams created by Mr. N.
I agree with most of Mr. N's points and suggestions.
As a policy for improvement, we will assume "free improvement," but I think the issue will be to determine the degree of additional proposals outside the free range allowed by the RPF. I think we should start with the "free improvement" level of study first, and if, in the course of the study, we come across some improvements that are difficult to concede to be omitted, we should propose them as candidates for "paid improvement.
We cannot make fundamental improvements to the parts that were unpopular in the questionnaire due to the restrictions of the request level, but as a measure to make partial changes based on the premise of "free improvements," we think it is at least necessary to change the overall structure of the lesson screen, simulation screen, and test of the current materials and the arrangement of these three elements. I think this is necessary. I would like to propose the following basic policy for the overall structure.
1.Set up a cycle in which students return to the appropriate lesson screen to review, depending on their performance in the exercise after taking the lesson. Examine the degree of continuity of the lesson, and if it is too long, split it up and present it.
2.Examine the length of the simulations, divide them into appropriate sections, and rearrange them in an order appropriate to the difficulty level or topic being covered, with an assessment test in between each section. Set up a review cycle in which students return to the corresponding lesson screen according to their performance on the assessment test.
Above
〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜
In addition to what I have indicated above, I would like to make the following suggestions in more detail.
〈Draft outline of changes to the structure of the lesson, simulation, and test screens〉
1）The order of presentation of the two topics in the "Relationship between Leaders and Subordinates" course, "Building Relationships with Subordinates (20 lessons)" and "Maintaining Good Relationships with Subordinates (10 lessons)", will remain the same, but a mechanism will be added to return to the lesson screen for review depending on the results of the answers to the "exercises" in each lesson.
→ The purpose is to ensure the acquisition of a level of linguistic information.
2）The "simulation screen" should be divided into three sections and rearranged in the order of presentation according to the level of difficulty. Add a system that allows students to return to the corresponding theme-based lesson screen for review according to their evaluation test scores.
→ The purpose is to ensure that the intellectual skill level is acquired.
3）In the "Simulation" section, select screens that reflect the content of the lesson according to the theme in an unbiased manner, test them beforehand, incorporate them, and add a screen display of the evaluation results.
→ This is to increase motivation.
4）Only those subjects that fail the above pre-test by "simulation" will be led to the lesson.
→ The purpose is to prevent the material from becoming redundant and reducing the degree of concentration. It is also intended to improve the efficiency of the time required.
5）It is acceptable to use "simulations" as the basis for the post-test as well, but it may give the impression of being too persistent and may bore the students. We may need to be more creative in this area.
I think that the above proposal can be expressed by partial modification after basically adopting Mr. N's proposal and screen transition diagram.
How about it? Please consider it.
S
In reply to anonfirstname19 anonlastname19
Re: Dear Mr. N : Group B Proposal (Coaching Process)
Dear Mr. S.
I think the basic policy is
to use exercises to check each step, and to use existing simulations to supplement the entry and exit points of the e-learning course.I thought that shortening the study time of the course would allow students to concentrate on the content and induce them to review what they have learned, which could be related to checking the content through exercises. Within the free range, I thought that the suggestion given by Mr. S was concrete and good.
As for the content of (5), I also think that different questions would be more interesting and would allow for deeper thinking. In addition to that, I would like to have the opportunity to practice with another case study (story for simulation) for the 9 teaching events of Ganiye.
The RFPs for "the story progresses unhurriedly" and "the conversation is unnatural" would require changes to the entire content, which would be a major undertaking (although I think it is an important element to raise associations and motivation), and would be burdensome when considering the cost. So, how about addressing the other parts of the content by linking them to the content of 5 for a fee (another case study simulation and another content post-test)?
N
In reply to anonfirstname18 anonlastname18
Re: Dear Mr. N : Request for preparation of a completed Group B proposal
Dear Mr. N.：
I agree with the basic policy you have proposed regarding the issues that were raised.
I think the structure will be cleaner.
・Each step will be reviewed with exercises, and the entry and exit points of the e-learning course will be supplemented with existing simulations. (In case of inadequate performance, students can return to the corresponding lesson for review.)
・Create and employ a separate case study simulation as a pay range for the post-test only.
If possible, could you please have Mr. N create a completed version of Group B's improvement proposal for the e-learning course "Coaching Process" and submit it for assignment? This is because I think the proposal prepared by Ms. N is the most complete among the members of Group B.
I would like to send an email to Dr. Kitamura, who is in charge of the project, reporting the completion of the submission as soon as I confirm Mr. N's upload. I have already sent an email to Kitamura-sensei apologizing for exceeding the deadline, and I would like to report back afterwards.
Since the content of the sixth assignment is to comment on another group's proposal, and the deadline for that is approaching, I think the fastest way to solve the problem is to ask for your help.
I apologize for this selfish request, but please consider it.
S
In reply to anonfirstname19 anonlastname19
Re: Dear Mr. N : Request for preparation of a completed Group B proposal
Dear Mr. N.
I would like to hasten to inform you that I agree with Mr. S-san's proposal.
I would like to do something about the proposal by tonight.
In reply to anonfirstname19 anonlastname19
Group B Improvement Proposal
Dear Mr. S
I am very sorry for the delay. Here is our proposal for improvement as a group. Please take care of it.
（The screen transition diagram is for the current state only. If you need a screen transition diagram after the improvement plan, you can create one. Since only the base has been created, it is not included in this project.）
In reply to anonfirstname18 anonlastname18
Group B Improvement Proposal
Dear Mr. N：
Thank you for summarizing Group B's suggestions for improvements to the "Coaching Process" course.
After this, I would like to get opinions from Group A in the 6th session, and make arrangements to revise them in the 7th session.
S
In reply to anonfirstname19 anonlastname19
I would like to comment on this.(I) Re: To Mr. N: Thank you for preparing the summary version of the Group B improvement proposal
To all of you in Group B,
I'm a credit student in Group A.
Thank you for your hard work in compiling the proposal.
I read the Group B improvement proposal without any background or assumptions, and my first impression was as follows.
Good points：
（１） Theoretical background of the proposal: I think it is good that the viewpoint of each ID is contrasted with the content of the proposal.
（２）Regarding the "expansion of the target audience" for the use and application of content: I thought the proposal to actively expand the scope of use of the course was good.
（３） Direction of the proposal: 1) and 2): The content of the proposal to strengthen the confirmation of knowledge is consistent with the proposal outline and the analysis of the current situation, and was well understood.
Questions that remain：
（１） Regarding the two-stage structure of the free improvement proposal and the paid improvement proposal: I understand that the proposal was divided into two stages due to the constraints of the proposal, but the proposal outline states that "improvements will be proposed" for the paid proposal as well, while the proposal direction and the results of the RFP item review state that "paid proposals were not considered this time. I wondered if it would be possible to make a proposal to have them examine the contents of the paid improvements, even if the implementation is not done immediately, since they have gone to the trouble of presenting a paid improvement proposal.。
（２）Regarding "the content itself" and "the way of expression": When I saw "the content itself is not a problem" in the proposal summary and "it gives an image of Western business content" in the result of the current situation analysis, I felt that there was a problem with the content. I felt that there was a problem with the content. I haven't seen the course, so I don't know what it actually is, but I think it would be better if you choose words that don't contradict each other in the proposal.
（３）Learning and simulation screens: I haven't seen the course, so I don't know, but in the screen transition diagram of learning screen -> exercise screen -> evaluation test -> simulation, is the unit of learning the same as the unit of exercise, and the evaluation test and simulation lumped together several learning screens? I couldn't imagine the whole structure.
I haven't read it in depth, so I'm sure I'm missing the point, but I hope you find it helpful.
Thank you for your time.
I
In reply to anonfirstname19 anonlastname19
Re: Dear Mr. N: Thank you for preparing the summary version of the Group B improvement proposal
Dear Group B
Thank you for your hard work.
I have seen your improvement proposal.
I would like to make the following comments.
【Good points】
◆Consideration of proposed improvements through course structure.
→I felt that this was a realistic improvement plan in terms of reducing costs at this point.
◆The study page is too long and it is difficult to start at any point, so we added a mechanism to return to the thematic lesson screen where you can return to the study page according to the result of the practice test.
→I tried the course myself, but I had the impression that the learning pages were too long. I felt that the content could be shortened (or only those who want detailed explanations can refer to it). （I felt that the content could be shortened (or only those who want a detailed explanation can refer to it).
◆Challenges to Kirkpatrick Levels 3 and 4 in the use and application of content
→As an evaluation method for Level 3, it would be interesting to have the participants record their actual coaching interviews with their subordinates a few months after taking the e-learning course, send the video to the head office, and evaluate the degree of practice of the coaching skills (process) using a check sheet. If the number of trainees is too large and the burden of evaluation at the head office is too great, it may be possible to devise a way to have the supervisors evaluate the results. It may also be a good idea to have the participants themselves self-evaluate.
【Questionable points】
◆Learning objectives for each of the free and paid improvement plans
This course has the following two types of tests, and I believe that the learning outcomes that they are assessing are different as follows.
・What we are looking at in the assessment test: Memorization of key points of the coaching process (verbal information)
・What we are looking at in the simulation: the (simulated) practice of the coaching process (intellectual skills).
However, the actual post-test proposed was a simulation-based evaluation, so I felt that if it was to be evaluated by simulation, it would be included in intellectual skills.
Also, in the free improvement suggestion 2), I didn't fully understand the part about "dividing the "simulation screen" into three parts," but is it correct to say that "the communication in the simulation is too long, so it should be divided into parts to make it shorter"?
In the "paid improvement plan", it says "add simulations with different cases", so is it correct to understand that the paid improvement plan is to make intellectual skills the learning goal of the material?
I felt that it would be easier to understand the positioning and scope of each of the learning objectives and their evaluation methods if they were clearly stated, such as the learning objectives for free improvement and paid improvement, and the learning objectives to be achieved through blended learning other than e-learning.
A
In reply to anonfirstname17 anonlastname17
Re: Dear Mr. N: Thank you for preparing the summary version of the Group B improvement proposal
Dear Group B
This is K.
Thank you very much for your proposal. I would like to make the following comments.
【Good points】
・The outline of the course is organized from two perspectives: knowledge (linguistic information) and applied practice (intellectual skills), and the scope of free and paid development is clearly defined.
・We believe that making the contents more realistic for the learners, such as by improving Japanese expressions, will help promote motivation to learn and understanding.
【The following points need to be considered】
・As for the target audience, it says, "We propose to expand the target audience to include employees who are not in management positions but are in a position to supervise junior staff. It is necessary to carefully examine what are the common elements and what are the different elements between the case where the target audience is assumed to be managers and the case where the target audience is expanded to include those who are in a position to instruct junior staff, and to organize them in a way that can be explained to the client.
In reply to anonfirstname21 anonlastname21
Re: Dear Mr. N: Thank you for preparing the summary version of the Group B improvement proposal
Dear Group B
I have read your proposal.
I would like to make the following three comments.
・I think it would make the need for paid improvement proposals even clearer if it were clearly stated that the learning objectives (achievement goals) cannot be achieved with free improvement proposals alone.
→The course is being evaluated as a way to acquire coaching knowledge (linguistic information), but not the ability to apply knowledge in practice (intellectual skills). We thought it necessary to clearly state that the current learning objectives (attainment goals) cannot be achieved (difficult) without implementing improvement suggestions in the paid range.
・I think it would be easier to understand if the results of the RFP items were itemized.
→We believe that it will be easier to understand that proposals for improvements in the free range are in response to RFPs.
・I think it would be easier to understand if the suggestions for improvement were itemized or if there was a way to compare free and paid services.
→We have a clear policy of separating free support (linguistic information) and fee-based support (intellectual skills), so we thought it would be easier to present a clear proposal if we used this policy in the presentation of countermeasures.
That's all.
H
In reply to anonfirstname18 anonlastname18
Re: Group B Proposal (Coaching Process)
Dear all
I completely missed the discussion here, so I would like to comment on it.
Personally, I think it would be fine to start with an assessment test, simulation, and post-test (i.e., pre-test), and if all scores are perfect, the test should be automatically cleared.
However, even in that case, I think it would be fine to allow the content to be viewed freely.