Stage

Guidance

Considerations

Domain Hierarchy

Structures knowledge, skills, and attitude (KSAs) from simple to complex order of operations.

Examine the task to isolate its central verb. Use the verb to classify the task as either knowledge-, skill-, or attitude-based. Then, determine the specific category of learning it represents.

Cognitive (Knowledge) Domain*

Psychomotor (Skill) Domain*

Affective (Attitude) Domain*

*Verbs were derived from Bloom (1956) and MIL-HDBK-29612-2A (DoD, 2001) , whereas each category corresponds to a learning level outlined by Gagné et al. (1992) and aligns with specified learning categories as noted in the MIL-HDBK (the category in parentheses). The MIL-HDBK was used, given the Navy’s longstanding involvement in ID.

Various models exhibit conflicts, particularly in aligning verbs (actions) to a hierarchical structure. For instance, Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy categorizes knowledge into six distinct levels (Clark, 2015) , contrasting with MIL-HDBK-29612-2A’s five-level framework (DoD, 2001) . Moreover, a critical issue arises in the inconsistency of terminology across these models; even when the number of levels coincides, the definitions assigned to each tier do not correspond directly. For example, although skills across the two models have seven levels, the terminology and verbs are different:

Bloom:

S2 (Skill, Level 2) = Set

Begins, displays, explains, moves, proceeds, reacts, shows, states, volunteers

MIL-HDBK-29612-2A:

S2 (Skill, Level 2) = Gross Motor Skills

Assault, carry, creep, depart, fall, hold, jump, lift, pull, run, stay, swim, throw, turn, twist, wear

The models and domain hierarchies also tend to specify a finite set of verbs. When introducing new verbs to better align with specific job tasks, instructional designers are required to integrate these verbs meticulously from the start to the end of the media selection. This integration demands a comprehensive understanding of the entire process to ensure the highest likelihood of effective learning transfer, considering all steps involved.

Learning Outcomes

Categorizes KSAs with diverse types of learning expectations.

Discern the most appropriate type of learning outcome that aligns with the nature of the task. For each category, there is a corresponding outcome.

Category of Learning Level and Learning Outcomes

*Derived from Gagné et al. (1992) .

There is a lack of standardized alignment between domain hierarchies and learning outcomes among models. This discrepancy extends to the varying interpretations of outcomes. For instance, Gagné et al. (1992) focused on human performance measures, while MIL-HDBK-29612-2A equates outcomes with educational objectives, encompassing cognitive, psychomotor, and attitude domains (DoD, 2001) , also termed as knowledge, skills, and affective domains by academia and industry (Krathwohl et al., 1964) . Moreover, Gagné et al. (1992) identified five levels of outcomes (intellectual skills, verbal information, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and motor skills), whereas MIL-HDBK includes only three (DoD, 2001) . This variance in terminology creates ambiguity, making it crucial that instructional designers recognize the model they are working with and be ready to make independent selections if guidance is unclear.

Level of Interactivity

Defines a level of engagement.

The four levels of interactivity (LOI) reference the domain hierarchy and type of action being performed. A single domain can cross over to several LOIs.

Domain Hierarchy and Levels of Interactivity

Levels of interactivity are intricately linked to learner engagement. So, it is essential to define precisely how learners engage at each level. Level of interactivity has traditionally been associated with interactive multimedia instruction (IMI) levels 1 through 4 (see examples provided by Das, 2024 ). These levels involve programmed learning activities, focusing on the interaction between cues and learner responses, typically accessed via a personal computer (PC). However, the concept of LOI extends beyond these four levels, embracing newer media delivery technologies. These advanced technologies can include comprehensive simulations in environments like domes for a more immersive educational experience.

Additionally, the process of aligning LOI or IMI with learning outcomes tends to be arbitrary and usually necessitates that instructional designers establish these connections before beginning task-based media selection. This step is crucial for developing cohesive learning content, as it ensures that the chosen media and instructional strategies are effectively tailored to the desired outcomes.

Instructional Methods

Selection(s) support how the instruction is presented to the learner.

Determine the most effective instructional method(s), focusing on those that best suit the task. Consider selecting a primary and secondary method. Ensure that choices are made based on the task’s inherent requirements rather than conforming to existing or preconceived learning environments.

Learning Outcomes and Instructional Methods

Many factors play a vital role in narrowing down instructional methods. These include, for example, audience location, available budget, and task criticality. However, such factors are sometimes overlooked, as they may limit instructional methods and strategies, reducing media for a given learning situation.

There is the belief that media does not dictate learning; however, there should be an awareness of delivery systems throughout the ID process (Seels, 1997) , and instructional methods must be aligned with the delivery systems (Ziagos, 1991) . These methods vary based on models, and the teaching methods of models are sometimes outdated, requiring modernization (Sugrue & Clark, 2000) . Clear definitions of terms are also essential for aligning instructional strategies with these methods. Instructional designers should, therefore, have an agreed-upon understanding of the methods and terminology before identifying the corresponding strategies.

Instructional Strategies

Selection(s) denote how the learner will engage with the content.

Multiple instructional strategies might be appropriate for implementing a particular method. If so, enumerate all viable strategies but emphasize a single strategy as the most suitable.

Instructional Methods and Instructional Strategies

Instructional strategies are selected to complement the instructional methods. Strategies and terminology are often outdated and must also be updated to support revised methods. Hence, instructional designers must reach a consensus on the types of strategies and terminology before associating these strategies with methods. Even if there are no changes to the method or strategy being used, the instructional designers’ agreement on a specific strategy that matches the method is essential.

Delivery Systems

Selection(s) identify the most effective delivery system for instruction.

These are examples of delivery systems correlated with specific domain hierarchy, learning outcomes, and LOI.

Domain Hierarchy, Learning Outcome, and Delivery System

Media selection is not a precise science (Anderson, 1983) . The MIL-HDBK-29612-2A (DoD, 2001) , for example, states that “various factors can affect the sequence or scope of the events” (p. i). It offers insights into various delivery formats, yet it stops short of providing a definitive media delivery matrix. Media also becomes obsolete (Sugrue & Clark, 2000) , with much of the media in the MIL-HDBK, for instance, outdated. Consequently, instructional designers must balance task requirements with suitable instructional methods and strategies, considering technology.