CDLA · Module 5 — Interaction design for transfer
What the assessment map can say after interaction design — and what still needs pathway evidence.
About 14 min
Practice in the lesson player
Sorting, matching, quizzes, and the module gate stay behind a free account so scored answers are not public. The teaching notes below are the same cited curriculum.
01
Honest claim: “Rehearsed refund judgment in branching dialogue (LTEM Tier 5).” · “Manager sign-off on stretch task planned in pathway (Tier 7 target).”
Overclaim: “Learners mastered refunds because they finished the course.” · “Game points prove on-job performance.”
02
Garris et al. (2002) frame serious games as instructional goals plus mechanics plus debrief — not leaderboard decoration. An architect can specify a mission interaction, but Tier 6–7 claims still need scored competence and on-job evidence in the pathway.
03
After a strong branching module you may claim that learners rehearsed a judgment on screen — for a refund exception, that is LTEM tier 5 if the task had realistic context and a scored decision. You may not claim they mastered refunds because they finished the course. Completion is a lower tier. Game points are not on-job performance. Garris and colleagues frame a serious game as goals, mechanics, and debrief, not a leaderboard. An architect can specify the mission. Tier 6 and tier 7 still need scored competence and evidence from the job, which the pathway owns: a stretch task and the person who signs it. The assessment map should list that task and that signer even when the digital rehearsal is excellent. A SCORM package version is packaging. It is not impact evidence.
04
Sentence | Tier it implies | Allowed?
Rehearsed the refund decision in a branch. | Tier 5 | Yes, if the task was scored and realistic.
Finished the course, so they mastered it. | Tiers 1–2 dressed as mastery | No.
Manager will sign a stretch task on the floor. | Tier 7 target, not yet evidence | Yes, as a plan — not as a result.