DDES9911 Chap.2 Learning Outcomes and Task Fit
Learning Outcomes and Task Fit
Learning can mean knowledge, competence, confidence or mastery, and those claims require different evidence. This chapter classifies tasks as technical or non-technical and individual or team based, then converts broad ambitions into observable outcomes.
It emphasises learner developmental stage, authentic conditions and evidence that can distinguish genuine capability from confidence, completion or memorisation of one scenario.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Knowledge, competence and confidence
- 02
Technical and non-technical skills
- 03
Individual and team performance
- 04
Learner developmental stage
- 05
Observable end states
- 06
Transfer across varied contexts
Worked example · free
Define an outcome for an incident handover
- 1Name the authentic handover task and the learner stage.
- 1Specify observable behaviours around gaps, risks and responsibility.
- 1State the standard the receiving team must demonstrate.
- 1Combine event evidence, expert judgement and a varied transfer case.
Key terms
- Learning outcome
- A statement of what a learner should be able to demonstrate after learning.
- Technical skill
- Performance involving procedural, physical or tool-based accuracy.
- Non-technical skill
- Performance involving judgement, communication, awareness or coordination.
- Learner stage
- The learner's current development, experience and readiness for task complexity.
- Mastery
- Reliable performance across relevant variations rather than success in one rehearsed case.
Learning Outcomes and Task Fit FAQ
What is the difference between competence and confidence?
Competence is supported by evidence that a learner can perform to a defined standard. Confidence is the learner's belief or willingness to act. Confidence can influence participation and deserves attention, but it should be paired with behavioural evidence because a learner can feel certain while using an incorrect method.
Why classify tasks in two dimensions?
Separating technical from non-technical and individual from team performance exposes different evidence needs. A procedure may be technically correct yet fail during team coordination. A communication score may overlook tool accuracy. The two dimensions prevent one convenient measure from standing in for the whole task.
How can an outcome show transfer?
Include authentic conditions and test performance in a varied or delayed context. Change the layout, information order, collaborators or scenario details while preserving the underlying capability. Success only in one repeated case supports a narrower claim than adaptable performance in a new setting.
How specific should the learner description be?
Describe characteristics that change the design: prior capability, role, language, access needs, authority, exposure to the task and likely context of use. Demographic detail without a design consequence adds little, while labels such as novice can hide important variation.
Link each selected characteristic to support, progression, risk or evidence, and acknowledge meaningful differences within the cohort instead of inventing one average learner.
Assessment move
Take each outcome in your project and underline the learner, verb, context, standard and evidence. If one element is absent, rewrite the sentence. Then place the task in the technical or non-technical and individual or team matrix. List what a system log can observe and what requires human judgement. Finally, design a varied transfer check and state the claim you will not make if the check is missing.
Rehearse by repairing vague outcomes such as gain confidence, understand safety or experience teamwork until they describe visible behaviour and defensible evidence. Create a progression ladder for the learner stage. At the first level, identify what the person can already do without the simulation. At the next, state what guided performance looks like. At the final level, define independent performance in an unfamiliar case.
This prevents an advanced outcome from being attached to a novice activity or a beginner measure from being used as evidence of mastery. For team outcomes, add a second sheet that distinguishes individual contribution from collective result. Record who must notice, communicate, decide and confirm.
A team can reach a good outcome by chance while one member remains unprepared, and a capable individual can be trapped inside a poor coordination process. Plan evidence that makes those possibilities inspectable. Run a confidence calibration after each practice case. Ask the learner to predict performance, complete the task and compare prediction with observed evidence.
The gap can guide feedback without allowing confidence to become competence. When drafting the assessed report, state the boundary of the outcome explicitly. If evidence comes only from one simulation, claim performance in that condition. Reserve wider transfer language for a varied, delayed or real-context check.
Precision about the boundary strengthens the argument because it shows what the design has and has not established.
Working through Learning Outcomes and Task Fit in DDES9911? Sia is AskSia’s AI Education tutor — ask any DDES9911 Learning Outcomes and Task Fit question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how DDES9911 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.