Jim Kenney

Pepperdine University
Omet Cadre 7

 
 
 
 
 


 

Action Research: Cycle 2

Introduction
My Action

 

Introduction

During my first action, I facilitated a online class that helped instructors learn how to instruct online courses. With that action complete, we felt prepared to deliver an actual class online.

My cycle 2 action was to deliver an online class for staff in the operations area of our organization. For this cycle, I wanted to learn if synchronous instruction delivered to multiple sites would improve the distribution of knowledge compared to traditional site-based classroom instruction. We identified this first class as a pilot since it was the first time the course was delivered online. I felt this distinction was important since it would prepare the students for a more careful analysis of the instruction.

I also wanted to learn if my instructors were prepared and comfortable for this new type of delivery. As noted above, I facilitated an instructor practice session for the first cycle. For cycle 2, I relied on the newly trained online instructors to deliver content. My role was to modify content from an existing troubleshooting course and adapt it for online instruction. I also performed administrative functions and assisted the instructor during the course when needed.

One of the area managers provided a full-time subject matter (SME) expert for each session. The SME was there to answer technical questions and provide input as needed. I was interested to see if this added support was beneficial.

The course I decided to use was "Troubleshooting Autoclaves." We had instructed the course as a classroom session, and it had been very well received. Since we had already taught this course numerous times in a traditional setting, I hoped to have sufficient data to compare online versus face-to-face classroom instruction. In my opinion, it was important to have content already proven effective, allowing us to focus primarily on the effectiveness of the delivery methods.

My Action

This cycle began by finalizing a delivery date and schedule. After reviewing the course content with one of my instructional designers, we decided that a modified schedule would be needed for online. Normally, the class would be held over a day and a half, lasting approximately 12 hours. In order to hold the attention of online students, we decided to limit the synchronous sessions to 1 hour. We then planned to hold 6 online sessions, for a total of 6 live course hours. Although we had three instructors qualified to facilitate, in the end I settled on having one facilitate the entire 6 sessions. As mentioned earlier, we also had an SME attend the entire class.

The students had 1 - 2 hours of self-study each day to prepare for the online sessions. The purpose of the online sessions was to both review content, but also for asking questions and discussing key concepts. It was decided the class would be over two weeks, and conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings. Although I normally don't handle course logistics like course sign-ups, sending out pre-work etc., I decided to handle the administration for this online course. This was a lot of work, but I felt necessary for the first set of classes.

After the schedule was finalized, I revised the materials adapting them to online instruction. Most of this work consisted of revising the Leader's Guide, creating polling questions (for the WebEx tool), and revising PowerPoint slides. The participant materials (used for self-study and review) remained the same. Prior to the course, students were required to fill out a performance survey, rating their experience on the topic. Each student's supervisor completed the same survey rating the staff from their perspective. As a final step in of preparation, a pretest was taken be each students. All of the results and revised materials were sent to the instructor and SME to help prepare for the course.

Each of the sessions were completed on schedule. We had students representing sites in California, Washington and Rhode Island. The course size was larger then we originally anticipated. Of the eighteen originally enrolled, sixteen completed the course. For each online session, the instructor used WebEx (a web-conferencing tool), PowerPoint slides, polling questions, whiteboards, and chat features to facilitate the learning.

Evidence & Evaluation

The learners demonstrated learning through a variety of methods including pre and post-tests, knowledge checks, polling questions, whiteboard activities, troubleshooting scenarios and class discussion. The course was evaluated based on my personal analysis and reflection (located at my ARP Blog), and by surveying students at mid-course, and conducting post-course interviews. The following summarizes results:

Pre & Posttest Results. The results of the pre & post-test showed slightly better scores for the online session over traditional classroom sessions. Since this was only one online session, further classes will need to be measured to support the results. However, this does begin to build the case that online instruction is at least comparable to face-to-face instruction in terms of knowledge learned.

Mid-Course Survey. A short survey was emailed to students prior to the beginning of session 4 (there were 6 sessions total). This was a quick check to see if there were any major concerns. The response rate was small, only 7 out of 16 possible. However, this did provide some helpful feedback. A major area of consideration was the pace. Several responses indicated that the pace was too slow. Although most respondents indicated the pace was "just right," I still felt the concern over the pace was legitimate, especially when compared with my own observations.

Post-Course Interviews. The overall feedback received showed that students liked the online learning experience. In fact, most said they would prefer the online over traditional classroom instruction. The technology was very easy to use, and the content and materials effective. Most felt the instructor did a very good job, but some also felt the pace was too slow at times. Some were impacted negatively by taking the course in an environment that had too many interruptions or was too noisy.

Personal analysis (ARP Blog). After each class, I analyzed the session and recorded my thoughts in my ARP blog. On the negative sides, I mentioned both participation and the pace of the instruction. Although I noted several possible reasons for lower then expected participation, I felt intimidation with the technical subject matter was the most likely reason. I also believed that the instructor needed to speed up the pace of the instruction, including moving faster through both slides and polls. Finally, I thought the instructor needed to bring more energy and enthusiasm to each class. From a positive prospective, I was very pleased with the attendance. To have 16 or 18 students complete a course that lasted over two weeks was very impressive. Another surprise was how well WebEx worked and how easy it was for the students to use. We only had one technical problem during session one, a truly amazing result.

Reflection

I discovered that online learning is full of unexpected results. Perhaps the most surprising revelation was students, for the most part, really liked this method of instruction. They quickly adapted to and adopted the technology, with little reluctance. Looking back, I admit I did not have much faith the method would be accepted, especially to the degree that it was. It was so new. Obviously, I underestimated just how computer savvy adult learners are, at least within my organization.

I now wonder if my past concern over others accepting technology was unwarranted, and only existed because of my prior reluctance to pursue online learning. Did I limit myself and my organization because of past experience? To some extent, I am sure I did. As I have learned over and over in my OMET journey, so much of what we learn is based on personal experience and biases. It is refreshing to learn that others, especially the students impacted by this action, are so open to new approaches to learning. The very thing that scares some adults, technology, is also what attracts others and motivates them to really learn. This AR reminds me that my mission is to move students toward the later group; enabling people to build their knowledge and understanding with the help of technology.

The results of my cycle speak to the tremendous possibilities of synchronous instruction. My literature review provided evidence that online learning works. However, it was the results of this cycle that helped make the possibilities real to me. It is fascinating to think of how staff from multiple sites, many with common interests and needs, can participate in this type of instruction - real time! The future possibilities for communities of practice are both real and practical. However, if these opportunities are to be realized, then I must drive the change and push beyond my personal limitations.

It seems, at least from the results of this initial session, that online synchronous learning is just as effective as traditional instruction. Again, these results are in line with a majority of the research. So the question that I keep pondering is, why can't my synchronous online learning be even better? What can I do to push online learning over the top? Is it possible to improve the delivery and curriculum design to the point that students gain greater understanding? I am beginning to believe that the answer to these questions is yes. But, It will take both trial and error and a conscious effort to think beyond my old practices. It will involve taking risks, making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes.

The students appeared to be, at least from the feedback I gathered, pretty forgiving and supportive as we work to improve the instruction. For example, a fairly common theme in the feedback was the sluggish pace, at least at certain times. Despite these concerns, there was consistent praise for the instructor and the online method of instruction. This indicates to me that the students are very patient with the rough edges of our first class.

I now understand fully this is about change. I have implemented a new means of instruction and it has been embraced. The organization has changed through this effort. My team has changed and I have changed. The opportunity for an even greater amount of positive change is possible, but it will take a level of perseverance and risk that is challenging. Online synchronous instruction is not the only answer, nor should it be, but does seem to be a means of moving the organization forward.


Next Steps

For my next cycle, I will update and deliver the online "troubleshooting autoclaves" course for a second time. I will make improvements based upon my results and feedback from cycle two.

There are several changes I will make regarding the facilitation. First, I have decided to use a different instructor for this session. This will provide allow me to assess if the results change from one instructor to another. The layout of the instructors presentation environment will also change. For this session I will try having the instructor in the same room with the Subject Matter Expert (SME) and myself. I will then be able to support the instructor as a producer, helping to load slides, polling questions, and other documents. This should help improve the pace of the instruction.

I also plan to reduce the class size. If possible, we will try to limit the class to 12 students (2 to 3 students per each site). I have also decided to lengthen the each session from 1 to 1 1/2 hours. To further increase participation, activities will be added that allow teams to work together.

Finally, before class begins, I plan to send out suggests for how reducing noise and distractions for the learning environment. For example, I will include information on purchasing headsets and booking conference rooms as alternate locations.