Action
CYCLE 1 REPORT
Introduction
My first way-points on this journey were the offices of the Director of Training and Training Manager. I would need the enthusiastic support of both individuals to achieve the goal of testing a blended learning process.
Research Question
My research question for this cycle was:
If I engage the Director and Manager in the process of producing the materials for the online class, how will this affect their interest, engagement and willingness to endorse the project?
Actions Taken
I scheduled meetings with the two key decision makers, the Director of Training and the Training Manager, and presented the idea of rearranging our normal New Provider Activation Training. New Provider Activation Training typically consists of an initial 60 minutes of instructor-led training and up to five follow-up phone calls. My suggestion was to adjust this schedule into a blended learning model: first, provide up to 60 minutes of (pre-existing) e-learning, then 60 minutes of instructor-led assessment and training, and finally with up to five follow-up phone calls. While this change in process may slightly increase the total training costs (more phone time might result in the blended process because more phone calls may occur to ensure e-learning completion), the e-learning component would provide a very consistent method of training the elements of our business that are under increasing scrutiny from state and federal regulators.
Both the Director and the Manager had a positive response to the idea and suggested that I create documents that describe the overall process from start to finish and then modify our current training coordinator call guides which would be used to guide new providers through the blended learning process. I next created the requested documents and reviewed them with the Director of Training and the Training Coordination Manager.
Evidence Evaluation
My evidence used to evaluate the action in this cycle was notes from four meetings. Two meetings were with the Director and Manager before seeing the documentation and then two meetings were used to review documentation. For all meetings, I recorded their responses in meeting notes and then reviewed and categorized the responses and evaluative comments into three categories: Positive Toward a Pilot Test; Positive with Qualifiers; and Negative Against a Pilot Test. Positive Toward the Pilot Test comments were statements like, “I can see this working.” Positive with Qualifiers were statements like “If you want this to work then you will need to …” Negative Against Pilot Test comments were statements such as, “I don’t see this working at all.”
During the pre-document meetings, I was able to code the following in Table 1.1.
The two positive comments from the Director were: “That (blended training) could definitely help us show to state and federal agencies that we are providing consistent training;” and, “This could really drive awareness of our e-learning offerings.” His concern was, “We’ll need to run this test here instead of at the call center since we can’t manage this process with our automated work flow system. You’ll have to make a process map.” The Manager’s positive comment was, “This could really free up the Trainers and allow them to target specific provider training issues by getting the basics out of the way with the e-learning before the Trainer’s class.”
During the post-document meeting, I was able to record and code the following in Table 1.2.
The Director’s concern was, “During the pilot test, how can we make sure that we randomly select providers?” The Manager’s three concerns were: “We just have to make sure that the students have good instructions on how to navigate back to the e-learning;” ”We need to have a trigger point where the students get scheduled for instructor lead training if they fail to complete the e-learning after a certain amount of time;” and, “We need to give the students instructions on how to get help if they are having problems.”
The outcomes of the meetings confirm that there were no “show stoppers” preventing a blended learning pilot test from occurring. However, before I could achieve an agreement to proceed with a pilot test, I would need to provide solutions for the concerns of the Director and Manager.Manager’s concerns.
Reflection
Early on, I decided that I would incorporate the ideas and recommendations of the major decision makers who would approve my quest to implement a blended learning process. I thought that this would be a good idea because I believe that managers who have participated in the creation of a new process or system would be more likely to publicly support and defend those new ideas within the organization. I learned from a situation early in my career that not including managers in the creation of new processes caused managers to not be very supportive. Some actively fought the introduction of new processes. I believe that most people do not like the idea of changing processes in the workplace because I have witnessed many people recounting stories of bad experiences with new program rollouts. Many companies, in my opinion, do a terrible job of leading change in the workplace. Because of this, even greatly designed changes meet stiff resistance when they are introduced. My view was that people would resist change when other people imposed the change. However, when the people involved drafted the details of the change, a deeper understanding and a sense of ownership could occur. I believed that once the Director and Manager became co-owners of the new processes and procedures, I would then be able to conduct some experiments with learners to see if blended learning could work in my environment. I believed that this way of thinking would result in a better-designed blended learning.
However, I thought that I did not go far enough with this thinking. After my initial meeting with the Director and Manager, I went away and worked on the documents needed for my next meetings with them. In retrospect, I believe that I should have engaged both during each phase of the document creation process so that any concerns could have been caught early on. I believed after my first cycle that my frequency of communications with the Director and Manager during document creation should have been tripled or quadrupled. With both the Manager and Director, the type of increased communications could have been simple five minute conversations during an office visit.
I also think that I should have involved more stakeholders in the first draft document creation stage. Although the Director and Manager may approve moving ahead with a live test of blended learning, the practical knowledge of a training coordinator (the person who would have to perform these new processes) could cause many more additional changes. The Manager and Director were removed from the day to day realities of making our current training successful. A training coordinator could quickly point out what methods or procedures are likely to fail with our learning population. I think it would have been better for me to have involved a training coordinator during the first draft document development. In my opinion, receiving from a Training Coordinator as well as the Director and Manager would have increased the likelihood of proceeding with a pilot test at the end of my cycle one.
I decided to incorporate this learning into my second cycle where I resolved to involve a training coordinator in the creation of the Draft 2 documents. I also planned to seek more frequent feedback from the Director and Manager to make sure the process and procedures in the Draft 2 documents adequately addressed the concerns of all involved.
In conclusion, I believed that my approach toward developing new processes and procedures for blended learning was on the right track but I needed to engage the decision makers more frequently as well as include more stakeholders.
CYCLE 2 REPORT
Introduction
After Cycle 1, my actions focused on engaging a Training Coordinator and the Training Manager in short but frequent meetings to help improve the details of the Draft 2 documents. Training Coordinators were in constant contact with our learners and knew, first hand, what would work. After each meeting I made changes and then reviewed the changes with the Training Manager and Training Coordinator. I decided not to include the Training Director in Cycle 2 because he had been occupied on multiple high priority projects and did not have the time.
Research Question
My research question for this cycle evolved to:
If I engage the Training Manager and a Training Coordinator in providing feedback for improving the blended learning process more frequently, how will this affect confidence that the project would be ready for a pilot test?
Actions Taken
Prior to my first meeting with the Training Coordinator, I spent two weeks drafting detailed documents for her review. Since her job in a pilot test would be to guide her learners through accessing and launching the e-learning, I needed to provide the detail that would allow her to follow the procedures in a systematic fashion.
My first meeting with the Training Coordinator allowed me to explain what the project was about, why it was important, and what her role in the project would be. This last explanation was critical – I communicated that her role in the project was most important in that she would make sure that the procedures were easy to follow for the other training coordinators and for our learners. She left this first meeting with the documents for review.
During the two subsequent meetings with the Training Coordinator, I received feedback that incorporated numerous changes. I was pleased to discover that all of the Training Coordinator’s recommendations were focused on simplifying the process for both the Training Coordinator and the learner. I accepted all of her suggested changes except for one: She had recommended that we reduce the number of follow-up calls from three to two. (Figure 2.1; arrow). I explained to her that previous experience from our call center showed that three follow-up calls were often necessary to cut through the distractions that learners face when they must complete e-learning or tasks not declared vital by their managers. I further explained to her that during pilot testing, we were planning to monitor the efficacy of a three follow-up call sequence. Our learners would tell us if the process works.
The outcomes of the meetings confirm that there were no “show stoppers” preventing a blended learning pilot test from occurring. However, before I could achieve an agreement to proceed with a pilot test, I would need to provide solutions for the concerns of the Director and Manager.Manager’s concerns.
Reflection
Early on, I decided that I would incorporate the ideas and recommendations of the major decision makers who would approve my quest to implement a blended learning process. I thought that this would be a good idea because I believe that managers who have participated in the creation of a new process or system would be more likely to publicly support and defend those new ideas within the organization. I learned from a situation early in my career that not including managers in the creation of new processes caused managers to not be very supportive. Some actively fought the introduction of new processes. I believe that most people do not like the idea of changing processes in the workplace because I have witnessed many people recounting stories of bad experiences with new program rollouts. Many companies, in my opinion, do a terrible job of leading change in the workplace. Because of this, even greatly designed changes meet stiff resistance when they are introduced. My view was that people would resist change when other people imposed the change. However, when the people involved drafted the details of the change, a deeper understanding and a sense of ownership could occur. I believed that once the Director and Manager became co-owners of the new processes and procedures, I would then be able to conduct some experiments with learners to see if blended learning could work in my environment. I believed that this way of thinking would result in a better-designed blended learning.
However, I thought that I did not go far enough with this thinking. After my initial meeting with the Director and Manager, I went away and worked on the documents needed for my next meetings with them. In retrospect, I believe that I should have engaged both during each phase of the document creation process so that any concerns could have been caught early on. I believed after my first cycle that my frequency of communications with the Director and Manager during document creation should have been tripled or quadrupled. With both the Manager and Director, the type of increased communications could have been simple five minute conversations during an office visit.
I also think that I should have involved more stakeholders in the first draft document creation stage. Although the Director and Manager may approve moving ahead with a live test of blended learning, the practical knowledge of a training coordinator (the person who would have to perform these new processes) could cause many more additional changes. The Manager and Director were removed from the day to day realities of making our current training successful. A training coordinator could quickly point out what methods or procedures are likely to fail with our learning population. I think it would have been better for me to have involved a training coordinator during the first draft document development. In my opinion, receiving from a Training Coordinator as well as the Director and Manager would have increased the likelihood of proceeding with a pilot test at the end of my cycle one.
I decided to incorporate this learning into my second cycle where I resolved to involve a training coordinator in the creation of the Draft 2 documents. I also planned to seek more frequent feedback from the Director and Manager to make sure the process and procedures in the Draft 2 documents adequately addressed the concerns of all involved.
In conclusion, I believed that my approach toward developing new processes and procedures for blended learning was on the right track but I needed to engage the decision makers more frequently as well as include more stakeholders.
CYCLE 2 REPORT
Introduction
After Cycle 1, my actions focused on engaging a Training Coordinator and the Training Manager in short but frequent meetings to help improve the details of the Draft 2 documents. Training Coordinators were in constant contact with our learners and knew, first hand, what would work. After each meeting I made changes and then reviewed the changes with the Training Manager and Training Coordinator. I decided not to include the Training Director in Cycle 2 because he had been occupied on multiple high priority projects and did not have the time.
Research Question
My research question for this cycle evolved to:
If I engage the Training Manager and a Training Coordinator in providing feedback for improving the blended learning process more frequently, how will this affect confidence that the project would be ready for a pilot test?
Actions Taken
Prior to my first meeting with the Training Coordinator, I spent two weeks drafting detailed documents for her review. Since her job in a pilot test would be to guide her learners through accessing and launching the e-learning, I needed to provide the detail that would allow her to follow the procedures in a systematic fashion.
My first meeting with the Training Coordinator allowed me to explain what the project was about, why it was important, and what her role in the project would be. This last explanation was critical – I communicated that her role in the project was most important in that she would make sure that the procedures were easy to follow for the other training coordinators and for our learners. She left this first meeting with the documents for review.
During the two subsequent meetings with the Training Coordinator, I received feedback that incorporated numerous changes. I was pleased to discover that all of the Training Coordinator’s recommendations were focused on simplifying the process for both the Training Coordinator and the learner. I accepted all of her suggested changes except for one: She had recommended that we reduce the number of follow-up calls from three to two. (Figure 2.1; arrow). I explained to her that previous experience from our call center showed that three follow-up calls were often necessary to cut through the distractions that learners face when they must complete e-learning or tasks not declared vital by their managers. I further explained to her that during pilot testing, we were planning to monitor the efficacy of a three follow-up call sequence. Our learners would tell us if the process works.
Evidence Evaluation
During each of the three follow-up meetings I counted the change recommendations from the Training Coordinator and Manager and recorded on a Likert scale their level of confidence that the process and call procedures were ready for a pilot test.
The Manager and Training Coordinator were asked to circle the numbered response that most described their agreement to the following statement:
I am confident that the Blended Learning Process is ready for testing.
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
The Manager and Training Coordinator were asked to circle the numbered response that most described their agreement to the following statement:
I am confident that the Blended Learning Process is ready for testing.
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
Graph 2.1 illustrates the relationship of the Training Coordinator’s number of recommended changes (blue line) and her confidence level that our process was ready for testing (red line) spanning the course of three meetings.
In Meeting 1, the Training Coordinator has 8 issues with the process and call guides. With the survey statement, she circled, “Strongly Disagree.”
After Meeting 1, I resolved all 8 issues and called for a second meeting. In Meeting 2, the Training Coordinator found 2 additional issues. Along with the decrease in the number of issues, her view regarding readiness of the Blended Learning Process had shifted. Instead of ‘strongly disagreeing’ with the survey statement, our Training Coordinator now ‘neither agree nor disagree’.
After Meeting 2, I resolved the Training Coordinator’s two remaining issues and called for the third and last meeting in this cycle. In Meeting 3, I received from her no additional issues. Her view regarding the readiness of the Blended Learning Process had again shifted. Instead of ‘neither agreeing or disagreeing’ with the survey statement, our Training Coordinator now ‘agreed’ with the statement, “I am confident that the Blended Learning Process is ready for testing.”
With the Training Coordinator, it appears that her confidence regarding the readiness of the Blended Learning Process for testing grew as her issues were resolved. I asked her if there was a direct correlation between the two and she replied, “Sure. Once you resolved my concerns I saw no reason not to test the process with our learners.”
In Meeting 1, the Training Coordinator has 8 issues with the process and call guides. With the survey statement, she circled, “Strongly Disagree.”
After Meeting 1, I resolved all 8 issues and called for a second meeting. In Meeting 2, the Training Coordinator found 2 additional issues. Along with the decrease in the number of issues, her view regarding readiness of the Blended Learning Process had shifted. Instead of ‘strongly disagreeing’ with the survey statement, our Training Coordinator now ‘neither agree nor disagree’.
After Meeting 2, I resolved the Training Coordinator’s two remaining issues and called for the third and last meeting in this cycle. In Meeting 3, I received from her no additional issues. Her view regarding the readiness of the Blended Learning Process had again shifted. Instead of ‘neither agreeing or disagreeing’ with the survey statement, our Training Coordinator now ‘agreed’ with the statement, “I am confident that the Blended Learning Process is ready for testing.”
With the Training Coordinator, it appears that her confidence regarding the readiness of the Blended Learning Process for testing grew as her issues were resolved. I asked her if there was a direct correlation between the two and she replied, “Sure. Once you resolved my concerns I saw no reason not to test the process with our learners.”
Graph 2.2 illustrates the relationship of the Training Manager’s number of recommended changes (blue line) and her confidence level that our process was ready for testing (red line) spanning the course of three meetings.In Meeting 1, the Training Manager had 3 issues with the process and call guides. With the survey statement, she circled, “strongly disagreed.”
After Meeting 1, I resolved all 3 issues and called for a second meeting. In Meeting 2, the Training Manager found 1 additional issue. Along with the decrease in the number of issues, her view regarding readiness of the Blended Learning Process had shifted. Instead of ‘strongly disagreeing’ with the survey statement, our Training Coordinator now ‘disagreed’.
After Meeting 2, I resolved the Training Manager’s issue and called for the third and last meeting in this cycle. In Meeting 3, I received from her one additional issue. With this new issue her view regarding the readiness of the Blended Learning Process had shifted back to ‘strongly disagreeing’ with the survey statement. This surprising development caught me off guard. The pattern shown with the Training Coordinator becoming more confident as issues were resolved was not evident with the Training Manager.
I examined the Training Manager’s one remaining concern: “I am concerned that there is too much e-learning for the learners to go through prior to a live learning session.” I asked her, “Why do you have this concern?” She answered, “I am concerned that my live trainers will feel threatened by the e-learning – that they will think that e-learning will replace them.”
With this additional conversation, I was able to determine that the Training Coordinator’s narrow scope of work enabled her to focus solely on process improvement as a way of increasing her confidence regarding the readiness of the Blended Learning Process for testing. In contrast, the Training Manager’s responsibilities were wider in scope and include managing a large group of face to face trainers. As the leader of the face to face trainers, she reflected upon the possible reactions to blended learning that could occur within her group. One reaction from within the group could be the perception that the blended learning is designed to replace them.
REFLECTION
My experience with Cycle 2 had reinforced a conclusion that I had learned in a prior occupation: engaging different stakeholders by inviting them to help optimize a work process to our unique organizational needs is a great method to create support and to increase the effectiveness of the process. Why did I think this way? My experience with the Training Coordinator accomplished two important objectives: improved the Blended Learning Process; and increased her confidence that we were ready for a pilot test.
The experience with the Training Manager was also, in my view, a success. The cycle ended with the Training Manager thinking that our process was not yet ready for pilot testing. However, her participation with the Action Research caused her to reflect how testing the Blended Learning Process could be negatively perceived by her face to face trainers. Why do I think this is a success? The process of including stakeholders in all areas of creating, improving and implementing the Blended Learning Process has uncovered issues in the design stage of a process rather than in the implementation stage of a process. From prior experience, I knew that uncovering any stakeholder issues in the design phase of a process would save time, money and frustration. Although I expected a smooth Cycle 2 with the Sales Manager, I am not disappointed with the fact that the collaborative nature of our process design and improvement had uncovered a problem that we subsequently took action on in Cycle 3.
CYCLE 3 REPORT
ACTION TAKEN
At the end of Cycle 2, the Training Manager expressed a concern that the live trainers will feel threatened by the e-learning – that they will think e-learning will replace them. This concern has given her low confidence in the launch of a Blended Learning pilot test.
My research question for this cycle has evolved to: If I engage the Training Manager into designing a test that will determine if her concern can be proved or disproved, how will this affect her confidence that the project would be ready for a pilot test?
I met with the Training Manager to discuss her concern that live trainers may feel threatened by e-learning. I explained to her that research has revealed the weakness with e-learning is low completion rates and that we will need different modes of training to cover all of our training needs for many years to come. I also noted that a positive reception by the live trainers of the Blended Learning Process was absolutely critical. I suggested that we perform a test to see what would be the completion rate of e-learning without the blended learning approach. The Training Manager thought that this was great idea. She reasoned that if a quick test showed that e-learning could not directly replace trainers then the trainers would be much more accommodating in participating in the Blended Learning pilot test.
The Training Manager led the testing and we identified 38 providers to participate. They agreed to complete the e-learning training within two weeks and provide feedback on the content. After the testing time period, we ran a report and discovered only 5% (2 people) completed the training.
I met with the Training Manager and reviewed the results. We both concluded that the results were strong enough to verify to our face to face trainers that e-learning would not be replacing them any time soon. The Training Manager suggested that we next proceed with a pilot test of the Blended Learning Process.
EVIDENCE ANALYSES
The very low completion rate of 5% seemed to verify the research that indicated e-learning without a blended component would suffer from low completion rates. The very low completion rate in our test corresponded to the difficulty that we experience in our particular environment with merely scheduling live training.
REFLECTION
This cycle, in my view was a success and was very necessary for the Training Manager to experience. I have learned in my professional, academic, and family life that learners must experience the outcome of experiments to gain wisdom and understanding of a new approach’s strengths and weaknesses. There have been many times in my life where I have tried to persuade people by presenting research that shows a certain approach will lead to success only to have the audience counter that the “approach won’t work here.” The “it won’t work here” mindset, I have discovered, can be overcome by engaging in experiments that invite participation in proving or disproving assumptions as to why an approach won’t work. Once a person experiences the results of an experiment,
PREVIOUS: Research Design
NEXT: Final Reflections
After Meeting 1, I resolved all 3 issues and called for a second meeting. In Meeting 2, the Training Manager found 1 additional issue. Along with the decrease in the number of issues, her view regarding readiness of the Blended Learning Process had shifted. Instead of ‘strongly disagreeing’ with the survey statement, our Training Coordinator now ‘disagreed’.
After Meeting 2, I resolved the Training Manager’s issue and called for the third and last meeting in this cycle. In Meeting 3, I received from her one additional issue. With this new issue her view regarding the readiness of the Blended Learning Process had shifted back to ‘strongly disagreeing’ with the survey statement. This surprising development caught me off guard. The pattern shown with the Training Coordinator becoming more confident as issues were resolved was not evident with the Training Manager.
I examined the Training Manager’s one remaining concern: “I am concerned that there is too much e-learning for the learners to go through prior to a live learning session.” I asked her, “Why do you have this concern?” She answered, “I am concerned that my live trainers will feel threatened by the e-learning – that they will think that e-learning will replace them.”
With this additional conversation, I was able to determine that the Training Coordinator’s narrow scope of work enabled her to focus solely on process improvement as a way of increasing her confidence regarding the readiness of the Blended Learning Process for testing. In contrast, the Training Manager’s responsibilities were wider in scope and include managing a large group of face to face trainers. As the leader of the face to face trainers, she reflected upon the possible reactions to blended learning that could occur within her group. One reaction from within the group could be the perception that the blended learning is designed to replace them.
REFLECTION
My experience with Cycle 2 had reinforced a conclusion that I had learned in a prior occupation: engaging different stakeholders by inviting them to help optimize a work process to our unique organizational needs is a great method to create support and to increase the effectiveness of the process. Why did I think this way? My experience with the Training Coordinator accomplished two important objectives: improved the Blended Learning Process; and increased her confidence that we were ready for a pilot test.
The experience with the Training Manager was also, in my view, a success. The cycle ended with the Training Manager thinking that our process was not yet ready for pilot testing. However, her participation with the Action Research caused her to reflect how testing the Blended Learning Process could be negatively perceived by her face to face trainers. Why do I think this is a success? The process of including stakeholders in all areas of creating, improving and implementing the Blended Learning Process has uncovered issues in the design stage of a process rather than in the implementation stage of a process. From prior experience, I knew that uncovering any stakeholder issues in the design phase of a process would save time, money and frustration. Although I expected a smooth Cycle 2 with the Sales Manager, I am not disappointed with the fact that the collaborative nature of our process design and improvement had uncovered a problem that we subsequently took action on in Cycle 3.
CYCLE 3 REPORT
ACTION TAKEN
At the end of Cycle 2, the Training Manager expressed a concern that the live trainers will feel threatened by the e-learning – that they will think e-learning will replace them. This concern has given her low confidence in the launch of a Blended Learning pilot test.
My research question for this cycle has evolved to: If I engage the Training Manager into designing a test that will determine if her concern can be proved or disproved, how will this affect her confidence that the project would be ready for a pilot test?
I met with the Training Manager to discuss her concern that live trainers may feel threatened by e-learning. I explained to her that research has revealed the weakness with e-learning is low completion rates and that we will need different modes of training to cover all of our training needs for many years to come. I also noted that a positive reception by the live trainers of the Blended Learning Process was absolutely critical. I suggested that we perform a test to see what would be the completion rate of e-learning without the blended learning approach. The Training Manager thought that this was great idea. She reasoned that if a quick test showed that e-learning could not directly replace trainers then the trainers would be much more accommodating in participating in the Blended Learning pilot test.
The Training Manager led the testing and we identified 38 providers to participate. They agreed to complete the e-learning training within two weeks and provide feedback on the content. After the testing time period, we ran a report and discovered only 5% (2 people) completed the training.
I met with the Training Manager and reviewed the results. We both concluded that the results were strong enough to verify to our face to face trainers that e-learning would not be replacing them any time soon. The Training Manager suggested that we next proceed with a pilot test of the Blended Learning Process.
EVIDENCE ANALYSES
The very low completion rate of 5% seemed to verify the research that indicated e-learning without a blended component would suffer from low completion rates. The very low completion rate in our test corresponded to the difficulty that we experience in our particular environment with merely scheduling live training.
REFLECTION
This cycle, in my view was a success and was very necessary for the Training Manager to experience. I have learned in my professional, academic, and family life that learners must experience the outcome of experiments to gain wisdom and understanding of a new approach’s strengths and weaknesses. There have been many times in my life where I have tried to persuade people by presenting research that shows a certain approach will lead to success only to have the audience counter that the “approach won’t work here.” The “it won’t work here” mindset, I have discovered, can be overcome by engaging in experiments that invite participation in proving or disproving assumptions as to why an approach won’t work. Once a person experiences the results of an experiment,
PREVIOUS: Research Design
NEXT: Final Reflections