Mark's Blog

Final Thoughts on Unit 2 – Research Log Entry #3

Posted By Mark on May 18, 2020

My initial thoughts into critical inquiry were based on the overarching idea that you must delve deep into the topic at hand in order to suck out all the useful information. As long as one paid serious attention to the topic, researched it thoroughly, and added meaningful discussion, you successfully engaged in critical inquiry. I believe there is truth to my initial thoughts, but perhaps clarity of understanding is needed, particularly in the context of learning technology. Selwyn (2010) proposed that critical study within the field of learning technology has been engrossed, although not completely misplaced, in explaining issues on how effective learning technologies are designed, developed and implemented. I believe these topics of study are clearly important, but suggest Selwyn’s case for critical study is not the downgrading of past studies, but rather an upbringing of more personal critical thought and application to future studies. Selwyn’s (2010) further reflections suggest that learning technology studies need to apply critical study into the social scientific, self-reflective, and self-analytical sphere of inquiry. This is where I believe I am starting to understand a different side of critical inquiry, one that is more personal and socially reflective. For example, in asking the question pertaining to my individual learning plan, “is online summative assessments appropriate for phase one terminal or tower air traffic control students?” critical inquiry from a social scientific viewpoint may look at some of the psychological aspects for a student within the air traffic control learning environment. Further critical inquiry might look into aspects of air traffic control culture and the contributions it may have on the air traffic control learning environment, good or bad. Whatever the inquiry may detail, Selwyn has given me pause to make sure I have some type of social scientific or cultural research within my paper to give greater substance into my critical inquiry.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65-73. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x

Team 4 Final Post

Posted By Mark on May 11, 2020

Please see the following link to see Team 4’s final Blog Post & Infographic:

https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0113/team-4-final-post/

Research Log Entry #2: “25 Years of Ed Tech”

Posted By Mark on May 6, 2020

As I continue to research different journal articles and other reference material for my topic, I find myself surrounded by many great resources. My topic is currently on: Feasibility of online assessment in high stress learning environments: An air traffic control perspective. As with much of my research, I try to look at what has been done in the past or at least learn from it. As George Santayana (2020) would say, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (para. 3). I decided to take a good close look at Weller’s (2020) book: 25 Years of Ed Tech, in order to see if history can provide insights into my critical inquiry.

Although hoping for some direct primary research to my topic, it was difficult to find relevant material within this book. However, instead of finding information directly linked to the potential feasibility of online assessments, I was able to find secondary applications that could aid in the effectiveness of online assessments within air traffic control. One of these such applications was the use of digital badges. Digital badges are a “good example of how ed tech [has] evolve[ed] when several other technologies…[have made] the environment favour[ed] for their implementation” (Weller, 2020, p. 151). Air traffic control contains complicated operations that are difficult to become proficient at, simply due to its increasing complexity in each stage of training. For the student, complexity increases in many areas such as, but not limited to: knowledge, understanding of air traffic control principles, ability to maintain situational awareness, communications, visual and auditory acuity, advanced problem-solving, and the ability to perform exceptionally well under numerous pressure variables (time, risk-factors, weather, multiple sensory inputs etc.).  Assessments are done routinely and the standard passing marks for each test usually lies between 85-95%, any marks lower than this are considered an auto-fail. Weller (2020) does suggest that digital badges do have the potential to be effective within digital learning environments in which they are employed, particularly due to “help[ing] to structure courses into manageable chunks, with convenient awards along the way” (p. 154). Iafrate (2017), a writer for eLearning Industry, stated that, “badges have been successfully used to set goals, motivate behaviours, represent achievements and communicate success in many contexts…badges can have a significant impact, and can be used to motivate learning, signify community and signal achievement” (para. 5). Within a pure military context, the recognition of personnel has been a long-standing and significant part within all levels of the military, regardless of rank. I truly wonder if digital badges can be a new endeavour to assist in military digital learning environments?

The incorporation of digital badges within specified stages of air traffic control learning, particularly following successful digital online assessments, deserves further research and thought. I am contemplating even having a meeting on the topic with my fellow supervisors. I can definitely see the benefit of looking at the history of Ed Tech – I am very glad I read Weller’s book. The past is filled with many failures and successes, but sometimes you just need to apply past inventions with some fresh innovative ideas. Who knows what positive outcomes you will see?

Reference

George Santayana. (2020, April 29). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana#Quotes_about_Santayana

Iafrate, M. (2017, November 06). Digital badges: What are they and how are they used. Elearning Industry. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/guide-to-digital-badges-how-used

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech. Veletsianos, G. (Eds). Edmonton, AB: AU Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

Research Log Entry #1: ‘Ghosts of the Machine’

Posted By Mark on May 1, 2020

My current topic I am pursuing is the feasibility of online assessment in high stress learning environments: An air traffic control perspective. This topic is unique to my vocation, the Chief Terminal Air Traffic Controller at 19 Wing Comox, and difficult to pursue with the lack of current literature on air traffic control training. Within these research entry log-posts, my goal is to give a snapshot into my critical inquiry sojourn into this topic whilst supplying insights from particular references I am using. It is my hope through these log entries I also get help from you, the reader, to add comments to further aid me in my critical inquiry sojourn.

One of the constructive criticisms I received in Part 1 of the assignment was my overall explanation of critical inquiry. Although, I am confident in my understanding of critical inquiry, my own military ‘way of thinking’ was getting in the way. In this case, my striving to always demonstrate effective outcomes – thus, missing the importance of the process. In my Part 1 paper, I referred to my critical inquiry as a reasonable way to ‘demonstrate’ potential effectiveness, when in actuality, critical inquiry seeks to ‘interrogate’ potential effectiveness. At first glance, the diction of these particular word choices seems inconsequential; however, ‘demonstration’ often will define an outcome whereas ‘interrogation’ often will define a process. The process may in-turn lead to an outcome, but the process, hence interrogation, lends itself to the term critical inquiry more appropriately than demonstration.

It is through this interrogative lens which I must pursue my topic – with the hope to demonstrate or perhaps suggest even, an outcome to my paper’s problem being addressed. One unique reference I am currently reading is “Ghosts of the Machine,” by Owen (2017). Owen (2017) elaborates that “the title ‘Ghosts in the machine’ is used here to draw attention to how organisations comprise people who in turn shape – and are shaped by – their ways of organizing” (p. 2). As I seek to find the feasibility of online assessments within air traffic control learning environments, I must bear in mind the ‘ghosts of the machine.’ Individuals and organizations are complex and interconnected in many ways. Perhaps part of my sojourn needs to address the underlying presuppositions and/or culture within the air traffic control community in order to better understand the feasibility of online assessments?

Reference

Owen, C. (2017). Ghosts in the machine: Rethinking learning, work and culture in air traffic control. (2017). New York, NY: CRC Press. Retrieved from: https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/lib/royalroads-ebooks/reader.action?docID=4938445

Air Traffic Control Training and Online Assessments

Posted By Mark on Apr 22, 2020

We have all been there, having to go to school and learn with the eventual knowledge of having to take a test where you, the student, has to be assessed in some form or another. Assessments and examinations are apart of many learning environments and online learning environments are not excluded. But how do instructors or proctors effectively invigilate online exams whilst still maintaining academic integrity and fairness. Cue, Respondus Monitor and Lockdown Browser. These online proctoring software tools provide “cost effective, scalable, and convenient solutions for protecting the integrity of online exams” (Respondus, 2016, 3:10). The Lockdown Browser software does not allow students, or those individuals taking the exam, to access other browser content such as google or other programs that promote cheating. The Respondus Monitor software tool allows for proctors and instructors alike to watch students take the exam and identify students accordingly to maintain academic credibility/integrity of the class…arguably the institution as well. In conjunction, the two programs tandemly working together are a formidable technological tool to be used within online learning environments.

When analyzing the technology first hand, through the Respondus learning tutorials and videos, I was able to grasp the importance and difficulty of maintaining academic integrity principles and practices within online learning environments. However, I must ask, is this type of proctoring online technology a necessity for all online environments? The answer in my opinion, no. It is reasonable to surmise that summative assessments may be a good candidate for such protective software programs, in that, these assessments must take student identify verification, student hardware, student software, and bandwidth into consideration (Benson & Brock, 2010).

After analyzing the merits of the Respondus program, I had to decide what my critical focus or individual topic will be in this course. I intend to focus on: Feasibility of Online Assessment in High Stress Learning Environments: An Air Traffic Control Perspective. Most individuals consider air traffic control to be a high-paced, demanding, and stressful job. In the general sense, most people would be accurate in this description. But as an air traffic controller myself, the true stressful part of the job was the training. The training environment was highly difficult to navigate and complex. But if one can get through the training, most controllers succeed with a bright career in a very unique field of work.

Please comment and help me in general thoughts or questions in regards to my topic I have chosen. Thanks.

Reference

Benson, R., & Brack, C. (2010). Online assessment. Online learning assessment in higher education: A planning guide (pp. 107-151). Whitney, UK: Chandos Publishing Oxford. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/lib/royalroads-ebooks/reader.action?docID=1582338&ppg=128

Respondus. (2016). Respondus monitor: Protecting the integrity of online exams [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=197&v=hv2L8Q2NpO4&feature=emb_logo

Great Idea with No Needs Assessment = No Plan

Posted By Mark on Mar 9, 2020

Approximately three years ago, the Canadian Military sought to alleviate specific air traffic control training issues inherent within the overall national system. The problem: all air traffic control visual flight rules (VFR or Tower Control) simulators were located in one building, within the entire country, for all tower control trainees, in Cornwall, Ontario. This situation was deemed to be not beneficial in many regards. For starters, once tower controller trainees left the simulator environment, they had to go and train in real-world towers at an entirely new and different airport, sometimes located across the entire country. With no benefit of simulators at their new location, trainees had to endure a ‘sink-or-swim’ training environment, to which many failed. With simulation environments at each tower location, trainees could learn directly from training staff at their designated airport. Furthermore, training simulator environments allow trainees to make errors without any real-world impact to the decisions they make. If you crash two planes together, you actually didn’t crash two planes together.

To solve this problem, the Military decided to install new simulators at all the relevant required airports under their training jurisdiction. A sensible idea, if you ask any reasonably minded person. However, the idea was put into action with no robust plan in place to facilitate such a large change. The change would occur at multiple locations nation-wide, and would affect tens to hundreds of people, and all of whom work at different airports which facilitate different aircraft; moreover, each airport conducts different types of operations, which means the training environment is different at each location. A large-scale change in training requirements, requires a well-thought through plan of change. Although the intentions and idea of such change was genuine – the lack of a robust plan, ended up with the project being cancelled midway through.

The main question to ask is simply, what went wrong? Simple answer: there was no robust plan put in place for the change to be successfully carried out. However, what is really meant in this situation when you say, ‘there was no robust plan’? It is important to note that any type of plan that implements significant change, or arguably any change, is a complex and multifaceted issue in itself, and as such, requires an approach that can accommodate such dexterous characteristics. According to my “model for change in digital learning environments,” any plan needs to identify needs within an initial evaluation stage (Regan, 2020, Figure 1.1; see also Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015). This is where I believe the main issue occurred. Leadership was basing a quick plan on the idea that individual airports were ready to implement such change on their own accord. This was not the case. The lack of identifying key needs to individual bases caused confusion and a lack of support, at times, from the training staff at several locations. I could continue onto more specifics as to other areas of improvement; however, I believe the main issue at hand was a lack of a sufficient ‘needs assessment’, thus leading to the inability for individual bases to support and ultimately implement the new simulator training facilities. New plans are to be implemented shortly nation-wide once again. It is my hope that a more robust plan, which is one that contains a cogent initial ‘needs assessment,’ will be rolled out successfully.

Reference

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262. doi:10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215

Regan, M.J. (2020, February 24). Model for change in digital learning environments within air traffic control [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0114/model-for-change-in-digital-learning-environments-within-air-traffic-control/

Model for Change in Digital Learning Environments within Air Traffic Control

Posted By Mark on Feb 24, 2020

Over these past two weeks I have been able to develop a model for implementing change within digital learning environments for air traffic control. Air traffic control is a unique job but extremely difficult for students to inevitably pass training. Xing and Manning (2005) describe air traffic control as a “dynamic environment where controllers constantly receive a large volume of information from multiple sources to monitor changes in the environment, make decisions, and perform effective actions in a timely manner” (p. 1). Given the dynamic characteristics of the job and fast-paced change in technology over the past decade, change is inevitable from an external reference and therefore points to the requirement of internal change within an organization to acquiesce and harmonize to new changes. By interviewing two experienced colleagues (see Table 1.1), I have been to produce an infographic visual representation (see Figure 1.1) of how implementation of change would look within digital learning environments. The model takes into account previous change model theories, the results and insights from my colleagues (Table 1.1) and my own experiences as an air traffic control operations specialist and instructor.

The model as seen in Figure 1.1 depicts a four-phase process as follows: Evaluation phase, participation phase, re-evaluation phase, and implementation phase. Although simplistic is viewing, each phase is unique and builds upon the last phase making the end product of change that much more robust and effective. The four phases are first built on previously researched change models of the evaluation, re-evaluation, and action method (ERA Model) and the participatory action research (PAR) model. “The ERA model provides a more detailed picture of how the micro-processes of change work in an organization” (Chen et al., 2006, p. 1301). The combination of evaluating and analyzing the complex nature of the organization and particularly its values and overall system-inherent, lends this method to a good starting point to enact change. Moreover, its addition of re-evaluative phases provides more concrete identification of needs assessments required for change to be realized. A downside to the ERA model is a lack of participation and collaboration; Cue the PAR model. Where the ERA model lacks in collaborative change methods, the PAR model makes up for in abundance.  Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) elaborate that PAR examines issues systemically from the perspectives of lived experiences. This is seen cogently during the participation phase of Figure 1.1 where subject matter expert group(s) is/are formed in order to add substantive analyzing of the initial evaluation steps seen in phase one. This participatory inclusion from multiple organizational levels is encouraged by Captain Daigle, an interviewee seen in Table 1.1.

Leadership is critical in any change implementation, regardless of model(s) used. Both Captain Mornan and Captain Daigle describe leadership as pivotal entities to change implementation: leaders help to drive change and leaders provide tools for change to be realized. Overall, leaders are apart of the process and need to be present during the whole implementation of change. This can instill confidence in the required change needed. Leaders need to encourage and foster collaborative change initiatives to give a sense of accountability for change to be successful when part of the process (see also Ackoff, 2006). Leadership within digital environments needs to keep up with the dynamic changing environment of the digital world. Digital impacts on an organization need to be realized by the leadership and this can be reflected through leadership providing change initiatives and policies that account for the dynamic digital environment.

The model for change in digital learning environments I created (Figure 1.1) lays out an initial evaluation phase that analyzes an organizations complete structure, systems, and values, while identifying the needs required. Following this evaluative phase, the second phase of participation brings subject matter experts together to collaboratively analyze the initial evaluation, fostering engaged brainstorming. This gives a robust evaluation to the current identification of needs. A re-evaluation in phase three allows leadership to effectively take all the necessary and positive evaluations and analyses from phases one and two to move into implementation phase four. Phase four ensures that robust and effective strategies, combined with a comprehensive action plan, facilitate successful change to be realized.

Table 1.1 Interview Results from Two Experienced Military Air Traffic Control Training Supervisors with Leadership and Expertise in Digital Learning Environments

Figure 1.1 Click Below

Change Model Digital Environments Mark Regan

Reference:

Ackoff, R.L. (2006). Idealized design; how to dissolve tomorrow’s crisis…today. Reference and Research Book News, 21(3) Retrieved from https://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/docview/199607036?accountid=8056

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262. doi:10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215

Chen, Y.,  & Chang, H.C. (2006). ERA model: a customer-orientated organizational change model for the public service. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(10), 1301-1322.

Xing, J., & Manning, C.A. (2005). Complexity and automation displays of air traffic control: Literature review and analysis (Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-05/4). Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.

Theories/Models of Change within the Digital Learning Context: Questions

Posted By Mark on Feb 16, 2020

1. How have the theories/models for change adapted to take into consideration our current technological, economic and societal contexts?

To unpack technological, economic and societal contexts in one question maybe too difficult to answer in one blog post. However, Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) suggest the simple notion that change models have adapted simply because organizational structures, systems, strategies and human resources are in a constant state of change. As time moves forward, so do change models and the theories that guide them. Yet, after all these adapted change models to meet the current technological era we live in, the true success rate of change initiatives is less then thirty percent (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; as cited by Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Beer & Nohria, 2000; and Grover, 1999). Clearly, organizations of any type need to be attuned to both their internal and external environments to effectively know which change models/theories will best suit their needs.

2. Which theories/models do you think best align with your own approach to leadership? Do these approaches align with your organizational context?

The participatory action research (PAR) method for change is something that routinely occurs within a military context on a tactical level, or in other words, lower work levels. This systemic approach wherein a group of people go through a particular change process and with the aid of their own experience, enact change in a meaningful way is arguably very effective. The issue with this method, in my opinion, is that large scale organizational change can be difficult to enact via using the PAR method alone. Military strategic and operational change methods follow more rigorous methods more aligned with the process reengineering methods.

3. What role does leadership play in managing change?

Leadership is critical in enacting change. More specifically, in my opinion, it is the single most important sustainer for change. In other words, it may not necessarily be the leader who is responsible to start change; however, I argue that successful change is possible with leaders who drive and sustain change within a particular organization. Winston (2004) suggests a leader is a person who makes sure that the organization is heading in the right direction. Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) build on this thought by stating “the continually changing business environment needs quick responses that only a leader can provide” (p. 239). Leaders sustain change in order that it can be realized. Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) continue in their reasoning by saying “it is leaders who have to make the right decisions at the right time to align the organization with the changing environment; and who motivate the people to work and implement the changes” (p. 239; as cited by Goleman, 2000; Haidar, 2006). Military leadership needs to play a major role in the sustainment of change initiatives…lead by example and motivate others to sustain the change along with them.

4. What are the unique challenges in managing change for learning in digital environments? What attributes do you think would work well within your own context?

One of the biggest challenges to leading change for learning in digital environments is simply that technological advances often move too quickly. A change method process such as process engineering, aimed “as a redesign tool to achieve radical improvements and innovations in organizational processes” can take too long to complete start to finish. By the time the change has been finally enacted, the technology one was trying to change has already changed leading now, your new change, as incompatible with today’s market or irrelevant to the today’s learning environment (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 248). The fact that technology moves faster than change initiatives should not mean that change should not occur or organizations should not encourage a culture of innovation. In fact, I believe that organizations need to have realistic expectations that don’t hinder innovation, but at the same time, develop processes or methods for change that keep up with technological process at a realistic tempo.

Reference

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262. doi:10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215

Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring Strategic Change, 2^nd ed., Prentice Hall: London.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133-141.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.

Grover, V. (1999). From business reengineering to business process change management: A longitudinal study of trends. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(1), 36.

Haidar, E. (2006). Leadership and management of change, Journal of Community Nursing, 20(4), 13.

Winston, A.W. (2004). Engineering management – a personal perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(4), 412-413.