A little more than 10 years ago, I completed what was then one of the only certification programs in knowledge translation in North America. I was working for a leading research university in the field of health care communications. Even then, I understood the importance of disseminating research findings in ways that encouraged application and adoption. Every researcher I ever worked with would agree that having research findings sit on a shelf is not the legacy they would want their work to leave.
So, when we were asked this week to think about how we want our research to be disseminated, I appreciated the reminder that thinking of how we might translate knowledge to practice should be part of our overall research planning.
The topic I am interested in exploring is the impact of human-centered design (HCD) principles on employee engagement and innovation outcomes in workplace training programs. Since my topic touches on workplaces, organizational training, and employee engagement, I think there are potential connections here to academic, industry, member associations, government agencies, and calls for conference presentations or workshops.
If I wanted to share my findings with a professional association, I would seek out the appropriate one(s) and research any conferences that they might be hosting. For example, the Institute for Performance and Learning membership is comprised of professionals working in learning and development in the workplace. They host a national conference, and this year, Dr. Elizabeth Childs is among the speakers who are presenting. If this were an option I was interested in, I’d contact the association to inquire about future conferences, themes they want to explore, timelines for applications, topics that interest their members. I’d then have to tailor a presentation to suit their format (e.g. workshop or keynote presentation), and length of time provided.
This part of the research project process is encouraging and a bit nerve-wracking. It’s encouraging me to want to give my applied research project my best effort to produce something truly helpful and applicable to someone; it is also a bit overwhelming to think of presenting findings to people who are knowledgeable in their fields and have many years of experience. I’m excited to begin!
The context I am using for this assignment is my role as an instructor of digital marketing and public relations. I teach in both adult continuing education, and undergraduate post-secondary contexts.
Teaching presence
I create, choose, and plan content and assessments that will support the stated learning objectives of the course. If teaching online, I use forums such as discussion boards for learner to learner interaction. If teaching face to face, I assign small group projects.
For direct instruction, I present and demonstrate key concepts in the course using real-life examples from my work to encourage discussion. For example, when teaching about research in public relations, I will show how my team uses analytics to inform our decisions.
I seek to understand what they hope to learn and apply right away upon completing the course. Often, my previous adult learners were starting a new business, changing careers, etc and have specific hopes for what the course will provide.
Social presence
When teaching online, I keep my camera on for the duration of the class. If teaching face to face, I include a photo and bio in my slides on the first class. I ask students to introduce themselves and share: their preferred name they wish me to use in class, why they enrolled, and what they hope to get out of the class.
I mix-up the type of activities performed in class so that students have a chance to work with other learners that they did not necessarily know coming into the class. I sometimes ask learners to partner up, and then reconvene to introduce their partner to the class.
Cognitive presence
If a student has a question, I don’t always respond first. Instead, I ask the class if anyone has a recommendation for their fellow learner. I do this to encourage the learner to learner interaction, and give an opportunity to review core concepts.
If I know a student has prior training in a subject area I will draw on some aspects of their learning and ask how they might use the skills and apply it forward to the current class.
I love seeing AHA moments happen for students. I encourage them to apply the learning in real time if possible. I had a student do this in the past when they were taking course on digital marketing, while in an active job competition which involved writing a digital marketing plan for the employer.
“We spend a lot time designing the bridge, but not enough time thinking about the people who are crossing it.”
Dr. Prabhjot Singh, Director of Systems Design at the Earth Institute
I was very excited to see that for our digital resource development, it would be a requirement to demonstrate a design thinking approach. In particular, I was very much looking forward to the opportunity to conduct user interviews to inform an empathy map. User interviews are something I am familiar with, as my role at Island Health is very concerned with how users encounter products and services that we create and design. I am very aware that there is not enough user centered design taking place in health care in general. (Anyone who has had to find a service or clinic in a hospital with only a room number as a guide can probably understand).
I recruited some users who agreed to be interviewed, and I set out to write a script with open-ended questions beginning with “How…”; “Why…”; “Tell me…”; “and What…”. All my interview subjects had recent experience with online workplace learning and provided me with ample data for my empathy map. One aspect I want to point out – and this isn’t a judgment at all, as humans can have different needs at different times and contexts – was my observation that statements I heard could be seen as contradictory. For example, one user was clear that they very much disliked group work and found no learning to be gained by working in groups. They also told me that something they value in workplace training is learning from others, and how people in similar roles have benefitted from the training in a related context. Further, the same user told me how much they wished for timely, almost instantaneous feedback and answers from a course instructor or administrator when they want to ask about assignments.
How interesting, I thought. What does a course designer do with feedback like this? I felt a bit like a consumer product designer reviewing focus group data that says: “We definitely want the backpack to be much larger. We also don’t want it to be too big to carry on our backs.”
The reflection in action that occurred as I listened to this user in the interview was this: “How can a learning resource respect learner agency, at the same time encourage that aspect of social learning theory and zone of proximal development that makes being with other learners in the moment so helpful?”
Nevertheless, all my user interviews were insightful, descriptive, honest, forthright, and informative for developing my prototype of my digital learning resource. I appreciated the users who were willing to share with me their frustrations, feelings, needs, and wants when it comes to online learning. I took the data from all my interviews and managed to apply aspects such as learner choice, format of participation (e.g. solo or small group), multiple means of engagement, and modes of interaction.
I’m truly excited about the opportunity to refine the prototype and share this with those who are designing learning modules at Island Health as an example of how more user centered design can inform workplace learning. I intend to use the Affinity Learning platform to present my prototype to my own team to get their feedback on additional topics that we could teach via this kind of digital learning.
I view massive open online courses with some skepticism, particularly when the source is a for-profit enterprise. Though the platform we chose has affiliations with credible post-secondary organizations and has been around for more than a decade, their intention is to be profitable and earn revenue through fees. The more learners who enroll in courses that have fees, the more money the company makes. My skepticism is rooted in questions around how much rigor is applied to evaluating student performance, and the temptation to be overly generous about prerequisites to enroll in a course to increase the number of students who are eligible.
The term ‘diploma mill’ is one that has come to mind when thinking of online learning. Whether that is a fair term to use in this case is beyond the scope of this blog post; I am merely reflecting on points that have been raised in our readings related to credential inflation, the awarding of digital badges, and the still-held belief that face-to-face learning is more credible than education delivered online.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic shifted our threshold of acceptance for how we work, learn, communicate, receive services, information, and conduct business, what should not change in all of these transactions is a desire for quality, critical thinking, and user-centred design. After reading George Veletsianos’ keynote remarks from the 2021 Congress, I thought about the learning event we are analysing, and indeed, where is the application of the four Es of effectiveness, efficiency, engagement, and equity? Proponents of platforms like Coursera can argue that MOOCs bring a measure of efficiency (meeting learning goals with a minimal expenditure of resources); however, what is the arbiter of other Es such as engagement and equity?
After experiencing this course intended for teaching personalized learning strategies, my view on this particular mode of delivering learning is still mixed. While I can see a utility and practicality of MOOCs in delivering skills training (particularly as I am a believer in life-long learning and upskilling throughout one’s career), I am influenced by Veletsianos’ remarks about being vigilant about the presence (or lack thereof) of the four Es in educational technology in all forms. This is especially salient if we are looking now at online courses which purport to instruct teachers on how to use generative AI to develop personalized learning strategies.
What are the criteria for these courses? Who reviews the curriculum for standards, ethics (a fifth E), veracity, accessibility, and sustainability? MOOCs may have expanded the reach of course content beyond the halls of a bricks and mortar school, but we cannot confound this with accessibility.
Our team was asked to select a technology and learning event to focus on for our critical inquiry analysis. We landed on the use of artificial intelligence in developing personalized learning strategies. The learning event we chose was a Coursera course called “Innovative Learning with ChatGPT”. The course description states that learners who enroll in this course will learn how to brainstorm lesson plans that integrate learner interests and needs, and how to personalize and customize educational materials for individual students.
In relation to this broader topic, for my own area of critical inquiry I will be looking into the issue of bias, assumptions, and stereotypes when using AI to develop personalized learning. Despite the encouraging overtones of courses such as the Coursera course our team found, one only has to do a simple Google Scholar search to see that personalized learning and AI continue to be the subject of critical reflection and inquiry – and for good reason. The limitations and shortcomings of data generated from language models such as ChatGPT can be numerous, including erroneous information, toxicity and bias, and manipulation of ideas (Hua and Jiang, 2023).
If we take these issues into account when thinking of developing personalized learning strategies, some alarming gaps are apparent. Take this text sample from the Coursera course, where the online instructor says about ChatGPT: “It’s not really thinking like humans do. It’s just really good at remembering all that information that it’s seen before” (Coursera, 2023). Who is the arbiter of the accuracy or impartiality of what data ChatGPT has seen? How can we be sure that the recommendations it will provide an instructor are in fact the best ones to use for a class full of nine-year old kids? ChatGPT doesn’t know anything about these children, except their age. What if the children are EAL (English as an Additional Language) learners? What if they are neurodiverse? While there is much that we have learned about what ChatGPT can do, it is nevertheless important to shine a light on what generative AI omits in developing personalized learning strategies. It is this with this lens that I intend to focus my research and reflection during this course.
References:
Hua, S., Jin, S., & Jiang, S. (2023). The Limitations and Ethical Considerations of ChatGPT. Data Intelligence, 1-38.
In thinking of a persona who would benefit from this toolkit, we thought of someone working in an organizational development role as a trainer, consultant, or leader, who is considering a change.
We welcome your thoughts on our resource, especially if you think you could use this in your work.
Failure isn’t fatal, but failure to change might be.
John Wooden, American basketball coach
This unit and the readings associated was a very insightful experience that gave me a chance to revisit some memories of projects past. Through these readings I found myself making notes and highlighting concepts which provide insights to me now, about why certain projects I have seen fell short of meeting the intended outcomes.
One former project/initiative from my past which came to mind was an attempt to implement a digital asset management platform, or DAM, for short. In brief, a DAM is a searchable online library where one can upload and store digital communication assets such as images, videos, logos, templates, designs, documents, and more. It is intended to function as a central repository for all of an organization’s official assets.
Many years ago, I worked in a department within a very large organization whose leadership attempted to implement a DAM. The intended outcome was to have a centralized, searchable, and manageable platform where official organization assets were stored. It was intended to reduce the reliance on ad-hoc filing and storage methods and save time searching for desired assets, or duplicating the creation of assets that already existed. The primary stakeholders were staff members who were in roles that involved creating and sharing external and internal facing communications products. The communication to stakeholders contained ample details about benefits of a centralized tool; where the implementation could have been more robust was in understanding the user experience of how stakeholders would need to change their behaviour to realize the full benefits of the DAM. As Conway et al., (2017, p.3) observes: “Great design doesn’t always generate impact…innovations attempting to scale and create systemic change often hit barriers to change, sending them catapulting back to square one. We call this the system immune response.”
I found this particular reading very informative given my work, which happens within a highly connected system of inter-related practices and norms that are often overshadowed by resistance to change, even when there is ample data and evidence to show that an innovation can yield benefits. In this DAM example, although there was no formal change management process assigned to support its implementation, there was an attempt to involve stakeholders by recruiting an “ambassador” from each smaller team within the larger department. The intention was that the ambassadors would become early adopters of the DAM, gain familiarity with the process and functionality and bring that experience back to their respective teams. This tactic never took hold, and the proposed DAM was not implemented as intended.
My reflection on what was missing from this implementation relates to aspects of integration and cultural theory. Managing integration and managing stakeholders – two key knowledge areas of the Project Management Body of Knowledge – sheds a lot of light on why change involves more than just communicating to one’s stakeholders the benefits or gains from adopting a change. Understanding and foreseeing resistance from stakeholders, at the same time keeping loyal to the project objectives requires a broad skill set. I am not convinced that this DAM implementation did not occur because of a lack of PMBOK per se. However I do see the value in knowledgeable practice in project management and the benefits of understanding what could go wrong to derail an intended outcome.
I also observe power dynamics playing a role in this implementation attempt. As Covey et al., (2017, p. 17) notes: “Power dynamics revealed by a cultural theory analysis can help to suggest the type of intervention that will have the greatest chance of success in any given system.” This is a useful and salient reminder for those leading change that great design, (even if it has proven to be successful in other sectors and applications) and data are often not enough to sway stakeholder action and participation.
References:
Watt, A. (2014). Project management. BCcampus Open Education Pressbooks.
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From design thinking to systems change. How to invest in innovation for social impact. RSA Action and Research Centre.
Realities of managing and leading change in healthcare
In preparation for this assignment, I reflected on unit readings, the perspectives offered in the Voices of Leadership audio recordings, discussion in our synchronous sessions, what fellow learners have shared about leading and managing change, and my own experiences with change, past and present. Given that I work in the healthcare sector, I was interested to find the synthesis of theories and models offered by Antwi and Kale (2014). I found this reading reflected the pragmatic realities of leading and managing change in healthcare, specifically, the very slow speed at which change happens, and the high degree of decentralization in health organizations, which can make alignment of purpose and vision all the more challenging.
In the context of leading a digital learning initiative, I was really pleased to come across the audio interview of Christy Boyce, a Virtual Care Learning Consultant with the Fraser Health Authority. I agree with her comments about what the key drivers of adoption of a digital learning initiative are. She emphasizes keeping design as simple as possible to discourage steep learning curves and rejection by users. She also underscored digital literacy and competency among employees in the health care system. I found this point to be exceptionally relevant in my own context, as leading a digital learning initiative (when digital competency is low) has real consequences for even the best-resourced or managed plans. In this aspect, this signals to me that training and upskilling opportunities for employees have to be part of the planning and implementation of a digital learning initiative. Christy Boyce also references the ADKAR model of change management in her interview, and recommends that change initiatives have change management practices embedded early, rather than as an afterthought. This signalled to me a reminder that even though leading a digital learning initiative can be overshadowed by technology, the foundation of a change process still needs rigour and oversight.
The models and theories
In terms of the change models and theories, Antwi and Kale’s review of the literature summed up the most common elements that appear in healthcare change initiatives. These are: environmental circumstances, power dynamics, organizational harmony, organizational capacity, nature of change, and process of change. When I reviewed these elements, I could relate to my own experiences in healthcare. In particular, in recent years, when health human resource shortages have depleted organizational capacity in many ways, the appetite for change among employees can have significant influence on the success of a change initiative. Thus, any digital learning initiative in health must have some way to mitigate the change fatigue that is already high in our organizations. Further, in this same reading, I found the description of Lewin’s three-step model for change to be very salient in the context of introducing and sustaining a digital initiative in healthcare. This sector is not known for being particularly agile, nor does it embrace risk, for obvious reasons. Introducing change (especially when it involves disruption, learning new skills, and abandoning familiar practices), requires approaches that address group dynamics in order to gain momentum to start and sustain a change. I relate to this model, in the context of a digital learning initiative in healthcare.
What about the leaders?
As for the role of leaders in change, two articles, respectively, capture some key findings that reflect how I see the role of leaders in a digital learning initiative. Khan (2017) states that “adaptive leadership challenges beliefs, values, and norms” and that “it creates follower motivation”. These are key facets in leading any change, but especially in a digital learning context, a leader must have not only subject matter credibility, but also a skill with inspiring a vision that is attractive and inspirational. Similarly, O’Toole (2008) writes that in reviewing a number of historical leaders who have common and unique leadership characteristics, the attribute that is most salient is that their actions “are based on helping their followers realize their true needs”. These are the hallmarks of skilled leaders who understand the drivers – and sustainment – of change.
So much to choose from, and yet…
During this time I have been struck by how varied and diverse the approaches are to leading and managing change – reactive vs. proactive, top-down vs. bottom-up, taking into account user experience and feedback vs. non-negotiable directives from domain experts, and iterative approaches vs. waterfall methodology. It’s clear from the readings that change management and leadership theories abound in the literature. They are even written for specific contexts and sectors such as higher education and healthcare. Yet in our conversations in this course, we all seem to be able to offer at least one personal experience of living through (or even being responsible for) a work-related change that could have greatly benefitted from some change management methodology, and/or transformational leadership. I’m interested to see if by the end of the course, if any of us feel more confident about our own understanding and application of leading and managing change in a digital learning context – I hope so.
References:
Antwi, M., & Kale, M. (2014). Change management in healthcare: literature review. Monieson Centre for Business Research in Healthcare, Queen’s University, Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Electronic Library.
Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or transactional leadership in current higher education: A brief comparison. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 178-183.
O’Toole, J. (2008). Notes toward a definition of values-based leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(1), 10.
The overall topic of leadership in digital learning environments is one that’s fascinating to me. There’s an endless number of books and papers that have been written about the topic, each trying to define, describe, instruct, inspire, and shape what leadership is. This topic is also personal to me. I have been on the receiving end of what I would describe as exceptionally horrible leadership and have wondered how people can become leaders without ostensibly any skill or knowledge of what it means to lead. Perhaps that’s part of what makes this topic so complex and worth ongoing inquiry and study. What or who defines good, effective leadership? Is there a common evaluation or threshold to meet? And is it possible that good leadership in one type of situation or environment would not succeed in another?
In our Unit 1 exercise where we ranked attributes of good leaders, I naturally gravitated to the lens of “What do I need in a leader in order for me to be successful?” This influenced the order of the attributes which I prioritized. For example, my top five attributes (from number five to number one), were fair-minded, inspiring, caring, dependable, and supportive. I see leadership as being fundamentally relational to other people. While it is true that managing or leading change often involves systems, resources, technology, and infrastructure, all of these building blocks of change require people to support an end outcome. And if a leader doesn’t earn the trust of people, and inspire a common vision, then the required systems for change have little chance of succeeding.
According to Latchem & Hanna (2001), “tomorrow’s leaders need to be capable of handling dynamic agendas of possibilities and see the future as discoverable rather than predictable” (p. 60). This is especially true of leading a digital learning initiative when those attempting to lead must conceive a vision that others don’t yet see, or believe in. Drawing on my own experiences working in the public sector, the best intentioned strategic plan almost always requires a certain amount of flexibility to adapt to changing, dynamic conditions. Thus, a leader working in a digital learning environment is constantly balancing loyalty to advancing a common vision, at the same time allowing for new information and situational context to influence their decisions and thinking.
To be a digital leader requires a particular lens and clarity on what one’s personal role is in setting a direction and vision, and also a self-awareness of barriers and challenges to inspiring that same vision in other people. In my sector, there is a high aversion to risk and a general cynicism when it comes to change. Therefore, before initiating change, it would be wise to have an awareness and some empathy to understand the root causes of this risk-aversion and resistance. In my organization, technology initiatives such as electronic health records, have unfortunately been documented to be mismanaged, poorly documented, lacking buy-in from staff, cumbersome, and inefficient. Therefore, those planning future digital initiatives can learn a lot from past experiences and make efforts to avoid similar outcomes. Unfortunately, because of high-profile examples of poorly managed digital initiatives in the public sector, those leading digital initiatives must attain a high degree of confidence in stakeholders in order to build positive momentum.
References:
Latchem, C. R., & Hanna, D. E. (Eds.). (2001). Leadership for 21st century learning: Global perspectives from educational innovators. Psychology Press.
The design principles I have selected to guide design and innovation in my context are informed by our readings and assignments in the LRNT 524 course, and my own lived experience as a student in learning environments delivered online and in-person. I’ve benefitted from reading about concepts such as critical instructional design (Morris & Stommel, 2018), humanizing virtual learning (University of Waterloo, 2019), and reading about the design principles that guide the work of some of the most innovative, meaningful, and creative organizations toy companies to tech startups to health service providers.
The context which my project partner and I chose to examine was workplace training for managers in a decentralized organization where employee learners span different geographies, communities, leadership roles, subject expertise, and levels of experience with the employer. Through our Pecha Kucha assignment, we had the opportunity to work through this design challenge using the design thinking process, starting with empathy maps from the perspective of the trainers and the employee learner. We reflected on the tension that can exist between the intention of the employer and the needs of the employee learners. Using principles of Universal Design for Learning, we looked at how user needs and learner engagement could be strengthened through an intentional human-centered design process. The design principles I have for improving innovation and design thinking in this context are:
The principles:
Start with learners’ needs (and do the work to know what these are).
Design to support the desired end result or outcome.
Build inclusivity into everything you will ask a learner to do.
Be flexible and open to experiment, try new ideas, or approaches.
Make individual parts connect to the big picture. Keep it relevant.
Give people choice and agency on how to participate.
Our design challenge was partly informed by conversations with actual organizational development trainers who are in the process of redesigning manager training programs. They cited issues such as low participation, higher drop-out rates, inability of staff in smaller rural communities to access training, and the changing landscape that remote work has had on the practice of gathering people in-person for sustained, ongoing training programs. Making content relevant to learners’ disparate roles and areas of expertise is also a challenge.
These design principles that I’ve chosen would see learning designers do more upfront work to learn what present needs are though activities such as surveys and focus groups, and interviews. Strengthening inclusivity and choice could bolster participation and completion rates if learners had hybrid learning options, for example, where some lessons could be done remotely and asynchronously and not only in-person. Being flexible to suggestions for improvement, especially from the learners themselves might uncover a better way of doing things. For example, if learners wish to self-manage an online collaboration hub using a Slack channel to support one another, be open to how learners want to engage. Offering options on how learners can participate or giving a choice in learning activity can create a sense of agency and choice. Finally, especially for training programs that have a longer duration, making all the disparate learning components connect to the overall goal can help focus learners on the big picture. Taken together, these design principles could go a long way to support those delivering the training and the employees who are the intended audience.
University of Waterloo, Trent University, Conestoga College. (2019). Humanizing virtual learning: A guide to creating connection, engagement, and inclusivity. Published by same authors.