Action Research 1
Action Research Final Report
Jim Kenney
Pepperdine University, Cadre 7
Online Masters of Arts Educational Technology
July 3, 2005
A SYNCHRONOUS SOLUTION FOR AMGEN
ACTION RESEARCH FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
Contents Page Number
Summary page 4
Research Context and Problem page 6
Literature Review page 8
Research Questions page 13
Research Cycles page 14
Final Analysis page 17
Final Reflection page 19
Appendix A: Cycle 2 Data page 22
Appendix B: Cycle 3 Data page 29
Appendix C: Journal Entries, Cycles 1, 2 & 3 page 35
References page 38
Action Research Final Report
Summary:
Rapoport (1970) defined action research as, “Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework.” This definition helped shape my research. It became my focus, with the help of others, to initiate a solution to solve a corporate-wide problem. This also began a personal journey to influence and impact others through the use of technology and implementing a new approach to instruction.
The problem I selected was an immediate need to distribute knowledge. We were beginning to develop courses that were in too much demand. In fact, for one very popular and much needed topic we had staff requesting the course from five different manufacturing sites located around the country.
The challenge was getting that training to everyone who needed it. The course content was often technical enough that we only had qualified instructors and subject matter experts at a few sites. This was quite a dilemma? As a rapidly growing corporation, we could not widely distribute critical knowledge to all sites. We tried having our few qualified instructors travel to requesting sites, but travel was becoming too expensive and time consuming.
Even within sites having instructors available, there were tremendous costs with pulling staff out of work and planting them in a classroom for two days. And what happened if that instructor was too busy when the training was needed? The training organization simply could not meet the need.
For my action research, I implemented an exciting new instructional approach to solve this problem. It involved delivering instruction live over the internet. This is often called online synchronous delivery, and for my project included web-conferencing technology. Fortunately this technology was already in use at our company (called WebEx); we only need to apply it to course instruction. This approach would allow students to complete courses from their own computer. All they needed was internet connection and a phone.
I used three phases (or cycles) to apply and research this delivery method. Since this approach used live instruction, I decided the first cycle would involve instructors learning how to effectively facilitate online delivery. I conducted an online class using our web-conferencing tool WebEx. Each of our instructors had an opportunity to learn the online tool and practice delivery.
For my second cycle we instructed our first global online class. We delivered to students located at three sites located in California, Rhode Island and Washington. An existing course and materials were used for this session. We made only minor alterations to tailor the course for online delivery. The course was broken into six, one-hour sessions, and delivered over several weeks. I measured the effectiveness of the approach by comparing test scores with the same course taught in traditional face-to-face settings. I also interviewed many of the students to get their feedback.
For my third cycle, I decided to use the same course topic. However, this time I had students participate from all five sites; California, Colorado, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and Washington. I made other changes as well. I decided to use a different instructor; one I believed would bring more energy and interaction to the course. I also added a student-led activity allowing students to problem solve a situation and present and discuss their strategy online. I wanted to see if this activity made the course more learner-centered, resulting in greater involvement and interaction.
Research Context and Problem:
I work for Amgen, a biotechnology company with headquarters in Thousand Oaks, California. Amgen manufactures medicine for patients with cancer, kidney disease and arthritis. The employees being trained are working in the Manufacturing Department, and are producing drugs which will be used for patients with life-threatening diseases so their training is critical. As a curriculum designer, I work in the curriculum design group within a department called POQ Training and development. We provide instructional materials for those involved in manufacturing therapeutics, and for all related service groups. This includes supporting staff in Process Development, Operations, and Quality organizations (POQ). Most of the training we support is highly technical in nature.
Since we are a global department, we develop instructional materials for Amgen sites located through the United States and Puerto Rico. For this research, I introduced a synchronous curriculum for manufacturing sites located in California, Colorado, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and Washington.
Currently, I manage the development of training materials for our site in Puerto Rico. I manage a team of nine instructional designers, all developing materials for the project. In addition, I will manage other global projects as needed. One of those projects included developing a set of materials for troubleshooting autoclaves, a complex piece of equipment common at all manufacturing sites. It was the autoclave class and its materials I decided to use to introduce synchronous instruction.
A Collaborative Effort
Completing this research required a team of experts from a variety of backgrounds. First, I assembled a team of professional trainers representing sites in California, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. Since our topic related to engineering, mechanical maintenance and instrumentation disciplines, we used trainers who already instructed in these areas.
The team also included a subject matter expert (SME), a master mechanic who had extensive experience in working with autoclaves, our chosen topic. One of my senior instructional designers assisted in modifying course content for online delivery. Finally, I served as the project lead and provided experience as both an instructor and instructional designer.
Although not directly involved in development or delivery, an important area of support came from managers in both training and engineering organizations. It was management that approved the initiative, provided updates to senior management, and provided resources that were invaluable to the success of the project.
Finally, it was the students themselves who contributed to the community. Mechanics, Instrumentation Technicians, System Owners, and Operators all participated and shared knowledge from California, Colorado, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and Washington. Skill levels ranged from novices to experts.
Statement of Problem
I chose to introduce synchronous instruction as a means to solve a global learning problem. The issue was a lack of adequate technical knowledge across all Amgen sites and groups. The lack of knowledge distribution resulted in performance problems that impacted the entire corporation.
To overcome this problem, sites would request site-based classroom training as a solution. However, because of a shortage of qualified instructors, the resources were often unavailable to provide courses. In the past, having instructors travel had been a viable option. However, cost reductions combined with a demand for just-in-time training required a new solution.
Literature Review:
The purpose of this literature review was to learn the effectiveness of using online learning, including synchronous and asynchronous delivery, as compared to traditional classroom instruction. I was also interested in the ability of online learning to distribute knowledge over long distances. Finally, I examined the role the instructional approach plays in online learning, including instructor preparation and course design.
Online Learning vs. Classroom Instruction
There have been numerous studies conducted comparing online learning to traditional instruction. In general, most research concludes that e-learning is at least as effective as traditional methods. Blake, Gibson and Blackwell (2003) note 248 studies show that online learning is just as effective a classroom instruction. Online learning’s equality with classroom instruction is true for a variety of subjects. Some examples include agricultural economics (Batte, Foster & Larson 2003), Government (Botsch & Botsch 2001) and financial management (Ashkeboussi, 2001).
Other studies suggest online learning may have an advantage or even superior way of e-learning (Johnson, 2003). Thirunarayanan (2001) in comparing pretest and posttest scores with online and classroom students showed measurable advantages for online learning, while Allen, Mabry, Mattrey, Bourhis, Titsworth & Burrell (2004) found marginal improvements in their research.
Research also affirms most students are just as satisfied with the online experience as the traditional classroom. In a study related to a course taught both online and in the classroom, Ashkeboussi (2001, p.133) observes “...there were no significant differences between the two groups’ regarding their feelings about web utility, interactivity (students/students, and students/instructor), learning experience, and overall satisfaction for the Financial Management course delivered on-site or online.”
Despite the mostly positive picture of online learning, there is no guarantee of success or effectiveness of online training for every application. A study conducted at Michigan State University showed that students in the classroom performed much better than online students for an economics course. The results suggest online learning works better for basic concepts but is lacking for “developing complex analytical skills.” (O’Connell, 2002)
There are many economic advantages to online learning. They include cost savings in travel, physical locations, time away from work, re-use of materials and timely updates (Blake, Gibson & Blackwell, 2003). Although the initial start-up costs for online learning may be high, the long-term return on investment is often worth the cost. Since businesses are rapidly moving to cut costs, e-learning can provide substantial savings. “Lacking the logistical expenses of instructor-led courses, e-learning can be developed and delivered more quickly and at a reduced cost” (Gregory, 2002, p.1). The savings can be sizable. Pharma giant Bayer claims to have reduced its training costs by 75% by moving to e-learning (Goodwin, 2003). Wisconsin Healthcare also moved from traditional instruction to e-learning and saved over $700,000 in its first six months of usage. Training magazine states that companies save between 50-70% when they transition to e-learning (Gregory, 2002).
In eth report by the Commission on Technology and Adult Learning (ASTD/NGA, 2001, p.4 ), it states, “e-learning also holds enormous potential as a tool for reducing costs of workplace-related education and training.” However, the same report is careful to note that the “justification” for e-learning should not be limited to economics alone. The instructional benefits must also justify online learning.
Watts (2003) argues that online learning’s economic benefits can get in the way of a sound instructional strategy. Online learning can offer the best of both worlds; both cost savings and effective instruction. Whether used as a blended solution to improve classroom instruction, or as a replacement to traditional teaching, web-based learning has distinct advantages going beyond economics. The concern is effective online instruction may be compromised when focus is limited economics, and the effort to reach as many students as possible.
Distributed Learning over Long Distances
Online distance learning may very well become the standard for future instruction (Johnson, 2003). Distance learning has some clear advantages. First, it reaches large populations of learners (no longer restricted by a limited number of classroom seats). Second, it reaches small pockets of learners spread over wide geographical areas. Finally, it attracts learners who desire to manage their own learning (Hughes, 2004).
Distance learning also has the potential to facilitate communities of learning. In one study, students in Maine and Hawaii were brought together to share learning. Both asynchronous and synchronous tools were used for collaboration. What resulted was an amazingly successful learning community. The following describes the benefits of the learning community as discovered in this example:
“Learning communities are effective formats for nurturing academic success and for fostering a sense of solidarity and well being by reducing the distance between students...The absence of an in-person, face-to-face classroom is less important than the experience that affirms the individual and collective efforts of students and teachers, as much as the use of technology serves to reduce that distance by enhancing the sense of community among students and teachers (Romanoff, 2003).”
In another case study, a virtual university was established to meet the needs of students living in Arctic regions from multiple countries and cultures. Again, a powerful learning community was established with the help of learning portals, asynchronous and synchronous learning. The program benefited not only from technology, but also from a shared vision and a focus on shared knowledge (Hughes, 2004).
Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning
Synchronous learning allows for real-time access to both instructors and students. Since it is online, there are few geographical constraints, only the need to have access to a computer and the internet. Asynchronous instruction is neither limited by location or time. Learners have the freedom to complete assignments or to correspond with instructors and fellow student in their own time. Combined learning methods like synchronous and asynchronous instruction are often referred to as “blended” learning. Many practitioners are recommending a blended approach because it appeals to multiple learning styles and helps to meet a variety of learning objectives (Hoffmann, 2004).
The real-time advantage of synchronous learning for interaction and developing a sense of belonging with a learning community is compelling. This is evident even when dealing with multiple time zones and learners spread over wide geographical areas. In the example of the Arctic University (Hughes, 2004), the program initially offered only asynchronous learning because of concerns over time zones. However, it was the students that requested the addition of a synchronous chat feature. Students were willing to participate in the chat sessions, even in early morning hours.
Synchronous learning has many of the same advantages of face-to-face classroom instruction, but with added advantages of flexibility, cost savings, and allowing students and instructors to collaborate over vast distances. Like the classroom, online synchronous learning allows the instructors to respond to the unique and changing needs of students. It allows teachers and other students to become real-time resources to the learner. Finally, learners can “explore each others’ meaning and understanding” (Ingis, Ling & Jossten, 2000).