Author: kimjones12

Effective Leadership During Times of Change

On By kimjones12In LeadershipLeave a comment

What are the characteristics of a good leader?  What behaviours does an effective leader practice?  Is the specific context an important factor to consider in relation to effective leadership styles? Does a period of change call for a specific type of leader?

It seems to me that, currently, there are required changes everywhere I look. In fact, change seems to be the only constant. In the DND/CAF, we are working towards a much needed culture change, including building a more diverse and inclusive environment. In the larger Government of Canada, including within DND/CAF, there are modernization efforts in terms of the required shift towards becoming more digital. Since the start of the COVID pandemic, an exodus to home offices led to many changes in the ways in which we work and in the ways in which we train and educate. One could argue, as I would, that a climate of change requires strong transformational leaders at the helm in order to champion bold and innovative solutions. Influential leaders who motivate followers to enable transformational visions are required in order to make real headway. Emotional intelligence is also a crucial aspect of effective leadership, in that, it is required to build strong and productive transformational teams.

According to Gill (2011), four dimensions tend to emerge in leadership thinking and research: the intellectual, the emotional, the spiritual, and the behavioral.  They propose that “effective leadership requires vision and a sense of mission, shared values, strategy, empowerment, and influence, motivation, and inspiration” (Gill, 2011, p. 64).  There have been many theories postulated and research conducted aimed at better understanding what traits and behaviors are effective in a leader. Indeed, this is a question that has always interested me and, although I have done my fair share of reading on the subject, I have equally learned about effective and ineffective leadership by watching those around me.

The “Great Man Theory,” which is aged merely by the gendered name, was an early leadership theory that suggested that one is born with specific traits that lend themselves to successful leadership. Empirical studies, however, “have not established a definite link between particular traits, or groups of traits, and effective leadership” (Stewart, 2006, p. 5). That is, there is no one set of innate distinguishing traits that automatically lead to effective leadership. Effective leaders can come in a variety of shapes, sizes, genders, and backgrounds. An effective leader can have a soft voice or a booming, loud voice. For those who are willing to work to improve upon their leadership behaviors and skills, these can develop over one’s lifetime through practice and learning, including learning from one’s mistakes!

Transactional and transformational leadership have been widely researched and it has been found that transformational leaders enjoy more success, in terms of committed and harder working followers and achieving higher profits and organization victories, than transactional leaders (Johnson, 2005, p. 232). Transactional leadership exchanges rewards, such as financial, recognition, and high scores on performance evaluations, for labor and obedience of followers. This type of leadership answers to the basic requirements of employees. Transformational leadership, however, goes beyond the basic needs of the followers and answers to the higher-level needs such as self-esteem, pride in one’s work and personal growth (Johnson, 2005). While transactional and transformational leadership are quite different, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive and, in fact, they can be complementary (Leithwood & Poplin, 1992). A transformational leader may use transactional tactics skillfully to benefit the organizational vision. The distinctions made between transformational and transactional leadership is often similar to the distinctions made between the roles of leadership and the roles of management (Stewart, 2006).

So, what is transformation leadership? Bass, Avolio, Jung and Berson (2003) described the four main characteristics of a transformational leader: 1) A transformational leader is the demonstration of idealized influence. They act as role models, their followers respect and admire them. They place their followers’ needs ahead of their own. 2) A transformational leader inspires motivation. They arouse team spirit in their followers, they are enthusiastic and optimistic and they develop a desired future vision. 3) A transformational leader is intellectually stimulating. They stimulate creativity and innovation within their followers. They encourage their followers to reframe situations to find new solutions to old problems. 4) A transformational leader gives individualized consideration. They act as coaches and mentors and they foster professional development and growth in their followers. They tailor their approach to their followers’ unique needs and desires.

Research has also shown that one’s level of emotional intelligence is more highly associated with effective leadership than IQ.  According to Sternberg (1996), “IQ accounts for as little as 4% of exceptional leadership, job performance and achievement; emotional intelligence (EQ) may account for over 90%” (as cited in Gill, 2011, p. 79). “Effective leaders ‘win people’s hearts.’ They use their personal power of emotional intelligence rather than position power (authority)” (Gill, 2011, p. 81). The dynamics between personal power (emotional intelligence) and positional power (authority) are interesting to consider. Certainly, one could assume that a combination of both personal and positional power would be desirable in order to optimize leadership effectiveness.

We, as humans, tend to be, in all different fields and contexts, resistant to change due to often long histories of operating under the context of status-quo.   Many changes are now required for us to keep up with the rapidly evolving society and work place.  Leaders with a vision for change that demonstrate the characteristics and behaviors of a transformational leader are required in order to overcome the all-too-common resistance to change, to rally and motivate personnel towards the desired future vision, and to hold the group momentum to achieve the stepping stones that lead towards the desired future vision. As Burns (1985) stated, “transformational leadership is more likely to… emerge in times of distress and change while transactional leadership is more likely to be observed in a well-ordered [and status-quo] society [or workplace]” (as cited in Bass et al., 2003, p. 208).  Bass (1985) went on to argue that “transformational leadership energizes groups to persist when conditions are unpredictable, difficult, and stressful” (as cited in Bass et al., 2003, p. 216).  

While it may be true that transactional leadership can be effective in a status-quo work environment, a vision for change and transformation requires a leader who will inspire followers to overcome their resistance to change, to work towards an organizational vision even during difficult periods and, generally speaking, do more than the minimum required to receive their pay cheque or positive yearly evaluation.  Evidence resulting from more than 100 empirical studies found that transformational leaders are more effective than transactional leaders and that their followers tend to be “more committed, form stronger bonds with colleagues, work harder and persist in the face of obstacles” (Johnson, 2005, p. 232).  The motivation of the followers, in this leadership model context, can actually seem to create an “increased capacity for achieving the mutual purpose” (Stewart, 2006, p. 9).  In other words, as in the phrase coined by Aristotle, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” As it becomes more common for staff shortages in our current context, maximizing the effectiveness of teams becomes another valuable by-product of good leadership. Transformational leadership with its resulting employee motivation is then required to shepherd organizations, in whatever particular change context, into a bright and changed vision of the future. 

In times of change, it is also important that leadership put forward a strategic vision and implementation plan to lead the institute in a direction which will enable the organization to thrive and remain relevant.  Bates (2000) makes the point that this strategic vision should come from the senior leaders and management. He warns that sometimes consulting too much can just water down the vision. “The danger… is that bold, innovative plans that will take an institution into new directions will be watered down and rendered meaningless by attempts to please everyone” (p. 34).  An interesting consideration, indeed. While consulting and learning from external stakeholders and lower levels is certainly valuable in shaping the vision, the strategic vision should, ultimately, be authored, communicated, and pushed forward by transformational leaders who have the personal behaviors and skills necessary to champion that vision and who will then go on to influence, motivate, intellectually stimulate, enable, and encourage their teams, making use of their emotional intelligence and personal power in order to advance the necessary steps towards achieving the ultimate future vision.

Are your organization’s leaders, as a collective, up to the task of effectively leading through required changes? Are you, as a leader, up to the task?

References

Bass, B. M., Jung, D. I., Avolio, B. J., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.  Chapter 2, pages 36-58.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. NY: Harper & Row.

Gill, R. (2011). Redefining leadership: A new model. In R. Gill Theory and practice of leadership (pp.91-123). London: SAGE Publications.

Johnson, C. E. (2005). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/59330_Chapter_7.pdf

Leithwood, K. A., & Poplin, M. S. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, (5), 8.

Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership: An Evolving Concept Examined through the Works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal Of Educational Administration And Policy, (54), 1-29.

Zigarelli, M. (2013, August 17). Ten Leadership Theories in Five Minutes.  Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKUPDUDOBVo

Technology-Enabled Interactions in Distance Learning : Part 3/3 (CAF Members’ Input)

On By kimjones12In Education, Military, Research, TrainingLeave a comment
Canadian Armed Forces medic at laptop in back of a LAV
Photo Credit: DND photo IS2011-1036-02 by Sergeant Matthew McGregor

In the previous two blog articles in this serial (1/3 & 2/3), I focused more generally on the concepts of interaction in Distance Learning (DL). In this entry, I will focus specifically on the qualitative findings that I gleaned from my own mixed methods (qualitative & quantitative) doctoral research, within the context of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Although the mixed methods approach gave rich findings, I have always really wanted to specifically share with a wider readership, the words of the CAF members who responded to open-ended questions in my survey and who took part in the interviews that I conducted. In short, my research into CAF DL satisfaction included a sample of those who graduated between Jan, 2015 and March, 2018, from the Officer and Non Commissioned Members (NCM) professional military education programs, which, at the time of this research, were either delivered solely by DL or as blended learning (DL + classroom). In relation, specifically, to the Joint Command and Staff Programme (JCSP), only graduates of the DL version (with visits to the college) were part of the research sample. While, overall, 78% of these CAF members reported that they were somewhat or very satisfied with their DL experiences, 71.7% stated that, all things being equal, they would choose classroom learning over DL. Some interesting nuances emerged from the qualitative data that I happy to share here, in relation specifically to the three types of interactions in DL. More detailed research findings can be found from here.

Today, I will focus solely on DL interactions. It must be noted that this research was completed prior to the COVID pandemic, and as such, we could potentially expect different responses today, based partially on the quick stand-up many organizations moved to, including the CAF, of desktop Internet videoconferencing as a tool to enable synchronous DL. Some residential courses switched to synchronous virtual classes shortly after the pandemic began.

The first category within the theme of DL course quality, within this qualitative thematic analysis, contained members’ comments and perspectives regarding the three forms of interactions described in the previous two blog entries of this series. The interactions category included the following: 1) peer interaction, including comments about networking, 2) interactions with instructors and staff, as well as, 3) interactions with the course content.

Generally, the quality of interactions came up often in members’ qualitative responses to DL satisfaction, with many reporting that they had felt that they were missing out on what they perceived as rich face-to-face opportunities to meet, discuss, and create relationships with their peers that could benefit them throughout their careers.

Some members felt that the online asynchronous forum discussions were valuable for effective interactions with peers. One, for example, said that “they were excellent. Part of it is because you’re forced to interact.” One member said, “getting in contact online with people like that, you meet a lot of people… so I think it’s good.” Another member said that the connections with the other students were great and stated that they would stay in contact with their classmates. One member said that they liked the flexibility in that they could contribute to a discussion at any time, day or night. In an interview, one Senior NCM offered his positive perspective on one aspect of interactions in DL:

“One of the things that distance learning will enable, when we’re looking at group discussion kind of formats, is typically, when you get people physically in a room, group dynamics always take over. You’re going to have one or two people that will naturally take charge of the room, you’ll have one or two people who won’t say a word even if you come around and poke them with a pen and, then, you get the fence-sitters who can go either way. In the virtual chat room [discussion forum] everyone has a voice and they’re not afraid to express opinions.”

Other members, however, found the value of the DL interactions compared negatively to in-class peer interaction. Some stated that students were often just posting the bare minimum to meet the course requirements and that the forum discussions were not engaging. Many stated that they felt they would learn more in an in-class situation rather than, as one member put it, from, “the cold face of a screen.” One Intermediate Leadership Programme (ILP) graduate said that he found himself, “unable to fully engage with other participants.” Another stated that the DL experience, “isolated the users and did not really allow for positive discussions amongst peers.” One Senior Leadership Programme (SLP) graduate stated that “for leadership and command courses nothing [referring to DL] beats face time and learning from others, ‘Friday night in the shacks learning over beers with peers.’” Another stated that “it’s easier to appreciate other experiences when soldiers are assembled in one location.”

One ILP graduate stated, in reference to DL, that “there is no human component, experience, lessons learned. There is no feeling of camaraderie, team building etc.” Another ILP graduate stated that “the over reliance of computers has taken the “human” interaction away from most courses. The “tech net” used to be formed when sitting in a class with peers from different areas.” Another stated that a negative impact of DL, beyond the immediate training, is the “general group mentorship by rank or trade.” Another member stated that DL does not improve our people skills and, “leads to more people ‘leading by email.’” Several of the JCSP graduates shared that they felt the online forums were more effective after the cohort met face to face during the residential visit halfway through the DL course. Some also felt that, following the program, the students from the residential version of the JCSP seem, “to have a greater network of peers and mentors than DL students.”

Some members found that discussions in DL forums were lacking in depth as it was, as one member put it, “difficult to gauge an individual’s perspective without being able to read body language and identify tone.” Another mused that “you don’t get the facial expressions, you don’t get the gestures, you don’t get the intonations.” As one member described, “some things come across as very pointed where they’re not intended to be.” Another member explained that “text and narrative can be taken out of context and read in many different ways,” and yet another member said that “it’s hard to bring emotion into a conversation through a computer screen or through an online chat forum.”

The Canadian Armed Forces Junior Officer Development (CAFJOD) program and the Primary Leadership Qualification (PLQ) did not incorporate any peer interaction in the DL course design. A Junior Officer who had completed the CAFJOD program stated that it was, “a solo endeavor.” Although he said that discussions with peers, outside of the courses, were encouraged, you “have to sit down and do the course all by yourself.” A graduate of the PLQ course suggested that DL courses, “need to be a little bit more interactive.” When I asked him to explain what “more interactive” would be like, he replied with examples such as, “being able to talk to other students,” and “more networking and bouncing ideas and having to work together.” He also reflected that “maybe through other people you can actually learn the information a little bit better yourself.” When asked if any of this type of interactivity was seen in his PLQ, he stated, “None. There was zero.”

Some Advanced Leadership Programme (ALP) graduates shared their disappointment that there was no longer a residential portion of the ALP in that it was presently delivered solely via DL. One ALP graduate stated, “I am extremely dissatisfied with the DL package. It does not foster networking, nor does it allow us to broaden our experience with other trades.” Another member stated that “ALP should have a small portion by DL and bring back the residential portion since that is where your networking is establish[ed] which you cannot have online. The face-to-face interaction is definitely necessary.”

Interactions with instructors were also seen as an important issue in members’ discussions regarding their satisfaction with their DL experiences. There was a range of levels of satisfaction with instructor interactions. Some said that they communicated with instructors through the messages and online forum discussions on the Defence Learning Network (DLN) / Learning Management System (LMS), some via email, and some communicated on the telephone. One member said that they found the interactions with instructors to be “adequate,” and another said, “effective.” One Senior NCM that I interviewed, who had completed the SLP, stated that the course staff were, “always there to help.”

On the other hand, some members felt that the interactions with their instructors and staff left something to be desired. The interaction, one member stated, was “effective but very brief and not necessarily personable.” In terms of feedback, one PLQ graduate hinted at his displeasure saying that it should be made “mandatory for instructors to respond within a given time period.” A Senior NCM stated, in reference to the interactions with instructors, that he was “not overly satisfied… it was more process management than people management.” He suggested this could be improved by “more feedback on how we’re communicating, more feedback on things that we’re doing, greater interactive sessions.” In terms of the online discussions, another member stated that “the instructors could have been involved. They could have actually chimed in, they could have given some feedback directly in the middle of conversations, they could have redirected conversations or opened up the conversations much more,” and that this probably would have, “elicited a little more.”

A Junior Officer who had completed the CAFJOD program explained that “there’s no instructors on CAFJOD” and that the course is, “entirely self-serve.” He stated that any questions a student may have were to be directed to the Chain of Command.

As for interactions with the course content, members reported that, depending on the different courses, they accessed the content in different ways, such as the following: on the LMS, by downloading pdfs or accessing content through provided links and electronic libraries, both from internal and external sources; and, in some cases, through content and references that were either mailed or emailed. One member said that there were “phenomenal resources” that were “easy-to-access.” A JCSP graduate stated that “the content as provided was easily accessible, you could get it, you could read it.”

As you can see, there were a range of levels of satisfaction with the interactions within the CAF Professional Development Programs for Officers and NCMs and I have, obviously, not represented all comments here. The sentiments within, however, generally speaking, were also supported by the quantitative data. In my opinion, many of the issues that were brought up in this research regarding interactions, could be addressed somewhat with the use of the newly available technologies, such as desktop videoconferencing now available to all CAF members. Even at a physical distance, a blended approach including technologies that enable synchronous interactions via, for example, MS Teams or the DLN virtual classroom, and asynchronous, for example, via the DLN LMS, could offer even more opportunities for valuable learning interactions via DL than prior to the COVID pandemic.

As stated in earlier articles in this series, higher quality interactions, in various forms (i.e., learner-content, learner-to-instructor, and learner-leaner) has the potential to lead to a more satisfying learning experience. While, there may sometimes be roadblocks (e.g., bandwidth, Internet access), we should make all attempts to optimize the training technologies available to us to the benefit of our students.

For further information, including the quantitative data of my research in relations to DL interactions, feel free to pursue my full dissertation linked below. More discussions related to this research’s findings, in relation to training technologies and military-specific considerations for DL, will follow in future blog articles.

Reference

Jones, K.A. (2021). Satisfaction of Canadian Armed Forces Regular Fores Members with their Distance Learning Experiences [Dissertation]. Athabasca University.

Technology-Enabled Interactions in Distance Learning : Part 2/3

On By kimjones12In Education, Training1 Comment

In part 1/3 of this series, which you can find here, I discussed the importance of interactivity in distance learning (DL) and how technology has supported it to an increasing degree over history. In many contexts, the move to DL has quickly increased due to necessity during the COVID pandemic. Restating Anderson (2003), learning can be successful as long as one type of interaction is very well done i.e. learner-to-content, learner-to-instructor, or learner-to-peer. However, instructional design that successfully incorporates more types of interaction, “will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience” (p. 3).

If you, as an instructional designer, developer, instructor, or technological support for a training/educational institute, wish to provide a more satisfying learning experience to your students, I offer the following, with relation to the three forms of interactions, to consider in the context of DL.

Learner-to-Instructor

Traditionally, in a face-to-face classroom course, students have interacted with their instructor before or after class, through feedback on assignments and sometimes through meetings that take place during office hours.  The availability of the instructor has often been quite limited and the student may need to adjust their schedule in order to meet with the instructor during office hours.  The instructor’s role in this form of interaction often includes lecturing on the course material, offering assistance and feedback on assignments to the students, and facilitating course activities and discussions.  The student’s role in this form of interaction often includes clarifying content and instructions with the instructor, taking part in discussions on the content, and providing course feedback, as needed. 

With newer technologies available to better enable DL, there are many options that can increase learner-to-instructor interaction.  Students can interact asynchronously with their instructors through email addresses and through Learning Management Systems’ (LMS) internal messaging.  Instructors often communicate with students within LMS threaded discussion forums on the course content, and news and social forums.  LMSs often offer a chat system which allows for instant messaging as an interaction option.  Video conferencing tools, such as MS Teams, and/or virtual classrooms, can also be used to enhance synchronous learner-to-instructor interactions. 

It is important for instructors and academic institutes to consider which of these technologies optimize the potential for interactions between learners and instructors.  From an administrative perspective, students should feel that they have sufficient access to the instructor, without the instructor having to be ‘on-call’ 24 hours a day. From a learning perspective, students should, either synchronously or asynchronously, be prompted and challenged by their facilitators who work to add depth to the learning process and outcomes.

Learner-to-Learner

As someone who strongly values sharing ideas and discussing concepts, this type of interaction is very important towards enriching learning experiences. Traditionally in a face-to-face classroom, students have interacted with other students in different ways.  Some classes have tutorial sessions where students would work together to solve problems.  Sometimes courses have group discussions where students hash out ways in which to deal with certain scenarios.  Sometimes in these face-to-face situations, the more extroverted and dominate students engage fully in these discussions, while introverted students listen and quietly reflect.  After-class discussions “around the water-cooler,” can sometimes lead to informal and social learning about classroom subjects.  

Newer technologies in DL have advanced the ways in which students can interact with each other.  Some of the examples include online discussion forums and communities of practice, group work through the use of wikis and other collaboration tools, and large group discussion in a video-conference or virtual classroom. 

Discussion forums are one of the most common types of learner-to-learner interaction tools being used in asynchronous DL.  They allow flexibility so that students can have the time to research in order to provide a more thoughtful response than they may have offered in a synchronous classroom discussion.  Kassop (2003), an experienced classroom and DL instructor, posed the following thoughtful question to his readers, “When was the last time that you saw that many well-reasoned responses in a F2F [face-to-face] setting from the majority of the students in attendance?” (para. 8) As someone who enjoys the time to formulate a good response, I appreciate this distinction.

The role of learner-to-learner interactions include into DL, achieved through the use of technologies, can remove the feelings of isolation that can often accompany DL when it is merely a “solo endeavor.”  Students can learn from each other through discussing others’ thoughts, interpretations, and former experiences.  It can build a “sense of community” which research has shown is “an important factor for maximizing student satisfaction with the experience” (Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012, p.229). 

Learner-to-Content

Traditionally in a face-to-face classroom setting, students have interacted with course content by reading textbooks and by listening to lectures while taking notes. Traditional forms of correspondence courses have also been primarily focused on students reading a study package received in the mail.  

Newer technologies have advanced the ways in which students can interact with the content.  Although reading content is still common, students can now normally access all content online through the use of a Learning Management System (LMS).  Often text can be accessed as a file attached to the LMS or a link that leads the students to a file on the internet.  Although these are common practices for access to content, new and innovative ways for students to interact with content are increasing with the use of ever-evolving technologies. Students often watch videos through the use of a websites such as YouTube or Vimeo or streaming through their LMS. They listen to podcasts created by an instructor or subject matter expert.  Links can be provided within the electronic content to supplemental reading on Internet sites in order to offer students more information to build upon what they are learning.  Games can also be used as ways to offer variation and grab the learner’s interest. Different types of 3D simulation can now also provide more experimental learning, offering an immersive environment where students can practice scenarios related to the course content and even interact with 3D characters (not quite learner-to-learner interaction but it can make for an interesting alternative!).

The main role of this type of interaction in relation to DL, supported by different types of technologies, is to provide the learner with the content at a distance, whether that be 10 meters away or internationally.  Students can then read, watch, listen, interact with, and reflect upon the content in various ways.  Technologies can often improve the learner’s experience by making it more dynamic and active.  It can also make learning more student-centered in that students exert more power over how they learn (e.g., the choice to watch a video or to read a text), and how much focus they place on the various subjects or modules based on their previous knowledge and experience.

Discussion: How Technologies Can Support or Impede Interaction

Technologies in DL can enable the three forms of educational interaction.  As many of the examples given above have demonstrated, technologies can enhance interactions to improve the learning experience of the students.  Adult learners often require flexibility in when, how, and where they interact with content, instructors, and peers and technologies can help provide this.  Technologies can also support educational interactions for adult learners who may otherwise feel isolated by DL. I know from my own experiences during post-graduate studies, the three forms of interactions in DL provided me intellectually stimulating learning experiences when I might not have otherwise had these opportunities e.g., being home full-time with an infant or during the COVID pandemic lock-downs.

On the other hand, technology problems can also impede good interactions.  If technologies fail or cause frustration to students or instructors who may be less ‘tech-savvy’, for example, it can cause negative attitudes which may, in turn, cause them to try to avoid attempting interactions.  Power outages, bandwidth issues, and workplace firewalls (which many of us are far too familiar with!) are all examples that can lead to frustrated students whose abilities are impeded in successfully interacting with content, instructor, or peers.

While there are many technology options available to an educational institution, careful consideration must be given to choosing technologies which enhance and support interactions to optimize learning outcomes.  Any issues with technologies that may impede interactions should be considered beforehand and contingency plans put in place (e.g., pdf versions of downloadable content should be made available to students who, intermittently, may be unable access the Internet due to connection issues or international travel).

In the third and final blog article of this series, I will share some of my doctoral research findings, specifically related to DL interactions and technology within my own organization, the Canadian Armed Forces.

References

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1-14.

Kassop, M. (2003). Ten ways online education matches, or surpasses, face-to-face learning. The Technology Source, May-June.

Shackelford, J. L., & Maxwell, M. (2012).Sense of community in graduate online education: Contribution of learner-learner interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 228-249. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1339

Technology-Enabled Interactions in Distance Learning : Part 1/3

On By kimjones12In Education, Training2 Comments

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many traditional in-class courses, quickly, and often out of necessity, made the leap into distance learning (DL). Within different contexts, including academic, government, and military, many educational employees, including designers, developers, instructors, and administrators, made haste in order to rapidly acquire and practice new online skills. Some of these were specifically related to using online technologies, which were often new to the employees, such as virtual classrooms, desktop videoconferencing, and Learning Management Systems. Some of these new skills were related to optimizing training methodologies in an online format. Many of these skills were related to online facilitation, such as providing prompting questions in a threaded discussion forum for asynchronous DL, or, specifically within a synchronous DL environment, skills such as enabling online virtual discussions while simultaneously managing instant chat messages on the side, and enabling group work via virtual breakout rooms and/or collaborative document creation with Internet tools, such as Google Docs.

In these examples, technology has fulfilled a vital role in enabling the further adoption of DL, while providing opportunities for educational practitioners to offer students the three types of DL interactions: 1) learner to content; 2) learner to instructor; and 3) learner to learner (Moore and Kearsley (1996). With acknowledgment for the efforts of our organizations’ technology teams, we have, indeed, come a long way in a short time. The O365 MS-Teams rapid implementation federal-government wide (including DND/CAF) following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was, in some cases, a training lifesaver!

Long gone are the days of the “correspondence courses” when students received a huge package of course materials in the postal mail and set out on a lonely educational journey on the kitchen table (e.g., many of my more senior CAF colleagues and our Veterans may recall the Officer Professional Development Program (OPDPs) that dated all the way back to the 1970’s). Even earlier than that, as seen in the picture above, children, in the 1930’s, would gather around the home radio to hear school lessons due to the Polio epidemics. We have obviously seen significant changes in technology over the years and it continues to evolve providing new DL enabling tools.

There has been much research in the field of DL regarding the importance of interactions.  In response to a general frustration with the all-too-common boring “page-turner” DL courses, more and more learning practitioners are questioning how educational technologies can help maximize interactions to improve the learning experience of students. Technologies are now successfully being used in educational settings, not only to mimic the types of interaction that we have traditionally used in face-to-face classrooms, but to surpass commonly accepted classroom practices and create new innovative learning experiences for DL students (e.g. polls, online white boards, Internet learning games).          

Interaction in DL Defined

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, interaction can be defined as a, “mutual or reciprocal action or influence” (Interaction, 2022).  The previously shared three types of interaction remain true whether we discuss the traditional classroom setting or DL. An asynchronous DL course, that has little to no interaction with an instructor or other learners, may have its uses in certain circumstances and may be effective if done very well, but, from my own experience, is often less interesting and engaging. Anderson (2003) supports this in that he stated, “deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) exists at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. High levels of more than one of these modes,” however, “will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience” (p. 3).  This has been my experience. When possible, maximizing all three of these types of interaction is a worthy goal for instructional designers, developers, and instructors, if/when budget and time permit.

Two other types of educational interactions in DL have been postulated by educational theorists.  Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994), interestingly, suggested that ‘learner to interface’ is another important type of interaction. Soo and Bonk (1998) also suggested ‘learner to self’ as another form of interaction in education.  It can be described as the reflections that the learner has regarding the course content. Reflective learning will surely be a future blog topic, as I am an enthusiastic believer in its value.

In the second part of this blog article, I will discuss, in more depth, the three types of interaction in DL and how technologies can either support or impede them. In the third part of this series, I will share some of the findings from my own doctoral research (Jones, 2020), i.e., 1) the importance of incorporating interactions in DL, and 2) DL technology in relation to learner satisfaction, both within the Canadian Armed Forces professional development context.

References

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1-14.

Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., and Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Interaction. (2022). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interaction

Jones, K.A. (2021). Satisfaction of Canadian Armed Forces Regular Fores Members with their Distance Learning Experiences [Dissertation]. Athabasca University.

Moore, M., and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.

Soo, K. S. and Bonk, C. J. (1998) Interaction: what does it mean in online distance education? Paper presented at the Ed-Media and EdTelecom 98 Conference, Freibourg, Germany.

Leadership Styles in the Military Context: Personal Reflections

On By kimjones12In Leadership, MilitaryLeave a comment

During my career as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), I have seen many different leaders and leadership styles. I have learned much through watching, what I would describe as, positive and negative examples of leadership. Effective leadership skills are important for enabling mission success, whether that be on a battlefield, in an office, or in an educational setting. Due to the contextual realities and challenges that DND/CAF has been facing of late (i.e. numerous allegations of misconduct at the highest rank levels), DND/CAF has become increasingly focused on the topic of leadership in terms of how we can develop good leaders. The recent 2022 Government of Canada federal budget, in fact, allocated funds to “strengthen leadership in the Canadian Armed Forces,” along with other culture change efforts, such as to “modernize the military justice system; bring into force the Declaration of Victims Rights as set out in the National Defence Act; undertake engagement and consultation on culture change; and enhance restorative services, including dispute resolution and coaching services” (Government of Canada, 2022).

In this personal reflection, and in relation to the CAF organization which has a particularly hierarchical leadership structure, I will consider three different pertinent areas in relation to leadership, including: 1) leadership approaches in the military context; 2) gender considerations for leadership evaluation; and, a somewhat uncomfortable, yet necessary, topic to discuss, 3) toxic leadership.

Leadership Approaches in the Military Context

In considering this topic, I realize that after 17 years as a CAF member, my views of leadership, and what constitutes good leadership, have been strongly influenced by the leadership that I have seen. It has seemed to me that those around me have tended to define good leadership in a rather narrow way, and that this is how we have evaluated leadership skills. Great leaders, I would surmise, in many of my colleagues’ minds, are loud, charismatic, and forceful.  They look like what a majority of Canadians would expect a military leader to look like. They have the ability to effectively “rally the troops.” Being a hierarchical organization, leadership tends to be very transactional and/or transformational. In reviewing literature on this subject, I pulled an older book off my shelf that has been there for many years, titled The Military Leadership Handbook (2008), published by the Canadian Defence Academy Press. Transactional leadership, it states, “occurs when the leader influence is controlled through rewards or disciplines for the follower, depending on the adequacy of the follower’s performance” (p. 345). Some may call this ‘old-school’ military leadership, but depending on the context, it may still have its place, especially in situations related to security and, perhaps, dealing with a consistently low-performer. Horn and Walker (2008) state that “generally … the most effective approach is the transformational one” (p.348) within the military context. A transformational leadership approach can be defined as, “the process whereby an individual engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower. Transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they thought possible. They set more challenging expectations and typically achieve higher performance” (p. 346). I’m sure that many would agree that this sounds like the kind of leader we enjoy and thrive working under.

Horn and Walker (2008) go on to discuss emergent leaders. These are, “leaders because of the way other group members respond to them…. When an individual is perceived by others as the most influential member of a group or organization, and regardless of the individual’s title, the person is exhibiting emergent leadership” (p. 347). Horn and Walker (2008) state that although “emergent leadership should always be recognized and utilized… position-based or assigned leaders must demonstrate constantly the effective and professional leadership that is not sidelined by emergent leadership” (p. 348). In other words, rank must still “pull rank” at the end of the day.

Clearly, their comments do ring true in the military context. In terms of “emergent leadership,” there are context-specific leadership considerations and requirements, such as the need to avoid potential insubordination within the chain of command and the need for due respect to position and rank-based leaders, perhaps especially in a war-time or security situation.  Emergent leadership, however, can be very instrumental in leading change at all levels regarding such things as the culture change efforts currently underway in DND/CAF.  When we speak of leadership, I now more fully realize that the specific situation must be considered, in order to determine which leadership approach would be most appropriate and effective within a specific context. Good leaders must have the ability to shift their approaches based on their current context, situation, and audience.

Gender Considerations for Leadership Evaluation

How we evaluate leadership skills is an important consideration as DND/CAF moves forward with efforts to develop a more inclusive environment with diverse representation in leadership positions. To explain one reason why building this diverse cadre of leaders is important, I share an excerpt from the Marie Deschamps report (2015), which was an external review into sexual misconduct and harassment in the CAF. In her report, she states that “there is an undeniable link between the existence of a hostile organizational culture that is disrespectful and demeaning to women, and the poor integration of women into the organization. Increasing the representation of women in the CAF, including in the highest positions of senior leadership, is therefore key to changing the culture of the organization.” As the female makeup of the CAF is only slightly higher that 15%, and the female representation in the General Officer/ Flag Officer cadre is only ~10% (by my own count), we do, indeed, have an under-representation in females. I believe that growth in the numbers of females in the highest of leadership levels could be increased by broadening our definition and appreciation of what a good leader looks like.  

If the organizational and historical culture tends to see a leader as a loud, tall, strong, and charismatic male, females may not, subjectively, be evaluated fairly on their leadership skills in their yearly evaluations.  Of course, female leaders can exhibit a wide range of leadership styles, taking advantage of their unique skills and abilities. It is worth considering, however, if a female happens to be soft-spoken but leads well through a high level of emotional intelligence, which has been shown to be a good predictor of effective leadership (Gill, 2011), would she be rated as highly as one who has the traits and behaviors traditionally held by male models of great leadership in the military. These biases run deep, and are often subconscious.

As we are currently having these types of discussions in the CAF/DND; as we have made a decision to remove gendered pronouns from our yearly evaluations; and as we are starting to look at promotion requirements through a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) lens, I am confident that there is much to feel positive about in terms of our move towards greater organizational understanding in these areas. As is always the case, time will tell.

Toxic Leadership

An article was once shared with me on the topic of Toxic Leadership in the context of the United States Army.  I recommend reading this short article, linked here. It led me to consider how leadership can have such a significant effect, both positively or negatively, on troop morale, and on conduct and culture in the CAF.  Toxic Leadership, in the US Army Doctrine Publication (2012), has been defined as:

“a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance … Toxic leaders consistently use dysfunctional behaviors to deceive, intimidate, coerce, or unfairly punish others to get what they want for themselves. The negative leader completes short-term requirements by operating at the bottom of the continuum of commitment, where followers respond to the positional power of their leader to fulfill requests. This may achieve results in the short term, but ignores the other leader competency categories of leads and develops” (as cited in Zwerdling, 2014, para. 31). 

Unfortunately, as positive and effective as authentic transformational leadership can be in the military context, toxic leadership is on the opposite and negative side of the spectrum.  Many of us can likely pinpoint a time in our career, whether in or out of uniform, where we’ve experienced this type of leadership and witnessed its often-devastating effects on personnel. Based on the sharing of this definition and reflections of our own experiences, I hope we are better equipped to recognize this negative style of leadership and see it as a style to strongly avoid in ourselves and discourage in our colleagues. Even if toxic leadership can sometimes seem to attain quick wins towards organizational goals, one must question themselves. -At what cost? -At what cost to members’ mental and physical health? -At what cost to team cohesion? -At what cost to retention of personnel? And, ultimately, -At what cost to operational effectiveness in the long-term?

Future Considerations

Different approaches to leadership and how we will define effective leadership into the future are very important discussions that should be encouraged at all levels. Although leadership in the military will likely always be within a hierarchical structure, it must be understood that, as we further diversify, we must recognize that the most effective leaders may have different traits, abilities, and behaviors than were historically seen and evaluated against in the past. We must also understand that there can be no place for toxic leadership in a modern and successful military.

References:

Deschamps, M. (2015). External Review into Sexual Misconduct & Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/sexual-misbehaviour/external-review-2015.html

Gill, R. (2011). Redefining leadership: A new model. In R. Gill’s Theory and practice of leadership (pp.91-123). London: SAGE Publications.

Government of Canada. (2022). 2022 Budget: Chapter 5: Canada`s Leadership in the World: Supporting Culture Change in the Canadian Armed Forces. https://budget.gc.ca/2022/report-rapport/chap5-en.html#m97

Walker, R. W., & Horn, B. (2008). The military leadership handbook. Kingston, ON: Canadian Defence Academy Press.

Zwerdling, D. (2014, January 6). Army takes on its own toxic leaders. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2014/01/06/259422776/army-takes-on-its-own-toxic-leaders

The Use of Simulation in Military Training

On By kimjones12In Military, TrainingLeave a comment

Some years ago, I worked in the realm of simulation for training with the Navy. I learned so much about the power of using simulation for experiential learning that it left me inspired to explore and learn more. The content in this blog outlines some of my own professional development on the topic.

Generally, the Canadian military makes wide use of simulators as training platforms. To name a few examples, the Royal Canadian Navy has Naval and Bridge Simulators (NABS) on each coast, the Canadian Army stood up the Land Vehicle Crew Training System (LVCTS) project to purchase a range of vehicle crew trainers, and the Royal Canadian Air Force has various flight simulators, as well as a simulated airport control tower to train Aerospace Controllers/Operators. Simulation is also used in other fields, such as in health care. It would seem that the sky is the limit to the use of simulation in training. New and exciting, though, can rarely be the sole reason for change. The value of simulation, including the benefits and drawbacks, within the context of training, will always need to be evaluated on a case per case basis.

Simulation in training, however, has shown the potential to provide a method of instruction that can engage students in a rich and active learning experience.  Assuming a thorough analysis of the training requirements is performed upfront and the best practices in instructional design are adhered to throughout all phases, simulation can result in skills that are transferable to the workplace and it can result in a sound return of investment (ROI) for training budgets.  As Page and Smith (1998) wrote, “the need for, and demands on, military simulation are continually increasing. Driven largely by fiscal necessity, an increasing pressure to employ simulation is driving exploration into new methods for modeling combat activities” (p. 57). 

Simulation has been defined as a technique, “to replace and amplify real experiences with guided ones, often “immersive” in nature, that evoke or replicate substantial aspects of the real world in a fully interactive fashion” (Lateef, 2010, p.1).  Simulation can sometimes be mistaken for a tool or an instructional technology.  While it is true that simulation may make use of a certain tool or technology, it is, in fact, an instructional method.  As stated by Timothy Clapper (2010), “technology is just a tool to be used in conjunction with a good learning plan that enhances and does not replace the need for active engagement activities” (p. e12).  Having the use of a technologically cutting-edge simulator, for example, does not exclude the need to adhere to good instructional design principles.

Simulation is broken down into three main types: live, virtual and constructive.  These three types can be characterized by these simple distinctions: 1) live simulation uses real people and real equipment/systems; 2) virtual simulation uses real people with simulated equipment/systems; and 3) constructive simulation uses simulated people and simulated equipment/systems. 

Live simulation uses real people and real equipment/systems.  Technicians often work on real engines in learning how to take them apart, fix them and put them back together.  Military exercises typically consist of real soldiers running through simulated exercise scenarios in the field, often using real vehicles and real weapons.   

Virtual simulation has real people using simulated equipment/systems.  A simulated firing range has a real person firing a simulated rifle into a simulated firing range of targets.

A constructive simulation has simulated people, environment and equipment/systems.   An example of a constructive simulation could be found with the Canadian Virtual Naval Fleet (CVNF).  This 3D training environment allows sailors to immerse themselves in the 3D ships to familiarize themselves with the different ship classes and to train on procedures related to their occupations (National Defence, 2012).

The best type of simulation, whether it is live, virtual or constructive, will often depend on the resources available. The best ROI is dependent, among other things, on how often the simulation will be used.  Live simulation, for example, has a quite high cost as it is usually highly dependent on human resources and other materials.  Virtual simulation, however, has a medium cost, comparably, in that it often requires less resources and it can frequently be reused.  Constructive simulations are often the lower cost option in that they frequently require the lowest human resource and material cost and they can be used for many serials without a lot of additional costs.  Due to all of these factors, a sound cost benefit analysis is an important step in determining which of these types of simulation would best serve a particular learning need.

Fidelity is a common word used in relation to simulation-based learning.  It is a term used to define the “degree to which the simulator replicates reality” (Beaubien & Barker, 2004, p. 2).  A typology of fidelity, adapted from Rehmand et al. (1995) and described by Beaubien and Baker (2004), focuses on three main aspects of fidelity: 1) equipment fidelity; 2) environmental fidelity; and 3) psychological fidelity. 

The equipment fidelity speaks to the level of similarity the simulator has to the actual equipment that one is training to use.  Environmental fidelity speaks to the accuracy of the sensory cues, such as motion and visual, to the actual environment to be experienced in the future on the job.  Psychological fidelity speaks to the trainee’s level of overall belief that the simulator is similar to that in a real-life situation.  This fidelity factor is the one that allows the trainee to suspend disbelief and feel themselves truly in the real-world situation while engaged in the simulation.  Psychological fidelity of a simulation is the main indicator of whether the skills learned in the simulation will, indeed, transfer to the real-life on-the-job situation.  This is also the one factor that can be the most influenced by instructional designers, in that the creation of realistic scenarios within the simulation can go a long way to increasing the psychological fidelity of the simulation (Beaubien & Barker, 2004).

When deliberating on the best value for money in simulation investments, it is important to remember that “technology that simulates the environmental or equipment characteristics can increase the psychological fidelity of well designed training scenarios, but cannot compensate for poorly designed ones” (Beaubien & Barker, 2004, p. 2).  Prioritizing good instructional design principles can be most valuable in the development of simulation-based learning.   

Generally speaking, the higher the equipment and environmental fidelity requirement decided upon, the higher the cost that a developer can expect to pay for a simulator.  A meta-analysis of the research in the field has show that “the benefits of simulation training can be had from low-cost, desk-top simulations, equally or more so than from expensive high-fidelity simulators” (Hahn, 2011, p. 10).  Determining the necessary level of fidelity in each of the three areas is worth the time and effort to get it right from the early training design and requirements gathering phases.  

Much current research delves into validating the effectiveness of simulation in learning through determining the level of success of the skill transfer.  It is possible for learning to take place within a simulator but not actually translate into a real life situation.  As Hahn (2011) aptly states, “if learning [in a simulator] does not result in transferable skills, the training is for naught” (p.1). 

The best way to judge if there has been an effective level of skill transfer would simply be to watch the student perform the tasks trained in a real life setting following the simulated training experience.  More elaborate studies, such as the one that will follow, are often undertaken to further evaluate and quantify the actual percentage of skill transfer that has been achieved through the use of simulations for training. 

A report presented to the 2011 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC) outlined a study performed to evaluate the skill transfer of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) cadets from pistol training.  The report titled “Pistol Skills Transfer from a Synthetic Environment to Real World Setting” (Krätzig et al., 2011) studied RCMP cadets (N=124) to compare those who trained in a simulated small arms trainer to those who trained exclusively on a live-fire range.  The cadets participated in 18 fifty-minute training sessions, live fire for three control groups and in the simulated trainer for one experimental group, and they were all assessed on the live-fire range.  The live-fire control group fired 2300 rounds each in total throughout all training and assessments.  The experimental group who trained in the simulator only fired 200 rounds each, all of which were during the assessments alone. 

Although there were some variations on the different assessments, no significant difference was shown in the assessment scores overall.  Although some cadets who were trained in the simulated trainer failed their first final qualification assessment, all passed after some remedial training.   It was felt that the addition of the recoil in the live-fire session may have distracted the cadets who had not experienced this recoil in the simulated trainer.  The authors stated in the discussion that the experiment “provided evidence that the skills needed for the basic LEO [law enforcement officer] pistol shooting, can be acquired in a synthetic environment” (Krätzig et al., 2011, p. 6-7). 

A follow-up to this study was presented at the 2014 I/ITSEC by Mr. Krätzig.  The three year longitudinal study that followed the same RCMP members showed that the RCMP members who had originally been trained mainly by the simulated small arms trainer continued to show a high level of success in their yearly recertification.  In fact, in comparison with the other RCMP members who had originally been trained by live-fire alone, they showed higher scores in the following years.  Mr. Krätzig surmised that the fact that those who were originally trained in the simulated small arms trainers, had the opportunity to fire the weapon more often, had a quieter environment to train and likely were able to hear the mentoring of the instructors to their classmates unlike those on the loud live-firing range, were all potential factors that led to the better retention of their skills (Krätzig, 2014).

Business case analysis research has often been done to study the ROI of simulation.  In the military, a savings of bullets, the usage of vehicles and the related maintenance costs, the saving of fuel for ships and aircraft are all costs that can be saved when virtual or constructive simulations are used.  Operators can be more competent and prepared as they are often afforded more practice time in a simulator and they can have experiences, in simulation, with situations that they might not be able to practice in real live settings (e.g. fighting a fire on a ship). 

The future of simulation in military training is sure to expand.  Most predict that simulation will never completely eliminate live training, in that a soldier will always need to fire real bullets from a real rifle before going to combat and a pilot will always need to fly a real plane before being certified.  Simulation will, however, play an increasingly strong role in complementing and supplementing training.  Some, such as seen in Simonson et al. (2012), predict that “virtual worlds will represent the standard learning environments at some point in our future” (p. 132).

The rising cost of fuel and resources will cause organizations to continue looking for new ways to train in the future, as has been happening within the Canadian Armed Forces.  According to the “Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Modeling and Simulation Strategy and Roadmap (Training) 2025” (National Defence, 2014), the RCAF recognized that they must “shift from live to virtual based methods in order to achieve more effective and efficient training” and that “whenever live and virtual training methods offer the same training value, the preference will be to choose the virtual training method” (p. 6).  Live training on actual equipment and the use of live simulations has been seen as the most valuable training for many years.  This required change to the higher use of virtual and constructive simulated training represents a massive, yet required, cultural shift that has been taking place over the past years. 

It’s been too long since I attended the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) and perhaps some of my information here is aging. I will be sure to add a visit to I/ITSEC to my professional development bucket list in order to update my knowledge in this area. If you have any thoughts on this blog, I would be happy to engage in discussion below.

References:

Beaubien, J., & Baker, D. (2004). The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: How low can you go? Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl 1), 51-56.

Clapper, T. (2010). Beyond Knowles: What those conducting simulation need to know aboutadult learning theory. Clinical Simulation In Nursing, 6(1), e7-e14.

Krätzig, G. P., M. Hyde, et al. (2011). “Pistols Skills Transfer from a Synthetic Environment to Real World Setting”. The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2011(1).

Lateef, F. Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. Journal Of Emergencies, Trauma &Shock [serial online]. October 2010;3(4):348-352.

National Defence. (2012). Canadian Virtual Naval Fleet: Fact Sheet. Courcelette, QC: Navy Learning Support Centre (East).

National Defence. (2014). Royal Canadian Air Force Modeling and SimulationStrategy and Roadmap (Training) 2025. [Executive Summary]. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Air Simulation and Training.

Page, E., & Smith, R. (1998). Introduction to military training simulation: a guide for discrete event simulationists. 1998 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings (Cat No98ch36274), (1), 53. doi: 10.1109/WSC.1998.744899. 

Rehmann, A., Mitman, R., & Reynolds, M. (1995). A handbook of flight simulation fidelity requirements for human factors research. Technical Report No. DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/46. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Centre.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

          

Doctor of Education Dissertation: Satisfaction of Canadian Armed Forces Regular Force Members with their Distance Learning Experiences

As my first blog post and on the two year anniversary of my successful defence, I am pleased to share with you the synopsis of my doctoral dissertation, along with the link to the full version. I graduated in 2020 with a Doctor of Education degree (EdD) in Distance Education from Athabasca University with a dissertation titled, “Satisfaction of Canadian Armed Forces Regular Force Members with their Distance Learning Experiences.” I will surely have further musings about the results of the research, as well as my own personal learning journey towards its completion, in future posts. I share with you here the synopsis. The link to the full dissertation is also below if you wish to explore more. I also have a shorter summary version (~10 pages) available (upon request) that was published as a scientific letter by the Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC).

Abstract:

The use of distance learning (DL) as a training and education delivery method has been on the rise within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as a way of optimizing funding to the training system while still maintaining a high standard.  Since research has shown relationships between student satisfaction and various positive outcomes, such as training retention and readiness to transfer learning to the workplace, the satisfaction of CAF learners is an important area of inquiry. This research explored the satisfaction levels of CAF members with their DL experiences, how different variables related to that satisfaction, and how military-specific considerations affected members’ DL experiences. 

This mixed methods research involved a sample of CAF members who had completed, within approximately the past three years, one of seven CAF professional development courses/programs that were delivered via DL or in a blended DL and classroom format.  The study used a two-phase mixed-methods research design that included data collection in the form of an online survey distributed to 1310 CAF Regular Force members, which yielded 368 usable questionnaires, followed by 12 follow-up interviews.   Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and correlation analyses, as well as factor analyses and multiple regression.  Qualitative data were analyzed using coding frequency analyses and thematic content analysis, which added depth concerning CAF members’ personal experiences. 

The findings showed a relatively high level of satisfaction, but that given the choice between delivery modes, a much higher percentage of members would choose classroom over DL.  The exploration of demographic, course quality, support, and perception variables in relation to overall DL satisfaction shed some light on potential reasons for these findings.  Recommendations were provided to encourage continuous improvement of CAF DL programs.

Click to access JonesSatisfactionofCanadianArmedRegularForceMemberswithTheirDistanceLearningExperiencesApril2020.pdf

On By kimjones12In Education, Military, Research8 Comments