Author: ddliestman

Fe Δ  — aka The Iron Triangle

Posted by

0

This post is for your reading pleasure from guest blogger, Daniel Liestman a graduate student in the MS Training and Development program, University of St. Francis (Joliet, IL).

Open distance learning (ODL) universities in South Africa established clusters of facilities and activities known as study centers to improve learning.  One university considered the three variables of the Iron Triangle; access, cost, and quality in evaluating the initiative. The research focused on counting occupancy, questionnaire responses, and cost effectiveness. Students utilizing the new centers responded positively, however most students did not take advantage of the new opportunity. There was a cadre of regular users at the expense of the student body as a whole. The questionnaire queried about cleanliness and staff knowledge/ friendliness. The high occupancy demonstrated cost effectiveness.

The Iron Triangle is not necessarily an equilateral triangle. Circumstances may dictate extending one side at the expense of another. In this study, cost effectiveness was the short side of an Isosceles by being less rigorous and relying so heavily on the occupancy side. This study is less a triangle and more like parallel lines.  A more rigorous cost-effectiveness approach is needed. Perhaps comparing the center’s funding fee with the overall number of students utilizing the new service. Also, the only constituency considered were students. Staff, faculty, IT, business office, campus administrators’ input should also be included and considered. 

Nsamba, A., Bopaper, A., Bongi., L., & Lekay, L. (2021). Student support service excellence evaluation: Balancing the iron triangle of accessibility, cost-effectiveness and quality? Open Praxis, 13(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.13.1.1168

One, Two, Three, Where’s the Four?

Posted by

0

This post is brought to you by your padawan blogger, Daniel Liestman, a graduate student in the University of St. Francis’ (Joliet, IL) MS in Training and Development program.

Assessing the training of health care professionals to become proficient with TEDEI (Training in Early Detection for Early Intervention), a screening instrument for cerebral palsy in infants, involved the first three Kirkpatrick levels. Participants in the video-based e-learning course reacted to a 6 question Likert scale and free text responses. Most responses were at the highest level of satisfaction. However, questions about improved personal knowledge and anticipated improved clinical practice only scored at the second highest level of satisfaction. A pre- and post-test of learning showed an improvement of 23.1%. Twenty-three interviewees reported improvement in their behavior in working with parents, improvement in confidence, and success with other telehealth assessments. 

Understandably, Officer, et. al.  (2023) did not attempt a Level 4 assessment.  Kirkpatrick’s model comes from an era of internal in-house training where organizational impact was considered the capstone to a logical progression. In an era of distributed, asynchronous training where not all members of an organization participate assessing Level 4 is challenging. This then begs the question why would an organization support one person taking an online course? The assumption is that the learner will pass the information along to colleagues.  The idea that if you want to master a topic; teach it applies. If the online learners passed along their newfound knowledge, the measures of the 3 Levels could become their Level 4 assessment.

Officer, Johnson, M., Blickwedel, J., Reynolds, A., Pearse, R., Pearse, J., & Basu, A. P. (2023). Evaluation of the Training in Early Detection for Early Intervention (TEDEI) e-learning course using Kirkpatrick’s method. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 129–129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04113-7

Where’s the Tech in Informal Learning?

Posted by

0

This post comes to you courtesy of your convivial and continually-learning guest blogger, Daniel Liestman a master’s degree student in the Training and Development program at the University of St. Francis (Joliet, IL). 

Moore & Klein (2020) accept that most learning in the workplace is informal, but realize the bulk of resources are provided for formal training.  In a survey (N=385) and subsequent interviews (n=20) of trainers they found T&D professionals engage in informal learning to foster informal learning by passing along articles or link to targeted individuals.  Trainers also supply just-in-time job aids and tools.  In addition, they create and curate learning objects and related materials for just-in-case situations.  Alternatives not explored might include brown bag sessions or walking about and engaging with staff.  Fostering informal leaning is a resource-efficient approach to counter budget and staffing shortfalls while improving organizational performance.

IMHO (in my humble opinion), Moore & Klein (2020) address an intriguing topic.  The rub is that the suggestions in the survey and those offered in the interviews are pedestrian (email, help sheets, filing away digital objects, etc.)   How might technology be better deployed?  How might online organizations foster those watercooler moments?  Could corporate maker-spaces foster creativity and discovery to grow the bottom line?  How can informal learning be tracked and evaluated?  The profession seems to have a wing-and-a-prayer approach to informal learning.  The research would have been more satisfying had the authors dug more.  I do hope this is not as deep as they could go, and this is all that they can offer.  Perhaps these topics can be pursued in subsequent research?

Moore, A. L., & Klein, J. D. (2020). Facilitating informal learning at work. TechTrends, 64(2), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00458-3

ChatGPT: What’s it doing for/to me?

Posted by

0

This post is brought to you by your genial novice blogger, Daniel Liestman, a graduate student in the University of St. Francis’ (Joliet, IL) MS in Training and Development program.

Last November, Open AI released an advanced chatbot like no other.  ChatGPT (generative pre-trained transformer) draws on Internet information.  It’s RLHF, or Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback component, however, provides the human-like quality.  While ChatGPT may stir anxiety in some, it can be used as an effective learning tool.  For example, how might learners construct an AI generated argument and then analyze and critique it?  Further, how might learners hone their own questioning skills to spark discovery? Such AI can also foster individualized learning as well as doing administrative work for instructors while also doing instructional planning.

Stephens, an educational consultant with degrees from Harvard and Stanford, has no idea what ChatGPT bodes. But neither do we.  AI, for her, has a place in learning, but also in reducing instructors’ grunt work. I recall the story of a professor who audio taped a lecture for a day he was out.  While the reel-to-reel played atop the lectern, a cassette recorder on each student’s desk taped the lecture. While the technology has changed,  AI may well imitate this cautionary tale at the moment expense of learning.

Stephens, D. (2023, May 16). ChatGPT examples to use artificial intelligence in education. Nearpod Blog.  https://nearpod.com/blog/chatgpt-ai-artificial-intelligence/