23-27 April Reflection: How Cycle 1 Survey Created Cycle 2 and a Better Course

Transcribed from hand-written notes-

23-27 April Reflection: Reflecting back on Cycle 1 and Cycle 2:

Solid changes are supposed to be made for the next class (late May) as a direct result of feedback from Cycle 1 and 2 surveys and contributions listed in “Lessons Learned” documentation.  The course administration followed for Cycle 2 class, will remain the standard way we now train new students.  Researcher provided an excel document working with other personnel from various disciplines detailing 1) What we do well, 2) What went badly, and 3) Where we can improve.

This was a direct work artifact that listed bullets for each item as compiled via Cycle 1, 1.75, and 2 surveys.

Fallout from Cycle 1 – what became the change introduced for Cycle 2 course: 

Collaborative time between experts in the class was appreciated, BUT – some of the students inadvertently had their attention (and thus; training objectives) diverted as they worked to aide others’ training.

Some student training was negatively impacted by pushy students pushing their own agendas onto other students.  Those other students felt they lost training opportunities through the first two to three days of a five day course.  This was due to lack of positive collaboration (where participants are respected for their expertise) and instead largely resembled: I lead, you DO.  This was a classroom dynamic that was unforeseen, with behavior demonstrated that hadn’t been seen by instructors (reflecting on prior classes).

16 April Reflection: Former Students Have a Voice to Shape Course Administration

Transcribed from hand-written notes-

16 April Reflections: Follow-up conversation with students from Cycle 1, and Cycle 2+

M4 (from cycle 2 survey) relayed that after he had conferred with former course attendees (incidentally, M1 and M2 from Cycle 1); they collectively agreed that they would recommend the later class’ format (that is more like the format that was the result of modifications to the way the course is administered due to responses on Cycle 1 surveys).  

29 April note: the key detriment to the course attendees from Cycle 1 was that their training was diminished due to taskings and promotion of other students’ learning during the course.

The conversation with M4 can be viewed as two significant results:

1.       Positive reinforcement that course modifications mad after Cycle 1’s course yielded a more beneficial learning atmosphere and experience for the student, and

2.       The recommendation from students to preserve this overall format with whatever additional modifications for future instruction of courses.  Effectively, M1 and M2 from Cycle 1, along with M4 from Cycles 2+ were offering recommendations of how to they would like their future co-workers trained.

Powerful reasoning behind these student comments.

Sidebar: Cycle 1.5/2.0 made beneficial changes to course format, presentation, and overall learning objectives from the student Point of View. 

Instructor received uncommon insight and feedback from former students that impacts future course learners (who will ultimately work alongside former course attendees).

14 April Reflections: Cycle IV IBL Exercise and Assessment

Transcribed from hand-written notes-

14 April: 7:15pm

Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) student exercise – (Cycle IV)

Objective: Task the student with presentation of a pertinent topic (provided by instructor,) to a group of other analysts to further the entire groups understanding of the topic.  Note "Conclusion" at bottom of analysis.

After giving the task (learning objective) to a student that required him to inquire (research) the objective and student diligently researched the material, organized it, and compiled it to create a product (to present findings to others).  Later, when he presented it to others he added personal insight – denoting his experience and expertise with the subject matter.

Student was asked to give a presentation to a larger group.  The topic was not too complex, but was outside the normal expectations of their role in a group endeavor.  The topic selected, while uncommon, required research that was well within the student’s knowledge domain.

Student reflection of task:

Student commented that more senior personnel had presented similar information in the past, but it was not something he had ever been asked to undertake.  He commented that he was glad he had researched to such a depth that he could easily answer questions as they came up from the group.  I noted that I believed it was beneficial to the group that he added pertinent facts from his personal experience with the subject matter, and that it provided needed knowledge for the group to know as well. 

Instructor reflection of this IBL exercise:

I believe the student felt more highly regarded within the group, by being responsible as an expert to research and present complex material to the group.  At the start of this exercise the instructor spoke with senior members of the group and let them know what had been asked of the student in addition to relaying the positive learning outcomes (for the entire group,) of this as a benefit to the student’s training.

• In addition to the overt respect this afforded, the student LATER had more confidence.  Initially, the student somewhat apprehensive to the task… he didn’t protest- but mentioned on a few occasions that this had already been done by others & that he’d probably only be providing information that most group members already knew.  Instructor relayed that this was understood, but he still needed to accomplish it.  Research required electronic searches, locating pertinent data, either validating it for use by content paired with student knowledge, or disregarded.

• Later, after a 1.5 hour break (possible student reflection time?)  The student seemed to have a rejuvenated interest in his research and diligence with approaching the IBL objective he was tasked with.  In addition, he sought further clarification & clear understanding from instructor as well as personnel he collaborated with.

Additional analysis:

The student’s reluctance is further evidence that he did not feel comfortable (initially,) with completion of the research and presentation of his findings.  Later, I also found that the most worth-while part of this exercise was that it put the student in an unfamiliar place, where he researched a difficult topic and presented findings, most significantly with HIS expertise added when answering questions (the additional information he was able to provide was not in the available researched information).  In the end, the student gained valuable confidence in his skills, along with strengthened credibility within the group.

***Conclusion:  This was deemed a successful exercise by all, and the decision was made by the student’s co-workers that this is a task that should be an ongoing commitment for the student and fellow analysts.