Technology Use Plan - Microlearning/Simulation of Product Code

TECHNOLOGY USE PLAN: MICROLEARNING/SIMULATION OF PRODUCT CODE

Technology Use Plan: Microlearning/Simulation of Product Code Michelle King Arizona State University

1

Section 1: Context

I work as a Sr. Director of Enablement for a large global software company managing a team of seven instructional designers who are responsible for learning and development for the customer success board area. Our purview consists of approximately 600 customer support representatives who work directly with customers to resolve service requests that require a variety of skills in troubleshooting product issues, making configuration changes, educating customers, and answering product related questions.

My team is primarily responsible for product, soft skills, manager, and tools training that is delivered through eLearning modules, instructor lead lunch and learn sessions, learning cohorts, and peer-to-peer learning. Our goal is to align learner needs with instructional content that results in an impact on organizational objectives (MBO’s), and additional organization KPI’s (Key Performance Indicators) such as NPS (Net Promoter Score), and CSAT (Customer Satisfaction Rating).

To achieve our goals, we survey learners twice per year to measure their confidence in the following areas: product (business usage, functionality, configuration, troubleshooting, finding knowledge, documentation, creating knowledge), communication, case management, business impact, customer education and leadership. The results of the confidence survey are aligned with our learning plan roadmap and the organization objectives. From this alignment we ascertain two target areas for improvement and then assess the planning levels (Spector, pg. 25) needed to assist the learner in raising their confidence level by 5% before the next survey.

Our most recent survey results showed that learners lacked confidence in two key areas essential to meeting our organizational objectives: product troubleshooting and configuration. Based on the results of the survey, and feedback from internal support experts we concluded the training priority is to create a training curriculum specifically designed to increase skills in troubleshooting through a series of microlearning’s with simulations. Our choice of microlearning and simulations was based on several factors: 1. Time constraints to develop content (approximately 6 weeks) 2. Available learner time to engage and learn content (approximately 2 hours per week) 3. Application of Merrill’s first principles of instruction (Greenwood, 2017).

4. Assessment of most applicable method of content delivery given the constraints.

The microlearning strategy is focused on engaging learners in universal troubleshooting protocol training, specific troubleshooting tool training (Splunk, OpenGrok, Inspector), product area specific troubleshooting training and product code training in Java.

Section 2: Standards Applicable IBSTPI and ISTE standards are as follows: IBSTPI Standards 1. Through interviews with leaders in the organization, subject matter experts, and evaluation of the confidence survey as noted in Section 1 – Context, a needs assessment was conducted “in order to recommend appropriate design solutions and strategies” (IBSTPI Standard #6, 2012).

2. Evaluation of target population and learning environment established individual learners and most appropriate learning environment standards (IBSTPI Standard #7, 2012).

3. Using monthly scoresheet metrics including CSAT, NPS, and productivity values for individuals plus interviews as described above, we “select(ed) and use(d) analysis techniques for determining instructional content” (IBSTPI Standard #8, 2012).

4. In-depth analysis of potential use of existing and emerging technologies in relation to technology plan project was conducted through meetings with all stakeholders. (IBSTPI Standard #9, 2012).

5. Established appropriate instructional design and development process for the given project (IBSTPI Standard #10, 2012).

6. Project plan has been created with organization structure of the instructional programs to be delivered (IBSTPI Standard #11, 2012).

7. Research was conducted to select and/or modify existing instructional materials with the project team (IBSTPI Standard #14, 2012).

8. Instructional materials are being developed as noted in Section 5 – Learning Environment, in accordance with project charter (IBSTPI Standard #15, 2012).

9. Learning assessments as noted in Section 7 – Evaluation have been designed for use in the project (IBSTPI Standard #16, 2012).

10. Evaluation of interventions standard has been established and will be implemented upon project launch as noted in Section 7 – Evaluation (IBSTPI Standard #17, 2012).

11. Based on evaluations as noted in Section 7 – Evaluation, instructional solutions will be revised and improved to ensure target metrics are attained (IBSTPI Standard #18, 2012).

12. Instructional interventions are planned for dissemination within 6 weeks of project launch as noted in Section 4 – Learning Environment (IBSTPI Standard #19, 2012).

13. Planning and managing the instructional design project will ensure successful implementation and adoption by regularly meeting with stakeholders to provide project updates and milestone achievements (IBSTPI Standard #22, 2012).

14. Instructional designers will be responsible for communication in visual, oral and written form to ensure effective processes are established for learners to engage with the content. Additionally, communication standards will be applied consistently across instructional design content for consistency in knowledge transfer (IBSTPI Standard #1, 2012).

ISTE Standards for Educators 1. Review research on microlearning standards and best practices to support improved learning outcomes (ISTE Standard #1c, 2017).

2. Engaging learners through content that is relevant and applicable will encourage a learning culture that promotes curiosity (ISTE Standard #2b, 2017).

3. Project planning time is dedicated to collaborating with colleagues in creating authentic learning experiences that leverage technology (ISTE Standard #4a, 2017).

4. By using BranchTrack to create simulations, instructional designers are using collaborative tools to expand students’ real-world experiences (ISTE Standard #4c, 2017).

5. Using assessment data to evaluate progress and engaging stakeholders in evaluation of the data will help to build better and more personalized learning (ISTE Standard #7c, 2017).

Section 3: Affordance(s) or Relative Advantage(s) One of the most significant obstacles in demonstrating the impact of learning on organizational objectives is the lack of learning engagement with available instructional interventions. The most frequently offered reason for lack of engagement is available time for learning. This is both a cultural issue and an operational issue.

The culture of customer support within the organization is not a continuous learning culture. Managers and leaders do not model the behaviors needed to encourage a learning culture. Operationally, the customer support business model is highly transactional and time bound. Individuals are measured on their effectiveness in the ability to meet business objectives for customer satisfaction, productivity, and backlog ticket reduction. The combination of these factors creates an inherent animosity toward learning programs and courses. As Spector notes, “workers who are involved in workplace training are not performing their daily tasks. Unfortunately, some employers do not reduce the expected workload when workers are occupied with

required workplace training and education” (Spector, 2016, pg. 153). This obstacle is a deterrent to creating a learning culture and puts learners in the unenviable position of choosing to improve their skills to be more productive or abdicate learning in favor of maintaining the required metrics for their role.

The essential need to improve upon the business objectives in the area of troubleshooting will benefit the individual measurements as discussed in section 1, therefore it was necessary to design a technology use plan that could accommodate the competing factors that prevent critical learning objectives from being met. Our approach, using Spector’s technology integration principles was to minimize the impact of the technology platforms by utilizing existing, well-understood technology (LMS), creating bite-sized training delivered daily to reinforce learning, integrating existing learning materials and providing opportunities to apply learning immediately in realworld scenarios.

Advantages of using existing technology (LMS): 

Learning is available during work hours as well as after work (if the learner chooses);



Proper support is in place for this technology (Spector, 2016, pg. 171);



Learning materials are contained in one platform that is accessed through SSO (single sign on);



Learners activity can be easily monitored for accountability;



Managers can stagger time for learning to accommodate task-oriented work schedules;



Short burst of training reduces cognitive overload;



Costs are minimal and do not outweigh the benefits (Spector, 2016, pg. 171);



Reporting on learner activity and attainment is provided on demand; and



Courses can be adjusted and managed easily to ensure effectiveness.

Using the LMS as a platform will increase learners’ comfort with engaging in the

content. Given the constraints of the target population, the only feasible way to create and deliver training that meets the needs of the learners without interrupting normal business process is to integrate microlearning technology as the basis for the curriculum. Microlearning consist of one or two objectives delivered in short (5-10 minute) learning modules in the form of videos, documents and/or links. The benefits of microlearning include better learner engagement, higher concept retention (cognitive load theory, pg. 81-82), increased transfer to the job of learned concepts, faster deployment of learning content, and increased interactive activities (Kumar, 2018). Learners will then have the opportunity to practice the newly learned concept through a simulation scenario. Simulation scenarios provide multiple benefits to the learner. As Greenwood notes in his summary of Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction, “learning is promoted when learners are required to use their new knowledge or skill to solve problems” (Greenwood, 2017). Simulations provide real experiences, better knowledge retention, quick feedback, reduce risk, and facilitated cooperation (Designing Digitally, 2018).

By integrating microlearning and simulation into an accepted and consistently utilized platform (LMS) we reduce learner anxiety and increase learner engagement.

Several learning theories as outlined by Spector were evaluated for this learning approach. As noted, the use of microlearning and simulation align with cognitive load theory (Sweller) by focusing learners on what is essential. The use of both microlearning and simulations also aligns with the learning objective levels in Bloom’s taxonomy models

(McDaniel, 2018). Due to the nature of the subject matter, troubleshooting customer issues contains multiple variables that do not always lead to a distinct answer which is more clearly aligned with constructivism learning theory. As Spector explains, “the indirectly observables are the internal representations created when needed to interpret a situation, respond to a puzzling situation, explain unusual phenomena, or predict outcomes if a new situation occurs” (Spector, 2016, pg. 78).

Section 4: Learning Environment Learners will engage in with the courses using equipment readily available within their work environment. Each learner has access to and exclusively uses a laptop computer where they will be able to login to the LMS (learning management system) through a portal where the curriculum is stored referenced internally as the Learning Compass. All learners are familiar with the technology platform from their onboarding experiences and preceding learning offerings (voluntary and mandatory) which eliminates the primary concern of technology integration where learners “ may not be adept at using [technology] to support their own learning and development” (Spector, p. 140). Each learner will need the use of a headset to listen to videos in the microlearning modules and the voice-overs in the simulations. Learners each have a standard issue headset used to speak with customers and engage with online content. Learners may use small conference rooms (when available) to avoid environmental distractions when engaging with the content. As noted in Section 6 Evaluation, learners will engage in several levels of evaluation/assessment to determine the efficacy of the learning content.

The instructional designers will create microlearning content using Articulate Rise software platform which will be published to and delivered through our LMS (Learning

Management System). Each instructional designer uses Articulate Rise exclusively to create learning content currently. Video platforms for creating each 4-5-minute microlearning module include the use of Camtasia (desktop software), and Vyond (third-party) platforms that are used daily in instructional design projects. The learner will engage in a real-world scenario involving application of the microlearning content through simulations created through the BranchTrack platform but delivered through the LMS. BranchTrack is a thirdparty platform where instructional designers can create simulations and export them into the LMS. Instructional designers have individual accounts where they can develop and build simulations prior to LMS integration. Simulations are currently used within training modules and the learners are familiar with the technology.

The technology resources for both learners and instructional designers provide effective delivery of instructional content, clear process for attaining knowledge, and an effective measurement of learning.

Due to the use of existing platforms, software, tools and other resources there is no additional costs in creating the learning environment, however, costs can be estimated based on the costs to the company for the use of required resources.

Calculating personnel costs in creating content, use of the third-party platforms, communication, reporting, analysis, coaching and evaluation, plus cost of learner’s time in engaging with the content, the estimated overall cost for this project is $128,400.

Section 5: Integration Strategies

The proposed project plan aligns with the methods described by Spector in the Technology Integration Principles (Spector, 2016, p171-172). This project uses wellunderstood and often used technology which “does not interfere with but rather supports and facilitates learning, performance and/or instruction� (pg. 171). Given the working and learning environment, Rogers diffusion of innovation adoption curve is less of a concern in relation to technology adoption but still presents a realistic view of expected learner engagement based on prior learning project outcomes.

Using the constructivist approach and integrating collaborative, interactive and studentcentered learning methods as follows: 1. Learners are prompted via email daily with the link to the microlearning; 2. Clicking the link will login the learner directly into the learning via the LMS system; 3. The microlearning content will provide 1-2 concepts with links to additional materials for review (see Appendix A and C); providing opportunity for analysis of material; 4. Learners will complete a 5-question knowledge check providing assessment of comprehension; 5. Following the successful completion of the microlearning the learner will be prompted to enter the simulation; 6. The simulation will provide a real-world scenario using the microlearning learning objective in a customer-centered scenario (see Appendix B); 7. Successful completion of the simulation requires a passing score of 80%.

Learners may re-take the simulation unlimited times until complete it with a passing score;

8. Upon successful completion of the simulation, learners will receive an email with a digital badge signifying their accomplishment; 9. Steps 1-8 will be repeated each day over the course of 30 work days during which the learner will be required to fill out a survey providing their feedback on learning effectiveness and suggestions for improvement every 5 work days; 10. A cumulative assessment will be provided at the end of 30 days where learners will demonstrate overall comprehension of microlearning/simulation content.

Technology clearly supports student-centered learning methods through the integrated tools in the LMS (microlearning modules/simulations) and automated processes (email prompts).

The instructional design team will be able to evaluate both learner engagement and survey results (satisfaction) via reporting from the LMS system which will be integrated into a dashboard showing overall and individual progress. The results will be shown at an individual level with other data points related to organization objectives as noted previously (CSAT, NPS, MBO’s). In this way we will be able to determine both learning effectiveness and learning application through concrete objective measures.

As noted previously, Constructivism is the learning theory that aligns with the student-centered, real-world approach (p.78). Additionally, simulations align with Social cognitive learning theory which “posits that individuals are active agents in their development, not simply passive observers” (Whitman et al., 2013).

Section 6: Evaluation Evaluation of the learning activities will occur in the following ways: 1. Individual confidence survey results will serve as the baseline for each learner’s current state prior to engaging with the learning content (self-pre-assessment);

2. Learning curriculum will contain knowledge checks aligning with the learning objectives to assess learner comprehension (passing score of 80%); 3. Simulation modules will provide real-world scenarios where learners score points based on their answers (passing score of 80%); 4. Learners will provide post-assessment of learning content through five question surveys; 5. Individual confidence survey results (two months post training) will serve as the new baseline for each learners’ current state. Target increase of 5% from baseline results; 6. Internal monthly scorecard report shows individual improvement in productivity in closure rate from 1 to 2 service requests per day on average.

Based on Spector’s Technology Integration Principles (Spector, 2016, pg. 171), the evaluation of the technology use plan will “enhance learning, performance, and/or instruction”.

References Spector, M. (2016). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Greenwood, J. (2017). Merrill's first principles of instruction. Retrieved from http://instructionaldesign.io/toolkit/merrill/ Grabowski, B. L. H., Senior, F. A., Wallington, C. J., Reiser, R. A., Koszalka, T. A., & Russ-Eft, D. F. (2013). Instructional Designer Competencies: The Standards (Fourth Edition). Information Age Publishing, Inc. The ISTE Standards. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards Instructional Designer Competencies. (2012). Retrieved from https://ibstpi.org/instructional-design-competencies/ Kumar, S. (2018, August 14). 5 Key Benefits Of Microlearning. Retrieved from https://elearning.adobe.com/2018/08/5-key-benefits-microlearning/ The Major Benefits of Using Simulation Training in Corporate Learning. (2018, November 14). Retrieved from https://www.designingdigitally.com/blog/2018/11/major-benefits-usingsimulation-training-corporate-learning Mcdaniel, R. (2018, August 13). Bloom's Taxonomy. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/ Whitham S., Sterling L., Lin C.E., Wood J.J. (2013) Social Cognitive Learning Theory. In: Volkmar F.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Springer, New York, NY

Appendix A: Sample Microlearning using Articulate Rise

Appendix B: Sample BranchTrack Simulation

Appendix C: Learning Curriculum Mapping