1. 1
EAC692: Capstone Portfolio
Training and Development
North Carolina State University
Stephen Christopher Santucci

2. 2
Contents
1. Dedication ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. Introductory Essay ........................................................................................................... 7
3. Annotated Bibliography................................................................................................. 13
4. Project Learning Reflection ............................................................................................ 24
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................24
Observations .............................................................................................................................25
Lack of Training Objectives ................................................................................................................................26
Disconnect Between the Learner and Trainer ...................................................................................................26
Lack of Collaboration with Peers........................................................................................................................27
Telling Me Rather Than Showing Me .................................................................................................................28
Few Opportunities to Discuss My Progress or Improvement Needs .................................................................29
Incomplete Written Processes...........................................................................................................................30
Lack of Active Involvement ................................................................................................................................31
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................31
5. Application of Knowledge and Skills in the Workplace.................................................... 33
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................33
Task Analysis Steps ....................................................................................................................34
Findings and Conclusions ...........................................................................................................40
6. Synthesis Portfolio ......................................................................................................... 43
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................43
ITEM 1 -- Literature Review of Tablet Technology Uses and Learning Barriers for Adult Learners (Research in

3. 3
Adult and Higher Education – EAC 551).............................................................................................................44
ITEM 2 -- Organizational Change Plan for Kohl’s Corporation (Organizational Change – EAC 556) ..................46
ITEM 3 – “You Are The Difference”, Introducing the Mission, Values and Personal Accountability Functions of
WakeMed Hospital (Evaluating Training Transfer and Effectiveness – EAC584) ...............................................48
ITEM 4 – Journal Analysis Report: A Study of New Strategies for the Implementation of Distance
Education (Integrating Technology – EAC585)...................................................................................................50
ITEM 5 – Mentouring Our Brothers (Advanced Instructional Design – EAC581) ...............................................52
THEME 1 – Learning Barriers..............................................................................................................................54
THEME 2 - Change..............................................................................................................................................56
THEME 3 – Validity.............................................................................................................................................58
THEME 4 – Collaboration Challenges.................................................................................................................60
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................62
7. Plan For The Future........................................................................................................ 63
8. Abbreviated Resume...................................................................................................... 66
9. Concluding Essay ........................................................................................................... 68
10. References..................................................................................................................... 72
11. Work Archive and Samples............................................................................................. 74
ITEM 1 ASSIGNMENT - Literature Review of Tablet Technology Uses and Learning Barriers for Adult Learners
(Research in Adult and Higher Education – EAC 551) ........................................................................................75
ITEM 2 ASSIGNMENT-- Organizational Change Plan for Kohl’s Corporation (Organizational Change – EAC556)
...........................................................................................................................................................................87
ITEM 3 ASSIGNMENT - “You Are The Difference”, Introducing the Mission, Values and Personal Accountability
Functions of WakeMed Hospital (Evaluating Training Transfer and Effectiveness – EAC584) ........................159
ITEM 4 ASSIGNMENT – Journal Analysis Report: A Study of New Strategies for the Implementation

4. 4
of Distance Education (Integrating Technology – EAC585)..............................................................................167
ITEM 5 ASSIGNMENT – Mentouring Our Brothers (Advanced Instructional Design – EAC581) ......................180
ITEM 6: WORK-BASED PROJECT DELIVERABLES (Project Proposal and Job Aid)..............................................193

5. 5
Dedication
To Lisa Hildebrandt for providing me with both the original idea and website link that
kick-started this journey. Thank you for the encouragement and patience during the opening
phase of this long, arduous process.
To my parents, Stephen and Susan. You always encouraged me to be whoever I wanted
to be and have been invaluable teachers in your own right. Specifically, I want to thank Dad for
teaching me how to command an audience while treating everyone with the utmost respect and
how to carry myself with both integrity and decency. I wish to express my gratitude to Mom for
teaching me the value of patience and how to find joy in helping others grow and develop while
maintaining boundless loyalty and devotion. Thank you both for your infinite love and for
providing a safe haven during the most difficult stages of this long journey.
To Laura Jordan, whose love and unending patience allowed me to maintain my sanity
during the final stages of this process. Thank you for all of the effort and time you shared,
especially your devotion to reading and editing my work. And I will never thank you enough for
reading one paper that was sent to you in error and for shielding your anger from me.
To my brother, Nick, his fantastic wife, Breanna, and to my loving niece, Lilly and
nephew, Lincoln. You all remain a welcome distraction from life’s trials. Thank you for the
smiles, laughter and hugs.
To Laurie Middleton, my supervisor. You have been a tremendous ally in allowing me to
test all of my lessons and education in the professional environment. Your encouragement
during my career has positively reinforced my desire to complete this program and has already
affirmed that my time, energy and resources have not gone to waste.
To all of my friends whom I have known or have met between the years 2011 and 2016,

6. 6
including the dozens of new allies whose support and empathy have been most invaluable. I
cannot thank you enough!
Finally, I want to offer a special thanks to Chuck Lamothe, who provided invaluable
insight into this Portfolio project.

7. 7
Introductory Essay
Many years ago, I was called into a small room near the front entrance of Lockhart
Elementary School. Inside I found my mother and the school’s guidance counselor. It was then
that they shared that I had been diagnosed with a learning disability for auditory processing. In
laymen’s terms, tests proved that I struggled with retaining knowledge whenever I participated in
educational environments that focused on lectures, discussions and other areas that relied heavily
on listening. My learning preference catered more toward visual learning, such as reading,
visual demonstrations, videos and other mediums. As a result, my mother and counselor decided
to place me in special education classes where the curriculum catered to my needs. As I
transitioned to middle school and high school, I was challenged by classes that did not satisfy
these preferences. In fact, my grades plummeted during my first Algebra course to the point
where I was asked to retake the course. The teacher of my second Algebra course promoted a
more varied methodology, such as note-taking, diagramed and kinesthetic lessons. As a result,
my grades skyrocketed to an ‘A’ average.
Throughout college, I grew more aware of my specific preference towards lessons that
involved visual and hands-on methods and eventually found ways to overcome those that did
not. For example, in one history course, I received a ‘D’ on my first exam. I immediately
approached the professor and requested additional support. We started immediately. For weeks,
I would spend an hour after the class and he would reiterate the whole lesson. But this time, his
long lectures were animated and engaging. His eyes met mine. His amazing attention to detail
and his dazzling abilities as a raconteur helped me become engrossed. I passed the class with an
‘A’.
Although my preference toward visual learning was paramount, I discovered that my

8. 8
learning barriers and challenges could be overcome through diverse methods. First, my success
depended greatly on my interest level – not only in the subject at hand, but also in how the
lessons were delivered. Lessons presented in a captivating manner were easy to capture, even
when the information was presented through verbal methods. My imagination painted a visual
image that would complement the verbal cues. I was able to make the lessons fit my style and
discovered that I did not necessarily require instructors to cater exclusively to my learning
preferences. These educational experiences had a profound impact on my future career and
future educational aspirations.
After I received my Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism, I found little success in procuring a
position relative to that field. I eventually settled for a position with Nationwide Insurance as an
Auto Insurance Underwriting Screener. The work was mundane and lacked any creative element
or critical thinking skills. But, after serving for two years with the Screening team, I was asked
to train the newest member of my team and finally discovered a way in which I could
incorporate my education and skills as well as utilize my self-awareness in overcoming learning
challenges. For once, I could train someone else using the process and methodology that I
craved. I could train a person using the exact way I wanted to learn.
My choices for conducting training involved devoting less focus on lecture and more
opportunities for ways in which she, the learner, could see how I handle a task and then
immediately attempt to replicate the process. In other words, she could connect the verbal cues
with something visual and kinesthetic. By showing her, she could immediately see how the dots
connected. In addition, by repeating the process immediately, she would have a better
opportunity to learn from mistakes and retain the knowledge and skills through this repetition.
The training was successful!

9. 9
Soon, I became the unofficial “trainer” and assisted other new team members. In
addition, I found opportunities to use my journalism skills, such as proposing revisions to the
current learning resources and reference materials. I was instrumental in identifying key tasks
and steps that were initially overlooked and also removed any extraneous information that lead to
confusion and cognitive overload. It was these instincts that lead me to pursue and successfully
obtain the official position of Auto Screening Trainer in 2010 – a position that I have held ever
since.
In 2011, I applied for the Master’s Program in Training and Development (T&D) at
North Carolina State University in order to further my understanding on the teaching process.
My initial hope was that this program would present strategies on how I could better engage my
learning audiences, address learners whose learning styles conflicted with my own preferred
teaching methods and present new avenues on instruction using the latest technologies, such as
virtual environments.
This Capstone Portfolio contains a synopsis of that education, which includes numerous
lessons I did not anticipate, but have helped me tackle many challenges in my field, such as
corporate politics, ethical dilemmas as well as the unique learning needs and preferences of adult
learners. In addition, I used this knowledge to create partnerships and collaborations with not
only the learning community but also other members of my organizations whose success was
interconnected to my own.
This Capstone Portfolio also contains various lessons that reinforced many of my initial
presumptions about T&D. However, this new knowledge enhanced my role in various ways.
For example, Training and Development requires presenting information that is conducive to a
multitude of learner preferences, whether the technique is visual, verbal or kinesthetic. This

10. 10
program revealed that very few learners have one distinct style, but actually prefer some
variation of the three. I also gathered great insight on working with adult learners, such as their
unique learning requirements, which include participating in an environment that is safe and
empowers learners to feel in control of their own destiny.
One of the best examples of my development is my new understanding and appreciation
for the need for Task Analysis, which stresses the work that trainers perform before, after and
outside of a learning environment. This Graduate program also provided avenues for conducting
needs assessments so I could more successfully evaluate trends in the curriculum and understand
the current challenges of the Screening organization. For example, in 2016, I successfully
founded two committees that involved stakeholders, (screeners, team leaders, supervisors and
quality analysts), in order to find ways to enhance the performance of my organization using this
new knowledge. This development relied heavily on my knowledge in Task Analysis and
Performance Improvement. Specifically, I was able to fully understand how to identify
knowledge gaps and learning barriers and also gained the knowledge on how draft proposals that
would remove these issues and enhance the learning environment of my organization. Both of
these organizational scenarios are mentioned in this Capstone Project and should help illuminate
how this Graduate program has successfully enabled growth and success in my current role as
Trainer for Nationwide Insurance.
My development has been most apparent based on my renewed consideration towards the
attitudes of learners. I have developed new habits, such as showcasing the benefits to learning
and finding ways to overcome the barriers that may exist whenever an adult is presented with a
new challenge or change. Further, one of the most vital lessons was simply acknowledging that
certain tasks, challenges and goals are not always obtainable through training.

11. 11
This education also provided various avenues of addressing the way people learn using
advances in technology. When I began this program in 2011, most of my training courses
involved live audiences in a traditional classroom environment. However, as of 2016, most of
that has changed. Nearly all of my courses implemented some form of virtual or multimedia
methods, such as courses conducted over the phone, chartrooms or video conferences. The
lessons have allowed me to remove some of the barriers that exist when conducting virtual
training.
The most surprising element of my education was the need for learner interaction –
especially when it involves adult learners. Specifically, I now understand of the need for the
trainer to create an atmosphere that is inclusive and permits learners to become active
participants.
Lastly, this Capstone Portfolio reveals many errors in judgment based on my failure to
fully comprehend the lessons presented in my Graduate program or due to the new research and
studies that were received a latter stage in my learning. Specifically, Section 5 (Application of
Knowledge and Skills in the Workplace) and Section 6 (Synthesis Portfolio) reveal several
mistakes and provide an opportunity for reflection and ways in which I can better incorporate the
lessons to avoid such errors in the future. The closing lessons of my Graduate program have
helped me to more successfully lead a team collaboration, especially in virtual environments, and
how to fully lead an organizational change with special considerations to the Kotter’s Eight
Stage Model, which is discussed in the Synthesis Portfolio portion of this Capstone project.
As I reach the crescendo to this learning process that began back in 2011, I can honestly
attest that I am more qualified to meet the learning needs of my organization and have been able
to more successfully lead others. The Capstone Project also presents some topics that I wish to

12. 12
pursue further, such as my interest in further engaging my learners and ways I can further
enhance my courses using the latest theories and trends in the field of Training and
Development.

13. 13
Annotated Bibliography
Clark, R. E. (2015). Motivating performance: Part 1-diagnosing and solving motivation
problems. Performance Improvement, 54(8), 33-43. doi:10.1002/pfi.21503
Clark’s article presents a dilemma in which a multinational client experienced issues with
its service technicians who were constantly behind with completing service reports and
have repeatedly made mistakes that resulted in a loss of $10 million a year. Clark’s
theory is that improper training on the new electronic reporting system lead to resistance
and anger from the service technicians as well as continued delays with reporting.
Clark presents a systematic approach with questions such as: Do the people have a clear
and specific business goal? Clark also shares various motivational models, including the
CANE Model (Commitment And Necessary Effort), which requires committing to a
performance goal and avoiding distractions from appealing but less important alternative
goals. Clark also mentions motivation as an assessment of the tasks as to whether the it’s
feasible and permitted; emotions and commitment; and values and commitment. Another
way to increase commitments is personal interest or curiosity. Ultimately, the Clark’s
solution to the problem was to involve the technicians’ line producers, who valued and
respected them. Second, line producers were asked to give direct, private feedback to all
employees who were tardy or made excessive errors.
Clark provides strong arguments for handling crises in which motivation is a primary
obstacle. This direction would benefit not only members of Training and Development,
but also those affiliated with the management of a large workforce. Clark does admit that

14. 14
the detriment to using the CANE model is its generic solution (p. 42) and that
performance specialists can fine-tune the model to directly address the specific needs of
an organization. Specifically, it is vital that research is conducted to identify how
individuals and groups are motivated based on variables such as culture and values.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on
learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528.
Fiorella presents four experiments in which participants must view a video-based lesson
that explains how the Doppler Effect works. The experiment determined if allocating
more time to showing the instructor’s hand as he/she drew the diagrams would benefit
student learning rather than simply presenting static images or even demonstrations of
diagrams without including the hand within view. Fiorella presents literature that
promotes the use of certain principles, such as: A) Signaling – using verbal and visual
cues to properly process the most relevant information and ignore extraneous
information; B) Temporal Contiguity – using narration which corresponds with
instructional visuals rather than before or after; and C) Segmenting – presenting lessons
in manageable parts rather than one continuous unit. The results were based on a final
examination, which concluded that showing the instructor’s hand while drawing
diagrams produced the best test results. The theory is that the learners are able to connect
basic human actions with the “necessary cognitive processes underlying those actions,
thereby promoting learning” (p. 6).

15. 15
Fiorella successfully argues for observational learning and mentions various studies that
prove lessons which are personalized and include social cues lead to improved learning.
This article would benefit any educator or trainer in both scholastic or professional
working environments who wish to improve methods of training learners on specific
tasks. Specifically, this text would assist those who have had less than acceptable results
with training environments that require learner observation and replication of specific
actions.
Fryer, L. K., Bovee, H. N. (2016) Supporting students’ motivation for e-learning: Teachers
matter on and offline. Internet and Higher Education (30), 21-29.
Fryer presents a study that explains how motivation can influence the success of e-
learning courses. Specifically, “key factors to motivating students to engage in e-learning
are 1) to directly connect the e-learning to other homework and to in-class activities, and
2) to hold students accountable for their work” (p.22). Fryer further explains that “prior
computer use and teacher support were identified as potential prediction of future
motivation for online learning” (p. 23). Another consideration must be made toward the
learners’ prior computer competency. Further, those affected by critical motivational
deficits are likely to lose motivation further over time. Fryer reveals that geographical
location is vital since some countries (such as Japan) are technologically advanced,
whereas others lack computer literacy and therefore present additional motivational
challenges toward e-learning. Age also plays a factor since youths reported use of
smartphones and other devices for various tasks.

16. 16
Fyer concedes that motivation is hindered by overall ability deficits that already exist in
traditional learning environments and are not exclusive to e-learning environments. Fryer
also admits that the study presents limitations, such as the implementation at one
university and the focus on e-learning only. However, Fryer’s article strongly argues for
the need to promote the value in e-learning – but also can be attributed to traditional
learning environments as well. This is crucial for organization and trainers/educators
who are first implementing an e-learning environment and are promoting this change
towards audiences who are not familiar or experienced in this new method.
Gamdi, M. A. A., & Samarji, A. (2016). Perceived barriers towards e-learning by faculty
members at a recently established university in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of
Information and Education Technology, 6(1), 23-28.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.652
Gamdi provides a case study involving the Saudi Ministry of Higher Education and its
recent adoption and implementation of e-learning. Gamdi mentions that challenges
toward e-learning include “poor infrastructure, limited space and, limited number of
qualified lecturers” (p. 23). The quantitative study reveals that external barriers were the
most significant factor toward hindering the adoption. Specifically, the results show
there was poor internet access, lack of training on e-learning and technical support in the
university regarding both hardware and software. The research also reveals that barriers
exist based on socio-cultural factors, personological related factors (age, gender,

17. 17
attitudes, beliefs) and the extent of the exposure (support and training) (p. 24).
Gamdi’s study provides invaluable input for companies and trainers who wish to migrate
learning resources and plans toward an e-learning infrastructure. This study reveals that
various elements and resources, such as valid internet and technical support as well as
training must be in place before e-learning can be a functional alternative to traditional
learning strategies.
Karumathil, A. (2016). Think like a project manager to design your learning solution: Project
management skills align well with ADDIE when it comes to developing a learning
program. TD Magazine, 70(8), 76-77.
Karumathil’s article posits that learning projects can be “complex, time consuming, and
expensive” (p. 77). Therefore, Karumathil argues for instructional designers to examine
goals, like a project manager by ensuring that all activities are defined. Karumathil
further explains how it aligns with the ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Development,
Implementation, Evaluation) model except this consideration is extended to the needs of
the stakeholders, budget, schedule and quality or deliverables. For the analysis phase,
one must consider the business need, solution and specific performance improvements.
For the design phase, one must define the scope and break deliverables into manageable
chunks while considering the schedule and communication with the stakeholders. For
development and implementation, consideration must be made to testing learning
materials using a select group of stakeholders and also considering political concerns.

18. 18
Finally, evaluation should include whether the stakeholders were satisfied with the
results.
This information is helpful in broadening the scope of ADDIE for instructional design.
For example, if IDs (instructional designers) face additional pressures from leadership,
supervisors and management, this article provides valuable insight into handling these
additional barriers
Kumar, K. L., & Owston, R. (2016). Evaluating e-learning accessibility by automated and
student-centered methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2),
263-283. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9413-6
Kumar’s research study determines whether the current investigative methods of e-
learning evaluation correctly identify learner success and potential barriers. Specifically,
careful consideration was given to learners with disabilities, whether it was a physical or
mental barrier. Kumar shares various literature that highlights rulings in the United
States and other nations which mandate educational institutions must provide information
and opportunities so that “students with disabilities are not disadvantaged” (p. 266). The
study evaluated the success of evaluations that are A) Automated, which use brief testing
and B) Observed through both moderated and unmoderated means in which a research
judged success by visual and post-session interviews. The study reveals that automated
evaluations simply don’t work because computer algorithms are hard to develop in order
to successfully foresee and identify barriers. The second study involving sessions with

19. 19
both moderated and unmoderated sessions did provide more input, such as the conclusion
that the learner’s level of prior familiarity generally impacted their accessibility.
Kumar’s study reveals that participants prefer to participate in unmoderated test
environments to remove the burden of feeling self-conscious in the presence of a
researcher and video camera. However, moderated environments do allow students to
consult the researcher for assistance. Therefore, Kumar concludes that moderated
sessions may be preferred if there is anticipation that the student will involve a large
number of learners with accessibility barriers.
Kumar admits that variables are not quite obvious, such as how what conditions
negatively or positively influence participant comfort and what other elements can
distinguish moderated and unmoderated environments. Also, the small sample size of 24
students may not have presented a high volume of learners with diverse learning needs.
However, Kumar’s finding that automated evaluations are not valid methods for
determining learning barriers and that various criteria should be considered carefully
when judging e-learning accessibility in either professional or educational environments.
Sung, Y., Tseng, F., Kuo, N., Chang, T., & Chiou, J. (2014). Evaluating the effects of programs
for reducing achievement gaps: A case study in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 15(1), 99-113. doi:10.1007/s12564-013-9304-7
Sung defines an achievement gap as a “common and increasing global phenomenon”
which “has been defined as the disparities in standardized achievement test scores

20. 20
between different kinds of students” (p. 99). This study examines educational policies in
Taiwan using nationalized test scores. Sung shares literature that reveals achievement
gaps that are common in the countries such as the United States, United Kingdom,
Germany and South Korea. Specifically, these gaps were related to race, culture,
socioeconomic and family conditions. Sung highlights a recent study at the Ministry of
Education in Taiwan that investigated the concerns with educational gaps between junior
high school graduates who took the high school entrance exam between 2004 and 2010 to
test the success of the Program of Educational Priority Area, whose aim is to balance the
discrepancy between urban and rural education and to advance the achievement of
disadvantaged students.
Sung concludes that data on achievement gaps revealed that gaps between different
ethnic groups have narrowed since 2004. But, gaps between students from different
school districts have actually increased despite the program’s attempts to reduce them.
To address this trend, Sung suggests that the Ministry of Education promote a more
flexible reach to address the gap on a multi-faceted level and address changing trends
more frequently. Sung’s research provides invaluable insight into learning gaps that
could be present in small scaled workplaces or educational environments and presents
evidence to support the need to conduct research on trends frequently.
Walther, J. B., & Jang, J. (2012). Communication processes in participatory websites. Journal of
Computer‐Mediated Communication, 18(1), 2-15. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x

21. 21
Web 2.0 (also known as “social website”) provide participatory websites where multiple
individuals can post and/or contribute to a conversation. The most popular of these
include Facebook, Youtube and blogs. Even retailers, such as Amazon.com, have
developed a structure in which customers can contribute to a conversation and exchange
information. The four types of content provided in Web 2.0 include: A) Proprietor
Content in which messages are displayed by the author or proprietor and include special
privileges to determine the content, maintain editorial privileges. B) User-Generated
Content include responses to proprietor content can take the form of attitudes. Walther
further adds that negative attitudes, such as reviews or simple comments had the strongest
impact on the attitudes of other contributors. However, most respondents to this study
reveal that there is a preference for balanced perspectives. If “no negative information is
presented from other consumers, they find the validity of the remaining positive
information to be questionable” (p. 8). C) Deliberate Aggregate User Representations are
computer-generated statistics of the users’ ratings, votes and other site-related behaviors.
This is especially useful in obtaining evaluations and feedback. Samples of this include
star-ratings or “like” buttons on Facebook. Lastly, D) Incidental Aggregate User
Representations reflect information that is exacted from computer data that were not
enacted by any signaling effects. This includes the frequency the user posts ratings, visits
specific pages. etc.
Walther provides a detailed explanation of the Web 2.0 phenomenon. This is especially
vital to all teachers and trainers who wish to engage in a virtual or electronic working
environment while maintaining an active learning atmosphere. In addition, Walther

22. 22
provides invaluable information on how to learn from coordinating through Aggregate
User Representations to properly monitor the way users react and feel about the content.
However, there are concerns regarding Web 2.0’s validity. Proprietors have the power to
influence participant reactions using cues and psychological methods. Walther states that
there is little research to suggest how readers and participants select and respond to
content and that further investigative research is warranted.
Wiphasith, H., Narumol, R., & Sumalee, C. (2016). The design of the contents of an e-learning
for teaching M.5 english language using ADDIE model. International Journal of
Information and Education Technology, 6(2), 127-131.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.671
Test results from the English courses in the Ministry of education of Thailand reveal that
students scored lower than 50 percent. The reasons include students lacking patience or
motivation to learn English. Wiphasith presents the implementation of E-learning and
the ADDIE models as methods that address this concern. The proposal was evaluated by
“five content experts” which includes utilizing the ADDIE to conduct a task analysis of
the issue. The proposals were varied and included analyzing data collected from the
English teacher, produce sequencing of tasks in a logical manner and create objectives
that are shared with the learners to establish clear-cut goals.
The primary concern with this text is Wiphasith presents research primarily in the form of
a brief literature review that discusses the curriculum. However, the conclusions were

23. 23
reached without any consideration to further study and little data is presented that support
findings. Using content experts and findings by the teacher does reveal a possibility of
bias and omits the possibility the learning barriers could also be influenced by other
possibilities, such as insufficient ID, technical challenges and teacher methods.
However, Wiphasith fails to provide results to support this plan of action, but does
present some compelling ways ADDIE can be used in a learning environment in which
previous attempts to create a successful lesson have failed.

24. 24
Project Learning Reflection
Introduction
In 2015, I was asked to participate in a training class at my workplace. But this one was
different. I was going in as a learner. This twelve-week course presented in-depth classroom
lessons on the Proper Screening product, a type of insurance that was pivotal to my growth since
my experience and knowledge was limited to the Auto product. In order to obtain the position as
Senior Trainer, I had to master two diverse products and demonstrate my ability to train the
Screeners in both Canton, Ohio as well as my home center in Raleigh, North Carolina. This
course reviewed all of the tasks that were necessary to the product and provided multiple days
for me to implement the knowledge as if I were working in the Property Screening department.
Although the Property Screening process involved tools, software and an instructional
database that was shared by the Auto product, the overall curriculum and steps were vastly
different. In fact, earlier attempts to train Auto Screeners on the Property side were met with
mixed results. I was aware that many Auto Screeners had difficulty making the transition
because the overall process presented new work methods and as well as unique approaches to
common tasks, such as sending memos to agents, evaluating policies and using personal
judgement.
Because I had nearly six years of both training experience with Auto Screening as well as
knowledge from this Graduate program, I was excited about this challenge, despite the warnings
of the difficulty the Property Screening tasks presented. I believed learning Property Screening
presented an opportunity for me to step away from my current role as “trainer” and to re-evaluate
training and development (T&D) from the perspective as a “learner.” I also had a chance to
analyze the current status of the corporate training environment and gather insight of T&D by

25. 25
monitoring the actions and process of one of my training peers. Lastly, I hoped that my lessons
from my T&D courses would allow me to be even more successful in the role as a “learner”.
The training class took place in two separate rooms. The trainer actually conducted class
in Canton with three learners present in the physical classroom. I was the only participant
located in a small training room equipped with a work computer and virtual video equipment that
allowed me to both observe and listen to the class from the Raleigh office. The instructor
presented the lessons by either having the learners read the instructions first or, if the directions
were complex, the instructor or a volunteer would read the directions to the learning audience.
Afterwards, the instructor would perform 1-2 tasks by sharing her computer screen with the
group and have us observe her actions. The trainer would then ask the class to work on policies
that contained the tasks that were just presented and email completed work to a Quality Analyst
(QA), who would provide feedback on the next business day. The trainer and trainees could
evaluate these results to determine how successful the lessons were retained and implemented.
Observations
Although I felt the class effectively showed me how to complete the Property Screening
tasks, I did have some observations on how the class could have been improved by adhering to
many of the core lessons learned from my T&D courses or based on my personal learner
preferences. Those observations include:
 Lack of training objectives
 Disconnect between the leaner and trainer
 Lack of collaboration with learning peers
 Telling me rather than showing me
 Few opportunities to discuss my progress or improvement needs

26. 26
 Incomplete written processes
 Lack of active involvement
Lack of Training Objectives
My first lessons in T&D from Methods and Techniques in T&D promoted the importance
of preparing a list of learning objectives. Specifically, Silberman (2006) mentions that “it is not
enough to simply list topics you intend to cover” and goes further by stating that “an active
training program is constructed in terms of the achievement of objectives” (p. 41). This was
apparent earlier as I struggled to understand how the topics presented in my provided training
plan were interconnected and what the primary goal was in order for me to fully understand how
to succeed. Silberman (2006) forewarns that “if you are not clear about your objectives, you
might overlook some of the learning experiences that your participants require” (p. 41). For
example, I wanted to understand if specific tasks would be more vital for future lessons or if my
time and attention would serve me best elsewhere. Although I understood that my primary goal
was to perform the 40 tasks listed in the training plan, failing to present learning objectives made
it challenging for me to prepare by judging the material on a more holistic “big picture” field of
view.
Disconnect Between the Learner and Trainer
This setting presented some level of alienation as I didn’t feel part of the classroom at the
same level as my peers, who were present in the physical classroom in Canton. Although I could
successfully monitor all of the lessons and see and hear all of the questions and comments shared
by the learners, I still felt a distance and level of discomfort. I felt especially inclined to speak
openly about the moments of discomfort with the instructor. Instead, I depended on the
instructor to gauge my understanding through my actions. This realization reinforced my own

27. 27
failings with e-learning environments. I have never been completely comfortable with training
or learning in a virtual setting. In fact, it mirrors my preference to engaging in an interpersonal
conversation in a live setting rather than using text or phone calls. Also, because of the distance
between service centers and the obvious barriers with current technology, there was a slight
delay between the time one person spoke and the receiver heard or saw the information. This
created additional discomfort as I felt less inclined to ask questions or express concerns to avoid
the risk of interrupting the instructor or learning peer. Silberman (2007) warns of the ongoing
conflict between the need for growth and need for safety and that people will be more inclined to
choose the latter (p. 7). To counter this, I tried to express my worries and concerns with the
trainer whenever possible, but always felt the ongoing barrier based on the virtual environment.
In addition, the virtual environment and expedient pace made it less comfortable to ask
questions. One tip I gathered from a brief seminar on T&D included presenting an opportunity
to the learner to ask any questions they want and silently counting to ten. Those ten precious
seconds provide learners with a brief moment to reflect and ponder over what they learned and
posit questions rather than feel pressured to ask.
Lack of Collaboration with Peers
I always preferred to work independently. Doing so enables me to work at a pace that is
comfortable and also allows me to take time to reflect without interruptions or distractions.
However, the education presented in courses, such as the Adult Learner and Methods and
Techniques in T&D reveal that there is real value in collaboration. For example, Silberman
(2006) and MacKeracher (2004) support the need for training that involves the ongoing
collaboration and support of peers as well as the instructor. MacKeracher (2004) posits that
“feedback becomes reinforcement for the learning particularly if learners value their own

28. 28
performance or value the feedback they receive from others. Reinforcement, in turn, can provide
the learner with a feeling of having been rewarded” (p. 56). MacKeracher (2004) also adds that
this process can enable more immediate feedback and warns that “the farther apart the action and
the consequences are in time, the less likely it is that the feedback will contribute to satisfaction
and success or to correcting ideas or actions” (p. 58).
As part of my recent training, I have promoted an active training environment that
catered toward collaboration and partnership. I believe this is vital to the early phases of any
training class since it helps individuals learn from mistakes, such as misunderstandings and
overlooking pertinent details, by allowing them to partner with someone else who could provide
additional guidance and coaching using a tactic that differs from the trainer’s.
At any time when I assume the role as a learner, I have a fear of being judged and, as a
result, I don’t always ask questions when I should. This is a personal barrier that I must
overcome, but a training environment should create an atmosphere that feels safe and helps me
feel more inclined to step outside my comfort zone. MacKeracher (2004) warns that this anxiety
is just as prominent in adult learners as it is in children and further adds that adults “stand to lose
much more of their previous gains in self-esteem and self-confidence if they try to learn and fail”
(p. 126). Working with a peer during the opening phase of practice would compel me to ask
questions and receive feedback on my progress.
Telling Me Rather Than Showing Me
On several occasions, I experienced challenges handling policies because they would
contain odd scenarios that were not discussed in class or were not included in the written
directions. In this circumstances, I asked the trainer for help. The trainer normally provided
detailed answers, but I occasionally stumbled in taking her verbal cues and transitioning to the

29. 29
implementation side. My preference would have been to have the instructor perform the tasks
herself so I could fully understand the entire process. This need is reinforced in Silberman
(2006) who mentions that the “advantage of a demonstration is that it adds showing to merely
telling” (p. 97).
Also, my preference toward visual learning was evident when reflecting on this barrier.
Rather than depend on pure visual curriculum, I referred to my original epiphany when I had
taken Undergraduate Courses at Appalachian State and found ways to tackle material that wasn’t
solely visual in nature. For this course, I would occasionally press the ‘Print Screen’ function
and paste samples of my work into a Word document as I listened to the instructor’s lectures.
This strategy is reinforced in Clark (2008), who states that “there is consistent evidence that
people learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone, at least for some
simple instructional situations” (p. 66).
Few Opportunities to Discuss My Progress or Improvement Needs
The class presented opportunities for me to learn and improve using the quality reports
sent by the QA on a daily basis. However, there was not an opportunity for me to decipher the
root cause on any recurring ongoing issues I had. For example, it was apparent that I was having
difficulty in recalling all of the pertinent steps necessary for completing one specific task.
Despite the instructor’s initial promise to meet in confidence and discuss my progress, I only had
one actual chance to discuss my progress with her. As a learner, I believe it’s vital to establish a
plan-of-action in the event that I do not meet all of the goals of the course. In this case, I created
a spreadsheet that tracked all of the errors and identified notable trends. In addition, I wrote a
strategy for handling each trend in order to avoid the issue in the future.
As a learner, I desire to have a safe environment in which unforeseen issues are taken

30. 30
into account by my trainer. My ideal learning setting is one in which my instructor is willing to
provide alternative methods in the event that I don’t initially succeed. In my opening essay, I
mentioned the history teacher who provided additional support by rehashing the lessons in a
more intimate setting. As a trainer, I prepare for the possibility of adjusting tactics and believe
it’s crucial that both the instructor and learner come to a mutual agreement in which both sides
make proper changes in order to create a more effective learning environment. Silberman (2006)
also reinforces the need for more immediate feedback between the trainer and learner and
highlights the model by Donald Kirkpatrick that requires evaluation based on A) Learner
Reaction, B) Learning, C) Behavior and D) Results (p. 317).
Incomplete Written Processes
The major difference between Auto and Property was that the Property instructional
material contained a large volume of data, including hypothetical scenarios. But these
instructions also omit various steps, scenarios and considerations which the learner “just needs to
know.” As a learner, my impulse is to evaluate the written process and confirm if I have all of
the materials and resources needed to be fully adequate and prepared. In this case, the training
required the instructor to compensate for various information that was either omitted or
overlooked. Specifically, the Property Screening instructional material focuses solely on
sequential learning using a series of numeric steps and “what, if” scenarios. This narrow
structure added a great deal of anxiety and stress to my learning process and also goes against
various lessons from T&D. For example, Morrison (2011) warns that one common error is to
have an objective classified on an application-level performance and then design a strategy that
focuses on recall. In one case, I found directions that asked me to write an agent memo about a
missing policyholder, but the material didn’t specify on what to write. That information is found

31. 31
on another instructional link that is unlisted. Therefore, I’m forced to compensate by either
relying purely on memory or using alternative resources of my own design.
Another key issue is the instructional material was conceived, designed and rewritten by
subject matter experts (SMEs), who are fully knowledgeable on the Property Screening tasks.
As a result, the instructional material references numerous terms and acronyms, forcing me to
create personal job aids that fill in these gaps. The instructional material was never considered
for the laymen learner. Morrison (2011) reiterates the need to provide material based on learner
familiarity with content and technical terms (p. 205) and also considerations should be made
regarding the learning audience’s background (p. 206). Additional omissions include lack of
cues (Morrison, 2011, p. 209) (first, second, before, after).
Lack of Active Involvement
The literature from my coursework provide various arguments for implementing an
active learning environment in an adult training situation. For example, Silberman (2006) argues
that retention rates are much higher when learning is engaged by discussion and teaching others
(peers) rather than lecture or reading (p. 2). Active training also enables me to overcome my
learning challenges since it allows me to “hear, see, and touch the relevant learning materials”
(Silberman, 2006, p. 97).
Conclusion
As a student of T&D, I used this learning experience to ponder more about my tactics as
both a learner and as a trainer. Ultimately, I found that any learning experience requires some
formal agreement between the instructor and learners and both sides need to be active
participants, which includes being able to speak openly about their needs and learning
preferences. As a learner, I could have done a better job with communicating my concerns. But

32. 32
this, along with my lessons, provide invaluable insight in ways I can better approach my own
learning courses and provide avenues in which I can enable a learning environment is that active,
engaging, safe and open to learner input and recommendations.

33. 33
Application of Knowledge and Skills in the Workplace
Introduction
May 2-4, 2016
I conducted a needs assessment to address a problem within my current organization of
employment. The associates I serve include the Property Screeners, who are composed of nearly
30 associates serving in Raleigh, North Carolina and Canton, Ohio. Among their 30 tasks daily
tasks are the “Dwelling Fire” (or “DF”) polices. Specifically, this purpose of this task is to
review the accuracy and eligibility of insurance policies that protect residences that our
policyholders rent to a third party. For example, if I own two homes and wish to lease one of
those to a renter, I would insure this particular residence on a Dwelling Fire policy. DFs protect
the property from hazard damage and liability claims (accidental injury). However, the renter
would be accountable for insuring any personal property they own and keep in the rented
residence. Therefore, if the rented home is destroyed in a hurricane, I, the owner, would be
protected for damage to the home and for any liable claims, but the renter would be accountable
for any damage to their property, such as clothing, TVs, etc.
The DF task is incredibly complicated. While tasks in auto and property are normally
composed of one to five steps, the Dwelling Fire rule contains 12 different steps and over 6,000
words. Many Screeners and quality analysts regard it as the most challenging task in either
product. Property Screeners receive Dwelling Fire tasks at a high volume and must complete
this task, among all others, within a specific timeframe. Because all tasks are measured with the
same time medium, Screeners face the pressure of completing DF at an expedient pace. The
Screeners’ performance is measured by production and quality standards. Their quality is
evaluated each month by having 10 random policies evaluated by a quality analyst (QA).

34. 34
Because the quality pull is random, Dwelling Fire policies are pulled at an irregular rate. Some
screeners may have 1-2 DFs reviewed, whereas others may have 5-6 reviewed.
The DF written directions were initially created by a Subject Matter Expert (SME) -- not
an instructional designer. The DF has undergone multiple updates and revisions over the past 10
years by several authors. Information was added without much consideration for presenting the
steps in a logical order and no considerations were made to reduce the steps in a way that’s
concise so that Screeners could easily find information. Also, the DF directions were not
designed for novice users and new hires.
Task Analysis Steps
May 5
For my needs assessment, I was immediately aware of my role and the limitations to what
I could change and update. Referring back to my lesson, I decided to include the stakeholders,
which include my immediate supervisor as well as the QAs, managers and Property Screening
leaders. They would have some level of involvement in each step of the improvement effort and
would be based on Swanson (2007) and the ADDIE model (Analyze, Design, Development,
Implement and Evaluate (p. 33). It was my hope that involving stakeholders could lead to more
drastic undertakings, if necessary.
For the analysis stage, I sought data from my supervisor and the Screening manager in
Raleigh and noted that the desired quality levels for Dwelling Fire are 90% or above. The
Dwelling Fire quality results were the lowest (88% on average) when compared to results of
Property and Auto tasks during the first four months of 2016. In order to understand where to
devote my efforts, I referred to Swanson (2007) who asks whether improvement will impact the
A) individual, B) process, C) work team or D) organization (p. 6). In this case, I knew that

35. 35
updating the written DF direction or standards was not possible without receiving significant
attention and drastic measures from leadership. Therefore, I decided to concentrate on the needs
on an “individual” and determine a resolution that would increase the DF quality score above
90%.
My initial instinct was to conduct research by seeking input from Property Screeners and
by evaluating the current quality errors for any notable trends or data that might present
possibilities for the low scores. Seeking data from two different sources is vital according to
Robinson (2015) who mentions “one way to increase reliability (in data collection) is to obtain
data from multiple sources” (p. 125). Robinson (2015) repeatedly argues for a minimum of two
different data sources.
For the input piece, my aim was to identify and interview screeners who have struggled
with DF in the recent past. This group would be called the ‘Dwelling Fire Task Force.’
However, most of the Task Force volunteers were associates who actually attained high
quality levels with DF task during the timeframe that was monitored. However, in hindsight, I
appreciated having a variety of participants based recent knowledge I gathered through my
course: Organizational and Operation of Training and Development Programs. Specifically,
Robinson (2015) asks the question: “What is it that the stars are doing and typical employees are
not?” (p.105). The “stars” could provide some alternative strategies and ideas that could be
implemented for the entire Property Screening organization, which could improve the scores of
those who are not reaching our quality goals.
My data collection approach adhered to Creswell’s (2014) insight, which was to create a
series of research questions (p. 123) to be used for a qualitative study in order to use interviews
and the data from the quality reports to identify the problems and use the data to A) define the

36. 36
work, B) decide the level that’s needed, C) determine the current work process, which would be
to compare the current steps in the DF process with the methods used and preferred by the
Screeners, D) review and revise steps, which may involve providing an alternative method and
E) review and share with the decision-makers, who, in this case, would be the associates, their
respective leaders and managers from both Canton and Raleigh.
But I also had to consider the dangers of imposing my personal bias. Creswell (2014)
mentions that validity concerns (p. 92) include assumptions, unmeasured processes and creating
an equivalence between two groups. My personal bias in this case was my automatic assumption
that the issue with low DF quality scores was directly tied to the faults of the written instruction.
This assumption could potentially create a narrow view that disregards any other potential
barriers. Ruff-Eft (2009) also provides strong evidence towards avoiding bias by determining
“whether a certain (data collection) method can be used to overcome potential bias and whether
you need to use multiple methods and examine their convergence” (p. 225). Using this
knowledge, I sought to use make judgements using quantitative data (quality reports) and
qualitative data collected by questioning Task Force members. The questions were carefully
constructed to avoid swaying the respondent to provide my expected answers, but to keep the
conversation open to discussing other possible problems and solutions. Using a mixed methods
approach, which include both quantitative and qualitative data, is a preferred way to reduce bias
as mentioned in Creswell (2014) who states that mixed methods “resided in the idea that all
methods had bias and weaknesses, and the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data
neutralized the weaknesses of each form of data” and even adds that mixed methods is a way “to
integrate the quantitative and qualitative data, such as one database, could be used to check the
accuracy (validity) of the other database” (p. 14-15).

37. 37
Also, I had to consider the possibility that resolutions may not include the need for
further training and that my ultimate goal is to present a viable solution and not limit it to a
training plan.
May 12
After I received a list of Task Force volunteers from leaders in both service centers, I
conducted a group teleconference in which I asked the Screeners (now officially part of the
Dwelling Fire Task Force) questions, which include a few central research questions (Creswell,
2014, p. 139):
 What barriers exist that prevent you from reaching quality and production goals with the
Dwelling Fire Task?
 What actions/steps can the organization take in order to make you more successful with
Dwelling Fire?
 What incentives might encourage the Property Screeners to complete the Dwelling Fire
process without error?
Using Creswell’s (2014) lessons in mind, I kept the questions focused solely on the single
concept (DF challenges) and tried to used verbs that were exploratory, open-ended and allow the
respondents to explain the “why” and present me with the chance to ask follow-up questions (p.
141). The interview was conducted in a group discussion using a teleconference phone call
conversation. I purposefully avoided any physical meeting location to avoid any sense of
partiality or benefit that may exist from being able to see the actions and faces of only the
Raleigh participants. Assembling a small group was done purposefully to, hopefully, compel the
members of the Task Force to feel comfortable enough to reinforce opinions shared with other
members, elaborate on the feedback and provide alternative ideas when they encounter

38. 38
conflicting views. This strategy is reinforced Morrison (2011) who mentions that small groups
are beneficial to case studies because each participant “must study and analyze the situation as
presented. They decide what was done correctly and what mistakes might have been made in
terms of principles and accepted practices in their field of specialization. During discussion,
each person must explain, justify, and defend his or her own analysis of the case situation” (p.
232). My objective was to begin the task analysis with discussion that was collaborative in
nature. This would hopefully create a group dynamic that felt democratic.
May 16-19
After collecting the data, I noted several repeated answers from the Task Force, which
included explanations for the low DF quality were the result of oversight rather than if the
“individual has the knowledge and expertise” (Swanson, 2007, p. 65). In other words, it was
determined that the Screeners currently have the appropriate knowledge and skills and that
training was not needed. However, I needed to identify a possible alternative resolution. I sent
the Task Force an email that included a synopsis of their feedback as well as an excel
spreadsheet that categorized the mistakes in the DF tasks as identified in the quality reports. I
noted three primary errors which accounted for nearly 50% of all the total errors. If the Property
Screeners avoided these three error, the quality scores would reach the preferred levels.
I endeavored to be more direct and promote my own agenda during this phase. For
example, in addition to sharing feedback and quality data, I also provided a list of list of possible
remedies in my email to the Task Force members, which included the creation of a job aid that
highlighted the data needed to avoiding the three errors. My desire to be more aggressive was a
directly response to what I perceived as a lack of concrete feedback from my earlier discussions
with the Task Force. Although my ultimate agenda was to encourage a Task Force that was

39. 39
democratic in nature, I maintained a stable leader role in order to encourage participation and
maintain a sense of direction and vision. I referred to lessons in Swanson (2007) that asks
improvement efforts to consider whether the performance issues should address 1) present
performance problems, 2) improvements to the present situation or 3) future performance
requirements. In this case, my instinct was to concentrate on 1) the present, but also to consider
how a new job aid may also improve the present and future requirements. When considering 2
and 3, I opted for creating a job aid that referenced the entire Dwelling Fire process rather than
concentrate solely on the three primary quality concerns. The reasons for distributing a
comprehensive job aid were my concerns that emphasizing on the three issues only would
possibly create a narrow concentration window in which the Property Screeners could potentially
overlook other tasks as a result. Also, providing a comprehensive job aid would allow the
Screeners to highlight future quality concerns rather than require a second job aid.
However, one of the primary obstacles that could not be appropriately gauged through
either the data analysis of the quality trends or through the qualitative research was “motivation”
(Swanson, 2007. p. 66). Do the Property Screeners “want to do a good job?” (Swanson, 2007, p.
66). This consideration was tabled for the Task Force’s meeting with leadership in which we
would present our Task Analysis.
May 23-June 4
After I sent the email with the data and my proposal, the Property Screeners were given
an additional week to think about the discussion and decide if they still agree with a job aid as
the resolution the DF quality problem. Despite my apparent success with the task analysis and
the analyze phase, I did encounter unforeseen issues.

40. 40
Findings and Conclusions
First, I learned that not everyone understands instructional design. To begin the job aid
creation, I asked a Task Force member to take the lead and create a first draft. The Screener’s
final product was very simple in nature and did not specifically address the needs of the learners.
I believe that the associate created a job aid that was concise and fast, but did not present
sufficient information to successfully address the problems.
June 13-June 22
Second, after I reviewed the job aid draft, I created an alternative job aid that was more
thorough and sent to the draft to the Task Force members for input. Only one Task Force
member replied and complained that the job aid was “too long”. However, after I replied and
asked for details on how to trim the size of the job aid, I received little response.
August 9
Third, after I updated the job aid with the little input I did receive, I asked the Task Force
to present our findings to the stakeholders (leaders in both Raleigh and Canton). But the Task
Force volunteers were nervous and lacked the confidence to speak on the matter other than what
I had prepared in the Task Analysis proposal.
September 1
Fourth, the leaders involved in the meeting were extremely reserved and did not
particularly offer any excitement over the proposal. In fact, some of the leaders later told the
associates that using the job aid was optional. Later, one leader expressed her displeasure with
our proposal.
The set-backs to the job aid implementation revealed the need to cement a plan in an
agreed-upon contract that specified not only the goals of the project but also include the

41. 41
expectations of all stakeholders and members of a collaborative organization. I believe the
implementation phase of this project was the least successful because of these unforeseen
barriers. The positive side to this story is that the project will continue and that managers in both
Raleigh and Canton have acknowledged that a lack of engagement and “sign-off” of the plan was
noteworthy and would be avoided in the future.
Although this Task Analysis presented a fair and grounded theory for change based on
the input and feedback shared by both Task Force members and stakeholders, I failed to
completely following the example established in Kotter’s Eight-Stage Model for Proposed
Changes (Kotter, 1996). Specifically, I did not completely adhere to the last three steps, which
include: 6) Promoting Short-Term Wins, 7) to Not Let Up and 8) to Make It Stick. Because the
short-term win of the job aid implementation would be to improve quality results to 90% or
above, it was obvious that further incentive should be made to entice the Property Screeners.
However, the leaders did not share this sentiment and did not promote a rewards program. The
leaders later conceded that this was a mistake and that an incentive program will be implemented
in December 2016. The “Don’t Let Up” stage was established in which I asked each Task Force
member to seek out the Property Screeners and gather their feedback on the job aid on a
recurring basis. However, I did not receive one response from them after the implementation. In
hindsight, I would have established in the Task Analysis proposal so that each Task Force
member would be required to speak to every Property Screener and present a written agreement.
Lastly, the “Make it Stick” segment would require stakeholders to maintain an ongoing
communication and reinforcement of the vitality of the job aid and the need for improvement
with regards to the Dwelling Fire task.
Although the creation of the Dwelling Fire Task Force and goal to achieve higher quality

42. 42
DF levels was met with unforeseen challenges and barriers, I do believe that this knowledge has
allowed me to create an atmosphere that was collaborative; providing me with a viable method
of gathering data and input. This assignment also proved that a trainer’s role is greater than
simply suitable methods to train in order to create grounds for improving performance, but that
trainers can serve various roles outside of the common perceptions to achieve performance goals.
Coincidentally, the final course of my Graduate Program (Organization and Operation of
Training and Development Programs) offered various lessons for how to avoid such issues in the
future. Specifically, Oshry (2007) provides valuable insight to how my role as a trainer relates to
the needs of the stakeholders, whether it is to top levels (managers, leaders), the middles (quality
analysts, trainers) and the Screeners (bottoms) (p. 69-96). Ultimately, the goal is to present a
broad understanding as to how these roles are related and how they serve a broader system. Any
miscommunication or misunderstanding stems from the lack of knowledge on the needs, wants
and interest of the other roles. By including stakeholders into the process and creating a contract
that more directly and more specifically addresses the vision of the task at hand, I hope to be able
to learn from the mistakes and jettison a more constructive and positive team-based performance
improvement task in the future.
Footnote
Samples of the initial proposal and job aid are enclosed in the Work Archive and Sample
section of this Capstone Portfolio.

43. 43
Synthesis Portfolio
Introduction
Included in this Synthesis Portfolio is a collection of summaries pertaining to five major
assignments (which are included in the Work Archive and Samples section) from my T&D
courses as well as four written analyses that dissect themes that connect these assignments. I
will admit that I was uncertain if there were connections between these five assignments and
risked beginning the analysis process without considering the themes; hoping they would present
themselves during the opening phase. Thankfully, this turned out to be the case. The four
themes include:
 Theme 1 – Learning Barriers
 Theme 2 – Change
 Theme 3 – Validity
 Theme 4 – Collaboration Challenges
The two themes that were most obvious from the beginning were the challenges with
collaboration and change. Specifically, both these assignments, as well as my professional role,
presented many cases in which I constantly struggled with getting learners to embrace change or
engage in a smooth collaboration process. The most surprising discovery were the issues with
learning barriers. This revelation surfaced during my analysis of the literature review which
explores reasons why learners cannot embrace new learning. Although there is some overlap
between learning barriers and change, I was most surprised to discover that barriers are not based
primarily on lack of desire for change, but are the result of lacking confidence. Finally, the
issues with validity were a staple for my ongoing challenges with deciphering data in the
literature reviews and when conducting task analysis assignments.

44. 44
ITEM 1 -- Literature Review of Tablet Technology Uses and Learning Barriers for Adult
Learners (Research in Adult and Higher Education – EAC 551)
This research paper presented various considerations towards my challenges in the field
of T&D and where I may wish to further my education and knowledge after the completion of
my Graduate program. This literature review encompasses various studies on how technology is
currently used in both academic and corporate learning environments. My research examined
the use of tablet computers in educational environment. Tablets have become commonplace in
academia. Studies reveal that not only do younger learners enjoy using tablets, but also proves
that tablet technology offers a new and exciting avenue for learning. It also presents ways for
learners to more quickly exchange information with peers and instructors.
However, my research also revealed some hindrances in using tablets as a replacement
tool for textbooks and traditional note-taking. Some considerations are that learners retain
knowledge better by recording notes with a pencil/pen and paper than they do with computers or
tablets. There must also be considerations towards learners with some mental or physical
disabilities.
Tablets and newer technologies have not been embraced as successfully by adult learners
– especially learners of advanced ages, such as senior citizens. The barriers include the anxiety
adults have with learning new tasks and the lack of perceived value in either learning to use new
technologies or the belief that these new tools are not conducive to their needs.
This literature review provided invaluable insight into how adult learners differ from
others and how great advances in technology have accelerated faster than the rate in which many
are willing to embrace it. As a result, I wish to continue to pursue new technologies and theories
and how to address this concern. This is especially vital since I work in a diverse working

45. 45
environment and new tools, such as email upgrades, the implementation of laptop and virtual
conference rooms have been perceived negatively by many of my trainees, despite the
company’s efforts to showcase the benefits.

46. 46
ITEM 2 -- Organizational Change Plan for Kohl’s Corporation (Organizational Change – EAC
556)
This organizational change proposal was the primary assignment of my Organizational
Change course. Four team members and I served as a consulting firm for a fictional scenario in
which we prepared a change strategy for The Kohl’s Corporation, which sought unionization for
its North Carolina store employees in order to address concerns with a decline in sales and stock
values, poor representation of Kohl’s corporate values and employee complaints over wages and
excessive working hours.
For our recommendations, we incorporated Kotter’s (1996) Eight-Stage Model for
Proposed Change.
Step 1: Increase Urgency required Kohl’s to use the consulting firm responsible for
managing the conversation to a unionized workplace. We would present details on competitors
who have a stronger perception and sales/stock figures. This would instill motivation for change
with the employees, managers and stock-holders. Step 2: Building Coalition, required us to
merge three groups (managers, labor union and employees) into a guiding coalition to create a
unified effort built on trust, strong communication, fairness, etc. Step 3: Get the Vision Right,
required the coalition to establish a vision that represents the change initiative and creates a
positive outlook and general understanding as to why the change is needed and how it can be
successful. Step 4: Communicating Buy-in involved sharing this information with the
employees and stakeholders using multiple methods over the course of two years when the
change will be implemented. Step 5: Empowering Broad-Based Action required the coalition to
identify and remove possible barriers to the change, such as misconceptions, lack of readiness or
engagement. Step 6: Creating Short-Term Wins meant providing financial and vacation bonuses

47. 47
to employees who truly represented and supported the change. Step 7: Don’t Let Up required
the guiding coalition to reinforce the change by surveying employees’ opinions and make proper
updates, if necessary, such as retraining employees and settling conflicts. Lastly, Step 8:
Anchoring the Change is left to the final stages of the change to evaluate any breakdowns in the
strategy and makes further changes highlighted in Step 7.
I referred to this lesson repeatedly in the Dwelling Fire Task Force task (discussed in
Application of Skills and Skills in the Workplace). Specifically, I borrowed the idea of a guiding
coalition to create the Task Force and pushed for an incentive (rewards) system to promote the
use of the DF job aid. The most illuminating was Kotter’s Step 7: Don’t Let Up, which taught
me that change is only possible through constant promotion and encouragement.

48. 48
ITEM 3 – “You Are The Difference”, Introducing the Mission, Values and Personal
Accountability Functions of WakeMed Hospital (Evaluating Training Transfer and Effectiveness
– EAC584)
This PowerPoint presentation was one of the primary assignments for Evaluating
Training Transfer and Effectiveness. Working with five peers, my group created a test the that
measured the effectiveness and retention rate of “We Are The Difference”: a one-day training
course. Specifically, we administered a pre-test and post-test on the day of the training. Both
tests used a Likert-type scale survey that asked for the feedback of the learners to assess their
overall feelings toward the training. The survey was emailed one week after the course
completion. The questions asked the learner to rate whether the training improved their overall
performance and whether the contest was practical to their learning needs.
This assignment allowed me to fully understand ways in which I could gauge the success
of my own training assignments in the workplace. It also provided groundwork for conducting
pretests and posttests by presenting objectives and visual aids to help better demonstrate
differences, if any, between the two tests. The assignment also provided some startling
revelations like the possibility that learners could perform worse on the posttest.
However, the most revealing element was the low number of respondents. The text of
the course provided various explanations for the results, but most importantly, I learned that the
results should be presented in a way in which the impressions and opinions should not intercede
or explain the results without substantial research. The lack of survey results could be affiliated
with the learners’ attitude towards the training or that the learners did not find value in
participating. However, the text provides various arguments against drawing conclusions since
validity threats include assumptions, unmeasured processes and respondent “truthfulness” or if

49. 49
the responses reflect “whether they (the learners) selected a socially desirable response” (Russ-
Eft, 2009, p. 220).
Regardless, this assignment reinforces the need for evaluation, even if all of the puzzle
pieces aren’t revealed at the conclusion. The need for evaluation is paramount, in that it allows
T&D to grow and develop. It also reinforces the idea that training is not always the answer,
which can be concluded from evaluation tasks such as the Linkert survey and knowledge tests
provided in this assignment.

50. 50
ITEM 4 – Journal Analysis Report: A Study of New Strategies for the Implementation of
Distance Education (Integrating Technology – EAC585)
This assignment evaluates the current status of distance education. The journals were all
entries from the past six years to ensure I had up-to-date insight on the most recent
developments. I noted any barriers and challenges that were noteworthy for being new or
recurring. The journals were selected based on their overall significance to the field and also
served as a way of understanding how I could potentially implement technology in my current
employment as a Screening Trainer, while finding various ways to present new advancements to
a diverse learning audience with unique needs and knowledge range in regards to using
technologies like computers, smartphones and internet websites.
One revealing element was the need to use what Dewan (2010) describes as four distinct
teaching styles in order to appease a diverse learning audience. This is especially crucial for
online learners. However, Dewan (2010) provides some warnings that instructors can be
overwhelmed with needs of online training and must receive substantial IT support in order to
allow them flexibility to innovate and maintain the high standards.
Another revelation is the notion that not all learners are willing to embrace an online
learning environment. Some, including myself, maintain that a traditional face-to-face
discussion trumps any online communication between learning peers or between a learner and
his/her instructor. This is especially true for my current role as trainer where learners show
reticence to learn in an atmosphere that doesn’t involve the trainer and learner in the same
physical location. To offset this concern, Coccoli (2015) promotes “hybrid learning” in which
the ability to engage in both online and face-to-face learning is an option.
There is also the ongoing concern that online learning can be a challenge in encouraging

51. 51
the same level of engagement that would be pressured on learner who a forced to share the same
room as their trainer. However, my assignment does provide various arguments for online
learning, such as the freedom it bestows the learner in allowing that person to work with a more
flexible schedule and also for permitting learners to collaborate with the benefit of time between
communications in order to reflect and make decisions that would not be afforded in a time-
sensitive “live” environment.

52. 52
ITEM 5 – Mentouring Our Brothers (Advanced Instructional Design – EAC581)
The team project required us to select a “client” who would procure our services for
instructional design. Mentouring Our Brothers (www.mentouringourbrothers.org) is a fairly new
program based in Charlotte, North Carolina, which recruits “mentors” who help boys of color
between the ages of 15-19 by either providing prevention courses that are geared to help them
maintain law abiding, disciplined lives or by providing re-entry services to those who were
recently released from juvenile detention and have plans on seeking employment and/or
educational opportunities.
Our objectives included interviewing one of the organizations founders in order ascertain
the needs of MOB. Second, we created a contract that established a training solution for the
mentor volunteers using the ADDIE design principles. Four training modules were created and
each student was assigned one. Included in this Capstone Project are samples of the four final
modules. At the completion, I was informed by one of the team members that the founder was
pleased with the final product and it is currently in use at the MOB organization.
This assignment presented some of the most challenging and problematic results out of
all of the assignments presented in this portfolio. The primary issues were my personal
challenge in understanding the scope and vision of this assignment. Second, there was a huge
discrepancy between the team members over the correct approach, which lead to some
unfortunate conflict and ongoing debates that continued until the final implementation.
The lessons presented in this course helped provide some helpful hints on ways to reduce
friction between members involved in an instructional design collaboration. Specifically,
Walther (2005), provides insight on the challenges of virtual teams. The lack of vocal and visual
cues can lead to a diminishment in trust (Walther, 2005, p. 830). Walther (2005) also shares a

53. 53
“rule” that requires virtual group participants to start work immediately, communicate
frequently, organize before beginning the task at hand, overtly acknowledge that you have read
each other’s messages”, be explicit about what you’re doing and set deadlines. The biggest issue
with virtual classes – whether involving those connected to my scholastic growth or those
courses I’ve conducted in my professional life – has been the ability to imbue the same level of
dedication and respect that would be had in a physical learning environment. Despite the
conflicts in personalities and working preferences, both this assignment and the literature from
the course have better prepared me for future training endeavors.

54. 54
THEME 1 – Learning Barriers
Repeatedly, I experienced learning barriers, whether it was related to my challenges
undertaking the Graduate program assignments or though my professional growth. The various
lessons and literature in these courses reveal that, despite various enhancements in the way we
learn and retain new knowledge, there remains an undercurrent of set-backs due to issues that are
either motivational in nature or based on lack of knowledge and skills. Specifically, I originally
joined the T&D program with the inclination that new technologies were being embraced with
small exceptions. The literature proves that this presumption was wrong and that various
challenges exist for learners, especially those of a certain age or culture. Specifically, learners of
a certain age have shown that they will struggle because they cannot learn or accomplish new
tasks. What is most revealing is that these hindrances are not always due to lack of skill or
ability – but due to a complete lack in confidence. The literature reveals that these fears stem the
concern over accidentally breaking tools and not fully understanding how to use the technology.
Also, older learners require more convincing that usage of such technologies is useful to their
everyday life (Hashim, 2015). In other words, my role as a trainer should not be to implement
new tools and assume that all learners will embrace and use them. This was especially obvious
when I unveiled a new tool for my company and many questioned “What was wrong with the old
tool?”
The assignments for both Research in Adult Education and Higher Education (ITEM 1)
and Organizational Change (ITEM 2) provide valuable insight to addressing this problem. First,
using the Kotter’s (1996) Eight-Stage Model allows me to consider methods for convincing
learners to use new tools and lessons, such as “communicating buy-in” and “empowering broad-
based action,” which might be to gather individuals who have embraced the new tools and can

55. 55
laud the reasons they work and even exceed the older, more traditional methods.
Also, using evaluations as mentioned in ITEM 3 can help me better understand the source
of such barriers. Finally, ITEM 5 presents a strong foundation for engaging learners on not just
the lessons at hand but also presents ways in which to get the learners to “sign-on” to alternative,
new techniques when the luxury of interpersonal communications are not available.

56. 56
THEME 2 - Change
Admittedly, there is a great deal of overlap between the theme of “Learning Barriers” and
“Change.” However, the considerations to change exist outside the realm of whether a learner is
willing to embrace a new method of learning. Training and Development is built on the
foundation that a learner must undergo a process of transition. Even the principle of merely
adding new knowledge to an existing knowledge base can be construed as change since added
knowledge potentially means added responsibility.
The biggest influence on my understanding of change has been ITEM 2 where I had to
create a large, detailed organizational change plan based on Kotter’s (1996) Eight Step Model.
However, all of the portfolio assignments I’ve presented as well as all 11 of these Graduate
courses have touched on the theme of change. For example, Ethics in the Workplace teaches us
to consider ethics in how it constantly leads to changes in laws. ITEM 3 discusses and evaluates
the training course “We Are The Difference” and considers the opinions of the learners which
includes asking the question about how much value and impact the class had, which could
potentially lead to changes in the delivery and/or curriculum.
The survey assignment of ITEM 3 highlighted our constant need, as trainers or educators,
to seek feedback from the learner and to gauge whether they perceive the lesson as valuable. If a
learner finds the lesson is not valuable, the chances of them being successful in retaining the
information are less likely. ITEM 4 promotes the need to provide various training tactics and to
even include hybrid learning. This reinforces the ideas in various portions of this Capstone
Portfolio that bolsters the need to remove barriers in order to give the learner less of an
opportunity to reject a change. When you couple this with the principle of Kotter (1996) that
stresses the need for change by demonstrating the positive benefits and addressing other barriers

57. 57
(both foreseen and not foreseen), change is more likely to be accepted by learners of new
lessons, knowledge and attitudes.

58. 58
THEME 3 – Validity
A recurring connection between these five portfolio assignments has been the emphasis
on research and design and how issues with validity can greatly influence the final design and
implementation. Using the texts of Research in Advanced Higher Education, Creswell (2014)
mentions that the research approaches include data collection, analysis, and interpretation (p. 3).
Despite the intense and demanding nature of research design in regards to analyzing data and
factual evidence, there is a moment when the instructional designer/researcher
developer/instructor/trainer have to provide input using theoretical opinion. This presents some
uncertainty, which can be countered by implementing the theory in order to test it. In fact, the
literature on performance reviews informed me that research design is cyclical: we test a theory,
learn what succeeded and/or failed and, if necessary, make appropriate changes.
Yorks (2005) mentions that research requires a participation between stakeholders and to
interpret the data through appropriate analysis (p. 379). There is also the likelihood that various
plans of actions will not be shared by all members of a deciding committee. These opinions will
likely diverse based on numerous personal world views, culture contrasts and, of course, bias.
Worley (2003) provides some interesting insight into these cultural barriers, such as one study
which was conducted by an audience of white males and opined that a danger exists when
presenting evaluations based on one cultural cornerstone.
ITEM 1 – The Literature Review on Tablet Use and Adult Learners and ITEM 4 – Journal
Analysis Report on Distance Education provide an argument for creating instructional design and
performance analysis which are inclusive of various stakeholders with considerations towards
race, age, culture and background in order to promote a well-rounded and more valid analysis of
data. There has to be some consideration toward the learner’s impression and how it may

59. 59
conflict with the trainer’s/instructor’s. This was most evident in my own personal challenge (as
mentioned in Application of Knowledge and Skill in the Workplace) when I assumed that the
Dwelling Fire Task Force members and stakeholders would share the same level of engagement
and enthusiasm. ITEM 2 – Organizational Change provides an outlook on how to consider and
prepare for results and reactions to change that were not foreseen.
Concerns with validity will remain part of my growth and career and the most vital lesson
is that I should be aware that it exists and I can take measures to dilute its impact.

60. 60
THEME 4 – Collaboration Challenges
In a collaboration setting, especially those in an e-learning environment, it is vital that the
group establish roles, assignments, deadlines and expectations. But, most importantly, there has
to be a shared vision. That was a crucial element when my team and I drafted the change plan
for Kohl’s (ITEM 2) and was the primary reason why I struggled with creating learning material
for Mentouring Our Brothers (ITEM 5). For the latter, the group and I did not fully grasp the
vision and expectations of our client, the co-founder of MOB. In addition, at least one learner
and I had disagreements over the layout, the content and even the tone of the final modules.
My last course in Training and Development, Organization and Operation of Training and
Development Programs, presented some helpful tips that may have alleviated these burdens. For
example, Oshry (2007) mentions that organizations are assemblies of various relationships, such
as Tops, Middles and Bottoms (p. 69-96) and opportunities should exist so that each side can
understand how the other plays in the relationship. Further, Robinson (2015) provides helpful
insight on the avoidance of future hindrances by establishing a partnership with “clients” such as
our representative from MOB by basing it on three crucial elements: access, credibility and trust.
However, these crucial elements are necessary for the receivers in any learning environment,
especially ones involving e-learning. Access is the easiest with the advent of tools such as
email, social media and text messaging. However, credibility is more challenging. With MOB
or ITEM 3 –“You Are The Difference” (Wake Med), I was a Graduate student looking to
provide support two professional organizations. To instill a sense of credibility with clients, it is
crucial to meet repeatedly and create a detailed agenda along with a signed contract. Oshry
(2007) adds that meetings should be regimented to the point where all members are expected to
show up, establishment of an environment for problem-solving only and use the time to tell only

61. 61
the truth and listen carefully to others. I believe these elements are crucial to establishing
Robinson’s sense of trust.
The need for collaboration is probably among the most poignant lessons I have taken from
T&D and is paramount for any ongoing partnership between stakeholders, whether it involves
instructional design, change plans or research.

62. 62
Conclusion
Most of these assignments were pertinent to the planning stages of T&D, such as task
analysis and research design. A thorough analysis of the assignments and common themes
reinforced the idea that successful learning and development is dependent on the analysis and
evaluative phases of ADDIE. In other words, this portfolio affirms that my current role and the
tasks of instructors in an adult workplace setting will be dependent on various work performed
inside and outside of the classroom.
But perhaps the greatest lessons came from the amount of work and preparation that I
conducted in an e-learning environment, which enabled me to implement many of the lessons in
role of a learner. There were many lessons that would have assisted me had I completed them at
an earlier stage of my Graduate studies. But this portfolio presents a perspective of where I
succeeded and how my overall knowledge will allow me to avoid the mistakes mentioned.
Admittedly, these assignments were not the only reason why I selected the four themes
for this portfolio. My decision was partially based on various discussions, smaller assignments
and recent opportunities to implement the knowledge in my career. It is my hope that these
assignments and thematic reviews help demonstrate how critical they were toward my
development. The portfolio provides an overview of series of trial and error cases in which I can
reflect on and use to remain cognizant of adult learners in relation to how they approach change
and what learning barriers prevent them from reaching the goals I establish. My knowledge on
judging data and providing viewpoints with special consideration to validity will compel me to
address this stage with the upmost discretion and care. But my considerations have also
escalated to the stakeholders, who are instrument toward my role and future in T&D.

63. 63
Plan For The Future
Since I applied for this program in 2011, the plan was always to use the new knowledge
and skills regarding Training and Development for the betterment of my organization and my
career. There have been some developments since that fateful day when I applied for Graduate
School. In 2014, I was informed that my department -- and position -- will relocate to
Columbus, Ohio as early as 2019. As a result, my goal is to pursue a career which allows me to
remain in the Triangle area of North Carolina. It is my hope that this Graduate Degree will
provide avenues for jobs outside of Nationwide or perhaps provide me with an alternative
training position for a department that will remain at the Raleigh Nationwide Insurance regional
office.
My short-term goals will be to find a role with Nationwide Insurance in order to uphold
my obligation to working at least one year completing this program to repay the company for
their generous financial support. This could potentially lead me to a role that does not directly
relate to the education I worked so hard to gain. However, I recently learned that I was listed
among as small number of candidates for a future position as a supervisor. I have every reason
to believe that notice of my Graduate school accomplishments and successes with implementing
that knowledge have promoted my abilities as a strong communicator, my capability as a leader
of a diverse work force and my drive to identify problems and create solutions will lead to my
securing this position.
In the interim, I will draft proposals that include updating the current instructions
provided to me and my learners. The current learning resources are constructed in a way that
relies heavily on previous user knowledge and understanding. Also, the materials cater toward
lecture, which is not only my least preferred learning method, but remains the least popular