Cycle 2: Gaining an Audience

If the audience doesn't hear what's going on, is it going on?”

- British guitarist, Robert Fripp
Action

Based on my cycle one action, I was able to assess through data and qualitative
evidence that, while the overall participation in our organization's streaming media
program was still not as significant as I had hoped, those that chose to participate were
actively engaged and beginning to think about the use of online media in new and
creative ways. Keeping these findings in mind, I continued to work with experienced
users while initiating my cycle two action, which was designed to target new users and
nonparticipants. Cycle one offered me the opportunity to transform a teacher-focused
training class into a collaborative community that extended beyond the classroom and
into the departments of my co-workers. My next step was to utilize the presentations
created by learners from cycle one as a means of introducing new users to a “second-
order environment” centered around the capabilities of streaming media. In Surpassing
Ourselves, Bereiter and Scardamalia define second-order environments as social
environments, “In which the conditions to which people must adapt change progressively
as a result of the successes of other people in the environment” (1993, p. 106). This idea
provided the foundation for my cycle two action.
Previously, my process was to begin each training class by introducing myself and
my role in the organization, then cover in broad strokes how online media could be
utilized before tackling the more technical aspects of the software and its functions. This
proved ineffective in helping learners personalize the material and created a disconnect
between the technical information and the overall use of the technology itself. My new
approach was to begin each class by introducing myself and my role in the organization,
discuss various uses for online media, and play examples of work created by people in
our own organization. I then opened the floor to discussions about the presentations
themselves. My hope was that this action would provide a chance to, “HOOK them in the
beginning, and HOLD them throughout (Wiggins and McTighe, 2009).
The difference between the learners that I encountered during cycle one and those
of cycle two is that the former came to me with clearly defined problems and thought of
online media as a means to address those problems. They were proactive in identifying
known issues and came to me seeking a solution. My cycle two goal was to introduce the
capabilities of streaming media as a catalyst that would invite new users to seek
communication and training problems in their departments and think of online media as a
potential solution. As Bruner observed, “The best way to create interest in a subject
matter is to make it worth knowing, which means to make the knowledge gained usable
in one's thinking beyond the situation in which the learning has occurred,” (1960, p. 31).
I wanted learners to leave my class thinking not about the technical aspects of streaming
media, but about how streaming media can assist with problem identifying and
progressive problem solving
My first March class proved to be an ideal environment in which to initiate my
action. There were no open seats, and four out of the six participants were clinicians. I
began with a brief introduction, then went around the room and asked the learners to
introduce themselves and to tell me a little bit about why they thought they were in the
class. Most acknowledged that they thought it could help them, though few could provide

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Two - 1

specific details as to how. Following our formal introductions, I told them that I was going
to show them a brief presentation, and that they should jot down any initial thoughts.
Seeing as most of my class was clinical, I chose to show them Aquilla's PICC presentation
as referenced in my cycle one report. I thought that this would help them relate to the
material on multiple levels. First, they were viewing an actual presentation produced by
someone in our organization. Second, Aquilla is also in a clinical role, and therefore
would be looked at as a peer. She was even recognized by a few members of the class.
When the PICC line presentation concluded, I observed many befuddled looks and
frustrated sighs. The class had been writing down ideas throughout most of the
presentation, and appeared very eager to talk. Debbie, one of our infection control
workers, was noticeably agitated. I asked her if there was something about the video
that she didn't like, to which she replied, “It was great. I just knew nothing about it.” The
class began nodding and speaking under their breath about how no one tells them that
these types of resources are available. This was a breakthrough that I had not planned
for and was not expecting. In an effort to adapt to the change in conversation, I held off
introducing the streaming software in order to prolong the discussion. Debbie went on to
explain that one of the most common complaints from clinical staff members is that there
is no central location for information, and that most resources for nurses are scattered
across the intranet. As I eluded to earlier, I wanted learners to leave the classroom
thinking about ways in which online media could help them identify problems or areas for
improvement in their departments. It seemed as though by initiating this discussion, the
class had begun to do that within the classroom and as a group. They were taking steps
to become part of the second-order environment, which had been created through the
work and success of their peers.
As a result of this development, I chose to conduct an informal, verbal survey. I
asked the class whether or not they would be more likely to utilize online media for
clinical training if there was a central intranet page to aggregate media resources. 100%
of them answered yes. Some even began to express interest in specific topics that could
be addressed through the use of online resources. Bereiter and Scardamalia point out
that one motive found in knowledge building communities is the “desire to participate in
significant discourse” (2009, p. 207). The class used their time together to discuss online
communication and training problems, while utilizing my position as a technology expert
to explore ways that streaming media could improve their own practices. As newcomers,
the class provided a fresh perspective, and although members of the class had begun on
the periphery, peripherality can be an empowering position (Lave and Wenger, 1991). I
thanked them all for their attendance and valuable insight.

Research

Cycle two complements my cycle one action by allowing me to focus on a

reciprocal learning group. Cycle one afforded me the opportunity to use scaffolded
instruction to develop participant expertise. Keeping in mind my overall research
question, “If I create a community of practice based on constructionism and legitimate
peripheral participation, will it increase the use of streaming media technologies among
my colleagues,” cycle two focused on newcomers and nonparticipants and used the work
of others to create a second-order environment which will allow nonparticipants to more
readily adapt to change. Both of these steps reflect my change in focus from technical
classroom knowledge to a more informal learning community based on practical

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Two - 2

application. Understanding how technology can be used is the first step toward the
exploration and commitment to technical knowledge. As Smith suggests, “We have to
understand something in order to learn it,” (1998, p. 35)

Evidence

During class time, I observed learners' behavior while viewing their colleagues'
presentations and looked closely at how learners responded to them. Once the
discussions became more student driven, I noted specific concerns and responses. The
quotes below represent a sample of those responses.

“This is really good. I had no idea this was even out there.”

“Why would I create a presentation if no one knows where to find it?”

“We have too many places to go on the intranet to check for information. It makes it
really difficult to put any type of training online.”

“Couldn't we just make a DVD and keep it in the medical library?”

“I would create something like this if I could only send it to my staff.”

“If we had a site for all of this, no one would maintain it. I don't know any nurses who
who would take on the extra responsibility.”

“Does this have to go on the intranet at all? If I could make physical copies of the media,
I would use it.”

“This would really benefit my department, especially with the ability to attach
documents. I could quiz or survey staff members right from the presentation.”

“I would like to talk to you after class about putting an upcoming symposium online.”

“Could we use SharePoint to host?”

These responses indicate a type of higher level thinking and understanding that
will prove beneficial for the allocation of online media in my organization. Employees
from varying departments took the initiative and opportunity to think like technologists
and focus on key concerns regarding training with web technology. They praised their
colleagues before them and offered valuable feedback. This supported Lave and Wenger's
theory of “constructively naïve perspectives or questions,” and illustrated a way in which
“inexperience is an asset to be exploited,” (1991, p. 117)
Quantitative data collection is ongoing. Therefore, at the conclusion of cycle two I
revisited the project ownership log to collect the data of presentations published for
March and April to see how usage was trending. (Figure 2.1)

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Two - 3

Keeping in mind that clinical training programs and special events are cyclical, it is safe
to assume that the drop from 49 presentations published in February to 34 published in
March is not a sign of decline or disinterest. Having been with my organization for two
years and actively promoting the streaming media program for one year, I view 30-40
published presentations per month as a fair expectation.
Because my cycle two action focused on the recruitment of nonparticipants into the
learning community, I introduced a new metric that would help me gauge overall
participation. In addition to collecting data regarding the total number of published
presentations, I was able to sort data based on the number of individual users. Data on
the total number of presentations allows me to monitor overall use, while looking at the
number of individual users and their departments gives me a better sense of how
widespread the use of streaming media has become. Furthermore, this data will suggest
whether or not we have a small community of invested and engaged learners, or if we
have a large community comprised mostly of newcomers who are not yet fully engaged.
Bereiter and Scardamalia describe the concept of reinvestment as a way of reallocating
mental resources in an activity to further growth (2009). Taking into consideration the
concept of reinvestment as an expert process, users who exhibit a deeper level of
engagement and create media more frequently can be regarded as “experts” of the
learning community. Routinely publishing online training content suggests that users
have adopted one of three concepts of reinvestment: reinvestment in learning, seeking
out more difficult problems, and tackling more complex representations of recurrent
problems (2009 p. 93-94) Figure 2.2. shows the total number of individual users during a
six month span, while Figure 2.3 sorts each of the users by department, allowing me to

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Two - 4

see the program's overall reach.

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Two - 5

Analysis/Reflection

When I began my second cycle, I really had to focus on what would be deemed
“success” or “failure.” In its infancy, my organization's streaming media program
presented a challenge that far exceeded the abilities of our intended audience. If this
continued, users would remain disinterested. As Bereiter and Scardamalia note, “if
challenge exceeds ability, the result will be anxiety and frustration rather than flow”
(2009, p. 102). Learners could not cultivate expert ways of thinking or reinvest in
identifying new problems because they were overwhelmed by the technology. The
simplest way for me to address this was to have a conversation. My cycle two action was
predicated on neither success nor failure. The result of the conversation was simply a
result, and it allowed for brainstorming and knowledge building on a topic that few
learners were familiar with upon entering the classroom. Grasping technological terms
and concepts takes time, and what I was hoping for was to first develop my learners into
expert thinkers, cognizant of how online media can improve their practice. In its earlier
forms, my Streaming Media Creation class was one of facts and terms about software,
but as Smith accurately points out, “No one ever confused 'memorization' with the way in
which anyone became a particular kind of person” (1998, p. 44)
In my opinion, cycle two was a success. By giving learners the opportunity to see
the work of their colleagues and the recognition it brought them, they were able to think
constructively about the learning community and how they could be a part of it. Voicing
concerns about accessibility and content, the class exhibited characteristics similar to my
colleagues in cycle one who inquired about production techniques and operated at the
edge of their ability in an effort to grow. I am trying to create a culture, and the
discussions during the training class introduced new users to that culture.
During this cycle, I took time to revisit my cycle one reflection. In that reflection, I
talked about my previous job, its community of practice, and the scaffolded learning that
took place. I then began to think about my motivating factors for joining that group. As a
newcomer, what made me want to be a part of that community and have a presence that
was more than just peripheral? The answer lied in the presence of experts. I looked at
the way old timers were viewed by their peers, and I wanted to be that “go-to guy” that
my colleagues could count on. Thinking about that, I decided to model the streaming
media program in that vein. I'm hoping to further promote the successes of my
colleagues in an effort to create a more tight knit community, where knowledge building
will lead to shared successes among team members. It was here that I recognized my
potential as a leader.
John C. Maxwell once said, “A great leader's courage to fulfill his vision comes from
passion, not position.” My role in my organization provides no title of authority or
expectation of leadership. As I work with colleagues to build knowledge sharing
communities as a means of improving their practice, I've begun to focus more on the
qualities of leadership that are important to me. Leaders help others realize a shared
vision, strive to be better in their jobs, and reach their potential as people. I'm an
advocate of empowerment, and working with others through this cycle has helped me
feel empowered as an agent of change. Midway through my action cycle, when I began
to see tangible results, I approached my manager about attending corporate education
classes. In early April, I attended a training seminar entitled, Gearing Up For Leadership.
This seminar proved very beneficial as we had open discussions regarding personality

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Two - 6

types and the practice of clear and effective communication. Through this cycle, I was
able to reach out and gain a position of legitimate peripherality in a new learning
community, just as I had been asking of my colleagues. Lave and Wenger state that,
“Mastery involves timing of actions relative to changing circumstances: the ability to
improvise,” (1991, p. 20) My cycle two action initiated a changing circumstance, seeking
development as a leader is merely my improvisation.

Next Steps

When the opportunity to circulate knowledge presents itself, it has a tendency to

do so rather rapidly (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This was evident when I was approached
after class by Audrey, who works in clinical staff development. Audrey's idea was to
create a “Clinical Education SharePoint Site” to host links to online content and training
material. She described herself as not being very “tech savvy,” but offered to enroll in a
SharePoint Fundamentals class to help maintain the site. Her request was that I act as
co-administrator of the site until she felt comfortable enough taking full ownership. While
this is technically outside the scope of my job and department, I owed it to her to agree.
Audrey identified a need to aggregate online training, and offered a solution on how to do
so. My next step, which will be ongoing for quite some time, will be to help her create a
SharePoint site where clinical staff can post streaming media presentations and
participate in an online learning community. Hopefully, the site will help introduce
newcomers to the community, and empower those viewed as experts to develop as site
administrators.

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Two - 7