Analyzing Learning Characteristics

In a previous post, I identified the environmental and resource characteristics for the training workshop that I am redesigning. This week, I will focus on outlining the specific learner characteristics for that training.

This figure from Essalmi shows a taxonomic structuring of personalization parameters - guided into 3 categories: The why to learn, the what to learn, and the how to learn.

I'm going to be using Dick and Carey's step 3 - identifying entry behaviors/learner characteristics - as a guide.

1. Entry Skills:

   1. Staff will have already completed primary job training which focuses on

      1. Customer service

      2. Residence Life

      3. Conflict mediation

      4. Programming

      5. Crisis management

      6. Administrative assistance

      7. Facilities management

   2. Returning staff will have prior knowledge of leasing and marketing, but they may have forgotten, especially if they did not work in summertime.

2. Prior Knowledge of Topic:

   1. Returning staff will have prior knowledge of leasing and marketing, but they may have forgotten, especially if they did not work in summertime.

   2. New staff will not have previous knowledge, but they will have been exposed to some tasks due to timing of the workshop and when they started the position.

3. Attitudes toward content:

   1. Staff are generally keen to learn about leasing and marketing. Some tasks associated with leasing/marketing, the staff do not like.

      1. Ex: Staff does not like "flyering comps" (putting flyers on cars in the competition properties' parking lots) because they view this as invasive.

      2. Ex: Staff does not like guerilla marketing on campus as they are shy to approach people.

      3. Ex: Returning staff does not like phone campaigns as they view this tasks as time-consuming.

4. Attitudes toward potential delivery system:

   1. Staff would prefer in-person delivery system as it trends toward more engaging. Previous trainings have been delivered via Zoom and staff found it difficult to remain engaged in topic.

5. Motivation for Instruction: Most of the staff are keen to do well in this aspect of their position, however, it generally is not seen as their top priority. Most staff do not draw the connection between leasing and residence life. Most staff prefer residence life. Returning staff are able to connect the significance of leasing to residence life.

6. Educational and ability levels:

   1. All of the staff are full-time students. Most if not all are working on their bachelors degree. All staff must have at least a 2.5 GPA at time of hire.

7. General learning preferences:

   1. Most of the staff (at least 80%) are keen to learn more about the position and gain new skills.

8. Attitudes toward training organization/institution:

   1. Most of the staff (at least 80%) have a positive or neutral view of the company they work for and of the Leasing/Marketing Department which administers the training. However, returning staff (staff who has worked for the company for at least 1 semester), can be frustrated with this department due to the nature of some of the tasks that are assigned out of this department

9. General group characteristics:

   1. Diversity: The group of learners will be made up of about 12 to 15 student staff (ages 18 to 23 on average). The gender, ethnicity, economic, and religious background is mixed. Most staff are from the state of Texas originally.

   2. Size: 12 to 15 people

   3. Overall impression: Young. Full-time students. Between 50 to 80% of staff are new hires - meaning this is their first time receiving any similar training.

In L. Kang, et al. researchers concluded that “...the relationship between social characteristics and learning outcomes, which suggests that the more actively a learner communicate with others, the better his/her learning outcome will be." The staff who will be attending this training are student staff who have a direct supervisor with 1:1 check-in meetings. The follow-up meetings after the training workshop should allow for additional training check-ins and communication opportunities.

Dick, W. and Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction, 4th ed.New York: Harper

Collins Publishing.

Essalmi, Fathi et al. “Generalized Metrics for the Analysis of E-Learning Personalization Strategies.” Computers in human behavior 48 (2015): 310–322. Web.

L. Kang, Z. Liu, Z. Su, Q. Li and S. Liu, "Analyzing the Relationship among Learners' Social Characteristics, Sentiments in a Course forum and Learning Outcomes," 2018 Seventh International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT), Auckland, New Zealand, 2018, pp. 210-213, doi: 10.1109/EITT.2018.00049.