EDD581 Action Research Proposal Shalanda A Campbell EDD581

EDD/581 Action Research Proposal Shalanda A. Campbell EDD/581 Susan Gertel January 12, 2014 Action Research Proposal 1

Table of Content Problem Statement ü Problem Description o Problem Description Continue ü Purpose of the Project ü Writer’s Role ü 2 Action Research Proposal

Problem Statement Ø The problem is the high percentage of Sectek security officers who fail their weapons qualification test. Upon narrowing of the problem, an intervention will be implemented. (Google, 2014) Action Research Proposal 3

Problem Description Ø Annual weapons qualification required Ø Poor supervision Ø Poor leadership Ø Unpaid probation for unqualified officers Ø Increased hours for qualified officers Ø Costly remedial training Ø Develop company training Ø Collective Bargaining Agreement (Google, 2014) Action Research Proposal 4

Purpose of the Project The purpose of this project is to help Sectek security officers improve their shooting qualification scores. The purpose for this project is to help managers and trainers improve operation readiness from the collected data. Action Research Proposal 5

Writer’s Role Develop, revise, and implement company training plans Weapons qualification is critical to daily tasks Revamp training plans through technology Action Research Proposal 6

Problem Documentation Data Collection The purpose is to collect data to identify why Sectek security officers fail the initial weapon qualification test Participant Observation v Researchers observe behaviors, attitudes, and events (Stringer, 2008) Researchers observe trainer’s teaching styles and officers’ responses v Researchers observe practice and qualification shooting v Observations are bi-monthly for an hour v Action Research Proposal 7

Problem Documentation Data Collection Records v Records provide invaluable information (Stringer, 2008) to verify that a problem exists v Records provide insight to the increasing failure rate. v Records confirm officers fail the initial weapon qualification exam Action Research Proposal 8

Problem Documentation Data Collection Materials, Equipment, and Facilities v Reviewing materials, equipment, and facilities provide input to the study v Outdated weapon modules v Incomplete informational hand-outs v Unserviceable equipment v Scarce amount of training weapons v Defective gun holsters Action Research Proposal 9

Problem Documentation Survey SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY PARTICIANTS Officers High percentage of the company employees are officers Safety, security, and surveillance Officers maintain qualifications for employment Action Research Proposal 10

Problem Documentation Survey SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY PARTICIANTS Training Staff Trainers are certified through the state of Virginia Trainers conduct security and public safety training Training certifications are annually updated Action Research Proposal 11

Problem Documentation Survey SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY PARTICIANTS Range Officials Certified private weapon instructors May provide insight to low qualification scores Assist shooters with fundamentals Provide support to training officers Maintain records Action Research Proposal 12

Problem Documentation Survey SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY Major Elements to Explore Feedback on training weapon qualification test v Prior v During v Post Action Research Proposal 13

SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY (Personal information will remain anonymous) Name: Age: (Google, 2014) Gender: For each item identified below, circle the number to the right that best fits your judgment of its quality. Use the rating scale to select the quality number. Circle NA if you choose not to answer this question. Action Research Proposal 14

SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY Survey Item Scale Poor Good Excellent 1. Prior to your weapon qualification test: Was the classroom training on weapon nomenclature and safety regulations thoroughly conducted? NA 1 2 3 4 5 2. Prior to your weapon qualification test: Were you allotted at least 10 hours of paid weapon training (practice firing on the range, assembling, and dissembling the weapon)? NA 1 Action Research Proposal 2 3 4 5 15

SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY 3. Prior to your weapon qualification test: Based on the training received, were all questions and concerns clearly addressed? NA 1 2 3 4 5 4. During the weapon qualification test: Does the Training Official provide a briefing on safety procedures for weapon malfunctions that you are comfortable performing without assistance? NA 1 2 3 4 5 5. During the weapon qualification test: Are officers allotted additional time to shoot missed portions of the timed qualification test? NA 1 Action Research Proposal 2 3 4 5 16

SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY 6. Immediately after the weapon qualification test: Are officers provided with qualification results and immediate requalification (for officers who failed) procedures? (Immediate requalification) NA 1 2 3 4 7. Post qualification test: Are officers provided at least 72 (paid) hours of remedial training to uncover problem areas in addition to 4 (paid) hours of shooting time at Maryland Small Arms? NA 1 2 3 4 5 8. Post qualification test: Are officers allotted at least 15 (paid) business days to complete remedial training and an optional 3 days (without pay) to focus on problem areas? NA 1 Action Research Proposal 2 3 4 5 17

SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY 9. Post qualification test: Are Training Officials supportive in ensuring officers’ comprehension and comfort level with the weapon system? NA 1 2 3 4 5 (Google, 2014) 10. Prior to requalification test: Are officers briefed on remedial firing procedures and ramifications of a third weapon’s qualification failure? (The second failure is the immediate requalification) NA 1 Action Research Proposal 2 3 4 5 18

SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY Please provide any additional comments and feedback on current training. Your feedback is paramount to our company’s ability to provide adequate weapon’s training that prepare officers to pass their weapon qualification test on the FIRST attempt. Please provide feedback for the following areas: Prior to your weapon qualification test Post qualification test Provide suggestions/feedback on ANY AREA of training that is not mentioned Provide suggestions/feedback on other personnel (PM/DPM) that should be surveyed and why Action Research Proposal 19

SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY Any Questions? Thank you for your participation Lieutenant Campbell (Google, 2014) Action Research Proposal 20

Literature Review Authors of the study Title of the study Purpose of the study Pertinent findings that support your project Eric Stringer Gathering Data: Sources of Information Prepare researchers for a qualitative study o Elements for a Qualitative study o Implementation of various elements Elena Sandoval. Lucero, Joanna Maes, & Georgia Pappas Action research in a non-profit agency school setting: Analyzing the adoption of an innovation after initial training and coaching. Participant training prior to conducting an action research project o Diverse learning strategies o Data Collection methods Action Research Proposal 21

Literature Review Authors of the study Title of the Purpose of study the study Pertinent findings that support your project University of Phoenix The Perceived Differences in Interdepartment Communication Regarding Organizational Formalization: a Case Study of an International Company. Develop mitigation methods to communication o Teacher development through action research: a Case study in focused action research Teach participants learning strategies, thinking and questioning skills, and study skills o Graham Perrett Action Research Project o Participants receive training on development and organization learning activities Group members differ; therefore, effective communication is hindered The first part of the study introduces participants to various learning strategies while the second part of the study is the action research which implements a plan that improves student 22 learning

Literature Review Authors Title of the study Purpose of the study Pertinent findings that support your project o Clifford Lazarus Simple Keys to Effective Communication To explain the key components of effectively communicating U. S. Training Group Milo System o To provide information on a simulated weapon system Action Research Project Communication methods are taught to site trainers Participants will use the Milo System as a training and development tool 23

Action Goal £ The goal of the intervention is to increase Sectek Security officers’ weapon qualification scores. A threeprong intervention will be implemented to meet the goal, which includes officer’s weapon training, weapon instructors’ training, and scheduled observations. Action Research Proposal 24

Selected Solutions Sectek Security Officers Classroom Training GLOCK 19 Use of Force Continuum Weapon Assemble & Disassemble Assessments Action Research Proposal (Google, 2014) 25

Selected Solutions (Google, 2014) Sectek Security Officers Milo Range System Training Interactive System 30 minute training sessions Officers: Successful Shooter (Advanced) On the Fence Shooter (Intermediate) Immediate Assistance (Beginner) Action Research Proposal 26

Selected Solutions Sectek Security Officers Maryland Small Arms Shooting Range Training (Google, 2014) 2 ½ hour practice shooting session Trainers Prepare the Range Explain course of fire Observe Range Officials Safety Briefing Call the course of fire Action Research Proposal 27

Selected Solutions Sectek Security Trainers Train the Trainer Course 8 hour training session Corporate Trainers Training Site Trainers Diverse Learners Effective Communication Site Trainers Assessments Action Research Proposal 28

Calendar Plan £ Include a week-by-week, operational calendar plan, such as appears in Figures 6. 3 and 6. 4 in Chapter 6. Include specific directions on how you will implement each component of your action research study. You will use the calendar and specific directions for the implementation phase. £ Remember to give the reader the following information: £ £ £ when the study will begin who will be involved at what points specific aspects of your plan should occur the duration of each component of your plan how often and when you will evaluate results. Present the plan as Week One, Week Two, etc. Action Research Proposal 29

Expected Outcomes Sectek Security Officers Improve: Shooting fundamentals Immediate action drills Remedial action strategies Action Research Proposal 30

Expected Outcomes Sectek Security Trainers Six Trainers learn and execute: Milo Range System Effective communicate skills Diverse training methods Action Research Proposal 31

Expected Outcomes Sectek Security Range Officials Four Range Officials assist in: Shooting positions Immediate & Remedial Action Drills (Google, 2014) Action Research Proposal 32

Measurement of Outcomes Sectek Security Officers Researcher will: Conduct 3 daily 30 minute observations ü Record notes ü Conduct a survey ü Action Research Proposal 33

Measurement of Outcomes Site Trainers Researcher: Observe ü Record Notes ü Conduct survey ü ü Compare records Action Research Proposal 34

Measurement of Outcomes Range Officials Researcher: Observe ü Compare notes ü ü Conduct Survey Action Research Proposal 35

Analysis of Results Survey Researcher will: Compile results Document feedback Record: Areas of improvement Areas of success Areas where “the majority” have the same answers Action Research Proposal 36

Analysis of Results Observations Researcher will: Determine trends Identify Patterns Interpret officers’ communication and behaviors Action Research Proposal 37

Analysis of Results Field Notes Researcher will: Compare notes to determine areas that: Improved Remained the same Require further evaluation Action Research Proposal 38

Analysis of Results Reporting Findings Report Includes: Data collection methods Survey details Selected Solutions Action Research Proposal 39

References 2014. Google Graphic Lazarus, C. (2011). Simple Keys to Effective Communication. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http: //www. psychologytoday. com/blog/think-well/201107/simple-keys-effectivecommunication National Institute of Justice. (2009). The Use-Of-Force-Continuum. Retrieved from http: //www. nij. gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-offorce/Pages/continuum. aspx Perrett, G. (2003). Teacher development through action research: a Case study in focused action research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 27(2). p. 1 -10 Action Research Proposal 40

References Sandoval-Lucero, E. , Maes, J. B. , & Pappas, G. (2013). Action research in a non-profit agency school setting: Analyzing the adoption of an innovation after initial training and coaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(1), 262 -277. Retrieved from http: //search. proquest. com/docview/1438941088? accountid=458 Stringer, E. , (2008). Gathering Data: Sources of Information. 2 nd ed. Pearson Education. University of Phoenix. (2014). The Perceived Differences in Interdepartmental Communication Regarding Organizational Formalization: a Case Study of an International Company. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, EDD/581 website U. S. Training Group (2014). Milo System. Retrieved from http: //ustraininggroup. org/project/milo-system/ Action Research Proposal 41