EDD/581 Action Research Proposal
Shalanda A. CampbellEDD/581
Susan GertelJanuary 12, 2014
Action Research Proposal 1
Table of Content
Problem Statement Problem Description
o Problem Description Continueo Problem Description Continue
Purpose of the Project Writer’s Role
Action Research Proposal
2
Problem Statement
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 Annual weapons qualification required Poor supervision Poor leadership Unpaid probation for unqualified officers Increased hours for qualified officers Costly remedial training Develop company training 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 DocumentationData Collection
The purpose is to collect data to identify why Sectek security officers fail the initial weapon qualification test
Participant Observation Researchers observe behaviors, attitudes,
and events (Stringer, 2008)
Researchers observe trainer’s teaching styles and officers’ responses
Researchers observe practice and qualification shooting
Observations are bi-monthly for an hourAction Research Proposal 7
Problem DocumentationData Collection
RecordsRecords provide invaluable information (Stringer, 2008) to verify that a problem exists Records provide insight to the increasing failure rate. Records confirm officers fail the initial weapon qualification exam
Action Research Proposal 8
Problem DocumentationData Collection
Materials, Equipment, and Facilities
Reviewing materials, equipment, and facilities provide input to the study
Outdated weapon modules Incomplete informational hand-outs Unserviceable equipment Scarce amount of training weapons Defective gun holsters
Action Research Proposal 9
Problem DocumentationSurvey
SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY PARTICIANTS
Officers
High percentage of the company employees are officers
Safety, security, and surveillanceOfficers maintain qualifications for
employment
Action Research Proposal 10
Problem DocumentationSurvey
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 DocumentationSurvey
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 DocumentationSurvey
SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY
Major Elements to Explore
Feedback on training weapon qualification test
Prior During 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 2 3 4 5
Action Research Proposal 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?
NA1 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 2 3 4 5
Action Research Proposal 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)
NA1 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?
NA1 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?
NA1 2 3 4 5
Action Research Proposal 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 2 3 4 5
Action Research Proposal 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 whyAction Research Proposal 19
SECTEK SECURITY QUALITY SCALE SURVEY
Any Questions?
Thank you for your participation
Lieutenant Campbell(Google, 2014)
Action Research Proposal 20
Literature ReviewAuthors 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 ReviewAuthors of the study
Title of the study
Purpose of 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 Participants receive training on development and organization learning activities
o Group members differ; therefore, effective communication is hindered
Graham Perrett
Teacher development through action research: a Case study in focused action research
Teach participants learning strategies, thinking and questioning skills, and study skills
o 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 learning
Action Research Project 22
Literature ReviewAuthors of the study
Title of the study
Purpose of the study
Pertinent findings that support your project
Clifford Lazarus
Simple Keys to Effective Communication
To explain the key components of effectively communicating
o Communication methods are taught to site trainers
U.S. Training Group
Milo System To provide information on a simulated weapon system
o Participants will use the Milo System as a training and development tool
Action Research Project 23
Action Goal
The goal of the intervention is to increase Sectek Security officers’ weapon qualification scores. A three-prong 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 (Google, 2014)
Action Research Proposal 25
Selected Solutions (Google, 2014)
Sectek Security Officers Milo Range System Training
Interactive System30 minute training sessionsOfficers:
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 sessionTrainers
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
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 OfficersOfficers 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 Record notes Conduct a survey
Action Research Proposal 33
Measurement of Outcomes
Site Trainers
Researcher:
Observe Record NotesConduct surveyCompare records
Action Research Proposal 34
Measurement of Outcomes
Range Officials
Researcher:
Observe Compare notes 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-effective-
communication
National Institute of Justice. (2009). The Use-Of-Force-Continuum. Retrieved from
http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-
force/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. 2nd 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