Approach to Learning at Cloudview Nursing Home

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Cloudview’s Approach to Learning
Kolb’s Learning Theory
A Summary of the Identified Problems
The Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model and Its Effectiveness at Cloudview
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Learning is a continuous process that goes beyond the classroom, affecting business operations globally. Workplace learning and HR practices are linked by their influence on employees’ development and performance. On the one hand, HR focuses on the capital aspect of learning, viewing it as an investment for the organization (Brandi & Iannone, 2021). Learning activities supported by HR concentrate on the ability of employees to gain skills that enable them to perform better, increasing their output. On the other hand, workplace learning is a comprehensive approach that is centered on the socio-cultural aspects of employee development (Ballantine et al., 2016). In this latter perspective, workers are educated for enrichment beyond their work duties. Concerning the workplace curriculum, Billet (2020) argues that the workplace learning methodologies should be founded on the specific circumstances within the work environment. Looking at the “Hoist Management” training program at Cloudview, challenges associated with the learning approach are evaluated, and an appropriate evaluation technique is demonstrated through Kolb’s cycle of learning.

Cloudview’s Approach to Learning

Since the approach adopted to learning determines an organization’s performance, it is essential to understand the motivations for learning and their influence on workplace education. As part of its employee health and safety training, CloudView engages in “Hoist Management,” teaching that teaches employees how to utilize hoisting gear efficiently and professionally. The development of this course reveals the organization’s emotional intelligence, which is akin to effective leadership, as detailed by Taylor (2017). Hoist management entails knowing how to operate complex lifting equipment to assist senior residents with mobility issues and health challenges. According to Dockrell and Hurley (2021), manually moving residents could cause greater medical issues due to brittle bones, and it could also be risky for personnel due to heavy weights. As the organization focuses on the well-being of its nurses and patients, the training program becomes essential for its operations. For effectiveness, a training program is adopted based on Cloudview’s capabilities and needs.

The Hoist management program, which qualified and competent caretakers conduct, is part of the training process for new staff at CloudView. Employing highly skilled trainers is one of the techniques for better outcomes. These caregivers educate and show how to use the gear while indicating its safety and health risks. During the session, a spoken presentation incorporates a PowerPoint on the system’s mechanics, its alignment, and potential hazards. However, new employees have had limited interaction with the machinery, and no inquiries have been made. The trainers are given a feedback sheet, but since no current hires have noted possible changes in their report forms, it is challenging to modify or detect faults in their training. Lavoie et al. (2017) comment that effective program implementation requires an excellent evaluation method lacking in the Cloudview case. This limitation forms the basis for evaluating the learning approach and the need for a practical assessment technique.

Behaviorism

Based on the point of focus, cognitive, humanistic, behavioral, and constructivism are the leading schools of learning that explain the learning approach adopted by Cloudview. Behaviorism is among the most commonly applied schools of thought in organizational learning. According to Landers et al. (2020), behaviorists focus on the influences of external factors such as environmental and institutional elements on observable traits in the conduct of individuals. Linking this concept to Cloudview’s “Hoist Management” training, the personnel charged with the program implementation and evaluation can observe learners’ physical responses to understand the effectiveness of their teaching methods. Since new employees are not motivated to ask questions or interact with their educators, the knowledge dissemination can be shown to lack the connectedness aspect, which is essential for skills acquisition and implementation.

The Humanistic Approach

A learner-centered approach requires leaders to tailor their teaching methods to individual students’ capacities to grasp concepts. Dickison et al. (2019) assert that since nursing students face diverse challenges in their knowledge acquisition and practice, it would be essential for nurse managers to understand how best to instill the desired traits. Boozaripour et al. (2018) underscore that the humanistic approach to education translates to better decision-making among nurses. With the new recruits at Cloudview, this approach can help the managers to understand how the employees are likely to take their roles.

In the case presented, it is clear that the hospital is keen on ensuring patients are handled with care, even when their health conditions seem to deteriorate. Since the nurses will make such decisions, educators should adopt the humanistic approach to evaluate how well the learners understand the hoisting gear. This method would also give them insights into why the new hires refrain from asking questions. Based on this technique, a key challenge with the learning approach is concentrating on outcomes at the expense of individual learners’ perceptions.

The Cognitive Approach

The ability to store information in one’s memory is crucial for nurses because they need to apply previous knowledge to solve emerging issues. The cognitive theory, highlighted by Cant and Cooper (2017), determines information processing and problem-solving abilities. With this technique, the nurse managers at Cloudview can evaluate how well the new workers learn and process new information while keeping it in their memory. Using this method, the educators should subject the recruits to the hoisting gear once in a while and ask them to demonstrate what they have understood. Judging from the non-inquisitive nature of the employees, the learning approach lacks practical elements, reducing it to a tedious session of theoretical details. The case study indicates that none of the new hires have had an opportunity to interact with the hoist gears about which they are taught, making it challenging to ask meaningful questions.

Constructivism Learning

Constructivism is the school of learning closely associated with the cognitive approaches to education. While the new employees at Cloudview may understand the machines taught, they can only construct meaning from such knowledge through active involvement in the workplace. Abualhaija (2019) argues that constructivism not only helps learners apply their skills but also shapes their thinking patterns for future learning. On the same note, Rieger et al. (2020) found that students value their lessons based on their level of engagement, as explained by the constructivism approach. Therefore, the problem at Cloudview can be outlined as the lack of value generation for new nurses due to their inability to relate the lessons taught to their experiences. The learning method adopted by the managers does not factor in the need for personal connections with the program, which can only be developed through active engagement and thereby generate constructive feedback for training improvement.

Kolb’s Learning Theory

Kolb’s theory of learning can be segmented into two main categories. The first claims that the learning process encompasses four stages, as shown in fig. 1 below. Kolb argues that learners, should practically fulfill a cycle, turning their encounters into understanding (McLeod, 2017). The theory’s second segment is centered on learning methods or the thought processes that take place in order to gain theoretical and practical knowledge. Kolb felt that people might prove their learning by applying abstract knowledge to multiple settings (Long & Gummelt, 2019). Kolb’s philosophy revolves around experiences that he views as a process through which anything must be modified or transformed. Kolb’s concept recognizes for an encounter to be characterized as learning, tangible benefits must be developed from it.

Kolb's cycle of learning — Figure 1: Kolb’s cycle of learning ((McLeod, 2017).

Kolb’s cycle is a hypothesis that emphasizes how individuals learn from their experiences in life. The learner starts with a contextual approach and must consider the most appropriate action in a given circumstance. The reflection process is regarded as the foundation of the learning cycle because it allows people to assess, analyze, and comprehend their experiences (Hill, 2017). When observing personnel explain how to apply the Hoist Gear, Kolb’s cycle is a great tool for trainees because reflective monitoring can be advantageous. However, people must first identify their learning preferences for better learning outcomes, as human beings learn differently.

A Summary of the Identified Problems

Using Kolb’s theory, Cloudview’s approach to hoisting management training is limited by its inability to allow the new hires to develop their understanding through experiential learning progressively. Therefore, although the organization has hired highly competent trainers for the program, learners cannot turn their knowledge into beneficial outcomes. Koivisto et al. (2017) argue that unless learners can translate acquired knowledge to practical applications as effortlessly as possible, even the most competent trainers and sophisticated machinery would prove to be less impactful. This will only happen if they are in a position to reproduce the same information by individually applying the concept learned within their work environment.

Since there was no tangible learning associated, CloudView workers could not design an experience that would help them learn more successfully. For example, staff could be actively encouraged to experiment with the gear rather than being instructed to watch. After this experience, employees would be more interested in talking and asking questions about how to utilize the tools to expand their expertise and exemplify their interaction (Reed, 2020). Workers would also gain from a theoretical and a practical evaluation of the training session, which will serve a variety of learning approaches, as not everyone learns in the same way.

Evidently, all learning occurred from watching instead of currently participating in the activity at hand. CloudView’s learning concentrated primarily on the teaching techniques as the reflector. As a result, the organization’s training cannot run through the entire learning cycle since they begin with the third level. As a result, to make the program more helpful to all new employees, trainers should aim to combine all learning types to fulfill the cycle and provide a more enriching experience.

The Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model and Its Effectiveness at Cloudview

A critical evaluation of Cloudview’s evaluation criteria reveals that the current evaluation concentrates on the employee’s perceptions of the teaching methods instead of practical implications on their knowledge base and the potential for future practice. Kirkpatrick’s model offers a better methodology for learning evaluation by focusing on four main aspects; reaction, knowledge acquisition, behavior, and outcomes. The first level requires gathering feedback from the learners (Johnston et al., 2018). This has been fulfilled through the feedback sheet issued at Cloudview. According to La Duke (2017), the second phase entails measuring the learners’ cognition. This step should be done by giving the new employees an opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned through the training session.

The third level relates to knowledge transfer, which has been omitted in Cloudview’s evaluation criteria. The educators should allow the employees to apply the skills in practice using the hoisting equipment. Lastly, the outcomes of the training program should be measured through elements such as increased staff motivation, reduced health risks, and minimal safety issues for both patients and nurses (Reio et al., 2017). From this evaluation model, Cloudview has fulfilled only one level, making it crucial for the organization to adopt Kirkpatrick’s evaluation criteria for better outcomes.

Conclusion

Cloudview’s training program focuses on educating new employees on best practices for handling hoist gear. Although the organization has employed competent trainers and has provided access to the machinery, learner assessment is poor, resulting in a low understanding of the gaps in the training program, on which the nurse managers would improve. Kolb’s theory gives insight into the need for experiential learning to expose the learners to actual hoist gear applications and motivate them to ask constructive questions. Kirkpatrick’s model of learning evaluation should be adopted to cover the four essential elements; reaction, behavior, learning, and outcomes. This will allow the nurse educators at Cloudview to fully grasp the program’s effectiveness and formulate measures to bridge the gaps identified.

References

Abualhaija, N. (2019). Using constructivism and student-centered learning approaches in nursing education. International Journal of Nursing and Health Care Research, 5(7), 1-6. Web.

Ballantine, J., Guo, X., & Larres, P. (2016). Can future managers and business executives be influenced to behave more ethically in the workplace? The impact of approaches to learning on business students’ cheating behavior.Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1), 245-258.

Billet, s. (2021). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice (1st ed.). Routledge.

Boozaripour, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Shahriari, M., & Borhani, F. (2018). Ethical values in nurse education perceived by students and educators. Nursing Ethics, 25(2), 253-263.

Brandi, U., & Iannone, R. (2021). Approaches to learning in the context of work – Workplace learning and human resources. Journal of Workplace Learning, 33(5), 317-333.

Cant, R. P., & Cooper, S. J. (2017). Use of simulation-based learning in undergraduate nurse education: An umbrella systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 49, 63-71.

Dickison, P., Haerling, K., & Lasater, K. (2019). Integrating the national council of state boards of nursing clinical judgment model into nursing educational frameworks.Journal of Nursing Education, 58(2), 72-78.

Dockrell, S., & Hurley, G. (2021). Moving and handling care of bariatric patients: A survey of clinical nurse managers.Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(3), 194–204.

Hill, B. (2017). Research into experiential learning in nurse education.British Journal of Nursing, 26(16), 932-938.

Johnston, S., Coyer, F., & Nash, R. (2018). Kirkpatrick’s evaluation of simulation and debriefing in health care education: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(7), 393-398.

Koivisto, J., Niemi, H., Multisilta, J., & Eriksson, E. (2017). Nursing students’ experiential learning processes using an online 3D simulation game.Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 383-398.

La Duke, P. (2017). How to evaluate training: Using the kirkpatrick model. Professional Safety, 62(8), 20.

Landers, M. G., O’Mahony, M., & McCarthy, B. (2020). A theoretical framework to underpin clinical learning for undergraduate nursing students. Nursing Science Quarterly, 33(2), 159–164.

Lavoie, P., Michaud, C., Bélisle, M., Boyer, L., Gosselin, É., & Grondin, M. et al. (2017). Learning theories and tools for the assessment of core nursing competencies in simulation: A theoretical review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74(2), 239-250.

Long, E., & Gummelt, G. (2019). Experiential service learning: Building skills and sensitivity with Kolb’s learning theory. Gerontology &Amp; Geriatrics Education, 41(2), 219-232.

McLeod, S. (2017). Kolb’s learning styles and experiential learning cycle. Simply Psychology.

Reed, S. (2020). Measuring learning and engagement during debriefing: A new instrument. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 46, 15-21.

Reio, T., Rocco, T., Smith, D., & Chang, E. (2017). A critique of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 29(2), 35-53.

Rieger, K. L., Chernomas, W. M., McMillan, D. E., & Morin, F. L. (2020). Navigating creativity within arts-based pedagogy: Implications of a constructivist grounded theory study. Nurse Education Today, 91, 104-465.

Taylor, G. (2017). Nurse managers: Why emotionally-intelligent leadership matters. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, 25(2), 20.

Click Here To Order Now!