Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Potential
participants
who
identify
that
they
are
not
members
of
the
MFR
unit,
do
not
have
access
to
e-mail,
do
not
have
basic
computer
skills,
or
cannot
read
and
understand
English
are
not
permitted
to
access
the
survey
study
and
are
excluded.
Measures
The
shortened,
nine
question
version
of
the
Utrecht
Workplace
Engagement
Survey
(UWES-9)
is
chosen
as
a
measure
of
engagement,
both
prior
to
the
implementation
of
the
eLearning
platform
and
six
weeks
after
its
implementation.
The
UWES-9
uses
a
six
point
Likert
scale
to
assess
the
degree
to
which
the
respondent
agrees
with
each
statement.
Each
numeric
point
is
assigned
a
descriptor
(1=Almost
never,
2=Rarely,
3=Sometimes,
4=Often,
5=Very
Often,
6=Always).
The
nine
statements
being
assessed
represent
three
questions
from
each
of
the
three
dimensions
of
engagement:
vigor,
dedication
and
absorption.
Although
timeframe
dimensions
were
originally
attached
to
the
Likert
values
in
the
creation
of
this
survey
(e.g.
1/Almost
never/once
a
year
or
less,
etc.),
they
were
not
used
due
to
the
episodic
nature
of
volunteering
within
the
community
being
studied.
The
survey
is
further
changed
for
the
volunteer
population
by
modifying
phrases
that
refer
to
work
in
the
questions
to
reflect
the
particular
work
being
assessed
(e.g.
At
my
work,
I
feel
bursting
with
energy
became
At
my
volunteer
work,
I
feel
bursting
with
energy).
Tabulating
scores
from
each
of
the
nine
statements
is
completed
by
first
calculating
the
mean
of
each
of
the
group
of
three
questions
assessing
the
dimensions
of
engagement:
dedication,
absorption
and
vigor.
The
means
of
each
of
the
dimensions
are
then
combined
to
reveal
a
mean
score
of
engagement
for
the
respondent.
Collecting
data
in
this
way
reveals
how
two
respondents
could
be
equally
engaged
but
have
significantly
different
engagement
experiences.
Procedures
On
December
18,
2014,
a
recruitment
e-mail
(Appendix
A)
and
letter
of
information
(Appendix
B)
was
sent
to
41
volunteers
of
the
SJA
Cambridge
MFR
unit
through
personal
e-mail
addresses
supplied
by
Cambridge
SJA.
One
reply
was
received
indicating
that
the
recipient
was
no
longer
a
member
of
the
MFR
unit;
his
request
to
stop
receiving
any
future
updates
about
the
study
was
honored.
The
recruitment
e-mail
was
sent
again
December
28
and
January
11,
2015
in
an
effort
to
recruit
as
many
subjects
as
possible.
Study
participants
were
directed
to
the
questionnaire
web
site
using
the
URL
specified
in
the
recruitment
e-mail
(Appendix
D).
They
were
presented
with
the
letter
of
information
and
asked
to
self-identify
exclusionary
criteria.
If
they
chose
to
consent
to
the
survey,
they
anonymously
completed
the
UWES-9
modified
for
this
study.
The
online
survey
platform
left
no
opportunity
to
collect
personally
identifiable
data.
Although
it
was
originally
designed
to
allow
for
a
two-week
period
of
data
collection,
the
pretest
period
was
increased
by
one
week
due
to
a
delay
in
implementing
the
eLearning
platform
by
SJA.
The
pretest
round
of
data
collection
stopped
automatically
on
Monday,
January
12
at
midnight
eastern
standard
time.
The
intervention
for
this
study,
the
MFR
units
eLearning
platform,
became
active
on
Tuesday,
January
13,
2015.
The
eLearning
platform,
Moodle
learning
management
system
version
2.6.2,
was
developed
for
the
MFR
unit
by
the
principal
investigator
in
this
study.
A
volunteer
within
the
unit
was
given
administrator
privileges
to
fulfil
the
role
of
system
administrator
and
maintain
the
daily
operation
of
the
LMS.
The
LMS
was
designed
to
fulfil
both
administrative
and
educational
roles
for
the
MFR
unit
and
serves
as
a
repository
of
reference
materials,
announcements
for
members
and
operational
documents
required
for
the
volunteer
members.
The
educational
aspects
of
the
LMS
were
developed
by
the
Divisional
Training
Officer
and
Training
Assistant,
both
Ontario
certified
Primary
Care
Paramedics.
Each
educational
module
was
designed
to
complement
the
topic
being
discussed
at
weekly
meetings
occurring
between
January
13,
2015
and
February
24,
2015.
Both
training
developers
did
not
have
previous
experience
creating
Moodle
learning
modules,
nor
do
they
have
any
formal
education
on
adult
learning
but
they
were
the
persons
responsible
for
weekly
training
and
had
sufficient
subject
matter
expertise
on
the
content
required.
During
the
study
period,
four
training
modules
were
made
available
for
the
entire
volunteer
membership
of
the
MFR
unit.
One
of
the
purposes
for
the
MFR
unit
to
develop
the
LMS
was
to
provide
an
alternative
pathway
for
volunteers
to
access
weekly
training
subjects.
Volunteers
who
completed
a
weekly
training
module
online
rather
than
in
class
were
credited
with
one
hour
of
weekly
training
credit;
two
hours
are
typically
granted
to
volunteers
who
attend
weekly
meetings
where
they
are
physically
co-located.
During
the
study
period,
there
were
no
significant
changes
in
the
MFR
unit
outside
the
eLearning
program.
The
posttest
round
of
data
collection
began
on
February
24,
2015,
exactly
six
weeks
after
the
eLearning
platform
went
active.
A
recruitment
e-mail
(Appendix
C)
and
letter
of
information
(Appendix
B)
was
sent
to
the
40
volunteers
of
the
SJA
Cambridge
MFR
unit
who
had
previously
been
contacted
for
the
pretest
portion
of
the
study.
A
second
copy
of
the
recruitment
e-mail
was
sent
on
March
6,
2015
as
a
reminder
to
complete
the
final
portion
of
the
study.
The
survey
website
was
an
exact
copy
of
the
pretest
survey
website
with
the
data
being
collected
in
a
fresh
database.
Survey
results
were
transcoded
from
the
descriptive
responses
collected
from
the
website
to
numeric
responses
on
a
scale
of
one
to
six.
The
term
almost
never
is
transcoded
to
one,
rarely
is
two,
sometimes
is
three,
often
is
four,
very
often
is
five,
and
always
is
six.
Using
this
method,
means
and
standard
deviations
were
calculated
from
the
pretest
data
and
posttest
data
for
comparative
analysis.
The
raw
data
for
this
study
is
found
in
Appendix
E.
The
table
below
presents
the
means
calculated
from
averaging
the
question
groups
responsible
for
assessing
vigor,
dedication,
and
absorption,
as
well
as
the
overall
engagement
score
calculated
from
the
average
of
those
means.
In
order
to
analyze
the
results,
a
students
t-test
was
employed
to
compare
each
statement
assessed
in
each
phase
of
the
study
from
pre-test
to
post-test
results
as
well
as
the
means
for
each
of
the
three
groups
of
statements
representing
the
dimensions
of
engagement
(dedication,
vigor
and
absorption)
and,
finally,
the
overall
combined
means
for
the
three
dimensions
of
engagement
which
includes
all
nine
statements
and
represents
overall
engagement.
A
descriptive
analysis
was
also
employed
and
further
statistical
analysis
was
completed
by
Dr.
Bill
Goodman
using
his
method
of
measuring
the
shifts
in
distribution
(Goodman, 2012).
The
anticipated
required
sample
size
was
calculated
based
on
normative
data
presented
by
Schaufeli & Bakker (2004, p. 40).
In
order
to
achieve
statistical
significance
to
reflect
a
moderate
change
in
engagement
(Cohens
d=0.5),
it
was
determined
a
sample
size
of
64
was
required
but
not
possible
given
a
total
population
of
40.
A
large
change
in
engagement
(Cohens
d=0.8),
reflected
by
a
change
in
the
mean
score
of
0.936,
can
be
said
to
be
statistically
significant
if
a
sample
size
of
19
is
achieved.