Ili2009 Final Version
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Ili2009 Final Version

on

  • 701 views

Presentation for Internet Librarian International conference held in London, October 2009

Presentation for Internet Librarian International conference held in London, October 2009

Statistics

Views

Total Views
701
Views on SlideShare
687
Embed Views
14

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 14

http://learning20atimperial.wordpress.com 14

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Prior to developing our programme we ran an annual one hour demonstration-based presentation to introduce library staff to various web 2.0 tools. Although well received, the feedback was that staff would like to have a hands-on session. Rather than running a one-off practical workshop that would still include too much content, we felt an extended programme such as the ’23 Things’ was appropriate. This would enable participants to learn about web 2.0 tools in a practical fashion over several weeks.23 things idea gave participants the time and opportunity to explore the tools in greater depth (but if they weren’t so interested they could spend less time on particular tools/technologies)
  • As already mentioned – rather than ‘23 things’ – we focussed on each technology as a whole – giving participants quite a bit of content to read – this included a mix of text, videos (commoncraft very popular), and other websites/articles to look atThe exercises included a basic exercise and then an extended ‘optional’ activityAs Imperial are using a number of web 2.0 tools/related technologies – we included technologies such as multimedia, Second Life, instant message reference, toolbars (et al)Wanted prizes – couldn’t get agreement from management – we did tryMix of options accommodated (we hope) all learning stylesBuilt in catch up weeksCan look at the programme blog for specifics
  • To allow for various learning styles we enabled members of staff to participate in a number of different ways:Catch up weeksCompleting the programme entirely by self-paced learning i.e. participants did not have to attend workshops and drop-in sessionsChoosing to attend weekly 1 hour drop-in sessions which enabled staff to get away from their desks to work on the programme – these were informal (no structured content)Member of the Learning 2.0 team available to help when necessaryA training room was booked to give them the space to workAttending one of three workshopsIntroductory workshopMeet the Learning 2.0 teamContent included how the programme would work & blogs overview then hands-on setting up MSN web messenger account and blogsMultimedia workshopLearning technologist with expertise in multimedia ran this sessionVirtual Worlds / Second Life workshopOverview of virtual worlds, then hands-on Second Life – create an avatar, get familiar with moving in world, exploring Imperial’s space/used for teaching in FoM
  • Surveyed our participants before they started the courseAs you can see people felt more confident with more popular tools such as social networking and online media They were not so confident with tools such as gaming, online tools (we did define what we meant by online tools in the survey)This is those that felt they had a good/expert level of knowledge – we did also give them the option of aware/little knowledge/awareness
  • Learning 2.0 @ Imperial College London – what didn’t work quite so well From the perspective of us as a Learning 2.0 team Midway through the programme participation levels dropped offTiming of the programme was an issueIt was difficult to get the balance of content rightIt was very time consuming to put the programme togetherSome technologies/tasks worked better than othersLack of interaction between most participants, in particular a lack of commenting on each others’ blog posts From the perspective of our Learning 2.0 participants  Some participants found that the hour a week suggested wasn’t enough to learn how to use the tools that were coveredSome weeks worked better than othersSome participants found it very difficult to keep track of multiple accounts needed to access the toolsNot enough of a community developed
  • Learning 2.0 @ Imperial College London – what worked? The course designers felt that the following areas of the programme were successful: The enthusiasm of the participantsThe chance for staff from different teams to interactStaff are now using web 2.0 tools in their day to day work and on a personal levelThe success of the programme itself demonstrated the need for itCommunities were built – but mainly within work teams based on campusesAs well as learning more about the technologies, we discovered their shortcomings. It also made us think more about how to support participants though a new way of learning i.e. delivery and completion of tasks in a mainly online environment. The participants felt that the following areas of the programme were successful: Mix of exercises/activities Practical experience/chance to experiment/self-pacedResulted in raised awareness of current issues/and of their potentialSupport from the Learning 2.0 teamInteraction between some of the participantsIncreased confidence in using the toolsEVERYONE WHO COMPLETED THE POST COURSE SURVEY WOULD RECOMMEND THE PROGRAMME TO OTHER STAFF MEMBERS
  • Like the fact that our programme has depthObviously many people are now familiar with a number of the technologies – programme will need to be updated to reflect emerging technologiesAnother way to address this would be to make the programme more modular – and enable the participants to choose the modules they wanted to complete Now that we’ve offered it to a ‘pilot’ group of non-library staff – can see the potential for other non-academic staff as well as academicsOver the past two years we have educated a large section of the library staff…More workshops – develop the widgets week, the mashups week – make them more hands-on – these proved really effective – so could expand them for other technologies
  • To finish – in the words of our participants

Ili2009 Final Version Ili2009 Final Version Presentation Transcript

  • Learning 2.0 @ Imperial College London Library:the do’s and don’tshttp://learning20atimperial.wordpress.com
    Jenny Evans
    Liaison Librarian (Natural Sciences)
    Lawrence Jones
    Liaison Librarian (Engineering)
  • Why Learning 2.0?
    “would be helpful to investigate the info given in a practical session”
    “explore the resources further in selected workshops”
    “a hands-on session on this topic would be good”
    “…practical sessions…would help”
    “it would be more helpful to have a hands-on session”
  • Planning our programme
    “A major reason for taking part was to show support from a senior management level for the programme which I think was important to do”
    (e-strategy director, June 2009)
    Our Learning 2.0 team
  • How our programme was different
  • Structure
    Self-paced
    One hour a week completely online
    Drop-in sessions
    Optional one hour a week unstructured session - team member available for advice
    Workshops
    Three workshops – introduction to programme/multimedia/Second Life
  • Levels of prior knowledge before starting the programme
  • What didn’t work quite so well?
    http://www.wordle.net
  • What worked well?
    http://www.wordle.net
  • Effect the programme had on knowledge
  • Our tips on how to run a successful Learning 2.0 programme
    http://www.wordle.net
  • How we changed the programme for the 2009 version
  • What happens next…
  • In the words of our participants
    “…very good programme… learned many new skills and tips...and now using them regularly..”
    “Excellent programme, would thoroughly recommend”
    “I hope this program can be run again and give other staff who didn't have chance to participate this time”
    100% of participants filling in the post-course survey said they would recommend to other staff