Unified in Learning –Separated by Space
Case Study on a Global Learning Program
Martin Rehm
OnlineEduca 2008
Thursday. 4th of December. 2008

Overview
•(Methodological) Framework
•Structure
•(Selected) Results
•Lessons Learned
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Framework
•Large international organization (IO)
•2006 & 2007 (6 months each):
~ 400 middle- & top-management
~ 100 offices world wide
•Secure the impact of the IO
•Enhancing the capacity and skills of its
staff
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

(Methodological) Framework
Learning Program
e-Learning
Online Remedial
Teaching Model
Rienties, Tempelaar, Waterval,
Rehm, & Gijselaers (2006)
Face-to-Face
Community of Practice Workshop
Lave & Wenger (1991)
Community of Learning
Stacey, Smith & Barty (2004)
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

e-Learning
Entry
5 Modules:
Questionnaires
•Self-Study
(Lectures & Readings)
•Quizzes
•Online Discussion Groups
(asynchronous)
•Final Assessment
- 2006: formative
- 2007: summative Face-to-Face
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

2006 2007
(n=157) (n=87)
t-test
Question Ø Ø (difference)
Phase 1 of this Learning Programme was a
valuable learning experience. 5,8 1,2 6,2 1,4 ---
The allocated time was sufficient to study the
subject matter. 2,4 1,3 3,6 1,9 0,000
I have been encouraged to cooperate more effectively
with my colleagues worldwide. 4,4 1,4 4,9 1,4 0,040
I think I have learned more through collaboration with
others than I would have learned, if I had to work alone 4,3 1,7 4,7 1,9 0,011
I have improved my evidence based analysis skills. 4,8 1,4 5,3 1,2 0,027
I will get better results in my career. 4,8 1,4 5,3 1,4 0,014
I expected the facilitators to take a more active role in the learning process 4,2 1,5 4,6 2,2 ---
Overall grade for the quality of the e-Learning Phase (Scale 1-10) 6,6 1,6 7,1 1,6 0,053
Overall grade for the e-Learning Phase Team (Scale 1-10) 6,3 1,8 7,1 2 0,001
On average, how many hours per week did you work on the e-Learning Phase? 8 5,2 8,2 6,7 ---
Likert Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) –7 (strongly agree)
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Performance Indicators for Phase 1 in 2006 & 2007
(Averages: 1 –10)
10
9
Paired-Sample t-test
(PK –FG)
8
7 2006:
no significant difference
6
5 2007: 2006
2007
significant increase
4
(at 0.01 level)
3
2
1 PK: Pre-Knowledge
PG: Participation Grade
QZ: Quizzes
0 FE: Final Exam
PK PG QZ FE FG FG: Final Grade
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Lessons Learned
•‘
Situated Learning’
(i.e.; Woods & Ebersole 2003)
•‘
Collaborative Learning’
(i.e. Lave & Wenger, 1991; Stacey, Smith & Barty, 2004)
•‘
Neo-Apprenticeship Style Learning’
(i.e. Gannon-Leary & Fontainha, 2007; Schlager, Fusco & Schank, 2002)
•Time Management / Workload
(i.e. Amin & Roberts, 2006; Trayner, Smith & Bettoni, 2006)
•Online Facilitation
(i.e. Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000)
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Contact Details
Martin Rehm
Email
martin.rehm@governance.unimaas.nl
Internet
http://martinrehm.wordpress.com/
www.governance.unimaas.nl
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Unified in Learning –Separated by Space
Case Study on a Global Learning Program
Martin Rehm
OnlineEduca 2008
Thursday. 4th of December. 2008
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)