Case Study on a Global Learning Program (OnlineEduca 2008 Conference Proceedings)


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Case Study on a Global Learning Program (OnlineEduca 2008 Conference Proceedings)

  1. 1. Unified in Learning –Separated by Space Case Study on a Global Learning Program Martin Rehm, Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, the Netherlands As the availability of new online learning programs and tools is constantly increasing, global organizations can choose from a wide range of new options to effectively train their workforce. Previously, global learning programs were often associated with substantial costs that had to be endured in order to update the knowledge and skills of a workforce. Nowadays, organizations can readily make use of online tools and services to cost-effectively teach and train their global staff. Consequently, international organizations appear to be increasingly interested in setting up online communities of learning (CoL), relating them to their already existing communities of practice. Moreover, it has been widely accepted that the creation of such communities can be greatly supported by the incorporation of the “constructivist approach”and “situated learning”(Amin & Roberts 2006; Gannon-Leary & Fontainha 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Savery & Duffy 1995; Woods & Ebersole 2003). This document introduces a learning program that was based on a combination of these concepts and was implemented in 2 consecutive years (2006 and 2007) for a large international organization (IO). During this timeframe, more than 400 of the organization’s middle- and top-management staff, from nearly 100 offices world wide, have collaboratively updated their knowledge and skills. The ultimate objective of the program was to secure the impact of the IO in its daily practice by enhancing the capacity and skills of its staff. In terms of content, the learning program specifically focused on updating the participants’understanding of new assessment methods, by introducing the vocabulary and theories currently used to analyze them. The program was offered over a duration of 6 months and built upon a blended learning approach, consisting two main phases, namely e-Learning, which will be the focus of this document, and face-to-face. Structure & Purpose of the e-Learning Phase The e-Learning phase took place entirely online, with no scheduled real-time meetings. The duration was 8 weeks in 2006 and 14 weeks in 2007. This substantial increase in length was caused by two main reasons. First, in contrast to 2006, the 2007 program began with an introductory stage, where participants could get accustomed to the structure, content and online learning environment. The second reason was based on the inclusion of a 4 week vacation period in 2007 to accommodate for annual leaves and vacations of the participants. Before the actual start of the program, participants received all necessary learning materials, including a detailed explanation of the program’s objectives, a comprehensive overview of required activities, as well as all content materials, which were distributed via various means including a dedicated virtual learning environment (VLE). Additionally, participants were required to complete two online questionnaires. The first addressed participants’expectations and learning preferences, whereas the second estimated their prior knowledge on specified content areas. Main elements and required activities All collaborative learning activities took place in a VLE, which was powered by Blackboard© and encompassed a wide range of characteristics that are crucial to foster a successfully running CoL. The most prominent tools that was used are asynchronous discussion forums. The overall workload amounted to an estimated 5 hours per week. In general, the e-Learning phase created a “level playing field”, introducing participants to basic concepts and methodologies required in the second phase and allowing to reach the overall objective of the program. More specifically, these concepts were sub-divided into 5 focal areas, which then each constituted a content module that comprised lecture(s), readings, quizzes and task based discussions. Additionally, during the entire period of the e-Learning phase, a so-called ‘Help Desk Team’ was at the participants’disposal. This team constituted the first contact point between the university and the program. Self-Study & Quizzes: The literature of the different content modules was subdivided into Fundamental and Applied Readings. The Fundamental Readings were voluntary and represented a kind of safety net in case participants required a general introduction into a certain topic. The Applied Readings focused on very practical research that was relevant for the work of the IO’s staff. For each module, the readings were complement by a lecture and a ‘Context Note’. In addition, voluntary formative assessments in the form of online quizzes were offered.
  2. 2. Online Discussion Groups and Tasks: This part constituted the backbone of the entire e-Learning phase and was subdivided into a public discussion forum and several private discussion forums. The public forum facilitated the general exchange of knowledge across all participants. Participation herein was voluntary. The private forums were part of separate “Learning Communities”, each consisting of about 15 randomly assigned participants. These communities also contained asynchronous discussion forums, where participants could openly discuss the content of the modules. In both instances, there were two different types of forums available. One forum specifically focused on group building processes, where people introduced themselves and conducted informal chit-chat. The other type of forum was content driven, providing a platform to collaboratively work on practical, real-life tasks, which were taken from the actual working environments of the participants. To facilitate the discussions a team of academic staff was assigned to each Learning Community to guide the discussion, if necessary, and to act as a kind of ‘sparring partner’. Final Assessment: The e-Learning phase was evaluated in equal parts on the basis of the participants’ contributions to the discussion forums, as well as a final exam. In 2006 this took the form of an extensive online multiple choice test. Taking into account the limitations of such a summative assessment, the format was adapted to essay questions in 2007. End Evaluation At the end of the e-Learning phase, an evaluation was conducted in order to assess whether the participants’expectations and goals were matched, as well as to measure the overall success of the phase. Overall, the e-Learning phase was very positively evaluated. More specifically, on a scale from 1 (very bad) – 10 (very good), the overall quality received a 6.64 in 2006 and a 7.07 in 2007. Similarly, the supporting staff was awarded with a 6.27 in 2006 and a 7.11 in 2007. When looking more closely at the evaluations, one can see that, based on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), participants perceived the program to be a valuable learning experience (2006: 5.82 & 2007: 6.16) and considered the structure to be good (2006: 5.23 & 2007: 5.44). Furthermore, participants really appreciated the collaborative nature of the phase (2006: 4.28 & 2007: 4.66). Potential weaknesses were mainly identified around the usage of the discussion forums. More specifically, although the facilitators were evaluated quite positively (2006: 4.16 & 2007: 4.95), participants clearly indicated that they would have liked them to take a more active role in the discussions (2006: 4.19 & 2007: 4.59). Another perceived drawback of the phase was the estimated workload, as the average amount of hours spent on the e-Learning phase was higher than expected (2006: 8.01 hrs & 2007: 8.20 hrs). Overview of performance indicators Overall, in 2006 75.80% and in 2007 83.90% of all participants successfully completed the e-Learning phase, which are both very acceptable passing rates. The grades were determined on a scale from 1 (very bad) –10 (very good), requiring at least 5.5 to pass the phase. When looking at the phase’s final exam scores and grades, there is a noticeable difference between the average scores when comparing 2006 and 2007. As a first approximation it seems likely that this is related to the nature of the final exam, which has been more practical and solely based on open questions in 2007. In order to roughly estimate possible learning effects, a comparison of scores between the pre-knowledge test and the final grade was conducted. To measure the possible effects a paired-sample t-test was employed, which yielded mixed results. For 2006, no significant difference between the two scores were determined. In contrast, when conducting the test for 2007, a strong increase in the average scores, which is highly significant at a 0.01 level, was found. This suggests that the changes made between 2006 and 2007 have had a considerable, positive impact on the overall outcomes. Amin, A., & Roberts, J. (2006). ‘Communities of Practice: Varieties of Situated Learning’. Paper presented at the EU Network of Excellence Dynamics of Institutions and Markets in Europe (DIME). Retrieved on February 18, 2008. From Gannon-Leary, P., & Fontainha, E. (2007). Communities of Practice and virtual learning communitites: benefits, barriers and success factors. eLearning Papers, 5(September 2007). Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge University Press.
  3. 3. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31-38. Woods, R., & Ebersole, S. (2003). Becoming a "Communal Architect" in the Online Classroom - Integrating Cognitive and Affective Learning for Maximum Effect in Web-Based Learning, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.