Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Learning 20 Post Mortem
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Learning 20 Post Mortem

2,587

Published on

An analysis of the Learning 2.0 program at Multnomah County Library, 2008. This powerpoint was created by Mike Larsen, Learning Systems Manager.

An analysis of the Learning 2.0 program at Multnomah County Library, 2008. This powerpoint was created by Mike Larsen, Learning Systems Manager.

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,587
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
42
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • This project was something new for MCL, Training open for all staff, delivered in a way training here had never been delivered before. So that’s why it’s fitting that we’re here to report on this project: How it was planned and executed—and the results seen so far.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Learning 2.0 Post-Mortem Abigail Elder Martha Flotten Mike Larsen June 4, 2008
    • 2. Performance vs. Goals <ul><li>Program Objective #1 : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Create a safe and encouraging environment for staff to explore web 2.0 technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objective Achieved : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>78% of eligible employees participated </li></ul></ul>
    • 3. Performance vs. Goals <ul><li>Program Objective #2 : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide staff with tools to support MCL Mission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(diverse opportunities to read, learn, connect) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Objective Achieved : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2.0 tools (blogs, wikis, online docs, etc.) already being used to help patrons </li></ul></ul>
    • 4. Performance vs. Goals <ul><li>Program Objective #3 : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prepare staff to meet public expectations regarding technical competency with web 2.0 tools </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objective Achieved : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased staff comfort level with web 2.0 technologies (74% “Yes”) </li></ul></ul>
    • 5. Performance vs. Goals <ul><li>Program Objective #4 : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reward staff for initiative in completing self-discovery exercises </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objective Achieved : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>172 flash drives and 66 MP3 players distributed </li></ul></ul>
    • 6. Program Participation <ul><li>How Many? </li></ul><ul><li>Who? </li></ul><ul><li>How Much? </li></ul><ul><li>Why / Why Not? </li></ul><ul><li>Where? </li></ul><ul><li>Enough Time? </li></ul>Ruth Allen, Donald Allgeier, Kassten Alonso, Rachel Altmann, Scott Anderson, Gloria Anger, Diana Armstrong, Carolyn Baer, Margaret Bagg, Renee Bashor, Shandra Bauer, Adam Bentley, Francie Berg, Nicole Bilyeu, Nancy Booher, Carey Boucher, Erika Bury, Mary Bush, Donna Cain, Cathy Camper, Lisa Canavan, Lee Catalano, Sharon Chalem, Kitty Chartier, Lori Chester, John Church, Wendy Clark, Jacob Coleman, Jason Colomby, Paul Connelly, Michelle Conrad, Michael Constan, Vickie Costello, William Coutant, Ben Craig, Constance Cramer, Chris Cuttone, Kristine Dale, Mary Davis, Emily-Jane Dawson, May Dea, Troy Deal, Jane Denunzio, Gail Des Granges, Sean Dixon, Jan Durant, Luci Dorocher, Karen Eichler, Dulsanna Eliason, Terri Elledge, Stephen Ellis, Angie Fisher, Helen Flack-Jacobs, Betsy Fontenot, Peter Ford, Natasha Forrester, Jennifer Fort, Mark Foster, Felicia Fulks, Alan Gabriell, Carolyn Garcia, Lee Garfiield, Beverly Gilbertson, Thia Gilpin, Deborah Gitlitz, Daryl Hardin, Peter Harrington, Ann Harrison, Kari Hauge, Leslie Hemstreet, Ken Hoesch, Heidi Hoogstra, Ross Huffmann-Kerr, Ross Betzer, Tara Hughes, Haley Isleib, Chris Jakel, Shelly Jarman, David Jensen, Alicia Jimenez, Nick Kalastro, Alison Kastner, Arlene Keller, John Keller, Katrina Kendrix, Sharon Kerns, Michael Kindley, Amy Know, Ann Knutson, Shannon Kraft, Bill Kramer, Nina Kramer, Aaron Kyle, Erin Lakin, Susan Larimer, Angie Larson, Marty Leisure, Jorden Leonard, Colleen Lester, Larry Lillvik, Vida Lohnes, Laura Lonac, Shanon Long, Stephan Mahoney, Darcee Maloney, Moira McAuliffe, Shauna McKain-Storey, Sarah Mead, Andrea Milano, Joanna Milner, Carson Mischel, Kristopher Newburg, Kiri Nielsen, Sean O’Brien, Katie O’Hara, Hesther O’Neill, Victoria Oglesbee, Gail Parker, Jackie Partch, Nicoal Price, Patrick Provant, Sinead Pullen, Sam Pumpelly, Lin Rainier, Larry Randall, Beth Read, Rod Richards, Cyndi Rosene, Steve Roskoski, Terry Roskoski, Rebecca Roth, Elizabeth Roghery, Jennifer Ryan, Susan Scharbach, Heidi Schaub, Lorna Schilling, Denise Schmitt, Sharon Schriver, Kristen Schroeder, Baron Schuyler, Kate Schwab, Tiffany Scott, Arden Shelton, Rachael Short, Carol Silva, Dale Smith, Arlen Snyder, Carolyn Sparling, Kate Swabey Grant Swanson, Maryanne Tarter, David Townsend, Anne Tran, Carol Uhte, John Vassallo, Daniel Wade, Becky Warren, Catherine Watanabe, Shane Wavra, Daphne Weiner, Jere White, Larry Will, Desiree Wolcott-Cushman, Keli Yeats, Eugene Lam, Maria Lowe, Lynda Pumpelly, Kristen Schlafer, Pauline Baughman, Eric Gregory, Laura Tyger = 172 total staff members! People Who Completed the Learning 2.0 Activities
    • 7. Learning 2.0 Program Participation
    • 8. Reasons for Not Participating <ul><li>Data from Survey. </li></ul><ul><li>Only 22% of employees (19% of survey respondents) did not participate. </li></ul>
    • 9. Motivation: The Role of “Tech Tools” Q: How big a role did the possibility of receiving one of the tech tools play in your decision to participate in the Learning 2.0 Program?
    • 10. Completion: How Far Did People Get? as of 3/29/2008
    • 11. Reasons for Not Completing <ul><li>Data from Survey. </li></ul><ul><li>Only 38% of survey respondents did not complete. </li></ul><ul><li>No respondents indicated supervisor as a reason for not completing. </li></ul>
    • 12. Did we allow them enough time? <ul><li>Time Allowed vs. Time Needed </li></ul>Time Needed (outer ring) Time Allowed (inner ring)
    • 13. L2.0 Program Completion by Location
    • 14. Completion vs. Participation (by Location)
    • 15. Project Planning & Execution <ul><li>Plans we made </li></ul><ul><li>How they worked out </li></ul>
    • 16. Project Management / Planning <ul><li>Planned Committee </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Committee made up of IT rep, plus seven staff members representing different classifications, locations, work groups, and skill levels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nominated by Supervisors, selected by Martha, Mike, Abigail, and Vailey </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Actual Committee </li></ul><ul><ul><li>As envisioned, expanded to eight for extra inclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lesson: Should have included a Branch Leader </li></ul></ul>
    • 17. General Outline of Project Plan <ul><li>Follow PLCMC model, adapt it for MCL </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigate web tools; choose best for us </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decisions by consensus whenever possible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Used blog & wiki to develop program content </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Each member given primary responsibility for a “week” of thematically linked activities </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Subcommittees for program communication, resources/personnel, implementation, and incentives </li></ul><ul><li>Result: Positive </li></ul>
    • 18. Schedule / Timeline <ul><li>Planned Timeline : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial plan was to begin on Staff Day (end of Feb) and conclude by June 1st </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Actual Timeline : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Program ran Jan 8 – March 29, “winners” announced at Staff Day </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(ahead of original schedule) </li></ul></ul>Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
    • 19. Budget <ul><li>Planned Budget : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Committee time (development) up to 3hrs./mo. X 8 mo. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Staff time (for participation) up to 90min./wk x 12 weeks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Friends of the Library purchase “incentives” for staff </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Actual Budget Result : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Committee time averaged approximately 2 hrs/mo. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Staff participation time avg. __ (< 90 min planned) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Friends of the Library donated $5000 for “tech tools” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>68 unused flash drives returned for sale in the store at CEN. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    • 20. Marketing / Communications <ul><li>Both 2.0 and traditional methods used: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AA memos and e-mails </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Animoto and Molly’s YouTube videos </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Presentations to managers & work groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Update emails highlighting Blog of the Week </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Word of mouth” through network of Guides </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project Blog FAQ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comments on participants’ blogs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Result: Positive </li></ul>
    • 21. Planned Learning Support <ul><li>Initial Model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All support delivered through online resources; self-directed learning activities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>As Modified for MCL (Additional Support) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recruited and trained Learning Guides for onsite, in-person assistance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scheduled dedicated computer lab sessions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>February Reference Forum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Weekly e-mail updates </li></ul></ul>
    • 22. Participant Feedback on Support <ul><li>Did participants get the help they needed? </li></ul>No 18% Yes 82%
    • 23. Supervisor Opinion of Support <ul><li>Did supervisors feel supported by the Learning 2.0 Committee? </li></ul>
    • 24. IT Support <ul><li>Planned </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IT Rep on Committee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Head off or fix problems before “go live” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Planned 2 week test period </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use Roller as in-house blogging platform </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimal involvement because activities based on free online resources </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Actual </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No test period. Program blog not ready until January 7, one day before “go live” date </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial problems with Roller usability, video players, help desk communications, server downtime </li></ul></ul>
    • 25. Direct Impact of Program <ul><li>How we’re using web 2.0 tools since the start of the Learning 2.0 program </li></ul><ul><li>How we feel about Learning 2.0 </li></ul>
    • 26. L2.0 Tools Used to Help Patrons <ul><li>19% of survey respondents do not interact with patrons. </li></ul><ul><li>36% have not used one of the Learning 2.0 tools to help a patron. </li></ul>
    • 27. Staff Non-Public Use of L2.0 Tools <ul><li>Only 25% of staff have not yet used one of the Learning 2.0 tools in some facet of their work duties other than helping patrons. </li></ul>
    • 28. Usage Comparison: Public vs. Internal <ul><li>Greater staff internal usage for all Learning 2.0 tools </li></ul>
    • 29. Work Group Implementation of L2.0 Tools <ul><li>graph from supervisor survey data </li></ul>75% of supervisors either have already implemented, or have plans to implement the usage of 2.0 tools for their workgroups!
    • 30. Examples of 2.0 In Use at MCL <ul><li>Everybody Reads Blog </li></ul><ul><li>Fairview Branch Wiki </li></ul><ul><li>PELIC Wiki </li></ul><ul><li>Ref Blog </li></ul><ul><li>More Coming Soon! </li></ul>
    • 31. Supervisor Opinion of L2.0 Program <ul><li>Supervisors who feel the Learning 2.0 program was worth the time and effort </li></ul>
    • 32. Key Lessons
    • 33. What Went Right <ul><li>Learning Guides </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity for fun & break from routine </li></ul><ul><li>Bringing people together </li></ul><ul><li>“ Blog of the Week” helped encourage participation </li></ul><ul><li>Walked the talk (used 2.0 tools to develop and deliver program content) </li></ul><ul><li>“ Opt out” (where applied) </li></ul><ul><li>Library work still got done </li></ul>
    • 34. Lessons Learned <ul><li>The value of social engagement! </li></ul><ul><li>Open labs not used </li></ul><ul><li>Roller problematical </li></ul><ul><li>Connectivity/PC configuration issues </li></ul><ul><li>Privacy concerns persist </li></ul><ul><li>People don’t read instructions </li></ul><ul><li>Schedule most applicable activities first </li></ul>
    • 35. Where do we go from here?
    • 36. Supervisor Support <ul><li>Do supervisors support future training on the same delivery model as the Learning 2.0 program? </li></ul>
    • 37. Survey Says… <ul><li>Skills/tools employees want to see in a future program </li></ul>
    • 38. Recommendations: #1 <ul><li>Implement Learning 2.1-- a program for continued learning of new technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A new activity/tool each month </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Posted to a new central blog, similar to Learning 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rotate responsibility for posting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(between Mike/Martha/Abigail/others?) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Highlight what other libraries are doing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participation optional </li></ul></ul>
    • 39. Recommendations: #2 <ul><li>Centralize system-wide 2.0 tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid duplication of initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>List MCL blogs, wikis, etc., in one place (like Hennepin’s extranet) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidate & standardize tools (e.g. Roller is shared, “official” blogging platform) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Especially need standardized wiki platform </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide list of people to be contacted for info on specific 2.0 tools. </li></ul></ul>
    • 40. Recommendations: #3 <ul><li>Implications for future e-learning programs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2.0 tools are here to stay; usage will continue to grow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Staff will require training as tools & technologies are developed and gain widespread use and acceptance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-paced online e-learning a valuable and necessary, but not a sufficient means of delivering training for most employees </li></ul></ul>
    • 41. Recommendations: #4 <ul><li>Serve as a resource for other county departments and work groups interested in similar training programs or in using web 2.0 tools. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Point of contact: MCL Learning Systems </li></ul></ul>
    • 42. Recommendations: #5 <ul><li>Highlight applicable 2.0 tools on new public blog </li></ul>
    • 43. Recommendations: #6 <ul><li>Require/encourage newbies to complete Learning 2.0 activities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technohost volunteers </li></ul></ul>
    • 44. Questions & Comments

    ×