Presented at LILAC 2010

1. Learning to Plan
and Planning to Learn
An Action Learning Approach
to Information Literacy Strategy
Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen
Centre for Information Literacy Research

2. Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn
• Background
− action learning, information literacy strategy,
planning as learning
• Workshop description
− content, format, intended outcomes, different cohorts
• Evaluation and feedback
− methods, findings, process, benefits, lessons learned
• References
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 2

3. Action Learning
• According to Reg Revans, Learning (L) =
Programmed knowledge (P) + the ability to ask
insightful Questions (Q)
• Based on the premise that people learn best
when they focus on a problem together
• A process of inquiry that involves working on
real problems, with the focus on learning and
actually implementing solutions
− a form of learning by doing
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 3

4. Information Literacy Strategy
• Area of significant development in recent years as
practitioners aim for institution-wide impact
• Captured in separate documents of various forms or
incorporated into other institutional strategies or plans
• Limited application of strategic management concepts
and techniques in information literacy strategies to date
• Research has identified potential benefits in applying
tools used in corporate strategy and in library planning
(Corrall, 2007; Corrall, 2008; Lorenzen, 2006)
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 4

5. Planning as Learning
• Writers on strategy often present strategic planning as a
process of learning – equated with asking fundamental
questions about the organisation (De Geus, 1988;
Mintzberg, 1987; Mintzberg et al., 2001; Porter, 1996)
• Organisation development practitioners have identified
benefits in a ‘learningful planning approach’
(Leavy, 1998; Smith & Day, 2000)
• Libraries have found strategy development workshops
facilitated by experts result in significant learning, as well
as substantive planning outputs (Dougherty, 2002;
Kuntz et al., 2003; McClamroch et al, 2001)
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 5

6. Workshops description
Workshop content, format and intended outcomes
Key features and comparisons of cohorts
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 6

7. Workshops description – content
• Introduction to strategic
planning
• Stakeholder analysis
• Environmental appraisal
• SWOT analysis
• Force field analysis
• Mission, purpose and
mandates
• Vision, direction and
goals
• Critical success factors
− group brainstorming
− individual interviews
• Portfolio analysis
• Strategic objectives and
themes
• Primary and enabling
strategies
• Goals, measures and
targets
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 7

8. Workshops description – format
• Highly participative and actively facilitated by two leaders
− participants working in pairs, small groups and larger groups
− seated at round tables, using post-it notes and flipchart paper
• Very brief introductions to concepts and techniques
− definition, explanation, questions for discussion and instructions
− 2-3 slides per topic supplemented by handouts with examples
• Emphasis on learning-by-doing through real-world tasks
− debating strategic challenges and developing service responses
− discussing big questions and producing substantive outputs
• Review and reflection built into timetable for each day
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 8

9. Intended learning + planning outcomes
By the end of the workshop, participants should have:
- an understanding of key concepts and principles
underpinning strategy development
- enhanced abilities in strategic thinking and in identifying
and dealing with strategic issues
- practical skills in applying strategic analysis techniques
to information literacy concerns
- a strategy toolkit, supporting documentation, ideas and
insights to take back to the workplace
- early drafts of several elements of their IL strategies
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 9

10. Case comparison (2 cohorts)
September cohort
• closed workshop
• 22 participants
− from the same institution
• working in 4 groups
− one task in larger groups
and some plenary tasks
• 2 consecutive days + 1
− 0830-1500 each day
− day off before final session
− non-residential (in hotel)
November cohort
• open workshop
• 30 participants
− from 5 similar institutions
• working mainly in 6
institution-based groups
− a few plenary tasks
• 2 consecutive days
− 0900-1600, 0900-1530
− residential event (in hotel)
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 10

11. Evaluation
and Feedback
Pre- and post-event evaluation methods
Key findings and comparisons of cohorts
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 11

12. Evaluation methods
• Pre-workshop questionnaire survey administered online
− to assess prior knowledge and experience of strategic planning
− to establish participant needs and priorities for the programme
• Daily evaluations completed in final session of each day
− to measure development in understanding of the topics covered
− to explore the potential application of learning in the workplace
− to assess the value of different elements in the programme
• Overall evaluation completed in final session of last day
− to obtain feedback on the range, depth and delivery of content
− to assess our success in meeting the needs of participants
• Instruments used scaled responses and open questions
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 12

13. © Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 13
Pre-workshop survey

14. Pre-workshop survey
• In both cohorts most respondents assessed their current
competence at Novice or Beginner level, with only a few
scores at Practitioner or Experienced level
• Scores for the different tools were generally similar, but
more respondents were familiar with mission and vision
• Some respondents were not familiar with the terms used
and one respondent described the survey as ‘scary’
• Respondents appreciated being contacted by the
workshop leaders before the event
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 14

15. © Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 15
Daily evaluation

16. © Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 16
Overall evaluation

17. Areas where learning increased most
Three-day course
• Stakeholder analysis
• Mission and vision
• Critical success factors
Two-day course
• Stakeholder analysis
• Critical success factors
• Vision
• SWOT
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 17
Areas where practical application identified
• Mission and vision
• Critical success factors
• Performance indicators
• Stakeholder analysis
• Mission
• Portfolio analysis

18. Most valuable elements of the programme
Three-day course
• Mission and vision
• SWOT
• Force field analysis
Two-day course
• Critical success factors
• Stakeholder analysis
• SWOT
• Vision
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 18
Elements on which more time wanted
• Introduction to strategy
• SWOT
• Force field analysis
• Portfolio analysis
• Force field analysis
• Performance indicators

19. Evaluation process
• Daily evaluation was arguably too much, but
participants appreciated why it was being done
• Responses were typed up and analysed at the
end of each day, so that sessions on the
following day could be tailored to specific needs
• Thematic analysis of participant comments using
a word cloud can quickly illustrate group reaction
to training and pinpoint key issues…

20. Can you see ways to implement what you
have learnt today in your workplace?

21. Can you see ways to implement what you
have learnt today in your workplace?

22. What elements have been most valuable?

23. Feedback process
• Feedback from each day was used to inform
content and delivery on the next day
− adding explanations of key points highlighted to slides
for the review session at the start of the day
− adjusting the timing of handout distribution and
facilitator interventions
• Feedback from the first cohort was used to refine
the approach for the second workshop
− providing a pre-workshop briefing document offering
an introduction to key concepts, tools and resources

24. Benefits of evaluation strategy
For participants
• Encouraged a feeling of
openness and ownership
of the sessions
• Ensured key issues were
identified and addressed
• Enabled better value for
money as feedback was
analysed and acted on
throughout the workshop
– rather than afterwards
For trainers/facilitators
• Highlighted quickly when
things were not quite right
and could be improved
• Allowed training to be
personalised to the needs
of the participants
• Supported a customer-
oriented approach to
training and development
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 24

25. Lessons Learned
• Despite the steep learning curve, our experience proved
the effectiveness of the workshop format in generating
high quality contributions to strategies and plans
• The workshops demonstrated the value of applying
strategic analysis tools to information literacy strategies
• Three days of planning/learning spread over four days
worked well, but two days was not enough time for the
specified concepts and tools to be explained and used
• Our understanding of professional practice was enriched
through working with practitioners in another country
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 25

26. References
Corrall, S. (2007). Benchmarking strategic engagement with
information literacy in higher education: towards a working model.
Information Research, 12 (4). http://InformationRnet/ir/12-4/
paper328.html
Corrall, S. (2008) Information literacy strategy development in higher
education: an exploratory study. International Journal of Information
Management, 28 (1), 26-37.
De Geus, A.P. (1988) 'Planning as learning', Harvard Business Review,
66 (2), 70-74.
Dougherty, R.M. (2002) ‘Planning for new library futures’, Library
Journal, 127 (9), 38-41.Kuntz, J.J. et al. (2003) ‘Staff-driven strategic
planning: learning from the past, embracing the future’, Journal of
the Medical Library Association, 91 (1), 79-83.
Leavy, B. (1998) ‘The concept of learning in the strategy field: review
and outlook’, Management Learning, 29 (4), 447-466.
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 26

27. References
Lorenzen, M. (2006) ‘Strategic planning for academic library
instructional programming: an overview’, Illinois Libraries, 86 (2),
22-29. http://www.libraryinstruction.com/strategic-planning.html
McClamroch, J. et al. (2001) ‘Strategic planning: politics, leadership,
and learning’, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27 (5), 372-378.
Mintzberg, H. (1987) ‘Crafting strategy’, Harvard Business Review, 65
(4), 66-75.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel. J.(2001) Strategy Safari: The
Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic Management.
Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Porter, M. (1996) ‘What is strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, 74 (6),
61-78.
Smith, P.A.C. and Day, A. (2000) ‘Strategic planning as action
learning’, Organisations & People, 7 (1).
© Sheila Corrall and Barbara Sen 2010 Slide 27