This document introduces a global online learning program implemented for over 400 staff members of an international organization over two years. The program focused on updating participants' understanding of new assessment methods. It used a blended learning approach with an initial 8-14 week online phase followed by in-person sessions. The online phase took place entirely online using a learning management system and involved self-study materials, quizzes, and required participation in asynchronous discussion forums. Evaluations found the program was positively received and effective, with over 75% of participants passing each year, though facilitators could have taken a more active role in discussions.

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. 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 http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/Amin_Roberts.pdf.
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. 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.