Learning 2.0 Post-Mortem

Abigail Elder

Martha Flotten

Mike Larsen

June 4, 2008

2

Performance vs. Goals

Program Objective #1: Create a safe and encouraging environment

for staff to explore web 2.0 technologies

Objective Achieved: 78% of eligible employees participated

3

Performance vs. Goals

Program Objective #2: Provide staff with tools to support MCL

Mission (diverse opportunities to read, learn, connect)

Objective Achieved: 2.0 tools (blogs, wikis, online docs, etc.)

already being used to help patrons

4

Performance vs. Goals

Program Objective #3: Prepare staff to meet public expectations

regarding technical competency with web 2.0 tools

Objective Achieved: Increased staff comfort level with web 2.0

technologies (74% “Yes”)

5

Performance vs. Goals

Program Objective #4: Reward staff for initiative in completing self-

discovery exercises

Objective Achieved: 172 flash drives and

66 MP3 players distributed

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!

Program Participation

How Many?How Many? Who?Who? How Much?How Much? Why / Why Not?Why / Why Not? Where?Where? Enough Time?Enough Time?

People Who Completed the Learning 2.0 Activities

7

Learning 2.0 Program Participation

257 employees made at least one blog entry, but did not

complete the activities (47%)

172 employees completed all eleven

learning activities (31%)

124 employees did not make any blog

entries (22%)

553 total employees at project start date, January 8, 2008

8

Reasons for Not Participating

Data from Survey.

Only 22% of employees (19% of survey respondents) did not participate.

6%

24%

68%

2% Did not apply to job

Didn't want to

Couldn't find time

Supervisor didn'tgive time

9

Motivation: The Role of “Tech Tools”

Huge7%

Some48%

None45%

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?

185 people (42%) made 11 or more blog entries

(172 completed program)

33 people (8%) made8, 9, or 10 blog entries

55 people (13%) made5. 6. or 7 blog entries

93 people (22%) made2, 3, or 4 blog entries

63 people (15% of participants) madeonly 1 blog entry

as of 3/29/2008

11

Reasons for Not Completing

19%

81%

0%

Lost interest

No time

Supervisordidn't give time

Data from Survey.

Only 38% of survey respondents did not complete.

No respondents indicated supervisor as a reason for not completing.

12

Did we allow them enough time?

Time Allowed vs. Time Needed

36%

26%

26%

5%24%

44%

26%

3%

6%

1%

As much as needed

Up to 90 min./week

About 60 min./week

About 30 min./week

Less than 30 min./week

Time Needed (outer ring)

TimeAllowed

(inner ring)

13

L2.0 Program Completion by Location

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

ADM ALB BEL CAP FRV GRH GSM HLS HGT HWD MID NPO NWL ROC STJ SEL WOD CEN

14

Completion vs. Participation (by Location)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

ADM ALB BEL CAP FRV GRH GSM HGT HLS HWD MID NPO NWL ROC SEL STJ WOD CEN

completed participated

Project Planning & Execution

Plans we made How they worked out

16

Project Management / Planning

Planned Committee Committee made up of IT rep, plus seven staff

members representing different classifications, locations, work groups, and skill levels

Nominated by Supervisors, selected by Martha, Mike, Abigail, and Vailey

Actual Committee As envisioned, expanded to eight for extra inclusion

Lesson: Should have included a Branch Leader

17

General Outline of Project Plan

Follow PLCMC model, adapt it for MCL Investigate web tools; choose best for us Decisions by consensus whenever possible

Used blog & wiki to develop program content Each member given primary

responsibility for a “week” of thematically linked activities

Subcommittees for program communication, resources/personnel, implementation, and incentives Result: Positive

18

Schedule / Timeline

Planned Timeline: Initial plan was to begin on Staff Day (end of

Feb) and conclude by June 1st

Actual Timeline: Program ran Jan 8 – March 29, “winners”

announced at Staff Day

(ahead of original schedule)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

19

Budget

Planned Budget: Committee time (development) up to 3hrs./mo. X 8 mo.

Staff time (for participation) up to 90min./wk x 12 weeks

Friends of the Library purchase “incentives” for staff

Actual Budget Result: Committee time averaged approximately 2 hrs/mo.

Staff participation time avg. __ (< 90 min planned)

Friends of the Library donated $5000 for “tech tools” 68 unused flash drives returned for sale in the store at CEN.

20

Marketing / Communications

Both 2.0 and traditional methods used: AA memos and e-mails Animoto and Molly’s YouTube

videos Presentations to managers & work groups Update emails highlighting Blog of the Week “Word of mouth” through network of Guides Project Blog FAQ Comments on participants’ blogs

Result: Positive

21

Planned Learning Support

Initial Model All support delivered through online resources; self-

directed learning activities

As Modified for MCL (Additional Support) Recruited and trained Learning Guides for onsite,

in-person assistance

Scheduled dedicated computer lab sessions

February Reference Forum

Weekly e-mail updates

22

Participant Feedback on Support

Did participants get the help they needed?

No18%

Yes 82%

2%

43%

48%

6% 1%from supervisor

from lead worker

from L2.0 Guides

from coworker

from someoneelse

23

Supervisor Opinion of Support

Did supervisors

feel supported

by the Learning

2.0 Committee?

24

IT Support

Planned IT Rep on Committee Head off or fix problems before “go live”

Planned 2 week test period Use Roller as in-house blogging platform

Minimal involvement because activities based on free online resources

Actual No test period. Program blog not ready until January 7,

one day before “go live” date

Initial problems with Roller usability, video players, help desk communications, server downtime

Direct Impact of Program

How we’re using web 2.0 tools since the start of the Learning 2.0 program How we feel about Learning 2.0

26

L2.0 Tools Used to Help Patrons

19% of survey respondents do not interact with patrons. 36% have not used one of the Learning 2.0 tools to help a patron.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

27

Staff Non-Public Use of L2.0 Tools

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.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Blogs

Wiki

s

Podca

sts

Online

Doc

s

Taggin

g, e

tc.

Photo

Sha

ring

RSS feed

s

Social

Net

works

Book-

relat

ed si

tes

Lang

uage

site

s

“Fun

” res

ourc

es

Other

tools

% o

f R

es

po

nd

en

ts

28

Usage Comparison: Public vs. Internal

Greater staff internal usage for all Learning 2.0 tools

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

to Help Patrons Staff Internal Use

29

Work Group Implementation of L2.0 Tools

75% of supervisors either have already implemented, or have plans to implement the usage of 2.0 tools for their workgroups!

graph from supervisor survey data

30

Examples of 2.0 In Use at MCL

Everybody Reads Blog Fairview Branch Wiki PELIC Wiki Ref Blog More Coming Soon!

31

Supervisor Opinion of L2.0 Program

Supervisors who feel the Learning 2.0 program was worth the time and effort

Key Lessons

33

What Went Right

Learning Guides Opportunity for fun & break from routine Bringing people together “Blog of the Week” helped encourage

participation Walked the talk (used 2.0 tools to develop and

deliver program content) “Opt out” (where applied) Library work still got done

34

Lessons Learned

The value of social engagement!Open labs not usedRoller problematicalConnectivity/PC configuration issuesPrivacy concerns persistPeople don’t read instructionsSchedule most applicable activities first

Where do we go from here?

36

Supervisor Support

Do supervisors support future training on the same delivery model as the Learning 2.0 program?

37

Survey Says…

Skills/tools employees want to see in a future program

38

Recommendations: #1

Implement Learning 2.1-- a program for continued learning of new technologiesA new activity/tool each month

Posted to a new central blog, similar to Learning 2.0

Rotate responsibility for posting (between Mike/Martha/Abigail/others?)

Highlight what other libraries are doing

Participation optional

39

Recommendations: #2

Centralize system-wide 2.0 tools Avoid duplication of initiatives

List MCL blogs, wikis, etc., in one place (like Hennepin’s extranet)

Consolidate & standardize tools (e.g. Roller is shared, “official” blogging platform)

Especially need standardized wiki platform

Provide list of people to be contacted for info on specific 2.0 tools.

40

Recommendations: #3

Implications for future e-learning programs2.0 tools are here to stay; usage will

continue to growStaff will require training as tools &

technologies are developed and gain widespread use and acceptance

Self-paced online e-learning a valuable and necessary, but not a sufficient means of delivering training for most employees

41

Recommendations: #4

Serve as a resource for other county departments and work groups interested in similar training programs or in using web 2.0 tools.Point of contact: MCL Learning Systems

42

Recommendations: #5

Highlight applicable 2.0 tools on new public blog

43

Recommendations: #6

Require/encourage newbies to complete Learning 2.0 activitiesReference staff

Technohost volunteers

Questions & Comments