Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Unified in Learning – Separated by Space

Martin Rehm S-ICT 2008 Wednesday. 19th of November. 2008

Unified in Learning – Separated by Space Martin Rehm S-ICT 2008 Wednesday. 19th of November. 2008
Unified in Learning – Separated by Space Martin Rehm S-ICT 2008 Wednesday. 19th of November. 2008

Overview

• (Methodological) Framework

• Structure

• Results

• (Possible) Next Steps

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Framework

• Large international organization (IO)

• 2006 & 2007 (6 months each):

~ 400 middle- & top-management

~ 100 offices world wide

• Secure the impact of the IO

• Enhancing the capacity and skills of its staff

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

(Methodological) Framework

Learning Program

e-Learning

Online Remedial Teaching Model Rienties, Tempelaar, Waterval, Rehm, & Gijselaers (2006)

Community of Practice Lave & Wenger (1991)

Community of Learning Stacey, Smith & Barty (2004)

Community of Learning Stacey, Smith & Barty (2004) Face-to-Face Workshop Maastricht Graduate School of

Face-to-Face

Workshop

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

e-Learning

Entry

Questionnaires

5 Modules:

• Self-Study (Lectures & Readings)

• Quizzes

• Online Discussion Groups (asynchronous)

• Final Assessment

- 2006: summative

- 2007: formative

Face-to-Face

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Online Discussion Groups

• “Learning Communities“ (~ 15 part.)

• “Common identity” (Hung & Der-Thanq, 2001)

• “Neo-apprenticeship style learning” (Gannon-Leary & Fontainha, 2007)

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Results of the End-Evaluation Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Results of the End-Evaluation

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

   

2006

2007

 

(n=157)

(n=87)

t-test

Domain

Question

Ø

Ø

(difference)

 

Phase 1 of this Learning Programme was a valuable learning experience.

5,82

1,16

6,16

1,36

-

Experiences

The content of Phase 1 was appropriate

4,75

1,44

5,31

1,38

0,001

Phase 1 was well organized.

4,59

1,48

5,18

1,54

0,000

 

The allocated time was sufficient to study the subject matter.

2,41

1,31

3,58

1,88

0,000

 

The goals of Phase 1 were clear to me.

5,56

1,11

5,67

0,90

-

The assignments/tasks stimulated me to study.

5,02

1,40

5,76

1,26

0,032

Learning Goals

am satisfied with what I learned in terms of knowledge.

I

5,00

1,38

5,60

1,30

-

am satisfied with what I learned in terms of insights.

I

5,18

1,38

5,42

1,51

-

 

I

have been encouraged to cooperate more

         

effectively with my colleagues worldwide.

4,36

1,42

4,86

1,39

0,040

have improved my evidence based analysis skills.

I

4,77

1,37

5,34

1,16

0,027

I think that at the end of Phase 1

am more able to cooperate with other organizations.

I

5,03

1,33

5,11

1,57

-

I

will get better results in my career.

4,76

1,39

5,30

1,39

0,014

Likert Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) – 7 (strongly agree)

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

   

2006

2007

 

(n=157)

(n=87)

t-test

Domain

Question

Ø

Ø

(difference)

 

The group in which I participated functioned well.

4,10

1,41

4,59

1,76

0,009

I

think I have learned more during Phase 1 through

         

collaboration with others than I would have learned,

Group discussions

if

I had to work alone.

4,28

1,65

4,66

1,92

0,011

The facilitators were enthusiastic about coaching our Learning Community.

4,16

1,57

4,95

1,93

0,000

I

expected the facilitators to take a more active role

         

in

the learning process.

4,19

1,52

4,59

2,22

-

 

The online assessments during Phase 1 gave me

         

a

good picture of what I still had to study.

5,10

1,46

5,64

1,33

0,003

Other E-learning Tools

The fundamental readings helped me to study the content of Phase 1.

na

na

5,95

1,28

-

The applied readings helped me to study the content of Phase 1.

na

na

5,93

1,11

-

The amount of required literature was too much.

5,44

1,48

4,61

1,88

0,000

 

Please provide an overall grade for the quality of the e-Learning Phase (scale 1-10)

6,64

1,62

7,07

1,58

0,053

Overall grade and hours worked

Please provide an overall grade for the functioning of the e-Learning Phase Team (scale 1-10)

6,27

1,79

7,11

1,97

0,001

On average, how many hours per week did you

         
 

work on the e-Learning Phase of this Learning

Programme?

8,01

5,21

8,20

6,69

-

Likert Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) – 7 (strongly agree)

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Performance Indicators for Phase 1 in 2006 & 2007 (Averages: 1 – 10)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 PK PG QZ FE
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
PK
PG
QZ
FE
FG

Paired-Sample t-test (PK – FG)

2006:

no significant difference

2006 2007:

2007 significant increase (at 0.01 level)

PK: Pre-Knowledge PG: Participation Grade QZ: Quizzes FE: Final Exam FG: Final Grade

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

(Possible) Next Steps

• Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000)

– Social Presence

– Teaching Presence

– Cognitive Presence

• Impact of Organizational Structure

– Group Dynamics

Outcomes

"

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)

Unified in Learning – Separated by Space

Martin Rehm S-ICT 2008 Wednesday. 19th of November. 2008

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)