You are on page 1of 12

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)
Face-to-Face
Community of Practice Workshop
Lave & Wenger (1991)

Community of Learning
Stacey, Smith & Barty (2004)

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)


e-Learning
Entry
5 Modules:
Questionnaires
• 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)


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 -

The content of Phase 1 was appropriate 4,75 1,44 5,31 1,38 0,001
Experiences
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 I am satisfied with what I learned in terms of


knowledge. 5,00 1,38 5,60 1,30 -
I am satisfied with what I learned in terms of
insights. 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
I have improved my evidence based analysis
I think that at the skills. 4,77 1,37 5,34 1,16 0,027
end of Phase 1 …
I am more able to cooperate with other
organizations. 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,
if I had to work alone. 4,28 1,65 4,66 1,92 0,011
Group discussions
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

The fundamental readings helped me to study the


Other E-learning Tools 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

Please provide an overall grade for the functioning


Overall grade and hours of the e-Learning Phase Team (scale 1-10) 6,27 1,79 7,11 1,97 0,001
worked 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
Paired-Sample t-test
(PK – FG)
8

7 2006:
no significant difference
6

5
2006
2007:
2007
significant increase
4
(at 0.01 level)
3

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