Programme Structure and Support

All four of the lenses provided evidence that the e-learning programme should not just be online but also encompass face-to-face components. There were a number of elements to this – the high dropout rates of purely online learning (e.g.

Chartered Institute for Professional Development (UK), 2011), the perceived need to ensure learners are familiarised with the learning environment and have

sufficient technical skills, the need to prevent isolation, the “fun” of getting

together, the need for library staff to learn in a social environment, and the need to provide direct learning support. Learners also expressed the view that some things were better learnt face-to-face. One of the topics mentioned, reference interview, would be a large content component of the programme and so including time to practice reference interview skills face-to-face was another factor to

consider.

The need to learn in a social environment, and the lack of opportunity for this provided in the online environment, was one of my own major concerns (self lens). However, views from both the learner lens and the collegial lens seemed very mixed on this; one of the trainers for example stated that it was her preferred style of learning while some learners from previous e-learning programmes were adamant that the best way to improve the online course was for it to be more face- to-face. A potential tool for addressing some of the need for social interaction was

Page 103

a forum, where learners could ask questions and post responses. Another

suggestion was for learners to be “buddied up” to provide support and motivation.

The problems of motivation, procrastination and distraction by other tasks were identified by all four lenses as being a challenge for e-learning. Learners thought that more quizzes, more use of the forum and buddying up with others could help with these issues. From the literature review a variety of individual and team competitions were mentioned as a way of maintaining focus on the programme, as were more regulatory measures such as holding managers accountable for staff success and providing formal rewards (Frankola, 2001). The need for assessment and monitoring of progress was also discussed by the trainers in the collegial lens – they mentioned ideas such as checklists, points and other reward systems. However, there was disagreement about the place and value of rewards such as certificates for course completion. There were also concerns that a formal assessment would be too restrictive and that the focus should be more on identifying gaps where further support could be offered, rather than a way of “grading” colleagues.

Although both the collegial and the learner lenses mentioned a need for trainees to be held accountable to encourage participation, the restrictions of the pilot

programme would necessarily make this difficult as the trainees would be

volunteers who could drop out of the study at any point. No consequences for non- completion or “payment” for completion could be considered.

Both the collegial and learner lenses also mentioned that a well structured course would make it easier to stay on track. There were a number of elements to this – a clear map of what needed to be completed and by when, but also a schedule that would enable the programme to be manageable in terms of the time commitment for the individual and organisation. This needed to be balanced with a timeframe that would enable the programme to maintain momentum. During the first online programme at CCL (CCLlearn), the time requirements were expected to be four hours online time and a one hour face-to-face facilitated meeting per week, including travelling time. This meant that approximately six to seven hours per

Page 104

week would be spent on the course. For a part-time staff member who may only work 15 hours per week nearly 50% of their work time over a 6 week period could be taken up and this level of commitment proved difficult to sustain.

Learners also mentioned the importance of being able to access help when they needed it and the frustration of not being able to obtain it quickly. This presents a dilemma for the delivery of online learning – although a trainer does not need to be present (and paid for) at a certain time and place – they do need to be contactable when needed. For a course accessible anytime this could potentially be all the time. Ideas such as promoting the use of “help” pages, creating buddies amongst the trainees to be the first point of call, promoting use of a forum and encouraging contacting of tutors by email or phone message were suggested by learners and the collegial group. Although none of these would address the immediate problems for a “night owl” needing help at 2am in the morning, ensuring that there is a clear procedure for obtaining help would eliminate some frustrations.