Introduction
August 2011 marks the five year anniversary of the debut
of the Learning 2.0 program created by Helene Blowers of the Public Library of
Charlotte Mecklenberg County (PLCMC). Blowers
utilized the article “Things You (or I) Might Want to Do This Year” by Stephen
Abram and “distilled it down to 23 things that she wanted her staff to
understand through hands-on experience” (Hastings, 2007). The “things” included
blogging, subscribing to rich site summary (RSS) feeds, and exploring sites
such as YouTube and Flickr. Hanly (2007) reported the
plan was to include all staff in learning: “Blowers challenged her 550 staffers
to become more web savvy.”
The program was based around a series of weekly online
learning activities. Participants would spend a few minutes each day exploring
an emerging web technology and compose a reflective blog post about what they
learned. Some staff might work alone while others would work in groups or meet
to discuss progress. Blowers encouraged group discovery within the program
(2008). The original Learning 2.0 - with the initial “23 Things” is still
available on the Web at http://plcmcl2-about.blogspot.com/. PLCMC and Blowers offered the program
online for use by any interested library via a Creative Commons license.
Because of this move to share the content freely, the model struck a chord with
the library community.
Learning 2.0 Goes Global
Since 2006, libraries all over the world have offered
variations of the “23 Things” program for their staff. Blowers (2009) estimated close to 1,000
libraries and organizations have used the program. As more emerging
technologies appeared, the programs have evolved as new tools are introduced.
Recent programs have included tools such as Twitter, Facebook and mobile
library applications.
Blowers
(2008) reported that libraries around the world were accessing the learning
modules to educate staff about Web 2.0 tools and increase their interest and
confidence levels. One of the first
institutions to replicate Blowers’ model was Yarra
Plenty Library in Victoria, Australia, where library leaders used the program
to educate staff about emerging social tools that would be included in that
public library’s strategic plan (Lewis, 2008). Yarra Plenty Library CEO Christine MacKenzie
praised the program as a means of educating library staff, in a presentation at
the Public
Libraries: Building Balance conference in August 2007, noting that “it has received wide recognition” and favorable
coverage in resources such as Wired.com.
Transformational
Learning?
Some have called the program transformational (Abram,
2008); while others have noted its ability to bring staff together in a common
goal: learning emerging technologies. Lewis (2008) reported “the Learning 2.0
program had a great impact on staff, who now know they
are capable of learning new technologies.” Gross and Leslie (2008) reported
success with the program in an academic library setting but stated “to our
knowledge, no formal evaluation of Learning 2.0 has been conducted. However, the take-up rate among libraries
worldwide has been impressive and stands as an endorsement of the program” (p.
796). A later case study by Gross and Leslie (2010) detailed the program’s
implementation and offered insights to make it more effective.
There is a lack of actual evidence of the program’s
impact in the scholarly literature. Some questions emerge: What is the true
impact of the program on the library and library staff? What does it mean to
say that the program “has fundamentally changed the staff's way of thinking and
working in the 21st century” (Titangos and Mason,
2009)? How have the tools been adopted? Does the culture of learning continue? This
study, launched as part of the CAVAL Visiting Scholar Project in 2009, utilizes
web survey methodology to gauge the impact and efficacy of the program in
Australia’s public libraries.
Literature
Review
To
frame the impact of a learning program such as “23 Things” in a public library
setting, a survey of applicable adult learning theory and other research
concerning learning environments helps to set the stage.
Adult Learning
Knowles
(1970) proposed concept of andragogy, focused on adult learning, includes these
assumptions, as summarized by Merriam and Caffarella
(1999):
We grow to be more
self-directed in thought and action throughout our lives.
We gather ongoing experiences
that influence and illuminate our learning.
We are ready to learn tasks or
concepts directly related to our roles and lives.
We move from future-oriented
learning to problem solving focused learning.
We are motivated to learn by
internal factors over external ones. (p.
272)
These
concepts comprise a model of adult learning based on the characteristics of
adult learners and their life experiences. Task-based and focused on learning
at the point of need, Knowles’ model can serve as a roadmap for designing
learning experiences for adults. Learning 2.0 was designed as an exercise in
self-direction for library staff that needed to learn about technologies that
were impacting the way people consume and interact with information, as noted
by Hanly (2007).
Lifelong
Learning, Self-Directed Learning and “Learner Control”
Also
foundational to the original Learning 2.0 program was an emphasis on lifelong
learning. Hiemstra (1976) argued that three forces
are at work to propel ongoing interest and need for lifelong learning: constant
change, occupational obsolescence and an individual’s desire for
self-actualization. Many Learning 2.0 programs began with an emphasis on
“lifelong learning” to set the stage, the original program utilizing a resource
called “7 1/2 Habits of Highly Successful Online Learners.”
The
original program was also based on the concept of self-directed learning. Candy (1991) offered various definitions of
self-directed learning (SDL) as learner-created, learner-managed, and
self-motivated. Candy also provided a summary of several decades of findings
concerning SDL (1991) that include a social component or interaction with
others:
·
Interaction
with other people usually motivates SDL.
·
SDL
is non-linear in nature and relies on serendipity.
·
SDL
is rarely a solitary activity; it often occurs within a social grouping.
(p.199)
Acknowledging
that SDL is truly not a solitary activity, Candy later argued (2004) that a
more fitting description for SDL would be “learner control,” in which the
learner can “take control over a narrow range of choices” (p. 50). He also
recognized the potential for guided online education to free the learner to
explore beyond specified course material.
Hough
(2006), a librarian and trainer, recognized the possibility for learner
control or SDL in the “23 Things” program.
According to Hough, the program emphasizes a shift from providing
step-by-step directions to approaching professional development as an
opportunity to increase independence, confidence, and awareness of the
potential of emerging technologies. She encouraged library leaders to embrace
this new paradigm for learning as they adopt a service ethic that stresses
interaction with users. Another description of the program noted it is a
process “that all librarians should follow, even though we doubtless will end
up in different places” (Maxymuk, 2008, p. 66).
Transformative
Learning
Within
the literature on adult learning, Mezirow’s
Transformative Learning Theory (1991) offers a theoretical lens through which
to better understand the impact of Learning 2.0. The process in which adults
respond to events or new experiences and
how it changes or enhances their frame of reference and subsequent approaches
to other events/experience is the basis for this theory. Transformative learners re-align their
viewpoints as more knowledge is obtained. The process is “more inclusive,
discriminating, self-reflective, and integrative of experience” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5). Cranton
(2006) offered this further definition: “When people critically examine their
habitual expectations, revise them, and act on the revised point of view,
transformative learning occurs” (p.19)
Play
and Exploration
Another
important component of the Learning 2.0 professional development model is an
emphasis on play (Blowers, 2008). Jenkins (2006) defined play as “the capacity
to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving,” and
asserted that play is one of the emerging social literacies or skills for
education. The Learning 2.0 model combines play and opportunities to explore
new spaces into a unique approach to self-directed professional development.
Aims
With
adoption of the program world-wide, the Learning 2.0 model has been lauded by
library professionals as a mechanism to educate library staff and transform
libraries. Developed for adult learners, the program includes an emphasis on
self-direction, group discovery, and exploration and was intended to inform
participants about the potential of emerging technologies to enhance library
service and inspire confidence. As noted above, the purpose of the research
project was to investigate if the program has “fundamentally changed the
staff's way of thinking and working in the 21st century” (Titangos
& Mason, 2009). The following research questions frame the
research project to measure the impact and legacy of the model within
Australian public libraries:
·
To
what extent have Learning 2.0 programs enhanced library staff’s confidence and
ability to explore and utilize emerging technologies?
·
To
what extent have Learning 2.0 programs had an impact
on library services?
·
What
are staff perceptions of the efficacy of Learning 2.0 programs in libraries?
·
What
are exemplary practices for the program?
Methods
Web
Survey
A
Web-based survey tool, designed to address the research questions, contained
two areas of focus, reflecting a research design that is both quantitative and
qualitative. Question types included demographic queries, Likert
scale and open-ended. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data,
including five open-ended questions, provided an in-depth examination of
Learning 2.0 participants’ perceptions of the impact of the program. The survey
questions are reproduced in Appendix A.
Sample
The
target population for the large-scale national survey was determined to be
those who are employed in the libraries and information professions in
Australia and had participated in a Learning 2.0 program offered locally or at
the state level. Because the program is intended to be inclusive for all types
of library staff, library employees at all levels as well as students and
consultants were invited to participate. The researchers understood the sample
would be broad and varied, similar to the original focus of the inclusive
Learning 2.0 program. The Institutional Review Board of the Dominican
University, River Forest, Illinois verified the survey questions in the spring
of 2009. The web survey was announced on various Australian library-related
mailing lists, library-related blogs, and other channels of communication and
remained open for three weeks. A total of 384 valid responses were collected.
Responses deemed incomplete were those in which no answers were given beyond
the initial demographic questions. These responses were removed from the
initial data set.
Results
Survey
Data Analysis
Analyzing
the national survey data included a combination of quantitative analysis for
the demographic data and descriptive content analysis for the open-ended
questions. Both researchers shared preliminary and final coding duties to
ensure inter-coder agreement for the category responses. Code-books were
created for each question type and shared between the researchers and utilized
for both the academic library subset and the public library subset.
Public Library Staff Demographics
The national survey had 384 respondents, 86% female and
14% male. Those aged 45 to 54 were the highest number reporting, at 29%,
followed by 28% in the 35 to 44 age range. The largest group was that of
academic library staff at 18%; while 15% of respondents identified themselves
as working in a public library setting.
A total of 64 respondents were identified as the
public library data set for this article. Survey respondents who selected the
following job categories were included: Reference Librarian (Public Library),
Children and Youth Services Librarian and those respondents who chose to enter
a response in the “Other” field that indicated they worked in a public library
setting. These included “Local Studies Librarian (Public Library),” “Mobile
Library Operator,” “Local History Librarian,” and “Library Technician, Public
Library.” These selections were verified by evaluating the open-ended responses
for mention of the public library setting. Any respondent that could not be
verified as a public library employee was removed from the data set. Of this selected data set, 87% were
female. The most frequent age category
was 35 to 44 at 30% followed by 45 to 54 at 28%.
Completion
of the Program
Completion
rates of the program and the open-ended answers to the question “If you didn’t
complete the program, why not?” showed a high percentage of the public library
data set did complete the program (94%), and only three individuals reported
non-completion. Those three respondents answered the follow up open-ended
question, including these coded responses “No time / too busy” and “Lack of
interest / content not relevant.” One respondent noted that the main barrier to
completing the program was too little time and difficulty concentrating: “Same
old problem the world over - so many pressures - doing the course in bites,
phones ringing, workroom activities happening around you - it was snatch and
grab learning. Many, like myself, did the course from
home in our own time and were able to enjoy it that way.”
Success of the
Program
One section of the
survey asked participants to rate a series of statements via a Likert scale exploring support by administrators, and
administrator/management participation, as well as a rating of the success of
the program. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement “My library’s manager/supervisor backed the program.” Administrative and management participation
in the programs drops however, with 61% of respondents to the statement “My
library’s manager/supervisor participated in the program”, strongly agreeing
(36%) or agreeing (25%) that their manager took part. This did not appear to
drastically affect the perception that “The program was a success,” with 64%
strongly agreeing (39%) or agreeing (25%) with the statement.
Continuing to
Explore
For the question
“Are you continuing to explore emerging technologies online?” the majority of
respondents reported in the affirmative (94%) with the remainder (3%) reporting
they were not continuing exploration. Three of the public library subset of respondents
did not answer the question.
Impact
of the Program: Perception Statements
The final portion of
the survey explored changes and impact of Learning 2.0 on the library and on
the individual’s professional practice via a series of open-ended questions.
Utilizing descriptive content analysis, the creation of codebooks and
inter-coder checks, the category responses offer insights into the impact of
the program, as perceived by participants. The following are the primary
perception statements that account for the majority of responses for the impact
section:
•
We’re
implementing or using the tools to varying degrees of success
•
Library staff
is more comfortable learning about new technologies
•
There is
better/increased awareness of 2.0 tools
•
Library staff use
the tools discovered to enhance work
The following sections detail the category responses
from each section of the open-ended portion of the survey as well as a related Likert scale section exploring confidence and other topics.
Organizational Changes
For perceived
organizational changes, 48 respondents in the public library data set answered
the question, with the majority (44%) noting that their public library has
adopted the tools with varying degrees of success. The results of content
analysis on this section are represented in Table 1.
Table
1
Organizational
Changes after the Program
|
“What organizational changes have you noticed as
a result of the program?”
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
|
We’re
implementing or using the tools to vary degrees of success
|
21
|
43.75%
|
|
No
impact
|
10
|
20.8%
|
|
Better
understanding/more openness to/increased perception of 2.0 tools
|
10
|
20.8%
|
|
Improved
communication & sharing between staff
|
4
|
8.33%
|
|
Restrictions
and blocks prevent us from using the tools effectively
|
3
|
6.25%
|
The
majority of coded responses aligned with the “vary degree of success” category.
One
respondent noted: “The library has introduced an online social network for
readers and the staff who have done the course are more
likely than others to add blog posts, images, book reviews and comments to the
site.”
Another
category response focused on staff perception and interest in 2.0 tools. “Our
library staff are now more willing to embrace new
technologies and ways of getting our message out there,” noted one respondent. Another response - “Generally a greater knowledge of web 2.0 tools.
We can assume knowledge in some areas as most of our staff have
gone through the programme. Some staff
also became more confident in exploring new technology (realising they weren't
going to “break” anything by playing with it!)” - further
illustrates this point.
For
those who noted there had been no impact some identified blocks put in place by
information technology departments or city government which were a hindrance.
One respondent reported “blocked by archaic IT
and communications section,”
while another stated “we are trying to do more 2.0 - but often bureaucracy and
IT issues are stopping us.”
Comfort, Confidence, Committee Structures and
Encouragement
The next section was a set of statements exploring
comfort levels and abilities as well as changes at the organisational level
rated by respondents via a Likert Response Scale. The
public library staff subset results are represented in Table 2.
The selected responses for this
section are positive when addressing any of the statements concerning personal
proficiencies. The responses of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” are the most
frequent for statements such as “I’m comfortable learning about new
technologies” and “I’m prepared to help our library users with emerging
technologies.” For the statement “The team/committee structures at my library
have improved because of this training” the frequency of response shifts to “Sometimes
Agree”/”Sometimes Disagree” and “Disagree”, but returns to a more positive
frequency for the statement “I am encouraged to try new things at my job.”
Table 2
Comfort, Confidence, Committee Structures and
Encouragement after the Program for Public Library Data Set
|
|
Strongly
disagree
|
Disagree
|
Sometimes
agree / sometimes disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly
agree
|
Response
count
|
Skipped
question
|
Total
|
|
|
No. &
(%)
|
No. &
(%)
|
No. &
(%)
|
No. &
(%)
|
No. &
(%)
|
No. &
(%)
|
No.
|
No.
|
|
I’m
comfortable learning about new technologies.
|
0
(0%)
|
0
(0%)
|
3
(5.26%)
|
18
(31.58%)
|
36
(63.16%)
|
57
(100%)
|
7
|
64
|
|
I’m
confident I can learn new technologies.
|
0
(0%)
|
0
(0%)
|
2
(3.57%)
|
20
(35.71%)
|
34
(60.71%)
|
56
(100%)
|
8
|
64
|
|
I
like to explore technology on my own:
|
0
(0%)
|
2
(3.57%)
|
10
(17.86%)
|
18
(32.14%)
|
26
(46.43%)
|
56
(100%)
|
8
|
64
|
|
I’m
prepared to help our library users with emerging technologies.
|
0
(0%)
|
0
(0%)
|
4
(7.02%)
|
29
(50.88%)
|
24
(42.11%)
|
57
(100%)
|
7
|
64
|
|
The
team/committee structures at my library have improved because of this
training.
|
2
(3.57%)
|
12
(21.43%)
|
20
(35.71%)
|
15
(26.79%)
|
7
(12.50%)
|
56
(100%)
|
8
|
64
|
|
I’m
encouraged to try new things at my job.
|
1
(1.79%)
|
3
(5.36%)
|
9
(16.07%)
|
24
(42.86%)
|
19
(33.93%)
|
56
(100%)
|
8
|
64
|
Lasting Impact of the Program
Responses to the open-ended question “What has been the
lasting impact on your library after Learning 2.0,” are reproduced in Table 3.
Selected responses for the category of
“Better/Increased Awareness of 2.0 Tools/Inclusive feeling for staff” include:
“the fact that it was a team effort and we all learnt together regardless of
status, age etc. being exposed to new things was wonderful” and “Staff are
aware that emerging technologies will influence patron requests for information
delivery.”
For the category response Confidence/Helping Library
Users, the next most prominent response in the public library subset,
respondents noted such statements as “Greater confidence in using web 2.0
technologies and talking to patrons about them (we work in a public library and
get many older people wanting clarifications about Web 2.0).”
Table
3
Lasting
Impact of the Program
|
“What has been the lasting
impact on your library after Learning 2.0”
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
|
Better/Increased awareness of
2.0 Tools/ inclusive feeling for staff
|
21
|
36%
|
|
Confidence/Helping Library
User
|
12
|
21%
|
|
Improvements to staff
communication
|
8
|
14%
|
|
Increased use of tools in
personal life
|
1
|
2%
|
|
Increased use of tools in
Library
|
9
|
15.5%
|
|
Management/IT more open to
tools
|
1
|
2%
|
|
No impact
|
6
|
10%
|
Those who reported no impact used such statements as
“nothing discernible” and, perhaps reflecting the influences of governing departments, “not much- have only
been allowed to implement a delicious account - everything else is blocked by
IT or communications.”
For “What changes have you made to your personal
professional practice because of the program?” the most prominent coded
response of the public library subset was “I use the tools I discovered to
enhance my work.” Selected responses include “Higher proportion of my role now
utilising these technologies where possible rather than older options” and “I
am attempting to keep an open mind about information delivery methods for the
future. Thus, I am reading professional material/articles, but also playing
with various Web 2.0 technologies to ensure my skills are relevant to any
library/information service workplace.” The full data analysis is reproduced in
Table 4.
For the category response “I feel generally more in
the know/comfortable/current “one respondent noted: “I feel empowered to keep
up with change, and enthused about the
possibilities,” while another noted the program’s self-directed
nature - “I am willing to jump in and work things out - there was a bit of
problem solving in the 23 things program - it wasn't all spoon fed.”
Table 4
Changes to Personal Professional Practice after the
Program
|
“What changes have you made
to your personal professional practice because of the program?”
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
|
I use the tools I discovered
to enhance my work
|
20
|
46.5
|
|
I share/collaborate more
because of the tools
|
3
|
6.98%
|
|
I use RSS to read feeds/keep
current
|
6
|
13.95%
|
|
I feel generally more in the know/comfortable/current
|
8
|
18.60%
|
|
I communicate with my
coworkers and colleagues using the tools
|
6
|
13.95%
|
Discussion
This
study identifies the perceptions of the impact of Learning 2.0 programs in
Australian public libraries. The analysis of multiple choice and open-ended
questions yields the following thematic areas of impact and effect as well as
suggestions for exemplary practice for Learning 2.0:
•
Personal practice is enhanced with
knowledge and confidence, and exploration continues after the program.
•
Impact is mainly personal, but
organizational changes may follow.
•
The library is using the tools to
varying degrees of success.
•
Organizational blocks prevent use of
the tools.
The following sections examine each of
these thematic areas more closely.
Personal
Practice is Enhanced with Knowledge and Confidence,
and Exploration Continues after the Program
A
significant benefit or impact of the program is the increased knowledge and
confidence for those who have participated. When asked to gauge impact on the
organization, survey respondents noted organizational change is not as
prevalent, but staff feel more
comfortable
and “in the know.” For libraries that
have offered the program, the results of this study point to a library staff
that is “more confident in exploring new
technology” and “staff who were scared of technology feel more confident.”
These findings support Mezirow’s
Transformative Learning Theory (1991). Cranton’s previously cited definition of transformative
learning highlights the gaps of library staff exploring tools such as blogging,
Twitter and Facebook as a way to understand emerging technology and what role
the library might play with users: “When people critically examine their
habitual expectations, revise them, and act on the revised point of view,
transformative learning occurs” (2006, p. 19).
The
findings of this study also support Candy’s (2004) designation that “learner
control” allows the learner to “take control over a narrow range of choices”
(p. 50) and that online education can free the learner to explore beyond
specified course material.
Impact
is Mainly Personal, but Organizational Changes may Follow
Many
of the answers for the question concerning organizational change highlighted
impact at the individual level but some also pointed to the potential changes
that could occur as staff continue to utilize technologies covered in the program.
These changes center on improved library service and better interaction with
library users. One respondent noted “Our library staff are
now more willing to embrace new technologies and ways of ‘getting our message
out there’” while another responded: “staff are talking about how to
incorporate these technologies into customer service offerings.” One respondent
noted the program lead to “awareness and ability to assist the customers.”
Further
evidence of institutional impact is found in responses such as this: “Quiet
staff who were nonetheless willing to play within the Learning 2.0 program have
now become key proponents in moving our library service and its web
applications forward - they have found their voice and are respected for using
it.” Promotion of these services and approaches toward emerging technologies,
despite the varying degrees of success, benefits the library as a whole. This
response supports this thinking about the future: the program provided “an
awareness that things are changing - and the need to learn and address the
issues with this so we can stay relevant & receive the funding we need.”
The
Library is Using the Tools to Varying Degrees of
Success
One
respondent stated: “Not a lot has changed - I have more access to info & ideas
that I wouldn't have had before but time and resources are very limited and
it's a struggle to get a lot of our basic duties done.” This response is
indicative of the third thematic area of impact and effect. Some libraries are
implementing emerging technologies, but the success of many initiatives remains
unclear. Despite this, concrete results did arise from this program: for
example, one respondent described the “appointment of a New Technologies
Librarian.”
Organizational Blocks Prevent Use of
Tools
Culled from various
sections of the survey, this thematic area highlights the fact that in some
instances blocks and prohibitive policies inhibit use of the tools. This may be
within the library or from external governing entities. Some respondents expressed
frustration at a lack of “progressive” and “archaic” approaches to emerging
technologies by IT departments and local government.
Statements reported
general blocks, “We are unable to do most things covered by web2,” while others
reported that managers did not approve of use of the tools: “Participants
continue to lobby supervisors for wider use of Learning 2.0 technologies.”
Highlighting the personal impact of the program on individuals but a lack of
impact organizationally, one respondent reported: “Many staff have moved along with technology though IT is the one that
provides the most obstructions be it from a control / security / non
progressive point of view.” Outside of
the library, one respondent noted that the “IT department at Council has not
encouraged use of Web 2.0.”
Exemplary
Practice
One
goal of this research, as supported by CAVAL in 2009, is the development of a
list of exemplary practice for Learning 2.0. Analysis of the key questions from
the survey leads to a preliminary list of exemplary practice to ensure success
for libraries launching Learning 2.0 programs as an extension of professional
development (PD) activities. The list, originally published by Stephens and Cheetham (2011), is further supported by the findings of
this area of the project. It includes:
•
Understand the program yields the
personal benefits of confidence and a willingness to explore first, organizational
benefits may follow.
•
The program can promote the library
and its services to other departments and increase credibility and visibility.
•
Allow staff time to work on the
program and make it a firm commitment.
•
Break down any barriers on the tools put
in place by IT departments making sure access is possible from employee
computers.
Limitations
and Future Research
Limitations
of this study include questions not utilized in the analysis and lack of
supporting focus group data. Two questions
(Q10 and Q11) in the survey were removed from the data set because of an error
with the survey software. Due to scheduling issues at the Queensland Public
Library Association conference, only one focus group of public library staff
was conducted with a low number of participants. Those results are not reported
in this article. Other public library
focus groups - conducted at City Libraries Townsville - could not be used
because the program was ongoing during the time of the research visit.
These
limitations, however, will influence future study of the Learning 2.0
phenomenon. More focus groups and surveys in other areas and within other types
of libraries wield more data and support for the findings. Analysis of the
generational questions from the survey is planned for future publication as
well as an examination or respondents views of management support and
communication during and after the program.
Future
research of the Learning 2.0 program should further explore the impact of the
program and should focus on institutional adoption of the tools, planning and
evaluation. This would allow for an even clearer picture of impact on library
services. Further research will include fine tuning the survey instruments and
sampling other groups of library staff in areas where Learning 2.0 has been
frequently adopted, such as the United States and the Netherlands.
Conclusion
The
results of this study provide evidence that the adoption of Learning 2.0 as a
professional development program for emerging technologies yields personal
benefits for public library staff that include increased confidence, a
willingness to explore and increased comfort with technology. Most participants
in the survey reported success in the program, with only a small number of the
public library data subset reporting inability to complete the program due to
lack of time or support. Success from the program is described in various ways,
including incorporating the tools in the library setting, feeling more
comfortable and confident exploring new technologies, adopting the tools into
personal practice and better awareness of emerging technologies overall. A
useful benefit for those launching such professional development programs are
suggestions for exemplary practice based on this evidence. These ideas and the
results of this study offer support for professional development librarians and
administrators to utilize this free, open program for staff training.
References
Abram,
S. (2008). The 23 things - learning 2.0.
Stephen’s Lighthouse. Retrieved 26 Feb. 2012 from http://stephenslighthouse.com/2008/02/05/the-23-things-learning-2-0/
Blowers,
H. (2008). Ten tips about 23 things. School Library Journal,
54(10): 53-57. Retrieved 26 Feb. 2012 from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6600689.html
Blowers,
H. (2009). WJ hosts 23 things summit. Retrieved from http://www.librarybytes.com/2009/02/wj-hosts-23-things-summit.html
[no longer accessible]
Candy,
P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to
theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Candy, P. C. (2004). Linking thinking:
Self-directed learning in the digital age. Canberra: Dept. of Education,
Science and Training. Retrieved 26 Feb. 2012 from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/training_skills/publications_resources/profiles/linking_thinking.htm#versionAvailable
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting
transformative learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gross,
J. & Leslie, L. (2010). Learning 2.0: A catalyst for
library organizational change. The Electronic Library, 28(50): 657 –
668. doi: 10.1108/02640471011081942
Hanly,
B. (2007). Public library geeks take web 2.0 to the stacks.
Retrieved 26 Feb. 2012 from http://www.wired.com/culture/education/news/2007/03/learning2_0
Hastings,
R. (2007). Journey to library 2.0. Library
Journal. Retrieved 26 Feb. 2012 from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6431957.html
Hiemstra, R. (1976). Lifelong learning: The professional education series.
Lincoln, NE: Professional Educators Publications.
Hough, B. (2006). Teaching people to be savvy travelers
in a technological world. Computers in Libraries, 26(5): 8-12.
Jenkins,
H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education
for the
21st century. MacArthur.
Retrieved 26 Feb. 2012 from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of
adult education: Andragogy versus
pedagogy. New York, NY: Cambridge.
Krueger,
R. A., and Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical
guide to applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Lewis,
L. (2008). Library 2.0: Taking it to the street. VALA 2008: Libraries/changing spaces, virtual places: 14th Biennial
Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved 26 Feb. 2012
from http://www.vala.org.au/vala2008-proceedings/vala2008-session-1-lewis
MacKenzie, C. (2007).
Proceedings from the PLA 2007 conference: Creating our Future Workforce:
planning for Library 2.0 and Beyond. Retrieved from http://www.pla.org.au/Conf2007/papers/Creating_our_Future.pdf
Maxymuk, J. (2008). 23 things and more. The Bottom Line: Managing Library
Finances, 21(2): 64-66. doi:10.1108/08880450810898337
Merriam, S., and Caffarella,
R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991).
Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997).
Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74: 5-12.
doi:10.1002/ace.7401
Stephens, M., and Cheetham,
W. (2011). The impact and effect of
learning 2.0 programs in Australian academic libraries. New Review of
Academic Librarianship, 17(1): 31-63. doi:10.1080/13614533.2011.547414
Titangos,
H-L., and Mason, G. L. (2009). Learning library 2.0: 23 things @scpl.
Library Management, 30(1/2): 44-56. doi:10.1108/01435120910927510
2012 Stephens and Cheetham. This is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share
Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.