Q1: “What worked well?” In the administrator survey, a majority of respondents expressed positive views of the program design. The inclusive nature of the original program, easily adaptable learning modules, and collaborative activities of staff were noted as contributing to program success. A lengthy response from a program administrator details these perceptions:

Creative commons license allowed us to build on three other courses and share ours with 13 other organisations (that we know), celebrating success (one person cried when they won an mp3), low barriers to participation (no prior qualifications, job level, age), geography (it did not matter where people lived or how isolated they were), collaboration (with the staff managing the course known as the Pit crew and between public library staff), flexibility of being able to learn in groups or as an individual, course participants remotely helping people they did not know.

Thirty respondents shared the timeframe of their program, ranging from five weeks for a pilot program to 32 weeks. The most frequent choices were 12- or 24-week durations. One respondent noted, however, that the 24-week duration was extended from an original plan of 12 weeks.

One respondent concluded the program but is still supporting staff who haven’t finished: “13 weeks originally, but one staff member has just completed it a year after we began—we will continue to support those people who may take it up later or more slowly.” Another program is constantly ongoing: “12 weeks however the program is still open and in use 14 months later as people continue to sign up.”

Leaders reported that 65 percent of the L2.0 programs offered some type of incentive to complete the program. Most offered some type of small technology-focused reward, such as USB drives. Other incentives included candy, chocolate, certificates of completion, a celebratory tea, gift cards, vouchers, iPods, an iPhone, and laptops. Some noted that incentives were awarded throughout the program, while the majority reported some type of incentive was given to all or to a random drawing of participants at the end of the program. Two respondents used the program as a means to award professional development credits on staff work plans.

Of the 35 percent that did not offer incentives, one program administrator stated: “No incentives were offered. In retrospect it might have been a good idea, but I think we didn’t consider it at the time.”

Q2: “Did managers and administrators (other than Learning 2.0 program leaders) participate? If so, please describe their involvement.” Most of the respondents noted that their managers and administrators participated to varying degrees. Some reported that those who were engaged in the program and promoted it sent a positive message to staff, while those who did not participate sent a negative message. Participating managers and administrators were perceived as having a positive influence: “Those managers who were involved were able to actively encourage their staff and send an example by demonstrating that it’s worth spending time on, and that it’s possible to make the time.” Lack of participation led to negative outcomes for the program. One respondent articulated their impressions:

Only 2 out of the 7 senior managers completed the program. 2 out of the other 5 got to the 2nd or 3rd task and the other three didn’t even start. This despite the library manager specifically asking me to create and run the Learning 2.0 program at our library. This was very disappointing in that I felt it sent a message to all staff that it wasn’t important. I think this contributed significantly to the poor completion rate of the program amongst staff.

Respondents relied on blogs and email notices to communicate with participants. Others used online tools such as Google Groups or Ning. A majority of the 29 respondents noted success with face-to-face interaction: verbal communication, offering hands on workshops for those who needed them, and the encouragement of program “Champions.” Program “Champions” were utilized in the Townsville CityLibraries program that made up the case study portion of the Australian research.²⁵

Q3: “Do you recognize an impact on the organization because of Learning 2.0? If so, describe it.” 81 percent of respondents answered “yes” to recognizing an impact, and 29 of those who answered “yes” added a description. Utilizing descriptive content analysis, the category responses offer insights into how the L2.0 program affected institutions, as perceived by participants. These include the following thematic statements and associated percentages of response:

• Staff are more aware and confident with emerging technologies (62 percent).
• We are adopting various emerging technologies (45 percent).
• It’s too soon to tell OR need a more practical application of the tools to actually see impact (24 percent).
• We are investigating how to best use emerging technologies (20 percent).

The program administrators took a more conservative view of program impact and success than those who participated in the national survey. Survey respondents made up of mostly academic and public library staff reported a higher degree of confidence and comfort with exploration of emerging technologies.²⁶

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 to rate the success of the program. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed (92 percent) with the statement “My library’s manager/supervisor backed the program.” Perception that administrative and management staff participated in the programs was also rated 78 percent in the positive categories. Such high instances of support and participation were echoed by the responses to the statement: “The program was a success.” 96 percent of respondents selected “Yes.”

Q5: An open-ended question following the yes/no answer to “Was the program a success?” in the previous paragraph, was “Why or why not?” Coded thematic statements from 52 responses to this question include the following reasons for program success and associated percentages of response:

• Staff were able to experience and learn new tools (71 percent).
• Learning 2.0 was effectively implemented and administered by program leaders (27 percent).
• Everyone was included in participating in the learning program (23 percent).
• Staff feel more confident about emerging technologies and future uses of the tools (13 percent).

Statements included “We were able to learn about the Web 2.0 and add to our technology tool belts for personal and professional benefit” and “Because it was delivered with enthusiasm. The teachers or moderators knew what they were doing and were able to help us.” Four respondents (7 percent) offered negative feedback including, “I learned the bare minimum basic about the 10 things and had no time, need, or help at work to continue using what I learned about the 10 things.”

Preliminary results from the pilot study were originally shared in a conference paper at the International Federation of Library Associations conference in Helsinki in 2012. From the survey data of 71 public library staff are the following percentages of positive answers (agree and strongly agree) for the following statements:

As a result of the Learning 2.0 program:

• I am continuing to explore emerging technologies online (71 percent).
• I am more comfortable learning about emerging technologies (91 percent).
• I am more confident about emerging technologies (82 percent).
• Opportunities to continue learning and communication are ongoing (83 percent).
• I feel I am part of a learning organization (86 percent).
• I can continue learning on my own with the tools I discovered (87 percent).

The final portion of the survey explored changes and impact of L2.0 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. Of those who answered the question “What has been the lasting impact on your library after the program?” 55 respondents described their perceived impact. The following are the primary perception statements that account for the majority of responses for the impact section and associated percentages of response:

• Library staff are more aware of emerging tools, and feels competent and confident exploring them (87 percent).
• Library staff now use the tools discovered to enhance work (30 percent).
• Inconclusive or no perceived impact (18 percent).

Across the studies, perceptions of improved comfort, competence, and confidence are associated with staff use and knowledge of emerging technologies.

From the beginning, a foundational aspect of L2.0 was to include all staff at all levels in the learning. One of the thematic statements of staff perception culled from the academic library data set was: “The program showed me we were all equally valued for staff development.”²⁸ This sentiment is found across the data sets. In the public library focused article, a respondent reported: “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.”²⁹ An Australian program administrator noted: “All staff were encouraged by the opportunity to use these new tools, especially during work time.” From the United States pilot study: “It was a very positive experience to have everyone on the staff learning something at the same time. It built staff connections that weren’t there before.” Those chosen to implement a L2.0 program or provide access to this type of training for staff should make every effort to include everyone.

Across all of the data, the factor that most impacted those who did not finish or reported difficulties with the program was time—time for the exercises, time to explore, and time to play. In the Australian national survey, 74 percent of those who did not report completing the program attributed it to lack of time.³⁰ From the administrator survey: “Participation rates ended up being quite low. Largely this was attributed to the time required to complete the program.”

Success came from a serious commitment to giving staff time to work on the program or finding a creative solution supported by library administration. From the administrator survey: “We did not expect participants to complete the program on their own time so communicated to Campus Team Leaders that they needed to ensure their staff had adequate time to work on the program so it was by individual arrangement.” In the case of one of the United States pilot study sites, the library board approved one extra hour of pay per person per week for the 10 weeks preceding the library’s staff day to complete the program. A survey respondent stated: “I doubt we would’ve gotten the level of across-the-board participation among all departments without this incentive.”

A factor that impeded program success for some in the administrator survey was that of scheduling conflicts. This was also an issue for the CityLibraries case study. A competing conference at the same time as the program and staff enrollment in online certification programs detracted from time available for the program for both staff and administrators. Words of caution for scheduling the program were included in the open-ended section of the administrator survey: “We ran the first 3 modules in November/December, then had a break for Xmas. We ran modules 4–12 from February to April. I would definitely NOT recommend having a break in the middle like this. We lost a lot of momentum and consequently had to work much harder to maintain the level of interest in the program.” Program administrators might consider holidays, busy times for the library, or other scheduling factors when choosing a timeframe for the program.

Noted by the Australian respondents across the surveys and focus groups: blocks placed by government IT departments on certain sites impeded staff participation. One program administrator identified this issue as a something that detracted from the success of the program: “Some council firewalls blocked access to sites, some council policies about use of web 2.0 tools, and bandwidth (broadband is not everywhere) were concerns.” Another echoed this idea; “The University firewall blocked recommended steps for one module, but this could have been changed to avoid the problem.”

This issue was not present in the United States pilot study, but issues of access and governance should be explored before program launch to insure that barriers do not prevent participation.

Across the data sets used for this discussion of exemplary practice, negative responses about the program centered on lack of time (as noted above) and a lack of practical focus for the tools explored. A respondent in the CityLibraries case study stated: “Most people who participated in it failed to understand how they could utilize some new technologies in their day to day work.” An Australian program administrator reported the L2.0 initiative was done to get staff excited about new services with the tools: “We’ve since started using several Web 2.0 tools, del.icio.us and blogs for instance, to manage library services. Several of the staff who completed Learning 2.0 now contribute to these services.” Others noted that sharing examples of successful library use of the tools in learning modules and assigning reflections on how the learner’s library might do the same were useful practices.

Looking forward, program administrators might consult the Horizon Report (www.nmc.org/horizon-project) yearly for insights about the next wave of emerging technologies. For example, the Report published yearly by EDUCAUSE and the New Media Consortium, has ranked mobile technologies as leading edge tools for teaching and learning for 2010, 2011, and 2012. The 2012 report identifies mobile apps and tablet computing specifically as key emerging technologies already making an impact on teaching and learning in the coming year.³¹ The “Mobile 23 Things” program mentioned above is evidence of a future-focused, tool-based course. More information can be found here: http://23mobilethings.net/wpress.

“Champions,” a practice established in some of the Australian programs, supports the learners and cheers them on. The CityLibraries case study included learning champions in the program implementation.³² The learning champions were staff members at each location of CityLibraries who would be available for questions, encouragement, and to help those who required assistance. Champions were mentioned often in the administrator survey and case study as being beneficial to the success of the program. A program administrator reported, “Generally it was set up as independent work, but each library had a ‘Champion’ who checked homework done on a blog, and there were a number of times set aside for interested people to work with the Champions.” Another noted: “champions commented actively on people’s blogs” throughout the duration of the course to keep up engagement. From the case study, a respondent reported personal success came with the help of “passionate champions” at her location who “were really trying hard to encourage people.”

A significant benefit or impact of the program across the studies is increased knowledge and awareness about emerging technologies for those who have participated. A school library program administrator noted: “This brought them on board with Web 2.0. It was no longer foreign to them. They understood it in the broadest sense and were able to apply this to school library activities.” A public librarian in Australia reported: “Staff are aware that emerging technologies will influence patron requests for information delivery.”

As the programs evolve to include newer technologies, some of the original “23 Things” have been phased out or become part of the foundational format of the course. Blogging, for example, no longer a new or emerging technology, still affords a connected, social platform for learners. Not only are participants experiencing new tools (at this writing Pinterest and Dropbox might fall in this category), but they are also up-skilling with the tried and true (Wordpress, etc.).

When asked to gauge impact on their library, Australian survey respondents and focus group participants shared similar responses: organizational change is not as prevalent, but staff feel more comfortable and “in the know.” Words such as comfort, confidence, and competence were used often across all of the data sets. As noted in the public library focused article, incompletion of the program did not mean staff did not learn or take things away.³³ These benefits align with the transformative learning concepts featured above: learners experience new concepts, tools, or ideas, explore them, and adjust their thinking going forward.

In the administrator survey, 96 percent of respondents reported they encouraged staff to play with tools as part of the learning. The concept of play was incorporated into program design, or administrators promoted the program with a “license to play.” One respondent noted: “The staff who used the time to play and discover are now still interested in web 2.0; they are the ones who work on projects like wiki, podcasts, RSS, etc. Those staff that only did the minimum of work to complete each task are not engaged or interested in continuing to learn.”

From the focus groups in Australia and the United States, some library staff noted the program seemed less effective after it concluded, and things “went back to the way they were before.” Another respondent noted that the transparent environment and communication flow “dried up” after her program ended. Exemplary practice then for L2.0 must include a recommendation for continuing the learning opportunities and practices of inclusiveness and play. As noted above, the librarians in Nebraska have demonstrated success with an ongoing version of the program on the statewide level. Programs could continue by adopting newer modules from this and other similar L2.0 endeavors. This investigator has taught a class focused on L2.0, and each semester student groups adapt and create new modules and programs. An archive of that student work with Creative Commons licensing is available at http://thehyperlinkedlibrary.org/learning20/ for use by any and all who are offering L2.0 programs.