proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING

was to apply the newly gained knowledge to the supposedly familiar surroundings. This setup also
constituted a type of ‘neo-apprenticeship style learning’ (Gannon-Leary & Fontainha, 2007), which
stimulated the interaction between colleagues with different backgrounds. In this framework experts are not
necessarily defined on the basis of explicit knowledge, but more along the lines of tenure and tacit
knowledge. By providing a forum for such a process, ‘spillover-effects’ (Hung & Der-Thanq, 2001) could
be created where more senior staff shared their knowledge with more junior colleagues, while at the same
time the latter group introduced new thoughts and ideas to the organization. To facilitate the discussions a
team of academic staff was assigned to each Learning Community. They guided through the discussion and
answered content related questions. Moreover, they also acted as a kind of ‘sparring partner’, challenging
participants to re-think their current practices, and implementing the newly gained knowledge to their
current environments (Amin & Roberts, 2006). Finally, to accommodate the busy time schedules of the
participants and so as to ensure that everyone had the opportunity to actively participate in all discussions,
all forums remained accessible throughout the entire e-Learning Phase.
Final Assessment: The e-learning phase was evaluated in equal parts on the basis of the
participants’ contributions in the discussion forums, as well as a final exam. In 2006 this took the form of
an extensive online multiple choice test. Taking into account the limitations of such a summative
assessment, the format was adapted in 2007, changing the format to essay questions.
Results
Participants
In 2006, 245 of the IO’s staff, from 95 different countries, participated in the e-Learning Phase of
the program. The gender distribution was slightly in favor of females (54.3%) and the average age of the
participants was 46.5 years. In terms of educational backgrounds, the vast majority of the participants held
a Master’s degree (54.7%), followed by PhDs (25.7%), alternative degrees, such as apprenticeship
diplomas (16.7%) and Bachelors (2.8%).In 2007, the e-learning phase was followed by 174 participants,
from 81 countries. In terms of the other main characteristics, the participants were largely similar to their
2006 colleagues, with a female participation of 52.9% and an average age of 44.4 years. When looking at
the educational backgrounds, the majority of the participants again hold a Master’s degree (68.2%),
compared to PhD’s (17.3%), Bachelor’s (9.2%) and other degrees (5.3%). According to the initial
questionnaire the IO’s staff, both in 2006 and 2007, participated to remediate potential gaps in their
knowledge and skills which were covered in the provided by the learning program. Moreover, they
indicated a strong preference to work collaboratively. In terms of the format, there was a wide-spread
appreciation that the e-Learning phase could be followed online and irrespective of time and place. Finally,
although participants clearly indicated that they liked to work with a computer, there was a clear notion that
they would have preferred to learn with a hard-copy book, as opposed to the available electronic media.
This provides evidence for the suggestion of Gannon-Leary & Fontainha (2007), who claim that
professionals are very selective in their use of ICTs.
End Evaluation
At the end of the e-Learning Phase, an end evaluation was conducted in order to assess whether
the participants’ expectations and goals were matched, as well as to measure the overall success of the
phase. Overall, the e-Learning Phase was very positively evaluated (see Table 1). More specifically, on a
scale1 (very bad) – 10 (very good), the overall quality received a 6.64 in 2006 and a 7.07 in 2007.
Similarly, the supporting staff was awarded with a 6.27 in 2006 and a 7.11 in 2007. When looking more
closely at the evaluations, one can see that, based on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree), participants perceived it to be a valuable learning experience (2006: 5.82 & 2007: 6.16) and
considered the structure to be good (2006: 5.23 & 2007: 5.44). The goals of the e-Learning Phase (2006:
5.56 & 2007: 5.67), as well as the expectations were well explained (2006: 5.28 & 2007: 5.36). Completing
a pre-knowledge test prior to the course was also very much appreciated by the participants, as it effectively
showed them possible gaps in prior knowledge on the topics of the course (2006: 5.49 & 2007: 5.55) In
terms of the newly gained knowledge (2006: 5.00 & 2007: 5.60) and skills (2006: 4.77 & 2007: 5.34),
participants indicated that they were satisfied with both outcomes. Furthermore, as already underlined by
the initial questionnaire, they really valued the collaborative nature of the phase (2006: 4.28 & 2007: 4.66).
Conference proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING overcome barriers of Life-Long learning?” 29