Category Archives: Learning 2.0 & Beyond

New Article: “23 mobile things: self-directed and effective professional learning”


Citation: Michael Stephens , (2014) “23 mobile things: self-directed and effective professional learning: “, Library Management , Vol. 35 Iss: 8/9, pp. –.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the “Mobile 23 Things” survey results from the program offered by Guldborgsund-bibliotekerne (a public library in Denmark) and present the findings as support for professional development models to increase library staff familiarity with emerging technologies.


Using an integrated, exploratory approach, a Web-based survey tool, developed for a previous Learning 2.0 study, was adapted for this study, with survey questions translated English – Danish, and responses Danish – English. The data gathered from both pre- and post-program surveys are presented and analyzed.


The research results identify that 23 Mobile Things increases familiarity with movable technologies, promotes inclusive learning, and can be an effective model for delivering professional development.


This article reports on the first research study to evaluate the 23 Mobile Things model and provides evidence that this model of library staff professional development can be an overall beneficial experience that increases staff knowledge and expertise related to mobile devices and applications.


New Article: Exemplary Practice for Learning 2.0 (Full Text)

This article appears in the new issue of Reference & User Services Quarterly, Volume 53, Number 2 / 2013. The editors graciously allowed me to publish it full text here as well.

Exemplary Practice for Learning 2.0

Based on a Cumulative Analysis of the Value and Effect of “23 Things” Programs in Libraries

This article is based on cumulative analysis of research projects from 2009 and 2012 exploring the impact and effect of the programs on library staff in Australia, sponsored by CAVAL, a consortium of academic libraries, and in the United States. It includes analysis of survey responses from staff participants and program administrators as a means to identify exemplary practice for implementing self-directed online learning programs in library settings. Librarians creating staff training programs built on the Learning 2.0 (L2.0) model or those developing other types of self-directed online learning for groups will find an evidenced-based set of exemplary practices for such endeavors. The findings offer evidence that L2.0 programs have a positive effect on participants and their confidence and ability to use technology within their professional and personal lives.

Special thanks to Warren Cheetham, Coordinator Information and Digital Library Services, City Libraries, Townsville, Queensland, Australia, for his work on the CAVAL Visiting Scholar project.

Few library staff development programs have had the impact of Learning 2.0 (L2.0) or “23 Things.” Launched in 2006 at the Public Library of Charlotte Mecklenberg County (PLCMC), the program, known as L2.0, “23 Things,” boasts hundreds of adaptations since inception, constant evolution into new areas of focus, and, according to this collected research, a consistent value and effect for library staff.

The multi-week, fully online, self-directed professional development program guided participants through a set of learning activities designed to introduce them to emerging technologies, such as blogging, RSS news feeds, tagging, wikis, podcasting, online applications, and video and image hosting sites. PLCMC shared the program with a Creative Commons license, prompting other libraries to adapt and utilize it. L2.0 creator Helene Blowers estimated nearly 1000 organizations have adapted the program in some form.[1] Abram argued, “I believe that this has been one of the most transformational and viral activities to happen globally to libraries in decades.”[2] Within a case study approach, Titangos and Mason posited that the program “has fundamentally changed the staff’s way of thinking and working in the 21st century.”[3] And while the L2.0 model struck a chord with the library community, and it quickly became a popular professional development activity for libraries around the world, there have been few studies of its impact.

This article is based on cumulative analysis of research projects from 2009 and 2012 exploring the impact and effect of the program on library staff in Australia and in the United States. The research projects in Australia were sponsored by CAVAL, a consortium that provides library services and support to libraries in Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. This article includes analysis of survey responses from staff participants and program administrators as a means to identify exemplary practice for implementing self-directed online learning programs in library settings. Librarians creating staff training programs built on the L2.0 model, or those developing other types of self-directed online learning for groups, will find an evidenced-based set of exemplary practices for such endeavors.


L2.0 Concepts
Foundational to the L2.0 program model is an emphasis on instilling a desire for education throughout a lifetime. Most programs begin with a module devoted to becoming a “lifelong learner.” Three factors promote a need for continuing education: constant change, occupational obsolescence, and an individual’s desire for self-actualization.[4] All of these factors are present in the L2.0 model and can help us understand its impact and longevity as a professional development program.

L2.0 addresses the constantly changing landscape of emerging technologies. The replicated programs throughout the years have updated and expanded on the original “23 Things” to include Twitter and Pinterest. In addition, the L2.0 model has evolved to focus on specific subject areas and learners beyond the scope of library staff, including library users. Recent examples of specialized L2.0 models include “23 Things for Professional Development” and “Looking at 2.0,” an adapted program for citizens of Queensland, Australia hosted by the State Library of Queensland.[5] In Nebraska, a program originally begun as “23 Things” continues as a monthly learning opportunity for library staff across the state.[6] Currently, this investigator is working with the Guldborgsund-bibliotekerne, a public library situated in the southeastern part of Denmark, Europe, on a “Mobile 23 Things” program utilizing the L2.0 model to educate staff about tablet and smartphone apps.

Emerging technologies sometimes are touted as spelling the “end of libraries.” The L2.0 program was created to keep staff up to date on new technologies so they might add to their skill sets for the future. Hastings reported on her library’s program at the Missouri River Regional Library, in Jefferson City, Missouri, noting, “We learned our staff are willing and able to understand the new technologies that our patrons are using.”[7] Exploring the impact of Learning 2.0 at Yarra Plenty Library, Victoria, Australia, Lewis concluded the library staff there

“…are capable of learning new technologies, and that it is OK to learn through exploring and playing with web applications, rather than having to wait for more formal structured training to be scheduled. It has brought the staff to a new skill level and a willingness to learn and adapt to technological change.”[8]

At the conclusion of the L2.0 program at Edith Cowan University Library in Western Australia, Gross and Leslie asked focus groups of program participants to share perceptions of the mechanism and outcomes of the program. Gross and Leslie concluded that, as a result of L2.0, “Web 2.0 technologies are now being synthesized and integrated into work proper and are providing new opportunities to connect with our users. The staff is also better placed to provide input to future technological change.”[9]

Another focus of L2.0 is that of taking responsibility for one’s learning. The concept of self-directed learning (SDL) from Candy emphasizes the importance of self-motivated learners managing the learning process.[10] Candy argued that “learner control” might be a better phrase to describe the affordances of SDL. In L2.0’s many programs, participants have a high degree of control of their explorations, reflections, and the program outcomes.

Adult and self-directed learning
Supporting adult learners and enabling their own discoveries are notable foci of the literature related to adult learning and the concept of SDL. These concepts illuminate the foundations of L2.0. Merriam cited Knowles’s concept of andragogy, defined as the “art and science of helping adults learn,” and traced its evolution as theory throughout the 80s and 90s as scholars debated the associated assumptions and attempted to define adult education as a discipline.[11] The assumptions included adults with certain learning needs self-directing learning and utilizing life experience as a framing resource. These learners are motivated internally and seek to learn to solve a problem or need. At the same time, Candy synthesized several decades of research from the literature concerning SDL 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.[12]
  • In addition, Candy (2004) went on to define SDL as that of “learner control.”[13]

As L2.0 evolved, program creator Blowers and others actively involved in disseminating the program model (Helene Blowers and Brenda Hough) recognized the possibility for learner control or SDL in the “23 Things.”[14] According to Hough, the program’s design enabled independence, promoted confidence via the Web and blog-based format, and raised awareness of the potential of emerging technologies.[15]

Connected and Transformative Learning
Finally, to frame the impact of the “23 Things” learning program in libraries, we might examine two theoretical approaches: a traditional theory from the literature on adult learning and an emerging school of thought that defines online technology-enabled learning.

Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory offers a lens through which to understand the impact of L2.0.[16] The process in which adults respond to new experiences and how those experiences change their point of view is the basis for this theory. Simply put, transformative learners re-align their frame of reference as more knowledge is obtained. Learning is “more inclusive, discriminating, self-reflective, and integrative of experience.”[17] Cranton provided a further definition: “When people critically examine their habitual expectations, revise them, and act on the revised point of view, transformative learning occurs.”[18]

Another important component of the L2.0 model is an emphasis on play, experimentation, and social interaction with other learners as part of the program. A focus on play, innovation, and experimentation is needed for 21st century learning success, argue Thomas and Brown.[19] Jenkins defined play as “the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving,” and argued that play is one of the most important emerging social literacies and valued skills for the changing landscape of education.[20] The L2.0 model combines play and opportunities to explore new technologies into a unique, self-directed yet social learning experience.

Expanding on the potential of online learning, Jenkins described the emerging concept of connected learning as having a real-world focus. In addition: “It’s social. It’s hands-on. It’s active. It’s networked. It’s personal. It’s effective. Through a new vision of learning, it holds out the possibility for productive and broad-based educational change.”[21] L2.0 programs were created to allow staff to explore and play hands on, and then share reflections via a blog, the social component. As an oft-replicated model, L2.0 programs have been lauded as transformational for library staff.

Research Questions
The following research questions framed the broader CAVAL research project to measure the impact and legacy of the model within Australian libraries:

  • To what extent have Learning 2.0 programs enhanced library staff’s confidence and ability to utilize emerging technologies?
  • What practices lead to program success?
  • What practices hinder program success?
  • To what extent does Learning 2.0 promote ongoing learning and exploration?

The instruments were utilized for United States pilot studies as well. This article gathers the findings from all of the studies to discern exemplary practices for the program.


Australian Library Staff Surveys
Through a research partnership between CAVAL, an Australian library consortium; CityLibraries Townsville, Queensland, Australia; and Dr. Michael Stephens, the L2.0 phenomenon was explored and evaluated as part of the CAVAL Visiting Scholar program. Methodologies included a national survey for those who had participated in an Australian L2.0 program, a survey of thirty “23 Things” program administrators, and focus groups of academic and public librarians who participated in the course. In addition to the large-scale survey, CityLibraries agreed to serve as the case study site.

A web-based survey of participants in L2.0 in Australian libraries yielded a total of 384 valid responses. Open-ended national survey data was analyzed using descriptive content analysis. Focus group transcripts and researcher field notes were analyzed by a method described by Krueger and Casey that follows a systematic approach focusing on frequency, specificity, emotion, and extensiveness of participants’ answers to articulate the findings.[22] The research team published articles detailing findings from the academic library respondents, public library respondents, and the case study site.[23] The Institutional Review Board of the Dominican University, River Forest, Illinois verified all of the Australian CAVAL study instruments in the spring of 2009.

Program Administrator Survey
Also part of the CAVAL project, the researchers conducted a survey of L2.0 program administrators located via calls for participation and a survey of Australian L2.0 program websites. At close, the program administrator survey had a total of 41 valid respondents from Australian libraries composed of 60% from public and state libraries and 40% from college and university libraries. The open-ended questions of the administrator survey were analyzed via descriptive content analysis following similar procedures as the national study. Preliminary analysis was reported in a paper at the International Federation of Library Associations in 2012 in Helsinki.[24] This article reports on the final analysis of that data.

US Pilot Study
As the Australian project concluded, the primary investigator sought to investigate L2.0 in the United States. As a preliminary step, a pilot study was proposed and funded by a grant from San Jose State University, San Jose, California. Three public libraries in the Chicago metropolitan area partnered with the primary investigator. All three libraries offered a staff L2.0 program within the last five years. The libraries included Mount Prospect Public Library, a mid-size public library where more than 100 staff members participated in the program in 2008; Schaumburg Township District Library, the second largest public library in Illinois, where 146 staff participated in the program in 2007-2008; and Skokie Public Library, a suburban library where 154 employees participated in the program in 2007.

The survey instrument was based on the question sets used in the Australian study. All staff members at each site study library were invited to participate in the web-based survey, and 71 responded. This article reports on the final analysis of that data and includes analysis of three focus groups conducted for the pilot study. The Institutional Review Board of San Jose State University verified all of the survey and focus group instruments in the spring of 2012.

The similarity of insights and conclusions from the pilot study to the large scale Australian study led the investigator to re-align the research agenda for L2.0 programs. These ideas are articulated in the concluding Future Research section.

RUSQ Exemplary Practice for Learning 2.0 Table1


Program administrator survey
Results of the administrator survey reveal a snapshot of practice for L2.0 amongst 41 libraries and library systems across Australia. The survey explored program mechanics and perceptions of program impact and success. These included program design, time frame of the program, incentives, participation by administrators, mechanisms for communication, and impact of the program on library staff.

Program design

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.”

Time frame of the program

Thirty respondents shared the time frame 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% 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% 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.”

Administrative participation

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]

Impact of the program: Perception statements

Q3: “Do you recognize an impact on the organization because of Learning 2.0? If so, describe it.” 81% 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%).
  • We are adopting various emerging technologies (45%).
  • It’s too soon to tell OR need a more practical application of the tools to actually see impact (24%).
  • We are investigating how to best use emerging technologies (20%).

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]

US Pilot Study
Results of the United States pilot study survey reveal a snapshot of practice for L2.0 amongst the three public libraries that offered the program in 2007 and 2008. Based on the Australian instrument, the survey explored perceptions of the L2.0 program impact and success, as well as details of program design. These included program completion, continuation of exploration after the program, participation by administrators, and impact of the program on library staff. A high percentage of the United States public library pilot study participants completed the program (97%). Two of 71 reported non-completion, noting either a “lack of time” in the open-ended response or “lost interest.”

Q4: “As a result of our Learning 2.0 program, I am continuing to explore emerging technologies online?” The majority of respondents responded via the Likert Scale in the affirmative (71%), while 18% neither agreed nor disagreed, and the remainder (11%) reported they were not continuing exploration.

Administrative participation and 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 to rate the success of the program. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed (92%) 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% 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% 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%).
  • Learning 2.0 was effectively implemented and administered by program leaders (27%).
  • Everyone was included in participating in the learning program (23%).
  • Staff feel more confident about emerging technologies and future uses of the tools (13%).

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%) 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.”

Impact of the program: survey responses

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

Impact of the program: Perception statements

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

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


One of the deliverables of the original CAVAL project was a list of exemplary practice for libraries and other institutions implementing future versions of L2.0-based online learning. From preliminary concepts supported by the analyzed responses from the survey data and focus groups transcripts, a series of statements emerge.[27] Updated by more data and insights from the Australian administrative survey and United States pilot study, these statements represent a model of exemplary practice to insure organizational benefit from the investment of time and resources for a L2.0 style program. The statements are grouped in the following thematic areas:

  • Program design and implementation
  • Program impact and benefit

Program design and implementation

Include ALL staff in the learning opportunities, not just librarians or managers.

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.

Allow staff time to work on the program and make it a firm commitment.

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% 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.”

Program scheduling can detract from success — avoid too many conflicts during the program running time.

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 time frame for the program.

Break down any barriers on the tools put in place by IT departments, making sure access is possible from employee computers.

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.

Focus the program on tools that are used by the library or will be utilized. Tie the program to practical implementation. Keep an eye on the future.

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, 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 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:

Program “Champions” – staff selected to provide support throughout the program in each department – are beneficial to learners.

“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.”

Program impact and benefit

Program developers and library administrators should understand the program yields better awareness of new technologies and enhanced feelings of inclusivity for those who participate.

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.).

Program developers and library administrators should understand the program yields improved comfort and confidence with new technologies for staff that participate.

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.

Program developers and library administrators should promote the concept of play and exploration as part of the learning.

In the administrator survey, 96% 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.”

Commit to an ongoing communication and learning strategy for staff after the program concludes.

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 for use by any and all who are offering L2.0 programs.


After analyzing the United States pilot study data, the investigator realized the answers across the surveys and focus groups from Australia were growing more similar. The L2.0 model appears to be sound as evidenced by this research, as are the proliferation and evolution of the various programs based on it. The next step is exploring how the model has been used for library patrons.

Recognizing the L2.0 program’s success in helping library personnel learn to explore and use technology, four libraries have adapted the program and offered it to their patrons in an effort to foster digital literacy skills. In 2008, Darien Public Library, Darien, Connecticut, developed an L2.0 program for parents aimed at helping parents explore technology with their children. (The program website can be found at: The State Library of Queensland, Australia, offers an L2.0 program for their patrons entitled “Looking at 2.0,” with learning modules on topics such as mobile applications, creating a personal website, and organizing a personal digital library. (Their website can be found at: Arlington Heights Memorial Library, Arlington Heights, Illinois, offered a 13-month L2.0 program for their patrons from 2008 to 2009, covering a different technology each month, as did Pima County Public Library, Pima County, Arizona. (The Arlington Heights program website can be found at: No formal assessment of any of these three programs has been conducted.

Future research plans include exploratory interviews with key administrators of the programs listed above. This might lead to a demonstration project focusing on updating, piloting, and evaluating L2.0 programs for library users in various settings, with a range of target audiences.


Recent research and the studies detailed here are evidence that the L2.0 program, featuring self-directed learning through play and experimentation, has the potential to be transformational for those who participate.[34] These findings offer evidence that L2.0 programs can have a positive effect on participants and their confidence and ability to use technology within their professional and personal lives. In addition, recent discourse surrounding the L2.0 program’s building blocks – play, exploration, and experimentation – continues to assert that they are foundational to successful learning in the 21st century, where the world is changing faster than ever, and skill sets have a much shorter lifespan.[35] The exemplary practice detailed here is meant for librarians utilizing the L2.0 model to insure program success.

References and Notes

[1] Helene Blowers, “10 Tips about 23 Things,” School Library Journal 54, no. 10 (2008): 53-57.

[2] Stephen’s Lighthouse, “The 23 Things – Learning 2.0,” accessed June 5, 2013,

[3] Hui-Lan Titangos and Gail Mason, “Learning Library 2.0: 23 Things @scpl,” Library Management 30 ½, (2009): 44–56.

[4] Roger Hiemstra, Lifelong Learning: The Professional education series (Lincoln, NB: Professional Educators Publications, 1976).

[5] “23 Things for Professional Development,” January 3, 2013,“Looking at 2.0: ‘A user’s guide to online technologies’,” accessed June 5, 2013,

[6] Nebraska Learns 2.0, “About,” accessed June 5, 2013,

[7] Robin Hastings, “Journey to Library 2.0.” Library Journal 132, no. 7 (2007): 36-37.

[8] Lynette Lewis, “Library 2.0: Taking it to the street,” 2008,

[9] Julia Gross and Lyn Leslie, “Twenty-three Steps to Learning Web 2.0 in an Academic Library,” The Electronic Library 26, no. 6 (2008): 790-802.

[10] Phillip C. Candy, Linking Thinking: Self-Directed Learning in the Digital Age (Canberra: Dept. of Education, Science and Training, 2004).

[11] Sharan B. Merriam, “Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Learning Theory,” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 89 (2001): 3.

[12] Philip C. Candy, Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1991).

[13] Phillip C. Candy, Linking Thinking: Self-Directed Learning in the Digital Age (Canberra: Dept. of Education, Science and Training, 2004).

[14] Brenda Hough, “Teaching People to Be Savvy Travelers in a Technological World,” Computers in Libraries 26, no. 5 (2006): 8.

[15] Brenda Hough, “Teaching People to Be Savvy Travelers in a Technological World,” Computers in Libraries 26, no. 5 (2006): 8.

[16] Jack Mezirow, “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice,” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 74 (Summer 1997): 5-12.

[17] Jack Mezirow, “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice,” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 74 (Summer 1997): 5-12.

[18] Patricia Cranton, Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning (San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 2006).

[19] Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown, A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change (Lexington, KY: CreateSpace, 2011).

[20] Henry Jenkins, “Connected Learning: Reimagining the Experience of Education in the Information Age,” Confessions of an Aca-Fan, March 2012,

[21] Henry Jenkins, “Connected Learning: Reimagining the Experience of Education in the Information Age,” Confessions of an Aca-Fan, March 2012,

[22] Richard Krueger and Mary Anne Casey, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide to Applied Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009).

[23] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Academic Libraries,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 17, no. 1 (2011): 31-63; Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “Benefits and Results of Learning 2.0: A Case Study of CityLibrariesLearning – discover*play*connect,” Australian Library Journal 61, no. 1 (2012): 6-15; Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Public Libraries,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7, no. 1 (2012): 53-64.

[24] Michael Stephens, Proceedings of the World Library and Information Congress: 78th IFLA Conference and Assembly: “23 Things” as Transformative Learning: Promoting Confidence, Curiosity and Communication via Library Staff Professional Development, May, 28 2012,

[25] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Public Libraries,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7, no. 1 (2012): 53-64.

[26] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Academic Libraries,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 17, no. 1 (2011): 31-63; Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “Benefits and Results of Learning 2.0: A Case Study of CityLibrariesLearning – discover*play*connect,” Australian Library Journal 61, no. 1 (2012): 6-15; Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Public Libraries,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7, no. 1 (2012): 53-64.

[27] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Academic Libraries,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 17, no. 1 (2011): 31-63; Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “Benefits and Results of Learning 2.0: A Case Study of CityLibrariesLearning – discover*play*connect,” Australian Library Journal 61, no. 1 (2012): 6-15; Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Public Libraries,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7, no. 1 (2012): 53-64

[28] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “Benefits and Results of Learning 2.0: A Case Study of CityLibrariesLearning – discover*play*connect,” Australian Library Journal 61, no. 1 (2012): 6-15.

[29] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Public Libraries,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7, no. 1 (2012): 53-64.

[30] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Academic Libraries,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 17, no. 1 (2011): 31-63.

[31] New Media Consortium, Horizon Report: K-12 Edition, assessed June 5, 2013,

[32] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Public Libraries,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7, no. 1 (2012): 53-64.

[33] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Academic Libraries,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 17, no. 1 (2011): 31-63.

[34] Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Academic Libraries,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 17, no. 1 (2011): 31-63; Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “Benefits and Results of Learning 2.0: A Case Study of CityLibrariesLearning – discover*play*connect,” Australian Library Journal 61, no. 1 (2012): 6-15; Michael Stephens and Warren Cheetham, “The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Public Libraries,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7, no. 1 (2012): 53-64.

[35] Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown, A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change (Lexington, KY: CreateSpace, 2011).


Australian L2.0 Program Administrator Survey (includes Q1, Q2, and Q3 utilized in this article)

• Did you offer incentives?
• What blogging software did staff use?
• Did all participants blog their progress?
• Were staff allowed to blog anonymously?
• Were staff encouraged to work together?
• Q2: Did managers and administrators participate?
• How did you communicate with staff during the program?
• What tools did you add to your specific program? Why?
• What tools did you drop from your program? Why?
• What was the timeframe for your program?
• Were staff given work time to complete the program?
• Did you allow extra time at the end for catching up?
• Were staff encourage to play? If so, how?
• Did your program also include library users or library trustees?
• Q3: Do you recognize an impact on the organization because of Learning 2.0? (Y or N)
• If so, describe it.
• Q1: What worked well?
• What didn’t work well?

United States Pilot Study Survey Instruments
Web Survey Instrument (includes Q4 and Q5 utilized in this article)
• Information about the program:
• What year did your program begin?
• What year did it end?
• Did you complete the program? (Yes or No)
• If you didn’t complete the program, why not? (Open-ended)
• Please rate the following statements: (Scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Sometimes Agree, Sometimes Disagree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree)
• My supervisor supported the program.
• My supervisor participated in the program.

• Q4: As a result of our Learning 2.0 program, I am continuing to explore emerging technologies online? (Scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Sometimes Agree, Sometimes Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

Please rate the following statements: (Scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Sometimes Agree, Sometimes Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
As a result of our Learning 2.0 program:
• I am more comfortable learning about emerging technologies.
• I am more confident about emerging technologies.
• I like to explore technology on my own.
• I am prepared to help our library users with emerging technologies.

Please rate the following statements: (Scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Sometimes Agree, Sometimes Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
As a result of our Learning 2.0 program:
• I am encouraged to try new things at my job.
• I like to play and experiment with new things.
• Opportunities to continue learning and communication are ongoing.
• I feel I am part of a learning organization.
• I can continue learning on my own with the tools I discovered.
• I have created my own learning network through the tools I discovered.

As a result of our Learning 2.0 program, I use the following web 2.0 tools: (Scale: for our users/patrons, internally for staff, just in my department, personally, not using at all) (Multiple answers possible)

  • Blogs
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Flickr
  • Mashups
  • Tagging
  • Pinterest
  • Instant messaging
  • Mobile Phone Texting / SMS
  • Wikis
  • Google Docs
  • YouTube / video sharing sites
  • Facebook
  • Mobile Web
  • Mobile Apps

• What has been the lasting impact on your library after the program? (Open-ended)
• As a result of your Learning 2.0 program, what changes have you made to the way you work? (Open-ended)
• Q5: Was the program a success? (Yes/No)
• Why or why not? (Open-ended).
• What worked well in the program? (Open-ended)
• What did not work well?

Questions for Learning 2.0 Participant Focus Groups
Opening Questions:
• Please tell us your first name, your position and how long you’ve been at the library.
(Recording begins)

Introductory Questions:
• Think back to when you first heard about Learning 2.0. What were your first impressions?
• Did you complete the program?
• If not, why?
• If yes, what contributed to your success?
• What tools were your favorites?
• What tools are you still using in your job?
Are you continuing to explore emerging technologies online?

Transition Questions:
• What worked well during your Learning 2.0 program?
• What did not work so well?
Key Questions:
• Did your Learning 2.0 program achieve its proposed aim of developing staff understanding of emerging technologies? How?
• What has been the lasting impact on your library after Learning 2.0?
• Has the learning continued? If yes, how so? If no, why not?
• What personal changes have you noticed as a result of the program?
• What changes at your library have you noticed since the program?

Building a Sustainable 2.0 Community for Lifelong Learning and Professional Development by Elaine Hall

Don’t miss this article about “23 Things for SLIS Students & Alumni” that Elaine Hall wrote for AlkiWashington Library Association Journal. Elaine Hall is a Washington Library Association (WLA) member and a MLIS graduate student at San Jose State University. She lives in Arlington, Washington and is pursuing interests in academic libraries, emerging technologies, information literacy, and research.

Hall, E. (2013, November). Building a sustainable 2.0 community for lifelong learning and professional development. Alki. Washington Library Association Journal, 29(3), 22-23. Retrieved from

The students and alumni of San Jose State University’s School of Library and Information Science (SLIS) have developed a Learning 2.0 pro-gram, “23 Things for SLIS Students and Alumni: Essentials for Success,” to build alliance among students and alumni for lifelong learning and professional development. Hosted by SLISConnect, SLIS’s student and alumni association, this program is unique in that it is created for SLIS students and alumni by students and alumni, fosters solidarity as well as asynchronous learning, offers digital badges as rewards for module completion, and involves more than thirty-five student and alumni volunteers. With three target audiences–new students, current students, and new LIS professionals–the modules presented in this program offer a mix of technologies, resources, and tools for social networking, time management, presentation development, career development, research, and more. Other library or LIS schools can also build a collaborative and sustainable Learning 2.0 program as a way to engage the community on multiple levels and foster lifelong learning.


If you like it, put a badge on it.

From #hyperlibMOOC student  Megan Egbert. What do badges at Meridian Library District mean for professional development?

Megan writes:

We are piloting a program that would use digital badges to increase staff member’s professional development and ongoing education participation. The badges act not only as incentive, but also as a visual reminder of completion. We are using Credly to design and award badges which allows for anyone to award anyone else a badge. So in addition to competences that can be demonstrated to earn a badge, peers can also award them for performance. The program is designed using a Google site discussion page for communication so any staff member can post a learning opportunity when they see one, then a badge will be designed for it and awarded to those who participate. We are pre and post surveying the participants to see if this does increase the amount of learning and exploring they do. I’m happy to take any questions/suggestions at [email protected] or Twitter. @meganegbert

More on “23 Things for SLIS Students and Alumni”

Learning new technology can be challenging. With that in mind, SLISConnect, the combined student and alumni association at the SJSU information school, recently developed an online resource aimed at helping students and alumni explore tools that can foster academic and professional success. Launched in July, 23 Things for SLIS Students and Alumni: Essential Tools for Professional Success explores 23 online tools, with tutorials that take between 20 and 30 minutes each to complete. Topics include time management tools, presentation tools, screencast software, career resources, and social networking sites. Five modules are already available, and the SLISConnect team plans to add other modules in the months ahead. 

Click through to read the whole article.

23 Things for SLIS Students & Alumni – New Learning 2.0 Initiative at SJSU SLIS


SLISConnect, SJSU’s School of Library & Information Science student and alumni group, is excited to announce the launch of 23 Things for SLIS Students & Alumni: Essentials Skills for Professional Success. This Learning 2.0 program will offer 23 weekly modules (one module per week) to introduce specific online technologies that are proven and recommended by SLIS students and alumni for academic and professional success. Created by SLIS students and alumni for SLIS students and alumni, this unique program, in addition to exploring valuable online tools, creates and fosters connections among a community of professionals committed to lifelong and collaborative learning. With three target audience groups, 23 Things will be broken down into 3 segments: New LIS Students, Professional Development and Presentations (focused on current students), and the New LIS Professional. Each segment will entail seven to eight modules that will include exercises to demonstrate learning and digital badges will be awarded to those who demonstrate module completion. The program has already attracted over 30 student and alumni volunteers who will participate as site administrators, module builders, module reviewers,  module correspondents, and bloggers.

How does HGH Energizer work and where to get HGH pills?

SLISConnect hosted a Kick Off Session on July 10th where participants were able to learn more about the program, how they can participate, offer ideas for upcoming modules, and participate a Q&A session. Suggestions poured in for the program include having live sessions where module participants can share how they used the technologies and resources presented and expanding the asynchronous module format into a more engaging and collaborative learning experience. Additional ideas were also presented to include modules for MARA students, mobile technologies, dealing with diversity issues, and more. One participant even asked “Why 23 Things?”. Project Manager Elaine Hall responded that the program was an adoption of the original 23 Things program developed by Helene Blowers but further emphasized with that with evident enthusiasm of this program and the suggestions already submitted, there is convicting evidence that the program will expand well beyond 23 things.

Note from Michael: I am thrilled to see our students run with this idea. The image above is one of the badges participants receive for completing a module. Watch the Kick Off Session video for more about this program.

Reflection on a New Culture of Learning:? Implementing a Learning 2.0 Program for Diverse Communities – A TTW Guest Post by Elaine Hall

Note from Michael: Elaine takes us through her work on the #transtech group project for Huntington Beach Public Library and connects to our course texts. i am happy to share this insightful reflection!


This report outlines the unique experiences, challenges, and opportunities in developing a Learning 2.0 program for the diverse community served by the Huntington Beach Public Library. This project – called Links to Literacy – was accomplished virtually as a group assignment in Dr. Michael Stephens’s Transformative Learning and Technology Literacies course in Spring 2013. It involved seven learning technology modules aimed to introduce communication, job searching, and internet literacy skills to the patrons in HBPL’s Literacy Program. While this report reflects my own views regarding the project, I offer acknowledgement and gratitude to the dynamic group of students, as well as the staff at the HBPL, who offered the dialogue, critique, technical expertise, and dedication to make this project a great success. I also offer thanks to Dr. Stephens and Char Booth, author of Reflective Teaching, Effective Learning, for their support, guidance, and insight to the project’s development and objectives.

“Links to Literacy” – A Unique Learning 2.0 Experience

The Huntington Beach Public Library (HBPL) has a dedicated program focused on literacy which includes tutors, training for tutors, and special programs such as adult and family literacy. They serve a highly diverse community where many of the residents do not have access to computers, internet, smartphones, etc. which significantly impact their social, language, technical and job-searching skillset. The HBPL literacy program aims to serve its community by providing tutors, classes, and group and individual activities that build upon these essentials skills for successful living.

The Links to Literacy program became a unique Learning 2.0 project in that it actually incorporated both synchronous and asynchronous learning. Most Learning 2.0 programs foster the idea of asynchronous learning where the learner is approaching learning on their own. For this project, based on the needs of the diverse community needing guidance, language interpretation, and motivation, much of the learning was done synchronously in small groups of tutors and students – but fostered the application of play, personal exploration, and continued learning outside of the program. It presented an interesting blend of synchronous learning that hoped to develop into more extended learning activities asynchronously. Examples of “extended learning” activities include:

  • Patrons using their new email accounts to communicate with each other and family
  • Patrons using JobScout, setting up profiles that will help them search for
  • Patrons building comfort with the Internet and using search engines to explore their own interests.

Learning outcomes will extend beyond my assessment here. This presents another unique aspect of the Links to Literacy project. The fact that the patrons had to come to the library to access the modules via library computers made it more challenging for students to stick to a “one-module per week” model. They got sick. They got busy. They forgot. In a sense – life got in the way and the lack of access made it challenging to adhere to a particular “schedule” for learning. This presented a unique experience for us as developers/instructors as we had to adjust to the learning environment of HBPL library staff and tutors to create an engaging, useful, and instructional program for the patrons. In the end, it was a success – even if it did not quite go as we had originally planned.

Project Implementation – Personal Evaluation: 

My primary role in the project was developing the Pinterest Module. I really valued the process of sharing a social and learning technology that I personally enjoy using for both personal and professional learning and tagging. Developing the Pinterest Module for the unique literacy group at HBPL was a great learning experience for me as I had to take off my “expert” hat and bring my thinking to that of that user. This become challenging for me.

Challenges in targeting the Pinterest Module for this group included several components:

  • The students were bilingual with some having very little English. While the program needed to be built in English and would have bilingual tutors to assist, the language needed to be simplistic and easily understood between the English and Spanish translation.
  • Many of the patrons have an education level based at the 6th grade level. This further complicated the language barrier and required simplicity in the instructions.
  • Learning of the Pinterest Module was based on successful completion of prior modules such as Email, Search Engine, and Facebook. It required that I understood the learning objectives of prior modules in order to confirm the learning of those modules and offer opportunity to advance upon that learning.
  • The Pinterest Module had the challenge of offering “WIIFM” (what’s in it for me) factor (Booth, 2011). I had to instill the desire to use Pinterest. I purposely used food as the example where patrons could explore recipes and build boards based on their interests, favorite recipes, etc.

All of these challenges resulted in learning opportunities that expanded my knowledge of developing an online learning platform, gaining additional skills in WordPress, opening up my concept of diversity in libraries as well as in the learning environment, and how to take myself out of the expert mode to transforming my knowledge to fit the specific needs of a target learning group.

My secondary role as the communicator with the site liaison was the most rewarding experience of this process as it allowed me to engage with the library, identify with its real-life application for the patrons, and build connection with my group members as I shared the feedback with them. The most intriguing conversation I had with the library staff was on how to incorporate photo sharing into the modules. This really pushed the understanding – on their part as well as mine – on the limitations of the served community based on its lack of technological resources, application of use, need for additional learning, and time. In one sense, it seemed a lost opportunity as photo sharing is applicable to many of the other modules – Email, Facebook, Pinterest, JobScout (uploading a profile picture), Tumblr, and even YouTube (expanding the photo sharing to video sharing). On the other hand, we had to come to the realization that to offer this learning despite the barriers of technology access could result in frustration and inability to complete a module – both things we were aiming to avoid. In the end, we decided to eliminate the photo uploading/sharing component within the modules and hope that as the patrons take advance in their learning, they will adopt these skills on their own.

Developing Learning 2.0 Program – Group Evaluation: 

The Literacy and Students Learning 2.0 group overall worked well together. We had a slow start and it was challenging to assess roles and responsibilities to begin with but once we all logged in and connected, it smoothed out quite effectively. We had two synchronous meetings where brainstorming, structure, format, and constructive criticism were both encouraged and effectively executed.

I give compliments to the group in their effective communicative strategies. So often in online communication comments, criticism, and even suggestions can be interpreted incorrectly. Our group seemed to keep in mind the objectives of the program and pulled together a sense of exploration and inquiry that helped facilitate a continuous flow of ideas. The group was also honest about their frustrations, open about their challenges, helpful in offering solutions, and highly encouraging to each other. Having started the communication process on several online course group projects and often taking on a leader role, I often get involved with bickering, complaints due to lack of fair work, etc. I compliment this group on working together as a whole towards a main goal throughout the whole project!

The one main thing I think we as a group missed out on was better program assessment. In thinking (and teaching) as an assessor, Wiggins & McTighe (2005) ask the question: “What specific characteristics in student responses, products, or performances should we examine to determine the extent to which the desired results were achieved?” (p. 150).  This was challenging as we had expected better interaction with either the tutors or the students (or both!) as they made their way through the modules. In reality, due to the structure of classroom learning and the use of tutors to help guide the patrons through the modules, we missed the opportunity to interact with the patrons, to learn from their challenges, and assist in their learning. This, according to Wiggins and McTighe (2005) is where rubrics, products of learning, and evaluation come into play.  While we did review each other’s modules before launching the program and even though some of us opted into trying out the modules as a “learner”, we should have considered developing a rubric or some other structured assessment of each other’s modules. By doing so, we may have been better able to identify how well we met our learning – and teaching – objectives despite the lack of learner feedback.

This really highlighted the challenges of teaching in an online format. Instructors need to develop methods of obtaining feedback from their students. It need not be elaborate (although sometimes that may be needed), but it does need to provide information on how learning is being achieved, whether learning objectives are being met as well as the valuable insight to the challenges and new applications that arise from the learning.  I think this was the real challenge in our group not getting feedback from the learners themselves – we lacked that engagement to learn how the program impacted them and also missed feedback on how we could enhance/adapt the program for future use.

Conclusion – Understanding the New Culture of Learning:

The experiences within this project really brought to life the “new culture of learning”. Thomas and Brown (2011) indicate that “the primary difference between the teaching-based approach to education and the learning-based approach is that in the first case, the culture is the environment, while in the second case, the culture emerges from the environment – and grows along with it” (Kindle version, loc. 369).

Learning 2.0 programs offer tremendous opportunity to demonstrate this new culture of learning. By understanding where the needs are within any community, learning programs can be developed to offer value, incentive, opportunity, and motivation for learning. The Links to Literacy program could not have succeeded without first understanding its community, its limitations to access, the patron’s lack of understanding and experience, the barriers of language, and opportunity created by need (need for job skills, technology, and communication).

Thomas and Brown (2011) also indicate that “a second difference is that the teaching-based approach focuses on teaching us about the world, while the new culture of learning focuses on learning through engagement within the world” (loc. 381). This is the beauty of Learning 2.0 programs – without engagement, learning simply doesn’t happen.

Similarly, the Links to Literacy project also brought hands on application to the Four Processes for Learning (aka Transformation) presented by Mezirow (1997). Below I demonstrate how the Links to Literacy project fits into this model:

Process 1 – Elaborating Existing Frames of Reference

The Links to literacy project could not have been developed successfully without fully understanding the targeted community the program was aimed for. Fortunately, our communication with the site liaison at HBPL was very effective. The fact that the library was just as excited about this program as we were facilitated enthusiasm, effectiveness, and collaboration in fully understanding both the environment of learning for the patrons as well as diverse frames of reference the patrons would be demonstrating.

Process 2 – Learning New Frames of Reference

Char Booth (2011) says that “learners pay more attention, try harder, and understand more clearly when they see the personal benefit of an instructional scenario or object” (Kindle version, loc. 742). This was an important process behind what modules our group presented. We wanted to attract and engage with the use of simple language (ease of understanding clearly), presenting fun activities (all activities were to encourage personal interests and applications), and offering examples of additional applications for those who wanted to explore a module/technology even further.  It is no surprise that the JobScout Module was so well liked by the patrons! The program solidifies the benefit of prior learning (emails and search engines) while presenting a much needed online resource for creating resumes, searching for jobs, and applying and tracking applications. The JobScout Module also encouraged participation through the use of digital badges as motivators for learning. Patrons benefited from immediate personal gratification by achieving a new badge while also achieving more long-term benefits of learning job searching and application skills.

Process 3 – Transforming Points of View

While the engagement of exercises and the development of new learning has transformed the points of views of the HBPL patrons in their experience and comfort in using new technologies, the biggest impact on transforming points of view, in my opinion, for this project is demonstrated through the staff’s perspective…

”This has been such a beneficial project for us! Of course I had the idealized picture of everyone moving from module to module each week with no problems and I have had to adjust, but people are really learning a lot and we are learning how to do this type of project with our students. I think this will be a huge help overall to our program and to our students. It is just taking a lot of patience.”

Amy Crepeau, Huntington Beach Public Library

Where our target was presenting Learning 2.0 programs to HBPL patrons, transformative points of view became evident in library staff who led the program. They too had to realize the unique learning needs of their patrons, the opportunities and disadvantages of attempting a Learning 2.0 program both as a collective class experience as well as an individual learning experience, and the value of being open to change and flexibility to make learning effective. Ironically, these same lessons were learned by us – the Literacy and Students Learning 2.0 group – throughout the program.

Process 4 – Transforming Habits of the Mind

The further process of transforming habits of the mind is individualistic for the patrons, tutors, and even staff at HBPL. Just as valuable are the transforming habits of the mind that occurred during our group’s own learning. We learned that teaching needs to be flexible, assessments are critical to evaluate learning outcomes, and learning needs to be centered on the user’s individual engagement and experience.

“Links to Literacy”: Project and Module Links

Links to Literacy:
Email Module:
Searching Module:
JobScout Module:
Facebook Module:
Tumblr Module:
Pinterest Module:
YouTube Module:


Booth, C. (2011) Reflective Teaching, Effective Learning. American Library Association: Chicago.

Mezirow, J. (1997), Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 74, p 5-12.Retrieved from

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. CreateSpace: Charleston, SC.

Wiggins, G., & McTigue, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd Edition).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


elaineElaine Hall is a MLIS student at San Jose State University studying and working in the field of Library and Information Science with special focus on research, academic libraries, and information technology.

23 Mobile Things: Join the Australian / New Zealand Course

I am super excited about this – just heard from Mylee Joseph that 500 AUS/NZ new professionals have signed up.  This is free learning folks created by library folk!

So what is the NZ/Australian Cohort for 23 Mobile Things all about?  Read on.

What are the 23 Mobile Things?

  1. Twitter
  2. Taking a photo with a mobile device:  Instagram / Flickr app / Snapchat
  3. eMail on the move
  4. Maps and checking in: Foursquare
  5. Photos + Maps + Apps: Historypin / What was there / Sepia Town
  6. Video: YouTube and screencasts
  7. Communicate: Skype / Google Hangout
  8. Calendar
  9. QR codes
  10. Social reading: RSS / Flipboard / Feedly / Goodreads / Pocket
  11. Augmented reality: Layar
  12. Games: Angry Birds / Wordfeud
  13. Online identity: FaceBook and LinkedIn
  14. Curating: Pinterest / / Tumblr
  15. Adobe ID
  16. eBooks and eBook apps: Project Gutenberg / Kindle / Overdrive / Bluefire / Kobo, etc.
  17. Evernote and Zotero
  18. Productivity tools: Doodle / Remember the Milk / Hackpad / /  30/30
  19. File sharing: Dropbox
  20. Music: / Spotify
  21. Voice interaction and recording
  22. eResources vendor apps
  23. Digital storytelling

You can view the 23 Mobile Things on the official blog here –

What is this NZ/Australian cohort all about?

simple; it is just establishing a group of librarians in NZ and Australia who are keen to do the 23 Mobile Things at the same time. This cohort will give us mutual support and contact with each other so that we can learn together and keep each other motivated. Hopefully it will help you grow your own personal learning network (PLN) and have fun and great collaborations throughout the course!

#transtech Learning 2.0 Programs this Semester

In my Library Journal column “Office Hours,” I explored the concept of learning everywhere.  Here’s a snip:

This semester, I’m teaching a new class based on Mezirow’s concepts of transformative learning, the work of Char Booth in the arena of user instruction, and the Learning 2.0 model…. We’re working with consultant Polly-Alida Farrington, who teamed up three groups of my students with two libraries and a school library consortium in New York State. Over the course of our 15-week semester, each group is adapting, designing, and running a “mini-23 Things” for its assigned organization.

It’s been a fun, chaotic, and messy experience. In our weekly group chats online, the mantra has become “Learn by doing….” Real-world messiness offers a level of experience unmatched by classroom activities. This high-tech/high-touch experience sets the students on course for getting jobs and taking on future projects.

Well, the learning continues with the third semester I’ve taught #transtech. We’ve partnered with some great libraries this spring. The students share a link and a blurb about their programs below:

East Greenbush Community Library

This site is for the staff of East Greenbush Community Library in Albany, NY. The library came to us with a specific list of emerging technology tools that they were interested in learning about. From this we have developed an 8 week curriculum. As an added bonus, East Greenbush will be offering continuing education credits to participating staff members. We have 23 participants.
Washington University Library in St. Louis

The Learning Hub 2.0 site was created for librarians at Washington University in St. Louis in the spring 2013. These librarians submitted a list of requested emergent technologies that they were interested in exploring.  Our student group then created 7 learning modules including: Web Marketing, Data Gathering, Online Instruction, eBook Management, Online Chat, Online Collections, and Data Visualization. The participant librarians at WUSL have been exploring these emergent tools and exploring how they can be useful in their institution.

Huntington Beach Public Library

Family Literacy Program

The “Links to Literacy” Learning 2.0 program is designed for use by library staff, tutors, and the diverse community at the Huntington Beach Public Library. We have created 7 modules targeted for this diverse community – many whom have limited education, limited access to computers, speak English as a second language, and need to develop computer skills such as setting up emails, using a search engine, finding and applying for jobs online, and connecting socially. The program has been utilized by patrons with the assistance of tutors who also teach English as a second language. Most fascinating, in addition to learning about the 7 modules, these patrons are opting to perform (ie set up email and corresponding in English) these modules in English extending their overall educational experience.


All of the learning modules will be archived at our Learning 2.0 module site by the end of the term: