Evaluation of ILEAD 2014 - UIS...December evaluating the ILEAD experience. (Copies of all four...

CENTER FOR STATE POLICY AND LEADERSHIP 1

Evaluation of ILEAD 2014 Center for State Policy and Leadership

University of Illinois Springfield February 2015

ILEAD is a program of the Illinois State Library (ISL) to train librarians in the use of participatory technologies, commonly referred to as Web 2.0 (and now beyond). Since 2010 when it began, ILEAD has trained four cohorts of Illinois librarians, including one year, 2013, when librarians from four other states participated as well. The most recent Illinois cohort occurred in 2014, and they are the subject of this report. In the ILEAD model, librarians learn about participatory technologies by serving on small teams of up to five librarians, typically from two to three different libraries. Each team develops a project using one or more of these technologies, and the teams learn about relevant technologies principally through participating in three in-person training conferences held at different times during the nine-month duration of the program. Each team is assigned a mentor, usually a seasoned librarian, who is available to provide guidance and troubleshoot issues. Each team also interacts with one or more non-librarian representatives from their community to help provide a patron perspective. In 2014, 34 librarians served on 7 different teams and 33 consented to participate in the evaluation of the program. Participants were asked to complete four surveys: 1) a baseline survey in January-February of basic demographic characteristics, job experiences, and preliminary project team activities; 2) a survey in April-May of perceptions of project team functioning and learning and use of content from the first in-person training conference in March; 3) a survey in August-September of project team functioning and learning and use of content from the second in-person training conference in June; and 4) a final survey in November-December evaluating the ILEAD experience. (Copies of all four survey instruments can be found in the appendix.) Mentors also completed a baseline survey as well as surveys in April-May and August-September asking for their perceptions of team learning and use of training content. The same schedule of surveys has been used in the evaluation of all ILEAD cohorts, although the specific questions have changed some over time.

Participant Baseline Characteristics

Participants in this fourth Illinois cohort were somewhat older than the previous three cohorts. They were older chronologically by about a decade and also had been librarians longer by three to four years. Table 1: Demographic Characteristics

Demographic Characteristics Illinois 2014

Illinois 2013 Illinois

Cohort 2 Illinois

Cohort 1

Years of experience as librarian (median) 10.0 7.0 6.0 6.0

Years with current employer (median) 7.0 4.0 6.0 3.5

Years in current position (median) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

Median age 40 to 49 30 to 39 30 to 39 30 to 39

Percent who supervise others 50.0 45.5% 62.2% 51.3%

Mean number supervised 4.0 8.0 7.5 8.2


ILEAD 2014

Percent female 85.0 84.0% 75.7% 92.3%

Mean length of time have known other team members (in years)

1.2 1.5 1.0 0.5

Percent with Master's degree or above 94.0 89.0% 81.1%

While the percent who were supervisors did not differ much from prior cohorts, the mean or average number of staff they supervised was about half the average number supervised by participants in the earlier cohorts. The percentages of participants working at different types of libraries were similar to prior cohorts, except for the noticeably smaller percentage in the 2014 cohort working at public libraries. Table 2: Types of Library Where Work

Library Type Illinois 2014


Cohort 2 Illinois

Cohort 1

Public 56.5% 77.3% 67.6% 69.2%

School 21.7% 31.8% 18.9% 12.8%

Academic 34.8% 29.5% 35.1% 53.8%

Specialty 13.0% 20.5% 21.6% 23.1%

Other 8.7% 9.1% 8.1% 17.1%

The baseline survey asked participants to indicate how much independence or interdependence they have in their job and to rate themselves on group skills, attributes that might be important to ILEAD project team functioning. Table 3: Job Characteristics

Job Characteristics (median scores) 1= High, 7 = Low

Illinois 2014


Cohort 2 Illinois

Cohort 1

Extent to which current job calls for independence

2.3 2.5 2.5 2.8

Extent to which current job calls for interdependence

3.0 2.2 2.0 2.3

Level of group skills 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5

For job independence and group skills, the ratings differed little from the three prior cohorts, with independence relatively high and group skills close to the midpoint of the 7-point range with 1 being high and 7 being low. As for job interdependence, the ratings, while on the high side of the scale, were not as high as those given by preceding cohorts.


ILEAD 2014

The baseline survey asked participants questions designed to measure their motivation to perform and learn. A strong performance orientation means that one is motivated by external recognition, while a strong learning orientation means that one is motivated by an intrinsic desire for mastery. These two types of motivation are not mutually exclusive; a person can have a lot, a little, or some other mix of both. ILEAD captures both orientations: the performance associated with completing team projects and the learning associated with assimilating content from training. The 2014 group reported a performance orientation about at the average for the three earlier cohorts and a slightly stronger learning orientation than these earlier groups. Table 4: Participants’ Motivations

Motivation (median scores) 1 = Strong, 7 = Weak

Illinois 2014


Cohort 2 Illinois

Cohort 1

Strength of performance orientation 2.0 3.2 1.5 2.0

Strength of learning orientation 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.0

Participants were asked questions about the extent of preliminary activities by their project team prior to the first in-person training conference. Table 5: Preliminary Project Team Activity

Preliminary Project Team Activities Illinois 2014


Cohort 2

Percent saying team has met in person 44.0% 41.0% 35.1%

Percent saying team has met online or by conference call

65.0% 80.0% 64.9%

Frequency of communication among members (median response)

Once a week

Every other week

Every other week

Percent saying project team has selected a goal 88.0% 71.0% 56.8%

Team goal specified so clearly that all members should know exactly what trying to accomplish (median scores). 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

3.0 4.0 3.0

There were a couple of differences with the two previous cohorts asked the same questions. First, the 2014 cohort participants reported having communicated more often – once a week instead of every other week. Second, a noticeably higher percentage said their team had already selected goal, a level that has increased consistently over time. Lastly, the baseline survey sought to measure participants’ perception of their skills with common Web 2.0 technologies. While these are not necessarily the technologies covered in the in-person training conferences, they provide a rough way to gauge comfort levels with the general subject matter participants work with during ILEAD.


ILEAD 2014

Table 6: Confidence with Web 2.0 Technologies

Web 2.0 Technologies (median scores) 1 = High self-efficacy, 7 = Low self-efficacy

Illinois 2014


Cohort 2 Illinois

Cohort 1

Blogging tools 2.5 3.8 2.0 3.5

Digital/audio podcasting 5.0 4.0 4.0 6.0

Digital photography 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0

Gaming 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Instant messaging 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

Photo-sharing websites 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

RSS feeds 3.5 2.5 2.0 3.0

Social bookmarking 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Social networking 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.0

Tagging 3.5 3.0 4.0 5.0

Videoconferencing 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

Virtual referencing 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0

Web conferencing 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

Wikis 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

Overall Web 2.0 self-efficacy at baseline 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.3

There is little variation in Web 2.0 self-efficacy across the four Illinois cohorts. With the exceptions of digital/audio podcasting and gaming, participants’ ratings are all on the side of the scale indicating higher rather than lower self-efficacy. Also, there are no notable differences (i.e., two scale points or more) between the 2014 group and the earlier groups. As noted at the beginning, mentors also were asked to complete a baseline survey. All of the questions are the same as those included in the participant survey, except for the section on preliminary team activity, which is excluded from the mentor survey because mentors were not familiar with their team at that point. As with previous cohorts, the 2014 mentors were: 1) somewhat older and more experienced as librarians than the participants; 2) more likely to be supervisors and to supervise, on average, more people; and 3) more likely to report slightly higher group skills. Unlike the earlier cohorts, this group of mentors was more male than female. Their reports of job independence/interdependence, performance/mastery orientations, and Web 2.0 self-efficacy were similar to those of participants and of prior cohorts.

Learning and Use of Training Content The spring, fall, and final surveys all asked participants to evaluate the previous in-person training conference – the March conference for the spring survey, the June conference for the fall survey, and the


ILEAD 2014

October conference for the final survey. In the spring and fall surveys, participants answered three questions about the content of each of the conference sessions they attended: how much did you learn, how much has your team used that content, and how much have you personally used that content. In the final survey, participants were asked only about their learning from the preceding conference, since by this point projects were essentially completed, making the use questions largely inapplicable. Also, the learning question for the third in-person conference differed substantively from the learning question used in the spring and fall surveys. Respondents to the final survey were not asked how much they learned from the third conference but about their confidence in being able to teach others what they learned from that conference. Thus, the question was more like the one posed in the baseline survey regarding self-efficacy with Web 2.0. This was done as well with the cohort in 2013. (Note that for the first Illinois cohort rating the in-person training conferences did not occur until after the second conference that year, and judging learning from the third in-person conference did not become part of the evaluation until the 2013 cohort.) Table 7: Learning and Use of Training Content

Learning and Use of Training Content (median scores) 1 = A lot, 7 = Not at all

Illinois 2014


Cohort 2 Illinois

Cohort 1

How much did you learn?

First in-person program 2.5 4.1 2.0

Second in-person program 2.3 2.9 3.0 2.7

Third in-person program 3.0 3.8

How much has team used?



How much have you used?



Overall, the 2014 cohort has the highest self-reported scores for learning and team and personal use of training content of any of the Illinois cohorts. Throughout the young history of ILEAD, the second in-person training program in June has received the highest ratings from participants, and 2014 was no exception. However, the first in-person training program has tended to be a mixed bag. It did well on learning in the second Illinois cohort but not so well on team and personal use that year, and received mediocre ratings across the board in 2013. Not so for the recently completed cohort in 2014, where all three ratings of the first in-person training experience – learning, team use, and personal use – skewed in a distinctively positive direction.


ILEAD 2014

The improvements in team and personal use are particularly noteworthy, suggesting the possibility that in 2014 training content may have been better aligned with team and participant needs and interests. There’s no hard evidence to support this possibility in the evaluation data. None of the variables measured in the baseline survey predicted participants’ ratings of the first in-person training, and none of the variables in the baseline survey and spring survey predicted ratings’ of the second in-person conference. The only rating predicted was of learning from the third in-person conference, which was associated with how strongly participants identified with their team at the time of the fall survey. Caution should be used in making too much of the lack of variables in the evaluation predicting assessments of team and personal use of training content. The number of participants involved was small for purposes of statistical analysis, making it difficult to detect potential influences on their judgments of training activities. And the evaluation cannot, as a practical matter, measure all potentially influential variables. The simple fact is that scores for the value of the training conferences were the highest yet in the 2014 cohort. It should be noted, however, that even with this most recent cohort, there were, as there has been with previous cohorts, some participants who indicated in open-ended comments in the surveys concern about training content not being more finely calibrated to team project needs. This likely arises from the fact that projects are often still being defined when training curricula have to be finalized. ILEAD structures its conferences to account for a wide range of needs, but there may be a limit to how much can be done to accommodate the evolving needs of projects within the time span provided.

Team Functioning Because teams are central to the ILEAD experience, how they function is an important part of the evaluation. Much of the learning that participants do occurs through or in direct relation with their team. Although completing the team project during the nine-months of the program is not a requirement and teams are told at the outset to put more emphasis on the journey than the destination, bringing the project to fruition is an unavoidable expectation for all teams. So, how team members work together on their projects matters. Team Direction and Structure The spring and fall surveys asked participants questions about the direction and structure of the team, since these are aspects that need to be addressed intentionally and early to get the work of the team accomplished. Table 8: Team Direction and Structure

Team Direction and Structure (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014

Spring

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013

Spring

Illinois 2013 Fall

Illinois Cohort 2

Spring

Illinois Cohort 2

Fall

Illinois Cohort 1

Fall


ILEAD 2014

Team goal is specified so clearly that all members should know exactly what team is trying to accomplish.

2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5

What team is supposed to accomplish is clear.*

1.0 2.0 2.0 5.5

Goals and priorities of team are clear enough.*

2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

Conflicting priorities do not exist on the team.*

2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 5.0

Individual roles on team are very clear and we don't stray from them.

4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

There is a clear team leader who guides what we do.

2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

Team follows a very structured work schedule.

4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0

Members assigned to tasks commensurate with their knowledge and skills.

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

Team has a good map of each other's talents and skills.

2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0

Members know what skills and knowledge they each possess relevant to team goal.*

2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0

Team comes up with innovative ways of proceeding.

2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0

Team does not have a great deal of difficulty carrying out plans.*

2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0


ILEAD 2014

Overall median for team direction/structure

2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3 4.0 2.0 2.5

* In the actual surveys, these items are phrased negatively. For example, “What team is supposed to accomplish is clear,” is written in the surveys as

“What team is supposed to accomplish remains unclear.” The items have been phrased positively here in order to make it easier to understand the data in the table, and the numerical scores have been adjusted accordingly (e.g., on the 7-point scale, a 6 becomes a 2 and a 2 becomes a 6).

While the actual items in the surveys have changed some over time, they are largely the same. They show that the 2014 cohort, in both the spring and fall surveys, perceived the direction and structure of their teams mostly in a very positive way, and more positively than previous cohorts. Although the ratings are more positive, the pattern of responses in 2014 was very similar to previous evaluations. Items that the 2014 participants agreed with, for the most part, were also items that earlier participants agreed with. And items where agreement was weaker in 2014, namely, the two most strongly worded team structure items – very clear roles that members don’t stray from and a very structured work schedule – were items that also attracted weak agreement in all three preceding cohorts. It stands to reason that a tight structure, which requires more rather than less coordination, would be difficult to establish in short-lived project teams with fairly infrequent interaction. And the similar ratings on this dimension for ILEAD across time confirm that. Perception of team structure was also addressed through two other sets of questions in the spring and fall surveys. One set of questions asked participants each time to characterize their role on the team. Table 9: Member Roles on Team

Member Roles on Team (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree,

7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014

Spring

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013

Spring

Illinois 2013 Fall

Illinois Cohort 2

Spring

Illinois Cohort 2

Fall

I am responsible for particular tasks.

2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0

Every member of team has same role.

4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0

I am on team to represent my library.

3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

I am on team because of my particular expertise.

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0

I am on team to learn more about Web 2.0.

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

The spring and fall evaluations of the 2014 cohort look very similar to evaluations from the previous cohorts, with two modest, albeit interesting, exceptions. Agreement with the item “Every member of team has same role” improved by one point on the seven-point scale between spring and fall. Normally, one would expect lower or no change in agreement on this as time induces teams to divide up the work in order to make progress in completing their project. This was the pattern in previous cohorts. In the space provided for open-ended comments in the 2014 spring and fall surveys, there were indications that some participants took “every member having the same role” to mean every member having an equal role, which is a desirable objective. Consistent with this are the ratings in Table 8 showing a one-point decline in agreement that that the team has a clear leader.


ILEAD 2014

Likewise, between the spring and fall surveys, 2014 participants were slightly more likely to agree that they were on the team to represent the library where they work. Open-ended comments suggest that this perception may reflect increasing attention over time, by at least some participants, to how the team project would or would not benefit their own library. The other set of questions on team structure divides the concept of structure into different elements to see if participants’ perceptions vary across those elements. In other words, are participants clearer about some elements and less clear about others? Table 10: Clarity about Work of Team

Clarity about Work of Team (median scores) 1 = Very clear

7 = Not clear at all

Illinois 2014

Spring

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013

Spring

Illinois 2013 Fall

Illinois Cohort 2

Spring

Illinois Cohort 2

Fall

Each of the tasks that need to be accomplished.

2.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0

Dividing up time among tasks.

3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

What each member personally responsible for doing.

2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0

When each task will be completed.

3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0

What constitutes success.

3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0

Criteria used to evaluating final team product.

4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0

What final output of team will look like.

3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

Overall median for clarity about work

3.0 2.8 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

The 2014 responses on these items at both time points were very similar to previous cohorts, and mostly indicated positive levels of clarity. There was a small, but still evident, tendency for clarity to increase between the spring and fall surveys, which is what one would expect and happened with both the 2013 cohort and Illinois cohort two. Commitment and Team Cohesion Two other important aspects of team functioning are member commitment to the team and how well members get along. These aspects might naturally pose challenges in the ILEAD context, where teams are temporary and members may have little to no familiarity with one another beforehand.


ILEAD 2014

Member commitment was measured in the spring and fall surveys by asking participants how much time they have spent on ILEAD, how much of a priority it is for them, and their sense of the extent to which it conflicts with their other job responsibilities. Table 11: Member Commitment

Commitment to Team and ILEAD

Illinois 2014

Spring

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013

Spring

Illinois 2013 Fall

Illinois Cohort 2

Spring

Illinois Cohort 2

Fall

Illinois Cohort 1

Fall

Time given to ILEAD since last training (median scores)

1-2 hours/wk

1-2 hours/wk

1-2 hours/wk

1-2 hours/wk

1-2 hours/wk

1-2 hours/wk

1-2 hours/wk

Priority of ILEAD for you 1 = High priority, 7 = Low priority

3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

Extent to which your other responsibilities have conflicted with ILEAD 1 = A lot, 7 = Not at all

4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

The time that participants report giving to ILEAD has been the same since the beginning, one to two hours per week. And the priority they accord it has been always relatively high, although the priority ratings by the 2014 cohort were by a small degree the least high to date. The 2014 cohort’s spring evaluation of conflict between ILEAD and other job responsibilities was the lowest yet, at the mid-point of the seven-point scale. However, perceived conflict increased by a point in the fall survey, just as it did in the 2013 cohort. This last finding suggests that the work on team projects probably intensifies or at least is felt to intensify in the home stretch leading to the end of the program in October. The spring and fall surveys asked participants for their reactions to items that measure team cohesion and how members treat one another. Table 12: Team Cohesion

Team Cohesion (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014

Spring

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013

Spring

Illinois 2013 Fall

Illinois Cohort 2

Spring

Illinois Cohort 2

Fall

Illinois Cohort 1

Fall

Would feel guilty if left team now.

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Team has a great deal of personal meaning to me.

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0

Would not leave team because I have sense of obligation to it.

2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


ILEAD 2014

Members have to depend heavily on one another to get work done.

3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

Feel strong sense of belonging to team.*

2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Members are not too dissimilar to work together well.*

1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

Team handles differences of opinion, not privately or offline, but rather, directly.*

3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

Team goal of great consequence for those we serve.

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Overall median for team cohesion

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5

* In the actual surveys, these items are phrased negatively. For example, “Feel strong sense of belonging to team,” is written in the surveys as “Do

not feel a strong sense of belonging to team.” The items have been phrased positively here in order to make it easier to understand the data in the table and the numerical scores adjusted accordingly.

By and large, 2014 cohort members perceived the cohesion and behavior of their team favorably. Indeed, team cohesion has been consistently the most positive dimension of team functioning throughout ILEAD. The only chinks in this armor have been somewhat less positive ratings in the fall surveys of the items pertaining to members depending heavily on one another and not handling differences of opinion among members directly. And these ratings may be due largely to the ILEAD design, in which team member interactions may be too infrequent to support strong interdependencies and the development of norms for handling disagreement. Since cohort two, participants have also been asked to evaluate the importance to themselves and their teams of direction, structure, and belonging. Judgments of importance provide a more precise measure of the intensity of people’s perceptions. Table 13: Importance of Direction, Structure, and Belonging

Importance of Key Aspects of Team (median scores) 1 = Very important, 7 = Not at all important

Illinois 2014

Spring

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013

Spring

Illinois 2013 Fall

Illinois Cohort 2

Spring

Illinois Cohort 2

Fall

Importance to you personally that team accomplishes its goal.

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0

Importance to your team that it accomplishes its goal.

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0


ILEAD 2014

Importance to you personally that roles and responsibilities on team are clear.

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Important to your team that roles and responsibilities are clear.

2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Importance to you personally that you have sense of belonging to team.

1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Importance to team that every member have sense of belonging.

1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Generally, ratings of importance have been consistently high across cohorts, across dimensions of team functioning, and between one’s personal rating and one’s view of the team’s rating. The highest ratings, although not by much, belong to the 2014 cohort. Ratings have tended to be slightly higher for the importance of the team goal and the importance of belonging than for the importance of role clarity. This lends further support to the observation made above that in the ILEAD context, structure may not be quite as salient to participants as team direction and cohesion. Team Communications The team orientation of ILEAD places a premium on good communication among team members. The spring and fall surveys provided participants with a list of communication modes and asked them to judge each mode in terms of its frequency and helpfulness. Table 14: Frequency of Communications

Frequency of Communications (median scores) 1 = Very often, 7 = Not at all

Illinois 2014

Spring

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013

Spring

Illinois 2013 Fall

Illinois Cohort 2

Spring

Illinois Cohort 2

Fall

Email 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Electronic meetings 6.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 3.0 4.0

Teleconferencing 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0

Videoconferencing 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

One-on-one phone calls 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 4.0

File sharing 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

Voicemail 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0

Face-to-face meetings 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

The reported frequencies of different modes have been, by and large, consistent across cohorts and between the fall and spring surveys. Email has been the mode used most often followed by file sharing and face-to-facing meetings. Least used have been electronic meetings, teleconferencing, videoconferencing,


ILEAD 2014

and voicemail, although electronic meetings did get somewhat more use by the second cohort. One-on-one phone calls had a moderate level of use by the second cohort as well, but since then they have been used less by participants and had the second lowest use ratings in the 2014 cohort. Table 15: Helpfulness of Communications

Helpfulness of Communications (median scores) 1 = Very helpful, 7 = Not at all helpful

Illinois 2014

Spring

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013

Spring

Illinois 2013 Fall

Illinois Cohort 2

Spring

Illinois Cohort 2

Fall

Email 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Electronic meetings 4.0 4.0 7.0 6.0 2.0 2.0

Teleconferencing 6.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0

Videoconferencing 5.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 3.5 3.0

One-on-one phone calls 6.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0

File sharing 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

Voicemail 6.5 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 3.0

Face-to-face meetings 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Assessments of the helpfulness of the different modes of communication were mixed for the most recent cohort. As with previous cohorts, the three most frequently used methods – email, file sharing, and face-to-face meetings – were also rated as the most helpful. Less helpful were teleconferencing, videoconferencing, and voicemail. Phone calls were not regarded as particularly helpful in the spring 2014 survey, but became moderately helpful by the fall survey. In the two earlier cohorts, though phone calls were not used a lot, they were still perceived as more rather than less helpful. Team Capability The remaining dimension of team functioning to be evaluated, team capability, gets at beliefs about the suitability of the skills and knowledge of team members. Because it takes time for members to get to know the talents of their colleagues, team capability has only been measured in the fall survey. Table 16: Team Capability

Team Capability (median scores)

1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree Illinois

2014 Fall Illinois 2013

Fall Illinois

Cohort 2 Fall

Members have more than enough talent and experience for our goal.

2.0 2.0 2.0

Members have knowledge and skills needed to do their part.*

2.0 2.0 2.0

Information and knowledge available to team has been more than adequate.

2.0 2.0 3.0

Everyone on team has the special skills needed. 2.0 2.0 3.0


ILEAD 2014

Team has a broad enough range of experiences and perspectives.*

1.0 2.0 2.0

Team has nearly an ideal mix of members. 2.0 2.0 2.0

Overall median for team capability 2.0 2.0 2.0

* In the actual surveys, these items are phrased negatively. For example, “Members have knowledge and skills needed to do their part,” is written in

the surveys as “Some members do not have knowledge and skills needed to do their part.” The items have been phrased positively here in order to make it easier to understand the data in the table, and numerical scores have been adjusted accordingly.

The 2014 cohort gave high marks to their team capability by the fall, similar to the ratings of the two previous cohorts. Predictors of Team Functioning Conducting surveys at different points in time during the operation of ILEAD affords an opportunity not only to see how team functioning changes (or not), but to evaluate what may be affecting how teams do. Variables addressed in the baseline survey can be examined to see if they are associated with team functioning in the spring and fall surveys, and variables addressed in the spring survey can be examined to see if they are related to the team functioning as measured in the fall survey. Methods Two statistical methods are used to evaluate these relationships. First, since the surveys contain large numbers of items, factor analysis is used to reduce these items to a smaller number of factors (groupings of related items), with each factor measuring a more general construct. For example, the baseline survey asks respondents to evaluate eight different items pertaining to their performance and learning motivations. The correlations among these responses are then analyzed to see which, if any items, group together and can be interpreted to measure the same underlying construct. So far, in all four ILEAD evaluations, factor analysis of the responses to the motivation section in the baseline survey has shown that the performance items fit together, as do the learning items, thus allowing the eight items to be reduced to two factors. Factor analysis has permitted the items in every survey for every cohort to be reduced to a smaller number of factors, which then makes further statistical analysis more tractable. The other statistical method used to assess influences on team functioning is linear regression. This allows for identifying an outcome measure – for example, team capability in the fall survey, determining the correlations between this outcome and earlier variables from the baseline and spring surveys, and then evaluating which of the correlations is most predictive of the outcome. While linear regression is not ideal for evaluating ILEAD given the small number of participants in most cohorts and the use of mostly ordinal survey items, it makes relationships among variables easier to see and interpret than other methods. In earlier ILEAD evaluations, analyses using linear regression were compared with the same analyses using ordinal regression, and each method generally found the same relationships. So, for ease of presentation, liner regression has been used in examining the data from the 2014 evaluation.


ILEAD 2014

Team Functioning in the Spring Factor analysis of the responses to the spring survey identified the following relevant factors related to team functioning. Note that while there is some consistency between these factors and the factors that the survey was intended to measure (as shown in the tables above), the alignment is not precise.

Team Wherewithal – Consists of a subset of the survey items measuring team direction (e.g., team goal is so challenging have to stretch to accomplish it) and structure (e.g., members assigned to tasks commensurate with their knowledge and skills). This factor includes several items that were framed negatively in the survey (e.g., conflicting priorities exist on the team). In a sense, team wherewithal in the spring survey seemed to capture the preliminary conditions needed for the development of team capability later on.

Team Belonging – Consists of a subset of the survey items measuring feelings about being on the team (e.g., would feel guilty if I left my team now.).

Identification with the Work of the Team – Consists of a combination of two structure items – having clear roles and a clear team leader – and a direction item – having a consequential team goal. This factor seemed to represent early belief in the importance of the team. The connection between having a clear leader and a consequential goal has been found in previous ILEAD evaluations.

General Member Role – Perceiving that every member of the team has the same role and is on the team to present her/his library and learn about Web 2.0.

Specialized Member Role – Perceiving that on the team because of one’s particular expertise and to do particular tasks.

None of the variables from the baseline survey, when plugged into regression equations, predicted any of these spring team factors. This is likely a function of the small sample size, since there are some noteworthy correlations between baseline variables and spring team factors:

Team wherewithal in the spring was associated with affirmative responses to the baseline survey questions about the team having already met in person (r=.401, p=.007) and selected a project goal (r=.444, p=.018). In other words, participants who perceived their team to have its act together before the first in-person conference were more likely to judge their team to have its act together a few months later.

Team belonging in the spring was associated with participants’ level of agreement with the baseline survey statement about the clarity of the team goal (r=.575, p=.003). This suggests that by the time of the spring survey, participants who felt good about being on their team also perceived their team goal as being clear from the outset. Note that this does not mean the goal was actually clear, only that they saw it that way.

Perceiving oneself to have a general role on the team was associated with three items from the baseline survey: less frequent communication among team members (r=-.461, p=.012); level of job independence (r=.417, p=.024), and lower self-efficacy with Web 2.0 (r=-.484, p=.008).


ILEAD 2014

Perceiving oneself to have a specialized role on the team was associated with identifying oneself as a supervisor in the baseline survey (r=.389, p=.037).

Team Functioning in the Fall Factor analysis of the responses to the fall survey identified the following factors measuring team functioning. As with the factors from the spring survey, these factors are largely, but not completely, consistent, with the factor structure the survey was designed to examine.

Clarity on what to do and how – Consisting of clarity about tasks that need to be completed, how the team should divide the work, the tasks for which the participant is responsible, and when tasks are to be completed.

Team competence – Consisting of a combination of items representing team direction (e.g., conflicting priorities exist), structure (e.g., team members have a good map of each other’s skills), and capability (e.g., members have more than enough talent). Most of the items in this factor capture team capability.

Identification with the Team – Consisting of a combination of items representing team cohesion (e.g., would not leave team because have sense of obligation to it), direction (e.g., team goal is specified very clearly), and capability (e.g., nearly ideal mix of members). Most of the items in this factor measure team cohesion.

Team structure – Consisting of two items, the team having a very structured work schedule and members having to depend heavily on one another.

Regressions identified the following predictors of each of these factors measuring team functioning in the fall:

Clarity on what to do and how in the fall was predicted by clarity on what to do and how in the spring (β=.366, p=.045) and priority given to ILEAD in the spring (β=.382, p=.034). These two variables accounted for 59 percent of the variance in the clarity factor.1

Team competence in the fall was predicted by strength of learning orientation in the baseline survey (β=.318, p=.040) and by having a more specialized role on the team in the spring survey (β=.495, p=.002). These two variables accounted for 46 percent of the variance in the team competence factor.2

Identification with the team was predicted by Web 2.0 self-efficacy at baseline (β=.450, p=.007), identification with the work of the team in the spring (β=.379, p=.018), and team cohesion in the spring (β=.320, p=.044). These three variables accounted for 47 percent of the variance in the fall identification factor.

Team structure was predicted by the how clear one perceived the team goal to be at baseline (β=.506, p=.010). This variable accounted for 33 percent of the variance in team structure. 3

1 Regression equation that produced this variance also included one statistically non-significant variable, average learning by participants from the

first in-person training. 2 Regression equation that produced this variance also included one statistically non-significant variable, average learning by participants from the

first in-person training. 3 Regression equation that produced this variance also included one statistically non-significant variable, the level of priority accorded ILEAD at the

time of the spring survey.


ILEAD 2014

Evaluation of the ILEAD Experience

The final survey, which occurred about month after the last in-person training conference, asked participants to assess both their team and their overall ILEAD experience, about the support they received for their participation from the library where they work, and about the effects of their team project. Team Functioning Participants indicated their strength of agreement with several items intended to measure perceptions of the team’s effectiveness. This section of the final survey included a mix of items from previous final surveys and items from the fall survey. The latter items were added to see whether perceptions of team effectiveness changed over the final three months of participation. Effectiveness was defined to cover team direction, structure, and capability. Table 17: Team Effectiveness

Team Effectiveness (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014 Final

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013 Final

Illinois Cohort 2

Final

Illinois Cohort 1

Final

One of the most effective teams on which I have ever served.

2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0

Individual roles on team were very clear.

2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

I would not have chosen different team goal.*

1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Members worked very hard to keep one another up to date.

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Team maintained a high standard of work at all times.*

2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

Team goal was especially challenging.*

2.0

Team had more than enough talent and experience for the goal we tried to accomplish.

2.0 2.0

No members lacked the knowledge and skills they needed to do their parts of the team's work.*

2.0 2.0

Team had nearly an ideal mix of members.

2.0 2.0


ILEAD 2014

The information and knowledge available to our project team in pursuing its goal was more than adequate.

3.0 2.0

Team did not have difficulty carrying out its plans.*

2.0

Everyone on the team had the special skills that were needed.

2.0 2.0

Team came up with innovative ways of proceeding.

2.0

Conflicting priorities did not exist on team.*

2.0 2.0

Overall median for effective team

2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

In the actual survey, these items are phrased negatively. For example, “I would not have chosen a different team goal,” is written in the survey as “I would have chosen a different team goal.” The items have been phrased positively here in order to make it easier to understand the data in the table, and numerical scores have been adjusted accordingly. Participants in 2014 rated their team highly on effectiveness, similar to, albeit slightly better than, the earlier cohorts. There was essentially no change for those items in common to the final and fall surveys, except for the clarity of individual roles, which in the final survey had improved by two points on the seven-point scale. This possibly represents the need that may have arisen to specify responsibilities more clearly in order to bring projects to completion or near completion by the final in-person conference. Participants were asked to evaluate how they were treated by the other members of the team and about the general tenor relations on the team. As with team effectiveness, the items on cohesion included some from previous versions of the final survey and a few from the fall survey, with the latter added to see if perceptions of relations changed during the final three months. Table 18: Team Cohesion

Team Cohesion (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014 Final

Illinois 2014 Fall

Illinois 2013 Final

Illinois Cohort 2

Final

Illinois Cohort 1

Final

Most important benefit of ILEAD are relationships I developed.

3.0 3.0 2.0

Team gave me enough opportunities to contribute.*

1.0

1.0 2.0 2.0

Felt other members would not judge me on things I said.*

1.0

1.5 2.0 2.0


ILEAD 2014

Team handles differences of opinion, not privately or offline, but rather, directly.*

3.0 3.0

Members of the team were not too dissimilar to work together well.*

1.0 1.0

How seriously members' ideas were taken on the team did not depend on who the person was but on what they knew.*

2.0

The team had a great deal of personal meaning for me.

1.0 2.0

Liked working together with this team.

2.0 1.0 2.0

Overall median of team cohesion

1.00 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0

In the actual survey, these items are phrased negatively. For example, “Team gave me enough opportunities to contribute,” is written in the survey as “Team did not give me enough opportunities to contribute.” The items have been phrased positively here in order to make it easier to understand the data in the table, and numerical scores have been adjusted accordingly. Overall, the 2014 cohort saw their teams as highly cohesive in the final analysis, slightly more so than previous cohorts. Value of ILEAD The final survey asked participants to look back across their experience with ILEAD and rate its value to them. Table 19: Value of ILEAD

Value of ILEAD (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014 Final

Illinois 2013 Final

Illinois Cohort 2

Final

Illinois Cohort 1 Final

Did not get as much out of ILEAD as I thought I would

6.0 5.0 6.0 5.5

One of the most enjoyable experiences of my career

2.0 2.0 2.0

One of the most useful experiences of my career. 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0

Most important benefit is my increased ability to help library adapt to technological change.

3.5 3.0 2.0

Compared to other learning experiences, ranks among the best.

1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0


ILEAD 2014

Overall median for value of experience 1.50 2.0 2.0 2.0

Consistent with their ratings of their teams, 2014 participants judged the ILEAD experience very positively. And again, their assessments were slightly more favorable than earlier cohorts. Ratings of ILEAD Components The final survey asked participants to evaluate the different groups of people who were tasked with supporting them, including community representatives, instructors, and mentors. Table 20: Ratings of Community Representatives

Ratings of Community Representative Involvement (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014 Final

Illinois 2013 Final

Illinois Cohort 2

Final


Team's community representative(s) involved from the start.

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Did not always make good use of community representative(s).

3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0

Community representative(s) were best possible people given team goal.

3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Community representative(s) got along very well with team.

2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

The assessment of community representatives was, as it has been in previous evaluations, only somewhat positive. The challenge since the start of ILEAD has been to identify a clear role for community representatives in helping teams carry out their projects. There has always been some ambiguity around this role, and that shows in how 2014 participants rated their team’s use of community representatives. It also came up in open-ended comments participants made in the survey. Table 21: Ratings of Instructors

Ratings of Instructors (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014 Final

Illinois 2013 Final

Illinois Cohort 2

Final


Instructors, as a group, were outstanding. 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

Some instructors clearly better than others. 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

Quality of instruction we received could have been much better.

5.5 5.0 5.0

Without what we learned from instructors, our team could not have made as much progress.

2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0

Topics covered by instructors were exactly what team needed.

3.0 2.0 3.0


ILEAD 2014

Instructor provided training that was well aligned with team goal.

3.0 3.0 2.0

The instructors received favorable marks from the 2014 participants, consistent with the finding from previous evaluations. Table 22: Ratings of Mentors

Ratings of Mentors (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014 Final

Illinois 2013 Final

Illinois Cohort 2

Final


Team could not have gotten as far without help from mentor.

4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0

Mentor was always available when needed. 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5

Quality of advice from mentor was uneven. 5.0 6.0 5.5 6.0

Mentor always knew what to do when team had problems.

3.0 2.0 2.5 2.0

In something of a moderate contrast with the assessment of instructors, participant evaluations of their mentors was more mixed and not quite as positive as earlier cohorts. The 2014 mentors were rated favorably for their availability and consistency, but judgments of their ability to help the team were not as high as with past cohorts. Support from Library People could not participate in ILEAD unless the library where they worked agreed to it. Also, the stronger the support from their library, the more likely they would be to have a hospitable environment for using what they learned. The final survey included several items designed to elicit participants’ sense of this support. Table 23: Support from Library

Support from Library (median scores) 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree

Illinois 2014 Final

Illinois 2013 Final

Illinois Cohort 2

Final


Never felt that my participation got in the way of my other work.

3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5

My library gave me all the time I needed to participate.*

1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5

My participation was well-known to my co-workers.

3.0 2.0 1.5 2.0

Everyone in the library where I work was supportive of my participation.

3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

My participation mattered as much to my library as it did to me.*

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

My participation was as beneficial to me personally as professionally.*

3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0


ILEAD 2014

Overall median for support from library 3.0 2.5 2.8 3.3

In the actual survey, these items are phrased negatively. For example, “My library gave me all the time I needed to participate” is written in the survey as “My library did not give me all the time I needed to participate.” The items have been phrased positively here in order to make it easier to understand the data in the table, and numerical scores have been adjusted accordingly. The findings from the survey paint a picture of positive, but not strong support, from participants’ libraries, the same picture that emerged from the previous three evaluations. Although the differences are small, the second to last item in the above table – participation mattered as much to my library as to me – has shown consistent improvement over time, suggesting that libraries may be slowly becoming more embracing of the benefits of ILEAD and what it represents. Impact of Team Projects Previous final surveys did not delve into the status of team projects at the end. For the 2014 survey, a decision was made to add a section of questions that asked participants about the status and impact of their team project. Table 24: Impact of Team Project

Impact of Team Project Illinois

2014 Final

Percent saying team completed its project 63.0%

If project completed, how much are your library patrons benefiting from it? (Median score) 1= A lot, 7= Not at all

1.0

Percent saying impact of project will increase over next 12 months

54.0%

Percent saying if project not complete yet, efforts are being made to finish it

31.0%

If efforts being made to complete project, when it will likely be completed? (Median response)

4-6 months

While these results look promising, there’s no solid basis from prior ILEAD experience for judging whether this level of impact exceeds, meets, or falls short of appropriate expectations. The evaluation of the second Illinois cohort did include a follow-up study of both the second and first cohorts to see if learning continued and projects had a sustained impact. While the specific questions in that study differ from the ones used in the final survey for 2014, they are close to enough to provide a rough basis of comparison. And they show roughly similar findings. The one notable difference, since it was not asked as directly in the earlier study, was the very high score this past year for the benefits of projects to library patrons. Even though this is a highly subjective measure, it provides reason to be encouraged about the value of the projects, not just as learning experiences for team members, but as a source of new value for libraries.


ILEAD 2014

Influences on Final Outcomes Factor analysis of the final survey responses identified factors that can be construed as measures of the outcomes of ILEAD. These outcome factors are described below, along with results from linear regressions showing what variables from earlier surveys influenced them.

Functional team – A combination of cohesion (e.g., team members are not too dissimilar to work together) and effectiveness (e.g., everyone on the team had the special skills needed) items from the final survey, connoting a perception of the team as having been able to operate in a healthy way. This was predicted by a two-variable factor from earlier surveys – how important participants thought their team goal and belonging to the team were in the spring (β=.561, p=.001). It accounted for around 70 percent of the variance in the functional team factor.4 The suggestion here is that believing, early on, in the value of a team’s project (goal) and feeling good about being on the team, perhaps because of that goal, seemed to motivate healthy teamwork for the duration.

Dysfunctional team – A combination of cohesion (e.g., how seriously ideas are taken depended on who you are, not what you know) and effectiveness (e.g., conflicting priorities existed on the team) items from the final survey, connoting a perception of the team as not having had the ability to operate in a healthy way. This outcome was predicted by two variables from earlier surveys – reporting at baseline that the project team had already met in person (β=.393, p=.029) and lack of clarity of what to do and how to do it at the time of the fall survey (β=-.550, p=.011). These variables accounted for roughly 60 percent of the variance in the dysfunctional team factor.5 It’s not obvious why meeting in person at the outset would be positively associated with perceptions of dysfunction at the end. Possibly, it results from early but then lingering troubles on one or two teams that the surveys weren’t able to detect precisely enough. Lack of clarity of about the work of the team by the fall, late in the ILEAD process, could have indicated difficulty getting projects completed well enough by the time of the third in-person training conference, leading to negative perceptions of team functioning as an explanation.

Inadequate Goal – A combination of two items: team’s goal was not especially challenging and team should have chosen a different project goal. This outcome was predicted by two variables from earlier surveys – lack of clarity about the work at the time of the spring survey (β=-.401, p=.015) and lack of team competence at the time of the fall survey (β=-.662, p=.001). These variables accounted for 73 percent of the variance in the inadequate goal factor. 6 The suggestion here, admittedly speculative, is that failure to agree on a compelling goal may have contributed to ambiguity about organizing the work early on, which then led to a sense later on that the team lacked ability to finish the job in the right way.

Patron benefits – A single item from the final survey section on project impact, about how much library patrons were benefiting from the team project. This outcome was predicted by the two-variable factor from the spring survey, how important participants thought their team goal and belonging to the team

4 Regression equation that produced this variance also included two statistically non-significant variables, whether or not a participant was a

supervisor at the time of the baseline survey and having a general role on the team at the time of the fall survey. 5 Regression equation that produced this variance also included one statistically non-significant variable, length of experience as a librarian from the

baseline survey. 6 Regression equation that produced this variance also included one statistically non-significant variable, orientation toward learning from the

baseline survey.


ILEAD 2014

were in the spring (β=.575, p=.003). This variable accounted for around 60 percent of the variance in the patron benefits variable.7

These findings paint perhaps the clearest picture yet of the importance of early conditions in shaping perceptions of ILEAD outcomes. Variables derived from the responses to the baseline or spring survey are involved in each of the predictive analyses just described, while variables from the fall survey are not as well represented. When developed early, a clear direction (achieved through having an attractive project goal), a healthy sense of belonging, and clarity about the work seemed to propel teams through the whole process and to get participants to a point at the end of believing in the value of what their projects produced. The influence of early conditions makes sense. As noted at various points earlier in this report, teams interact infrequently during the course of ILEAD and consist of people who have limited or no history with one another. The relative infrequency of interaction, along with the fact that members’ time is dominated by their non-ILEAD responsibilities, limits the opportunities available to overcome difficulties that may arise in teamwork. This places a premium on starting in the right way, thus minimizing the likelihood of problems. Just as early difficulties may persist because of too few opportunities to correct them, healthy starts may persist for the same reason. All that said, it needs to be emphasized that bad starts for teams appear to be a rarity, even more so in the 2014 cohort than previous pones. Based on open-ended comments provided in the surveys, concerns about team deficiencies are more likely to come from particular individuals than from a team as whole. Project teams are a delicate thing interpersonally, and not every member of a team is going to fit equally well. Personality clashes are a possibility, as are perceptions of some represented libraries getting more from the team project than others. A team member may be in a tenuous job situation or experience emergent job or family demands that make ILEAD less of a priority. These realities happen in all work settings and may simply be slightly magnified in a time-limited project. The challenge always is to keep the problems of individuals from impairing the work of the group unnecessarily. And the ILEAD model has appeared to do a good job of that.

7 Regression equation that produced this variance also included two other statistically non-significant variables, having a specialized role on the team

at the time of the spring survey and reporting being a supervisor in the baseline survey.


ILEAD 2014

Appendix

Survey Instruments


ILEAD 2014

Survey Research Office

One University Plaza; MS HRB 120

University of Illinois Springfield

Springfield, IL 62703-5407

March 5, 2014

Dear ILEAD USA Participant:

Thanks again for participating in the evaluation of ILEAD USA. As you are aware, researchers from the

University of Illinois Springfield are evaluating this year’s program and training. As part of this evaluation, we are

asking that you complete this survey prior to your first training program.

You can participate in this first step of the evaluation in any of the following ways:

You can take the online version of the survey at: http://go.uis.edu/ILEADUSA. You will be prompted for your Project ID number, which is PROJID.

You can complete the brief questionnaire enclosed and return it in a postage-paid return envelope.

You can also fax it to the Survey Research Office at University of Illinois Springfield at (217) 206-7979, Attn: ILEADUSA.

Your responses to this questionnaire are confidential. The project identification number is unique to you and

helps us to maintain the confidentiality of the responses. You can be assured that no individual names will be

used in the reporting of the results. And, you can be assured that all responses will be summarized in a way that

no individual respondent can be identified.

Please note that while your completion of the ILEAD USA survey questionnaire would be greatly appreciated, your completion of it is voluntary. No negative consequences will result from your non-participation in this survey. The risks from participating in this research are no greater than those you might experience in daily life and all of the information you provide to us will be kept confidential. If you have any questions about this research you may contact Ashley Kirzinger, Director of the Survey Research Office by phone at 217-206-7956 or by email at [email protected].

If you have any questions about the project, you can call David Racine of the UIS Institute for Legal, Legislative and Policy Studies (217-206-8417) or Gwen Harrison of the Illinois State Library (217-785-7334).

http://go.uis.edu/

mailto:[email protected]


ILEAD 2014

This research has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Review Officer, Dr. Lynn Pardie who is available to answer any questions about your rights as a volunteer participant in this project. She may be reached at 217-206-6614.

Thank you for your time and participation.

On behalf of the UIS Evaluation Team,

Dr. Ashley Kirzinger

Director, UIS Survey Research Office


ILEAD 2014

You can complete an online version of this questionnaire at

http://go.uis.edu/ILEADUSA


ILEAD 2014

Spring Survey of 2014 ILEAD USA Participants

Conducted by The ILEAD USA Evaluation Group at the University of Illinois Springfield, Institute for Legal, Legislative

and Policy Studies / Survey Research Office, of the Center for State Policy and Leadership.

SECTION I. Aspects of your current job

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements as it applies to your current job. Please

indicate your answer using the scale below ranging from Strongly Agree (1) to Strongly Disagree (7).

Strongly agree

2 3 Neither agree or disagree

5 6 Strongly DISagree

My own performance is dependent on receiving accurate information from others.

I am able to plan my work without having to coordinate much with others.

In order to do my job, I need to spend most of my time talking to other people.

In my job, I am frequently asked to provide information and advice.

I work fairly independently.

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “Very often” and 7 represents “Not at all,” how often, if at all, do you use

the following means of communication in your job?


ILEAD 2014

Very

often 2 3 4 5 6

Not at all

Email

Electronic meetings

Teleconferencing

Videoconferencing

Phone calls (one-on-one)

File Sharing

Voice mail

Face-to-Face


ILEAD 2014

SECTION II. Selected Experiences

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “A lot of experience” and 7 represents “No experience at all,” please rate

how much experience you have in the following areas.

A lot of

experience 2 3 4 5 6

No

experience

at all

Developing new project teams

Negotiating formal agreements with other

organizations

Resolving conflicts among stakeholders in the

organizations where you have worked

Adopting and using practices, techniques, and

tools developed by others

SECTION III. Teaching Others Selected Technologies

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “Very certain,” and 7 represents “Not at all certain,” please rate how

certain you are that you can teach other people how to use each of the following participatory technologies.

Very

certain 2 3 4 5 6

Not at all

certain

Blogging tools

Digital/audio podcasting

Digital photography

Gaming

Instant messaging

Photo-sharing websites


ILEAD 2014

RSS feeds

Social bookmarking

Social networking

Tagging (folksonomies)

Videoconferencing

Web conferencing

Wikis


ILEAD 2014

SECTION IV. Opinions about Performance and Learning

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements as it applies to your current job. Please

indicate your answer using the scale below ranging from Strongly Agree (1) to Strongly Disagree (7).

Strongly agree

2 3 Neither agree or disagree

5 6 Strongly DISagree

I value what others think of my performance.

The opportunity to extend my range of abilities is really important to me.

I like to meet others’ expectations of me.

I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new things.

It is better to stick with what works than risk failing at a task.

The opinions others have about how well I can do certain things are important to me.

In learning situations, I tend to set fairly challenging goals for myself.

I am not interested in impressing others with my performance.

SECTION V. Your project team

1. How long have you known each of the members of your team?

(To help answer this question, please put the first name of each of the other members of your team on a line. Then next to it, indicate

how many years you have known the person. We will not record the names; this is just to assist you in answering the question.)

A _________________ : have known him/her for ______________ years.

B _________________ : have known him/her for ______________ years.

C _________________ : have known him/her for ______________ years.

D _________________ : have known him/her for ______________ years.

2. Has your ILEAD U project team met in person? Yes No


ILEAD 2014

Has your ILEAD U project team “met” online or had a conference call? Yes No

3. Excluding any member of your team from the same library as you, how often have you communicated with other

members of your project team since you became a member?

Daily Every other week

Every other day Once a month

Twice a week Less than once a month

Once a week

4. Has your ILEAD U project team selected a goal? Yes No

If yes… Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement:

Our project team’s goal is specified so clearly that all members should know exactly what we are trying to accomplish.

Strongly agree 2 3 Neither agree or disagree 5 6 Strongly DISagree

SECTION VI. Librarian Experience, Employment, and Demographics

Number of years of experience as a librarian: ______________ years

Number of years of employment with current employer ______________ years

Number of years in current position ______________ years

Do you supervise other employees? Yes No

If yes, how many employees (both full-time and part-time) do you supervise? (Do not count volunteers): _________


ILEAD 2014

Please select which of the following kinds of libraries you have worked during at least one year of your career (please

select as many as apply)

Public library Specialty library

Elementary/secondary school library Other, please specify:___________________

Academic library

The following questions are to help when analyzing the results. They will not be used to identify you as a respondent.

Gender: Female Male

Age: _________________

Highest level of education you have completed:

High school diploma Master’s degree

Some college Degree beyond master’s (e.g., Ph.D., law degree)

Bachelor’s degree


ILEAD 2014

Thank you very much for your time and the information you have provided!

Please return your completed questionnaire

in the enclosed envelope – or send to:

Survey Research Office, University of Illinois Springfield

One University Plaza, MS HRB 120; Springfield, Illinois 62703-5407


ILEAD 2014

Spring Survey of 2014 ILEAD USA Illinois Participants

Conducted by The ILEAD USA Evaluation Group at the University of Illinois Springfield, Institute for Legal, Legislative

and Policy Studies / Survey Research Office of the Center for State Policy and Leadership.

Thanks for your participation in this evaluation process. The evaluation should take no more than 20 minutes to complete.

You can also complete an online version of this questionnaire at http://go.uis.edu/ILEADUSA.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the University of Illinois Springfield Survey Research Office at

(21) 206-6591 or [email protected].



ILEAD 2014

SECTION I. Role and Involvement

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements regarding your role on your ILEAD USA

project team? Please indicate your answer using the scale below ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Strongly Agree

2 3 4 5 6 Strongly DISagree

I am responsible for a particular task or set of tasks.

Every member of the team has the same role at this point.

I am on the team to represent my library.

I am on the team because of my particular expertise and/or skills.

I am on the team to learn more about Web 2.0 technologies.

How much time have you been giving to ILEAD USA since the in-person training program in March?

less than 1 hour/week 1 to 2 hours/week 3 to 4 hours/week more than 4 hours/week

On a scale of 1-7, in which 1 represents “High Priority” and 7 represents “Low Priority,” how much of a priority is

ILEAD USA for you (please circle a number on the scale below)?

High

Priority

↓

Low priority

↓

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

On a scale of 1-7, in which 1 represents “A lot” and 7 represents “Not at all,” to what extent have your other

responsibilities conflicted with your involvement in ILEAD USA (please circle a number on the scale below)?


ILEAD 2014

A Lot

↓

Not at All

↓

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


ILEAD 2014

SECTION II. Statements About Your Project Team

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements? Please indicate your answer using the scale

below ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Strongly

Agree

2 3 4 5 6 Strongly

DISagree

The team goal is so challenging that we have to

stretch to accomplish it.

I really feel as if this team’s problems are my own.

Our individual roles on the project team are very

clear and we don’t stray from them.

The team goal is of great consequence for those

we serve.

Team members do not know what skills and

knowledge they each possess relevant to the goal

of the team.

I would feel guilty if I left my team now.

There is a clear team leader who guides what we

do.

Team members are assigned to tasks

commensurate with their knowledge and skill.

This team has a great deal of personal meaning for

me.

The goal and priorities of the team are not clear

enough.

The team has a “good map” of each other’s

talents and skills.

I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this

team.

The team follows a very structured work schedule.

Conflicting priorities exist on the team.

I would not leave my team because I have a sense

of obligation to it.


ILEAD 2014

SECTION III. Communication and Discussions

How effective has communication been among the members of your ILEAD USA project team (please circle a number

on the scale below)?

Very

Effective

↓

Not at all

Effective

↓

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “Very often” and 7 represents “Not at all,” how often, if at all, has your

team used each of the following communication methods since it was first formed?

Very

Often 2 3 4 5 6

Not

at All

Email

Electronic meetings

Teleconferencing

Videoconferencing


File Sharing

Voice mail

Face-to-Face


ILEAD 2014

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “Very helpful” and 7 represents “Not at all helpful,” how helpful has each

of the following methods of communication been to the work of your project team so far? If it does not apply,

please leave the item blank.

Very

Helpful 2 3 4 5 6

Not at

All

Helpful

Email

Electronic meetings

Teleconferencing

Videoconferencing


File Sharing

Voice mail

Face-to-Face


ILEAD 2014

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “This is very clear” and 7 represents “This is not at all clear,” when

reflecting on your discussions with your team, please rate the clarity of the following issues:

This is

Very

Clear

2 3 4 5 6

This is

Not At All

Clear

What each of the tasks are that need to be

completed to accomplish the team goal

How the team should divide its time among the

various tasks

What you personally are responsible for doing on

the team

When each of the tasks will be completed

What constitutes “successful performance” for the

team

What criteria will be used to evaluating the final

product of the team project

What the final output of your team’s work will

look like

SECTION IV. Importance of Selected Team-Related Characteristics

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “Very important” and 7 represents “Not at all important,” please rate the

importance of the following items.

Very

Important 2 3 4 5 6

Not at All

Important

How important is it to you personally that

your project team accomplish its goal?

How important to your team is accomplishing

its goal?


ILEAD 2014

How important is it to you personally that

roles and responsibilities on your team are

clearly defined?

How important to your team is it that roles

and responsibilities of its members be clearly

defined?

How important is it to you personally that you

have a sense of belonging to your team?

How important to your team is it that every

member feel a sense of belonging to the

team?


Section V. The Past In-person Training Program. For EACH of the following sessions, please respond on a scale of 1 to 7, in which 1 represents “A Lot”

and 7 represents “None,” for all three of these questions.

A. How much did you learn at this

session?

B. How much has your project team

used the information from this session

in pursuing its project goal?

C. How much have you used the

information from this session for

purposes other than work on your

project team?

Learning Everywhere: The

Transformative Power of

Hyperlinked Libraries – Michael

Stephens

A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

Getting Started with Movie Maker-

Brian Tober, Krista Schoelhorn, Josh

Mika


A Gentle Introduction to WordPress-

Andrew Bullen, Sina Bahram A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

Text, Love, and Social Media- John

Emerson A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

Becoming an Agent of Change in

your Organization- Beck Tench A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

SAMR (Substitution Augmentation

Modification Redefinition) EXPLNR-

Josh Mika


Building a Mobile App from the

Ground UP- Joe Malacina A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

Design Workshop-Hard CORE for

the COMMON Educator- John

Emerson



ILEAD 2014

Team Time with Beck- Beck Tench A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

Please continue the survey on the reverse side.


ILEAD 2014

Section V. The Past In-person Training Program. For EACH of the following sessions, please respond on a scale of 1 to 7, in which 1 represents “A Lot”

and 7 represents “None,” for all three of these questions.

A. How much did you learn at this

session?

B. How much has your project team

used the information from this session

in pursuing its project goal?

C. How much have you used the

information from this session for

purposes other than work on your

project team?

Perspectives and Advice on

Accessibility and Universal Design-

Sina Bahram


An Informal Conversion about a

Working Content Management

System- Andrew Bullen


Accessibility to the Web: What It All

Means, Practical Examples, and a Call

to Action- Sina Bahram


Engaging Through Social Media at

ILEAD USA- Sarah Sagmoen A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

There’s Got to be a Better Way to

Communicate and Collaborate- Terry

Huttenlock


Web 2.0 Tools and the Common

Core- A Toolkit for Librarians- Krista

Schoellhorn, Dave Ackerman


Copyright: Balancing Creativity and

the Law- Alyce Scott, Josh Mika A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A


ILEAD 2014

Design Workship- CPL 5.2- John

Emerson A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

WAV of the Future: Optical Music

Recognition- Andrew Bullen A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

of 69

If you have anything else to tell us about your experience in ILEAD USA so far, please use the

following space for this purpose.

of 69

ILEAD 2014






of 69

ILEAD 2014

Early Fall Survey of 2014 ILEAD USA Participants

PROJID

SECTION I. Role and Involvement



Strongly Agree


I am responsible for a particular task or set of tasks.

Every member of the team has the same role at this point.

I am on the team to represent my library.

I am on the team because of my particular expertise and/or skills.

I am on the team to learn more about Web 2.0 technologies.

How much time have you been giving to ILEAD USA since the last in-person training in Springfield in June?

less than 1 hour/week 1 to 2 hours/week 3 to 4 hours/week more than 4 hours/week

On a scale of 1-7, in which 1 represents “High Priority” and 7 represents “Low Priority,” how much of a priority is

ILEAD USA for you (please circle a number on the scale below)?

High

Priority

↓

Low Priority

↓

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

On a scale of 1-7, in which 1 represents “A lot” and 7 represents “Not at all,” to what extent have your other

responsibilities conflicted with your involvement in ILEAD USA (please circle a number on the scale below)?

of 69

ILEAD 2014

A lot

↓

Not at all

↓

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SECTION II. Statements About Your Project Team

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements? Please indicate your answer using the scale

below ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Strongly Agree


What our project team is supposed to accomplish remains uncertain and ambiguous.

I really feel as if this team’s problems are my own.

The team goal is so challenging that we have to stretch to accomplish it.

Our individual roles on the project team are very clear and we do not stray from them.

The team goal is of great consequence for those we serve.

SECTION II. Statements About Your Project Team Continued

Strongly Agree


Team members do not know what skills and knowledge they each possess relevant to the goal of the team.

I would feel guilty if I left my team now.

There is a clear team leader who guides what we do.

Team members are assigned to tasks commensurate with their knowledge and skill.

The goal and priorities of the team are not clear enough.

The team has a “good map” of each other’s talents and skills.

I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this team.

The team follows a very structured work schedule.

Our project team does not have a broad enough range of experiences and perspectives to accomplish its goal.

of 69

ILEAD 2014

Our project team’s goal is specified so clearly that all members should know exactly what the team is trying to accomplish.

I would not leave my team because I have a sense of obligation to it.

Members of our project team have to depend heavily on one another to get the team’s work done.

SECTION III. Communication and Discussion

How effective has communication been among the members of your ILEAD USA project team (please circle a

number on the scale below)?

Very

Effective

↓

Not at all

Effective

↓

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “Very often” and 7 represents “Not at all,” how often, if at all, has your

team used each of the following communication methods since it was first formed?

Very often 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all

Email

Electronic meetings

Teleconferencing

Videoconferencing


File Sharing

Voice mail

Face-to-Face

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “Very helpful” and 7 represents “Not at all helpful,” how helpful has each

of the following methods of communication been to the work of your project team so far (if it does not apply, please

leave the item blank)?

Very Helpful

2 3 4 5 6 Not at all

Email

of 69

ILEAD 2014

Electronic meetings

Teleconferencing

Videoconferencing


File Sharing

Voice mail

Face-to-Face

In reflecting on your discussions with your team, to what extent has the team discussed and developed clarity about

each of the following issues. On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “This is very clear” and 7 represents “This is

not at all clear,” when reflecting on your discussions with your team, please rate the clarity of the following issues.

This is

Very

Clear

2 3 4 5 6

This is

Not At

All Clear

What each of the tasks are that need to be completed

to accomplish the team goal.

How the team should divide its time among the

various tasks.

What you personally are responsible for doing on the

team.

When each of the tasks of the team will be

completed.

What constitutes “successful performance” for the

team.

What criteria will be used in evaluating the final

product of the team project.

What the final output of your team’s work will look

like.

SECTION IV. Importance of Selected Team-Related Characteristics

On a scale from 1-7, in which 1 represents “Very important” and 7 represents “Not at all important,” please rate the

importance of the following items.

of 69

ILEAD 2014

Very

Important 2 3 4 5 6

Not at All

Important

How important is it to you personally that your

project team accomplish its goal?

How important to your team is accomplishing its

goal?

How important is it to you personally that roles and

responsibilities on your team are clearly defined?

SECTION IV. Continued Very

Important 2 3 4 5 6

Not at All

Important

How important to your team is it that roles and

responsibilities of its members be clearly defined?

How important is it to you personally that you have a

sense of belonging to your team?

How important to your team is it that every member

feel a sense of belonging to the team?

SECTION V. Statements about your Project Team

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements? Please indicate your answer using the

scale below ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Strongly

Agree

2 3 4 5 6 Strongly

DISagree

Members of our project team are too dissimilar to work

together well.

Our project team’s goal is not especially challenging; achieving

it is well within reach.

Members of our project team have more than enough talent

and experience for the goal we are trying to accomplish.

Conflicting priorities exist on our project team.

How seriously members’ ideas are taken by others on our

team often depends more on who the person is rather than

on how much she or he actually knows.

Our project team has a nearly ideal mix of members.

Some members of our project team lack the knowledge and

skills they need to do their parts of the team’s work.

of 69

ILEAD 2014

This team has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

Our project team tends to handle differences of opinion

privately or off-line, rather than addressing them directly as a

group.

The information and knowledge available to our project team

in pursuing its goal has been more than adequate.

Everyone on our project team has the special skills that are

needed for what we are trying to accomplish.

Our project team often comes up with innovative ways of

proceeding with our project that turn out to be just what was

needed.

Our team has a great deal of difficulty actually carrying out

the plans we make for how we will proceed toward our goal.

I am certain that our project team’s goal will be accomplished

by the completion of the cohort in October.

Our project team will continue to work together after the

completion of the cohort in October.

of 69

Conducted by The ILEAD USA Evaluation Group at the University of Illinois Springfield, Institute for Legal, Legislative and Policy Studies / Survey Research Office of the Center for State Policy and Leadership. Thanks for your participation in this evaluation process. The evaluation should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. You can also complete an online version of this questionnaire at http://go.uis.edu/ILEADUSA. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the University of Illinois Springfield Survey Research Office at (217) 206-6591 or [email protected].

A. How much did you learn at this session?

B. How much has your project team used the information from this session in pursuing its project goal?

C. How much have you used the information from this session for purposes other than work on your project team?

Team Time with Beck Beck Tench


How to Manage your Social Media @ the Institutional Level

Sarah Sagmoen, Josh Mika, David Ackerman


Everyone Has a Plan, Until They Get Punched in the Mouth: The Art of War by Mike Tyson

Jeff Penka


HTML Fun Brian Pichman


Delta Ahead: Diversifying the Value of Libraries for the 21st Century

Eli Neiburger


The Robots are Coming! Library Robotics Programs

Michelle Bourgeois, Liz Fraser


PLAY.AADL.ORG: Inside AADL’s Breakthrough Summer Game Eli Neiburger


XML Files and Their Manipulation A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A


of 69

ILEAD 2014

The Past In-person Training Program. For EACH of the following sessions, please respond on a scale of 1 to 7, in which 1 represents “A Lot” and 7 represents “None,” for all three of these questions.

Please continue the survey on the reverse side.

A. How much did you learn at this session?

B. How much has your project team used the information from this session in pursuing its project goal?

C. How much have you used the information from this session for purposes other than work on your project team?

MaKey Makey & the Arduino LilyPad Michelle Bourgeois, Andrew Bullen,

Brian Pichman


Introduction to the Arduino Family Kevin McQuown


What’s the Big Deal about “Making”? Travis Good


EPIC Failure Sarah Sagmoen, Brian Pichman


Stop Wasting People’s Time – Life is Too Short to Be Building Something No One Wants Jeff Penka


Omeka – A Free, Flexible, and Open Source Web-Publishing Platform Terry Huttenlock


Making the Most of Your Community User Representatives Tom Dorst


Towards the Development of the Semantic Web Andrew Bullen


User Experience Design, Rapid Iterative Methods, and User Testing Ingbert Schmidt


Maker Library Survey Travis Good


Programming is Fun with “Scratch” A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A A lot 2 3 4 5 6 None N/A

Andrew Bullen

of 69

ILEAD 2014

Terry Huttenlock, Brian Pichman Making, Innovation, and Silicon Valley David Lankes


Mock-Paper-Scissors (Paper Prototyping and UX Testing) Ingbert Schmidt



Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope – or send to: Survey Research Office, University of Illinois Springfield


of 69

Final Survey of 2014 ILEAD USA Participants

PROJID

Conducted by The ILEAD USA Evaluation Group at the University of Illinois Springfield, Institute for Legal,

Legislative and Policy Studies / Survey Research Office of the Center for State Policy and Leadership.

You can complete an online version of this questionnaire at http://go.uis.edu/ILEADUSA.

SECTION I. MEASURES OF INVOLVEMENT

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements regarding your involvement in ILEAD?

Please indicate your answer using the scale below ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Strongly

Agree

2 3 4 5 6 Strongly

DISagree

My supervisor or other superior asked me to participate in

ILEAD.

I never felt that my participation in ILEAD got in the way of

my other work.

I did not get as much out of ILEAD as I thought I would at

the beginning.

My participation in ILEAD is more beneficial to me

personally than professionally.

ILEAD has been one of the most enjoyable experiences of

my career.

My library did not give me all of the time I needed for

ILEAD.

Looking back, my team should have chosen a different

project goal.


of 69

ILEAD 2014

My participation in ILEAD was well-known to my co-

workers at the library where I work.

ILEAD has been one of the most useful experiences of my

career.

My participation in ILEAD mattered more to me than the

library where I work.

ILEAD ranks among the best learning experiences I have

had.

Not everyone in the library where I work was supportive of

my participation in ILEAD.

of 69

ILEAD 2014

SECTION II. STATEMENTS ABOUT YOUR PROJECT TEAM

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements? Please indicate your answer using

the scale below ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Strongly

Agree

2 3 4 5 6 Strongly

DISagree

Members of our project team were too dissimilar to work

together well.

Our project team’s goal was not especially challenging;

achieving it was well within reach.

Members of our project team had more than enough

talent and experience for the goal we tried to accomplish.

Conflicting priorities existed on our project team.

How seriously members’ ideas are taken by others on our

team often depended more on who the person was rather

than on how much she or he actually knew.

Our project team had a nearly ideal mix of members.

Some members of our project team lacked the knowledge

and skills they needed to do their parts of the team’s work.

This team had a great deal of personal meaning for me.

Our project team tended to handle differences of opinion

privately or off-line, rather than addressing them directly

as a group.

The information and knowledge available to our project

team in pursuing its goal was been more than adequate.

Everyone on our project team had the special skills that

were needed for what we are trying to accomplish.

Our project team often came up with innovative ways of

proceeding with our project that turned out to be just

what was needed.

Our team had a great deal of difficulty actually carrying out

the plans we mad for how we proceeded towards our goal.

Our project team’s goal was accomplished by the


Our project team will continue to work together after the


of 69

ILEAD 2014

of 69

ILEAD 2014



Strongly Agree


This was one of the most effective teams on which I have ever served.

Our individual roles on the team were very clear.

Our team did not give me enough opportunities to contribute.

I felt like the other members of the team would judge me on the things that I said.

I would have chosen a different goal for our team.

Members of the team worked very hard to keep one another up to date on their activities.

The team did not maintain a high standard of work at all times.

SECTION III. OPINIONS ABOUT OTHER ILEAD PARTICIPANTS

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements on community representatives? Please

indicate your answer using the scale below ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES Strongly Agree


Our team’s community representative/s were involved from the start.

We did not always make good use of our team’s community representative/s.

Our community representative/s were the best possible people given our team’s goal.

Our team community’s representative/s got along very well with us.

If you have one suggestion to make about the role of community representative/s in ILEAD USA it would be:

of 69

ILEAD 2014

How much do you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements on mentors? Please indicate

your answer using the scale below ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

MENTORS Strongly Agree


Our team could not have gotten as far as it did without the help of our mentor.

Our mentor was always available when needed.

The quality of advice we received from our mentor was uneven.

Our mentor always knew what to do when our team had problems.

If you have one suggestion to make for improving the mentor role in ILEAD USA it would be:

SECTION IV. TEACHING OTHER PEOPLE SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES/ACTIVITIES

Please rate how certain you are that you can teach other people how to use each of the following participatory

technologies or activities. Please indicate your answer using the scale below ranging from Very Certain to Not

Certain At All.

Very Certain

2 3 4 5 6 Not Certain At All

Time with Beck: Defining Important Problems Beck Tench

Selling Ideas and Receiving Buy-in Phyl Georgiou

Unpacking the GED Kathy Olesen-Tracey

Introduction to Type Kristi Sligh

Assessment and Analysis Techniques “for dummies” Dr. Terry Huttenlock

Community Outreach to Benefit Both Patrons and Libraries: Academic, School & Public Ingbert Schmidt

of 69

ILEAD 2014

Time with Beck: Life after ILEAD Beck Tench

Robotics and Beyond! STEM Programming in Libraries Michelle Bourgeois & Barb Kalchbrenner

Life after ILEAD: Keeping Your Project Going and Growing Amy Killebrew

The Digital Dark Ages Alyce Scott

Finding Grant Opportunities and Writing Grant Proposals: the Fundamentals Pamela Salela & Kristin Olson

SECTION IV continued. TEACHING OTHER PEOPLE SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES/ACTIVITIES

Please rate how certain you are that you can teach other people how to use each of the following participatory

technologies or activities. Please indicate your answer using the scale below ranging from Very Certain to Not

Certain At All.

Very Certain

2 3 4 5 6 Not Certain At All

Personal Learning Network David Lankes

In the Grip Kristi Singh

Augmented Reality Josh Mika

Bridging the Information Gap for Adult Learners Kathy Olesen-Tracey

SECTION V. MEASURES OF PROJECT IMPACT

Did your team complete its project? No Yes

If YES, how much are the patrons of your library

benefiting from the results of this project?

A lot Not at all

of 69

ILEAD 2014

Do you expect the impact of the project on your library to increase, stay the same or decrease over the next 12

months?

Increase Stay the same Decrease

If the team did not complete its project, are efforts being made to finish the project?

No Yes

If so, when will the project likely be completed?

In the next month

One to three months

Four to six months

More than six months

of 69

ILEAD 2014

If you have anything else to tell us about your experience in ILEAD USA, please use the following space for this

purpose.

of 69

ILEAD 2014






Evaluation of ILEAD 2014 - UIS...December evaluating the ILEAD experience. (Copies of all four...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of ILEAD 2014 - UIS...December evaluating the ILEAD experience. (Copies of all four...