Assignment 2: CIO Recommendations

Social networking and professional development case study

Green Pod CIO Recommendations can be found at:

http://greeniespod.wikispaces.com/

Assignment 2: CIO notes for merging/editing

Introduction to Professional Development in Schools

Traditional staff development in schools has tended to be based on the one-day model (and its variations) with little evidence that these make much difference (Solomon and Schrum, 2007, p.101). Although schools are rapidly embracing instructional technology, recognition of the educational value of online social networking tools for teachers’ own professional development is in its early stages. Social networking, however, appears to support recent constructivist and adult learning theories which argue that it is in “fluid, dynamic and highly social contexts that meaningful learning and creative problem solving are most likely to occur” (Servage, 2005, p.314).

Incorporating social networking into teachers’ professional development would serve a two-fold purpose: it would promote a learning community for teachers, fostering communication, collaboration and improved practice and it would also provide “the tools to learn about the tools” (Solomon and Schrum, 2007, p.104).



Web 2.0 Learning Practices


"Social computing tools are used primarily to replicate reality, tying learning experiences and procedures back to the nature of the subject at study and professional reality. Thus, social computing can on the one hand contribute to overcoming the discrepancies between theoretical training and professional practice by supplying innovative ways of integrating practice into training. On the other hand, 3D simulations give rise not only to new learning tools, but transform scientific methods of investigation." (Redecker, 2009, p.61)

The Green Pod divided up the 'Baseline Studies' and I chose Second Life.

Research questions

A. What are the issues involved with using social networks for professional development in the workplace?

There are several issues to consider including costs, training, privacy and security. My investigation into Second lIfe is outlined here:

http://greeniespod.wikispaces.com/Second+Life

I also had a look at Facebook. My investigations are outlined here (under Research Questions): http://greeniespod.wikispaces.com/Facebook

B. How do Web 2.0 tools (blogs, wikis, podcasts and video lectures) complement such social networks?

Social networking tools were not originally designed for professional development so knowledge management features are usually not built in. Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, blogs, podcasts and videos can fill in the gaps.

Slide display tools such as SlideShare and social bookmarking tools such as Delicious can also be used to share information. RSS feeds act as 'current awareness' alerts to new postings.

In an ideal situation all of the above tools, including social networking, would be be available in the one location. Such a mash-up would better facilitate employee access to the relevant communication and information. This may be possible through an intranet or through one of the Web 2.0 tools available for this purpose, for example, iGoogle or Netvibes.

In regards to Second Life, blogs, wikis etc could provide the information archive that Second Life is unable to support at the moment; they could provide parallel sharing of skills and knowledge.

Second Life “is not envisaged as the only path open in this changing educational landscape, but offers an engaging, effective vehicle to fulfil specific needs in a cost effective option” (Butler & White, 2008, p.131)

Second Life is not a knowledge management tool and requires ​the parallel development of tools such as blogs and wikis which store information. It does have the ability to stream media in-world.

Facebook integrates well with other Web 2.0 tools - you can attach photos, videos and links, eg to related wikis or blogs.

C. How is a work-related social network developed and sustained?

Based on Jenny Preece's ideas on Usability and Sociability (Preece, 2000) I developed some logical steps towards creating a successful online community:

http://greeniespod.wikispaces.com/Criteria

Ning and Etherpad were very useful tools for Green Pod collaboration so I investigated them further in relation to the criteria:

Ning

• Ning is free
• Can be either private or public
• Not specifically designed as a learning environment
• Easy to learn, not much training required
• Sense of community can be fostered by features like profile pictures
• Built-in communication tools: add events, chat and a discussion forum, alerts and email, rss
• Supports media sharing - music, photos and videos
• Ning comes with a blog
• Ning is not a knowledge management tool - the blog is the only feature which allows for information storage
• Ning provides support via its Help Centre
• Access to 250 Apps
• Advertisements exist but are unobtrusive

Etherpad

• Etherpad is free
• Private or public
• Specifically designed as a collaborative tool for small groups working in a textual environment but there are no other communication features
• Easy to learn and use, little training required
• All text input is automatically saved and previous versions accessible as “revisions”
• Not a knowledge management tool – needs the support of other web tools to manage data
• Doesn’t support media sharing
• Technical support available

In light of my investigations above I suggested the following as a basis for the Green Pod's CIO recommendations. Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 were expanded on by the other members of the group:


1. Write a concise, clear Statement of Purpose. Define and describe the who, what and why of the community, paying particular attention to teachers’ professional development needs. Consider that incorporating social networking into teachers’ professional development would serve a two-fold purpose: it would promote a learning community for teachers fostering improved practice and it would also provide “the tools to learn about the tools” (Solomon and Schrum, 2007, p.104).

2. The following issues should be taken into account when deciding which social networking tools are most appropriate for teachers’ professional development:
Cost – set up and maintenance

Training requirements

Usability – navigation, access, design

Privacy issues

Security

Stability

Technical support

Media sharing capabilities

3. Use social networking tools in conjunction with other Web 2.0 tools: blogs, wikis, podcasts, video lectures. Second Life, for example, is not a knowledge management tool and requires ​the parallel development of tools such as blogs and wikis which store information.

4. Develop a sociability plan to sustain the community

5. Evaluate the success of the community.

General indicators of success will include (Barnett, 2003, pp.6-7):

• an impact on student learning, eg the redesign of classroom instruction and/or a change in the learning environment
• from the teacher as the director of learning to the teacher as a facilitator of learning
• teacher renewal and enthusiasm
• increased teacher collaboration

Although it’s possible to predict the success of an online community by “by taking the time to assess the participants’ needs beforehand” (Preece, 2000, p.300), evaluation should be used to both influence how the community develops (formative evaluation) and to determine its effectiveness after development (summative evaluation).

Evaluation techniques should be a combination of those needed to understand both interaction design (usability) and sociability and, in order to be as comprehensive as possible, they should be able to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. Consideration should be given to using ethnographic evaluation techniques such as questioning through the use of tools such as questionnaires and interviews; to observation of the community as well as to well known quantitative data gathering techniques such as data logging and metrics.

Due to the changing, volatile nature of the Web 2.0 environment it's recommended that evaluation be ongoing.

http://greeniespod.wikispaces.com/CIO+Recommendations

References:

Barnett, H. (2003). Technology professional development: Successful strategies for teacher change. ERIC Digest. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from ERIC database. (ED477616)

Butler, D. and White, J.(2008). A slice of Second Life: academics, support staff and students navigating a changing landscape. In ASCILITE 2008 Melbourne: hello! where are you in the landscape of educational technology? : proceedings : 25th annual ASCILITE conference : November 30 - December 3, 2008 edited by R Atkinson and C McBeath, pages 128-132. Burwood Vic : ASCILITE.

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester: John Wiley.

Redecker, C. (2009). Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on the impact of Web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. Luxembourg: European Communities. Retrieved 7th October, 2009, from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC49108.pdf

Servage, L. (2005). Strategizing for workplace e-learning: Some critical considerations. Journal of Workplace Learning.,17(5/6), 304-317.

Solomon, G. and Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington: ISTE.

Assignment 2: Green POD Work

The Greenies Pod met once a week to discuss Assignment 2. We began meeting on 9/8/09 in the Greenies Etherpad which I created in response to the ITC 510 requirement, moved on to the Geenies Ning (I adapted a Ning that I'd created a few years ago). For several weeks we found the Ning to be adequate for many of our needs, for example we used the Ning blog to store our baseline studies and the chat to communicate weekly but then we returned to Etherpad so that we'd have a record of our meetings to refer back to when necessary, which is sometimes very useful and should be a feature of more social networking sites.

A record of our meetings (revisions) is available here: http://greenies.etherpad.com/1

For our assignment Ann created a Greenies wiki which proved very effective. We had already divided the baseline case studies and other investigations between the four of us and began posting our findings on the wiki for other group members to read. I also posted some articles I thought were relevant to the case study. I volunteered to investigate Second Life because I felt I'd been too quick to judge it in Exercise 2.2. and I also had a brief look at Facebook.

We used email to arrange Pod meeting times and to communicate issues, concerns and questions that we might have about Assignment 2 outside of our weekly Etherpad meetings. The other Greenies were always very supportive and enthusiastic and I looked forward to our weekly sessions.

On the other hand collaborating online was a fraught experience for me. I have limited group or team work project experience in the offline world so online collaboration was an extra challenge. It was difficult, for example, to know whether to act as a leader or not during those times when our pod work lacked direction.

Ann identified another issue which we all agreed was a problem: "we are using a wiki because it's editable and collaborative but I really really hesitate to change someone else' work or writing" (McDonald, 2009).

However, these were only minor issues. The Green Pod formed early in the semester so we had time to go through Tuckman's group development stages (1995): forming (knowledge and acceptance of one another), storming (not much of this), norming (role clarification and development of trust) and performing (a high committment to our task).

Green Pod online collaboration was beneficial in several ways: it enabled us to share our ideas and to generate more ideas than we could have done as individuals, it improved our ability to solve problems and it provided a supportive and motivating environment which increased my learning. It has also, I'm sure, improved my confidence and capability in my own professional practice.

References:

McDonald, A. (2009, October 25). Green Pod Etherpad discussion, archived at http://greenies.etherpad.com/1

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin. 63,
384-399.

TokBox

TokBox - Free Video Chat and Video Messaging

WebEx

Although "all you need to access WebEx is a browser and an Internet connection"
(Why web conferencing? Why WebEx? n.d.) I had initial problems joining the CSU session because I was at work - I was stuck in a loop unable to join. Finally it dawned on me that it might work if I got away from the UTS system so I moved over to the Library's remote desktop.

I was in. Justine Lloyd was in full command which is actually a good feature when large groups are involved. Ken was lurking as did most of us, mainly due I think to our inability to be heard. WebEx was impressive otherwise. It offered desktop and document/application sharing, video conferencing, session recording and cute features like raising hands. There were also the advantages of "universal collaboration integration" and "multi-layer security" meaning that people can access WebEx via a variety of systems and that the security level is high. There's 99.99% up-time. All are important in educational, government and business environments.

But WebEx is pricey. There was an entry level of $92 a month and a "cut down" version for $50 to $60 a month. For a large organisation of 14,000 people it got up to $26,000 per month.

As long as the technology at the user's end is up to scratch and an organisation can justify the expense then WebEx is a great online learning "solution". I could give really nice Library Research classes via WebEx. I wouldn't have to travel to boring old staff meetings in the city. The Greenies Pod could use it to edit Assignment 2. Oh well, keep dreaming, back to Etherpad for now ....

Reference:

Why web conferencing? Why WebEx? Retrieved October 1, 2009 from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps10352/webex_wp.pdf

LC_MOO

I've experienced LC_MOO in another subject (ETL401) where we'd used it to discuss set topics. I wasn't comfortable with it then due to the difficulty of reading so many contributions appearing almost at once on the screen and at great speed and the difficulty of knowing when to "get a word in". One of LC_MOO's great advantages is that it allows a large number of users to get together synchronously but, from my experience, there's still an optimal number (around 6 to 8) beyond which a discussion becomes less effective or enjoyable.

LC_MOO also has the advantage of an established protocol and set of commands. Discussion can be kept on track with the mediator's use of signs and the facility to address a comment to one person, and to "speak" privately helps to minimise distracting communications.

During last night's session I began to appreciate some other advantages, in particular the emote command which, although a poor substitute for the visual, may sometimes actually exceed visual clues by allowing participants to tell others exactly what they are feeling. I also liked the way the group began to develop a "story" of its own, a social gathering centred around the beer fridge, a great way to bond in cyberspace just as it is in real life, and a very attractive feature of LC_MOO.

Skype

Interact Chat

Interact chat was a comfortable, familiar way of communicating synchronously with Ken and other students although it was difficult for me on a personal level because I was working on the Research Help Desk and often being sidetracked by student queries.

Keeping up with the chat was hard work due to the number of participants and there were some irrelevant (to me) conversations and comments. Chat became more focussed when Ken took control and began to hold up signs:

Kenneth Eustace (Aug 19, 2009 11:19 AM EST) ++++ Hosting a conversation: taking/giving control and rules of engagement+++ What do you think in your own context?

Side conversations continued to make it difficult to follow the main thread and it's now easier for me to appreciate LC_MOO's more obvious control mechanisms. However, Interact chat, like LC_MOO and other chat facilities, completely obliterates my need to reflect (for a few seconds at least) before I give an opinion on an issue and is so prone to domination by the fast typers that the conversation occasionally left me behind ... obviously smaller groups are more effective for discussing issues.

Greenies meet at last on Etherpad

Last night's Green Pod meeting on Etherpad went without a hitch.

Gmail chat

Gmail chat was disappointing. Although Ken responded to my invitation and I could see and hear him ok he couldn't see me and there was a lag in the audio connection. I think the cause was my internet connection not being able to cope with so much data at once, although it handles Skype perfectly well. Ken dropped off and then, as if by magic, the text chat box appeared and all was clear sailing from then on.

Green Pod Etherpad

Establishing contact with fellow members of the Green Pod is surprisingly difficult. After a few days of silence I followed Ken's instructions and created a Green Pod Etherpad: http://greenies.etherpad.com/1

I invited a couple of members using email addresses picked up from one of Ken's emails and also posted a message on the forum asking any greenies out there to send me their email addresses. I repeated this a couple of days later and also left a message on http://cyber.etherpad.com/1

If I don't hear from anyone soon I'll have to ask Ken's advice. In the meantime I set up a public Etherpad and invited a couple of work colleagues to participate. It was fun and easy to use. I can see how useful this tool would be if you wanted to edit a document together especially in real time.