Organizational learning theories

My dissertation not only looks at distributed group collaboration, but also how that effects organizational learning. The following is my discussion on organizational learning, including how I differentiate knowledge management from organizational learning.


Organizational Learning Theories

There are two prevailing schools of learning theory at the organizational level. The first is based on the idea of organizational knowledge management in which knowledge is codified into information which the organization and individuals can access, monitor, acquire, and store (Allee, 1997; Contu & Willmott, 2003; Raelin, 2008). Similar to Kolb’s (1980) apprehensive and comprehensive knowledge, this school of organizational learning theorizes that the process of codification creates knowledge which can be stored and accessed for use when needed by those within the organization (Raelin; Yakhlef, 2002). Organizational knowledge then becomes the aggregate of individuals’ knowledge and experience (Allee, 1997; Cook & Yanow, 1995). As Raelin describes DiBella, Nevis, and Gould’s three-step approach to organizational learning from a knowledge management perspective, knowledge is acquired, shared, and utilized by members of the organization. Rouwette and Vennix (2008) describe the information processing approach used within knowledge management which includes attention to identification of problems, encoding information so group members create shared meaning, store information perceived as valuable which creates organizational memory, create informational retrieval processes, create workspace processes that support organizational culture, and create communication structures that support sense-making and feedback from individuals and groups within the organization.

Knowledge management based theories of organizational learning begins with codified knowledge that can be retrieved and stored from members of the organization (Cook & Brown, 1999, Nonaka, 1994). For knowledge to be useful, therefore, individuals need to be able to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Knowledge that cannot be codified would not be useful to the organization as knowledge would not be able to be retrieved and stored for use by others within the organization. As a result, organizational processes need to be structured so that tacit information can be transformed into codified knowledge thus resulting in organizational learning. Using Anderson’s ACT cognitive model, Nonaka explains, “declarative knowledge has to be transformed into procedural knowledge in order for cognitive skills to develop…it can be argued that transformation is bidirectional (p. 18).” In other words, codified knowledge needs to be in a form that fits into organizational procedures, but also organizational procedures can produce knowledge that then needs to be codified for organizational use.

My working definition of knowledge management is the access, monitoring, acquisition, and storage of organizational information which is codified into a common format in order for those within the organization to participate in sense-making, group decision making and problem solving, and the creation of shared mental models at the group, departmental, and organizational level. While organizational learning may need to access some forms of knowledge management, organizational learning is not synonymous with knowledge management. In addition, not all organizational learning requires knowledge management, although knowledge management might augment organizational learning.

The second school of organizational learning theory is based on organizational members’ social and cultural interaction with the environment, often through the establishment of communities of practice within the workplace (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Cook & Brown, 1999; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Nonaka, 1994). Those within this school of organizational learning believe that learning within the organization is not based on individuals possessing needed knowledge, but rather learning is a construction of knowledge within the organizational environment. Cook and Yanow go one step further by placing learning into the organizational culture which establishes patterns of activity that create knowledge. They define organizational learning as, “acquiring, sustaining or changing of intersubjective meaning and/or the artifactual vehicles of their expression and transmission, through the collective actions of the group (p.280).” In other words, it is the interaction with the environment, stimulated through organizational practices such as collaborative writing, project management, and both formal and informal group discussions that create organizational learning opportunities. These work activities, both cognitive and social, create both tacit and explicit knowledge through social interaction and the organization of work patterns (Cook & Brown, 1999).

Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne (2003) further define the organizational learning process as “ a social process mediated by artifacts. This view thus emphasizes the importance of culture, communication, and group activities in organizations (p. 843).” While the first model presented above (knowledge management) assumes that knowledge is created and possessed at the individual level and is then dispersed collectively at the group and organizational level, this second model (constructed knowledge) theorizes that there are different types of knowledge created at each level (individual, group, and organizational). Organizational learning, therefore, is influenced by the social environment, organizational culture, and work patterns that are the result of political influences within the organization’s powerstructure (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Nonaka, 1994). As a result, not all organizational knowledge can be culled and transferred to others within the organization (often through training) because the knowledge is imbedded in organizational practices and culture.

Both Cook (1995, 1999) and Nonaka (1994) concluded that there is implicit or tacit knowledge that is created within the confines of organizational boundaries. Looking at work patterns in various industries, they both concluded that knowledge is created through perspective taking, meaning making, and dialog necessitated when there was dissonance or differences in understanding within the work patterns. Perspective, meaning, and the form that communication takes are dictated by culture. In this study, we will use Cook & Yanow’s definition of culture:

We define culture in application to organizations as a set of values, beliefs, and meanings, together with the artifacts of their expression and transmission (such as myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals and ritual objects), that are created. Inherited, shared, and transmitted within one group of people (p. 388).”

Therefore, those who adhere to the second theory of organizational learning would conclude that organizational learning is bounded by organizational values, beliefs, and meaning, and transmitted and stored using organizational forms, formats, and processes that create the myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals, and ritual objects that become organizational artifacts representing the organizational culture. As a result, knowledge that is embedded within the organizational culture, would change when used outside of the environment in which it was created. Knowledge, therefore, can be dynamic as its affordance is dynamic (Cook & Brown, 1999).

The second theory of organizational learning has broader implications as knowledge could be created and transmitted both formally and informally. In the knowledge management perspective of organizational learning, knowledge is viewed as something that can be stagnate and captured for others outside of the culture and environment in which it was created. In the constructed perspective of organizational learning, knowledge may be converted from implicit to explicit formats, but any knowledge captured would need to be modified (or recreated) for a specific environment. As such, the process of knowledge creation could be learned, but the content would change depending on the environment.

Organizational learning is distinguishable from knowledge management. Organizational learning may not result in operational or behavioral changes at the individual, group, or even organizational level, and as such may be difficult to measure. In fact, Cook & Yanow (1995) give examples in which organizational learning may make subgroups or individuals less productive. Rather, organizational learning is the interaction that results in deeper knowledge and understanding at the organizational level. For this study, I will use Cook & Yanow’s definition of organizational learning:

The acquiring, sustaining or changing of intersubjective meanings and/or the artifactual vehicles of their expression and transmission, through the collective actions of the group.

References:


Akgun, A., Lynn, G., & Byrne, J. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 56 (7), 839-868.

Allee, V. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organizational Science (2003) 14 (3), 283-296.

Cook, S. & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4), 381-400.

Cook, S & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (4), 373-390.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Nonaka, I (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Raelin, J. (2008). Work-Based Learning. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.

A Generation of Teachers

I realized yesterday as my son was teaching me how to text (yes, I couldn't figure out how to text on my phone!) that not only is this a generation of learners, but also a generation of teachers. I see this all the time in my class (online and face to face) and with my children and their friends.

So how are they different from my generation? My generation looked to the teacher for answers. Ultimately, the teacher was the expert who would "teach" us how to do things. If we don't know how to do something, we go to an "expert" who will know how to "teach" us how to do something.

What I noticed about my children's generation is that they take direction from the person who wants to know how to do something, asking a lot of information. I was impressed with the fact that my son asked me if I knew how to do "X", then showed me how to do it, then had me do it. He didn't always have the patience to let me make mistakes and have me try it again. Rather, being a typical teen, he looked at me in disgust and showed me again how to do "X". I find this is the same process my students use (with out the disgust) when showing something to their classmates.

Public vs. private learning

I currently am setting up my courses (three different ones) for next semester. As I do so, I need to determine the best tools for my students. One issue that has come up repeatedly each semester is how to maintain privacy laws (Family Education Privacy Act), but allow access to learning in a public manner.

FERPA laws require that I have tools that students are either guaranteed anonymity when they use the tool (school based secure tools) or are given the choice of how much information they reveal about themselves, including the option of not participating in a "public" forum. This leads to a number of restrictions when deciding on which tools to use and how to use them.

Last semester I used Ning. In many ways, this is a great tool for public discussions. Even the private emails and the use of the approval function for video uploads allowed for a certain amount of privacy. However, I still did not trust Ning's privacy controls enough to upload grades or receive individual assignments. As a result, this semester I decided to use Blackboard's grading and assignment features. In designing the new course, however, I remembered why I don't like Blackboard. The assignment and grade features are very time consuming and cumbersome to set up. As I've mentioned before, I miss the ease of Prometheus, which was bought by WebCT, but whose features seemed to be discarded.

I have yet to find an easy syllabus program that fit the ease of Prometheus's. I could set up a course in a day, using the Prometheus template. I know it will take about 2-3 days per course to set up the courses on Blackboard. In addition, I want to still use the Ning and a Wiki for the interschool projects I am designing for two of the three courses I'm teaching.

All of these have made be wonder about the importance of having both public and private learning spaces. I use Private learning spaces to help motivate my students to take chances, fail, and learn from their mistakes. I use public learning spaces to help students feel a sense of responsibility for their own and others learning, help create synergy in learning, and create a sense of community in learning (rather than learning being something that is done in isolation).

So what are the differences in private and public learning spaces? How can we work with administrators to create both? How do we balance security issues with sharing of knowledge and community building?

Critical questions we should be asking about team work

The picture above was taken last year at the annual life guard's challenge on Fire Island, NY. Teams of life guards compete in life saving, relay races, and swimming competitions after a day of work. These teams are made up of life guards from 5 communities and one National Park. What is interesting is to see the level of interaction needed, especially in the life saving competition. Fire Island is a barrier Island off the coast of Long Island, commuting distance from New York City. I have been going down since I was born, and my mother has been going down for 80 years, spending her childhood summers down there. I (as I am sure many) take for granted the abilities of these lifeguards. However, a visitor to the beach before it opens in the morning will see the team training which makes these life guard teams function.

Tom Haskins has had a good series of posts on collaborative/group learning. My daughter's summer project was to interview 2 adults about team work. And I have been working on my dissertation looking at collaborative writing in the work place. I thought it might be good to post the questions both my daughter and I have been asking those in the workplace about team work.

My daughter had some guidelines for creating the questions (how to write good discussion questions, what factors about team work she should consider), but she had to develop her own questions (which will be part of her grade). In reviewing them, I thought they are important for teachers to address in developing any group assignment (begin the school year or semester with a discussion of these questions):

• In what way does your job demand teamwork?
• What traits do you look for in a person in order for them to work successfully in a team?
• What are some negative aspects of working in a team as opposed to working independently?
• What are some positive aspects of working in a group as opposed to working independently?
• What are some examples of when team work helped you in your job?
• What are some qualities you look for in a good team leader?
• While working on a team, how do you decide who has more say on certain matters?
• How do you make sure work is distributed evenly within a team?
• How do you handle a team member who is not handling their fair share of the work?
• How do you see yourself as a team leader; Do you take a passive role or a proactive role? Why is this?

I asked the following questions about group work for my dissertation:

• Where do you perceive your team or working group fits into the organization?
• What is your perception of how your team was created? In other words, who chose who would be on your team and why? What do you think was their basis for deciding on team members?
• When doing a written project as part of a group, what role or roles do you like to do? What role or roles do you usually do? Why?
• What, if anything, do you like about working in a group?
• What, if anything, do you dislike in working in a group?
• Can you describe to me your best experience in working in a group? Why do you consider this a good experience?
• Can you describe to me your worst experience in working in a group? Why do you consider this a poor experience?
• Have you ever worked with any of the other group members before?
• What are your perceptions of the other group members? What do you think they can contribute? What possible problems do you anticipate in working with them? who do you think will have the most influence on what goes into the quarterly report? Who do you think you will work best with and why? Who do you think you will learn the most from?
• Describe the best possible scenario of how you will be working with your group.
• Describe the worst possible scenario of how you will be working with your group.
• What other resources or expertise might you need outside of your group? Where would you get those resources/support?
• What other projects and project tasks will you be working on as you complete the group task?

Using Tom's guidelines, this would allow students the opportunity to discuss their expectations in working in a group. I also use group generated codes of conduct, based on the class discussions on expectations for group work. In a paper I coauthored a few years ago, we found that these codes made group work more acceptable for students, but did not necessarily improve the quality of the finished product.

Resources:
Yonkers, V., & Buff, C. (2005). A Matter of Trust: Using Student Designed Codes of Conduct in Face-to-Face and Virtual Group Environments. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics (JABE). Presented at the International Academy of Business and Economics-2005, October 18, 2005, Las Vegas NV.

Doing collaborative learning correctly

I just read Ken Allen's post on Collaborative Learning and felt that it deserved a post rather than a comment.

In the post Ken addresses Donald Clark's comments on the failure of collaborative learning. He says:

Clark explained how this has not worked, in spite of the huge cost in the attempt. Much of what he is quoted as saying has not moved a smidgen from the opinion he has shared on his blog since the interview.

I am not sure what Clark is using to measure the failure of collaborative learning. What I find is that the current educational system in the US is based on standardized tests which do not measure "deep thinking" or social interaction. My students come to the university expecting to be spoon feed by the professor, learning only what is going to be on the test, and not able to work in teams and groups. Furthermore, I hear complaints from those in business that new graduates don't have any ability to plan their work, work in teams, work without direction, problem solve (especially "messy" problems), or network effectively. My sister, who is in the field of science and my brother in law (a veterinarian and researcher for veterinarian pharmaceuticals) also have been seeing this trend in science. This is the result of an educational system based on testing, not collaborative learning.

What is collaborative learning

One of the common mistakes for new teachers using collaborative learning is that they equate "group work" with "collaborative learning". Vygotsky, in fact, did not take the teacher out of the equation but rather looked at learning as a social process. Many of my student teachers will put children in groups "to learn from each other."

As Ken asks: How does a group of children assist each other to develop the numeracy that they need? How does such a group help one another to improve their reading abilities? How can a group of young learners teach each other about Science or History or learn a second language?

I can only speak from second language learning, however, it can be done. In fact, this is the way in which I teach second language (French and English). Unlike my students that have a vague sense of what they want children to get out of a group experience, it takes me a lot to plan a group activity. Part of the plan is analyzing what my students have coming into the activity, what they will need from me, how much "space" I can give the groups, even a question of which students will need to be put into the group. If I do the groups randomly, I must know the needs and dynamics of these groups (which an inexperienced teacher might have trouble doing).

Also important in planning the collaborative learning activity is how I am going to assess it, and the directions that will be given to the students. This structure takes a lot of planning and anticipation of problems, my role, student roles, and scaffolding for learning.

For example, a elementary level English language class for middle schoolers working on pronunciation of "sch" or "sk" sounds can do this collaboratively. I might begin by having students in groups, generate a list of words with that sound. They would write down the list. This allows students to build vocabulary that they might not have had if they were to do it individually. I would need to monitor the list, check it over, ask the group questions such as "should 'schedule' be included in this?". After this activity, I would address to the class as a whole the question of schedule (which is pronounced differently in the US--part of the list--than in England--not part of the list). Next, I would have students create a dialog or "jazz chant" (basically a rhyme) so students could work on the pronunciation in context. After this has been created, I would ask each group to practice saying the dialog or chant out loud as a group. As they practiced, I would monitor their progress, identifying when there were problems with combination of the "sk" sound with other sounds. I would then ask students to come up with strategies to over come those problems. I might write group suggestions on the board as groups are working, take my own notes, or just monitor areas that need further work.

What is key here is that I am still working as a teacher. This is not the time for me to correct, or tune out. One of the hardest skills to learn as a good facilitator of collaborative learning is to monitor multiple groups simultaneously, listening and speaking at the same time. It also takes a tremendous amount of management skill to ensure the groups stay on task. In addition, the teacher needs to be able to identify common problems and address those problems either immediately or to create a lesson for the next class to follow them up.

Can collaborative learning work?

I am a product of collaborative learning. While my own learning was not completely based on collaborative learning, what I remember most from school were lessons in which we learned collaboratively. My high school was considered "experimental". We had 3 different types of classes for each course: a large lecture (100-200 students) usually once a week to introduce main concepts; a medium group 920-45 students) which was usually teacher led, but with interaction with the students in the form of questions and answers; and the small group (5-12 students) which was more of a discussion group. We had a number of group projects, especially in history and science. As my chemistry teacher used to tell us, "if you can explain a concept to someone else, you must really understand it." She often had mixed groups with the advanced students put with those that were struggling. One of my group members, who is now a doctor, told me that my questions in our group work helped in when he got to college because he really knew the information (he was brilliant and could figure things out when needed, but to explain, he had to UNDERSTAND it). I took chemistry in college (for science majors) for my required science course, even though I was not a science major. I did better than a number of the science majors. So I would say that the collaborative learning methods worked.

Many countries with successful educational systems, including Japan and Sweden, use collaborative learning as the basis for their educational systems.

So is collaborative learning THE model for learn?

It was obvious from Ken's posting that for collaborative learning to be effective 1) the teacher needs to have a strong presence and be trained in planning, assessing, and implementing collaborative learning activities, and 2)students need to be trained and prepared to learn from each other. Also, I am a firm believer in a variety of approaches to teaching so that students can learn in different ways, drawing on their strengths and working on their weaknesses. I was never a good memorizer, although I do recognize in teaching foreign languages that sometimes it is necessary to memorize content (i.e. irregular verbs and verb conjugation).

I hope that Donald and Ken don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, I do agree with them that collaborative learning is not an easy out to budget crises. Poorly executed collaborative learning is the same as poorly executed teaching in general: bad education.

Top Ten Tools: YouTube

This has become a must in my classroom. I use video clips to illustrate concepts in my class. For example, when teaching about teamwork, I found clips of high school basketball and soccer games to illustrate verbal and non-verbal communication cues. This made the concepts much more concrete for my students. I also have begun to use YouTube for students to upload clips of their speeches for my speech class.

How to use Youtube

Rather than describe how to upload clips, etc... I would recommend that you watch the following video clip.

You can also embed a youtube video on a blog or webpage easily. Just go to upper right corner of the page you want to embed and copy and paste the code listed. . One disadvantage to doing this is that it makes the download time for your page longer. If you or your students use dial up service, it would be better to have students go to the link. I have found that the viewing time (even with dial up) is reasonable with youtube.

In using youtube in the classroom, I always make sure that 1) I know the length of the clip (more than 10 minutes is hard to keep the attention of the students; however, most of the clips I find are 3-7 minutes long) 2) practice so you can passby parts of clips you might not want to show to the class as a whole, 3) maximize the screen (lower right side of the tool bar, there is a rectangle next to the horn-used to increase volumn--which will maximize the screen when you click on it), 4) have something for my students to focus on when looking at a video clip.

Affordances:

Youtube allows visualization of concepts, case studies, a basis for discussion, and analysis of complex situations. I will often use the same clip multiple times to analyze different aspects.

Youtube can also be made private so students can limit who sees their work. Students can upload assignments or works in progress and then get feedback from either the teacher or other students, thus creating collaborative learning environments.

Defining collaboration in a learning context

In response to a question raised Britt Gow on the workplace literacy site, I'd like to address the idea of "collaborative learning". Britt's comment was based on a post she read about "drop box" collaboration. In the post, Mr. Rezac, a 7th grade teacher in Illinois brings up a legitimate question as to whether an international project in which students video tape "what it is like to live where they do" is a collaborative learning project or rather just a "drop box" assignment. He questions where the collaboration is in the project.

I believe the real question here, however, is what is collaborative learning. We have had this debate in our department in that some insist there is a difference between collaborative and cooperative learning. In the first case, collaborative learning is when students take a piece of a project and learn from interacting with the group on the piece they have studied. Cooperative learning is when students work together in supporting each others learning.

Just in my own work and research, I see a number of different ways that collaborative/cooperative learning could be manifested, including:

• Learning from a collaborative event: students collaborate on a project, then have directed/facilitated individual learning based on that collaboration. In other words, they learn from the collaborative process and individual reflection after.
• Learning from others on a process they all undergo individually: students go through the same experience or individually do the same project, then learn from each other through discussions or collaborative activities designed around the project. In this case they are sharing meaning and creating shared cognition. This is especially useful when the group is distributed (as the example that Mr. Rezac uses).
• Learning through collaborative problem solving: students work on a team to achieve a definitive goal. The collaboration requires that students use each others expertise and learn from the problems that are created through the collaboration process. There may need to be a facilitator that helps students to focus on each others expertise, to learn how to create shared knowledge for the group, and access that knowledge when needed.
• Synergistic learning through putting pieces of the puzzle together: in this case, individuals work individually on parts of a collaborative project, but then learn from others as each of the pieces are put together into a whole.

Internal, external, tacit, and explicit learning

One of the major problems with collaborative learning, especially in the formal educational process, is how to measure individual learning. One way to approach this is to ignore individual learning and only look at the group learning. However, this devalues collaborative learning.

Tacit learning outside of the collaborative process is difficult to measure. I believe, though, that this is the real power in collaborative learning. As we move deeper into the 21st century, it is important that we recognize that collaboration is a vital skill in the workforce and may not necessarily be a natural instinct (and definitely is not part of the American culture-or any of the Anglo cultures).

I am not sure how to measure this learning and hope there are some ideas out there as to how to capture the level of learning collaboration presents. However, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater just because we don't know how to measure its impact yet.

Lessons learned about Wiki use

A post by Michael Hanley reminded me that blogging takes discipline and like going to the gym, if you give up on posting regularly because of other commitments, it is easy just to get out of the habit. (I have been remiss in both instances: the posting and the exercise!)

In my case, I have been trying to keep up with some great blog posts, including one from Ken Allen on support in learning, and the e-course on work literacy, along with my own research for my dissertation on organizational learning and research for my class on visuals and electronic aids in teaching speech composition and presentation.

However, this week is wiki week on the work literacy, and while I think the personal learning information is good on wikis, there is so much more to the use of wikis than the tool itself when used collaboratively in the classroom.

A Multiclass Wiki Project

One problem with using a wiki in formal training is that it is difficult to measure the actual learning that takes place in using the wiki, especially if the final product is a "mess". However, I found the more my students experimented and communicated through the wiki, more learning took place outside of the classroom and wiki.

I used the same wiki for an ongoing project between classes, to plan and execute an online conference. At the university level, this means that students could take part in a long term project outside of the semester. The first semester, a group of global communication students planned an online conference, including the title of the conference and audiences (international), along with some background material. Students in two different classes the next semester then performed different tasks that were laid out from a document from the previous class and my own format to help structure the work they would need to do outside of class.

Findings from Multiclass Project

Set up is important. I made the assumption when I initially set up the wiki that each group would be able to develop their own way of using the wiki. However, I soon found that unless they were granted ownership, and encouraged to use the wiki as "group" property, that they would not take ownership of the wiki.

I found that a front page that is used for logistics and acts like an aggregator or organizational tool (table of contents) for the group helped groups to develop their own group pages without feeling as if they were stepping on toes.

The wiki should have instructions on how it should be used for that specific wiki. I found that by establishing protacols such as color coding changes or adding icons to areas that had been changed or tasks that had been completed, helped establish the boundaries for the use of the wiki. Even though the changes would show up in a separate post, my students wanted to find the changes within the context of the page and quickly (i.e. seeing the icons).

Halfway through the second semester, a group of students and myself sat down to establish instructions that fit the groups' purposes. This might be necessary as groups change and/or the project requires a new structure.

The wiki should be perceived as a tool for collaboration, not a piece of collaboration. Once my students started using the wiki as a means of collaboration, the wiki itself became a mess. This meant that students would then need to go back in, edit and restructure the information so that it was accessible for readers outside of the group. This editing process was much more of a learning tool than the final product. When I asked students to give a presentation on what they had learned, the wiki was a vital center piece to their learning process. However, the learning they presented to me was not obvious in the wiki view.

I belive one reason for this might be the tacit learning that wikis promote through the collaborative writing process. There are also group processes that happen outside of the wiki space, such as leadership, conflict resolution, group organization, the development of group norms, inter and intragroup relations, the development of trust (cognitive and affective), group assumptions, and shared cognition. Of course, this will make the use of wikis less than desirable for organizations that want proof of learning.

It's the process, not the product. All of these points leads to the conclusion that the process of creating the wiki is where the learning is. As such, work on the wiki should include assessments that allow students to demonstrate what they have learned, not just the final product that they come up with. For example, I had my students blog about what they were learning as they used the wiki. I also had them give a presentation on the project they worked on. Often the wiki was a record they could go back to which gave some evidence of what they had done. However, they admitted that the work on the wiki (e.g. mistakes made that needed to be corrected, misunderstandings that were resolved, identification of resources from multiple sources) was much more important to their learning than other activities they did in class or the final outcome.

In addition, the wiki was a document that only those that went through the process could really understand. Therefore, something that looked like a mess to me, was understood by the group members as it fit their communication and group norms.

Wiki products/documents may need to be "translated" or interpreted for the outside reader. My students found that they also learned through the comments and questions features (although not as much as I feel they could have) and through class discussions with others outside of the class. They were often surprised when others outside of their group had difficulty following the way their document read. It is important, therefore, when a wiki is used for learning or even within an organizational environment, that feedback be actively solicited. It is not enough to ask readers to "post their comments". The feedback should be targeted. This is one reason why we established an icon protacol to help monitor tasks.

The wiki should be easy to read and follow. One complaint I had from my students was that the document was boring and hard to read based the set up. They wanted pictures and better design (e.g. text boxes with additional information). They also would have appreciated more audio visuals such as podcasts or embedded videos. Many of the wiki software now includes templates for those with limited programming and software design skills.

The uses of Wikis in formal learning

Finally, there are three main uses of wikis in formal learning: sharing and communication of information, collaboration, and developing a permenant record of information.

My students used the wiki as part of their conference to keep track of the logistics of the conference. The conference went on for 12 hours. Each group had a designated "trouble shooter" for 4 hours at a time. The students chose times for check in during the day to identify any problems. For example, the group taking care of registration, needed to "dump" the names into an excel file on a regular basis so that the limited file space of the free registration software they used would free up (they were only allowed 50 names at a time). At the beginning of the conference, the registration closed out. The group keeping track of the promotion were contacted by various people trying to register for the conference indicating that the registration would not work. They posted this problem on the wiki so those in charge of registration and technology were appraised of the problem within the first check in period. By the next check in period the issue was resolved, so other members of the trouble-shooting team knew what was going on.

In another of my classes, students put together a wikipage for an online class presentation that drew resources from a number of places. Students used the wiki first as a collaborative space, in which they learned about the choice of technology in instructional design through colloborating on the presentation.

The wiki then became an information tool as they used the document to present how a specific technology worked ( a wiki in one case, and a podcast in another).