The mobile classroom

As part of the flipped classroom, I was given an ipad to use. At first I was excited because I thought I would be able to tape and project some of the classroom activities (very important in communication education). However, I soon found that logistically this was difficult. An unexpected outcome that was noted when my class was observed was that the mobile devise also put a barrier up between my students and I. To film, they could not make eye contact with me. This meant many disengaged from me, acting as they would act if I had left the room (going off topic, not working on the activity, etc...).

However, I have learned that the ipad is very useful as I manage my class. Often, I will project an activity (either powerpoint or googledoc) so students can follow the activity goals and requirements. However, this makes it difficult if they have questions that I need internet access to answer. For example, they may ask for an example of how something works. Using the ipad, I can access a resource and show it to them (rather than just explain it). In some cases, students will copy down or access the resource on their own smart phones.

This has been especially useful in modeling technology use for my students. For example, students will come to me saying they can't find a resource. I will go through the process, showing them how to access/search for resources. This means they no longer can say, "I don't know how..." and hope to end the learning there. Now I can show them at the same time allowing them to save face since this can be done during group or individual work. I also don't have to bore those that already know by repeating the process on the classroom screen.

The use of tablets and other mobile technology gives me the tool to individualize learning for my students. It also aids in the just-in-time learning many students have come to expect.

Where I've been

The last few months I have not been posting much because I am finishing up my Ph.D. dissertation, along with teaching 3 different classes, and helping my daughter look for colleges and helping my son navigate his first regular year of college. This doesn't mean that I don't have a number of topics that I want to work on once I have finished the dissertation/Ph.d. process. Some of these include:

Pew's study on social media and health
Growing use of twitter among the 13-17 years old, a new trend?
New trends in technology
New models of education and the continued attack on the education profession
The role of editing in workplace writing and workplace ownership
What happens when training is ahead of technology and innovation?

In the meantime, you can follow me on twitter at comprof1. Hopefully this Ph.d. will be completed by the end of summer. Then on to job search! oh yeah!

Are Forums obsolete?

Tony Karrer posted a query for suggestions of how a financial institution can replicate an online forum which they had previously been successful in creating.

This was my comment:

Part of the problem in financial institutions today (as opposed to two years ago) is that they are under the scrutiny of regulators. I have been an employee in an atmosphere of high government regulation (I was an internal auditor) and learned never to put anything in writing that I was not absolutely sure of. It could come back to bite you. This sounds like a similar climate.

It seems to me that first there needs to be a sense of connection with the other members of forum outside of the forum. Once this has been established, the community needs to feel that they need the online forum. How has the forum been set up? How will they use it? Will there be a moderator? Will it be private? Anonymous? How will you insure the group's privacy? How will you remind them that the forum is there? Often, having a forum that is linked to a vital website is more useful than one in which they receive email updates.

To get them to use the forum, you will need to have "events" that will bring them back to the community (i.e. online training events, important updates from those in authority, interviews or guest "appearances" by key decision makers or stake holders). I think if you were to look at the previous forum, you will find that there was some hook that got them going and/or key personnel that maintained the forum. My experience is that there are some groups that just won't share and others that won't do it online.

Finally, I would look to the tools being used. With twitter and other "shortened" tools being used today, a forum is outdated and not useful. A social network such as facebook or ning gives a more informal feeling, but also requires a moderator to update information. This person, from the concerns you have identified, should be someone in a position of authority so the information provided is validated and filtered.

Tony then posed the question as to whether I thought there was no role for forums in the corporate any more. This was my answer:

I wouldn't say that a classic forum won't ever work. It depends on the community. I think older workers would prefer the forum format (i.e. upper management). However, I think as workers are being squeezed for time, attention, and accountability, they need tools that will fit their community's "personality". If they are facebook users (which more and more people are), they will want to access information through facebook. If they have all received training through a ning or other tool, they are familiar with that tool so are more apt to use it. If they are following each other on twitter, they are more apt to want to share information using that format. But the tool should come from the community rather than the training or IT department forcing them to use something. The ideal would be to negotiate between the two groups what would work.

What do you think?

Some predictions for the new decade

Last year, I commented on a number of blogs that I thought the future of elearning would be in mobile technology. In fact, Michael Hanley had a good post evaluating some of the new mobile elearning apps last year.

So, taking my crystal ball, what do I see the trends being in elearning, technology, and higher ed/training in general? These are based on my observations in the classroom, my own children's technology habits and what is happening in their classrooms, and my own research.

1. Mobile technology (including ebooks, smart phones, and smartbooks) will continue to grown and make learning mobile. In the US, if the transportation plans come to fruition, commuters will spend commuting time learning. This might already be happening in other parts of the world.
2. If wifi and 3g technologies are expanded enough, learners will be able to access learning tools anywhere. As a result, learning will take place outside of traditional classrooms, with less face to face time in the classroom and more individualized learning plans. However, the classroom will continue to be the location for assessment. This means there will be a shift for educators from being the source of learning to being the assessor of learning. Universities will still be the source of research (at least in the US) but the location of the research will expand as there is more incentive to work with businesses in developing research that is economically viable.
   
3. In the US (and I think other countries as well), there will be a push for universal standards at the University level to be maintained through technology based assessment tools. The current K-12 standards based education has developed a student that requires structure for learning and assessment. (Disclaimer: I don't think this will be good for education, but I feel the pressure in my own teaching these days).
4. There will be a shift from learning about various tools to learning how to use different classifications of tools to acheive results. There will also be demand to find new apps and tools through a central location. An apps search engine will probably come into popularity at some point in the next few years. For example, need to find a note taking software that can be used on a Mac for academic purposes? Go to the Apps search engine and input the parameters.
5. Video will become more important, especially subtitled video. Why subtitled? Because users can access the images and read the information without others in a room knowing they are accessing the internet/video. This currently happens with texting. Being able to have an instant subtitled video or attaching comments to the video means that the image can be shared privately in public spaces.
6. Learning, business, customer service, and societal values will be customized. Businesses and educators will need to offer options that allow choice by users. (See my earlier post).

So what are your predictions for the New Decade? Write a post and link it to this post or put the location in the comment section. I can't wait to see what others have come up with. To get it started, I'm going to tag 5 people, who I hope will tag 5 others.

Ken Allen (He already made his predictions and inspired this post)
Michael Hanley
Paul Cornies
Anita Hamilton
Sahana
Andy Cloverdale

Learn Trends 2009

The third Learn Trends 2009 is taking place this week. For anyone who has never taken part, it is well worth the time. What I especially like is the interaction during the presentation as there is often a very active chat. This year (tomorrow morning) they have a session in French. I hope this will expand in the future as I would love to see what else is going on around the world in the area of professional training and elearning.

Integrating elearning into the classroom: Technology

This next section, I am not going to recommend any specific technology. In fact, as I found out the first semester I taught an educational technology course, often instructors and instructional designers have little or no input into WHAT technologies they can use.

So the first step in developing elearning is to befriend the ITS department. Don't start with, "What technologies are available that I can use in the my teaching?" as most will list the technologies as they understand instructors using it (i.e. blackboard is a classroom technology that we have so you will use that because that is why the organization ordered it).

Instead, describe to your ITS friend what you would like to do WITH the technology. For example, I am looking for technology that will allow my students to access elearning from any computer, post their work, and then be able to discuss it either simultaneously or asynchronously, work at the same time on making corrections to their work (written or multimedia), and maintain a record so that I, as the instructor can give them regular feedback as they work on the project. They may come back with questions of their own. Will they be working from home or school? What level of skill do you have? How much control/support do you think you will need?

In presenting the technology choice as a problem for the ITS worker to work with you on, you are giving them greater choices to choose from that they may have experience with. Often, they will go with what technologies other use based on their limited experience of what goes on in the classroom. You can't assume that they understand what happens in eLEARNING. However, it is also important not to underestimate their expertise. After many years of working with faculty, the best ITS personnel know how appease faculty who have "heard about a great technology" yet have not taken in into consideration the technological requirements, the security issues, and the type of support needed by the users.

Categories of affordances

Another useful tip in speaking with ITS is to understand the affordances that any given technology can provide. Often technology designed for one affordance, can actually have a different affordance or use. ITS may be limited in what technologies they can use due to security concerns, user patterns and traffic, lack of resources, or knowledge of the technologies within ITS.

I have had my students look at their instructional design and identify the "uses" or affordances of technology. For example, a music teacher had one of his students studying at Juliard School of Music in New York City as part of their chorus. He wanted his student's classmates to be able to interact with him about concerts and even listen to the chorus. He decided to use streaming media after he discussed with his technology person what was available. However, when I asked him how he would coordinate schedules with his student in NYC, he realized streaming might be difficult. He went back to the tech directed and asked what technology was available where the student interact with the other students. He suggested using the streaming technology, but having his student uploading the video (this was a few years ago before YouTube) on their system and then streaming the video on demand when the Music Teacher needed it.

I find elearning has basically 4 affordances: communication, sharing and storing information, filtering and connecting ideas (meaning making), and creating knowledge. In fact, even the simplest technology can be used for each of these categories. It is important as an instructional designer to establish the protocols that will allow students to use the technology for those affordances. For example, email could be used for communication through groups or individual messages. By attaching files and having prearranged subject headings, email could also be used to share information and keep a record. Some email programs, such as gmail, allow a series of correspondence to be grouped together, the accumulation being used for meaning making and connecting the same ideas through the conversation (the use of the forward and reply functions). Finally, documents that are edited by a group, thus "creating knowledge" could be done through emails. It would be important that the documents are given version numbers in addition to being grouped together.

In the example above, the instructor would need to scaffold student learning through the development of protocols either in the instructional design or by the students themselves. New technology would not be necessary, rather new uses for existing technologies would need to be developed.

Example of assessment part 3: Online course

Below is the assessments I used for an online course in Distance education. When I create assessments for distance learning, there is a more systematic approach as assessments act as a means of dialogue between the student and myself and the students with each other. Not only do I use assessments to check student learning with the desired course outcomes, I also use it to check if the course is fulfilling the needs for the student (which might be different than what the institution requires), a means to create a class community, and a way for the student to identify their own needs, strengths and create a learning agenda for after the course.

As a result, I use multiple mediums for assessment and multiple measures including teacher, student reflections, peer reviews, group assessments, discussion, blogs, student projects, annotated bibliographies, and group projects. One thing that is missing from my assessments are standardized tests.

Below is the evaluation criteria I gave students:

A. Students will be expected to participate and contribute to online discussions, both within SLN and on outside assigned discussion boards (Yahoo, Googlegroups). Students will be expected to demonstrate they have done the readings by citing pages and ideas from the readings, but applying those concepts to the discussion activities. Minimal discussion requirements are included in the discussion instructions. This will earn students a “B-”. Students that want a higher mark will be required to post more frequently and include quality postings (a discussion of quality postings is included in the instructions for discussions in Module 1). Maximum 40 Points per module.

B. At the end of each module, students will be given time to reflect on the module’s instruction and their learning as a journal entry. They will be given some guiding questions in the journal section and asked to answer the questions and evaluate their performance in class for that module. Students may also post other issues that they find of importance for that module. Maximum 40 points per module.

C. Students will work on designing a distance learning or outreach module with other teachers. As part of the process, students may be working with other faculty at a distance. A series of preparatory activities and the journal questions will be used to help guide students through the process. Ten percent of the grade will be based on the preparatory activities and 10% of the final grade will be based on the final product. Maximum 200 points

D. Students will write an evaluative annotated bibliography using 5 resources from the resource list posted on the course website and 5 additional resources (peer reviewed article or academic book) which are related to their module and research interests. In addition to the APA style citation, the annotated bibliography should include a short summary of the resource and how it relates to their module topic. Maximum 15 points per citation.

E. Each student will write a reflective paper on the instructional design choices they made for their distance learning module. The paper should include research and references which support their choices or explain their approach. The paper should be 10-14 pages double-spaced, using APA style. Maximum 250 points.

Note the level of choice students are given, yet there are also standards established (i.e. APA style) that are required by the department and profession.

In addition to the above evaluation criteria, I include the following at the beginning of each discussion area (entitled "Instructions for discussion")

Quality discussion responses
A high quality response contains information from the textbook or other valid source, or applies a concept from the text or course in a meaningful way, or facilitates understanding of the course material or topic. This could include posing questions, clarifying others ideas, giving alternative view points or interpretations of the same reading passages, giving real life examples that apply the concepts, and citing additional resources. Responses such as: "I agree.", "Good question" or "Good answer" / Any response that is just an opinion, or is unsubstantiated may add to the discussion but will not be evaluated as part of your discussion grade. Any response that is carelessly typed, poorly thought-out, grammatically incorrect or confusing / any response that is disrespectful of another student or any other person, etc., are not acceptable.

Netiquette
As discussion is of a public nature, please observe proper "netiquette" -- courteous and appropriate forms of communication and interaction over the Internet (in online discussions). This means no personal attacks, obscene language, or intolerant expression. All viewpoints should be respected. Because there are no communication cues, such as a smile, eye contact, nodding, and tone of voice, to help identify when someone is jesting or being sarcastic, you should be careful not to be insulted if a comment is misunderstood or misinterpreted, but rather to clarify its meaning. Likewise, you need to expect that others might misinterpret or be insulted when using subtle humor, so reread what you intend to post to make sure there will be no misinterpretation of your intentions. Emoticons can be used to express your intentions.

This sets a stand criteria on which I am evaluating the discussions. I find it difficult to "grade" each discussion post, but instead grade holistically. I give each student a grade for discussion after each module. In some cases, students may post a few very high quality posts or they may post a number of very thought provoking questions, both of which are evaluated highly. Other times, they may post frequently, but just very superficially in which case they are not evaluated as highly.

In developing discussing questions, I make sure students are required to apply reading concepts and class activities to their own situation and/or class problems. Below is an example of the discussion question I used to evaluate their understanding of distance learning assessment:

Work though each of the activities before you start this discussion! Since you will have more than three weeks for this discussion, I would not expect a high level of participation until April 14-26.

Analyze each of the activities listed in the activities section above using Philip's design dimensions. How would you categorize each of those activities? Which activities/design dimensions were you most comfortable doing as a student? as an instructional designer/teacher? Which were you least comfortable with as a student? as an instructional designer/teacher? Which do you think would be most relevant for your students? Why? What type of support do you think would be necessary for those activities above? Why? Look through at least 3 other students that were not part of your team and discuss the types of problems they had and how you would have supported them as an instructional designer.

The following are instructions for peer review on students projects:

Attach a draft of your project for the class to review and give feedback. Remember when you are giving feedback that the author of the draft 1) is probably still working on it so it is a work in progress, 2) has put a lot of time and thought into the project, 3) might want you to only look at certain aspects of the project, 4) may have a different teaching situation than your own, 5) is posting this for constructive feedback (saying" this looks good" is not enough, explain why it looks good, what you like about it; likewise, "you need to change X" is not enough, explain why you feel there needs to be changes, such as I wasn't able to understand what you wanted the student to do in X), and can't see your face (you might want to use emoticans).

Notice how I try to create boundaries for the type of feedback peers should be giving. This is especially true for online assessment as there are no social cues that will help to temper constructive criticism.

Below are the instructions for the project required by the students. Notice how, again, they are given a great deal of choice, yet within a very structured framework.

Each module, students will be asked to submit a different part of what will be their final project. Each student will be expected to develop a distance learning module. While more than one student may collaborate on the distance learning activity or module, each student will be expected to tailor the module to their own situation (in other words there needs to be some components that are their own original work). The module will follow this format:

Module Name
Author Name and Date Prepared
Target Group: Who will use this module (student, teachers, institution, general public); academic domain (i.e. ESL, science, history);level of education (elementary, secondary, higher ed, adult).
Institution (s): A brief description of the institutional context where it will be used including location (s), mission or goals, relationship between institutions if there are multiple locations, institutional structure (including required approvals and resource allocation).
Technology: List primary and secondary (or back-up) technologies that will be used. Include whether these technologies are currently available or will need to be procured by the students or institutions. Also include technology support that will be available including help desks or websites.
Module Description: Include a summary of the purpose of the module and how it will fit into the curriculum and/or standards and any prerequisite requirements
Module Goals and Objectives
Dates and/or Activity Schedule:
· Identify due dates and/or time frames for activities. Specific dates are not necessary (i.e. you may use Day, Week, or Month 1).
· Identify and briefly describe module activities
Module Content: Include auxiliary information including readings (in PDF or Word files), CD’s, Websites (addresses), Video or Audio clips (web address or on CD’s), scripts, or accompanying manuals (i.e. video conferencing).
In class activities: How will this module be integrated into your course or class? This section should be different for each student, even if you are collaborating with another teacher. It may include discussion questions unique to your group, separate activities, or separate assignments.
Evaluation: Method and basis for evaluating achievement of module goals and objectives. These might include a grading rubric, module evaluation by students, and/or end of module assignment or exam.
Supporting documents: This includes websites, worksheets, or articles for teachers.

Some samples of previous modules are posted in the shared reference area and on the course website.

Another aspect of this project was the submission for feedback by both the instructor and peers and the negotiation of standards based on that feedback.

Example of assessment part 2: Blended course

I taught an intensive course on computer supported writing across the curriculum. This was a one week course (8 hours a day) followed by 2 weeks of independent work. In this class, I had students from primary-adult education from language arts, history, science, and foreign language areas. In addition, the majority of the students were working professionals.

It was important, because of the diversity of the class, to incorporate variety and choice in the assessment tool. In addition, because the course was part of a educational technology institute, it was important that students demonstrated some technological ability, but appropriate for their own situation. For example, if a student worked in an environment in which certain technology was blocked, it would be a useless to have them demonstrate the use of that technology as it would be irrelevant in their work. Finally, in all of my assessments for education classes, it is important that students demonstrate their understanding of WHY they make choices and are able to justify it with research.

The following is the assessment tool I used for that class:

E-portfolio: (50%) Students will need to demonstrate their understanding of the course concepts by putting together an e-portfolio of their own completed examples of work they did in class (while we might begin the work in class, they may not be completed until after the course in finished). The portfolio should include a finished piece that demonstrates: 1) CSW (computer supported writing) that develops communication skills, 2) CSW that demonstrates writing to learn, 3) Collaborative CSW, 4) CSW appropriate for your level of teaching and discipline (or a discipline you are interested in), 5) research or data collection in CSW, 6) an analysis of CSW technology, 7) an example of hypertext, 8) a CSW assessment tool. In addition to the completed pieces, students will need to include explanations as to how each of pieces meet the criteria for each required element (e.g. what makes a piece a hypertext and how does your finished product meet that criteria). We will discuss this further in class (separate handout and rubric).

Learning Blog: (25%) Students will need to reflect on class discussions, activities, and required readings for each day (both readings due before and after the class) and write a blog that addresses each day’s questions (listed above). Students should label each post with the day and topic, with a total of 5 separate posts. The blogs will be used to evaluate your understanding of the course concepts AND readings, therefore, it is important they you reference the readings in your reflection.

Project: (25%): You will be given some time in class to work on this; however, this time might not be sufficient to complete the project during class.

Option A: Students can put together a CSW project that can be used in their classroom. This might include a lesson plan integrating CSW software, the development of a CSW software or website, a wiki or blog that outlines guidelines or compares CSW software attributes, a prototype of an OWL (online writing lab) or the design for a research project on CSW. In addition to the project, students will write a two to three page justification for the project and its design, based on readings.

or

Option B: Students may conduct a literature review on a topic in CSW and write a summary (6-10 pages) of major findings, issues, and gaps in the literature. Students need to have at least 10 resources and should use a standard style format (APA, University of Chicago, MLA, etc…).

Using Nings for classes

I've been reviewing my use of the Ning for this semester and trying to analyze the results. This is just a first pass through analysis. However, I was much more pleased with the use of the Ning than I was with the courseware our school uses.

How it was used:

I used the ning as a resource for my classes. Both sections of the course on speech presentation used the same Ning. My purpose, as I explained to my classes, for the use of the Ning was to answer questions about coursework and assignments. I also kept all of the student blog assignments in one place and students were able to upload videos of their presentations on the Ning.

The advantages:

1. Students were much more interactive on line, often jumping in with answers to other students' questions. This meant that I did not have to monitor the Ning several times a day so students would have answers to the questions. However, I did find they wanted my reenforcement, so I would post something like, "that's correct. Thanks for the help."
2. As the administrator, I was able to review videos without making them public. I had difficulty accessing YouTube private settings and many of my students did not want to upload their work for public display.
3. I was able to have all of my students blogs in one place. In addition, some blogs were read by others in the class (even though they did not comment) and the "popularity" feature on Ning allowed me to see which ones were being read.
4. There seemed to be a greater level of community. Students would leave messages for each other (which I could see), sometimes class related, other times just personnel. For example, one of the student's found another's paper from another class. She contacted the student through the Ning and made arrangments to return the paper.
5. I was able to send mass emails to the email addressed identified by the students (rather than the office school email) which meant they were more apt to get and read the emails.
6. Many students created a personal profile that helped to create a sense of identity outside of class.

Disadvantages:

1. I still needed to keep on top of the Ning and show a strong presence. Towards the end of the semester, especially, students stopped using it unless I told them I was posting something.
2. The two classes stayed pretty separate on the Ning which tells me that the community on the Ning is just an extension of the community developed in the classroom. Therefore, I think it is important to create a sense of community in the classroom for the Ning to work.
3. Some of the features on the Ning didn't work with some of the computers (i.e. some of the videos took so much time to upload that they "timed out", the discussion threads feature). Because Nings aren't supported by our school, we, the users, were on our own.
4. Sometimes, when there was a lot of activity on the Ning, it was hard to keep track of that activity. I could imagine this might have been the same with the students.
5. I feel that the upgraded version might have had features I would have preferred, but as I am only an adjunct, I don't have an budget to invest in such software.

Overall, I much preferred the Ning over other web-based software I've used for my classes in the last 6 years. My overall favorite ever was the now defunct Prometheus. I have yet to see the syllabus features that this program had. My favorite was an automatic date feature in which the instructor would put in the dates of the classes or the start and ending date along with the days the class met, and a template would be generated. It was simple then to fill in the information for each class including readings, assignments, and links to resources for the class. After, the instructor could add files and notes about the class.

I would strongly recommend the Ning of in classes. I will be using it next semester, hopefully trying some new things as I get used to each of the features of the software.

Teaching in the 21st Century: The discussion continues

I am swamped with getting my grades in for the end of the semester and working on my dissertation (while I have some time). However, I could not let Ken Allen's comment on my previous post go unanswered. As I composed a response, I realized it had turned into a post!

Technology for teaching vs. teaching technology

I agree with you that this is a "learning" issue, not just an elearning issue. I am sure you have had the same experience with the debate of how much science a science teacher needs to know to teach science.

I think teachers are underappreciated as the assumption is that if you know a content area, you can "teach". In New York State, secondary school teachers need to have two master's degrees, one in their content area and the other in education.

What gets dicey is what should the education degree include and in New York state the degree includes courses on writing (across the curriculum), but not necessarily technology. In other words, should high school teachers be teaching technology per se or should they be integrating the use of technology within their classes so students get the practice of using technology in multiple contexts (as happens currently with writing?) In addition, many of the new graduates are armed with new pedagogies which might integrate technology into the curriculum, but the system of assessment and the pedagogical structures within the school make it impossible for these teachers to implement these new strategies into their teaching.

An alternative school, which my daughter may be attending in the Fall, integrates these new pedagogies. The fact that they had 15 times more applications for each teaching position than most schools demonstrates how teachers would LIKE to use a more updated pedagogy in their teaching, but are not allowed to due to the curriculum and organizational culture within many schools.

Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century

So back to your original question as to how to prepare teachers for the 21st century, I would propose the following:

1. Teachers should learn technology and how it can be used (conceptual and pedagogical) as part of their education degree. This should include the same format that writing across the curriculum course include such as technology for science, technology for communication, technology for the humanities, etc...
2. Teachers should understand the implications of the use of technology on learning
3. Teachers should learn how to work with technology specialists in designing activities that will help to reinforce the theoretical principles learned in "technology class" (i.e. allowing for practice in multiple contexts so students understand the affordances of technology within a certain context)
4. There should be a push to implement "technology classes" as part of the curriculum, just as there are "writing classes." These classes focus on the conceptual and skill building needed for the 21st century. Then other classes reinforce these concepts and skills in throughout the curriculum.
5. There should be an effort to have "technology curriculum specialists" the same way there are "writing curriculum specialists" that teachers can use as a resource. In addition, teachers should be required to integrate technology use into their class (as is currently being done with writing) with a certain % of activities using APPROPRIATE technology for that discipline. For example, the use of a graphing calculator or SPSS software for a math course would be appropriate. Concept mapping or blogging would not be appropriate as it does not teach computing which is needed in the field of Math. On the other hand, the use of excel would not be appropriate for a Language Arts course, but a Ning would as a means of improving communication skills is central to most English Language Arts curriculums.
   

Teaching business writing

Tony Karrer had a post on what makes "good writing" which sparked a great conversation. In response to his post, I thought I would post a section of the paper written and presented at AERA by myself and Marilyn Easter (Yonkers, V. & Easter, M. (2007). College student perceptions of good professional writing in an international context. American Educational Research Association Conference: Writing and Literacies SIG, presented April 10, Chicago, IL.)

Teaching Business Writing

Because of the diverse academic backgrounds in the field of business communication, there is little consensus on what and how business writing should be taught (Alpern et al., 2004; Pultsky, 1996). In this section we will look at the methodologies used to teach writing and try to define the attributes of good business writing as identified by academics and professionals in the field.

Teaching Approaches

As discussed in the previous section, students come into the business communication class with varying preparations. Their perceptions of what constitutes good writing is often formed in primary and secondary schools. In fact, the approach and writing curriculum in which they were instructed creates the basis for their writing skills (Hillocks, 2002; Layet al. 1999; Sengupta & Falvey, 1998).

The traditional way of teaching business writing in the last century was to provide a format in which student would plug in information. Business writing used formulaic genres depending on the location and purpose of the written form (Amidon, 2004). Since business writing often doubled as legal documents, there was little variation of the form within a given country. However, with the advent of the internet and a growing reliance on written communication in the workplace, the genres began to become more flexible and less static (Amidon; Diaset al. 1999; Paltridge; 2004).

Research in the area of applied linguistics and contrastive rhetoric has allowed writing instruction to cross cultures, situating genres in cultural and social processes (Conaway & Wardrope, 2004; Hanna & de Nooy, 2003; Martin, 1993; Matsuda, 2001). It is no longer sufficient to teach genres without establishing the social processes that affect and are affected by particular genres (Kress, 1993).

Electronic communication, for example, has created a more informal genre in which there is flexibility in register and organization. On the other hand, formal reports still embed cultural and social processes that make it situated in the power structure of an organization. In other words, students are taught the parameters of a genre based on the interaction of the reader and writer. In some cases, there is flexibility and in others there is none.

One shortcoming to this approach is that students may not have the writing experience on which to base their genre choices. As such, they may continue to use outmoded or inappropriate genres. In addition, those who have limited access to diverse discourse communities may be limited in their ability to accommodate their writing to conventions and genres used by other groups (such as the business community or an international business organization) (Diaz et al., 1999).

The most common methods of instruction for writing, especially in the US, either takes the form of grammar/structure (a traditional approach) or process (prewriting, drafting, revision, and edit). The grammar/structure approach focuses on the minimization of grammatical errors. Students are taught grammar rules, rhetorical structures (i.e. narratives, expository, persuasive), and mastery of English (Hartman & Tarone, 1999; Hillocks, 2002; Layet al. 1999; Martin, 1993; Sengupta & Falvey, 1998). This approach does not necessarily take style or audience into consideration (Sengupta & Falvey; Syrquin, 2006). As a result, the reader may feel disconnected from the writing and have difficulty in understanding the writer’s message, although the writing conforms to a standard format and may be error free.

The process approach came out of research by Flowers and Hays (Saunders & Scialfa, 2003; Thorson, 2000). For most, the process approach includes prewriting planning, drafting, revising, and editing. In business communication or academic writing, these processes may include audience analysis (Alpern, et al.; Rogers & Rymer, 2001;Thorson), task analysis (Rogers & Rymer; Saunders & Scialfa); message design (Alpern, et al.); identifying and organizing supporting information (Myles, 2002; Saunders & Scialfa; Thorson); collaborating and revising during drafting (Saunders & Scialfa; Diaset al. 1999); and editing according to the guidelines for style defined by the university, the instructor, or a professional organization (such as APA or American Marketing Association). While many students may be taught the steps of the writing process, not all are given the time to develop these skills in class (NEAP, 2005).

Within foreign language instruction and business communication is a fourth approach to teaching business writing. The communicative approach focuses on minimizing misunderstandings. Writing is approached as a negotiated dialog between the reader and the writer. An outgrowth of the process approach and foreign language teaching, students spend a great deal of time trying to understand their readers’ situations, assumptions, and abilities (Alpernet al. 2004; Myles, 2002; Rogers & Rymer, 2001). They focus on the most effective way to encode and transmit their message while minimizing interference that could cause misunderstandings as readers decode their message. Just as important as the development of the message is feedback that the reader gives to the writer. This interaction between the reader and writer is what distinguishes the communicative approach from the process approach. Non-standard English is an error when it is distracting to the reader, thus interfering with communication (Rogers & Rymer, 2001). As a result, there is much more flexibility in the parameters of proficient business writing standards with the level of proficiency situated in the context of the reader and writer.

Defining Good Business Writing

As mentioned in previous sections, the business communication profession has multiple definitions of good business writing, depending on the field from which instructors were trained. There have been numerous studies of writing instructors’, business communication instructors’, and business professionals’ perceptions of errors and business writing (Beason, 2001; Gilsdorf & Leonard, 2001; Hairston, 1981; Plutsky, 1996; Rogers & Rymer, 2001; Saunders & Scialfa & Scialfa, 2003). The results from each of these studies have been surprisingly consistent, with the most disruptive errors being run-on sentences or sentence fragments, poor organization, poor development of ideas and arguments, and grammar errors that act as a social marker (i.e. he brung; Hairston) (Beason, Gilsdorf & Leonard; Hairston; Rogers & Rymer; Saunders & Scialfa & Scialfa) .

Beason’s (2001) research went further and identified how these errors affected a writer’s image. Through in depth follow-up interviews, she found that business professionals perceived writers as hasty, careless, uncaring, or uninformed if the reader identified multiple errors. This then influenced their image of the writer as a business professional who was: a) a faulty thinker, b) not a detail person, c) poor oral communicator, d) poorly educated, or e) sarcastic, pretentious, aggressive. Since writing in the workplace often takes the form of negotiation between various levels of power structures, these perceptions can have a serious impact on a graduating student’s career (Diaset al. 1999; Hairston, 1981).

Just as important as what constitutes good writing, was what the non-distracting errors were, especially since business professionals and instructors disagreed (Dias et al., 1999; Gilsdorf & Leonard, 2001; Plutsky, 1996). Gilsdorf & Leonard found that instructors tended to focus on the mechanics of writing, while business professionals focused on the style. For example, many of the errors that business professionals identified as distracting were, in fact, grammatically correct, such as beginning a sentence with but. On the other hand, business professionals overlooked errors that did not slow down their reading. It is possible, therefore, that even an error free piece of writing, could be perceived poorly if it does not conform to the organization’s style. Therefore, a focus on writing error free without taking into consideration style, organization, content, purpose, and audience, will produce graduates that are unprepared for business writing in the workplace.

The international workplace presents more challenges to what is considered good business writing. As Gilsdorf & Leonard (2001) point out, “No ready means exists to measure the influence of global English and e-mail on Standard English…These two pressures on the language, however do argue for an effort to measure again whether readers continue to perceive the various questionable usage elements as errors. (p. 2).”

Resources

Alpern, B., Odett, D., & Pietila, R. (2004). Improving MBA students’ communication proficiency: An orientation pilot study that incorporates technology and plagiarism issues. In Proceedings of the 2004 Association for Business Communication annual convention, pp. 269-280. Association for Business Communication.

Amidon, S. (2004). Change agents or followers: Analyzing genres in the business writing classroom. In Proceedings of the 2004 Association for Business Communication annual convention, pp. 121-126. Association for Business Communication.

Beason, L. (2001). Ethos and error: How business people react to errors. College Composition and Communication, 53 (1), 33-64.

Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Conaway, R. & Wardrope, W. (2004). Communication in Latin America: An analysis of Guatemalan business letters. Business Communication Quarterly, 67 (4), 465-474.

Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Pare, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Economist, (2006). Inculcating culture: The Toyota way. In The new organization: A survey of the company, pp. 11, The Economist, January 21, 2006.

Gilsdorf, J. & Leonard, D. (2001). Big stuff, little stuff: A decennial measurement of executives’ and academics’ reactions to questionable usage elements. The Journal of Business Communication, 38 (4), 439. Retrieved December 14, 2005 from Ingenta Expanded Academic ASAP Plus Database.

Hairston, M. (1981). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English, 43 (8), 794-806.

Hartman, B. & Tarone, E. (1999). Preparation for college writing: Teachers talk about writing instruction for southeast Asian American students in secondary school. In Harklau, L., Losey, K., & Siegal, M. (eds.) Generation 1.5 meets college composition, pp. 99-118. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (2002). The testing trap: How writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.


Martin, J. (1993). Grammar: A contextual theory of language. In Cope, B. & Kalantzis (eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing, pp. 116-136. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6 (2), A-1. Retrieved December 20, 2005 from www-weiting.berkeley.edu/test-ej/ej22/al.html.

NEAP (2002). Writing Report Card. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003529c.pdf.

Paltridge, B (2004). Academic writing. Language Teaching, 37, 87-105.

Pultsky, S. (1996). Faculty perceptions of students’ business communication needs. Business Communication Quarterly, 59 (4), 69. Retrieved December 20, 2005 from Ingenta Expanded Academic ASAP Plus.

Rogers, P. & Rymer, J. (2001). Analytical tools to facilitate transitions into new writing contexts: A communicative perspective. The Journal of Business Communication, 38 (2), 112. Retrieved from Ingenta Expanded Academic ASAP Plus November 15, 2005.

Saunders, P. & Scialfa, C. (2003). The effects of pre-exam instruction on students’ performance on an effective writing exam. Written Communication, 20 (2), 195-212.
Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Sengupta, S. & Falvey, P. (1998). The role of the teaching context in Hong Kong English teachers’ perceptions of L2 writing pedagogy. Evaluation and Research in Education, 12 (2), 72-95.

Syrquin, A. (2006). Registers in the academic writing of African American college students. Written Communication, 23 (1), 63-90.

Ning vs. Learning Management Systems (LMS)

This semester, after 2 frustrating semesters trying to work with our school's LMS, I decided to go outside and set up a class Ning. This was prompted by two things. First, the LMS that our school had, had an irritating habit of losing posts. This happened a number of time where a student's assignment or post was visiable and then it suddenly disappeared. My students first started to complain about it and I wasn't sure I believed it. Then I saw it happen as I printed out a student's posting, when then disappeared the following day. Our ITS department could not replicate the problem and therefore could not resolve the disappearing assignments problem. I decided that I was not getting the type of support I needed with school sanctioned programs, so I might as well use something that was less cumbersome.

Then another colleague told me that he used a non-school sanctioned wiki very successfully. As long as this software is not required and students have the option to opt out of reveling information (thus meeting FERPA laws), I felt comfortable about using another program. I decided to use Ning as I had enjoyed using it for a couple of online conferences.

Difference between Ning and LMS (Teacher's perspective)

Jenny Luca is currently blogging about using the Ning for secondary school students. As I read her postings (only 2 for now), and looked at my own experience only in the early days, I have seen similiar results and differences between using a social networking site like Ning and an LMS. So I have tried to figure out what the difference is.

From a teacher's point of view, what I have seen is that there is a lot more input from students (students helping students), so far. Within the last two weeks, I have had more postings on the class Ning than the entire semester last year. I find that the format allows for more interaction and exchange of information in the Ning than the LMS.

I think this can be explained by the structure of a LMS which requires a lot more teacher input and instructional design which is teacher centered. For example, the first page of most LMS's I have used is a structure that the teacher must populate first. Although the 4 programs I have used for the last 12 years are somewhat different, all of them require the teacher/instructional designer to create the discussion and the structure for discussion. Even my most "learner centered" instructional designs required teacher permissions to initiate the discussions. Nings give instructional designers the option to allow students to begin their own discussions, post their own resources, create their own blogs, etc...

Another main difference is the way information is presented on the front page. There is a greater level of communication between students so there tends not to be a one-on-one teacher/student dialog as the default means of communication. Rather the default tends to be student/student, allowing students that ability to pose and answer questions without the creater ever being notified.

Some instructors or instructional designers might find this scary, but I like the fact that I can create a truely student centered space, with instructor oversight (rather than instructor control). Unlike Jenny, I think the more informal "hi, how are you," is appropriate on a class Ning, as long as it is on individual walls, not in discussion forums. While Ning allows for different spaces within its walls for different types of discussions (as a university building would have some areas where more "serious" discussions take place, and other less formal community building discussions can take place), LMS does not seem to offer any space for more informal community building to take place.

Ning vs. LMS (Student perspective)

My initial impression is that students are much more comfortable with the set up of Ning as they are familiar with Facebook. They are apt to check the Ning on a regular basis which is much easier to do than the LMS. In most cases, the LMS is already populated with passwords and account names. This means that students can get away with never signing on to a LMS (which happened to many of my students). On the other hand, students had to be invited, create accounts, and then sign on to the Ning. This required a much more active participation in the initial stages. For some reason, I was able to get all of my students to sign on and participate initially on the Ning which I never was able to do when all they had to do was sign in.

Students also are using the Ning differently than the LMS. The Ning is perceived as a communication tool--someplace to go when they need answers to their questions about the class. The LMS is perceived as a repository of resources, someplace to go when they need to access resources. Communication on the LMS is perceived as one-on-one whereas students already feel comfortable jumping in on discussions whether the person posing the question is in their class or not. They perceive the Ning as being a community, multi-party/-dimensional communication tool. I think this is helping to establish a feeling of class community much quicker than even a traditional class would create.

These are still the early days for using this Ning. But I look forward to seeing how the rest of the semester progresses (especially in the next couple of weeks when we have winter break with assignments due after.)

Social Networks and Personal Learning: Fiinding the Time

I have not posted for a while because I am taking the course on Web 2.0 for learning professionals. As I have limited time as it is, something had to suffer (and it was my blogging).

Reading Tony Karrer's summary on Monday, I was struck by the freedom that the course gives students. More importantly, however, was the ability this course has had to bring problems and questions from novices and experts alike for the community to work on together.

For example, this week's topic is social bookmarking. A number of us brought up the question of sharing resources (either groups working together or doing research together). I have worked with delicious for 6 months now, and while not an expert, neither am I a novice at using delicious. I have even figured out how to use it with my students so they can access clips I use in class. However, this week, just reading through the resources, having access to indepth instructions on how to set up diigo, and looking at the resources that many from different experience and backgrounds are bookmarking, I am learning more than I can really process at this time.

This got me to thinking about the instructional design of courses using social networking tools.

1. There needs to be some structure so students aren't overwhelmed (the WLning has a nice flow to it with a definate structure)
2. There needs to be moderators. I also joined in with the francophones' discussions (despite my ugly French which I write as I speak--it probably is driving the members crazy!). Without a moderator, the discussions are dead in the water. More importantly, the moderators have also helped us focus our learning, while still allowing us the freedom to set our own goals and level of participation.
3. There needs to be freedom for students to set their learning goals and level of participation within the community.
4. There needs to be a recognition of the diversity within a community and the sub-groups. Social networking tools allow for interaction within and between groups.
5. There are multiple motivators in using social networking tools. In some cases, students are motivated by the community; in other cases, students are motivated by individual learning which social networking tools can afford; and in still other cases, students are interested in the content, which social networking tools provides by diverse means.

Although it is preliminary, I hope one of the lessons I learn from this course is how to design learning environments in which social networking tools help promote maximum learning for the each student.

The quick fix

Tony Karrer blogged about Jay Cross's post on performance support systems. He quotes Jay as saying:

Performance Support empowered novice employees to get up to speed rapidly, to perform with a minimum of outside coaching or training, and to do the job as well or even better than experienced workers.

I am surprised that Tony did not take exception to organizations believing that they could "program" new workers to work quicker, thus discounting the importance of social interaction. Hopefully by now, organizations understand that people are not machines in which a new model or cartridge can replace an older model or older knowledge.

As I have been collecting information on my dissertation, my participants have indicated that a slower process, in which the group is developing their own materials has created better processes in the long term, even giving them a structure on which to replicate programs than having been given a document to begin their work which does not address any of the situations they have been faced with. In fact, they found when they scraped someone else's document all together, their service and work processes became much more efficient.

This leads me to conclude that up front planning and training, which may take a bit more time consuming initially, has much better long term pay-back. This reminds me of the times when I was doing marketing research for the newly deregulated natural gas industry. I got myself in trouble because we were supposed to contact a minimum amount of participants per hour. While initially it appeared that I was not productive, as I began to understand the various connections, hot topics, and players within the natural gas industry, I was able to pick up on little pieces of information others overlooked. I encouraged those that did not want to divulge information to have a discussion with me, which helped me to actually identify information others had not gotten (including a new pipe line being built in a major market that had yet to be tapped). In creating a relationship with those I interviewed, I was able to complete or at least partially answer the most questionnaires by end of the time frame we had been given. Those who initially were the star players (over the quota per hour for contact), tended to have a very low completion rate.

It is important as companies design training programs that they incorporate time into their costs. While start-up costs might be high, long term returns might be even higher.

Transition to new Technologies

I recently watched as my children showed each other the ins and outs of what they had figured out about their iPod. What is interesting to me is that iPods don't come with instructions per se. As a result, many of the features are learned (just like using google) with tips that others have figured out. This is one aspect of the new generation that is different than the old. It was almost as if the older generation had to have the directions to know how to use a new technology, whereas the new generation makes the rules and thus uses technology more innovatively.

This has me wondering if there is a transitional time for any new technology in which the "directions" are developed and thus an understanding of how the tool can be used is expanded. I tried to think of this in terms of the new tool that was introduced when I was growing up: the calculator (yes, I know I am dating myself). When it was first introduced, many looked at it as a substitute for a slide rule. How it was integrated into society, its uses, and how instructors/teachers integrated it into the classroom changed. I look now at how complex mathematical concepts are introduced into the curriculum for my son and daughter BECAUSE of the calculator. They are learning these concepts differently than I did with much more depth as students do not have to be slowed down by looking up numbers on a chart or slide rule (I never used a slide rule since "we had calculators"). I was still learning the computation, with the calculator used as a checking mechanism. How did the use of the calculator change so drastically? It was not overnight.

Many of us do not see the change in use of a technology as it becomes "mature". Using marketing (technology adoption) concepts, the majority adopters don't tend to use a new product until it is in the mature stage. So from here I have three questions:

1. Do late adopters need to have "directions" or at least a protocol for use (e.g. through standardized training, later versions that have support in learning how to use the mechanism built in, tips or instructions available in various formats)?
2. Are new technologies hitting the mature stage earlier (changing the product maturity curve) or having a greater number of early and late adopters earlier (changing the adaptation curve) or do we just expect that because of the pace of our society?
3. What was the process in the past that helped to change curriculum, training, and user awareness as a result of the introduction of new technology? In other words, if we were to look at the integration of film into education, radio into education, or even mimiographs, what lead up to the point where it was acceptable to use these technologies in education? What ground work needed to be laid?
   

I am not sure if anyone has ever looked at this, but I would be interested to see this type of analysis. I think it would then make it easier for us to know how to integrate these new technologies into education and the workplace.

How did I get here (blogging)

Karyn Romeis posed the question for her dissertation, "how did you get here?" in the use of Web 2.0 tools. Interestingly enough, I am not an early adaptor when it comes to technology. I will try out tools, however, if I feel that it will help in my teaching.

I don't think that I have really come into being a "blogger" as much as a reader of blogs. I do blog as a way to keep track of some of my thoughts. However, I don't think that blogging has really accomplished what I had expected of it: creating a space to dialog about ideas. I feel that I can accomplish that better as a commenter of others blogs. For whatever reason, I have had few people actually comment on my blogs (I received the first comment on my blog after a year of blogging, and most recently have had two more people commenting, one regularly!).

By August of 2007, I decided that I could use the blogging to try out the various aspects I read about on the edublogs. For this Vicki Davis's blog has been very helpful in trying different things out. It seems to me that there is so much tacit knowledge gained in blogging. I read about something, then I try it out on my own blog. Just in the process of trying it out, I then can come up with new ways to use it in my teaching and my own learning.

I don't like facebook, although I have found Ning groups that seem much more accessible. For me, the advantage of these programs is they allow for the two way dialog I rarely see in blogs (Tony Karrer's blog is the only one where I actually see "dialog" as opposed to a one way posting/comment). I tried facebook because I had heard of its power on the new generation of workers and students and was curious as to how it worked. At the time I signed up, I signed up as a student so I could play around with it. From facebook, I was invited into a Ning group, which I preferred. I find (as did many of my graduate students) that Ning is a much more rich environment as you can choose the way to participate depending on your preferences. You may just read blogs, you may blog, you can podcast, you can participate in discussion forums (my preference), you can be a lurker, or you can be an active participant. In fact, this is an environment I want to try out more for my teaching and learning for next year.

Finally, my favorite tool for teaching and learning is a wiki. What is surprising is that I almost gave up on the use of wiki after last summer. I was teaching a course on computer supported writing and found the wiki software we were using as not very intuitive. I was part of a pilot program, so out university was just as inexperienced as I was. My first attempt did not work out, which I found disappointing as I am a great believer in collaborative writing as a learning tool. That fall, the university decided that they needed to present some "best practices" workshops, demonstrating how wikis could be used. As I was part of the pilot program, the professional development instructor came to see how I had used the wiki. While I had a contextual idea of how a collaborative writing tool could be used, I could not seem to fit the wiki into that model. After speaking with the workshop instructor, I had a better idea of how the wiki could be used and it has really changed my idea of what happens in collaborative writing (to the point that my ideas for my dissertation on workplace writing for distributed groups has been impacted). It has really made me more open to seeing the impact the wiki can have on both group and individual knowledge creation despite having a poor finished product. Even now, I think of how the use of a wiki can be used in research, in group projects, in team development, in knowledge management, etc...However, I have also learned that the wiki is a tool that can be designed and manipulated in many forms to provide different learning environments (i.e. creating community, creating permanent records and group memory, sharing information, creating processes and procedures) that goes beyond a given time, place, and group of authors.

Corporate guidelines for social software

Tony Karrer's posting on corporate guidelines for social software/web 2.0 had some interesting links. Of all of the corporate guidelines, I liked the Sun corporate policy. First off, I have a bias towards open communication within a company. It is next to impossible to keep secrets in a company, and often the effort backfires and results in hard feelings to the employees. Sun's seems to have a balanced approach:

Don’t Tell Secrets · Common sense at work here; it’s perfectly OK to talk about your work and have a dialog with the community, but it’s not OK to publish the recipe for one of our secret sauces. There’s an official policy on protecting Sun's proprietary and confidential information, but there are still going to be judgment calls.

If the judgment call is tough—on secrets or one of the other issues discussed here—it’s never a bad idea to get management sign-off before you publish.

In my mind, Sun treats their employees with respect and as grown ups with intelligence.

What surprised me about these guidelines, however, is that they assumed that all social software was the same. How can a social book marking program such as del.icio.us be on par with a wiki? A wiki acts very differently than a blog. And shouldn't there be more codes like Sun which recognize the difference between the use of these tools internally and externally? In looking at these codes, the one question that kept popping into my head was who do the management feel own the products of the social networking tools (often they feel it is the property of the individual when something goes wrong, but the property of the corporation if it adds to the corporate value).

Likewise, I wondered who users of social software imagine is their audience. I know that my students rarely think of others reading anything they write except for those in authority or their friends (another reason I like the Sun code as they point out that others might be reading blogs, wiki's, etc..., not just those the author intended should read).

This brings me back to who bloggers write for. I think many write with an imaginary audience (I do) whether that is true or not. I was surprised when Tony Karrer mentioned that my blog was "specialized" as I thought it was very broad. In fact, I tried to write my profile as broadly as possible (which I guess made it specialized).

Blogging vs. Wikis

While bloggers write either for their thought processes or an "imagined" audience, wikis are the result of group interaction. The product of the blog is a record of thoughts, often with little evidence of the thought process that created those ideas. On the other hand, wikis show the thought processes that created an idea. The importance of the wiki is the thought process (and group cognitive development) whereas the importance of the blog is the final thought.

Social networking software such as Ning and Facebook is still another tool that creates totally different dynamics and insights into the creators and contributers. Like a wiki, the process is important, but so is the development of social relationships. Unlike blogs and wikis, the final product is a "feeling", usually of trust or belonging (confirming or disconfirming behavior as group communicators term it). What is important to users are the patterns of communication, the roles that individuals play in their network, and the building of communication.

As a result of the differences in each of these tools, doesn't it make sense to create different "rules" for their use within a corporation? I think the real difficulty is in balancing "rules" with the affordances these tools can bring to the corporation.

Group communication and the wiki

For three semesters now, I have used the wiki as a vital piece of my courses. As I teach both educational technology courses and communication courses, this seems relevant. However, I feel that we are just beginning to understand the importance of using a wiki in terms of knowledge building.

These are some of the questions I am pondering and hoping to answer in the next year or so:

What is really happening in the process of creating a wiki? How is this the same or different than other computer supported writing technologies?

How can we use the transparency of the wiki to help us determine how the group affects the writing process and knowledge building that goes on? Can we develop a way to "capture" the learning that happens when writing as a group?

It seems that wikis begin to take on a dynamic life of their own. When I look at the "product" my students create, it does not necessarily show any learning. Yet, when I ask them to describe their learning (give a presentation on discrete content areas that the blog was supposed to aid in their learning) they seem have a deeper level of learning than more traditional methods (lecture, in-classroom activities, discussion of readings). How does this happen?

What skills and learning styles are best suited for a wiki (both what the students should have before they can use a wiki and what skills can be developed on a wiki)? This is the one area that I do feel I am being to find answers to. First and foremost, wiki users need to have good group communication skills (understanding the group process and roles, group leadership/followship skills, group problem solving and decision making skills, and group writing skills--which is different than individual writing skills). Contrary to popular beliefs, I don't think a wiki will help individual writing skills (at least I have not observed it), nor does good writing skills mean you will be successful in writing on the wiki. Secondly, wiki users need to be able to make connections to ideas. My hypothesis is that spatial thinkers (e.g. those able to write good hyper text) will find the wiki much easier to use than linear thinkers. Expanding this idea, certain cultures might find wiki use more intuitive (generally not Germanic or Anglo cultures which tend to be more linear and individualistic). Finally, clear cut guidelines and learning scaffolding in the use of wikis will be needed for novices, but these are skills that most businesses are looking for, so the wiki would be a good vehicle in developing these skills. Specifically: critical thinking skills, networking and connection of ideas and data, team work, and self regulated work.

A new way of thinking

I had a discussion with a colleague yesterday about the new way of thinking that new technologies require. I have always been very good at making connections (some might say they really weren't connections except in my own mind) between ideas. Using the tree/forest metaphor, I have always been a person to look at the forest, try to see the patterns, go to the trees, identify the features, and then go back to the forest to put the trees in context. In the past, as this metaphor implies, you are either a holistic or a detail person. However, there are many of us who connect the dots to look at details within the whole, going back and forth between detail and whole.

I have written previously about spatial thinking. I think the forest for the trees is a linear thinking concept. Visualization and looking at ideas in connection with other ideas is more spatial. I find, for example, that George Sieman's posts in elearnspace are very spatial, which might be why he is such an advocate for connectivism. On the other hand, I find Tony Karrer's blog, eLearning Technology, as very linear. What is important is that both are excellent blogs, just two different thought processes. Isn't it important that we begin to accept both ways of thinking? And what is the implication for our language and culture? Are we becoming a more polycronic culture because of the technology we use? Shouldn't cultures be allowed to evolve? This might not happen if we don't allow for new communication patterns, recognition of new ways to think, and acceptance of old methods within their own context.