A short history
Twenty years ago, I was working on a management training program for Hungary. The program, funded by USAID,the Pew Foundation, and USIA, was headquartered in the State University of New York's Office of International Programs in Albany, drawing on the resources of 26 campuses (university centers, colleges, technical colleges, and community colleges). In addition to the program headquarters, the program had a Center for Private Enterprise in Budapest which worked with affiliates in 3 provincial towns/cities as well as Budapest and a program group at the University of Buffalo (a SUNY research university). Each group had its own way of working, and my job as project manager was to coordinate it. We used faxes, conference calls, carriers, overnight/express mail, and towards the end, we were in the dawn of the internet, learning how to "program" emails, routing them through university servers from the US, to Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, finally sending them to universities in Hungary who would hand deliver them to our Budapest offices.
Distributed groups back then required a core group through which communication would pass. If technology or even a vital member of the group was missing, the work of the group could be delayed for days or even weeks. While the majority of work being conducted was in English, Hungary was just coming out of the cold war years, so English was not a commonly spoken language. Due to Hungary's history as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, many spoke German as a second language. As the only German speaker in the group (and then it was limited), this meant that I needed to be available in case we had to communicate with the Center's clerical staff, who were in the process of learning English. I would go in many mornings for conference calls or our Center's managerial staff would have to stay late because of the time difference.
Fast forward to 6 years later, when I was asked to come to take over a project that was ending. There had been 2 previous project managers before me who had been moved to take over other more important projects. Again, this was a USAID funded project, but this time there was a head of project on the ground who handled most of the logistics. My role as Project Director was mostly administrative: financial approvals, budgets, report writing, communicating with the funding agent, writing contracts, making travel arrangements outside of Paraguay. By this time, however, we were communicating via computer (desktop dial up internet). In addition, the Head of Project had a cell phone that we could reach when he was not in the office (either at onsite training or after hours during the summer when there was a 2 hour time difference).
This helped distribute the power between the distributed group so there did not have to be one central location for decisions. In addition, the internet made communication more efficient as an email could be left overnight for someone to access the next day. However, due to the computer still being tied to a line, if a person was away from the office for any length of time, a colleague would need to access and review their emails. Our office, while multilingual, at times would not have a language specialist to translate correspondence. I was recruited a number of times to translate for our projects in Brazil and Mozambique because I could decipher Portuguese. However, we had to have emails written in Russian either translated into English, put on hold for our Russian speaker to return, or forward the email to another location for the Russian speaker to access. While some work could be distributed, the technology still required some central coordination. In addition, it was still time consuming.
How has mobile technology affected distributed groups?
So how are things different, 14 years later? Even the fact that I am aware of what my former colleagues are doing is a difference. I can keep up with their work peripherally through the web, facebook, and linkedin. When I asked one of my former colleagues for a letter of recommendation, she gave me her cell phone number. She might have been out of the country, but she checked her messages and email via cell phone when needed. She would bring her computer so she could work on projects while she was out of the country. This meant that for more urgent matters, she could make decisions that needed immediate attention. Of course, this also means she is multi-tasking more and team members may know less than they did before if she decides not to share her knowledge or information.
In a recent chapter I wrote about mobile technology, researchers (Ladner, 2008; Julsrud & Bakke, 2009) found that there is a blurring of the lines between work and home life. While a member of management may have more flexible time (as my colleague now has), he or she may also have more time taken out of their home life/leisure time as they are expected to be "on call" and available at all times in case of emergency. My dissertation also had evidence that the more important members of a distributed group are those that can "translate" information from one group to another. In this case, translate was not only to put into terms that others can understand, but also the language and cultural foundations needed to communicate across borders.
Distributed groups means that employees are working with other team members that they may never have met face to face. In any work team, individuals want to present a social identity that will make collaboration easier. In addition, a team prospers from members accessing the social and knowledge networks of other group members. Wallis and Law & Peng found workers controlled their identities in the workplace through mobile phone filters such as turning off the phone, limiting who had their phone number (including trading phones to get a new phone number, thus cutting off access to those with whom they did not want to communicate), and developing contact lists on their mobile phone. They developed different communication strategies for different social groups to limit how they presented their social identities for different contexts. The mobile technology gave them agency to communicate and behave as required by their social/knowledge networks (distributed group) and context. My own research supports this, with members of distributed groups sharing or withholding information depending on their perception of how their knowledge was valued within a group. The mobile phone allows group members to access knowledge and social networks, but either publicly (i.e. conference call, social media space), privately (texting, email) or personally (sharing texts or emails if they appear of value, yet acknowledging ownership to the individual rather than the group).
Mobile technology also allows the social networks related to distributed groups to create new in-group norms and values from those of the departments, social groups, or communities in which they work and live. A third culture that superseded their physical environment(s) can be created through mobile interaction within their social networks. Portus (2008) had these findings in her study on mobile phone use in the Philippines. This is a common outcome of distributed groups (Julsrud & Bakke , 2009), which mobile technology helps to maintain. Mobile technology allows for different pathways for interaction, group development, team culture and relationship building, and knowledge sharing.
References:
Julsrud, T. E., & Bakke , J. W. (2009). Trust, friendship, and expertise: The use of email, mobile dialogues, and SMS to develop and sustain social relations in a distributed work group. In R. Ling, & S. Campbell (Eds.), The reconstruction of space and time: Mobile communication practices (pp. 159-190). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Ladner, S. (2008). Laptops in the living room: Mobile technologies and the divide between work and private time among interactive agency workers. Canadian Journal of Communication, 33, 465-489.
Law, P., & Peng, Y. (2008). Mobile networks: Migrant workers in Southern China. In J. Katz (Ed), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 55-64). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Portus, L. (2008). How the urban poor acquire and give meaning to the mobile phone. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 105-118). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wallis, C. (2011). (Im)mobility mobility: Marginal youth and mobile phones in Beijing. In R. Ling, & S. Campbell (Eds.), Mobile communication: Bringing us together and tearing us apart (pp. 61-82). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Wallis, C. (2013). Technomobility in China. New York: New York University Press.
Yonkers, V. (2012). The effect of workplace collaborative writing on the development of knowledge within distributed groups. Dissertation. University at Albany. Available on Proquest.
Showing posts with label social networking tools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social networking tools. Show all posts
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Monday, December 9, 2013
#adjunctchat November 10, 2013: Managing your commitments at the end of the semester
This is the time of year when the walls begin to close in. Not only might you be finishing the semester, getting semester grades in, preparing for the holidays, and in many cases juggling multiple workplaces. Perhaps you have a full time job which now requires an end of the year report, or you are responsible for a quarterly AND annual report for research funders. An added stress for the adjunct is IF you have a job next semester, what will you be teaching (is it new or do you need to dust off and update a course you've taught before).
On top of this, this is the time of year that there are stronger family pressures, either due to travel to be with family, attending children's performances (if you have children or other young relatives), etc...
This week we will be discussing strategies to manage the commitments so we can enjoy this time of year. Among the questions will be:
1) How do you prioritize work commitments?
2) Are there devises (including social media) which could make your work flow easier?
3) How do you balance work and personal time commitments?
Hope you can make it tomorrow (Tuesday, Dec. 10, at 4PM Eastern Standard Time) and we will keep it to 1/2 hr for all of us pressed for time!
On top of this, this is the time of year that there are stronger family pressures, either due to travel to be with family, attending children's performances (if you have children or other young relatives), etc...
This week we will be discussing strategies to manage the commitments so we can enjoy this time of year. Among the questions will be:
1) How do you prioritize work commitments?
2) Are there devises (including social media) which could make your work flow easier?
3) How do you balance work and personal time commitments?
Hope you can make it tomorrow (Tuesday, Dec. 10, at 4PM Eastern Standard Time) and we will keep it to 1/2 hr for all of us pressed for time!
Monday, July 30, 2012
NBC's censoring of the Olympics: Social media and lost opportunities
Let me begin by stating I am a big fan of the Olympics. Overall, NBC, the American television corporation with rights to broadcasting the Olympics, with one exception, has done a pretty good job of covering the games on its free, open access station. They have included a wide variety of sports in all day (more or less)coverage.
However, they have really missed the boat on their social media/online coverage, which could have real repercussions from fans in the future. It also points out how ignorant the corporation is about social media and the "new" media the it purports makes this the first "social media" Olympics.
My history with the Olympics
As a child, I remember waking up early in the morning or in the middle of the night to watch the first "live" satellite broadcasted Olympics. Living only 90 miles from Lake Placid, the winter Olympics were always followed closely in my family. Then the Broadcasters learned that they could get better viewing numbers (and thus higher advertising rates) if they saved the most popular events until primetime (7-11PM). Soon, only certain events were available for viewing. This was the first line of censureship by American broadcasters of the Olympics. Only events in which American won were shown. There was a general outcry as fans of a certain sport in which there was popularity and good representation by the US (e.g. hockey, bobsledding, equestrian)were not shown unless there was a win. Viewership of the Olympics fell.
During the Atlanta Olympics, sametime coverage was extended and the networks learned that they could develop fans for lesser known sports. I remember watching the equestrian field jumping one afternoon and became entranced (as did others, which I learned later). Broadcasters learned that there was a market during the day, especially for the summer Olympics.
For the China Olympics, I finally had access to high speed internet which allowed me to view streaming video. The Olympics became even more exciting as I was able to watch video (some of it raw footage) on little known sports that the general population might not be interested in (i.e. fencing, rowing, white water canoing/kayaking) and some better known sports that might not be widely watched in the US (i.e. soccer). It was wonderful being able to access footage not shown on the TV, but watching primetime for the major sports.
By the winter Olympics in Vancouver, however, things had changed. I was no longer able to go to the NBC site to view the Olympics. In addition, NBC had migrated some of the events I was interested in on to their cable channels. I was not willing to pay $1200 a year for cable (in which I have very little interest as I do not watch much TV for the most part during the year, and we live on a limited budget). A new form of network censureship took over in which I was limited in watching only those sports the network deemed as important and I was limited in accessing information via the internet. I was able to find some footage on YouTube and NBC did post footage 24 hours later. I could understand the network wanting to get as much viewership as possible via television to ensure maximizing advertising profits.
Speed forward to this year. I was so excited when I heard NBC had a special app to view the Olympics on mobile technology. Then I went to the NBC Olympics home page and discovered that not only could I not watch the Olympics live, but the only video available was "highlights" (fluff pieces and edited versions of the live video). According to the NBC Olympics site:
In other words, NBC has put a block on all Olympic video so that countries in Africa and Asia have more internet access to the Olympics than in the US (unless you pay for your television through cable).
Why is this bad?
While I understand the marketing decisions NBC made due to income from cable companies (trying to get their numbers up so they can charge cable companies higher viewership fees), NBC does not understand that viewers without cable are now frustrated and do not want to watch the Olympics. Cable companies and production companies have learned that viewers want alternatives and individualization (viewing on demand) in their viewing habits. They don't want to be forced to view on cable or nothing at all (viewers that access televisions through DSL are also blocked from videos on the NBC site).
I am surprised that NBC has been allowed to have such a monopoly in which all information is limited to what NBC allows out. One exception is twitter. I have been able to access images and information from twitter. However, I'd like to access video. I feel such resentment towards NBC, that I would NEVER get cable as I don't like being blackmailed into something. Interestingly enough, looking at the schedule, CNBC and MSNBC don't really carry very much of the Olympics. So this is just a way of using the Olympics to blackmail viewers into getting these TV stations.
While we complain about other governments blocking content that is unacceptable for the population to access, we allow corporations to do the same thing. Only filtered information is available about the Olympics. This makes me wonder what other aspects of broadcasting will begin to become filtered. What if NYSE were to come to an agreement with a broadcaster that NYSE information could only be available through cable? This means that a certain group in the population (those that don't have cable or access to cable) would always be excluded. This gives new meaning to the digital divide.
A missed opportunity
On the part of NBC, I feel that in their wish to control all aspects of information about the Olympics demonstrates their lack of understanding about power of the internet and mobile technology. One of the most amusing, yet disturbing, examples was their attempt to integrate social media into their broadcast (no doubt trying to emulate ABC's Good Afternoon America and Live with Kelly's success).
NBC assumes that all who do not subscribe to cable also do not have mobile technology. Their "bait and switch" tactics in advertising that they had an app in which people could access live streaming did not add that you needed to have cable television subscription with CNBC and MSNBC in order to use the app. They lost out on a large potential income stream by not selling the app for use by those who did not have a cable subscription. I know of many who would have paid for it.
The webpage for the NBC Olympics really needs improvement. It is very difficult to navigate and find out information (other than the fact that really you can't use it unless you subscribe to CNBC and MSNBC). Finally, the Today show is not taking advantage of the games to the best of its ability. I was very disappointed this morning (and have decided I will do all my work from 7-10 when the Today show airs in my area) at the content. I was not interested in the calories food in England have or the fashions of England. I did want to see the entire skeet shooting competition in which the American winner shot 99/100 and set an Olympic record for most consecutive gold metals in the summer Olympics. At that point, the interview (which was good) could take place. The Today show could be a tease for the evening tape delayed events (i.e. showing tape delayed or live qualifying events so those watching in the evening would want to see how it ended).
However, they have really missed the boat on their social media/online coverage, which could have real repercussions from fans in the future. It also points out how ignorant the corporation is about social media and the "new" media the it purports makes this the first "social media" Olympics.
My history with the Olympics
As a child, I remember waking up early in the morning or in the middle of the night to watch the first "live" satellite broadcasted Olympics. Living only 90 miles from Lake Placid, the winter Olympics were always followed closely in my family. Then the Broadcasters learned that they could get better viewing numbers (and thus higher advertising rates) if they saved the most popular events until primetime (7-11PM). Soon, only certain events were available for viewing. This was the first line of censureship by American broadcasters of the Olympics. Only events in which American won were shown. There was a general outcry as fans of a certain sport in which there was popularity and good representation by the US (e.g. hockey, bobsledding, equestrian)were not shown unless there was a win. Viewership of the Olympics fell.
During the Atlanta Olympics, sametime coverage was extended and the networks learned that they could develop fans for lesser known sports. I remember watching the equestrian field jumping one afternoon and became entranced (as did others, which I learned later). Broadcasters learned that there was a market during the day, especially for the summer Olympics.
For the China Olympics, I finally had access to high speed internet which allowed me to view streaming video. The Olympics became even more exciting as I was able to watch video (some of it raw footage) on little known sports that the general population might not be interested in (i.e. fencing, rowing, white water canoing/kayaking) and some better known sports that might not be widely watched in the US (i.e. soccer). It was wonderful being able to access footage not shown on the TV, but watching primetime for the major sports.
By the winter Olympics in Vancouver, however, things had changed. I was no longer able to go to the NBC site to view the Olympics. In addition, NBC had migrated some of the events I was interested in on to their cable channels. I was not willing to pay $1200 a year for cable (in which I have very little interest as I do not watch much TV for the most part during the year, and we live on a limited budget). A new form of network censureship took over in which I was limited in watching only those sports the network deemed as important and I was limited in accessing information via the internet. I was able to find some footage on YouTube and NBC did post footage 24 hours later. I could understand the network wanting to get as much viewership as possible via television to ensure maximizing advertising profits.
Speed forward to this year. I was so excited when I heard NBC had a special app to view the Olympics on mobile technology. Then I went to the NBC Olympics home page and discovered that not only could I not watch the Olympics live, but the only video available was "highlights" (fluff pieces and edited versions of the live video). According to the NBC Olympics site:
Q: What is required for accessing Live Extra content?
A: You will need to verify that you subscribe to a cable, satellite or telco video tier that includes CNBC and MSNBC. There is no additional charge.
Q: Is account verification required for accessing video other than live streams?
A: Yes, but only full-event replays (e.g. an entire basketball game) within 48 hours of an event’s conclusion. You will NOT need to verify your TV subscription to view the extensive collection of competition highlights, interviews, athlete profiles, etc., available on NBCOlympics.com.
Q: Can I access live streams anywhere other than NBCOlympics.com and the NBC Olympics Live Extra App without verifying?
A: No. Olympic video will not be available to U.S. viewers on other websites or Apps.
In other words, NBC has put a block on all Olympic video so that countries in Africa and Asia have more internet access to the Olympics than in the US (unless you pay for your television through cable).
Why is this bad?
While I understand the marketing decisions NBC made due to income from cable companies (trying to get their numbers up so they can charge cable companies higher viewership fees), NBC does not understand that viewers without cable are now frustrated and do not want to watch the Olympics. Cable companies and production companies have learned that viewers want alternatives and individualization (viewing on demand) in their viewing habits. They don't want to be forced to view on cable or nothing at all (viewers that access televisions through DSL are also blocked from videos on the NBC site).
I am surprised that NBC has been allowed to have such a monopoly in which all information is limited to what NBC allows out. One exception is twitter. I have been able to access images and information from twitter. However, I'd like to access video. I feel such resentment towards NBC, that I would NEVER get cable as I don't like being blackmailed into something. Interestingly enough, looking at the schedule, CNBC and MSNBC don't really carry very much of the Olympics. So this is just a way of using the Olympics to blackmail viewers into getting these TV stations.
While we complain about other governments blocking content that is unacceptable for the population to access, we allow corporations to do the same thing. Only filtered information is available about the Olympics. This makes me wonder what other aspects of broadcasting will begin to become filtered. What if NYSE were to come to an agreement with a broadcaster that NYSE information could only be available through cable? This means that a certain group in the population (those that don't have cable or access to cable) would always be excluded. This gives new meaning to the digital divide.
A missed opportunity
On the part of NBC, I feel that in their wish to control all aspects of information about the Olympics demonstrates their lack of understanding about power of the internet and mobile technology. One of the most amusing, yet disturbing, examples was their attempt to integrate social media into their broadcast (no doubt trying to emulate ABC's Good Afternoon America and Live with Kelly's success).
NBC assumes that all who do not subscribe to cable also do not have mobile technology. Their "bait and switch" tactics in advertising that they had an app in which people could access live streaming did not add that you needed to have cable television subscription with CNBC and MSNBC in order to use the app. They lost out on a large potential income stream by not selling the app for use by those who did not have a cable subscription. I know of many who would have paid for it.
The webpage for the NBC Olympics really needs improvement. It is very difficult to navigate and find out information (other than the fact that really you can't use it unless you subscribe to CNBC and MSNBC). Finally, the Today show is not taking advantage of the games to the best of its ability. I was very disappointed this morning (and have decided I will do all my work from 7-10 when the Today show airs in my area) at the content. I was not interested in the calories food in England have or the fashions of England. I did want to see the entire skeet shooting competition in which the American winner shot 99/100 and set an Olympic record for most consecutive gold metals in the summer Olympics. At that point, the interview (which was good) could take place. The Today show could be a tease for the evening tape delayed events (i.e. showing tape delayed or live qualifying events so those watching in the evening would want to see how it ended).
Monday, October 10, 2011
Curating, filtering, and increasing traffic
This week, my computer mediated communication class will be looking at filtering and curating, and the impact these have on traffic to sites. So with that in mind, I decided to write a brief primer on these topics.
Defining curating and filtering
My understanding of curating is the identification and categorization of resources. In the context of computer mediated communication, curating can be done by individuals for their own purposes, creating their own categories that work for their own personal uses and learning. I use curating in a number of ways: resources for classes, resources for my research interests, resources to share with family and friends on common interests, conversation starters.
Online, I use a number of tools and processes. My main tool over the past 5 years has been delicious.com. This program allowed me to access online resources from one of the three computers or 4 or 5 locations in which I work. In class, I am able to access websites for my class by going to sites tagged for the class (i.e. ACOM 203). I then can choose the resource that is relevant for the class and the lesson I want to teach for that day. I have instant access to the resource (as long as my internet connection works), which was not possible without the computer.
Filtering, on the other hand is keeping out information that may not be relevant or meet my needs. Like curating, it is focused on identifying resources. However, filtering is a way to avoid information overload. The key to filtering is finding the correct way to search for resources (i.e. the ideal key word, the correct network to access) and choosing those resources that meet my needs. This requires an ability to skim resources, identify their authors/purpose, and evaluate content.
Increasing traffic
The purpose for most who are active on the internet is to increase traffic. For example, organizations want customers to read their blogs, bloggers want increased traffic to their blogs, individuals want their youtube videos to "go viral", those on twitter want to build their followers. The more traffic to a site, the greater legitimacy it is given in cyberspace.
In the past, "experts" decided on what was relevant and who should have access to resources. With CMC, popular content becomes "expert" resources. If someone is able to access the computer, they are able to produce a resource that may be perceived as "expert."
Tools for increasing traffic
So it is important for anyone involved in computer mediated communication to know, understand, and use tools that will increase traffic. Some of these tools include:
labels, tags, and key words: people who look for resources using search engines input key words. Blogs, facebook, photos, videos, and even webpages usually have the ability to identify their pages on the internet by using labels or tags. It is important to use tags or labels that your audience will use for their searches.
Hashtags: twitter and a growing number of social networking programs use hashtages (a # followed by a keyword identifying a group or category, i.e. #ualbany, #running, #curating). Related to this is the @ sign which identifies an author, as on twitter. @comprof1 would identify anyone who wrote about me using my twitter name.
Links: using links to other sites that might increase traffic (i.e. from "experts" in the field or reporting agencies) can sometimes increase traffic. Some of these sites have employees that track the links and either ask for the link to be removed (if they feel it is ruining their image) or may use a back channel (backlink) to the post/resource.
Using multiple channels: Whenever I blog, these days, I post to twitter the topic and the fact that I have posted something. Some also use this when they upload a new video on YouTube or link the video onto their facebook page. The more channels used to publicize a resource, the greater exposure to new potential traffic sources. Related to this is that the greater the traffic in a concentrated time slot, the better the chance that the resource will be picked up in search engines or "highlights" in the social network programs like linkedin or blogger. Related to this is having various channels available for spreading the resources, e.g. facebook or twitter buttons on a blog, automatic updates on linkedin when you tweet something, or "most popular" posts or videos listed on a blog.
Commenting on others blogs, youtube videos, and/or facebook. The more visible a user is the greater the chance the user will be "checked" out by others.
Filtering and curating tools
In addition to hashtags, tags, and labels, filtering and curating tools may include:
Favorite: By identifying something as a favorite, others may access the resources or a resource may be retrieved for future use
Page counts Programs such as google analytics or stat counter allow your page's statistics to be shown on your internet page (i.e. blog, webpage). This not only allows you to identify your audience, but also allows your audience to identify how "popular" your page is and where your audience is located.
Ratings: By allowing others to rate your content, you are allowing for a review process from the public. Beware, however, that this might result in negative as well as positive traffic. Likewise, the ability to remove negative comments will aid in decreasing negative feedback that could be detrimental to building up traffic, but may also make curating and filtering less valuable.
Notes and descriptions: Putting the resources into context helps to contextualize lists. Programs such as sticky notes, one note, google docs, and delicious not only help to identify resources, but also allow for evaluation of resources and explanations/links within categories.
Defining curating and filtering
My understanding of curating is the identification and categorization of resources. In the context of computer mediated communication, curating can be done by individuals for their own purposes, creating their own categories that work for their own personal uses and learning. I use curating in a number of ways: resources for classes, resources for my research interests, resources to share with family and friends on common interests, conversation starters.
Online, I use a number of tools and processes. My main tool over the past 5 years has been delicious.com. This program allowed me to access online resources from one of the three computers or 4 or 5 locations in which I work. In class, I am able to access websites for my class by going to sites tagged for the class (i.e. ACOM 203). I then can choose the resource that is relevant for the class and the lesson I want to teach for that day. I have instant access to the resource (as long as my internet connection works), which was not possible without the computer.
Filtering, on the other hand is keeping out information that may not be relevant or meet my needs. Like curating, it is focused on identifying resources. However, filtering is a way to avoid information overload. The key to filtering is finding the correct way to search for resources (i.e. the ideal key word, the correct network to access) and choosing those resources that meet my needs. This requires an ability to skim resources, identify their authors/purpose, and evaluate content.
Increasing traffic
The purpose for most who are active on the internet is to increase traffic. For example, organizations want customers to read their blogs, bloggers want increased traffic to their blogs, individuals want their youtube videos to "go viral", those on twitter want to build their followers. The more traffic to a site, the greater legitimacy it is given in cyberspace.
In the past, "experts" decided on what was relevant and who should have access to resources. With CMC, popular content becomes "expert" resources. If someone is able to access the computer, they are able to produce a resource that may be perceived as "expert."
Tools for increasing traffic
So it is important for anyone involved in computer mediated communication to know, understand, and use tools that will increase traffic. Some of these tools include:
Filtering and curating tools
In addition to hashtags, tags, and labels, filtering and curating tools may include:
Favorite: By identifying something as a favorite, others may access the resources or a resource may be retrieved for future use
Page counts Programs such as google analytics or stat counter allow your page's statistics to be shown on your internet page (i.e. blog, webpage). This not only allows you to identify your audience, but also allows your audience to identify how "popular" your page is and where your audience is located.
Ratings: By allowing others to rate your content, you are allowing for a review process from the public. Beware, however, that this might result in negative as well as positive traffic. Likewise, the ability to remove negative comments will aid in decreasing negative feedback that could be detrimental to building up traffic, but may also make curating and filtering less valuable.
Notes and descriptions: Putting the resources into context helps to contextualize lists. Programs such as sticky notes, one note, google docs, and delicious not only help to identify resources, but also allow for evaluation of resources and explanations/links within categories.
Monday, September 20, 2010
New Collaborative Virtual Spaces: Sending a forwarding address
Over the last few years, I have collaborated with a number of people that I either have never met face to face or who live too far away to meet on a regular basis face to face. I moved from listservs to discussion boards to blogs and now to facebook. What I have noticed is an initial period in which I participate as a spectator (i.e. a member of the listserv receiving updates but not posting), then I move on as an active member. I then begin to build a trusting relationship in which I feel there are good conversations and a safe area to disagree and resolve intellectual disagreements.
My experience fits fairly closely with online community research (See Ruth Brown's research, for example). However, after a while, a new technology will come online and members of the community (not all) will begin to emigrate to the new format, leaving the one community to help develop and become part of a new community. As this happens, however, suddenly, a virtual colleague is now missing with no forwarding address.
I often wonder, where are they? Where did everyone go? How do I contact them again and stay in touch? what makes things even more difficult is that different members will gravitate to different technologies (and thus different communities). It is impossible to stay in touch with all new technologies, so we choose those technologies that meet our needs at that time.
I think that there needs to be a protocol for disbanding a community and/or migrating it to a new technology. In the snailmail, we have a forwarding address. It might be good if we began to use the same mechanisms as we leave communities. Perhaps someone will develop a directory in which the most commonly accessed addresses are listed for an individual. I currently do this by googling people's names. However, if there was an interactive directory that you could use to identify where people are posting and where you are most apt to contact them, it would be helpful to follow your community through cyberspace.
My experience fits fairly closely with online community research (See Ruth Brown's research, for example). However, after a while, a new technology will come online and members of the community (not all) will begin to emigrate to the new format, leaving the one community to help develop and become part of a new community. As this happens, however, suddenly, a virtual colleague is now missing with no forwarding address.
I often wonder, where are they? Where did everyone go? How do I contact them again and stay in touch? what makes things even more difficult is that different members will gravitate to different technologies (and thus different communities). It is impossible to stay in touch with all new technologies, so we choose those technologies that meet our needs at that time.
I think that there needs to be a protocol for disbanding a community and/or migrating it to a new technology. In the snailmail, we have a forwarding address. It might be good if we began to use the same mechanisms as we leave communities. Perhaps someone will develop a directory in which the most commonly accessed addresses are listed for an individual. I currently do this by googling people's names. However, if there was an interactive directory that you could use to identify where people are posting and where you are most apt to contact them, it would be helpful to follow your community through cyberspace.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Those were the days? Engaging with social media
Andy Cloverdale had an interesting post that echoes my own thoughts on blogging these days. As I am in the middle of grading numerous papers (most of which are NOT the assignment I gave students) and writing my dissertation (on which I would LOVE to have comments since I feel so isolated as I write it up), I wonder about the interaction that blogging seems to have lost. So I thought it would be interesting to answer Andy's questions in my blog post.
This is the impression I have from my students. However, more importantly, I see the next generation of internet users developing these skills on their own. As a result, there is more social identity based on how many "friends" you have on facebook, risky behavior that will get immediate attention, and less ability to take part in long, well-thought out indepth discussion. Part of the trouble I see from my students is the inability to read longer articles and/or interpret complex instructions.
While working in a computer lab for one of my classes this semester, I found most students, rather than reading the information provided to them, preferred to ask me simplistic questions on how to get the answer for one piece of their project. They never connected the dots and had little attention for the long term project. Once a piece was found, they never went back to it or connected it to other pieces of the problem. I can't tell you how many times I said to them, "It's in the information on Blackboard. Read through it." At which point, many of them chose to ask a classmate instead.
Yes, there is a certain shallowness to the current communication. However, I am finding a backlash to this expedient form of communication. One of my students gave a speech on how facebook and texting is making personal conversations less "personal." I was surprised to see how many people agreed with him and felt that while they did not like this less personal style, they felt trapped by the current tools available to them to communicate this way. I think we will find two camps that develop: those that are "telegraph" communicators and those that reject the current forms of communication and commercialization.
Good question. I think that new tools to help develop these communities will need to be developed. I think the audio/visual tools that allow for two way communication will need to be developed. Most of these tools currently only allow for one way communication. However, as the need for engagement (including certain privacy and easy editing tools within the equipment) increases, there might be better use of video for community building.
However, this cannot happen as long as large corporations increasing control over the internet. This is where mobile technology and new apps might be able to create more democratic access that allows for engagement and community building. Ultimately, however, there needs to be more "personal" indepth contact with others in order to create the community. There needs to be public spaces for meeting, and private spaces for engagement.
I do think part of this has to with age. Looking at educational development, teens and young adults tend to have more superficial relationships as they are still creating their identity. Regardless of what tools are available, or even what culture you are looking at, teens will belong to multiple communities. As we age, however, and our identity is established, either by profession, culture, religion, local community, or a larger global community, we tend to limit those organizations and communities we join or are actively engaged in. This happens with or without technology.
I feel the same will happen with the networked society. The difference will be that we may have longer term relationships as a result of the networked society. For example, I have found that I can reconnect with those I went to graduate school with. We created a friendship which will last whether we are constant contact or not. However, the fact that we can connect through the internet means we can still feel connected even when we aren't face to face.
In other words there will be true friends and communities we feel connected to whether we communicate often or not, and then there will be "network friends." I see this even with my children. Facebook's new privacy settings allows this differences in engagements, I have found.
Yet does the adoption of a learner-centric network logic require us to develop aggressive, neo-liberal marketing strategies with an emphasis on self-promotion and immediacy to get noticed?
This is the impression I have from my students. However, more importantly, I see the next generation of internet users developing these skills on their own. As a result, there is more social identity based on how many "friends" you have on facebook, risky behavior that will get immediate attention, and less ability to take part in long, well-thought out indepth discussion. Part of the trouble I see from my students is the inability to read longer articles and/or interpret complex instructions.
While working in a computer lab for one of my classes this semester, I found most students, rather than reading the information provided to them, preferred to ask me simplistic questions on how to get the answer for one piece of their project. They never connected the dots and had little attention for the long term project. Once a piece was found, they never went back to it or connected it to other pieces of the problem. I can't tell you how many times I said to them, "It's in the information on Blackboard. Read through it." At which point, many of them chose to ask a classmate instead.
Is this at the expense of the richer communication and identity formation associated with traditional modes of participation and interaction?
Yes, there is a certain shallowness to the current communication. However, I am finding a backlash to this expedient form of communication. One of my students gave a speech on how facebook and texting is making personal conversations less "personal." I was surprised to see how many people agreed with him and felt that while they did not like this less personal style, they felt trapped by the current tools available to them to communicate this way. I think we will find two camps that develop: those that are "telegraph" communicators and those that reject the current forms of communication and commercialization.
There remains a natural human inclination to want to engage in, and become identified as a member of, communities, but how can this be cultivated in a more network-based culture?
Good question. I think that new tools to help develop these communities will need to be developed. I think the audio/visual tools that allow for two way communication will need to be developed. Most of these tools currently only allow for one way communication. However, as the need for engagement (including certain privacy and easy editing tools within the equipment) increases, there might be better use of video for community building.
However, this cannot happen as long as large corporations increasing control over the internet. This is where mobile technology and new apps might be able to create more democratic access that allows for engagement and community building. Ultimately, however, there needs to be more "personal" indepth contact with others in order to create the community. There needs to be public spaces for meeting, and private spaces for engagement.
Does this equate to a trade-off, where we embrace the advantages of an expansive engagement with wider networks and multifarious communities, or do we restrict ourselves to fewer, or even singular, localised groups?
I do think part of this has to with age. Looking at educational development, teens and young adults tend to have more superficial relationships as they are still creating their identity. Regardless of what tools are available, or even what culture you are looking at, teens will belong to multiple communities. As we age, however, and our identity is established, either by profession, culture, religion, local community, or a larger global community, we tend to limit those organizations and communities we join or are actively engaged in. This happens with or without technology.
I feel the same will happen with the networked society. The difference will be that we may have longer term relationships as a result of the networked society. For example, I have found that I can reconnect with those I went to graduate school with. We created a friendship which will last whether we are constant contact or not. However, the fact that we can connect through the internet means we can still feel connected even when we aren't face to face.
In other words there will be true friends and communities we feel connected to whether we communicate often or not, and then there will be "network friends." I see this even with my children. Facebook's new privacy settings allows this differences in engagements, I have found.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Where is your time spent?
In response to the Learning Circuit Blog question of the month: How do you spend your time, I wish I could answer. I know how I THINK I spend my time, but then when I review it, it all goes out the window.
So here is the closest to a typical day when I am teaching:
I go into the office after dropping my kids off at school and check emails, class sites (nings, courseware, blogs, delicious), and mail that may have come through interoffice mail. I also download and print assignments students have submitted. I don't download on my own computer because of viruses and supplies (let the university deal with the crashed system). I look for resources for the class I am teaching, organizing them on delicious or in a powerpoint (I update links). I begin to plan for the next class, looking for resources I can use. I make copies of in class activities or resources in case students don't bring their own (there are always a few that will forget to download from the class site). If I have time, I'll read through some of the blogs (and respond to them) that are listed on my igoogle.
After I teach, I return home and turn on my computer. I will look at my general email, finish looking at and commenting on 2 or 3 blogs from my igoogle while I make lunch. Then I will work on my dissertation. Right now I am in the process of analyzing data and finding literature to update my proposal. I might search through google scholar, go to the online library section, search for the journal and article or request online for the digital article through interlibrary loan (online).
I then try to take a walk before the kids come home. Once the kids are home, I don't have access to the computer, but I will monitor their computer use, including looking over my son's facebook interaction and keeping my daughter limited to the few safe gaming sites she enjoys when they aren't doing their homework. Most evenings, the kids have some sport or school event to go to. If not, occasionally, we'll watch a missed episode of a TV show via the internet. Or we might watch TV at night together. In between, I'll check my email 2-3 times a night or if I'm really bored, I'll check to see if there are any replies to the blog postings (this will usually only take 5 minutes or so).
On the days that I'm not teaching, I work on my dissertation until noon. Every hour or so I'll take a break, read a blog and post a comment or a blog posting. I noticed that I tend to post on Mondays and Thursdays. I'm not sure why. Maybe Monday because I will have had little access or time for the computer or myself, and it is "my time". After noon, I will vary what I do, taking time to exercise, reading a blog, or just "looking around" the internet. Sometimes I'll just read during this time. The day is the same after the kids get home.
I think that the blogging and searching the internet sometimes allows my mind to wonder into areas I'm really interested in and takes me away from the pressures of school and work. On the other hand, I have to be careful I don't take too much time to "wander" so I am procrastinating what I need to do (like starting dinner), speaking of which...
(Later). What do I do less of now? Planning for my classes. I now can be more spontaneous with my class, addressing issues as they come up as I will have a group of resources I can access during class. For example, whereas before I might have to have a powerpoint I am using in class, I can create the powerpoint as we work as a class and load it to the Ning or Courseware for my students to access later (sort of like uploading the chalkboard). I can also use a video clip to illustrate something my students might be having trouble with. This doesn't mean I am less prepared, but rather I don't have to have a static lesson plan (or handouts that take time to copy) to work from.
I also spend less time reinventing the wheel. I can work off of what I did the last time I taught the class. Finally, I watch TV less, especially the news. I can go to the internet now and find just those episodes or reports I'm interested in (rather than sitting through stuff I don't care about to get to the stuff I like).
So here is the closest to a typical day when I am teaching:
I go into the office after dropping my kids off at school and check emails, class sites (nings, courseware, blogs, delicious), and mail that may have come through interoffice mail. I also download and print assignments students have submitted. I don't download on my own computer because of viruses and supplies (let the university deal with the crashed system). I look for resources for the class I am teaching, organizing them on delicious or in a powerpoint (I update links). I begin to plan for the next class, looking for resources I can use. I make copies of in class activities or resources in case students don't bring their own (there are always a few that will forget to download from the class site). If I have time, I'll read through some of the blogs (and respond to them) that are listed on my igoogle.
After I teach, I return home and turn on my computer. I will look at my general email, finish looking at and commenting on 2 or 3 blogs from my igoogle while I make lunch. Then I will work on my dissertation. Right now I am in the process of analyzing data and finding literature to update my proposal. I might search through google scholar, go to the online library section, search for the journal and article or request online for the digital article through interlibrary loan (online).
I then try to take a walk before the kids come home. Once the kids are home, I don't have access to the computer, but I will monitor their computer use, including looking over my son's facebook interaction and keeping my daughter limited to the few safe gaming sites she enjoys when they aren't doing their homework. Most evenings, the kids have some sport or school event to go to. If not, occasionally, we'll watch a missed episode of a TV show via the internet. Or we might watch TV at night together. In between, I'll check my email 2-3 times a night or if I'm really bored, I'll check to see if there are any replies to the blog postings (this will usually only take 5 minutes or so).
On the days that I'm not teaching, I work on my dissertation until noon. Every hour or so I'll take a break, read a blog and post a comment or a blog posting. I noticed that I tend to post on Mondays and Thursdays. I'm not sure why. Maybe Monday because I will have had little access or time for the computer or myself, and it is "my time". After noon, I will vary what I do, taking time to exercise, reading a blog, or just "looking around" the internet. Sometimes I'll just read during this time. The day is the same after the kids get home.
I think that the blogging and searching the internet sometimes allows my mind to wonder into areas I'm really interested in and takes me away from the pressures of school and work. On the other hand, I have to be careful I don't take too much time to "wander" so I am procrastinating what I need to do (like starting dinner), speaking of which...
(Later). What do I do less of now? Planning for my classes. I now can be more spontaneous with my class, addressing issues as they come up as I will have a group of resources I can access during class. For example, whereas before I might have to have a powerpoint I am using in class, I can create the powerpoint as we work as a class and load it to the Ning or Courseware for my students to access later (sort of like uploading the chalkboard). I can also use a video clip to illustrate something my students might be having trouble with. This doesn't mean I am less prepared, but rather I don't have to have a static lesson plan (or handouts that take time to copy) to work from.
I also spend less time reinventing the wheel. I can work off of what I did the last time I taught the class. Finally, I watch TV less, especially the news. I can go to the internet now and find just those episodes or reports I'm interested in (rather than sitting through stuff I don't care about to get to the stuff I like).
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Working from Home: the office of the future?
I have noticed a difference between blogs from those who work out of a home office (see especially Karyn Romeis, Janet Clarey, and Michele Martin's blogs). While I teach at a university, most of my time is spent at home. I have very little interaction with those outside of class except electronically.
I bring this up because in his post yesterday, Clark Quinn discussed the predictions for elearning for next year. As he discussed the different types of technology and how it would be used, I kept thinking that the cost cutting and current economy will mean more people will be working from home, either as freelancers, or as companies cut overhead.
I have not seen this being discussed on the work literacy sites. I wonder what the impact this will have on social networking and/or blogs. This time of year, especially, in the northern hemisphere, there is a real feeling of isolation. In a brick and mortar workplace, there are opportunities to interact with colleagues during the "midwinter blues". But what happens when there are no colleagues within "water cooler" distance?
I feel that blogging allows workers to reach out, bounce ideas off of colleagues (that might be at a distance), create a professional relationship, get feedback and support, and feel as if they are part of a profession and organization. As a result, I wonder if the nature of blogs will differ. I know last year Michele Martin asked if women blogged differently than men. I wonder if those who work from home blog differently than those who are physically part of an organization? If there is a difference, will this mean that blogging will become more important (especially in this economic environment)?
I bring this up because in his post yesterday, Clark Quinn discussed the predictions for elearning for next year. As he discussed the different types of technology and how it would be used, I kept thinking that the cost cutting and current economy will mean more people will be working from home, either as freelancers, or as companies cut overhead.
I have not seen this being discussed on the work literacy sites. I wonder what the impact this will have on social networking and/or blogs. This time of year, especially, in the northern hemisphere, there is a real feeling of isolation. In a brick and mortar workplace, there are opportunities to interact with colleagues during the "midwinter blues". But what happens when there are no colleagues within "water cooler" distance?
I feel that blogging allows workers to reach out, bounce ideas off of colleagues (that might be at a distance), create a professional relationship, get feedback and support, and feel as if they are part of a profession and organization. As a result, I wonder if the nature of blogs will differ. I know last year Michele Martin asked if women blogged differently than men. I wonder if those who work from home blog differently than those who are physically part of an organization? If there is a difference, will this mean that blogging will become more important (especially in this economic environment)?
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Learning Theories: In support of Connectivism
I was first introduced to the idea of Connectivism through an online conference hosted by George Sieman's group at the University of Manitoba. Over the last 2 years, my thoughts have changed, (as have George's and others)as the theory evolves. This fall, I dropped in and was a lurker to the Connectivism course offered by the University of Manitoba, which helped me to clarify both what I like about the theory and some of the short comings.
Connectivism as a learning theory
I initially embraced Connectism as an extension of Constructivism, not really seeing it as a new learning theory. However, as I continue to integrate social networking tools into my teaching, analyze what skills my students need for the 21st Century, and redesign my instructional design to help address these needs, I have begun to see the difference between the two theories. I now see that there is a difference in understanding of learning (and facilitating learning).
This became especially evident as I began to revise my courses for this semester. I am teaching a course I have taught in one format or another for 15 years now, Speech Composition and Presentation. What has changed is the fact that many of my students in their future careers will not have immediate contact with their audience (primary or secondary). This is very important to public speaking, as face to face contact with the full audience means that you can adjust your message, style, language, even body language based on the audience feedback (verbal or non-verbal). However, more and more "public speaking" for organizations is including video clips (i.e. on YouTube) or pod casts. As a result, speakers need to find new ways to get feedback including comments and networking with potential audiences.
What this means for my instruction is that I need to teach my students how to create these feedback channels (networking) and how to deal with the more individualized needs assessment for their audience. No longer can speakers lump an audience together and assess their needs as a whole. There is much more segmentation and students need to understand the impact their message has on not just the listener, but that listener's network. Secondary audience analysis becomes even more important (as ideas can then be transferred through the network).
Research support in distinguishing the two theories
My current research on distributed groups in an organization is leaning towards support (I am just in the preliminary analysis stage) supporting George's contention that there is a difference in learning in the new networked environment which Constructivism does not support.
Individuals in a distributed group are members of various networks. Each of their networks provide different pieces of information and ways of negotiating meaning. Language, processes, and definition of "knowledge" varies between networks. However, a distributed group then creates its own "language", processes, and understanding of knowledge to be used within that network. These new understandings then have an impact on the other networks. In some cases, new language, processes, and understanding is transferred to members' other networks. But more often than not, a new negotiation of language, processes, and knowledge is the result of a member's interaction with the distributed group.
While constructivism and cognitive learning theories address the individual's learning, they do not address the group level learning and transfer/negotiation of understanding. As a result, connectivism seems to give a better explanation of the "group level" or organizational learning that goes on. It addresses the individual, group, and individual/group dynamic.
Culture and the Politics of Networks
Over the last two years, there has been something about the theory, however, that bothered me. As I begin to do my analysis, I feel I have put my finger on the major short coming of the theory as it exists today. Connectivism is grounded in systems and chaos theories. I find that these theories try to take the "personal" or "values" out of the approach. However, as humans, all of us are influenced by politics and culture.
Any one involved in curriculum develop understands that curriculum choices are dependent upon what those in power (whether it be professional leaders, instructors, governmental leaders, society, or policy makers) feel is important to know. Often, this is dependent upon their epistemology. Epistemology can be defined as, "An area of philosophical study that focuses on our understanding of knowledge. Epistemology asks questions about what is true and false, and what constitutes valid “information”. A key question of epistemology is whether information is absolute or relative, reflecting a tension between the “scientific method” and “social constructivism”." In other words, "knowledge" is a complex system that is dependent upon values, negotiation of meaning, patterns of behavior, and even recognition of stimuli. "Snow" and what constitutes snow will differ in the English speaking world depending on what part of the world you live in. (I use this as an example as we currently have "snow", "sleet", and "freezing rain" this morning). In my part of the country, it is important to know the difference as it will have an impact on a person's safety. But it is not important for someone in Florida to know this. This is one reason why curriculum in the US is diverse from state to state.
Epistemology is based on culture (patterns of behavior). Culture has an impact on the values of knowledge, interaction, network creation, even the difference between group and individual. The politics of a network adds to the complexity of epistemology. I am finding that power structures within networks help to establish which knowledge is considered important and which is considered irrelevant. Competing definitions between networks causes tension between networks and within intersecting networks (as with distributed groups). How these tensions are resolved (or not) will impact learning.
What's next?
As a result, in order for connectivism to be a viable learning theory, it is important that the impact of politics and culture be integrated into the theory. Specifically, the following questions need to be asked:
1) How are networks constructed? What are the power structures within networks? How are connection established? What factors (cultural and political) influence the construction of a learning network?
2) Are there differences between "engineered" networks (in which a network, such as a distributed group, is created for a specific purpose) and organic network (in which connections are established due to need or common interests without any outside help)? How is meaning negotiated in each, are patterns of behavior established, and is the network maintained?
3) How can these networks be leveraged to facilitate learning? How should instruction be designed to address the political and cultural factors that effect learning due to the networked/connectedness environment? What skills do students need to learn in a connected environment?
Connectivism as a learning theory
I initially embraced Connectism as an extension of Constructivism, not really seeing it as a new learning theory. However, as I continue to integrate social networking tools into my teaching, analyze what skills my students need for the 21st Century, and redesign my instructional design to help address these needs, I have begun to see the difference between the two theories. I now see that there is a difference in understanding of learning (and facilitating learning).
This became especially evident as I began to revise my courses for this semester. I am teaching a course I have taught in one format or another for 15 years now, Speech Composition and Presentation. What has changed is the fact that many of my students in their future careers will not have immediate contact with their audience (primary or secondary). This is very important to public speaking, as face to face contact with the full audience means that you can adjust your message, style, language, even body language based on the audience feedback (verbal or non-verbal). However, more and more "public speaking" for organizations is including video clips (i.e. on YouTube) or pod casts. As a result, speakers need to find new ways to get feedback including comments and networking with potential audiences.
What this means for my instruction is that I need to teach my students how to create these feedback channels (networking) and how to deal with the more individualized needs assessment for their audience. No longer can speakers lump an audience together and assess their needs as a whole. There is much more segmentation and students need to understand the impact their message has on not just the listener, but that listener's network. Secondary audience analysis becomes even more important (as ideas can then be transferred through the network).
Research support in distinguishing the two theories
My current research on distributed groups in an organization is leaning towards support (I am just in the preliminary analysis stage) supporting George's contention that there is a difference in learning in the new networked environment which Constructivism does not support.
Individuals in a distributed group are members of various networks. Each of their networks provide different pieces of information and ways of negotiating meaning. Language, processes, and definition of "knowledge" varies between networks. However, a distributed group then creates its own "language", processes, and understanding of knowledge to be used within that network. These new understandings then have an impact on the other networks. In some cases, new language, processes, and understanding is transferred to members' other networks. But more often than not, a new negotiation of language, processes, and knowledge is the result of a member's interaction with the distributed group.
While constructivism and cognitive learning theories address the individual's learning, they do not address the group level learning and transfer/negotiation of understanding. As a result, connectivism seems to give a better explanation of the "group level" or organizational learning that goes on. It addresses the individual, group, and individual/group dynamic.
Culture and the Politics of Networks
Over the last two years, there has been something about the theory, however, that bothered me. As I begin to do my analysis, I feel I have put my finger on the major short coming of the theory as it exists today. Connectivism is grounded in systems and chaos theories. I find that these theories try to take the "personal" or "values" out of the approach. However, as humans, all of us are influenced by politics and culture.
Any one involved in curriculum develop understands that curriculum choices are dependent upon what those in power (whether it be professional leaders, instructors, governmental leaders, society, or policy makers) feel is important to know. Often, this is dependent upon their epistemology. Epistemology can be defined as, "An area of philosophical study that focuses on our understanding of knowledge. Epistemology asks questions about what is true and false, and what constitutes valid “information”. A key question of epistemology is whether information is absolute or relative, reflecting a tension between the “scientific method” and “social constructivism”." In other words, "knowledge" is a complex system that is dependent upon values, negotiation of meaning, patterns of behavior, and even recognition of stimuli. "Snow" and what constitutes snow will differ in the English speaking world depending on what part of the world you live in. (I use this as an example as we currently have "snow", "sleet", and "freezing rain" this morning). In my part of the country, it is important to know the difference as it will have an impact on a person's safety. But it is not important for someone in Florida to know this. This is one reason why curriculum in the US is diverse from state to state.
Epistemology is based on culture (patterns of behavior). Culture has an impact on the values of knowledge, interaction, network creation, even the difference between group and individual. The politics of a network adds to the complexity of epistemology. I am finding that power structures within networks help to establish which knowledge is considered important and which is considered irrelevant. Competing definitions between networks causes tension between networks and within intersecting networks (as with distributed groups). How these tensions are resolved (or not) will impact learning.
What's next?
As a result, in order for connectivism to be a viable learning theory, it is important that the impact of politics and culture be integrated into the theory. Specifically, the following questions need to be asked:
1) How are networks constructed? What are the power structures within networks? How are connection established? What factors (cultural and political) influence the construction of a learning network?
2) Are there differences between "engineered" networks (in which a network, such as a distributed group, is created for a specific purpose) and organic network (in which connections are established due to need or common interests without any outside help)? How is meaning negotiated in each, are patterns of behavior established, and is the network maintained?
3) How can these networks be leveraged to facilitate learning? How should instruction be designed to address the political and cultural factors that effect learning due to the networked/connectedness environment? What skills do students need to learn in a connected environment?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Top Ten Tools: Ning
This year, I have not used Ning as an instructor but rather as a student. I have participated in the work literacy course and the Corporate Learning Trends and Innovations 2008online conference.
Ning is a very powerful and flexible environment in which social networking, resource sharing, and forums can all be included in one location. An individual can start a Ning (for free), then invite members into the Ning. There are different levels of privacy, but, like facebook, a member needs to ask for membership to enter the Ning.
How it works
I am not familiar with the set up of Nings, although those that used it have said it is easy to do so. A person must first register with the site. As a participant and member, I have the option to create a profile with as much or little information as I want, including a picture, location, profession, and gender. This is done very simply by answering questions after you have registered for a Ning. This profile can be modified (adding more information, changing pictures, etc...)at any time.
I would log into the home page of the Ning in which I was participating. Although this page may vary depending on who is managing the Ning, usually there was a menu which included announcements, new posts to discussion forums, and new additions to the membership, resources, and video section. There are tabs at the top of the homepage which allows you to go to your own home page and have "private" conversations (not broadcasted to the group at large, but still viewable to your "friends"), access uploaded videos, review the forum discussions (including identifying new posts), seeing the newest tweets or other feeds, or even blogging within the site.
Affordances
This is a social networking site that allows for participants to create their own space within the Ning. Those that prefer to learn through discussion forums, can do so. Those that want to blog to learn, can do so. There is also great opportunity for collaboration and sharing of resources, all within on area.
However, for the Ning to work and be sustained, there does need to be a facilitator who will facilitate communication both within and outside of the ning to maintain interest. This might include e-mail updates to members (which the Ning has the ability to do), creating and organizing some structure for discussion forums, and maintaining social protocols to ensure group interaction.
Ning is a very powerful and flexible environment in which social networking, resource sharing, and forums can all be included in one location. An individual can start a Ning (for free), then invite members into the Ning. There are different levels of privacy, but, like facebook, a member needs to ask for membership to enter the Ning.
How it works
I am not familiar with the set up of Nings, although those that used it have said it is easy to do so. A person must first register with the site. As a participant and member, I have the option to create a profile with as much or little information as I want, including a picture, location, profession, and gender. This is done very simply by answering questions after you have registered for a Ning. This profile can be modified (adding more information, changing pictures, etc...)at any time.
I would log into the home page of the Ning in which I was participating. Although this page may vary depending on who is managing the Ning, usually there was a menu which included announcements, new posts to discussion forums, and new additions to the membership, resources, and video section. There are tabs at the top of the homepage which allows you to go to your own home page and have "private" conversations (not broadcasted to the group at large, but still viewable to your "friends"), access uploaded videos, review the forum discussions (including identifying new posts), seeing the newest tweets or other feeds, or even blogging within the site.
Affordances
This is a social networking site that allows for participants to create their own space within the Ning. Those that prefer to learn through discussion forums, can do so. Those that want to blog to learn, can do so. There is also great opportunity for collaboration and sharing of resources, all within on area.
However, for the Ning to work and be sustained, there does need to be a facilitator who will facilitate communication both within and outside of the ning to maintain interest. This might include e-mail updates to members (which the Ning has the ability to do), creating and organizing some structure for discussion forums, and maintaining social protocols to ensure group interaction.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
My top 10 tools: Delicious
I know that Jane Hart will be compiling a new list of top 10 tools in the near future. Every time I see her call for contributors, I am in the middle of a major project. So as the year ends, I decided to do things different and spend the next 10 days listing a different tool in my top ten, and why it is important. Also, in line with my desire to begin to identify the affordances of a tool and therefore, how that tool could be used (which instructional goals can be met, limitiations of the tool) will also be included.
Today's tool is top on my list for this year: Delicious. Delicious has become a life saver for me in my teaching, my research, as I move from computer to computer, and as I try to share resources with my colleagues, especially those I am trying to help into the 21st Century.
Delicious for Dummies (I'm not saying that I think my readers are Dummies, but rather using the format used in ".... for Dummies" books!!)
For those that may have heard of delicious, but really don't know how you could use it or how it works I will give some general information. Delicious is a public site of "links". I initially used it by going on delicious and searching for resources (without joining). You type in a key word and links that people have saved using that key word can be found. Once I became more accustomed to the features of delicious (I am definitely NOT an early adopter), I found I could keep links I found when working on multiple computers, in multiple locations (home, work, the library) in one place accessible through the web, regardless of where I was.
This year, I began to use delicious as a way to keep track of sites and links I wanted to use in my classes. As I teach technology and communication courses with only one computer in my classroom, I wanted to be able to demonstrate what I was teaching. Delicious made it easy for me to identify my links quickly, so I had less set up for the various sites I was going to. In the classroom, I could not save URL's so using delicious made it possible for me not to have to type in the same sites over and over.
As a member, you will have the ability to download a toolbar addition to your browser. What this means is that an icon will be added to your browser, and when you want to add a link to delicious or access your delicious account, you need only click on the icon. The directions for adding this accessory is very easy to follow (even my sisters have been able to figure it out--and they're old!).
Two other features newbies need to know about are tags and Notes. The one pet peeve I have with delicious is that tags can only be one word. So if you have a two word descriptor, such as international communication, you will need to either use an underscore (international_communication) or put together the terms without a space (internationalcommunication). I would recommend deciding from the beginning which you will do and sticking with that. However, you then need to understand that others will use both formats when tagging their own information.
I use the notes for two reasons. First, it reminds me of why I chose a link so it helps me to find links I saved for my classes or dissertation. Secondly, it helps others decide if they want to click on the link when they come across the resource on my list.
This leads me to the social networking feature of delicious. Once a member, you can do a search using tags that will allow you to access others links. I found one member that must be doing a similar dissertation project as he not only saved my delicious account, but had many links that I had been searching for.
Affordances
At first, many might look at this as just a depository of information. However, I have also used it as a means of sharing sites (through tags with group names, such as the course number or project name). This allows groups to create a database of resources. Delicious also allows for collaboration, broadcasting of information, and social networking.
Instructional Design requirements
Integrating delicious into the classroom can be as easy as giving a link to a list identified through the class number (i.e. delicious.com/vmyonkers/ACOM203). However, if it is going to be used as a collaborative tool, the group needs to come up with a way in which they will share the information (either creating a separate account for the group, friending others to your list, or creating a common tag for shared resources).
I would be interested in knowing how others use delicious and what affordances they see in the use of this tool. Also, how do you integrate it into your instructional designs?
Today's tool is top on my list for this year: Delicious. Delicious has become a life saver for me in my teaching, my research, as I move from computer to computer, and as I try to share resources with my colleagues, especially those I am trying to help into the 21st Century.
Delicious for Dummies (I'm not saying that I think my readers are Dummies, but rather using the format used in ".... for Dummies" books!!)
For those that may have heard of delicious, but really don't know how you could use it or how it works I will give some general information. Delicious is a public site of "links". I initially used it by going on delicious and searching for resources (without joining). You type in a key word and links that people have saved using that key word can be found. Once I became more accustomed to the features of delicious (I am definitely NOT an early adopter), I found I could keep links I found when working on multiple computers, in multiple locations (home, work, the library) in one place accessible through the web, regardless of where I was.
This year, I began to use delicious as a way to keep track of sites and links I wanted to use in my classes. As I teach technology and communication courses with only one computer in my classroom, I wanted to be able to demonstrate what I was teaching. Delicious made it easy for me to identify my links quickly, so I had less set up for the various sites I was going to. In the classroom, I could not save URL's so using delicious made it possible for me not to have to type in the same sites over and over.
As a member, you will have the ability to download a toolbar addition to your browser. What this means is that an icon will be added to your browser, and when you want to add a link to delicious or access your delicious account, you need only click on the icon. The directions for adding this accessory is very easy to follow (even my sisters have been able to figure it out--and they're old!).
Two other features newbies need to know about are tags and Notes. The one pet peeve I have with delicious is that tags can only be one word. So if you have a two word descriptor, such as international communication, you will need to either use an underscore (international_communication) or put together the terms without a space (internationalcommunication). I would recommend deciding from the beginning which you will do and sticking with that. However, you then need to understand that others will use both formats when tagging their own information.
I use the notes for two reasons. First, it reminds me of why I chose a link so it helps me to find links I saved for my classes or dissertation. Secondly, it helps others decide if they want to click on the link when they come across the resource on my list.
This leads me to the social networking feature of delicious. Once a member, you can do a search using tags that will allow you to access others links. I found one member that must be doing a similar dissertation project as he not only saved my delicious account, but had many links that I had been searching for.
Affordances
At first, many might look at this as just a depository of information. However, I have also used it as a means of sharing sites (through tags with group names, such as the course number or project name). This allows groups to create a database of resources. Delicious also allows for collaboration, broadcasting of information, and social networking.
Instructional Design requirements
Integrating delicious into the classroom can be as easy as giving a link to a list identified through the class number (i.e. delicious.com/vmyonkers/ACOM203). However, if it is going to be used as a collaborative tool, the group needs to come up with a way in which they will share the information (either creating a separate account for the group, friending others to your list, or creating a common tag for shared resources).
I would be interested in knowing how others use delicious and what affordances they see in the use of this tool. Also, how do you integrate it into your instructional designs?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
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.
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.
- There needs to be some structure so students aren't overwhelmed (the WLning has a nice flow to it with a definate structure)
- 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.
- There needs to be freedom for students to set their learning goals and level of participation within the community.
- 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.
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)