Technology, Colleges, and Community (TCC) is a great opportunity to learn from and share with our colleagues from around the world. This year, we have the great privilege of presenting at this conference.
Because the theme of this year’s conference is The New Internet: Collaboration, Convergence, Creativity, Contrast, and Challenges, we felt that our own experiences with collaboration with Subject Matter Experts through Web 2.0 tools would be a great way to share and learn from others.
Natalie, Christy and April will each discuss a case study that represents one facet of the communication challenges that they face when collaborating with Subject Matter Experts (SME).
Natalie will offer her experiences with communicating effectively with a SME who is very technically literate. With this SME, she used Connect, Skype, Google Docs, and WetPaint Wiki. With these tools, she was able to communicate a visually designed structure from the learning objectives and then build content within a wiki.
 |
 |
 |
|---|
From her experience with the tech savvy SME, she found that regular communication was a must and using chat often was a key ingredient to successful collaboration. She also found that using an editing tool for the text portion of the content was easier and more effective than using a wiki. Google Docs was an effective way for them to share resource links.
We will move from a tech savvy SME to one who is a neophyte using Web 2.0 tools. With this SME, April used Adobe Connect, Skype and WetPaint after assessing the SME’s abilities and preferences. Adobe Connect was used primarily to help the SME visualize the course structure and a way to work collaboratively on the wiki. The WetPaint wiki was a central depository for the course content. April and the SME met several times a week to work on the content using Connect, Skype and WetPaint.
From her experiences working with a “tech novice”, April also found that communicating often was essential not only to update content but to also keep them on schedule and to answer any technical questions the SME had. April also found that updating the wiki on a daily basis was important since content was added regularly. It got messy and clean up was essential to keep the collaboration running smoothly.
Skype was also used as a way to communicate outside of regularly scheduled meetings. It was a fantastic way to talk to one another “off the cuff”. April realized that this SME would have benefited from a bit more training on the Web 2.0 tools used. However, it did not prove to be a huge barrier to collaboration.
Christy picks up the thread of Web 2.0 collaboration by discussing how we work with those SME resistance to Web 2.0 tools. Resistance to technology comes in many forms: not familiar with tools, don’t have time to learn a new technology, etc. Our responses to SME resistance is to encourage the SME, limit the technology, train them on the use of Web 2.0 tools, and, if all else fails, fall back to Web 1.0 tools (i.e. email and phone calls).
The relationships that we build with our SMEs through collaboration are supported through our use of Web 2.0 (and sometimes, Web 1.0) tools. We find that if we know their working and learning styles, train them on the use of those tools, establish rules and guidelines for working sessions, and continuously develop and maintain a collaborative work dynamic the relationship between the instructional designer and SME will be (mostly) smooth and productive.
Focusing on using appropriate tools to develop course design and content in an interactive and collaborative way with the SME and Instructional Designer was the ultimate goal. Using Web 2.0 tools to support this dynamic structure is how we do this on a daily basis.
So, I will leave you with the question we will be asking the participants of our conference session:
What challenges have you faced when using Web 2.0 tools for communication and collaboration?
[...] 18, 2008 by Christy Tucker Our team’s presentation on Web 2.0 Solutions for Course Development Communication Challenges for the TCC 2008 conference went extremely well, if I do say so myself. Don’t take my word [...]
Great subject matter on this blog post, ladies! I appreciated your description of the three levels of familiarity with the web 2.0 tools, and your willingness to use web 1.0 as a fall back plan. Sometimes you just have to be flexible! It was interesting to note that the wiki was not the best place to collaborate on a document, and Google Docs worked more effectively.
I am gaining some experience with wikis in PLS’s Building Online Environments class. The biggest issue for me is that I don’t feel comfortable changing the words of another professional. Working in a small group, we are all willing to do a section of it but there is not much revision and editing. What have your experiences been with that aspect of wikis?
Sarah
Sarah, that’s a great question. The problems with using the wiki for collaboration during course development stem from the formatting issues in WetPaint; the collaboration process itself is essentially the same in either a wiki or Google Docs. Both the ID and SME are writing, editing, and making comments directly in the same content. The big difference in Google Docs is that we usually make the comments directly within the text (in a different color) because there isn’t a separate discussion forum.
I think that kind of collaboration where people can edit each other’s work requires mutual trust. You have to trust that the people in your group are making edits for the overall shared goal of creating a good product. Your peers have to trust that your edits have the same goal in mind.
Also keep in mind that with the wiki, it’s very easy for the instructor (or anyone) to see the full history of the changes. Just look on the history tab for any page and select two versions to compare. Inserted text will be highlighted in green, deleted text in red. In terms of grading, this makes it very easy. If the concern is about who gets credit, the technology is very helpful–more helpful, in fact, than if you were looking at a group project in a face-to-face course.
But ultimately it sounds like your concern isn’t about grading but about the attitude and approach to the collaborative environment. For this to really work the way it should, I see four necessary things in the team:
1. A common goal
2. Trust in the other team members that they share that goal
3. Belief that everyone has something to contribute
4. Belief that no single person has all the right answers, and everyone can learn from each other
No technology is going to help you do collaborative work if you’re lacking those four things.
Imagine if you were working on a project as an individual that you submitted to your instructor repeatedly for feedback and improvements. If the instructor crossed out some of your words and made an improvement, would you feel uncomfortable with that? Would you be uncomfortable doing so as an instructor?
As a facilitator, you give feedback to other professionals on a daily basis. Editing other people’s work is similar, but the power structure is different. Instead of the “sage on the stage” being the one with all the right answers, everyone contributes their part of the “right answers.” It is a different power structure from the traditional teacher-centered classroom. Student-centered learning, especially in a course like BCE where it’s often student-led learning, can be a little disorienting at first.
Trust yourself and the value of your own contributions, and trust your peers. That’s how you get the collaborative relationships to work.
I love this conversation, and I am sure no one is surprised that I have something to add. Sarah, you made an important observation. Yes, most professionals do feel uncomfortable changing the “words” of another professional. In many respects, this is as it should be. But here’s the thing, wikis are, as we know, part of Web 2.0 technology and communication. Communication is kind of the part that everyone is missing. For all intents and purposes, we have a new level of communication, and the rules are different. We think of informal, formal, business, academic, scholarly – that sort of stuff. We are comfortable with the differences in tone and contribution. Web 2.0 communication doesn’t really fit any of those templates in that it is all of them and more.
I think of wikis as the “hippy” of all the read/write web tools. It’s all about everything being for free. If it’s free, can anyone own it? I remember seeing a news story on TV quite a while ago about this free bicycle program in NYC. You ride these donated bikes to wherever you need to go and leave it for someone else to use. The next person does the same, and ideally there would be bikes for everyone. Although I thought this was a wonderful idea, I was fascinated, I also thought it was a bit naïve. Ummm, did anyone take human nature into consideration? And, what if you were just running into the store for a quick minute only to find there was “no bike for you” when you returned? This story really stuck with me. Okay. So you have to have a certain set of expectations going into the whole bike thing, like do expect someone else to use it – maybe before you are finished. It’s allowed.
I know, I’m kind of rambly this morning, but mostly what I’m trying to say boils down to our ideas about ownership of information. A student said it best for me, “So, Ms. Morris, it’s like this information is the last person’s creation and then it will be my creation and someone else’s information.” Well, okay . . . I thought it was genius.
I really like what you said, Christy, about the necessary qualities of a wiki environment:
“1. A common goal
2. Trust in the other team members that they share that goal
3. Belief that everyone has something to contribute
4. Belief that no single person has all the right answers, and everyone can learn from each other”
I couldn’t agree more! For all of those things to happen, we have to change/suspend our idea of who owns the information. I do have to manage my students’ approach to this environment. We talk quite a bit about the whole idea of “peace, love, and Wikipedia.” They DO give credit to outside sources, we DO discuss plagiarism extensively, they do write at an academic level – while developing a slightly less formal tone, and they DO struggle with the subtleties. So DO I. I feel that helping them develop these skills is more important in this culture than essay writing (Don’t tell my Assoc. Dean I said that!) They are apprehensive at first. Good! I’d rather start with that level of interaction than complete disregard. Not to my surprise, they get it and embrace it pretty quickly – they aren’t as deeply mired down with the same hang-ups as those of us over 30. I’m just sayin’.
Lee Anne, these are some wonderful insights (as always)! The changes in our approach to ownership of information is a crucial part of this. In a collaborative group project, the information or contributions aren’t owned by any single individual, but by the group as a whole.
Madison, WI started a free bike program a number of years ago similar to what you described. Maybe it’s the difference between Madison and New York, but at the end of the first year, Madison had more bikes than they started with. People thought it was a great idea, so they painted their old bikes red and left them out for others to use. The program has changed now and requires a deposit, but it was a great example of how this project inspired people to give up their personal ownership for the greater good.
Wikis at their best can give that kind of inspiration too. It doesn’t always happen, of course, but the possibilities are very exciting.