Group items tagged

This is a comprehensive blog entry introduction to the potential of Google Docs as a collaborative tool for students. These potential uses are also valuable in work places or other group work. The value of this resource is the well-written way Wetzel articulates the advantages of Google Docs for collaborative practice. His argument is that such a system, aside from being free, is valuable to go beyond the e-mail sharing culture to a full real-time collaborative environment. Wetzel then proceeds to give examples of the potential for the application of Google Docs in education contexts and classrooms. To summarise, he argues three main points in using Google Docs for collaboration:  The ability for Google Docs to provide instant feedback to students on their work  To conserve expenses on school projects such as printing costs  Encouraging the working together of students on a projects in a systematic and orderly manner The tone of the article is clearly very much in favour of using Google Docs for collaborative practice in educational settings. However, though this may not be an issue in educational contexts, there are disadvantages using Google Docs that are not reported. Two bloggers highlight those weaknesses which may be of concern when trying to use more features in Google Docs that are not there but are part of the Microsoft Office Suite:  The speed of internet connection is vital; if it is slow the collaborator may not be able to keep up with others' postings (Bukisa, 2011)  Most of the time you cannot work offline with Google Docs, you must be online to create and update documents (Creative Marketing Solutions, n.d.) However, the article does put a compelling list of features that make Google Docs a good system to use for educational collaboration.

References Bukisa. (2011). Google Docs review. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/480255_google-docs-review Creative Marketing Solutions. (n.d.). How to use Google Docs. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://knolt.com/creative-marketing-solutions/2010/10/20/heading-2/ Wetzel, D. R. (2009). Google Docs are a free online educational tool: Web-based productivity software for teacher or student collaboration. Suite101.com. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://www.suite101.com/content/google-docs-are-a-free-online-educational-tool-a105900

The article, Google Docs are a Free Online Educational Tool Written by David R. Wetzel gives a comprehensive overview of the benefits of Google docs specifically in relation to education. The article outlines these positives a few of these include (but are not limited to) the ability to secure the websites content, making it a safe place to upload work, the ability to comment and give almost instant feedback, the ability to update students on deadlines, information, and helpful tools and also to keep course content. It seems that these positives are quite a universal thing as Keith McPherson (2007) explored all of these benefits in his article new online technologies for new literacy instruction. This reminds me of the use of wiki's in education, a tool that is explored by Elisha Petersen (2009) in which the tool is used to do the same. This brings me to question, which is better? Why use one over the other, if they achieve the exact same thing? Wetzel's article doesn't seem to give any suggestion that the tool has anything wrong with it. Something that, in technology, is hard to believe. Keith McPherson, However, outlines a few limitations of the program. He states "the conversion of graphics and tables from a Word document to a Google document is not reliable and Google Docs does not run on older browsers and Safari or Opera" (McPherson, 2007). Ryan Spoon a Principal at Polaris Venture Partners writes in his blog that he decided to use Wikidot (a wiki platform) instead of Google docs, he believes that although Google docs are great for specific documents they "don't scale over time well… more importantly the documents are treated distinctly and ultimately get as cluttered as your computer desktop" so although two tools (wiki and Google docs) can inevitably achieve the same thing, they still work in very different ways, and one has to evaluate the finer details. References Peterson, E.. (2009). Using a Wiki to Enhance Cooperative Learning in

Kumar's work has a reasonable amount to offer in terms of a resource; his research gives more clues to the perceived effectiveness of Google Docs users have towards it as a collaborative tool. He has chosen to use the effective research method focus groups with semi-structured questions. Perhaps the useful part of investigating Google Docs as a collaborative tool is how he selected students at the university site who were in many disciplines. Thus he was able to elicit some good insights into why Google Docs is so praised as a collaborative educational tool. One finding was that students preferred Google Docs as a time saving tool where no formal meetings took place. Although the students were on campus, it was surprising that they felt they would rather use Google Docs then all meet to work on a project. The other finding was that the acceptance of this Web 2.0 collaborative technology was greater amongst students that had previous experience with Google Docs or other similar software. Another major advantage found by Kumar (2009) was that overall using such collaborative tools increased interest in the subject matter of their particular discipline. The concept that new technologies add value to existing practice was also interesting. Although Kumar was not clear on this concept, what students indicated this was the case, such a statement suggests that using Google Docs is linked to increased interest in a subject and in turn a desire to succeed. The weakness of this resource is Kumar is not clear of this link; however, as an article to show that Google Docs is of value equating collaboration tools with increased productivity shows how potentially valuable using them can be.

Yes Michael - I agree - things are constantly changing and evolving on the Internet and as you say if Kumar did the study again it would be a different outcome. Cheers, Kaye

This paper articulates through research and data analysis from although relatively small focus group the effectiveness of using new technologies 2.0 to enhance learning of students from different background in their respective disciplines. This is as same topic as one of my discussions with article Art Education, Collaboration and the Internet. It talks about internet technology integrates into contemporary education. New generation communicates and shares information differently in current technological society. Computer literate generation are different from earlier generations who rely mainly on books and printed materials. Collaborative online activity as an educational endeavor is involving people from different areas to work together.(Harris, 1999). Internet is also being used in region of high education that adopts Web2.0 to help students learning for their self-study and group projects and leverage strategies. (Kumar, n.d). Not only for undergraduate students, but also those students from high schools and colleges, all gained the benefits of new technologies across disciplines in order to achieving their teaching and learning purposes of education. For high education, I completely agree with that Google Documents is very popular among the students for collaborative projects or assignments, because I often use Google document for my topic research and reference as well. I also believe that the internet generation's familiarity with new media undoubtedly will make this way easier for teachers to craft effective learning experiences and to use such tools to engage students. Reference: Harris, J. (1999). First steps in telecollaboration. Learning and leading with technology. 27(3),54-57. Roland, A. (2003). Art Education, Collaboration and the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.artjunction.org/articles/arted_collab_internet.pdf Kumar, S. (n.d). Undergraduate Perceptions of the Usefulness of Web 2.0 in Higher Education: Survey Development. Re

This study by Blau and Caspi is valuable for seeing how using Google Docs in a sharing and collaborating environment has on perceived student learning. The credibility of this study is enhanced by a wide survey of 118 students at an Open University in Israel. Ownership meant the degree to which the student using Google Docs felt responsible to work on and update project documents. This quantitative study also sought to measure the perceived learning and quality of project outcomes students felt were a result of using Google Docs. The implications from the study suggested the importance of owning the document, but also to make sure others knew of changes to the document. A document creator felt they lost ownership of the document when editing was done on it. They became the reader of the document. Such a change in hierarchy shows the importance of communicating changes done on Google Docs to every team member. A second implication was that the value of the document seemed to increase when more revisions was done. This suggested that more work on the document resulted in a more credible and trustworthy document as the project document was improved towards its final presentation. In fact most survey respondents seemed to not think the document got worse as more things were added to it. Overall, there was a correlation between document quality and revision, with Google Docs being perceived as quite effective in producing trustworthy documents which add to the learning process. The researchers' main advice from the study is that revising documents and suggesting improvements is far more effective than editing another's documents. Whilst this is not always possible it does suggest the importance of communication in the collaboration process. Google Docs is not a passive collaboration media; therefore, care in making sure all team members communicate changes is vital to a much better collaboration process.

References Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration using Google Docs. Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2009: Learning in the technological era. Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, Y. Yair (Eds.), Raanana: The Open University of Israel. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:bBVQbNfm4-MJ:scholar.google.com/+google+docs&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

This article takes a case study approach using qualitative and quantitative survey questions to measure the difference between pre and post uses of Google Docs. The research problem was based on the observation that Web 2.0 collaborative technologies were initially causing hesitation. However, upon consistent use in the context of an online course, students changed their minds about the usefulness of Google Docs. Both researchers intended to measure undergraduate levels of self-efficacy and undergraduates perceptions of using these collaborative technologies. The study had 18 respondents to the survey. Although the researchers acknowledged Google Docs limitations in the robustness of the software, they argued that this would make no difference to the perceptions of the undergraduates using it. The results of the study are somewhat unremarkable and predicable, yet support the idea that Google Docs is very useful for collaborative student work. There were major differences pre and post use of Google Docs that were significant. A majority of students felt their level of self-efficacy, that is confidence to use the software, was much higher after undertaking the course. The second hypothesis also showed the majority had positive perceptions of using Google Docs both in the course but significantly in future studies and workplaces. Although the researchers reported mostly positive results about the use of Google Docs, one issue clouded the results. Not being able to access the documents when offline is perceived as a major impediment in the collaborative process. Overall this study may seem somewhat bland and predictable; however, it supports much positive and negative criticism of Google Docs in the ability to foster and impede the learning of the students using it.

Reference Edwards, J.T., & Baker, C. (2010). A case study: Google collaboration applications as online course teaching tools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/edwards_1210.htm

OVERVIEW Because of the ability to share and interact online, collaboration tools are being considered as tools that can help children with learning. Keith McPherson believes that students should be kept up-to-date on recent technologies as they help educators expand their notion of literacy to embrace evolving communication that moves beyond (but still includes) just reading and writing. He also suggests that "educators assist their students to develop critical literacy capabilities across a wide set of real-life communication contexts and technologies." The article then goes on to describe 5 different online literacy tools that can be used to aid student participation and collaboration and therefore help in their learning. The 5 tools he talks about are, Gliffy, Google Docs, Newsmap, OpenOffice and Delicious. Each analysis gives the reader a brief outline of each tool and the advantages and disadvantages of each. While exploring the strengths and weaknesses, there were many contributing factors that were evident in Gliffy, Google Docs and OpenOffice, all three of them incorporate document type editing tools which make them easy to use. Also, all three of them allow various formats to be exported and imported onto the websites database. Of course all 5 incorporate the main theme of sharing (so this is where delicious and NewsMap fit into the mix) However NewsMap is the more interesting analysis that Keith McPherson includes in his article. This site is very different to the other four, yet he has found a way to include it as one of the key tools for students. This site uses Google Maps, and, as McPherson states "allows users to quickly locate international, national, regional, or local news." He believes it helps literacy skills because it aids middle/high school students with learning about mapping, directions, news and critical thinking. This is perhaps a site that may not have instantly been associated with learning in schools but interstingly has been

This is an interesting article highlighting the tools that can help assist students with their literacy. I find this subject extremely interesting as I have studied via distance education and I know from experience how tools such as Google Docs can be greatly beneficial in facilitating a group project. Another way students can be assisted in learning is through the use of videoconferencing. Videoconferences can assist students that are restricted due to physical disabilities or geographical limitations. By using videoconferencing software such as Skype in the classroom, students can be exposed to a number of different teaching methods or styles and other students. One of the great benefits with videoconferencing is providing students with motivation (Masum, Brooks and Spence, 2005). Instead of students feeling isolated with their learning they can use videoconferencing to discuss and share ideas with other teachers and students on a worldwide basis. By incorporating tools such as Google Docs, Delicious and video conferencing software, teachers can provide a more interesting way of teaching students. Google Docs could be used to facilitate the collection of ideas, Delicious can be used to share links and articles, while follow up and discussion of those ideas could take place through videoconferencing. This would present a student, that has restricted access to a school, with a full rounded experience of being in a classroom without physically having to leave their home. References: Masum, H., Brooks, M. and Spence, J. Music Grid: A case study in video collaboration. First Monday. Retrieved on 16 April 2011 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/1238/1158

This article by Chris Brogan demonstrates the enormous potentials of adopting a virtual office using communication and collaboration tools. Brogan, owner of a small-business education and growth company believes that doing business without the traditional trappings means equipping employees with the right platforms. The author breaks down the tools he used for his virtual office. The first list was the tools used for communication which comprised of: - Skype: Used as a de facto office phone - Adium and Trillian: An instant messaging tool. - Yammer: An internal organisational version of twitter. As their online collaboration tool, company used various free virtual tools: - Google Docs (docs.google.com): sharing information back and forth. Google Docs is one of the more popular tools for sharing and editing documents in real time online. - Linoit (en.linoit.com): A virtual cork board for sticky notes. - Dropbox (dropbox.com) - Real time file sharing. At one time, the office was a physical place, and communicating with colleagues meant visiting their cubicles to discuss ideas or ask questions. Online media, however, have expanded the office to virtual environments in which one regularly interacts with co-workers from different cultures and countries (Amant, 2003). A virtual office removes time and place for an organisation. Reference: Brogran, C. (2011). Virtually there: Facilitating communication and collaboration at a virtual office using software tools. Entrepreneur, 39(1), 1. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=dc3fa996-00f5-4ad2-994b-3393f25aad18%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=108 Amant, K. S. (2003). Making contact in international virtual offices: an application of symbolic interactionism to online workplace discourse. Institute of Technology & Sci. Communication, 46(3), 4. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1227596

Due to the global financial crisis, companies globally have been finding ways to cut costs. Instead of staff travelling to attend meetings, businesses rely on methods such as video conferencing to assist in facilitating meetings with geographically dispersed teams. This article published on the technology blogging site Read Write Web discusses four main trends in regards to video conferencing. The four trends stated are consumerisation, mobility, interoperability and providing a social layer. Mobility and the social layer are interesting trends when thinking about collaboration via video conferencing. Smartphones being released are beginning to include video conferencing as a standard functionality. Through the use of smart phones, mobility allows team members to participate and collaborate whilst on the move. It unshackles team members from the restraints of being restricted to an office. For team members that travel regularly being able to videoconference from hotel rooms or other offices through their smart phone provides them with flexibility previously not seen. Social layers being added to software is becoming the norm (Flinley, 2010). The social layer extends video conferencing beyond just audio and video. By adding social layers to videoconferencing software, users are able to communicate in the one location rather than utilising multiple platforms. A social layer provides "social networking, instant messaging, voice and video into one system" also including the ability to share files. By encapsulating all means of communication in the one destination, team members save time and recording communication becomes easier. References: Finley, K. (2010). Four Trends in Enterprise Video Conferencing. Read Write Web. Retrieved on 12 April 2011 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/10/trends-in-enterprise-video-conferencing.php

This article introduces some video conferencing applications, such as Cisco, Skype, Nefsis Basic, BlackBerry Playbook, and Google Voice, and shows how they are used as collaboration tools in enterprises. Burke (2011) summarizes that the use of such tools helps to establish instant communication, save travelling time, and cut business cost. One of my selected articles, iManage Unveils the First Multi-Platform Collaborative Content Management Suite, announces a new Internet content management application suit called iManage WorkSite MP which is an online collaboration tool as well. Both video conferencing tools and Internet content management applications are network-based, so users' contributions will be available instantly, and shared information can be distributed globally. Both of them aim at improving business efficiency, reducing cost and resource, and finally developing organisational service and product quality. While video conferencing tools focus on communication by audio and video, Internet content management applications, such as iManage WorkSite, has more to do with information management, such as text, image, and spreadsheets. It can be said that online collaboration tools can facilitate meetings among team members geographically, provide access to shared knowledge and ideas, and manage organisational information effectively. I argue that the combination of both video conferencing and content management tools can offer a comprehensive service to an organisation to compete in the global economy. As Fedorowicz, Laso-Ballesteros, and Padilla-Melendez (2008) state, the development of online collaboration "will facilitate multidisciplinary innovation and reduce barriers and inefficiencies among people working together" (p.1). Reference: Burke, M (2011) Comment on Four Trends in Enterprise Video Conferencing. Retrieved from http://groups.diigo.com/group/cur

Video conferencing as one of online collaboration tools, able to change the way people communicate as well as their perceptions towards the work day in nowadays. Video conferencing has become a part of communication strategy, this article shows that about 37% of Skype users use the service for business purpose, which is they use Skype to make conference video that is more convenient and less traveling cost, users would be able to meet up without consuming traveling time which normally required in order to meet face to face. I found out this article are useful in terms of explaining the way video conferencing been used in business as well as introducing 4 new trends on how people use it, and as resources itself, it is credible enough, this article took from ReadWrite Enterprises web sites that mainly focusing on business purposes. By relating on my own topic, which is talk about the use and features of social bookmarking site (delicious), video conferencing as well provides specific features in order to facilitate the video conference, hence users would be able to use the features and communicating online, same as the way delicious using it special features, such as tags, where people would be able to collaborate their bookmarks as long as they are sharing and using same tags. As for value, this article shows and recommends how useful video conferencing is and there is multiple ways and benefits we could get by using it online. References: Finley, K. (2010). Four Trends in Enterprise Video Conferencing. Read Write Web. Retrieved on 12 April 2011 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/10/trends-in-enterprise-video-conferencing.php

This is an interesting blog that debate e-mail is a powerful collaboration tool or not. I totally agree with Suarez (2006) that e-mail is a very powerful communication tool. We can receive every mail whether are junk mails or useful mails. Others could receive a mail within few minutes from someone who live at the other side of world. In addition, people receive wide range of information from e-mail. However, I am not completely agreed that we miss out the point of collaboration and knowledge management once we define e-mail is good enough collaboration tool. Suarez (2006) mentioned how people have managed e-mails. Although nine people read e-mails, only a person knows the content of e-mails, is able to trace out particular e-mails and uses e-mails. Thus e-mail is not powerful collaborations tool. My opinion is the argument misses the essential elements of knowledge sharing. It is human. No matter the knowledge sharing tools or other collaboration tools, they also require human's management. If no one sends mails in electronic format, e-mail would not be at society anymore. The nature of e-mail still is collaboration tools. Organisations should focus on human is well use e-mail system and the information that inside e-mail system. This is a human base procedure. Reference Suarez, L. (2006). Email: The Good Enough Collaboration Tool - Is It Really? Retrieved from http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/elsua/email-the-good-enough-collaboration-tool-is-it-really-11473

I know someone who works in information management and, to prevent duplication, they have dedicated procedures, spelling out who is supposed to archive emails and documents. As I understand it, only the original sender submits a copy to the file, cc copies can be deleted.

Thanks Shan as I enjoyed reading this article. The question of whether the good old email is a good enough collaboration tool is an interesting debate. I beg to differ that email is not a powerful collaboration tool. I am part of an organisation where are main communication and collaboration happens through emails. We plan, organise, discuss and share documents through emails. I will list some functions vital to our organisation that email provides: 1. Organisation - You can track and organise responses through email by clicking on the latest responses. The latest email often contains the conversation from previous users as mentioned my Samantha in her response. Who said what and at what time can also be noted. 2. Document sharing - Just like any collaboration tool, you can attach and send any document in any format to the group in your network. The only area traditional email clients falls short is real-time editing. Google Gmail provides this function by incorporating Google Docs with the Gmail Service. This makes it a powerful online collaboration tool where content editing is incorporated into the email system. 3. Records - Like modern collaboration tools, emails can be archived and searched. Though we meet up on monthly basis, my organisation can be classified as a virtual team. As a virtual team, email is a powerful collaboration tool for us. Thanks once again, a great article related to my topic of collaboration within organisations.

This article, posted on TechCrunch, discusses the release of a report from Nielsen, a worldwide market research firm, based in the US, perhaps best known for the ACNielsen Poll and Television ratings survey (Nielsen, 2011). Wauters here discusses the outcome and conclusions of research conducted by Nielsen into the effectiveness of social media advertising on Facebook. Wauters states, 'the report leverages six months of research consisting of surveys of more than 800,000 Facebook users and more than 125 individual Facebook ad campaigns from some 70 brand advertisers." Mangold & Faulds argue that by "enabling customers to talk to one another" social media is effectively "an extension of traditional word-of-mouth communication"(Mangold & Fauld, 2009). With traditional advertising rates and audiences falling, advertisers are keen to seek ways to reach new markets. Being able to leverage users social media networks can provide an important tool to reach a wider audience. Wauters suggests, according to surveys conducted by Nielsen, advertising recall on Facebook jumped between 16% and 30% when adverts mentioned friends or were featured in friends newsfeeds. Statistics here strongly suggest advertising is more likely to be noticed, and acted upon, if it seen to be 'recommended' by someone consumers know. --- It is interesting also to note Nielsen and Facebook are themselves engaged in a collaborative project to study social media advertising. Wauters points out: "Nielsen and Facebook recently joined forces to develop ad effectiveness solutions to determine consumer attitudes, brand perception and purchase intent from social media advertising." With this in mind, perhaps Wauters is correct to sound a note of caution: "we're not saying the report is bogus, but it's something to keep in mind if you decide to download it for yourself." References: Mangold, W. & Faulds, D. (2009, July-August). Social Media: The New Hybrid Ele

Belinda, This article was particularly of interest to me as I have used Facebook advertising platform both for work and my online business. Social Media advertising to me is different to other online and offline advertising. Having used Facebook as a medium to advertise my business, I can conclude that it's not the best medium to advertise. The conversion rates on the campaigns were low, that is the conversion of clicking and purchase. I accept that there might have been other factors that influenced the data. Comparing my Facebook campaign to my Google Campaign, it showed that campaigns through search i.e. user searches for your service or product is more effective. There is also the probability that campaigns may not reach the right demographic. In 2007, Vodafone suspended advertising on Facebook after its ads appeared on the profile page of a British right-wing Party. This prompted a flurry of other advertisers, including the AA, COI and Virgin Media, to follow suit (Clark, 2007). Facebook cannot effectively measure that the campaign is reaching the right audience. If I am allowed to, can I boldly state that Social Media campaigns are only effective when free or user generated. I applaud the article for questioning the release of such data by Nielsen. The question is, are social media networks the correct channel to advertise when users may be more interested in connecting than buying your product or service? Social Brands perform better on Facebook because most people on Social Networking sites are there for fun so it makes logical sense that industries such as tabloids and blogs (Bullas, 2011). Reference: Bullas, J. (2011). How Effective Are Facebook Ads? Retrieved from JeffBullas.com website: http://www.jeffbullas.com/2011/02/25/how-effective-are-facebook-ads/ Clark, N. (2007). Storm over ads on social sites. Marketing, 1. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&did=1326449831&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&

I certainly agree with the article. With mass consumed site like Facebook there should be advantages that give opportunity to certain business. The detail profile users made, can a kind of mass database that marketer can access. Collaborate the business with Facebook may allow company to get broader publication. But in Yu (2010) article, "The Most Powerful Secret in Facebook Ads", he mentioned that only certain business type that can get the best result. Local business will be the one who get most advantages because in Facebook you can have detail specification of where your ad will appear (the reason why it's effective) (Agarwal, 2010). This local business is easier to share among friend because they have likelihood in geographical aspect. Consumer product and entertainment also will get a good publication through Facebook ad. Users interest that provide in Facebook profile will give you opportunity to reach the main target audience of your product. But still the interesting fact that found by Nielsen will affect how business sees social media website. They will think about it straight away to use this kind of advertising methods that will lead them to higher profit (although the marketing teams need to have a complete plan before rather than just follow the trend). Agarwal, A. (2010). How Effective is Advertising on Facebook?. Retrieved from http://www.labnol.org/internet/are-facebook-ads-effective/13957/ Yu, D. (2010). The Most Powerful Secret in Facebook Ads. Retrieved from http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-ads-secret-2010-06

Convofy wants to go beyond being a private Facebook and Twitter to let companies collaborate around content like web pages, images PDF files, PowerPoint files, Word Files and Excel (Tsotsis, 2011). Convofy claims to be the most private powerful social network enabling organisations to communicate, collaborate and share more easily and effectively than ever before. Convofy combines the functionality of twitter, Facebook and Google Docs. Networks within an organisation can post ideas, links, and files, and their followers can comment on them. Convofy also provides on-the-go communication and collaboration by making it available for mobile phones in the form of application. In a market research conducted by Research and Markets in 2009, organisations viewed applications such as Web, audio, and video conferencing, messaging, and document collaboration as critical components of an effective collaboration strategy ("Meeting the Enterprise Collaboration Challenge: Vital to the Success of the Distributed Organization," 2009). The research then concluded effective collaboration is no longer a "nice-to-have," rather it is a critical requirement for success in the modern economy ("Meeting the Enterprise Collaboration Challenge: Vital to the Success of the Distributed Organization," 2009). Though there have been enterprise collaborative tools launched over the years, Convofy claims to be the powerful. We will just have to wait and see. Reference: Meeting the Enterprise Collaboration Challenge: Vital to the Success of the Distributed Organization. (2009). 1. Retrieved from Business Wire website: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090724005305/en/Research-Markets-Meeting-Enterprise-Collaboration-Challenge-Vital Tsotsis, A. (2011). Convofy Is A Workplace Collaboration Tool Centered Around Documents And Images. 1. Retrieved from TechCrunch website: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/convofy-is-workplace-collaboration-centered-around-documents-and-images/

Very Interesting article. Here I am reminded of Jean Baudrilliard and "Simulacra & Simulation". In it, he talks about how the media shapes the way viewers understand. Effectively he suggests war as it shown on television, was a manufactured by media represention. "The media and the official news service are only there to maintain the illusion of an actuality… of the objectivity of the facts. All events are to be read backward." (Baudrillard, 1994, p.38) Like most things, with recent events in Egypt, it is the media represented accounts, which have become the "real". The idea the Twitter and Facebook can mobilise a revolution is a powerful symbol. "What is perhaps the most telling here is that, as Bikyamasr points out, "millions of the Egyptians that went to the streets probably don't own a computer, and definitely were not checking Twitter or Facebook for where the next gathering was taking place." The article suggests that, by the time the internet was cut off, the protests were already in full swing. Perhaps the Egyptian Government fell for the media reports of the power of Social Media. "It was through word of mouth, not online calls for activism that brought the Egyptian government to its knees". It is important to point out that word-of-mouth is a powerful tool for communication, whether it is through hand-written messages, text or social media, word-of-mouth messages are more likely to be trusted and acted upon by recipients (see Kozinets et.al, 2010) as well as fostering a connection and sense of community between the sender and receiver. References Baudrilliard, J. (1994) Simulation and Simulacra. University of Michigan Press. Translated from the French by Sheila Faria Glaser. Kozinets. R., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. & Wilner, S. (2010, March). "Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities" in Journal of Marketing. 74(2). pp.71-89. Retrieved via American Marketing Association/Atypon.com, 13 April 2011. http://ww

Mayton seeks to address what he views as the Western Media attributing the Egyptian political revolution to the presence of activists online. He underlines that with only a quarter of the population having access to social networks and media online, the idea that a "Revolution 2.0" occurred is seriously flawed. While acknowledging the useful presence of collaboration online, Mayton attributes the success of this political change to a word-of mouth and paper handout campaign, combined with a motivated and committed Egyptian people, preferring to credit the Internet with bringing the issue to the forefront of international politics. However Wael Ghonim a leader of the ground movement that would ultimately topple Mubarak, contradicts the ideas presented in this article. Instead he accredits social networks and in particular facebook (ref) as being the catalyst behind the revolution. While Ghonim acknowledges that any political protest requires bodies on the ground, he attributes the internet and collaboration that occurred on facebook with empowering Egyptian individuals. Furthermore the ability of these networks to spread information at a vast rate, combined with the ability to go undetected were attributed to the success of the initial protest which began in April 2008. This protest organized solely online was the trigger cause for the unrest and the political change that would unfold. Mayton highlights that the common misconception that every Egyptian has direct access to the internet is perhaps symbolism for an Egyptian society that still remains stratified. While this paper underlines the idea that attributing the success of this political collaboration to the internet overlooks the ground work and alternative methods employed to help further this revolution, there can be little doubt that in this course of history social networks did provide empowerment for some of the Egyptian people and played a significant role in this advancing this political colla

To most Australians, the conflict in Egypt was not an Internet revolution until their newspapers, bulletin websites and television told them as such. Spurred on by Google Middle East and North Africa Marketing Director Wael Ghomin's announcement that the Egyptian protesters had "the internet to thank for their victory" (Luna, 2011), headlines across the globe were swept up by the 'Revolution 2.0' media darling. It may be a journalist's job to disseminate current affairs- constructing language and presenting palatable news to their public- however the truth and integrity of the Egyptian Uprising reports suffered at the hands of the outspoken. Jordanian expert on branding Ahmad Humeid recognises these synoptic "slogans" (Pickerill, 2011) such as 'Revolution 2.0' as "extremely important for Western media audiences... [to] take an event and package it in a certain light" (Humeid, 2011). Joseph Mayton's commentary works to detangle the internet's 'exaggerated' role in Egypt. He presents the facts: 25 per cent of Egyptians have no access to a computer, let alone a wifi connected iPhone in their back pocket. The 'Online Revolution' label directly discounts the internet "have-nots" who "struggled for the same cause under the same umbrella". Finally, activists continued to mobilise, even during the four days the Government shut down the Internet service (Mayton, 2011). Yes, there was a significant initial online role in the January protests, but this article encourages that we cannot lump strong-willed street activism in its hundreds of thousands as an Internet uprising. Mayton reminds us the well-worn lesson: we should not accept anything at face value. Ignorance is bred through the blind digestion of 'fact'; we can only come closest to the truth by negotiating as many disparate viewpoints as possible. References: Mayton, J. (2011) Egypt did not have an Internet Revolution. Published on BIKYAMASR, Feb

Although I am not sure if a YouTube video link is alright for this assignment I felt it was a great source for the topic of online collaboration in student education and learning. Coomey envisioned an online global collaboration of journalism and broadcast students from different universities and in the year 2000 set out to accomplish this project in collaboration with other universities around the world. Many obstacles were in the way of success however, mostly technical, and highlight the evolution of online collaboration technologies. Computer access in 2000 was not as readily available as it is today in 2011, bandwidth was slow and internet connections were unreliable. Time differences between the students in their respective countries was also an issue as for this project, chat rooms were used as the main collaboration tool. Coomey ultimately says the collaboration effort was not really a collaboration as the students weren't able to work together due to these technical issues but rather they were only able to discuss their projects after the fact. Now in 2011 as most of the technological issues have been solved and also with the development of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. A new project called the Global City is now in it's maiden form and the website can be found here http://www.theglobalcity.org/. With the continuing evolution of online collaboration tools an the innovation of users we can see that many of the obstacles and boundaries once faced are slowly able to be dissolved, which opens up new opportunities and experiences to students around the globe. References: Coomey, M. (2010). The Virtual Newsroom: An International Online Collaboration between Broadcast Journalism Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPAtVVKwzPw

As a journalism major having spent the last two weeks working 9am to 6pm newsroom shifts to produce our newspaper's first edition for 2011, I find myself particularly drawn to this topic. Putting aside its unreliable air-conditioning and sticky keyboards, the short tempers of sleep-deprived students and the threat of vitamin D deficiency...working in the newsroom proved to be one of the most socially creative and genuinely rewarding environments I have experienced. And I can say with certainty- it wouldn't have been the same online. I am an enthusiastic advocate for the news media to embrace the online sphere and enable its consumer to "archive, annotate, appropriate and recirculate media content in powerful new ways" (Jenkins, 2004). The convergence of news online presents an exciting opportunity for audiences to interact with the news in "increasingly participatory" (Dueze, 2007) ways such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube (Coomey, 2011). There are noticeable positives to an online newsroom: reporters can publish their work immediately and from anywhere, the capacity for international voices, and not having to rent office space or purchase on-site equipment. According to a 2005 survey into the roles of journalists in online newsrooms (Magee, 2005), organisations expect their journalists to multi-task- writing, producing multimedia, and publishing their work- an overload which may dilute the quality of the product. A traditional newsroom has its journalists physically and mentally there, and the atmosphere is intoxicating. It's noisy, you bump into people, and there's always someone microwaving Chinese food. You don't need to wait for someone to come online to reply, or get tripped up by faulty programs and Internet connection. It's a hive of imagination and collaboration. Someone will walk past and offer their suggestions on a better layout, people call out for a headline or editing suggestion, others showing photographers and

This article stresses the importance of social media in the promoting of a company's brand or products. Social Media collaboration, according to Kaplan, enables 'the joint and simultaneous creation of content by many end-users'. For advertising social media provides platform which enables customers to partipate in the creation of the brand by generating feedback and product reviews. Mangold and Faulds argue that, for potential customers, online content which is generated by other consumers is typically regarded as more trustworthy than traditional advertising messages. Essentially, social media messages are more likely to be believed and responded to than direct-marketing on the other hand, social media also means companies have less control over the course of discussion. They argue,'while companies cannot directly control consumer-to-consumer messages, they do have the ability to influence the conversations that consumers have with one another'. Mangold and Faulds argue, used correctly, social media has become an important tool, which allows companies to not only talk to customers but also allows customers to talk to each other. Social tools, they suggest, provide customers to obtain information about companies and products and can aid them in the decision making and purchase process. Creating networks of social relationships with potential customers is a strong tool, which aids in the promotion of a brand but it also provides important tools to help managers achieve the company's missions and goals. Some tools companies can use to communicate with customers include company websites, YouTube, eNewsletters, message boards and blogs. References: Kaplan, A. & Haenlein, M. (2010). 'Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media" in Business Horizons (2010) 53, 59-68. Retrieved via Curtin library catalogue.

My topic is advertising and social media. I am specifically looking at the way companies are using social media tools to build connections and promote their brands and their products via company controlled crowd-sourcing and customer-driven discussion.