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

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.

References Kumar, S. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions of the usefulness of Web 2.0 in higher education: Survey development. In D. Remenyi (Ed.) Proceedings of 8th European Conference on E-learning, Italy, 308-314. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://web2integration.pbworks.com/f/Undergraduate+Perceptions+of+the+Usefulness+of+Web+2.0+in+Higher+Education.pdf

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.

I have used Google Docs on many occasions for education purpose both as a teacher and a student. As a teacher I had found that Google Docs provided a tool that created group work with ease. Student where able to contribute to ideas and develop learning outcome far more than the unit outline proved for. The article here proves that through the efforts of many working on the same document improves as more contribute ideas and ads greater value to the document. Your comment about the uselessness of Google without online access does provide problems when it comes to the digital divide. We in the western world still have areas that suffer from digital divisions as well as those in less fortunate countries. However tools like Google docs can contribute to the cost of entry to CMC as there are no licensing fees required and programs such as the one laptop per child that aids in the narrowing of the digital divide(OLPC, n.d). As a student I have done one project with Google docs and currently using Google docs in another project. The reason for the choice to use Google Docs was mainly the reason cited in this article. Although the article was limited in what Google docs can actually do and takes on the assumption that we know what it can do. It is more about how it can be used in education. I recently used Google docs to collaborate with my family in arranging my mother's funeral. The outcome was very smooth as each member collaborated amicably on the document that may have been a family feud if handled face to face. References OLPC. (n.d). OLPC's mission is to empower the world's poorest children through education. Retrieved 15th April 2011, from http://one.laptop.org/about/mission 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

Your comment about the uselessness of Google without online access does provide problems when it comes to the digital divide. We in the western world still have areas that suffer from digital divisions as well as those in less fortunate countries. However tools like Google docs can contribute to the cost of entry to CMC as there are no licensing fees required and programs such as the one laptop per child that aids in the narrowing of the digital divide(OLPC, n.d). - that is 100 % right and that causes some disadvantages yet being free if connectivity can be gotten in any form then it has the potential to educate in any society that has networking. More work needs to be done to get to those areas, but I also argue that income might also be a factor and age. Nevertheless, GD if networking is there can provide the benefits of sharing and working on projects, it is just a case of making sure those that need it can get access to it in some form.

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

[Please Note: This comment is in two parts due to Diigo restrictions on length] Topic: Flash Mobs This TED Talk is important to the topic of flash mobs because it highlights the fact that modern issues of global significance such as obesity, crime, good health, and creativity, are affected by the social connections that we all have. The rise of Internet usage through avenues such as social networks in the form of Facebook and other similar sites has been acknowledged as a vital factor that is also used by flash mobs when organizing their activities. The main point that can be taken into account through this TED Talk, is that if subconscious concepts such as obesity can claim influences from social networking, it should also follow that other more positive concepts such as philanthropy, will also be influenced by connecting with social networks. These social networks have a resilience that survives the test of time so it is of utmost importance to understand what the contributing factors are that sustain them. One important factor that was discovered was the power of emotion. Emotional "stampedes" and "collective existences" can be formed through social networks. They appear in clusters that can be delineated, for example, by "happy patches" and patches with other emotional characteristics. [Continued in the comment below]

Flash mobs utilise digital communications among social networks to mobilise a large group of people to appear in a set location. Many reading about flash mobs highlight the use of Internet communication but there have not been many references that refer to how the social network functions. Nicholas Christakis is a Harvard Professor of Medicine, Health Care Policy, and Sociology at Harvard University and he directs a diverse research group investigating social networks. "His work examines the biological, psychological, sociological, and mathematical rules that govern how we form these social networks, and the rules that govern how they shape our lives" (TED Conferences, 2010). Christakis gives three reason that people cluster but for flash mobs the most relevant is that people can share a common exposure to something (Christakis, 2010)and thus messages are spread to people of like mind, in turn pleading to a large crowd with everybody having a common purpose. Another important aspect to take from this is that networks are constantly changing in composition but the network still persists. Kaulingfreks and Warren would describe this as a rhizome that is "an ubiquitous connection between points in a structure but without a clear defined path…each node passing information to other nodes (2010, p. 221) . Christakis says " It is the ties between people that makes the whole greater than the sum of parts" (2010).For flash mobs and protest movements it is the power of the group that makes all the difference as has been demonstrated in political flash mobs and recent protests in Egypt, Iran and Tunisia. Christakis, N. (2010, February). The hidden influence of social networks TED Talks [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence_of_social_networks.html Kaulingfreks, R., & Warren, S. (2010). SWARM: Flash Mobs, mobile clubbing and the city. Culture and Organization, 16(3), 211 - 227. doi:10.1080/14759551.

After watching this video on networks I started to consider the relevance of the internet informing networks and would the networks form in another way if social media tools were not available. Flash Mobs was organised on the internet and use internet tools to collaborate there next event. Could the same thing be achieved without the internet? My guess is yes it can be achieved without the internet. If we take the Egyptian Revolution and the claims that Facebook and Twitter were responsible for the organisation of the revolution some argue that this was not the case. The main body of the argument is that there been revolutions well before the internet (Rosen, 2011). Supports this argument however still recognises the role that social networks had played in the revolution(Beaumont, 2011). Pickwell, 2011 argues that many crowd gathering s such as revolutions and protest do not utilise the internet or social media to gather crowds. Pickwell claims they under utilise the tools the internet offered them. Considering that social media has a communication roll to play, you may also need to consider other factors used in creating the network. Christakis, 2011 presentation on networks gives you a better understanding as to how networks operate and why the above arguments have some merits. Beaumont, P. (2011). The truth about Twitter, Facebook and the uprisings in the Arab world. Retrieved 15th April 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/25/twitter-facebook-uprisings-arab-libya Christakis, N. (2010). The Hidden Influence of Social Networks. TED Talks. Filmed February 2010. Posted May 2010. Retrieved April 5, 2011 from: http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/10/the_hidden_infl/ Pickwell, J. (2011). Lecture on the anti-war movement and Internet Collaboration and Organisation, net 308 iLectures: Curtin Unversity, Rosen, J. (2011). The "Twitter Can't Topple Dictators" Article. Retrieved 15th April 2011, from http://pressthink.org/2011/02/the-twitter-

This article is based on the premise that cities are responsible for destroying social bonds and "rendering man isolated from, fearful of, hostile to, and manipulative of his fellow man" (Fischer as cited in Kaulingfreks & Warren, 2010). It is this view that drives planners to create artificial structures in an attempt to have citizens involve themselves in community affairs. The authors use the example of Rotterdam where a there is a program of community forming (http://www.opzoomermee.nl) to show this idea that something needs to be done to create a sense of community. (2010, p. 213). The authors then look at how the unmanaged process of flash mobs may offer an alternative to the formal organisation structures of organisation in the city environment. They draw on the work of Jean Luc Nancy and suggest that flash mobs challenge the "traditional understanding of community through technology enabled organising" (Kaulingfreks & Warren, 2010, p. 220). In fact through the use of the Internet, email and texting people are able to act together without giving up any of their individuality. In a magazine interview Bill Wasik, the instigator of flash mob said: The flash mob affords an opportunity for doing something and yet completely sidesteps the whole process of discussing how it is going to happen. It's just; 'Here's this opportunity, and if you agree with it, you can come in on it, and its going to be very quick' (Heaney, n.d) A flash mob becomes an ephemeral community; it is formed for a specific purpose and then disbands once that purpose has been fulfilled. It is a network structure rather than a traditional hierarchy and is based on a common interest.

Professor Ruud Kaulingfreks, University of Leicester, School of Management (Kaulingfreks, n.d.) and Professor Samantha Warren, University of Essex - Essex Business School (Warren, n.d.) have written this paper titled, SWARM: Flash mobs, mobile clubbing and the city (Kaulingfreks and Warren, 2010). Both professors have written a number of articles on topics involving organisation and culture. As written above by Hans Dusink, "They draw on the work of Jean Luc Nancy and suggest that flash mobs challenge the "traditional understanding of community through technology enabled organising" (Kaulingfreks & Warren, 2010, p. 220). In fact through the use of the Internet, email and texting people are able to act together without giving up any of their individuality" (Dusink, 2011). By understanding this, it can also be related to the petitioners that act through the Avaaz organisation. To sign up to the Avaaz community, only a name, an email, a country and postcode is required information. The name could be any name or even a nickname. Individual's identities are hidden from each other. Even though you can see the count of actions taken, it is impossible to know who did exactly what action. Concurrently, a hard-copy signed petition is not that much different. Which individual can verify every signature on a page and who is going to read through and check every written address one-by-one to ensure actual authenticity? Both Avaaz and flash mobs use digital interaction to let their members know what is happening and the location; however, Avaaz continues to exist after action is taken, moving onto new causes and plights whereas the basis of flash mobs is to 'flash' congregate then dissipate after their action. References: Avaaz.org. (2011).The World in Action. Retrieved from http://www.avaaz.org/en Dusink, H. (2011). SWARM: Flash mobs, mobile clubbing and the city - Culture and Organizati

This article was interesting as it also considered the impact of music in FlashMobs. Salmond (2010) in their article, "The Power of Momentary Communities" discusses how rave parties have similarities to FlashMob events through the creation of an instant community. Just as Salmond (2010) uses the rave party example Kaulingfreks & Warren (2010) have explored mobile clubbing, with individuals dancing to their music of choice. It should be noted that the lack of amplification, due to those listing to their individual songs may do so in a "silent disco" manner would allow such a gathering. Salmond (2010) raises the legality of events, at night time, with 100 or more people listening to amplified music. Mobile clubbing is supported by Salmond (2010) as more FlashMob as there is an artistic component which is key according to Wasnik. The comment of Jocelyn Peuker (2011) who introduces the Avaaz.org (2011) community highlights that there is a crossover between the SmartMob and the FlashMob. Avaaz facilitates with anonymity but could be considered a more SmartMob type of activity as those signing a petition are doing so in an asynchronous manner. With those signing the petition in with a desire for an outcome to be achieved, moving further away from the art aspect. Salmond (2010) argues that it is structure and organisation would allow one to consider Avaaz to be more SmartMob than FlashMob. As in many aspects of technology the exact line and distinction is hard to be drawn but notwithstanding this Avaaz is a facility service that would benefit both FlashMob and SmartMob events, whilst maintaining anonymity.

Bonnie McGreer (2010) writes an interest piece article that introduces the concept of using a FlashMob to the business reader. FlashMob is summarised in the article by David Southall, President & Chief Executive of Innovations Federal Credit Union[1]; as, "...a group of people come together suddenly, do a certain act, and then they go away just as suddenly, as if nothing ever happened." (p.16). The article is based on two events, both in the business banking sector, staging independent FlashMob performances with different approaches. With Innovations using a grass roots approach towards staging, eventually two, FlashMob performances. Participants were recruited using Facebook[2] and then allowed participants to join group rehearsals when they could make it. As well as providing a DVD of the dance choreographed by a local radio DJ. Contrasted with the ING Direct Canada[3] Flash Mob approach which was a more professional publicity stunt. ING hired a professional choreographer and dancers to perform their FlashMob. McGreer (2010) raises the question of the ING approach is more of a Flash-Performance, rather than a FlashMob. The article also highlights that professionals were used to record the performances which were posted to YouTube[4] but there was no aggressive marketing campaign at the event location. The subtly of the advertising component of the FlashMob was done best by Innovations, who only revealed their brand approximately half way through. This article is a credible general reference for academic research. Whilst the piece is from a credible source it is a generalist approach to the topic of FlashMob but demonstrates that even at a generalist level, the difficulty in defining of a FlashMob is highlighted. Footnotes [1] http://www.innovationsfcu.org/index-flash.asp [2] www.facebook.com [3] www.ingdirect.ca [4] www.youtube.com

This article talks about SETI @home's "design and implementation and discuss[es] its relevance to future distributed systems" (Anderson, Cobb, Korpela, Lebofsky, & Werthimer, 2002). The authors of this article are all staff of the University of California, Berkeley, in the space sciences laboratory. The University of California, Berkeley is the home of the SETI @home program. This resource gives a more in depth understanding of how the SETI @home program, in particular how public-resource computing works to aid in the processing of the data. All members of the SETI @home program are initially required to download the client program. This program collects a work unit from the main server, computes a result, returns this result to the main server, then gets another work unit. This article also shows the mathematics behind how this system gives so much computing power, but basically the more client programs computing the work units, the faster the data is processed. The stringent safety precautions are why this system is assured as so safe from malicious attacks from hackers and viruses. There is no communication at all between the various client machines, with each computer talking directly to the main server. As discussed within, for this to work public-resource computing projects need to attract users to their program, and keep them interested in remaining members. SETI @home uses word-of-mouth from its members, referral programs and mass-media news coverage to attract members. The client program can run as either a "GUI application or a screensaver", and runs during what is normally computer idling time which means that the impact on the user is minimal.

According to their 2002 poll the SETI @home user base is heavily dominated by males (93% of all users (Anderson et al., 2002)). This information can help them target market to their users. Some of the user benefits include the use of an online community where members can exchange ideas, and a competitive team/individual scoring system. Research is continuing into how to make this, and other forms, of public-resource computing more reliable and efficient in scientific calculations and discovery. Anderson, D., Cobb, J., Korpela, E., Lebofsky, M., & Werthimer, D. (2002). SETI@home: An Experiment in Public-Resource Computing. Communications of the ACM. 45(11), 56-61. doi: 10.1145/581571.581573