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

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

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

Virág Molnár is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the New School for Social Research in New York. Her interest is in the impact of mobile communications on urban culture. This article first puts flash mobs into an historical perspective by suggesting that its roots lie with the Italian Futurists of 1910 and further cultivated during the 20th century by avant-garde art groups such as Dadaists . More recently there have been the Youth International Party (Yippies) in the US. (Molnár, 2009) As Molnár points out the things that all these groups have in common with modern flash mobs is that there is no formal membership or hierarchy and they are able to utilise the media effectively. The difference lies in the use of new media such as blog, social networks and mobile phones (2009). Rheingold points out that these tools lower the threshold of participation as it no longer required participants to actually know each other (2003, p. xii). Molnár then identifies and describes 5 types of flash mob based either on their form of sociality or their function. They are: 'atomised' flash mobs, interactive flash mobs, performance flash mobs, political flash mobs and advertising flash mobs (2009). Flash mobs, although organised online are only able to be carried out by people in close proximity to one another or as Molnár describes it "able to make the leap from cyberspace to urban space" (2009). These events are generally recorded and posted to sites like YouTube in order to both popularise the event and to get feedback. "Online reporting has indeed largely been responsible for the rapid global diffusion of flash mobs," and "has been crucial in institutionalizing and legitimizing this new form of sociability"(Molnár, 2009).

Continuation of original comment. As a blog post on Turtle Sociology wrote "The globalization of flash mobs underscores two vital notes: the viral-like nature of technology, and the universal desire to break free from social norms… all flash mobs seem to elicit joy in their bold, unprompted natures"(2010). References: Molnár, V. (2009). Reframing Public Space Through Digital Mobilization: Flash Mobs and the Futility(?) of Contemporary Urban Youth Culture. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic497840.files/Molnar_Reframing-Public-Space.pdf Rheingold, H. (2003). Smart Mobs : The next socal revolution. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lX9QKNbO0nkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=smart+mobs+the+next+social+revolution&ots=wvkWcKOAIx&sig=00EWrYtEyAwqRmnYNth77Sclr8o#v=onepage&q=smart%20mobs&f=false Turtle Sociology. (2010, October 6). The Universal Phenomenon of Flash Mobs [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://turtlesoc.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/the-universal-phenomenon-of-flash-mobs/

Thanks for continuing your comment Hans. That last quote really sums it up well. I quite like how you have highlighted the fact that flash mobs underscore the 'viral-like nature of technology' in addition to the joy flash mobs elicit as a result of their impromptu nature. All that is needed is a quick search through YouTube for 'flash mobs' to see the views of popular flash mob videos reach the millions, as well as to read how well they have been received globally. Thanks again, Tessa

Application of Computer Communications in Education. This article is about how computers communications should be used in eduction. It is interesting because of it was published in the IEEE Magazine in 1999.  This was before web 2.0 technology and gives some insight into what was seen to be useful back then.  The paper covers what has been important developments in CMC and starts out but discussing Java applets as an important tool in CMC.  This allows for computer software to be ran inside the browser. The paper also discusses the use of Database management environment. Similar to what we see with Blackboard and Moodle. It covers the management of CMC. Finaly the article enters into the area of online video. This is interesting to the point that in 1999 the bandwidths for video where limited and video where consumed in small windows. Very different to what we have today  with tools such as Youtube. Finally the issued are raised by about staff engagement and support. These are issue we are still addressing today in using Computer Mediated Communications  in education although we are some highly advanced tools.   Collis, B. (1999). Applications of Computer  Communications in Education: An Overview. IEEE Communication Magazine, 37, 82-86

(2001) This is a critical view about the internet and education. Peter Macinnis Speaks with Robyn Williams (ABC Science National Radio) about the evolution of Technology and how technology takes 20 plus years to become an accepted technology. Macinnis shows the analogy of the printing press, steam trains, telephone,radio and TV development and then compares the internet.  He claims you need to take the rear view mirror approach to see what the trends are.   One interesting point that Macinnis makes is that the examination process of education is still ran by the old school where the generation today have a whole new literacy in Internet communications. He also criticise how the Internet is organised and there is some work needed to add metadata to the already exciting data on the web.  I find this a good argument as search engines rank results based on several factors other than truth and reliability.     Williams, R. (Writer). (2001). The Internet and Education [Radio ], ABC Science. Australia: ABC Radio National.

REFERENCES ABS. (2007). 8146.0.55.001 - Patterns of Internet access in Australia, 2006, Australian Bureau of Statistics. First Issued November 29, 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8146.0.55.001Main+Features12006?OpenDocument Downes, S. (2007). The Future of Online Learning and Personal learning Environments. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from: http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/the-future-of-online-learning-and-personal-learning-environments NSWDET (2009). Social Learning 2.0 Concepts and Visuals. Uploaded by the NSW Department of Education and Training March 2009. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/etalbert/sociallearning20-concepts-and-visuals-mar09# Williams, R., and Peter Macinnis (2001). The Internet and Education. Ockham's Razor, Radio National. Broadcast Sunday May 6, 2001. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s289416.htm

It is good to go back and examine Peter Macinnis's point of view. Reminds me of the exercise of examining Clifford Stoll's (1995) view on what the internet was to become, which of course was mostly wrong. Macinnis seemed to have predicted the unorganised nature of the information on the internet (ABC Radio, 2001) which to an extent does exist now. This is one reason I believe is important to address in terms of internet collaboration especially in education. Collaborating is about organising information into a presentation form for all students collaborating within a system. But that must be with a gatekeeper, namely the teacher or lecturer or tutor who can intervene when needed. Michael Green (ABC Radio, 1999) in an earlier view on that show quoted Fred Bennett who urged computers to teach students without an intermediary, namely a tutor or teacher. Whilst tertiary education is underpinned by self-reliance, I wonder if such views back then apply now. In collaboration, does the lecturer decide to be strictly a hands off non-interventionist given that their students are mature and can think for themselves? Or does the lecturer, given the high demands of departmental, research and publishing commitments, become part of the student group collaboration? In my resources, Google Docs seems to raise more issues about information use which suggest students place a high value on organised information which makes sense to them. I feel that Macinnis should revise today if inaccurate information is the real problem. We had virtual communities were information could be corrected, but with Web 2.0, Wikipedia being the most obvious example, we can correct what is wrong. I do agree with Tessa that social media overall seems to be quite behind in the way it is being diffused across educational sectors. Collaboration tools such as Facebook etc will be used by students anyway so it seems odd that the resistance still exists. This interview is a good resource to reflect on how f