Reflection #4

REFLECTION #4

Brief description of the Intervention

As I have described the intervention in detail in my previous posts, I am going to limit this to a brief description.  I decided to focus on an intervention to further improve digital literacy amongst staff members.  Five members of faculty have been approached to take part in the case study.  They were selected based upon demographic criteria (age, gender etc.) and academic profiles in order to provide a diverse group.  The one commonalty which they share is an under developed online presence.  Various tools will be used to assist in creating an e-portfolio as well as to promote their online presence.  I intend to use the following sites/tools to this end:

·         Twitter

·         Academia.edu

·         Google sites

·         SlideShare

·         LinkedIn

Six people were enthusiastic and agreed to join, one declined without providing a reason.  In order to arrive at a mutually beneficial partnership whereby this group would participate I set out to ensure that they would attain easily visible and discernible benefits.  A one hour briefing was held for the participants during which the project itself was explained.  The outcomes which were listed as:

•       Improved digital literacy.

•       A free online image makeover.

•       Improved digital curatorship of both research as well as choice presentations.

•       The future expansion of academic research networks.

•       The ability to assess how often their online presence/work are being viewed or utilised.

•       Participation in the growing open access environment.

In addition to the briefing the participants were asked to complete a brief online survey, the aim of the questionnaire was to establish the degree of the participants’ online activity including access issues as well as tools which they are already using.

Changes to my Intervention

Identifying the Participants.  The first important question is on selection.  The main query being how did I select the six participants?  The first criterion which I applied was to aim for a spread in terms of a demographic profile based on age, gender and race.  The second was to focus on scholars who are in the middle of the group with regards to their use of technology but all enthusiastic emerging or established researchers.  One of the comments was that many academics are reluctant to explore the use of technology due to a fear of failure or a lack of digital skills.  In a sense this was also one of the factors in my mind when I selected the candidates.  I see them all as potentially innovative users of various technologies who at this stage are being held back by insufficient opportunities to explore and seek support.

Commitment.  The next critical factor is ensuring the continued “buy in” by the participants.  One of the feedback pointers I received was that strong selling points are required to ensure continued participation and completion of the project.  The outcomes which I mentioned at the start have been communicated to the group.  Obviously the next important step will be to maintain momentum.  For this reason there will be a monthly session with the participants where each new tool will be explored and explained and then the goal and due date for roll out of the new tool communicated.  Over the intervening weeks I will maintain personal communication with each participant and make informal follow ups and provide support when and where necessary.  Finding a balance between maintaining a presence/momentum and not creating a pressure situation where the participants feel they do not have time to continue is key.

The Faculty’s web manager responded as follows “I have realised the usefulness of these tools in managing FMS staff profile on the website. Each staff will update and maintain his/her own profile. Maybe we recommend two tools, say LinkedIn and Academia.Edu. I have realised that most FMS staff have LinkedIn accounts. To me creation of online identity is the route to take. We just need empowerment.”  By adopting this pathway with regards to the management of the website we are in essence creating a situation where the maintenance of a scholarly online profile by each member of Faculty in fact becomes mandatory.  The question as to how this will be received has not yet been answered because at this stage the idea is still under consideration.  However it will ensure that research and teaching profiles remain dynamic and individually managed and require each staff member to engage with these tools.

The importance of online profiles.  Ensuring the scholars understand why a dynamic online profile is important.  One commented as follows: “It has been a great experience to read about the affordances of tools that can be used to create digital profile. I know that I can use these tools to collaborate and network with other academics. I have created accounts in LinkedIn, Twitter and Slideshare, but your reflections made me to realise how much I underutilise their affordances.”  Probably the first public briefing which I will hold for the Faculty and project group will be on the role of online identity.  Its possible too that one would try to use one or two role models to speak of their experience of the professional benefits of maintaining a dynamic online profile.

Developing Digital Literacies.  It is crucial not to lose sight of the fact that that the primary aim of developing digital literacies remains the end goal of this venture, with the development of the online identities being a secondary goal.  At the end of the day one is trying to engage staff members and develop enthusiasm for web 2.0 tools within so called “safe spaces” which they will hopefully carry over into their teaching and research.  In essence then the goal is to encourage the notion of digital literacies with the added advantage of creating the online digital identity.  Another comment from a colleague was that it is a well-balanced selection of tools all backed-up by literature. “Getting teaching and research staff to incorporate web 2.0 tools in their own networking and researching is a clever way of getting them to experiment with technology in a "safe" space. I can see that this will encourage them to also implement in their teaching.” 

Development and transportability of the model.  Some of the feedback indicated that one should ideally seek to create a sustainable model which could be used at other institutions as well.  Given that two other members of the digital literacies group at two other institutions are focusing on the use of online portfolios it has been mooted that after the roll out of our projects that we collaborate in order to compare results and produce research.  Based upon our findings it would perhaps be possible to develop some best practice protocols for such an endeavour.  Other feedback received from a colleague within the Faculty was ““However, I would appreciate if you can orientate all FMS staff on how to use these tools effectively. You can divide the users into beginners and advanced groups. Start with the basics and gradually move to the advanced level.”  Having seen the value of this contribution, I have decided to open the training and briefing session for each tool to the entire Faculty and hold a once a month lunchtime session.  The original group will remain as a type of “control group” in order to maintain structure and remain true to the original project design.  However, it will be interesting to compare this group to the other members of the Faculty who attend the sessions and compare the progress of each group.

Utilizing successful role models.  For some reason this has been the trickiest part of the feedback.  Perhaps because within the Faculty I can only think of one or two people and they are in the Educational Technology circle which means that one would expect them to be tech savvy anyway.  I will have to explore this point further and move outside of the Faculty to find some inspiring individuals – perhaps having them interact with us in a group session via Skype would be interesting and motivating.