| View | Upload your own

Nardi et al (2004a) present an “ethnographic study of blogging focusing on blogs, written by individuals or small groups, with a limited audience” (p. 222). This study examines blogger motivations, the quality of social interactivity on a set of weblogs, and the relationships of bloggers to their audience. This study concludes with design recommendations for blogging applications based on the authors’ findings.

The researchers conducted interviews (audiotaped) with 23 bloggers (sixteen men, seven women, aged 19-60) over a 3 month period as well as multiple close readings of the bloggers’ posts. All blogging participants lived in California or New York. Ten were either graduate or undergraduate students at Stanford University. The others were students and graduates of American universities, with one participant haling from a European university. The researchers employed a “snowball” sampling technique whereby participants informed researchers of other people whom the researchers might connect with for further interviews. Finally, the researchers report maintaining their own weblog in order to become familiar with blogging and to discuss their research together. Most informants were interviewed twice, with follow up interviews conducted by phone, email, and instant messaging.

Noted previous research
Several researchers have attempted to analyze reasons why people blog and how bloggers manage relationships with their readers (Gumbrecht, M., 2004; Nardi, Schiano, Gumbrecht, & Swartz, 2004; Schiano, D. et al 2004). Herring et al. (2004) conducted a quantitative analysis of 203 randomly selected weblogs focusing on author characteristics, reasons for blogging, frequency of posts, usage of weblog features, and frequency of commenting. This study found a majority of weblogs (70%) were online journals/diaries. More specifically, Herring et al (2004) noted three primary types of weblogs in their research:

• individually authored personal journals
• filters — newsletters containing links with commentary
• knowledge logs — academic or professional commentaries

Motivation
Nardi et al’s (2004a) research revealed that people within their study found weblogs through other blogs they were reading, through friends and colleagues, via a link associated with a user profile or home page, or a listing on the side of a web page called a blog roll, i.e., a hyperlinked list of weblogs a blogger fancies or finds interesting (p. 224). Their research also uncovered instances of “blog burnout” (p. 224) where bloggers stopped blogging for both short and long periods of time. Nardi et al (2004a) also note that from a blogger’s point of view, a weblog is more than a diary–it is more like a “radio show” (p. 222) or a broadcasting event with some to little interactivity.

Object-oriented activity in blogging
Nardi et al (2004a) turn to activity theory as a lens for examining “the ‘objects’ motivating human activity” (p. 225). They report:

“Blogs are manifestations of diverse social motives, in which the inscriptions in the blog communicate specific social purposes to others” (p. 225).

In their sample, Nardi et al (2004a) note how several “objects” motivated bloggers to blog. These include:

• updating others on their activities or whereabouts
• expressing opinion to influence or persuade others
• seeking outside opinions and feedback
• thinking by writing
• releasing emotional tension

Nardi et al (2004a) report that these objects are not mutually exclusive. For example, within their sample, some bloggers were motivated by more than one of the aforementioned categories. Nardi et al (2004a) also point out that, in general, blogs are not restricted to these particular objects associated with this particular sample.

Thinking as Writing
In their study, Nardi et al (2004a) share evidence of a blogger who reported that in his mind “writing and thinking” are “synonymous” (p. 227). Knowing there was an audience, or public, following his weblog posts stimulated him to write and think. Nardi et al (2004a) note:

“While ‘thinking” might seem a solitary activity, or one not quite social, in blogging the presence of the audience and the writer’s consciousness of the audience clearly introduce the social into the individual’s thought process (as Vygotsky argued, more generally, 70 years ago). ‘Thinking by writing’ embeds cognition in a social matrix in which the blog is a bridge to others for getting explicit feedback, but also a means by which to regulate one’s own behavior (writing) through connecting with an audience” (p. 227).

This quote exemplifies how the researchers frame the power inherent in weblogging as a means for showing how knowledge can be created, transmitted, reflected upon, refined, and republished/reshared. This idea is clearly related to the notion of a Vygotsky Space (Harre, 1984; Gavalek & Raphael, 1996), where the process of learning is cyclical and evolutionary, and wherein learning and change result in a cumulative and transactional process on both an individual and collective levels.

Limited blogging Interactivity
The sample bloggers under investigation reported wanting feedback from readers, but not intimate, give-and-take exchanges. Bloggers in this study report more civility in their post comments compared to a listserv, where “rage and invective” are not uncommon. The researchers suggest that this may be due to the feeling that a blogger is speaking to a more general public as opposed to a specific individual on a listserv.

Nardi et al (2004a) note that within their research sample, comments where often visually and rhetorically hidden, behind the scenes, so to speak. In other words, comments where often linked to blog posts and required an additional step to view them, thus displacing their immediate impact as well as suggesting their secondary stature to the original blog post.

For the bloggers in Nardi et al’s (2004a) study, a weblog served as a “refuge from the intense interaction of other forms of communication” (p. 228). Bloggers were free of a conversational partner’s reaction to what was said–there is little interruption to the flow of writing. In this sense, a blog post could be likened to a “monologue” where “other voices” cannot intrude. In general, Nardi et al (2004a) report that sample blogs within their study received little if any feedback on their weblogs (while many participants reported receiving feedback via other communication media).

Nardi et al (2004a) liken public weblogs to broadcasting medium. Bloggers in this study engaged or interacted with their public but found ways to control interaction “so that it was infrequent and less emotional, mor ereflective, than in more interactive media or face to face communication” (p. 228).

Blogging as a Social Activity
In terms of blogging as a social activity, Nardi et al (2004a) point to evidence of how blogs and blog posts are initiated. Evidence presented by their research show a pattern of activity that generally follows one of the following patterns:

• friends urging friends to blog,
• readers letting bloggers know that they are ready for a post,
• bloggers crafting posts with their audience in mind, and
• bloggers continuing conversations across multiple media platforms outside their weblog (p. 224).

These patterns suggest that that not only do blogs create an audience, but that a bloggers audience creates the weblog (p. 224). In other words, as Nardi et al (2004a) affirm, “readers create blogs as much as writers” (p. 225). Wherein diaries have historically existed as a personal medium, weblogs can be thought of as a more self-aware medium in that a blog’s content is shared with a public. Perhaps it is more like a dance or a “studied minuet” between a blogger and his or her public. As such, Nardi et al (2004a) research suggests that bloggers are aware of a larger public when writing posts, that they consider “audience attention, feedback, and feelings as they write” (p. 225). More specifically, Nardi et al (2004a) share this finding:

“The blog is not a closed world, but part of a larger communication space in which diverse media, and face to face communication, may be brought to bear” (p. 225).

As such, unlike private diaries, the act of blogging is, by nature, an open social activity.

Discussion and future research
Weblogging is a social activity enacting a wide variety of social purposes. Bloggers are able to broadcast messages without interruption to any one tuning in. Comments are “subserviant” to the body of a blog post, as they are on talk radio stations, and comment exchanges/conversations in the comment section of a weblog are limited at best as compared to other communications media. Like radio stations, weblogs can topically be about anything.

Nardi et al (2004a) note:

“Our research leads us to speculate that blogging is as much about reading as writing, as much about listening as talking” (p. 231).

Even though participants in this study preferred to keep interactions with readers at arm’s length, all blog writers reported desiring a connection to their audience–they wanted to make their presence and thoughts known, their voices heard.

[Note: Nardi et al (2004a) regularly suggest that “a blog” is social in nature. In this sense, I believe Nardi et al (2004a) are referring to a blog as an individual blog post, that is, a public record published online by an author or group of authors. A blog as a Web application exists as an address, a structure, that houses blog posts. I find it confusing to try to read Nardi et al’s (2004) work any other way.]

References:

Gavalek, J. R. & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73, pp. 182-192.

Gumbrecht, M. (2004). Blogs as “protected space”. WWW 2004 Workshop on the
Weblogging Ecosystem: Aggregation, Analysis and Dynamics.

Harré, R. (1984). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Herring, S., Scheidt, L., Bonus, S., & Wright, E. (2004). Bridging the gap: A genre analysis of weblogs. Proceedings 37th Annual HICSS Conference, 2004. Big Island, Hawaii.

Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., & Gumbrecht, M. (2004a). Blogging as social activity, or, would you let 900 million people read your diary? Proceedings of CSCW 2004, November 6-10, 2004, Chicago, IL.

Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). “I’m blogging this”: A closer look at why people blog. Communications of the ACM. December, 2004.

Schiano, D., Nardi, B. A., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Blogging by the rest of us. Proceedings CHI 2004, (April 2004), Vienna.

Google images
Arm’s length — http://www.ccg.org/english/s/Image1063.gif
Audience — http://www.aspenfilm.org/images/logos/AspenSF06Audience300dpi.jpg
Ladder — http://www.acejanitorial.co.uk/images/products/CJ040.JPG
Cut Chemist - The Audience is Listening http://www.djouls.com/jurassic5/images/Cut_Chemist-The_Audience_s_Listening_b.jpg

A discussion at work prompted the following post regarding the structures needed to connect teachers to policy makers. This list is by no means exhaustive, nor is it meant to be pithy. It simply offers a starting point for further discussion and revision. If you have examples of teachers effecting policy changes, please pass them along.

1.
Start with a vision and a clear purpose.
Define as specifically as possible what you want to change.
Prepare the elevator speech. Write the headlines. Write the story.

2.
Identify who is able able to enact change.
Start at the top. Congress people, local representatives, union officials.
Know the game: Learn the players.

3.
Have concrete ideas ready.
Blue prints, maps, data, white papers, examples of success in other states.
Know the research– what works, how it works, and realistic returns-on-investments.

4.
Engage the players.
Build relationships.
Know the laws.

5.
Do not underestimate your power.
Learn your voice– use your voice.
Remember, you’re public.

6.
Be network savvy.
Tap into policy networks, social communities.
Remember the power of shared voices.

7.
Be a leader or find someone who can.
Be ready to listen, plan, organize, evaluate, report out.
Be skeptical. Find the holes in your argument and learn how to fix them.

8.
Develop a public education plan.
Write editorials, newsletters, websites.
Meet the press. Provide them resources.

9.
Find time. Make time.
Be positive.
There will be no (r)evolution without you.

10.
Remember the 7 Ps
Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance.

Google images
number one

It is worth noting that there are several ways to consider a network. It can be seen as a system of intersecting lines or channels; an interconnected system of things or people; as well as, communication with and within a group of people.

Community, on the other hand, is sometimes defined as a group of people with shared characteristics or similar interests.

One might ask, “are the two the same?”

My initial response falls in the “well, sorta…but not exactly” camp.

Communities are conventionally associated with a sociological grouping of people, plants, or animals that share an environment. There can be networks within communities, i.e., interconnections and communication shared between group members. There can be communities within networks, as in, a group of football fans or accountants who regularly interact within an interconnected system.

Perhaps, networks are better framed as the infrastructures that allow communities to maintain their existence– the ontological, a priori of communities. (Of course I could be completely off the mark here, thus my desire to share my thinking with a larger network of thinkers, writers, and practitioners and hopefully receive some feedback.)

—

Analyzing Social Networks
Given the task of analyzing social networks, Anklem (2007) provides a useful framework that captures four critical facets: a) the network’s purpose, b) its structure, c) its style, and d) its value.

Every network, be it cyber-based, face-to-face, personal or professional, has an underlying purpose, and as such, every network creates value (p. 4). More specifically, Anklam (2007) notes that the purpose of a network “relates to the value the network creates, which may not always be articulated, but can always be discovered (pp. 4-5).”

In other words, the value of the network is related to the contributions made by individual and groups of members. (Think GIGO.)

Also worth considering is that within this shared space, there are a number of intangibles, i.e., variables associated with learning and meaning making, that occurs which can eventually be captured and quantified given the proper tools and lens’.

Agency
Since networks are built around human relationships, they represent a complex adaptive system, whose relationships change regularly. Each member of the network is an agent who has the capacity to make and impose choices on the world. (1) As Anklem points out, fundamentally, “Everyone in a network influences the relationships in and the outcomes of the network” (p. 5). Thus we might contend, networks possess a certain style in which participants engage one another, use a certain tone, or are more tolerant in terms of ideas, speech or behaviors than others.

A brief aside, Hegel (1807) suggested that there is more at stake than an individual free will concerning the notion of agency. Specifically, he argues that human agency represents more of a collective, historical dynamic (historicity), as opposed to a function rising from individual behavior. Hegel reminds us that there is a power associated with the sum-of-the-parts–an important component within the larger equation that serves the network. More recently, this same notion is presented in a concept of networks dubbed as “small pieces loosely joined” by Weinberger (2002).

Value
According to Anklem (2007), successful professional networks can be deemed valuable if they can bring together “shared learning, practice, fellowship” (p. 5). As such, Anklem (2007) suggests that “Value can be derived from a network when it is reflective and generative” (p. 6). To do this, Anklam’s (2007) research points to the following factors associated with successful, generative, reflective networks:

• Creating–acting, i.e., doing the (net)work
• Contributing–sharing evidence/artifacts from one’s practice
• Collaborating — engaging other participants in further discussion/reflection
• Reflecting–commenting, follow up

As such network practice is iterative. Given the above model, network practice involves taking what you’ve learned, applying to one’s own practice, reporting back to/through the network relating your experience–how what you learned impacted your practice.

Leadership
Networks are “complex, not chaotic” (p. 6). More specifically, successful networks are built upon a foundation where the “unknown and unexpected can be welcomed and managed” (p. 6). Thus, another important factor associated with successful networks is the need for clear norms that are negotiable by members for establishing the rules for for how people engage in interactions and acknowledge the contribution of others. Perhaps more importantly, it is role of the network leaders to model these accepted/negotiated norms (p. 6).

Summary
What is important to note is that the network is only as valuable and useful as what participants contribute. Networks can range from being loose and adaptive to rigid and prescribed. All networks serve a function and posses a purpose, structure, style, and value that also serve as ways to analyze networks. Finally, networks, whether they involve face-to-face meetings or online avatars, are about relationships–some are productive and professional, some are personal and quixotic. As such professional practice networks require organizational leadership to assist in modeling network norms and keeping the group focused.

Next steps:
Building a case for
• Communities of practice
• Leveraging technology
• Social Software

References:
Anklem, P. (2007). Net work: A practical guide to creating and sustaining networks at work and in the world. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). The phenomenology of mind. Translated by J. B. Baillie. Retrieved 20 January 2008 from http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/Hegel%20Phen%20ToC.htm.

Weinberger, D. (2002) Small pieces loosely joined: A unified theory of the Web New York: Perseus. http://www.amazon.com/Small-Pieces-Loosely-Joined-Unified/dp/sitb-next/B00008NRGI/ref=sbx_con#concordance

Images:
Jack Goodlad Community Park by vasta.
peddlers or agents by Shannon K.
Magnifying Glass by dsb nola.

Preface
As I begin compiling resources that will become chapter two of my dissertation (i.e., the literature review), I thought I would share relevant findings as they seem appropriate.

This week I offer you an historical glimpse of social networks as a means of supporting teacher professional development.

Introduction
Over the past three decades, a re-examination and re-framing of the notions of teaching, learning and schooling (which includes a fundamental examination of practice, policy, and organizational structures for teachers) have been introduced by a number of educational researchers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999a, 1999b; Darling-Hammond, 1993; Lieberman, 1992; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). These studies have clearly revealed a tremendous amount of information about the organizational structures and conditions that best support sustainable teacher learning over time.

Organizational structures
To begin with, research tells us that teacher professional development is only sustainable if the organizational conditions are appropriate (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221). While this might seem like common sense, given the pressure of school reform measures, accommodating emerging technologies and changes in organizational structures has, in many cases, proven difficult (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221). Educational bureaucracies often prescribe “one size fits all” solutions that many times ignore the specific training and developmental needs of teachers within their specific contexts. (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221). additionally, teachers are often “‘developed’ by outside ‘experts,’ rather than participating in their own development” (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221).

Development networks
While bureaucracies do provide much needed functionality in managing hundreds of teachers, they can prove unwieldy and untidy when it comes to responding to the emergent conditions and “discrete needs of schools, teachers, and students” (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221). Research has demonstrated that educational development networks that employ organizational structures that are loose, responsive, and accountable are well suited to this era of new technologies and potentially rapid change (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221).

Teacher professional development networks provide an organizational means to serve school-based educators within the context of their own work. This network is composed of school- and university-based educators and is organized “to work together to better serve students” (Lieberman, 2000, p. 226) by providing a context of support for each educator.

Accordingly, teacher professional development networks can emerge spontaneously or intentionally based on the need for people to work together “on an agreed-upon purpose” (Lieberman, 2000, p. 226). These agreed-upon purposes develop and shift over time, thus the need for organizational structures to be relatively loose and flexible. Being loose and flexible does not mean the organizational structure does not promote or provide accountability measures. Instead, accountability criteria become part of the networks structure wherein requisite measures and milestones are factored in to the networks underlying structures themselves.

The benefit of teacher professional development networks is that they support bureaucratic reforms by tying professional development and growth to the interests and needs of practitioners.

Historical perspectives and research
Sixty school improvement networks were explored in the late 1970s by Allen Parker. Parker’s research (1977) identified five key operational characteristics within these networks:

• commitment to an idea
• shared purpose
• a mix of information sharing and psychological support
• a facilitator who insures participation and equal treatment
• an egalitarian ethos

Other educational researchers picked up and expanded Parker’s analysis by examining the theoretical implications from both the inside of the network and outside (Miles, 1978; Rosenbaum, 1977, Schon, 1977; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) examined secondary schools over a 5-year period and discovered that teachers who took risks and looked for new ways of working with their students developed organic learning networks with their peers thusly creating norms for an open, supportive professional development environment. These networks provided a structure for practitioners to share lesson plans, to learn from one another, and support each other in their practice, what we might call a critical friends groups.

In 1995 Newmann and Wehlage conducted a national 5-year study examining the common characteristics of elementary schools that were intentionally retooling organizational structures to better meet the needs of their students. They discovered that successful schools featured a professional network of practitioners who took collective responsibility in working together to develop a shared, clear purpose towards improving student learning.

It is clear from both McLaughlin and Talbert’s (1993) and Newmann and Wehlage’s (1995) research that school-based professional learning communities provided educators with the kinds of organizational structures that made professional learning both continuous and sustainable.

1n 1996, Lieberman and Grolnick conducted research on 16 educational reform networks operating for a minimum of 5 years. They examined common themes and tensions associated with these networks and discovered that, regardless of the network’s genesis, the networks themselves served as training grounds for practitioners to collaboratively work together, work toward building consensus, and commit to continuous learning and professional development (Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996). Collaboration and collaborative relationships provided opportunities for practitioners to build trusting among network members which is critical to the nurturing and development of new ideas. According to Lieberman and Grolnick (1996) these new ideas aided in the building of network “buzz,” i.e., interest and participation, as participants ideas and practices further developed and transformed.

In terms of tensions that were noted by Lieberman and Grolnick’s (1996) study, many practitioner participants in these networks were continuously trying to balance long-term goals and short-term needs within their network and their daily, professional (school-based) practice. In this regard, Lieberman (2000) notes:

“Sustaining educators’ commitment and interest hinges on keeping work focused on practice. However, focusing on practice involves taking a position as to where the knowledge comes from that informs the work of the network. This is of great importance because networks are trying to bring people together who have different ways of acquiring, developing, and using knowledge (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993; Sirotnik and Goodlad, 1998). Keeping a balance between inside knowledge (the experiential knowledge of teachers) and outside knowledge (knowledge created by research and conceptualization) is a hallmark of successful collaboratives” (p. 223).

Summary
In order for professional teacher networks to survive, the energy, participation, and commitment of network participants is vital. Organizational structures must be able to work with the bureaucratic needs of federal, state, and local authorities, as well as the needs of the school-based practitioner. Teacher professional development networks can provide a bridge that supports administrative directives and the growth and development needs of practitioners.

Next steps
What organizational structures provide mechanisms that allow practitioners to meet individual, student, and administration needs? Are there specific strategies that support the creation and continuous nourishment of a teacher professional development network?

And you?
Your thoughts and suggestions are highly encouraged.
References:

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and teacher knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999a). Teacher learning in professional communities: Three knowledge-practice relationships. In P.D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 251-307). Washington, DC: American educational Research Association.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999b). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: developing capacity for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 753-761.

Lieberman, A. (1992, September). The meaning of scholarly activity and the building of community. Educational Researcher.

Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities: Shaping the future of teacher development. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 221-227.

Lieberman, A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 673-677.

Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in in American education. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7-45.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. W. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Palo Alto, CA: Context Center on Secondary School Teaching.

Miles, M. B. (1978). On networking. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Policy Research, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC.

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Parker, A. (1977). Networks for innovation and problem solving and their use for improving education: A comparative overview. Unpublished manuscript, School Capacity for Problem Solving Group, National Institute for Education, Washington, DC.

Rosenbaum, A. (1977). Social networks as a policy resource: Some insights drawn from the community organizational and community action experiences. Unpublished manuscript, Network Development Staff, School Capacity for Problem Solving Group, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC.

Schon, D. A. (1977). Network related intervention. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Policy Research, national Institute of Education, Washington, DC.

Sirotnik, K., & Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School university partnerships: Concepts and cases. New York: Teachers College Press.

Google Images:

typing from nlm.nih.com

networks-2 from the University of Chicago

SocialNetworks9 from licasdigital.com