My literature review topic, a work in progress

I must now make the most important decision of my entire doctoral candidacy — on what topic shall I do my dissertation? The literature review is the first step. I must have a firm foundation on which to build. The literature review must be that firm foundation.

After months of reading, study, and contemplation, I have arrived at what I think will be an interesting and relevant topic for my dissertation. Hopefully, it will be original enough so as to not mirror too closely existing research. Now, I am ready to begin my literature review.

My research topic: I am interested in studying the influence of Web 2.0 technologies on Millennial students, those who were born from 1981 to 2001. Specifically, I want to study whether or not heavy use of Web 2.0 technologies adversely affects their interpersonal communication. Long credited as being the most tech-savvy generation, does this easy ability with Web 2.o technologies come at the expense of interpersonal communication skill and ability?

As an instructor in Towson’s Public Relations Track in the Mass Communication department, I work hard to prepare my students for career success. But to be successful, these students will need more than just craft skills. They must be effective at interpersonal communication. From the time they write cover letters with attached resumes seeking job interviews, to the interviews themselves, to on-the-job interaction, they will be judged by their interpersonal communication skill and ability.

I am interested in whether or not technologies like text messaging have had an effect on students’ ability to communicate coherently and proficiently face to face, one on one. Can Millennial students carry on effective two-way, verbal  conversations?

It is called Dyadic communication. It is a method of communication that only involves two people such as a telephone conversation, letters, a face-to-face job interview, etc. In Dyadic communication, the sender can immediately receive and evaluate feedback from the receiver. I want to study this and find answers that might have implications for the instructional design of my courses.

Investigating and evaluating research in Instructional Technology

Previously, this blog explored the history, philosophy, and practice of Instructional Technology. Now, we will shift the focus to research. Specifically, we will concentrate on the dissertation literature review.

I am at the point in my doctoral studies when I can begin my seven comprehensive exams and start writing the literature review for my dissertation. It has been a long but extremely rewarding experience so far. Now, the intensity magnifies.

Boote and Beile ( 2005) argue that “a thorough, sophisticated literature review is the foundation and inspiration for substantial, useful research” (Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 6, p. 3). I will document and discuss my literature review progress in this blog weekly. Here, I will discuss the scope of my review, my research strategies, and the progress I am making.

I intend for this to be a dialogue with my colleagues in Towson’s Instructional Technology doctoral program in which we can share our experiences in writing our dissertation literature reviews. I invite all readers to take part in the discussion.

O’Brien and Scharber’s “Digital literacies: potholes and possibilities” revisited

Assignment: after reading Digital Literacies Go to School: Potholes and Possibilities, please answer the following:

1. How do O’Brien and Scharber define “Digital Literacies” Would this be your definition?  If not, how would you define it?

The authors first list the results of searches using the term “digital literacies”. The searches yielded descriptive terms, such as “using computers” and “understanding how to view digital images”. Then the authors define digital literacies as socially situated practices supported by skills, strategies, and stances that enable the representation and understanding of ideas using a range of modalities enabled by digital tools.

“Socially situated”?  “Stances”? “Modalities”?  O’Brien and Scharber’s definition is far too wonkish for me. I much prefer Paul Glister’s simple definition, the ability to access networked computer resources and use them (Jossey-Bass Reader, pager 215). To me, digital literacy means having the skill and ability to function in the Web 2.0 world of today using computer and Web-based technology. 

2. Do you agree with the authors’ “potholes”? Are there others?

The authers’ potholes are 1. the gap between the digital literacies that youths use inside and outside of class; 2. the incompatibility of school institutional structure with digital literacies; and 3. the “Digital Divide”, the inequities of access to technology based on such factors as income, education, race, and ethnicity. Yes, I agree with these, but wish to add clarification. The authors quote Cuban (2001) who says it has been far easier to install computers than to make them relevant to students’ needs or to help teachers and students use them in empowering ways.

Accordingly, I think the biggest pothole is our glorification of technology as the salvation of education.  For example, closing the digital divide, even if possible, will not cure all of education and society’s ailments. There are many in society who do not wish to be digitally literate. There are other ways for these people to be productive and contributing members of society, such as trades or vocational training, but schools do not meet that need.

Another pothole much like the authors’ #1 and #2 above, but specifically, is the real-world application of digital literacy as offered by schools. For example, you can do all sorts of interesting and time-consuming things with computers, but what I value most is use that relates to the real world. I value making people literate digitally so that they might be productive members of society, that is, that they can use technology to do something useful that will feed them or help them continue learning, or enable them to find information they need. To me, being digitally literate means being able to use technology to solve real-world problems. That is empowering.

3. If a school superintendent ordered that all teachers had to accept hand-written work in order to close the digital divide, what would be your position and argument?

I’d say, “you must be kidding!”  My argument against accepting hand-written work is that it does nothing to close the Digital Divide. On the contrary, it exacerbates it. I’d argue for implementing an effective way of working with those students (or teachers) who wish to turn in hand-written work that would help them make the leap to using computer technology.

The Digital Divide: Thoughts on computers, learning, and accessibility

In your own words, define what is meant by the term digital divide.

The term Digital Divide became popular around 1995. We use it to mean the difference between those who have access to computer technology and use it and those who do not. The reasons for the divide are many — socio-economic status, cultural beliefs, age, location, and a factor  I believe is an important contributor, the desire to use computers at all. Some people want to use computers and can’t afford it. Some people don’t want to whether they can afford it or not.

What can be done so that the “have-nots” become “haves?”

Much has been written about what must be done to close the Digital Divide. Tapscott (2000) argues that every institution and every person must get involved in bringing about universal access to computer technology. He believes government can make a significant contribution, but he seems more intent on putting the burden on business, in part, saying business should provide leadership for the broader changes  to come, not only out of a sense of altruism, but for enlightened self-interest. The future success of business largely depends on having productive workers who are computer literate. Business donates heavily to education and educational programs. And some state governments and school systems have created mutually beneficial partnerships. An example is my home state of Virginia, which is a good example of a business-higher education coalition that has been willing to do political battle, perhaps because of the financial crisis that confronted the state’s public colleges and universities in the early 1990s (http://www.capolicycenter.org/ct_0597/ctn2_0597.html). Tapscott (2000) offers three ways in which business can make a meaningful contribution to closing the divide:

1. Wire its own employees’ family homes.
2. Give employees time off to volunteer their expertise in their communities and especially in underprivileged communities.
3. Fund the connector to make the connection, or, be willing to invest in teaching real skills and to stand by their investments by hiring people from the communities they train.

But putting the burden on business will not close the Digital Divide in my opinion. I believe that institutions are working rapidly to provide universal access. Stoicheva (2000) says that despite the rapid growth of wired schools, research shows that the use of technology to affect classroom practice tends to be limited to small groups of teachers who are excited by the potential technology has to motivate their students. Stoicheva (2000) offers three pieces of advice to teachers:

1. Become a student.
2. Morph into a cybrarian.
3. Empower students.

I believe that a huge factor needed to help close the Digital Divide must be provided by families. Proper parenting is needed to help train and motivate young people to value education and seek opportunities to learn and grow. Good parents will provide the technology in the home for the student. It is a parental responsibility to care for a child until he/she is old enough to take his or her place in society. The list of help programs in the U.S. is endless. Even if the parent has no technological experience, he or she can easily find help.

Do “legacy technologies”, as defined in the Rose in Jones article, have the potential to bridge the digital divide?

Yes, I believe they do in certain circumstances. So-called “legacy technologies”, older hardware and software and systems, may still have much to offer. However, they must be in good working order. If the hardware is obsolete, then the chances for success are greatly diminished. If the legacy system requires too much maintenance and is too costly, then it is not a good idea. But, in some cases, it beats having nothing.

What else can and should educators do to bridge the digital divide?

I believe that educators should stay current on technology and use it in instructional design. Lead by example.

Educators should volunteer their time and expertise to help those adversely affected by the Digital Divide.

Educators should donate money to reputable organizations that have a good track record in helping the underprivileged use technology.

Educators should lend their collective voices to support efforts to close the Digital Divide.

Simplicio on assessment

On knowledge: knowledge is higher order skills.

The purpose of instruction is to gain skills.

Tests should be objective and as such, they are a valuable diagnostic tool.

Observing the teacher does not prove valuable in determining what students know. Testing is better.

Curriculum and development is not important to the teacher.

Constructivism is a label for fuzzy, unscientific thinking.

The Screw Up Dialogue: Conversations on knowledge and constructivism in instructional design

Galileo had his dialogue. C. S. Lewis had his Screwtape Letters. Now, to discuss knowledge and the role technology plays in the application of constructivism in instructional design, I give you The Screw Up Dialogue. The dialogue takes place in an office at Towson University between a Millennial student, Millie, and her Instructor, Wheeler.

WHEELER:   Come in, the door is open. Oh, hello Millie.

MILLIE:   Hello.  Do you have a moment? I’d like to talk to you about my grades. They suck. I’m like failing. I just don’t have the knowledge I need to pass. Please give me the knowledge so I can graduate on time!

WHEELER:   I’ll try to help you, Millie, but first, what is knowledge anyway? I must know to give it to you.

MILLIE:   Knowledge, is, well, all that stuff you tell us in class. All that stuff I need to know to pass.

WHEELER:   So you think that is knowledge. Maybe it is, and maybe there is more to it. Let’s start in your book bag there on the floor. See that red and white book?  Look up “knowledge”.

MILLIE:   Okay. It says here in my Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition, that knowledge “is the fact or condition of knowing something gained through experience or association.”

WHEELER:   What else?

MILLIE:   Well, it says “the fact or condition of being aware of something”. Or, and here’s a funny word, “Cognizance”. I don’t know what that means.

WHEELER:   The first thing you read, that knowledge is knowing something gained through experience or association. Look up “to know”.

MILLIE:   Merriam-Webster says “To perceive directly, to have direct cognition of”. Then there is that word again.  I’ll look it up. “Cognition — to become acquainted with; to know”. We are going in circles!

WHEELER:    (grabbing Psychology of Learning for Instruction by Marcy P. Driscoll, 2000, off his shelf) Let’s see. Yes, here it is. Driscoll says knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued enterprises, such as singing a tune, discovering scientific facts, fixing machines, writing poetry, etc. Knowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of such enterprises, that is, of active engagement in the world.

MILLIE:   I’m not sure I understand. I like need knowledge to pass this course.

WHEELER:   But Millie, do you see a difference in “knowing” something and “understanding” it?

MILLIE:   I know I like my Mac computer, but I don’t understand how it works.

WHEELER:   That’s what I mean. David Perkins and Chris Unger wrote in 1999 that understanding a topic is as matter of knowing it well. But, it is clear that knowledge in itself does not guarantee understanding. So, even if I could give you the knowledge of the course, that does not mean that you would understand it and be able to use it effectively.

MILLIE:   But I might pass the course!

WHEELER:   True, but it is better to be able to do something with the knowledge later. Duffy and Jonassen, in 1992, asked if knowledge is an identifiable entity with some fixed truth value? Is the goal of instruction to acquire a knowledge base that is prespecified? They stated one of their major goals is to encourage students to develop socially acceptable systems for exploring their ideas and their differences in opinion.

MILLIE:   How will that give me knowledge?

WHEELER:   As Duffey and Jonassen say, knowledge develops through, and is embedded in, the tasks or experiences of the learner. You say you want knowledge, and we are trying to define here and now just what that is. For you to have knowledge, I believe that your knowledge must be constructed, co-constructed if you will, by you and me as your mentor, coach, and helper, and by you and your team mates in class. This requires higher order thinking, and that is precisely what I wish for you.

MILLIE:   Co-construct my knowledge? That sounds odd. How do you do that?

WHEELER:   We call it “constructivist learning”. According to Richard E. Mayer, writing in 1999, it occurs when learners actively create their own knowledge by trying to make sense out of material that is presented to them. David Jonassen, who I mentioned earlier, said in an interview in 2001 that education has always assumed that knowledge can be transferred and that we can carefully control the process through education. He calls this a grand illusion. He says that knowledge cannot be managed. You mentioned your Mac computer. It is a magnificent tool for helping you learn. But as Jonassen warned, it and other instructional technology can’t just cram knowledge into your head. No, he says that the primary role of technology is to set context for learning experiences.

MILLIE:   You lost me, prof.

WHEELER:   It’s back to constructivism. Jonassen says that in constructivist learning environments, we use technologies to situate learning tasks in a variety of contexts. For example, remember when we showed the class the video of the corporate planning session?

MILLIE:   Yes, too funny. All the suits were arguing about corporate goals and objectives.

WHEELER:   And what happened? They argued points from their own experiences. They showed illustrations of operational areas — facts and figures — and discussed them over and over. Gradually, they came up with a list of goals and objectives that all of them could support to solve their problems. In essence, they…..

MILLIE:    (interrupting) They co-created it!

WHEELER:   Yes! That is correct, Millie. Jonassen, in that same 2001 interview, says that in order to be able to apply knowledge to solve problems, we must construct different kinds of knowledge about a problem and its context.

MILLIE:    There are different kinds of knowledge? No wonder I couldn’t get a simple answer out of you.

WHEELER:   Yes, there is conceptual, systemic, strategic, procedural knowledge, and on and on. You see, you and your class mates all understand problems in different way, like the corporate executives, what did you call them — suits — in the video. Donald J. Cunningham, writing in 1975, says constructivism holds that learning is a process of building up structures of experience. Learners like you create interpretations of the world based on your past experiences and your interactions in the world.

MILLIE:   Then where do you fit in?

WHEELER:   Good question. Cunningham says the role of the educator in constructivist learning is to show students how to construct knowledge, to promote collaboration with others to bring multiple perspectives to the solving of problems, and to help students arrive at a self-chosen position.

MILLIE:   You mentioned my Mac. What role does it play in all this co-creating knowledge?

WHEELER:   Writing in 1997, Howard E. Gardner says that the question is not simply whether or not we use computers in education, but for what?  Further, he asks, education for what? He says that education must ultimately justify itself in terms of enhancing human understanding. To me, the tools of technology should be viewed the same way. Technology enables the student to access vast amounts of information quickly and easily. It allows the student to manipulate vast amounts of data more easily. It allows the student greater ease in writing. Add to that the wealth of educational software now available — with more coming all the time — and you see the important role technology plays. In the design of constructivist learning, like your class, we use wikis, podcasts, blogs, PowerPoint, and videos. The spreadsheets you use in doing your strategic planning case study are another example. Simply put, the role of technology is critical to constructivist instructional design. It allows the student to do so much more than in the past. To co-construct knowledge, you need the best technological tools you can get.

MILLIE:   Got to run. Thanks for helping me, Wheeler. I think I get it. I can co-construct a passing grade!

Blog Post #3: Diffusion – Committee

The Scenario: A small, struggling urban private liberal arts school wants to begin offering distance learning within 12 months. The school has limited experience in distance learning and convenes a cross-functional committee to write an e-learning plan. The goal is to offer two e-learning courses by fall semester.

As an Early Adopter (EA) and member of the committee, I would embrace the effort and give it my full support. In fact, I would be excited about it. On the committee, I would be highly supportive and would always volunteer ideas and thoughts to help develop the plan. I would suggest logical steps to follow in order to meet the goal of offering two e-learning courses by fall. I would be both cheerleader and organizer for the project.

To help the committee, I would consider the due date for final course materials, including advance communication/promotion and administrative details, and work backward to the current date in order to build an effective, step-by-step strategic plan to meet the goal. As Stephen Covey says, “Begin with the end in mind.” By knowing where the committee must go and by when, we could build an effective and efficient strategic plan to get us there.

In order to have the courses ready and students enrolled, there must be  simultaneous development of the courses and the communication and promotion of them for enrollment purposes. The administrative details must also be handled, such as coordination with the Office of Technology, Enrollment Services, etc. Course syllabi and materials must be planned and printed, so the teachers must be selected early so they have time to do their necessary course development.

As an EA, I would offer to develop and teach one of the courses. I would begin immediately and share my work with all concerned. I would provide my syllabus to others, and I would volunteer to conduct sessions to help others develop e-learning courses. As an EA, I would serve as coach and mentor to anyone who was struggling with the adoption of the new e-learning innovation.

I would maintain a comprehensive three-ring binder of course development materials and details, including step-by-step development procedures, to help future instructors and administrators develop their own e-learning course offerings without having to “reinvent the wheel.”

I would write blog posts and perhaps an article for publication about our efforts.

I would use Twitter and Facebook to create  a buzz about the new e-learning courses in a planned effort to create word of mouth (WOM) excitement, or in other words, viral marketing support for the two new courses and our school in general.

I would offer to develop and teach orientation sessions for new faculty and administrative support on developing and maintaining e-learning courses.

Blog Post #2: Diffusion – Levels of Use

The Scenario: A small, struggling urban private liberal arts school wants to begin offering distance learning within 12 months. The school has limited experience in distance learning and convenes a cross-functional committee to write an e-learning plan. The goal is to offer two e-learning courses by fall semester.

As an Early Adopter (EA) and member of the committee, the Level of Use of my scenario department is listed under Decision Point B, Level II: Preparation. Preparation is defined as the state in which the user is preparing for the first use of an innovation.  Here is a breakdown of how this fits into the Preparation categories:

• Knowledge. As an EA, I know the logistical requirements, resources, and timing necessary to develop and offer two e-learning courses for the upcoming fall semester. I am aware of the initial details for both faculty and students alike, plus administrative considerations.
• Acquiring information. As explained in detail in my Blog Post #3, I am working diligently to help develop and implement a plan to create and offer the two courses on time. I am gathering all relevant and necessary information not only to develop a strategic plan to guide the committee’s work but to simultaneously develop the two e-learning courses as well.
• Sharing.  Again, as explained in more detail in my Blog Post #3, I am an active and vocal member of the committee planning the offering of the two e-learning courses. I share readily all the information as I acquire or develop it, not only for the strategic plan guiding the committee, but for one of the courses, which I have volunteered to develop. I also plan to conduct informal or formal orientation and training sessions to help my colleagues adopt the new e-learning innovation.

In order for my scenario department to increase its Level of Use, say, to the next level, which is listed under Decision Point C: Level III, Mechanical Use, the school would have to have the two e-learning courses up and running for us to experience their implementation and day-to-day management. I think that at that point, it would be easy for us to make the shift to this next level up.

Blog Post #1: Diffusion – Adopter Categories

For this assignment, I choose to take the position of Early Adopters (EAs). The adopter categories are based on innovativeness, or the degree to which an individual or organization or unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of social system (Rogers, 2003).

According to Rogers, diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system. Diffusion is a special type of communication that spreads messages perceived as new ideas.

EAs follow Innovators in adoption of new ideas. EAs put their stamp of approval on a new idea and thereby act in their role as opinion leader in their social system.  EAs usually enjoy the respect of their peers. Subsequent adopter groups look to EAs to provide advice and information about innovations because EAs decrease uncertainty about an innovation by adopting it and communicating about it.  In so doing, the EA acts as a missionaries for change agents who seek their involvement.

EAs can be effective role models to subsequent adopter groups because they are not too far removed from them. They help to bring people together to bring about change and innovation.

Technology standards in the Comm/PR world

I am intrigued by technology standards used to drive the field of organizational communication/public relations. At present, no overarching, uniform technology standards exist in this field that I am aware of. However, with increasing frequency, individual organizations and some professional associations are adopting use-of-technology standards largely in response to the explosive growth in popularity of social media. Specific-issue technology standards, such as the use of email on company time and equipment, have existed for some time now. But there is a brave new world out there, the world of what is being loosely described as “Intranet 3.0″ (Paul Miller, Communication World, 2009).

As McConnell and Huba (2007) say, social media — Web-based publishing platforms like blogs, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, podcasts, wikis, etc. — remove a great number of traditional barriers to widespread distribution of discussion, debate, and collaboration among people in community as millions more watch, listen, and learn.

By definition, social media is the sum total of people who create content online as well as the people who interact with it or one another.  In so doing, people who use social media build their own audiences often rivaling those of traditional media. This directly and profoundly challenges traditional mass media gatekeepers of information and company media seeking to build brand image and manage reputations (McConnell and Huba, 2007). These profound changes have a definite and far-reaching impact on the practice of organizational communication/public relations and on the content of what I teach in Towson’s Mass Comm. department.

A natural response from some in power is to seek to establish standards for the use of social media. For example, the exploding growth of blogs drives some firms to create an organization-wide weblog policy. Organizations which are accustomed to practicing controlled media, such as employee publications in which the organization controls the messages, now often see a proliferation of employee bloggers whose messages they cannot control. In fact, individuals and organized groups from every one of an organization’s traditional strategic publics, including employees, may be blogging about the organization, either positively or negatively. This is far beyond an organization’s control, but dealing with this reality is now a substantial part of practicing strategic organizational communication/public relations.

Sang Lee, Taewon Hwang, Hong-Hee Lee (2006), writing in Management Decision, reported on their study of the phenomenon of corporate blogging and its objectives. The study focuses on how Fortune 500 firms attempt to maintain control, while supporting employee autonomy in corporate blogging. Among their findings are the following:

Most organizations maintain high levels of control by implementing top-down blogging strategies, while few support employee autonomy by applying a bottom-up blogging strategy. Because of the inherent limitation of each strategy, many organizations attempt to take advantage of the complementary mechanism that balances autonomy and control. 

More enlightened entities know that they will do better by embracing social media than by steadfastly resisting it. To maintain goodwill, organizations must walk a fine line between too much control and too little. A good example of a blogging policy which does this is that of Harvard Law School.  It is instructive to note how the policy begins:

We don’t mean to turn you off from blogging by immediately inundating you with legalese, but we need to make clear our respective rights and responsibilities related to this service.

The opening disclaimer is almost apologetic for having to institute a policy. You can read the entire policy at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/terms-of-use/

A good example of a more inclusive social media usage policy is that of IBM. IBM seeks to embrace the brave new world of social media but feels it is necessary to institute some guidelines. IBM even used a wiki to create the policy.  IBM notes that due to the ever-changing nature of social media, the policy is a work in progress, calling for continuous input to keep it current.

You can read IBM’s social computing guidelines at http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html

Want more? The Website Social Media Governance contains a list of policy documents from a wide variety of organizations. The positioning line under the Website’ s name summarizes the rationale for statements of technology usage: “Empowerment with accountability.” You can see this database at http://socialmediagovernance.com/policies.php

In summary, as social media rapidly changes the practice and the teaching of organizational communication/public relations, standards will be developed, tried, tested, refined, and implemented. Writing in Communication World, July-August 2009, Ryan Williams and Tudor Williams say that “today, social networking offers new opportunities to build relationships, and these virtual communities are changing how we tackle chronic communication issues such as leadership and trust.  We are seeing a new role for communicators within these online communities.”

This will mean a new role for educators as well as we move rapidly into the Web 3.o world.