methods for mapping operational proximity in professional learning networks
Post on 16-Apr-2017
421 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Networked Learning 2014
Mapping proximity in professional learning networks
Andrew WhitworthMaria-Carme Torras i CalvoBodil MossNazareth Amlesom KifleTerje Blåsternes
1. The project❖ Bibliotek i Endring — Changing Libraries❖ Two academic libraries facing change
2. Questions
❖ What learning resources are available to them?❖ How accessible are they?❖ How are these drawn on to help manage the
changes faced?❖ Who or what is driving the necessary changes in
practice?
3. Project ethos
❖ Participatory❖ Co-operative inquiry❖ Data generation methods that promote
immediate reflection, resources for action research
4. Views of the organisation
❖ Formal, hierarchical❖ Informal, community, networked❖ Learning resources include people — and one’s
place in a network
5. Proximity (I)❖ Formal, managerial view of the organisation
specifies chains of command and communication
6. Proximity (II)
❖ But there are other ways of judging how close one member of the organisation is to someone else….
❖ Tagliaventi and Mattarrelli (2006) observed the influence of operational proximity
7. Proximity (III)❖ Social network analysis has long noted that one’s
position in a social network is a factor in the accessibility of information
8. Example
❖ Library A in BiE… ❖ Substantial changes to both the infrastructure
(operational proximity) and the hierarchy (organisational proximity)…
❖ How will this affect the social network (social proximity)?
9. Mapping
❖ Mapping can be undertaken with non-physical landscapes
❖ Lloyd’s idea of the information landscape (2010) is a useful metaphor
10. Project phase 1❖ Participants visualised their working
relationships on paper❖ ‘Thinking aloud’ while drawing
11. Scoring
❖ Marqueed helped annotate images with data from recordings (ordering)
❖ 10 points for first named, 7 for 2nd, 4, 2, 1, 1, …..
12. UCINET
❖ Sociograms created using UCINET ❖ (Thanks to Professor Martin Everett for this)
13. Strong links — library A
14. Strong links — library B
15. Centrality
Library A
Library B
Library A has one individual (Kirsty) who plays a clear central role. No one in
library B is so central (disk sizes should not be compared across these sociograms)
16. Core/periphery
Library A
Library B
Core members interact with other core members; periphery interact with the core,
but less so with each other. Library B have a more strongly defined core/periphery split.
17. Full network — library A
Note the role of ‘lunch learning’ (cf. Waring & Bishop 2010, ‘water cooler learning’)
18. Can practice be changed?
KEY: Dark = yes, definitely; Medium = yes, sometimes; Light = difficult; White = not at all
19. Implications for remainder of study
❖ Do people focus on proximate information sources when engaging in networked learning?
❖ What influence do central people have on changing practice?
❖ Does the ‘split’ network in library B make a difference?
❖ How will all this change as the two libraries change?
20. The End
and a gratuitous picture of Norway…
Takk — Drew, Maria, Bodil, Nazareth and Terje
top related