I’ve been seriously thinking about the wiki course I teach.  Mobile Workforce Technologies used to be Information and Communication Technologies but has had a complete make-over in the last two years.  Part of what is not included is more focus on the business and social processes and less on the technical aspects.  This can only be a Good Thing (TM).  The change in name and focus allowed the change in pedagogical process to happen.  There was also the fellowship which paid for it, so I can’t discount that.  The opportunity to ‘rethink’ provided by the e-learning fellowship was beyond measuring[1].

But I get the sense from a lot of work that’s being done on the use of wikis in learning environments that there is a focus on continuity of the wiki, building upon what previous students have done.  While that is admirable and very useful, I seem to be focusing on a different approach.  One of the things I’ve noticed, particularly in the wikis that I have started only to have them go nowhere (see for instance Information Systems Research).  How do we get people to start engaging in these new tools?  The build it and they will come approach does not seem to work all that well.  I’m pretty sure that building and maintaining communities are two very different activities.  Having an idea is good, but engaging people is hard.

Which brings me to one of the essential differences about the way I use wikis for teaching.  They always start empty.  Not completely empty, but with some instruction and some direction.  I’ve been trying to figure out (and consequently teach) how to get people into new processes.  I figure that coming into an already populated space is kind of easy, but building from scratch? Well, now that requires slightly different approaches.  I suppose it’s similar to implementing any new version of software, new website, new anything really, but to consciously go through the process as a learning exercise is valuable.

The main difference between the learning environment and the work environment, I suppose, is the level to which participation (contribution) is mandated.  In a work environment, it can be relatively easy to refuse to use certain technologies[2], and in the learning environment, we give a reward for (contribution) participation and actually make it mandatory.  I think this forces students/learners to reflect upon the processes of building and implementing new technologies/processes.  I think that will be a required part of their reflection – consider what worked to get people in, what didn’t work, how the process shifts your frame of reference, how people may accept or reject the changes and what could be done about that.

Hmm, yes, need to rewrite the contribution (participation) requirements as well as the reflection requirements.

1. The Griffith E-Learning Fellowships have since become the Blended Learning Fellowships but I’ll always think of myself as a GELF-ling [↩]
2. bLotus Notes, I’m talking about YOU! [↩]