Microsoft SharePoint Logo
Toward the end of my first Action Research Project cycle my team gained access to a new collaborative web 2.0 technology in the form of Microsoft SharePoint 2007. After reflecting on my initial action and the impact it had, both within my team and to my personal growth, and considering the tool changes that took place within the context of my work I selected the following as the research question for my second cycle:
If I provide learning and support to my team about communities and the use of a SharePoint, will it increase the participation in the use of the SharePoint as a tool to mediate social knowledge construction between team members and with members of the larger organizational community?
Changes in Action Research Project Context:
While the primary context of my Action Research Project has not changed since my initial cycle, the addition of access to Microsoft SharePoint 2007 has changed the context to a certain extent. While my team retained the existing MediaWiki, the availability of this new tool created an opportunity for enhanced interaction as it supports additional functions beyond traditional wiki pages including discussion forums, web-part pages, document storage and management, work-flow tools and process, and an improved user interface with more access to familiar editing tools.
Another shift in my context will be the inclusion of some discussion of how my action is rippling out into the larger context of my organization, beyond my initial team, in a way that seems to creating a positive pull for members of my team. While my primary goal was to influence the members of my direct team to utilize web 2.0 collaborative tools to better collaborate with each other, there is the link to the broader community to consider. As the community of practice is intended to expand beyond my initial team it is essential to begin looking at how this part of the process is also developing and where the connections are being formed.
Action Outcomes: Implementing Sharing Tools within the Community
The action I sought to study for my second cycle was to provide a learning event for my team that helped define the context within which the SharePoint might be applied. To support this, the learning event also included a discussion of the broader concept of Communities and then focused on the basics of how to use the SharePoint. The goal was to increase interest in, and use of this tool. Prior to hosting the event, a 20-minute discussion was held during one of our team meetings where my team was asked to brainstorm what they would like to learn about the communities with which we engage and also what they would like to learn about using the SharePoint. Participation in this discussion was good and yielded a list of items to consider including in the learning session.
A primary reason for choosing to host a learning session for my second cycle is based on my belief, through reflection on my previous action, that there was not a solid understanding within my team of the concept of Communities, particularly Communities of Practice, and that the newness of the SharePoint tool was restricting members of my team from engaging in its use. Smith’s (1998) work supports my belief that understanding is essential to help with the learning process, “The official theory of learning says that we have to learn something in order to understand it. Once again, this is totally contrary to fact. We have to understand something in order to learn it” (p. 35). As this quote indicates, when something is unknown it is difficult to learn. For many members of my team the SharePoint technology was largely unknown, or not well understood, and by holding the session they gained a better understanding of what the tool can do, which will help them to begin to learn it as well. The same is true of the exposure to concepts related to communities.
Along with the concept that learning requires an understanding of the context and tools for my team, I also wanted to build an ongoing dialogue about communities and tools that can be used as a way to mediate interaction between individuals within communities. In the past I had seen a great deal of discussion and debate take place over choice of tool and processes to be used by my team. My desire was to work toward a shared understanding, rather than host an event focused on one concept winning out over another. Dixon (1998) identified talking as an essential piece of the development process for both individuals and organizations stating, “I believe that both individual and organizational development are dependent upon learning and that learning is dependent upon talk; thus, talk leads to learning, which leads to development” (p. 10).
Just prior to hosting the learning session, I held a meeting with the three individuals that I had asked to assist in leading portions of the learning event. These individuals included two that had already been engaged in using the wiki, and to some extent the SharePoint, and were enthusiastic about the new collaborative processes. The third individual was somewhat resistant to the new tools and brought a great perspective to the table in terms of how to evaluate the value of the tools and what the reasons were to move in any particular direction, particularly in tool selection. Working together we created the outline for a two-hour learning event about communities and how to use the SharePoint based on the input from my team in what they are interested in learning about these two topics. My role was that of a host for the event, coordinating the scheduling and assisting in planning the structure. One of my colleagues lead a dialogue on communities while the other two lead a practical learning session on use of the SharePoint. Participants were encouraged to come to the session with an idea of a project that they felt might benefit from using the SharePoint and also bring their laptops so they may experience how to use the SharePoint first hand and immediately apply the learning. The learning event was held on March 19, 2009 with eight of 13 team members in attendance.
Assumptions:
I went into this cycle with the following assumptions: My belief is that by providing the context for collaboration based on a shared understanding of communities and by helping my team learn to use the SharePoint there will be an initial increase in using the SharePoint as a method to socially construct knowledge using outside resources in service to creating learning experiences and materials for employees. Furthermore, I believe that as individuals begin to gain confidence in the use of the SharePoint they will look for additional ways to extend the capability of this tool and subsequently search for more and better tools to accomplish their goals. In this process the understanding and formation of a loose community of practice based on use of web 2.0 tools for social constructivist means will begin to show. Challenges will continue to persist by way of forces reluctant to change for various reasons, however the majority of individuals will grow in their literacy of these tools and processes.
Based on the initial evidence collected in the week since the learning event I have already begun to see a change in my team, particularly for some individuals that had previously not interacted to a large extent in the wiki. This evidence and the observed changes will be discussed in the following section of this report.
Evidence Collected:
The evidence that I was able to collect for the second cycle of my Action Research Project was in the form of a pre- and post-learning session survey, SharePoint usage metrics, discussions with team members, communication in emails, and other observational data. The following is a break down of my evidence by type:
Pre and Post-Learning Session Survey Results:
A brief pre and post-session survey was given to those in attendance. This was administered via paper for the six individuals physically in the room and through an online survey tool for the two individuals that attended via teleconference. The choice of survey structure and method of execution was intended to allow for an understanding of current sentiments regarding comfort in using the SharePoint and interacting with others in creating content. The survey was intentionally brief as I did not want to “over survey” my team throughout the course of my Action Research Project and prefer to see the results of my actions through the observational changes that I hope to see within my team.
The survey consisted of five questions and the responses were on a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree that were coded from one to five with five meaning strongly agreed. The questions were:
- I am confident in using a SharePoint to access information.
- I am confident in using a SharePoint to contribute information.
- I am comfortable with the idea of someone modifying (editing, deleting, adding to, etc.) active content that I have created on a shared, public space.
- I enjoy seeking out expertise and making connections beyond my immediate work group.
- I like to share what I know to help everybody.
Figure 1 shows the results of the survey of my eight co-workers. While only small changes were noted between the pre- and post-learning session surveys there was an increase in positive responses in all but one case. The lowest response was regarding comfort in contributing content on a SharePoint. This was to be expected based on the current level of participation within this population in the SharePoint and acts as a validation to putting together the learning session for the tool. There was a strong indication that respondents enjoy seeking expertise and this may relate to the amount of time most of my team spends interacting with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in order to build learning content. Only one question showed a decrease in sentiment, which may have been an anomaly, or might indicate nervousness about knowledge sharing based on a growing, yet still immature, sense of what sharing knowledge means from a personal perspective by some members of my team.
Figure 1:
Write-in comments were also encouraged on the survey and the following comments were shared:
Pre-Session Survey Comments:
- I like the tool. I’m looking forward to more participation.
- Great idea – Makes the playing field much larger!
- SharePoint = website portal? Great to have shared location for info, not clear on the difference between wiki technology and SharePoint except maybe easier to add information? How are we currently using it?
- I’ve participated in communities ever since I can remember – adding the possibility of virtual is exciting.
Post-Session Survey Comments:
- It is good to get this conversation started.
- I’ve got a lot to learn!
- 🙂
- I would like to use SharePoint as a portal for Enterprise training modules… I think I need to learn more. *I liked [name omitted] idea to have our team use SharePoint as our community tool and invite global partners as well. *Thank you for this session! You are bringing my awareness of communities I participate in to the surface. 🙂
It was fascinating to note that only one question yielded a lower confidence response after the learning session, “I like to share what I know to help everybody.” While the sentiment only declined slightly it is still curious to wonder what may have lead to this decline. Is it due to nervousness that sometimes accompanies gaining just enough more knowledge to feel uncomfortable with a concept that when previously unknown was not worrisome? In other words, was initial confidence due to a lack of understanding of what is involved or expected? Or, could it simply be hastiness in completing the brief survey and momentary changes in sentiment that are not of any major significance or consequence to the results?
As this was a short survey and the separation between the pre and post-session survey application was very short I am not going to over analyze the small changes. Rather I am happy with the high-degree of confidence and trust shown through the survey and find the open-ended comments to indicate an overall positive sentiment toward engaging with communities and leveraging the SharePoint as a mediation for this process. Wenger et al. (2002) have indicated that trust is essential to the social connection of the community aspect of a Community of Practice. Seeing a high-degree of trust within the team is also an indication of team understanding of one another.
Email Correspondence:
As with my first cycle, email conversations captured feedback and input from my team and others within the organization regarding the use of the SharePoint. I began receiving emails related to the SharePoint starting in December 2008 and continuing through this current cycle in March 2009. The emails included requests for access to specific areas of the SharePoint, assistance in content building, acknowledgment of the use of the SharePoint, inquiries into specific process steps related to using the SharePoint, and general feedback about the SharePoint. There were also emails with positive comments about ways in which I was using the SharePoint in my work. These included several instances when I created a SharePoint wiki to host shared content for a colleague so they did not have to receive the input in disparate email communications and merge it manually. (See Table 2)
Table 2:
| Email Type
|
Count |
| Positive reaction (including thank you’s) | 9 |
| General question/comment | 5 |
| Request for assistance | 4 |
| Negative reaction | 2 |
One of the most significant pieces of evidence for my cycle came when I sent a thank-you email to a colleague for adding some nice branding graphics to the site. This colleague was just getting started with the SharePoint and had been resistant to moving to the new tool in the beginning of the process and they were happy that I noticed their work and replied with a positive comment for me taking notice of their efforts. This felt like a good indication of my colleague feeling included in the process, which Wenger (1998) has indicated as important, “Being included in what matters is a requirement for being engaged in a community’s practice, just as engagement is what defines belonging.” As a note, I have not received any negative email correspondence regarding the use of the SharePoint by my team.
Observable Behavior:
Throughout my second cycle I continued to use my Action Research notes to catalog and reflect on the observable behaviors of others on my team and within my organization to gain a deeper understanding of how my actions affected those around me and what I can learn from their reactions and subsequent actions. These reflections indicate a steady increase in interest and use of the SharePoint, particularly by some of those who had not engaged in the use of the wiki during my first Action Research Project cycle. This has been a significant change within my field of action. What seems to be remaining the same throughout the narrative created by these reflections is the continued need to prompt most of my colleagues to use the SharePoint when working on knowledge building processes. The data in Table 3 represents a period of time between 12/1/08 and 3/31/09 which encompasses the time frame leading up to and directly after my second cycle action.
Table 3:
| Noted Behavior
|
Count |
| Expressed interest or positive reaction | 6 |
| Request for assistance, help, or input | 5 |
| Negative comments or reaction | 2 |
Team Discussion and Dialogue:
Discussion and dialogue within my team created much of the foundation for my action. These took place at various times and in various contexts within my daily interactions with my colleagues. Significant discussions were cataloged in my Action Research Reflection notes. Two of the key team conversations related to my second cycle were the pre-learning session dialogue that I facilitated with my team to capture their desired learning outcomes for the Communities and SharePoint learning session and the learning session itself. I was able to use my reflections to capture these events and the impact they appeared to have in my field of work.
In February I had 15 minutes on the agenda of our team staff meeting and used that time to introduce my plans for a Communities and SharePoint learning session. I had noticed that many individuals on my team did not seem to be knowledgeable of the new SharePoint or how to use this tool. With the help of one of my colleagues I collected what areas of interest my team had regarding the topics of Community and also the SharePoint. In this way I hoped to focus the learning session on the needs of the group. The outcome of the session was a strong list of items to include in the learning session. There were also several positive comments noted by team members about the potential for using the SharePoint for our team processes.
The learning session took place on March 19 and I commented in my research notes as to how happy I was with the results of the session. The session was facilitated by three of my team members one of whom lead the Communities discussion with the other two demonstrating some ways in which the SharePoint could be used and also leading some hands-on activities in the SharePoint. I would have liked to see more structure in the session as there were a few moments when some of the participants were losing interest – particularly during the “Communities” discussion. As we moved into the more hands-on portion of working with the SharePoint the energy level picked up quite a bit and there was some good interaction and learning within the group. As my notes reflected, I was happy with the results of the session, and two individuals approached me after the session with ideas for how we might use the SharePoint in our team.
SharePoint Participation:
The SharePoint tool provides visibility into data related to use of the SharePoint over a period of time. While it is difficult to assign a specific value to the data in terms of how it may or may not indicate growing participation within a Community of Practice, the results do allow for a comparison, over time, of use of the tool in particular. The following two graphs provide data related to unique visitors to the SharePoint day-by-day for the past 30 days, and on a monthly basis. Figure 2 indicates an increase in unique users on the SharePoint during the week that the Community and SharePoint learning session was held. The week following the session shows an increase in unique users that is generally higher on average than in the weeks prior to the session. Figure 3 indicates a steady increase month-over-month of unique users per day of the SharePoint.
Figure 2: The number of unique visitors to the SharePoint site from February 27 to March 27.
Figure 3: The average unique users per day over a four month period.
Reflection:
The second cycle of my Action Research Project was much faster than my initial cycle, although there is enduring quality to the action (as with any action) that I will continue to study and gain further insight into over an unforeseen amount of time. The main difference in this case was my focus on a particular aspect of learning for my team, as opposed to a more general question of the adoption of a new tool into our team’s processes. I am planning to provide one-on-one learning sessions and interviews for my team as a next step in my process. In this way, I hope to gain a deeper understanding of individual reactions to both the SharePoint and community-building processes and also to engage my team in helping me define how to evaluate the success of these efforts. While this step is a natural extension of what was started with the Communities and SharePoint learning session I will be looking at is as a distinct action for my third cycle.
As I reflect on the outcomes of my second cycle I find myself invigorated by the initial success that I am seeing in openness to the use of new tools and processes that support the social construction of knowledge. Unlike my initial Action-Reflection Cycle, which was much more about trying to get others to do something by heavily advocating, this cycle was oriented toward the invitation to participate. Lave and Wenger (1991) have described this process of inclusion as legitimate peripheral participation indicating, “It concerns the process by which newcomers become part of a community of practice (p. 29). During this second cycle I placed an emphasis on encouraging dialogue rather than focusing on discussion or debate of the concept of using the SharePoint and engaging within the communities that exist within our organization. I placed an emphasis on listening as deeply as I could to others, as Isaacs (1999) indicated in his work with dialogue, and avoiding placing judgments on their comments to draw out new ideas and allow others to fully share their opinions and feel more included in the decisions and progress.
By openly bringing my team into the process of building and sharing knowledge about communities and the SharePoint I saw a greater sense of ownership and willingness to participate. This was evidenced by the proactive updating of the team SharePoint by an individual on the team and the positive affirmations to using the new tool and interacting with the broader community to collaborate indicated through the survey responses and observational evidence. True dialogue took place during many of the interactions in this cycle as ideas were expressed and built upon to create a new, shared understanding of who our team was in relation to the larger organization and how we might use new tools to further our opportunities to tie into the overlapping communities that exist. Throughout this process I began to see myself move from a role of “Community and SharePoint Advocate” to the facilitator of opportunities to learn together about the possibilities for collaboration and social knowledge building available to all. This move to a place of facilitation in the social learning context aligns with Dewey’s (1938) assertion about the social nature of learning. He states that, “When education is based upon experience and educative experience is seen to be a social process, the situation changes radically. The teacher loses the position of external boss or dictator but takes on that of leader of group activities (p. 59). This shifting role from advocate to facilitator has allowed my team members the room to experience the tool in their own way and share this learning with others. As members of my team begin to discover new methods of using the SharePoint and pass that information on to the rest of the team their willingness to participate in the use of the tool increases in the process.
My initial cycle in my Action Research Project felt much more adversarial at points with a clear distinction between those who embraced the wiki, those that resisted openly, and those that simply found no particular draw to it for a variety of reasons. The approach I have taken in this cycle of enlisting others, allowing room for individual ownership, and creating forums for open dialogue has a completely different feel about it that focuses toward bringing together disparate ways of thinking, rather than creating a divide based on disagreement. This new approach has yielded greater results in terms of tool adoption as I believe the members of my team are feeling welcomed into the SharePoint “club” in a more formal way than with the wiki during my previous cycle. My belief is that this level of welcoming is what has lead to spontaneous interaction with the SharePoint by team members that had resisted using the wiki. When others feel they are seen as valuable members of the group with skills and talents that are useful to the team they are more likely to feel empowered and participate. While I am seeing results from a tool standpoint I still feel that I need to look deeper for evidence of a developing Community of Practice forming. This is an altogether more difficult distinction to measure and will be the primary focus of my third cycle. As I look back on this second cycle what stands out most clearly is the new sense of team I see forming around the concepts of Communities of Practice and the SharePoint tool. My first cycle was much more about divided groups using the tool, this cycle has a more cohesive feel as my team has come together in the process through the learning session and now has a more shared understanding of both communities and the SharePoint as a result. Part of a Community of Practice is having a shared history and this helped to begin creating that shared history about these topics.
In terms of my internal development I am continuing to note a more positive approach to situations and a willingness to listen more openly to others as they fully express their thoughts and ideas. The focus we have had this trimester on dialogue versus discussion or debate has helped me to begin to identify areas where I am weak in terms of deep listening and suspending judgment of challenging opinions. It is a slow process as I work to embrace behaviors that encourage the open, non-judgmental building of dialogue with my team and I am grateful for the positive examples I see of this process through my work with my cadre in the OMET program. My Learning Circle, in particular, has been a place where I have seen strong examples of dialogue happening that builds toward not one person’s view, but toward a shared understanding constructed through candid, non-combative conversation where individuals are listened and responded to with respect. I would like to bring this type of dialogue into my work through my actions. As I think about my values and how I can bring my work into alignment with them, I see quality dialogue moving up on the list of desired outcomes.
| Action Research Home | | Literature Review | | Cycle One | | Cycle Two | | Cycle Three | | Final Reflection | | References | |