Methods for mapping operational proximity in professional learning networks

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