The document summarizes Anthony Cocciolo's research on how the introduction of a Web 2.0 technology impacts the culture of learning within a community. The research studied a system called PocketKnowledge over two years. Results showed evidence that the technology provided a space for a participatory subculture to form, as users were more likely to both consume and contribute content than on other sites. This visibility of contributions online may impact users' decisions to participate and the overall culture. Future research could explore how to specifically design technologies to support participatory cultures and cultural change.

1. Anthony Cocciolo Teachers College, Columbia University www.thinkingprojects.org Presentation to the EdLab Seminar New York, NY

3. Epistemological Background HCI Digital Design & Develop- ment Communications Cog. Sci & Psychlogy Instructional Technology Social Foundations / Commitments Humanities & Critical Theory Or where I am living in my head Sociology

4. Past, Present and Future Projects Social Software in Education

5. Past, Present and Future Projects Social Software in Education Using ICTs to promote civic engagement and democratic dialogue

6. Past, Present and Future Projects Social Software in Education Embedded Computing in Collaborative Learning Using ICTs to promote civic engagement and democratic dialogue

7. Past, Present and Future Projects Social Software in Education Embedded Computing in Collaborative Learning Using ICTs to promote civic engagement and democratic dialogue Learning Management Systems as a way of learning about schools

8. Past, Present and Future Projects Social Software in Education Virtual Worlds Research Embedded Computing in Collaborative Learning Using ICTs to promote civic engagement and democratic dialogue Learning Management Systems as a way of learning about schools

9. Past, Present and Future Projects Social Software in Education Virtual Worlds Research Embedded Computing in Collaborative Learning Using ICTs to promote civic engagement and democratic dialogue Using Social Software to promote behavioral change And health Learning Management Systems as a way of learning about schools

10. Past, Present and Future Projects Social Software in Education Virtual Worlds Research Embedded Computing in Collaborative Learning Using ICTs to promote civic engagement and democratic dialogue Using Social Software to promote behavioral change And health Ubiquitous and Mobile Learning Management Systems as a way of learning about schools

11. 1993-97 : Started software development company 1998: Begin studying Computer Science at University of California Riverside. 2000: Start working at a Technology Consulting Company 2002: Graduate from UCR, begin working at TC Innovations 2009: Defend Dissertation, Looking for the next big thing… 2003: Start taking classes at TC 2005: M.A, Start Ed.D. Program 2004: EdLab 2008: Ed.M.

14. Research Questions How does the introduction of a Web 2.0 technology into a learning community impact the culture of learning? What kind of subculture does a community choose to create within an online environment when no one given culture is given preference? Do it choose a consumer culture, characterized by consumptive interactions and hierarchical social arrangements? Or does it choose a participatory culture, where individuals actively contribute to their cultural and material reality?

15. Does the subculture that gets developed in the Web 2.0 environment impact the overall organizational culture? And…

16. Many Questions and Issues How is culture expressed in an online environment? What activity must take place regularly in the environment to qualify it was promoting a participatory culture? What is a Web 2.0 environment? How do you know you have designed one?

17. Literature Review How computers have been used to support learning? CSCL, Situated Learning, and Networked Learning Approach to Research: Design and Design-based Research Clarification of ICT specifics Web 2.0 and ICTs How have technologies been adopted and diffused across a community? Diffusion, Change, and Innovation What have we learned from past changes in technologies? Historical & Cultural Context

18. Who cares? Design of online environments Possibilities for ICTs to have an impact on organizational cultures Widespread use (Pew Studies) and hypothesized potential of Web 2.0 technologies (from business and educational communities)

21. Study over 2-year period September 6, 2006 to September 6, 2008 2 million+ items downloaded or item description pages viewed ~109K items were downloaded or the item description page was viewed by ~2,580 unique users

23. PocketKnowledge & Web 2.0 Design Patterns Individual users maintain high degree of control High level of community trust Non-authoritative information organization Playful attitude

25. PocketKnowledge & Web 2.0 Design Patterns Individual users maintain high degree of control High level of community trust Non-authoritative information organization Playful attitude

27. PocketKnowledge & Web 2.0 Design Patterns Individual users maintain high degree of control High level of community trust Non-authoritative information organization Playful attitude

29. PocketKnowledge & Web 2.0 Design Patterns Individual users maintain high degree of control High level of community trust Non-authoritative information organization Playful attitude

31. How do we understand the cultural that was created within the environment? Who is sharing with whom? Knowledge sharing networks What is being shared? Network Content semantics Why is it being shared? What caused you to be here at PocketKnowledge?

32. Making Hypothesis Make set of hypothesis that if proved true would show evidence that the Web 2.0 technology is providing a space for a participatory subculture to form:

33. Hypothesis 1 – Knowledge Sharing Networks The Web 2.0 environment prompted the sharing of materials amongst members of the community that were not formally grouped together by institutional structures, such as programs, to a higher degree than people within the same program.

34. Hypothesis 2- Network Content Semantics The Web 2.0 technology promoted the sharing of content that diverged from typical academic discourse within a graduate school of education.

35. Hypothesis 3- Network Influencers Users were prompted to join the Web 2.0 system because of interpersonal connections (e.g., professor, friend or colleague) at a higher degree than non-interpersonal sources (e.g., advertisement, website, or other source).

36. Hypothesis 4- Network Influencers Hypothesis 4: On average, users view the works of others before deciding to contribute themselves.

37. Methods Knowledge Sharing Networks Network Content Semantics Network Influences

38. Results – Knowledge Sharing Networks Time Segment Number of Cliques Average Size of Clique Std. Dev. Of Clique Size 1 280 3.83 1.07 2 291 3.88 1.08 3 329 4.03 1.20 4 324 3.90 1.40 5 293 3.86 1.16 6 227 3.96 1.16

39. Results – Knowledge Sharing Networks

40. Results – Network Content Semantics Academic Journal in field of Education Web 2.0 System

45. Results – Network Content Semantics Ontologies are dissimilar Jaccard similarity coefficient of .18

46. Results- Network Influencers Response Totals From a friend or colleague 359 From a professor or instructor 390 From a library staff member 442 From a library advertisement 79 From the library website 396 Alumni outreach 10 Web search 32

47. Results- Network Influencers Response Totals From a friend or colleague 359 From a professor or instructor 390 From a library staff member 442 From a library advertisement 79 From the library website 396 Alumni outreach 10 Web search 32

48. Results- Network Influencers For the n=630 users who contributed something to PocketKnowledge during this time, on average each of these people viewed 3.86 items before deciding to contribute (with a standard deviation of 3.87). This indicates that on average most users had to view between three and four items from one or more other users before deciding to contribute themselves.

49. Findings & Interpretations Evidence that the Web 2.0 technology provided a space for a participatory subculture to form. Consumption versus Participation

50. Findings & Interpretations

51. Findings & Interpretations YouTube: 0.12% of usage is user contribution to YouTube (University of Calgary). PocketKnowledge: 1 in 5 users contribute

52. Findings & Interpretations What kind of culture was formed within the Web 2.0 environment ? Provide a place where it is acceptable to “not know” and to be able to figure things out Be able to connect with people across disciplinary lines(e.g., academic programs) Continues to be rooted in interpersonal connections Decision to contribution was influenced by consumption of community members work.

53. Findings & Interpretations What is the impact on the overall culture? The willingness to make visible one’s contributions visible

54. Implications What qualifies as participatory culture? Set some parameters, understand network dynamics Do Web 2.0 technologies promote participatory cultures? The biggest impact is that it makes culture more visible and instantiates it into a digital artifact. Because of this increased visibility, this seems to have an impact on decision for people to participate as well.

55. Future Research Specific methods and interventions for using Web 2.0 tools to support participatory culture beyond simply design affordances. Other use of social media to promote behavioral and cultural change (healthy behaviors) Explore what specific design affordances prompt what kinds of behavior Trying out findings in other Web 2.0 systems

56. Thank you. Anthony Cocciolo cocciolo@tc.columbia.edu www.thinkingprojects.org