A d c o l o g

Today, I was doing a workshop for the NIACE CaMEL Clinic in Leeds, looking at how we can use social media to work together, collaboratively.  Some interesting issues were raised.  One particular one was around whether organisations should use social media to increase efficiency, if they already have systems in place.

Yesterday, I was chatting with a colleague about the use of a particular tool, delicious.  She had emailed me a link and I asked her, in future, whether she could use delicious instead.  You see, for me, email is no longer my choice of tool for everything.  There was a time when it was, when I relished the fact that organisations could email me everything.  But now, with around 100 emails a day + spam, it’s all too easy to overlook that important link, or decide to do it later.  However, I normally sort out my day so that I can have some time to look at links, so, if someone send me one on delicious I can look at it later then store it, all on the same system.

The problem comes when other people want to use other tools.  For example, some of my colleagues use other tools, like Twine or Digg.  How do they share with me?

The answer comes in RSS feeds (I’ve covered these previously).  By subscribing to the feeds that almost all social media sites put out, I can use my tool of choice and they can use their tool of choice and we can all come together.

That’s not the end of the post though – what if people are happy with the pen and paper or email method in the office?  What if they want to use the ‘back to basics’ tools and feel that these meet their needs already?  The question in education for a long time has been, “If the tutor dopes a good chalk and talk, what value is added by them writing on an interactive whiteboard.”

My answer is one of accessibility.  There are no doubt many people who don’t really like email.  They would much prefer to write letters and make phone calls.  However, the culture has changed and email is now important.  It is important, partly, because everyone else uses it.  If we are going to work across organisations and, more importantly, with failed to engage groups in the community, it is essential that we open up and use these tools.  Why?  Well, let’s look at that tutor with a chalk and talk or interactive whiteboard.  The difference between the old and the new is a training course on how to switch on the computer, the board, how to use the basic tools and how to ask for further support.  This could be done in a matter of a few hours.  In terms of the other staff in the organisation ,it would mean that they could load the chalk and talk sessions he’d done and understand more of his teaching.  They could provide evidence of it to OFSTED.  They could use it to share good practice or provide him with feedback.  The students could download the chalk and talk boards after the session.  If someone showed them, or another member of staff, how to do it, those chalk and talks could be converted into an accessible document for students with various special educational needs.  In short, for the benefit or a few hours tuition, the internal and external communication could be enhanced.  But not if the tutor refuses to take that course.

New tools often seem a great deal more complex and many require a greater culture change than the one described above.  However, the benefits to the internal and external communications are often far greater than the complications of the ins and outs of the new media.  What’s more, when they’re using it, many users who were previously skeptical often turn out to find it efficient, easy and, above all, effective.

Over the next few weeks I hope to find some short case studies of people who were previously skeptical about social technology who have changed their mind.  If you know of any, please email me at k.l.campbellwright@rsc-yh.ac.uk