Cycle 3: Setting the Stage

" A good quartet is like a good conversation among friends interacting to each other's
ideas. "
- American saxophonist, Stan Getz

Action

During my second cycle, I observed learners' reactions to the media work of their
colleagues and noted their responses. One of things that I found most interesting is that
many clinicians were frustrated by the fact that their colleagues were using media
technology to create useful training resources, but the resources went relatively
unpublicized, and in some cases were difficult to find at all. One of the underlying themes
during these discussions was that there needed to be a centralized place for clinicians to
go and locate online training materials. One of the clinical managers, Audrey, suggested
a Sharepoint site. I was elated by this suggestion because it demonstrated the type of
critical thinking about technology that I have been trying to encourage throughout my
research. Audrey analyzed the benefits and uses of a tool like Sharepoint, and offered up
the idea of using it to host other media.
Gaining access to a Sharepoint site in our organization is relatively easy. We simply
needed to request one and have the developers build it. Because I was publishing all the
media on our streaming servers, all that we needed to do was design the site and add
links to the media. This became the crux of my cycle three action. Audrey, acting as co-
expert, and myself created a comprehensive Sharepoint site to group together media
links for clinical training.

“Expert as Equal”

Since the beginning of my research, I have focused on a message of equality. I

mentioned at the onset that although I have the title of streaming media technologist, I
am looking to encourage all of my colleagues to be technologists in their own way,
regardless of position or standing within our organization. I should also point out that I
am not looking to mold a group of individuals who think exactly like me. I am in
complete agreement with Fullan, who states that, “investing only in like-minded
innovators is not necessarily a good thing. They become more like-minded and more
unlike the rest of the organization while missing valuable new clues about the future”
(2007, pg. 75). The nature of shared expertise is reciprocal. I need clinical leaders like
Audrey to think like technologists just as much as they need me to think like a clinician.
Only then will be be able to realize the true potential of learning technologies in a clinical
environment. That being said, how could we as individuals see past the perceived hurdles
of trying to learn a new skill from someone performing at an expert level? How could we
view each other as equals? Surprisingly, the answer lied in our endeavor with Sharepoint.
I am familiar with Sharepoint enough to know how it works, but not in any great
detail. I imagined that I could have the site built, “tinker with it,” and then begin to show
Audrey and others how to link to training resources from within the site. Upon sending
the IT work request to have the site built, I immediately hit a road block. Our IT
department does not hand over ownership of a Sharepoint site unless the potential
owners complete the appropriate training class. At first, this was very frustrating. I was

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Three - 1

eager to get moving on this project and didn't want the passing of time to allow
enthusiasm to dwindle. However, as I began to reflect on the situation, I realized that
this was an excellent opportunity to bridge the gap of technologist and clinician. I phoned
Audrey and told her how excited I was that we would be classmates.
During my first cycle, I relied heavily on an approach of scaffolded instruction. This
became a theme throughout my research, and the Sharepoint class offered something
very unique. Regardless of my standing as expert in the community, I would be in class
right alongside newcomers. Northouse mentions that, “turning information into
knowledge is a social process, and for that you need good relationships” (2006, pg. 6). In
my experience, the perceived hierarchy of an instructor/learner relationship can act in
opposition to building a strong social relationship. By enrolling in the class together,
Audrey and I essentially removed the boundaries associated with experts and
newcomers, and were able to spend time as classmates, and equals.
Once in the class, we talked at length about the capabilities of Sharepoint and how
it can be used in a clinical environment. Previously, Sharepoint sites had been a place to
host schedules and announcements for a particular department. What my colleagues and
I attempted to do was create an online training community with Sharepoint providing the
platform. Based on earlier studies of social networking and group sites like Ning, I found
that the addition of discussion boards, comments, and blogs within a Sharepoint site
could further strengthen a clinical community of practice built on media technologies.
This became my focus, and something I relayed to my clinical colleagues.
It was here that I got to resume my role of technology expert. I used my existing
knowledge of social media and web 2.0 technologies to work with clinical staff in
determining their goals for the site. I asked them important questions to collect data that
could be used to establish site standards, and also help clinicians assess their technology
needs and determine to what extent they wanted their community members to be
involved. The responses to these questions, along with site usage data would prove to be
valuable evidence of the critical thinking about technology taking place among my
colleagues.

My Research

My third cycle was where I began to feel that the community of practice I was
trying to establish in my previous cycles began to take shape. The first cycle used
scaffolded instruction to make newcomers feel more comfortable using new media
technologies, and the second cycle invited nonparticipants to think about the media
created by their predecessors and how it might enhance their department training. The
third cycle laid the foundation for a solid, sustainable community. Sharepoint provides a
platform for members of the community to interact. Prior to this cycle, there was no way
to establish the feeling of a cohesive group. Users can certainly collaborate on specific
projects or discuss media through email, but Sharepoint can promote the group in a
much more public setting, especially by enabling comments on posted presentations.
Users can visit the page to view presentations, symposiums, demonstrations, etc, and
leave comments and offer direct feedback. The site also increases the visibility of the
media, and delivers the “media repository” that the colleagues from my second cycle
explained was lacking.

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Three - 2

 Fig 3.1

The image above (Fig 3.1) represents a scaffolded approach to instruction.

Reading from left to right, the green portion refers to expert presence, which fades
gradually over time. What I mean by “presence” is control, rather than physical presence.
During the first two cycles, I was maintained nearly all of the responsibility and control
over our organizations streaming media program. As I progressed through my research
cycles, I was able to explore ways of involving newcomers that challenged them to
assume more of the responsibility. I now feel that our streaming media community is
more accurately represented by the bar on the far right. We exist in a community, and
my presence as expert is to offer advice and direction.

Evidence

My third cycle relied heavily on two important pieces of collected data. The first
came in the form of answers to questions about how the site should be set up, and the
second involved my continuing look at overall streaming media usage, and whether or
not the usage increased as a result of the Sharepoint site.
As I mentioned in the previous section, I felt at the start of this cycle that our
learning community was reaching a final stage in the scaffolding process. Taking this into
consideration, I allowed my clinical colleagues to act as experts in the creation of the
site. As site administrators, it was up to them to determine the interactivity and access of
users. I relinquished my role to that of “technical liason,” meaning I helped them with
site administration and page design, but any authoritative decisions regarding the site
were theirs. I felt that, because they still viewed themselves as novices, I had to be
careful how I proposed this. I couldn't simply say, “It's your site, do what you want.”
What I chose to do was ask questions, and hope that they would find that their answers
would determine the course of the site creation, which it did. Below are the questions
that I asked to both Audrey, and one of the other clinicians listed as site administrator.

– “Will this be a one way medium? Meaning are you looking for clinicians to interact,
or are you looking for a place to post training materials for viewing?”

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Three - 3

 – “If the site is to be interactive, do you wish to enable comments on all posted
materials, or would you like to choose on a case by case bases?
– “Do you feel that a blog would enhance the site? If so, how? Would you enable
blog posting to all members or strictly site owners?
– “Who will be added as users?”

These questions allowed for my colleagues to think about their site creation in a
way that they probably had not yet done, and also helped to increase their knowledge
about online networking, page permissions, and website administration. What was
determined from this line of questioning was that Audrey and her colleague wished to
create a site that was open to all clinical staff. Furthermore, they wanted to enable
comments on presentations, as well as create a page to list discussion board topics. It is
here that “interactive conversation” could take place. Blog posting was to be limited
strictly to site owners, and would be used primarily for announcements. Because of the
one-way nature of an announcement, blog post comments were to be disabled. At the
core of the site was to be a navigation menu leading to sub-pages arranged by topic.
Each of these sub-pages would include a presentation title, a powerpoint file available for
download, and a link to watch the streaming media presentation. To many, this sounds
like simple Sharepoint site administration, but in the context of my action research, it
represented a breakthrough. My clinical colleagues were able to make decisions and
customize an online community under the guise of clinical administration. By thinking
critically about site access, blogs, discussion boards, and comments, they were able to
learn more about web 2.0 technologies and how to include online media in their day to
day operations. Once the parameters of the site were established, it was published and
therefore available as a resource for extracting usage data.
The overarching goal of my research has been to increase the use of streaming
media in my organization. The best way to gauge the impact of my research is to look at
the quantitative data generated, which exists in the form of published presentations and
views. During each cycle, I look at the number of overall presentations published,

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Three - 4

without any other variables. Figure 3.2 shows the number of presentation published to
the streaming server during the course of my research.

While streaming media use has increased gradually over time, it is difficult to
determine what might have a significant impact. What jumped out at me was how quickly
news of the clinical education Sharepoint spread, and the actions it lead to. Soon after
the site's creation, I was approached by Kirsten, a nursing manager, about an upcoming
vascular symposium. She explained to me that, because our conference center has a
built in hard disk recorder, she wanted to record the symposium and post each individual
presentation on the streaming server, which could then be linked to from the Sharepoint
site. Occasions such as this were evidence that the creation of the Sharepoint site was
going to change the way clinicians used online media. I offered my help to Kirsten in
recording her symposium, and then encoded the videos to publish to the streaming
server. The vascular symposium, which ran from 8am – 12pm on a Friday, resulted in 6
presentations published to both the streaming server and the Sharepoint site. This marks
a drastic increase in use and serves as a model for digitizing future symposiums. Our
organization's conference center hosts multiple clinical training events per month
featuring renowned doctors from across the region, as well as the world. Taking that into
consideration, it is not unlikely that we could see over 20 additional presentations
published per month as a result of the Sharepoint site. This is an effective way to archive
clinical training seminars for clinicians in other facilities, regions, or even states to
access.
By posting these presentations to the Sharepoint site, we've also opened the door
to new data collection. 6 to 12 months into the future, we will be able to look at the
frequency of comments and how users interact on the site. This data will eventually tell
us more about our workforce and their propensity to use online media, as well as the
ways in which they access it, and for what purpose.

Analysis/Reflection

My third cycle began as something of an enigma. It was the first time during my
research that I was really uncertain not only of the action, but of my role in it. Creating a
Sharepoint site seemed like a great opportunity to make streaming media presentations
more accessible, but how did it really tie into my research? More importantly, after
coming this far, would there be a paradigm shift? Would I be able to realize progress? Or
would my colleagues use me as a crutch in the Sharepoint site development, much like
they were using me as a crutch to create their media this time last year. I was confronted
by the realization that this cycle would not only include an action, but would also act as a
barometer to measure my colleagues' change in thinking. What I didn't anticipate was
having to question my own change in thinking, and whether or not I let my perceived
label of expert define me.
Throughout my research I have focused on my role in defining a new community of
practice. My role of expert was designated not only by my job title, but by my colleagues.
When I took my current position in our organization, I was always introduced as “Jason,
our new media guru,” or “Jason, our new streaming genius.” Don't get me wrong, there
are worse introductions, but I never realized the impact that this would have down the
road. My colleagues were assigning me a label, and as Kierkegaard once said, “Once you

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Three - 5

label me, you negate me.”
When Audrey's idea for the clinical Sharepoint site came to fruition, I found that I
was designated as the “expert” in a field that I knew very little about. While I have
become fluent in online media, I am not a Sharepoint developer. In fact, we have an
entire department dedicated to Sharepoint development, administration, and training. I
am the member of a few Sharepoint sites, but my knowledge beyond that is limited. By
being designated a “technical guru,” my colleagues set a level expectation that I was
afraid I'd fail to meet. My research had come full circle. I was now exhibiting the same
level of apprehension about new technologies that I described in my earlier cycles. So, I
took my own advice. When I found out about the Sharepoint training class, I reached out
to one of the heads of Sharepoint training in our corporate education department. I
talked to her at great length about the class, what I was trying to do with the clinical
education site, and how I could do it. This proved very beneficial to me as it allowed me
to see from the learner side of scaffolded instruction. From this new vantage point, I
found that my label of “expert,” while helping my colleagues, hindered my own learning
of new technical skills. I have been so wrapped up in bringing the best out of my
colleagues, expanding their technical proficiency, and practicing emergent leadership,
that I failed to recognize areas where I myself could improve. I mentioned earlier that I
was frustrated upon learning that I had to take a training class to gain access to the
Sharepoint site. I now realize that this was evidence that I was still thinking of an expert
as a “know-it-all,” rather than a process of progressive problem solving. Bereiter and
Scardamalia state that, “the opposite of expertise is the opposite of progressive problem
solving. That is something we may call problem reduction” (1993, pg. 99). I was looking
to eliminate the problem of a lack of technical proficiency in others, rather than seeking
out new problems to improve my own proficiency. The training class, which I originally
didn't want to take, proved to be the most important event in my cycle.
Sometimes to achieve harmony in a group of colleagues who are operating out
their comfort zone, you must be willing to step out of your own. The Sharepoint training
class provided me with this opportunity, and I feel that it changed my outlook and
approach moving forward. I want to achieve a sustainable community of practice based
on equality, shared expertise, and social learning. By sitting alongside my colleagues and
making myself vulnerable to new experiences, much like I have been asking of them, I
was able to increase my own level of technical mastery and gain new skills to apply to
newly defined problems. I was also able to interact with colleagues on a much more
personal way. If we all continue this practice, we can all operate at an expert level,
regardless of who is proclaimed the “genius” of the group.

J. Melillo – Research Cycle Three - 6