The School of Networked Learning

Founder: Urvi ShahUOIT | Spring 2011

PURPOSE

The purpose of this organization is to develop a community of learners, educators, administrators, families and the greater community to create a school that is rooted in the principles of collaborative innovation and networked intelligence to enhance teaching and learning.

Our school is unique in that it follows the current global trends of collaborative innovation and networked intelligence. We aim to make all members of our community both learners and leaders by creating a flexible ecosystem of knowledge constructors and consumers. We want to empower learners, educators, administrators and families to engage collectively, constructively and collaboratively in the process of providing an education for our learners that is holistic and relevant.

MISSION STATEMENT

Our mission is to create a school that consists of a living network of individuals and communities working together to enhance learning and teaching through collaboration, openness, sharing, integrity, interdependence and compassion.

The purpose and mission statement were development based on two pieces of literature. Tapscott & Williams (2010) state that in order for organizations and businesses to succeed within the current global trends, they must follow these five principles of macrowikinomics: collaboration, openness, sharing, integrity and interdependence. These principles tie in directly with Senge’s (1990) as cited in Smith (2001) learning organizations:

…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together. p.3

Smith (2001) explains that:

The basic rationale for such organizations is that in situations of rapid change only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For this to happen, it is argued, organizations need to ‘discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels’ (ibid.: 4). (¶7)

This school aims to combine the five principles of macrowikinomics and Senge’s learning organizations model to create a learning and teaching environment suitable and sustainable with the current global trends.

STRUCTURE

By combining the Life-form, Cluster and Network Structures, the outcome is the Organic Garden Model.

The structure chosen this school was developed based on the life-form, cluster and network structures in order to move away from Max Weber’s classical theory. This new Organic Garden model structure moves away from Weber’s bureaucracy where organizations follow rules and lines of authority. Decision making and authority is centralized; however, this model proposes a greater degree of distributed decision making and power. The reason for moving away from the classical theory is to tap into the collaborative and networked nature of intelligence and learning (Docherty, Surles & Donovan, n.d.). Current global trends demonstrate that organizations thrive when all members are encouraged to participate, collaborative and connect (Tapscott & Williams, 2010). Hinrichs (2009) explains that:

An important paradigm shift in the emerging knowledge age is the movement from machine metaphors to biological metaphors. There is a focus on the whole and the connection of the parts (pieces) rather than on the whole or pieces alone. p.5

Professional Learning Networks

Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) are made up of all the individuals within a certain area of expertise. The individuals within a PLN can be from any component within the flower. Individuals belong to more than one PLN. Individuals are welcome to move through and within PLNs to give input and to make the organization cohesive. Individuals work within their PLNs collaboratively, collectively and connectedly make decisions, give input.

PLNs are defined as an assemblage of components which influence an individual’s construction of knowledge, collaboration and learning (McElvaney & Berge, 2009). Learners can build their online PLNs by networking with peers, friends, colleagues and professors etc. using Web 2.0 technologies. In the same regard, learners can build their PLNs through face-to-face networking as well. The rationale for developing a structure using PLNs is to allow for non-linear decision making, dialogue and learning to occur between all members of the school community (McElvaney & Berge, 2009). Developing PLNs also allows the participants to be self-directed and critical thinkers. These aspects of a PLN structure are consistent with the purpose and mission of the school which aims to create a collaborative, shared, open and interdependent school.

Communities of Practice

Communities of Practice (CoP) are the groupings that belong within one (green) petal of the flower. For example, the Facilitator of Technology, Director of Hardware, Director of Software, Teachers, Staff and Community Organizations belong to one CoP. Individuals work within their CoPs collaboratively, collectively and connectedly make decisions, give input.

Wenger (2000) posits that organizations depend on social learning systems. He argues that members within organizations participate in social learning systems through engagement, imagination and alignment. A social learning system can be structured through a CoP. CoPs are not a new phenomenon and have always been part of human nature. Wenger (2000) states that:

Communities of practice are the basic building blocks of social learning system because they are the social ‘containers’ of the competences that make up such a system. By participating in these communities we define with each other what constitutes competence in a given context… Communities of practice define competence by combining three elements (Wenger, 1998). Communities of practice grow out of a convergent interplay of competence and experience that involves mutual engagement. They offer an opportunity to negotiate competence through an experience of direct participation. As a consequence, they remain important social units of learning even in the context of much larger systems. These larger systems are constellations of interrelated communities of practice. p. 229

This school’s structure and social learning are modeled about the description and function of CoPsstated by Wenger (2000). By developing formal CoPs, this structure is in alignment with the school’s mission and purpose which is rooted in collaboration, openness, sharing and interdependence.

Network Structure (Stanford, 2007)• Innovative

– All individuals are networked within various PLNs and CoPs• Flexibility

– Collaborative work between Facilitators, Directors, Teachers, Staff, Community, Alumni, Families, Community Organizations and Students

• Customer focus– Create an inclusive, collaborative and connective environment that enhances student

learning and knowledge construction

Cluster Structure (Stanford, 2007)• Does not exist as a physical entity

– Learning and input comes from a variety of sources (teachers, families, alumni, organizations in the community etc.)

• Subcontracting model– Community organizations, families and alumni all contribute their intellectual resources (or

physical) to create learning opportunities for students and teachers • Rapid pace of change

– Developing, collaborating, creating resources, units, lessons, activities, initiatives together as a whole school unit and within PLNs and CoPs

• Decision making and accountability are delegated to those doing the work– Decisions are made within PLNs and CoPs with the end goal in mind (enhancing student

learning and knowledge construction)

Life Form Structure (Stanford, 2007)• Continuously recreate themselves (as the cells in a human body do)

– re-create relationships within PLNs and CoPs• Act from perceptions of where they are in relation to others

– relationships change based on needs and direction of the school• "Conserve features essential to their existence and seek to evolve"

– Continuous growth of PLNs and CoPs• "Learn to tap into a larger field to guide them toward what is healthy for the whole"

– Invite conversation, collaboration, connection and communication between all members of the school shown in the diagram

STRENGTHS

The strength of this organizational structure is that decision making is spread out throughout the various PLNs and CoPs. Online technology such as blogging, tweeting, learning management systems and wikis will help to create alignments and cohesiveness within the organization and throughout the various PLNs and CoPs. Throughout networked PLNs and CoPs, the organization’s structure contains a built in platform for collaborative and connected learning and knowledge construction. By involving the community (organizations, families and alumni) the school can harness the power of networked intelligence and resources. This school aims to enhance learning through collaboration, openness, sharing, integrity and interdependence.

LIMITATIONS

The limitation within this organizational structure is managing time and resources. As many individuals will belong to many PLNs within the school, time will need to be allocated and managed well to allow for meetings, communication and collaboration between PLNs. The organization must contain structured yet flexible schedules in order to allow individuals to participate effectively in the PLNs and CoPs for the growth and development of the school. In addition, the time taken to make decisions is prolonged as PLNs and CoPs need to meet, discuss, collaborate, communicate, reflect on and then share decisions. This added collaboration between PLNs, and between PLNs and CoPsincreases the time taken to make and implement decisions within the school.

DECISION MAKING

Decision making is distributed throughout the organization. The decisions are made at all levels but in particular in the PLNs and CoPs. The PLNs are in charge of making decisions pertaining to their area (e.g. PLN of Andragogy is in charge of developing, designing and implementing a professional development program for teachers and administrators). The decisions that a PLN makes are to be posted on the PLN wikis for all staff to view, make suggestions or give feedback. CoPs make decisions based on their area. Decisions and discussion are posted on the wikis for the PLN to comment on. The decision making process is two-fold. First, the Seedling PLNs and CoPs (Facilitators, Directors, Teachers and Staff within these groupings) draft, discuss and collaboratively constructed decisions. Next, the Seedling PLNs and CoPs come together with the Water PLNs and CoPs (families, students, organizations and alumni) to further construct, gather input and discuss the decisions. The outcome is a combined effort of decision making while still upholding the school’s purpose, mission and goals.

The decision making process is based on a horizontal form of distribution. This means that decision making power is distributed and decentralized among the CoPs and PLNs (Carus, 2008). By moving away from the classical theory where decision making is centralized, this organization can utilize the strengths, ideas and input of a variety of individuals in order to create collaborative solutions for the betterment of the organization.

RESPONSE TO SITUATIONS

Situations are handled and responded to by the PLNs or CoPs in which the situation belongs within. If the situation belongs within more than one PLN/CoP, then multiple PLNs/CoPs are responsible for developing and designing solutions for the situation. For example, a newly admitted student to the school has a severe nut allergy. This school is not currently nut free as there have been no previous students with nut allergies. The PLN for Health and Safety as well as the CoP of Environment would work together through online tools and face-to-face meetings to develop a school plan to ensure the safety of the child with nut allergies. The cross pollination between CoPs and PLNs provides a greater degree of collaboration and thus will perpetuate discussion to create well thought-out and solid decisions. To relate this situation to the decision making process, the Seedling PLN and CoP would first draft possible solutions and a plan of action. The Seedling PLN and CoP would then share their discussion and solution with the Water PLN and CoP in order to create a final decision.

COMMUNICATION

Dialogue and communication is the key for this school’s success. Knowledge is shared and learning is constructed through communication and dialogue through online tools and face-to-face. The reason for both forms of communication is to reinforce distributed decision making as well as to encourage openness and sharing. These are key components within the mission of the school. All staff members are given blogs, twitter accounts and access to the learning management system ANGEL. All CoPs and PLNs are provided with wikis. Individuals post their learning, ideas, thoughts and questions on their blogs or twitter. Wikis are used for posting group learning, decision making and discussion. The learning system is used for posting resources in the form of .pdfs, .docx, .jpgs, .avi, .mov etc. Resources, discussion, decision making and ideas can be accessed by all members of the school allowing for further dialogue, collaboration and networked intelligence.

STRUCTURE INTEGRITY

The organizational structure is held together by the five facilitators. The five facilitators are the leaders of the organization who help direct and facilitate the rest of the members towards the vision, purpose and mission of the school. The directors help to maintain, lead, direct and coordinate functions, activities and learning within the school.

GROWTH AND ADAPTATION

Growth and adaptation is supported within the organization in a large part through the Research, Innovation and Development PLN; however, it is also supported by the facilitators and directors within their CoPs. Changes and growth can be suggested and encouraged by any members in the school and is supported within the Research, Innovation and Development PLN.

IDEA GENERATION AND INNOVATION

Idea generation is supported within all groupings as well as individuals. PLNs and CoPs generate ideas collectively and constructively. The Research, Innovation and Development PLN is in charge of researching worthwhile and supported trends in education, learning and organizational development in order to foster growth, change and adaption within the school. This information is passed on to all PLNs and CoPs. The Research, Innovation and Development PLN is in charge of analyzing, designing and developing projects and activities to move the school in various directions. The implementation occurs within the school through PLNs and CoPs and the evaluation occurs by the Research, Innovation and Development PLN as well as the PLNS involved in the implementing the projects/activities.

POWER AND AUTHORITY

Power and authority within the school stems from the facilitators. The individuals with all CoPs and PLNs hold a significant amount of power and authority within their specialized area. This is demonstrated through the decision making process described in a previous section. Hinrichs (2009) states that “Centralized control is self-limiting. Diversity and innovation thrive when authority and information are located where the value creating work is done” p.5. The reason for distributed power and authority is to ensure and encourage collaborative decision making through networked intelligence. This cannot be accomplished if there is centralized power/authority and decisions are passed from the top down.

FOUNDER

As a founder of this organization, my role is analogous that of the natural elements. My role is to encourage, nudge and support the facilitators in the direction of the school’s goals, purpose and mission. My role is not overt but subtle. As a founder I contribute within the PLNs and help with decision making; however, I do not have the last say. The reason for this type of role is to ensure that the power, authority and decision making is not centralized to the founder. The idea behind this school is to tap into every individual’s intelligence in order to collaboratively build an effective and flourishing school. To ensure that we can move away from the classical theory, this organization does not have a centralized, authoritative leader. Instead, it has a founder who encourages others in the direction of the school’s goals.

SELF-ASSESSING

Since the school is in its first stage of development, there will need to be regular and frequent assessing to cultivate the culture within the mission and purpose of the school. One example of assessment can take place when all five facilitators meet once a month to discuss the strategies in which they helping align their CoPs to the mission and purpose of the school. These discussions will be a platform to discussion struggles, generate ideas and to re-focus on the mission and purpose of the school. Another form of assessment can take place by giving all members of the school (including the students) a survey that asks for them to assess the school’s decision making process, style of leadership, communication and to what degree the mission and purpose is being carried out.

PARTICIPANTS

Retaining Participants

The flexibility, distributed decision making and leadership are incentives to retain members within the school. Members have the flexibility to be part of a variety of PLNs allowing for their voice to be heard on a variety of fronts.

Retraining Participants

Members within the school are retrained through ongoing and relevant professional development. PD will be embedded within the structure of the school and designed to change and adapt with the growing changes and needs of the school. Activities, programs, events, opportunities for leadership will all encourage life-long learning for all members of the school.

ReferencesCarus, N.M. (2008). Organization Design. Retrieved fromhttp://openmultimedia.ie.edu/OpenProducts/organizaciones_i/organizaciones_i/pdf/Organizaciones.pdf

Docherty, J.P., Surles, R.C. & Donovan, C.M. (n.d.). Organizational Theory. In Textbook of Administrative Psychiatry, Second Edition (pp. 33-42). Columbia University Medical Center.

Hinrichs, G. (2009). Organic Organizational Design. OD Practitioner 41(4), 4-11.

McElvaney, J., & Berge, Z. (2009). Weaving a Personal Web: Using online technologies to create customized, connected, and dynamic learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 35 (2), 1-12.

Smith, M.K. (2001). Peter Senge and the learning organization. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm

Stanford, N. (2007). Organizational Structure. In Guide to organisation design: creating high-performing and adaptable enterprises. Retrieved from

http://common.books24x7.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/book/id_22048/book.asp.

Tapscott D., & Williams, A.D. (2010). Macrowikinomics Rebooting Business and the World. Toronto: Penguin Group.