Profile The "Groundswell" of Collaboration in Professional Learning Communities

In the book Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies, authors Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff explain what they call the “groundswell” and how it in transforming our world. 

According to the authors, the groundswell is..
“A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations.” 

I think, that the same ideas described in the “groundswell” apply to Professional Learning Communities.

The idea of the groundswell might apply to Professional Learning Communities if, replace technology such as Web 2.0 applications (blogs, wikis, digg.com, Facebook, Ning, Twitter, YouTube, del.icio.us, Diigo, Wikipedia, etc) with…Collaboration.

Technology enables relationships. Professional Learning Communities enable relationships too. Professional Learning Communities rely on relationships to effectively collaborate together to increase student achievement. 

The authors of Groundswell describe what they call The Social Technographics Profile. This profile describes how people participate in the groundswell using technology. According to the ladder there are six levels of participants.

I have previously posted here (Technology Leadership Is Literacy Leadership) on how I believe the Social Technographic Profile is has a relationship to literacy.

Now I see a Professional Learning Community relationship.

Groundswell has two main components: technology and people.

Professional Learning Community has two main components: thoughts and people.

Based off of the Groundswell Social Technographic Profile ladder, I offer what I call the "Professional Collaborative Profile" of Professional Learning Community members.

All Professional Learning Communities have creators, critics, collectors, joiners, spectators. Sadly some have inactives as well. They question is how can you harness the individuals on each rung of the ladder to create the most collaboration among members?

In the book Groundswell, the authors describe a simple test to tell if a technology enables new relationships.
1.    Does it enable people to connect with each other in a new way?
2.    Is it effortless to sign up for?
3.    Does it shift power from institutions to people?
4.    Does the community generate enough content to sustain itself?
5.    Is it an open platform that invites partnerships?

Might these same questions apply in some sense to our Professional Learning Communities? Might these same questions relate to the rung your PLCs occupy on the Professional Collaborative Profile?

Comments

[Michael Daehn]

Well done Rob!

[glen westbroek]

This is GREAT! When I look around the table at the Dept. heads at my school, I see only 2 who are Creators or Critics. The majority are Inactive - with a few spectators. Now to meet the challenge of encouraging growth.

[Charles Johns]

Thank you for this post. It brought information to me that I wouldn't have gained otherwise.

So with this in mind, where do we go for the next step to increase participation in 2.0 versions of PLCs?

[Josh Pretzer]

This is very thoughtful - especially like thinking about a PLC through the lens of the five Groundswell questions...certainly one way to reflect.

[Angus Willson]

This is an interesting typology but isn't it rather negative and exclusive to use the term 'inactives'and 'do not participate at all'. If our PLCs are to have any value (human and technological) we should be able to refer to groups in ways that we would find more welcoming and less dismissive. How about 'starters'?

[pporto]

Interesting. We will be rolling out professional learning communities in one of the districts that I work with. I'll be sharing this with the team as a way of looking at the engagement of various people in the process. Thanks!

[Rob Jacobs]

Thanks all for the comments.

Angus, I think you make an interesting point about the term 'inactives.'I simply used the same terms from the Forrester Social Technographic Profile. But, I do think the term has merit. I a district, a school, or grade/subject level team fails to use PLCs, then of course they are inactive. They are not participating, though the research bears out their effectiveness. I like the term 'starters' that you offer. I think that it would fit somewhere between 'Spectators' and'Joiners.'

[Rob Jacobs]

Charles, in response to your question, "where do we go for the next step to increase participation in 2.0 versions of PLCs?"

Technology: Technology needs to better leveraged in PLCs as a way to record, share, enable collaboration across a wider scale than keeping it at the table of the PLC. The ability to reach out to curriculum experts, data experts, etc, in real time could be a huge benefit to PLCs.

Thinking: PLCs need to develop thinking skills such as Creative Problem Solving, Lateral Thinking, effective brainstorming, asset based thinking, just to name a few. These skills will make PLCs more effective.

So, off the top of my head, I would start there.