Guest Speaker Session - The 2nd and final session

The second and final Guest Speaker session took place last night and it gave me yet another opportunity to share my research on peer mentoring, delving deeper into the topic of implementation and  ending the session by outlining a recommendation to the programme team to introduce a Buddy scheme on the BOE( Blended and Online Education) programme ran at Edinburgh Napier University - MSc BOE Programme. 

In one of my previous post I discussed the Phases of Engagement Model Conrad, R., and Donaldson, J. (2011).  This model had much more of an influence on the overall design of this final session and the amount of interaction incorporated into the design with the goal of  encouraging engagement between the cohorts.  Purchasing Conrad and Donaldson's book "  Engaging the Online Learner" , Update Edition has certainly be a good purchase and I am sure that this will continue to be a useful reference guide as I design more and more online learning programmes. 

Returning back to the session, yet again the shear amount of feedback provided in the chat to my questions was a times overwhelming. This is evidence that the questions posed throughout the session were encouraging the group to share well considered and spontaneous views.  A limitation of using  online interventions for learning is that the audience do not have the opportunity to reflect on the questions,  as much as they would if this were an asynchronous discussion an learning interventions providing the group with the time to reflect on the questions posed.  Was I able to encourage the group to perform at higher levels of thinking as highlighted in Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, 1956)? I believe that through the in sessions questions I was able to encourage the group to think at the higher levels, especially if I consider the diagramme highlighting  a newer version of Bloom's taxonomy in the following link: 

Bloom's Taxonomy

Why do I believe that I was able to foster critical thinking during my session?   Critical thinking and reflection need assessment methods that encourage individual expression and in Conrad and Donaldson's book  "Engaging the Online Learner" , Conrad, R., and Donaldson, J. (2011) they highlight that this may be achieved through the open ended questioning, non graded activities allowing the learning to explore concepts in a non-threatening environment.  The session I held was dotted with open ended questions and if I look back at my first session the asynchronous discussions allowed me to assess the understanding of the group through there replies to the questions posed.  

What did I do differently? 

There were a number of elements that I included in this second session, which I did not utilize in the first session, which came about from the feedback a received from it. So, what was new: 

• More time was spent setting the expectations of the session 
• Housekeeping 
• Clear Agenda 
• Interaction - There was considerable more interaction designed into the session, although this was not an overkill: 
• Polling 
• Open- Mic discussions 
• Chat discussions 

I noticed that this reduced the amount of small talk, which I felt was evident in the first session and encourage the group to discuss the topic being shared in much more depth and not just via the chat, but through the open mic discussions, which ultimately allowed me to have the group moving into the higher levels of thinking as discussed earlier in this post. The discussions provided me with valuable feedback on my proposal, which I can incorporate into my final recommendation and if you are interested in seeing evidence of what I have highlighted in this post, then take a look at the session recording: 

2nd Guest Speaker session - Implementation and recommendation

Resources : 

• Bloom,B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longman
• Bloom's Taxonomy - Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. 2012. Bloom's Taxonomy - Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. [ONLINE] Available at: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy. [Accessed 29 March 2012].
• Conrad, R &Donaldson ,J (2011). Engaging the Online Learner . San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass. 28.

Post Guest Speaker Session Part 4 - Engagement.

It's all about engagement and how this can be fostered in online learning. I touched upon this in my last post when I discuss the Community of Inquiry model Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000) and how each of the  elements of this model contribute towards the final educational experience.  

This took me back to the final module of the PGCert where we discussed various models and frameworks and how they can be used during the curriculum design of blended or online programmes. 

Through the interaction created during the instructional design you ultimately have a goal, which is to engage the group in discourse and then I  thought about one of frameworks we discussed " The Phases of Engagement "  framework Conrad, R., and Donaldson, J. (2011).  How could this framework have been a reference point for my instructional design?   Although interaction is a thread that runs through many learning theories, contructivism considers it central to learning.  According to Smith and Ragan, ( 1999, p 15) the key assumptions are the following: 

• Knowledge is constructed from experience 
• Learning results from a personal interpretation of knowledge 
• Learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of experience 
• Learning is collaborative with meaning negotiated from multiple perspectives. 

This collaborative acquisition of knowledge is one key success of creating an online learning environment. Activities that require student interaction and encourage a sharing of ideas promote a deeper level of thought. 

One of the goals that I have when designing online learning is to ensure a high degree of interactivity and participation a view equally shared by Kearsley (2000)  I attempt to design activities that result in engagement with the subject matter and the fellow students.   Active versus passive.  Is an passive knowledge absorber going to benefit from online learning designed to created engagement with others and the discourse?  Online Learning tends to appeal to the Active learners, who I believe take on the responsibility for constructing and managing their own learning experience.   It's all about learning centered environments, where the instructor, myself takes on the role of generating resources and leading discussion shifts to the learners. 

I took another look at the each of the 4 phases that make up the phases of engagement and tried to associate the phases to elements of my instructional design.  I could certainly see links with at least the first three phases


Phases of Engagement Model

How?  Stage one was achieved during the first guest speaker session with housekeeping, interaction and small talk encouraged during the pre-session period.  Whilst I was working as a Online Event Consultant I would use the opportunity at the beginning of an event and trying for the presenters and audience, depending on size to introduce themselves to each other and this was achieved with larger audiences, by asking them to chat their name and where they were logging from.  Looking at Phase 2  Questions posed during the session request some kind of opinion on the topic in question and clearly a sharing of ideas. Finally the guest speaker sessions allowed for the instructor, me to provide activities that need small groups to collaborate and reflect.  This model has had a much greater influence on the design of the second  guest speaker session a recording of which will be shared in one of my later posts.


Resources: 

• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2(2-3), 87-105. - PDF Full text
• Kearsley, G.(2000) Online Education: Learning and teaching in Cyberspace. Belmount CA,: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
• Phases of Engagement Model - Phases of Engagement. 2012. Phases of Engagement Model Phases of Engagement. [ONLINE] Available at: http://phases.wetpaint.com/page/Phases+of+Engagement+Model. [Accessed 29 March 2012].
• Smith,P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). Uppersaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Post Session Reflection Part 3 - Evaluation

It's all about feedback and I had created my evaluation form using the free version of Survey monkey and this was shared with the group post session. There have been a number of responses to date and I will share some of the feedback later in the post. 

A considerable amount of time was spent deciding on the questions types to be included in my evaluation form and if you need to find any literature on this there is enough out there and here is a link to a number of useful resources - The Evaluation and Transfer of Learning. As your peruse through the evaluation -  Guest Speaker session 14 March 2012 most of you will notice that the questions posed aimed to evaluate the following. 

• Reaction 
• Learning 
• Behaviour 
• Results 

These four elements should not be new to you as they are the 4 levels of  Kirkpartricks Four level evaluation model (1959).  Kirkpatrick has a god like status, but I was interested to see if there were other evaluation models that could be used? I typed Alternatives to Kirkpatrick's evaluation model in Google and was provided with a host other alternatives, but I found the following quite interesting.

CIPP Evaluation model 

Stufflebeam's (1993) model seems to provide a systematic way of looking at the elements of the curriculum development process.  How do you use the model? The model requires that you ask questions in your evaluation about the elements that make up this model 

• Context 
• Input 
• Process 
• Product 

 I took a look at some of the questions that were suggested  and these were nothing new

• Is the time adequate? 
• Do the objectives derive from aims? 
• How well/actively do students participate? 

This model could easily be adopted to a blended or online course. If you are interested to understand how to use this model take a look at the following link: 

• How to use the CIPP model for program evaluation

What else did I consider whilst creating the evaluation form? The questions needed to be easy to complete. I had my audience in mind whilst create the questions. The overall layout was also important and I decided to cluster similar questions, which would save space and time for my audience. 

My experience to date has told me that end of session questionnaires provide  you valuable information on the event itself.  They record the participants' perceptions at one moment in time.   It is all about outcomes, which I did not share with the group during this session, but have noted as an element to be shared in the final session this week.  It is also important to not just consider outcomes in terms of knowledge gains, there are several other outcomes that could be foster and here is a list of them 

• Expanded Understanding 
• Increased insights into what was already known 
• Clarified things that had been learned 
• Refocused attention to a topic
• Challenged thinking 
• Stimulated interest to learn more
• Provided ammunition  to use in an argument 
• Stimulated new thinking 

When I glance over this suggested outcomes and can certainly see where my previous session fulfilled many of them.  The final post will look at the topic of engagement again and I will consider how other frameworks could be used to support engagement in blended and online education, my previous guest speaker sessions and my final guest speaker session. 

Resources: 

• Kirkpatrick D. L. (1959). 'Techniques for evaluating training programs.'pp21–26. 
• Stufflebeam, D. (1983/1993). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In G. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. Stufflebeam, (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 117-141). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

Post Session Reflection Part 2 -Discussions

In this second post I am going to consider the benefits of asynchronous discussions, which have been used to compliment my guest speaker session.  Although first you should ask yourself why should I incorporate discussions into my design?   I compare asynchronous discussions to classroom discussion , although what I see as key to online discussions is the opportunity you are give to think about the questions posed and reflect upon them as well as requiring them to provide either a written or audio response that will become part of the session itself.  There are many purposes for discussions and here is a list of them shared by  (Painter, et al., 2003; and Goodyear et al 2003, cited in Grogan, 2005)

• Provide an open question and answer forum

• Encourage critical or creative thinking

• Reinforcing domain or procedural processes

• Achieve social interaction and community building - have the students get to know each other personally and intellectually

• Validating experiences

• Supporting students in their own reflections and inquiries

I wanted to share the following statements with you, which in its  simplicity encapsulate what asynchronous discussions achieve: 

• Threaded discussions are conversations organized by topics (Swan, 2006). Because they are strictly text-based, students have time to think deeply about their writing before posting comments

What does it achieve :

• This creates a culture of reflection among the class members, and they become much more mindful of their thoughts (Hiltz, 1994; Poole, 2000; Garrison, 2003). 

With all this in mind I decided on a tool to support my asynchronous discussion and posted the questions on the discussion board on the Edinburgh Napier Education Exchange. Questions were posted and announced to the cohort and it was just a matter of waiting to see who would respond? Responses came into the questions posed and I knew the importance of providing a timely and meaningful reply. Why? Well I knew that this would contribute to educational experience of the participants.

Educational experience, this sounded familiar. Well it did not surprise me that the Community of Inquiry  Model Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000) had played a crucial role throughout decision process made and the decision to facilitate a Webinar, which included extensive interaction through questioning  and to support the session with an  asynchronous discussion.   Several words sprang to mind:

• Engagement 
• Reflection 
• Mutual understanding  
• Confirm mutual understanding 

The questions posed during the session required confirmation from the group and mutual agreement and also many of the question required the group to reflect, if only briefly and provide a reply. My interaction with the group during the session helped me to confirm that there was mutual understanding regarding the content being shared and has been apparent in the asynchronous discussion replies to date.  The responses clearly show evidence that there are no spontaneous replies, but well-considered replies, which pose further questions and outline concerns and challenges. Would I have been able to achieve this in a classroom discussion?   Sharing information prior to the session, my engagement during the session and my continued engagement during the discussion hit on the three core elements of the Community of Inquiry Model, which contribute to the overall education experience: 

I looked at this diagram again and could easily making associates to where my instructional design supports this. 

• Setting the Climate  - My blurb announcing my session , links to relevant videos 
• Supporting Discourse  - Questions and discussions and relevant reading, referencing 
• Selecting content   -  Select relevant content for the session relevant to my learning outcomes  

Though a small revelation that I had to share it is time to return to the topic threaded discussions. What I noticed is that the discussion board in Edinburgh Napier Education Exchange  supports flat discussions, although this has not stopped me from using the discussion board to encourage the group to engage and reflect upon the questions posed.  

The power of threaded discussions revisited

I wanted to revisit this topic again as I have seen the success of taking part in threaded discussions and how they seem to be an effective method of encouraging critical thinking (Meyer, 2003). These discussions  seem to be a  great a podium on which the facilitator like myself are able to use this platform to coach and develop deeper and more reflective learning. We are able to isolate  specific elements of content  and encourage the group to exchange ideas a view which is also shared by MacKnight (2000).  What I have now come to realise is that text based communication creates the opportunity for  critical thinking as it allows for reflective rather than just spontaneous discourse (Garrison&Anderson, 2003). 

Alternatives to threaded discussions

Are there alternatives to threaded discussions? With this question in mind I went in search alternatives and stumbled across VoiceThread. What is VoiceThread? Well, rather than me explaining what is it, take a look at the following link: VoiceThread Overview. This could certainly be an alternative to the threaded discussions I am used to.  I am always in search of ways that I can provide students with opportunities for interaction in the online courses I am designing, which not only create environment for learning, but contribute towards the growth of a learning community a view shared Richardson and Swan(2003). 

It seems that VoiceThread as been designed to promote a collaborative development of knowledge, which is achieved through the ability for students to make comments, doodles, recordings and much more and according to Dede (2008) this is an example of the influence that Web2.0 technologies are having on instructional practices. 

Clearly  VoiceThread, like many Web2.0 allows students to particpate in learning outside of the classroom, allowing them to engage in discussions on mutual topics (Yildiz, McNeal,& Salika, 2009) For the examples on the website it achieves the same outcomes as a threaded discussion. When I talk about outcomes, it engages the participants and promotes meaningful exploration of content (Hokanson & Hooper, 2000). I also saw some other benefits for learners that find visual learning more effective to spark interest and guide learning Friedman and Lee (2009) 

Resources :

• Dede, C. (2008). New Horizons: A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(3), 80–81.
• Friedman, A. M., & Lee, J. K. (2009, June). Using VoiceThread as a debate tool. Paper presented at the James F. Ackerman Colloquium on Technology and Citizenship Education, West Lafayette, IN.
• Garrison, D.R. (2003). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Aschynchronous Learning Networks, (10)1, 25-34.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. pdf Full Text 
• Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The virtual classroom: learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive media: Examining the potential of computers in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 537–552.
• Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. J. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21^st century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation.
• MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 4, 38-41.
• Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2005). Teaching students with learning problems (7^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.
• Poole, D.M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computng in Education, 33(2), 162-177.
• Smith, J., & Dobson, E. (2009). Beyond the book: Using VoiceThread in language arts instruction. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Chesapeake, VA.
• Swan, K. (2006). Threaded Discussions. Paper presented at Conference of Ohio Learning Network (OLN). Retrieved from: http://www.oln.org/conferences/ODCE2006/papers/Swan_Threaded_Discussion.pdf
• Yildiz, M., McNeal, K., & Salika, L. (2009, July). The power of social interaction technologies in teacher education. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Washington, DC.
• Zorigian, K. A. (2009). The effects of webbased publishing on students’ reading motivation. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Post Session Reflection Part 1- The Webinar

I had decided to run a Webinar and as an extension to the information shared during the session it was supported by asynchronous discussion. There must have been a reason for taking this approach? Well I have to agree with Campbell (2004) that the reason for my approach is that online learning /interventions influence meta-cognitive as well as reflective and collaborative learning. Reflecting upon this statement I thought about how this would be evident during my sessions and the following helped achieve this:

• Pre-session priming
• Suggestive questioning
• Interaction during the session
•  Asynchronous discussion post session

I really believe that online learning allows us to go beyond planned subject learning to recognize the value of the unplanned and the self-directedness of the learner to maximize incidental learning and improve performance (Campbell, 2004)

My decision to incorporate the above into my instructional design also influenced the role that I as the online instructor took on board. There are 4 roles:

• Pedagogical
• Social 
• Managerial 
• Technical

My pedagogical role had me creating content for knowledge transfer, my social role creating a friendly environment conducive to online learning. My managerial role had me thinking about the logistics of the online session. How long would the session be? What should it be announced? What information should be announced? What were the objectives of my webinar and final my technical role, nothing new to me had me testing the online environment selected for the session, deciding which tools to use during the session and consider the set-up during the session, which I blogged about in a previous post. 

It’s all about delivery and whilst designing the slide deck I had a specific goal pinned to each of the slides, becoming a checklist during the design process. My session would be dotted with questions and I had to think about how I was going to respond to questions, edit them and reply to the responses. I also had to think about how I would influence the group’s behavior during the session, as well as the simple task of ensuring the group could join the session and to motivate them to interact.   According to Coppola et al., 2002 these tasks, which you can label as cognitive, affective and managerial task create an environment for success online.  

There are other tasks important to successful online facilitation a view also shared by (Anderson et al., 2001). I certainly believe that I was able to make a contribution to the following 4 task: 

• Facilitating discourse, which means regularly reading and commenting on student posting
• Establishing and maintaining the discourse that creates and sustains social presence
• Encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions; setting the climate for learning
• Supporting and encouraging student responses; drawing in less active participants; and assessing the efficacy of the process

My following post will look at more detail as to why I decided to use incorporate an asynchronous discussion into my instructional design. 

Resources

• Anderson et al., (2001) Anderson, T. (2001). The hidden curriculum in distance education: An updated view. Change, 33(6), 28-35.
• Campbell, L. (2004). What does the “e” stand for? (Report). Melbourne: Department of Science and Mathematics Education. The University of Melbourne.
• Coppola et al., (2002) -Coppola, N.W., Hiltz, S.R., & Rotter, N. (2002). Becoming a Virtual Professor: Pedagogical Roles and ALN. Journal of MIS, 18 (4), 169-190.

Guest Speaker Session - Session Summary

There was quite a lot of feedback from the questions I posed during my Guest Speaker session and today I spent some time summarizing this to see if there were themes that constantly appeared from the feedback.  The following wordle highlights this

These were the responses the following questions: 

• What are some of the characteristics and responsibilities of a peer mentor?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of peer mentoring? 
• What causes online peer mentoring to fail?

Mentors bring with them experience, they are people that provide guidance, support, show empathy are a people person and are motivational.  It is all about setting expectations both the mentor and mentee.  Not only should you have a clear set of expectations, but guidelines. These guidelines should be for both the mentor and mentee. Guidelines will ensure the success of the mentoring experience.  It is important to let each other know your boundaries and make it clear to what extent you will mentor your mentee. This is two-way experience and the mentee should also set their own expectations as to what they want to achieve through the mentoring.  

A selection process for mentors should not be omitted from a peer mentoring guideline and once on-board it is all about TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING.   There are enough guidelines out there that have been produced by other institutions, a topic to considered in more depth as I discover more about peer mentoring.


Guidelines: 

• Guidelines for implementing mentoring arrangements

The following link refers to a much more detailed guideline, some 204 pages, but covers ever consideration that needs to be taken. 

• How to Build A Successful Mentoring Program - Using the Elements of Effective Practice

Having browsed through this document, which I will read completely soon I wanted to see if this was available as a book and instead of finding it on Amazon or Bol I stumbled across something even more interesting: 

• Mentor

If you are curious like me you will click on the link and land an a great website, which is completely dedicated to MENTORING.  It is a US based site, but the information shared is invaluable, especially the following sub headers 

• About  a  mentor 
• Start a program

I now have plenty to read over the next few days and will be blogger about the implementation of mentoring schemes soon. 


I wanted to hear more from the group that joined my guest speaker session and  have opened up a two week discussion to continue the the momentum that  was created from it. The questions are : 

1. Online peer mentoring schemes have been introduced into many institutions offering distance and online programmes with a specific goal: Sustaining and Retaining students in an online programme. Can a peer mentoring scheme offer more?
2. According to Lacey (1999) a structured approach needs to be taken when initiating an online mentoring programme. Do you agree that there are a range of activities and processes that need to be considered , allowing for a smooth implementation of such a programme to an exisiting degree course?

The feedback provided from these discussions will contribute toward the content of my 2nd and final guest speaker session and be included in the final recommendation that I want to present to the programme leaders running the MSc BOE in Blended and Online Education at Edinburgh Napier University. 

Guest Speaker Session completed

Guest Speaker session number 1 completed.  After several weeks of preparing for my first guest speaker session, an introduction to peer mentoring for online and distance education I closed down the Elluminate session overjoyed with the amount of feedback the session had created.  As much as I wanted to answer the questions and comments  provided during the session the shear number of chats was impossible to follow. On the other hand the feedback provided by the group has provided me with a solid foundation for the second session I will run.

Having hosted webinars before I was in the meeting room early and found myself going to in producer/presenter mode, sound checking, using two PC's and making sure everything was ready for the group, who were about to join my session: 

This was the firs time that I had decided to present from my Mac PC and I was also using my USB Microphone,which I use to record voice overs for online training I produce. Why a microphone,  well every time I try and use a headset with my Mac PC the quality is appalling.  My first attendee joined, Nicky and had informed me that there was a lot of feedback, which was due to my Mac PC and the internal speakers. So, having been a Online Producer before I went into troubleshooting mode and worked through a list of possible resolutions. Plug a headset in and do an audio check! Voila, it resolved the problem, but now the set up was 2 x PC's , 1x USB Microphone and 1 x headset.  I actually switched on the webcam to let the audience see this and luckily the comments were , oh it looks professional, much to my relief!  If you want to listen to the recording here is the link: Guest Speaker Recording

The recording quality is not bad and once you have downloaded the Elluminate product, it will also confirm that a copious amount of feedback was provided by the group.  My decision during the session was not to use too many of the additional tools in Elluminate, but make use of the chat.  Elluminate does not appear at the top of my list of online collaboration tools I would use, as I have more experience of using one of the following 

• WebEx 
• Adobe Connect 
• Citrix, Go To Webinar 
• Genysys Meeting Center

In most cases there are a lot of similarities between the tools and the features offered as well as the  look and feel of the user interface, but I have to admit I find the tools listed above much more user friendly, but this is my personal preference.  

Reflecting back on the user experience from this first guest speaker session I felt that Elluminate as a online tool would not be suitable for online peer mentoring. It is a perfect tool for webinars and meetings and there a other tools that could be used more effectively: 

• Skype 
• Microsoft Communicator 
• MSN 

These were the first few tools that sprang to mind and I started to do more research and came across the following

• Google Talk

I knew that Google would not let me down and I am surely but surely becoming a fan of anything Google.  For the MAC users out there we have iChat, although whether this would be on my recommendations list as a possible tool I am not sure.  The tools a recommend for a peer mentoring programme need to be available to everybody and not be restricted by a computers OS. 

If you interested in knowing about what other tools are out there here are some useful sites: 

• 10 great tools for business communication
• 10 best Skype alternatives 

Considerations to make when decided on tools. The following considerations are going to be crucial to whether I recommended a suitable tool or not. 

• Free or Charged service 
• Operating System bound ( Windows or Mac OS )
• Usability 
• Adoption
• Implementation