Social Media Practices and Assessment Irreconcilable Differences or True Romance?

Thomas Ryberg

MA, Ph.d., Associate ProfessorE-Learning Lab – Center for User Driven

Innovation Learning and Designwww.ell.aau.dk

Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg University (www.aau.dk)

ryberg@hum.aau.dk

Outline - Social Media and Assessment - Irreconcilable Differences or True Romance?

• Discrepancies in fundamental understandings of learning and knowledge in ‘Web 2.0 practices’ and ‘educational practices’ – Different goals of the practices may lead to tensions and gaps

• Bridging the gap? An example of work-in-progress from Aalborg University– E-Portfolios as bridging mechanisms?– Critically reflecting on the tensions in relations to experiments with e-

portfolios/PLE?

Why social media or web 2.0 in education• Some of the keywords from the tech-ed buzz-o-sphere:

• Realised through use of: Blogs, wikis, social bookmarking etc.• However, web 2.0 is not just use of specific technologies

Web 2.0 ’Progressive’ education (since 19XX)

User-driven Learner-centred

Collaboration Collaborative learning

Participation Active students vs passive recipients

2 -way communication Dialogues and interaction

Creating and sharing Knowledge construction vs acquistion

Bottom-up Ahierarchical, flat – students as co-producers

RAISE YOUR VOICE

• OK – but where? Comments are disabled?

• A ’true’ web 2.0 use of social media?

Imaginary example

• ”Yeah, I use web 2.0 – – I upload course

descriptions to a wiki. – I post announcements in

a course blog– I maintain a repository of

quality links on delicious for students to consult

• But can students edit and contribute?

• A ’true’ web 2.0 use?

Practices – not technologies

• Use of social media not only using particular technologies – rather it is about adopting certain practice form and ’ideals’

• However, the underlying logics of these practice forms might sit uncomfortably within education

”The centrality of participation, production, dialogue, and collaboration in Web 2.0 practices seemingly make them ideal as elements in programmes focusing on the learner’s active engagement, individually and/or collaboratively, as a prerequisite for learning. On the other hand, from the practice perspective, the fact that one uses certain technologies, for example, wikis, blogs, tagging, and so forth, in one’s teaching does not in itself make the resulting educational practice “Web 2.0”” (Dohn, 2009)

Two different logics

• Two logics or metaphors for learning explored by (Dohn, 2009) drawing on (Sfard, 1998)

• Acquisition vs. participation• Education largely within the first• Web 2.0 practice largely within the latter• Similar to discussions of:

– Formal vs. informal– Theory vs. practice (theory-practice gap)

Acquisition

• Education fundamentally based within an acquisition logic:– Goal of education is that individuals acquire certain ’things’ (skills,

competences, knowledge, attitudes) which will prepare the individual for future participation in a practice

– These ‘things’ can be acquired in one (out-of)-context practice and applied in multiple others

– The acquisition of these ‘things’ can be assessed– Motivation and Goal is to acquire these ‘things’ as pre-requisites

to participating in a practice – participation to get access to ‘real’, future participation

– Learning is (individual) acquisition of ‘things’ to be applied in practice elsewhere

– Learning is an explicit goal and the premise for the activity

Participation

• Web 2.0 and social media use mainly formed within a Participation logic– Goal and motivation is internal to practice - participation,

communication, knowledge production for it’s own sake (rather than fulfilling external goals)

– Knowledge is dynamic and distributed – knowledge is knowing-together in practice – not confined to individual

– Competence equals competent participation in a particular practice – it’s competent action as recognised by others within that practice

– Knowledge is situated (what constitutes knowledge is relative to a situation or practice) – different knowledgeabilities

– Learning is an outcome of engaging of participating in an activity, rather than a goal - learning is participation

Can’t liiiiiive - if living is without you

• While many recognise the problems of the acquisition metaphor it also seems difficult living without it

• Even though we know there’s a theory-practice gap – education’s been known to work - – so something must happen or ’transfer’ between

contexts as personal ’somethings’ (or capabilities for engaging with different practices)

• However, the clash of the logics can be problematic

Question in an informal forum for educational practitioners• Imaginary question: ”I never really understood the notion of

constructivism – can anyone help”• Answer: ”The description on Wikipedia gives a good introduction

but also you can consult the edutech wiki, which I think is a great ressource – read more here: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Constructivism”

• Perfectly sensible answer – providing some resources for the others

• Patchwork texts are OK• Participation can also mean just a few edits in a Wiki and updating

some links• Blog posts can be personal (unsupported) viewpoints

Exam question to student

• Question: ”Please explain: what is constructivism?”• Answer: ”Dear Prof – thanks for your excellent question - I

think the description on Wikipedia gives a good introduction but also you can consult the edutech wiki, which I think is a great ressource – read more here: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Constructivism”

• Well…actually you were meant to write something, which:– others have described much better– and which will not actually contribute to any ongoing practice

or help anyone apart from getting you through your exam– And many of the examples mentioned before would be

problematic

Central tensions (From Dohn, 2009)• What happens when

– Internal goals of participation, communication, knowledge construction, and knowledge sharing subsumed under external goal of acquiring the knowledge and competence necessary for their future working life

– Dynamic and distributive views on knowledge and competence enrolled in an individualistic, objectivistic view of knowledge and competence

– Learning as participation understood as a means for realising learning as acquisition

– Source: Dohn, 2009• Different logics as to what constitutes meaningful, relevant

and satisfying participation and contributions

E-portfolios as bridging mechanisms?• Experiments in Aalborg University within the programme Human Centred Informatics (HCI)

together with Helle Wentzer - context• Larger number of students and wish to support:

– Reflections on philosophy of science – Philosophy of science in new curriculum assessed through portfolio on 6th semester

– Development of a ’professional identity’ – what does it mean to be a student from HCI– Creating Social Awareness among students (200 students)– Create transparency and mass-collective learning (new achitectures for learning)– Support more active engagement – learning activities as a supplement to lectures

(discussion, reflection, sharing of ressources)• Based on experiences with ’Ekademia’ (2007-2009) (Ryberg et al, 2010)

– Initiated by Helle Wentzer andThomas Ryberg– Run on the social network engine (Elgg)– Students missed stronger connections between teaching and voluntary activities in

Ekademia– Lack of goals and assessment (voluntary activity)– Used primarily for group work

ICT systems on 1.sem HCI

• Two systems (that integrates in many ways)– Moodle (course management-system)

• Overview of entire programme, the semester and courses• General HCI related communication - semester- and course

communication– Mahara (portfolio – or PLE if you will)

• Customisable personal profile & dashboard• Portfolio and digital cv (e.g for future employer)• Group work, thematic groups, student created groups• Social network• Exchange and inspiration• Creation of transparency btw students, groups and students

and lecturers

Experimenting with the open source e-portfolio-system mahara• In Mahara (mahara.org) you can form social connections

(friend-lists, wall-messages, private messaging)• Create blogs and write post• Create a profile site others can see (and customise the

contents of this)• Upload and share files (pictures, documents etc)• Create group rooms (forums, shared files)• Create views (portfolios)• Views are custom built presentations of content (a profile is a

specific type of view – as is the ’dashboard’)• Views can be shared with whom you want or can be kept

private

Creation of portfolios and development of professional identity• Course on Media, Communication and Society

– Assessed through ’active participation’ - 5 small reflective posts in student’s Mahara-blog – collated as a ’portfolio’

– Some post to be part of the Philosophy of Science portfolio

• In relation to Philosopy of Science lectures– Blog posts discussing different views of

knowledge and research• Blog-posts, documents, pictures and other

ressources can be produced and presented in different portfolios (’views’) – (re)presentations of content

• Development of ’professional’ identity over time and portfolio

• Has resulted in ongoing reflections from students and interesting insights into students’ understanding of various questions and problems!!!!

Enabling transparency and social awareness• In profiles on Mahara – content and

external ressources can be imported (RSS)– External blog– Relevant blogs– Social bookmarks– Publication from inst. repository– Videoea– Documents etc

• Groups have ’profiles’• Intention to enable transparency and

knowledge exhange among students (ambient awareness) – 200 people finding and sharing HCI-related ressources

• More on transparency (Dalsgaard, 2006, 2009, Dalsgaard & Paulsen, 2009)

Some tensions and questions• Internal motivation vs. external motivation – will it be experienced as a personally

meaningful, reflexive learning space or a place to hand in assignments to pass exams?– Will motivation to work with the e-portfolio vanish if it’s not mandatory – and if there’s

no feedback from lecturers? Earlier experiences seem to indicate that– Is mandatory reflection and development of portfolios fundamentally contradictory to a

’participationist web 2.0 view’– A practical problem – how to engage and interact meaningfully with 200 students –

need for peer-assessment? • Are we glossing over the fundamental in-equalities of power by adopting seemingly

’participatory’, ’user-driven’ technologies• What will be the quality of the reflections: ‘dear diary’ or critical reflections – problems with

genres of activities?• Student’s have difficulties using the system (critical view on digital native rhetoric)• Creating transparency – mechanisms not the best for overviewing activities in the system

(not the facebook-news feed)– Little exchange and ambient awareness? How to support and encourage?

• Social glue, profiles and CV – in competition with Facebook og LinkedIn?• What do the students think – reflecting on their own use of technologies as part of the

course – reflexions will be used for further research

References

• Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm  

• Dalsgaard, C. (2009). From transmission to dialogue: Personalised and social knowledge media. MedieKultur, 46. Retrieved from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/mediekultur/article/view/1333/1486  

• Dalsgaard, C., & Flate Paulsen, M. (2009). Transparency in Cooperative Online Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1492.  Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/671/1267

• Dohn, N. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343-363. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8  

• Ryberg, T., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Jones, C. (2010). Catering to the Needs of the "Digital Natives" or Educating the "Net Generation"? In M. J.W Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (pp. 301-318). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://resources.igi-global.com/marketing/pdfs/lee/16.pdf