This years' masters students of Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam were invited to join a social network prior to the beginning of their studies and about one third of them did. Besides showing name, photo and personal interests their profiles also tell which master programme they applied for and what they would like to achieve through that. Users were grouped by programme and could of course become friends as well as leave each other comments. Photos of common activities during the introduction days were afterwards posted on the network.
Usage peaked during the first days of the semester, about 40 of 50 users visited the network. Students had a look at their future classmates, became friends with some of them and left comments on their profiles. Three months later, usage has declined and students make almost no use of the network anymore. This did not come unexpected as the network was primarily meant for introducing students to each other and to coordinating staff. For more study related things, Blackboard is used (which, in the current setup used by the UvA, lacks the social possibilities we were looking for).
Earlier, a similar service was introduced at Communication Science: participants of seminars are asked to fill in their interests and upload a photo on a profile page. By viewing the profiles, instructors are able to adjust the focus of their lectures to the interests of their students. Also, instructors have reported finding it very helpful to be able to view photos of their students beforehand as it helps them learning names and makes the group less anonymous.
A following step could be interweaving these two concepts. Link students to their courses and future instructors, thereby giving students the ability to network with fellow students and instructors the ability to get to know their students in advance.
Questions remain, amongst other, about the nature of networks like these. German Facebook clone studivz is open for everyone, though meant for students only, and has been organizing users based on university and taken courses from the beginning. Contrary to that, Masters of Communication is an invitation based service, closed for the public, and set up by the university itself. Studivz is flexible, students keep using it at different universities, while our small network has been used only once for introductory matters. Should the university keep itself busy with social matters like this? Or should they be left to the students?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Being a student
Being a student in either Communication Science or Social Sciences at the UvA means that you are bound to come across one of the following tasks within your courses. Either you'll be expected to contribute to a blog, to update your knowledge about a certain subject onto a wiki or at least mingle in a discussion online. Maybe you'll be in a community-site. These are all things being done already.
As soon as a student finishes a task, he will log out from the wiki/blog/forum and log on to his Facebook and start being social.
My guess is that there are two identities of a student. There's a student on duty and a student off duty. Once a student's off duty, courses that use social media sites aren't being read or contributed to.
So... should HEI's (Higher Education Insitutions) go and try to infiltrate in the off-duty-student-life? Will they even be able to succeed? Should students be on-duty 24/7?
As soon as a student finishes a task, he will log out from the wiki/blog/forum and log on to his Facebook and start being social.
My guess is that there are two identities of a student. There's a student on duty and a student off duty. Once a student's off duty, courses that use social media sites aren't being read or contributed to.
So... should HEI's (Higher Education Insitutions) go and try to infiltrate in the off-duty-student-life? Will they even be able to succeed? Should students be on-duty 24/7?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Social media and academic research
Yes, a special report about web 2.0 tools within academic research!
It would seem, that due to the “publish or perish” rule, that a significant amount of professors at the university are more driven within their allocated research hours versus their teaching hours. This is not a judgement, rather, for change management purposes it is important to be aware of the drivers and motivating factors amongst your target group. Can we tap into the drive to conduct research, to pull users over the “social media divide” and introduce new tools/methods of sharing knowledge and networking? A tug is necessary in some cases because learning to use new tools, or new methodologies with old tools, requires an initial extra investment on the side of the user.
Are social media tools relevant, usefull, effective for academic research? Hence my enthusiasm about this special report in The Broker, Social Academia.
The first article by Janelle Ward: The impact of web 2.0 on research practices starts with pointing out three major obstacles to the adoption of web 2.0 tools in academic research (my elation subsidied somewhat).
- "First, the formal system of peer review to guarantee the quality of research is at odds with the informal and much more open ways of communicating via online social networks.
- The second obstacle is the ‘publish or perish’ rule – researchers must publish in peer-reviewed subscription journals in order to further their academic careers. This does not fit well with philosophy behind social networking that all knowledge should be freely available.
- Finally, the ambition of all researchers to publish their findings before anyone else, and to secure potentially profitable intellectual property rights, discourages them from sharing work in progress on platforms that are open to all."
I read a premise in these obstacles which I must question, namely that web 2.0 tools are by definition tools which are open for editing and reading for all. Web 2.0 tools or social media tools can be extremely effective amongst a specific group of people. Doesn’t all research build on former research and on the input and inspiration, ground work, provided by others? How many effective researchers truelly function in an ivory tower? Or are there specific characteristics to social scientists (my target group) that make them more probable to work in groups than others?
A subsequent article, also by Janelle Ward: Rewriting research questions whether the traditional manner of academic publishing (peer review by an anonymous group of experts and written according to specific criteria) will be shaken up by the use of social networking tools, in particular wiki’s and blogs. Lots of valuable information about the use of blogs and wiki’s (collaborative writing) amongst academia. Some great examples to exhibit, as well a valuable statistics.
A quote from the article I would like to highlight here, comes from Torill Mortensen, of Volda College, Norway:
"one of the responsibilities of a publicly paid academic is to participate in the public debate. Yes, there should be ways to register blogging in a way that would give us “points” when counting publications, and I am certain this would propel Norwegian academics into a blogging frenzy. No, I wouldn’t turn down the money if I were paid for this. But yes, I am willing to do it, because it’s part of what I am supposed to do."
Reflecting on blogging itself
I’ve now posted three blog posts and am struggling to find time to write my next post. Why?
One of the premium success factors to a blog (success=being widely read), is regular updates. When starting to write a blog, the challenge is also to find your own voice, your flow. Have I found mine? Or will it change drastically over time? I’ve already had one comment about my posts being “so long” which was a valid remark. It’s also about discipline, not finding the time but making the time.
So, when considering using blogs in education, suggesting to educational staff to publish their thoughts, findings, questions, in a blog, I am now reminded that the challenges to blogging should not be overlooked and tools/suggestions to overcome them should be given, as well as realistic planning. For example, when starting out, a group blog might be the best way to start because as I have been struggling to write my next post, Arif filled the gap with the previous post. Thank you Arif!
I am reminded of a previous group blog initiative I was involved in “I collaborate, e-collaborate, we collaborate”. The group of bloggers invited to write were all members of the ecollaboration group, a then vibrant group of practitioners in the development sector in the Netherlands. Even with such a clearly defined community of practice the blog struggled somewhat in the beginning. Maybe others experienced the struggle differently but I think for me the struggle lay in the question of ownership as well as audience. Who (if anyone) is reading what you write? Reflecting on this experience versus the experience of writing for an intranet, where the audience was clear and you received live feedback from colleagues, makes me consider that maybe having a somewhat dedicated audience in the beginning could possibly increase the success factor of a blog. Although, for some, blogging for peers might be even more daunting than blogging for an anonymous audience…
Which reminds me that this is meant primarily as a reflective blog, so let me go on to finish the blog post I have been meaning to write, whether it is as comprehensive as I would want it to be or not.
… I can’t help myself. One more point to remember, made by Christian Kreutz during a presentation at IICD, which he also refers to in this blog post where he stresses the point of using blogging to increase a two way conversation. That not enough discourse is taking place between blogs. I have failed in this up until now. Note to self: comment more on blog posts of others!
One of the premium success factors to a blog (success=being widely read), is regular updates. When starting to write a blog, the challenge is also to find your own voice, your flow. Have I found mine? Or will it change drastically over time? I’ve already had one comment about my posts being “so long” which was a valid remark. It’s also about discipline, not finding the time but making the time.
So, when considering using blogs in education, suggesting to educational staff to publish their thoughts, findings, questions, in a blog, I am now reminded that the challenges to blogging should not be overlooked and tools/suggestions to overcome them should be given, as well as realistic planning. For example, when starting out, a group blog might be the best way to start because as I have been struggling to write my next post, Arif filled the gap with the previous post. Thank you Arif!
I am reminded of a previous group blog initiative I was involved in “I collaborate, e-collaborate, we collaborate”. The group of bloggers invited to write were all members of the ecollaboration group, a then vibrant group of practitioners in the development sector in the Netherlands. Even with such a clearly defined community of practice the blog struggled somewhat in the beginning. Maybe others experienced the struggle differently but I think for me the struggle lay in the question of ownership as well as audience. Who (if anyone) is reading what you write? Reflecting on this experience versus the experience of writing for an intranet, where the audience was clear and you received live feedback from colleagues, makes me consider that maybe having a somewhat dedicated audience in the beginning could possibly increase the success factor of a blog. Although, for some, blogging for peers might be even more daunting than blogging for an anonymous audience…
Which reminds me that this is meant primarily as a reflective blog, so let me go on to finish the blog post I have been meaning to write, whether it is as comprehensive as I would want it to be or not.
… I can’t help myself. One more point to remember, made by Christian Kreutz during a presentation at IICD, which he also refers to in this blog post where he stresses the point of using blogging to increase a two way conversation. That not enough discourse is taking place between blogs. I have failed in this up until now. Note to self: comment more on blog posts of others!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Wikipedia, shun or cherish it?
In light of the recent changes in Wikipedia’s policies I’d like to share with you the little clash of civilisations I experienced when starting my job at the University last spring.
I had one of those 'the world freezes, your mind goes blank, and slowly the first word that surfaces is "but..."' moments. In other words pure disbelief, when I heard that there were teachers who refused to accept references to Wikipedia in papers from students. Who actually gave their students negative advice about using Wikipedia, calling it an untrustworthy source of information. In retrospect it was a moment where two worlds met, and yes I guess you could say clashed, at least in my head.
Up until that moment, Wikipedia was for me a place, a movement that was to be embraced, cherished, valued and awed. The ultimate example of what individuals pulling together can do, open, sharing knowledge, building upon one another, all volunteers, and thousands and thousands of them... The only resistance I had seen up until that moment was disinterest or lack of time to invest. An active resistance or distaste to it, was not something I had been exposed to yet. I guess this says something about the cocoon I lived in up until then, but let me share a bit of what that cocoon looked like from the inside.
It was during a poignant speech given by Ethan Zuckerman at the Web2forDev conference initiated by CTA and held at the FAO offices in Rome, that I felt my eyes were opened to the possibilities of Wikipedia. I’d like to share some of what he said. His full speech is also available online.
Moving from the development sector into the educational sector, I brought that speech with me and felt the enormous potential ahead of me. The opportunity to tap into the knowledge within academia and facilitate activities to get that knowledge out into the wider world. Via, amongst other avenues, Wikipedia (the biggest “bang for your buck”, in the words of Ethan Zuckerman). Then you can imagine how ‘jaw-dropping’ sobering it was to hear that wikipedia was being shunned by some teachers who didn’t want their students “exposed” to incorrect information. In the meantime I have heard that at my nephews school, they also discourage the use of Wikipedia.
In fairness to the anti position towards Wikipedia, I have to explain that the teacher who held this opinion had found an entry in Wikipedia which was incorrect. She took the trouble to edit the information, but her edits were removed and considered not correct. This brings to light the editing policies of Wikipedia. Just recently they have been adapted, at least when it concerns entries about individuals. Otherwise, they must be doing something right if you consider the research conducted by Nature magazine in 2005. They had an expert group of people examine 42 entries and the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
I have been brought up to trust Nature, but this research, widely publicized, was based on the examination of 42 entries. Wikipedia contains millions. But who am I to question Nature, right? They must be right, and Wikipedia must be… hm.
Conclusion: A clash can be a very useful wake up call (no pun intended to my recent car crash…). It was good to become more aware of the critique Wikipedia receives and probably in many cases, justifiably so. But this just drives me to want to improve what is already there, not shun it. Maybe teachers and university students are not using Wikipedia, but the rest of the world is. Let’s improve what is there so that all those people who are very thankful to have access to Wikipedia (think mobile phone coverage in Africa), can also have access to correct information.
I had one of those 'the world freezes, your mind goes blank, and slowly the first word that surfaces is "but..."' moments. In other words pure disbelief, when I heard that there were teachers who refused to accept references to Wikipedia in papers from students. Who actually gave their students negative advice about using Wikipedia, calling it an untrustworthy source of information. In retrospect it was a moment where two worlds met, and yes I guess you could say clashed, at least in my head.
Up until that moment, Wikipedia was for me a place, a movement that was to be embraced, cherished, valued and awed. The ultimate example of what individuals pulling together can do, open, sharing knowledge, building upon one another, all volunteers, and thousands and thousands of them... The only resistance I had seen up until that moment was disinterest or lack of time to invest. An active resistance or distaste to it, was not something I had been exposed to yet. I guess this says something about the cocoon I lived in up until then, but let me share a bit of what that cocoon looked like from the inside.
It was during a poignant speech given by Ethan Zuckerman at the Web2forDev conference initiated by CTA and held at the FAO offices in Rome, that I felt my eyes were opened to the possibilities of Wikipedia. I’d like to share some of what he said. His full speech is also available online.
"The single biggest (bang for your buck) thing you could probably do as an NGO in this sector is to get smart about wikipedia. You do a search right now on food security on Google, the number one match is going to be wikipedia, and it’s going to be there for a long long time. The reason for that is wikipedia is now the 9th most popular internet site in the entire world. […] Wikipedia is an enormous project with hundreds of thousands of people working on it but you can be one of them at a very very low cost of entry. It costs almost nothing for people who are working at FAO to monitor this article [displayed food security on wikipedia] very carefully. This is an article that people at FAO should really care about. I know people get very paranoid about wikipedia; “can I edit wikipedia, can I participate in it?”. The answer is yes, just don’t be an idiot. […] You have to go in and be believable. You have to go in and share information. Wikipedia is a culture of sharing information. The people who work in this building [FAO] and the people who are here for this conference [Web2forDev] know more about food and agricultural food security and things like that than most of the people in the wider world. You are welcome. Come on in, lend a hand. Just do it in a way that is respectful and respects the culture. Learn how that culture works. It is literally the biggest bang for the buck thing you can do. " |
Moving from the development sector into the educational sector, I brought that speech with me and felt the enormous potential ahead of me. The opportunity to tap into the knowledge within academia and facilitate activities to get that knowledge out into the wider world. Via, amongst other avenues, Wikipedia (the biggest “bang for your buck”, in the words of Ethan Zuckerman). Then you can imagine how ‘jaw-dropping’ sobering it was to hear that wikipedia was being shunned by some teachers who didn’t want their students “exposed” to incorrect information. In the meantime I have heard that at my nephews school, they also discourage the use of Wikipedia.
In fairness to the anti position towards Wikipedia, I have to explain that the teacher who held this opinion had found an entry in Wikipedia which was incorrect. She took the trouble to edit the information, but her edits were removed and considered not correct. This brings to light the editing policies of Wikipedia. Just recently they have been adapted, at least when it concerns entries about individuals. Otherwise, they must be doing something right if you consider the research conducted by Nature magazine in 2005. They had an expert group of people examine 42 entries and the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
I have been brought up to trust Nature, but this research, widely publicized, was based on the examination of 42 entries. Wikipedia contains millions. But who am I to question Nature, right? They must be right, and Wikipedia must be… hm.
Conclusion: A clash can be a very useful wake up call (no pun intended to my recent car crash…). It was good to become more aware of the critique Wikipedia receives and probably in many cases, justifiably so. But this just drives me to want to improve what is already there, not shun it. Maybe teachers and university students are not using Wikipedia, but the rest of the world is. Let’s improve what is there so that all those people who are very thankful to have access to Wikipedia (think mobile phone coverage in Africa), can also have access to correct information.
Friday, August 14, 2009
It's all about letting go
I’m developing a community platform for a group of 150+ students from all over the world and I was explaining the tag stream which is being displayed in the platform, to one of the facilitators. At a certain moment he asked; “how can I edit the links or descriptions which are being displayed?” .
This question in itself is of course valid, but it reminded me of the tendency to want to control what a group displays on their own platform. Actually the question raises the issue, whose platform is it? Is it the property of the organizers/facilitators to edit, manage, control what is being displayed? Or is it a platform you provide for community members to show what they want to show and share. That in itself is a decision you take, but I believe a truly social platform or community platform is not controlled from above. At most it should be steered or guided.
Which reminds me of an extraordinary example of letting go. Of course I’ve lost the article which discusses this example (reminder to tag ALL articles which make an impression!), but I read that after being elected, Obama changed his position on one of his election promises which led to furious discussion in one of the groups hosted in his own online social network “MyBo”. The group or forum was not closed down, even though highly negative comments were being posted. Rather it was left open and the group received an official notice from the Obama team explaining his decision.
Letting go is one of the most difficult things managers face with the introduction of social media in a work context. At least that was my experience when I introduced a social media based intranet at my former place of emplyment. I am curious to experience how easy letting go is experienced within an educational context.
“Tag stream”: flow of bookmarks being pulled in from an external social bookmarking platform, filtered by the use of a unique tag. See the tag stream to the left from http://delicious.com/tag/smssc.
This question in itself is of course valid, but it reminded me of the tendency to want to control what a group displays on their own platform. Actually the question raises the issue, whose platform is it? Is it the property of the organizers/facilitators to edit, manage, control what is being displayed? Or is it a platform you provide for community members to show what they want to show and share. That in itself is a decision you take, but I believe a truly social platform or community platform is not controlled from above. At most it should be steered or guided.
Which reminds me of an extraordinary example of letting go. Of course I’ve lost the article which discusses this example (reminder to tag ALL articles which make an impression!), but I read that after being elected, Obama changed his position on one of his election promises which led to furious discussion in one of the groups hosted in his own online social network “MyBo”. The group or forum was not closed down, even though highly negative comments were being posted. Rather it was left open and the group received an official notice from the Obama team explaining his decision.
Letting go is one of the most difficult things managers face with the introduction of social media in a work context. At least that was my experience when I introduced a social media based intranet at my former place of emplyment. I am curious to experience how easy letting go is experienced within an educational context.
“Tag stream”: flow of bookmarks being pulled in from an external social bookmarking platform, filtered by the use of a unique tag. See the tag stream to the left from http://delicious.com/tag/smssc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)