Home

Bluesky · LinkedIn

Tag: microblog

  • Tweeting For Learning

    Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011

    F Gao, T Luo, K Zhang – British Journal of Educational Technology 43.5 (2012): 783-801.

    I came across this article when searching for microblogging papers. It is a useful article in that it summarises the research done between 2008 and 2011 on microblogging, or more succinctly, microblogging in education (MIE). It is worth a read due to the design of the study. What the authors did was to try and look specifically at evidence for the benefit of MIE whilst excluding opinion pieces and review articles. During my various searches, I have come across a lot of opinion pieces which although relevant, do not always provide the evidence for benefit. This paper is essentially a systematic review. Due to the variety of the included studies, it isn’t a meta analysis but it does provide a nice summary. One can delve further into the individual studies if one wants to and I hope the title above links to a free text version of the paper.

    The article attempted to answer 4 research questions:

    1. What types of research were conducted on MIE?
    2. How was microblogging used for teaching and learning in these studies?
    3. What educational benefits did MIE have on teaching and learning as identified in these studies?
    4. What are the suggestions and implications for future MIE research?

    The method involved is one of the clearer descriptions I have read in a paper for a while and I would recommend reading this part of the paper. Four rounds of searches identified a total of 21 papers which met the criteria for inclusion. They were then analysed. Reassuringly some of the papers I have already reviewed plus ones which are pending were included in the datasets so I did feel a bit smug. It rated the paper by Ebner et Al as having greater validity (sample size, duration etc). Another rated highly is by Kop et Al available here which I haven’t read yet. The submission date in October is getting closer and every time I scratch the surface, another paper pops up.

    RESULTS

    The article described the papers included. These varied in several ways. For example a couple explored microblogging in the context of a conference and the positive effect of real time feedback and questions to the lecturer/presenter. Most were set in higher education. The sample size varied greatly. My own view is that this is less important as these tend not to be quantitative studies. The duration varied as well. A conference or lecture may only last a few hours yet some of the interventions extended to 2 semesters. Ebner’s study lasted 6 weeks yet was very labour intensive & meticulous. It also drew some very balanced conclusions.

    The areas further identified and explored by the authors are: Who is participating? When to learn? What to learn? How to learn? Participation and Engagement; Reflective thinking; Collaborative learning.

    The ‘who’ and ‘when’ are fairly straightforward. Examples of who given include delegates at conferences and the when is essentially at anytime. The concept of education when & where you want it. MIE has been used for informal communication outside of the classroom sustaining engagement by posting updates and relevant links.

    A lot of the positive benefits of MIE have already been described when looking at collaboration and these are all positive effects in the studies looked at. The remaining ‘how’ is a bit more interesting. ‘Fostering interactive activities’ and ‘encouraging informal learning’ are known strengths of MIE. The main educational effect from the review was the development of learning communities, promoting interaction between conversations between students as well as students and teachers. MIE is not meant to be a conversation tool but using the @ prefix achieved this. My own experience is that this is not the case but by flagging with a #, response and conversations are more likely. Apart from all these, there was no objective evidence on the educational impact of MIE. For example better scores in assessments. This is discussed in their future research suggestions. Only one of the studies was experimental, the rest being descriptive. This is what I am finding. Whilst these studies are important, it would be good to find an experimental study which perhaps compared marks with & without a Web 2.0 tool. This would be dependant on students being without their smartphones for a period or not using SNS, something which may prove more challenging.

  • MICROBLOGS IN HIGHER EDUCATION – A CHANCE TO FACILITATE INFORMAL AND PROCESS-ORIENTATED LEARNING?

    Ebner, Martin, et al. “Microblogs in Higher Education–A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning?.” Computers & Education 55.1 (2010): 92-100.

    Free text available here if you register with Researchgate.net which I did.

    The study

    This is an interesting study if only as an attempt to provide objective evidence of the educational impact of microblogging in two areas of learning. It analysed the microblogging entries of a group of business students (full time & part time) at an Austrian University. The students undertook a ‘New Media and Multi-Channel Management’ module as part of the research. This was undertaken as an additional item of study at a busy time during a semester when the students were taking up to 5 parallel course subjects. Students had to use two type of new media – microblogging (MBlog) and Wiki (MediaWiki) – in order to collaborate, communicate and produce business plans. A bit like big brother, the entries on the blog & Wiki were analysed weekly over a 6 week period and categorised into 8 different subtypes (for example, including a hyperlink, content reflects a discussion about the topics of the course subject). In total, 11214 posts from 21 full time and 13 part time students were analysed. To support the extra workload of the students engaging with the module, more of the credit points for this module were awarded on the process, less on the actual business case presentations. The students were told of this.

    Theoretical Background

    I had come across informal learning before in my studies. One of the best examples I used with a previous student was the informal learning that takes place in the medical centre when a new doctor is posted in. The new doctor will be fresh with ideas, certainly up to date with medical knowledge and keen to make a mark. However, what they may not know certainly in a military context is how a job may affect a soldier’s medical condition and vice versa. Therefore time spent either with the medics or with the soldiers will allow them to learn about occupational aspects of their patients’ role through social interactions. The formal curriculum may teach them about PTSD; the informal curriculum may give insight into the horrific experiences of young soldiers especially in Afghanistan by talking and working with them.

    I knew roughly what process orientated learning was but sought clarification. From Wikipedia: Process Orientated learning is a pedagogical method in which students are encouraged to use process skills such as collaboration and written expression. Whilst reading this, I came across the term Positive Interdependence . This is where ‘members of a group who share common goals perceive that working together is individually and collectively beneficial, and success depends on the participation of all the members’. Negative interdependence is the opposite and reminded me of the McLaren Mercedes F1 ‘Team’ of Louis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg (‘individuals can only achieve their goal via the failure of a competitor’).

    Results

    By analysing the types of posts after they had been sub-divided, the authors attempted to assess what sort of learning had gone on. Positive outcomes were that students chatted a lot & communication levels went up through the 6 week observation period. This causally demonstrated informal learning and collaboration. The use of hyperlinks went down suggesting students were sharing factual information initially but less so as the period went on. Coursework discussion also increased suggesting positive interdependence. However, and it is a big however, the authors noted when they analysed the posts for evidence of process orientated learning, the students tended to use microblogging as an alternative medium for collaboration because they had to. With the number of posts being so high, the authors were suspicious the students were playing the game. There was no reflection on how the medium itself was changing the way they were working. I am really not surprised here as when a student is told the majority of the marks would be awarded for process, of course they will use the medium. The authors acknowledged this but possibly missed a trick but not blinding the marking system. However this in itself may have been on ethically dodgy ground.

    I also wonder what outcomes the students were told about. Were they asked to reflect on the use of the media itself or were they asked to use the media as method of collaboration. To be honest I have read the article several times and am still none the wiser. In their summary they quote McLuhan’s focus of ‘The Medium is the Message’ which I take to mean the research was about the medium of microblogging itself. They commented that the students did not reflect on the impact of microblogging on the way they were working. I have some sympathy with the students here. They are not educationalists interested in the deeper understanding of why microblogging might help. I tried reading McLuhan’s article but got to a bit about light bulbs having no message when my own light failed, late last night (or was it the red wine). I will try again this weekend & post any nuggets of educational wisdom as comments.

    What does this mean? The authors come up with valid conclusions that microblogging has potential to increase informal learning and that the collaboration which has taken place suggests it can be a catalyst for process-orientated learning. It does need more research however. It would have been interesting for example to have compared the outcomes (the business plans) from two groups, one using microblogging and one not then marked these with the assessors being blinded to which ones they were assessing. This would not have measured processes though, just outcomes. There is also an assumption made that lots of communicative posts indicated collaboration. It may just have been students gossiping although to their credit, the authors spent a large amount of time analysing the posts.

    This article made me think what am I try to achieve by blogging my critical appraisals and my article reviews? I am essentially making public the processes I am going through whilst writing my assignment (alongside the PBSGL). I reflected on this last night & came to the conclusion that I am really just throwing things into the mixer and seeing what comes out. This may all end with nothing (bar me being a bit wiser) but I suppose ultimately I am laying the foundation for my dissertation in 18 months time when I put SNS to the test in the context of peer review of teaching. Should I be looking at process orientated learning where a group of GP Trainers peer reviews the video of a tutorial? Or should I be looking at an outcome where the reviewee has a formative teaching plan based on the group feedback (as opposed to an individual reviewer). To be honest, I don’t know and I’m sure by the time I am writing my dissertation there may well be a new SNS which is the next best thing in education. Certainly exciting times in post graduate education and the thought makes the educationalist (or geek) in me tingle with excitement…