Evaluation of Twitter and Social Bookmarking Learning Modules
The experience of creating a learning module in a group, and then offering that module to others while simultaneously taking another group’s learning module, was both challenging and enlightening in several ways. It is clear after going through this intensive process how critical the understanding and use of a model for choosing and implementing technology, such as Bates’ ACTIONS model and Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS model, is in making course creation decisions (Bates & Poole, 2003, pp. 75-77).
Assessment of learning modules
While the Twitter course (my group) and the Social Bookmarking course were deployed using different tools, the underlying learning methodology remained the same – the social constructivist method. Both courses were deployed in a central location on the Internet, which allowed both student to instructor and student to student interaction. While the volume of discussion seemed small, it was likely due to the fact that only two or three students were participating in each course. The Twitter course chose Web Tycho as its platform, while the Social Bookmarking course chose a PBworks wiki. Although the look and feel of the platforms differed, they were both used in a similar fashion, with students discussing learning topics, posting questions when confused, and finding links to additional content or websites. This decision by both sets of course developers to incorporate participatory mediums was an important one, as users who are able to collaborate in a social environment are better off than those who are simply receiving static information from an instructor; the “content no longer stands alone” (Lorenzo, Oblinger, and Dziuban, 2006, p. 6).
One aspect that was beneficial in the PBworks format was the ability for students and instructors to receive emails whenever content on the wiki changed. This proved to be a timesaver which allowed for better notification, particularly since there was a major change in the activities for the Social Bookmarking course. A useful aspect of the WebTycho format is the Announcements screen that is shown on login; this screen allowed for students to see the changing focus of the Twitter course elements.
Another similarity between the courses was the use of a synchronous session at the end of the course to allow for a discussion of the course projects. This session was also used by both courses as a forum to solicit feedback. While the Twitter course used Adobe Connect for this session, the Social Bookmarking course used Wimba. Both technologies allowed for audio chat, document sharing, and posting of notes. While these synchronous sessions did not provide a learning environment to the students, it was a convenient way to wrap up the courses. A more advantageous use of a synchronous session may have been to have it at the beginning of the course so that students would be more capable of understanding the expectations, or at some point in the middle, where students could pose questions without waiting for an asynchronous reply.
One difference between the two courses was the fact that the Social Bookmarking course seemed more compact than the Twitter course. The Social Bookmarking course could be viewed on just three primary pages, while the Twitter course required the opening of several threaded discussion topics. If the Social Bookmarking course was much longer, or had many more students, it does not appear that the discussion feature would be robust enough, whereas the Web Tycho discussion feature can easily handle more students. Other discussion features lacking in the PBworks platform include the ability to expand and collapse threads, attach documents to discussion posts, and mark posts as read or unread.
Lessons learned
Academic group work can be difficult as certain members of the group put forth effort in varying degrees. For short periods, everyone participated fully in the group work, yet there was a tendency at certain times for people to work independently, which did not work well for this type of project. As a group we found that emailing each other proved to be a more practical way of communicating, thus improving collaboration, rather than just using the Study Group area in Web Tycho, which is typically not accessed as frequently as email.
As different group members had different strengths, we often failed to properly use, or even recognize, those strengths. The other members of my group included a professor, an instructor/graphic designer, a technical writer, and an instructional designer (myself). Had we worked in a divided labor arrangement, the project may have been developed with less pain and confusion. Towards the very end of the project, we seemed to sense this collectively and we gravitated towards this approach.
The best aspect of our group work came from using Adobe Connect. On several occasions group members met to discuss the different assignments – this collaboration proved to be essential in honing a better working methodology and brainstorming for new and better ideas.
Potential of personal learning environments (PLEs)
A personal learning environment (PLE) is a student’s online system for cataloging, reflecting on, and preserving several forms of learning artifacts so that the student and others can access this information (van Harmelen, 2006, p. 1). As Walti (2004) explains, journaling and creating portfolios has been used for academic assessment, but when incorporated in an online PLE, they become a way for students to become independent learners (p. 157).
There are several tools available for students to create a PLE, including the tool used for the Social Bookmarking course, the wiki. A typical wiki tool can provide for blogging, document repository, and bookmarking of other sites. A more advanced wiki tool can embed videos and other multimedia content. A feature of the wiki that allows for one person’s repository to become a true PLE is the ability to allow others to discuss and comment on the information in the PLE. While from our perspective, information may appear one way, from another person’s perspective, the information will be totally different. By commenting on their thoughts, readers of a PLE are contributing to the further learning of the PLE’s owner.
Another PLE tool is Google Knol (http://knol.google.com). This Google online application is currently in beta status, so its features can change or it can be discontinued, but it shows promise as a PLE tool. Knol allows for high quality formatting in its journaling, commenting, moderated collaboration, review writing, and posting on search engines.
One of the primary advantages a PLE has to a formal learning environment is that several barriers to learning can be overcome. For example, if a student does not like an instructor’s style, has a disability that makes it difficult for them to work with the rest of the class, or is far behind the other students in the class, a PLE can be used for independent learning to meet the learning objectives of the course.
While a Learning Management System (LMS) takes an institution-led approach to learning, a PLE takes a person-centric approach. Furthermore, the best PLE is able to be used outside of an institutional environment and be able to be ported between institutions. For these reasons, it is best if an institutional LMS not be the host site for a student’s PLE.
Conclusion
There were several valuable learning experiences that came from the project, research, and assignments for this course. Developing a course with a group and then seeing how another group approached the same assignment was very useful in better understanding the course creation process. Investigating PLE tools and other synchronous and asynchronous learning tools was very worthwhile as well.
References
Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Lorenzo, G., Oblinger, D., & Dziuban, C. (2006). How choice, co-creation, and culture are changing what it means to be net savvy (Report No. ELI3008). Washington, DC: Educase.
van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
Walti, C. (2004). Implementing web-based portfolios and learning journals as learner support tools: An illustration. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments (pp. 157-168). Oldenburg, Germany: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.
Assessment of learning modules
While the Twitter course (my group) and the Social Bookmarking course were deployed using different tools, the underlying learning methodology remained the same – the social constructivist method. Both courses were deployed in a central location on the Internet, which allowed both student to instructor and student to student interaction. While the volume of discussion seemed small, it was likely due to the fact that only two or three students were participating in each course. The Twitter course chose Web Tycho as its platform, while the Social Bookmarking course chose a PBworks wiki. Although the look and feel of the platforms differed, they were both used in a similar fashion, with students discussing learning topics, posting questions when confused, and finding links to additional content or websites. This decision by both sets of course developers to incorporate participatory mediums was an important one, as users who are able to collaborate in a social environment are better off than those who are simply receiving static information from an instructor; the “content no longer stands alone” (Lorenzo, Oblinger, and Dziuban, 2006, p. 6).
One aspect that was beneficial in the PBworks format was the ability for students and instructors to receive emails whenever content on the wiki changed. This proved to be a timesaver which allowed for better notification, particularly since there was a major change in the activities for the Social Bookmarking course. A useful aspect of the WebTycho format is the Announcements screen that is shown on login; this screen allowed for students to see the changing focus of the Twitter course elements.
Another similarity between the courses was the use of a synchronous session at the end of the course to allow for a discussion of the course projects. This session was also used by both courses as a forum to solicit feedback. While the Twitter course used Adobe Connect for this session, the Social Bookmarking course used Wimba. Both technologies allowed for audio chat, document sharing, and posting of notes. While these synchronous sessions did not provide a learning environment to the students, it was a convenient way to wrap up the courses. A more advantageous use of a synchronous session may have been to have it at the beginning of the course so that students would be more capable of understanding the expectations, or at some point in the middle, where students could pose questions without waiting for an asynchronous reply.
One difference between the two courses was the fact that the Social Bookmarking course seemed more compact than the Twitter course. The Social Bookmarking course could be viewed on just three primary pages, while the Twitter course required the opening of several threaded discussion topics. If the Social Bookmarking course was much longer, or had many more students, it does not appear that the discussion feature would be robust enough, whereas the Web Tycho discussion feature can easily handle more students. Other discussion features lacking in the PBworks platform include the ability to expand and collapse threads, attach documents to discussion posts, and mark posts as read or unread.
Lessons learned
Academic group work can be difficult as certain members of the group put forth effort in varying degrees. For short periods, everyone participated fully in the group work, yet there was a tendency at certain times for people to work independently, which did not work well for this type of project. As a group we found that emailing each other proved to be a more practical way of communicating, thus improving collaboration, rather than just using the Study Group area in Web Tycho, which is typically not accessed as frequently as email.
As different group members had different strengths, we often failed to properly use, or even recognize, those strengths. The other members of my group included a professor, an instructor/graphic designer, a technical writer, and an instructional designer (myself). Had we worked in a divided labor arrangement, the project may have been developed with less pain and confusion. Towards the very end of the project, we seemed to sense this collectively and we gravitated towards this approach.
The best aspect of our group work came from using Adobe Connect. On several occasions group members met to discuss the different assignments – this collaboration proved to be essential in honing a better working methodology and brainstorming for new and better ideas.
Potential of personal learning environments (PLEs)
A personal learning environment (PLE) is a student’s online system for cataloging, reflecting on, and preserving several forms of learning artifacts so that the student and others can access this information (van Harmelen, 2006, p. 1). As Walti (2004) explains, journaling and creating portfolios has been used for academic assessment, but when incorporated in an online PLE, they become a way for students to become independent learners (p. 157).
There are several tools available for students to create a PLE, including the tool used for the Social Bookmarking course, the wiki. A typical wiki tool can provide for blogging, document repository, and bookmarking of other sites. A more advanced wiki tool can embed videos and other multimedia content. A feature of the wiki that allows for one person’s repository to become a true PLE is the ability to allow others to discuss and comment on the information in the PLE. While from our perspective, information may appear one way, from another person’s perspective, the information will be totally different. By commenting on their thoughts, readers of a PLE are contributing to the further learning of the PLE’s owner.
Another PLE tool is Google Knol (http://knol.google.com). This Google online application is currently in beta status, so its features can change or it can be discontinued, but it shows promise as a PLE tool. Knol allows for high quality formatting in its journaling, commenting, moderated collaboration, review writing, and posting on search engines.
One of the primary advantages a PLE has to a formal learning environment is that several barriers to learning can be overcome. For example, if a student does not like an instructor’s style, has a disability that makes it difficult for them to work with the rest of the class, or is far behind the other students in the class, a PLE can be used for independent learning to meet the learning objectives of the course.
While a Learning Management System (LMS) takes an institution-led approach to learning, a PLE takes a person-centric approach. Furthermore, the best PLE is able to be used outside of an institutional environment and be able to be ported between institutions. For these reasons, it is best if an institutional LMS not be the host site for a student’s PLE.
Conclusion
There were several valuable learning experiences that came from the project, research, and assignments for this course. Developing a course with a group and then seeing how another group approached the same assignment was very useful in better understanding the course creation process. Investigating PLE tools and other synchronous and asynchronous learning tools was very worthwhile as well.
References
Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Lorenzo, G., Oblinger, D., & Dziuban, C. (2006). How choice, co-creation, and culture are changing what it means to be net savvy (Report No. ELI3008). Washington, DC: Educase.
van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
Walti, C. (2004). Implementing web-based portfolios and learning journals as learner support tools: An illustration. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments (pp. 157-168). Oldenburg, Germany: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.