1 / 40

O nline engagement exploring student behaviour (with social media)

Bring it on. O nline engagement exploring student behaviour (with social media). Guy Saward University of Hertfordshire g.r.saward@herts.ac.uk. Get out of my face. Agenda. The techy bit. The teachy bit. The treacly bit. The Techy bit – thinking about messaging.

Télécharger la présentation

O nline engagement exploring student behaviour (with social media)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Bring it on Online engagement exploring student behaviour(with social media) Guy Saward University of Hertfordshire g.r.saward@herts.ac.uk • Get out of my face

  2. Agenda • The techy bit • The teachybit • The treacly bit

  3. The Techy bit – thinking about messaging

  4. Messaging 3.0 • Term used to refer to new crop of apps, e.g. whatsApp, snapchat, line, kakao • Beyond social networks • Facebook / Twitter /LinkedIn sooo 2.0 • Way beyond original messaging • email: old school electronic text, enclosures • sms: short, mobile, instant • instant messaging: free, internet, chat • But original messaging raises questions of what+why which are just as relevant today

  5. Technology Classification (2010)all communication freq+sync SMS online chat RSS micro-blog email 2Life tumblelog social book mark eConference forum blog wiki content size+struct

  6. Technology Classification (2010) communication freq+sync SMS online chat RSS micro-blog email 2Life tumblelog • features • multimedia blog • tumblr/facebook • content • video, images • low text content • comms • comments/forum • track back social book mark eConference forum blog wiki content size+struct

  7. What’s in a 3.0 Message • New messaging has to offer some advantage • 2nd gen covered different content types • 3rd generation building on other aspects • WhatsApp : photo, video, audio, group -> cost • SnapChat: photo -> privacy • KakaoTalk: geography -> gaming • Line: API -> desktop (back to 1st gen IM!)

  8. What’s in the simplest message?

  9. Message Features • Content is only part of the message “Let’s meet, no coffee” • Need to consider (some of) … • originator • audience • timing • tone • delivery (push/pull/synchronicity ) • invitation (to respond/take action) • conversation • Tech platform is really only small part of how

  10. The Teachy Bit – how do you use messaging

  11. Why Message (your students) Three different scenarios (content+structure) • Broadcasting assessment info • via news post, or tweet or paper hand out • Generating/responding to individual requests • via online forms, email, forum • Feed back/feed forward • via simple message, or EVS, or online QMP Any scenario may prompt different issues/choices (snap chat assessment briefing, anyone?!)

  12. The wider conversation • Online xMooc – eXtended, content focussed • Pedagogy: associative • Messaging: for pacing / expectations (C&G), feedback on performance (assessment?) • cMooc – connected, interaction focussed • Pedagogy: social constructivist / situational • Messaging: sharing, reflection, building CoP • Flipped classroom • Pedagogy: associative • Messaging: content transmission vs assimilation feedback / clarification

  13. Encouraging Engagement • Old research for StudyNet campus based module • shows strong correlation between performance and online engagement • Correlation not causation … but data collection is way of monitoring who may be at risk

  14. Wider Engagement • Work on wider student engagement identifies three types of engagement: • In learning • Rooted in identity • In structures and processes • For use of social media for L&T • starting from (2) • trying to harness it for (1) • and build it into (3)

  15. Social Media Background Shamelessly borrowed … • Mark Stubbs blog post,5 top tips to enhance your students’ experience (March 2013) • Nancy White’s blog posts on online facilitation: (March 2014) • Lis Parcell’s blog post, Listen, understand, act: social media for engagement (Jan 2014) • Sally Jordan’s blog ‘e-assessment (f)or Learning’ (March 2014) • Lots of other “stuff” from JISC, HEA, TEL community

  16. More Backgroud - What’s important • Do classifications / typologies matter? Where do you stand? ‘Guide on the side’or ‘Sage on the stage’ [pedagogy] ‘Digital native’ or ‘immigrant’ [skills] Just visitingor moving in? [attitude]

  17. The Research – a bit sticky

  18. Outcomes to date • Student survey • integration attitudes, usage follow-up • focus groups • Social media (faceboook) safety • Staff survey • integration attitudes • StudyNet -> Facebook/Twitter integration • Module sites • Programme pages • Classification • 5 types, based on socMed usage + attitude

  19. From Refuseniks to Integrationists “real people in real life!:-) all of them… or more of them?(sic) Staff Students Use of social networks Agreement on VLEintegration “just don't - facebook are data thieving monkey scum! don't help the data miners” (sic) For separatists, more use of social networks doesn’t mean more desire for VLE integration

  20. Combined Dataset (2012)

  21. Top 3 UH Staff Issues (from 2012) I don’t have a Facebook/Twitter account <= skills concerns I don’t want to use my account <= privacy concerns I don’t have the time <= efficiency concerns

  22. Student focus group (2013) Key findings • diverse media range/hierarchy, e.g. FB=>anyone, text/mob=>friend, email=> close friend • mixed messages on Facebook as study aid/distraction • mobile/alerts is key benefit for study related messaging Key issues include privacy, inclusivity, focus, e-safety

  23. Student Survey (2013) Changes from original survey (2012) • more likely to use Twitter (59% vs 44%) • more likely to use tablet (34% vs 18%) or smartphone (84% vs 73%) for socNet access • less likely to report using other networks/devices outside of the main categories explicitly surveyed Other socNec/msg apps reported (unasked) include: instagram(11), linkedIn(3), pinterest, skype & tumblr Note: socNet use is general, not specifically academic. Compare 59% to 3% for student Twitter use in Germany

  24. UH Online CSIT BSc – Social Networks Source: M. Lilly, 2014, “Experiences of a programme tutor for an online distance learning programme in Computer Science”, UH LTI seminar

  25. UH Online BSc – Learning Interactions • CSIT students prefer interaction with: • content > tutors (slightly) > peers => xMooc over cMooc? Source: M. Lilly, 2014, “Experiences of a programme tutor for an online distance learning programme in Computer Science”, UH LTI seminar

  26. Future Work • Classification • machine learning validation • identification of association rules (e.g. multi-networks => separatist? fb addicts => integrationist?) • Facebook/Twitter integration • more detailed analytics • Staff survey • issues for social media (formal, online survey) • Student survey (? would be useful?) => msg 3.0 apps, focus groups, KIT

  27. Personal Reflections

  28. The Plus Side – New Ways to Engage • Facebook polls - Like, Share, Comment • Online assessment • Gameification • Badges • But dothey work?

  29. The Down side – Info Overload 1 Mooc, first activity, 12 hours30 emails Mobile learning Platform fragmentation

  30. Conclusions Messaging purpose should drive method (for me!) • Broadcast => get msgs to where the students are (StudyNet+fb+twitter) • Personal contact => set rules + audit trail (skype, email) • Supervised learning => provide accessible, safe online space (StudyNet + fb? + twitter?) • Peer (assisted) learning => find their own space (messaging 3.0?) Role for social media - but only a means, not an end

  31. Bonus slides

  32. Online for good practice Constructivist, Communities of Practice, eTivities… Chickering and Gamson (1987) good practice… …encourages student-faculty contact …encourages cooperation among students …encourages active learning …gives prompt feedback …emphasises time on task …communicates high expectations …respects diverse talents /ways of learning => online? => social media?

  33. E-Tivities • Accessing the course • Intros / messaging • Learning resources • Building discussions • Sharing / linking => Easy in our VLE (see previous) => Harder outside  Google analytics Social media tools Delicious

  34. Who’s joined/following the course? • Facebook insights / query • https://www.facebook.com/search/234897186606847/likers

  35. Who’s accessed what resources? • Google analytics – post processes, anonymiosed

  36. Who’s talking about it? • Twitter queries, #hashtags, @messages http://topsy.com/s?q=UniofHerts

  37. Who’s talking to who? • Facebook graph queries - http://graph.facebook.com/220745824653347 https://developers.facebook.com/tools/explorer

  38. Social Media Updates: Consuming RSS discuss RSS feed facebook.com/uh6com0265 student RSS Graffiti Twitterfeed publish notify twitter.com/uh6com0265 student / staff

  39. Multiple platforms VLE discuss RSS feed facebook.com/uh6com0265 student RSS Graffiti dlvr.it Twitterfeed publish notify twitter.com/uh6com0265 student / staff

More Related