Posted on

Lifestream, Tweets

While popular narratives suggest that social media provide a space for increased participation, this study provides little evidence to support these claims in the context of Twitter as an adjunct to MOOCs. Results show that learners make up only about 45% of users and contribute only about 35% of tweets. The majority of users contribute minimally, and an active minority of users contributes the preponderance of messages. These findings do not reveal
substantive evidence of learners contributing to multiple hashtags, which may suggest that learners did not find Twitter to be a useful space that provided added value or responded to their needs.

Veletsianos’ year-long study raises questions about what it is that makes some MOOCs more participatory.

Some ideas for:

  • instructional design combined with:
  • anticipated future interaction (Walther, 1997, as cited in Kozinets, 2010). For example, if the MOOC draws participants from an established community (or its periphery) or from people who are likely to have opportunities for collaboration within and between institutions
  • the expertise of participants, and other participants’ perceptions of peer expertise, may affect trust dynamics (Wenger, 2010), and beliefs about where knowledge is located
  • subject area or content (does it lend itself towards discussion, or is it well-established, declarative knowledge? How does course material – instructional design – treat it?)
  • what roles do MOOC participants have in their regular lives, and does this affect their likelihood of participating using Twitter? (for example, are teachers/instructors who support ‘social learning’ more likely be social learners in the MOOCs they attend?)
  • comfort with use of Twitter (either the format or the public nature): data about participant Twitter use before and outside the MOOC hashtag may shed light on whether the medium itself is influential.
  • Do particular courses attract higher numbers of established Twitter users than others? For example, through student recruitment?

The study also raises questions about what is really driving the naturalisation of ‘social learning’. There is a danger that in adopting ‘social constructivist’ frameworks of learning we become too restrictive in what we (as educators) count as ‘learning’, privileging community practices over solitary practices, which can also constitute effective learning (Gourlay, 2015).

Veletsianos, G. (in press). Toward a Generalizable Understanding of Twitter and Social Media Use Across MOOCs: Who Participates on MOOC Hashtags and In What Ways? Journal of Computing in Higher Education.

Posted on

Lifestream, Evernote

 

E-tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption by Kozinets, Robert V. (1999)

http://ift.tt/2lCbey6

edc17 February 13,

2017

at 07:09PM

When reading Kozinets, Robert V. (1999), “E-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption,” European Management Journal, 17 (3), 252-264 (which I sought out because I wanted more information on the same reference from to McLuhan in Kozinets, 2010), I noticed a reference to McLuhan (1970):
“Networked computers empower people around the world as never before to disregard the limitations of geography and time, find another and gather together in groups based on a wide range of cultural and subcultural interests and social affiliations.” (p. 1)
At face value this seems like such a great idea. However, does this not reduce diversity within networks? At what cost? I’m thinking back to the earliest of days of #mscedc, in which discussion within the Twitersphere turned to self-segregation, and the risks of non-diverse networks, such as Sheehan’s ‘spiral of silence’ , in which  people are more less-likely to voice opinions they perceive to be minority in non-diverse communities. We also discussed how such a spiral might be amplified, and I raised questions about how social practices associated with social media might (such as seeking
‘likes’) lead to more self-segregation, further reducing diversity within networks.
The McLuhan (1970) reference from Kozinets goes further, however. It is not about social media, but all networked technologies. In recent reading of Stewart (2015), it was proposed that networks foster participatory culture. I don’t disagree with this, nor question that giving agency and involving diverse peoples in knowledge generation is positive. However, one has to ask if there is a connection between participatory culture and reduced network diversity. I’m not suggesting that such a connection would be inherent or unavoidable. However, given observations of tendencies towards reduced network diversity through self-segregation, it seems to me that it is possible that there is another (new) literacy, upon which integrated society is quite dependent: a willingness to not just cluster in affinity groups, but also build diverse networks, and hold civil conversations with those who hold different perspectives to us.