Participatory Culture and Web 2.0 in Higher Education

1,646 views
1,568 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,646
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Participatory Culture and Web 2.0 in Higher Education

    1. 3. What is Web 2.0? <ul><li>Web 2.0 refers to “how the value of these new networks depends not on the hardware or the content, but on how they tap the participation of large-scale social communities, who become invested in collecting and annotating data for other users. Some of these platforms require the active participation of consumers, relying on a social ethos based on knowledge-sharing . Others depend on automated analysis of collective behavior. In both cases, though, the value of the information depends on one’s understanding of how it is generated and one’s analysis of the social and psychological factors that shape collective behavior.” </li></ul><ul><li>Henry Jenkins, MIT </li></ul>
    2. 4. <ul><li>A participatory culture is a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices. </li></ul><ul><li>- Henry Jenkins, MIT </li></ul>
    3. 5. Research Questions <ul><li>How do Web 2.0 technologies support (or inhibit) the emergence and sustainability of a participatory culture? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Particularly, in what ways are such technologies used to share the cultural, creative, and intellectual products of its community members? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What conclusions can be made for learning organizations that may be interested in introducing Web 2.0 technologies to create a more participatory cultures? </li></ul>
    4. 6. Rationale <ul><li>If a cultural shift is indeed in progress as Jenkins suggests, understanding the particularities is essential. </li></ul><ul><li>Growth of social software use by young people (will have greater impact on higher education institutions moving into the future) </li></ul><ul><li>Address the speculation and hype </li></ul>
    5. 9. Overview <ul><li>Literature Review </li></ul><ul><li>Design-based Research: Creating the Environment </li></ul><ul><li>Research Methods & Analysis: Understand the ‘Who’ and ‘What’ of the communications over time (2+ years) </li></ul><ul><li>Implications: Tie back to Participatory Culture: Not only adoption and diffusion, but the extent to which it is used to share the cultural, creative, and intellectual products. </li></ul>
    6. 10. Literature Reviewed <ul><li>CSCL, Situated Learning, and Networked Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 and ICTs </li></ul><ul><li>Design and Design-based Research </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion, Change, and Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Historical & Cultural Context </li></ul>
    7. 11. Methods <ul><li>Quantitative Method on Communication Data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data comparison between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Who: Social Network Analysis, patterns of Communication over time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The What: Latent Semantic Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Qualitative Method </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participant Observation </li></ul></ul>
    8. 12. PocketKnowledge & Web 2.0 Design Patterns <ul><li>Individual users maintain high degree of control </li></ul><ul><li>High level of community trust </li></ul><ul><li>Non-authoritative information organization </li></ul><ul><li>Playful attitude </li></ul>
    9. 14. PocketKnowledge & Web 2.0 Design Patterns <ul><li>Individual users maintain high degree of control </li></ul><ul><li>High level of community trust </li></ul><ul><li>Non-authoritative information organization </li></ul><ul><li>Playful attitude </li></ul>
    10. 16. PocketKnowledge & Web 2.0 Design Patterns <ul><li>Individual users maintain high degree of control </li></ul><ul><li>High level of community trust </li></ul><ul><li>Non-authoritative information organization </li></ul><ul><li>Playful attitude </li></ul>
    11. 18. PocketKnowledge & Web 2.0 Design Patterns <ul><li>Individual users maintain high degree of control </li></ul><ul><li>High level of community trust </li></ul><ul><li>Non-authoritative information organization </li></ul><ul><li>Playful attitude </li></ul>
    12. 20. Volume of Material Sept. 2006- Sept. 2008
    13. 21. PK Creation of User Accounts Aug 2006- Aug 2008
    14. 22. Community Program Collections (CPC)
    15. 23. Highlighting design differences: CPC and Copyright
    16. 24. Highlighting design differences: PocketKnowledge and Copyright
    17. 25. CPC Suggested Additions
    18. 27. Key Knowledge Facilitators
    19. 28. Key Knowledge Facilitators, September 2006 through November 2006 Library Doctoral Student MA Student Faculty/ Instructor Staff Other Key Actors 2 4 9 2 3 0 % of all Key Actors 11.1% 22.2% 50.0% 11.1% 5.6% 0% % of all users .9% 28.9% 46.5% 7.5% 4.8% 11.9%
    20. 29. September 2006 to January 2007
    21. 30. Key Knowledge Facilitators, September 2006 through January 2007 Library Doctoral Student MA Student Faculty/instructor Staff Other Cutpoints 5 37 35 22 7 9 % of all cutpoints 4.3% 32.2% 30.4% 19.1% 6.1% 7.8% % of all users .3% 22.2% 35.5% 4.0% 1.9% 36.2%
    22. 31. Results <ul><li>1) Community Program Collections design patterns discouraged student participation. </li></ul><ul><li>2) PocketKnolwedge was launched and it provided the ability for a radical interaction network to form (e.g., relative knowledge novices acting as key knowledge facilitators). </li></ul><ul><li>3) Over time, the PocketKnowledge interaction network became less radical as it started to be more expert oriented and take on consumptive tendencies. </li></ul>
    23. 33. Latent Semantic Analysis Results Cluster / User Types Focused Divergent All users 209 (61%) 39% Key Knowledge Facilitators 61 (59%) 42 (41%)
    24. 35. Conclusions <ul><li>The resultant interaction network resembles a dialectic ranging from control (or the tendency of the system to provide affordances for replicating and reaffirming pre-existing institutional structures) to emancipation (or the tendency to break free from such structures and start something new) </li></ul>
    25. 36. Implications <ul><li>All technologies are situated in a social, political and legal culture </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 technologies are situated in specific contexts, the free expressions that the design affords are available, yet they will persist in adjacency and in tension with those elements that are expressions of pre-existing social, cultural, and political norms. </li></ul><ul><li>Design affordances are not enough. </li></ul>
    26. 37. <ul><li>Interactivity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture. Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways. A focus on expanding access to new technologies carries us only so far if we do not also foster the skills and cultural knowledge necessary to deploy those tools toward our own ends. </li></ul><ul><li>- Henry Jenkins, MIT </li></ul>
    27. 38. Future Research <ul><li>Specific methods and interventions for using Web 2.0 tools to support participatory culture beyond simply design affordances. </li></ul><ul><li>Explore if there are design affordances that can be used to support a more participatory culture? </li></ul><ul><li>Other patterns not yet explored (statistical correlations between user interactions) </li></ul><ul><li>Trying out findings in other Web 2.0 systems </li></ul>
    28. 39. Thank you. Anthony Cocciolo cocciolo@tc.columbia.edu www.thinkingprojects.org

    ×