• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
ELI Back Channel Communication
 

ELI Back Channel Communication

on

  • 1,054 views

This BACK CHANNEL COMMUNICATION (or communication outside of the course structure) presentation is based on focus groups and a survey administered to on-campus and online students in Library & ...

This BACK CHANNEL COMMUNICATION (or communication outside of the course structure) presentation is based on focus groups and a survey administered to on-campus and online students in Library & Information Science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,054
Views on SlideShare
1,052
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    ELI Back Channel Communication ELI Back Channel Communication Presentation Transcript

    • Back Channel Communication: Web 2.0 Technologies for Social Learning Barbara A. Frey Lorna Kearns University of Pittsburgh
    • Agenda • Our study – Theoretical orientation – Methods – Results • Case studies • Discussion • Recommendations
    • Web 2.0 • Second phase of World Wide Web enabling greater social and participatory use (Anderson, 2007) • Sometimes used interchangeably with the term “social software” • Web 2.0 directory http://www.go2web20.net/
    • Social Learning • Social constructivism (Huang, 2002) – Knowledge is constructed by learners as they interact with one another (Dewey, 1916; Vygotsky, 1978) • Communities of practice – “…collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor” (Wenger, 2004)
    • Online Learning Communities • Community of Inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer, 2000) • Social presence (Richardson & Swan, 2003) • Online group development (Carabajal, LaPointe, and Gunawardena, 2003) • Building Online Learning Communities (Palloff and Pratt, 2007)
    • Back Channel Communication • Communication channel outside of course structure • Useful for: – Communicating about content (direct) – Developing social bonds (indirect)
    • Research Design • Population – MLIS students – Online, cohort-based – Face-to-face campus meeting each semester • Interview questions – Students’ use of Web 2.0 technologies for back channel communication – Purpose of communication
    • Data Collection • Focus groups – 49 online students – Data collected during face-to-face campus weekend – July 2008 • Survey – Sent to 331 students – 136 responses – August 2008
    • Demographics • Age • Gender • Level of education • Self-rated computer skills • Previous experience with online learning • Campus vs. online program • Number of courses taken
    • Back Channel Communication Technologies 1. Talking on land line telephone 11. Collaborative authoring (e.g., Wikispaces) 2. Talking on cell phone 12. Collaborative editing (e.g., 3. Text messaging on cell phone Google Docs) 4. Talking on Skype 13. Video sharing (e.g., YouTube) 5. Instant messaging on Skype 14. Social networking (e.g., 6. Other instant messaging Facebook) 7. E-mail 15. Blogging (e.g., blogger.com) 8. Social bookmarking (e.g., 16. Social gaming (e.g., Second del.icio.us) Life) 9. Calendaring (e.g., Google 17. RSS feed readers (e.g., Calendar) Google Reader) 10. Image sharing (e.g., Flickr)
    • Back Channel Communication Purposes 1. Collaborate on assignments 2. Clarify assignment or program requirements 3. Seek or provide help with technology tools 4. Socialize 5. Seek or provide emotional support
    • Open-ended Questions • Are there other purposes for which you have used these technologies to communicate with classmates? If so, what are they? • Do you believe that your use of these technologies to communicate with your classmates has contributed to your learning? If so, can you describe how?
    • Demographics Age Gender Male 46 or over 12% 15% 25 or under 31% 36-45 16% Female 26-35 88% 38%
    • Demographics Education Level Program Professional Doctoral 2% Other 1% 10% Master's 18% Campus 43% FastTrack 47% Bachelor's 79%
    • What Students Said “I was trying to set up a roommate for the campus weekend … so I used the Facebook wall to post messages.” “Wow! Pictures of people, so amazing!” “…it’s just a place to procrastinate time.”
    • What Students Said “The idea of the wiki is that everything goes to a central place instead of all this information being in a circle of emails. It all goes to a central hub that everyone can view and access.” “It’s free!” “…you know what’s going on in the wiki.”
    • What Students Said “There were some people who took syllabi and organized them into Google Calendar and it’s been really, really helpful and I know a lot of people are using it.” “I actually made an error that caused me to start using Google Calendar avidly, religiously and I have alerts sent to me and things popping up when things are due…”
    • What Students Said “I’m one of the older folks and I had a couple of meltdown moments when I just needed to hear a human voice.” “I personally don’t like talking on the phone.”
    • What Students Said “I have Google Reader up for updates all day long and it refreshes automatically.” “You can get a feed into your reader when someone updates the wiki.” “…if you keep people’s blogs in your reader, you get updates about them and you have more awareness of some of the things they’re going through.”
    • Technologies Social gaming Image sharing Talking on Skype Calendaring Instant messaging on Skype Land line telephone RSS feed readers Video sharing Social bookmarking Text messaging on cell phone Blogging Other instant messaging Social networking Collaborative authoring Collaborative editing Talking on cell phone E-mail 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent
    • Communication Purposes Emotional support Help w/ tech Socialize Clarify reqs Collaborate on assignments 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent
    • Age/Talking on Cell Phone 100 90 80 70 Frequency 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over Technology
    • Age/Texting on Cell Phone 100 90 80 70 Frequency 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over Technology
    • Age/Social Bookmarking 100 90 80 70 Frequency 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over Technology
    • Age/Collaborative Authoring 100 90 80 70 Frequency 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over Technology
    • Age/Blogging 100 90 80 70 Frequency 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over Technology
    • Age/Communicating to Socialize 100 90 80 70 Frequency 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over Purpose
    • Age 100 Talking on Cell 90 Phone 80 Texting on Cell 70 Phone Frequency 60 Social Bookmarking 50 40 Collaborative 30 Authoring 20 Blogging 10 0 Communicating to Socialize 25 or 26-35 36-45 46 or under over Technologies and Purpose
    • Program 100 90 80 70 Frequency 60 50 Campus 40 Online 30 20 10 0 Social Blogging RSS Feed Help w/ Tech Bookmarking Readers
    • Value of Back Channel How has your use of these technologies contributed to your learning? “I could not have made it through this program without the support system provided by the technology I use.” “It has created a constant communication link between our cohort members. I never feel alone.” “It's the moral support, which helps a lot in learning and understanding new things.”
    • Pros & Cons • What are your experiences with back channel communication among students? • How has Web 2.0 technology changed your teaching?
    • Recommendations • Encourage students to communicate outside of class, to reach out to one another • Learn about Web 2.0 technologies to see what they have to offer • Make recommendations to students on Web 2.0 technologies according to their goals for communication
    • References Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Joint Information Systems Committee Technology and Standards Watch Report. Retrieved December 19, 2008 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2003). Group development in online learning communities. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.) Handbook of distance education (pp. 217-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text- based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company. Retrieved December 23, 2008 from http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education
    • References Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology (33)1. Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Richardson, J. C. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1). Vygotsky, L. (1978). L. S. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (2004). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved December 23, 2008 from Etienne Wenger’s Web site at http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm
    • Questions?
    • Thank you! Barbara A. Frey: bafrey@pitt.edu Lorna Kearns: lrkearns@pitt.edu