Closing The Participation Gap in Online Learning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Closing The Participation Gap in Online Learning

on

  • 5,269 views

Karsten D. Wolf...

Karsten D. Wolf

Closing the Participation Gap - User Generated Content in E-Learning

User Generated Content is an important aspect of Web 2.0's appeal to education, allowing learners to participate and fostering deeper elaboration. In an analysis of open participation projects such as Wikipedia, one can observe the long or thick tail effect, meaning that even low activity authors contribute a substantial part of such collaborative services.
1. Motivation for participation in open content projects (OCP)
The main factors of motivation for participation in Open Source Software (OSS) projects are summarized based on the empirical research in this field. This contribution discusses, what differences are to be considered in the study of Open Content Projects (OCP). A motivational model for OCP participation is presented based on self-determination theory (Deci/Ryan).
Furthermore, important content factors are proposed and analysed, such as content size, audience size, difficulty level, and marketability. For the content factors examples are presented from different user generated content platforms such as Wikis, Blogs, social bookmarking services, and Friend-of-a-friend networks. An analysis of successful OCPs shows that there are different "hot spots" for open content, and that "Don't Repeat Yourself (and others)" as well as smaller content sizes are the strongest forces to increase open content creation.
2. Structure and learning effects of participation
Based on the analysis of activity data of 3000 students in an user generated content learning platform at the virtual university of bavaria, the structure of and differences between user activities will be presented.
The idea of „Learning by Teaching“ (Papert, Kafai, Harel) and „Writing pedagogy“ (Elbow, Bereiter) assumes, that people learn more by participating actively. In a detailed analysis of learners activities’ impact on learning a business education course it can be shown that users who create more content also learn more.
3. How to "thicken" the tail of user participation?
If we target user participation, how can we achieve equality? And should we try at all?
Based on the same data, different didactical scenarios are compared with regard to the participation gap. The main results are, that groups with a higher level of peer interaction and a higher number of common tasks reduce the gap between the learners. Still, clear differences in the amount of participation between users remain visible.
4. Discussion of obstacles and enablers of participation
While providing strong arguments for user generated content in education and detailing ways how to close the participation gap with Web 2.0 techology, this presentation concludes with a discussion of technical barriers and the idea of personal learning environments to even further increase the participation of all learners in open education settings.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,269
Views on SlideShare
5,242
Embed Views
27

Actions

Likes
5
Downloads
94
Comments
1

3 Embeds 27

http://everlearn-2.bamberg.uni-erlangen.de 15
http://www.ifeb.uni-bremen.de 9
http://www.slideshare.net 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

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

Closing The Participation Gap in Online Learning Presentation Transcript

  • 1. attribution: jamesgrayking on flickr Closing the Participation Gap - User Generated Content in E-Learning Karsten D. Wolf Didactical Design of Interactive Learning Environments Online Educa 2007 Berlin, 30.11.2007 cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 2. What is the participation gap?
  • 3. attribution: wasta on flickr
  • 4. //bwr
  • 5. 1,731,000 569,000 474,000 367,000 353,000 288,000 283,000 251,000 222,000 221,000 19.04.2007 Slides: www.slideshare.net/kadewe cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 6. native speakers of language Wikipedia article Slides: www.slideshare.net/kadewe cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 7. native speakers of language Wikipedia article articles ratio Suomi 109,454 48 German 569,000 176 Slides: www.slideshare.net/kadewe cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 8. native speakers of language Wikipedia article articles ratio Suomi 109,454 48 German 569,000 176 1 Wikipedia article Slides: www.slideshare.net/kadewe cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 9. +17% +13% +19% +17% +27% +18% +25% +15% +27% +14% +22% Suomi ca. 6 months later (1.10.2007) Slides: www.slideshare.net/kadewe cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 10. statistics* 50% of all edits done by 0.7% of users (615 people) 72% of text written by 1.8% of users (1,500 people) really old: October 2005 = 2 Internet years ≈ 14 years ago cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 11. 100 cumulative % of content 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 % of authors ranked by contribution cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 12. actual data 100 cumulative % of content 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 % of authors ranked by contribution cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 13. rough estimation 100 cumulative % of content 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 % of authors ranked by contribution cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 14. 100 cumulative % of content 75 very few people 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 % of authors ranked by contribution cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 15. do very much 100 cumulative % of content 75 very few people 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 % of authors ranked by contribution cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 16. 20% of people are doing 80% of the work cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 17. I am doing all the work and everyone else is lazy! cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 18. 100 equal participation cumulative % of content 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 % of authors ranked by contribution cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 19. equal 100 participation cumulative % of content gap 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 % of authors ranked by contribution cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 20. as of February 2007 Datasource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits # of edits authors ranked by # of edits cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 21. Wikipediholism #1 159,825 #10 79,162 #30 53,500 # of edits #50 46,529 #100 36,608 #500 17,305 #1,000 11,101 #2,500 5,300 authors ranked by # of edits cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 22. Wikipediholism #1 159,825 #10 79,162 #30 53,500 # of edits #50 46,529 #100 36,608 10 edits a day #500 17,305 for 3 years #1,000 11,101 #2,500 5,300 authors ranked by # of edits cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 23. as of February 2007 # of edits Long Tail of Authors authors ranked by # of edits cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 24. Wikipedia: consuming vs. producing? 20k requests per second 1,728,000,000 requests/day 200,000 edits a day 8,640 requests/edit (0.01%) 67,000 editors active in November 2006 approximately <0.01% of user base editors cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 25. cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 26. s h t u o y o rs n a t m re a rC e G % 5 2 Datasource JIM 2007 Press release cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 27. cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 28. Why participate?
  • 29. Why engage for free in OSS? • The economist‘s view: It‘s just signaling for self-promotion (Lerner & Tirole, 2002) • Empirical studies contradict: it is intrinsic motivation! • Hertel, Guido, Sven Nieder and Stefanie Herrmann (2003) • Lakhani, Karim R. and Robert G. Wolf (2003) © Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 30. Understanding Open Content Authors Motivation • Altruism – for the love of other people • Reputation – showing off one‘s own capability = self-promotion • Interest, Fun and Flow – doing it for the Joy of it • Learning – learning by authoring public entities • Collaboration – tackling something not feasible for oneself • Job – getting a paycheck • Saving – no need to buy textbooks and giving back some time • Political Statement – e.g. anti capitalist point of view, anti copyrights pov… • Assignment – getting a grade and a diploma • Convenience – it is easier to find notes in public repositories than on my HD © Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 31. What kind of content makes good candidate for OCP? • both basic and advanced level of content, doesn‘t matter • both Super Special Interest and Mass Audience • Opportunity costs of making it open is low for most scientific SSI and school market • Reputation gain is great for Mass Audience © Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 32. Content size, team size & collaboration • Smaller snippets are easier • Wikipedia = collective • Blogs = individual • The bigger, the more authors = more difficult (e.g. WikiBooks) • Solution: snippets! • Problem: Thousands of snippets do not make great textbooks © Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 33. Commented Collections • DRY = Don‘t Repeat Yourself • DRY(AO) = Don‘t Repeat Yourself and Others! • Good bye Open Content Books • Hello Commented Collections of Open Snippets • Makes sense from the Personal Learning Environment viewpoint, too! © Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 34. Why participation in education?
  • 35. build public entities Seymour Papert Father of Logo Constructionist cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 36. John Seely Brown Xerox Parc Cognitive Apprenticeship culture of participation recreation to become a form of re-creation (remix, tinkering, sharing) based on productive inquiry situated in communities of co-creation learning about ➙ learning to be http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/419/ cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 37. http://www.everlearn.info
  • 38. Structure and effects of participation?
  • 39. Research project settings • Learning environment EverLearn (http://www.everlearn.info) • about 4000 active users (= having completed a course) • logs from fall 2004 to summer 2007 • about 1,85 million logged actions of users • non-reactive observational data (level 5, Fritsche & Linneweber 2006): the users are not aware of the observation and they don‘t know, that their data is used for research cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 40. Consumptive usage • read pages • navigate the course • download files •… cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 41. Productive usage • Edit pages • Upload files • Discuss • Chat •… cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
  • 42. Usage by time: consumption vs. production
  • 43. Usage by time: consumption vs. production
  • 44. Usage by time: consumption vs. production
  • 45. Correlation between production and problem solving Created Chat Discussion content in Messages entries words .03 .28* .43** Problemsolving Score (.425) (.048) (.005) n=36 (Wolf/Prasser 2006)
  • 46. Gender: productive vs. consumptive usage Prod. Total Cons. P/T 106,7 783,9 13,6% M 677,2 130,6 1054,9 12,4% F 924,2 n = 1688
  • 47. Mean Median 50% edit more than median! Wikipedia linear exponential 0.001% edit more than median!
  • 48. Mean Median 50% edit more than median! Wikipedia linear exponential 0.001% edit more than median!
  • 49. production is harder than consumption participation is less equal distributed
  • 50. How to close the gap?
  • 51. technical: make it easy social: make it a small accountable community motivational: build up interest and develop meaningful taks
  • 52. Get more info at wolf@uni-bremen.de http://www.karsten-d-wolf.de http://blog.didactalab.de http://teachlab.didactalab.de cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007