Peyina lin socialecologiesdigitalyouthlis566

947 views
894 views

Published on

Guest lecture for University of Washington Information School Master's course LIS 566. Includes audio, but slide animations are lost. Therefore some slides may look strange. Please email me if you have questions peyina@gmail.com

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
947
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Peyina lin socialecologiesdigitalyouthlis566

  1. 1. Social Ecologies ofDigital Youth12/30/2011Peyina LinPhD CandidateUW Graduate School Presidential Fellow 2011-12 @peyinalin peyina@gmail.comhttp://students.washington.edu/pl3
  2. 2. 2Contents Research area Background Research at Microsoft Research: “Reaching Out: Teens Learning via Extended Networks” Take away @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  3. 3. Research area: 3Social science studies of youth, socialecologies, and technology use geeks family band school friends @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  4. 4. 4Contents Research area Background Research at Microsoft Research: “Reaching Out: Teens Learning via Extended Networks” Take away @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  5. 5. 5CommitteeMichael B. Eisenberg David W. McDonald Katherine StovelProfessor & Dean Emeritus, iSchool Associate Professor, iSchool Associate Professor, Sociology Associate Director, CSSSResearch: information literacy, Research: CSCW, HCI Research: dynamics of sociallearning in virtual environments organization, social network analysis @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  6. 6. 6Research background Values in technology design Determining Trustworthiness in SL Social Groups, extracurricular Connected Cars participation and technology use
  7. 7. Personal background 7 @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  8. 8. 8Contents Research area Background Research at Microsoft Research: Peyina Lin Shelly Farnham “Reaching Out: Teens Learning via Extended Networks” Future directions Take away @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  9. 9. 9Think back to when you were 15… @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  10. 10. 10Motivation: Importance ofself-directed learning (self-learning) Life-long learning Innovation  more likely outside the classroom Motivation:  intrinsically motivated => better performance Technology use:  More readily engaged (Open University, UK)  Access to global knowledge base Relevance for teens @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  11. 11. Exploratory study: 11Nature of self-learning and technology use Goal: Design recommendations for social technologies to support self-learningShel Pete LivyAge: 14 Age: 15 Age: 17“I just don’t like doing “If someone suggested that “I use it [the internet] to(new) things where I don’t I find interest groups learn different things and getknow anybody.” online, I’d give it a try.” involved in communities.” @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  12. 12. 12Inertia… but… Time and mobility  inclination to learn from immediate networks Inertia vs. preparation for self-directed learning Understanding what distinguishes successful self-learners  further our understanding of how to support teens to become successful self-learners @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  13. 13. 13Self-directed learning (Self-learning)  Definition: Extent to which the learner does not rely on immediate networks to be successful at the learning activity.  Soft skills:  Having self-discipline (can-do attitude)  Knowing to pursue feedback  Technical skills  Technology use  Information use  Not alone, but sense of volition  Not depending primarily on immediate networks @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  14. 14. 14Research questions What contributes to self-directed learning of new topics or activities outside the bounds of one’s immediate social network? 1. How are (social) technologies used for learning? 2. How are learners who are more self-directed different from learners who are less self-directed? 3. What are the barriers to use technologies to extend one’s network for learning? @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  15. 15. 15Implicit arguments & recruitment criteria  Digital divide & strategic use of technologies is associated with access (van Djik, 2005)  “Access”  successful learning outcomes  Proxy: hours of internet use  15 recruited through outreach  8 via company internal database  Criteria:  50% High access ~ 12+ hours/wk  50% Low access ~ < 12 hours/wk  Gender balance  Oversampled minorities  Variety of neighborhoods and household income @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  16. 16. 16Exploratory mixed-methods study 90 to 120 mins. semi-structured in-depth interviews Short questionnaire: digital skills, technology use Analysis:  Constant comparative approach (informed by self-determination theory)  Mixed methods analysis @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  17. 17. 23 Participants 10 17 Frequency 5 Age range 13 – 17 0 13 14 15 16 17 12 female, 11 male Age 16 White, 2 Hispanic, 3 Mixed Race, 1 Asian, 1 African American Variety of neighborhoods: Bellevue (3), Burien (2), Redmond (2), other (non-repeats) Household Income:  $25 – $35 thousand: 4  $50 - $75 thousand: 8  $76- $100 thousand: 3  $101- $150 thousand: 7  Unknown: 1 @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  18. 18. 18Participants’ technology use(average hrs. per week) Technology Low access High access (< 12 hrs./week) (> 12 hrs./week) Internet in general 6.4 20 Facebook 2.3 9.2 Texting 6.7 18.9 Emailing 1 2.8 Internet experience: Beginners: 9% Intermediate: 48% Advanced: 35% Expert: 9% @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  19. 19. 19Top activities Physical (15) Music (8) Making/building (6) Video production (5) Personal development & service (5) Other content production (3) Cooking/baking (3) Art (2) @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  20. 20. 20Research question 2 What contributes to self-directed learning of new topics or activities outside the bounds of one’s immediate social network? 1. How are (social) technologies used for learning? 2. How are learners who are more self-directed different from learners who are less self-directed? 3. What are the barriers to use technologies to extend one’s network for learning @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  21. 21. 21Key concepts of interestCorrelation table of key concepts.Bold values are significant at p < .05 @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  22. 22. 22Relationships between concepts of interest Tech Access Digital Skills Successful Self-Learning Tech for Extending Networks Internalized Motivation Social Digital Skills not correlated with Self-Learning  Social Digital Skills common to all participants @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  23. 23. 23Two issues…1. Potential spurious effect2. How do we know what participants were gaining from extending networks for learning? @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  24. 24. Potential spurious effect 24 Social Tech for Successful Digital Tech for Internalized Digital Extending Self- Skills Learning M otivation Skills Network LearningTech Access .31 .26 .50 .48 .24 .46Digital Skills .70 .56 .46 .38 .60Social Digital Skills .33 .26 .29 .40Tech for Learning .86 .31 .83Tech for Extending .28 .75NetworkInternalized .51M otivation Self-learning Digital Skills spurious effect Tech for Extending Network @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  25. 25. No spurious effect: Tech for Extending 25Networks explains Self-Learning Holding constant the effect of Tech Access and Digital Skills, Tech for Extending Networks explains 26% to 39% of the variance of Successful Self-Learning (p <.05) Low Digital Skills High Digital Skills Digital Skills @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  26. 26. 26Two issues…1. Potential spurious effect2. How do we know what participants were gaining from extending networks for learning? @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  27. 27. 27 What were participants gaining by using technologies to extend networks for learning? Complement other learning  physical activities  Learn from role models (YouTube videos) Technology was the main source for learning  baking, making things, content production  Finding information (Web)  To avoid bothering sibling (YouTube videos) Complement creative effort  art  Inspiration (web, Dictionary.com, poetry.com, images) Reach wider network  content production  Self-expression (blog, tagged.com, YouTube)  Participate in online communities @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  28. 28. Technologies used to extend networks: 284 tier perspective20 activities, 17 participants 10 activities, 10 participants 4 activities, 3 participants 7 activities, 6 participantsTier 1: Tier 2: Tier 3: Tier 4:Getting info. Getting info. from Reaching (push) 2-way social(no social people info to people interaction (info.,interaction) (no social people, interaction) communities)World Wide Web (10) YouTube (9) Blogs (2) Twitter (2)Specific site (4) Community site (1) YouTube (2) Facebook (1)Wikis (2) Tagged.com (1)Q&A sites (2) Email (1)YouTube (3)YouTubecomments(1)Total: 22 Total: 10 Total: 4 Total: 5tech mentions tech mentions tech mentions tech mentions @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  29. 29. 29Technology use for learning (RQ1) Mostly with people from their immediate networks via:  texting  chat  Facebook geeks family band If outside of immediate networks, writing mostly to get information onlineFew engaged in social interaction with people in extended networks in their learning context New design space opportunity @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  30. 30. 30Research question 3 What contributes to self-directed learning of new topics or activities outside the bounds of one’s immediate social network? 1. How are (social) technologies used for learning? 2. How are learners who are more self-directed different from learners who are less self-directed? 3. What are the barriers to use technologies to extend one’s network for learning @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  31. 31. Sense of relatedness: initial engagement 31 = secondary prompter = primary prompter for already colored activityEngagement prompted by an important other Top activities:  Swimming (2)  Dad (7)  Baseball (2)  Mom (4)  Scouts (2)  Football (1)  Best friend / close friends (7)  Basketball (1)  Upper level, more experienced youth (2)  Volleyball (1)  Other close adult (3)  Track (1)  Skiing (1)  Famous person (1)  Martial arts (1)  Breakdancing (1)Team/Crew/Group  Art (2)  Photography (1)  Reading/writing (1)  Guitar (1)  Video-making (1)  Minecraft (1) @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  32. 32. 32Giving up: Lack of sense of relatedness“I could relate better to my swim mates… Soccer… it’s a lotof drama, it’s ridiculous. That’s one of the reasons I choseswimming.” (Kay)“I wasn’t like socially included in my team though my coachliked me… that’s how I decided to leave.” (Livy)“I didn’t feel good about wrestling… the sport and theteam… people were not my type of people… it was not mything.” (Bob) @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  33. 33. 33Importance of the prompt Sustained passion in activity even though prompted by another The prompt  Purposeful  Serendipitous Learner Actor of behavior to be learned observing sharing “If someone suggested that I find interest groups online, I’d give it a try.” @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  34. 34. 34Barriers to reaching extended networks Sense of Community: Inclusion and Exclusion Competition: Encouraging and Discouraging Sharing  “make a music video and we’ll see which one gets more views.”  “I got 3rd on a race. I really want to put it on Facebook but I don’t because other girls in the team take it as bragging.” Connect-and-learn vs. Negative Feedback and Morality  “Blogging about what I learn about vegan food helps me relate better to other vegans.”  “It’s not ready for sharing, and some people might not be the most ethical and steal it [the idea].” Parents’ attitudes: Don’t use it. You’ll get a Virus!  “My parents make me work for stuff. I look up to that…it made me not give up when I cant figure something up.”  “Mom’s kind of paranoid about viruses… that’s how I avoid viruses… I tend to be on the computer fairly conservatively.” @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  35. 35. 35Recommendations Support sense of relatedness in finding people in extended networks Design for social inclusion Encourage sharing through a mentoring structure Support embedded artifacts with diverse content Design for the learner’s social ecology Encourage sharing through automatic attribution @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  36. 36. sense of competence psychology sense of Contributions autonomy sense of relatedness motivation i.e., extent of internalization supported resources, time,context social support domain know-how extended immediate learning person networks networks learning know-how social- discipline- readiness readiness tech skills technology use tech-use to extend networks @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  37. 37. 37Contents Research area Background Research at Microsoft Research: “Reaching Out: Teens Learning via Extended Networks” Take away @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  38. 38. 38Social Ecologies of Digital Youth: New Horizons  Digital Skills + can do attitude  Sense of relatedness  Motivation  Continued engagement geeks  Role of family adults, educators, librarians, te band school achers… friends @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  39. 39. 39Take away Take the relevance of senses of relatedness, autonomy, and competence, AND of learning from extended networks… How can you contribute to your work practices and help youth feel at the same time: a) in their comfort zone b) and willingly try new practices, behavior, information from new connections? Are there stories in books or other media that can help harness the sense of relatedness to distant connections? Can you design tasks that help? For example:  Tasks with appropriate limits and not too difficult yet challenging (to build sense of autonomy and natural inclination for challenge, and competence)  Design tasks or ways to make diverse youth, each feel they are “a part of” something that matters to them  Utilize multimedia production as a way to help youth find out what matters to them and how they can share or have an impact on others (e.g., journaling about one self, one’s community, ways to help, etc.) @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  40. 40. 40Acknowledgments FUSE research internship  Shelly Farnham, Researcher, FUSE, Microsoft Research  Lili Cheng, General Manager, FUSE, Microsoft Research  Karen Cowan, Business Administrator  Microsoft UXC Team  Research participants My dissertation and larger research directions  Mike Eisenberg  David McDonald  Kate Stovel  Lynne Manzo  Participating High Schools & Research participants  iPhDs: former dissertation support group (Sunny, Phil, Ok Nam), Ammy, Natascha, Jeff, Jeff, John, Yuan  CSSCR- Stephanie Lee  iSchool faculty, staff in research (Alpha et al.), finance, administration, IT  Other communication: Loren Terveen, Jonathan Grudin, Jens-Erik Mai, Howard Rosenbaum, Nathan Freier, Batya Friedman, Molly Andolina, Cliff Zukin  National Science Foundation  UW Graduate School Presidential Fellowship  Frank Lobisser (Microsoft Zunes)  Edward and Aiden Roberts @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012
  41. 41. 41Thanks! pl3@uw.edu @peyinalin http://students.washington.edu/pl3 @peyinalin--LIS 566 Winter 2012

×