Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Using Social Media for Peer Feedback in a Translation Class


Published on

These are the slides from a presentation I gave on 27th January 2012 at the LLAS e-learning symposium. Watch the (upcoming) video at

Published in: Education, Business, Technology

Using Social Media for Peer Feedback in a Translation Class

  1. 1. Using social media for peer-feedback in atranslation class: a case-study Benoît Guilbaud @BenGuilbaud
  2. 2. Marking
  3. 3. Making things better
  4. 4. Peer-feedback• Students learn from one another - error correction• Face-to-face (in class) or distance (e.g. via Online Asynchronous Discussions)• Social dimension• Tutor drinks less coffee
  5. 5. Platform
  6. 6. Moodle
  7. 7. The problem with Moodle
  8. 8. No possible communication between units, programmes, cohortsDiscussion forum Discussion forum Unit A Unit B
  9. 9. User-generated content not carried over year after year
  10. 10.
  11. 11. Social Media
  12. 12. Why social media?• Encourage Networked Learning (Couros, 2011)• Introduce the concept of PLEs / PLNs to students• Expand Zone of Proximal Development (Vygovsky, 1978)• Capitalise on existing skills• Develop Digital Literacy
  13. 13. Personal Learning Environment (PLE)
  14. 14. Personal Learning Network (PLN)
  15. 15. Participants using one or more social networking sites 96 % Participants using Facebook 92 % Regularly reading other users’ content 96 % Regularly posting content 96 % Regularly engaging in discussions (two posts or more) 96 %Regularly attempting to respond to other members’ questions 84 %
  16. 16. Digital Literacy (Warschauer, 2006)1 - Computer literacy - "general fluency and comfort in navigatingaround and using a computer"2 - Information literacy - ability to access, evaluate, sort, etc.information online3 - Multimedia literacy - interpret and create multimedia content4 - Computer-mediated communication literacy - netiquette -argumentation and persuasion with a variety of Internet media -establish and manage online communications between groups ofpeople
  17. 17. Platform
  18. 18. Student privacy Staff privacy
  19. 19. Dedicated space Non-intrusiveOpen or closed
  20. 20. Using social media for peer-feedback in a translation class
  21. 21. The study• Final year undergraduate English to French translation class (1 hour / week)• 25 participants• 3 questionnaires: September 2011, January 2012 & March 2012• Open and closed questions + analysis of marks & contributions
  22. 22. The goals• Improve students’ learning (questionnaire / marks) ★ Increase students’ CMC Literacy (questionnaire) ★ Raise awareness of networked learning (questionnaire) ★ Reduce marking (tutor’s caffeine intake)
  23. 23. The taskEvery week, [students] will be required to:1- Post on the discussion forum at least one sentence from[their] translation, highlighting difficulties or uncertainties[they]’ve encountered.2- Reply to at least one post from another student to commentor make a suggestion on their work.
  24. 24. Incentives• Weekly, face-to-face review of contributions• Tutor posting feedback, nuggets, suggested readings• Mix of native & second-language speakers• However : not assessed due to course structure
  25. 25. Existing tools• Most students using
  26. 26. Students using to find answers
  27. 27. Students with an member account
  28. 28. Posting content Anomaly
  29. 29. Attempting to respond to other members’ questions Anomaly
  30. 30. Engaging in discussions (two posts or more)
  31. 31. Accessing Posting content content
  32. 32. Accessing Posting content content
  33. 33. MMU Student Portal
  34. 34. September 2011“The platform could beuseful”
  35. 35. January 2012“The platform is useful”
  36. 36. January 2012“The platform is useful”(answers from studentswith a member account)
  37. 37. Comments
  38. 38. Comments from students whodidn’t find the platform useful:
  39. 39. Comments from students who found the platform useful:
  40. 40. Comments from students who found the platform useful:
  41. 41. Limitations andfuture developments
  42. 42. Limitations• Lack of incentive: needs to be assessed? More frequent reminders?• Limited integration to curriculum - lowest common denominator in staff Digital Literacy (opt-out clause)• Limited student engagement• Students engagement to take up when OADs become a standard in the way they’re taught?
  43. 43. Future developments• Study ending March 2012• Look for correlation between participation, performance and satisfaction• Apply Murphy’s model for analysis on OAD interactions (Murphy, 2004)• Make a case for OADs as standard practice in HE language units
  44. 44. Brick, B., 2011. Social Networking Sites and Language Learning. Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments,2(3), 18-31, July-September 2011.Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th InternationalConference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.Levin, T. & Wadmany, R., 2008. Teachers’ view on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in theclassroom: developmental scenery. Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education 16(2), pp.233-263.Mott, John., 2011. The End In Mind. [blog].Murphy, E., 2004. Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 35(4) pp.421–431.O’Reilly, T., 2005. Web 2.0. Exteme Interfaces, TTI Vanguard. Geneva, Switzerland 16 September 2005.Thomas, M. (ed.), 2009. Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. Hershey, New York, InformationScience Reference.Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.Warschauer, M., 2006. Laptops and Literacy: learning in the wireless classroom. New York, Teachers College Press.