The Value of Social Software

As I started working on my proposal for the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) 2016 I thought I might try to update some of the references.  coverI remembered that I had bought Teaching Crowds: Learning and Social Media (Dron & Anderson, 2014) at CSSE in June 2015 where I presented three times and haven’t blogged about at all! …so I cracked it open.  I was immediately sucked in…particularly by its promise of providing practical advice to educators, but also by its grounding in theoretical perspectives on learning.

The first thing to note about this text is that it is available for free at teachingcrowds.ca.  You can download the whole book or individual chapters –  although I’m enjoying my old-school hard copy.

The second thing that is interesting is the authors’ broad definition of what encompasses social software.  They describe social software as software that supports four types of interactions: one-to-one; one-to-many; many-to-many; and many-to-one.  The first three are familiar to most, but considering Google Search as a social software which aggregates the preferences of many to represent information to an individual is a perspective that is not usually embraced in literature around social media and learning. However the authors contend that there is learning potential in each and every connection.  The book provides an extensive list of types of social software and the types of interactions that can be facilitated by them.

A significant portion of the first chapter is dedicated to outlining the value of social software, but without much theoretical or empirical support. Presumably many of these points will be elaborated on later in the book. However, I think the list has immense value and I am going to repeat it here:

Social software:

  • helps build communities;
  • helps create knowledge;
  • engages, motivates, and is enjoyable;
  • is cost-effective;
  • encourages active learning;
  • is accountable and transparent;
  • spans the gap between formal and informal learning;
  • addresses both individual and social needs;
  • builds identity, expertise, and social capital;
  • is easy to use;
  • is accessible;
  • protects and advances current models of ownership and identity;
  • is persistent and findable;
  • supports multiple media formats;
  • encourages debate, cognitive conflict, and discussion;
  • leads to emergence;
  • is soft;
  • supports creativity;
  • expands the adjacent possible.

I think that complexity thinking has a lot to offer in terms of providing support for many of these claims as positive aspects of social software for learning. I am particularly interested in the points that I have put in bold and will be combing the rest of the book for support for these claims. I wish that the authors had also listed some of the challenges or limits of social software to provide a bit more of a balanced view. Things such as the rapid pace of change, and the huge volume of information or data are things that come to mind.  However, the authors do note that the last chapter is dedicated to a discussion of issues and challenges.

Quality Teaching and Learning Initiative present at VIU’s action research conference

On March 2nd, 2013 the Faculty of Education at Vancouver Island University hosted its second annual Master’s of Educational Leadership Action Research Conference. Each year VIU’s Master’s in Educational Leadership students present the results of their action research thesis projects to an audience of graduate students who are starting their Master’s program and other members of the education community. Past theses from graduates of our graduate programs are available here.

To keynote this year’s conference, we invited a talented team of teachers and administrators from across the province who are working with the Ministry of Education on an action research partnership called the Quality Teaching and Learning Initiative. The initiative includes teams of four educators from six school districts from all corners of the province. Each district is pursuing a wide variety of action research projects, but over the last year the teams have met regularly to learn together through reading the most recent research around 21st century learning and educational change and to pursue some common questions. The questions that guided their discussions were:

1. What does quality learning look like?

2. What does quality teaching look like?

3. How are we supporting teaching/learning practices?

4. What is emerging?

5. What is enduring?

Their conceptual framework is represented in the diagram below:

QTL conceptual frame

The team’s presentation was amazing and I think their model of action research is particularly effective. It’s a distributed approach where teams of educators who are doing different things were supported by the Ministry of Education to come together to learn from each other through conversations based in research and their experiences.

One of the team’s main conclusions was that the answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 all centered around common themes. Teaching, learning, and support could be described as engaging and motivating, collaborative, connected, authentic, broad, open-ended and personalized. The enduring and emerging practices were dynamic and interconnected.  Enduring practices included assessment (for, as, of), relationships, the basics and differentiated instruction. Emerging practices included the need to define new basics, coaching/collaboration, technology, inquiry, choice and were student centric. Here is a link to their presentation [A transformation agenda – QTL Initiative Presentation VIU March 2 – web version 2]. Please check it out to see which school districts are involved and for examples of the 21st century practices that are being implemented. We were honoured to have this amazing team come to present at VIU and hope our new relationships can endure.

Cell Phones in Science Class

Gallery

This gallery contains 1 photo.

One of the most interesting presentations (to me!) that I attended at ASERA was called Observing, recording, and reviewing: Using mobile phones in support of science inquiry, a presentation by Elaine Khoo and John Williams (University of Waikato, NZ), Kathrin … Continue reading