Presentation prepared for session at Onine Educa 2010 for session titled "Assessing Learning in a Digital World" - organised by the European Commission and its Executive Agency. Other presenters were Brian Holmes, Kiran Trehan with Ralf Rahders chairing. I never presented it, as my flight was cancelled - but Brian Holmes stepped in and presented instead - big thanks!

1. Social Media Practices and Assessment Irreconcilable Differences or True Romance? Thomas Ryberg MA, Ph.d., Associate Professor E-Learning Lab – Center for User Driven Innovation Learning and Design www.ell.aau.dk Department of Communication and Psychology Aalborg University (www.aau.dk) ryberg@hum.aau.dk

2. Outline - Social Media and Assessment - Irreconcilable Differences or True Romance? Discrepancies in fundamental understandings of learning and knowledge in ‘Web 2.0 practices’ and ‘educational practices’ Different goals of the practices may lead to tensions and gaps Bridging the gap? An example of work-in-progress from Aalborg University E-Portfolios as bridging mechanisms? Critically reflecting on the tensions in relations to experiments with e-portfolios/PLE?

3. Why social media or web 2.0 in education Some of the keywords from the tech-ed buzz-o-sphere: Realised through use of: Blogs, wikis, social bookmarking etc. However, web 2.0 is not just use of specific technologies

4. RAISE YOUR VOICE OK – but where? Comments are disabled? A ’true’ web 2.0 use of social media?

5. Imaginary example ”Yeah, I use web 2.0 – I upload course descriptions to a wiki. I post announcements in a course blog I maintain a repository of quality links on delicious for students to consult But can students edit and contribute? A ’true’ web 2.0 use?

6. Practices – not technologies Use of social media not only using particular technologies – rather it is about adopting certain practice form and ’ideals’ However, the underlying logics of these practice forms might sit uncomfortably within education ”The centrality of participation, production, dialogue, and collaboration in Web 2.0 practices seemingly make them ideal as elements in programmes focusing on the learner’s active engagement, individually and/or collaboratively, as a prerequisite for learning. On the other hand, from the practice perspective, the fact that one uses certain technologies, for example, wikis, blogs, tagging, and so forth, in one’s teaching does not in itself make the resulting educational practice “Web 2.0”” (Dohn, 2009)

7. Two different logics Two logics or metaphors for learning explored by (Dohn, 2009) drawing on (Sfard, 1998) Acquisition vs. participation Education largely within the first Web 2.0 practice largely within the latter Similar to discussions of: Formal vs. informal Theory vs. practice (theory-practice gap)

8. Acquisition Education fundamentally based within an acquisition logic: Goal of education is that individuals acquire certain ’things’ (skills, competences, knowledge, attitudes) which will prepare the individual for future participation in a practice These ‘things’ can be acquired in one (out-of)-context practice and applied in multiple others The acquisition of these ‘things’ can be assessed Motivation and Goal is to acquire these ‘things’ as pre-requisites to participating in a practice – participation to get access to ‘real’, future participation Learning is (individual) acquisition of ‘things’ to be applied in practice elsewhere Learning is an explicit goal and the premise for the activity

9. Participation Web 2.0 and social media use mainly formed within a Participation logic Goal and motivation is internal to practice - participation, communication, knowledge production for it’s own sake (rather than fulfilling external goals) Knowledge is dynamic and distributed – knowledge is knowing-together in practice – not confined to individual Competence equals competent participation in a particular practice – it’s competent action as recognised by others within that practice Knowledge is situated (what constitutes knowledge is relative to a situation or practice) – different knowledgeabilities Learning is an outcome of engaging of participating in an activity, rather than a goal - learning is participation

10. Can’t liiiiiive - if living is without you While many recognise the problems of the acquisition metaphor it also seems difficult living without it Even though we know there’s a theory-practice gap – education’s been known to work  - so something must happen or ’transfer’ between contexts as personal ’somethings’ (or capabilities for engaging with different practices) However, the clash of the logics can be problematic

11. Question in an informal forum for educational practitioners Imaginaryquestion: ”I neverreallyunderstood the notion of constructivism – cananyonehelp” Answer: ”The descriptiononWikipedia gives a goodintroduction but alsoyoucanconsult the edutechwiki, which I think is a great ressource – read more here: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Constructivism” Perfectly sensible answer – providingsomeresources for the others Patchwork textsare OK Participation canalsomean just a fewedits in a Wiki and updatingsome links Blog posts canbepersonal (unsupported) viewpoints

12. Exam question to student Question: ”Pleaseexplain: what is constructivism?” Answer: ”Dear Prof – thanks for your excellent question - I think the descriptiononWikipedia gives a goodintroduction but alsoyoucanconsult the edutechwiki, which I think is a great ressource – read more here: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Constructivism” Well…actuallyyouweremeant to writesomething, which: others have describedmuchbetter and whichwill not actuallycontribute to anyongoingpracticeorhelpanyoneapart from gettingyouthroughyourexam And many of the examplesmentionedbeforewouldbeproblematic

13. Central tensions (From Dohn, 2009) What happens when Internal goals of participation, communication, knowledge construction, and knowledge sharing subsumed under external goal of acquiring the knowledge and competence necessary for their future working life Dynamic and distributive views on knowledge and competence enrolled in an individualistic, objectivistic view of knowledge and competence Learning as participation understood as a means for realising learning as acquisition Source: Dohn, 2009 Different logics as to what constitutes meaningful, relevant and satisfying participation and contributions

14. E-portfolios as bridging mechanisms? Experiments in Aalborg University within the programme Human Centred Informatics (HCI) together with HelleWentzer - context Larger number of students and wish to support: Reflections on philosophy of science – Philosophy of science in new curriculum assessed through portfolio on 6th semester Development of a ’professional identity’ – what does it mean to be a student from HCI Creating Social Awareness among students (200 students) Create transparency and mass-collective learning (new achitectures for learning) Support more active engagement – learning activities as a supplement to lectures (discussion, reflection, sharing of ressources) Based on experiences with ’Ekademia’ (2007-2009) (Ryberg et al, 2010) Initiated by HelleWentzerandThomasRyberg Run on the social network engine (Elgg) Students missed stronger connections between teaching and voluntary activities in Ekademia Lack of goals and assessment (voluntary activity) Used primarily for group work

15. ICT systems on 1.sem HCI Two systems (thatintegrates in manyways) Moodle (course management-system) Overview of entireprogramme, the semester and courses General HCI relatedcommunication - semester- and coursecommunication Mahara (portfolio – or PLE ifyouwill) Customisablepersonalprofile & dashboard Portfolio and digital cv (e.g for future employer) Group work, thematicgroups, student createdgroups Social network Exchange and inspiration Creation of transparencybtw students, groups and students and lecturers

16. Experimentingwith the opensourcee-portfolio-systemmahara In Mahara (mahara.org) youcan form social connections (friend-lists, wall-messages, private messaging) Create blogs and write post Create a profile site otherscansee (and customise the contents of this) Upload and share files (pictures, documentsetc) Creategrouprooms (forums, shared files) Createviews (portfolios) Viewsarecustombuiltpresentations of content (a profile is a specific type of view – as is the ’dashboard’) Viewscanbesharedwithwhomyouwantorcanbekept private

19. Creation of portfolios and development of professional identity Courseon Media, Communication and Society Assessedthrough ’active participation’ - 5 small reflective posts in student’sMahara-blog – collated as a ’portfolio’ Some post to be part of the Philosophy of Science portfolio In relation to Philosopy of Science lectures Blog posts discussingdifferentviews of knowledge and research Blog-posts, documents, pictures and other ressources canbeproduced and presented in differentportfolios (’views’) – (re)presentations of content Development of ’professional’ identity over time and portfolio Has resulted in ongoingreflections from students and interestinginsightsinto students’ understanding of variousquestions and problems!!!!

20. Enablingtransparency and social awareness In profilesonMahara – content and external ressources canbeimported (RSS) External blog Relevant blogs Social bookmarks Publication from inst. repository Videoea Documentsetc Groups have ’profiles’ Intention to enabletransparency and knowledgeexhangeamong students (ambient awareness) – 200 peoplefinding and sharingHCI-related ressources More ontransparency (Dalsgaard, 2006, 2009, Dalsgaard & Paulsen, 2009)

21. Some tensions and questions Internal motivation vs. external motivation – will it be experienced as a personally meaningful, reflexive learning space or a place to hand in assignments to pass exams? Will motivation to work with the e-portfolio vanish if it’s not mandatory – and if there’s no feedback from lecturers? Earlier experiences seem to indicate that Is mandatory reflection and development of portfolios fundamentally contradictory to a ’participationist web 2.0 view’ A practical problem – how to engage and interact meaningfully with 200 students – need for peer-assessment? Are we glossing over the fundamental in-equalities of power by adopting seemingly ’participatory’, ’user-driven’ technologies What will be the quality of the reflections: ‘dear diary’ or critical reflections – problems with genres of activities? Student’s have difficulties using the system (critical view on digital native rhetoric) Creating transparency – mechanisms not the best for overviewing activities in the system (not the facebook-news feed) Little exchange and ambient awareness? How to support and encourage? Social glue, profiles and CV – in competition with Facebookog LinkedIn? What do the students think – reflecting on their own use of technologies as part of the course – reflexions will be used for further research 

22. References Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learningbeyondlearning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm Dalsgaard, C. (2009). From transmission to dialogue: Personalised and social knowledge media. MedieKultur, 46. Retrieved from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/mediekultur/article/view/1333/1486 Dalsgaard, C., & Flate Paulsen, M. (2009). Transparency in Cooperative Online Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1492. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/671/1267 Dohn, N. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343-363. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8 Ryberg, T., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Jones, C. (2010). Catering to the Needs of the "Digital Natives" orEducating the "Net Generation"? In M. J.W Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for TertiaryTeaching (pp. 301-318). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://resources.igi-global.com/marketing/pdfs/lee/16.pdf