Archive

Posts Tagged ‘social context’

Never judge a book…

Cover of "Kindle Wireless Reading Device,...

Cover via Amazon

I was sitting in my (somewhat compact) office at home this morning, preparing for an interview this afternoon, busy making some mental notes about the company and the job specification, etc. when I found myself wandering off on a train of thought whilst looking at the vast array of books and CDs on the shelves.

How, in an age of  iPods and Kindles, can you form a cultural opinion of someone?  Whenever I’ve been to someone’s house, I quickly scan their bookshelves and CD collections in order to find out what kind of person they are. (I’m sure most of you will have done that at sometime or other)

Will I now have to surreptitiously pick up their Kindle and rummage through it whilst they’re making coffee in the kitchen?  Should I add them as a ‘friend’ on Amazon, so I can see their wish lists?

Whilst I’m at it, I may as well check out what they’ve got on Sky+ too.

Learning as Social Participation

November 9, 2010 Leave a comment

You may already be aware that I’m working in a small advisory group, looking at Social Media for the LSIS Excellence Gateway.

Some of my initial thoughts are related to:

  • Social Networks/Media being viewed as ‘non-educational’ domains. – This is a view point that I frequently come across in the Schools & F.E. sectors.  I wonder if perhaps, people emphasize ‘social’ as non-constructive and non-educational?
  • Access to information/data sharing with or without a user account. – I’m thinking here back to the initial arguments for and against such things as Google Scholar.  Open data repositories.
  • Participation in a Community of Practice (CoP) as a ‘guest’ – how/or should information be streamed and filtered to the user without the requirement to sign-up?

 

So, I spent my lunch-time knocking up this brief survey/questionnaire.  It is not an LSIS survey – it is purely for me to gauge current perceptions of existing CoPs.

Thanks for your interest and assistance.

LSIS – Excellence Gateway

November 5, 2010 Leave a comment

Stalybridge Station Buffet Bar or bust

I was asked by David Sugden to join an advisory group investigating Social Media (Web2.0) for the LSIS Excellence Gateway.  Our first face-to-face meeting took place yesterday at Ashton Sixth Form College in the MoLeNET Academy. [ a very productive way to spend my day off :-) ]

We have a great group of people from across the Post 16 sector, who all bring many different viewpoints, ideas and experiences of Web2.0 (which we are actually calling ‘stuff’, for now).  Without going into the subplot – we’ve established a few things about ‘stuff’… fundamentally – it’s difficult to put a finger on what ‘stuff’ actually is.  I know I’ll probably get people posting comments about what Web2.0 is… however – give a bunch of people a few hours and they’ll come away with very different views.

Do you want to know about the journey?  OK – The train from Liverpool to Stalybridge was on time until we got somewhere near to Warrington, then for some reason the train slowed to walking pace because there were a few leaves on the track.  Alright – I was 10 mins late, which didn’t matter really as I was technically still early for the meeting.

The return journey was far more eventful.  David mentioned the Stalybridge Station Buffet Bar

Attribution Share Alike Some rights reserved by Matthew Black

- which is a sort of cross between a sweet shop & an olden-days pub.  It would have been rude not to make use of its facilities.  There was a nice roaring open fire, a few Locals, some strange beer (I had ‘American Werewolf in Wigan’) and unique decor.  There was even a guy from the Sunday Telegraph taking photos [keep your eyes out later this month]… However, the trains home were awful – either very late or canceled. I’m sort of getting used to eventful rail journeys home now, which is lucky really because they seem to be on the increase.

Anyway, as Ronnie Corbett would say – I digress.  Our meeting was productive, we’re currently collaborating online and will be meeting up again soon. Great to meet some new folk and catch-up with those I already knew.

I’m sure there’ll be another blog entry about LSIS Excellence Gateway very soon.

.fin.

December 27, 2009 Leave a comment

Logic tells me that this blog post *should* be in chronological order… however, I suspect that as with most of my other blog entries, it will wind-up being a stream of consciousness.  This will be a ‘blog-in-progress’ – as I remember all the noteworthy things that happened in 2009.

This year (2009) seemed to be hectic all the way! – considering the recession there were  plenty on conferences to attend and project funding to bid in for.

  • I didn’t have a good start to the year and for personal reasons ended up not being able to finish my OU Post Grad studies.  Though, as the year went on, I missed studying and  decided to start a CTTLs course – so I can teach Post-16 courses.
  • Our college successfully managed to get a MoLeNET Phase3 project – and so far it’s been a wonderful and inspiring experience.
  • I made lots of new contacts across the globe via tools such as Twitter, FriendFeed, etc. It’s rather incredible to think that I have far more dialog with folks I’ve never met, in other parts of the world – than I do with some colleagues at my own college.  I guess that’s something a psychologist would probably have a field-day with… though a sociologist might simply shrug and tell me that it’s because we have a commonality and Community of Practice, rather than simply working at the same location with nothing else in common.
  • I got an iPhone – a major improvement (as far as I’m concerned) to the iPaq Windows phone I previously had and the Palm Treo before that, etc, etc.  I love Apple and I love the iPhone – yes, I am aware that there are major flaws [3g had no video, etc] BUT Apple tech is simple and functional.  Whenever I have to use a MS Windows PC now, I find it such a pain and far too cumbersome.  I want my tech to be as intuitive as it is functional.

'Teens' verdict on Twitter? They don't give two Tweets – Apparently.

There have been a few articles circulating on the web this week about teenage use (or rather – not use) of social networking, etc. I’m still reading over a few of the articles and going to dig a little further on this, as it is of interest.
Watch this space! Back soon… Meanwhile, take a read of some yourself – see what you think, then post me some comment. :)

Wow – there is a great debate going on with colleagues and friends on my Facebook page, since I’ve posted this blog entry up…. I’m hoping they might let me use their views to further construct something on my blog or wiki page. :)

Reflection on Web2.0 media

June 27, 2009 1 comment

Following on from a brief flurry of Tweets this afternoon, which were primarily about the death of Michael Jackson and how it has been reported across the media.  I began by Tweeting that I had hoped the Guardian would have reported the story (of course), but left it at that and confined most of it to page 39 (Obituaries).  I knew the story would be all over the ‘red-tops’, but did I really want that in my paper?

It was during the Tweets, that Dr Rhona Sharpe, my OU tutor from H809 sent me a message that made me think a little deeper about how we reflect on stories such as the death of Michael Jackson.

I read over some of the Guardian Comment & Editorial section and posted another Tweet about what Dr Sharpe had written.  One reply I received suggested that Jade Goody generated far too much media time considering her lack of legitimate celebrity and ‘cultural’ status.  Likewise, Michael Jackson has generated more than his fair share of coverage about his personal life, rather than his music.

So, what am I getting around to?  Well. I think that we can be rather precious about our own media sources – just as I didn’t want ‘my’ paper to be full of this story today – it was and I bought it, but chose not to read it.

With the advent of Web2.0, newsfeeds, Twitter, SN, etc.  we can now choose how we receive our news, when we receive it, and who delivers it to us.  We can cut out all the stories we do not want to know about and simplify our news intake.  Now – is this god or bad?

So my reflection on Web2.0 media, is this – How can we know what is a good news story if we don’t take time to sift through them ourselves?

Social cues: when less is more

Obvious aspect of mediated communication technologies, whether it is a hand written letter, telephone call or text message, is the reduction in the number of cues they convey when compared to face-to-ace communication… We lose visual and dynamic cues… also the immediacy of feedback – makes coordination of communication more difficult.

“All communications media attenuate to at least some degree the social context cues available in face-to-face conversation. The telephone reduces dynamic and static cues by eliminating visual information about the communicators. Letters and memos reduce static cues by imposing standardized format conventions; they eliminate dynamic cues altogether.”

Sproull and Kiesler (1986, pp. 1495-6)

One of the early predictions resulting from research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) was that the medium is well suited to conveying plain information, but unsuitable for carrying socio-emotional information… Since social presence was assumed to be important in determining the quality of communication, it naturally followed that any communication technology that lacked social presence would be inferior to face-to-face interaction.

Walther (1994) argued that what mattered wasn’t the absolute amount of socialness of a technology, but rather the rate at which social information was exchanged. Utz (2000) supports this notion that mediated communication is not, by its nature, less social or less suitable for collabortive activities… Users develop ‘paralanguage’ (Walther, 1992)… Warkentin and Beranek (1999) suggest that once people have the tools for conveying socio-emotional content, any disadvantage is removed.

Notes on- Self Disclosure on Computer Forms: Meta-Analysis and Implications

Weisband, S. and Kiesler, S. (1996) ‘Self-disclosure on computer forms: meta-analysis and implications’, Proceedings of CHI ’96 [online] http://portal.acm.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/citation.cfm?doid=238386.238387

ABSTRACT
Statistical meta-analysis of literature from 1969 to 1994… 39 studies using 100 measures, computer administration increased self-disclosure.

INTRODUCTION
Possibility that people would tell an impartial machine personal or embarrassing things about themselves, without fear of negative evaluation. (1963)… Social science researchers have explored computer administration as a means for reducing social desirability biases and obtaining more sensitive information from respondents than could be obtained using more traditional formats.

META-ANALYSIS
Researchers mixed conclusions about self-disclosure in computer forms – Hypothesis – Responses to a computer form as compared with its face-to-face or paper-and-pencil counterpart, would be more self-disclosing.
Derived plausible predictions based on two arguments. (1) computer interfaces lack social context cues, which in turn causes reduced evaluation anxiety, feelings of safety… and less concerned with looking good (2) that people lack experience with computers and therefore are not aware of the risks of self-disclosure of personal information to a computer.

TESTS OF SOCIAL CONTEXT CUE HYPOTHESES
An absence of social context clues can increase perceived privacy, or reduce evaluation anxiety or perceived risk. Hypothesized – Studies comparing computer forms with face-to-face interviews… will show a larger effect size than studies comparing computer forms with paper-and-pencil forms.

SENSITIVE INFORMATION
The presence or absence of social context clues will matter more when the information being elicited from respondents is sensitive. Hypothesized – Studies comparing computer forms with other formats will show a larger effect size when the measure elicits sensitive, personal, or otherwise risky information .

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
Prisoners, patients, and others whose lives are heavily influenced by others’ decisions may feel particularly vulnerable to the consequences of self-disclosure, and therefore might be more sensitive to differences in administration. Hypothesized – Studies in which the subjects were medical or psychiatric patients would show larger sizes.

GENDER
Since females are reputed to be more sensitive to social context and tend to be more disclosing. Hypothesized – Studies comparing computer forms with other formats will show a larger size when the subjects are female.

PRESENCE OF OTHERS
The presence of other persons when one is completing a form provides social context clues to the nature of the test environment. Hypothesized – Studies comparing computer forms with other formats wold show a larger effect size when respondents in the computer condition were alone while they completed the form.

TESTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE HYPOTHESIS
People might not be aware of its risks. Lack of computer experience and knowledge might lead people to be careless about the information they give to a computer.

PRECOMPUTER STANDARDIZED TESTS
Standardized tests developed for traditional forms of communication. People are used to seeing them. Hypothesized – studies comparing computer administration with other forms of administration might show larger effect sizes in studies using standardized tests as compared with unstandardized formats.

STUDENTS
Since high school students and undergraduates are likely to be more familiar with computers than today’s adults, and more knowledgeable about computers than others. Hypothesized – studies comparing computer forms with other formats would show larger effect sizes in studies using subjects other than students.

YEARS
Hypothsized – effect sizes would decrease over the years, as people became more familiar with computers and what could be done with them.

DISCUSSION
RESEARCH ISSUES
Meta-analysis gives support to the main hypothesis… indirect analysis, however, did not support explanations related to public knowledge of computers.

ETHICAL ISSUES
People have a false illusion of privacy or otherwise let down their guard when they respond to a computer.

DESIGN ISSUES
Advances in computer interfaces have increased the variety, credibility and salience of information in forms.

Paper 1

February 9, 2008 Leave a comment

Teaching Sociology in a Virtual Classroom
Starr Roxanne Hiltz; Robert Meinke
Teaching Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Oct 1989), pp. 431-446.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-055X%28198910%2917%3A4%3C431%3ATSIAVC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

—————–

A “Virtual Classroom” is a teaching and learning environment located within a computer-mediated communication system. Software tools to enhance teaching and learning activities were added to the standard features of a computerised conferencing system to produce a prototype Virtual Classroom. A variety of courses was offered, some totally on-line with matched face-to-face sections, and others in mixed mode, partially on-line and partially in the traditional (physical) classroom. Overall, outcomes were favourable: students reported increased convenience of access to educational activities and improved quality of learning. Outcomes varied greatly, however. In this paper we describe and contrast experiences in teaching a totally on-line version of introductory sociology and mixed-modes sections of two upper-level sociology courses.’

———–

The paper references the following linked citations:

A PSI Statistics Course
Michael A. Malec
Teaching Sociology, vol. 10, no. 1 (Oct. 1982), pp.84-87.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-055X%2819810%2910%3A1%3C84%3AAPSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

Group Incentive Techniques
Donald E. Tarter
Teaching Sociology, vol. 10, no.1 (Oct. 1982), pp. 117-121
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-055X%28198210%2910%3A1%3C117%3AGIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

—————–

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.