Today I am at the Mykolo Romerio Universitetas in Vilnius, Lithuania, for the European Conference on Social Media 2017. As usual this is a liveblog so additions, corrections etc. all welcome…
Welcome and Opening by the Conference and Programme Chairs: Aelita Skaržauskienė and Nomeda Gudelienė
Nomeda Gudelienė: I am head of research here and I want to welcome you to Lithuania. We are very honoured to have you here. Social media is very important for building connections and networking, but conferences are also really important still. And we are delighted to have you here in our beautiful Vilnius – I hope you will have time to explore our lovely city.
We were founded 25 years ago when our country gained independence from the Soviet Union. We focus on social studies – there was a gap for new public officials, for lawyers, etc. and our university was founded,
Keynote presentation: Dr. Edgaras Leichteris, Lithuanian Robotics Association – Society in the cloud – what is the future of digitalization?
I wanted to give something of an overview of how trends in ICT are moving – I’m sure you’ve all heard that none of us will have jobs in 20 years because robots will have them all (cue laughter).
I wanted to start with this complex timeline of emerging science and technology that gives an overview of Digital, Green, Bio, Nano, Neuro. Digitalisation is the most important of these trends, it underpins this all. How many of us think digitalisation will save paper? Maybe not for universities or government but young people are shifting to digital. But there are major energy implications of that, we are using a lot of power and heat to digitise our society. This takes us through some of those other areas…. Can you imagine social networking when we have direct neural interfaces?
This brings me to the Hype curve – where see a great deal of excitement, the trough of disillusionment and through to where the real work is. Gartner creates a hype cycle graph every year to illustrate technological trends. At the moment we can pick out areas like Augmented reality, virtual reality, digital currency. When you look at business impact… Well I thought that the areas that seem to be showing real change include Internet of Things – in modern factories you see very few people now, they are just there for packaging as we have sensors and devices everywhere. We have privacy-enhancing technologies, blockchain, brain computer interfaces, and virtual assistance. So we have technologies which are being genuinely disruptive.
Trends wise we also see political focus here. Why is digital a key focus in the European Union? Well we have captured only a small percentage of the potential. And when we look across the Digital Economy and Society index we see this is about skills, about high quality public services – a real priority in Lithuania at the moment – not just about digitalisation for it’s own sake. Now a few days ago the US press laughed at Jean Claude Junker admitting he still doesn’t have a smartphone, but at the same time, he and others leading the EU see that the future is digital.
Some months back I was asked at a training session “Close your eyes. You are now in 2050. What do you see?”. When I thought about that my view was rather dystopic, rather “Big Brother is watching you”, rather hierarchical. And then we were asked to throw out those ideas and focus instead on what can be done. In the Cimulact EU project we have been looking at citizens visions to look toward a future EU research and innovation agenda. In general I note that people from older European countries there was more optimism about green technologies, technology enabling societies… Whilst people from Eastern European countries have tended to be more concerned with the technologies themselves, and with issues of safety and privacy. And we’ve been bringing these ideas together. For me the vision is technology in the service of people, enabling citizens, and creating systems for green and smart city development, and about personal freedom and responsibility. What unites all of these scenarios? The information was gathered offline. People wanted security, privacy, communication… They didn’t want the technologies per se.
Challenges here? I think that privacy and security is key for social media, and the focus on the right tool, for the right audience, at the right time. If we listen to Time Berners Lee we note that the web is developing in a way divergent from the original vision. Lorrie Faith Cranor, Carnegie Mellon University notes that privacy is possible in a laboratory condition, but in the reality of the real world, it is hard to actually achieve that. That’s why such people as Aral Balkan, self-styled Cyborg Rights Activist – he has founded a cross-Europe party just focusing on privacy issues. He says that the business model of mainstream technology under “surveillance capitalisms” is “people arming and it it is toxic to human rights and democracy”. And he is trying to bring those issues into more prominence.
Another challenge is engagement. The use and time on social media is increasing every year. But what does that mean. Mark Schaefer, Director of Schaefer Marketing Solutions, describes this as “content shock” – we don’t have the capacity to deal with and consume the amount of content we are now encountering. Jay Bayer just wrote the book “Hug your haters” making the differentiation between “offstage haters” vs. “onstage haters”. Offstage haters tend to be older, offline, and only go public if you do not respond. Onstage haters post to every social media network not thinking about the consequences. So his book is about how to respond to, and deal with, many forms of hate on the internet. And one of the recently consulted companies have 150 people working to respond to that sort of “onstage” hate.
And then we have the issue of trolling. In Lithuania we have a government trying to limit alcohol consumption – you can just imagine how many people were being supported by alcohol companies to comment and post and respond to that.
We so also need to think about engagement in something valuable. Here I wanted to highlight three initiatives, two are quite mature, the third is quite new. The first is “My Government” or E citizens. This is about engaging citizens and asking them what they think – they post a question, and provide a (simple) space for discussion. The one that I engaged with only had four respondents but it was really done well. Lithuania 2.0 was looking at ways to generate creative solutions at government level. That project ended up with a lot of nice features… Every time we took it out, they wanted new features… People engaged but then dropped off… What was being contributed didn’t seem directly enough fed into government, and there was a need to feedback to commentators what had happened as a result of their posts. So, we have reviewed this work and are designing a new way to do this which will be more focused around single topics or questions over a contained period of time, with direct routes to feed that into government.
And I wanted to talk about the right tools for the right audiences. I have a personal story here to do with the idea of whether you really need to be in every network. Colleagues asked why I was not on Twitter… There was lots of discussion, but only 2 people were using Twitter in the audience… So these people were trying to use a tool they didn’t understand to reach people who were not using those tools.
Thinking about different types of tools… You might know that last week in Vilnius we had huge rainfall and a flood… Here we have people sharing open data that allows us to track and understand that sort of local emergency.
And there is the issue of how to give users personalised tools, and give opportunity for different opinions – going beyond your filter bubble – and earn profit. My favourite tool was called Personal Journal – it had just the right combination – until that was brought by Flipboard. Algorithmic tailoring can do this well, but there is that need to make it work, to expose to wider views. There is a social responsibility aspect here.
So, the future seems to look like decentralisation – including safe silos that can connect to each other; and the right tools for the right audience. On decentralisation Blockchain, or technologies like it, are looking important. And we are starting to see possible use of that in Universities for credentialing. We can also talk about uses for decentralisation like this.
We will also see new forms of engagement going mass market. Observation of “digital natives” who really don’t want to work in a factory… See those people going to get a coffee, needing money… So putting on their visor/glasses and managing a team in a factory somewhere – maybe Australia – only until that money is earned. We also see better artificial intelligence working on the side of the end users.
The future is ours – we define now, what will happen!
Q1) I was wondering what you mean by Blockchain, I haven’t heard it before.
A1) It’s quite complicated to explain… I suggest you Google it – some lovely explanations out there. We have a distributed
Q2) You spoke about the green issues around digitalisation, and I know Block Chain comes with serious environmental challenges – how do we manage that environmental and technological convenience challenge?
A2) Me and my wife have a really different view of green… She thinks we go back to the yurt and the plants. I think differently… I think yes, we consume more… But we have to find spots where we consume lots of energy and use technology to make it more sustainable. Last week was at the LEGO factory in Denmark and they are working on how to make that sustainable… But that is challenging as their clients want trusted, robust, long-lasting materials. There are aready some technologies but we have to see how that will happen.
Q3) How do you see the role of artificial intelligence in privacy? Do you see it as a smart agent and intermediary between consumers and marketers?
A3) I am afraid of a future like Elon Musk where artificial intelligence takes over. But what AI can do is that it can help us interpret data for our decisions. And it can interpret patterns, filter information, help us make the best use of information. At the same time there is always a tension between advertisers and those who want to block advertisers. In Lithuanian media we see pop ups requesting that we switch off ad blocking tools… At the same time we will see more ad blocks… So Google, Amazon, Facebook… They will use AI to target us better in different ways. I remember hearing from someone that you will always have advertising – but you’ll like it as it will be tailored to your preferences.
Q4) Coming from a background of political sciences and public administration… You were talking about decentralisation… Wouldn’t it be useful to differentiate between developed and developing world, or countries in transition… In some of those contexts decentralisation can mean a lack of responsibility and accountability…
A4) We see real gaps already between cities and rural communities – increasingly cities are their own power and culture, with a lot of decisions taken like mini states. You talked a possible scenario that is quite 1984 like, of centralisation for order. But personally I still believe in decentralisation. There is a need for responsibility and accountability, but you have more potential for human rights and
Aelita Skaržauskienė: Thank you to Edgaras! I actually just spend a whole weekend reading about Block Chain as here in Lithuania we are becoming a hub for Fin Tech – financial innovation start ups.
So, I just wanted to introduce today here. Social media is very important for my department. More than 33 researchers here look at social technologies. Social media is rising in popularity, but more growth lies ahead. More than 85% of internet users are engaging with social media BUT over 5 billion people in the world still lack regular access to the internet, so that number will increase. There have already been so many new collaborations made possible for and by social media.
Thank you so much for your attention in this exciting and challenging research topic!
Stream B: Mini track on Social Media in Education (Chair: Nicola Osborne and Stefania Manca)
As I’m chairing this session (as Stefania is presenting), my notes do not include Q&A I’m afraid. But you can be confident that interesting questions were asked and answered!
The use of on-line media at a Distance Education University – Martins Nico, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
South Africa University is an online only university so I will be talking about research we have been doing on the use of Twitter, WhatsApp, Messenger, Skype and Facebook by students. A number of researchers have also explored obstacles experienced in social media. Some identified obstacles will be discussed.
In terms of professional teaching dispositoins these are principals, commitments, values and professional ethics that influence the attitude and behavious of educators, and I called on my background in organisational psychology and measuring instruments to explore different ideas of presence: virtual/technological; pedagogical; expert/cognitive; social. And these sit on a scale from Behaviours that are easily changed, and those that are difficult to change. And I want to focus on the difficult to change area of incorporating technologies significantly into practive – in the virtual/technologial presence area.
Now, about our university… We have 350k students and +/- 100k non-formal students. African and international students from 130 countries. We are a distance education university. 60% are between 25 and 39 and 63.9% are female. At Unisa we think about “blended” learning, from posting materials (snail mail) through to online presence. In our open online distance learning context we are using tools including WhatsApp, BBM, Mxit, WeChat, Research Gate, Facebook, LinkedIn, intranet, Google drive and wiki spaces, multimedia etc. We use a huge range, but it is up to the lecturer exactly which of these they use. For all the modules online you can view course materials, video clips, articles, etc. For this module that I’m showing here, you have to work online, you can’t work offline, it’s a digital course.
So, the aim of our research was to understand how effectively the various teaching dispositions are using the available online media, and to what extent there is a relationship between disposition and technology used. Most respondents we had (40.5%) had 1 to 3 years of service. Most respondents (45.1%) were Baby Boomers. Most were female (61%), most respondents were lecturers and senior lecturers.
Looking at the results, the most used was WhatsApp, with instant messaging and social networking high. Microbogging and digital curation were amongst the least used.
Now, when we compare that to the dispositions, we seen an interesting correlation between Social presence dispositions and instant messaging; virtual presence dispositions using research networking, cloud computing… The most significant relationships were between virtual and online tools. No significant correlation between pedagogical presence and any particular tools.
I just wanted to talk about the generations at play here: Baby boomers, Gen X-ers, and Millennials. Looking at the ANOVA analysis for generations and gender. Only for instance messaging and social networking was there any significant result. In both cases millennials use this most. In terms of gender we see females using social networking and instant messaging more than males. The results show younger generation or millennials and females use the two online media significantly more than other groups – for our university that has an implication to ensure our staff understand the spaces our students use.
The results confirmed that millennials are most inclined to use instant messaging and social networking. Females were using these the most.
So, my reocmmendation? To increase usage of online tools, the university will need to train academics in the usage of the various online tools. To arrange workshops on new technology, social media and mobile learning. And we need to advise and guide academics to increase web self-efficacy and compensate accordingly. And determine the needs and preferences of students pertaining to the use of social media in an ODL environment, and focus
Towards a Multilevel Framework for Analysing Academic Social Network Sites: A Network Socio-Technical Perspective – Manca Stefania, National Research Council of Italy and Juliana Elisa Raffaghelli, University of Florence, Italy
I work on the field of learning, distance education, distance learning, social media and social networking. I’m going to share with you some work I am doing with Juliana Elisa Raffaghelli on the use of social networking sites for academic purposes. I know there are lots of different definitions here. In this year I’m talking about the use of social media sites for scholarly communication. As we all know there are many different dispositions to communicate our work, for what we do, including academic publications, conferneces like this, but also we have seen a real increase in the use of social media for scholarly communication. And we have seen Acadeic.edu and ResearchGate in widest use of these, but others are out there.
The aim of my study was to investigate these kinds of sites, not only in terms of adoption, uptake, what kind of actions people do in these sites. But the study is a theoretical piece of work taking a socio-technical perspective. But before I talk more about this I wanted to define some of the terms and context here.
Digital Scholarship is the use of digital evidence, methods of inquiry, research, publication and preservation to achieve scholarly and research goals. And can encompass both scholarly communication using digital media and research on digital media. Martin Weller, one of the first to explore this area, describes digital scholarship as shorthand of an intersection in technology-related developments namely: digital content; networked distribution; open practices. And the potential transformational quality of that intersection.
A recent update to this update, by Greenhow and Gleason (2014) have defined Social Scholarship as the means by which social media affordaces and potential values evolve the ways scholarship is done in academia. And Veletsianos and Kimmons (2012) have talked about Networked Participatory Scholarship as a new form of scholarship arising from these new uses of technology and new types of practice.
There are lots of concerns and tensions here that have been raised… The blurring boundaries of personal and professional identities. The challenge of unreliable information online. Many say that ResearchGate and Academia.edu have a huge number of fake profiles, and that not all of what is there can be considered reliable. There is also a perception that these sites may not be useful – a social factor. There is the challenge of time to curate different sites. And in the traditional idea of “publish or perish” there has been some concern over these sites.
The premise of this study is to look at popular academic sites like ResearchGate, like Academia.edu. Although these sites are increasingly transforming scholarly communication and academic identity, there is a need to understand these at a socio technical level, which is where this study comes in. Academic social network sites are networked socio-technical systems. These systems are determined by social forces and technological features. Design, implementation and use of such technologies sit in a wider cultural and social context (Hudson and Wolf 2003?).
I wanted to define these sites through a multilevel framework, with a socio-economic layer (ownership, governance, business model); techno-cultural layer (technology, user/usage, content); networked-scholar layer (networking, knowledge sharing, identity). Those first two layers come from a popular study of social networking usage, but we added that third level to capture those scholarly qualities. The first two levels refer to the structure and wider context.
We also wanted to bring in social capital theory/ies, encompassing the capacity of social networks to produce goods for mutual benefits (Bourdieu, 1986). This can take the form of useful information, personal relationships or group networks (Putnam 2000). We took this approach because the scholarly community can be viewed as knowledge sharing entities formed by trust, recognition etc. I will move past an overview of social capital types here, and move to my conclusion here…
This positions academic social network sites as networked socio-technical systems that afford social capital among scholars… And here we see structural and distributed scholarly capital.
So to finish a specific example: ResearchGate. The site was founded in 2008 by two physicists and a computer scientist. More than 12 million members distributed worldwide in 193 countries. The majority of members (60%) belong to scientific subject areas, and it is intended to open up science and enable new work and collaboration.
When we look at ResearchGate from the perspective of the socio-economic layer…. Ownership is for-profit. Governance is largely through terms and conditions. The business model is largely based on a wide range of free-of-charge services, with some subscription aspects.
From the techno-cultural layer… Technology signals automatically who one may be interested in connected with, news feeds, propts endorsements, new researchers to follow. And usage can be passive, or they can be active participants after making new connections. And content – it affords publication of diverse types of science outputs.
From the networked scholar layer. Networking – Follow and recommend, Knowledge of sharing – commenting, questions feature, search function, existing Q&As, expertise and skills, and Identity – through profile, score, reach and h-index.
On Linking Social Media, Learning Styles, and Augmented Reality in Education – Kurilovas Eugenijus, Julija Kurilova and Viktorija Dvareckiene, Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Lithuania
Eugenijus: So, why augmented reality? Well according to predictions it will be the main environment for education by 2020 and we need to think about linking it to students on the one hand, and to academia as well. So, the aim of this work is to present an original method to identify students preferring to actively engage in social media and wanting to use augmented reality. To relate this to learning styles.
Looking over the literature we faced a tremendous development of social media, powered by innovative web technologies, web 2.0 and social networks. But so many different approaches here, and every student is different. Possibilities of AR seem almost endless. And the literature suggests AR may be more effective than traditional methods. Only one meta-analysis work directly addresses personalisation of AR-based systems/environments in education. The learning styles element of this work is about the differences of student needs, not specifically focused on this.
Another aspect of AR can be cognitive overload from the information, the technological devices, and the tasks they need to undertake. Few studies seem to look at pedagogy of AR, rather than tests of AR.
So, our method… All learning processes, activities and scenarios should be personalised to student learning styles. We undertook simple and convenient expert evaluation method based on application of trapezoid fuzzy learning. And looking at suitability of use in elearning. The question given to expertise focus on suitability of learning activities of social media and AR in learning. After that details explaining Felder-Silverman learning styles (4 different styles included) model were provided for the experts.
After the experts completed the questionnaire it’s easy to calculate the average values of suitability of the learning styles and learning activities for AR and social media. So we can now easily compute the average for learning styles… So every student could come in and answer a learning styles questionnaire, get their own table, their personal individual learning styles. Then combining that score, with expert ratings of AR and social media, we can calculate suitability indexes of all learning styles of particular students. The programme does this in, say, 20 seconds…
So, we asked 9 experts to share their opinion on particular learning styles… So here the experts see social media and AR as particularly suitable for visuals and activists (learning styles). We think that suitability indexes should be included in recommender systems – main thing in personalised learning system and shoudl be linked to particular students according to those suitability index. The higher suitability index the better the learning components fit particular students needed.
So, expert evaluation, linking learning activities and students by suitability index and recommender system are main intelligent technologies applied to personalise learning. An optimal learning scenario would make use of this to personalise learning. And as already noted Augmented Reality and social media are most suitable for visual and activist learners; most unsuitable for verbal and reflective learners… And that will be reflected in student happiness and outcomes. Visual and activist learners prefer to actively use learning scenarios based on application of AR and social media.
According to Felder and Silverman most people of college age and older are visual. Visual learners remember best what they see rather than what they hear. Visual learners are better able to remember images rather than verbal or text information. For visual learners the optimal learning scenario should include a range of visual materials.
Active learners do not learn much in situations that require them to be passive. They feel more comfortable with or better at active experimentation than reflective observation. For active learners the optimal scenario should include doing something that relates to the wider outside world.
And some conclusions… Learning styles show how this can be best used/tweaked to learners. The influence of visual and social media has shifted student expectations, but many teaching organisations are still quite traditional…
We now have a short break for lunch. This afternoon my notes will be sparse – I’ll be presenting in the Education Mini Track and then, shortly after, in the Social Media Excellence Awards strand. Normal service will be resumed after this afternoon’s coffee break.
Stream B: Mini track on Social Media in Education (Chair: Nicola Osborne and Stefania Manca)
Digital Badges on Education: Past, Present and Future – Araujo Inês, Carlos Santos, Luís Pedro, and João Batista, Aveiro University, Portugal
I’ve come a little late into Ines’ talk but she is taken us through the history of badges as a certification, including from Roman times.
This was used like an honour, but also as a punishment, with badges and tattoos used to classify that experience. For a pilgrim going to Compostello de Compagnario(?) they had a badge, but there was a huge range of fake badges out there. The pope eventually required you to come to rome to get your badges. We also have badges like martial arts belts, for scouts… So… Badges have baggage.
With the beginning of the internet we started the beginnings of digital badges, as a way to recognise achievements and to recognise professional achievements. So, we have the person who receives the badge, the person/organisation who issues the badge, and the place where the badge can be displayed. And we have incentives to collect and share badges associated with various cities across the world.
Many platforms have badges. We have Open Badges infrastructures (Credly, BadgeOS, etc.) and we have the place to display and share badges. In educational platforms we also have support for badges, including Moodle, Edmodo, Makewaves.es, SAPO campus (at our speaker’s home institution), etc. But in our VLE we didn’t see badges being used as we expected so we tried to look out at how badges are being used (see badgetheworld.org) worldwide…
How are badges being used? Authority; award and motivations; sequential orientation – gain one, then the other…; research; recognition; identity; evidence or achievement; credentialing. The biggest use was around two major areas: motivation (for students but also teachers and others), as well as credentialing. And in fact some 10% of digital badges are used to motivate and reward, and to recognise skills, of teachers. However major use is with students and that is split across award, credentialing, and evidence of achievement.
So, our final recommendations was for the integration of badges in education: that we should choose a platform, show the advantage of using a repository (e.g. a backpack for digital badges); to choose the type of badge – mission type and/or award type; and enjoy it.
Based on this information we began a MOOC: Badges: how to use it. And you can see a poster on the MOOC. And this was based on the investigation we did for this work.
Q1) Have you had some feedback, or collected some information on students’ interest on badges… How do they react or care about getting those badges?
A1) Open Badges are not really known to everyone in Portugal. The first task I had was to explain them, and what the advantages there were. Teachers like the idea… They feel that it is very important for their students and have tried it for their students. Most of the experiments show students enjoying the badges… But I’m not sure that they understand that they can use it again if they show it in social media, into the community… But that is a task still to do. The first experience I have, I’ve known about from the teachers who were in the MOOC, they enjoy it, they liked it, they asked for more badges.
Q2) I know about the concept here… Any issues with dual ways to assess students – grades and badges.
A2) Teachers can use them with grading, in parallel. Or if they use them in sequence, they understand how to get to achieve that grade. Teacher has to decide how best to use them… Whether to use them or to motivate to a better grade.
Q3) Thank you! I’m co-ordinating an EU open badge project so I’d like to invite you to publish. Is the MOOC only in Portuguese? My students are designing interactive modules – CC licensed – with best practice guidance. Maybe we can translate and reuse?
A3) It’s only in Portuguese at the moment. We have about 120 people engaged in the MOOC and it runs on SAPO Campus. They are working on a system of badges that can be used across all institutions so that teachers can share badges, a repository to choose from and use in their own teaching.
Comment) Some of that unification really useful for having a shared understanding of meaning and usage of badges.
Yes, but from what I could see teachers were not using badges because they hadn’t really seen examples of how to use them. And they get a badge at the end of the course!
Q4) What is the difference between digital badges and open badges.
A4) Open Badges is a specific standard designed by Mozilla. Digital badges can be created by everyone.
Comment) At my institution the badges are about transferrable skills… They have to meet unit learning outcomes, graduate learning outcomes. They can get prior learning certified through them as well to reduce taught classes for masters students. But that requires that solid infrastructure.
We have infrastructure to issue badge, someone can make and create, to issue a person. The badge has metadata, where it was issued, why, by whom… And then made available in repository. e.g. Mozilla backpack.
Exploring Risk, Privacy and the Impact of Social Media Usage with Undergraduates – Connelly Louise and Nicola Osborne, University of Edinburgh, UK
Thanks to all who came along! Find our abstract and (shortly after today) our preprint here.
And I’ve now moved on to the Best Practice Awards strand where I’ll be presenting shortly… I’ve come in to the questions for Lisa Lundgren (and J. Crippen Kent)’s presentation on using social media to develop social paleontology. From the questions I think I missed hearing about a really interesting project.
EDINA Digital Footprint Consultancy & Training Service – Osborne Nicola, University of Edinburgh, UK
Well, that was me. No notes here, but case study will be available soon.
D-Move – Petrovic Otto, University of Graz, Austria
This is a method and software environment to anticipate “digital natives” acceptance of technology innovations. Looking particularly at how the academic sector is having long term impact on the private sector. And our students are digital natives, that’s importance. So, to introduce me, I’m professor of information systems at the University of Graz, Austria. I have had a number of international roles and have had a strong role in bridging the connection between academia and government, am a member of regulatory authority for telecommunications for Austria. And I have started three companies.
So, what is the challenge? In 2020 more than half of all the people living in our world are born and raised with diital media and the internet, they are digital natives. And they are quite different regarding their values and norms, behaviours and attitudes. Considering the big changes in industries like media, commerce, banking, transport or the travel industry. They have more and more aversion for traditional surveys based on “imagine a situation where you use a technology like…”. Meanwhile surveys designed, executed and interpreted by traditional “experts” will result in traditional views – the real experts are the digital natives. The results should be gained through digital natives’ lives…
So the solution? It is an implemented method, based on the Delphi approach. Digital Natives are used as experts in a multi-round, structured group communication process. In each round they collect their own impressions regarding the Delphi issue. So, for instance, we have digital natives engaging in self-monitoring of their activities.
So, we recruited 4 groups of 5 digital natives; round one discussion as well as interviews with 130 digital natives; field experience embedded in everyday live; discussion; and analysis. We want to be part of the daily life of the digital native, but a big monolithic space won’t work, things change, and different groups use different spaces. We need social media and we need other types of interfaces… We don’t know them today. We have a data capturing layer for pictures, video, annotations. We also need data storage, data presentation and sharing, data tagging and organisation, access control and privacy, private spaces and personalisation… And access control is crucial, as individuals want to keep their data private until they want to share it (if at all).
D-Move gives insights into changes in Digital Natives views, experiences, self-monitoring, etc. And in terms of understanding “why” digital natives behave as they do. The participants show high satisfaction with D-Move as a space for learning. D-Move has been implemented and used in different industries for many years – used for media, transport and logistics, travel industry, health and fitness. It started with messaging based social media, going to social media platforms, finally implementing social internet of things technologies. And we are currently working with one of the most prestigious hotels – with a customer base typically in their seventies… So we are using D-Move to better understand the luxury sector and what parts of technology they need to engage with. D-Move is part of Digital Natives “natural” communication behaviour. And an on-going cycle of scientific evaluation and further technical development.
In terms of the next steps, firstly the conceptual models will be applied to the whole process to better understand digital natives thinking, feeling and behaviour. Using different front ends focused on the internet of things technologies. And offering D-Move to different industries to book certain issues like using an omnibus survey. And D-Move is both a research environment and a teaching environment. We have two streams going in the same direction, including as a teaching instrument.
Q1) Your digital native participants, how do you recruit them?
A1) It depends on the age group. It ranges from age 10 to nearer age 30. For our university we can reach 20-25 year old, for 10 years to 20 we work with schools. 25 to 30 years old is harder to recruit.
Q2) What about ethical issues? How do you get informed consent from 10 to 18 year olds.
A2) These issues are usually based on real issues in life, and this is why security and privacy is very important. And we have sophisticated ways of indicating what is and is not OK to share. This is partly through storing data in our storage. It is not a public system, the data is not accessible to others.
Q3) We’ve seen a few presentations on using data from participants. According to the POPI Act (based on EU GDPR, you can’t use data without consent… How do you get around that?
A3) It’s easier because it is not a public system, and we do not relate information in publications, only at an aggregated level.
At this point I feel it is important to note my usual “digital native” caveat that I don’t agree with the speaker on this term (or the generalisations around it) which has been disputed widely in the literature, including by Marc Prensky, it’s originator.
The Traditions Challenge mobile App – Peruta Adam, Syracuse University, New York, USA
I’ve been looking at how colleges and universities have been using social media in student recruitment, alumni engagement etc. And it has been getting harder and harder to get access to social media data over the years, so I decided to design my own thing.
So, think back to your first days of universities. You probably had a lot of concerns. For instance Ithaca College is in a town less than 7 miles wide, there isn’t a big sports programme, it is hard to build community. So… The Traditions Challenge is a mobile app to foster engagement and community building for incoming university students – this works as a sort of bucket list of things to do and engage with. This launched at Ithaca in August 2016 with over 100 challenges. For instance FYRE, which already encourages engagement, is a challenge here. Faculty Office Hours is it’s own challenge – a way to get students to find out about these. And the fountains – a notable feature on campus – you can have your image taken. And we encourage them to explore the town, for instance engaging with the farmers market.
So there is a list of challenges, there is also a feed to see what else is happening on campus. And there is information on the school. And this is all gamified. Challenges earn points, there is a leaderboard which gets students status. And there are some actual real world challenges – stickers, a nice sweatshirt, etc. And this is all designed to get students more engaged, and more engaged early on at university. There is a lot of academic research on students who are more involved and engaged, being more likely to stay at that university.
Traditions in the University are very important We have over 4000 institutions. And those traditions translate into a real sense of identity for students. There are materials on traditions, keep safe books for ticket stubs, images, etc. but these are not digital. And those are nice but there is no way to track what is going on (plus who takes pictures). And in fact Ithaca tried that approach on campus – a pack, whiteboards, etc. But this year, with the app, there are many more data that can be quantified. This year we had around 200 sign ups (4% of on campus students). We didn’t roll out to everyone, but picked influencers and told them to invite friends, then them to invite their friends, etc. And those 200 sign ups did over 1400 challenges and 44 checked in for prizes. Out of the top ten challenges, 70% of the most popular challenges were off-campus, and 100% of those were non-academic experiences. There is a sense of students being most successful when they involved in a lot of things, and have more activities going on. It is hard for comparing the analogue with the app but we know that at least 44 students checked in for prizes with the app, versus 8 checking in when we ran the analogue challenges.
In terms of students responding to the challenges, they enjoyed the combination of academic and non-academic activities. One student, who’d been enrolled for 3 years, found out about events on campus through the app that he had never heard about before. Some really responded to the game, to the competition. Others just enjoyed the check list, and a way to gather memories. Some just really want the prize! (Others were a lot less excited). Maybe more prizes could also help – we are trying that.
In terms of App Design and UX. And this cohort hugely care about the wording of things, the look of things… Their expectation is really really high.
In terms of identity students reported feeling a real sense of connection to Ithaca – but it’s early days, we need some longitudinal data here.
We found that the digital experience is preferred. Mobile development is expensive and time consuming – I had an idea, tried to build a prototype, applied for a grant to hire a designer, but everyone going down this path have to understand that you need developers, designers, and marketing staff at the university to be involved. And like I said, the expectations were really high, We ran workshops before making anything to make sure we understood that expectation.
I would also note that universities in the US are really getting protective of their brand, the use of logos, fonts etc. They really trusted me but it took several goes to get a logo we were all happy with.
And finally, data from the app, from follow up work, show that students really want to augment their experience with on campus activities, off campus activities… And active and involved students seem to lead to active and involved alumni – that would be great data to track. And that old book approach was lovely as tangible things are good – but it’s easy to automate some printing from the app…
So, what’s happening now? Students are starting, they will see posters and postcards, they will see targeted Facebook ads.
I think that this is a good example of how a digital experience can connect with a really tangible experience.
And finally, I’m from Suracuse University, and I’d like to thank Ithaca College, and NEAT for their support.
Q1) What is the quality of contribution like here?
A1) It looks quite a lot like Instagram update – a photo, text, tagging, you can edit it later.
Q2) And can you share to other social media?
A2) Yes, they can share to Facebook and Twitter.
Q3) I wanted to ask about the ethics of what happens when students take images of each other?
A3) Like other types of social media, that’s a social issue. But there is a way to flag images and admins can remove content as required.
Q4) Most of your data is from female participants?
A4) Yes, about 70% of people who took part were female participants.
Q5) How did you recruit users for your focus groups?
A5) We recruited our heaviest app users… We emailed them to invite them along. the other thing I wanted to note that it wasn’t me, or colleagues, running focus groups, it was student facilitators to make this peer to peer.
Q6) How reliable is the feedback? Aren’t they going to be easy to please here?
A6) Sure, they will be eager to please so there may be some bias. I will eventually be doing some research on these data points eventually.
Q7) Any plans to expand to other universities?
A7) Yes, would love to compare the three different types of US universities in particular.
Q8) Is the app free to students?
A8) Yes, I suspect if I was to monetize this it would be for the university – a license type set up.
Mini track on Social Media in Education – Chair: Nicola Osborne and Stefania Manca
Evaluation of e-learning via Social Networking Website by full-time Students in Russia – Pivovarov Ivan, RANEPA, Russia
Why did I look at this area? Well the Russian Government is presently struggling with poor education service delivery. There is great variety in the efficiency and quality of higher education. So, the Russian Government is looking for ways to make significant improvements. And, in my opinion, social media can be effective in full time teaching. And that’s what my research was looking at.
So, I wanted to determine the best techniques of delivery of e-learning via social networking websites. I was looking at vk.com rather than Facebook. VK is by far the biggest social media in Russia. The second biggest is Instagram. There is strong competition there.
So I was looking at the views of students about educational usage of HK, targeting bachelor students coming from the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration – an atypical institution focused specifically on public administration. A special interest group was created on VK and the educational content was regularly uploaded there. We had 100s of people in this group – hoping for 1000 in future. So material would include assignments, educational contests, etc. And finally after six months of using this space, I decided to make a questionnaire and ask my students what they like, what they don’t like, what they didn’t like the most, etc. and we had 100 responses. Age wise 82% were between 18 and 21 years old; 12% are 21-24 years old; 6% were older than 24. This slide shows that users of social media are typically young, when they move on in life, have families etc, they don’t tend to use social media. We did also ask about Facebook, 53% had a Facebook account, 47% did not.
We asked what the advantages are of VK over Faceook. 52% said most of their friends were on VK. 13% said that VK had a more user friendly interface than Facebook. 29% said VK has a more interesting background – sharing of music, films etc. – than Facebook. Looking at usage of VK in educational purpose, 35% use it weekly; 31% very seldom; 14% 2-3 times a weel; 10% daily. Usage is generally heavier on week days, on the weekend that drops.
So, what motivated people to be a member of the special interest group on a social media website? Most (53%) said the ease of access to information; 31% the dissemination of information; 4% said for the chance of interaction. And when asked what the students wanted to improve, most (53%) wanted to increase teacher-student interaction – more teachers to join them on social media.
Students mostly preferred posts from teachers that were about administration of the unit (28%) and content (28%). When asked if the students wanted to watch video lectures, 85% said yes. One year after this work I started to record video lectures – short (5-10 mins) and they become available prior to a lecture. And then find some new definitions, new terms, etc. And in the lecture we follow up, go into details. We can go straight into discussion. So this response inspired me to create this video content.
I also asked if students had taken an online class before, 52% had, 48% hadn’t. I asked students how they likes social media interaction on social media – 86% of students found it positive (but I only asked the after they’d been assessed to avoid too much bias in results).
Conclusions here…. Well I wanted to compare Russian to other contexts. Students in Russia wanted more teacher-student interactions. “comments must be encouraged” was not present in our experiment but in research in Turkey
Q1) Is there an equivalent to YouTube in Russia?
A1) Yes, YouTube is big. There is an alternative called RuTube – maybe more the Russian Vimeo. No Twitter – Telegram is nearest. And no Russian analogous to SnapChat but it is pushed away by Instagram Stories now I think. WhatsApp is very popular, but I don’t see the educational potential there. This semester I had students make online translations of my lecture… with Instagram Stories… VK does try and copy features from other worldwide spaces – they have stories. But Instragram is most popular.
Q2) Among the takeaways is the need for more intense interaction between students and teaching staff. Are your teaching staff motivated to do this? I do this as a “hobby” in my institution? Is it formalised in your school? And also you said about the strength of VK versus Facebook – you noted that people using VK drives traffic… So where do you see opportunities for new platforms in Russia?
A2) Your second question, that’s hard to predict. Two or three years ago it was hard to predict Instagram Stories or Snapchat. But I guess probably social media associated with sport…
Q2) Potential won’t be hampered by attitudes in the population to steer toward what they know.
A2) I don’t think so… On the time usage front I think my peers probably share your concerns about time and engagement.
Comment) It depends on how it develops… We have a minimum standard. In our LMS there is a widget, and staff have to make videos per semester for them – that’s now a minimum practice. Although in the long run teaching isn’t really rewarded – it’s research that is typically rewarded… Do you have to answer to a manager on this in terms of restrictions on trying things out?
A2) No, I am lucky, I am free to experiment. I have a big freedom I think.
Q3) Do you feel uncomfortable being in a social space with your students… To be appropriate in your profile picture… What is your dynamic?
A3) All my photos are clean anyway! Sports, conferences… But yes, as a University teacher you have to be sensible. You have to be careful with images etc… But still…
Comment) But that’s something people struggle with – whether to have one account or several…
A3) I’m a very public person… Open to everyone… So no embaressing photos! On LMS, my university has announced that we will have a new learning management system. But there is a a question of whether students will like that or engage with that. There is a Clayton Christenson concept of disruptive innovation. This tool wasn’t designed for education, but it can be… Will an LMS be comfortable for students to use though?
Comment) Our university is almost post-LMS… So maybe if you don’t have one already, you could jump somewhere else, to a web 2.0 delivery system…
A3) The system will be run and tested in Moscow, and then rolled out to the regions…
Q4) You ran this course for your students at your institution, but was the group open to others? And how does that work in terms of payments if some are students, some are not?
A4) Everyone can join the group. And when they finish, they don’t escape from the group, they stay, they engage, they like etc. Not everyone, but some. Including graduates. So the group is open and everyone can join it.
Developing Social Media Skills for Professional Online Reputation of Migrant Job-Seekers – Buchem Ilona, Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany
We have 12,800 students, many of whom have a migrant background, although the work I will present isn’t actually for our students, its for migrants seeking work.
Cue a short video on what it means to be a migrant moving across the world in seek of a brighter future and a safe place to call home. Noting the significant rise in migration, often because of conflict and uncertainty.
That was a United Nations video about refugees. Germany has accepted a huge number of refugees, over 1.2 million in 2015, 2016. And, because of that, we have and need quite a complex structure of programmes and support for migrants making their home. At the same time here Germany has shortages of skilled workers so there is a need to match up skills and training here. There is particular need for doctors, engineers, experts in technology and ICT for instance.
But, it’s not al good news. Unemployment in Germany is twice as high among people who have migration background compared to those who do not. At the same time we have migrants with high skills and social capital but it is hard if not impossible to certify and check that. Migrant academics, including refugees, are often faced with unemployment, underemployment or challenging work patterns.
In that video we saw a certificate… Germany is a really organised country but that means without certificates and credentials available. But we also see the idea of the connected migrant, with social media enabling that – for social gain but also to help find jobs and training.
So the project here is “BeuthBonus”, a follow on project. We are targeted at skilled migrant workers – this partly fills a gap in delivery as training programmes for unskilled workers are more common. It was developed to help migrant academics to find appropriate work at the appropriate level. The project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education, the German Federal Ministry of Labour, and also part of an EU Open Badges pilot as we are also an Open Badges Network pilot for recognition of skills.
Our participants 2015-16 are 28 in total (12 female, 16 male), from 61 applications. Various backgrounds but we have 20 different degrees there: 28% BA, 18% MA, 7% PhD. They are mainly 30-39 or 40-49 and they are typically from Tunisia, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.
So, the way this works is that we cooperate with different programmes – e.g. an engineer might take an engineering refresher/top up. We also have a module on social media – just one module – to help participants understand social media, develop their skills, and demonstrate their skills to employers. This is also a good fit as job applications are now overwhelmingly digital now. And also the employment of recruiters has moved from reserved to positive to a digital CV.
So, in terms of how companies in Germany are using social media in recruitment. Xing, a German language only version of a tool like LinkedIn, is the biggest for recruitment advertising. In terms of active sourcing in social media, 45% of job seekers prefer to be approached. And in fact 21% of job seekers would pay to be better visible in these space. 40% of job openings are actively sourced – higher in IT sector.
So we know that building an online professional reputation is important, and more highly skilled job hunters will particularly benefit from this. So, we have a particular way that we do this. We have a process for migrants to develop their online professional development. They start by searching for themselves, then others comment on what was found. They are asked to reflect and think about their own strengths and the requirements of the labour market. Then they go in and look at how the spaces are used, how people brand themselves, and use these spaces. Then some framing around a theme, plan what they will do, and then they set up a schedule for the next weeks and months… So they put it into action.
We then have instrumental ways to assess this – do they use social media, how do they use it, how often, how they connect with others, and how they express themselves online. We also take some culture specific and gender specific considerations into account in doing this.
And, to enhance online presence we look at OpenBadges, set goals, and work towards it. I will not introduce OpenBadges, but I will talk about how we understand competencies. So we have a tool called ProfilPASS – a way to capture experience as transferrable skills that can be presented to the world. We designed badges accordingly. And we have BeuthBonus Badges in the Open Badge Network, but these are on Moodle and available in German and in English to enable flexibility in appling for jobs. Those badges span different levels, they are issues badges at the appropriate levels, they can share them on Xing of LinkedIn as appropriate. And we also encourage them to also look at other sources of digital badges – from IBM developerWorks or Womens Business Club, etc.
So, these results have been really good. Before the programme we had 7% employed, but after we had 75% employed. This tends to be a short term perspective. Before the programme 0% had a digital CV, after 72% did. We see that 8% had an online profile before, but 86% now do. And that networking means they have contacts, and they have a better understanding of the labour market in Germany.
In our survey 83% felt Open Badges are useful for enhancing online reputation.
Open Badge Network has initiatives across the world. We work on Output 4: Open Badges in Territories. We work with employers on how best to articulate the names
Q1) In your refugee and migration terminology, do you have subcategories?
A1) We do have sub categories around e.g. language level, so can refer them to language programmes before they are coming to us. And there had been a change – it used to be that economic migrants were not entitled to education, but that has changed now. Migrants and refugees are the target group. It depends on the target group…
Q2) In terms of the employer, do you create a contact point?
A2) We have an advisory board drawn from industry, also our trainers are drawn from industry.
Q3) I was wondering about the cultural differences about online branding?
A3) I have observations only, as we have only small samples and from many countries. One difference is that some people are more reserved, and would not approach someone in a direct way… They would wave (only)… And in Germany the hierarchy is not important in terms of having conversations, making approaches, but that isn’t the case in some other places. And sharing an image, and a persona… that can be challenging. That personal/professional mix can be even tricky.
Q4) How are they able to manage those presences online?
A4) Doing that searching in a group.. And with coaches they have direct support, a space to discuss what is needed, etc.
Q5) Lets say you take a refugee from country x, what is needed?
A5) They have to have a degree, and they have to have good german – a requirement of our funder – and they have to be located in Germany.
Comment) This seems like it is building so much capacity… I think what you are doing over there is fantastic and opening doors to lots of people.
Q6) In Germany, all natives have these skills already? Or do you do this for German people too? Maybe they should?
A6) For our students I tend to just provide guidance for this. But yes, maybe we need this for all our students too.