I had a great discussion with two members of my doctoral committee today about studyingthe notion of social software and the co-creation of knowledge.What social software like blogs and wikis provide us is the ability to share knowledge and build understanding. This probably seems relatively obvious to most readers of this blog but it has given me a clearer focus for my own research.
Wikipedia defines Social Software as computer programs that enable people to rendezvous, connect or collaborate through computer-mediated communication and to form online communities.
Here’s where I feel like I’ve hit a snag: If I were to say social software is "bottom-up" software, that it supports the desire of individuals to affiliate with others, can I say that is serves both formal and informal educational modalities? If social software supports the notion of individual choice, how does it best serve formal educational environments?
There are many examples of edubloggers who have introduced blogs and wikis into their classrooms with varying degrees of success. It would seem in this sense that social software was more of a top-down initiative, selected by the instructor instead of by the learner. In this light, is it still considered social software as I have defined it? Does it still support the desire of individuals to affiliate with others or is it another formal means for directing learning?
Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
Comments
Hello, Chris,
I see defining social software as akin to defining a notebook -- the tool doesn't define the use; rather, the use defines the tool.
In one of your earlier posts, Ulises Mejias comments and talks about how, when conceptualising blogging, we "mistake the fingertip from the thing it is pointing at" (Italics in original). Really, blogs and social software are both the fingertip and the thing pointed at.
Social software is bottom up if people come of their own accord. A social software app can start as top down if students are forced to use it by an instructor (or if instructors are forced to use it by an administrator); this same application can become bottom-up if the originally coerced users begin using the site on their own initiative.
Really, the wikipedia definition is flawed. To throw out a different definition: social software allows people to rendezvous, connect, and collaborate; the collaboration permitted by social software can lead to expanded communities of people sharing common interests. It's less about a computer-mediated space, and more about common ground.
But, more importantly, the definition of social software changes from instance to instance, and, within each instance, the definition shifts over time.
Bill,
I think you are spot on in your assessment and have provided a great opportunity to re-cast social software's definition. I need to reflect on your comments a little longer and see where it might lead.
Thank you for your time and effort.
Chris
Chris (and others) - I agree with Bill. Kids are already using social software for the most part - LiveJournal, My-------, etc. Teachers are just adapting the use of social software for classroom use. It's still the same tool, the same use, but the content and the community is different in the classroom setting. I think that's the real power of the software - the kids already know how to use it and we don't have to spend so much time teaching the tool. We can spend more time on the content.
Chris;
In general, I view social software as a bottom-up software, meaning that it is primarily driven by individual users and not by authoritative positions of authority. You can't mandate an informal community. However, when you use S.S. in a classroom, we'd be silly to think that their nature doesn't change.
I think that, as educators, we need to be honest about student's desire for an educational experience. They are looking for an authoritative experience led by a professional. While it's great to talk about the need for more student-centered classrooms (and that's something that I greatly support), authority is going to remain with the professor for the forseeable future.
As a result, I do not think that we can say that classroom-mandated social software is truly bottom up. If it's mandated by the professor, or even 'highly encouraged,' then it is in some way top-down. However, working within the construct of a classroom, social software is one of the more bottom-up ways that we can operate. As a result, I think that it's valid to call it bottom-up, as long as we clarify by saying that this is in the context of things a teacher can institute in their own classroom.
- Nathan
Page, thank you for the comment. Some students are familiar or more willing to learn how to use social software. Now it's a matter of getting educators familiar with the various applications and getting them to experiment with them.
Clarence, thank you for the insight. You present an interesting case re: choices for students. I want to spend more time thinking about this as I work on a better definition of social software. I think the more I try to generalize, the unhappier I become. Not to say all definitions are relative or reductionist in nature, but I want to be careful to consider the context of social software as we begin to refine a definition.
Nathan, thank you too for your comments. I see an echo in your argument with Clarence's. Educators can show students the various social software applications, have them create something with them, then let students decide which application is appropriate for a specific context. Thus you get a combination of both authoritative direction and individual interpretation.
All of these comments have been tremendously helpful to me. I just want to thank you all again for taking the time and effort to share your thoughts.
Chris
Interesting post and discussion.
At the risk of being a bit too technologically determinist, comparing Moodle and Elgg is illuminating here. Both fall under Wikipedia's and Bill's definition of social software, or at least are capable of doing so, but I've always thought of Elgg as the more social of the two, and certainly the more supportive of informal learning. I think this is to do with where the locus of control rests.Moodle courses are very much in the control of the teacher or institution, and whilst Moodle's great at providing space for users' contributions, and is underpinned by social constructionism, these contribution have to be within the activities that the teacher has already set up and provided instructions for, and with the group of co-learners to whom an individual has been allocated. Whilst the social construction of meaning inside Moodle is (or can be) bottom up, the architecture and scaffolding is provided top down. Sure, you can use Moodle to support informal learning, but it's not been built for that.
With Elgg, far more of the control is devolved to the learners' level. In an institution's Elgg, there's going to be an acceptable use policy, monitoring, moderation and, particluarly in classroom use, some focus to tasks; perhaps the equivalent of building regulations and planning control in my extended (tortured?) metaphor. That said, there's a far clearer sense of individual ownership and far more learner autonomy over the content and scope of the blog and the portfolio. Thus, Elgg can be very supportive of some formal learning (although I'd struggle to teach maths using only Elgg as a platform), but is great at supporting learners' informal learning, allowing them to explore, reflect on and share a range of interests that can extend far beyond the school curriculum, and make their own connections with those sharing similar interests, rather than just those who the school has assigned to their class.
I also worry a bit about the distinction between formal and informal learning, in that I'd like to think that some of the intrinsic motivation and playfulness that might characterise informal learning can be brought into my classroom too, but perhaps this is a locus of control thing, and informal learning has, by definition, to be genuinely bottom-up. These issues must have arisen in the heyday of child centred education, but they seem pretty relevant to the UK's personalisation agenda.
Miles,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I like how you reframe the notion of the top-down/bottom-up argument in terms of locus of control. Personalization of educational opportunities sounds like a grand idea but it seems far more difficult to implement in a formal schooling environment. Of course, it doesn't have to be, but it will take a generation or two of educators who embrace this same attitude to make it so.
I can't begin to express the number of physical and mental connections I've been afforded through the informal use of this blog. I am trying to get faculty members and students to adopt the Elgg environment in my college. I am finding people here are not used to the idea of extending themselves beyond the people they immediately work with. But I'm working on it, trying to lead by example as it were.
BTW, I enjoy following your posts. I will be at ALT-C in Edinburgh in September. I hope you are planning to attend.