Design ideas from social networking sites?
Rick West makes some great points in this posting concerning the appeal of social networking sites, especially for young adults in contrast to the struggles that are often inherent in cultivating engaging and constructive asynchronous discussion. The major difference that I see between social networking sites utilizing Web 2.0 technology and traditional asynchronous discussion boards in closed learning management system (LMS) is the where the locus of control lies.
Rick asks, “Can we engineer better educational online communities by copying ideas from informal and commercial communities?” I think the answer is obviously yes….by placing the control for the creation of learning communities on the students. In the typical learning management system, the instructor has control over the creation of communication environments and the students contribute on the terms of the instructor. Rather, social networking software puts the author in total control.
Secondly, I see ease of access as another powerful component of all popular social networking software today. Communication isn’t restricted to only the members of the learning community but rather the author can decide who s/he wants to have access to their thoughts and ideas. Solutions like Elgg allow for students to not only control who has access to their ideas but also the ability to invite others to subscribe to their ideas, forming organic communities of inquiry. Again…the control lies with the students rather than the instructor.
Rick cited a couple of articles (below) that I’m looking forward to taking a closer peek at.
References:
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567-589.
McPherson, K. (2006). Whose space is it, anyway? Mercury News. Accessed 13 Mar 2006 from http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/technology/13840568.htm.
Van der Meijden, H. & Veenman, S. (2005). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 831-859.
Comments
Leave a Reply