The online academic bookclub: sharing reading notes with social bookmarking software

Institute of Education, London Academic Literacies Seminar 17 June 2011Florence Dujardin Sheffield Hallam University

Abstract

Student reading involves a set of practices is usually hidden from the lecturers' gaze. If students are e-learners who never meet on campus, there is usually no opportunity to compare notes with fellow students, so reading is usually a solitary task with little potential for a social dimension. Social bookmarking could change this.

To make reading practices explicit and visible, and therefore amenable to tutor support, social bookmarking was introduced on an online Master's course. Diigo software was used: like other social bookmarking applications it enables students to store and share weblinks to readings; it also enables them to discuss views in threaded discussions. A pedagogical approach based on an AL model (Lea 2004) was adopted to shape a learning task: students were required to share reading notes that fed into the writing of an end-of-module literature review. This allows them to disclose not just their views about academic texts, but also their (sometimes mixed) feelings about these texts. The outcome of the social bookmarking task was a 'social' annotated bibliography, which was assessed against three criteria (number of entries, quality of comments, and sociability) and received up to 10% of the module mark.

The written nature of interaction in social bookmarking meant that it was possible to capture the student voice, their 'talk about texts', in a semi-formal environment. Following Lea 2007, the research considers inter-textuality (hyperlinks, cross-references), stance and hedging, and social presence, and the role that each plays in shaping a space for meaning making. It suggests that social bookmarking has a real potential in reshaping familiar reading practices and make them visible to students, lecturers and researchers alike.

Reading

Campus students E-learners

Outline

Context Online MA course A problem with a module

Creating an online book club withsocial bookmarking

Students’ online work Value for an AL pedagogy

Context

Post 1992-university MA programme in professional

communication (MAPPC) Online Four courses Shared modules

Module with low average grade

Start with the e-learners Professional communicators

Mature students Most have degrees Write for a living and are ICT savvy

‘Digital immigrants’ A deficit view, untrue for MAPPC students

Transferability of ICT skills (collaboration, security, etc)

University response to social media Engagement issue – not relevant for mature students? Employability – not mentioned in the literature? Critical attitude – yes but how? What pedagogy?

Why introduce social media?

To address an employability issue for professional communicators: use of Web 2.0 tools in business, government and voluntary sector

To generate a type of dialogue that differs from Blackboard forums, blogs, etc

What is social bookmarking?

1. The first form of book -marking: bookmarks are stored (‘favorited’) on your browser on your PC

2. The Web 2.0 way: bookmarks are stored in a web-based soft-ware application that you can access from any computer

Why use social bookmarking?

Problem: lower grades on a module that required students to produce a literature review

Solution: keep the literature review, but support it with a new preliminary task (an

annotated bibliography), and use social bookmarking (Diigo) to create a space

for e-learners to ‘talk about texts’

The assessment tasks

The literature review Based on a

workplace issue (visuals in professional documents and analysis tools to assess them)

Up to 90% of the module mark

The annotated bibliography An preliminary

stage to the LR A ‘social’ task Recognise the

centrality of texts in learning

Up to 10% of the module mark

Rationale

Support informal talk No scholarly writing, but ‘marginalia’, reading

notes (paraphrase and comments) Help students become active participants in the

process of meaning-making Keep two identities into play

as a student applying and selecting frameworks as a professional reflecting on the nature of visual

communication in a document of their choice Make the contested nature of knowledge

explicit through dialogue with peers

Assessment criteria

Spheres for meaning making

Genres (eg article)Notes, marginaliaPosts & responsesRhetorical resources

StudentsTutorAdministratorExternal ExaminerIT managerSoftware itself

‘SQ3R’Annotating referencesReviewing a body of litWriting up a lit review

Meaning making

‘Drafting’ in the discipline

Feature 1: intertextuality

Hyperlinks Referencing conventions

Author, date, and title as heading Correct reference at the beginning

Threaded discussions References to other texts

Feature 2: metadiscourse

References to shared professional situations (“technical documentation”)

Agreements (“like you”, “I agree”) References to other postings (by self

and others) Use of interrogatives or invitations to

elicit other students’ viewpoints

Feature 3: ownership

Recontextualisation: “useful for my essay”

Evaluative statements: “I think”, “I feel” “the problem with this text...” “it wasn’t as useful as other frameworks” “I am not convinced either”

Impacts

Most students were: initially weary

(sharing felt strange)

pleased in the end Average grade

increased

Some students were unconvinced “I could have been

writing my essay” “Diigo offers very

little more than Blackboard”

Comments were limited

Institutional aspects

Institutional concerns? No social media guidelines at the time Tension between collaborative work

and individual contributions Assessment issues

New criterion (sociability) What counts as knowledge? Informality

of exchanges

Conclusions

A new social space Created by the task (social annotated biblio-

graphy) rather than the social software Made reading practices and feelings explicit

to peers and tutor Supported learning / assessment

Visibility of transitional texts Student confidence with meaning making Links between reading and the construction

of new knowledge

Thank you for listening Any comments or questions?

References

Goodfellow, R. (2011) ‘Literacy, literacies and the digital in higher education’, Teaching in Higher Education, 16 (1): 131-144

Hammond, T., Hannay, T., Lund, B. and Scott, J. (2005) 'Social bookmarking tools (I): a general review’. D-Lib Magazine. 11 (4)

Lea, M.R. (2004) ‘Academic literacies: a pedagogy for course design’, Studies in Higher Education, 29 (6): 739-755

Lea, M.R. (2007) ‘Emerging literacies in online learning’, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1): 80-100

Lea, M.R. and Jones, S. (2010) ‘Digital literacies in higher education: exploring textual and technological practice’, Studies in Higher Education, (first online)

Mason, R. and Rennie, F. (2008) E-learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources for Higher Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Prensky, M. (2001) 'Digital natives, digital immigrants - Part I’, On the Horizon, 9 (5): 1-6 Van Pletzen, E. (2006) A body of reading: making ‘visible’ the reading experiences of

first-year medical students. In: Thesen, L. And Van Pletzen, E. (eds) Academic Literacy and the Languages of Change, pp. 104-129. London: Continuum

Webb, E. (2009) 'Engaging students with engaging tools'. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32 (4).