{"id":295,"date":"2018-04-10T15:22:21","date_gmt":"2018-04-10T14:22:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/?p=295"},"modified":"2018-05-02T15:41:21","modified_gmt":"2018-05-02T14:41:21","slug":"encouraging-the-online-creation-of-knowledge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/2018\/04\/10\/encouraging-the-online-creation-of-knowledge\/","title":{"rendered":"Encouraging the Online Creation of Knowledge"},"content":{"rendered":"

There have been a number of models of digital literacy over the last couple of decades. <\/span><\/p>\n

Groupings by Usage<\/b><\/p>\n

In 2001, Prensky suggested that younger people thought and processed information in fundamentally different ways compared to older generations. \u00a0He suggested that younger people (pre 1980s) were \u2018digital natives\u2019 and \u2018speakers\u2019 of the new technologies, while older people were \u2018digital immigrants\u2019 who were able to learn and use the new technologies, but not in the same intuitive way. \u00a0But this dividing of generations has not been borne out by research (Helsper and Eynon, 2009), and more recent studies have been more nuanced. For example a recent study found that information search competencies have a high-level correlation with information literacy and a low-level correction with digital nativity (\u00c7oklar, Yaman, and Yurdakul, (2017). <\/span><\/p>\n

As a replacement for Prensky\u2019s model, White and LeCornu (2011) suggested that the creation of Web 2.0 resulted in users behaving in either a resident-like fashion (using sites as social spaces for sharing and discussion), or visitors using the Web in a more instrumental way. \u00a0It would be expected (according to the Pareto Principle) that visitors would predominate over a small number of \u2018noisy\u2019 residents. Wright, White, Hirst, and Cann, (2013) found that there was evidence that the visitor and resident model could be used to map student attitudes to academic use of social networks.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

creative commons image taken from\u00a0https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/wfryer\/39501087882<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Individual Cognitive Skills<\/b><\/p>\n

Eshet-Akalai (2004, pg 93) stated that \u2018<\/span>digital literacy involves more than the mere ability to use software or operate a digital device; it includes a large variety of complex cognitive, motor, sociological, and emotional skills\u2019. <\/span><\/i>He therefore put forward \u00a0<\/span>\u2018a holistic, refined conceptual framework for digital literacy, which included photo-visual literacy; reproduction literacy; branching literacy; information literacy; and socioemotional literacy\u2019<\/span><\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n

Parsons (2017) has also summaries research on the possibility that digital behaviours may be influenced by innate brain structures. <\/span><\/p>\n

Some forms of digital literacy likely to be highly related to personal characteristics. \u00a0There have already been a number of studies looking at how individual differences, including cognitive differences impact on information search and web-search. These have been summarised in a recent meta-review on individual differences and information search (<\/span>O\u2019Brien et al (2017<\/span><\/a>). \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Social Awareness<\/b><\/p>\n

Other writers have questioned the idea that digital literacy can be seen as separate from domain knowledge, and pointed out that someone can have digital skills but still be incapable of identifying fake news and other forms of misinformation. McGrew, Breakstone, Ortega, Smith, and \u00a0Wineburg (2018) tested students ability to spot fake news, and found that across tasks and grade levels, students struggled to effectively evaluate online claims, sources and evidence. <\/span><\/p>\n

More recent models of digital literacy have become more complex. Martin and Grudziecki (2015, pg 8) talk of \u2018d<\/span>igital <\/span>bildung<\/span><\/i> – <\/span>\u00a0suggesting an integrated, holistic approach<\/span><\/i>, and the DigEuLit Project defined digital literacy as \u2018<\/span>the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital tools and facilities to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyse and synthesize digital resources, construct new knowledge, create media expressions, and communicate with others, in the context of specific life situations, in order to enable constructive social action; and to reflect upon this process\u2019. <\/span><\/i>Similar models have been developed by others e.g see below.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

creative commons image taken from\u00a0https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/wfryer\/39501087882<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Use of Social Networks by Academics<\/b><\/p>\n

Another post on this site reviews recent research<\/span><\/a> on academic use of social media. This suggests that some academics prefer not to use social media, and that social media usage can vary depending on discipline and personal characteristics (e.g gender and country of origin). \u00a0A number of academics in one study (Jordan and Weller, 2018), specifically mentioned problems with digital literacy when using social media. <\/span><\/p>\n

Use of Social Networks by Students<\/b><\/p>\n

Another post on this sites reviews recent research<\/span><\/a> on student use of social media for academic purposes. This shows that this can result in homophily, and that there should not be an assumption that information technology in itself is capable of transforming education and learning (reflecting the findings of Martin and Grudziecki, 2015).<\/span><\/p>\n

Meeting of Minds Model <\/b><\/p>\n

The above findings suggest that the resident-visitor model might be useful in exploring potential use of the site by students i.e the majority are likely to be visitors (making instrumental use of the site), while a much small percentage are likely to be residents (making regular and intensive use of the site). \u00a0It is, however, important to recognise that any group categories are of limited use, and that in reality the way the individual uses a site is likely to be highly influenced by their personal characteristics and interactions with others (e.g peers). <\/span><\/p>\n

Our site could also link into key MOOCs (e.g <\/span>FutureLearn<\/span><\/a>) and other wider communities of interest e.g<\/span> the Conversation. <\/span><\/a>\u00a0But rather than a traditional model where academics are teaching students through digital means or disseminating their research to a passive audience, our site will encourage academic discussion and debate across all layers of academia. In this model there would be more emphasis on interaction, peer review and feedback. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This would make \u2018MeetingofMinds\u2019, similar in concept to a <\/span>cMOOC<\/span><\/a>. \u00a0cMOOCs are based on the ability of Web 2.0 to allow connections to be made (including through blogs and social media) and support learners to interact and create knowledge together (Siemens, 2012). <\/span><\/p>\n

But findings set out in this post, as suggests that such interaction must also be built on the personal development of the student as both an individual and citizen. This includes:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The willingness to engage in mutual learning and knowledge creation. This challenges the resident-visitor model above, for \u00a0if too many users of a collective site are \u2018free-loaders\u2019 or \u2018passive users\u2019 or \u2018lurkers\u2019, then the amount of high quality, new material is likely to decrease on the site overall. Those producing such material may become disenchanted and disengaged with the process. \u00a0Ways of tackling this might be to offer improved access rights on the site to those who produce more material which is rated high quality by others. Alternatively patterns in usage may identify where students are struggling to become independent researchers. <\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Supporting students to develop knowledge creation skills, including improving their ability to recognise valid knowledge, work ethically with others, and use critical and reflection skills to properly judge digital information and then use it as part of knowledge formation. \u00a0Some of this information is already provided on the SUSSED site including information on integrity and ethics, and teaching and learning. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The design of the \u2018MeetingofMinds\u2019 site, and the tools and templates used, would need to take account of the above factors (also see separate posting on <\/span>homophily in academia<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>power differentials<\/span><\/a>).. <\/span><\/p>\n

    By Nina Schuller<\/p>\n

    References<\/b><\/p>\n

    \u00c7oklar, A, N., Yaman, N , D., and \u00a0Yurdakul, I, K (2017) \u2018Information literacy and digital nativity as determinants of online information search strategies\u2019, <\/span>Computers in Human Behaviour, <\/span><\/i>70, pp 1-9. <\/span>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2016.12.050<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    Eshet-Alkalai, Y (2004) \u2018Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival<\/span>
    \n<\/span>Skills in the Digital Era\u2019, <\/span>Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,<\/span><\/i> 13(1), pp 93-106<\/span><\/p>\n

    Helsper, E and Eynon, R (2009) Digital natives: where is the evidence? <\/span>British educational research journal<\/span><\/i>. pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.1080\/01411920902989227<\/span><\/p>\n

    Jisc (no date) \u2018Building digital capabilities:The six elements defined\u2019. Jisc. \u00a0Available at <\/span>http:\/\/repository.jisc.ac.uk\/6611\/1\/JFL0066F_DIGIGAP_MOD_IND_FRAME.PDF<\/span><\/a> (accessed on the 7 Apriil 2018)<\/span><\/p>\n

    Jordan, K and Weller, M 2018 Academics and Social Networking Sites: Benefits, Problems and Tensions in Professional Engagement with Online Networking. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2018(1): 1, pp.\u20091\u20139, DOI: <\/span>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5334\/jime.448<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    Martin, A and Grudziecki, J (2015) \u2018DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development\u2019. <\/span>Journal Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5 (4), <\/span><\/i>\u00a0pp 1-19 <\/span>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.11120\/ital.2006.05040249<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M and \u00a0Wineburg, S (2018) \u2018Can Students Evaluate Online Sources? Learning From Assessments of Civic Online Reasoning\u2019, <\/span>Theory & Research in Social Education<\/span><\/i>, pp 1-30, DOI: 10.1080\/00933104.2017.1416320<\/span><\/p>\n

    Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., Margaryan, A (2013) \u2018Patterns of Engagement in Connectivist Massive Open Online Courses\u2019. \u00a0<\/span>Researchgate.<\/span><\/i> \u00a0Available at <\/span>https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/261831667_Patterns_of_engagement_in_connectivist_MOOCs<\/span><\/a> (Accessed on 7 April 2018)<\/span><\/p>\n

    O\u2019Brien, H, L., Dickinson, R., and Askin, N (2017) \u2018Scoping review of individual differences in information seeking behavior and retrieval research between 2000 and 2015\u2019,<\/span> Library & Information Science Research<\/span><\/i>, 39 (3), pp \u00a0244-254. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.lisr.2017.07.007<\/span><\/p>\n

    Parsons, T, D (2017) The Interaction of Neuroscience and Affective Computing. Cambridge University Press. \u00a0Cambridge.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Siemens, G (2012) \u2018MOOCs are really a platform\u2019. <\/span>Elearningspace<\/span><\/i>. Available at \u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/www.elearnspace.org\/blog\/2012\/07\/25\/moocs-are-really-a-platform\/<\/span><\/a> (Accessed 7 Apriil 2018)<\/span><\/p>\n

    White, S, D and Cornu, A, L (2011) Visitors and Residents: \u2018A new typology for online engagement\u2019. \u00a0<\/span>First Monday. <\/span><\/i>16 (9 – 5) <\/span>http:\/\/journals.uic.edu\/ojs\/index.php\/fm\/article\/view\/3171<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    Wright, F., White, D, Hirst, T., Cann, A (2013) \u2018Visitors and Residents: Mapping Student Attitudes to Academic Use of Social Networks\u2019 <\/span>\u00a0Learning, Media and Technology. <\/span><\/i>.doi:<\/span>
    \n<\/span>10.1080\/17439884.2013.777077 <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    There have been a number of models of digital literacy over the last couple of decades. Groupings by Usage In 2001, Prensky suggested that younger people thought and processed information in fundamentally different ways compared to older generations. \u00a0He suggested that younger people (pre 1980s) were \u2018digital natives\u2019 and \u2018speakers\u2019 of the new technologies, while … <\/p>\n

    Continue reading “Encouraging the Online Creation of Knowledge”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2968,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[37],"class_list":["post-295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-application-of-key-social-networking-concepts-to-meeting-of-minds","tag-social-networking-concepts"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2968"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=295"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":421,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295\/revisions\/421"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/meetingofminds\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}