Dave Parry describes several ideas for using Twitter with students, and the resulting blurring of academic and social communication that he describes has similarities with the results Gabriele (Edwards) and Geraldine (Jones) reported recently with their Edutext study at Bath. Is this a good thing? There are positive and negative aspects – on one hand, one deals with a considerable amount of ‘noise’, but on the other, this additional insight can have a positive effect on the tutor-student relationship, and improve classroom dynamics. I know how excited I felt the first time one of my online distance learning students cracked a joke.

Tracking words does seem to be an interesting way of exploring a topic – there’s the potential of finding something that (or someone who) can really open up your world. I’d never really explored the work of Jacques Derrida before today (Dave Parry is doing some work on Derrida with his students).

Following professionals might be a worthwhile activity to try out, too – although Twitter’s Search facility appears to be broken, so my attempts to follow Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins have been temporarily thwarted. They’re probably not on Twitter anyway (but I hope they are). I’ve asked Dave for any suggestions he has of good examples of academic twitterers. In the meantime I’ll check out the two examples he gives in his article.

The comments left at the bottom of Dave’s article contain some more useful links from eminent academic twitterers. Alan Lew and ‘Chris L’ both mention the need for separate accounts to address the lack of group capability in Twitter.

The grammar issue is an interesting one. I’m a bit of a stickler for correct grammar in formal and semi-formal contexts – to the point where I go catatonic if someone claims that ‘less’ and ‘fewer’ are interchangeable (I know it’s recently been made official, but I refuse to accept it) . However, I think it’s unfortunate that some people can’t differentiate between formal written communication and informal, technology-enabled communication such as SMS, IM, Twitter and so on. The objectives and priorities attached to them are very different. Yes, they all make use of visual characters, but I don’t hear anyone claiming a parliamentary speech is a more valid form of communication than a phone call to one’s grandmother. All communication should aim to be a) unambiguous and b) efficient, and that’s pretty much the sum of it (in my opinion).

Oh – and Clive Thomson’s article on the sixth sense of Twitter is interesting (and brief – hooray). He says: “Scrolling through random Twitter messages can’t explain the appeal. You have to do it — and, more important, do it with friends. (Monitoring the lives of total strangers is fun but doesn’t have the same addictive effect.) Critics sneer at Twitter and Dodgeball as hipster narcissism, but the real appeal of Twitter is almost the inverse of narcissism. It’s practically collectivist — you’re creating a shared understanding larger than yourself.”…

…which is why I’m going to carry on trying it out. More later!

It was clear that this particular unit of study was an ideal choice for the pilot – it’s a unit that students take in their first semester, fresh from sixth-form college – with plenty of emphasis on reflection, self-awareness and other skills required to become an effective, independent learner.

The unit of study uses pre-seminar and post-seminar activities which are presented both on Moodle and by text message. Text messages are also sent to remind students of set tasks.

The question was raised as to whether directing students’ learning in this way might actually impede their development as independent learners. However first year undergraduate students are generally used to a closely-directed learning process, and I don’t see the harm in providing them with a structured and supportive learning environment in which they can build the skills and confidence to become independent learners. The question is; can we expect learners to become independent independently?! 

It will be interesting to see whether the m-learning activities affect student retention. There’s already evidence that the students feel more supported by (and connected with) the tutor, and that receiving tasks by text helps them to manage their studies. These are important factors in preventing struggling students from falling by the wayside.

Another interesting point raised was that the m-learning tasks had not made much of an impression on those student athletes who spent a considerable amount of time away from campus. It’ll be interesting to get specific student feedback on this. If the mobile learning tasks are dependent on the material on Moodle, restricted access to computers/internet at the training camps or competition venues could be the primary issue. Other reasons might be the increased cost of texting while abroad, or simply a priority shift (away from their studies) on the part of the competing student athlete.