Using Social Media for Peer Feedback in a Translation Class
4 likes1,350 views
The document discusses a case study on using social media for peer feedback in a translation class, highlighting benefits like improved learning, digital literacy, and networked learning. It details the implementation with 25 students, the tasks required, and the findings from questionnaires over a school year. Limitations included engagement issues and lack of assessment, while future developments aim to analyze correlations between participation and performance.
![The task
Every week, [students] will be required to:
1- Post on the discussion forum at least one sentence from
[their] translation, highlighting difficulties or uncertainties
[they]’ve encountered.
2- Reply to at least one post from another student to comment
or make a suggestion on their work.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/socialmediaandpeerfeedbackbenguilbaud-120128112712-phpapp01/85/Using-Social-Media-for-Peer-Feedback-in-a-Translation-Class-28-320.jpg)
![Brick, B., 2011. Social Networking Sites and Language Learning. Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments,
2(3), 18-31, July-September 2011.
Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th International
Conference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.
Levin, T. & Wadmany, R., 2008. Teachers’ view on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the
classroom: developmental scenery. Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education 16(2), pp.233-263.
Mott, John., 2011. The End In Mind. www.jonmott.com [blog].
Murphy, E., 2004. Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 35(4) pp.421–431.
O’Reilly, T., 2005. Web 2.0. Exteme Interfaces, TTI Vanguard. Geneva, Switzerland 16 September 2005.
Thomas, M. (ed.), 2009. Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. Hershey, New York, Information
Science Reference.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Warschauer, M., 2006. Laptops and Literacy: learning in the wireless classroom. New York, Teachers College Press.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/socialmediaandpeerfeedbackbenguilbaud-120128112712-phpapp01/85/Using-Social-Media-for-Peer-Feedback-in-a-Translation-Class-49-320.jpg)
Using Social Media for Peer Feedback in a Translation Class
- 1. Using social media for peer-feedback in a translation class: a case-study Benoît Guilbaud www.benguilbaud.com @BenGuilbaud
- 3. Marking
- 5. Peer-feedback • Students learn from one another - error correction • Face-to-face (in class) or distance (e.g. via Online Asynchronous Discussions) • Social dimension • Tutor drinks less coffee
- 6. Platform
- 7. Moodle
- 8. The problem with Moodle
- 9. No possible communication between units, programmes, cohorts Discussion forum Discussion forum Unit A Unit B
- 10. User-generated content not carried over year after year
- 12. Social Media
- 13. Why social media? • Encourage Networked Learning (Couros, 2011) • Introduce the concept of PLEs / PLNs to students • Expand Zone of Proximal Development (Vygovsky, 1978) • Capitalise on existing skills • Develop Digital Literacy
- 14. Personal Learning Environment (PLE)
- 15. Personal Learning Network (PLN)
- 16. Participants using one or more social networking sites 96 % Participants using Facebook 92 % Regularly reading other users’ content 96 % Regularly posting content 96 % Regularly engaging in discussions (two posts or more) 96 % Regularly attempting to respond to other members’ questions 84 %
- 17. Digital Literacy (Warschauer, 2006) 1 - Computer literacy - "general fluency and comfort in navigating around and using a computer" 2 - Information literacy - ability to access, evaluate, sort, etc. information online 3 - Multimedia literacy - interpret and create multimedia content 4 - Computer-mediated communication literacy - netiquette - argumentation and persuasion with a variety of Internet media - establish and manage online communications between groups of people
- 18. Platform
- 20. Student privacy Staff privacy
- 22. Dedicated space Non-intrusive Open or closed
- 25. Using social media for peer-feedback in a translation class
- 26. The study • Final year undergraduate English to French translation class (1 hour / week) • 25 participants • 3 questionnaires: September 2011, January 2012 & March 2012 • Open and closed questions + analysis of marks & contributions
- 27. The goals • Improve students’ learning (questionnaire / marks) ★ Increase students’ CMC Literacy (questionnaire) ★ Raise awareness of networked learning (questionnaire) ★ Reduce marking (tutor’s caffeine intake)
- 28. The task Every week, [students] will be required to: 1- Post on the discussion forum at least one sentence from [their] translation, highlighting difficulties or uncertainties [they]’ve encountered. 2- Reply to at least one post from another student to comment or make a suggestion on their work.
- 29. Incentives • Weekly, face-to-face review of contributions • Tutor posting feedback, nuggets, suggested readings • Mix of native & second-language speakers • However : not assessed due to course structure
- 30. Existing tools • Most students using WordReference.com
- 31. Students using WordReference.com to find answers
- 32. Students with an existing WordReference.com member account
- 33. Posting content Anomaly
- 34. Attempting to respond to other members’ questions Anomaly
- 35. Engaging in discussions (two posts or more)
- 36. Accessing Posting content content
- 37. Accessing Posting content content
- 39. September 2011 “The platform could be useful”
- 40. January 2012 “The platform is useful”
- 41. January 2012 “The platform is useful” (answers from students with a member account)
- 42. Comments
- 43. Comments from students who didn’t find the platform useful:
- 44. Comments from students who found the platform useful:
- 45. Comments from students who found the platform useful:
- 47. Limitations • Lack of incentive: needs to be assessed? More frequent reminders? • Limited integration to curriculum - lowest common denominator in staff Digital Literacy (opt-out clause) • Limited student engagement • Students engagement to take up when OADs become a standard in the way they’re taught?
- 48. Future developments • Study ending March 2012 • Look for correlation between participation, performance and satisfaction • Apply Murphy’s model for analysis on OAD interactions (Murphy, 2004) • Make a case for OADs as standard practice in HE language units
- 49. Brick, B., 2011. Social Networking Sites and Language Learning. Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(3), 18-31, July-September 2011. Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th International Conference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK. Levin, T. & Wadmany, R., 2008. Teachers’ view on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: developmental scenery. Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education 16(2), pp.233-263. Mott, John., 2011. The End In Mind. www.jonmott.com [blog]. Murphy, E., 2004. Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4) pp.421–431. O’Reilly, T., 2005. Web 2.0. Exteme Interfaces, TTI Vanguard. Geneva, Switzerland 16 September 2005. Thomas, M. (ed.), 2009. Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. Hershey, New York, Information Science Reference. Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warschauer, M., 2006. Laptops and Literacy: learning in the wireless classroom. New York, Teachers College Press.