Category Archives: Uncategorized

Results Filter Bubble Workshop at #ALTC

So, that was a very inspiring trip, especially to get back some focus on my personal research.  The very best part of course, was meeting the many new and interesting people – so thank you so much for the conversations, #altc community! This post is on the results of the workshop “How do you break your Filter Bubble?” on the topic of Filter bubbles and Personal Learning Networks that I held at ALTC.  I’m going to write a more detailed reflection on the conference itself, so look out for that post very soon.
This was a very lively workshop. I know you shouldn’t say that as the organiser, but when I submitted the idea, I mainly wanted to start a debate on the filter bubble (or the term “echo chamber” – as I learnt – is more generally used in the UK) and the problems it poses for learning and personal learning networks. It seems that this topic speaks to many as I had some interesting reflections and conversations on it, before and during the workshop. During the workshop we had 9 participants and decided to split up into 2 groups. Below I have tried to report the results of the discussion on each of the points, and added some of my commentary in italics.
 

Some general notes

I learnt that the filter bubble need not necessarily be something negative, as it provides comfort, and a safe space to articulate your views, without fear of being attacked for them. So there is certainly a need for the filter bubble in some cases. The issues comes when your filter bubble intervenes with your learning or real view on the world.
Because isn’t the nature of learning, that you need to be out of your comfort zone, so that you learn? 
 

On Diversity in a Personal Learning Networks

The determinants of diversity in PLNs was the issue that drew most discussion, as it was deemed by many that diversity is difficult to label.
Some determinants noted were things like : education, class, aggression, funding, ease of access, interests, advertising revenue, cultural perspectives/aspirations and government intrusion into services, and chances of serendipity. The core understanding was that “ideas were different from people.
 
Also, sometimes the effects of filtering can also bring unexpected/non-deliberate diversity in your bubble.  e.g. because you choose to follow people with whom you only share one well-defined interest (for example, a hobby), you might actually get in touch with people who have diverse views from yours.
It was also noted that filter bubbles are not necessarily online phenomena, but also offline/in real life, we have systems that reduce the connections we can make. The items that make up diversity in these two areas are illustrated here.
 

 
I was very glad to read the quite wide range of determinants that were noted down. I would invite the participants to comment further on them and maybe explain them in more detail as a comment to this post. What amused me about the discussion was the fact that this discussion again showed the limitations of our technologies. Although it seemed artificial to pinpoint what could be a determinant of diversity in your network, ultimately technology does exactly that, as it has only uses limited types of measures and data available to take decisions on what to show you, the user.
 

On discovering that you are in a filter bubble

The participants agreed that most often we notice that we are in a filter bubble after getting a shock of some sort. Many shared their experiences on the discovery of 2016’s Brexit vote and the 2016 US Elections, and how “they had not seen it coming”.
 
It is interesting, that we seem to find out we are in a filter bubble when something unexpected happens – that does not fit in with what you think the world looks like. I wonder if we need this kind of ‘shock’ effect, to start re-assessing our understanding, but also to review the limitations of our perspective (and the things that determine our perspectives). This reminds me of concepts of breakdown and rebuilding and negotiating understanding (http://gerrystahl.net/cscl/papers/ch14.pdf)   
 

So what can we do about it?

Our Behaviour

How can we deal with filter bubble?
  • listen to multiple sources
  • be curious
  • look for serendipity
  • seek/look for/follow other points of view – in a safe way (e.g. through private browsing)
  • consider using second accounts
  • re-skin your bubble (this is very intriguing – any explanations/elaboration from the workshop participants?)
How can we teach our students to deal with their filter bubble?
  • train digital literacies
  • teach students to evaluate credibility
  • take them on “guided tours” outside the safe spaces of the VLE/LMS/etc. Work with them in the open spaces of social media, but provide support through collaborative reflection, giving context, etc.
Core message: “I can gain most from my PLN WHEN I triangulate against others”
 

Technical Wishes

Here are some ideas the participants came up with for technical support that could help users with their filter bubbles.
 
These tools & instruments can help me manage my PLN effectively:
  • Option to pay to not be included. if you aren’t paying, then you are the product.
  • “Challenge me” button
  • Avoiding paid-for adverts
  • “Be someone else for the day” button – change your gender in your filter bubble
  • “Forget me temporarily” button
  • Try new things/new perspectives
  • Random search button “I feel lucky”
  • Awareness and how it works
  • Comparing my search results with someone else’s or the results obtained when I’m not logged into the browser on a different network
  • Missing information you would choose to accept (*comparison to peer; *presented different information)

The debate does not end here: please do add your comments/thoughts/opinions/ideas below!

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under ALT, Conferences, personal learning networks, research, Uncategorized

Science communication #scicom #wecom #komnaarbuiten

Yesterday I attended Kom naar Buiten, a day on science communication organised by VLIR-UOS (the department of the Flemish Interuniversity Council, focussed on development cooperation). The day brought together scientists from different disciplines and press officers and science journalists from different media. It was a very interesting day, where I met people from quite different backgrounds and interests in this field.

What everyone seems to agree on though, is that science communication is necessary – certainly more of it is needed! However, what the purpose of it is and how it can be done, is up for discussion.

Here are some practical tips that I picked up across the day

(note: these are tips for going to mass media – but they may be applicable for other target groups/ non-researchers in general):

  • Katleen Bracke (VRT) explained what her work looks like. It was quite unexpected to hear that science journalists in the broadcast media (and maybe print media is similar) have less than a minute (45sec to be exact!) to convince their editors of the news value of an item. Keeping that in mind, it is clear that when scientists approach the media with something interesting, they need to be able to explain in one sentence, why the news is important, why its relevant and why we should give our attention to it.
  • Hetty Helsmoortel referred to the key concepts of  Content (why does it matter?) Clarity (explain it in simple terms) and Charisma (explain it with passion).  Her tips: tell a story, do not restrict yourself to your own research and dare to step out of your comfort zone.
  • Think of oneliner messages that people should take away from your input (Ann Dooms)
  • It is important to think about when you communicate (after publication, but not too often) (Tim Nawrot)
  • Convey your passion for the topic (Herwig Leirs)
  • It’s ok to be incomplete (in academic terms) – find a balance between giving insight into the research but not going too much in the details.
  • Link up with what is in the news and it’s ok to use buzzwords (they draw attention of the science journalist, the deciding editors and the public)
  • When writing a press release, add quotes and mimic the writing style of a newspaper article. This increases the likelihood that your text is taken on as is (with minimal editing). (In this way, you can have more control over how your work is presented in the media).
  • If the media call you for reactions, it will happen in the first 24 hours after the press release. When they do, be available, be prepared with your message and bring on the enthusiasm.

science communication

Some reflections from my side:

Throughout the day I kept thinking of what the value of communicating about your research in the mass media is. I guess it is an issue of what you want to do as an academic and what you want the target audience to take away.

As with the any use of media for communicating, I think it’s important to think about who you are communicating with and what the goal of the communication is. It may therefore be important to identify the target groups and networks of the target groups that you want to reach.

Apart from this, there is a question of the role you want to play in society as an academic. For me that role is one of opinion-making, deepening the content of a discussion, and providing reflection and nuance on your topic. For these issues, I would certainly reach out to the mass media, and I guess this requires a different sort of reputation building as a academic. What I learnt from this event, is that to achieve that goal, you would need to play by the rules of the mass media (including recognising newsworthiness, entertainment-value, etc.), but maintain your quality as a researcher. In fact, I think if you succeed, you would not only make a difference to public opinion, but also, make your research more relevant to societal needs.

And finally, can we hear some more from researchers in the humanities please??? 🙂

(Disclaimer: I did miss the closing session…)

Must read

Saving Science by Daniel Sarewitz

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Open Badges: why use new tools for supporting old (and maybe outdated) formats?

Ever since I participated in Tim Riches’s workshop on Open Badges at the PLE Conference in 2013 (Berlin), I have been fascinated with the seemingly endless possibilities of this instrument.
For the past year or so, I have had the opportunity to get closer to the development of an Open Badge set for recognising intercultural competences acquired through student exchanges (through the GO2B project).

Today, I attended a session on this topic at the Onderwijsdagen, organised by SURF in Rotterdam, where they presented a white paper on how Open Badges could potentially be used in the Dutch educational system. The presentation, but also, the reactions from members of the audience were very enlightening.
Some of my observations:

1. The strength of Open Badges in my view is their simplicity: they give a framework for accrediting well-defined skills and competences, but stay away from dictating the content of these skills and competences. Seen in this way, Open Badges define the process rather than the outcome. And this makes them highly useable for very different fields of application.
2. The value of a Badge is defined by the community it is supported by. Outside this community it may not have much perceived value (but couldn’t you say the same of degrees?)
3. As an instrument, Open Badges are particularly suited to support peer learning and peer feedback/ peer assessment practices. However, this particular strength is not picked up on by many… I wonder why….
4. In the same line of thought: from the learners’ perspective, Open Badges not only help them structure their own learning path, but also teach them to critically look at others’ work and give (constructive) feedback. In other words, these instruments help them self-regulate their own learning and be valued partners in their peers’ learning. I haven’t seen many other scalable practices that do that.

So, in short, my key observation is: why do we not use the opportunities that Open Badges give to push the boundaries of the current educational system, beyond the degree system that we have now?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Some updates

It’s been a long time since I blogged, but I have some valid excuses!! 🙂 (Is there ever such a thing?)

1. I finished my PhD
I finally got there. After some weeks of getting my head down and writing, writing, writing, I submitted my thesis and defended it. Some more details on my research work are on this page. If you would like a copy of my thesis, do get in touch.
But this was also more than a year ago… so what’s been keeping me busy since then?

2. I became a mommy!
This has been the biggest change in my life. My daughter has been putting me through a whole new learning experience, that involves a lot of creativity, patience and little sleep.

3. I started a new job
Since a couple of months, I have been working as an assistant professor at the Open Universiteit. I have been working on some topics that are very different from my original research, so it has taken me some time to settle in.

So, you can expect some regular updates from now on.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Workshop #PLEConf: Do you want to Connect? Recommendation Strategies for Personal Learning Networks

Last week, my colleague and supervisor Jan van Bruggen and I conducted a workshop on recommendation strategies at the PLE conference in Berlin. The conference itself was also very interesting but I will blog about it in a separate post. In this post, I will describe the workshop.

Our workshop focussed on recommendation strategies for social networks supporting Personal Learning Networks. Below you find my presentation.

 

The reasoning behind the research we conducted and the topic of the workshop is that current recommendation systems look for navigating through the abundance of people and resources out there. To minimize the choices, they are therefore created to look for items or people similar to the user. However, for learning, this may not be the most relevant strategy. For learning purposes, you would actually like to look at people or items that are related to whatever you are interested in, but that are different in some significant way. This difference creates an interest and a learning opportunity. In our workshop, we presented two methodologies to match people on similarity and on dissimilarity.

The workshop was very interesting from my point of view, for various reasons:

  1. It was very interesting to see that even in the select group of participants of our workshop, we could see very different types of matches emerging, by using the different methodologies.
  2. As we asked the participants to basically do the computer’s work, it was funny to see how quickly they brought in other, more intelligent steps to improve recommendations. We had to be quite strict in forcing them to follow the computer’s rules. As a designer, it certainly showed me the limitations of the technical side and, of course, our natural intelligence 🙂
  3. What I also liked was how quickly the participants had seemed to make up their mind about whom of the other participants to  connect with. Although we asked them to choose just one or two, most of them revealed to us afterwards that such a choice was difficult to make (although some did indicate initial preferences). Also, it was clear that such choices were dependent on a whole range of things, from professional to personal to other.

My reflections on the PLE conference will follow soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized