These are the slides from a presentation I gave on 27th January 2012 at the LLAS e-learning symposium. Watch the (upcoming) video at http://www.llas.ac.uk/events/archive/6395

1. Using social media for
peer-feedback in a
translation class: a case-study
Benoît Guilbaud
www.benguilbaud.com
@BenGuilbaud

3. Marking

4. Making things better

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

11. www.jonmott.com/blog/

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

38. MMU Student Portal

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:

46. Limitations and
future developments

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.