The next topic in the social media class is SOCIAL OBJECTS. Kevin Anderson, in one of our readings, said “the sites that work are built around social objects.” I would agree with that statement.
One item now being used as a social object that hasn’t really been discussed on the commercial scene yet, is a pedigree chart. The company FamilyLink.com, Inc., has built an application in Facebook called We’re Related, that centers around a pedigree chart. This social object has all of the requisite drawstring questions mentioned by Jyri Engestrom, especially the underlined final test: “Does it bring people closer together?” The success of the application with ten million users in one year, assures the developers that individuals are using the social object to connect with their family and friends.
The other preliminary questions from Engestrom include “Is it free? Is it quick and easy? Is it cross device and multi channel? Is it everyday?” I like these questions and will apply them to the class questions listed below. And I will add one more question to the Engestrom test, based on the idea of using social objects in education.
The questions Dr. Wiley asked us to answer for the assignment were:
1. Can educational content be a social object? Why or why not?
2. Can assessments or assignments be social objects? Why or why not?
3. If you’ve ever taken a class that used a learning management system (LMS) like Blackboard, how compatible does the idea of social objects appear to be with the notion of a learning management system?
4. One metaphor for social objects is a campfire, because campfires draw people together and therefore catalyze social interactions. Can you think of another metaphor for social objects? What are the implications of your metaphor for education?
Answers to the class questions:
In order to answer the first question, I would like to add some context from an article we read for class called Social Objects in Education, by Martin Weller. In the article, Weller states:
“The very hard lesson for academics here is that the educational value is not in the content itself but the social interaction it begets. It also means that content has to exist within a framework of appropriate tools which have the right affordances [emphasis mine] for the type of social interaction, and within a network of users who use the social objects as nodes.”
I agree with the author that the value of a social object is in the interaction(s) arising from its use. The key word for me in the above paragraph is “affordance.” I was first introduced to this idea of “affordance” by Dr. Andrew Gibbons in one of his lectures on instructional design languages. I found a good definition of affordance at jnd.org:
“The word ‘affordance’ was originally invented by the perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson (1977, 1979) to refer to the actionable properties between the world and an actor (a person or animal). To Gibson, affordances are a relationship. They are a part of nature: they do not have to be visible, known, or desirable. Some affordances are yet to be discovered. Some are dangerous. I suspect that none of us know all the affordances of even everyday objects…. In product design, where one deals with real, physical objects, there can be both real and perceived affordances, and the two need not be the same.”
So, the next question I would add to Engestrom’s list of tests would be “Does it grant the user (student) affordance, real or perceived?” I think this “affordance” is assumed in Engestrom’s mind and is foundational to his queries, but it is not articulated.
I also agree with Weller’s “three things for a social object driven mode of education:
a. Content that acts as a social object
b. Tools that facilitate social interaction around these objects
c. A community of learners who find the social objects engaging
So, I would say, yes, educational content, with the above criteria to grant the content “affordance” can make educational content into social objects. Tools are needed to facilitate the social interaction with that content. However, without this affordance provided, the content should not be considered a social object.
On to my answer for question 2: Yes, assessments can be social objects using the same criteria listed above for educational content. However, if an assessment is tailored for an individual answer to a specific matter that must be answered alone (no social interaction), then it should not be defined as a social object.
Question 3: In using Blackboard or another LMS, there are perhaps two or three ways in which content can become a social object. There are places within Blackboard where students/faculty can comment on each other’s work and make those comments public. Social interactions can also be built around shareable flash and other media that is posted within the Blackboard framework. Links to resources can be posted where students /faculty share information. So…yes to question 3.
A metaphor for social objects I thought of is popping popcorn and sharing it. When I turn on the popper at home, immediately my children come out of the cracks and crevices of the home and make their way to the kitchen. I hand them a bowl of popcorn when it is popped and we sit together in the kitchen (since I do not allow food to leave the kitchen), eat it and talk about whatever is on our mind.
To apply this to education, the shareable part is the popcorn that brings us together and grants “affordance” to interactions we have when we are together.