Facebook & Blackboard: comparison of learner perspectives

Different systems, different purposes – but how do they compare as learning environments? We undertook a survey of students at the University, asking whether they learned from their use of the systems, whether they made contact with other students through them, and how often they used them. Although it was a small scale survey, the results are quite enlightening and quite surprising. Blackboard is populated with learning material, has all the students on a module signed up to it, a safe environment (in terms of Acceptable Use and some degree of staff monitoring) and provides privacy within the learning group (plus lecturer and relevant support staff). Facebook, on the other hand, has no learning material, only some of the students using the system, and on the face of it, it has the opportunity for slips in privacy and potential bullying because the Acceptable Use policy is more lax than an institutional one, and breaches must be dealt with on an exception basis, when reported. So why do more students find people on their courses through Facebook than Blackboard? And why are up to 50% of students reporting that they have learned from using Facebook? Interviews indicate that students in subjects which use seminars are using Facebook to facilitate working groups – they can set up private groups which give them privacy to discuss ideas in an environment which perceived as safer than Blackboard can provide. No staff interference, unless they choose to invite them in, and the opportunity to select who in the class can engage. The other striking finding is the difference in use between the genders. Males are using blackboard more frequently than females, whilst the reverse is true for Facebook. Interviews suggest that this may have something to do with needing to access lecture notes… Overall, though, it appears that there is little relationship between the time spent engaging with Blackboard and reports that students have learned from it. Because Blackboard is our central repository for notes, any contact is likely to result in some learning. Facebook, however, shows a clear relationship between frequency of use and perception of learning – and our students post frequently to Facebook. Whilst much of this is probably trivia and social chit chat, the educational elements of it are, de facto, contructivist in nature. Further questions need to be answered - Is the reason the students learn from Facebook because they are creating content which others will see and comment on? Is it because they can engage in a dialogue, without the risk of interruption by others?

Embodied social capital and geographic perspectives: performing the habitus

This paper reopens debates of geographic theorizations and conceptualizations of social capital. I argue that human geographers have tended to underplay the analytic value of social capital, by equating the concept with dominant policy interpretations. It is contended that geographers could more explicitly contribute to pervasive critical social science accounts. With this in mind, an embodied perspective of social capital is constructed. This synthesizes Bourdieu's capitals and performative theorizations of identity, to progress the concept of social capital in four key ways. First, this theorization more fully reconnects embodied differences to broader socioeconomic processes. Second, an exploration of how embodied social differences can emerge directly from the political-economy and/or via broader operations of power is facilitated. Third, a path is charted through the endurance of embodied inequalities and the potential for social transformation. Finally, embodied social capital can advance social science conceptualizations of the spatiality of social capital, by illuminating the importance of broader sociospatial contexts and relations to the embodiment of social capital within individuals.

Understanding the dimensional change card sort: Perspectives from task success and failure

Four experiments consider some of the circumstances under which children follow two different rule pairs when sorting cards. Previous research has repeatedly found that 3-year-olds encounter substantial difficulties implementing the second of two conflicting rule sets, despite their knowledge of these rules. One interpretation of this phenomenon [Cognitive Complexity and Control (CCC) theory] is that 3-year-olds have problems establishing an appropriate hierarchical ordering for rules. The present data suggest an alternative account of children's card sorting behaviour, according to which the cognitive salience of test card features may be more important than inflexibility with respect to rule representation.