Symposium: Supporting Academic Practice in a Digital Age, 17 May 2012

I recently attended this one day symposium at the University of Exeter, hosted by the JISC-funded Exeter CASCADE Project and the University of Exeter Academic Skills team. Over 80 delegates attended from universities mostly in the South and Midlands. A variety of roles were represented, including subject academics, learning developers, educational developers, librarians, educational researchers and ICT tutors. This meant an early recognition that in digital literacies, as in any other area of HE, there’s no chance of applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

Differing needs, applications and anxieties quickly became apparent, as did differing levels of confidence. The ‘desert island’ question at the end of the panel session was especially telling: asked what one piece of technology they would retain on a desert island, one panel member said she’d be glad to be rid of all of it, while another said as long as there was no email, he’d be happy. (I empathised.)

Twitter still seems to be a particular source of anxiety, especially anxieties around boundaries and digital identity. It does seem as if the only effective way to understand Twitter is to use it, and the ‘follow ten people for a couple of weeks’ advice is a good way in. Perhaps some of this anxiety could be overcome with a more structured timetable of tasks – something like the ‘23 Things’ approach?

The event began with two plenary sessions, Dilly Fung (Exeter) on New Academic Literacies, followed by Helen Beetham (Exeter CASCADE) and Martin Oliver (Institute of Education, London) on Students’ Digital Practices: Studying in the Age of Google. I found Helen’s idea of overlapping and interacting digital tribes (e.g. social media users/programmers/email and WPers etc) a much more useful way of thinking than the natives/immigrants or even residents/visitors schema that have been proposed previously.

The panel session that followed these included two very articulate student members. One stated that in her experience most students are more concerned about success in their studies and less about employability. Perhaps some of the current emphasis on the latter risks making a separation between the two in students’ minds?

In the afternoon workshop sessions included hands-on experience of using screencasting to give feedback, using social media for peer-mentored learning, referencing tools, and knowledge production via tweets, blogs and wikis. We will certainly be trialling screencasting for producing resources in Study Advice this year – engaging, easy and effective.

The day gave me plenty to think about (and lots of new Twitter followers…) but perhaps the strongest impression I came away with was that there is much talk about training staff in digital literacies, but little about who takes responsibility for training students – people were quick to say that they didn’t have time/expertise/hardware. But there are plenty of good training resources already out there (see Paul’s elearning resources from Paul Andrews at Newport for an especially useful collection), and a good first step would be to collate and evaluate them, and to produce some examples of how they could be embedded into teaching practice.

For another view of the event, see the CASCADE blog .

Posted in Digital Literacy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What can social media do for me?

Thanks to CSTD and DDT for organising a session on use of social media, with a focus on Research Staff (although appropriate to others, as well).  The session was two and a half hours, including lunch, with presentations from Justin Hutchence (on using social media for career management), Emma Gillaspy (from VITAE) on the state of social media in research in HE, Emily Goodhand (from IMPS) on using LinkedIn (and Twitter) for building a network and career management, and me (Pat) on my use of social media for research related activities.  Continue reading

Posted in social media, Training | Leave a comment

The open access argument is hotting up further with Harvard putting its weight behind free to view publications as reported in The Guardian.  What the article doesn’t mention is that you need to be a fairly rich researcher to publish in many free to read journals.  Typically the cost per published paper is around £2000-£3000.

Posted on by Alastair Culham | Leave a comment

Tracking Downloads with Centaur

In an earlier post I asked: Is it worth tweeting about academic papers? and I apologized for the quality of the graphs saying “Centaur does not allow users to extract data over a specified period”. Well it is possible to get better graphs although the interface is not easily found. But if anyone is thinking about repeating my experiment with a paper in Centaur it is worth knowing that this link http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/cgi/irstats.cgi?IRS_epchoice=EPrint will take you to an interface where you can select your own papers, dates and graphs.  Now a lot of the interface is quite complex and liable to generate far too much data to be useful. But the daily download can be used with the Centaur ID for an article to get the downloads over the last few weeks so you can see whether that tweet or blog post had any impact.  you get the ID from the items page in Centaur.

So below are the downloads of another paper I co-authored, I’ve done a tweet and the first author wrote a blog post, can you guess when?

 Thanks to Pat Parslow for showing me how to get this graph

In case your interested this paper is:

T.R. Liyanagunawardena, A.A. Adams, N. Rassool, S. Williams, Extending Higher Educational Opportunities through e-Learning: A Case Study from Sri Lanka,  1st International Australasian Conference on Enabling Access to Higher Education Adelaide, South Australia 2011, pp. 291-301.

Centaur entry http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/23842/

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Endnote and Google Scholar

In an earlier post we looked at Google Scholar.

Last week I saw this link to a screencast about using Endnote and Google Scholar, it shows how to set up Google Scholar to link to institutional libraries and to export to Endnote, and what to do if you are away from the machine with Endnote on.

Posted in Digital Literacy, Hints and tips | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Is it worth tweeting about academic papers?

Last month Melissa Terras, from the Department of Information Studies at University College London, published a blog post “Is blogging and tweeting about research papers worth it? The Verdict”.  In this post she explained an experiment she conducted by which she had written blog posts giving the back story of past academic papers and providing links to the papers in the UCL repository (the equivalent to Reading’s Centaur), she then tweeted about the papers and saw a sizeable increase in the downloads.

For our experiment we decided to use a conference paper that was uploaded  last month to Centaur, in line with the publishers rules this is the version we submitted not the final version that they published as part of the conference proceedings. On Tuesday I looked at Centaur and saw that it had been downloaded 7 times. I tweeted the following at 6.00 pm that evening:

“Want to know about the range of techs used by guides round the world? http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/27755/2/GTimeSubmitted120112.pdf
(actually the url was shortened by my Twitter client).

By the next morning (Wednesday) the downloads were up to 23.

I asked the co-authors to retweet, and by the next morning (Thursday) the downloads were 39.

Yesterday I asked Pat Parslow (@PatParslow) who wasn’t an author but has worked on related projects and is a regular user of Twitter if he was willing to tweet about this work, which he did:

“Digital Literacies, Digital Divide, Visitors/Residents, Natives/Immigrants technology audit in voluntary sector http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/27755/2/GTimeSubmitted120112.pdf #WAGGGS”

He also did a second post that linked to the hashtag of an event that was happening that day.

This morning (Friday) the total downloads stand at about 64.

(apologies the graph shows the whole year but the paper was only accessible for the last two months, Centaur does not allow users to extract data over a specified period).

There is some overlap in the downloads, presumably some people who follow more than one of us have downloaded it more than once.

But the number of people who have seen our work has increased significantly. Some of the discussion generated on Twitter has suggested the methodology needs to be revised to improve the work, which will be useful as we develop the work and look to submit to a journal.

Fairly obviously the number of followers you have on Twitter makes a difference to the number of people who read your tweets, your reputation for posting interesting links will dictate whether those followers actually read the link and/or retweet it. The time of day you post will make a difference, stuff published in the middle of the night will only be read by insomniacs and those in different time zones. If there is a hashtag that is related to the work it is worth considering using it.

There is work by Gunther Eysenbach “Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact”  which has correlated Tweets about papers and the number of citations, which certainly indicates getting noticed on Twitter can help get your work cited. However there is also a downside Apoorva Mandavilli in the Nature article  “Peer review: Trial by Twitter , reports that within days of publishing criticisms of papers are presented on Twitter. I’m not sure if this is actually bad because if the peer review process omitted to notice that your methodology was flawed surely you still want to know.

The paper this was based on is: S. Williams, C. Spiret, Y. Dimitriadi, R. McCrindle, Auditing Technology Uses within a Global Voluntary Organisation,  Global TIME: Global Conference on Technology, Innovation, Media & Education, AAEC, Online, 2012, pp. 104-109.  http://editlib.org/p/39406; the Centaur entry is http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/27755/

 

 

 

Posted in Digital Literacy, Hints and tips, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Google Refine

Google Refine is a powerful tool for dealing with messy data. It seems to have more power than a spreadsheet and lots of potential. Have a look at the videos on the Google Refine site to get a feel.

Unlike a lot of Google tools this one is downloaded to your machine and works with the data there, so there is no worries about loading data into the cloud and worrying about who can access. The capacity of your machine will dictate how much data you can manipulate.

I’ve only done a little experimenting and can see plenty  of projects I could run with this, but there does look to be a steep learning curve and I can’t find much in the way of tutorials.

So if there are others who are interested in exploring we probably need to set up a self-teach group.

Posted in Hints and tips, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Google Scholar for searching

There are many databases available for academic searching, and there is a list of those available to University of Reading users.

Google Scholar is a good overarching tool for searching through a number of these, via the preferences you can tell Google up to three libraries you are a member of and in return it will show you where the full text is available at those libraries, if you are off-campus you will need to authenticate to get access (details of how to do this at the library site). It will also show if the materials are available in institutional repositories such as Centaur.

However if like me you are interested in research on Twitter you will have difficulties as Google Scholar throws up all articles on pages which have buttons that say things like “Share this on Twitter” as well as those with Twitter in the title or text.

There is an earlier post on Google Scholar Citations which may be of interest.

Posted in Hints and tips | 1 Comment

Digital dissent

I follow several electronic newsgroups to ensure I stay at the front of my research interests. The ever challenging issue of science on Wikipedia cropped up today with an unusually heated debate on the accuracy of information on a page and whether one of the sources cited was accurate in this instance versus ‘in general’. The debate was over a particular instance of arthropod classification – Arthropods include the insects so, by default, include most species of living things. In this case the debate was about possible mistakes in a supplying database that had resulted in the accidental/unintentional appearance of what seemed to be two new genera. Here is the link to the dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Munididae&oldid=492504731

Why am I posting this?  Simple, most of my students use Wikipedia as a definitive source of information for their essays.  I keep telling them it isn’t. It is the opinion of the person willing to put 1) most time in and 2) who has editorial control of the page.  To me, the example above is one I will be using to illustrate my assertions :-)

 

 

Posted in Digital Community | 1 Comment

A library in my pocket

One of the problems of being a plant taxonomist is that my research relies heavily on books, and some of those can be a few hundred years old.  My modest working book collection covers an entire wall of my office and another walll at home, and is therefore not very portable.  However technologies such as the Kindle, iPad and so on mean that I could now carry my library around on a device that would fit in a large pocket.  Screen reading does not have the same interactive and living feel that turning pages, the smell of paper, and the attachment to history  I find in reading a real book.  However virtual libaries provide me with books that are long out of print, very expensive or even unobtainable on the open market.  I now have access to huge specialist digital libraries through Biodiversity Heritage Library, Botanicus.org and Biodiversity Heritage Library Europe.  Sadly most of these have not had the resources to do more than covert paper to pdf but eventually these books will be annotated through notes and hyperlinks, indexed and become far more instantly practical resources.  A recent article in The Atlantic magazine, entitled ‘In defense of the Kindle‘ stimulated me to think more about my interactions with virtual books and realise the benefits as well as the disadvantages.

Posted in Mobile technology | Leave a comment