Category: networked scholars Page 1 of 4

Using NotebookLM to facilitate knowledge mobilization and broader dissemination of research

Learning technologies research can be useful to many different groups of people. This is one of the reasons why there has been an emphasis on getting research findings into the hands of broader audiences – aka knowledge mobilization. “Broader” here refers to audiences other than researchers. Examples of audiences that might find value in learning technologies research include educators (teachers and higher ed faculty), administrators, policymakers, instructional/learning designers, edtech developers, edtech entrepreneurs, and parents.

One* of the challenges that researchers face in doing this work, is in representing and translating their research in ways in which broader audiences will find it meaningful, engaging, and useful. Some approaches that researchers have used include podcasts, YouTube videos (e.g., see our ResearchShorts series), opinion editorials, and so on. In doing this work over the years, I have learned that it’s incredibly helpful to see examples of how others translate their research for the broader public.

This is where NotebookLM, the Google AI tool which generates an audio summary of research papers, comes in. Plug in a paper, say D’Arcy Norman’s dissertation or our recently-published paper Is Artificial Intelligence in education an object or a subject?, and it generates a five-minute podcast hosted by two synthetic voices.

Some will say that the AI-generated podcast is the outcome, i.e. the knowledge dissemination vehicle: You now have a podcast for your research, and the usual caveats around accuracy, hallucinations, and biases apply.

But, there’s another, perhaps more personally meaningful way to view this: The AI-generated product is a means to an end, a way to help you think about how you might go about translating your research for broader audiences. It’s one thing to read an op ed and marvel at the ways an author frames and describes their research. It’s another to read or listen to how your own research is translated. Try it with one of your own papers, and listen closely to how the topic is introduced, explore the analogies, and pay attention to the accessible language. This is not to say that you should offload your writing or dissemination efforts to this tool. It’s to say that this is a way to see an example of how your research translated for broader audiences could be framed and described.

To be clear, I am certain that you could do better than the AI-generated podcast/summary. There will likely be inaccuracies and shortcomings in the AI-generated summary. Also, the audience isn’t specific, so if your target audience is policymakers, for example, your arguments may be different that if your audience were teachers.

Let me know what happens if you try this!

* There are many other challenges in doing this work, including systemic issues (e.g., what the institution values), whose voice is prioritized, etc etc.

Public & networked scholarship and its challenges

Much of my work on public/networked/participatory scholarship approached the topic with the understanding that

  • scholarly practices impact how scholars use technology (e.g., institutional metrics and rewards systems shaping what kinds of activities faculty participate in, and thereby seek to amplify or improve via technology)
  • technology impacts scholarly practices (e.g., the adoption of a particular technology at an institution shaping what kinds of practices academics use; this can be anything, ranging from proctoring tools that encourage adoption of traditional assessment practices to institutional websites that ‘nudge’ faculty to include their social media profiles).

Note: “scholarship” here includes teaching, and isn’t just a synonym for research.

Much of this work was framed within a broader context of forces that shape how scholars enact digital and networked scholarship.  Over the last few years, I’ve become more interested in the broader context and the broader forces. Of particular interest are three forces (or problems)

  • online harassment
  • systemic inequities (that impact online participation)
  • the mediating roles of ranking, sorting, and attention economy algorithms

There three areas overlap in unique ways as well (e.g., the case of an an op ed going viral and its author being on the receiving end of particularly vitriolic forms of abuse based on their identity).

I’d like to develop this framework of challenges further.

Comment sentiment expressed in YouTube TED talk comments

The top definition of YouTube comments in the urban dictionary is the following: “the only place where a polite discussion about kittens can lead to a flame war about government conspiracies.”

Inquisitive readers might ask: Is that flame war the same for all videos? Or is it more likely for some videos than others?

Our latest paper (and when I write our, I am referring to Royce k=Kimmons, Tonia Dousay, Patrick Lowenthal, and Ross Larsen) explores whether the sentiment expressed toward scholars who go online varies according to variables of interest. Put differently, scholars are encouraged to be present online, to establish a digital identity, and expand their reach and impact. But, what is the public’s reaction? Does the public react more positively/negatively to some people? There’s many ways to go about exploring this question. We sought to answer this question by examining YouTube comments, but one could investigate tweets, blog comments, self-reported data, and so on. Below is our abstract, summarizing our findings, and link to our paper. Note the impact of gender, animations, and moderation on expressed sentiment:

 

Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., Larsen, R., Dousay, T., & Lowenthal, P. (2018). Public Comment Sentiment on Educational Videos: Understanding the Effects of Presenter Gender, Video Format, Threading, and Moderation on YouTube TED Talk Comments. PLOS ONE 13(6): e0197331. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197331

 

Scholars, educators, and students are increasingly encouraged to participate in online spaces. While the current literature highlights the potential positive outcomes of such participation, little research exists on the sentiment that these individuals may face online and on the factors that may lead some people to face different types of sentiment than others. To investigate these issues, we examined the strength of positive and negative sentiment expressed in response to TEDx and TED-Ed talks posted on YouTube (n = 655), the effect of several variables on comment and reply sentiment (n = 774,939), and the projected effects that sentiment-based moderation would have had on posted content. We found that most comments and replies were neutral in nature and some topics were more likely than others to elicit positive or negative sentiment. Videos of male presenters showed greater neutrality, while videos of female presenters saw significantly greater positive and negative polarity in replies. Animations neutralized both the negativity and positivity of replies at a very high rate. Gender and video format influenced the sentiment of replies and not just the initial comments that were directed toward the video. Finally, we found that using sentiment as a way to moderate offensive content would have a significant effect on non-offensive content. These findings have far-reaching implications for social media platforms and for those who encourage or prepare students and scholars to participate online.

What audiences do academics imagine finding online?

When online, people draw on the limited cues they have available to create for themselves an imagined audience. This audiences shapes our social media practices and the expression of our identity. While institutions encourage scholars to go online, and many scholars perceive value in online networks themselves, limited research has explored the ways that scholars conceptualize online audiences.

Audiences by NordForsk/Stefan Tell

 

In a recent paper, we were interested to understand how scholars conceptualize their audiences when participating on social media, and does that conceptualization impacts their self-expression online. Below is a short summary of the results. The full study is here: Veletsianos, G., & Shaw, A. (2018). Scholars in an Increasingly Open and Digital World: Imagined Audiences and their Impact on Scholars’ Online Participation. Learning, Media, & Technology, 43(1), 17-30.

We used a qualitative approach to this study, interviewing 16 individuals who represented a range of academic disciplines and roles. Data were generated from two sources: semi-structured interviews with each participant, and examination of the social media spaces they used (e.g. blogs, Facebook, Twitter).

Participants identified four specific groups as composing their social media audiences: (1) academics, (2) family and friends, (3) groups related to one’s profession, and (4) individuals who shared commonalities with them. Interviewees felt fairly confident that they had a good understanding of the people and groups that made up their audiences on social media, but distinguished their audiences as known and unknown. The known audience included those groups and individuals known to interviewees personally. The unknown audience consisted of members whom participants felt they understood much about but did not know personally. Interviewees reported using their understanding of their audience to guide their decisions around what, how or where to share information on social media. All participants reported filtering their social media posts. This action was primarily motivated by participants’ concerns about how postings would reflect on themselves or others.

The audiences imagined by the scholars we interviewed appear to be well defined rather than the nebulous constructions often described in previous studies. While scholars indicated that some audiences were unknown, none noted that their audience was unfamiliar. This study also shows that a misalignment exists between the audiences that scholars imagine encountering online and the audiences that higher education institutions imagine their faculty encountering online. The former appear to imagine finding community and peers and the latter imagine scholars finding research consumers (e.g., journalists).

Web browser extension that filters offensive content

“Nikola Draca, a third-year statistics student, and his colleague, Angus McLean, 23, an engineering student at McGill University, put their heads together to develop an extension called Soothe for the Google Chrome web browser that blurs out homophobic, racist, sexist, transphobic and other hateful language while browsing the web.” Source

I thought this was interesting, because:

  • It’s yet another example of how student work can contribute meaningfully to society
  • It attempts to take back (some) control from platforms, and enable individuals to refine the experiences they have online

Related initiatives include the following:

 

Recent SSHRC awards

SSHRC recently announced the awards of the latest round of the Insight and Insight Development grants, and we can now announce that we were awarded two grants for our research. Both grants are collaborations. The first with Dr. Royce Kimmons and the second with Dr. Jaigris Hodson. I’m a true believer in people’s ability to collaborate to go farther together. More than 93% of the funding will go to student research assistants. Here’s the work that these two awards will support:

 

SSHRC Insight grant #435-2017-160. PI: Veletsianos; Collaborator: Kimmons, R. Faculty members’ online participation and expression of self over time.

Summary: Researchers’ understanding of longitudinal aspects of digital technology use in education is limited. While many researchers, policymakers, and businesspeople are hopeful about the potential positive impacts that academics’ use of digital technology may generate, the empirical evidence describing the nature of academics’ online participation over time is scant and is largely predicated on small-scale studies. We will address this problem by studying whether, how, and why academics’ online participation and presentation of the self change over time. We will use a mixed methods approach combining descriptive/inferential analyses with basic qualitative studies using data collected from interviews and data mining of social media sites.

 

SSHRC Insight Development grant #430-2017-00104. PI: Veletsianos; Co-PI: Hodson, J. Female academics’ experiences of harassment on social media.

Summary: Prior research shows that some female academics, especially those who are in the public eye and use technology to promote their work, are at great risk of harassment. To gain a greater understanding of this issue, this mixed methods investigation seeks to investigate women scholars’ experiences of online harassment.  The proposed research will use data arising from interviews, social media posts, and surveys to gain a deep and multidimensional understanding of harassment aimed at academics.

Lola Olufemi and student/faculty social media harassment

Below is a short interview with Lola Olufemi. The description from the BBC reads “Lola Olufemi is 21 years old and Cambridge University Students’ Union Women’s Officer. She found herself on the front page of a national newspaper, the face of a campaign to “decolonise” the English curriculum at Cambridge University. She discusses with Jenni Murray how she feels she’s been scapegoated by the media and her fears for the impact this could have on other young, black women wanting to speak out.”

I was watching this unfold yesterday, and witnessed the racist and misogynistic tweets fly by. One of which came from a professor at a well-known unversity, and as I responded at the time, what sort of academic responds in such a vile way to a person, let alone a student. As was shared on Twitter the institution has policies processes to deal with the harassing faculty member, but the questions that have been preoccupying my thinking over the last few months is the following: In what ways should our universities respond to the harassment that their students and faculty receive online, and on social media in particular? What are the institutional and individual responsibilities when we encourage students and faculty to be present on social media?

Page 1 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén