I am interested in knowing how social tools like Klout would determine our connectivity and interactivity.
See this experiment in the use of Klout in determining student grades and you may be amazed.
I have used Klout a few times, but I was bothered with the hidden virus and Melware associated with the downloading of the softwares and the associated links to Twitter. I wasn’t sure if an increase in number of followers or following would really make a difference in my learning. I also think it is the value and quality of interaction that makes a difference, not the number of followers/following.
May be it is too early to draw into conclusion on the use of those social open software, as I do think they could be useful as an indicator on the connectivity, but then I would refrain from using it in determining the student grades, due to its “instrumentation” nature of “knowing” and “learning” in social media such as Twitter. In other words, I would prefer to measure the influential nature of followship and creative nature of learning in the social media based on critical thinking and reflection, rather than the mere increase in the number of followers or following, or Tweets and Re-Tweets etc.
Also, if the class students are really making a “group effort” in attracting each others to tweet and re-tweet in their study just to achieve a higher score, wouldn’t that be no different from the mere rote learning, by repeating actions of what the “instructors” and other networkers are doing.
Tweeting for the sake of getting a good grade is not learning, it could even be a waste of time, if such acts are merely mechanistic way of sharing links and information, without a goal.
Don’t take it the wrong way, as I think Klout could be a good tool to measure how one influences each others, only that I am still not that sure if it could be used in an academic manner, and how it fits into the pedagogy.
Does it make sense?