Die Folge haben wir am 23.01.2019 aufgenommen.
Intro & Feedback
Wir wünschen Euch wahlweise ein frohes oder gesundes neues Jahr (gern auch beides)!
The same procedure as every Episode: Dank an Stammhörer Martin, der das IG-Nobelpreis-Paper, das wir in Folge E009 vorgestellt haben, bei Methodisch Inkorrekt wieder erkannt hat. Für die Kollegen von BZT hat O noch weitere Bildungspodcasthörempfehlungen: Bildungsshaker, 42, Podcampus und via FYYD findet man sicher noch einige mehr (A hat aber auch beim Shownotes schreiben nicht herausbekommen, wofür fyyd steht – vermutlich ist es einfach nur phonetisch ähnlich zu Feed…? Sonst weiß das Internet doch auch immer alles!).
News+Alt+Entf
News+O
- O ist zurück in Deutschland und hat kulinarisch erst einmal aufgeholt.
- Juristen und Betriebswirte machen O Netflix kaputt, weil er sie für das Ende von Daredevil und Punisher verantwortlich macht.
- O musste auch noch zur Polizei, weil böse Menschen auf seinen Namen Dinge im Internet bestellt, aber nicht bezahlt haben.
- “Und jetzt zu etwas völlig anderem”: O hat sich für ein Akademiestudium Philosophie eingeschrieben.
Schöner Döner
News+A
Paper+Alt+Entf
Paper+O: Brumm, brumm, brumm – MOOC dreht sich herum
Reich, Justin; Ruipérez-Valiente, José A: The MOOC pivot. Science, 363 (6423), S. 130–131, 2019, ISSN: 1095-9203. (Typ: Artikel | Abstract | Links | BibTeX) Science Journals Default License
Besprochen in Bldg-Alt-Entf #12 @article{Reich2019,
title = {The MOOC pivot},
author = {Justin Reich and José A. Ruipérez-Valiente},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958},
doi = {10.1126/science.aav7958},
issn = {1095-9203},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-11},
journal = {Science},
volume = {363},
number = {6423},
pages = {130–131},
abstract = {When massive open online courses (MOOCs) first captured global attention in 2012, advocates imagined a disruptive transformation in postsecondary education. Video lectures from the world's best professors could be broadcast to the farthest reaches of the networked world, and students could demonstrate proficiency using innovative computer-graded assessments, even in places with limited access to traditional education. But after promising a reordering of higher education, we see the field instead coalescing around a different, much older business model: helping universities outsource their online master's degrees for professionals (1). To better understand the reasons for this shift, we highlight three patterns emerging from data on MOOCs provided by Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) via the edX platform: The vast majority of MOOC learners never return after their first year, the growth in MOOC participation has been concentrated almost entirely in the world's most affluent countries, and the bane of MOOCs—low completion rates (2)—has not improved over 6 years.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
When massive open online courses (MOOCs) first captured global attention in 2012, advocates imagined a disruptive transformation in postsecondary education. Video lectures from the world's best professors could be broadcast to the farthest reaches of the networked world, and students could demonstrate proficiency using innovative computer-graded assessments, even in places with limited access to traditional education. But after promising a reordering of higher education, we see the field instead coalescing around a different, much older business model: helping universities outsource their online master's degrees for professionals (1). To better understand the reasons for this shift, we highlight three patterns emerging from data on MOOCs provided by Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) via the edX platform: The vast majority of MOOC learners never return after their first year, the growth in MOOC participation has been concentrated almost entirely in the world's most affluent countries, and the bane of MOOCs—low completion rates (2)—has not improved over 6 years. |
Die Autoren haben alle MIT- und Harvard-MOOCs auf edX von Oktober 2012 bis Mai 2018 statistisch ausgewertet. Drei Muster ließen sich über die 565 Durchgänge von 261 Kursen erkennen: Die meisten Lernenden sind nach einem Jahr nicht mehr auf der Plattform, die Lernenden kommen fast ausschließlich aus wohlhabenden Ländern, und die Abschlussquote hat sich in den sechs Jahren nicht verbessert.
Paper+A: Metriken sind auch nur Meinungen, die sich als Mathematik verkleidet haben
Lemke, Steffen; Mehrazar, Maryam; Mazarakis, Athanasios; Peters, Isabella: “When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3 , S. 39, 2019, ISSN: 2504–0537. (Typ: Artikel | Abstract | Links | BibTeX) CC BY 4.0
Besprochen in Bldg-Alt-Entf #12 @article{Lemke2019,
title = {“When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences},
author = {Steffen Lemke and Maryam Mehrazar and Athanasios Mazarakis and Isabella Peters},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00039},
doi = {10.3389/frma.2018.00039},
issn = {2504–0537},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-08},
journal = {Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics},
volume = {3},
pages = {39},
abstract = {The Social Sciences have long been struggling with quantitative forms of research assessment – insufficient coverage in prominent citation indices and overall lower citation counts than in STM subject areas have led to a widespread weariness regarding bibliometric evaluations among social scientists. Fueled by the rise of the social web, new hope is often placed on alternative metrics that measure the attention scholarly publications receive online, in particular on social media. But almost a decade after the coining of the term altmetrics for this new group of indicators, the uptake of the concept in the Social Sciences still seems to be low. Just like with traditional bibliometric indicators, one central problem hindering the applicability of altmetrics for the Social Sciences is the low coverage of social science publications on the respective data sources – which in the case of altmetrics are the various social media platforms on which interactions with scientific outputs can be measured. Another reason is that social scientists have strong opinions about the usefulness of metrics for research evaluation which may hinder broad acceptance of altmetrics too.
We conducted qualitative interviews and online surveys with researchers to identify the concerns which inhibit the use of social media and the utilization of metrics for research evaluation in the Social Sciences. By analyzing the response data from the interviews in conjunction with the response data from the surveys, we identify the key concerns that inhibit social scientists from (1) applying social media for professional purposes and (2) making use of the wide array of metrics available.
Our findings show that aspects of time consumption, privacy, dealing with information overload, and prevalent styles of communication are predominant concerns inhibiting Social Science researchers from using social media platforms for their work. Regarding indicators for research impact we identify a widespread lack of knowledge about existing metrics, their methodologies and meanings as a major hindrance for their uptake through social scientists. The results have implications for future developments of scholarly online tools and show that researchers could benefit considerably from additional formal training regarding the correct application and interpretation of metrics.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The Social Sciences have long been struggling with quantitative forms of research assessment – insufficient coverage in prominent citation indices and overall lower citation counts than in STM subject areas have led to a widespread weariness regarding bibliometric evaluations among social scientists. Fueled by the rise of the social web, new hope is often placed on alternative metrics that measure the attention scholarly publications receive online, in particular on social media. But almost a decade after the coining of the term altmetrics for this new group of indicators, the uptake of the concept in the Social Sciences still seems to be low. Just like with traditional bibliometric indicators, one central problem hindering the applicability of altmetrics for the Social Sciences is the low coverage of social science publications on the respective data sources – which in the case of altmetrics are the various social media platforms on which interactions with scientific outputs can be measured. Another reason is that social scientists have strong opinions about the usefulness of metrics for research evaluation which may hinder broad acceptance of altmetrics too.
We conducted qualitative interviews and online surveys with researchers to identify the concerns which inhibit the use of social media and the utilization of metrics for research evaluation in the Social Sciences. By analyzing the response data from the interviews in conjunction with the response data from the surveys, we identify the key concerns that inhibit social scientists from (1) applying social media for professional purposes and (2) making use of the wide array of metrics available.
Our findings show that aspects of time consumption, privacy, dealing with information overload, and prevalent styles of communication are predominant concerns inhibiting Social Science researchers from using social media platforms for their work. Regarding indicators for research impact we identify a widespread lack of knowledge about existing metrics, their methodologies and meanings as a major hindrance for their uptake through social scientists. The results have implications for future developments of scholarly online tools and show that researchers could benefit considerably from additional formal training regarding the correct application and interpretation of metrics. |
Bibliometrische Kenngrößen wie der Journal Impact Faktor (JIP) oder der Hirsch-Index (h-Index) versuchen die Relevanz von wissenschaftlichen Publikationen oder wissenschaftlichen Autorinnen und Autoren in Zahlen auszudrücken. Meist geht es darum, was wie häufig zitiert wurde. Seitdem man wissenschaftliche Paper auch im Web veröffentlichen kann, kommen immer mehr sog. Altmetriken hinzu, also Kenngrößen wie Download-Zahlen oder Likes in sozialen Netzwerken.
Die Sozialwissenschaften schneiden bei den traditionellen Metriken nicht allzu gut ab. Dennoch scheinen die Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler auch die alternativen Ansätze meist nicht zu kennen und ihnen auch zu misstrauen: Sichtbarkeit in Social Media kostet schließlich Zeit, in der man “richtig forschen” könnte und dort ohnehin nur schwer präzise und faktenbasiert diskutiert werden könne.
Wie man es auch dreht: hier müssen alle mal etwas aufgeschlaut werden, damit die Metriken richtig interpretiert werden – oft genug werden sie zur Erfolgsmessung herangezogen, obwohl sie einige Schwachstellen haben.
Zugabe+O: Aber Herr Spitzer hat doch gesagt…
Orben, Amy; Przybylski, Andrew K: The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 2019, ISSN: 2397-3374. (Typ: Artikel | Abstract | Links | BibTeX) Copyright
Besprochen in Bldg-Alt-Entf #12 @article{Orben2019,
title = {The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use},
author = {Amy Orben and Andrew K. Przybylski},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1},
doi = {10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1},
issn = {2397-3374},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-14},
journal = {Nature Human Behaviour},
abstract = {The widespread use of digital technologies by young people has spurred speculation that their regular use negatively impacts psychological well-being. Current empirical evidence supporting this idea is largely based on secondary analyses of large-scale social datasets. Though these datasets provide a valuable resource for highly powered investigations, their many variables and observations are often explored with an analytical flexibility that marks small effects as statistically significant, thereby leading to potential false positives and conflicting results. Here we address these methodological challenges by applying specification curve analysis (SCA) across three large-scale social datasets (total n = 355,358) to rigorously examine correlational evidence for the effects of digital technology on adolescents. The association we find between digital technology use and adolescent well-being is negative but small, explaining at most 0.4% of the variation in well-being. Taking the broader context of the data into account suggests that these effects are too small to warrant policy change.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The widespread use of digital technologies by young people has spurred speculation that their regular use negatively impacts psychological well-being. Current empirical evidence supporting this idea is largely based on secondary analyses of large-scale social datasets. Though these datasets provide a valuable resource for highly powered investigations, their many variables and observations are often explored with an analytical flexibility that marks small effects as statistically significant, thereby leading to potential false positives and conflicting results. Here we address these methodological challenges by applying specification curve analysis (SCA) across three large-scale social datasets (total n = 355,358) to rigorously examine correlational evidence for the effects of digital technology on adolescents. The association we find between digital technology use and adolescent well-being is negative but small, explaining at most 0.4% of the variation in well-being. Taking the broader context of the data into account suggests that these effects are too small to warrant policy change. |
Manche sogenannte Wissenschaftler*innen behaupten in ihren Büchern und in Talkshows, digitale Medien machten Jugendliche unglücklich. Das hat nun ein Team aus echten Wissenschaftler*innen genauer untersucht: Ergebnis: Es gibt tatsächlich einen negativen Zusammenhang, der aber bloß 0,4 % (Null-komma-vier Prozent) des Wohlbefindens erklärt – fast denselben Wert erzielt das Essen von Kartoffeln.
- Besprochen in der Süddeutschen Zeitung vom 16.01.2019: Der Kartoffel-Effekt von Christian Gschwendtner
Fundgrube+Alt+Entf
Projekte, Tools, Apps… das sind doch bürgerliche Kategorien. Wir packen einfach alles in die Fundgrube:
Politik+Alt+Entf
Veranstaltungstipps
- 07. Februar: Methodisch Inkorrekt Live in Hamburg
Wir haben in der vergangenen Episode bereits auf den Termin hingewiesen, aber nun heißt es: AUSVERKAUFT bis auf Aachen am 9. Februar! Wer es nicht geschafft hat, kann es nach den Sommerferien noch einmal probieren, wenn Nicolas und Reinhard noch einmal unterwegs sein wollen.
- 26. und 27. Februar: Inverted-Classroom-Model-Konferenz (#icm8) in Marburg
Zum inzwischen 8. Mal findet in Marburg die Inverted-Classroom-Model-Konferenz statt, die sich um eben dieses Modell und den Blick über den Tellerrand dreht. Diesmal geht es ausdrücklich um die “next stage”, einen Blick in die Zukunft, was die Digitalisierung bereithalten könnte.
- 22. bis 24. März subscribe 10 (#subscribe10) in Köln
Mit der 10. Ausgabe der kommt die Podcasting-Konferenz nach Berlin und München das erste mal in den deutschen (geografischen) Westen, zum Deutschlandfunk in Köln. Wer selbst Podcasts aufnimmt oder das möchte, aber auch wer selbst begeistert Podcasts hört, ist herzlich eingeladen – zur Teilnahme und zur Mitgestaltung des Programms.
Hausmeisterei
- A hat tatsächlich mal ein paar Minuten recherchiert und SCHON NACH fast 1 JAHR ist unser Podcast nun auch via iTunes und Spotify erreichbar. Für O ist das kurz vor dem Ende des Neulands, aber man muss doch auch mal an die Kinder denken!
- Und [Trommelwirbel]: Wir sind jetzt stolzes Mitglied im Edufunk-Netzwerk \o/
Edufunk-Netzwerk
