=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-312/paper-6
|storemode=property
|title=Learning by tagging: The role of social tagging in group knowledge formation
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-312/bof07-yew-gibson-teasley.pdf
|volume=Vol-312
}}
==Learning by tagging: The role of social tagging in group knowledge formation==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-312/bof07-yew-gibson-teasley.pdf
Learning by tagging: The role of social tagging in
group knowledge formation1
Jude Yew1, Faison P. Gibson2, Stephanie Teasley1
School of Information North, University of Michigan, 1075 Beal Ave.,
Ann Arbor, MI 481091
College of Business, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 481972
Abstract. This research presents a case study on the use of Social Tagging
in an undergraduate classroom at the University of Michigan during the
Fall 2005 semester. Students were between 20 and 22 years of age. Stude-
nts tagged their individual blog posts to contribute to themes and conversa-
tions in an online learning environment. Using content analysis of the blog
posts and tags as well as semi-structured interviews, the study examines
the role of online social tagging for tracking and aiding group knowledge
formation.
Introduction
This paper presents a case study from an ongoing research project that in-
vestigates knowledge and community formation in online learning envi-
ronments that employ social tagging. These learning environments allow
the user to organize and display online content, such as blogposts and
1
This work has also been published under the Creative Commons license at the MERLOT Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT) at the following URL: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol2no4/yew.htm
bookmarks, with meaningful keywords or tags presented in a public and
collaborative manner. Such labeling of online content potentially allows
the individual learner and the community to use technology and social
conventions to organize knowledge, coordinate with others, and facilitates
the sensemaking efforts of the community (Mathes, 2004).
This study makes the argument that social tagging systems employed
within a learning community can both facilitate the process and provide
evidence of knowledge formation within the group. To investigate this, we
first put forward a theoretical argument for why social tagging systems
should be employed to facilitate the production of group knowledge. We
then present an analysis of an undergraduate business school class’ online
learning environment that utilized social tagging.
The case for social tagging
Tagging describes the activity of marking online content with keywords,
called “tags”, as a way to organize content for future navigation, filtering
or search. Tags are not based on a controlled vocabulary, but rather are left
to the user’s wishes, although as shown in this study group norms and so-
cial processes can play a significant role in an individual’s choice of tags
leading to fairly consistent assignment of specific tags (Mathes, 2004).
This act of assigning tags to categorize an object is an act of knowledge
production as it makes apparent the mental models, or internal representa-
tions of knowledge, that one uses to associate with the object (Pauen,
2002). The argument being made here is that allowing students to associate
keywords to objects we are enacting the associative structure of knowledge
formation (von Anh & Dabbish, 2004). New knowledge is formed in the
allocation of tags, as the individual has to make sense of the new object by
associating it with prior understandings and classification of objects. For
instance, by categorizing a digital photograph with the tag ‘vacation’, we
are immediately providing information about the content of the photograph
without actually having to view it. Also, the tag “vacation” provides in-
formation to others about how we have contextualized the photo. Thus, the
use of tags can function both as a way to facilitate the formation of new
knowledge as well as to provide evidence of how this knowledge evolves
over time.
Tagging is social because the tags are visible to the whole group with
the potential for influencing the tags adopted by each group member. We
believe that social tagging systems employed within a learning community
can facilitate knowledge formation within the group. In addition, social
tagging can provide evidence of knowledge formation to both the group
members and to researchers/analysts. In a class, the tags used by individual
students to categorize online content also functioned as a “repository” of
how that particular student made sense of and assimilated the material be-
ing taught in the class (Argote, 1999; Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfield, 2005).
When tags are made public and shared, other students in the class are able
to tap into the knowledge being formed by the individual student. Students
are able to view the tags used by others and employ those tags to inform
their own understanding, creating an iterative learning loop (Russell, Ste-
fik, Pirolli & Card, 1993). Additionally, the tags employed by one member
of the class can “self-propagate” and become a “linguistic meme” that en-
ables the entire class to organize and coordinate their online discussion,
and in the process of doing so, establishes a common understanding of the
material being taught (Heath & Seidel, undated).
Methodology
The setting
This study took place in Business Information Technology 320 (BIT320),
a database and Information class offered at the University of Michigan.
The class was offered to undergraduates aged 20 to 22 at the Business
school and a large part of the class was devoted to group work where stu-
dents were expected to create information databases based on the tech-
nologies taught within the syllabus. BIT320 also used blogs and RSS (an
XML format for syndicating blog content) to create an online space where
both the professor and the students could share their knowledge. The class
website was dubbed the “Class Remix” to encourage participants to im-
prove upon, change, integrate, or otherwise “remix” the group’s knowl-
edge contributions similar to Lessig’s notions of a remix culture (Koman,
2005). Participation in the Class Remix was mandated through a class pol-
icy that stipulated 5 blogposts per week that were then aggregated in the
site (Here on the web and pictured in Fig. 1). Students were encouraged to
create a vibrant learning community where group knowledge was built col-
lectively by sharing relevant links, questions, answers, and observations of
the material taught in the class.
In this environment, students could post about new ideas, or they could
effectively respond to the contributions of others by writing a response in
their own blog and linking back to the original poster. In this way, conver-
sations (initial post, comment, response to comment, etc.) effectively oc-
curred across student blogs. When engaging in these sorts of conversa-
tions, students were encouraged to reuse at least some of the tags that
previous posters had used, as well as, adding any new tags they might find
relevant. In this way, whole conversations came to be grouped by tag and
were made findable by tag. A limitation of the system was that once a post
was tagged and saved, the tags could not be changed.
Fig. 1: Screen capture of class “remix” website (04/14/06)
Unlike more orthodox and prescribed forms of classification, social tag-
ging allowed the users in the community to assign any keyword/category
to their contribution that they deemed relevant. Various visualizations,
such as the use of tag clouds on the class website (highlighted in blue
lower right corner of Figure 1), helped members of the class to be aware of
the current and most frequently submitted topics/posts. The class remix
website can be seen as an archive of the students contributions, and can be
used to document the students’ evolving understanding and knowledge
formation that has taken place during the course.
Data and methodology
Data for this study were composed of participants’ contributions to the
class remix website and in-person interviews. To better understand the role
of the remix site in the particpants’ learning, content analysis was per-
formed on the student blog posts and the tags they employed to describe
these posts. Additionally, the students’ grades in the class and semi-
structured interviews with seven out of the eleven participants in the class
provided complementary data. In the following section, the server log
analysis, the key findings generated by the interviews, and the content
analysis of the blogposts are reported.
Findings
Table 1 outlines the total number of blogposts made by each student in the
class during the term, the total number of tags that they associated with
their blogposts and the average number of tags per blog post contributed to
the class website.
The majority of the students adhered to the instructor’s requirements
that they contribute five blogposts a week to the class website. With the
exception of three students, everyone in the class met the minimum re-
quirements of 5 blogposts a week that was stipulated by the instructor
(highlighted in Table 1 by the red line).
Table 1: Total blog posts and tags and avg. tags per post (13 weeks x 5 blog
posts/week = 65 minimum required posts).
Source Total Total Avg.
Posts Tags Tags/Post
The Blogstar 36 75 2.0833
Musings of 41 72 1.7561
William h
Matt’s Mus- 61 156 2.5574
ings
jb's blog 65 150 2.3077
zee124 66 124 1.8788
Shady Waters 66 219 3.3182
Supriya 66 146 2.2121
Pink Footsie 68 154 2.2647
Tigerlily's 69 119 1.7246
Blog
Kevin’s Blog 70 137 1.9571
SuperMatt 72 230 3.1944
Blogonautic 74 198 2.6757
Solutions (in-
structor)
The instructor’s purpose for stipulating a minimum requirement of con-
tributions was to encourage the students to fully utilize the system, and to
ensure sustained participation from the students. The instructor’s rationale
for mandating participation online is illustrated in the following quote:
“… This is one of those things where initially people have some hesitation … I
mean there's just all that group anxiety that comes into play and so you got to get
over that hump, you got to get over it early and just start making it happen. It’s
also practice (that) makes it better …” (Inst1interview, 0:32:50)
As shown by the Average Tags/Post column in the Table 1, participants
tended to use more than one tag to describe the content of each blog con-
tribution, a common practice in this type of system (Kroski, 2005). Be-
cause of the great number of tags being employed, one issue that emerges
is that of the vocabulary problem (Furnas, Landauer, Gomez & Dumais,
1987). This problem highlights the issue that there are multiple ways to de-
scribe an object/idea and that random pairs of people label an object simi-
larly at most 20% of the time (Furnas et al, 1987). Because of the vocabu-
lary problem, participants in the class are forced to determine exactly what
should be the common vocabulary for describing their blog posts. One stu-
dent described how the group made sense of multiple tags as follows:
So when you have hundreds of tags, it's really the case that only a few of
them are important. And that was the case here. And so people were able
to figure that out, and that we had sort of themes. So at any given point in
time, maybe 10 tags would be important. (Stud2 interview, 0:13:51)
This pattern was reflected in the analysis of the server logs. In total 143
distinct tags were used 1780 times during the term. However not all tags
were used equally. As indicated by the quote from Student 2 above, there
were a small number of keywords that were used more frequently than
others. Figure 2 highlights the ‘Long Tail’, or the exponential distribution,
phenomena (Anderson, 2004) where a large proportion of the 143 key-
words contributed were used only once or twice.
Fig.2: Tag frequency distribution .
Of the 20 most frequently used tags shown in Table 2, the top four tags
(highlighted in Table 2 below) were used at least three times more fre-
quently the others.
Table 2: Top 20 distinct tags by frequency used
Tag/ Keyword Frequency
Technology 280
Opinionslug 270
Classquestions 183
Blogging 145
Microsoft 40
XML 38
Internet 38
Blog 36
Remixing 34
Project2 30
Databases 29
NewInventions 27
Project1 26
WordPress 25
Google 23
SQL 22
ClassIssues 22
DenaliFlavours 21
Ipod 20
Normalization 17
Weblogs 17
By investigating the timing of when certain tags were adopted and their
patterns of use, the formation of group knowledge and convention can be
represented. As shown in Table 3, the top four tags were adopted by the
students early on in the semester and their continual use resulted in them
becoming conventions for the students in the class to talk about specific
subjects in their blog contributions.
Table 3: Top 4 tags by source and earliest data published
Tag Source Earliest date published
Technology Kevin’s blog 09-11-2005
Opinionslug Pink Footsie 09-14-2005
Blogging jb’s blog 09-14-2005
Classquestions Tigerlily’s blog 09-15-2005
Other more specific tags like SQL, XML and Databases were used only
during the part of the term where that subject was the most heavily dis-
cussed in class. The instructor of the class represented the phenomenon as
follows,
“… a tag winds out being a term or label that people introduce. They intro-
duced it to have a shorthand for referring to some phenomenon. And then if they
re- use this term at given points in time, they're saying that phenomenon is there.
And so what winds up happening is you see that there are themes, and basically
these are recurring uses of tags.” (Inst1 interview, 0:15:47)
The formation of “themes” within the class suggests how social tagging
aids with the formation of group knowledge around specific course con-
tent. The frequency of use of the top four tags and the instructor’s com-
ments support the claim that those tags are functioning as arti-
facts/repositories of the shared understanding between the individuals in
the class (Argote, 1999). And because these tags have been used by every
member of the class at one point or another during the term, group knowl-
edge or shared understanding has been formed as a result of the “learning
loop” that occurs through their use (Russell et al, 1993).
The differential use of tags
Content coding of the student interviews revealed that not all tags were
used in the same way. There were two kinds of tags; functional tags (e.g.
“opinionslug” or “classquestions”) and content tags (e.g. “technology” and
“XML”).
Functional tags are labels that indicate some form of utility or function
to the members of the class. For example, the “classquestions” tag was de-
liberately used by the instructor of the class as a way to easily indicate and
highlight questions or problems that the students may be having with the
material being taught. One functional tag, “opinionslug”, was a keyword
first coined by a student, Pink Footsie. “Opinionslug” was used to indicate
contributions that were personal opinions or views of both the content mat-
ter or administrative aspects of the class. According to Student 2,
“… at first it was only Pink Footsie who used that ... cause she was the one who
invented it ... but then as we started reading more and understanding what she
meant by 'opinionslug' ... we definitely all started using it ... but if you just started
looking at this (tag) you would probably have no idea what it was ... So it was a
kind of inner group understanding.” (Stud2 Interview, 0:27:58)
From the illustration of the use of the “opinionslug” tag, we can see that
an explicit purpose/function is signaled through its use and it prepares the
reader of the contribution to both understand and react appropriately to
what is being said in the blogpost.
Another example of a functional tag is “classquestions” which seemed
to be a term coined by Tigerlily’s blog but was actually stipulated by the
instructor to create threads of interaction that could be retrieved by the stu-
dents later on. Student 2 indicated that,
“he(the instructor) told us that if ever we had a class question we had to call it
"classquestion" ... and if you actually clicked on classquestions you would actually
see a stream.” (Stud2 interview, 0:33:48)
The adoption of tags to continue a thread of interaction was practiced by
Student 2, who explained that the popularity of certain tags had to do with
the fact that they highlighted interesting threads of conversation:
“It definitely had to do with the fact that she (a classmate) would have had to
have an interesting enough post where I would reply to it or I would make a post
about her post ... and so then when I was picking out my tags I would look at what
she called it ...just because I am conscious of that and want to make sure that you
could find out stream of conversation ... if it was something really boring that no
one answered then it probably wouldn't catch on.” (Stud2, 0:29:26)
Thus we can see that functional tags like “opinionslug” and “classques-
tions” signaled an explicit purpose and their high frequency of use points
to the fact that the convention of using these tags to highlight the function
of a blog post became a social norm with in the class.
In contrast, content tags were topics that the class dealt with explicitly.
There was a certain amount of ambiguity in how content tags were used
and perceived by the students in the class. This ambiguity could be be-
cause content tags embodied meanings that went beyond the shared under-
standings of the students and have significance outside of the class as well.
An example of a content tag and how it is used can be seen in the Student
1’s comparison of how her use of the “XML” tag differs from the “opin-
ionslug” tag:
“Well with XML it's harder ... if I had a question about XML and someone an-
swered it and put XML in the tags... it's fine but there's so many different things to
call it ... you know it could have been about databases, it could have been about
writing code ... whereas with "opinionslug" it was very obvious you were going to
call opinionslug because you were basically preaching on your opinions.” (Stud1
interview, 0:30:40)
This sentiment was shared by Student 3, who used the content tag “tech-
nology” in the following way;
“For example, when I first started my blog, I was trying to come up with a
common thread to a lot of the things, so I use the word "Technology" a lot in my
blog. That's such a vague word you know ... And at the same time if I was just
looking, or had a couple of minutes to spend, then I would say, "give me some-
thing interesting about ‘technology’ that's going on" and I wanted that broad
topic.” (Stud3 interview, 0:26:30)
What is highlighted from the student quotes, is the issue of polysemy, or
the multiple meanings of words (Furnas et al., 1987). Polysemy is a dou-
ble-edged sword in the use of social tagging systems. It would seem that
the use of popular content tags like “technology” were deliberately used to
signal the content of the blog post and appeal broadly to as many individu-
als as possible. However the problem with such tags is that they are also
highly ambiguous and often have to be paired up with other terms such as
“ipod” and “Microsoft” to qualify their meaning. As highlighted by its
near-ubiquitous use in the class’ learning environment, many of the blog
posts that had anything remotely connected to the class would use the
keyword “technology”. However, because of the ambiguity of the term
“technology”, multiple tags were used to qualify meaning. As a result,
many tags associated with blog posts tended to be used only once or twice
and fall from use after a while. This pattern, as highlighted in Figure 2, ex-
plains the existence of the long tail of keywords where a large proportion
of the 143 unique keywords contributed were used only once or twice and
then was relegated to a low and minute position in the tag cloud.
From the analysis of how tags are used by the students, we can see that
it is much more difficult to base assertions of group knowledge formation
around popular or frequently used tags. What is shown is that the students
used tags according to a shared notion of the tags’ function. Very often,
tags were used to continue threads of conversation and to signal the con-
tent of the blogpost. As a result, the group knowledge that is formed
around the students’ use of tags does not necessarily represent their under-
standing of the content but rather the shared understanding of how the tags
are used to signal norms of participation within the class.
To further explore how tags were used, content analysis of the text in
the students’ blog posts was conducted to determine the correlation of
ideas and concepts in the text of the students’ blog posts with the tags that
were used. However, it is obvious from the previous section that keywords
like “technology” were broad and that the content analysis of the students’
blog post would not necessarily reveal any correlation between the content
of the students’ contribution with the keywords chosen.
For example, one particular blog post contributed by Matt’s Musings
was labeled with the following tags; “opinionslug”, “technology”, and
“blogging”. Content analysis of the text in the blog post produced a word
frequency analysis that highlighted only one co-occurrence of the tags
used with the content of the post. The tag “technology” was a word that
was appeared once in the textual content of the blog post. The subject of
the blog post was mainly about cellular phone technology between the US
and other countries. So in general the “Technology” tag only represented
the post very broadly. What is interesting to note is that functional tags
such as “opinionslug” tend not to co-occur in the body of the post as they
represent the function, not the content of the post. Again this highlights the
differentiation between the purpose and use of content versus functional
tags.
The idea of a shared vocabulary is crucial to the formation of group
knowledge. Having a common language enables the processes of establish-
ing mutual beliefs and mutual assumptions in group communication, proc-
esses that are essential to the formation of a community (Clark & Brennan,
1991). As had been indicated in the previous section, tags like “opin-
ionslug” and “classquestions” functioned as a way for the students to
communicate and interact with each other. It was a way for them to signal
the intentions of their contribution and to publicly solicit and provide help
to each other. Student 3 articulates this sentiment in the following com-
ment;
“On the occasions when I answered questions, which was rare, or when I re-
sponded to somebody else's blog, I tried to use the same tags that they (the other
students) used when they wrote ... I would intentionally try and incorporate those
into my tags, and maybe if it had to do with something else, also include the other
tags just to try to cover my bases so that somebody else could follow the same
kind of logic or thread-line, get to their blog and then my blog.” (Stud3 interview,
0:21:08)
Thus, the tags proved useful to learning because they provided a com-
mon vocabulary with which the students are able to interact with each
other. This aspect of interaction seemed to be the predominant learning
benefit that the students experienced during the term.
It was these interactions, made public on the class “remix” website
through the tags, that the students valued. For them, the system added a
new layer of social interactions on top of the physical interactions that
were going on during the class. Student 2 makes this point as follows:
“I think that this contributed to the class so much ... you know it made us more
friendly with each other ... we'd come in the next day and we'd be like "Oh my
god! Did you read what Student x wrote." Literally, it was so nerdy but we did.
And ... the professor would start cracking jokes like "Student Y mis-spelled this
word in her blog" and he would mispronounce it during lecture on purpose ... and
we all got the joke cause we all read the blog. It really contributed to the bonding
and how we got along with each other.” (Stud2, 0:45:26)
The role of blogging in learning
While the focus of this study concentrated on the use of social tagging, an
important premise made was that group blogging might help students
learn. One way to explore this premise is to test the extent to which blog-
ging performance was correlated with performance in other aspects of the
class. Fortunately, the case study provides data to perform this test. As
part of the grading process, the instructor computed a blog index for each
student (Table 4). This index consisted of the instructor’s rating of the
quality of each student’s overall blog output multiplied by the total number
of posts the student produced. Quality was a function of the length and
relevance of student posts. This index showed a significant correlation
(r(9) = .663, p < .05) between the blog index and the students’ final grades
less the blogging component of the course. Examining the components of
the blogging index reveal that total posts is significantly correlated with
the grade in other components of the course (r(9) = .692, p < .05). How-
ever, the quality of posts is not significantly correlated with the students’
final grade (r(9) =.383, p > .05). These correlations suggest that students
who interacted more often, by posting blog contributions to the learning
remix website, tended to achieve better performance.
Table 4: Class performance with blog index and final grad
Blog In- Final
dex (Total Grade less
Total Post posts * Post Blogging
Posts Quality quality) Component
72 1.75 126 63
68 1.5 102 63
66 1.5 99 57
61 1.5 91.5 56
72 1.25 90 60
66 1.25 82.5 57
65 1.25 81.25 58
69 1 69 55
66 1 66 63
36 1.25 45 53
41 1 41 54
The reasons for improved performance may be varied. For one, these
measures may all simply be correlated with underlying traits of the learner
such as diligence and intelligence. However, learning in higher education
is by its nature an intensely social process. People communicate and proc-
ess information interactively. The blogging environment, along with the
use of social tagging, provided students with an environment that offered
greater opportunities to interact regarding class material than could be af-
forded during the allotted class time. Those who took advantage of this
opportunity more often performed better in other aspects of the class.
Discussion
The main hypothesis of this study is that the use of social tagging can aid
with group knowledge formation in the classroom. The findings indicate
that social tagging enabled the process of group knowledge formation as
well as the labeling of that content. Social tagging enabled the students in
the class to not only interact with each other through a shared vocabulary,
but also develop a set of common norms and practices. For instance, the
use of functional tags provided members of the class with a means to indi-
cate the purpose of their blogposts. Blogposts tagged with “opinionslug”
highlighted that the author would be getting on his personal soapbox and
airing his views. This enabled other students to make a choice of either
avoiding or reading that particular posting, without the need to look at the
title or the body of the blogpost. Additionally, the use of the tags was a
way students kept track of their interactions with each other. The class
norm of using the same tags as the post that one is responding to enabled
students to identify and track the interactions they had with each other.
Thus the evidence presented by this analysis strongly shows that,
through the use of social tagging, the students built shared vocabulary and
norms for interacting with each other in the online learning environment.
This can be understood as the mechanism by which group knowledge can
begin to form. Instead of uncovering the “what” of group knowledge (its
content), this study uncovered instead, the “how” (its process).
References
Anderson, Chris. “The Long Tail.” Wired, 12.10 October 2004. Retrieved on Oct.
13th, 2005 from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html.
Argote, L. (1999). “Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transfer-
ring Knowledge”. In, Organizational Memory. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
pp. 67-97.
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In Resnick,
L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.) Perspectives on Socially Shared
Cognition (pp. 127-149), Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., Gomez, L. M., Dumais, S. T., (1987) "The vo-
cabulary problem in human-system communication." Communications of the
Association for Computing Machinery, 30 (11), Nov 1987: 964-971.
Heath, Chip and Victor Seidel. (Undated) Language as a coordinating mechanism:
How linguistic memes help direct appropriate action. Working paper,
http://www.si.umich.edu/ICOS/Linguisticmemes4.2.pdf
Koman, R. (2005). Remixing Culture: An Interview with Lawrence Lessig. Re-
trieved October 19th, 2005, from
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2005/02/24/lessig.html.
Kroski, E. (2005). The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging. Info-
tangle, December 7th, 2005. Retrieved on Jan. 2nd 2006 from
http://infotangle.blogsome.com/2005/12/07/the-hive-mind-folksonomies-and-
user-based-tagging/
Mathes, Adam (2004). Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communi-
cation Through Shared Metadata, December, 2004. Retrieved on Dec. 1,
2006 from http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-
communication/folksonomies.html
Pauen, S. (2002). "Biobehavioral Development, Perception, and Action: Evidence
for Knowledge–Based Category Discrimination in Infancy". In Child Devel-
opment Volume 73 Issue 4 (July/August 2002). Retreived on 16th December
2005 from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-
8624.00454/abs/
Russell, D. M., Stefik, M. J., Pirolli, P., Card, S. K. (1993) "Cost structure of sen-
semaking" Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems - INTERACT '93 and CHI '93. ACM, New York, NY, USA: 269-
276.
von Ahn, L. and L. Dabbish (2004). Labeling Images with a Computer Game. In,
Proceedings of ACM CHI 2004, pp. 319-326.
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. & Obstfield, D. (2005) Organizing and the Process of
Sensemaking. Organizational Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, July – August 2005,
pp. 409-421.