Advertisement

A sociocultural approach to using social networking sites as learning tools

  • Marcela BorgeEmail author
  • Yann Shiou Ong
  • Sean Goggins
Research Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

This paper focuses on evaluating a socio-cultural activity design (SCAD) model for using discussion-based social networking tools as a means to support the development of an online community of learners. Participants included 38 undergraduate students enrolled in a human-centered design course at a large, US university. The SCAD model includes concrete markers for identifying expected interactional, communication patterns for a community of learners. In order to examine the utility of our model we asked, (RQ1) to what extent do social network patterns coincide with expected outcomes for a community of learners; (RQ2) To what extent do students’ cognitive activities in the environment match expected outcomes for a community of learners. To answer these questions, we conducted social network and content analysis of 503 posts in an online discussion-based social networking tool. We examined the overall sophistication of posts as well as changes in posting behavior over time. Findings suggest that use of the SCAD model facilitated processes associated with a community of learners, as students took over responsibility for the discussions over time, maintained strong connections with multiple peers, engaged in meaningful conversations about course content, and increased the sophistication of cognitive activity over time, even after instructor faded from the environment. However, findings also suggest more support is needed for online argumentation practices.

Keywords

Communities of learners Learning with social media Social network analysis Higher education Computer science education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our undergraduate research assistants, Anthony Sanchez and Shawn Thompson, for their contributions to this project. We would also like to thank the participating students for allowing us to examine their interactions and for giving us constructive, thoughtful feedback on the activities. This research was supported by The National Science Foundation (IIS-1319445), awarded to Marcela Borge and Carolyn Rosé. This paper builds on a shorter conference paper, published by the International Society of the Learning Sciences: (Borge and Goggins 2014https://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/1190/1/753-760.pdf. We thank the society for giving us permission to reuse these materials.

References

  1. Agre, P. E. (1995). Computational research on interaction and agency. Artificial Intelligence,72(1–2), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agre, P. E. (2004). The practical republic: Social skills and the progress of citizenship. In A. Feenberg & D. Barney (Eds.), Community in the digital age: Philosophy and practice (pp. 201–223). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives,31(2), 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arquero, J. L., & Romero-Frías, E. (2013). Using social network sites in higher education: An experience in business studies. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,50(3), 238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Espéret, P. Coirier, & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as means for web-based knowledge sharing in learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,61(1), 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice (Vol. 2, pp. 269–292). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Borge, M., & Carroll, J. (2010). Using collaborative activity as a means to explore student performance and understanding. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 889–896).Google Scholar
  10. Borge, M., & Goggins, S. (2014). Towards the facilitation of an online community of learners: Assessing the quality of interactions in Yammer. In ​Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences (​Vol. 14, pp. 753–761).Google Scholar
  11. Borge, M., Ganoe, C., Shih, S., and Carroll, J. (2012). Patterns of team processes and breakdowns in information analysis tasks. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1105–1114). New York, NY, ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145369 http://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145369
  12. Borge, M., Ong, Y. S., & Rosé, C. (2018). Learning to monitor and regulate collective thinking processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,13(1), 61–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9270-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Carroll, J. M., Jiang, H., & Borge, M. (2015). Distributed collaborative homework activities in a problem-based usability engineering course. Education and Information Technologies,30(3), 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Convertino, G., Mentis, H. M., Rosson, M., Slavkovic, A., & Carroll, J. M. (2009). Supporting content and process common ground in computer-supported teamwork. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2002) (pp. 2339–2348). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., et al. (2016). Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Scientific Reports,6, 37825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dyke, G., Adamson, D., Howley, I., & Rose, C. P. (2013). Enhancing scientific reasoning and discussion with conversational agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,6, 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience,61(7), 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ebner, M., Holzinger, A., & Maurer, H. (2007). Web 2.0 technology: Future interfaces for technology enhanced learning? In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal access to applications and services (pp. 559–568)., Lecture notes in computer science Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73283-9_62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,44(2), 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engerström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics,43(7), 960–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction,20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis. Vancouver, BC: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
  28. Goggins, S. P., & Dyke, G. (2013). Network analytic techniques for online chat. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, G. Dyke, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions (pp. 541–559). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goggins, S. P., Mascaro, C., & Valetto, G. (2013). Group informatics: A methodological approach and ontology for sociotechnical group research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(3), 516–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goggins, S., & Petakovic, E. (2014). Connecting theory to social technology platforms a framework for measuring influence in context. American Behavioral Scientist.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham, M. (2014). Social media as a tool for increased student participation and engagement outside the classroom in higher education. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice,2(3), 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational researcher,25(4), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,47(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2005). Models of teaching (5th ed.). New Dehli: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Kalen, M., Churcher, K., Downs, E., & Tewksbury, D. (2014). “Friending” Vygotsky: A social constructivist pedagogy of knowledge building through classroom social media use. Journal of Effective Teaching,14(1), 33–50.Google Scholar
  36. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research,72(2), 177–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanuka, H., & Garrison, R. D. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,15(2), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Facebook as learning platform: Argumentation superhighway or dead-end street? Computers in Human Behavior,53, 621–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33(1), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., et al. (2018). The science of fake news. Science,359(6380), 1094–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,19(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu, M., McKelroy, E., Kang, J., Harron, J., & Liu, S. (2016). Examining the use of Facebook and Twitter as an additional social space in a MOOC. American Journal of Distance Education,30(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald, N., Blincoe, K., Petakovic, E., & Goggins, S. (2014). Modeling distributed collaboration on GitHub. Advances in Complex Systems.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525914500246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murray, K., & MacDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education,33(3), 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Civitas Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education,61, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  49. Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (2005). The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis (Vol. 5, pp. 2–4).Google Scholar
  50. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2015). Interaction design: beyond human–computer interaction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity,1(4), 209–229.Google Scholar
  53. Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2002). Usability Engineering: Scenario-based development of Human–Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). # Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)—A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior,29(5), A60–A68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives (pp. 191–211). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning and Performance SystemsThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of EducationSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations