A sociocultural approach to using social networking sites as learning tools

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Agre, P. E. (1995). Computational research on interaction and agency. Artificial Intelligence,72(1–2), 1–52.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38, 39–72.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,44(2), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Engerström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics,43(7), 960–974.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kanuka, H., & Garrison, R. D. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,15(2), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Facebook as learning platform: Argumentation superhighway or dead-end street? Computers in Human Behavior,53, 621–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33(1), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Civitas Books.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). # Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcela Borge.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borge, M., Ong, Y.S. & Goggins, S. A sociocultural approach to using social networking sites as learning tools. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 1089–1120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09721-z

Download citation

Keywords

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