Social Networking Technologies and their Place in Learning

8/10/2019 Social Networking Technologies and their Place in Learning

1/6


2/6

distinction between mind and matter. It is the belief that knowledge is derived from reason withoutthe help of sensual experiences, that people learn by recalling or dis-covering what alreadyexists in the mind (Schunk, 1991 as cited by Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p.54).

The ideas of what constitutes learning and where knowledge comes from, form the basis for learningtheories and for appropriate instructional design. Behaviorism, the first theory I discuss, equateslearning with changes in the form or the frequency of observable performance (Ertmer & Newby,1993). The key elements are a stimulus, a response, and the association between the two. Onesuccessfully learned something when s/he has given a proper response to a stimulus. Learningcontinues as more stimuli are introduced which reinforce that understanding. In this context, thelearner is a reactive force in the process of learning. According to Ertmer & Newby, this theory wasused as the basis for designing many of the early audio-visual materials and gave rise to manyrelated strategies That said, they continue, it is generally agreed that behavioral principlescannot adequately explain the acquisition of higher level skills or those that require a greater depthof processing (p.56). Behaviorism, therefore, was a good starting point for the design of instructionfor the kind of knowledge needed decades and centuries ago.

In the late 1950s, however, the approach to learning theory began shifting to models from thecognitive sciences, namely emphasis on more complex cognitive processes such as thinking,problem solving, language, concept formation and information processing (p.56). Cognitive theoriesstress not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the internal mental structures, which places thetheory on the more rationalist end of the epistemology continuum. Such theories, according toErtmer & Newby, focus on the conceptualization of students learning processes and address theissues of how information is received, organized, stored, and retrieved by the mind (p.58).Learning, therefore, is a mental activity that has to do with internal coding and structuring by thelearner. Similar to behaviorist theories, environmental conditions still play an important role infacilitating learning, and the emphasis is still placed on the role of practice and corrective feedback(p.58). Cognitive theories differ from behaviorist theories in that the learner has become an activeparticipant in the learning process, and her thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and values have become

influential in the learning process. In addition, a marked difference is that the learner now must seeusefulness in what she learns in order to learn and apply it better (p.59). In terms of instructionaldesign, cognitivism emphasizes the need of the designer to (a) understand that learners come withprior experiences, (b) think of effective strategies to tap into their previous knowledge, and (c)arrange practice and feedback so that new information is effectively and efficiently assimilatedand/or accommodated (p.61).

Yet another change was looming when some cognitive theorists started to question the objectivisticassumptions of these two theories, and began adopting a more constructivist approach to learningand understanding, especially the idea that knowledge is a function of how the individual createsmeaning from his or her own experiences (p.62). Henceforth grew the constructivist theory. Thebasic assumptions and principles of the constructivist view of learning contend that learning is anactive process and an adaptive activity; it is not innate, invented, or passively absorbed likebehaviorists believe, but constructed by the learner and situated within the context it occurs; thatknowledge is personal, idiosynchronic, and for the first time, socially constructed; that learning is aprocess of making sense of the world, and experience, prior understanding, and social interactionplay a role in it; and lastly, that effective learning requires meaningful, open-ended, challengingproblems for the learner to solve (Yilmaz, 2008).

According to William Matthews, Dewey believed that the role of constructivism in education is tofacilitate the naturally developing tendencies and potential of the child. Since according to

constructivism the learner has an active role in interpreting the learning process, then education


3/6

should be child-directed and not teacher-directed. In his article, Matthews also cites Piaget as sayingthat children, as operational thinkers, progress through three stages of thinking: preoperational,concrete, and formal operational. Therefore, constructivist teachers need to adapt their teachingstyle, approach, and content to the specific developmental stage of the child (Matthews, 2003).

The growing attention to socially constructed knowledge continued with the development of Web2.0 technologies. An increasing number of theorists began recognizing the power of socialnetworking, and to see the changing nature of knowledge. George Siemens argued that learningtheories such as behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructionism have not caught up with the age oftechnology, because they do not address learning that occurs outside a person (i.e., learning that isstored and manipulated by technology) (Siemens, 2004). Chris Dede, in his article A Seismic Shiftin Epistemology (2008), explains this change in a similar manner. It can be summed by hisstatement that, [t]he term Web 2.0 reflects a shift in leading-edge applications on the World WideWeb, a shift from the presentation of material by website providers to the active co-construction ofresources by communities of contributors. In the classical view of knowledge, he explains,knowledge consists of accurate interrelationships among facts, based on unbiased research thatproduces compelling evidence about systemic causes. And in contrast, the Web 2.0 definition ofknowledge has more to do with a collective agreement, combining facts from different users andtheir experiences, such as opinions, values, and spiritual beliefs (Dede, 2008). Connectivism ismainly concerned with cognitive development (Kop & Hill, 2008), and according to GeorgeSiemens (2004), connectivism provides insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners toflourish in a digital era. Connectivism, he continues, begins with the individual, and goes throughan important cycle of knowledge development (personal -> network -> organization) that allowsindividuals to stay current through the connections they have made (Siemens, 2004). Kop and Hill(2008) explain that according to connectivism, currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is theintent of all learning activities.

LEARNING COMMUNITIES

The opportunities offered by Web 2.0 technologies, the changing nature of knowledge, and theimportance of co-construction of knowledge gave rise to the discussion of the importance of creatingcommunities to facilitate and support learning. According to Janette Hill (2012), educators (acrossdisciplines) have been looking for ways to enhance the learning experiences of their students throughthe creation of both face-to-face as well as online learning communities. The underlying idea behindthe definition of a learning community is that it is a group of people working together to facilitatethe learning process. Its goal is similar to the one connectivist theorists hold in that learners enrichtheir own learning environments through authentic interactions with others (Hoadly, 2012).Learning communities vary in different ways. They can be directed (formal and led by a designatedperson), negotiated (where learners are engaged in setting norms and expectations), or spontaneous(more informal, change over time, and often not initiated or facilitated by any one person). Buildinga learning community presents some issues and challenges, such as the importance of properfacilitating of interaction, or enabling and supporting of the social, cognitive, and teaching presencewithin the learning community. In addition to the challenges faces by builders of face-to-facecommunities, online communities also face technical and time-related issues (Hill, 2012). Theimportance of creating a cohesive learning community manifests itself in its outcomes. When donewell, there is conclusive evidence that in schools where a sense of community is built, and whereclassrooms operate as a community of learners and as a learning community, students producegreater social, moral, behavioral, intellectual and performance outcomes than environments thatdont (Watkins, 2005).


4/6

SOCIAL NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

The importance of more modern instructional theories (such as the connectivist or the socialconstructivist theories), which focus on creation of knowledge in authentic and communal settings,as well as the conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of working as a part of a community, is clear.Furthermore, with the hope of helping our learners to succeed in their educational journey and totransition them into the world beyond, it forces us educators to utilize new technologies that marrythese tasks together. Since the focus has shifted from learning as consumption of knowledge tolearning as the creation of knowledge (Halverson, 2011), it is our obligation to re-evaluate the wayswe teach and the tools we use. Looking into the time and effort young people spend on technology ingeneral and in social networking sites specifically, can serve as an opportunity to move forward andapply social constructivist or connectivist theories concepts into teaching in new, refreshing, andmeaningful ways.

That said, as learning continues its transformation in response to the communicative andcollaborative opportunities offered by Web 2.0 technologies, it is important to be attentive to trendsalready happening, and to evaluate the experiences of different educational institutions in theirattempts to address this shift. Although no magic formula has been found yet, there is someencouraging evidence for successful use of SNTs in educational settings. Let us review some of theliterature outlining such innovative attempts.

According to Grippa & Segundo, although it is a growing trend, the early adopters of SNTs have notbeen able to fully maximize their potential (2009). For example, Ractham, Kaewkitipong, & Firgoexplain that instructors use of Facebook to befriend or communicate with their students as anadditional channel for classroom communication, showed little or no gain of intellectual feedbackfrom the students (2012). There are some who more forcefully question the use of social mediaplatforms in fostering a crucial component of learning- namely in fostering in learners the capacityfor debate and disagreement. Friesen & Lowe argue that although social media tools have beenhailed by some as the next best thing in education, there is no foundation to these arguments, and in

fact, by design, these tools significantly detract from learner control and educational use. Theypresent a different perspective on social media, namely the premises on which such platforms areinvented (i.e., for commercial or advertising reasons), which is completely different than the wayeducators view such tools (Friesen & Lowe, 2012).

Ractham, Kaewkitipong, & Firgo (2012) present some of the attempts to use We 2.0 concepts tocreate new learning experiences. They discuss concerns over which tools and features to use, thescope of use, intellectual property rights, and privacy issues. On the other hand, they reveal somesuccesses, such as the successful use of social bookmarking in finding people with similar intereststo learn from each other, or the use of other social software tools to engage with others and solveproblems (p.167).

Catherine Greenhow uses several examples of how participatory web-based technologies have thepotential to change the way we engage in scholarship. Using concrete examples for appropriate useof social bibliography and social bookmarking sites, she emphasizes the importance of bothinstructors and students reflective behavior as well as know-how in order to appropriately utilizesuch technologies to improve learners research and resourcefulness practices (Greenhow, 2009).Baker & Oswald present another positive feature of SNTs. They found that online social networkingprovides a comfortable and encouraging environment for shy individuals, and develop their ability tofreely and confidently interact with peers (Baker & Oswald, 2010).


5/6

On a larger scale, institutions are becoming more aware of the need to revolutionize their learningmanagement systems (LMSs). As most educational institutions nowadays use eLearning facilities(such as Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai, etc.) that integrate essential Web 2.0 technologies (such asblogs, wikis, RSS feeds, bookmarking, etc.), it still seems that these LMSs are more tailored to theneeds of the institution rather than to the needs of the learner (Kirkwood, 2010). Keith Kirkwood, aVictoria University learning support lecturer, discusses his universitys use of a new kind of learnermanagement system, and explains how they attempted to address the need of students to find eachother through informal learning communities that develop out of mutual interests and needs (p.119).Among the key elements of the learner-driven management system SNAP (Social Networking forAcademic Purposes) is peer learning, sharing ideas and resources, and cooperation. According toKirkwood, peer assisted learning approaches in universities around the globe are on the rise. He citesseveral examples, such as the University of Wollongongs Peer Assisted Study Support, VictoriaUniversitys robust peer mentoring program, and others (p.120).

CONCLUSION

The evolution of educational theories carried with it numerous instructional methodologies. In thispaper I discussed how these theories relate to social interactions, and how social interactions haveevolved from discussions as a vehicle to arriving at answers, to the importance of interaction in co-construction of knowledge. Social networking technologies are both a vessel and a brain-cloud,and as educators it is our responsibility to utilize them to drive our students and create deeperunderstanding.Developing pedagogically sound and supportive learning communities structures and processesusing SNTs are still a challenge. It is clear that the success of using SNTs in education is dependableon many different conditions. Simply creating a course on SNT platform such as Facebook orTwitter and expecting student involvement would probably end up as a failed attempt. There areseveral important guidelines to keep in mind that may help tilt the pendulum both on a classroomlevel as well as for institutions with manpower, resources, and know-how. First, the design of thechosen SNT must be taken into consideration. If an institution chooses to create their own

management system, they should perhaps use Michael Farmers proposal for more open learningarchitecture for LMSs (as cited by Kirkwood), which include four elements. These elements are (1)an IT core with backend and integration with content management system, (2) the ability to provideboth course and ad hoc groupings, (3) a presentation component that provides the user interface, and(4) the ability to easily integrate plug-ins from cloud-based applications (Kirkwood, 2010). Thatsaid, most educators and schools do not have the means to create their own platforms, and asdiscussed earlier, most pre-designed SNTs were not designed for classroom use, but from a businessmodel (Friesen & Lowe, 2012) which creates an important obstacle course designers must attend to.When choosing a platform to work on, it is important to remember that the educational goals and thedesigned goals or appeal of SNTs may be very different. Designers must carefully consider theirgoals, and take into consideration the fact that no one SNT contains all the features we would like tohave. The importance of a knowledgeable facilitator who can serve as a resource, as well as amoderator who is able to nurture some degree of personal relationship with students, cannot be overemphasized. Such leader must work hard to promote social interaction in a creative manner andutilizing, as much as possible, students interests. Finally, educators must remember that the chosenSNT is one that students are not familiar with, it would probably not replace the one students alreadyuse, and so its success would be short lived and students will not be as involved or as interested.


6/6

Baker, L. R., & Oswald, D. L. (2010). Shyness and online social networking services. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships , 27 (7), 873889.

Dede, C. (2008). A seismic shift in epistemology . EDUCAUSE Review, 43 (3), 80-81. Retrievedfrom http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/seismic-shift-epistemology

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: ComparingCritical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. PIQ Performance ImprovementQuarterly , 6 (4), 5072.

Friesen, N., & Lowe, S. (2012). The questionable promise of social media for education: Connectivelearning and the commercial imperative. JCAL Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 28 (3),183194.

Greenhow, C. (2009). Social Scholarship: Applying Social Networking Technologies to ResearchPractices. Knowledge Quest , 37 (4), 4247.

Hill, Jnette R. (2012). Learning communities: Theoretical foundations for making connections. In Jonassen, D., &

Land, S. (Eds.),Theoretical foundations of learning environments

(pp.268-285). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kirkwood, K. (2010). The snap platform: Social networking for academic purposes. Campus-Wids Information Systems , 27 ( ), 11!"12#.

Kop, R., & Hill, A. 2008. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , 9(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1137

Matthews, W. J. (2003). Constructivism in the classroom: Epistemology, history, and empiricalevidence. Teacher Education Quarterly , 51-64.

Ractham, P., Kaewkitipong, L., & Firpo, D. (2012). The Use of Facebook in an Introductory MISCourse: Social Constructivist Learning Environment*. Decision Sciences Journal of

Innovative Education , 10 (2), 165188.

Sal$o, %. (200&). 'earning, theories of learning, and units of anal sis in research. Educational Psychologist , 44( ), 202"20!.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved fromhttp://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

atkins, *. (200+). *lassroom as learning communities: re-iew of research. London Re ie! of Education ," (1), /"# .

Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications forclassroom instruction. Educational Horizons , 161-172.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/seismic-shift-epistemologyhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1137http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htmhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1137http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htmhttp://www.educause.edu/ero/article/seismic-shift-epistemology

Documents

Social Networking Technologies and their Place in Learning