Get out of MySpace!
Introduction
There are vast opportunities for students, academics and the institutions in using social software for learning, teaching and assessment. Based on different schools of literature reviews, the University of Glamorgan summarises the benefits of how social software enhanced learning and teaching experiences in higher education (refer to Table 1). Dawson (2008) explores and demonstrates the relationship between student’s sense of community and the position within the formed social network. He provides recommendation to educators to embed computer-mediated communications in teaching practices for learner participation and progression in the curriculum. Hrastinski (2009) further asserts that online student participation is a complex process of taking part and maintaining relations with others. Online participation is supported by physical and psychological tools, and is supported by all kinds of engaging activities (p. 78). Social software may provide such a flexible environment for learner participation.
Higher education today seems to highlight the value of the emergence of social software (Dawson, 2006, Dawson, 2008, Murugesan, 2007). However, the debates on individual privacy (Rosenblum, 2007) and students’ recognition/rejection of social software for learning may increase simultaneously. It is a common practice to provide personal information such as name and email, when a user signs up for social software. Educators and students may have reservation about this basic requirement due to the privacy and data protection issues. Cole (2009) further describes a ‘failed experiment’ that embed social software to support student engagement for a third year undergraduate module. She asserts that social software (e.g. Wikis) is perceived differently in an educational context, compared with ordinary personal usage and this discourages student adoption. Tams (2006) also reports that the students’ self-directed social learning have a limited influence on their self-efficacy. To understand these arguments, an investigation from students’ perspective is necessary. Using the analogy of a student interviewees’ assertion, “get out of MySpace”, the aim of this paper is to explore the disruptive nature and opportunities of social software from students’ experience.
Section snippets
Research methods and samples
Adelman, Kemimis, and Jenkins (1980) identifies that case study methodology is able to effectively evaluate the flexibility of reality in the complex educational environments. This study incorporated a single analysis across multiple case studies with qualitative-quantitative interactive continuum methodology (Newman and Benz, 1998, Yin, 2003). Taking four anonymous universities, the research aimed to (1) identify the distinction between the students’ current usage of social software; (2)
The students’ current usage of social software and the top reasons of using educational technology for learning
To identify the distinction between the students’ current usage of social software and reasons for using educational technology for learning, two questions were asked to the students: (1) How often do you use the educational technology listed below, within your learning process? (This would include preparing and submitting course work and assessment feedback) (2) What is your reason for using the educational technology mentioned in the previous question?
Not surprisingly, Fig. 1 demonstrates
Social software for learning – the institutional consideration
Cole (2009) discusses a series of insights ‘which help educators to understand the pitfalls of integrating social technologies in educational contexts’ (p. 141). Blackey and Chew (2009) highlight the key issues and considerations for using social software in learning, teaching and assessment based on various schools of literature review. The findings and reflections in this study challenge the current design and development of social software and the educational expectation that
Conclusions
The study demonstrates a massive use of educational technology such as Power Point, VLE and Wikis with distinct divide between the learning space and personal space in four case studies. We would assert that the nature of social software fits into these top three reasons of the technology enhanced learning experience indicated by students in four institutions. Nevertheless, there is a significant gap if we compared the ‘usage of social software for learning’ to the ‘reasons of using educational
References (16)
Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches
Computers and Education
(2009)Relationship between student communication interaction and sense of community in higher education
Internet and Higher Education
(2006)A theory of online learning as online participation
Computers & Education
(2009)- et al.
Rethinking case study: Notes from the second Cambridge conference
- Blackey, H. & Chew, E. (2009) Social Software Policy 2009–2012 for The University of Glamorgan. The Policy of the...
- CAL (2009). CAL09 – Learning in digital worlds, March 23–25th 2009, Brighton,...
- et al.
Critical review of the blended learning models based on Maslow’s and Vygotsky’s educational theory
- et al.
Vygotsky and learning
Education Libraries Journal
(1999)
Cited by (151)
Learning tourism and hospitality subjects with massive open online courses (MOOCs): A cross-sectional and longitudinal study
2021, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism EducationTechnology management, networking positions and work/life boundaries among working adult students
2021, Technology in SocietyStudents, social network technology and learning in higher education: Visions of collaborative knowledge cosnstruction vs. the reality of knowledge sharing
2021, Internet and Higher EducationCitation Excerpt :Much of the existing research on SNT use in higher education settings has focused on ways in which students harness SNTs for navigating the social aspects of college life (e.g., Amador & Amador, 2014; DeAndrea, Ellison, LaRose, Steinfield, & Fiore, 2012; Wodzicki, Schwämmlein, & Moskaliuk, 2012), rather than on its academic, study-related aspects. Empirical work on SNT for academic purposes, on the other hand, consists predominantly of reports on faculty-led initiatives to incorporate SNTs into formal curricula and course work (e.g., Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Jones, Blackey, Fitzgibbon, & Chew, 2010; Kabilan, Ahmad, & Abidin, 2010; Laru, N֟aykki, & Jarvela, 2012; Molinillo, Anaya-Sánchez, Aguilar-Illescas, & Vallespín-Arán, 2018). In other words, it explores what can be achieved when SNTs are integrated into instructor-directed, formal course settings and what Moore (1989) has coined “instructor-learner” interactions.
Development of TPACK with Web 2.0 tools: Design-based study
2023, European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
- 1
Tel.: +44 01443 654094; fax: +44 01443 483667.
- 2
Tel.: +44 01443 654331; fax: 44 +01443 483667.
- 3
Tel.: +44 01443 65 4446; fax: +44 01443 483667.