SONG, Yang (Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong) http://citers2013.cite.hku.hk/en/paper_607.htm --------------------------- Author(s) bear(s) the responsibility in case of any infringement of the Intellectual Property Rights of third parties. --------------------------- CITE was notified by the author(s) that if the presentation slides contain any personal particulars, records and personal data (as defined in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance) such as names, email addresses, photos of students, etc, the author(s) have/has obtained the corresponding person's consent.

1. Student-initiated Use of Facebook
for Academic Learning: A Case
Study
Song Yang
Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong

2. Outline of the presentation
 Research background
 Research questions
 Theoretical perspectives
 Case study
 Results and discussion
 Conclusion

3. Research background
 The educational promise of asynchronous discussion
platforms, including Facebook Groups, as a learning
environment
 They provide the material necessities for the construction of virtual
communities.
 The popularity of Facebook bestows on college students the
flexibility to “use familiar tools to explore the unfamiliar”
(Anderson, Boyles, and Rainie 2012, 22).
 The embedded functions of document and image uploading and
sharing allow students to curate and share different online
resources within a virtual community and help foster a blended
learning environment, i.e., a mixed use of face-to-face interaction
and a variety of online channels of communication.

4. Facebook and academic learning
 Course designer/instructor’s perspective
 Focusing on how to integrate SNSs in course design and to what
extent they can facilitate changes in pedagogy (Schwartz 2009;
Schroeder and Greenbowe 2009)
 Simply replacing traditional learning environments with
Facebook did not ensure better course performance or
engagement in course activities (Kirschner and Karpinski 2010;
Owston, Murphy and Lupshenyuk 2008)
 Students’ perspective
 Compared with college faculty, students use Facebook more
frequently and are more open to the inclusion of Facebook to
support classroom learning (Valjataga, Pata and Tammets
2011).
 Students should enjoy the liberty of media choices based on
their learning needs, for which instructors should serve as
facilitators and design course activities accordingly (Sfard 1998)

5. Research gap
 The gap between the instructors’ and students’
perspectives of research resides in the tension between
conventional paradigms of learning and knowledge and
the educational potentials of social networking sites.
 Though acknowledging that students are active
participants in learning activities, the prior classroom
research designers have not address student agency
when trying to engage them in a community of practice
‘created’ by the instructor (Lave and Wenger 1991).

6. Research questions
 How do students initiate and use Facebook for academic
learning?
 How do students position Facebook among other media
choices in facilitation of academic learning?
 What pedagogical implications can be drawn from
learning more about student-initiated use of Facebook
for classwork and pedagogical design?

7. Theoretical perspectives
 Affinity space
 Defining features:
 a) engagement guided by authentic interest and/or goals set by
the learners themselves;
 b) the shared space of participation where all sorts of online
resources are ready for access to and appropriation from
everyone;
 c) the extended acceptance and even celebration of a variety of
user-generated content;
 d) overall encouragement towards content production, display,
distribution and responses;
 e) overall respect and encouragement towards tacit learning or
experiences of being ‘caught to learn’ (Gee 2004, 88).

8. Theoretical perspectives
 Taxonomy of asynchronous discussion (Knowlton 2005)
Participation type Conception of discussions
Passive Channel for class members to receive knowledge for those in authority
Developmental Social conversations and locus for community building
Generative Space to develop one’s ideas individually and report them to the instructor
Dialogical
Forum for interacting with others and their ideas to build and clarify
understandings
Metacognitive
Forum for interacting with others and their ideas to build and clarify
understandings and an opportunity to reflect on the process of knowledge
development

9. Case study
 A case of student-initiated use of Facebook Groups to
complete a team project for an online journalism course
 Students were asked to form a group of four or five persons
and work together to produce a themed multimedia news
website within two weeks.
 Data sources
 Facebook Groups data
 Student interviews
 In-class observation and recording
 Data analysis
 Microanalysis of Facebook Group activities
 Content analysis of transcripts of lessons and student interview

10. Results

11. Results

12. Results

13. Richard
 Richard played the role of coordinator and shifted in
between the dialogical and metacognitive types of
participation. Richard’s metacognitive participation can
be found in three types of actions: (1) his reflexive
adaptation of the Facebook Groups to the needs of their
team project and adjustment of his posting format and
(2) his efforts in helping others to adapt to the learning-
enhancing environment that he proposed, (3) initiation
of voting and advice-seeking discussions in relation to
sub-projects in his charge.

14. Participant
Role in the Group
Project
Types of
participation
Role in the affinity
space
Richard
Coordinator,
Project site manager
Metacognitive,
Dialogical
Reflexive moderator,
Active contributor
Emily
Sub-project manager,
co-working with Rebecca,
Christina and Adeline
Metacognitive,
Dialogical Active contributor
Rebecca
Sub-project manager,
co-working with Emily
Metacognitive,
Dialogical Active contributor
Christina
Sub-project manager,
co-working with Emily
Metacognitive,
Dialogical Active contributor
Adeline
Sub-project assistant,
co-working with Emily
Generative
Not very active
contributor

15. Results: The construction of an
affinity space
(1) The presence of a common endeavor to complete the
course project, which was recorded and shared in an MS
Word spreadsheet and was modified and updated from time
to time
(2) The presence of a leader as reflexive moderator
(3) Passionate, reflexive, self-directed, and dynamic ways
of learning
(4) An emphasis on interpersonal bonding and emotional
support

16. Pedagogical implications
 The case study showed that the first step towards effective
use of Facebook for academic learning was to design course
tasks in light of the social constructivist view of learning.
 Apart from the appropriate pedagogical design, it is also
necessary to spare a certain period of training for students
to realize the educational potentials of SNS learning
environments, such as Facebook Groups.
 Meanwhile, the students need to be given maximum
freedom to choose technology-enhanced learning
environments that they are familiar with rather than to
adopt something ‘new’ because of the instructor’s
preference.
 The instructor needs to make students become aware of the
instructor’s role as facilitator or moderator and make sure
that they know that the instructor is ready to help them
whenever they need.

17. References
 Facebook, “Statistics”. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on March 15, 2013:
http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts, December 2012.
 M. Madden, “State of social media”. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from the World
Wide Web on March 16, 2013: http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2013/Mar/State-of-Social-
Media.aspx, March 5, 2013.
 D. M. Boyd, and N. B. Ellison, “Social network sites: Definition, hisotry, and scholarship,” Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 13, pp. 210-230, 2008.
 M. D. Roblyer, M. McDaniel, M. Webb, J. Herman, and J. V. Witty, “Findings on Facebook in higher
education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking
sites,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 13, pp. 134-140, 2010.
 T. Occhino, “Tag friends in your status and posts,” The Facebook Blog. Retrieved from the World Wide
Web on March 23, 2013 from: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=109765592130, September
11, 2009.
 Facebook, “Group Basics”. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on March 17, 2013:
http://www.facebook.com/help/162866443847527/.
 H. Rheingold. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA.: Perseus, 2002.
 W. Gibbs, L. D. Simpson, R. S. Bernas, “An anlalysis of temporal norms in online discussions,”
 J. Q. Anderson, J. L. Boyles, and L. Rainie, “The future impact of the Internet on higher education:
Experts expect more-efficient collaborative environments and new grading schemes; they worry about
massive online courses, the shift away from on-campus life. Pew Research Center’s Internet &
American Life Project, July 27, 2012.
 V. Peters, and J. Hewitt, “An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer conferencing
courses,” Computers in Education, vol. 54, pp. 951-961, 2010.

18. References
 A. F. Wise, N. Perera, Y-T Hsiao, J. Speer, and F. Marbouti, “Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online
discussion in an undergraduate blended course,” Internet and Higher Education, vol. 15, pp. 108-117, 2012.
 H. Schwartz, “Facebook: The new classroom commons?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B13, October 2, 2009.
 J. Schroeder and T. Greenbowe, “The chemistry of Facebook: Using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry
laboratory,” Innovate Journal of Online Edcuation, vol. 5, 2009. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on March 17, 2013 from:
http://gator.uhd.edu/~williams/AT/ChemOfFB.htm.
 M. DeSchryver, P. Mishra, M. Koehler, and A. Francis, “Moodle vs. Facebook: Does using Facebook for disucssions in an online course enhance
perceived social presence and student interaction?” In: I. Gibson et al. (Ed.): Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education International Conference (pp. 329-336). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
 G. Attwell, “The personal learning environments: The future of elearning?” eLearning Papers, vol. 2, pp. 1-8, 2007.
 P. A. Kirschner, and A. C. Karpinski, “Facebook® and academic performance,” Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 6, 1237–1245, 2010.
 R. Owston, H. Wideman, J. Murphy, D. Lupshenyuk, “Blended teacher professional development: A Synthesis of three program evaluations,”
Internet and Higher Education, vol. 11, pp. 201-210, 2008.
 S. Valenzuela, N. Park, and K. F. Kee, “Lessons from Facebook: The effect of social network sites on college students’ social capital.” In:
Proceedings of the 9th
International Symposium on Online Journalism, April 4-5, Austin, Texas, 2008.
 C. Madge, J. Meek, J. Wellens, and T. Hooley, “Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking
to friends about work than for actually doing work’,” Learning, media and Technology, vol. 34, pp. 141-155, 2009.
 T. Valjataga, K. Pata, and K. Tammets, “Considering students’ perspective on personal and distributed learning environments. In: M. J. W. Lee and
C. McLoughlin (Eds.): Web 2.0-based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (pp. 85-107). Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2011.
 Q, Wang, H. L. Woo, C. L. Quek, Y. Yang, and M. Liu, “Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study,” British
Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 43, pp. 428-438, 2012.
 A. Sfard, “On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one,” Educational Researcher, vo. 27, pp. 4-13, 1998.

19. References
 C. McLoughlin ， and M. J. W. Lee, “Pedagogy 2.0: Critical challenges and responses to Web 2.0 and social software in tertiary teaching,” In: M. J.
W. Lee and C. McLoughlin (Eds.): Web 2.0-based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (pp. 43-69). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global, 2011.
 J. Lave, and E. Wenge. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
 A. Hemmi, S. Bayne, and R. Landt. “The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education,” Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, vol. 25, pp. 19-30, 2009.
 J. P. Gee. What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave, 2003.
 J. P. Gee. Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge, 2004.
 D. S. Knowlton. “Taxonomy of learning through asynchronous discussion.” Journal of Interactive Learning Research, vol. 16, pp. 155-177, 2005.
 C. C. Ragin, Introduction: Cases of “What is a case?”. In: Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker (Eds.): What Is a case? Exploring the foundations
of social inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
 R. E. Stake, The Art of Case Study Research. London: Sage, 1995.
 P. Häkkinen, and R. Hämäläinen, “Shared and personal learning spaces: Challenges for pedagogical design,” Internet and Higher Education, vol.
15, pp. 231-236, 2012.
 J. C. Lammers, and J. S. Curwood, “Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research,” English Teaching: Practice and
Critique, vol. 11, pp. 44-58, 2012.
 S. Manca, and M. Ranierit, “Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning
environment,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12007.
 A. Van den Beemt, S. Akkerman, and R.-J. Simons, “Considering young people’s motives for interactive media use,” Educational Research Review,
vol. 6, pp. 55-66, 2011.
 C. Pimmer, S. Linxen, and U. Gröhbiel, “Facebook as a learning tool? A case study on appropriation of social network sites from mobile phones in
developing countries,” British Journal of Education Technology, vol. 43, pp. 726-738, 2012.