Social Media Use in Higher Education -- 2017 AU Graduate Research Conference presentation
1. Social Media Use
in Higher Education
Kelli Buckreus
Knowledge Without Boundaries
2017 Online Research Conference for Graduate Students
Saturday October 28, 2017
3. “Humans create their cognitive powers in part by creating the
environments in which they exercise those powers.”
- (Hutchins, 2000, pg. 9)
“Without technology, we are not human.”
- Dr. Rory McGreal
4. Explore the affordances and transformative dimensions of
social media in formal and informal higher education
learning contexts.
Scope…
1. Systematic review
2. Quantitative analysis (descriptive statistics)
3. Qualitative (content/thematic) analysis
Purpose…
5. Informed by…
Learning, Education, & Technology Discourse:
• Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison & colleagues)
• Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan)
• Nets, sets, groups, collectives… (Dron & Anderson)
• Hard & Soft technologies (Dron & Anderson)
• SAMR Model (Puentedura)
• Transactional distance (Moore)
• Actor-Network Theory (Latour)
• Connectivism (Siemens)
• Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland)
Interdisciplinary:
• Ecology: Global vs spherical worldview (Ingold)
• Anthropology: Renunciation (Turner)
6. Methodology: Systematic Review
• Boolean search of EBSCO (Education Research Complete) and Google Scholar
– Search terms: ‘social media AND higher education’ (+ synonyms)
• Abstracts reviewed for relevance
• Exclusion criteria: Social media use relating to -
– K-12; workplace learning not within higher education context;
– Institutional administration, institutional marketing/branding, recruiting
– Crisis communications, cyberbullying, plagiarism
– Social media use for student political mobilization
– Academic library contexts
– Anecdotal accounts, general surveys of user preferences or organic uses
8. Analytical Framework
Factors:
• Primary descriptive theme
• Learning environment (whether online, face-to-face/f2f, or blended/hybrid),
• Formal or informal learning context
• Identification of user types
• Social media tool(s) utilized
• Group aggregation (net/set/group/collective)
• Study design
• Outcomes
Secondary thematic categories
• Based on relatedness of primary descriptive theme
Tertiary thematic categories
• Based on the nature of social media integration and outcomes (i.e. functional
change), linking dimensions of social media use at a conceptual level
12. • Three thematic categories emerged:
• Administrative
• Process
• Emergent
• Transected formal and informal learning contexts, including
faculty continuing professional development.
Content/Thematic Analysis
13. • Learning contexts relating to accessing information and support services for learning and/or
professional development
• High user interest in accessing subject-specific information, correlating to degree of direct
involvement of subject-specific faculty and staff (Knight & Rochon, 2012)
• Modest degree of functional change, ranging from substitution to modification (Puentedura, 2014)
• Co-created content and “stigmergic” (Heylighen, 2006) dialogic interactions
• User roles somewhat fluid
• Self-organizing, bottom-up structure:
• Added “hardness” (Dron, 2006)
• Self-direction & learner-centred context
• User-demand shaped tool use, content, type of service
• Self-limiting effect characteristic of social media (Dron, 2006)
• Dialogue and structure mutually constitutive (Dron, 2007; Ravenscroft, 2011) --- contrary
to inverse relationship between dialogue and structure (Moore, 1989, 1990)
Administrative…
14. • Formal learning contexts: Specific skills, towards mastery
• Densely structured individual or collaborative work utilizing social media
• High degree of functional change, ranging from substitution to modification (Puentedura, 2014)
• User roles are the least fluid; least potential for learners controlling learning trajectory
• Both pedagogical and technical structure provided “hardness” to social media (Dron, 2006)
• Structure and dialogue mutually-constitutive:
• Increased dialogue/interaction, with structure contributing process momentum to
dialogue (Dron, 2007; Ravenscroft, 2011)
Process…
15. • Diverse learning contexts, with common characteristics:
• Pedagogically unstructured
• Tool flexibility, shaped by users; opportunistic use of social media
• Democratic participation; optional participation
• Reciprocity (Turner, 1985. 1997, 1999), teacher presence and immediacy; fluidity in user roles
• Co-creation of learning content / collective knowledge; “stigmergic”, and extending beyond
specific learning contexts
• Complimentary, dialogic and user-shaped collaboration
• Activities provided learners with opportunities for experiencing competency, relatedness and autonomy
(Deci et al., 1991; Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2002)
• Initial technological and pedagogical structure provided for users; ability for users to take control and
shape tool use, content, learning trajectory and collective learning
• Highest degree of functional change, primary redefinition (Puentedura, 2014)
• Self-organizing, self-sustaining, bottom-up emergent structure
• User-infused hardness (Dron, 2006, 2013; Dron & Anderson, 2014)
• Dialogue momentum, influenced & shaped group/community aggregation (Dron, 2007;
Ravenscroft, 2011)
Emergent…
17. User<->Content<->Tool Interaction
• Tool flexibility, with mutually defined/defining
tool uses & affordances and actor relationships
• Autonomous user (user prime) positioned at
centre of digitally connected environment(s),
engaging in interactive relationships with three
primary sets of actors --- content, tools and
other users (individuals and groups) --- while
occupying three fluid and often simultaneous
roles --- learner, facilitator and contributor.
• Role fluidity: Users may occupy multiple roles in
relation to each other within given learning
contexts; these roles are fluid; they shape and
are shaped by other users; they may cut across
environment boundaries.
(Anderson & Garrison, 1998; Checkland, 2000; Checkland & Poulter, 2010),Dayter, 2012; Deci, et al., 1991; Dron, 2006, 2007, 2013; Dron & Anderson,
2007, 2014; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Hillman, Willis & Gunawaradena, 1994; Ingold, 1993; Jenkins, et al., 2006; Latour, 1996; Moore, 1989,
1990; Ravenscroft, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002; Siemens, 2005; Xie, Yu & Bradshaw, 2014)
18. Best Practices
• Tool selection should consider how technical affordances can provide
opportunities for learners to experience personal competency, relatedness
and autonomy appropriate to the learning outcomes.
• For learning outcomes relating to skills mastery, social media integration
should include increased pedagogical structure and more defined user
roles (adding hardness), to contribute towards learner-centredness.
• For outcomes aiming towards collective learning, social media integration
should include decreased pedagogical structure that facilitates self-
organizing, bottom-up structure, more open dialogue and fluid user roles
(user-infused hardness, not pedagogical hardness/structure).
• Social media use for practical purposes and more informal user
aggregations, such as information retrieval, should embody flexible
structure that self-shapes to user demands.
19. Limitations!
• Scope of review limited by project timeframe:
• Quantitative analysis was truncated to enable this review to be
completed on time
• Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis may not be representative
of all 954 articles identified, and may not be generalizable
• Evaluation of study design could not be undertaken
• Thematic analysis might have been enriched by including other topics,
such as social media use by academic libraries in higher education
contexts
20. References & full paper available @
http://dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/viewdtrdesc.php?cpk=308&id=49978
This presentation was produced for educational purposes. Images and graphics are
used in accordance with fair dealing copyright laws and conventions
for non-commercial educational purposes.
This presentation includes free graphics sourced and modified from Vecteezy.com.
Thanks!
21. Abstract
RATIONALE/BACKGROUND. Towards the goal of advancing cultures of change and innovation, current
trends in higher education position social media as key technologies enabling open, adaptive and
interactive experiential learning.
PURPOSE AND TYPE OF LITERATURE REVIEW. To explore the affordances and transformative dimensions
of social media in formal and informal higher education learning contexts, a review of research literature
was undertaken, following general methodology for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A sample of
150 studies, drawn from 954 sources identified, were reviewed for descriptive theme, learning
environment, formal/informal learning context, user types, social media tools, user aggregations, study
design and outcomes.
RESULTS. More than half the studies reviewed employed quantitative methodology, with
survey/questionnaire most common. More than half explored highly structured pedagogy in formal
learning contexts and face-to-face (f2f) environments. Few studies explored flipped classrooms.
Thematic analysis yielded three transformative dimensions of social media use – emergent,
administrative and process – which are described and mapped across diverse learning contexts.
IMPLICATIONS. A conceptual model is proposed repositioning tools as primary actors relative to learners
(users) and content, adding user<->tool<->content<-> interactions that take place within a common
cognitive plane. This model re-envisions the mutually shaping relationships among these three primary
actors, contextually embedded within digitally connected environments. Three roles – learner,
facilitator, contributor – that users occupy fluidly, are described. Drawing on these, best practices for
social media integration in learning are suggested.
Descriptive statistics reveal several gaps in the literature, most notably a need for more research
involving experimental design.
