This document summarizes a study on the use of Web 2.0 technologies for back channel communication among online students. The study examined how MLIS students used technologies like social networking, blogging, and wikis to communicate for both academic and social purposes outside of the formal course structure. Results showed that students engaged in back channel communication through various technologies, especially for clarifying coursework, seeking help, and building social connections for support. Older students tended to prefer phone communication while younger students used texting and social media more frequently. Students reported that back channel communication contributed significantly to their learning through ongoing peer support. The document recommends that educators encourage and utilize back channel technologies to enhance online learning communities.

1. Back Channel Communication:
Web 2.0 Technologies
for Social Learning
Barbara A. Frey
Lorna Kearns
University of Pittsburgh

2. Agenda
• Our study
– Theoretical orientation
– Methods
– Results
• Case studies
• Discussion
• Recommendations

3. Web 2.0
• Second phase of World Wide Web
enabling greater social and participatory
use (Anderson, 2007)
• Sometimes used interchangeably with the
term “social software”
• Web 2.0 directory
http://www.go2web20.net/

4. Social Learning
• Social constructivism (Huang, 2002)
– Knowledge is constructed by learners as they
interact with one another (Dewey, 1916;
Vygotsky, 1978)
• Communities of practice
– “…collective learning in a shared domain of
human endeavor” (Wenger, 2004)

5. Online Learning Communities
• Community of Inquiry (Garrison,
Anderson, and Archer, 2000)
• Social presence (Richardson & Swan,
2003)
• Online group development (Carabajal,
LaPointe, and Gunawardena, 2003)
• Building Online Learning Communities
(Palloff and Pratt, 2007)

6. Back Channel Communication
• Communication channel outside of course
structure
• Useful for:
– Communicating about content (direct)
– Developing social bonds (indirect)

7. Research Design
• Population
– MLIS students
– Online, cohort-based
– Face-to-face campus meeting each semester
• Interview questions
– Students’ use of Web 2.0 technologies for
back channel communication
– Purpose of communication

8. Data Collection
• Focus groups
– 49 online students
– Data collected during face-to-face campus
weekend
– July 2008
• Survey
– Sent to 331 students
– 136 responses
– August 2008

9. Demographics
• Age
• Gender
• Level of education
• Self-rated computer skills
• Previous experience with online learning
• Campus vs. online program
• Number of courses taken

10. Back Channel Communication
Technologies
1. Talking on land line telephone 11. Collaborative authoring (e.g.,
Wikispaces)
2. Talking on cell phone
12. Collaborative editing (e.g.,
3. Text messaging on cell phone
Google Docs)
4. Talking on Skype
13. Video sharing (e.g., YouTube)
5. Instant messaging on Skype
14. Social networking (e.g.,
6. Other instant messaging
Facebook)
7. E-mail
15. Blogging (e.g., blogger.com)
8. Social bookmarking (e.g.,
16. Social gaming (e.g., Second
del.icio.us)
Life)
9. Calendaring (e.g., Google
17. RSS feed readers (e.g.,
Calendar)
Google Reader)
10. Image sharing (e.g., Flickr)

11. Back Channel Communication
Purposes
1. Collaborate on assignments
2. Clarify assignment or program
requirements
3. Seek or provide help with technology
tools
4. Socialize
5. Seek or provide emotional support

12. Open-ended Questions
• Are there other purposes for which you
have used these technologies to
communicate with classmates? If so,
what are they?
• Do you believe that your use of these
technologies to communicate with your
classmates has contributed to your
learning? If so, can you describe how?

13. Demographics
Age Gender
Male
46 or over
12%
15%
25 or under
31%
36-45
16%
Female
26-35
88%
38%

14. Demographics
Education Level Program
Professional
Doctoral 2% Other
1% 10%
Master's
18%
Campus
43%
FastTrack
47%
Bachelor's
79%

15. What Students Said
“I was trying to set up a
roommate for the campus
weekend … so I used the
Facebook wall to post
messages.”
“Wow! Pictures of people, so amazing!”
“…it’s just a place to procrastinate time.”

16. What Students Said
“The idea of the wiki is that everything
goes to a central place instead of all this
information being in a circle of emails. It
all goes to a central hub that everyone
can view and access.”
“It’s free!”
“…you know what’s going on in the wiki.”

17. What Students Said
“There were some people who
took syllabi and organized them
into Google Calendar and it’s
been really, really helpful and I
know a lot of people are using
it.”
“I actually made an error that caused me to start using
Google Calendar avidly, religiously and I have alerts sent
to me and things popping up when things are due…”

18. What Students Said
“I’m one of the older folks and I
had a couple of meltdown
moments when I just needed to
hear a human voice.”
“I personally don’t like talking on the phone.”

19. What Students Said
“I have Google Reader up for updates all day long
and it refreshes automatically.”
“You can get a feed into your reader when someone
updates the wiki.”
“…if you keep people’s blogs
in your reader, you get
updates about them and you
have more awareness of
some of the things they’re
going through.”

20. Technologies
Social gaming
Image sharing
Talking on Skype
Calendaring
Instant messaging on Skype
Land line telephone
RSS feed readers
Video sharing
Social bookmarking
Text messaging on cell phone
Blogging
Other instant messaging
Social networking
Collaborative authoring
Collaborative editing
Talking on cell phone
E-mail
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

21. Communication Purposes
Emotional
support
Help w/ tech
Socialize
Clarify reqs
Collaborate on
assignments
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

22. Age/Talking on Cell Phone
100
90
80
70
Frequency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over
Technology

23. Age/Texting on Cell Phone
100
90
80
70
Frequency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over
Technology

24. Age/Social Bookmarking
100
90
80
70
Frequency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over
Technology

25. Age/Collaborative Authoring
100
90
80
70
Frequency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over
Technology

26. Age/Blogging
100
90
80
70
Frequency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over
Technology

27. Age/Communicating to Socialize
100
90
80
70
Frequency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25 or under 26-35 36-45 46 or over
Purpose

28. Age
100
Talking on Cell
90
Phone
80
Texting on Cell
70 Phone
Frequency
60 Social Bookmarking
50
40 Collaborative
30 Authoring
20 Blogging
10
0 Communicating to
Socialize
25 or 26-35 36-45 46 or
under over
Technologies and Purpose

29. Program
100
90
80
70
Frequency
60
50
Campus
40
Online
30
20
10
0
Social Blogging RSS Feed Help w/ Tech
Bookmarking Readers

30. Value of Back Channel
How has your use of these technologies
contributed to your learning?
“I could not have made it through this program without
the support system provided by the technology I use.”
“It has created a constant communication link between
our cohort members. I never feel alone.”
“It's the moral support, which helps a lot in learning and
understanding new things.”

31. Pros & Cons
• What are your experiences with back
channel communication among students?
• How has Web 2.0 technology changed
your teaching?

32. Recommendations
• Encourage students to communicate
outside of class, to reach out to one
another
• Learn about Web 2.0 technologies to see
what they have to offer
• Make recommendations to students on
Web 2.0 technologies according to their
goals for communication

33. References
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for
education. Joint Information Systems Committee Technology and
Standards Watch Report. Retrieved December 19, 2008 from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2003). Group development
in online learning communities. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.)
Handbook of distance education (pp. 217-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-
based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet
and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan
Company. Retrieved December 23, 2008 from
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education

34. References
Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning
environments. British Journal of Educational Technology (33)1.
Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities:
Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Richardson, J. C. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online
courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1).
Vygotsky, L. (1978). L. S. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wenger, E. (2004). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved
December 23, 2008 from Etienne Wenger’s Web site at
http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm

35. Questions?

36. Thank you!
Barbara A. Frey: bafrey@pitt.edu
Lorna Kearns: lrkearns@pitt.edu