Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Use of Online Educational Social Networking in a School Environment

This is my research presentation for my thesis defense

  • Be the first to comment

Use of Online Educational Social Networking in a School Environment

  1. 1. Use of Online Educational Social Networking in a School Environment Bethany V. Smith College of Education, NC State University
  2. 2. Does a student-centered online tool, such as Ning, foster knowledge construction through discussion boards more than a class-focused online tool, such as a traditional CMS?
  3. 3. Significance
  4. 4. Limitations
  5. 5. Review of Literature
  6. 6. Social Networking
  7. 7. boyd & Eliison (2007) define social networking as: web based services that allow individuals to
  8. 8. (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system
  9. 9. (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection
  10. 10. (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site
  11. 11. 42,089,200
  12. 12. 18-24 40%
  13. 13. 25-34 26%
  14. 14. Student Use
  15. 15. Ellison et al (2007) surveyed 286 students, 94% were users of Facebook.
  16. 16. Communication Use • Class work • Lectures • Exams • Vent concerns • Gain clarification on assignment (Selwyn, 2007)
  17. 17. Even though they had Blackboard
  18. 18. Faculty Use
  19. 19. Mazer et al. (2007) reason that the more students understand and connect with their instructors on a personal level, through the vehicle of a SNS, the more intrinsically motivated they are to participate in their class.
  20. 20. Hewitt & Forte’s (2006) research revealed that the students perceive Facebook to be primarily “owned” by students, and that faculty use is an intrusion.
  21. 21. Several teachers have been rendered unemployed based on their personal MySpace or Facebook pages (Ewbank et al., 2008; Saunders, 2008).
  22. 22. Ning: The Walled Garden Approach
  23. 23. The “walled garden” is a term coined by former TeleCommunications, Inc. founder, John Malone to describe a closed network that limits subscribers’ choices to a restricted range of content (Van Tassel, 2006)
  24. 24. Ning Facebook Comment Wall The Wall Blog Post Status Update Latest Activity News Feed Photos Photos “My Page” Profile Page Friends* Friends Blog Post Notes * Nomenclature may be changed within each respective Ning network
  25. 25. The College of Ed Ning was created in the Summer of 2008
  26. 26. Distance Education & Discussion Boards
  27. 27. “The students have to be convinced of the usefulness of online discussion as a learning tool and be guided to respond and participate in a manner from which they derive optimum benefits. If the students perceive and experience online discussion as a valued process, they will then be more likely to participate actively in it.” Lim and Cheah (2003, p. 34)
  28. 28. How effective are discussion boards in engaging students?
  29. 29. Peer-to-peer interactions on the other hand have a tendency to not only be more engaging, but also more effective (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Rourke & Anderson, 2002)
  30. 30. Motivation
  31. 31. Keller (1987) ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction)
  32. 32. Song & Keller (1999) utilized the ARCS model for developing computer assisted instructional models and Keller (2008) has recently applied his ARCS model to the field of e- learning and online instructional design.
  33. 33. Creating a Community
  34. 34. Johnson, Levine, and Smith (2008, p. 15) suggests that after integrating social networks into higher education that the next step is to “build rich, interactive, robust learning communities.”
  35. 35. Correia & Davis, 2008). Wenger (2008, p. 1) defines communities of practice as “groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.”
  36. 36. The Domain: It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. Membership therefore implies a commitment to the domain, and therefore a shared competence that distinguishes members from other people
  37. 37. The Community: In pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other
  38. 38. The Practice: members of a community of practice are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems – in short a shared practice.
  39. 39. Goos & Bennison (2008) were able to create a community of practice for their student teachers that grew out of their classroom.
  40. 40. Methodology
  41. 41. Research Question Does a student-centered online tool, such as Ning, foster knowledge construction through discussion boards more than a class-focused online tool, such as Moodle?
  42. 42. Null Hypothesis The quality of discussion board postings in the Ning group, as measured by the IAM phase system, is typical of other online classes.
  43. 43. Study Design Data Collection Data Analysis Attitudinal Survey Mann-Whitney U test 2-tailed t-test comparison Motivational Survey between both groups Coding of Ning group Discussion Board Postings postings using IAM schema Interview questions Emergence of themes
  44. 44. Sample Ning CMS Number of Students 20* 18
  45. 45. Attitudinal Survey Ning CMS Total Number of Students 20* 18 38 Number of 18 14 32 Respondents Response Rate 90% 77% 84%
  46. 46. Mann-Whitney U yielded no significant differences between groups Z = -3.66, p = .733
  47. 47. 4 Constructs # of Items Reliability Communication 5 0.55 Internet Usage 7 0.8 Basic Technical 5 0.75 Skills Advanced Technical 9 0.7 Skills Overall Reliability of 0.90
  48. 48. Motivation Survey Ning CMS Total Number of Students 20* 18 38 Number of 12 9 21 Respondents Response Rate 60% 50% 55%
  49. 49. Independent Samples t-test yielded no statistical significance between groups. t(19) = .241, p=.812
  50. 50. 400 Discussion Board Postings
  51. 51. Interaction Analysis Model Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997)
  52. 52. Phase I Sharing and comparing of information
  53. 53. Phase II Discovery and exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among participants
  54. 54. Phase III Negotiation of meaning or knowledge co-construction:
  55. 55. Phase IV Testing and modification
  56. 56. Phase V Phrasing of agreement and applications of newly constructed meaning
  57. 57. Week 8
  58. 58. Number of Phase Percentage Postings Phase I 4 28% Phase II 7 50% Phase III 2 14% Phase IV 2 7% Phase V 1 0.06%
  59. 59. Started by a Student
  60. 60. Controversial Topic
  61. 61. Interviews Prior Participant Group Gender Position SNS Doctoral Participant 04 Ning F Y Student Participant 22 CMS F Tech Teacher Y Doctoral Participant 23 Neither F Y Student Participant 24 CMS M Tech Teacher Y Participant 03 Ning F CTE Teacher N Participant 14 Ning F CTE Teacher N Doctoral Participant 25 CMS F Y Student
  62. 62. Theme Emergence Response Number Ning’s ease of use 2 Similarity of Ning to other discussion boards 2 Need to collaborate with other students 3 Value knowing more about other students in class 4 Recognize a need for professional social networking 5 Importance of teacher facilitation/interaction on discussion 4 Enjoy discussions online 3 Privacy concerns with SNS 3 Interest in creating their own Ning 3
  63. 63. “I like the ability to be apart of a group where you have to be invited to be. So you have members that are actually part of your group, so not everybody can join like on Facebook. So the privacy it brings. And of course I like all the social networking aspects that allow me to share pictures and music, videos, personal information, post to your wall, all those typical social networking things.” Participant 22
  64. 64. Research Findings
  65. 65. Based on the previous research of peer-to-peer interactions on discussion boards (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Rourke & Anderson, 2002) it was expected that by utilizing a tool that encouraged student control and interaction there would be a significant increase in the depth and breadth of student discussions.
  66. 66. Discussion Board • Discussion questions may not have been formulated for the debate IAM looks for • May have internalized knowledge construction (Kanuka & Anderson, 2005) • Heavy peer-to-peer interaction • Pre-conceptions of board usage
  67. 67. Ning Use • Students enjoyed using the tool • Several plan on using it in their classrooms • Tool aquisition • Paradigm shift
  68. 68. Limitations • Number of participants • Convenience Sample • Only generalizable to other graduate classes in Instructional Technology
  69. 69. Future Research • Larger Scale • Non-technical class • Undergraduates • Focus on profile creation tools • Longitudinal study • Facebook
  70. 70. Implications for Practice • Overview of tool • Setting expectations