ICT role in 21st century education and it's challenges.
Hashtags & Retweets: Using Twitter to aid Community, Communication and Casual (informal) Learning
1. Hashtags & Retweets
Using Twitter to aid Community,
Communication, and Casual (informal) Learning
@Reedyreedles | Peter Reed: Lecturer (LearningTechnology), University of Liverpool
7. @Reedyreedles
This research…
Investigating student’s attitudes,
perceptions and activity toward
the use of Twitter to support
learning and teaching.
In doing so;
Informal Learning
Personal Learning Environments
Digital Natives & Immigrants
10. @Reedyreedles
The Internet & Social Media…
Increased use of the Internet over time
(Roblyer et. al, 2010)
Pew Research (US) demonstrates
reliance on the Internet…
11. @Reedyreedles
The Internet & Social Media…
In 2001…
76% teens would
miss the Internet
Improved relationships
for 48%
32% make new friends
on Internet
12. @Reedyreedles
The Internet & Social Media…
In 2007…
93% teens use
Internet
‘as a venue for
social interaction’
Decreasing use of email in
favour of SNSs
@
@
@
@
15. @Reedyreedles
Social Media & the Digital Divide
@
Students check SNSs and email with equal regularity,
but Faculty check email more (Robblyer et al., 2010)
A digital divide?
17. @Reedyreedles
Social Media impacting on development of PLEs
(Hall 2009, Dabbagh & Kitsantas 2011)
‘Blurring of boundaries’ between personal, social spaces and formal
learning contexts.
PLEs can ‘help integrate formal and informal learning’ in HE.
Social Media & PLEs
18. @Reedyreedles
The Formal & The Informal
Institutionally Sponsored
Highly Structured
Prescribed Learning
Framework
Specific LearningTasks
Learner Owned
Social
Relaxed
Personal Choice
19. @Reedyreedles
The Formal & The Informal
Institutionally Sponsored
Highly Structured
Prescribed Learning
Framework
Specific LearningTasks
Learner Owned
Social
Relaxed
Personal Choice
Faculty often see these separately, but…
‘eLearning is rarely seen as separate of special by
learners’ (Hall 2009)
20. @Reedyreedles
The Formal & The Informal
Institutionally Sponsored
Highly Structured
Prescribed Learning
Framework
Specific LearningTasks
Learner Owned
Social
Relaxed
Personal Choice
The way students blend and deploy informal and
formal tools ‘underpins their assemblage of a
meaningful PLE’
(Hall 2009)
22. @Reedyreedles
Twitter in Edu…
The few authors actively
integratingTwitter within the
curriculum agree it can have a
positive impact on student
engagement
23. @Reedyreedles
Good Practice in UG Edu…
7 Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education;
1. Encourages student-faculty contact
2. Encourages cooperation among students
3. Encourages active learning
4. Gives prompt feedback
5. Emphasizes time on task
6. Communicates high expectations
7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning
Chickering & Gamson (1999)
24. @Reedyreedles
Junco et al (2011)…
Structured use ofTwitter, including detailed explanations
and hands-on training.
Identified positive impact;
‘Twitter helped students feel more comfortable
asking questions they may not be comfortable with
asking in class’.
25. @Reedyreedles
Junco et al (2011)…
Aligned to 7 Principles;
Improved contact with Faculty (Principle 1)
Improved communication between students (Principle 2)
Promoted active learning (Principle 3)
Prompt feedback (Principle 4)
Maximise time on task (Principle 5)
Communicate high expectations (Principle 6)
Respect for diversity (Principle 7)
34. Time Spent Online / week
1 2 3 4 5 6
61-70
41-50
31-40
21-30
11-20
<10
51-60
Hours
online
~50% of respondents spend between 11 – 30
hours online per week (n=22), although some
spend considerably less and considerably
more.
The mean time spent online was 33 hours
per week.
35. Time Spent Online by Activity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
<10% 11-30% 31-50% 51-70% 71-90% 90%>
Social Networking
Gaming
Shopping
News
Banking
Study
Time
online
36. Time Spent Online by Activity
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
<10% 11-30% 31-50% 51-70% 71-90% 90%>
Social Networking
Study
Time
online
37. Time Spent Online by Activity
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
<10% 11-30% 31-50% 51-70% 71-90% 90%>
Social Networking
Gaming
Shopping
News
Banking
Study
Respondents perform a range of tasks online
with few taking up large percentages of
overall activity.
Gaming, Shopping, News and Banking are
the activities with least amount of time.
Much more even distribution of time spent
on Social Networking and Study
38. Percentage Time Spent on Study Activities
2 4 6 8 10 12
71-90%
51-70%
31-50%
11-30%
<10%
90%>
Frequency
14
33%
26%
19%
14%
39. Percentage Time Spent on Study Activities
2 4 6 8 10 12
71-90%
51-70%
31-50%
11-30%
<10%
90%>
Frequency
14
33%
26%
19%
14%
14% of respondents spend less than 10% of
overall Internet time in activities related to
Study.
This was the most common response (n=14) was
between 31-50%, however 19% (n=11) engage in
activities related to Study in over 50% of their
overall time online.
This question demonstrates the range of
practices related to study amongst the
respondents.
43. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11-30% 31-50% 51-70% 71-90% 91%>
Percentage Internet Access via Smartphone
Frequency
This question highlights the range of overall
usage of Internet access via smartphones
amongst respondents.
57% of smartphone users (n=24) access the
Internet <50% (of overall time online) on their
devices, however 43% (n=18) rely on
smartphones far more.
45. Facebook
Twitter
16
10
6
12
Facebook Twitter
Not active 6 12
Active 16 10
Active users of SNSs before this course
Active Not active
79% of respondents (n=33) are active Facebook
users
Only 58% of respondents are activeTwitter users.
This could demonstrate the larger market share
of Facebook amongst the student population.
An additional question identified 100% of
existing Facebook users had used the platform to
discuss course related information on an informal
basis.
46. Should staff use SNS with Students?
Yes No Indifferent
19 11
13
12
128
48. 59%
4%
23%
14%
Preferred single method of communication
Email
Facebook
Moodle
Twitter
Although many respondents are happy to use
SNS to communicate, Email still carries the most
weight as a preferred method for formal teacher-
student communication (60%), followed byVLE
(14%).
26% of respondents favoured SNS as their
preferred method of communication.
All respondents in the 25-34 age category
preferred email
49. Comments related to use of Twitter
Ease of communication
Speed of communication
Infrequent email use
Mobile Notifications
Public Forum
Links/Retweets
Informal & Relaxed
Moodle for important info
Distraction
Coded comments of benefits of usingTwitter in edu…
voluntarily left 2 negative comments….
50. Actual usage of Twitter
Students were asked a series ofYes / No questions related to if,
and how, they have usedTwitter as part of their studies.
Have you contacted a tutor?
> Was this useful?
Have you contacted other students?
Have you accessed a link from the tutor?
Yes No
15
15
17
21
27
25
21
/
51. Actual usage of Twitter
However….
All those that engaged found it a
positive experience…
More students engaged with fellow
students than with tutor…
And more people accessed links
that were active.
54. @Reedyreedles
Hashtags
Encouraging students to tweet on a voluntary basis did not
sufficiently instill the importance of including a hashtag.
Holding on to the Informal?
#MM5362 | #MM5361
#6ABL2303 | #6G5Z2001
#63MM6301
57. A Digital Divide?
Digital Literacies
If we recognise
RESIDENTS &
VISITORS
we must also
recognise
the need to
support and develop
so all students
can harness
THE
SOCIAL WEB
58. Social Media & PLEs?
Students are already using social
media tools in the formation of
their own Personal Learning
Environments
72% 45%
59. Future developments
Archiving of tweets is
important to measure and
analyse later. Consider
Martin Hawkesey’sTAGS
Explorer….
Training critical to wider
uptake (Dabbagh &
Kitsantis).
60. Two more things….
If Students are already usingTwitter, are there
ethical issues involved in archiving their
tweets/discussions?
If PLEs are indeed personal and these tools are
informal, do we run the risk of disengaging
students by formalising them through
structure?
62. @Reedyreedles
Credits & References
Boyd, danah m., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Chickering,A.W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1999). Development and Adaptations of the Seven
Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. New Directions forTeaching and
Learning, 1999(80), 75-81. doi:10.1002/tl.8006
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-
regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The
Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8. Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
Hall, R. (2009).Towards a Fusion of Formal and Informal Learning Environments : the Impact
of the Read / WriteWeb. Learning, 7(1), 29-40.
63. @Reedyreedles
Credits & References
Junco, R., Heiberger,G., & Loken, E. (2011).The effect ofTwitter on college student
engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119-132.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x
Kassens-Noor, E. (2012).Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal
learning in higher education:The case of sustainable tweets. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 13(1), 9-21. doi:10.1177/1469787411429190
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith,A., & Mcgill,A. (2007). Teens and Social Media. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-and-Social-Media.aspx
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M.,Webb, M., Herman, J., &Witty, J.V. (2010). 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, 13(3), 134-140.
Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002
64. @Reedyreedles
Credits & References
Selwyn, N. (2009).The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364-379.
doi:10.1108/00012530910973776
Vygotsky, L. (2002). Play and its role in the Mental Development of the Child, 1-18.
White, D., & Le Cornu, A. (2011).Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online
engagement. First Monday, 16(9). Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3171/3049
Since the evolution of Web 2.0, or the Social Web, the way in which users interact with/on the Internet has seen a massive paradigm shift. Most notably, beforehand, the Internet was primarily a ‘tool’ with which users can receive information (Web 1), whereas later, users create that information, share and interact with others (Web 2.0).
Web 2.0 tools and technologies have completely changed the dynamics of the Internet, enabling users to create content; be it text, photographs or video, and furthermore share and collaborate across massive geographic boundaries.
As part of this revolution, arguably the most significant tools have been those focusing upon social media. As such, Social Networking Sites (SNSs) such as Facebook has seen tremendous growth in recent years (Kassens-Noor, 2012), culminating in its recent IPO of roughly $100bn, where it’s suggested more than 80 million shares were sold in the first 30 seconds (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/23/technology/facebook-ipo-what-went-wrong/index.htm).
Although it’s quickly growing, Microblogging site Twitter isn’t quite at the same scale.
Although there are a range of blogs and websites discussing and promoting the use of Twitter in education, there is little published research into how Social Media is being used to support learning, learners and the student experience (Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2011; Kassens-Noor, 2012), however there is talk of how students are integrating various tools based on individual choice, to form their own Personal Learning Environment, or PLEs (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011; Hall, 2009).
Although there are a range of blogs and websites discussing and promoting the use of Twitter in education, there is little published research into how Social Media is being used to support learning, learners and the student experience (Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2011; Kassens-Noor, 2012), however there is talk of how students are integrating various tools based on individual choice, to form their own Personal Learning Environment, or PLEs (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011; Hall, 2009).
however there is talk of how students are integrating various tools based on individual choice, to form their own Personal Learning Environment, or PLEs(Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011; Hall, 2009).
This research project set out to investigate student’s attitudes, perceptions and activity toward the use of Twitter in supporting learning, teaching and assessment. In so-doing, this paper touches on a number of current debates in Higher Education, such as the role (and perceptual rise) of Informal Learning & PLEs; and debates around Digital Natives/Immigrants Vs Digital Residents/Visitors.
This presentation will touch on these debates and share the experiences of both teaching staff and students, using Twitter as a voluntary communication platform. Based on early findings, it will also suggests the ‘3C’s of Twitter’ (TC3) in Education - Community, Communication, and Casual (informal) Learning,
Unsurprisingly, statistics show increases in the use of the Internet over time; Roblyer et. al (2010) draw on Pew research (Lenhart, Madden, Smith, & Mcgill, 2007) to compare Internet use from 2001 with 2007. They suggest in 2001;
Pew research (Lenhart, Madden, Smith, & Mcgill, 2007) compares Internet use from 2001 with 2007. They suggest in 2001;
The Pew figures (Lenhart et al., 2007) go on to suggest 93% of teens in 2007 use the Internet, and increasingly ‘as a venue for social interaction’ e.g. create/share content, tell stories and interact (p. 3i). The Pew figures also highlighted use of email was decreasing amongst teens, and Junco et. al (2011) suggest learners are beginning to favour communication through social networking tools rather than via email.
Boyd & Ellison (2007) define social networks as;
‘web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system’
(Boyd & Ellison, 2008).
This definition aligns with the ethos of social constructivism – the theory of learning suggesting social interaction is critical to the construction of knowledge (Vygotsky, 2002) – and the formation and participation within Communities of practice (Lave & Wenger).
Furthermore, Roblyer et. al (2010) identify 60% of students using SNSs already use the platforms to discuss their education (in general), with over 50% discussing specific work (Roblyer et al., 2010). Junco et. al (2011) also identify positive correlations between SNS use and student engagement.
It makes sense therefore that researchers and academics should look to harness these tools and technologies to enhance learning and teaching.
Social Media and the Digital Divide
Robblyer et al. (2010) suggest students check SNSs and email with equal regularity, however Faculty were more likely to check email rather than SNSs. This could add weight to suggestions that students are more engaged with current technological trends than older generations.
Prensky (2001) first identified the possibility of such a diversion and categorised users as Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants;
‘Digital Natives’ – People born later than 1980, who have some innate confidence in using technology and ‘all of the other toys and tools of the digital age’ (Prensky, 2001).
‘Digital Immigrants’ – an older generation of users who have to adapt their current practices (and in some cases lifestyles) to harness technologies.
Prensky’s work has been widely criticized for such harsh categorisations and exaggerations (Selwyn, 2009; White & Le Cornu, 2011). White and Le Cornu (2011) recognise the compelling nature of Prensky’s references to languages that seen it’s early rise in popularity, however suggest his metaphors, as criticised as they are, relate not only to a different time (e.g. 2001), but also to a different Web (1.0). White and Le Cornu go on to offer a new continuum-based typology for online engagement, with more consideration of the now commonplace social networking services available. Careful not to pidgeon-hole users into age or technical categories, White and Le Cornu use the metaphor of ‘Digital Residents’ and ‘Digital Visitors’ (White & Le Cornu, 2011).
Digital Visitors are those users who may use a tool to carry out a desired function. The tool may not be the perfect fit for the job, but are happy to make some progress to the aims. When the job is over, the tool is put away again. Visitors are not interested in building profiles online.
Digital Residents on the other hand, see the social web tools as a place, not too dissimilar from a physical building, or a park: places to meet up with friends and interact. The boundaries between the physical and digital worlds are increasingly blurred.
In relation to this study, Prensky would suggest students should all be familiar with SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter, whereas White and Le Cornu would suggest users may or may not engage with social media to different levels depending on their personal aims and views on the tools in question.
Social Media and Personal Learning Environments
Social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook are forming and impacting upon learner’s development of PLEs (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011; Hall, 2009; Kassens-Noor, 2012), and through this, authors suggest learners can address the ‘blurring of the boundaries’ between personal, social spaces and formal learning contexts (Hall, 2009). Hall builds on notions that PLEs can ‘help integrate formal and informal learning’ in HE (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011) suggesting formal and informal learning should be integrated in order to enhance learning.
In discussing formal learning environments, both sets of authors use terms such as ‘Institutionally sponsored’, ‘highly structured’, ‘prescribed learning framework’ and ‘specified learning tasks’. These will likely include, for example, the structures in place through institutionally owned Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). This can be compared with the ‘learner owned’ PLEs constructed of tools through personal choice and often including Web 2.0 tools. Although traditionally, academics see the two environments separately (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010), Hall identifies evidence suggesting eLearning as a whole is ‘rarely seen as separate or special by learners’ (p32), and that students already use a mix of tools (both personal and Institutional) depending on choice, access and control. He goes on to suggest the ways students blend and deploy both informal and formal tools ‘underpins their assemblage of a meaningful PLE’ (Hall, 2009).
Although traditionally, academics see the two environments separately (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010), Hall identifies evidence suggesting eLearning as a whole is ‘rarely seen as separate or special by learners’ (p32), and that students already use a mix of tools (both personal and Institutional) depending on choice, access and control. He goes on to suggest the ways students blend and deploy both informal and formal tools ‘underpins their assemblage of a meaningful PLE’ (Hall, 2009).
Social Media and Personal Learning Environments
Social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook are forming and impacting upon learner’s development of PLEs (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011; Hall, 2009; Kassens-Noor, 2012), and through this, authors suggest learners can address the ‘blurring of the boundaries’ between personal, social spaces and formal learning contexts (Hall, 2009). Hall builds on notions that PLEs can ‘help integrate formal and informal learning’ in HE (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011) suggesting formal and informal learning should be integrated in order to enhance learning.
In discussing formal learning environments, both sets of authors use terms such as ‘Institutionally sponsored’, ‘highly structured’, ‘prescribed learning framework’ and ‘specified learning tasks’. These will likely include, for example, the structures in place through institutionally owned Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). This can be compared with the ‘learner owned’ PLEs constructed of tools through personal choice and often including Web 2.0 tools. Although traditionally, academics see the two environments separately (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010), Hall identifies evidence suggesting eLearning as a whole is ‘rarely seen as separate or special by learners’ (p32), and that students already use a mix of tools (both personal and Institutional) depending on choice, access and control. He goes on to suggest the ways students blend and deploy both informal and formal tools ‘underpins their assemblage of a meaningful PLE’ (Hall, 2009).
Social Media and Personal Learning Environments
Social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook are forming and impacting upon learner’s development of PLEs (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011; Hall, 2009; Kassens-Noor, 2012), and through this, authors suggest learners can address the ‘blurring of the boundaries’ between personal, social spaces and formal learning contexts (Hall, 2009). Hall builds on notions that PLEs can ‘help integrate formal and informal learning’ in HE (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011) suggesting formal and informal learning should be integrated in order to enhance learning.
In discussing formal learning environments, both sets of authors use terms such as ‘Institutionally sponsored’, ‘highly structured’, ‘prescribed learning framework’ and ‘specified learning tasks’. These will likely include, for example, the structures in place through institutionally owned Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). This can be compared with the ‘learner owned’ PLEs constructed of tools through personal choice and often including Web 2.0 tools. Although traditionally, academics see the two environments separately (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010), Hall identifies evidence suggesting eLearning as a whole is ‘rarely seen as separate or special by learners’ (p32), and that students already use a mix of tools (both personal and Institutional) depending on choice, access and control. He goes on to suggest the ways students blend and deploy both informal and formal tools ‘underpins their assemblage of a meaningful PLE’ (Hall, 2009).
The Use of Twitter in Education
Literature suggests those who have experimented using Twitter in teaching and learning agree it can have a positive impact on student engagement (Kassens-Noor, 2012).
Several authors (Junco et al., 2011; Roblyer et al., 2010) have identified Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1999) as a foundation for the use of social media in learning and teaching, and as means to benchmark ‘engagement’. The seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education include;
Encourages student-faculty contact
Encourages cooperation among students
Encourages active learning
Gives prompt feedback
Emphasizes time on task
Communicates high expectations
Respects diverse talents and ways of learning
To this end, Junco et al. (2011) is one of the few empirical studies investigating the impact of Twitter on student engagement. In implementing the tool, the researchers ran training sessions on the use of Twitter (including explanations on how hashtags work, tweeting another user, etc), and embedded its use through mini assignments that needed to be completed. The authors suggest; ‘Twitter helped students feel more comfortable asking questions they may not be comfortable with asking in class’ (Junco et al., 2011), and furthermore highlighted a positive effect on both student engagement and grades
They then go on to relate their positive experiences with Chickering and Gamson’s principles for good practice, suggesting their research demonstrated;
Improved contact with Faculty (Principle 1)
Improved communication between students (Principle 2)
Promoted active learning (Principle 3)
Prompt feedback (Principle 4)
Maximise time on task (Principle 5)
Communicate high expectations (Principle 6)
Respect for diversity (Principle 7)
In preparation for a keynote presentation, Steve Wheeler asked students at the University of Plymouth for quotes regarding their thoughts on the use of Twitter. He received a number of replies from students, such as;
“Twitter, we’re better connected”
“Twttr opens the classroom to the world, but also with this, the world of criticism and debate”
“Twitter has opened a wealth of opportunities and information I never even knew existed. To be honest, might have to blog now”
Methodology
One lecturer within the Division of Digital Media and Entertainment Technology interested in the use of social media in education, encouraged students to sign up and use Twitter as a potential solution to help encourage communication between students; provide a backchannel throughout teaching activities; and to aid the communication channels between students and teaching staff.
Students were informed early on that they did not have to sign up to the service, but support was provided for those students wanting to. These students were encouraged to include dedicated hashtags if they wanted to tweet related to the course of study.
Twitter was used by the lecturer across two modules with hashtags corresponding to the module codes: #MM5362 and #MM5361. Both modules are level 5 (2nd Year) UG Multimedia Developments module. MM5362 is studied by Combined Honours students, and MM5361 by students studying Computer Science and Multimedia Technology pathways.
Throughout the duration of the year, the lecturer would regularly tweet links that might be useful to students as well as be available to answer questions, etc. Through the use of hashtags, these tweets could be captured using the Twitter Developer API, which were then embedded within the corresponding area for the unit in the University’s VLE, Moodle.
Twitter was introduced to MM5362 students in Week 1 (September 2011). Due to collaborative delivery, Twitter wasn’t introduced to MM5361 students until Term 2 (January 2012).
Methodology
One lecturer within the Division of Digital Media and Entertainment Technology interested in the use of social media in education, encouraged students to sign up and use Twitter as a potential solution to help encourage communication between students; provide a backchannel throughout teaching activities; and to aid the communication channels between students and teaching staff.
Students were informed early on that they did not have to sign up to the service, but support was provided for those students wanting to. These students were encouraged to include dedicated hashtags if they wanted to tweet related to the course of study.
Twitter was used by the lecturer across two modules with hashtags corresponding to the module codes: #MM5362 and #MM5361. Both modules are level 5 (2nd Year) UG Multimedia Developments module. MM5362 is studied by Combined Honours students, and MM5361 by students studying Computer Science and Multimedia Technology pathways.
Throughout the duration of the year, the lecturer would regularly tweet links that might be useful to students as well as be available to answer questions, etc. Through the use of hashtags, these tweets could be captured using the Twitter Developer API, which were then embedded within the corresponding area for the unit in the University’s VLE, Moodle.
Twitter was introduced to MM5362 students in Week 1 (September 2011). Due to collaborative delivery, Twitter wasn’t introduced to MM5361 students until Term 2 (January 2012).
Student Profile
The first section of the questionnaire aimed to gain a profile of the student population.
Table 1. Respondents Gender
16 male
6 female
All of the respondents were aged between 18-21.
Laptops are the preferred device amongst respondents (63%). Interestingly all female respondents (n=6, 27%) favour laptops, and despite the surge in demand for tablet devices, none of the respondents use them as their primary device for Internet access. The developments in smartphone technologies are beginning to enable users (n=4) to use them as primary Internet devices).
48% of respondents spend between 11 and 30 hours online per week (n20), equating to between 1.5 and 4.2 hours per day. However, some students spend considerably less - two respondents spend less than 10 hours online per week - and some spend considerably more - five respondents spend more than 51 hours per week online. There were also four ‘‘other’’ responses to this question, including: ‘‘Many/Too many’’ and ‘‘Continuously’’.
The mean time spent online was 33 hours per week.
48% of respondents spend between 11 and 30 hours online per week (n20), equating to between 1.5 and 4.2 hours per day. However, some students spend considerably less - two respondents spend less than 10 hours online per week - and some spend considerably more - five respondents spend more than 51 hours per week online. There were also four ‘‘other’’ responses to this question, including: ‘‘Many/Too many’’ and ‘‘Continuously’’.
The mean time spent online was 33 hours per week.
respondents perform a range of activities online, with very few activities taking up a large percentage of overall Internet usage. In particular, no respondents spend any more than 70% of their overall time online in activities related to shopping, news and weather, or banking. In fact, these activities were those that respondents spend least time on.
Although still uneven, respondents demonstrated a more balanced distribution for activities related to social networking and study, with the majority of responses spending between 11% and 70% of their overall time online in these activities.
respondents perform a range of activities online, with very few activities taking up a large percentage of overall Internet usage. In particular, no respondents spend any more than 70% of their overall time online in activities related to shopping, news and weather, or banking. In fact, these activities were those that respondents spend least time on.
Although still uneven, respondents demonstrated a more balanced distribution for activities related to social networking and study, with the majority of responses spending between 11% and 70% of their overall time online in these activities.
respondents perform a range of activities online, with very few activities taking up a large percentage of overall Internet usage. In particular, no respondents spend any more than 70% of their overall time online in activities related to shopping, news and weather, or banking. In fact, these activities were those that respondents spend least time on.
Although still uneven, respondents demonstrated a more balanced distribution for activities related to social networking and study, with the majority of responses spending between 11% and 70% of their overall time online in these activities.
59% of respondents spend between 11 – 50 hours online per week (n=11), although some spend considerably less and considerably more. The average time spent online was 19.5 hours per week.
Chart 4 demonstrates the range of practices related to study amongst respondents:
. 6 (14%) of respondents spend less than 10% of overall Internet time in activities related to study.
. The most common response (n=14) was between 31 and 50%.
. Only three respondents spend more than 71% of their overall time in activities
related to study.
. 36% (n=8) of respondents spend over 50% of their overall time online
engaging in activities related to study.
59% of respondents spend between 11 – 50 hours online per week (n=11), although some spend considerably less and considerably more. The average time spent online was 19.5 hours per week.
Chart 4 demonstrates the range of practices related to study amongst respondents:
. 6 (14%) of respondents spend less than 10% of overall Internet time in activities related to study.
. The most common response (n=14) was between 31 and 50%.
. Only three respondents spend more than 71% of their overall time in activities
related to study.
. 36% (n=8) of respondents spend over 50% of their overall time online
engaging in activities related to study.
This question gives us an idea as to Smartphone uptake amongst respondents.
Blackberry smartphones are the most popular, followed by iPhone and Android.
18% (n=4) of respondents do not own a smartphone.
This question highlights the range of overall usage of Internet access via smartphones amongst respondents.
39% of smartphone users (n=7) access the Internet <30% on their devices, however 61% (n=11) rely on smartphones far more.
72% of respondents (n=16) are active Facebook users
Only 45% of respondents are active Twitter users.
This could demonstrate the larger market share of Facebook amongst the student population.
An additional question identified 100% of existing Facebook users had used the platform to discuss course related information on an informal basis.
Although many respondents are happy to use SNSs to communicate, Email still carries the most weight as the single preferred method for formal teacher-student communication (60%, n=25), followed by Moodle and Twitter (both with 14%, n=6), and Facebook (12%, n=5).
All respondents in the 25-34 age category preferred email over other methods.
This question asked respondents to identify any benefits of using Twitter as a communication tool between teachers and students. Although the question only asked for benefits, some students included negative aspects as well. The responses have been loosely coded as above.
20 positive comments were made related to the use of Twitter as a communication tool, with respondents identifying the speed of communication and ease of communication as key drivers. The informal and relaxed nature was also deemed positive.
Students were asked a series of Yes / No questions related to if, and how, they have used Twitter as part of their studies.
Poor take up from #MM5361…
However….
All 10 respondents who used Twitter, positively evaluated the tool…
All 10 communicated with fellow students…
And 9 accessed links posted by the Tutor.
Social Media and the Digital Divide
100% of respondents, according to Presky (2001), would be classed as Digital Natives. As such, he suggests they have grew up immersed in new technologies, so we could expect respondents to be fully conversant with SNSs (as the subject of this study). However this research demonstrates that not all students are active users of SNSs. This reinforces White and Le Cornu’s perspective that Prensky classifications do not lend themselves to the Social Web, require a rethinking of classifications (if they are needed at all). The data therefore is in closer alignment to the idea of Digital Visitors and Residents (White & Le Cornu, 2011).
Social Media and the Digital Divide
In recognising White and Le Cornu’s notion of the Digital Visitor, we also recognise the need to support the digital literacies of students in order to harness the potential of Web 2.0 tools. In identifying 100% of active Twitter users positively evaluating the service in relation to learning and teaching, we can presume other students would also see benefits. Therefore it is essential to enable all students, not just Digital Visitors, to become fluent and use the tools to enhance learning and the student experience.
Social Media and the Digital Divide
In recognising White and Le Cornu’s notion of the Digital Visitor, we also recognise the need to support the digital literacies of students in order to harness the potential of Web 2.0 tools. In identifying 100% of active Twitter users positively evaluating the service in relation to learning and teaching, we can presume other students would also see benefits. Therefore it is essential to enable all students, not just Digital Visitors, to become fluent and use the tools to enhance learning and the student experience.
Archiving of tweets is important to measure and analyse later.
Training critical to wider uptake (Dabbagh & Kitsantis).
If Students are already using Twitter, are there ethical issues involved in archiving their tweets/discussions?
If PLEs are indeed personal and these tools are informal, do we run the risk of disengaging students by formalising them through structure?