1

To what extent do doctoral students use and

benefit from online social networks for their
thesis work?
An investigation into the development and use of a
personal learning environment/social network for
doctoral mentees
By E. Alana James, Ed.D.

Article Highlights

• PLEs/social networks provide new forms of feedback loops.

• Data show student willingness and interested in participating in

such a network but there is a gap between that and logged
activity.

• Implementing and supporting networked activities makes online

mentoring more fun, interesting as well as time efficient for both
students and their professors.

Abstract

This paper is a means of provoking professors who mentor doctoral students to

consider the use of new technologies in their work, especially if they work in
online environments. The purpose of this study is to investigate the
development and use of a personal learning environment/social network for
doctoral mentees in education and management. A convenience sample of
students across three universities, all of whom are mentored by the author,
comprise the scope of this study, n = 38. Mixed data collection and analysis
techniques weave into a participatory action research methodology over the six-
month development cycle. Findings show that, while it is a young project, and
while the learning environment is evolving, students are interested and buoyed
by the supporting technology in place. Conclusions are that it would be useful
for a number of academics to try similar techniques and share results and on a
personal level t I enjoy the mix of students across university boundaries and their
interactions with each other. Limitations of this study are that, as in all self-
study, it is small in scope and conducted over a very short period of time. This
research contributes to the literature on personal learning environments, and the
ways and means in which professors may choose to use them.
 2

Keywords

mentoring & coaching, self-study, personal learning environments, networks,

social networks, graduate studies, doctoral studies

Introduction

This research centres on the hypothesis that “If they need it, they will learn to
use it, and will come.” It is a self-study into my development of an online social
network as a personal learning environment for doctoral students.

One of the fastest growing populations of doctoral students is in online university

environments. As an independent academic, I work for three such universities.
Our students interact with each other in a moderated environment with a
regimented set of criteria. As Attwell (2009) points out, ”What is perhaps
surprising is that the educational paradigm has been so successful in shaping the
adoption of education technology.” In other words, as an online professor I miss
having a place where I can get students to interact loosely and creatively –
moving past the “what do you want?” position as students, into working together
as peers. Since these students are across the United States and frequently in
other parts of the world, I cannot suggest they all meet me at the local coffee
shop where we can explore provocative ideas. This took me to this investigation
of what kind of an online environment might duplicate patterns of
communication feedback that would likewise engender similar results.

Siemens , in his theory of Connectivism, postulates that because content is

ubiquitous, the learner becomes the centre and controller of connections , that
he or she then chooses to use. It is the importance of the connections rather
than the more traditional curricula that become worthy of measure. This
correlates with, Granovetter who, as early as 1973, discussed the importance of
the ‘weak ties, ’those links between networks, as crucial to communication in a
wider sense. Social network theory builds on this with its focus on the
connections rather than the attributes of the individual . Much has been written
about web based learning environments and PLEs are discussed as either a web
environment that can be manipulated to encourage learning, or the choices the
individual makes as to what web-tools to use. The focus on connections and the
interplay between learner and the learning environment create the central focus
of this study.

Doctoral students’ connections are constrained by the central tension in their

lives: navigating between the push towards transformation caused by education
while simultaneously managing the challenges of full professional lives. The
most common reasons given for the massive growth in online education, is its
convenience for people who are already responsible for work, family, and
community, thus for them to pursue new connections they have to appear
instantly beneficial. On the other hand the relatively solitary world of the online
learner does not engenders massive creativity as pointed out by Sawyer , as
seldom is great genius reached in a solitary environment. It seemed obvious
 3

that if the PLE of students could include creative work groups then creative
solutions for dissertation issues might be more easily found.

The literature suggests that supports such as these might be desireable.

Hadjiioannou, Shelton, and Fu ) described the doctoral process as “perilous
passage.” Likewise, Perez (2007) comments that, “When I reflect back, it has
been relationships and mentors who have encouraged and supported me in my
journey through life thus far.... This network has been a valuable support system
in this journey.” Lu in a presentation to a research fellowship group, concurs by
stating that “social networks are critical in everyone's information world,
especially for people who are in a transitional period of their lives.”

This study covers the six months from February to July 2009. During that period,
in order to offer new options for connections and communications across
university and departmental boundaries, I worked at developing a participatory
group for doctoral students. I added a discussion forum and social networking
components to my website: www.reinventinglife.org. I also began to work with
an online meeting space from dimdim.com that allows a synchronous web-based
meeting for two video feeds, 3 additional audio feeds, and up to 15 students
using chat. I built it. Would they find it useful?

Methodology and Scope

Zuber-Skerritt and Perry have written on the efficacy of action research as it

helps develop new practices and ideas within organizations and in thesis writing.
I use it as an underlying methodology because I find its cycles of
action/measurement and reflection a good balance for my discovery as I learn.
Shown in Figure 1 below, I describe the steps as 1) discovery, 2)
action/measurement, and 3) reflection. I have found that by putting action and
measurements together it encourages the new action researcher to consider
more thoroughly how they will measure what they do. Figure 1 (below) shows
the process as it worked in this study.
 4

Figure 1: The PAR cycle and its components in this study

The scope of this project includes evidence from 38 adult doctoral students
majoring in either educational leadership or business and attending one of the
three universities for which I consult. The amount of time and energy allotted
towards mentoring doctoral students per university varies widely, and for some
the relationship is highly connected and for others less so. Evidence evaluated in
this study included: web logs, analytics, activity charts, student emails and
comments. Findings were triangulated against survey data and conclusions
verified with one-on-one interviews with both users and non-users of the system.

I am currently working with 38 students, 23 of whom fit the more normal

student-advisor relationship, with my responsibilities to the other 15 being a
mentor to their entire cohort. Twenty-four students (63%) completed the survey,
of which 13 were male and 11 female. Of those, 1 was 20-29 years old, 7 were
30-39, 10 between 40-49, and 6 over 50 years of age.

Findings

Do they want it? Are they interested?

There is little doubt that students find interaction with each other helpful in their
learning. This is not only a constant in end–of-course evaluation but data here
validate it as well (92% reporting that interaction was helpful to their learning).
The respondents’ enthusiasm for the tools and opportunities given to them is
less inclusivewith only 82% somewhat satisfied. Most (74%) look for outside
resources either frequently or very frequently. The students are interested in
online social networks as a tool (94% reporting interest in online social
 5

networks), yet their comfort with online social networks in general was varied
(only 60% reporting mid-range comfort levels or better).

How did it develop?

Previous studies have shown doctoral work to be lonely and frustrating . An

advantage in online doctoral work may be the encouraged development of
cohorts. Two of the three universities, whose students participated in this study,
have forced cohorts to develop because of their grouping students in course
shells for their work. Figure 2 below shows the loose grouping of students in this
study with the professor/instructor in the middle, as it would have looked before I
started to work with them. The different colours represent different types of
arrangements by the universities – some of which, but not all, aid students in
forming at least tertiary relationships with each other.

Figure 2: Pre participatory grouping of students

A data timeline, triangulating activity logs with other data uncovers three steps
to the development process in the first six months: First, the development of
connection with me. This happened primarily in their university spaces and
through email, web meetings, and in discussions on the site. This process starts
over again with every new individual or group, creating a wide range of types of
relationships. Second, I set up systems to encourage students to investigate and
use the tools on the website. The fact that the site was seen as useful was
confirmed by the increase on the number of hits of key artefacts and tools.
Finally, they begin to see potential value in each other and friendships online and
special interest groups (SIGs) emerge. I was interested to note that students
who are not mentored by me, and one who attends one of the three universities
but whom I have never had in class, posted to one of the special interest groups.
Figures 3 and 4 below demonstrate those developmental stages.
 6

Figure 3: Students connect first to Figure 4: Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

mentor start and participants show up who are
not mentored by me

Developing out of a cross tabulation of notes, emails, logs of activity and hits on
the site the following emerged:

1. The requirement of posting questions in the discussion forum prior to a

one-on-one session also increased the cross-university conversations and
feedback loops. This gradually developed into a standalone tool as a
Frequently Asked Questions list.

2. 24/7 access was useful as many logged in late at night.

3. Social Network Log data show some spontaneous work after 4 months,
including the development of linkages (friendships) and special interest
groups (SIGs). These later efforts attracted students outside of those I
mentor.

4. Synchronous online meetings provided the most direct positive feedback.

As an example, the following note from a student after working with me in
the meeting room space one on one.

At lunch, I was telling my family about our meeting this morning with
great enthusiasm. I thought it was amazing to be able to view documents
with you and receive feedback as we look at it together. My mother-in-law
could not believe I was able to do this simultaneously with someone in
Ireland, while I live in Colorado.

With our previous meetings on Skype, I felt like we had productive

sessions. However when they were over all I had were my chicken scratch
notes and what seemed so clear while we were talking ended up being
much more confusing. With the meeting room we used this morning, I am
able to take away much more see the visual component of what I am
hearing as we talk. I appreciate being able to look at a copy of my
questions together with you and then viewing your endnote library helped
me tremendously.
 7

65% had used the synchronous online meeting room and 87% of those
rated it 4 or 5 on excellence.

Conclusions

PLEs/social networks provide new forms of feedback loops.

Several means of communicating and asking for feedback developed. These

include: a cross-university discussion forum, video practices of proposal defence,
recorded video and chat from online meetings, and special interest groups.

Data show student willingness and interested in participating in such a

network but there is a gap between that and logged activity.

To address my hypothesis of: If they need it, they will learn to use it and will
come. Do doctoral students need an online social network as part of their
personal learning environments? Did they learn to use it and did they come? As
with many early studies, the answers are less than conclusive but promising. It
appears that they think they need it, some have used it, and they are beginning
to come.

This makes online mentoring more fun, interesting and useful for both
students and their professors

Reflective notes taken over this snapshot of the first six months of development,
display the interplay between tools and ideas, and the gradual process of
learning one in order to advance the other. While some students signed on and
participated in the discussion forum or read the blogs, made comments etc. the
first strong positive response was to the use of the synchronous online meeting
tool. After that positive response, use of all the other tools increased. A year
from now many of the current configurations are likely to have been updated due
to new ideas which will also increase use.

As was pointed out in the introduction, Connectivism and Social Network Theory
both suggest that the connections themselves are worthy of study. The variety
of connection between my students and I have increased, dramatically in some
cases. I enjoy the economy of scale by holding one meeting to go over main
discussion points, helping them all peer critique each other before I have to, and
moderating a discussion rather than leading it one on one.

Connections between students, across cohorts, universities, and fields of study

are beginning. SIGs are interesting to students and even those outside of the
core network of the students I mentor began to join in these discussions, sharing
resources and the like. This may indicate that the group aspect of the social
network tool will prove to accelerate activity. Whether the groups thrive and
become sustainable however, remains to be seen.

I will continue to question students, monitor activity, and study more about what
is known to increase use of these tools. Unequivocally my life as a doctoral
mentor is more interesting as students connect across Universities, bring forth
 8

ideas around which I would never have otherwise thought, and generally develop
bonds or relationships with each other which I would not have imagined. Online
social networks provide a new learning environment in which that can happen.

Next Steps

Several next steps present themselves:

1. My own self-study will continue for at least one more year. I intend to
investigate the relationship of these tools and my pedagogical/theoretical
beliefs. I will also work to close the gap between the percentage of
students declaring interest in participating and those who are actively
involved.

2. I will begin to both broadcast the website address through my broader

network and encourage others to do the same. This should encourage
rhyzomatic growth potential, decentralizing my influence.

3. I would encourage the growth of a network of professors involved in

similar activities, who can also either work with these tools on my site or
develop similar situations of their own. Much can be learned from sharing.
I would be interested in working with others to implement a neutral web
environment for this purpose.

4. As new tools develop I will continue to explore their usefulness and adopt
them as appropriate.

Limitations

There are many limitations to this study. First, it only covers a six-month period
of time. If the network grows to the same curve/time, as would be predicted, the
next six months will show striking development in student/student connections.
Second, I purposefully limited access to the survey to students I mentor. This will
allow me later to survey a wider group for comparison, but as of now, there are
no comparative data as to whether and to what extent the ideas and behaviours
of these students are within the norm. Finally, as with any self-study, there are
questions as to whether and to what extent my experience would be, in any way,
duplicated by others.

Contribution

The development of online personal learning environments continues to have

both micro (hence the self study) and macro effects on any and all of us who are
involved in education and intend to maintain that involvement over the next
twenty years. This study contributes to the conversation that many of us in
higher education are having, as we sort out how we will merge new tools into our
existing pedagogy to best serve our students and ourselves.
 9

References

Attwell, G. (2009). Social software, personal learning environments and the

future of teaching and learning (pp. 1-13): Scribd.