SocialNetworkingTechnologiesandTheirPlaceinLearning

RonenCohen
EdTech504
BoiseStateUniversity
Fall2013
INTRODUCTION
Educationaltheoryhasundergonesignificantdevelopment,slowlyevolvingwiththechanging
understandingofourworldandourselves,andwiththegrowingpossibilitiesofferedbytheWeb,
whichforcededucatorstocomeupwithanswerstonewtypesoflearning.Theinclusionof
technologyininstructionwasessentialthroughthisjourney.Socialnetworkingtechnologies
(SNTs)beganassharingtoolsforweb2.0users,yetitisonlyrecentlythatsuchtoolshavegained
popularityineducationalsettings.AfewwouldarguethatSNTsdonothaveaplaceineducational
settings,buttheimportantquestioniswhethertheyhelpcreatelearningcommunitieswhich
effectivelyengageandchallengelearners,andasaresulttheycreatehigherqualitywork.
Inordertoexaminethisquestion,Ifirstoutlineimportantlearningtheories.Ithendiscusslearning
communitiesandlookattheimportanceofinteraction.Ipresentsomeresearchaboutthe
effectiveness(andlackthereof)ofSNTs,andIconcludewithwhatIcurrentlybelievetobetrue,
whichisthatSNTsontheirowndonotpushstudentstoperformbetter,butratheritistherigorous
planning,directing,andresourcefulnessofthedesignersandthefacilitatorsthatdeterminethe
overalleffectivenessoftheuseofSNTs.
LEARNINGTHEORIES
PriortotheriseoftheWeb2.0,themanydifferentinstructionaltheoriesandmethodologieswere
utilizedinordertocreatechallengesthatwouldallowstudentstothriveintheworldoutsidethe
classroom.InordertounderstandtheimportanceandimplicationsofmodernSNTs,onemustfirst
understandthemajorlearningtheoriesandwhatrolesocialinteractionsplayed(ordidnotplay)in
eachofthem.Inthiscontext,IwilldiscussfourmajorschoolsofthoughtBehaviorism,
Cognitivism,Constructivism,andConnectivism.Priortothatthough,Iwillbrieflylookattwo
importantrelatedconcepts,namelywhatislearningandwheredoesknowledgecomefrom.
AlthoughitisextremelyimportanttounderstandwhatLearningis,inthispaperIwillnotattemptto
synthesizeorinventanewdefinitionfortheword.Thedefinitionhasevolved,andwithitthe
differingperspectivesofscholarsintheirattempttocapturethewordsmeaning,toapointofa
possibledestructivefragmentationofthefield(Saljo,2009).Forthepurposeofthispaper,Iwill
onlymentionthatlearninginvolvesnotonlybehaviorsandcognitiveprocesses,butalsotheissueof
time,situatedness,reciprocitybetweenindividualandculturalpractices,andthefactthat
knowledgeisnotjustindividuallearningandmemory,butalsoacollectiveone(Saljo,2010,p.203).
AnotherkeyideatoconsiderisKnowledge.Itisimportanttounderstandthatingeneral,thereare
twomainvaryingviewsonwhereknowledgecomesfrommainlytheempiricistandrationalist
schoolsofthought.AccordingtoErtmer&Newby(1993),empiricismholdsthebeliefthat
experienceistheprimarysourceofknowledge,whichisgainedthroughexperience(interactionsand
associationswiththeenvironment).Rationalism,ontheotherhand,assertsusthatthereisa

distinctionbetweenmindandmatter.Itisthebeliefthatknowledgeisderivedfromreasonwithout
thehelpofsensualexperiences,thatpeoplelearnbyrecallingordiscoveringwhatalready
existsinthemind(Schunk,1991ascitedbyErtmer&Newby,1993,p.54).
Theideasofwhatconstituteslearningandwhereknowledgecomesfrom,formthebasisforlearning
theoriesandforappropriateinstructionaldesign.Behaviorism,thefirsttheoryIdiscuss,equates
learningwithchangesintheformorthefrequencyofobservableperformance(Ertmer&Newby,
1993).Thekeyelementsareastimulus,aresponse,andtheassociationbetweenthetwo.One
successfullylearnedsomethingwhens/hehasgivenaproperresponsetoastimulus.Learning
continuesasmorestimuliareintroducedwhichreinforcethatunderstanding.Inthiscontext,the
learnerisareactiveforceintheprocessoflearning.AccordingtoErtmer&Newby,thistheorywas
usedasthebasisfordesigningmanyoftheearlyaudiovisualmaterialsandgaverisetomany
relatedstrategiesThatsaid,theycontinue,itisgenerallyagreedthatbehavioralprinciples
cannotadequatelyexplaintheacquisitionofhigherlevelskillsorthosethatrequireagreaterdepth
ofprocessing(p.56).Behaviorism,therefore,wasagoodstartingpointforthedesignofinstruction
forthekindofknowledgeneededdecadesandcenturiesago.
Inthelate1950s,however,theapproachtolearningtheorybeganshiftingtomodelsfromthe
cognitivesciences,namelyemphasisonmorecomplexcognitiveprocessessuchasthinking,
problemsolving,language,conceptformationandinformationprocessing(p.56).Cognitivetheories
stressnotonlytheacquisitionofknowledge,butalsotheinternalmentalstructures,whichplacesthe
theoryonthemorerationalistendoftheepistemologycontinuum.Suchtheories,accordingto
Ertmer&Newby,focusontheconceptualizationofstudentslearningprocessesandaddressthe
issuesofhowinformationisreceived,organized,stored,andretrievedbythemind(p.58).
Learning,therefore,isamentalactivitythathastodowithinternalcodingandstructuringbythe
learner.Similartobehavioristtheories,environmentalconditionsstillplayanimportantrolein
facilitatinglearning,andtheemphasisisstillplacedontheroleofpracticeandcorrectivefeedback
(p.58).Cognitivetheoriesdifferfrombehavioristtheoriesinthatthelearnerhasbecomeanactive
participantinthelearningprocess,andherthoughts,beliefs,attitudes,andvalueshavebecome
influentialinthelearningprocess.Inaddition,amarkeddifferenceisthatthelearnernowmustsee
usefulnessinwhatshelearnsinordertolearnandapplyitbetter(p.59).Intermsofinstructional
design,cognitivismemphasizestheneedofthedesignerto(a)understandthatlearnerscomewith
priorexperiences,(b)thinkofeffectivestrategiestotapintotheirpreviousknowledge,and(c)
arrangepracticeandfeedbacksothatnewinformationiseffectivelyandefficientlyassimilated
and/oraccommodated(p.61).
Yetanotherchangewasloomingwhensomecognitivetheoristsstartedtoquestiontheobjectivistic
assumptionsofthesetwotheories,andbeganadoptingamoreconstructivistapproachtolearning
andunderstanding,especiallytheideathatknowledgeisafunctionofhowtheindividualcreates
meaningfromhisorherownexperiences(p.62).Henceforthgrewtheconstructivisttheory.The
basicassumptionsandprinciplesoftheconstructivistviewoflearningcontendthatlearningisan
activeprocessandanadaptiveactivity;itisnotinnate,invented,orpassivelyabsorbedlike
behavioristsbelieve,butconstructedbythelearnerandsituatedwithinthecontextitoccurs;that
knowledgeispersonal,idiosynchronic,andforthefirsttime,sociallyconstructed;thatlearningisa
processofmakingsenseoftheworld,andexperience,priorunderstanding,andsocialinteraction
playaroleinit;andlastly,thateffectivelearningrequiresmeaningful,openended,challenging
problemsforthelearnertosolve(Yilmaz,2008).
AccordingtoWilliamMatthews,Deweybelievedthattheroleofconstructivismineducationisto
facilitatethenaturallydevelopingtendenciesandpotentialofthechild.Sinceaccordingto
constructivismthelearnerhasanactiveroleininterpretingthelearningprocess,theneducation

shouldbechilddirectedandnotteacherdirected.Inhisarticle,MatthewsalsocitesPiagetassaying
thatchildren,asoperationalthinkers,progressthroughthreestagesofthinking:preoperational,
concrete,andformaloperational.Therefore,constructivistteachersneedtoadapttheirteaching
style,approach,andcontenttothespecificdevelopmentalstageofthechild(Matthews,2003).
ThegrowingattentiontosociallyconstructedknowledgecontinuedwiththedevelopmentofWeb
2.0technologies.Anincreasingnumberoftheoristsbeganrecognizingthepowerofsocial
networking,andtoseethechangingnatureofknowledge.GeorgeSiemensarguedthatlearning
theoriessuchasbehaviorism,cognitivism,andconstructionismhavenotcaughtupwiththeageof
technology,becausetheydonotaddresslearningthatoccursoutsideaperson(i.e.,learningthatis
storedandmanipulatedbytechnology)(Siemens,2004).ChrisDede,inhisarticleASeismicShift
inEpistemology(2008),explainsthischangeinasimilarmanner.Itcanbesummedbyhis
statementthat,[t]hetermWeb2.0reflectsashiftinleadingedgeapplicationsontheWorldWide
Web,ashiftfromthepresentationofmaterialbywebsiteproviderstotheactivecoconstructionof
resourcesbycommunitiesofcontributors.Intheclassicalviewofknowledge,heexplains,
knowledgeconsistsofaccurateinterrelationshipsamongfacts,basedonunbiasedresearchthat
producescompellingevidenceaboutsystemiccauses.Andincontrast,theWeb2.0definitionof
knowledgehasmoretodowithacollectiveagreement,combiningfactsfromdifferentusersand
theirexperiences,suchasopinions,values,andspiritualbeliefs(Dede,2008).Connectivismis
mainlyconcernedwithcognitivedevelopment(Kop&Hill,2008),andaccordingtoGeorge
Siemens(2004),connectivismprovidesinsightintolearningskillsandtasksneededforlearnersto
flourishinadigitalera.Connectivism,hecontinues,beginswiththeindividual,andgoesthrough
animportantcycleofknowledgedevelopment(personal>network>organization)thatallows
individualstostaycurrentthroughtheconnectionstheyhavemade(Siemens,2004).KopandHill
(2008)explainthataccordingtoconnectivism,currency(accurate,uptodateknowledge)isthe
intentofalllearningactivities.
LEARNINGCOMMUNITIES
TheopportunitiesofferedbyWeb2.0technologies,thechangingnatureofknowledge,andthe
importanceofcoconstructionofknowledgegaverisetothediscussionoftheimportanceofcreating
communitiestofacilitateandsupportlearning.AccordingtoJanetteHill(2012),educators(across
disciplines)havebeenlookingforwaystoenhancethelearningexperiencesoftheirstudentsthrough
thecreationofbothfacetofaceaswellasonlinelearningcommunities.Theunderlyingideabehind
thedefinitionofalearningcommunityisthatitisagroupofpeopleworkingtogethertofacilitate
thelearningprocess.Itsgoalissimilartotheoneconnectivisttheoristsholdinthatlearnersenrich
theirownlearningenvironmentsthroughauthenticinteractionswithothers(Hoadly,2012).
Learningcommunitiesvaryindifferentways.Theycanbedirected(formalandledbyadesignated
person),negotiated(wherelearnersareengagedinsettingnormsandexpectations),orspontaneous
(moreinformal,changeovertime,andoftennotinitiatedorfacilitatedbyanyoneperson).Building
alearningcommunitypresentssomeissuesandchallenges,suchastheimportanceofproper
facilitatingofinteraction,orenablingandsupportingofthesocial,cognitive,andteachingpresence
withinthelearningcommunity.Inadditiontothechallengesfacesbybuildersoffacetoface
communities,onlinecommunitiesalsofacetechnicalandtimerelatedissues(Hill,2012).The
importanceofcreatingacohesivelearningcommunitymanifestsitselfinitsoutcomes.Whendone
well,thereisconclusiveevidencethatinschoolswhereasenseofcommunityisbuilt,andwhere
classroomsoperateasacommunityoflearnersandasalearningcommunity,studentsproduce
greatersocial,moral,behavioral,intellectualandperformanceoutcomesthanenvironmentsthat
dont(Watkins,2005).

SOCIALNETWORKINGTECHNOLOGIES
Theimportanceofmoremoderninstructionaltheories(suchastheconnectivistorthesocial
constructivisttheories),whichfocusoncreationofknowledgeinauthenticandcommunalsettings,
aswellastheconclusiveevidenceoftheeffectivenessofworkingasapartofacommunity,isclear.
Furthermore,withthehopeofhelpingourlearnerstosucceedintheireducationaljourneyandto
transitionthemintotheworldbeyond,itforcesuseducatorstoutilizenewtechnologiesthatmarry
thesetaskstogether.Sincethefocushasshiftedfromlearningasconsumptionofknowledgeto
learningasthecreationofknowledge(Halverson,2011),itisourobligationtoreevaluatetheways
weteachandthetoolsweuse.Lookingintothetimeandeffortyoungpeoplespendontechnologyin
generalandinsocialnetworkingsitesspecifically,canserveasanopportunitytomoveforwardand
applysocialconstructivistorconnectivisttheoriesconceptsintoteachinginnew,refreshing,and
meaningfulways.
Thatsaid,aslearningcontinuesitstransformationinresponsetothecommunicativeand
collaborativeopportunitiesofferedbyWeb2.0technologies,itisimportanttobeattentivetotrends
alreadyhappening,andtoevaluatetheexperiencesofdifferenteducationalinstitutionsintheir
attemptstoaddressthisshift.Althoughnomagicformulahasbeenfoundyet,thereissome
encouragingevidenceforsuccessfuluseofSNTsineducationalsettings.Letusreviewsomeofthe
literatureoutliningsuchinnovativeattempts.
AccordingtoGrippa&Segundo,althoughitisagrowingtrend,theearlyadoptersofSNTshavenot
beenabletofullymaximizetheirpotential(2009).Forexample,Ractham,Kaewkitipong,&Firgo
explainthatinstructorsuseofFacebooktobefriendorcommunicatewiththeirstudentsasan
additionalchannelforclassroomcommunication,showedlittleornogainofintellectualfeedback
fromthestudents(2012).Therearesomewhomoreforcefullyquestiontheuseofsocialmedia
platformsinfosteringacrucialcomponentoflearningnamelyinfosteringinlearnersthecapacity
fordebateanddisagreement.Friesen&Lowearguethatalthoughsocialmediatoolshavebeen
hailedbysomeasthenextbestthingineducation,thereisnofoundationtothesearguments,andin
fact,bydesign,thesetoolssignificantlydetractfromlearnercontrolandeducationaluse.They
presentadifferentperspectiveonsocialmedia,namelythepremisesonwhichsuchplatformsare
invented(i.e.,forcommercialoradvertisingreasons),whichiscompletelydifferentthantheway
educatorsviewsuchtools(Friesen&Lowe,2012).
Ractham,Kaewkitipong,&Firgo(2012)presentsomeoftheattemptstouseWe2.0conceptsto
createnewlearningexperiences.Theydiscussconcernsoverwhichtoolsandfeaturestouse,the
scopeofuse,intellectualpropertyrights,andprivacyissues.Ontheotherhand,theyrevealsome
successes,suchasthesuccessfuluseofsocialbookmarkinginfindingpeoplewithsimilarinterests
tolearnfromeachother,ortheuseofothersocialsoftwaretoolstoengagewithothersandsolve
problems(p.167).
CatherineGreenhowusesseveralexamplesofhowparticipatorywebbasedtechnologieshavethe
potentialtochangethewayweengageinscholarship.Usingconcreteexamplesforappropriateuse
ofsocialbibliographyandsocialbookmarkingsites,sheemphasizestheimportanceofboth
instructorsandstudentsreflectivebehavioraswellasknowhowinordertoappropriatelyutilize
suchtechnologiestoimprovelearnersresearchandresourcefulnesspractices(Greenhow,2009).
Baker&OswaldpresentanotherpositivefeatureofSNTs.Theyfoundthatonlinesocialnetworking
providesacomfortableandencouragingenvironmentforshyindividuals,anddeveloptheirabilityto
freelyandconfidentlyinteractwithpeers(Baker&Oswald,2010).

Onalargerscale,institutionsarebecomingmoreawareoftheneedtorevolutionizetheirlearning
managementsystems(LMSs).AsmosteducationalinstitutionsnowadaysuseeLearningfacilities
(suchasBlackboard,Moodle,Sakai,etc.)thatintegrateessentialWeb2.0technologies(suchas
blogs,wikis,RSSfeeds,bookmarking,etc.),itstillseemsthattheseLMSsaremoretailoredtothe
needsoftheinstitutionratherthantotheneedsofthelearner(Kirkwood,2010).KeithKirkwood,a
VictoriaUniversitylearningsupportlecturer,discusseshisuniversitysuseofanewkindoflearner
managementsystem,andexplainshowtheyattemptedtoaddresstheneedofstudentstofindeach
otherthroughinformallearningcommunitiesthatdevelopoutofmutualinterestsandneeds(p.119).
AmongthekeyelementsofthelearnerdrivenmanagementsystemSNAP(SocialNetworkingfor
AcademicPurposes)ispeerlearning,sharingideasandresources,andcooperation.Accordingto
Kirkwood,peerassistedlearningapproachesinuniversitiesaroundtheglobeareontherise.Hecites
severalexamples,suchastheUniversityofWollongongsPeerAssistedStudySupport,Victoria
Universitysrobustpeermentoringprogram,andothers(p.120).
CONCLUSION
Theevolutionofeducationaltheoriescarriedwithitnumerousinstructionalmethodologies.Inthis
paperIdiscussedhowthesetheoriesrelatetosocialinteractions,andhowsocialinteractionshave
evolvedfromdiscussionsasavehicletoarrivingatanswers,totheimportanceofinteractioninco
constructionofknowledge.Socialnetworkingtechnologiesarebothavesselandabraincloud,
andaseducatorsitisourresponsibilitytoutilizethemtodriveourstudentsandcreatedeeper
understanding.
Developingpedagogicallysoundandsupportivelearningcommunitiesstructuresandprocesses
usingSNTsarestillachallenge.ItisclearthatthesuccessofusingSNTsineducationisdependable
onmanydifferentconditions.SimplycreatingacourseonSNTplatformsuchasFacebookor
Twitterandexpectingstudentinvolvementwouldprobablyendupasafailedattempt.Thereare
severalimportantguidelinestokeepinmindthatmayhelptiltthependulumbothonaclassroom
levelaswellasforinstitutionswithmanpower,resources,andknowhow.First,thedesignofthe
chosenSNTmustbetakenintoconsideration.Ifaninstitutionchoosestocreatetheirown
managementsystem,theyshouldperhapsuseMichaelFarmersproposalformoreopenlearning
architectureforLMSs(ascitedbyKirkwood),whichincludefourelements.Theseelementsare(1)
anITcorewithbackendandintegrationwithcontentmanagementsystem,(2)theabilitytoprovide
bothcourseandadhocgroupings,(3)apresentationcomponentthatprovidestheuserinterface,and
(4)theabilitytoeasilyintegratepluginsfromcloudbasedapplications(Kirkwood,2010).That
said,mosteducatorsandschoolsdonothavethemeanstocreatetheirownplatforms,andas
discussedearlier,mostpredesignedSNTswerenotdesignedforclassroomuse,butfromabusiness
model(Friesen&Lowe,2012)whichcreatesanimportantobstaclecoursedesignersmustattendto.
Whenchoosingaplatformtoworkon,itisimportanttorememberthattheeducationalgoalsandthe
designedgoalsorappealofSNTsmaybeverydifferent.Designersmustcarefullyconsidertheir
goals,andtakeintoconsiderationthefactthatnooneSNTcontainsallthefeatureswewouldliketo
have.Theimportanceofaknowledgeablefacilitatorwhocanserveasaresource,aswellasa
moderatorwhoisabletonurturesomedegreeofpersonalrelationshipwithstudents,cannotbeover
emphasized.Suchleadermustworkhardtopromotesocialinteractioninacreativemannerand
utilizing,asmuchaspossible,studentsinterests.Finally,educatorsmustrememberthatthechosen
SNTisonethatstudentsarenotfamiliarwith,itwouldprobablynotreplacetheonestudentsalready
use,andsoitssuccesswouldbeshortlivedandstudentswillnotbeasinvolvedorasinterested.

Baker,L.R.,&Oswald,D.L.(2010).Shynessandonlinesocialnetworkingservices.Journalof
SocialandPersonalRelationships,27(7),873889.
Dede,C.(2008).Aseismicshiftinepistemology.EDUCAUSEReview,43(3),8081.Retrieved
fromhttp://www.educause.edu/ero/article/seismicshiftepistemology
Ertmer,P.A.,&Newby,T.J.(1993).Behaviorism,Cognitivism,Constructivism:Comparing
CriticalFeaturesfromanInstructionalDesignPerspective.PIQPerformanceImprovement
Quarterly,6(4),5072.
Friesen,N.,&Lowe,S.(2012).Thequestionablepromiseofsocialmediaforeducation:Connective
learningandthecommercialimperative.JCALJournalofComputerAssistedLearning,28(3),
183194.
Greenhow,C.(2009).SocialScholarship:ApplyingSocialNetworkingTechnologiestoResearch
Practices.KnowledgeQuest,37(4),4247.
Hill,JnetteR.(2012).Learningcommunities:Theoreticalfoundationsformakingconnections.InJonassen,D.,&
Land,S.(Eds.),Theoreticalfoundationsoflearningenvironments(pp.268285).NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Kirkwood, K. (2010). The snap platform: Social networking for academic purposes. Campus-Wids
Information Systems, 27(3), 118-126.
Kop,R.,&Hill,A.2008.Connectivism:Learningtheoryofthefutureorvestigeofthepast?The
InternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistanceLearning,9(3).Retrievedfrom
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1137
Matthews,W.J.(2003).Constructivismintheclassroom:Epistemology,history,andempirical
evidence.TeacherEducationQuarterly,5164.
Ractham,P.,Kaewkitipong,L.,&Firpo,D.(2012).TheUseofFacebookinanIntroductoryMIS
Course:SocialConstructivistLearningEnvironment*.DecisionSciencesJournalof
InnovativeEducation,10(2),165188.
Saljo, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational
Psychologist, 44(3), 202-208.
Siemens,G.(2004).Connectivism:Alearningtheoryforthedigitalage.Retrievedfrom
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Watkins, C. (2005). Classroom as learning communities: A review of research. London Review of
Education,3(1), 47-64.
Yilmaz,K.(2008).Constructivism:Itstheoreticalunderpinnings,variations,andimplicationsfor
classroominstruction.EducationalHorizons,161172.