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.
Like this presentation? Why not share!
-
![Snaky assumptions a creative approach]()
Snaky assumptions a creative approach
by Ali Anani, PhD
2603 views
-
![Simple School Lunch Ideas]()
Simple School Lunch Ideas
by MaidPro Kansas City
370 views
-
![DNA of Automation - Sudeep Somani]()
DNA of Automation - Sudeep Somani
by ThoughtWorks
2085 views
-
![Championing the Golden Quarter with...]()
Championing the Golden Quarter with...
by Debalina C.
322 views
-
![Xsi unity pipeline]()
Xsi unity pipeline
by Matumit Sombunjaroen
3472 views
-
![PRywatki na Wykładzinie bez krawató...]()
PRywatki na Wykładzinie bez krawató...
by Wykładzina - spot...
513 views
Time Spent Online by Activity Hashtags & Retweets: Using Twitter to aid Community, Communication and Casual (informal) Learning
15,746 views
Peter Reed
, e-learning, learning technology, e-pedagogy, TEL,Published on
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
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial License
No Downloads
Views
Total views
15,746
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
796
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
14
Likes
6
No notes for slide
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.
Although it’s quickly growing, Microblogging site Twitter isn’t quite at the same scale.
‘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).
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.
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.
‘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 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.
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 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).
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).
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
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)
“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”
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).
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).
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.
The mean time spent online was 33 hours per week.
The mean time spent online was 33 hours per week.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blackberry smartphones are the most popular, followed by iPhone and Android.
18% (n=4) of respondents do not own a smartphone.
39% of smartphone users (n=7) access the Internet <30% on their devices, however 61% (n=11) rely on smartphones far more.
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.
All respondents in the 25-34 age category preferred email over other methods.
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.
Poor take up from #MM5361…
All 10 respondents who used Twitter, positively evaluated the tool…
All 10 communicated with fellow students…
And 9 accessed links posted by the Tutor.
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).
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.
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.
Training critical to wider uptake (Dabbagh & Kitsantis).
If PLEs are indeed personal and these tools are informal, do we run the risk of disengaging students by formalising them through structure?
Time Spent Online by Activity
- Hashtags & Retweets Using Twitter to aid Community, Communication, and Casual (informal) Learning @Reedyreedles | Peter Reed: Lecturer (LearningTechnology), University of Liverpool
- @Reedyreedles
- @Reedyreedles Rise of Social Networking Sites (SNSs)
- @Reedyreedles Lack of Twitter research Easy to find lots of …
- @Reedyreedles Lack of Twitter research But not much research into howTwitter is being used with students
- @Reedyreedles PLE Personal Learning Environments There is some talk about learners integrating various tools to develop (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011; Hall, 2009).
- @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
- @Reedyreedles This research… Proposes the 3Cs of Twitter (TC3) in Education: Community Communication Casual (Informal) Learning
- The Literature
- @Reedyreedles The Internet & Social Media… Increased use of the Internet over time (Roblyer et. al, 2010) Pew Research (US) demonstrates reliance on the Internet…
- @Reedyreedles The Internet & Social Media… In 2001… 76% teens would miss the Internet Improved relationships for 48% 32% make new friends on Internet
- @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 @ @ @ @
- @Reedyreedles Defining Social Media… Web-based services allowing; (1) Public or semi-public profile (2) Connect (3) Interact (Boyd & Ellison, 2008).
- @Reedyreedles Defining Social Media… Social Constructivism Communities of Practice
- @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?
- @Reedyreedles Natives or Residents? CC-BY-SA
- @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
- @Reedyreedles The Formal & The Informal Institutionally Sponsored Highly Structured Prescribed Learning Framework Specific LearningTasks Learner Owned Social Relaxed Personal Choice
- @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)
- @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)
- @Reedyreedles What is Twitter Launched in 2006 140 Character limit Follow/Be Followed Additional Functionalities
- @Reedyreedles Twitter in Edu… The few authors actively integratingTwitter within the curriculum agree it can have a positive impact on student engagement
- @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)
- @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’.
- @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)
- @Reedyreedles The Student Voice… SteveWheeler asked students at Uni of Plymouth about Twitter use in education… CC-BY-NC-ND | Used with Permission
- The Methodology
- @Reedyreedles Methodology… IntroducedTwitter as a voluntary tool for five different modules with the rider to enhance communication. #MM5362 | #MM5361 #6ABL2303 | #6G5Z2001 #63MM6301
- @Reedyreedles Questionnaire… A questionnaire was sent to students, which was split into 3 categories: Student Profile Online Access Use of Social Networking Sites
- The Results
- @Reedyreedles Student Profile 42 RESPONSES 32 Male 10 Female 88% Aged 18-21
- @Reedyreedles Main device for Internet access 13 1 13 8 6 1
- Time Spent Online / week 2 4 6 8 10 12 61-70 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20 <10 51-60 Hours online / No. of respondents
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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%
- 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.
- Smartphone Use None 15% iPhone 31% (n=13) Blackberry 13% (n=8) Android 33% (n=14) Other 85% Percentage Respondents with Smartphones
- Smartphone Use None 18% iPhone 27% Blackberry 32% Android 23% Other 82% Percentage Respondents with Smartphones This question gives us an idea as to Smartphone uptake amongst respondents. Not much separating Android/Apple use. 14% (n=6) of respondents do not own a smartphone.
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 <10% 11-30% 31-50% 51-70% 71-90% 91%> Percentage Internet Access via Smartphone Frequency
- 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.
- Facebook Twitter 33 24 9 18 Active users of SNS before this course Active Not active
- 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.
- Should staff use SNS with Students? Yes No Indifferent 19 11 13 12 128
- 60% 12% 14% 14% Preferred single method of communication Email Facebook Moodle Twitter
- 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
- 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….
- 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 /
- 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.
- Feedback
- The Discussion
- @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
- @Reedyreedles Reliance on Email… Contradicting Pew findings? StudentTweets increased at formative assessment opportunities@ @ @ @
- @Reedyreedles A Digital Divide? Natives & Immigrants or Residents &Visitors?
- 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
- Social Media & PLEs? Students are already using social media tools in the formation of their own Personal Learning Environments 72% 45%
- Future developments Archiving of tweets is important to measure and analyse later. Consider Martin Hawkesey’sTAGS Explorer…. Training critical to wider uptake (Dabbagh & Kitsantis).
- 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?
- Any Questions?
- @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.
- @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
- @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
- @Reedyreedles Credits & References Internet & Social Media arrow via Clip art Natives or Residents: Children with iPad: CC-BY-SA Flickr User Ant McNeill
Login to see the comments