Engaging Computing Students on their Turf - Facebook Groups at Work

CO12 PresentationEngaging Computing Students on their Turf - Facebook Groups at Work : CO12 PresentationEngaging Computing Students on their Turf - Facebook Groups at Work Lenandlar Singh & Kemuel Gaffar Department of Computer Science University of Guyana Feb 3, 2012

Outline : Introduction / Motivation Fundamental Questions Why Facebook? Review of SNSs, Facebook in Education Our Experiments Positive Outcomes Challenges Unanswered Questions References Outline

Motivation : Experiment with Formal use of Social Networks  - Take Risk High level of usage by students, free to use, students already there! Facebook groups offer privacy and is separate from individual walls/profiles, new ways of interacting Other researchers are exploring it - potentially useful for developing and supporting social constructivism! Motivation

Motivation : Potential to augment/replace other LMS? Potential to individualize learning?? Features –mobile support,  multiple features such as group chat, messaging, photos and  videos Ease of use We have small groups to work with University of Guyana new to online learning, no LMS! Motivation

Fundamental Questions : How can educators leverage the instructional power of social networking in the classroom?  What strategies to use to increase students’ engagement with ‘on-line learning environment’ they use What particular social networking tools might be more useful for educational purposes? What Subject/Content areas might be more amenable to social networks, if any? Can Social Networking really support Formal Learning, and if so, how do we assess? Fundamental Questions

Web 2.0 & SNSs Review : Web 2.0 and Social Networking Software are thought of to have characteristics ideal for supporting rich teaching and learning environments Anderson (2007) refers to this new model as “a more socially connected Web in which people can contribute as much as they can consume”. Collins (2009) notes that Web 2.0 makes it possible to individualize learning by collaboration and innovation. Lee and McLoughlin (2010) view these technologies as a newer set of pedagogical tools that focuses on creation of content as opposed to the static consumption of content Web 2.0 & SNSs Review

Perceptions : Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) assessed “faculty's awareness of the benefits of Web 2.0 to supplement in-class learning” Findings suggest that although teachers are aware of the benefits of Web 2.0; improving student learning, facilitating information sharing, peer collaboration and student satisfaction, few use web 2 in the classroom. Swapna (2009) explored undergraduate students' perception of web 2.0. Results indicate that students were not familiar with the term but had positive dispositions towards using Web 2.0, with the exception of SNS, for teaching and learning. Perceptions

Perceptions : Lecturers at the University of Brighton suggested that the social software Elgg is potentially useful for educational purposes but on an experimental basis (Singh, 2009).  Students did not believe that Facebook should be used for teaching and learning purposes (O'Rawe, 2010)  Gaffar et al. (2012) students claim that the online forum allowed them to better understand lesson concepts, and provided a reliable means of asking and answering questions Perceptions

Use of Facebook : One SNS that has engaged the attention of education researchers is Facebook. Authors argue that Facebook's numerous features and interactive tools makes it ideal for educational settings and that many students are already Facebook users (Bumgarner, 2007 as cited in Mazman & Usluel, 2010, Kayri and Cakir, 2010)  De Villiers (2010) experimented with an optional Facebook Group to support discussions on defined topics in a post-graduate distance-learning class.   Results suggest that there were mixed perceptions of the use of Facebook groups. Mazman and Usluel (2010) attempted to model the educational usage of Facebook using a structural equation model. Use of Facebook

Use of Facebook : Variables such as "usefulness, ease of use, social influence, facilitating conditions and community identity” were used Findings indicate that the dominant variable influencing the use of Facebook was "usefulness" as perceived by students. Singh and Gaffar (2011) examined the usage of a Facebook group to facilitate interactive tutorial development on specific topics within an undergraduate course in computer science. Results indicate that students did not find Facebook as a useful tool for supporting their own learning. Use of Facebook

Use of Facebook : Few lecturers will consider the use of Facebook as an academic tool as part of their teaching strategy and few students participated in discussions on Facebook groups set up for discourse in a Systems Analysis and Design course (Visagie & De Villiers, 2010) Wang et al. (2011) used Facebook Groups as an LMS Substitute - students satisfied with "affordances" of Facebook Groups – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2011.01195.x/full London School of Business and Finance: http://apps.facebook.com/l​sbfglobalmba/?ref=bookmark​s&count=0 Full Course on Facebook, apparently! Limited Empirical evidence from the field reveals mixed results and views Use of Facebook

SNSs Potential : SNSs greatest potentials can be summarized as follows: Communication Tools Learning Community 21st Century Literacies Munoz & Towner(2011)  However, empirical evidence is critical SNSs Potential

Our Work/Experiments/Activities : Courses are Face-to-Face  We have no access to a Virtual Learning Environment Students active Facebook users  Our Courses we believe, are naturally amenable to online activities such as discussions, content-sharing, demonstrations, etc. We decided to experiment with Facebook Groups to support 2 courses - Computer Networking and Client Side Internet Computing Our Work/Experiments/Activities

Main Activity : Set up Facebook Groups for each iteration of 2 courses Groups were closed Students invited to join Activities Classroom management and communication (both years)  Individual tutorial development on topics from the course outline (in year 1) Weekly group discussions (in year 2) Question & Answer (in year 2) Weekly chat (year 2, group chat not available in year 1) Main Activity

Moderators : Moderated discussions Included:  Course instructor Co-researcher Support member Students were encouraged to post / develop tutorials, participate in chat. Moderators present in weekly chats Each chat session focused on current course topics / issues. Moderators

Threaded Discussions – CSI 213 : Threaded Discussions – CSI 213

Guidelines for Posting – CSI 225 : Guidelines for Posting – CSI 225

Teacher – Student Communication – CSI 213 : Teacher – Student Communication – CSI 213

The CSI 213’s Wall – Discussion Thread : The CSI 213’s Wall – Discussion Thread

Guidelines for Participating : Guidelines for participating were given in advance  Guidelines written as notes in group's info page. Written on group's wall for year 2 (Facebook Groups were redesigned Threaded discussions for each topic used in year 1. Wall used for discussions in year 2 (new Facebook Groups excluded threaded topics feature) Guidelines for Participating

Assessment : Activity was assessed for each student At the end of course (in year 1) At the end of each week (in year 2) Assessment was worth 5-7% (in year 1) and 10% (in year 2) of the course grade Assessment criteria/metric: Year 1 - number of own posts, number of responses to others' posts, number of questions asked and answered Year 2 - number of posts each week for each topic or question on group's wall. Quality of posts / answers not assessed! Focus was on extent of engagement Assessment

General Observations : Different interaction levels Different interaction patterns Participation was affected by access to Internet at home and/or school Students generally embraced the technology Interaction level does not correlate with achievement Performance did not vary across cohorts and subject/content area General Observations

Perceptions : Mixed opinions of the use of Facebook for teaching/learning. Interaction may have been affected because group was not restricted to the course instructor only. Positive dispositions of the tool as contributing towards learning and performance. Fearful in asking or answering questions Perceptions

Most Positive Outcomes : Weekly discussions appeared to have worked better than individual tutorial discussions Students more engaged in weekly sessions Higher levels of motivation for weekly sessions Informal discussions preferred Students shared/discussed more topics in weekly sessions than tutorial Most Positive Outcomes

Most Positive Outcomes : Students discussions much more lively in weekly than individual Variety of discussions (Q&A, open discussions, debates, live chat) encourage participation Chat sessions help reinforce group activities Chat sessions help to keep students alert and encouraged Most Positive Outcomes

Issues and Challenges : Students interaction relatively low especially on asking and answering questions Assessment of students contribution is a challenge  Facebook groups evolve  Improvements - chat Challenge - different method of organizing and locating threaded discussions  Facebook remains in the minds of many, a social tool.  Students still getting used to using technology as part of their study program - few courses extensively use technology for formal activities Issues and Challenges

Unanswered Questions : How to assess and what to assess? What activities? To moderate or not moderate? Peer Assessment or No assessment? Facebook Groups or other groups or no groups? Unanswered Questions

References : Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 71–80 Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education,  Media and Technology, JISC Technology and Standards Watch, Feb. 2007. Bumgarner, B. A. (2007). You have been poked: exploring the uses and gratifications of Facebook among emerging adults. First Monday, 22(11). Retrieved Feb 20, 2009 from. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view Article/2026/1897 Collins, C. (2009). Web 2.0 Technology and Education, Education 6620: Issues and Trends in Educational Computing, March 2009. References

References : De Villiers, M.R. (2010). Academic use of a group on Facebook: Initial findings and perceptions. Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) 2010:173-190. School of Computing, University of South Africa. Gaffar, K. , Singh, L. & Thomas, T. (2012). Are We Ready for Web 2.0? Some Empirical Evidence from a Caribbean university. (In Press) Lee, M.J.W & Mc.Loughlin, C. (2010). Social software as tools for pedagogical transformation: Enabling personalization, creative production, and participatory learning. In N.Lambropoulos, & M. Romero (Eds.), Educational Social Software for Context- Aware Learning: Collaborative Methods and Human Interaction (pp. 1-22). Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).    London School of Business and Finance: http://apps.facebook.com/l​sbfglobalmba/?ref=bookmark​s&count=0 References

References : Mazman, S.G., & Usluel, Y.K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education 55 (2010) 444-453 Munoz, C.L., & Towner, T. (2011). Back to the “wall”: How to use Facebook in the college classroom. First Monday. 16(12). O’Rawe, M .(2010) .Can we be “friends”? Social networking and student engagement in an academic environment. Cited October 10, 2010. http://www.shannoncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/THRIC-2010-Full-Paper- .ORawe2.pdf Singh, L., & Gaffar, K. (2011). Using social software to support computer science education: A case of using Facebook groups. E-journal of the Caribbean Academy of Sciences (CAS). Vol 5. No1. (2011). Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://ojs.mona.uwi.edu/index.php/cas/article/viewFile/2188/2260 References

References : Singh, L. (2009). On the usability of social software systems: A preliminary study using Elgg. Georgian Electronic Scientific Journal: Education Science and  Psychology.No.2 (15). Swapna, K. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions of the usefulness of Web 2.0 in higher education: Survey development. Proceedings of 8th European Conference on E-learning: 308-314. University of Bari, Italy. Visagie, S & De Villiers, C. (2010). The consideration of Facebook as an academic tool by ICT lecturers across five countries. SACLA’10, June 2010, South Africa. Wang et al. (2011) .Facebook Groups as an LMS Substitute  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2011.01195.x/full References

End of Presentation : End of Presentation