Skip to content

Social Media Use in Higher Education

I know this (social media use in higher education) is technically called research. The stats will no doubt be frequently shared at academic conferences. But have a look at the slides with a slightly critical perspective. What does this information actually do for us? Why should I care if 90%+ of educators have heard about social networks? Or how many have an account? What does that do for me? The real message of this type of “research” is: “look, all your peers are doing it, so should you”. Works well for grade 11 locker room talk, but is it actually useful for anyone? Do *you* base your decisions on Twitter/Facebook/blog use on popularity of the tools in education?

9 Comments

  1. Given that Pearson is supporting the research makes me a little skeptical but be that as it may, I think these types of stats are only the start of the conversation or discussion and not an argument.

    While it’s easy to use popularity as a reason to wake up and pay attention, it’s certainly not enough. The far more interesting, meaningful and important conversation is around what these things do to change and influence how we learn. You know that and most people reading know that. This type of approach that focuses on popularity and usage alone likely does more harm than good.

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 9:56 am | Permalink
  2. Well said!
    It’s even worse when this kind of thing turns up in peer-reviewed journals.
    http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.com/2009/07/web-20-tools-and-medical-education-more.html

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 9:57 am | Permalink
  3. Morgan Reid wrote:

    Great post, George.
    Clearly one of the most important information/communications technology (ICT) literacies is assessing quality of research. In recent years, quite a lot of excitement about “Digital Natives” was presented by referring to “research.” (notably Prensky, 2001) This was countered soundly by actual research. One local example; “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: An Analysis of Age and ICT Competency in Teacher Education” (Guo, Dobson, Petrina (2008). “the digital divide thought to exist between “native” and “immigrant” users may be misleading, distracting education researchers from more careful consideration of the diversity of ICT users and the nuances of their ICT competencies.”

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 10:44 am | Permalink
  4. Derek Bruff wrote:

    I think most instructors are more influenced by particular colleagues than by national trends. Hearing about how Dr. Smith down the hall is using Twitter in her course is much more motivational than knowing that some percentage of faculty elsewhere are using it.

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 11:14 am | Permalink
  5. Bethany Bovard wrote:

    Dean’s comment about it being a conversation starter really resonated with me. One of my responsibilities is to help faculty use technology effectively and since most of those I work with are new to social media, having some data that indicates what their peers are doing helps me begin the conversation on a more successful note. Then I can get into the more important issues of how, when, and why these tools may be useful for teaching and learning.

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 11:16 am | Permalink
  6. beth wrote:

    In my role as an instructional designer for an online institution, I work with faculty to introduce new and different technologies for teachin, but I think one thing that resonates across all my conversations is the “why” when using technology, teaching strategies, social media, etc. I think the kind of research and conversation we need to be mindful of is one that identifies why/how these tools enhance learning and in what contexts.

    (And I would bet my left kidney on the fact that you couldn’t replicate those results if you did a survey of the 800 online/blended faculty at NU Online or another institution.)

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
  7. beth wrote:

    oops…teaching.

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
  8. Social Network

    One of the newest technological inventions is social network. This is a network that connects people all over the world through social interaction. Some of the advantages gained through social networks include: low cost, builds credibility, and connections. It is the view of many parents and educators that these networks are causing children to ‘cutback’ on the amount of time they spend in the books. Should I disagree? I cannot but the question that should be asked is, “Why are people in general more glued to social networks?” If students are spending more time on facebook, tweeter, hi5 and other social networks instead of paying more attention to the books, this implies that there is something more fascinating to them.

    It is implied that these networks provide more motivation for children. Psychologists believe that motivation is a necessary ingredient for learning (Biehler and Snowman, 1986) as cited in Tella (2007). They believe that satisfactory school learning is unlikely to take place in the absence of sufficient motivation to learn (Fontana 1981) as cited in Tella (2007). As educators, we sometimes pay a ‘blind eye’ to these inventions, resulting our children being a step ahead of us. This poses many challenges in the teaching-learning environment. In many cases, instead of learning from these young investigators (children), instructors do get frustrated by the challenges at hand. The onus is therefore on educators to ‘wake up’, and ‘shake off’ the old boring ways of teaching and bring learning environment alive by making it one that is enriched, attractive and motivating. More than ever, to meet the needs of the learner, the instructional designer must become innovative. Innovations may enhance growth and performance, Harper and Glew (2008). The methodologies used to teach our children yesterday enacted learning does not necessarily mean that this will follow through in the 21st century. The educator/instructional designer should feel compelled to take advantage of the new inventions. For example, create an online classroom in one of these social network groups. Cotterell (1998) postulated adolescents tend to be more talkative, more energetic and more prone to get off-task when they interact in class with friends.

    References:

    Cotterell, J. (1998). Social Networks and Social Influences in Adolescence. Adolescence and Society Series. Routledge. Great Britain.

    Harper, S. C., & Glew, D. J. (2008). Is your organization learning-impaired? Industrial Management, 50(2).

    Tella, A. (2007). Student’s Academic Achievement and Learning Outcomes in Mathematics among Secondary School Students in Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 3(2). Moment. Nigeria.

    Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 7:41 pm | Permalink
  9. Though the slides were dead boring, I can think of one use in knowing about the spread and uptake: training, and transferability of skills.

    We (the education mega complexes) spend a very large amount of public and private money training and maintaining our own systems for very basic, almost crude elearning. Each time a new staff member joins the ‘force’ so begins another long and painful journey of training.

    Based on these stats, we could expect that new person will have latent skills we might use better. Further, the training we dish out might be able to leverage real world motivations if it was teaching staff how to use things their kids, brother, sister, mother, friends are using… and then to value add that and show that person how to use it educationally..

    Then again, I’ve coming to see that that is the last thing we want to do. Please protect us from the teachers!

    Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 4:01 am | Permalink