Design and Validation of Virtual Social Networks of Iran’s Schools

Zareei, M.; Zaraii Zavaraki, E.; Ali Abadi, Kh.; Delavar, A.

doi:10.22061/jte.2018.3599.1904

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

¹ Educational Technology Department, Faculty of Psychology, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

² Assessment and Measurement Department, Faculty of Psychology, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2018.3599.1904

Abstract

Background and Objective: The opportunity to participate and interact more in the learning process on social media is a good incentive to use alternative social media tools, in addition to the usual LMS. In contrast, when using Web 2.0 tools such as social media, the learner is placed in a learning community that can reach a high level of meaning making and knowledge/skill building through interaction with peers and content. Communication formed on social networks provides the basis for the implementation of communication and defines education in terms of interactions in a network in which students exchange their knowledge; Therefore, social media represents a good option to be used as an additional learning resource. Hence, the creation and development of a scientific and trusted social network that can cover the educational needs of the learners and teachers in a digital society and is always available to users is felt. On the other hand, the legal requirements of higher documents such as the 1/17 solution of Fundamental Document of Change of Education that states the filling of the digital divide between educational areas and schools, unveils the need to create a social network of Iranian schools as a suitable platform for key users of learning-teaching environment. Therefore, in order to design a virtual social network model in schools, it is necessary to identify the main and sub-components of this model. The purpose of this study was to compile a model for desiging a virtual social network for Iranian schools.
Methods This reseach utilized a mixed– quantitative and qualitative – method, and it was carried out with an exploratory design. The study population in the qualitative phase included the accessible 45 written and electronic documents in English and Persian selected by using purposive sampling. Data collection and analysis were done using inductive content analysis method. The quantitative phase was performed using a survey. The study population included the educational technology specialists of Iran from which a sample of 30 educational technology professors and Ph.D. Candidates were selected on an accessible basis. To collect data, a researcher-made questionnaire was used, the validity and reliability of which was determined by professional assessment and by Cronbach’s alpha (0.86), respectively. To analyze the data, a single-sample t-test was employed.
Findings: The findings of the study led to the identification of four main features: network learning, network facilitation, network moderation, network technology, as well as sixteen sub-features, which were functionally and semantically similar to the main features. The results also showed that the extracted model has a high internal validity.
Conclusion: According to the results of this study, integrating the existing social netwroks into the present LMSs as a learning environemtn can support network learning in alignment with cultural-constructivism and communicativism. In this context, it defines the active roles in the learning environment in accordance with their functions in this era. Regarding the results of the research hypothesis, it can be concluded that, the extracted model, which includes components such as network learning, network facilitation, network management, and network technology, makes it possible to support student learning in the context of network technology. These components make it possible to implement model patterns in schools. The clear and distinct definitions of the components lead to an accurate understanding of the users and their comprehensiveness. Therefore, the model in question was valid from the point of view of experts who had practical knowledge about the use of social networks in learning.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1398.13.2.20.3

Main Subjects

E-Lerning

COPYRIGHTS
©2019 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1] Strong K, Hutchins HM. Connectives’: A theory for learning in a world of growing complexity. Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning. 2009; 1(1): 53-67.

[2] Harsim. Theories of Learning and Online Technologies, Translator, Saedipour, I. Tehran: Avaye Noor Publications; 2013. Persian

[3] Eskandari H. The theory and practice of educational media in the digital age. Tehran: Samt; 2012. Persian

[4] Tomberg V, Kuli R, Laanpere M, Normak P. Delivering QTI self-tests to personal learning environments using Wookie widgets. Proc. of International Conference on Web-Based Learning (pp. 250-258). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2010.

[5] Dron J. Control and constraint in e-learning: Choosing when to choose (Vol. 11). Hershey PA: Idea Group Publishing; 2007.

[6] Lee MJ, McLoughlin C. Teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 era: Empowering students through learner-generated content. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2007; 4(10): 21-43.

[7] DeSchryver M, Mishra P, Koehleer M, Francis A. Moodle vs. Facebook: Does using Facebook for discussions in an online course enhance perceived social presence and student interaction? In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 329–336). Chesapeake, VA: AACE; 2009.

[8] Naveh G, Tubin D, Pliskin N. Student LMS use and satisfaction in academic institutions: The organizational perspective. The Internet and Higher Education. 2010; 13(3): 127-133.

[9] Zourou K. On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: A look at the state of the art. Alsic. Apprentissage des Langue’s ET Systems’ information ET de Communication. 2012; 15(1): 25-50.

[10] Ullrich C, Borau K, Luo H, Tan X, Shen L, Shen R. Why Web 2. 0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 705–714). New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2008.

[11] Tinmaz H. Social networking websites as an innovative framework for connectives. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2012; 3(3): 234-245.

[12] Campos Freire F. Las redes sociales trastocan los modelos de los medios de communication tradicionales. Revisit Latina De Communication Social. 2008; 11(63): 55-70.

[13] Diaz VM, Martinez AI V, McMullin KJ. First steps towards a university social network on personal learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2014; 15(3): 25-40.

[14] Brady KP, Holcomb L., Smith BV. The use of alternative social networking sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the e-Learning benefits of Ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 2010; 9(2): 151-170.

[15] Lee MJW, McLoughlin C. Beyond distance and time constraints: Applying social networking tools and Web 2.0 approaches to distance learning. In G. Venetian’s (Ed.), emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 61–87). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press; 2010.

[16] Conole G. Facilitating new forms of discourse for learning and teaching: Harnessing the power of Web 2.0 practices. Open Learning. 2010; 25(2): 141-151.

[17] Webb E. Engaging students with engaging tools. Edu cause Quarterly. 2009; 32(4): 1-7.

[18] Cole M. Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education. 2009; 52(1): 141-146.

[19] Conole G, Alevizou P. A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education (A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy). Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK; 2010.]

[20] Crook C. The “digital native” in context: Tensions associated with importing Web 2.0 practices into the school setting. Oxford Review of Education. 2012; 38(1): 63-80.

[21] Greenhow C, Robelia B, Hughes JE. Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher. 2009; 38(4): 246-259.

[22] Meccawy M, Blanchfield P, Ashman H, Brailsford T, Moore A. WHURLE 2.0: Adaptive learning meets Web 2.0. In P. Dillenbourg & M. Specht (Eds.), Times of Convergence, Technologies across Learning Contexts. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5192, 274-279; 2008.

[23] Sankey M, Huijser H. A “likely benefit” from aligning Web 2.0 technologies with an institutions learning and teaching agenda. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 3686-3695). Chesapeake, VA: AACE: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2009.

[24] Siemens G. Connectivism: Learning as Network-Creation; 2005

[25] Downs S. Places to go: Connectivism and connective knowledge. Innovate Online; 2008

[26] Alhazmi AK, Rahamn AA. Social networking sites in higher education: Potential advantages for student learning. International Journal of Research in Education Methodology. 2013; 4(2): 493-499.‏

[27] Al-Rahmi W, Othman MS, Yusuf LM. The role of social media for collaborative learning to improve academic performance of students and researchers in Malaysian higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2015; 16(4), 35-40.

[28] Simons J. The Foundations of Communication Theory of Knowledge and Learning, Translate By Skandari, H. Tehran, Avaye Noor; 2012.

[29] Rohr LE, Costello J, Hawkins T. Design considerations for integrating Twitter into an online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2015; 16(4): 55-70.

[30] Siemens G. Teaching in Social and Technological Networks; 2010.

[31] Casey G, Evans T. Designing for learning: Online social networks as a classroom environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2011; 12(7): 1-26.

[32] Fewkes AM, McCabe M. Facebook: Learning tool or distraction? Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 2012; 28(3): 92-98.

[33] Junco R. The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education. 2012; 58(1): 162-171.

[34] Top E. Blogging as a social medium in undergraduate courses: Sense of community best predictor of perceived learning. Internet and Higher Education. 2012; 15(1): 24-28.

[35] Patera M, Draper S, Naef M. Exploring magic cottage: A virtual reality environment for stimulating children's imaginative writing. Interactive Learning Environments. 2008; 16(3): 245-263.

[36] Heafner TL, Friedman AM. Wikis and constructivism in secondary social studies: Fostering a deeper understanding. Computers in the Schools. 2008; 25(3-4): 288-302.

[37] Jackson C. Your students love social media ... and so can you. Teaching Tolerance. 2011; 39: 38-41.

[38] Liu CC, Liu KP, Chen WH, Lin CP, Chen GD. Collaborative storytelling experiences in social media: Influence of peer-assistance mechanisms. Computers & Education. 2011; 57(2): 1544-1556.

[39] Özmen B, Atıcı B. The effects of social networking sites in distance learning on learners’ academic achievements. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. 2014; 17(2): 61-75.

[40] Drexler W. The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2010; 26(3): 369-385.

[41] Robelia BA, Greenhow C, Burton L. Environmental learning in online social networks: Adopting environmentally responsible behaviors. Environmental Education Research. 2011; 17(4): 553-575.

[42] Alias N, Siraj S, Daud MKAM, Hussin Z. Effectiveness of facebook based learning to enhance creativity among Islamic studies students by employing Isman Instructional Design Model. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2013; 12(1): 60-67.

[43] Bowen R, Andersson AL, Vigmo S. Fluctuating Linguistic Repertoires-Upper SECONDARY Students Blogging as Part OF Learning English as a Second Language. Digital Culture & Education. 2016; 8(2): 65-78.

[44] Keller JM. Five fundamental requirements for motivation and volition in technology-assisted distributed learning environments. Revista Inter Ação. 2011; 35(2): 305-322.

[45] Tomberg V, Laanpere M, Ley T, Normak P. Sustaining teacher control in a blog-based personal learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2013; 14(3): 109-133.

[46] Frye EM, Trathen W, Koppenhaver DA. Internet workshop and blog publishing: Meeting student (and teacher) learning needs to achieve best practice in the twenty-first-century social studies classroom. The Social Studies. 2010; 101(2): 46-53.

[47] Grisham DL, Wolsey TD. Reentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 2006; 49(8): 648-660.

[48] Woo Y, Reeves TC. Interaction in Asynchronous Web-Based Learning Environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2008; 12: 179-194.

[49] Kim D, Grant E, Huang C, Seo JH. Future design of Korean ubiquitous classrooms; 2007.

[50] Foroughi A. A research framework for evaluating the effectiveness of implementations of social media in higher education. Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development; 2011; 5(1): 5-15.

[51] Al-Rahmi W, Othman M. The impact of social media use on academic performance among university students: A pilot study. Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation. 2013; 4(12): 1-10.

[52] Couros A. Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. 2010; 109-127.

[53] Yang Y, Crook C, O'Malley C. Can a social networking site support afterschool group learning of Mandarin? Learning, Media and Technology. 2014; 39(3): 267-282.

[54] Callaghan N, Bower M. Learning through social networking sites the critical role of the teacher. Educational Media International. 2012; 49(1): 1-17.

[55] Selwyn N. Face working: exploring students' education‐related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology. 2009; 34(2): 157-174.

[56] Madge C, Meek J, Wellens J, Hooley T. Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology. 2009; 34(2):141-155.

[57] Jucevičienė P, Valinevičienė G. A conceptual model of social networking in higher education. Electronics and Electrical Engineering. 2010; 5(102): 55-58.

[58] Jonnavithula L, Tretiakov A. A model for the effects of online social networks on learning. Future challenges, sustainable futures. Proceedings ascilite Wellington, 435-437; 2012.

[59] Aloisi G, Scana M. Social networks and collaborative learning. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies. 2016; 1(1): 51-57.

[60] Zarei Zavarki I. Evaluating and evaluating e-learning. Name Amozesh Ali. 2008; 1(3): 73-8. Persian

[61] Siemens G, Long P. Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSEReview. 2011; 46(5): 30-40.

[62] Monahan T, McArdle G, Bertolotto M. Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Computers & Education. 2008; 50(4): 1339-1353.

[63] Kenley R, Seppänen O. Location-based management of construction projects: part of a new typology for project scheduling methodologies. In Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 2563-2570). Winter Simulation Conference; 2009.

[64] Alexander B. Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review. 2006; 41(2): 32-44.

[65] Tinmaz H. Social networking websites as an innovative framework for connectives. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2012; 3(3): 234-245.

[66] Gayoung LEE, Sunyoung KEUM, Myungsun KIM, Yoomi CHOI, Ilju RHA. A Study on the Development of a MOOC design Model. Educational Technology International. 2016; 17(1): 1-37.