Get Students Creating with Social Media Tools

As part of my Masters Degree, I researched and wrote a paper on the use of social media technologies in teaching and learning. I looked specifically at how it might relate to constructivist teaching pedagogy, and specifically, if social media could be an effective tool for assisting students in knowledge building and meaning-making activities. This post is third in a series examining the five main themes that I discovered in my research. The first post can be found by clicking here.

creativity

3 – Creativity

The traditional format of taking notes, studying, and then parroting information during an exam is well embedded into traditional learning systems, both in schools, and online. While this system continues to work, educators are excited to find new ways of encouraging learning. The addition of creativity to this list of strategies in using social media is derived from studies in constructive learning, and also in activity theory. Activity theory is used as a framework in this sense, described commonly through the saying, “you are what you do” (Nardi, 1996, p. 7). It is through committing to understanding and processing new information through activity, that learners can assimilate and build new knowledge. Such activity is not carried out by rote or as a disembodied action, but as “doing in order to transform something” (Barab, Evans, & Baek, 2004, p. 200). This aligns quite well with the use of social media tools, because as Leont’ev proposed,

the human individual’s activity is a system of social relations. It does not exist without those social relations

(Leont’ev, 1981, pp. 46-47).

Surely we have all seen instances where students become engaged in a school project, and they become more invested in not only the outcome, but in their own interest in the subject matter as well. I think of a nephew who, as I sit down to dinner with him, recounts all kinds of interesting and detailed information about dinosaurs. This knowledge comes to him through his engagement and ‘creating’ with the topic. Not only that, but in his social recounting of the information to a third party (me, as his uncle), he is required to know the material well enough to be confident to portray it cogently. In this example, for learners at a younger age, I equate ‘play’ as being aligned to activity theory in processing new information. In this way, constructive learning benefits from and is well aligned with activity, and throughout both, there is this overall benefit to the learner in interacting socially. This leads very well into tasks requiring creativity.

Constructivist learning entails a required participation from the learner into constructing their own knowledge. For example, in a study by Heafner & Friedman (2008), grade 11 students that created wikis for a school project demonstrated greater understanding and retention than peers who learned through teacher instruction. The recent emphasis on integrating maker culture and systems into classrooms is another example of building learning successes through creativity. I find it interesting that while arts & crafts are more accepted in younger grades, we ‘wean’ students away from this type of creative learning as they get older. Even as an adult, I still feel that I learn more when I try to build or create something myself. This is not to imply that everyone learns the same way; it would be folly to think that creative endeavours could completely replace focused study. But with modern access to today’s social media tools, it’s a great opportunity to make decisions about when to use it and how it can best serve particular learning situations.

One thing I keep reminding myself is that the goal is to encourage learners to become creators, not memorizers. The goal to get learners creating artifacts of learning, stimulating ideas through construction while resolving cognitive conflict. Imagine students building knowledge and taking control of the subject matter, not simply absorbing it like a sponge, but interacting with it, turning it over in their minds, creating with it. Connections. In this respect, social media tools can be used to great effect. Get your students making wikis, audio editing, video creation, building infographics (piktochart.com), or using online software to help create poster boards (canva.com). There’s even a site where students can create a (fake) Facebook page for historical or fictional characters (http://www.classtools.net/FB/home-page). Teachers have also had students use Twitter to create fictional re-enactments of world events, as seen through historical figures, as recounted in this study (Jensen, Caswell, Ball, Duffin, & Barton, 2010): http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/bitstream/10609/4942/6/Caswell_editat.pdf and with examples at http://twhistory.org/

Regardless of the tools you choose, get the learners using social media to create, not just parrot information. Allow them to play with the subject matter, and leverage the power of curiosity to boost their success!

Come back Monday for part 4: Self-Mediation


References

Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A., & Baek, E.-O. (2004). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2, 199–213.

Heafner, T. L., & Friedman, A. M. (2008). Wikis and constructivism in secondary social studies: Fostering a deeper understanding. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4), 288–302. http://doi.org/10.1080/07380560802371003

Jensen, M., Caswell, T., Ball, J., Duffin, J., & Barton, R. (2010). TwHistory: Sharing History Using Twitter. In Open ED 2010 Proceedings. Barcelona: UOC, OU, BYU. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10609/4942

Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction (Vol. 436, pp. 7–16).

Using Social Media Interactivity to Encourage Learning

As part of my Masters Degree, I researched and wrote a paper on the use of social media technologies in teaching and learning. I looked specifically at how it might relate to constructivist teaching pedagogy, and specifically, if social media could be an effective tool for assisting students in knowledge building and meaning-making activities. This post is second in a series examining the five main themes that I discovered in my research. The first post can be found by clicking here.

interactivity2

2 – Interactivity

In researching how to frame the use of social media within constructivist learning, the next key driver that became apparent was that of interactivity. It’s a word we hear often, particularly in terms of computer systems, software, and online portals. In the early days of the internet, information was presented on web ‘pages’, as it was expected that people would want to ‘read’ the information, just as we had been doing from books, magazines, and newspapers. Of course, it didn’t take long before online activity became more than that. Taking advantage of the two-way nature of the Internet, websites became more interactive, allowing the user to take part in the dialog, not just read static pages. I would point out that I’m not referring to trivial actions such as clicking buttons or advancing slides as interactivity. These are very low level interactive tasks, and simply getting a person to ‘click a button’ does not make an experience interactive, at least not in the learning sense.

Mental functioning of the individual is not simply derived from social interaction; rather, the specific structures and processes revealed by individuals can be traced to their interactions with others.

(Palincsar, 1998, p. 351)

In a similar fashion to the analogy above, education can benefit from interactivity. In this digital age, we can take advantage of the kind of interactivity provided by online social media and web 2.0 tools. And as above, I’m not talking about just pressing buttons. Related back to the ‘social’ part of social constructivism and social media, a good term for interactive learning would be dialogic interactivity. That is, interactive processes that encourage the learner to engage with the information (as described in my previous post) by having to examine it, process it, and then act on it. Much as we do when we are talking to each other, we take in the information, process it, and then respond.

Strategies for effective use of social media can take cues from these findings. As Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010) point out, this involves a shift from using Internet connected tools as an object IN the interaction, to using it as a tool for CONDUCTING the interaction. Here are some examples of social media tools that an educator might use to align with this strategy:

There are hundreds of possibilities available online, many that offer free or low-cost options for teachers. As more teachers find and use these tools successfully, it is important for us to share our successes (and challenges). The goal being that once learners are able (and eager) to engage with new material and learning opportunities, then they will benefit from doing so in an interactive, two-way, dialogic process.

Click here to continue to part 3: Creativity


References

Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033

Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

Creating engagement with social media

As part of my Masters Degree, I researched and wrote a paper on the use of social media technologies in teaching and learning. I looked specifically at how it might relate to constructivist teaching pedagogy, and specifically, if social media could be an effective tool for assisting students in knowledge building and meaning-making activities. This post is second in a series examining the five main themes that I discovered in my research. The first post can be found by clicking here.

engagement

1 – Engagement

In examining social media use through the lens of constructivism, the first recurring theme was that of engagement.

While “about three out of four undergraduate students agree or strongly agree that technology helps them achieve their academic outcomes” (Dahlstrom, Walker, & Dziuban, 2013), and undergrads report owning two to three internet-enabled devices, almost 75% of US college facilitators still ban the use of smartphones in class.

In my career as an educator, I see this to be a common challenge. We continually try to engage our learners to become interested, and consequently, delve deeper into the topics at hand. Internet connected technology can be used to increase learner engagement. But while students seem keen to use their mobile devices, they often find them to be a distraction from what we are trying to achieve. Elkind (2004) proposed an answer suggesting that “technology is forcing educational reform, but we need to harness it to the best philosophy of education we have available. I believe this to be constructivism” (p. 312). That’s easy to say, but not as easy to implement. The shift isn’t simple to make, as it needs to happen at three levels: with the teacher, curriculum, and society. Teachers can effectively change their own teaching, but they may have less control over curriculum, and at the societal level, change takes even more time and effort. Communication needs to take place between all the stakeholders such as educators, parents, school boards, and government.

It is easy to find educators who want to get their students interested in the subject material. And I see the challenge myself in post-secondary education, where all too often, students have learned that to survive, they need to study and memorize the content expected of them in order to get them through the next exam. To be sure, this is a successful strategy. What it may lack in retention, it makes up for in efficiency. What interests me from a constructivist standpoint, is the number of studies that show that certain learning tasks can be enhanced by encouraging students to ‘talk it through’ with each other (Palincsar, 1998; Taylor & Cox, 1997; Teasley, 1995). In fact, students simply talking with peers about a reasoning task (without any teacher involvement) still showed an increase in success over students that worked on the problem alone. In other words, even though a teacher didn’t inject any new information, the ‘talking’ students still exhibited better learning outcomes (Teasley, 1995).

But students are talking all the time, aren’t they? We live in an era where learners are connected by so many connected and mobile devices, shouldn’t we be seeing an increase in learning organically? Not quite: “When left unguided, [emphasis added] students will use Facebook in ways that are both positively and negatively related to their engagement, studying, and on-campus involvement” (Junco, 2012, p. 169). From this, we must take heed not to leave students unguided, and hope for the best. We need to use the technology that they are familiar with using, to help them find greater success in what they are learning.

Photo by NEC Corporation of America with Creative Commons license.
Photo:NEC Corporation of America, CC-BY

To this end, when we talk about increasing engagement, we mean to specifically increase the learner’s engagement with the learning, actively working with the information they are gathering. This isn’t the same as simply ‘getting students interested’. Putting snazzy and modern graphics on the cover of a textbook might make it seem more engaging to the student, but their take-up of information in the book will likely remain unchanged. We do want to get students excited about the material, but then, I believe we have to go one step further, and encourage them to engage with the content directly.

All of which leaves us asking, “How do we do that?”

Social media presents an opportunity for educators. If we can avoid gimmickry, and create specific, concrete tasks for students to complete using Internet-connected social technologies, then we are aligning with the research that shows socially constructive learning to be beneficial. Engagement can be encouraged by getting students sharing interesting information with their class, connecting with experts in the field, asking questions that still confuse them, and supporting each other through the daily struggles of academic life. Many educators I know have had success with microblogging (such as Twitter or Today’s Meet), pin-boarding (like Pinterest, Tackk, or my favourite, Padlet), or even photo sharing with apps like Instagram, Flikr, or Apple Photo Streams. It is less important what the particular social app is, but the main goal is to get them to become more immersed in the learning, and talking to each other about it using interpretive conversation. Start off small, and in the words of Jean-Luc Picard, “Engage!”

engage meme

Click here to continue to part 2: Interactivity


References

Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology 2013. Louisville, CO: Educause Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1302/ERS1302.pdf

Elkind, D. (2004). The problem with constructivism. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 306–312. http://doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984646

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004

Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

Taylor, J., & Cox, B. D. (1997). Microgenetic analysis of group-based solution of complex two-step mathematical word problems by fourth graders. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 183–226.

Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207–220. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.207

Social media in education

As part of my Masters Degree, I researched and wrote a paper on the use of social media technologies in teaching and learning. I looked specifically at how it might relate to constructivist teaching pedagogy, and specifically, if social media could be an effective tool for assisting students in knowledge building and meaning-making activities. This post is one in a series examining the five main themes that I discovered in my research. The full paper can be found by clicking here.

Introduction

The first objections I often hear from people when I talk about using social media as an educational tool is, “I want my students focused on school, not chatting with each other about what they are going to do after school.” Or, “Social media? I don’t want to see pictures of everyone’s food!”

So the first step is to clarify the way I used the word ‘social’ for this study. In the context of education, social wasn’t used to mean leisure activities. Certainly, we often think of social time as something we do with friends outside of work or school. But social media use can be more encompassing. Social is about how we interact with each other, how we relate, how we connect as individuals. It is in this broader sense that I am interested in social media, and through it, social learning. Therefore, in order to discern useful strategies for using social media in education, I first needed to frame the enquiry within a learning environment. There is much talk about how cell phones, social media, and social computer technologies can be a distraction for students. This is true! In fact, I discovered many studies that proved just that. In situations where students were required to participate in sustained private study, or conventional lecture / note taking / recall, the use of social media such as Facebook were shown to negatively affect outcomes. Imagine trying to read Faulkner or Dostoyevsky while someone keeps interrupting you! In a more specific view, my interest was in using social media to support collaborative, connected learning through social constructivism. Situations where students are learning together could be an appropriate opportunity for the enhanced connectivity of social media.

Social constructivism is a model put forward by epistemological thinkers such as Dewey (1938), Bruner, (1966, 1996), Piaget & Inhelder (1969), and Vygotsky (1978). Constructivism posits that knowledge is constructed by the learner through their ability to compare learning experiences with their existing schemas. Social contructivism, as promoted by Vygotsky and Leont’ev includes the proviso that this meaning making is not only enhanced through social interaction with others, but that learning itself is primarily social, and rejects that the locus of knowledge resides solely within the individual (Palincsar, 1998). In other words, we learn better when we are able to talk to, share information with, and ponder with others about concepts.

Click here to continue to part 1: Engagement


References

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, Ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.