FH Science Day

Knowledge Acquisition via Facebook. Learning Facts and Concepts about intercultural communication. Denise Mauss a, Tanja Jadin a a

Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences, Softwarepark 11, 4232 Hagenberg, AUSTRIA

ABSTRACT The number of users of social networks has exploded over the last years. Many – mostly young – users spend more and more time on social networking sites every day. Based on the intensive use of Facebook it was assumed that learners can be better reached through this medium. Additionally, we supposed they would be more motivated to learn micro content step by stepwhen referring to small, welldefined messages. The aim of this study was to determine to what extent it is possible to use the social network Facebook for knowledge acquisition. Based on the current state of research of social networks, Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning (CSCL) and constructivist teaching and learning, Facebook is used in a pre-defined learning scenario. Over a period of three weeks, knowledge about intercultural communication was imparted to a number of students prepared to join a Facebook group created for this particular purpose. The online course was developed in line with the aspects identified by Gilly Salmon in terms of Facebook communication and online moderation. The subsequent evaluation of the scenario showed that a significant increase in knowledge could be obtained and the participants were satisfied by the use of Facebook even considering this tool for higher education. The results will be discussed with respect to the possibilities to teach and learn with online social networking platforms. Contact: [email protected]

1

INTRODUCTION

With new technologies new hopes regarding efficient learning come up. Years ago, Web 2.0 and ELearning 2.0 were popular terms referring to the new technologies in the Internet. New tools like Wikis and Weblogs were discovered as new possibilities for learning, especially in groups. The potential of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) have been discussed for a long time. Dillenbourg (1999) define collaborative learning as “a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together” (p. 2). Learning Scenarios especially with Wiki and Weblogs in context of CSCL were conducted and evaluated (e.g. Jadin & Batinic, 2006; Moskaliuk, Kimmerle & Cress, 2012). CSCL is characterized by three dimensions: “collective (or collaborative) knowledge building and learning, technologically supported learning or learning with and about technological media and learning across geographical distance by means of digital networks” (Klamma, Rohde & Stahl, 2003, p.1). A number of advantages for computer supported cooperative learning can be identified. Students can adapt varying perspectives and profit from different resources. Learning is possible independent of time and place. Different tools and resources are available for collaborative knowledge building. Group process can be synchronous or asynchronous (Hesse, Garsoffky & Hron, 2011).

In this paper we introduce a learning scenario using Facebook. Facebook is one of the largest social networking platforms with more than a billion active users (Facebook, 2013). In the next section the theoretical background including definition of networks and community based learning will be discussed. We introduce the term social web-based learning, which will be used for this kind of learning scenario i.e. knowledge acquisition within a Facebook course. In a following step, the Facebook course itself will be explained. Next, the results of the course evaluation will be presented and discussed.

2

NETWORKS, COMMUNITIES AND SOCIAL WEB-BASED LEARNING

In Facebook, communities can be established but it is not a community at all given that networks and communities are not the same. Based on Network theory social network are defined by ties. Members in a social network are linked by social ties based on social contact and communication (Rohde & Shaffer, 2003). In this contexts the kind of ties defined by the knots within the network are relevant (weak or strong ties). In contrary to social networks, communities are not characterized by the quantity of social contacts. Communities “are social networks (and therefore groups) that are defined by the quality of their social ties. In particular, communities are networks with a shared culture: a set of shared norms, conventions, and meanings; a set of common practices and common symbols that create a shared semantic space” (Rohde & Shaffer, 2003, p. 4). Communities have a shared culture and apply both culture-based and group learning. As socio-cultural theorists suggest, in communities the process of enculturation is relevant (Rohde & Shaffer, 2003). Social networking platforms like Facebook offer users to introduce themselves. But it is the social character to find and meet “friends” to exchange information, share funny videos and photos which makes Facebook attractive for users. It is assumed that social networking platforms can be used for learning, too. Also, students suggested that Facebook can be used for learning (Kabilan, Ahmad & Abidin, 2010; Jadin, 2012). Jadin (2012) used the term social web-based learning to emphasize communication, possibilities of collaboration and to exchange information. Facebook will be very often used mainly for short times. Therefore, learning content presented in Facebook can be easily accessed by users. Other characteristics of Facebook are relevant for learning, too. Because of the individual profile and immediate feedback the social presence is higher than in other tools for collaborative learning. Woei Hung (2003, as cited in Rohde & Schaffer, 2003) investigated three different types of courses and impacts of social presence, intimacy, and immediacy on learning processes and outcomes. In another study researchers report about the necessity of defining learning objectives and recommend integrating Facebook as an educational project (Kabilan, Ahmad & Abidin, 2010). The Facebook class in this learning scenario aims to enhance the knowledge and understanding of intercultural communication. Given that the participants of the course have only been member of the Facebook group for three weeks, this scenario can not be attributed to the concept of learning community. The class aimed to teach students mainly facts and concepts (based on the learning taxonomy by Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The idea was to deliver small learning content over a given period of time to evaluate if this approach can be used as a learning scenario. Therefore, we use the term social web-based learning based on the concept of web-based learning by Harmon and Jones (1999). To some extent the scenario was collaborative,as it was intended that students discuss the delivered content (i.e. postings from the teacher in Facebook). In the next section the Facebook course will be introduced.

3

FACEBOOK COURSE ABOUT INTERCULTURAL COMMMUNICATION

To analyze the effects of using Facebook for educational purposes, a group of 19 students taking a degree in different academic fields was recruited. The participants’ age varied between 15 and 30 years. After the recruiting process, the students were invited to join a Facebook group, where they would take part in a class over three weeks. Referring to Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), the objective of this course was to transfer factual, conceptual and procedural knowledge and enable the participants to remember, understand and apply this knowledge. After a short introduction and an ice-breaking task, new information was posted every second day.. The topics were concerned with basic theories about intercultural communication containing the following:  Cultural Dimensions of Geert Hofstedes and Fons Trompenaars  Cultural standards according to Alexander Thomas  Stereotypes  Schulz von Thun’s square of culture and development The information was presented in text, image and video format. Each post consisted of theoretical information and was then followed by a task or question for the students to work on. Their part was to post their answers to the question or opinions about the contents as a comment beneath the post. The intention of the tasks was to motivate the participants to actively think about the topic and share their opinion with other participants. Thereby a discussion between the students should be incented, which might lead to a better understanding of the contents and as a consequence, support their knowledge acquisition.

4

EVALUATION OF THE SCENARIO

The main goal of this study was to find out if and how the use of a social web-based learning scenario could support knowledge acquisition. Therefore, the participants were asked to answer a pre- and post -test in form of an online questionnaire. The results of both the pre- and post-test were then analyzed and interpreted to find an answer to the research question. Additionally, some demographic data and data about the participants’ experience in using Facebook were collected in the pre-test as these variables might influence their participation in the course.

4.1

Knowledge acquisition

To answer the question whether the participants’ knowledge about intercultural communication could be increased, a questionnaire with theoretical questions about the topics, which were covered in the class, was created. In both, pre- and post-test, the participants had to answer the same questionnaire. Thereby it was possible, to exactly compare the results of the pre- and post-test. As Table 1 shows, the mean score in pretesting was 4.5 and 11.8 in posttesting.

Table 1. Comparison of results of theoretical exam of pre- and post-test. Pretest

Posttest

Mean

4.5

11.8

Std. Deviation

1.5

5.5

For the analysis of the test results, a Wilcoxon test was done. Therefore the questions of the exam were ordered by 5 categories: (1) WTallg: General knowledge about intercultural communication (2) WTstereo: Stereotyping and its effects (3) WTkdim: Cultural dimensions of Trompenaars and Hofstede (4) WTkstd: Cultural standards according to Alexander Thomas (5) WTkeq: Schulz von Thun’s square of culture and development According to the analysis of the total score a highly significant increase of knowledge could be reached, Z(N = 16) =-3.519, p < .05. Three of the five categories (WTallg, WTkdim, WTkeq) showed a highly significant increase of knowledge (see Table 2). Category WTkstd showed a marginal significance, Z(N=16) = -1.889; p > .05. WTstereo didn’t show significant differences between pre- and posttest; a reason for this might be the high initial score at the pretest of 3.3 (SD = 8) of 4 possible points. Table 2. Results of Wilcoxon test WTallg

WTstereo

WTkdim

WTkstd

WTkeq

WTges

Z

-3.423a

-.302a

-3.413a

-1.889a

-2.701a

-3.519a

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

.001

.763

.001

.059

.007

.000

a. Based on negative ranks

4.2

Student’s opinion about the learning scenario

A second goal was to find out about the participants’ opinion regarding the learning scenario in general. Therefore, the participants had to answer a number of questions in the post-test which helped to get an understanding of the participants’ impression about the course. Table 3 shows the different dimensions, example questions and the number of items which were used in the questionnaire for these dimensions.

Table 3. Dimensions and sample questions for evaluation of the scenario. Dimension

Question to be answered

Number of Items

1

Setting

How did the participants like the setting? Example: Using Facebook in a learning scenario is a good way to receive information from instructors. (N = 16, M =3.2, SD = 1.2)

9 neutral 5 positive 5 negative

2

Technical Features

Were the participants able to use Facebook features to actively take part in the course? Example: I liked the possibility of being able to comment directly to the posts. (N = 16, M = 4.7, SD = .5)

2 positive 1 negative

3

Instructor


4

Contents

How did the participants like the work of the instructor? Example: The instructor was able to answer questions and react to feedback of participants. (N = 16, M = 4.7, SD = .6) How did the participants like the type and extent of contents? Example: The contents were covered too superficially. (N = 16, M = 2.4, SD = .9)


5

Communication

How did the participants feel about the communication within the course? Example: The comments of other users helped me for a better understanding of the contents. (N = 16, M = 3.7, SD = 1.2)


6

Participation

How did the participants actively take part in the class? Example: How often did you enter the group? (N = 16, Md = 3, MO = 3)

4 neutral

7

Climate

How did the participants feel about the climate within the group? Example: I had fun when discussing the topics within the group. (N = 16, M = 3.6, SD = 1.3)


8

General Impression

How did the participants like the course in general? Example: Please rate the learning scenario on a scale from 1 to 5. (N = 16, Md = 2, MO = 2)

5 neutral

The analysis of the questions led to the conclusion that the participants’ had a clearly positive impression of the learning scenario with average ratings of a minimum of 3.5 on a scale from 1 (“very negative”) to 5 (“very positive”), as you can see it in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Average rating of the learning scenario grouped by categories (Mean rating divided by number of item) [5 =“Very positive“ / 4 = “Rather Positive“ / 3 = “Partly positive“ / 2 = „Rather negative“ / 1 = „Very negative“].

5

DISCUSSION

In this study we were able to show that it is possible to use a social platform to conduct learning scenarios. Even though some more motivational efforts might be necessary to encourage the participants to contribute more proactively within the group, several discussions between the participants could be established. Thereby the participants were able to gain knowledge on the topic of intercultural communication. The evaluation of the scenario resulted in a highly positive opinion about the use of Facebook in a learning scenario. However, Facebook is not a universal tool for educational purposes. For this reason, specific learning scenarios have to be found, where Facebook is able to support knowledge distribution and creation. Some critical points when using Facebook for educational purposes might be the following: (1) Role of the instructor: Before starting a class, it should be clearly decided about the behaviour of the instructor: When will the instructor take part in the discussions? What should be done if the discussion reaches a dead end or nobody responds? To ensure that there are no unintentional effects on the class, such decisions should be made before starting the class. (2) Profoundness of contents: Due to the limited number of characters in a post, the possibilities to transfer complex contents to the participants are limited. As a result, only very basic contents can be provided to the participants. A complex level of information might only be reached if the discussions in the course result in complex topics and elaborated opinions. (3) Structuring of contents: Facebook offers a very basic structuring of contents. There is always one post and all the comments below it. This does not allow any ordering or structuring of discussions. What is more, the posts are ordered in a way that the latest topic anybody re-

sponded to shows up at the top of the page. This makes it impossible to stick to a predefined order of topics, since they will get reordered by the time. (4) Flexible class times: Access to the Facebook group is open at any time during the day. This allows participants and instructors to be flexible when to participate in the group, but it also could lead to issues concerning class times. Both students and instructor might be encouraged to take a look inside the group at any time of the day or every time somebody else comments on a topic or posts something on the group wall. Thereby they might lose the feeling for the right amount of time spent for the class. It might get difficult to distinguish between times when actively taking part in a class and when to be offline.

REFERENCES Anderson, Lorin W. and Krathwohl, David R. (Eds) (2001), A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. Dillenbourg, Pierre (1999), “Introduction: What do you mean by Collaborative Learning"?, in Collaborative Learning. Cognitive and Computational Approaches, Pierre Dillenbourg, ed., Oxford: Elsevier, 1-19. Facebook (2013). Facebook, Newsroom, Key Facts. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts [19.2.2013] Harmon, Stephen W. and Jones, Marshall G. (1999), The five levels of web use in education: Factors to consider in planning online courses. Educational Technology, 39, 28-32. Hesse, Friedrich W., Garsoffky, Bärbel and Hron, Aemilian (2002), Netzbasiertes kooperatives Lernen, in Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und Internet. Lehrbuch für Studium und Praxis Ludwig J. Issing, L. J. and Paul Klimsa eds, Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union (3., überarbeitete Auflage), 283-298. Jadin, Tanja, and Batinic, Bernad (2006), “Weblog and Wiki, Scenarios for Computer Supported Cooperative Learning”, in E-Competences for Life, Employment and Innovation. “E” is more! E-Learning Enabling Education in Evolving Europe, Andràs Szücs and Ingeborg Bo, eds., European Distance and E-Learning Network, 423-425. Jadin, Tanja (2012), Social Web-Based Learning: kollaborativ und informell – Ein exemplarischer Einsatz einer Social Media Gruppe für die Hochschullehre [Social web-based learning: collaborative and informal], in Digitale Medien – Werkzeuge für exzellente Forschung und Lehre, Gottfried Csanyi, Franz Reichl and Andreas Steiner, eds., Münster u.a.: Waxmann Verlag, 324-334. Kabilan, Muhammad K. Ahmad, Norlida & Abidin, Mohamad J.Z. (2010); Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187. Klamma, Ralf; Rohde, Markus and Stahl, Gerry (2003), “Community-based learning – An introduction”, in: Special Issue on “Community-based Learning: Explorations into Theoretical Groundings, Empirical Findings and Computer Support” Ralf Klamma, Markus Rohde, and Gerry Stahl, eds., ACM SigGROUP Bulletin, December 2003/ Vol. 24, No.3, ACM press, 7-13. Moskaliuk, Johannes, Kimmerle, Joachim, and Cress, Ulrike (2012), “Collaborative knowledge building with wikis: The impact of redundancy and polarity”, in Computers and Education, 58, 1049–1057. Rohde, Markus; David W. Shaffer (2003): Us, ourselves, and we: Thoughts about social (self-) categorization, in: Klamma, Ralf; Rohde, Markus; Stahl, Gerry (eds.) (2003): Special Issue on “Community-based Learning: Explorations into Theoretical Groundings, Empirical Findings and Computer Support” of ACM SigGROUP Bulletin, December 2003/ Vol. 24, No.3, ACM press, 19-24