Proceedings of Workshop on Web 2.0 Tools, Methodology, and Services for Enhancing Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2012.
Using Facebook to Support Student Collaboration and Discussion of Their Open Learner Models Mohammad Alotaibi and Susan Bull Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Birmingham, U.K.
[email protected],
[email protected]
Abstract. This paper describes the use of Facebook alongside an independent open learner model to support learners’ collaboration and discussion of their open learner models. Students discussed their knowledge and misconceptions face to face and in Facebook, and found both to be useful.
1
Introduction
Web 2.0 applications (wikis, blogs, social network applications, etc.) are increasingly being used for teaching and learning [1] [2]. Existing Web 2.0 social network applications like Facebook can facilitate collaboration and interaction by providing tools for communication, content sharing and organizing groups; and such facilities can be positively used to support educational activities like collaboration and discussion between learners [3] [4]. In this paper we describe using Facebook to support students’ collaboration and the discussion prompted by an Independent Open Learner Model. Open learner models (OLM) are learner models that are accessible by the learner. Opening the learner model can promote learner metacognition and self-reflection [5]. OLM are presented to the learner in different formats, for example: textual, skill meters, concept maps [6]. OLM can be a part of a full intelligent tutoring system or can be used independently. Independent OLM do not provide system guidance or teaching to the learner. Instead, they focus on externalizing the learner model to the learner with the learner taking responsibility for using the information from the model for their learning [6]. Section 2 describes prompting collaboration and discussion with independent OLM, and section 3 introduces an investigation into students’ face-toface and Facebook discussion of their OLMs.
2
Promoting Discussion and Collaboration with OLM
Recent work shows that OLM can prompt peer help, collaboration and discussion [7]. Giving learners the option to release their model to their peers (share their OLM with their peers by allowing them to view it) allowed students to compare their models
with their peers. This resulted in spontaneous discussion, collaboration and peer help [7]. Other work shows that even when students could not release their OLM to peers, they engaged in spontaneous discussion about their learner models [8]. Discussion between learners is considered one of the ways to promote learner interaction and active learning inside classrooms and in online learning [9]. Student discussion and interaction can promote their critical thinking skills which are considered high order skills that often involve metacognition [10] [11] [12]. In the next section we investigate the use of Facebook as a tool to support students’ collaboration and discussion when they are using an independent OLM (i.e. where there is no system guidance or teaching available).
3
Student Use of Facebook to Discuss their OLM
Facebook was used alongside OLMlets [7] for 5 weeks. OLMlets is an independent OLM. It is web based and domain independent so it can be used in different course types. To construct a learner model, OLMlets uses learners’ answers to multiple choice questions with pre-defined misconceptions from the instructor. The learner model is then externalized in different formats (skill meter, boxes indicating knowledge level by color, tables with ranked list of topics, text descriptions and an aggregate group model). OLMlets allows users to release their model to peers and instructors if they wish, either named or anonymously. This section considers students’ use of Facebook to discuss their OLM. Participants, Materials and Methods: Participants were 15 third year students in the School of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering at The University of Birmingham, taking an adaptive learning environments module. Students were asked to join a Facebook group page which was dedicated to the class, to allow them to optionally discuss their learning with peers and with the instructor. The group page was secret, so only invited members could view the page and make postings. Students’ participation in Facebook and their use of OLMlets was not assessed in this course. Students were introduced to OLMlets in a two hour lab session, and then used it as they wished in their own time. Students were not instructed to work in collaboration with peers. By the end of the 5th week, students returned a questionnaire to provide their comments about using Facebook with OLMlets. Results: Students did not post anything on the Facebook wall during the first week. They made 23 postings in the 2nd week, 36 in the 3rd week, 20 in the 4th week and 3 in the 5th week. Students offered help to their peers on Facebook by answering peers’ questions, for example a student asked: Can a domain model contain images or animations as well as text explanations? 3 students answered this question, for example I think what she wants is for the domain model to just contain expert knowledge, then the images will be held in the system. The teaching strategies would then choose when and how to use these images. Students used the Facebook Like button 66 times in the 5 weeks. Some of the students who used the Like button did not post anything on the group wall. All 15 students tried to work with peers using face-to-face discussion (F2F) or Facebook (FB) and sometimes both. Questionnaire results (Table 1)
show that students discussed their knowledge, discussed misconceptions identified in OLMlets, asked peers about OLMlets questions and worked on OLMlets questions with peers in face-to-face discussion more than in Facebook, but found both to be useful (14 out of the 15 students claimed Facebook useful, compared to 12 finding face-to-face discussion useful). Students reported that they benefit from both Facebook discussion and face to face discussion to overcome misconceptions identified in OLMlets. Table 1. Students Questionnaire Responses
Questionnaire Item FB: useful F2F: useful Discuss knowledge: FB Discuss misconceptions: FB Discuss knowledge: F2F Discuss misconceptions: F2F
N 14 12 9 10 14 14
Questionnaire Item Ask about OLMlets questions:F2F Ask about OLMlets questions: FB Work on OLMlets question: F2F Work on OLMlets questions: FB F2F helped correct misconceptions FB helped correct misconceptions
N 12 5 11 4 11 8
Discussion: Giving learners control over their learning is considered one of the primary aims of OLM [6]. This means when students identify their knowledge level and misconceptions they can choose different ways to improve their learning, and overcome misconceptions. The fact that 14 out of the 15 students found Facebook to be useful, shows a positive attitude towards the use of Facebook as a tool for communication, collaboration and possibly for learning when learners are using an independent OLM. Even though their use of Facebook was optional, students used Facebook to ask questions, indicating that they identified Facebook as a tool to search for help. Students also collaborated to answer some peers’ questions showing support to their peers. The example answer given above shows that students can provide help to peers. This, with the presence of the instructor in the group, can help peers find answers to their questions and help correct misconceptions that are identified by their OLM. We also find that students’ discussion on Facebook can help them to overcome some of the misconceptions that are presented in their OLM. Students’ use of the Facebook Like button shows that they visit the group wall possibly for information. The decrease in students’ interaction level in Facebook towards the end of the five week period may be a result of their submission of their assessed assignments. Students’ reported use of face-to-face discussion was higher than their use of Facebook discussion. This may be because in face-to-face discussion they can receive immediate feedback while in online discussion they sometimes have to wait for a response from their peers or instructor [13]. For instance, we find more people worked on answering OLMlets questions with peers face-to-face than in Facebook. This may be due to the fact that they sometimes used the systems at the same time with their peers. Results from this work support previous findings that independent OLM can prompt face-to-face discussion [7] [8] as 14 from the 15 students discussed their knowledge and misconceptions with peers face-to-face. We find that Facebook can be
useful as a communication tool that can extend discussion to allow further peer learning and collaboration about their OLM. We suggest that Web 2.0 applications that provide communication and collaboration tools like Facebook can support learning when students are using independent OLM where there is no system guidance or teaching. Further work could investigate the extent to which this applies in more traditional intelligent tutoring systems.
4
Summary
We have described using Facebook as a tool to support learners’ collaboration and discussion of their independent OLM. We found that students discussed their knowledge and misconceptions both face-to-face and in Facebook, and claimed that both were useful.
References 1. Grosseck, G. To Use Or Not To Use Web 2.0 in Higher Education? Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 1, 478-482. (2009). 2. Safran, C., Helic, D., & Gütl, C. E-learning Practices and Web 2.0. Proceedings International Conference Interactive Computer Aided Learning 2007,1-8.Villach, Austria. (2007). 3. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. Investigating Faculty Decisions to Adopt Web 2.0 Technologies: Theory and Empirical Tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80 (2008). 4. Mason, R. ‘Learning Technologies for Adult Continuing Education’. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121-133 (2006). 5. Bull, S. & Kay, J. Student Models that Invite the Learner In: The SMILI Open Learner Modelling Framework, IJAIED 17(2), 89-120 (2007). 6. Bull, S. & Kay, J. Open Learner Models, in R. Nkambou, J. Bordeau & R. Miziguchi (eds), Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Springer, 318-338. (2010). 7. Bull, S. & Britland, M.: Group Interaction Prompted by a Simple Assessed Open Learner Model that can be Optionally Released to Peers. In: PING Workshop, UM (2007). 8. Johan, R. & Bull, S. Promoting Collaboration and Discussion of Misconceptions Using Open Learner Models, in A. Bader-Natal, E. Walker & C.P. Rose (eds), Proceedings of Workshop on Opportunities for Intelligent and Adaptive Behaviour in Collaborative Learning Systems, Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2010, 9-12 (2010). 9. Prince, M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. (2004). 10. Guiller, J., Durndell, A., & Ross, A. Peer Interaction and Critical Thinking: Face-to-Face or Online Discussion? Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 187-200 (2008). 11. Anderson, T., & Soden, R. Peer Interaction and The Learning of Critical Thinking Skills. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 37-40. (2001). 12. Szabo, Z., & Schwartz, J. Learning Methods for Teacher Education: The Use of Online Discussions to Improve Critical Thinking. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 79-94. (2011). 13. Wang, Q.Y., & Woo, H.L. Comparing Asynchronous Online Discussions and Face-toFace Discussions in a Classroom Setting. BJET, 38(2), 272–286. (2007).
