Pre-print of: Ranieri, M., Manca, S., & Fini, A. (2012). Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks? An exploratory study of professional use of Facebook and its implications for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 5, 754-769. DOI: 10.1111/j.14678535.2012.01356.x
Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks? An exploratory study of professional use of Facebook and its implications for lifelong learning
Maria Ranieri, University of Florence, Stefania Manca, ITD-CNR, and Antonio Fini, University of Florence
Maria Ranieri is an aggregate professor of Educational Methods and Technology at the Faculty of Education, University of Florence. Her main research areas include theory and methodology relating to media and technology in education, as well as work around teachers’ practice and students’ learning. Email:
[email protected]. Stefania Manca is a researcher at the Institute of Educational Technology of the National Research Council of Italy. Her main interests are the analysis of social and cognitive processes in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, and formal and informal learning in teacher and professional development. Email:
[email protected]. Antonio Fini is a teacher, consultant and trainer. He holds a PhD in Telematics and Information Society. As a fellow of the Educational Technology Laboratory of the University of Florence, his main interests are related to the use of social media at school, media literacy and Open Educational Resources. Email:
[email protected]. Address for correspondence: Maria Ranieri, Faculty of Education, University of Florence, Via Laura 48, 50121 Florence (Italy). Email:
[email protected].
Abstract To date little empirical research on professional use of Social Network Sites (SNS) has been conducted, particularly with reference to groups of teachers on Facebook. The paper presents the results of two surveys addressed to the founders of five Italian Facebook groups and their members (n=1107), with the aim of investigating mechanisms underlying group membership and reflecting on their implications for professional development. A number of hypotheses are tested in order to explore the nature of three dimensions (domain, network and practice) involved in these groups, assimilated by authors into Networks of Practice (Brown & Duguid, 2000). The study investigated the mechanisms of group membership and their participatory dynamics, in terms of group types (generic
vs thematic), duration of membership and the interplay between offline and online activities. Results show that groups differing in terms of domain (generic or thematic) are characterized by particular mechanisms of affiliation and participation, and that mechanisms of legitimation of the members, as well as of shared resources, are associated with the duration of membership. Further research should be conducted to investigate how social capital dynamics evolve over time, influencing the construction of group identity.
Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic • The use of SNS, particularly Facebook, is growing in the educational field • To date, little attention has been given to the use of Facebook for professional development • Empirical research mainly refers to the higher education context and shows that the use of SNS has positive outcomes for social capital What this paper adds • An application of social capital theory with the NoP framework (Brown & Duguid, 2000) to the study of professional groups of teachers in SNS • An understanding of groups in terms of shared social capital, both bridging and bonding • An analysis of the interplay between online and offline activities in terms of professional benefits for teachers Implications for practice and/or policy • Participation in this kind of groups may have a positive impact on professional development • Social networks may afford different types of social capital for professionals • Policy makers should encourage and support the use of social networks for professional learning Introduction The development of Social Network Sites (SNS) has been one of the most influential phenomena in digital technology in recent years. According to a Pew Research Center survey on the use of SNS in the US (Smith, 2011), two-thirds of adults use tools such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and LinkedIn, and 60% of mobile applications used by smartphone owners are related to social networking. Internet users’ growing interest in SNS is also confirmed by one of the latest Nielsen studies (2011). According to this study, Internet users in Europe spend more and more time on social networks and blogs: for example, Italian users spend 31% of their total Internet time visiting these categories of web services and German users spend more time on them than on any other type of site. Of the various SNS, Facebook is now the most popular, with more than 900 million users, whose more than 500 million log in through mobile products (Facebook, 2012). Up to now, SNS in general,
and Facebook in particular, have received great attention across a number of research areas. For example, research has been carried out on identity presentation and privacy concerns (boyd & Hargittai, 2010; Waters & Ackerman, 2011), while other Facebook-related studies focus on the relationship between profile and friendship articulation (Wang, Moon, Kwon, Evans & Stefanone, 2010) or on Facebook’s implications for civic engagement (Hampton, Sessions Goulet, Rainie & Purcell, 2011; Park, Kee & Valenzuela, 2009). In the educational field, the focus has tended to be on students’ educational use of SNS (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe 2007; Selwyn, 2009) or teachers’ use of them in pedagogic practice, with a particular focus on teacher presence and self-disclosure (Mazer, Murphy & Simonds, 2007). More specifically, some studies have explored the possibility of using SNS in the context of curriculumrelated activities (Anderson, Poellhuber & McKerlich, 2010; Greenhow, 2011) suggesting that they are used as teaching tools in formal contexts of learning (Baran, 2010; Mazman & Usluel, 2010). Other studies have investigated how social platforms such as Facebook or Ning can be integrated into more traditional learning environments (Arnold & Paulus, 2010). Going beyond these specific approaches, it should be noted that the majority of research on Facebook use in education pertains to the higher education sector (Ellison et al., 2007; Madge, Meek, Wellens & Hooley, 2009). Indeed, since its creation in 2004, Facebook has become one of the most frequently visited websites on college campuses and most studies refer to this specific target group. However, a new phenomenon – using Facebook for professional reasons – is now emerging (Bodell & Hook, 2011). Although to date relatively little attention has been paid to the opportunities provided to teachers and professionals by SNS, analysis of the potential of SNS as technology-enhanced learning environments for communities of practitioners has emerged recently (Gunawardena et al., 2009). In particular, it seems that something like a transition from a pure form of recreational use of Facebook to a new form of professional use of Facebook or professional Facebooking is now taking shape on the web, demanding a renewed attention to the social processes occurring in these places. Within this context, which is still rather fragmented, the purpose of this paper is to present the results of research on the professional uses of Facebook. The study is focused on five groups of teachers that share resources and practices on Italian school-related issues on Facebook. The research aimed at investigating the mechanisms of group membership and their participatory dynamics, in terms of group types (generic vs thematic), duration of membership and the interplay between offline and online activities. It also points to their implications for lifelong learning. Theoretical background Lifelong learning and ICT
Lifelong learning has been conceptualized in different ways over time (e.g. London, 2011). Initially it was used to express the generic idea that learning is a fundamental part of life, not limited to compulsory education. Subsequently, the concept has been associated with workforce training and professional development within the context of adult education. London and Smither (1999), for example, conceptualized career-related continuous learning as a pattern of formal and informal activities that people sustain over time for the benefit of their career development. A wider approach to lifelong learning, which encompasses more than workforce training, is incorporated in the classic definition by the European Commission: ‘all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective’ (EC, 2002, p. 9). From a societal and economic perspective, Field (2006) considered lifelong learning as a new educational order resulting in the promotion by government of adult participation in learning across the life span, to achieve a viable learning society. Regardless of the focus, a basic premise of lifelong learning is that people need to continually update their knowledge and skills to face the challenges of daily life; therefore, empowering them with the capacity of self-managing their learning becomes crucial for their personal and professional development (Bentley, 1998; Sharples, 2000). In this context, ICT have been seen in a dual light in past decades. On one hand, they have been considered as a factor demanding continuous retraining of the workforce, either because of their continual evolution or due to the impact they had on the skills needed for new ‘digital jobs’. On the other, they have been perceived as a driver for change; that is, as a resource enabling innovation processes and supporting learning anytime and anywhere – in other words, lifelong learning. The European Union, for example, has promoted several programmes reflecting these ideas. From the Lisbon Strategy to the recent Life Long Learning programme (2007–2013), the European legislator has depicted ICT as strategic tools for broadening civic engagement and enhancing lifelong learning. Although some scholars have criticized this view as an overenthusiastic understanding of the role of ICT in lifelong re-skilling of the workforce and, generally speaking, of citizens (e.g. Selwyn & Gorard, 2003), we believe that it is not the technology in itself that can support an informal learning process, but the way such technology is used. In this field, we are still at the beginning, especially when considering the role of new environments such as SNS or new devices such as mobile cultural resources (Pachler, Bachmair & Cook, 2010), but interest around the topic is increasing (Arrigo, Kukulska-Hulme, Arnedillo-Sánchez & Kismihok, in press), and the rising use of these digital tools amongst professionals in order to share information and practices demands further research. Social capital, social networks and the Internet
The notion of social capital has been developed by, amongst others, Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1995). According to Bourdieu (1986), it refers to ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition’ (p. 248). It is an individual and collective resource that can change over time. Coleman (1988) provides a similar definition whilst underlining the functional, although neutral, value of social capital. On the contrary, for Putnam (1995) social capital has a positive role within a community of individuals in so far as it facilitates coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Individual benefits come from the exchange of resources, which can take the form of useful information, personal relationships, or the capacity of creating and managing groups. Moreover, they may be related to employment connections (Granovetter, 1973) or to indices of psychological well-being, such as self-esteem and satisfaction with life (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). Putnam (2000) identified two types of social capital, bridging and bonding. The former is characterized by what scholars call ‘weak ties’, which are loose connections between individuals based on the exchange of useful information or new ideas but not emotional support. The second refers to the benefits that individuals may derive from emotionally close relationships, such as family and close friends, which might include emotional support or other types of assistance. In relation to Internet studies, and especially to research on Facebook use, the notion of social capital has been adopted to denote the use of technologies to expand, enhance and accelerate an individual’s social network with an increase in available information, opportunities, and benefits from this wide and heterogeneous network. In particular, boyd and Ellison (2007) underline that SNS are typically used by individuals for maintaining offline social relationships rather than trying to meet new people online. In this perspective, SNS are mainly seen as tools supporting existing social relationships and, therefore, enabling the maintenance of social capital (Ellison et al., Steinfield & Lampe, 2007). However, Facebook also includes features which allow people to create new connections, whose nature may be better described through the construct of ‘latent ties’, defined by Haythornethwaite (2005) as connections which are ‘technically possible but not yet activated socially’ (p. 137). The information included in an individual’s Facebook profile may motivate users to activate ‘latent ties’, transforming them into the weak ties linked to bridging social capital outcomes. Briefly, although research suggests that the practice of using Facebook to maintain existing social relationships is more common than that of using it to create new connections with strangers, there is also some evidence that ‘users may use the site to convert latent into weak ties’ (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2011, p. 877). This may be of particular interest in the study of Facebook groups, where it is highly likely that most members are technically linked but not yet socially connected.
CoPs, NoPs and Facebook professional groups Our focus here is on professional groups on Facebook. The notion of ‘social capital’ is fundamental for the analysis of the social dimension of these realities, but to highlight the particular dynamics of a group of practitioners, we also need to consider other theoretical constructs. A classical concept used to capture the potential of professional communities for lifelong learning is Wenger’s notion of ‘communities of practice’, which are groups of people who share an interest or a passion about a topic and interact with each other to exchange their knowledge and expertise. According to Wenger (1998), three characteristics are crucial: (1) domain – a CoP is not merely a group of friends, but has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest; (2) community – in pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities (discussion, mutual help, sharing information) that bind them together into a social group; (3) practice – a CoP is not merely a group of people who like certain books, for instance; rather, they develop a shared repertoire of resources (i.e. experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems). These structural elements of CoPs may help us to identify factors relevant to understanding professional groups’ dynamics on Facebook. However, there are some limitations. Indeed, the concept of community does not seem to fully fit the type of social relationship usually afforded by SNS. As we have seen, when social networks such as Facebook are used to create new connections, they are characterized by ‘weak ties’ and bridging social capital (Ellison et al., 2007). Therefore, we need to adapt Wenger’s notion to this varied context in order to capture the range of possible social ties which characterize social networks. A distinction which seems to be pertinent here is that made by Brown and Duguid (2000), who distinguished between ‘communities of practice’ (CoPs) and ‘networks of practice’ (NoPs). They suggested that the first term be reserved for interdependent practitioners who share and coordinate practice and have implicit responsibility for the reproduction of their community, and the second be used to denote the collective of all practitioners of a particular practice. Indeed, most practices are shared by more than local practitioners; therefore a CoP can be seen as a subset of a NoP. Of course, the boundaries between these entities are not stated once for all. The main difference between them lies in the coordination of the reproduction of a group and its practice. In the case of a CoP, members control who is allowed to join and under which conditions, thus influencing the evolution of local practice. NoPs, by contrast, are more extensive and less coordinated. Following Brown and Duguid’s analysis, we suggest that Facebook professional groups should be considered NoPs and characterize them through use of the following dimensions: (1) domain; (2) network, rather than community; and (3) practice.
Adopting this articulation and considering the emerging issues in the literature, we intend to investigate the following research questions: (1) domain: how does the domain (and particularly the way in which it is approached) impact on group membership? (2) network: does it make sense to distinguish between different types of participatory attitudes and behaviours, involving different levels of engagement in the group? (3) practice: does engagement with a group of professionals sharing practices have an impact on
‘real life’ and professional development?
Research context and methodology Participants The research was articulated in a preliminary study addressed to the founders of five Facebook groups and in a subsequent study involving the members of these groups with a total of 1107 respondents. The groups were Italian-speaking and focused mainly on Italian school-related issues. They were selected without use of strict sampling rules, using only personal acquaintances of the authors, who contacted the groups’ administrators. Therefore, the groups involved in the survey are not representative of all Facebook groups on school-related issues, but their exploration may help provide a preliminary understanding of the nature of professional groups on social network sites. Following Brown & Duguid’s (2000) analysis, the five groups were identified according to the following criteria: (1) domain: school-related issues; (2) network: no local communities, but wide virtual entities with at least 500 members and not more than about 1500; (3) practice: sharing information and resources about teaching and learning practices. The groups can be distinguished into two typologies, generic and thematic, according to the main objective. Groups A and B have as their main goal the sharing of experiences related to schools in general. Groups C, D and E are defined as thematic since they started inside a school project (group C, tied to a technological project about using Web 2.0 tools in the primary school and group D, related to learning support) or have a very distinctive discussion theme (group E, on dyslexia and other specific learning disabilities). Groups A, D and E require new members to be approved by an administrator or invited by another member; for groups B and C membership is completely open. Table 1: The groups in the sample Respondents Group
Group type
Foundation
Group size*
(% of group size)
A
Generic
2010
1532
259 (16.9%)
B
Generic
2011
698
92 (13.2%)
C
Thematic
2009
746
125 (16.8%)
D
Thematic
2011
1079
334 (31.0%)
E
Thematic
2009
1510
297 (19.7%)
*Group size on 28 December 2011.
Objectives The preliminary investigation was intended to explore the objectives and aims of the groups’ founders, the rules of membership and the implications of participation for learning and professional development in such groups. The second survey was aimed at investigating how professional groups on Facebook are used as places in which to build and promote networks of practice of teachers and professionals, with a special focus on the reasons for participation (why?) and the mechanisms that drive participation (how?), in order to assess the implications for professional learning. In particular, according to the literature and with the specific objective of reaching a deeper understanding of the concept of ‘networks of practice’, we explored the following hypotheses: 1) Hypotheses regarding the nature of discussion topics and groups membership According to these hypotheses, there is a relation between the group typology (generic/thematic) and the group membership, i.e. how the group is characterized with regard to reasons to join, membership rules, type of content/discussions within it. Specifically: Hypothesis 1a: there is a relation between motivations to join the group and the group typology; Hypothesis 1b: there is a relation between the group typology and the mechanisms/rules of membership (proactive vs. cooptation); Hypothesis 1c: there is a relation between the typology of shared content and the group typology. 2) Hypotheses regarding duration of membership and participation According to these hypotheses, there is a relation between duration of membership in a group and participation habits. Specifically: Hypothesis 2a: Those who have been members of a group for a year or more access the group more frequently; Hypothesis 2b: Those who have been members of a group for a year or more perceive themselves as more active members; Hypothesis 2c: Those who have been members of a group for a year or more are more active. They share and write more than others;
Hypothesis 2d: Those who have been members of a group for a year or more declare more trust in the reliability of the group’s members; Hypothesis 2e: Those who have been members of a group for a year or more declare more trust in the quality of the resources shared within the group. 3) Hypotheses regarding the interplay between offline and online activities According to these hypotheses, there is a relation between duration of membership in a group and effects on professional life. There is also a relation between these effects and the group typology (generic/thematic). Specifically: Hypothesis 3a: Senior members tend to highlight more significant effects on their professional life than junior members; Hypothesis 3b: Members of the generic groups indicate more significant effects on their professional life than members of the thematic groups. Methods Both the preliminary study (group founders and administrators) and the second one (group members) were administered by online questionnaires managed through Google Docs, during September– October 2011 and December 2011–January 2012, respectively. The
preliminary
survey
aimed
at
investigating
the
socio-demographic
data
of
the
founders/administrators, the characteristics of groups and behaviours related to group management. The successive investigation intended to detect socio-demographic data, use of and habits related to digital technologies, and participation in Facebook groups. The collected data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 15.0). Descriptive statistics were computed for each variable to examine the pattern of associations among them. In particular, the chi-square test for independence of dichotomous or ordinal variables and nonparametric Mann–Whitney test for comparison of independent samples to examine relations among different variables were used. Alpha for all statistical procedures was set a priori at .05. Moreover, for each statistical test we computed the effect size r, whose values, according to Cohen (1988), can be interpreted as follows: r < .10 negligible, .10 < r < .30 small, 30 < r < .50 moderate, r > .50 large. Findings Preliminary study The five group founders (all women, four of whom are 40 or over) are all teachers, all but one have university degrees, and all are experienced computer users (having used computers for at least 10 years). All have been Facebook users for over a year (three of them for more than three years). Of the
five founders, three use their mobile phone to access the platform. Reasons for founding the group were: (1) ethical-social reasons: social media represents ‘the future for free and active citizenship’; (2) participation reasons: these devices would increase participation and improve the process of sharing information and resources; (3) professional reasons: the role of professional support that the group can provide its members by offering tips, suggestions and comments on specific topics; (4) personal motivation reasons: there were those who noted they founded their group out of curiosity, or (5) in order to understand how social networks work, their advantages, the relational dynamics they activate, and so on. The choice of Facebook seems to be related to the fact that it promotes visibility and has specific features that can facilitate networking and quicken the sharing of resources. Speed (‘speed in communication, asking and answering questions, reporting and sharing’) and social relevance (‘for the large number of easily reachable people’) were identified as the main features meaning Facebook was seen as better than other, similar services.
Wide survey With regard to the samples, we considered the full set of 1107 respondents to test hypotheses 2a through 2e and 3a. However, to test hypotheses 1a through 1c and hypothesis 3b we considered only group A (generic) and group E (thematic), due to their similar size and internal composition in terms of professional profiles. In the following, socio-demographic data for the different samples are reported. 1) Socio-demographic variables of the entire sample Of the 1107 respondents to the questionnaire, 185 (16.7%) were male and 922 (83.3%) female. They were mostly aged between 40 and 49 (n=404, 36.5%). Most of them were educational professionals (teachers, school managers, researchers or academics) (n=769, 69.5%), but the groups also included social and health professionals (n=94, 8.5%), parents (n=84, 7.6%) and other professions (n=160, 14.5%). In all, 566 (51.1%) had been members of the group for less than one year and 541 (48.9%) had been members for one year or more. 2) Socio-demographic variables of groups A and E Table 2 shows the socio-demographic data of the two groups (A, n=259 and E, n=297) which were used to test hypotheses 1a through 1c and hypothesis 3b. Table 2: Socio-demographic variables of groups A and E A N (%)
E N (%)
TOT N (%)
Gender
Age
Occupation
Duration of membershi p in the group
Male Female Less than 29 30–39 40–49 50–59 More than 60 Educational professionals Social and health professionals Parents Other Less than 1 year More than 1 year
43 (16.6%) 216 (83.4%) 16 (6.2%) 42 (16.2%) 94 (36.3%) 98 (37.8%) 9 (3.5%)
28 (9.4%) 269 (90.6%) 21 (7.1%) 63 (21.2%) 141 (47.5%) 67 (22.6%) 5 (1.7%)
71 (12.8%) 485 (87.2%) 37 (6.7%) 105 (18.9%) 235 (42.3%) 165 (29.7%) 14 (2.5%)
243 (93.8%)
106 (35.7%)
349 (62.8%)
9 (3.5%)
44 (14.8%)
53 (9.5%)
1 (0.4%) 6 (2.3%)
59 (19.9%) 88 (29.6%)
60 (10.8%) 94 (16.9%)
129 (49.8%)
162 (54.5%)
291 (52.3%)
130 (50.2%)
135 (45.5%)
265 (47.7%)
These data show that the two groups are different with regard to gender composition (X2(1) = 6.394, p < .05, r = .11), although the effect size is weak. With regard to the age factor, the difference between the two groups (X2(4) = 18.733, p < .01, r = .18) is confirmed by the inspection of adjusted standardized residuals which (compared to the null hypothesis) show how the 40–49 age group is represented more in group E (z = 2.7, p
