Exploration of Teaching Preferences of Instructors’use of Social Media

Selcan Kilis 1 , Yasemin Gülbahar 2  and Christian Rapp 3
  • 1 Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Middle East Technical University
  • 2 Instructor and Researcher at Department of Informatics, Administrator at Distance Education Center, Ankara University, Turkey
  • 3 Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland

Abstract

With the excessive use of social media in the 21st century, attempts to integrate social media within higher education have also increased. In this area, research has been particularly focused on the aspects of students, rather than the instructors. This study puts the emphasis on the instructors with the aim to explore their use of social media in educational settings. Their respective teaching preferences were explored, from a pedagogical perspective, with the help of a Social Media Toolkit. The toolkit was developed to guide instructors that want to integrate social media in their teaching. This study was designed as a descriptive study and quantitative data was collected from 583 instructors from 39 countries. The participants responded to four main questions in an online environment. Results revealed that instructors mostly prefer to teach their subject at the applying and understanding levels. They frequently use text-based materials and design their courses as problem-based or on a presentation model. They mostly prefer to assess students using alternative methods based on their performance, like portfolios, group works, etc. whilst classical methods were also preferred. Overall findings indicated that any instructor from any discipline or culture can transform courses onto a social media platform thanks to many different and varied features provided by social media tools.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Ainin, S., Naqshbandi, M. M., Moghavvemi, S., & Jaafar, N. I. (2015). Facebook usage, socialization and academic performance. Computers & Education, 83, 64-73.

  • 2. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The internet and higher education, 11(2), 71-80.

  • 3. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2000). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessment: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Pearson Education.

  • 4. Arends, R. (2011). Learning to Teach (9th revised ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

  • 5. Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), E146-E149.

  • 6. Borich, G. D. (2013). Effective Teaching Methods: Research-Based Practice (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

  • 7. Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177-198.

  • 8. Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (2013). Methods for Effective Teaching: Meeting the Needs of All Students (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

  • 9. Çoklar, A. N. (2012). Evaluations of Students on Facebook as an Educational Environment. Online Submission, 3(2), 42-53.

  • 10. Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs. Computers & Education, 56(2), 441-451.

  • 11. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in Higher Education - A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), 92-100.

  • 12. Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the ‘Blogosphere’. THE Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 31(7), 12-16.

  • 13. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Routledge.

  • 14. Garrison, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2011). Formative and Summative Assessments in the Classroom. Paper presented at the NMSA Annual Conference and Exhibit. Retrieved from http://ccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/formative_and_summative_assessment_in_the_classroom.pdf

  • 15. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • 16. Kilis, S., Rapp, C., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). Validation of Social Media Toolkit. Proceedings of the Ireland International Conference on Education, Dublin, October 27-30, 2014, 27-29. Retrieved from http://www.somecat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Kilis-Rapp-G%C3%BClbahar-Reliability-and-Validity-of-Social-Media-Toolkit.pdf

  • 17. Halic, O., Lee, D., Paulus, T., & Spence, M. (2010). To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course. The Internet and higher education, 13(4), 206-213.

  • 18. Hung, H. T., & Yuen, S. C. Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teaching in higher education, 15(6), 703-714.

  • 19. Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79-95.

  • 20. Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58.

  • 21. Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 432-448.

  • 22. Macdonald, J., & Poniatowska, B. (2011). Designing the professional development of staff for teaching online: an OU (UK) case study. Distance Education, 32(1), 119-134.

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

  • 24. Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437-455.

  • 25. McLean, R., Richards, B. H., & Wardman, J. (2007). The effect of Web 2.0 on the future of medical practice and education: Darwikinian evolution or folksonomic revolution? Medical Journal of Australia, 187(3), 174.

  • 26. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Annual Conference, 664-675.

  • 27. Nystrand, M., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context for learning to write. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 209-230). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

  • 28. OECD (2007). Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/participativewebandusercreatedcontentweb20wikisandsocialnetworking.htm

  • 29. Panitz, T. (2011). A definition of collaborative vs cooperative learning, 1996. Retrieved from http://colccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/a_definition_of_collaborative_vs_cooperative_learning.pdf

  • 30. Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227-238.

  • 31. Pineda, M. V. G. (2007). Videos, Blogs and Podcasts: Leverage Instruments of Teaching and Learning Assets. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 15(3), 32.1-32.5.

  • 32. Presley, M., & McCormick, C. (2007). Cognition, Teaching, and Assessment. Harper Collins College Publishers.

  • 33. Richter, A., & Koch, M. (2008). Functions of social networking services. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 87-98.

  • 34. Rinaldo, S. B., Tapp, S., & Laverie, D. A. (2011). Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 193-203. doi: 10.1177/0273475311410852.

  • 35. Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594-606.

  • 36. Safko, L. (2010). The Social Media Bible Tactics, Tools, and Strategies for Business Success. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

  • 37. Stiler, G. M., & Philleo, T. (2003). Blogging and blogspots: An alternative format for encouraging reflective practice among preservice teachers. Academic Research Library, 123(4), 789-798.

  • 38. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.

  • 39. Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2013). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. Calico Journal, 25(3), 528-546.

  • 40. Tekinarslan, E. (2008). Blogs: A qualitative investigation into an instructor and undergraduate students’ experiences. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 402-412.

  • 41. University of Cincinnati (2013). University of Cincinnati Social Media Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ucomm/docs/UC-Social-Media-Strategy.pdf

  • 42. Yang, S. H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11-21.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search