Let’s Face(book) It: Analyzing Interactions in Social Network Groups for Chemistry Learning
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Shelley Rap ; Ron Blonder
- 关键词：Discourse analysis ; Chemistry education ; Learning communities ; Social networks ; Facebook ; Commognition
- 刊名：Journal of Science Education and Technology
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：February 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：25
- 期：1
- 页码：62-76
- 全文大小：629 KB
- 参考文献：Abel M (2005) Find me on Facebook… as long as you are not a faculty member or administrator. Esour Coll Transit 3(3):1–2
Ben-Zvi R, Eylon B, Silberstein J (1987) Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction. Educ Chem 24:117–120
Biton Y, Hershkovitz S, Hoch M (2014) Learning with Facebook-preparing for the mathematics Bagrut—a case study. In: The international group for the psychology of mathematics education (PME 38) and the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA 36) (2014, July), Vancouver, Canada
Blonder R, Rap S (2015) I like facebook: exploring Israeli high school chemistry teachers’ TPACK and self-efficacy beliefs. Educ Inform Technol 1–28. doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9384-6
Blonder R, Jonatan M, Bar-Dov Z, Benny N, Rap S, Sakhnini S (2013) Can you tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with technological tools and enhancing their efficacy beliefs. Chem Educ Res Pract 14:269–285. doi:10.1039/c3rp00001j CrossRef
Bonwell CC, Eison JA (1991) Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 1, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.oid.ucla.edu/about/units/tatp/old/lounge/pedagogy/downloads/active-learning-eric.pdf
Chi MTH (1997) Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. J Learn Sci 6(3):271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1 CrossRef
Chi MTH, Bassok M, Lewis MW, Reimann P, Glaser R (1989) Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cogn Sci 13(2):145–182. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 CrossRef
Chiecher AC, Donolo DS (2013) Virtual dialogues and exchanges. The social and cognitive dimensions of interactions among students. RUSC Univ Knowl Soc J 10(2):285–298
Cobb P, Yackel E, Wood T (1992) Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educ Stud Math 23:99–122. doi:10.1007/bf00302315 CrossRef
De Jong O, Blonder R, Oversby JP (2013) How to balance chemistry education between observing of phenomena and thinking in models. In: Eilks I, Hofstein A (eds) Chemistry education: a practical guide and textbook for teachers, teacher trainees and student teachers. Sense, Rotterdam, pp 97–126
Dede C (2008) A seismic shift in epistemology. Educ Rev 3(3):80–81
Dillenbourg P (1999) What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In: Dillenbourg P (ed) Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 1–15
Dori YJ, Hameiri M (2003) Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. J Res Sci Teach 40:278–302. doi:10.1002/tea.10077 CrossRef
Felder RM, Brent R (2003) Learning by doing. Chem Eng Educ 37:282–283. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Columns/Active.pdf
Forkosh-Baruch A, Hershkovitz A (2012) A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. Internet High Educ 15:58–68. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.003 CrossRef
Garrison R, Anderson T, Archer W (2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High Educ 2:87–105CrossRef
Greenhow C, Robelia B, Hughes JE (2009) Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educ Res 38:246–259. doi:10.3102/0013189x09336671 CrossRef
Grosseck G, Bran R, Tiru L (2011) Dear teacher, what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 15:1425–1430. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.306 CrossRef
Hershkovitz A, Forkosh-Baruch A (2013) Student–teacher relationship in the Facebook era: the student perspective. Int J Contin Eng Educ Life Long Learn 23(1):33–52. doi:10.1504/IJCEELL.2013.051765 CrossRef
Hew KF (2011) Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Comput Human Behav 27(2):662–676. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020 CrossRef
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA (1998) Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change 30(4):26–35. doi:10.1080/00091389809602629 CrossRef
Johnstone AH (1991) Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn 7(2):75–83. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x CrossRef
Junco R (2012) Too much face and not enough books: the relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Comput Hum Behav 28:187–198CrossRef
Kind V (2004) Beyond appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas, 2nd edn. School of Education, Durham University, Durham
Kirkwood K (2010) The SNAP Platform: social networking for academic purposes. Campus Wide Inf Syst 27(3):118–126. doi:10.1108/10650741011054429 CrossRef
Kirschner PA, Karpinski AC (2010) Facebook® and academic performance. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1237–1245. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024 CrossRef
Koichu B, Lachmy R (2014) Stretching the boundaries of the classroom: social networks as a means for facilitating collaborative problem solving in mathematics. In: Social networks and learning: interdisciplinary aspects research workshop (2014, June), Jerusalem, Israel
Kurtz G (2011) Assimilation of ICT in Israel: challenges and implementation. In: Chen D, Kurtz G (eds) ICT, learning and teaching. The Center for Academic Studies, Or Yehuda, pp 11–32 (in Hebrew)
Lankshear C, Knobel M (2007) Researching new literacies: Web 2.0 practices and insider perspectives. E-Learn Digit Media 4:224–240
Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Lemke JL (1990) Talking science: language, learning and values. Ablex, Norwood
Li L, Pitts JP (2009) Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student-faculty interaction. J Inform Syst Educ 20:175–185
Linn MC, Eylon BS (2011) Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge, New York and London
Mazer JP, Murphy RE, Simonds CJ (2007) I’ll see you on “Facebook”: the effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Commun Educ 56(1):1–17. doi:10.1080/03634520601009710 CrossRef
Mazer JP, Murphy RE, Simonds CJ (2009) The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learn Media Technol 34:175–183. doi:10.1080/17439880902923655 CrossRef
Mazman SG, Usluel YK (2010) Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Comput Educ 55(2):444–453. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008 CrossRef
Mehan H (1979) Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Meishar-Tal H, Kurtz G, Pieterse E (2012) Facebook groups as LMS: a case study. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn 13(4):33–48
Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6):1017–1054CrossRef
Nana (2014) 10 years of Facebook: a decade in figures. Retrieved from http://net.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1035380 (in Hebrew)
O’Sullivan PB, Hunt SK, Lippert LR (2004) Mediated immediacy: a language of affiliation in a technological age. J Lang Soc Psychol 23:464–490CrossRef
Pempek TA, Yermolayeva YA, Calvert SL (2009) College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. J Appl Dev Psychol 30(3):227–238. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010 CrossRef
Piaget J (1964) Part I: cognitive development in children: piaget development and learning. J Res Sci Teach 2(3):176–186. doi:10.1002/tea.3660020306 CrossRef
Prescott J, Wilson SE, Becket G (2013) Facebook use in the learning environment: do students want this? Learn Media Technol 38(3):345–350. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.788027 CrossRef
Russell AA (1994) A rationally designed general chemistry diagnostic test. J Chem Educ 71(4):314. doi:10.1021/ed071p314 CrossRef
Salomon G, Perkins DN (1998) Individual and social aspects of learning. Rev Res Educ 23:1–24. Retrieved from http://www.education.miami.edu/blantonw/2800/XBLANTON/READINGS/salomon.html
Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (2006) Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: Sawyer RK (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 97–118
Schroeder J, Greenbowe T (2009) The chemistry of Facebook: using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry. Innov J Online Educ 5(4). Retrieved from http://gator.uhd.edu/~williams/AT/ChemOfFB.htm
Selwyn N (2010) Web 2.0 and the school of the future, today. In: Inspired by technology, driven by Pedagogy. OECD report
Semple A (2000) Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational technologies. Aust Sci Teach J 46(3):21–28. Retrieved from https://www.hadassah.org.il/NR/rdonlyres/E50BA60A-F482-457B-ACCE-EE10A82C5C5A/22862/sempel.pdf
Sfard A (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Res 27(2):4–13CrossRef
Sfard A (2001) There is more discourse than meets the ears: looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educ Stud Math 46:13–57CrossRef
Sfard A (2007a) When the rules of discourse change, but nobody yells you: making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. J Learn Sci 16:565–613. doi:10.1080/10508400701525253 CrossRef
Sfard A (2007b) Reconceptualizing conceptual change. In: Vosniadou S, Vamvakoussi X, Stathopoulou C (eds) Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 329–334
Sfard A (2008) Thinking as communicating. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Sinclair J, Coulthard M (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford University Press, London
Stahl G, Koschmann T, Suthers D (2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning: an historical perspective. In Sawyer RK (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 409–426. Retrieved from http://gerrystahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf
Subrahmanyam K, Reich S, Waechter N, Espinoza G (2008) Online and offline social networks: use of social networking sites by emerging adults. J Appl Dev Psychol 29:420–433. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003 CrossRef
Swanborn PG (1996) A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Qual Quant 30(1):19–35. doi:10.1007/BF00139833 CrossRef
Teclehaimanot B, Hickman T (2011) Student-teacher interaction on Facebook: what students find appropriate. TechTrends 55(3):19–30. doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0494-8 CrossRef
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Wang Q, Woo HL, Quek CL, Yang Y, Liu M (2012) Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: an exploratory study. Br J Educ Technol 43:428–438CrossRef - 作者单位：Shelley Rap (1)
Ron Blonder (1)
1. Weizmann Institute of Science, 7610001, Rehovot, Israel - 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
- 刊物主题：Education
Science Education
Educational Technology - 出版者：Springer Netherlands
- ISSN：1573-1839
文摘
We examined how social network (SN) groups contribute to the learning of chemistry. The main goal was to determine whether chemistry learning could occur in the group discourse. The emphasis was on groups of students in the 11th and 12th grades who learn chemistry in preparation for their final external examination. A total of 1118 discourse events were tallied in the different groups. We analyzed the different events that were found in chemistry learning Facebook groups (CLFGs). The analysis revealed that seven types of interactions were observed in the CLFGs: The most common interaction (47 %) dealt with organizing learning (e.g., announcements regarding homework, the location of the next class); learning interactions were observed in 22 % of the posts, and links to learning materials and social interactions constituted about 20 % each. The learning events that were ascertained underwent a deeper examination and three different types of chemistry learning interactions were identified. This examination was based on the theoretical framework of the commognitive approach to learning (Sfard in Thinking as communicating. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008), which will be explained. The identified learning interactions that were observed in the Facebook groups illustrate the potential of SNs to serve as an additional tool for teachers to advance their students’ learning of chemistry. Keywords Discourse analysis Chemistry education Learning communities Social networks Facebook Commognition