Can Social Media Improve Learning in Higher Education?

Social media has changed how students communicate, locate information, and connect with one another. The more difficult question is whether those same platforms actually improve learning or simply create another source of distraction.

Bharucha’s study of business students in India explored how social media was being used in higher education and whether it contributed to student engagement. The research included 568 questionnaire responses, followed by interviews and reflections from 250 students. The goal was to better understand when students used social media, how it supported formal and informal learning, and what negative effects accompanied its use.

The study is especially relevant through the lens of connectivism, which views learning as something that occurs across networks of people, information, and technology. As younger, highly connected students enter higher education, social media becomes part of the environment in which they communicate and learn.

The findings showed that social media use was widespread. Ninety-one percent of the students used at least one platform. Facebook was the most common, followed by YouTube, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Most students believed they received some benefit from these platforms, although educational use was not their primary purpose.

Even so, social media had a noticeable role in business education. Fifty-two percent of respondents believed it enhanced their learning experience, and 41 percent reported using Facebook for educational purposes.

Students also identified several strengths. Sixty percent believed technology changed education for the better, while many expressed frustration with the continued reliance on traditional “chalk and talk” instruction. Social media allowed students to maintain more direct contact with instructors and gave them access to information beyond scheduled class time. Many also reported becoming more comfortable with laptops, smartphones, and emerging technologies.

However, the study also revealed the other side of social media use. Hyperlinked platforms can make it difficult to maintain focus. Students may move quickly from one source to another without fully processing what they are reading. Some relied on the internet for quick answers rather than engaging deeply with the material, and 23 percent acknowledged that social networking had negatively affected their grades.

The study suggests that social media can support learning, communication, and engagement, but only when it is used with clear purpose. The platform itself does not improve education. Its value depends on how instructors and students use it.

Social media may offer a more interactive alternative to repetitive, lecture-centered instruction, but it can also divide attention and encourage shallow engagement. The challenge for educators is not simply deciding whether to use social media, but determining how to use it in ways that support meaningful learning rather than compete with it.

How Have Multimedia and Learning Technologies Changed E-Learning, and Where Are They Taking Us Next?

For much of its early history, e-learning was relatively simple. Learning management systems often followed a basic “text and respond” format. Instructors posted content and questions, students submitted responses, and reusable learning objects were organized according to standards such as SCORM.

Over time, however, digital learning environments became more interactive, visual, open, and connected. Multimedia, open educational resources, networked learning, and emerging technologies changed not only how information was delivered, but also how learners interacted with knowledge, instructors, and one another.

How have they been studied?

Greeno provided a good foundation for how we attempt to modify the environment around us. As it relates to multimedia and e-learning, if we look back to the nascent phase of LMS’s we see a basic “text and respond” type of system. Questions were posted and answered, learning objects were reused, and SCORM standards were initiated (because we need more governing agencies as it relates to e-learning, right…?). As it relates to Greeno’s Affordance Theory, users began to understand the digital environment and how learning can be modified across it.

In 2001, MIT announced its OpenCourseWare initiative, marking the initiation of the OER movement. But it was in 2002 that the first OER were released, and people began to understand licenses. MIT’s goal was to make all the learning materials used in its 1,600 courses available via the internet, where the resources could be used and repurposed as desired by others, without charge. As a result of their groundbreaking idea, in February 2005, OpenCourseWare formally moved beyond MIT with the inauguration of the OCW Consortium. According to Abelson’s article on the Creation of OpenCourseWare, less than a year later, the Consortium includes more than 100 universities and other member organizations supporting the open publication of materials from more than 3000 courses.

This idea is directly linked to the Creative Commons License, developed by Larry Lessig in 2002, that went on to become essential in the OER movement. The simple licenses in Creative Commons allowed users to easily share resources and provide educational resources for those who might not be able to afford or locate the material.

Slightly veering directions, Ögren et all. (2017), sought to understand the effect that multimedia (text, pictures, graphs, etc.) helped or hurt participants in a Vector Calculus course.  Meaning, when presented with a problem statement and a graph, was the subjects’ attention or thought process hindered or aided by the presence of a graph. The authors “found no support for an overall multimedia effect (H1). Instead, graphs had a beneficial effect on performance only when problem statements were to be confirmed (instead of rejected), which is referred to as the picture bias effect (H2)” (Ögren et al., 2017, p. 281). When a graph was present, students made more use of other information sources, evaluated the problem statement to a closer degree, and made better use of creating more efficient mental models. Participants also paused more, or were silent longer, when contemplating problems that involved a graph.

Reiser (2001) expounded on the history of instructional design (ID) and traced the origins back to World War II and the psychologist who were tasked with creating training manuals and screening processes for our US soldiers. From there, and because of the war, the mid-to-latter half of the 20th century featured a whirlwind of change. Wars and a depression walked jointly with civil rights and technological advancements. New demands in the form of military aircraft and space shuttles created a need for more complex forms of learning. The needs of the time called our brains to action, and we responded accordingly. B.F. Skinner’s theory on behaviorism was being replaced by Gagne’s theory of the conditions of learning and Bloom’s Taxonomy identified our principal designs of learning. The 1970’s saw an increase in the amount of instructional design models. In 1983, David Merrill developed his CDT theory and PLATO was one of the first computer systems to be integrated into the instructional realm. The 1990’s brought constructivism to the forefront, process improvement, prototyping, and computer-based training modules. E-Learning was becoming mainstream with the prevailing thought being that it would reduce costs and establish a set of e-learning standards.

Lastly, Stephen Downes and George Simon, proposed connectivism (a theory on which to understand learning in the digital age). It emphasizes how internet technologies such as web browsers, search engines, wikis, online discussion forums, and social networks contributed to new avenues of learning. Technologies have enabled people to learn and share information across the World Wide Web and among themselves in ways that were not possible before the digital age. They believed that learning does not simply happen within an individual, but within and across the networks.

How should they be studied in the future?

In recent years, an interesting and potentially useful technology has emerged that could shift the centralized nature of repositories. This technology, coupled with the idea of peer-to-peer (P2P) networking, revolves around the notion of a dispersed digital ledger to record transactions in a safe environment. My thoughts are that blockchain technology, artificial intelligence, and the Web 3.0 will have a massive impact on how we develop e-learning standards, LMS’s, coding, peer sharing/networking, and how we secure our digital rights in an era where gray is more prominent than black and white (meaning, facts, opinions, and “free” are tossed together in a bag, shaken, dumped out, and grabbed at blindly).

Where are the gaps in the research remaining to explore?

My thoughts are that the learning theory of connectivism needs to be explored as this specifically addresses how technologies are impacting our ability to learn. Our use of technology is prevalent in all aspects of our society, and we have the capability to access repositories of knowledge that directly impacts what we learn. Secondly, I believe that how we secure and preserve this information is paramount to maintaining a factual and consistent knowledge base; one that is free from exploitation and/or revisionist history.

References

Can Meta Build Augmented Reality People Will Trust?

Can a company built around collecting, analyzing, and monetizing user data genuinely develop augmented reality in a way that protects the people wearing the technology and everyone around them?

I will state my thoughts directly: I am skeptical that Facebook, or Meta as the company now prefers to be known, will consistently adhere to its Responsible Innovation Principles when those principles conflict with its financial interests. Money drives companies of this size, and I suspect that workarounds will eventually be found whenever responsible limitations interfere with growth, data collection, or profitability.

With that skepticism established, let us turn to Project Aria.

What is Project Aria trying to accomplish?

Project Aria is Meta’s attempt to research the hardware, software, and artificial intelligence needed for future augmented-reality devices. The broader idea is to create wearable technology that can interpret the user’s surroundings and provide useful information without requiring constant interaction with a phone or handheld device.

The concept is not entirely new. Google attempted something similar with Google Glass, which received considerable criticism because of privacy concerns and the possibility of recording people without their knowledge. I also never felt that Google had established a clear direction for the product. It sometimes seemed as though the company had developed a solution before identifying the problem it was supposed to solve, though exploratory research often works that way.

Still, I believe there is a place for augmented reality.

One application I find especially useful would be incorporating AR directly into a vehicle’s navigation system. Directions, hazards, road conditions, and other information could be displayed within the driver’s field of view rather than requiring someone to glance down at a phone or dashboard screen.

This technology could also provide meaningful assistance to people with disabilities. A wearable system capable of understanding the user’s surroundings and interpreting intentions might help someone navigate an unfamiliar environment, identify objects, read signs, receive real-time descriptions, or interact with digital systems more independently. If Meta can develop the technology so that users do not have to repeatedly click buttons or manipulate a handheld device, the range of possible applications opens considerably.

Privacy and security cannot be an afterthought

The areas I would be most interested in exploring are security, privacy, and complete dependence on the technology.

Extended reality systems require access to an enormous amount of personal and environmental information if they are expected to learn what users want. A device may collect information about location, movement, speech, surroundings, routines, relationships, preferences, and behavior. That information would be valuable not only to the company operating the system, but also to threat actors, nation-states, ideologues, advertisers, and anyone else interested in influencing or exploiting the user.

If a pair of augmented-reality glasses is constantly observing the world, the privacy question extends beyond the person wearing them. Bystanders may also be recorded, analyzed, identified, or placed into datasets without having made any choice to participate.

That is where a broad promise of “responsible innovation” feels insufficient.

Consumers and bystanders deserve clear answers:

  • What information is being collected?
  • Is the device recording continuously?
  • How long are the data retained?
  • Where are the data processed?
  • Who can access them?
  • Can users delete them?
  • How are bystanders notified?
  • What happens when the device is compromised?
  • Will the information be used for advertising or behavioral profiling?

A principle is only meaningful when it is connected to specific technical safeguards, enforceable policies, independent oversight, and consequences for violating the public’s trust.

Technology dependence is also a concern

We are already intertwined with technology to an extent that fully backing away from it is nearly impossible. Even so, I would caution people to continue developing practical skills that do not depend entirely on digital assistance.

What happens when a person becomes accustomed to receiving directions, recommendations, reminders, object identification, and real-time interpretations through a wearable device? What happens when the battery dies, the network fails, the company discontinues support, or the system provides incorrect information? Augmented reality may be capable of enhancing the world, but it is not the world itself, no matter how hard developers try to make it feel that way.

The principle of “all things in moderation” still applies. A tool can be useful without becoming the primary lens through which someone experiences reality. We should be careful not to trade basic human awareness, memory, social interaction, and independent judgment for a permanent layer of technological interpretation.

Social connection and artificial environments

The social effects of immersive technology also deserve careful consideration.

Periods of isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how important direct human interaction is to mental and emotional well-being. Extended reality may create meaningful opportunities for connection, especially for people separated by distance or limited by physical mobility. At the same time, it could encourage people to spend even more of their lives inside mediated environments. That does not make XR inherently harmful. It means the design should encourage healthy use rather than constant engagement. Companies should be asking whether the technology improves human connection or merely increases time spent inside their platforms. Those are not necessarily the same goal.

Who ultimately pays for innovation?

The cost of development is another issue.

Creating this technology requires expensive hardware, research, data processing, software development, infrastructure, testing, and continued support. Meta is not going to absorb those costs indefinitely out of pure altruism. That is not how a business remains in operation. The costs will eventually be passed along through device prices, subscriptions, advertising, data monetization, enterprise agreements, or some combination of these models.

As with most supply chains, the person at the bottom is often left holding both the product and the cost. The old phrase that “everything rolls downhill” is applicable here, though the less polite version may be more accurate. This also raises an equity concern. If augmented reality becomes important for education, employment, transportation, healthcare, or public services, will access depend on a person’s ability to afford the newest device and subscription? A technology designed to expand human capability could also widen the gap between people who can access it and those who cannot.

Excitement with conditions

Do not let my cynical view dampen the excitement completely. I am interested in the possibilities of augmented reality and want to see what companies can create. The potential applications in accessibility, navigation, education, healthcare, training, and communication are substantial. Project Aria may contribute to technologies that genuinely improve people’s lives.

My concern is not that the technology should not be developed. My concern is how it will be developed, deployed, funded, and governed. I want more than a vague promise of responsible innovation. I want to know exactly how Meta plans to protect the wearer, the bystander, the data, and the broader public. The important question is not simply whether augmented reality can become part of everyday life. It is whether the companies building it can earn enough trust to deserve that place.

Assessment Strategy

Makokotlela, M. v. (2020). An e-portfolio as an assessment strategy in an open distance learning context. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 16(4), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2020100109

Article 3 Title: An E-Portfolio as an Assessment Strategy in an Open Distance Learning Context

Broad Topic: In this article, the author is interested in studying the use of an e-portfolio as an appropriate assessment strategy within a distance learning context. Due to the higher education institutions integrating technology in teaching and learning, the author argues that using an e-portfolio “as an alternative method of assessment enhances pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogy in an environmental education module” (p. 123). Multiple definitions of an e-portfolio are distributed in the background of the article, yet the common theme that emerges is one of using multiple technological tools in which to provide instruction and/or assessment within the modern, digitized classroom. “Transformation in higher education in terms of the use of technologies in teaching and learning as well as assessment is a global trend, meaning that there should be a re-think in terms of preparing pre-service teachers’ pedagogy” (p. 123). The author uses connectivism, in conjunction with the Mmogo theory (discussed later), as a lens in which to view the e-portfolio due to the theories’ networking principles of connecting nodes and information resources.

Theoretical frameworks used to ground the piece: Siemens’ 2005 article Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age, serves as the foundational piece. Also, the following articles were found to be highly influential when reviewing the authors’ article: 1) The Mmogo-method: An exploration of experiences through visual projections, 2) An e-portfolio as empowering tool to enhance students’ self-directed learning in a teacher education course: A case of a South African university by Van Wyk (2017), 3) e-Portfolio in higher educational institutions of Russia by Smolyaninova & Shilina (2017), 4) Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? by Kop & Hill (2008), and 5) E-portfolios as a pedagogical device in primary teacher education: The AUT University experience by Maher & Gerbic (2009).  

Seminal constructs or concepts in the article: The author issues three research questions that form the crux of her article:

  1. What is the significance of an e-portfolio as an alternative way of assessment in EE?

The author explains that due to the digital age in which teachers and students thrive, an e-portfolio provides an opportunity as an alternative assessment tool in which to present their knowledge consumption. This method could be used to evaluate their course or provide evidence of their learning (if used in the student context).

  • How does the use of an e-portfolio as another method of assessment enhance pre-service teachers’ digital pedagogy?

By engaging in the creation of an e-portfolio, the author argues that the teachers’ technological competence is further enhanced as the process acts as a self-directed learning mechanism. Also, the skills needed to develop the portfolio bodes well when teaching online courses. “It has been highlighted by Van Wyk (2017) that teachers must have a clear understanding of digital pedagogy due to technological changes in the teaching and learning environment. Changes in approaches to assessment cannot, therefore, be ignored because it is an integral part of teaching and learning” (p. 125).

  • How does the use of an e-portfolio as an alternative assessment tool develop collaborative skills?

As it relates to the Mmogo theory (meaning “togetherness”), the creation of e-portfolios centers around a collaborative effort in that students share ideas and interact with one another throughout the process. As it relates to a teachers’ technological pedagogy, e-portfolios allow for collaboration that could persist beyond the implementation process. Simply put, the applied learning that is required “should be designed to encourage the desired interaction between the students both to enhance learning and develop collaborative skills” (p. 126).

Broad research or theory objectives including hypotheses, propositions, etc.: The author is approaching her research with a connectivist mindset and utilizing many of the pronciples set forth in Siemens foundational paper. She is also incorporating a collaborative theory titled Mmogo and grounds her reasoning with the following statement: “According to Kop and Hill (2008), connectivism’s cannot be regarded as a stand-alone learning theory. Theories need to complement one another (Ally, 2004) and the author deemed it necessary to use these two theories together” (p. 124). Before beginning the methodology section, I find it important to mention some of the outcomes the author experienced when exploring e-portfolios through the two aforementioned theories. In terms of success, the author found the following benefits were applicable: 1) ICT skills were introduced as a secondary measure, 2) technological pedagogical content knowledge skills (TPCK) were developed, 3) Collaborative skills improved, and 4) an assessment strategy was developed in that evidence-based and reflective practices were showcased. In terms of challenges, 1) low ICT skills could present problems, and 2) digital literacy cannot be presumed.

Research methodology: The purpose of the authors’ undertaking in this study was to explore how e-portfolios are used as an assessment tool in teachers’ educational modules. The author used purposive sampling with 13 participants being the sample. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to determine their experience with e-portfolios, and telephone interviews were conducted. The author also performed document analysis by reviewing the e-portfolios created by the sample of students. Informed consent was obtained, and the data analysis was coded. Three themes emerged: 1) Significance of an e-portfolio, 2) technological competencies of preservice students, and 3) the development of collaborative skills. In total, 9 of the participants data was collected for a number of reasons. Findings to follow.

Findings, implications, conclusions: In terms of the three research questions asked, the author reported the following information:

  1. What is the significance of an e-portfolio as an alternative way of assessment in EE?

The author found that e-portfolios were a useful method in assessing the students’ progress. The students were involved in an environmental education course in which they had to visit a recycling plant and digitally document their observations. The process of compiling an electronic assessment enhanced the students’ technological prowess with one student stating that “an e-portfolio was important because some of us did not know anything about this kind of assessment. Now I know how to do electronic assessment” (p. 128).

  • How does the use of an e-portfolio as another method of assessment enhance pre-service teachers’ digital pedagogy?

The students were required to take photos of their visit to various recycling plants, imbed them within an e-portfolio text, as well as include the information in PowerPoint slides. One student stated that “After taking photos from the recycling plant, I learned to download and adjust photographs and even attach them in the portfolio. This will help me to effectively teach solutions to waste” (p. 129). Additionally, students were exposed to the WhatsApp application to share their e-portfolio. This collaborative process created a community of inquiry in which the students agreed that they would continue using in the future. One limitation to the study was some students did not submit an e-portfolio which led to the belief that not all students were able to perform the necessary digital tasks.

  • How does the use of an e-portfolio as an alternative assessment tool develop collaborative skills?

The author revealed that students were able to collaborate throughout the e-portfolio process which supported her earlier statements concerning the Mmogo theory of togetherness. Also, connectivist principles were employed as the primary source of the course assessment via an e-portfolio creation. “By using an e-portfolio as an assessment strategy, students were provided with an opportunity to collaborate. The idea is supported by McCormick (2004) who states that employing digital technologies provides opportunities for both “collaborating to learn” and “learning to collaborate” (p. 159), in this case learning about waste management (recycling) and learning to work with others to solve a common problem, a community of practice (p. 130).

Prescriptive and descriptive contributions: As mentioned in my prior article reviews, the connectivist principles are applicable in our field of Learning Technologies. This article explored the use of e-portfolios as an assessment and collaborative package which is similar to how our portfolios are created and organized. We work together as cohorts, collaborate, document research, and eventually defend the work we have created. Similarly, as with some students in the article review, technological competency can be a struggle for students while adapting to the requirements mandated by a PhD program. However, the skills that are taught are relevant and applicable in our career field, much like the students experienced when documenting and categorizing their digital evidence.

Critique of ideas and research: So, I did not find this article to be very enlightening in terms of how connectivism was directly implemented in the course and/or assessments process. The author notes in the beginning that connectivism was used a lens yet I would have preferred to see a more structured approach in terms of applicability. Secondly, by using an e-portfolio as your sole means of assessment, much of the skill is tied up in the students’ ability to perform IT and ICT skills. This could prove to be unreliable as it relates to true learning and is more a test of their digital prowess. I would have liked to see other means of engagement. I did like the fact that collaboration and reflection was included in the pedagogy as these are skills that translate well across a myriad of industries.

Relevant gaps and research opportunities: Several questions that could be addressed concerning this area of research are:

  • Does completing an e-portfolio improve the students’ digital pedagogy? Or is it mainly relevant to teachers?
  • What activities specifically drive the connectivist theory as it relates to e-portfolio creation?
  • What type of study would provide the best results as it relates to understanding the limitation in ICT skills among students?
  • How would this study be implemented if adhering to the six stages as specified in Siemens’ seminal work?
  • What tools would be allowed when creating an e-portfolio? Is it limited to a pre-determined list or is the student granted autonomy?