1. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
1.1. Web 1.0
1.2. Web 2.0
2. THEORIES & CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
2.1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
2.1.1. Hard/Soft Technologies & Nets, Sets, Groups and Collectives
2.1.1.1. Dron, Anderson
2.1.1.2. Conceptual model describing social media across two dimensions
2.1.1.2.1. Social
2.1.1.2.2. Media
2.1.2. Social Network / Social Network Analysis (SNA)
2.1.2.1. Interpretive framework for exploring structures and patterns observed within social entities.
2.1.2.1.1. Looks at the interactions between actors/units (individuals, groups, etc.) and how these define social structure.
2.1.2.1.2. Self-organizing, emergent, complex, globally coherent pattern manifested in local interactions.
2.1.2.1.3. Scalability: Globally coherent pattern(s) manifest in local interactions.
2.1.2.2. Methodology
2.1.2.2.1. Unit of analysis (local, global) relative to the research question.
2.1.2.2.2. Metrics
2.1.3. Digital Ecosystem
2.1.3.1. Self-organizing, self-sustaining community, embedded within a broader social context, relying on IT/ICT to achieve its collective objective.
2.1.3.2. Borrows terminology and conceptual framework from ecology and environmental sciences
2.1.3.3. Ecological Cognition Framework (2007)
2.1.3.3.1. Level 1: What motivates user actions in an online environment (ex. posting in online forums)
2.1.3.3.2. Level 2: Cognition involved in deciding to act
2.1.3.3.3. Level 3: How users carryout these actions
2.1.4. Communicative Ecology
2.1.4.1. Key Concepts
2.1.4.1.1. Interpretive framework for exploring relationships between the social, discourse and communications technology across environments ( ex. online/offline) and across potentially diverse settings (i.e. public, private), and how these relationships are shaped by and change as individuals transition between activitiy types.
2.1.4.1.2. How new media (and content) align with and are accepted or rejected for inclusion into a user's existing communications tool kit.
2.1.4.2. Methodology
2.1.4.2.1. Three integrated and mutually constituting layers
2.1.4.2.2. Questions re: media choices, and how these choices shape relationships, communications, and content.
2.1.4.2.3. Multidimensional focus facilitates the exploration of discrete dimensional characteristics, as well as how individuals move between dimensions.
2.1.5. Human-Computer Interaction
2.1.5.1. Utilizes Activity Theory
2.1.5.2. Research that focuses on interface design to maximize user statisfaction
2.1.5.3. Key Concepts
2.1.5.3.1. Computers have the potential for unlimited uses, compared to most tools (single or limited uses)
2.1.5.3.2. A focus on dialog between humans and computers
2.1.5.3.3. Participatory design
2.1.5.4. Research that explores why technology uptake by humans does or does not take place, and the influence of sociocultural factors
2.1.5.4.1. Utilizes Activity Theory for analysis (qualitative and quantitative)
2.1.5.4.2. Feedback regarding design elements that support or undermine technology uptake by users
2.1.6. SAMR
2.1.6.1. Puentedura
2.1.6.2. How technology transforms teaching and learning
2.1.6.3. Model: https://sites.google.com/a/msad60.org/technology-is-learning/samr-model
2.1.6.3.1. Enhancement
2.1.6.3.2. Transformation
2.2. THEORIES
2.2.1. Connectivism
2.2.1.1. Major Contributor(s): Siemens, Downes
2.2.1.2. Related concept: Socially-distributed Cognition.
2.2.1.2.1. Cognitive processes may be distributed: 1. Amongst members of a group/community, 2. Across the environment of the group/community, 3. Through time.
2.2.1.3. Current (up-to-date) knowledge is the intent, and the capacity to know more is more important than what is currently known
2.2.1.3.1. New knowledge is constantly produced via the network of sources; collective knowledge creation
2.2.1.4. Knowledge is distributed across a network or sources, and learning involves acquiring skills for seeing connections amongst fields, ides, concepts; and acquiring skills for utilizing and making connections via networks to find the information/knowledge we need.
2.2.1.5. Principles
2.2.1.5.1. Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
2.2.1.5.2. Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
2.2.1.5.3. Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
2.2.1.5.4. Learning is more critical than knowing.
2.2.1.5.5. Maintaining and nurturing connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
2.2.1.5.6. Perceiving connections between fields, ideas and concepts is a core skill.
2.2.1.5.7. Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of learning activities.
2.2.1.5.8. Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.
2.2.1.6. Pedagogy/Androgogy
2.2.1.6.1. Instructional design should incorporate student- directed learning, with the teacher serving as facilitator
2.2.1.6.2. Collaborative activities should be incorporated to provide facilitate the collective creation of knowledge
2.2.1.6.3. Process-focussed, not knowledge-focussed
2.2.1.6.4. Evaluation should focus on assessing whether the student is acquiring appropriate process skills, with the teacher/facilitator providing corrective support (ex. if a student is found to be having difficulty filtering relevant sources, the facilitator will provide support to help the student acquire competence in this part of the process)
2.2.1.6.5. MOOC (Massive Open Online Course)
2.2.1.7. Related concept: Situated Cognition
2.2.1.7.1. Arose from anthropology and ecology
2.2.1.7.2. Thinking "on the fly"
2.2.1.7.3. Concerned with how identity is negotiated via interactions with community/group members
2.2.1.7.4. Knowledge is constructed through action
2.2.1.7.5. Perspective of social embeddedness
2.2.2. CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES
2.2.2.1. Constructivism
2.2.2.1.1. Major Contributor(s): Dewey, Montessori, Piaget, Vygotsky
2.2.2.1.2. Knowledge is constructed via experience and interactions with the environment.
2.2.2.1.3. Problem-solving skills are learned via experience working through complex problems.
2.2.2.1.4. Internalization of knowledge
2.2.2.1.5. Motivation for learning depends on the learner's confidence in his/her ability to learn… derived from experiencing mastery
2.2.2.1.6. Pedagogy/Androgogy
2.2.2.2. SCOT (Social Construction of Technology)
2.2.2.2.1. Major Contributor(s): Bijker, Pinch, Mackenzie, Wajcman
2.2.2.2.2. Key Concepts
2.2.2.2.3. Methodology
2.2.2.2.4. Related theory: Social Shaping of Technology (SST)
2.2.2.2.5. Pedagogy/Androgogy
2.2.2.3. ANT (Actor-Network Theory)
2.2.2.3.1. Major Contributor(s): Latour, Callon, Law
2.2.2.3.2. Key Concepts
2.2.2.3.3. Methodology
2.2.2.4. Activity Theory
2.2.2.4.1. Key Concepts
2.2.2.4.2. Descriptive framework.meta-theory
2.2.2.4.3. Related concept: Normalization Process Theory. Concerned with individual or collective agent contributions towards effecting specific change within their environments. Influenced by the social contexts of the agent(s).
2.2.2.4.4. Cultural-historical Psychology
2.2.3. Cognitivism
2.2.3.1. Major Contributor(s): Piaget, Vygotsky
2.2.3.2. Cognitive Load
2.2.3.3. Individuals learn by building on prior knowledge - (seriality). Memory is a key element or learning.
2.2.3.3.1. Knowledge is organized into schemas; learning occurs when new information doesn't "fit" into an existing schema, and the schema is then reorganized to accommodate the new information.
2.2.3.3.2. Scaffolding (premised on Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development") involve the gradual diminishing of teacher/facilitator support as the student gains more and more knowledge that enables him/her to become more independent in problem-solving.
2.2.3.4. Memory consists of working (short-term) memory and long-term memory.
2.2.3.4.1. Working memory can be OVER or UNDER loaded by information processing
2.2.3.5. Pedagogy/Androgogy
2.2.3.5.1. Educational Practice
2.2.3.5.2. Educational Technology
2.2.4. BEHAVIORIST APPROACHES
2.2.4.1. Behaviourism
2.2.4.1.1. Major Contributor(s): Pavlov, Watson, Thorndike, Skinner
2.2.4.1.2. Mind is a blank slate
2.2.4.1.3. Pedagogy/Androgogy
2.2.4.2. Social Learning Theory
2.2.4.2.1. Major Contributor(s): Vygotsky, Bandura
2.2.4.2.2. Learning is a cognitive process that takes place within a social context (reciprocal determinism)
2.2.4.2.3. Pedagogy/Androgogy
2.2.5. SOCIOLOGICAL APPROCAHES
2.2.5.1. Weber
2.2.5.1.1. Action Theory
2.2.5.2. Action Theory (Parsons)
2.2.5.2.1. Action represents a process arising from actor-situation relationship
2.2.5.2.2. Discrete systems of social action
2.2.5.2.3. Social systems confronted with four functional problems
2.2.5.3. Tönnies
2.2.5.3.1. Gemeinschaft
2.2.5.3.2. Gesellschaft
2.2.6. ECOLOGICAL APPROACHES
2.2.6.1. Media Ecology
2.2.6.1.1. Major contributor(s): M. McLuhan, E. McLuhan, Postman, Innis
2.2.6.1.2. Key Concepts
2.2.6.1.3. Methodology
2.2.6.1.4. Pedagogy/Androgogy
2.2.6.2. Information Ecology
2.2.6.2.1. Major Contributor(s): Benkler, Kuchka, Nardi, O'Day
2.2.6.2.2. Concerned with improving the information environment by exploring how the rules/laws of information summary influence the formation and functioning of biological systems
2.2.6.3. Conservation Ecology
2.2.6.3.1. Community-based systems of resource management
2.2.6.3.2. Community structuring
2.2.6.3.3. Spherical vs Global perception of self and environment
2.2.6.3.4. "Open Access" resources and community-based management systems
2.2.7. Systems Theory
2.2.7.1. Major Contributor(s): Bertalanffy, Banathy, Capra
2.2.7.1.1. Bertalanffy
2.2.7.2. Concerned with self-regulating systems
2.2.7.2.1. Systems comtain interacting activities
2.2.7.2.2. Self-correcting feedback loops
2.2.7.2.3. Parts of the system are mutually constituting and influence the whole
2.2.7.3. Incorporates three domains: Philosophy, science and technology
2.2.7.4. Influenced Action Theory in sociology (Parsons), ecology, organizational management, among others
2.2.7.5. All systems, regardless of their nature (biological, ecological, etc.) have common observable properties
2.2.7.6. Actionable Knowledge
2.2.7.6.1. Philosophy + Theory = Knowledge; Methodology + Application = Action
2.2.7.7. Social Rule Systems Theory
2.2.7.7.1. Human activity and interactions are regulated by rules that are created, reproduced and reinforced by individual agents and groups
2.2.7.7.2. Agents collectively rework rule systems, often with unintended consequences
2.2.7.7.3. The system rules influence the actions of agents.
2.2.7.7.4. Rule systems facilitate cognition in terms of providing an organizational framework for agents to interpret their experiences
2.2.8. Anthropology
2.2.8.1. Renunciation as a principle of social organization, mediates social relationships
2.2.8.1.1. David H. Turner
2.2.8.1.2. Yanomami (Amazon)
2.2.9. Post-Fordism
2.2.9.1. Centralized organization/administration and common content. Decentralized adaptation to address local interests, needs and priorities.
2.2.9.1.1. EXAMPLE: A distance learning course on conservation ecology, with content and activities adapted to incorporate land reclamation issues in northern Alberta.
2.2.9.2. Premised on an economic approach
3. RESEARCH
3.1. Individual (learner) embedded network position
3.1.1. Embedded position
3.1.1.1. Autonomous/Integrated Interaction
3.1.1.2. Distance of interaction across the network defines environment
3.1.1.3. Dimensions of associations characterize interactions: Nets, Sets. Collectives, Groups
3.1.2. Mediated/Articulated through INTERACTION via RELATIONSHIPS with other Actors (human and non-human) and ROLES.
3.1.2.1. RELATIONSHIPS
3.1.2.1.1. Individual + CONTENT
3.1.2.1.2. Individual + OTHER PEOPLE
3.1.2.1.3. Individual + TOOL(S)
3.1.2.2. ROLES
3.1.2.2.1. Individual as LEARNER
3.1.2.2.2. Individual as FACILITATOR
3.1.2.2.3. Individual as CONTRIBUTOR
3.1.3. Three overlapping and mutually constituting DIMENSIONS of interaction
3.1.3.1. MOTIVATION
3.1.3.1.1. Relevance, acceptability
3.1.3.2. INVESTMENT
3.1.3.2.1. Return on Investment
3.1.3.2.2. High (vs. low) Engagement
3.1.3.3. LEARNER-CENTREDNESS
3.1.3.3.1. Learning tasks accomplished with technology that were previously inconceivable: TRANSFORMATION
3.1.3.3.2. Autonomy
3.1.3.3.3. Relevance, acceptability
3.2. RESEARCH REVIEW
3.2.1. INCLUSION criteria will be informed by relationship/role factors and the dimensions of interaction (described above)
3.2.2. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON QUALITY: 1. Many have low subject numbers, Few are sufficiently powered. 2. Few incorporate experimental / controlled design. 3. Many based on subjective factors, such as preferences or self-report of improved engagement. 4. Few consider academic outcomes such as grades. 5. Many with qualitative data incorporate content analysis, phenomenology or case study. Some incorporate mixed methods. None so far identified incorporate rounded theory. 6. Few represent novel research.
3.3. SEARCH STRATEGY
3.3.1. EBSCO (Education Research Complete)
3.3.1.1. Yield: 1,489 unique sources
3.3.2. Google Scholar
3.3.2.1. Yield*: 906 unique sources
3.3.2.1.1. *An internal Google Scholar error prevented access to half of the ~2000 sources returned
3.3.3. TOTAL TO REVIEW: 2,395
3.3.3.1. Not all sources have been reviewed yet. Approximately half of those reviewed so far have been excluded due to being off topic, or do not report on research and have been reserved for background/literature review.
3.3.3.1.1. REASONS FOR PRELIMINARY EXCLUSION:Error Recruiting/Branding/Marketing Not education/learning Not about Social Media Cyberbullying, bullying K-12 Social Media Policy (not learning) Student political mobilization Cost-effective education delivery only Administration only Duplicate Not education Regulatory, legal Privacy (personal use only) Philosphy, not application, of tech Professional networking (not education related) Elderly peoples' use of Social Media Laptops, Social Media use incidental (i.e. disrupting note taking) Not English Emergency communications Library administration Job recruiting, career placement Workplace learning, not related to education sector Patient education, not students Industry value/preference on technical vs traditional skills Sports industry Social Media used as metaphor/analogy Social Media to facilitate complaint feedback only
3.4. INCLUSION EXEMPLARS
3.4.1. Li, J., & Greenhow, C. (2015). Scholars and social media: tweeting in the conference backchannel for professional learning. Educational Media International, 52(1), 1-14. doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1005426
3.4.1.1. THEME CATEGORY: Co-creating learning content PURPOSE: Professional development SETTING: American Educational Research Association conference ACTORS: Educational Scholars/Faculty, Twitter, Presenters (Facilitators) ASSOCIATION: Collective SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Conference backchannelling via Twitter METHOD: Qualitative interview N = unspecified
3.4.1.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Learners actively participated in contributing content to conference sessions
3.4.2. Carroll, J., Diaz, A., Meiklejohn, J., Newcomb, M., & Adkins, B. (2013). Collaboration and competition on a wiki: The praxis of online social learning to improve academic writing and research in under-graduate students. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 29(4), 513-525.
3.4.2.1. THEME CATEGORY: Skills development and practice; Motivation; Investment PURPOSE: Peer feedback, showcase research work SETTING: Public Health undergrad cohort @ Queensland University of Technology ACTORS: Undergrad students, Wikispaces ASSOCIATION: Group SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Wikispaces METHOD: Content analysis N = unspecified
3.4.2.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Facilitated sustained learning (attentional, retentional, motor reproduction, motivational).
3.4.3. Rambe, P. (2012). Constructive Disruptions for Effective Collaborative Learning: Navigating the Affordances of Social Media for Meaningful Engagement. Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 10(1), 132-146.
3.4.3.1. THEME CATEGORY: Social media acceptance, relevance; Pedagogical relevance; Community building; Democratic learning. PURPOSE: Understanding social media influence on student meaning-making and pedagogical delivery SETTING: Information Systems course at a South African university ACTORS: Undergrad students, lecturer, Facebook ASSOCIATION: Group SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Facebook METHOD: Content Analysis N = 165
3.4.3.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Facebook provided a collective third space for student enactment of counter scripts, augmented academic networking, provided "safe" havens for democratic expression, facilitated development of learning communities, and facilitated co-construction of knowledge.
3.4.4. Nerantzi, C. (2012). A Case of Problem Based Learning for Cross-Institutional Collaboration. Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 10(3), 306-314.
3.4.4.1. THEME CATEGORY: Collaboration, Community of Practice, Problem-based Learning PURPOSE: Cross-institution collaboration, breaking our of academic silos SETTING: Postgraduate certificate course in teaching and learning in higher education / academic practice, institutions across the UK ACTORS: postgrad students, faculty, professional mentors, unspecified social media tool ASSOCIATION: Collective SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: unspecified METHOD: Phenomographic (interviews), questionnaires N = 10
3.4.4.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Open online PBL enables learners and educators to break out of silos, facilitates collaborative learning, facilitates multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional groups.
3.4.5. Pohl, A., Gehlen-Baum, V., & Bry, F. (2012). Enhancing the Digital Backchannel Backstage on the Basis of a Formative User Study. International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning, 7(1), 33-41.
3.4.5.1. THEME CATEGORY: Democratic learning/participation, Co-creation of learning content PURPOSE: Facilitating student participation in large lectures, dynamic lectures, student creation/control of lecture content SETTING: Educational Science & Informatics, Psychology and German foreign language courses at a German institution ACTORS: Students, lecturers, Backstage ASSOCIATION: Collective SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Backstage (digital backchannel) METHOD: Experimental design with control group (N=5), questionnaire N = 19 (broken into 3 subgroups)
3.4.5.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Increase in questions generated using the backchannel during lectures.
3.4.6. Freeman, W., & Brett, C. (2012). Prompting authentic blogging practice in an online graduate course. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1032-1041. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.019
3.4.6.1. THEME CATEGORY: Skills development, Relevance (interests, real world), Community building; Feedback PURPOSE: Develop community via links across blogs, peer review and feedback. Skills scaffolding and developing writing habits/practices. SETTING: Online graduate course ACTORS: Grad students, instructor, blogging platform ASSOCIATION: Group SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: unspecified blogging platform METHODS: Usage patterns, content analysis, survey N = unspecified
3.4.6.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Frequency of writing, topic resonance with students’ own interests, and timeliness of entries were key factors in scaffolding writing that aligns with consistent blogging practice. Focusing on writing by authentic blogging practice.
3.4.7. Pata, K. (2009). Modeling spaces for self-directed learning at university courses. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 23-43.
3.4.7.1. THEME CATEGORY: Self-directed learning / Learner-centredness, Democratic learning PURPOSE: Learning niche creation to support self-directed learning; Using social media to put learning affordances into action SETTING: Master’s cohort at Talinn University – Institute of Informatics; other programs had minor representation in the sample ACTORS: grad students, facilitator, various social media tools ASSOCIATION: Group SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: unspecified, various METHODS: Controlled experimental design N = 53
3.4.7.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Various social media used to put similar learning affordances into action. Affordance-based niche creation can allow flexibility and learner-centredness while enabling identification of a common emergent learning space reusable for modeling environments for other self-directed learning.
3.4.8. Matthew, G., & George, O. (2011). The CUNY Academic Commons: fostering faculty use of the social web. On The Horizon, 19(1), 24-32.
3.4.8.1. THEME CATEGORY: Building connections, collaboration; Control of content, User-centred, (Open Source) PURPOSE: Connecting faculty, administrators and grad-students in a multi-campus university system SETTING: 23 institutions of the City University of New York located throughout the five boroughs of NYC ACTORS: Faculty, administrators, grad students, CUNY Commons ASSOCIATION: Set SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: CUNY Commons METHID: Usage stats N = 1,182 (unconsented)
3.4.8.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Increased awareness of member projects and research interests. Build greater sense of community between discrete campuses. Promoted open culture of sharing. Encouraged collaborative ventures across the system. Open source gives users more control over design, presentation and content of their web-based work vs traditionally closed-source closely managed university web site.
3.4.9. Dayter, D. (2011). Twitter as a means of class participation: Making student reading visible. Journal Of Applied Linguistics & Professional Practice, 8(1), 1-21. doi:10.1558/japl.v8i1.1
3.4.9.1. THEME CATEGROY: Skills development, accountability, pedagogical embededness, acceptability. PURPOSE: Improve reading strategy. SETTING: Linguistics seminar at a German university ACTORS: Undergrad students, instructor, Twitter ASSOCIATION: Group SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Twitter METHOD: Content analysis N = 13
3.4.9.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Students spontaneously resort to self-explanation strategies to develop from low-level to high-level reading strategy. Increased commitment to reading, stimulation of in-class discussion, building community. Guidance on tool use and pedagogical relevance provided by instructor.
3.4.10. Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273-287. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x
3.4.10.1. THEME CATEGORY: Democratic learning, co-creating learning content, pedagogical embeddedness (outside of class time) PURPOSE: Student engagement in seminar vs. lecture via social media; Coluntary vs. formal/required social media engagement; Structured instructor-student interactions vs. voluntary. SETTING: Seven sections of a first year seminar course for pre-professional health majors ACTORS: Undergrad students, instructors, Twitter, Ning ASSOCIATION: Group SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Twitter, Ning METHOD: Controlled experimental design, survey N = 118
3.4.10.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Structured instructor-student interaction correlated to improved student academic outcomes.
3.4.11. Goodyear, V. A., Casey, A., & Kirk, D. (2014). Tweet me, message me, like me: using social media to facilitate pedagogical change within an emerging community of practice. Sport, Education & Society, 19(7), 927-943. doi:10.1080/13573322.2013.858624
3.4.11.1. THEME CONTENT: Professional development, Community of Pracitce, Preferences/organic usage, cooperative learning PURPOSE: Social media as a communicative space for an emerging Community of Practice; structured interaction SETTING: Online community of practice for physical education teachers ACTORS: Facebook, Twitter, students, facilitator, professional mentor ASSOCIATION: Set SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Facebook, Twitter METHOD: Content analysis N = 5
3.4.11.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Looked at how teachers refine their practice via a pedagogical innovation (Cooperative Learning). Use of this innovation was sustained overtime, with structured learner-facilitator interaction which promoted learner inquiry and development of shared practices.
3.4.12. Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012). A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. Internet & Higher Education, 15(1), 58-68. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.003
3.4.12.1. THEME CATEGORY: Building connection/community, Informal learning in broader community, flattening the academy PURPOSE: Dissemination of scholarly work between institutions to tear down silos, Making information accessible to the public. SETING: Multiple Israeli higher-education institutes ACTORS: Facebook, Twitter, other social media tools, students, faculty, public ASSOCIATION: Collective, Set SOCIAL MEDIA TOOLS: Facebook, Twitter, various other METHOD: Usage patterns, content analysis N = 73
3.4.12.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: SNS based on knowledge sharing and interaction have potential for sustainability. Facilitated greater information-sharing between institutions and the public.
3.4.13. Ford, K. C., Veletsianos, G., & Resta, P. (2014). The Structure and Characteristics of #PhDChat, an Emergent Online Social Network. Journal Of Interactive Media In Education, 1-24.
3.4.13.1. THEME CATEGORY: Informal learning, self-organizing PURPOSE: Social media as an organizing structure; resource sharing; peer support. SETTING: Online network across UK medical grad schools. ACTORS: Students. Twitter ASSOCIATION: Set SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Twitter METHOD: Usage stats, content analysis N = 4,102 (unconsented)
3.4.13.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: Organizational structure centred around core group of users, and served in resource sharing, peer support. Core users were also involved in other similar social media groups in higher education. Network is in continuous emergence and change. Disparate users come together with little central authority to create their own communal space.
3.4.14. Katzlinger, E., & Herzog, M. A. (2014). Wiki Based Collaborative Learning in Interuniversity Scenarios. Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 12(2), 149-160Katzlinger, E., & Herzog, M. A. (2014). Wiki Based Collaborative Learning in Interuniversity Scenarios. Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 12(2), 149-160.
3.4.14.1. THEME CATEGORY: Job skills, real world relevance, acceptance. Collaboration. PURPOSE: Developing collaborative skills and media literacy (relevant to business industry). Learn different synchronous and asynchronous tools for virtual collaboration (forum, chat, video conferencing, other social media) commonly used in the business industry. SETTING: ERASMUS teacher exchange between the Johannes Kepler University Linz (Austria) and Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences (Germany). ACTORS: Business students, Wikim online forum, chat, video conferencing, various other social media, peer moderators, lecturers. ASSOCIATION: Group, Collective SOCIAL MEDIA TOOL: Wiki, unspecified online forum, unspecified chat, unspecified video conferencing, various other METHOD: Questionnaire N = 259
3.4.14.1.1. FINDINGS/SIGNIFICANCE: High impact on interregional group work and media competencies. High acceptance.