Social media in education refers to the practice of using social media platforms as a way of enhancing the education of students. Social media is defined as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content".
Video Social media in education
History
As the use of technology and social media became more prevalent, educators and parents alike wanted to keep it out of the classroom for fear that it would be too distracting. This led to many schools blocking Internet access, access to social media sites, and even disallowing the use of, or even the bringing of cell phones to class. This has proved to be ineffective in some cases, as students continue to bring their phones to class despite the no cell phone policy, and many even find ways to access social media sites regardless of precautions taken by school administrators. It is for this reason that many schools have adopted a "Bring Your Own Device" (BYOD) policy to school. This is a policy that allows students to bring their own internet accessing device, such as a phone or iPad, for the purpose of accessing the Internet for research. While the BYOD concept was initially introduced as a way of reducing departmental technology costs, administrators and teachers are realizing other benefits from students bringing their own technology into the classroom, such as increased student motivations and engagement, anywhere access to information, as well as students often update their software and applications faster than the school can.
Rather than compete with, or deny access to social media sites, some schools have totally embraced them, and are using them to further students' educations.
Maps Social media in education
Criticism of BYOD
Up until this point, most of the studies that have attempted to measure the benefits or disadvantages of allowing cell phone use in the classroom have been conducted in high socioeconomic settings and for students in advanced placement programs such as STEMS after school programs. Along with the advent of technology have come debates concerning when and where technology is appropriate in schools. At this point, some schools rely on students to bring their technologies to classrooms and other prohibit use of these devices at school altogether. Technology, no doubt, has great potential to enhance student learning when utilized and implemented correctly (Liang et al., 2015). However, whereas some students are being taught how to their devices from "toys to tools", others are being left behind in regards to technological education (Kolb, 2008). BYOD schools privilege higher income students by teaching them more educationally and occupationally useful and productive ways of using social media. Low-income Latino schools, while already underserved, are being left behind. This, in turn, worsens the U.S. digital divide in a new way (Kolb 2008).
School's policies arising from the inundation of technology (smartphones, iPads, tablets, etc.) have ranged from a Bring Your Own Device (also known as "BYOD") policy to banning devices in schools altogether. More recent trends have shown districts lifting bans. Cell phone bans in school have been based on the grounds that cell phones pose a distraction, extended use can negatively impact students' abilities to focus, and because schools do not want to be held responsible for valuable stolen or damaged items. Some schools permit teachers to confiscate these items from students if they use them without permission in the classroom. Opponents view this as a violation of students' property rights and rights to privacy. Some parents argue that they should be able to get into contact with their children at any time and that teachers should not be able to take private property (Blaire & Fletcher, 2011).
Ideally, BYOD calls for all students who own these types of devices to bring them to school to use for learning activities. The school district will, then, purchase enough devices to make up for the "leftover" students--those who do not own/cannot afford such devices. Soloway and Norris (2011) find that schools with high numbers of students who receive free or reduced lunches are unable to afford the high cost of purchasing for large volumes of students. Soloway and Norris (2011) delineates three levels of functioning for schools that adopt BYOD (Soloway & Norris, 2011). It is evident that BYOD would not prove to be functional in schools in low-income areas. Some parents fear that their students will be divided between "haves" and "have-nots" (Blaire & Fletcher, 2011). For instance, when teachers ask students to "Google" a definition, it quickly becomes evident who has the power to quickly access knowledge and who has to awkwardly wait for their peers to announce the definition. Educators must be mindful of the fact that the simple act of asking students to "google" something poses disadvantages to students who do not have cell phones.
The nature of the BYOD policy is that it favors implementation in higher socioeconomic areas and privileges those who already have better knowledge of technology. It is no wonder that most of the research done on the integration of cell phone and technology in the classroom has involved mostly higher socioeconomic schools. High income areas can count on families to provide what other families wish they could afford. Relying on students' outside purchases to cut costs inside of the school opens up the playing field for capitalist ventures, which can be expected in American society. Technology businesses have used the BYOD policy as leverage to market their technologies to parents of students (citation). This blurs the lines between the right to have a free education and turning education into a commodity which some can access and some cannot--as is true for other commodities. Additionally, the fact that these companies use studies done on BYOD schools is problematic. For instance, the company K-12 Technology Blueprint Learning advertises their tablets for educational purposes on their website. They state three claims about personal technology in the classroom: "3 out of 4 students prefer tablets over textbooks, 2/3 of students prefer their own mobile device for learning, 37% of teachers will transition to digital textbooks within 1 to 5 years" (Harris Interactive, 2012). Attempting to gain credibility, the company posts large captions with numbers and percentages. They report that their figures were found in the Pearson Foundation Tablet Survey Summary. This particular summary is flawed for multiple reasons. The survey was administered online, which indicates that those taking the survey already had access (not provided by a school district) to a smartphone, tablet, or computer (Harris Interactive, 2012). Furthermore, the survey was only given to college-bound seniors and college students (citation). Because of this, the study's findings cannot be used to determine its effectiveness across all K-12 students as the company claims.
This is not the only study that is at fault. Most of the studies that have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of technology in the classroom have used higher socioeconomic populations as their participants. The reason for this is that those are the schools that have already adopted widespread use of technology in the classroom. Some claim that using social media in the classroom is highly motivating for the students. Again, these studies are conducted on those who are already highly motivated. Also, Latino students and low-income students are underrepresented in these programs according to study done on Latino attitudes toward social networking for education (Howard et al., 2015). Although this information can be useful to assess that specific population, the findings cannot be generalized to those of lower socioeconomic status.
Howard, Curwen, Howard, and Colon-Muniz (2015) further evidence this in their studies about the social networking habits of underperforming Latino students. The researchers clearly stated that they have found that low-income Latino students use technology differently than middle class white students and they hold educators responsible for making sure that these differences do not manifest negatively. Won, Evans, Carey, and Schnitka (2015) have found that poorer families spend considerably more of their Internet access time to play games, watch videos, and connect on social networking sites. This is because they are not being taught how to use technology in more productive ways (Won et al., 2015). Whereas schools benefitting from BYOD policies teach students transferable skills such as learning how to create spreadsheets and access lessons that cater to their specific learning types, non-BYOD schools have to overlook the need for technological advancement. If only higher achieving schools are teaching students how to learn computer and technology skills, BYOD has the potential to worsen the U.S. Digital Divide which has plagued our nation since computers first went into the market (Howard et al., 2015). Schools that cannot afford to pay for the extra tablets will not learn more advanced ways of using technology.
Benefits
Social media can allow students to access a variety of knowledgeable peers, parents, community members, children's literature authors, academics and other people who might not otherwise be available.
Teachers across North America have had their students write blog posts for certain assignments and then share their assignment to their Twitter accounts accompanied by a hashtag. Here the students can enjoy feedback from not only their teacher but also from others who have read their assignment via Twitter. Teachers also use Twitter and other social media tools to hold review sessions for their classes in out of school hours and to support one another.
This gives the teachers more time to teach in class rather than answering questions and clarifying because of the extra time they had to review with their students through social media. Having these social media tools in class also helps students ask their peers or teachers questions out of school when studying, motivated or confused. Teachers have reported that using online technologies can encourage online discussion among students outside the classes. Social media can also provide motivation for students who might learn or put forward more effort because students know their work is being shared with audiences such as their classmates, families or other classes around the world. Students will also know that their family, such as their parents or guardians, can follow their class or school social media accounts to see examples of their work and learning from the students and teacher. Social media can also impact how learning occurs by all students engaging in conversation rather than just a minority of the class. It can help bring a more diverse set of perspectives into the classroom since all of the students are voicing their opinions, especially the quieter students who do not like voicing their opinions in class.
Social media is changing the nature and speed of health care interaction between individuals and health organizations. The general public, patients, and health professionals are using social media to communicate about health issues [2-9]. In the United States, 61% of adults search online and 39% use social media such as Facebook for health information [7]. Social media adoption rates vary in Europe; for example, the percentage of German hospitals using social networks is in "single figures", whereas approximately 45% of Norwegian and Swedish hospitals are using LinkedIn, and 22% of Norwegian hospitals use Facebook for health communication [8]. Recent UK statistics reported Facebook as the fourth most popular source of health information.
Social media resources
There are vast amounts of social media resources in today's world, and social media is becoming more and more popular in today's schools. Teachers find social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Google and Etherpad effective tools for their students, especially since these tools and programs are free.
See also
- Blended learning
- Distance education
- Educational technology
- Edutainment
- Mobile learning
- Quiz video games
References
- Lai, Ching-Yi; Wu, Wei-Wen; Tsai, Shao-Yu; Cheng, Su-Fen; Lin, Kuan-Chia; Liang, Shu-Yuan (2015). "The Effectiveness of a Facebook-Assisted Teaching Method on Knowledge and Attitudes about Cervical Cancer Prevention and HPV Vaccination Intervention among Female Adolescent Students in Taiwan". Health Educ Behav. 42 (3): 352-60. doi:10.1177/1090198114558591.
- Blair, B.L.; Fletcher, A.C. (2011). "The Only 13-Year-Old on Planet Earth Without a Cell Phone": Meanings of Cell Phones in Early Adolescents' Everyday Lives". Journal of Adolescent Research. 26 (2): 155-177. doi:10.1177/0743558410371127.
- Howard, K.E.; Curwen, M.S.; Howard, N.R.; Colon-Muniz, A. (2015). "Attitudes toward Using Social Networking Sites in Educational Settings with Underperforming Latino Youth: A Mixed Methods Study". Urban Education. 50 (8): 989-1018. doi:10.1177/0042085914537000.
- Kolb, L. (2008). Toys to Tools: Connecting Student Phones to Education. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.
- Schwartz, S. O.; Rhodes, J. E.; Liang, B.; Sanchez, B. Spencer; Kremer, S.; Kanchewa, S. (2014). "Mentoring in the digital age: Social Media use in adult-youth relationships". Children and Youth Services Review. 47 (3): 205-213. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.09.004.
- Soloway, E. and Norris, C. (2011). Tips for BYOD K12 Programs: Critical issue in moving to"Bring Your Own Device." DA District Administration. Referenced in http://www.districtadministration.com/article/tips-byod-k12-programs
- Valentine, B.; Benhisel, S. (2008). "Teens and Their Technologies in High School and College: Implications for Teaching and Learning". The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 34 (6): 502-512. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2008.09.001.
- Won, G. L.; Evans, M.A.; Carey, C.; Schnitka, C. (2015). "Youth Appropriation of social media for collaborative and facilitated discussion-based learning". Computers in Human Behavior. 50: 385-391. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.017.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments