Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 01:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Computer Assisted Language LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
Social networking: a collaborative openeducational resourceLisette Toetenelaa School of Education, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UKPublished online: 23 Jul 2013.
To cite this article: Lisette Toetenel (2014) Social networking: a collaborative openeducational resource, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27:2, 149-162, DOI:10.1080/09588221.2013.818561
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818561
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Social networking: a collaborative open educational resource
Lisette Toetenel*
School of Education, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
Studies undertaken since the introduction of Web 2.0 have focussed mainly on openeducational resources (OERs) such as email, blogging and virtual learning environ-ments. No consistent efforts have been undertaken to study the use of social network-ing sites as a tool for learning in the second language classroom. This study examinedthe use of social networking sites as a means of establishing an asynchronous onlineenvironment for use in language learning in a classroom setting. The findingsdescribed are based on the use of a social networking site called Ning in a classroomduring a summer school project, which was conducted at a further education collegein the UK. The project focussed in particular on informal language practice whenusing social networking sites. The paper then examines the effect the use of the socialnetworking tool had on group cohesion and learner-to-learner interaction, and howthese, in turn, enhanced informal language learning due to an increase in learner col-laboration. The study found that the use of Ning enhanced group cohesion and thatlearners started working in different groups once Ning was introduced. Finally, it high-lights the potential technical and administrative barriers that can impede an institutionin implementing its educational strategy in regards to OERs – in this case, social net-working sites in the classroom. The further education college in which this study tookplace had no policies in place in regards to the use of OERs in the classroom, thus thepaper concludes with recommendations in regards to training and policies so thatresearchers and practitioners can learn from the project.
Keywords: social networking sites; open educational resources; Facebook; languagelearning
Introduction
In summer 2011, a small-scale research study was undertaken in a second language class-
room at a further education college in the UK. The objective was to fill a gap in academic
research on peer interaction when using social networking sites in the second language
classroom. The use of an online social networking site also gave this study a broader rele-
vance to the ongoing efforts to integrate new technology into second language teaching.
There have been consistent efforts to incorporate new technologies into teaching in
ways that are both pedagogically effective and meaningful to learners. These efforts are
underpinned by sociocultural theory and e-learning theories, and take a multidisciplinary
approach. At the same time, there has been an emerging trend in education with the
movement towards openness and collaboration (Hilton, Wiley, Stein, & Johnson, 2010),
and the use of open educational resources (OERs). This article looks at the key barriers to
applying OERs in second language learning, and whether the pedagogy behind OERs is
compatible with the pedagogies of second language learning.
The article begins with an overview and critique of the key characteristics of OERs as
currently defined, before examining their use in the context of second language learning.
*Email: [email protected]
� 2013 Taylor & Francis
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2014
Vol. 27, No. 2, 149–162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818561
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
It then focuses on social networking sites, which, research projects such as the one
described at the end of this article have shown to be of value in second language learning
– for example by enhancing classroom cohesion and peer interaction.
Background
What is an open educational resource?
The term ‘open educational resources’ was first introduced in 2002, but there is yet to be a
universally agreed definition. OERs are sometimes referred to as ‘teaching, learning and
research materials in any medium that reside in the public domain and have been released
under an open licence that permits access, use, repurposing, reuse and redistribution by
others with no or limited restrictions’ (Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, 2007). However,
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2002)
offers an alternative definition: ‘technology-enabled educational resources that are openly
available for consultation, use and adaptation by users for non-commercial purposes’.
In order to discuss the use of OERs in second language learning, these definitions first
need to be examined in more detail with a view to teasing-out the core characteristics that
can be said to feature in all OERs. The overarching themes of these characteristics might
be described as licensing arrangements, costs, reusability and adaptability.
Licensing arrangements
Proponents of OERs believe that knowledge should be (and can be) freely available to all.
However, Bissell (2009) argues that the copyright law ‘is often incompatible with these core
principles of sharing, creativity, and learner engagement’, because any resources created are
automatically copyrighted unless the author specifically makes them available for free.
OERs tend to be made available for use under a Creative Commons license of one
type or another (see Figure 1). The most widely used is the ‘non-commercial licensing’
option (Browne, Holding, Howell, & Rodway-Dyer, 2010), which allows a resource to be
used and amended free of charge by a teacher, but only for non-commercial purposes. It
is this form of licence that both of the above definitions stipulate as a requirement for an
OER. However, this prerequisite is put into question by Bissell (2009), who suggests that
‘there are many legitimate and valuable ways in which commercial efforts will broaden
the access to and impact of any OER’. Commercial provision of OERs might, for
Figure 1. Licensing options for OERS, adapted from Bissell (2009).
150 L. Toetenel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
instance, support effective distribution in ways that serve to stimulate their use more than
free distribution methods otherwise would (e.g. a slick, fast subscription-based web
repository versus a clunky, amateur free one). The commercial provision of OERs could
also provide greater awareness through marketing, enabling users to buy in to the
medium.
As an aside, it could be argued that fee-charging schools and colleges, some of which
are profit-making organisations, are using OERs for commercial purposes.
Costs
The assumption is often made that OERs should be freely available. However, there are two
issues here. First, does this mean the resource should be available for free to the learner or
the teaching institution or to all parties? Second, even where ostensibly made available to
all for free, OERs can still have indirect costs – for example in terms of the technology or
IT services required for users to access the material. Godwin, McAndrew, & Santos (2008)
lend weight to this notion when they discuss the Open University’s ‘Open Learn’ repository
and the funding support it relies on from the Hewitt foundation.
Reusability, remixing or both?
Some define an OER based upon its functionality and its adaptability. Reusability means
that the resource must be used in the same form as it was created, whilst remixing means
that it is permitted to be adapted or used in a different sequence or setting. A more
detailed description of reusing OERs is outlined in Figure 2.
Redefining the OER
So far this article has argued that there may be some scope to broaden the current defini-
tions of OERs, particularly with the suggestion that some commercially licensed products
could be considered to be OERs. These should not necessarily have to be free to the insti-
tution or teacher, although clearly the charges should be for the distribution costs rather
than the OERs themselves (and small enough not present a barrier to uptake). However,
OERs do need to be at least available for reuse.
An alternative definition for OERs could be: ‘a resource that can be employed in
teaching, learning or research, which is available in the public domain for reuse, and is
available for free, notwithstanding costs associated with web hosting and distribution’.
OERs in second language learning – opposing pedagogies?
Limited research has taken place to date on the pedagogical benefits of OERs in general.
However, Lane and McAndrew (2010) suggest that development of OERs has focussed
Figure 2. Reusing OERs, adapted from Hilton et al. (2010).
Computer Assisted Language Learning 151
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
primarily on making content available free of charge online rather than considering how
and whether that content meets the needs of the users.
Although freely available content can support language learning, it does not always
encourage communication and collaboration between learners. An example of an OER in
second language learning is the free availability of online dictionaries, which enable stu-
dents to improve certain elements of their learning (in this case vocabulary-building and
spelling). It could be argued that these are a form of computer-assisted language learning
(CALL). CALL, during its early stages, was related to the grammar translation method or
traditional method (Stern, 1987, p. 453), which does not address the communicative
approach to second language education. It was informed by the cognitive theory of learn-
ing, rather than collaboration.
When collaboration is employed in OERs, the pedagogy changes from a product that
a learner can access at will to a process – a learner-driven route towards learning. Cogniti-
vism is one of several theories that inform OERs as well as second language learning.
This theory is driven by the need of the individual to make sense of the learning, which is
not a collaborative but an individual approach.
Although many theories inform second language learning, the sociocultural theory as
informed by the work of Vygotsky will be discussed here as it is a logical fit with the col-
laborative approach required in using OERs in language teaching. In general academic
terms, this element of his work is also defined as social development. It is based upon the
principle that communication is constructed from thoughts and expression which are
influenced by social interactions. Sociocultural theory is defined as ‘a semiotic process
where participation in socially mediated activities is essential’ (Turuk, 2008). These
socially mediated activities can be interactions on social networking sites, blogs or wikis
as long as the tools are collaborative. This process underpins the current trend towards
computer-mediated communication (CMC) in second language learning. CMC allows
learners to communicate either synchronously or asynchronously via a local or global net-
work (Alvarez-Torres, 2001).
The accessibility of OERs is beneficial to second language learners, but without the
collaborative element it could lead to a return to a more product-driven approach to lan-
guage learning.
The key principle of cognitive theories of learning is for students to process the learn-
ing themselves, which is in line with the pedagogy surrounding OERs, possibly organis-
ing the learning in their own minds based upon previous experience or learning. As the
focus in the cognitive approach is for the learner to analyse their own tasks, it does not
rely on peer interaction. This contrast between learning theories is important, as in second
language learning, having the knowledge is not sufficient – learners need to be able to
work collaboratively in order to have a conversation. This is in line with the sociocultural
approach to language learning; knowledge is social and created in interaction (Gutierrez,
2006). This means that OERs concerned with building new knowledge are not enough on
their own to support learners. They need to develop learning through collaborative con-
versation (Cook, 2008, p. 230).
Social networking sites as open educational resources
This article defines social networking sites as OERs if they are employed in the
classroom.
The first social networking sites were already in existence when the term ‘open educa-
tional resources’ was introduced in 2002. Harrison and Thomas (2009) identify
152 L. Toetenel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
SixDegrees.com as being the first social networking site when it was launched in 1997.
Others followed, notably Myspace in 2003 and Facebook in 2004 (Kujath, 2011).
Although these sites are all known as social networking sites, there are considerable dif-
ferences between them which affect the extent of ‘openness’ that they provide and how
they can be harnessed for teaching.
‘A wide-open window of opportunity for educational innovation is provided by a new
set of low-barrier and easy-to-use tools and services that are called social software’
(Geser, 2012). Social software includes that which is designed for exchange, collabora-
tion and content sharing, and this includes social networking sites and blogs. Social soft-
ware is mentioned in the report ‘Laboratories of open educational practices and
resources’. UNESCO guidelines for using OERs suggest that using social networking
around the depositories of OERs is good practice in order to maximise quality (Common-
wealth of Learning, 2011).
For any given social networking site, whether it complements OERs or can be consid-
ered an open resource in its own right depends both on its use and its level of ‘openness’.
Conole (2010) describes a social networking site called Cloudworks, which was specifi-
cally designed by the Open University to promote discussion and sharing between educa-
tors worldwide. The site has been used for discussion but also as a depository for OERs:
‘The space acts both as a useful evolving repository of tools coupled with examples of
how they can be used’ (Conole, 2010). It seems clear that this particular social networking
site is an OER in and of itself.
Social networking sites and ‘openness’
Hilton, Wiley, & Lutz (2012) describe ‘openness’ as a continuum and they relate the rela-
tive openness of an OER to the extent in which the teacher can reuse, revise and redistrib-
ute or reuse, revise, remix and redistribute the resource. This continuum does not only
apply to the extent to which the teacher can reuse or remix the resource but also to the
extent of technical expertise required, institutional IT policies, funds and IT systems
required to use the resource (Browne et al., 2010).
Most social networking sites require users to register accounts, as collaboration
between identifiable users is a core function of these sites. Some, such as Ning (discussed
in the next section), enable users to set up a customised network in one of two ways:
either an open public network accessible to anyone, or a closed network accessible to
invitees only. It could be argued that the latter does not fully meet the ‘openness’ criterion
which is perceived as a key feature of an OER. However, ‘openness’ in this sense can be
misleading, as a fully open social networking site might not be appropriate in education
as discussed in the next section.
Social networking sites and their use in education to date
There has been limited use of social networking sites in education to date (Harrison &
Thomas, 2009; Conole, 2010), but where they are used, the nature of their application is
quite varied. Some educators introduce social networking sites in the classroom to
develop writing skills (e.g. through writing blogs), others in order to develop communica-
tive skills (e.g. asynchronous communication via instant messaging). There have also
been several studies (Harrison & Thomas, 2009; Mills, 2011) in the use of social network-
ing sites and identity, in which the relationship between students’ identities and their atti-
tudes towards language learning were investigated.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 153
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Four of the social networking sites commonly used in education in the UK are
described in Figure 3, alongside examples of how they are used for educational purposes.
There are certain core characteristics that most social networking sites tend to have in
common. First, they enable the user to create a ‘profile’, typically with information about
themselves; the user is then able to make their profile visible to other users of the site,
who can then make connections with them – these connections are often framed in terms
of a list of ‘friends’. Once users are added to each others’ friends list, they can create and
share information with each other through the website. This will often be in the form of
short messages and statements or photos they have uploaded.
Kujath (2011) found in studying a small group of college students that the various
social networking sites were not all used in the same way, although they were used for
the same purpose; on some sites users log in more frequently and have more connections
(Facebook) whilst others are used for a longer period of time (Myspace).
The differences in frequency and length of visits are probably explained by a key dif-
ference between Myspace and Facebook in that although both could be used as a blogging
site, Myspace has a defined ‘blogs’ tab, which makes it more pertinent for blogging.
When used in education, these small differences are important and might help the tutor to
decide which social networking site to use depending on the nature of the students’ learn-
ing activities. For example, if the purpose is to develop social interactions then a site such
as Facebook might work well, whereas Myspace might be more effective for developing
writing skills.
Facebook is, at present, the most popular social networking site in terms of total users
across the globe, but its use in the classroom is not always welcomed by teachers. Lafford
(2009) states that although Facebook is increasingly popular in the student world, it might
not be appropriate for use in the classroom. Lafford cites privacy as the main drawback,
and considers other social networking sites that have more stringent privacy controls to
be better options. She also states that students might not welcome colleges intruding in
their private life, or allowing classmates and teachers to get access to their personal Face-
book pages (although this is a valid observation, this could be resolved by asking the stu-
dents to create a ‘student’ identity on Facebook rather than using their private account.)
Figure 3. Social networking in second language learning.
154 L. Toetenel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
So why should educators want to use Facebook if privacy is such an issue? The answer is
simple: because so many students use it and are familiar with it. It also applies many of
the elements of computer-mediated communication tools, such as synchronous and asyn-
chronous discussions and sharing pictures and video capabilities (Kabilan, Ahmad, &
Abidin, 2010).
Twitter is a very different type of social network. It distinguishes itself from the others
in two fundamental ways: first, through its policy of limiting individual messages or
‘tweets’ to 140 characters; and second, in that it does not implement a ‘friends list’, rather
it allows the user to broadcast their tweets and others to ‘subscribe’ to receive them.
Newgarden (2009) describes Twitter as a ‘microblogging software platform’; a site where
users create ‘tweets’ which could be described as ‘micro-blogs’, due to their nature and
size. The site enables students easily to connect to native language users and students can
be encouraged by the teacher to ‘tweet’ outside the language class.
The use and purpose of Twitter is different from other social networking sites, which
could be the reason for its success. It fills a different niche. In the author’s opinion the
site should be seen as a microblogging site and used for that purpose in the classroom,
rather than an alternative tool in social networking. ‘Microblogs’ are not the same as
entries on a social networking site; they tend to be a one-way form of communication –
broadcaster to reader – which does not encourage conversation.
Finally, Ning is a social networking site that has been favoured by educators like Laf-
ford (2009) who states that it might be a better solution for integrating social networking
into the classroom due its increased privacy controls in comparison to Facebook (Davis,
2010).
Ning also offers extensive levels of customisation for the teacher. Almost every aspect
of its appearance and functionality can be changed. Customisation is also relatively
straightforward and user-friendly, making it accessible to teachers with relatively modest
IT knowledge. Access to the site is free for the students although a fee is charged to the
teacher for the closed-network functionality and customisation.
To investigate social interaction in the second language classroom, a collaborative
OER was employed in a small-scale research project that took place in summer 2011.
Several social networking sites were considered for use in the study. Ning was selected
for its simplicity and certain unique features that helped to minimise safety and privacy
concerns (Brady, Holcomb, & Smith, 2010). An overview of the method and findings of
this research project are presented in the next section.
The research project
The project took place in a second language classroom at a further education college in
the UK. The intention of the project was to investigate the effect of the use of a social net-
working site on peer interaction in and outside the classroom. It then reviewed the type of
activities used and the effect of these on peer interaction within the study.
Method
Participants
Three classes (30 students in total) were divided by linguistic ability (elementary, inter-
mediate and advanced) and were invited to take part in the study. Only the students who
were taught by the researcher decided to take part, their ability ranged from entry level 2
Computer Assisted Language Learning 155
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
up to level 1. This group consisted of 15 students (n ¼ 15) and Table 1 gives an overview
of their language level, origin, gender and age range.
The researcher was ranked top user by the Ning software on the basis that she made
more posts than any of the participants. Inclusion of the researcher’s contributions in the
results helps to illustrate the importance of the tutor’s input in generating interaction on
the Ning website. As can be seen from Table 1, 87% of the participants were between 12
and 25 years of age, whilst only 13% were between 25 and 45 years. Twenty per cent of
the participants were male, whilst 80% were female. Forty per cent of the participants
came from middle-eastern countries, 20% from Asian countries and 40% from European
countries.
Materials
The study was initially designed to be delivered using Facebook. However, due to techni-
cal and administrative issues Ning was used instead. Materials were developed in
sequence, based upon the online teaching model developed by Salmon (2004), and
adapted to suit the second language classroom environment. Salmon (2004, p. 29)
describes a five-stage model which she suggests students have to work through before
Table 1. Participants in Ning study.
Top user(ranked bynumber ofposts)
Level ofstudent Origin Gender
Agerange(years)
Classattendance
Classcontribution
2 Entry 3 Afghanistan Female 12–25 High Medium3 Entry 3 Poland Female 12–25 Low High4 Entry 2 Saudi Arabia Male 12–25 High Low5 Level 1 Spain Male 12–25 High Low6 Entry 2 Thailand Female 12–25 High Low7 Level 1 France Female 12–25 High High8 Entry 3 Afghanistan Female 12–25 Medium High9 Entry 2 Iraq Female 25–45 High Low10 Entry 2 Egypt Female 25–45 High High11 Entry 3 Slovakia Female 12–25 High Medium12 Entry 3 Poland Female 12–25 Medium Medium13 Entry 2 Saudi Arabia Male 12–25 High Low14 Entry 2 Hong Kong Female 12–25 Low Low15 Entry 2 Hong Kong Female 12–25 Low Low16 Entry 3 Poland Female 12–25 Low High
Table 2. Top five Ning users versus language level.
Top user Origin of the student Level of language Number of posts
1 Researcher2 Afghanistan E3 143 Poland E3 74 Saudi Arabia E2 55 Spain L1 14
156 L. Toetenel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
they can access the ‘learning’. Stages 1 and 2 provide access to the system and allow time
for online socialisation, whilst stage 3 involves exchanges of information between the
learners. Salmon (2004) suggests that it is stage 4 in which the learners begin to access
the knowledge provided by the online learning material. Stage 5 focuses on development,
where the students achieve their personal objectives by using the learning material. The
model developed by Salmon was condensed into four phases for this project, as the learn-
ers did not have the opportunity to explore the Ning materials for their own purposes.
Initially, the students need access to the site and be motivated to do so. Once this is in
place, the next phase is to encourage the students to socialise with each other through the
site. Phase 3 has been reached once the students are familiar with the site and communi-
cating with each other without the need for tutor intervention. Phase 4 then begins at the
point where learners are ready to use the system for learning.
For this research project, phase 1 involved the students setting up a Ning user profile,
learning how to navigate the system and updating their ‘status’ messages. Materials were
developed to motivate the students to access the site, including short quizzes and the use
of photos they had taken during a tour around the college.
In each session, the students were asked to update their statuses and respond to their
peers. Ning automatically generated a ‘top users’ table based on contributions as can be
seen in Table 2. This served as a means of encouraging them to socialise with each other
through the Ning system, as per phase 2 above. Once the students were using the Ning
site successfully (phase 3) by posting comments on photos uploaded from the visit to the
local Mayor’s office, they proceeded to the learning phase where they used Ning to access
a grammar website and responded to a blog post about Henry VIII.
Procedure
A closed Ning network was set up by the researcher for the study. It was used in the class-
room for an hour per day for a two-week period. Initially, the study was planned to take
place over four weeks, but technical issues delayed the start, condensing the period of the
study to two weeks. The project was conducted during a summer school in which the stu-
dents attended a range of lessons including the Ning sessions. Although the learners were
working towards a qualification, the majority of them attended the school in order to gen-
erally improve their English. Consequently, attendance was not strictly monitored and
not all students came to class every day which is likely to have affected the outcome of
the project. Students completed their tasks using computers in the classroom with support
from the researcher.
Data collection
Students contributed 144 posts on the Ning website during the two weeks in which the
project ran. Students were also asked to keep diaries during the project and eight were
collected at the end, which is a response rate of 53%. Diaries were provided to the
researcher, by eight of the nine students who had attended the majority of the lessons.
The other students were not excluded from the project as they did contribute to the Ning
project on the occasions when they attended class. There were also two questionnaires for
the students to complete, one prior to the research commencing and one during the second
week of the research project. Twelve questionnaires were collected; four questionnaires
prior to the study and eight once the study concluded. The first questionnaire was handed
out at the end of the first lesson whilst the second questionnaire was completed during the
Computer Assisted Language Learning 157
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
final lesson. This may explain why the post-project questionnaire was completed by the
majority of learners who attended the class regularly. The researcher observed 30 hours
of interaction between students during the two-week project.
Data analysis
The 144 student posts were first categorised by task and then attributed to the students
who made them. The interactions were categorised as either ‘new posts’ or ‘replies’, with
successful peer interaction measured by the number of replies that a given student would
receive from their peers. The replies on each task were then counted as well. Finally, the
interactions were categorised based upon the language level that the students were work-
ing towards.
The students’ diaries were analysed qualitatively and the reflections of the students
were used to verify the observations of the researcher. The questionnaires were analysed
quantitatively to gather data about the students’ background and familiarity with social
networking sites, as well as their perception of the use of Ning in the classroom. They
were also analysed qualitatively with the comments provided in the questionnaires used
to triangulate the data collected from the researcher observations and the student diaries.
Finally, the observation process was based upon the ‘observe and look for nothing strat-
egy’ (Richards, 2003). This meant that the observations were not focussed on particular
linguistic or social behaviour but rather the researcher observed in the classroom and
made notes of changes in the classroom environment.
Findings
The aims of this study were twofold: to study the effect using a social networking site had
on interaction within and outside the classroom; and, to consider which specific activities
were most successful at increasing interaction between peers.
The student diaries, researcher observations and the questionnaires showed that stu-
dents enjoyed using Ning in the classroom environment. Figure 4 below gives examples
of the final comments that the students wrote in their diaries.
The researcher observed that the Ning project led to a noticeable improvement in
group cohesion. Prior to the introduction of Ning, the researcher observed that students
with similar ethnic backgrounds tended to work together in the classroom. The researcher
observed that, by the second week of the research project using Ning, students began to
work in different groups than they had done previously and these groups had a mix of eth-
nicities. These observations were analysed against the interactions on the social
Figure 4. Student comments on the use of Ning in class.
158 L. Toetenel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
networking site and the findings suggested that these new groups very closely reflected
the interactions that took place on the social networking site.
Analysis of the data from the second questionnaire found that three students also used
the website outside class hours. These data were triangulated with the user data from
Ning and found that one student in particular used the site almost daily. Although avail-
able on mobile devices, only one student accessed the site on a mobile device. Once the
project came to an end, three students visited the website several times per week after
completing the summer school.
The activities that were most successful in receiving responses were the tasks set up
by the researcher. These tasks received generally one response per student. However, the
study found that the use of pictures generated more interaction between learners, with an
increased use of informal language used in these interactions.
The post-study questionnaire revealed that all-but-one student considered the use of
Ning in the classroom beneficial to learning English.
As can be seen from Figure 5, the students with a higher linguistic ability (students at
level 1) placed more posts combined than students with a lower linguistic ability. These
findings are in line with the findings of a Korean study by Mikyung and Damarin (2008)
where students with a lower linguistic ability contributed less than more able students
when using a social networking site in a second language class.
In using Ning, students were ranked by the software as top users, based upon the num-
ber of new posts they produced. As the study found that the group of students with the
highest linguistic ability produced most posts overall, it could be expected that the student
Figure 5. Mean total Ning posts per language level.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 159
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
that produced most posts would also be in this category, but this was not the case as can
be seen from the table below. This finding suggests that further research is needed to
establish whether there is a relationship between the level of peer interaction and the lin-
guistic ability of the student involved, in contrast to the findings of the Korean study as
described earlier in this article.
The study also found that the majority of students did not have any particular concerns
in regards to sharing data or the reliability of the personal information provided by their
peers. This is an interesting finding as many educators list the issues around data security
as the most important barrier to using social networking sites in class (Davis, 2010). How-
ever, it could be that the students in this research project did not consider data security
important with Ning being a closed network and with the students already knowing their
peers prior to starting the project. Further research in the importance of data security
would benefit the field in order to establish whether the barriers often cited are indeed per-
ceived as such by students.
These findings suggest that the use of social networking sites in the classroom can
benefit the student experience in a number of ways, and could encourage students to
access lesson material outside the classroom.
Barriers to the use of social networking sites as an open educational resource
The study identified significant barriers to using social networking sites in the classroom in
a further education college. The barriers experienced were mainly of an administrative and
technical nature. The researcher sought and received permission from the Head of Depart-
ment in order to undertake the project at which point the IT department was informed.
Although the appropriate channels were used, the project was not followed though. This
project reports similar findings in 2011 that Ofsted reported in 2009 when researching vir-
tual learning environments. Although the type of technology has changed, no change has
occurred within institutional practice to embrace the use of new technology to aid learning.
Another barrier that the researcher experienced in this project was the lack of knowl-
edge of the staff in regards to the use of social networking sites for educational purposes.
No staff development has been undertaken to promote the use of online educational
resources in the classroom. As a result, this could have affected the ability of staff to
explain the project in the other classes and could have resulted in the low uptake of the
project in other groups.
Currently no policies are in place for the use of OERs in the institution in which the
project took place.
Recommendations for future practice
As a result of this study and the literature review, the following recommendations for
future practice are suggested (with particular reference to further education colleges):
� staff development within institutions to include periodic training and awareness
raising on the latest technological advances in the field;� new initiatives/research in the use of technology in the classroom to be incentivised
and to be counted towards pay rewards;� fostering a culture within the IT department that is open and supportive towards the
use of innovative technologies in the classroom. Institutions could achieve this by
establishing a team of teaching staff who would act as a link between the IT
160 L. Toetenel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
department and other teaching practitioners, and who can assist in supporting new
initiatives.
Notes on contributor
Lisette Toetenel is a research student at the School of Education at Oxford Brookes University,Oxford, United Kingdom. She also teaches in the Hospitality Department and Teacher Education atBedford College, Bedford, United Kingdom.
References
Alvarez-Torres, M.J. (2001). On ‘chatting’ in the foreign language classroom. Clearing House, 74(6), 313.
Atkins, D.E., Brown, J.S., & Hammond, A.L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources(OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/
Bissell, A.N. (2009). Permission granted: Open licensing for educational resources. The Journal ofOpen, Distance and e-Learning, 24(1), 97–106.
Brady, K.P., Holcomb, L.B., & Smith, B.V. (2010). The use of alternative social networking sites inhigher educational settings: A case study of the e-learning benefits of Ning in education. Jour-nal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151–160.
Browne, T., Holding, R., Howell, A., & Rodway-Dyer, S. (2010). The challenges of OER to aca-demic practice. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3, 1–15.
Commonwealth of Learning. (2011). Guidelines for open educational resources (OER) in highereducation. Vancouver: Author.
Conole, G. (2010). Facilitating new forms of discourse for learning and teaching: Harnessing thepower of Web 2.0 practices. Open Learning, 25(2), 141–151.
Cook, V.J. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Hodder Education.Davis, M.R. (2010). Social networking goes to school. Education Digest, 76(3), 14–19.Geser, G. (2012). In G. Geser (Ed.), Open educational practices and resources. OLCOS roadmap
2012. Salzburg: Salzburg Research (EduMedia Group).Godwin, S., McAndrew, P., & Santos, A. (2008). Behind the scenes with Open Learn: The chal-
lenges of researching the provision of open educational resources. Electronic Journal ofe-Learning, 6(2), 139–147.
Gutierrez, G.A.G. (2006). Sociocultural theory and its application to CALL: A study of the com-puter and its relevance as a meditational tool in the process of collaborative activity. ReCALL,18(2), 230–251.
Harrison, R., & Thomas, M. (2009). Identity in online communities: Social networking sites andlanguage learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 109–124.
Hilton, J., Wiley, D.A., & Lutz, N. (2012). Examining the reuse of open textbooks. InternationalReview of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(2), 45–58.
Hilton, J., III., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four ‘R’s of openness and ALMSanalysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning, 25(1), 37–44.
Kabilan, M.K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M.J.Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learningof English in institutions of higher education? Internet & Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187.
Kujath, C.L. (2011). Facebook and MySpace: Complement or substitute for face-to-face interac-tion? CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(1/2), 75–78.
Lafford, B.A. (2009). Toward an ecological CALL: Update to.. Modern Language Journal, 99,673–696.
Lane, A., & McAndrew, P. (2010). Are open educational resources systematic or systemic changeagents for teaching practice? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 952–962.
Mikyung, B., & Damarin, S.K. (2008). Computer-mediated communication as experienced byKorean women students in US higher education. (cover story). Language & Intercultural Com-munication, 8(3), 192–208.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 161
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Mills, N. (2011). Situated learning through social networking communities: The development ofjoint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire.” CALICO Journal, 28(2), 345–368.
Newgarden, K. (2009). Annotated bibliography – twitter, social networking, and communities ofpractice. TESL-EJ, 13(2), 1–20.
Ofsted. (2009). Virtual learning environments: An evaluation of their development in a sample ofeducational settings. Retrieved from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/Virtual-learning-environments-an-evaluation-of-their-development-in-a-sample-of-educational-settings
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating - The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor &
Francis Books Ltd.Stern, H.H. (1987). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Turuk, M.C. (2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the sec-
ond language classroom. Annual Review of Education, Communication & Language Sciences,5, 244–262.
UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developingcountries: Final report. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf
162 L. Toetenel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
