Modeling the Use of Facebook in Environmental Higher Education

The Social Classroom:Integrating Social Network Use in EducationĠorġ MalliaUniversity of Malta, Msida, Malta

A volume in the Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)701 E. Chocolate AvenueHershey PA 17033Tel: 717-533-8845Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2014 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

British Cataloguing in Publication DataA Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

CIP Data � PendingISBN 978-1-4666-4904-0 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4666-4905-7 (ebook) ISBN 978-1-4666-4906-4 (print & perpetual access) This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913)

Managing Director: Production Manager: Publishing Systems Analyst: Development Editor: Acquisitions Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design:

Lindsay Johnston Jennifer Yoder Adrienne Freeland Austin DeMarco Kayla Wolfe Lisandro Gonzalez Jason Mull

100

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Chapter 6

Modeling the Use of Facebook in Environmental

Higher Education

ABSTRACT

Many authors agree that it is essential to integrate social networking tools and sites with education. On the other hand, environmental education represents an umbrella for many forms of education that already exist and new ones that remain to be created. Bearing this in mind as well as the increasing use of Facebook in education, the key aspect of this chapter focuses on scientific research about modeling the use of Facebook in environmental education among students of the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Serbia. The research clearly points out the educational benefits of implement-ing Facebook with, subsequently, a significant improvement of students’ environmental awareness. The investigated model of using Facebook, presented in the chapter, could be useful to other educators, giving them suitable information about the possible ways to improve students` achievements in environmental and other kinds of higher education.

INTRODUCTION

Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world. - Nelson Mandela

In today’s informatics era students are heavily immersed in Web 2.0 technologies and the Inter-net, which play an important role in their social

life as well as their academic life (e.g., Petrovic, 2009; Lego Muñoz, & Towner, 2009; Isljamovic, Petrovic & Jeremic, 2011). Social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, have a very strong influence on the lives of millions of students (Thompson, 2007). This leads to many educators wondering what role social networking could have in education (Joly, 2007; Petrovic, Petrovic,

Nataša PetrovicUniversity of Belgrade, Serbia

Veljko JeremicUniversity of Belgrade, Serbia

Dalibor Petrovic

University of Belgrade, Serbia

Marko CirovicUniversity of Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4904-0.ch006

101

Modeling the Use of Facebook in Environmental Higher Education

Jeremic, Milenkovic & Cirovic, 2012a). Also, due to the high number of social network users, atten-tion is drawn to the necessity for educators to use these tools for communicating with their students and to the usefulness of students’ participation in this communication (Grant, 2008).

Furthermore, social networks are being ad-opted rapidly by millions of users, most of whom are students, with a great number of purposes in mind (Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Selwyn, 2007; Mazman & Usluel, 2010). Facebook has very quickly become the college students’ favorite social network and an integral part of the “be-hind the scenes” college experience (Selwyn, 2007; Lego Muñoz, & Towner, 2009). Previous papers have indicated that the adoption rates of Facebook in universities and colleges are remark-able – 85% of college students that have a college network in Facebook have adopted it (Arrington, 2005; Thompson, 2007; Lego Muñoz, & Towner, 2009). Also, research by Fogg Phillips, Baird and Fogg (2011) shows that in many cases students spend more time online in an informal learning environment, than they do with teachers in the traditional classroom.

On the other hand, fast technological devel-opment and industrialization have resulted in an increased level of negligence and behavior that lead to the desolation of the environmental balance (Cetin & Nisanci, 2010; Slovic & Petrovic 2011). Many authors agree that good environmental education is crucial for achieving sustainable de-velopment that would enable the necessary way of life for human inhabitants within nature’s capacity (e.g., McCormick et al., 2005; UNESCO, 2012).

Given the need to develop new approaches to improve students’ environmental awareness, knowledge and understanding of environmental and sustainable development issues, we conducted a study on a group of undergraduate students of University of Belgrade - Faculty of Organizational Science, enrolled in the Environmental Quality System course. This is especially important be-cause the data about environmental educational

curriculum and programs in Serbia have shown that there is an evident lack of formal and permanent environmental education at all levels of formal education (Klemenovic, 2004; Trumic, Petrovic & Radojicic, 2009; Petrovic, 2010; Pavlovic, 2011; Sakac, Cveticanin & Sucevic, 2012). This chapter discusses modeling the use of Facebook, as a contemporary educational instrument for im-proving environmental higher education. It should be noted that in the previous years, there has not been a lot of research in this field, not only about the improved communication between professors and students, but also on Facebook`s potential as an educational tool, used as a means of studying in a faculty course.

This scientific research is the initial stage of a larger project to innovate, and to improve environmental education of undergraduates. Our research, which had 138 students participating in it, has shown that a relatively good model of using Facebook for educational and pedagogical purposes is the following: the use of Facebook for interacting with the educator by creating a Facebook group dedicated to the course; the use of Facebook by students who are encouraged to create their own Facebook groups about a specific environmental issue; the use of Facebook for easy access to an application called Flashcards stash (as game based learning).

BACKGROUND

Using Facebook in Education

Originally designed for college students in the United States (Harvard) in early 2004, Facebook was created as a social networking website; then the phenomenon of Facebook rapidly spread when it opened up to all college students (Petrovic et al., 2012a). Facebook opened its doors to people outside the university network in 2005 (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). Today with approximately 800 million users worldwide (World Internet Users and

102


Population Stats, 2012), Facebook has a diverse community of users at all levels of education and areas of society, including companies and univer-sities. This number of users all around the globe makes Facebook the most used social network.

Many papers show that social networks help educational activities by allowing interaction, col-laboration, active participation, information shar-ing, and critical thinking (Mason, 2006; Selwyn, 2007; Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008). Also in this way, students are enabled to satisfy their expecta-tions for more autonomy, connectivity, and socio-experiential learning opportunities (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007; Petrovic et al., 2012a). The author Bartlett-Bragg (2006) concludes that providing informal learning contexts by integrating social networks into learning practices becomes remark-ably important for the improvement of learning and teaching opportunities. Also, the proliferation of social technologies has created a culture in which youths participate more in creating and sharing content, profoundly changing the way students communicate, interact, and learn.

There are many characteristics that are noted in the literature (e.g.,, Grosseck, Bran & Tiru, 2011; Petrovic et al., 2012a) that recommend Facebook as a tool that can contribute significantly to the quality of education: students’ actively participating as both subjects and partners in the social interaction (Ellison, Steinfeld & Lampe, 2007); increasing students’ individual responsi-bility and autonomy (Joinson, 2008); developing students’ interpersonal intelligence, as well as critical thought (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfeld, 2008); developing students’ communications and interactions with the educator outside the classes (Selwyn, 2009); involving students in achiev-ing the learning tasks and successful transfer of knowledge (Madge, Meek, Wellens & Hooley, 2009); developing students’ positive attitude to-wards learning, improving their quality of learning (Pasek & Hargittai, 2009; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010); fostering positive relationships among students and engendering students’ motivation

and engagement (West, Lewis & Currie, 2009; Kabilan, Ahmad & Abidin, 2010).

Furthermore, it is often argued in contemporary literature (e.g.,, Grosseck et al., 2011; Petrovic et al., 2012a) that Facebook allows educators: to provide constructive educational outcomes in a variety of fields (Pempek, 2009); to establish ef-ficient educational relations on a social network and give up on old behavioral patterns (Selwyn, 2009); to accept the student as an interaction partner and perform mentoring (Schwartz, 2009); to integrate diagnostic formative evaluation in the learning process and to calibrate didactic activities accordingly (Pasek & Hargittai, 2009); to achieve a change in strategy, mentality, attitude and be-haviors by using Facebook (e.g., the transfer of knowledge remains one of the functions of teach-ing, but it is second to organizing and managing learning situations) and to analyze and compare ways of learning and the knowledge achieved by students (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman & Witty, 2010); to develop knowledge and skills in order to perform efficient didactic activities and practice a different pedagogy in the best interest of students (Hew, 2011).

It should be noted that there are opposing views about the use of Facebook in education because of issues such as: concerns related to privacy and anxiety in interacting with educators in this environment (Hewitt & Forte, 2006); a belief that it does not serve an academic purpose (Charnigo & Barnet-Ellis, 2007); the opinion that a faculty should simply avoid “educationally appropriating” these “backstage” social spaces (Selwyn, 2007).

Environmental Education

The phenomenon of environmental education has come a long way since 1965, when it was defined by the Royal Society of London as the preserva-tion of life systems (Gayford & Dorion, 1994), and in 1970 the International Union for the Con-servation of Nature - IUCN defined the concept of environmental education as an education with

103


the goal of conserving biodiversity (Sato, 1994; Santos, Sato & Maroti, 1999). The incorporation of new concepts of environmental education was established by the Recommendation 96 of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environ-ment in 1972, highlighting the human being as the principal protagonist in the maintenance of the planet (United Nations, 1972; The Belgrade Charter, 1975, UNESCO-UNEP, 1976). Environ-mental education can also be defined as not being claimed by only one area of knowledge, culmi-nating with the most used and known concept: “as a process of recognition of values and clas-sification of concepts, towards the development of skills and modification of attitudes in relation to the environment, to understand and appreciate the interrelations between human beings, their cultures and their biophysical environment; and further with the practice of making decisions and the ethics that lead to a change in quality of life” (UNESCO, 1978). Also, environmental education represents an instrument for different socio-cultural groups of community, according to their needs and interests, by modifying their attitudes and behaviors, introducing new envi-ronmental knowledge and criteria as a solution for environmental problems (UNESCO, 1978), as well as improving their quality of life through economic growth, without damaging the natural environment (WECD, 1987; Santos et al., 1999).

At its core, environmental education strives to engage the global citizenry in new ways of think-ing and acting in, with, and for the environment (Carleton-Hug & Hug, 2010). Environmental education can be defined as “learning to protect and improve environment in a systematic, planned and knowledge-based way during the whole hu-man lifecycle in order to spread awareness about basic characteristics of environment, its structures and relationships that tends to make a human who protects and improves the environment in a way that will ensure human existence now as well as in the future” (UNESCO, 1998).

Environmental education nowadays is more and more focused on the perspective of sustain-ability to promote, not only the fundamental environmental knowledge, but also behaviors, strategies and actions that can really reconvert our development models and our lifestyles. Based on the definition of environmental education (UNES-CO, 1998) we can conclude that environmental education is based on knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations and commitment of individuals and collectives willing to work toward solutions of current problems and the prevention of new ones. In other words, environmental education implies a brand new style of life, new ethical and cultural values and responsible people.

Environmental Higher Education

Environmental education is of particular impor-tance in the field of higher education, because higher education is one of the nation’s most valuable assets (NACUBO, 2002). The unique-ness of environmental higher education is that it is learner-centered, providing learners with opportunities to construct their own understand-ings through hands-on, minds-on investigations. Also, learners in the field of environmental higher education are engaged in direct experiences and are challenged to use higher-order thinking skills (Petrovic, 2010; Petrovic, Isljamovic & Jeremic, 2012b). Environmental higher education develops and emphasizes skills and habits that students can use throughout their life, in order to understand and act on environmental issues. Ultimately, it is about decision-making, critical thinking and citizenship, including acting as an environmentally literate citizen, which involves adopting actions that reduce environmental stresses, or affect some conservation target (Heimlich, 2010).

Environmental higher education improves stu-dents’ environmental awareness and understanding of sustainable development and most importantly, it is a way to develop and implement preventive

104


strategies that respond to environmental problems in the context of environmental protection and sustainable development in individual communi-ties and regions (McCormick et al., 2005). What has to be offered in the program of environmental higher education is interconnected with the wide range of requirements in professional life; therefore the program of environmental higher education is designed to meet these new sustainability chal-lenges, by integrating inputs from the social and human sciences into the study of environmental planning and engineering, and by enabling them to visualize the engineers’ task from environmental perspectives (Gutierrez-Martin & Huttenhain, 2003). The focus of such a type of education is to identify the behavior that is causing a threat to an environmental condition and then to see whether education alone is enough to alter behavior or it needs to be tied to another strategy (e.g., subsidies) in order to arrive at the desired behavior (Crohn & Birnbaum, 2010).

In addition, we can conclude that good envi-ronmental higher education:

• Is learner-centered, providing students with opportunities to construct their own understandings through hands-on, minds-on investigations;

• Involves engaging learners in direct experi-ences and challenging them to use higher-order thinking skills as supportive of the development of an active learning commu-nity where learners share ideas and exper-tise, and

• Invokes prompt continued inquiry, that provides real-world contexts and issues from which concepts and skills can be used (NAAEE, 1996).

The undisputed fact is that population trends, societal pressures, and changing economic and technological conditions affect learning (Apps, 1988). Educators and faculties have to make necessary adaptations in their curricula with the

given information and new knowledge in order to meet the challenges of a new learning society.

It is necessary to satisfy the following demands in the field of environmental higher education: new learning opportunities; new educational technolo-gies that affect learning needs; contribution of higher education to a new learning society; striving for change; charting new directions; meeting the curriculum needs of 21st century learners. There is a need for diversifying instructional methods and approaches as well as exploring alternative and informal means of education. Numerous re-searches in the field of educational use of social networks (e.g., Bartlett-Bragg, 2006; Mason, 2006; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007; Selwyn, 2007; Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008) provide research that implies there is an impact of social networks, and especially of Facebook, on environmental higher education (e.g., Petrovic et al., 2012a).

METHODOLOGY: RESEARCH CONTEXT

Previous studies have shown that introductory university level environmental studies classes can improve students’ environmental literacy (McMillan et al., 2004). Also, many educators feel that they should not only teach the science, but also engage students and encourage positive response to environmental and sustainable issues (i.e., Mason & Santi, 1998; Cross & Price, 1999; Lester, Ma, Lee & Lambert, 2006). Further on, successful learning requires a change of attitude to education, both in the educator and in the learner (Kostova & Atasoy, 2008), as it engages formal, non-formal and informal education and uses a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory learning and higher-order thinking skills (UNESCO, 2012).

The course selected for this research is Envi-ronmental Quality System, that is an obligatory course in the last year of undergraduate studies at the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Organiza-

105


tional Sciences, Serbia. In this course, a framework and a curriculum for good environmental higher education are developed and applied. We have selected this course because it is based on a wide range of scientific and practical knowledge of en-vironmental science and sustainable development as a good benchmark for the adequate improve-ment of students’ environmental awareness and environmental knowledge at undergraduate level.

In this course, educators are mentors and facilitators and students teach each other. These experiences promote higher order thinking skills and provide a cooperative context for learning and evaluation. Also, the purpose of this course is to orient the student, not only towards the basic knowledge of environmental protection, environ-mental management and principles and strategies of sustainable development, but also to the promo-tion of the concept of sustainability and necessary environmental behavior change and the encouraging of pro-environmental behavior patterns.

The course classes consisted of two hours of lectures and two hours of exercises each week for the period of a 14-week semester. The course has sections on ecology, environmental issues and protection, environmental management, eco management systems, ISO 14000, sustainable development and practices of sustainability. Also, the Environmental Quality System course incorporates web-based resources which are best used for organization, communication to support self-directed learning, and as a means of providing multiple perspectives and alternative viewpoints. Their use facilitates students’ choice as to how, when and where they learn, and they provide multiple access points to information as well as access to multiple sources of information. This can facilitate student choice to the focus and sequence of their learning activities. The course programme is based on a strong pedagogical methodology, requiring participants to turn their environmental and management knowledge and understanding into appropriate environmental actions and into behavior change for sustainability (Petrovic, 2010).

In this chapter, Facebook is discussed as an educational tool, keeping in mind the fact that most Facebook users are university students (Bumgarner, 2007), as well as that a lot of research show the perks of Facebook in the sense that it enables peer feedback, provides an accurate fit within social contexts, and has interaction tools (Mason, 2006; Petrovic et al., 2012a), allowing for active participation and collaboration (Mazman & Usluel, 2010). Therefore, Facebook can be a useful educational tool, because students and faculties have equally benefited from the freedom and interactivity that the online course content can provide (Petrovic et al., 2012a).

The model that we used and examined in this research consists of:

1. The use of Facebook for interacting with the educator. This is done by creating a Facebook group dedicated to the course, where all the students attending the course are members (http://www.facebook.com/groups/227440097319572/?ref=ts&fref=ts;http://www.facebook.com/groups/385067548239027/). Having in mind that all of the students are online, this enables students to get news about the course progressively: course syllabus; a study guide containing key concepts; activi-ties and references to readings; the reading material for the next class; useful links; the information on guest lecturers; dates for turn-ing in their homework; assignments; upcom-ing events; information about the exam and samples of work outside of the classroom. Students use Facebook to contact each other about class assignments or examinations as well as to collaborate on assignments and team projects in an online environment. All of this enhances the students’ learning experiences with stimulating exercises, real-world simulations, ready access to data in external websites, and communication with peers and mentors.

106


2. Students are encouraged to make their own Facebook groups/pages about a specific en-vironmental issue. Doing this they research additional information about their field of interest in environmental problems, themes, etc. (example: http://www.facebook.com/groups/307709306008085/or http://www.facebook.com/pages/EKOstajler/278630902170288?fref=ts). They share this infor-mation with each other and other Facebook friends. Prior to creating these groups, the students were given a set of useful and credit-able links about environmental issues as help. Our research has proved that by doing the research needed for their groups/pages, they were not only more informed on the given issue, but more sensitive to environmental issues and more motivated for studying their lessons too.

3. Wanting to make the preparations for the exam available in the environment with which students are already familiar, we introduced them to an application called Flashcards stash. This application is ac-cessible from their Facebook accounts (http://flashcardstash.com/users/sign-up_and_login?academic_class_id=2204-skzs-2012). As well as the link to the applica-tion, they were given a manual on using the application and the flashcards themselves. This particular way of studying enables modern game based learning for students and makes understanding the basic terms of the course more successful.

Therefore, students learning through this new modern and flexible model can expect to spend 2-3 hours more per week studying the materials in addition to the time required for assignments. At the completion of this course, students should be able to have knowledge and understanding of: the nature and function of ecosystems and how they are interrelated, the impact of people on the

environment, the role of the community, politics and market forces in environmental decision making, the principles of ecologically sustainable development, career opportunities associated with the environment; have skills for: applying techni-cal expertise within an environmental context, identifying and assessing environmental problems, communicating about environmental problems to others, resolving environmental problems, adopting behaviors and practices that protect the environment, evaluating the success of their actions; gain values: a respect for life on Earth, an appreciation of their cultural heritage, a com-mitment to act for the environment by supporting long-term solutions to environmental problems.

PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN

The aim of this chapter is to examine whether the educational use of Facebook has effects on enriching student’s environmental information and environmental knowledge and achievement levels of the selected course.

Main goals of the research were to gain answers to three questions:

Q1: Does the use of Facebook in the form of a Facebook group, where all the students that are part of the course are members and the subject of the group is the course they are taking, can be a good tool for improving the students’ interaction with the educator? Does the improved interaction make the students feel more in charge of their education, and improves the level of information they obtain about their homework, their tasks, classes, tests, guest lecturers, important dates, etc?

Q2: Does the fact that during this research, students made their own Facebook groups which ad-dressed an environmental issue of their own choice and their shared links and informa-tion about the issue, improve students’ not

107


only knowledge on the subject but also the environmental sensitivity and awareness?

Q3: Does using the application Flashcard stash, that we introduced them to, makes studying more successful for them in a game based learning environment which makes studying interesting and does it make easier for them to overcome the basic terms of the course?

The research was performed on the students attending the winter semester of the 2011/2012 (Petrovic et al., 2012a) and of the 2012/2013 aca-demic year. After students successfully completed the course and were graded, they took part in a survey. The survey was conducted at the University of Belgrade - Faculty of Organizational Sciences. 138 students participated in the survey (79 females and 59 males). The students completed the survey and results for each student were calculated.

INSTRUMENTS

The creation of the survey used, was based (and modified in accordance with aim of our research) on the survey conducted by UC Davis, University of California (http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~anayakpr/facebook_research/fb_s08.pdf) in order to evaluate the results of the survey, we used the statistical software package SPSS 20. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the variables were distributed normally. The comparison of two independent scale vari-ables was carried out by a parametric t-test. The relationship between the two categorical variables was explored by a chi-square test, Yates continuity correction and likelihood ratio correction, while the strength of association between the variables was evaluated with Cramer’s v. correlation: be-tween the two scale variables was tested by para-metric Pearson correlation, while the correlation between the two nominal variables was evaluated

with non-parametric Spearman’s rho correlation. A p value is used to indicate if the differences between two particular groups that were in this research are statistically significant (where p<0.05 is considered statistically significant at the 95% confidence level).

RESULTS

The students who voluntarily participated in the survey had the task of answering 29 closed-type questions. The first five questions were general. The fifth question referred to whether or not the surveyed student had a Facebook account. Only 8.8% of students did not have a Facebook ac-count and were not taken into further analysis. The following twelve questions were directed at gaining information on the students’ general use and activities on Facebook. The last questions were related to the students’ creation of the “en-vironmental Facebook group” for the course of Environmental Quality System (Petrovic et al., 2012a). These questions were the most significant because they directly referred to the main goals of our research.

As much as 82.5% of surveyed students had created an environmental Facebook group. This large number of students provided us with a valid sample for further analysis. It is worth mentioning that on average, female students attracted more members of their environmental Facebook group (male vs. female, 33.93±14.839 vs. 45.64±20.044, t=-3,349, df=110, p<0.01).

The last questions of the survey examined whether or not the educational use of Facebook had effects on improving students’ environmental information database and their achievement levels in environmental education (Petrovic et al., 2012a).

Based on the students’ answers to the question “Why did you create an environmental Facebook group?” we defined two groups of students:

108


• In the first group are the students who gave one of the following statements “Because I thought it was an obligation,” or “Because I thought I would get extra credit.”

• In the second group are the students that gave one of the following responses “Because I liked the idea” or “Because I am interested in environmental issues” (Petrovic et al., 2012a).

The results have shown that 42.5% of students belonged to the first group, while 57.5% of stu-dents were in the second group. Only statistically relevant data was taken into further consideration.

Statistical analysis showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between these two groups concerning the question: “How regularly do you update the content of your environmental Facebook group?” As a matter of fact, 91.7% of the first group of students updated it on a regular base, while all of the students (100%) from the second group updated it on regular basis. It is our understanding that further efforts are needed in this area of research, since potentially statistically significant correlation between these two defined groups could occur if a larger sample could be provided.

Also, there is a statistically significant differ-ence between these two groups when examined about their perceptions regarding the usefulness of the group they created, where 100% of the second group answered that they thought it was useful and 77.1% from the first group thought the same, but on the other hand 22.9% thought it was not useful (Yates Continuity Correction=13.997, df=1, p<0.01). It is quite striking that students that basically enrolled for this course study approach were concerned about obtaining extra points and passing the exam, with no worries whatsoever about improving their environmental awareness. Having said this, this seemed to be a pandemic-like occurrence. For instance, it is very often quoted that being overly concerned with one’s grades misses the point of a higher education. Nonetheless, it

is still underwhelming that students are so likely to ignore fundamental environmental issues and obstacles that lay ahead on the way to achieving a greener environment (Minnesota Daily, 2013).

When asked if this way of work increased their environmental knowledge, we observed no sig-nificant statistical difference among these groups (Likelihood Ratio=1.195, df=2, p>0.05), but we observed that the respondents in both groups believed that their environmental knowledge increased at least at some level – 98.5% of them gave such an answer. As the answer to the question “Did the forming of a Facebook group dedicated to the course motivate you to study more?” – 89.4% agreed. Also, when asked, “Did the use of the Flashcard stash application improve your knowledge and preparation for the exam?” – 87.6% of students confirmed this. When asked, “Do you feel that this improved your communication with the professor?” – 96.7% of the students agreed.

Particularly interesting are the results concern-ing the question which asked whether they would continue updating their “environmental Facebook group” as a way to improve their environmental awareness. Only 4.4% said that they would not continue with updating. This is a result worth admiring. In addition, there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups (Likelihood Ratio=19.004, df=2, p<0.01).

One of the issues raised in this research was whether there was a gender influence. For instance, results showed that no difference oc-curred in the issue of how long the students had a Facebook account (Likelihood Ratio=3.080, df=3, p>0.05). More that 56% of our respondents had a Facebook account for more than 3 years. With each year passing, we have an increas-ing number of ICT and Social Media educated students. Having said that, it is essential for university teachers to acknowledge this fact and incorporate its implications into their courses and classes. In addition, males are more fond of creating multiple Facebook groups (Pearson Chi-Square=12.051, df=2, p<0.01). For instance, out

109


of all respondents that had already created more than one Facebook group, 65.6% were males.

In addition, males felt that this different approach to the course increased their environ-mental awareness (see Table 1, Pearson Chi-Square=4.599, df=1, p<0.05 – the same conclu-sion applies to Yates Continuity Correction).

DISCUSSION

The key aim of the study presented in this chapter has been to provide an idea of implementing the model use of Facebook as a contemporary edu-cational tool in environmental higher education. Our results pointed out that:

• 96.7% of the students agreed that this method improved their communication with the professor.

• 98.5% of the students considered that the use of “environmental Facebook groups”

significantly increased their environmental knowledge.

• 80.5% of the students felt encouraged to change their environmental behavior pat-terns and participate in future environmen-tal actions.

• 89.4% of the students were more motivated to participate in the process of learning and successfully gaining knowledge in the Environmental Quality System course.

• 87.6% of students found the application Flashcard stash useful and fun.

These are significant numbers and a fact that proves that Facebook can contribute in promoting and improving all achievement levels and tasks of the studied course.

Solutions and Recommendations

Many authors agree that there is a need for con-tinual development and strengthening of environ-

Table 1. Environmental awareness by gender

This Type of Work Has Increased Your

Environmental Awareness? Total

Yes Partially

Sex

Female Count 39 28 67

% within Sex 58.2% 41.8% 100.0%

% within This type of work has increased your environmental awareness

52.7% 73.7% 59.8%

% of Total 34.8% 25.0% 59.8%

Male Count 35 10 45

% within Sex 77.8% 22.2% 100.0%


47.3% 26.3% 40.2%

% of Total 31.3% 8.9% 40.2%

Total Count 74 38 112

% within Rod 66.1% 33.9% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 66.1% 33.9% 100.0%

110


mental education programs through the evaluation of such programs. The need is recognized for increased sophistication and modernization of methods and techniques used in environmental education with the goal of bringing the course “closer” to the students, as well as improving student-centered learning (e.g., NAAEE, 1996; Gutierrez-Martin & Huttenhain, 2003; Crohn & Birnbaum, 2010; Petrovic, 2010; Petrovic et al., 2012b; UNESCO, 2012). Keeping in mind that students are online most of the time during the day, we suggest Facebook as a model for learning online, because of its user friendly environment for youth, where they can find all the useful and needed information about the course and the exam, and how to pass it. Also, this makes an open interactive online communication with the educa-tors possible. In addition, having environmental Facebook groups and pages by students enrolled in this course, encourages them to improve their environmental awareness and their level of envi-ronmental knowledge.

The suggested model of using Facebook in the Environmental Quality System course has received a strong positive feedback from students. Consequently, the use of Facebook and other social networking sites, not only in environmental higher education, but in other fields as well, should be explored and developed further by the authors themselves, as well as by other researchers.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Future research will be directed mainly toward improving the use of Facebook in education, especially keeping in mind that building on the face-to-face, teacher-student relationship, Face-book allows students to glimpse educator pro-files containing personal information, interests, background, and “friends” which can augment student motivation, affective learning, and class-room climate (Mazer, Murphy & Simonds, 2007). Furthermore, teacher preparation can be enhanced

by creating opportunities for educators in training to see, experience, and effectively model lessons learned on Facebook in their future classrooms (Lego Muñoz & Towner, 2009).

Efforts will be made to develop further the Facebook application in relation to the Environ-mental Quality System course at the University of Belgrade.

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt that there is a fair amount of professional interest in the effects of social net-works on students’ educational development and success of learning (Abramson, 2011; Kamenetz, 2011). Also many papers show that Facebook has been ranked as the first among other social networking sites because of its customizable and developable environment and its easy usage in the process of education (İşman & Kadir, 2012). It is undeniable that the academic impact of us-ing Facebook needs to be explored more fully in accordance with the needs of complex, highly technological knowledge-based higher education (Petrovic et al., 2012a). The research presented in this chapter has demonstrated that (in the context of a course like the one described here) Facebook can be used as an educational and pedagogical tool. The authors focused on Facebook because of its worldwide boom in academia (Grosseck et al., 2011).

Our research indicates that using social networking tools, such as Facebook, increases the educational productivity of students and im-proves their interest in environmental issues. It also increases awareness of the necessity to take environmental action and change environmental behavior patterns.

Students are more apt to stay involved and spread information about environmental problems in a manner that is easily accessible and interesting to them, even after they pass their exam.

111


In addition, future studies of social network-ing that append tracking of learner navigation, programme participation, and retention levels to the evaluation of recruitment efficacy, could be considered to optimize application of social net-working to education research (Lohse, 2013). Little research has been carried out to examine the uses and benefits of Facebook in education, especially in environmental education and environmental higher education (Petrovic et al., 2012a). This study is one of the first attempts succeeding to integrate Facebook and this kind of education for students. The results of the polls we conducted at the end of the course of two generations of students have already showed a great progress and have encouraged us and other researchers to continue exploring this area.

Based on our preliminary results, we would encourage others to explore the use of Facebook as a supplement to traditional classroom teach-ing and traditional e-learning. The data suggests that students would use Facebook as a medium not only for communication, but for a broader engagement in the process of learning (Petrovic et al., 2012a), because for students Facebook has proved to be a fun, interactive medium that makes studying enjoyable. It gives students a perfect nurturing environment for sharing data and get-ting fresh information from their educators “hot of the keyboard.” The most important thing about Facebook as an educational tool is peer-to-peer feedback and the feedback that students get from educators, giving them the information they need instantaneously. Also, students have shown that their use of Facebook groups dedicated to the course significantly increased their knowledge and interest in the subject.

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. (2011). Can social networking keep students in school? Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2011/02/09/133598049/can-social-networking-keep-students-in-school

Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002

Apps, J. W. (1988). Higher education in a learn-ing society: Meeting new demands for education and training. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Arnó-Macià, E., & Rueda-Ramos, C. (2011). Promoting reflection on science, technology, and society among engineering students through an EAP online learning environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 19–31. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.12.004

Arrington, M. (2005). 85% of college students use Facebook. TechCrunch. Retrieved from http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/09/07/85-of-college-students-usefacebook/

Baker, P. (1999). Creating learning communi-ties: The unfinished agenda. In B. A. Pescoso-lido, & R. Aminzade (Eds.), The social works of higher education (pp. 95–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2006). Reflections on pedagogy: Reframing practice to foster infor-mal learning with social software. Retrieved from http://www.dream.sdu.dk/uploads/files/Anne%20Bartlett-Bragg.pdf

112


Belgrade Charter. (1975). Retrieved from http://resources.spaces3.com/fb807783-d675-4a04-9e1e-164c74437903.pdf

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and schol-arship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-munication, 13, 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Bumgarner, B. A. (2007). You have been poked: Exploring the uses and gratifications of Face-book among emerging adults. First Monday, 22(11).

Carleton-Hug, A., & Hug, W. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 159–164. doi:10.1016/j.evalprog-plan.2009.07.005 PMID:19712976

Cetina, G., & Nisanci, S. H. (2010). Enhancing students’ environmental awareness. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1830–1834. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.993

Charnigo, L., & Barnett-Ellis, P. (2007). Check-ing out Facebook.com: The impact of a digital trend on academic libraries. Information Tech-nology and Libraries, 26, 23–34.

Crohn, K., & Birnbaum, M. (2010). Environ-mental education evaluation: Time to reflect, time for change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 155–158. doi:10.1016/j.evalprog-plan.2009.07.004 PMID:19850340

Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1999). The so-cial responsibility of science and the pub-lic understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 775–785. doi:10.1080/095006999290435

Ellison, N. (2008). Introduction: Reshaping cam-pus communication and community through social network sites. In G. Salaway, J. B. Caruso, & M. R. Nelson (Eds.), The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-cation, 12(4), 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Fogg Phillips, L., Baird, D., & Fogg, M. A. (2011). Facebook for educators. Retrieved from http://face-bookforeducators.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/Facebook-for-Educators.May-15.pdf

Gayford, C., & Dorion, C. (1994). Planning and evaluation of environmental education in the school curriculum. Reading, MA: University of Reading.

Grant, N. (2008). On the usage of social networking software technologies in distance learning educa-tion. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, International Conference 2008 (pp. 3755-3759). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Grosseck, G., Bran, R., & Tiru, L. (2011). Dear teacher, what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1425–1430. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.306

Gutierrez-Martin, F., & Huttenhain, S. H. (2003). Environmental education: New paradigms and engineering syllabus. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 247–251. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00052-5

113


Heimlich, J. (2010). Environmental education evaluation: Reinterpreting education as a strategy for meeting mission. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 180–185. doi:10.1016/j.evalprog-plan.2009.07.009 PMID:19733397

Hew, K. F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behaviour.

Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing bound-aries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference. Banff, Canada.

Isljamovic, S., Petrovic, N., & Jeremic, V. (2011). Technology enhanced learning as a key component of increased environmental awareness amongst students from the University of Belgrade. Tech-nics Technologies Education Management, 6(4), 1175–1181.

İşman, A., & Kadir, U. (2012). Objectives of the students’ use general and vocational: Education students to Facebook. Procedia - Social and Be-havioral Sciences, 55, 1-10.

Joinson, A. N. (2008). ‘Looking at’, ‘looking up’ or ‘keeping up with’ people? Motives and uses of facebook. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com-puting Systems (pp. 1027–1036). New York: ACM.

Joly, K. (2007). Facebook, MySpace, and co.: IHEs ponder whether or not to embrace social networking sites. University Business. Retrieved from http://www.universitybusiness.com/View-Article.aspx?articleid=735

Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 179–187. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003

Kamenetz, A. (2011). Gates foundation bets on Facebook app. to help kids graduate. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcom-pany.com/1725665/gates-foundation-bets-on-facebook-app-to-help-kids-graduate

Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Face-book and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1237–1245. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024

Klemenovic, J. (2004). Činioci ekološkog vaspi-tanja i obrazovanja. Pedagoška Stvarnost, 50(5-6), 366–381.

Kostova, Z., & Atasoy, E. (2008). Methods of successful learning in environmental education. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 49-78.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfeld, C. (2008). Changes in use and perception of Facebook. In Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 721–730). New York: ACM.

Lego Muñoz, C., & Towner, T. (2009). Opening Facebook: How to use Facebook in the college classroom. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2623-2627). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/198/report_display.asp

Lester, B. J., Ma, L., Lee, O., & Lambert, J. (2006). Social activism in elementary science education: A science, technology, and society approach to teach global warming. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 315–333. doi:10.1080/09500690500240100

114


Lipsman, A. (2007). Facebook sees flood of new traffic from teenagers and adults. Retrieved from http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1519

Lohse, B. (2013). Facebook is an effective strategy to recruit low-income women to online nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Educa-tion and Behavior, 45(1), 69–76. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2012.06.006 PMID:23305805

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually do-ing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155. doi:10.1080/17439880902923606

Mason, L., & Santi, M. (1998). Discussing the greenhouse effect: Children’s collaborative discourse reasoning and conceptual change. Environmental Education Research, 4, 67–68. doi:10.1080/1350462980040105

Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121–133. doi:10.1080/01580370600751039

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘Facebook’: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and class-room climate. Communication Education, 56, 1–17. doi:10.1080/03634520601009710

Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Model-ing educational usage of Facebook. Comput-ers & Education, 55, 444–453. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008

McCormick, K., Muhlhauser, E., Norden, B., Hansson, L., Foung, C., Arnfalk, P., & Pigretti, D. (2005). Education for sustainable development and the young masters program. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 1107–1112. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.007

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the web 2.0 era. Paper presented at the ASCILITE. Singapore.

McMillan, E. E., Wright, T., & Beazley, K. (2004). Impact of a university-level environmental studies class on students’ values. The Journal of Envi-ronmental Education, 35, 19–34. doi:10.3200/JOEE.35.3.19-27

Minnesota Daily. (2013). Grades are arbi-trary, learning is not - Being overly concerned with one’s grades misses the point of a higher education. Retrieved from http://www.mndaily.com/2011/11/21/grades-are-arbitrary-learning-not

National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). (2002). Environ-mental excellence in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/documents/busi-ness_topics/env.%20excellence.pdf

North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). (1996). Environmental education materials: Guidelines for excellence. Rock Spring, GA: NAAEE.

Pasek, J., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance: Reconciling a media sen-sation with data. First Monday, 14(5), 138–145. doi:10.5210/fm.v14i5.2498

Pavlovic, V. (2011). Održivi razvoj i univerzitetsko obrazovanje. In V. Pavlovic (Ed.), Univerzitet i održivi razvoj (pp. 13-30). Beograd: Fakultet političkih nauka.

Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227–238. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010

115


Petrovic, D. (2009). Internet u funkciji person-alnog umrežavanja. Sociologija, 51(1), 23–44. doi:10.2298/SOC0901023P

Petrovic, N. (2010). Development of higher environmental education program. Management - Časopis za Teoriju i Praksu Menadžmenta, 15(56), 35-41.

Petrovic, N., Isljamovic, S., & Jeremic, V. (2012b). A new concept for measuring achievement levels in higher environmental education. Energy Educa-tion Science and Technology Part B - Social and Educational Studies, 4(4), 417–420.

Petrovic, N., Petrovic, D., Jeremic, V., Milenkovic, N., & Cirovic, M. (2012a). Possible educational use of facebook in higher environmental education. In L. Morris & C. Tsolakidis (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Information Com-munication Technologies in Education - ICICTE 2012 (pp. 355-362). Rhodes, Greece: Southampton Solent University, University of the Aegean, The Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC).

Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social network-ing sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 134–140. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002

Sakac, M. D., Cveticanin, S., & Sucevic, V. (2012). Mogućnosti organiziranja odgojno obrazovnog procesa u cilju zaštite životne sredine. Socijalna Ekologija (Zagreb), 21(1), 89–98.

Santos, J. E., Sato, M., Pires, J. S. R., & Maroti, P. S. (1999). Environmental education praxis toward a natural conservation area. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbbio/v60n3/3923.pdf

Sato, M. (1994). Environmental education ac-tivities in Brazil. Environmental Education, 46, 24–28.

Schwartz, H. L. (2009). Facebook: The new classroom commons? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://gradstudies.carlow.edu/pdf/schwartz-chronicle_9-28-09.pdf

Selwyn, N. (2007). Screw blackboard…do it on Facebook! An investigation of students’ educa-tional use of Facebook. Paper presented at the Poke 1.0 - Facebook Social Research Symposium. London, UK.

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174. doi:10.1080/17439880902923622

Slovic, D., & Petrovic, N. (2011). Environmen-tal performance indicators of organizations. In Zbornik radova VIII skupa privrednika i naučnika - SPIN’11 Operacioni menadžment u funkiciji održivog ekonomskog rasta i razvoja Srbije 2011-2020, Fakultet organizacionih nauka, Centar za operacioni menadžment, Privredna komora Srbije, 2011, (pp. 463-467). Beograd: Fakultet organizacionih nauka.

Thompson, J. (2007). Is education 1.0 ready for web 2.0 students?. Innovate, 3(4).

Trumic, M., Petrovic, N., & Radojicic, Z. (2009). Ekološka svest u formalnom osnovnom obra-zovanju Republike Srbije. In N. Mladenović & D. Urošević (Eds.), Zbornik radova XXXVI simpozi-juma o operacionim istraživanjima - SYM-OP-IS 2009, 22-25 (pp. 14-17). Beograd: Matematički institut SANU.

UNESCO. (1978). Final report intergovernmental conference on environmental education. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (1998). Environment and society: Education and public awareness for sustainability. In Proceedings of the Thessaloniki International Conference. Paris: UNESCO.

116


UNESCO. (2012). Education for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-inter-national-agenda/education-for-sustainable-devel-opment/education-for-sustainable-development/

UNESCO-UNEP. (1976). The Belgrade charter. Connect: UNESCOUNEP Environmental News-letter, 1(1), 1–2.

United Nations. (1972). Action plan for the hu-man environment. In Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on The Human Environment. Stockholm, Sweden: UN.

West, A., Lewis, J., & Currie, P. (2009). Stu-dents’ Facebook ‘friends’: Public and private spheres. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(6), 615–627. doi:10.1080/13676260902960752

World Commission on Environment and Devel-opment (WECD). (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: WECD & Oxford University Press.

World Internet Users and Population Stats. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com

ADDITIONAL READING

Anderson, P. (2007). What is web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, Feb. 2007.

Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Ap-propriating, lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 188–196. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.002

Baltic agenda. Retrieved from http://www.bal-tic21.org/?publications,1#83.

Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: teach-ing for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research, 18(1), 55–75.

Blum, N. (2008). Environmental education in Costa Rica: Building a framework for sustainable development? International Journal of Educa-tional Development, 28, 348–358. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.05.008

Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using online social network-ing for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the University of Cape Town. Communication: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 35(2), 185–200.

Byrne, R. (2009). The effect of Web 2.0 on teach-ing and learning. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 50–53.

Chawla, L. (1988). Children’s concern for the natural environment. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 13–20.

Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? Cyberpsychol-ogy & Behavior, 12(3), 341–345. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0226 PMID:19250020

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Fien, J. (1993). Education for the environment: critical curriculum theorizing and environmental education. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Fien, J., & Trainer, T. (Eds.). (1993). Environ-mental education. a pathway to sustainability. a vision of sustainability. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Gayford, C., & Dorion, C. (1994). Planning and Evaluation of Environmental Education in the School Curriculum. Reading: University of reading.

117


Gibbs, G. (1999). Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In S. Brown, & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Global Development Research Centre. (2012). United Nations Decade of Education for Sustain-able Development. Retrieved from http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/un-desd/.

Gulcan, C., & Seda, H. N. (2010). Enhancing students ‘environmental awareness. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1830–1834. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.993

Herremans, I. M., & Reid, R. E. (2002). Devel-oping awareness of the sustainability concept. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 16–21. doi:10.1080/00958960209603477

International Union for Conservation and Nature. (1971). International Working Meeting of Envi-ronmental Education in the School Curriculum. Reading: IUCN & University of reading.

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between fre-quency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Comput-ers & Education, 58, 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004

Kagawa, F. (2007). Dissonance in students’ perceptions of sustainable development and Sustainability: Implications for curriculum change. International Journal of Sustain-ability in Higher Education, 8(3), 317–338. doi:10.1108/14676370710817174

Kawachi, P. (2003). Initiating intrinsic motivation in online education: review of the current state of the art. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(1), 59–81. doi:10.1076/ilee.11.1.59.13685

Kosik, A. (2007). The implications of Facebook. Sharing the Commonwealth: Critical issues in higher education, 9-10.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually do-ing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155. doi:10.1080/17439880902923606

Matveev, A. V., & Milter, R. G. (2010). An implementation of active learning: assess-ing the effectiveness of the team infomer-cial assignment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2), 201–213. doi:10.1080/14703291003718935

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. Penguin Group US.

North America Association for Environmental Education - NAAEE. (2002). Guidelines for Excellence in Nonformal Environmental Educa-tion Program Development and Implementation, (draft). Rock Spring, GA: NAAEE.

Orr, D. (1994). Ecological literacy: Earth in mind: an education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Petrovic, N., Drakulic, M., Isljamovic, S., Jeremic, V., & Drakulic, R. (2011a). Towards new frame-work for higher environmental education. Manage-ment - Časopis za teoriju i praksu menadžmenta, 16(60), 11-17.

Petrovic, N., Isljamovic, S., Jeremic, V., Vuk, D., & Senegacnik, M. (2011b). Ecological Footprint as Indicator of Students Environmental Awareness Level at Faculties of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade and University of Mari-bor. Management - Časopis za teoriju i praksu menadžmenta, 16(58), 15-21.

118


Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Im-migrants, On the Horizon. MCB University Press, 9(5), October (2001).

Ramsden, P., & Dodds, A. (1989). Improving teaching and courses: A guide to evaluation. Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Educa-tion, The University of Melbourne.

Robottom, I., & Hart, P. (1993). Research in Envi-ronmental Education. Victoria: Deakin University.

Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personal-ity and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578–586. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024

Roth, R. E. (1976). A review of research related to environmental education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Ohio State University.

Ryu, C. H., & Brody, S. D. (2006). Can higher education influence sustainable behavior? Examining the impacts of a graduate course on sustainable development Using ecological footprint analysis. International Journal of Sus-tainability in Higher Education, 7(2), 158–175. doi:10.1108/14676370610655931

Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate 1(6). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=79.

Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: what happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate, 18(6). Retrieved from http://www.inno-vateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=82.

Sterling, S. (1990). Environment, Development and Education: towards a holistic view. In C. Lacey, & R. Willians (Eds.), Deception, Demonstration, Debate: towards a critical education and develop-ment education. London: WWF & Kogan Paul.

Taylor, P., & Joughin, G. (1997). What is flexible learning? In Teaching through flexible learning resources. Griffith Institute for Higher Education.

Tilbury, D. (1995). Enviromental education for sustainability: defining the new focus of Enviromental education in the 1990s. Environ-mental Education Research, 1(2), 195–212. doi:10.1080/1350462950010206

Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

UNCED. (1992). [Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. N.Y.: United Nations.]. Agenda (Durban, South Africa), 21.

UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank. (1990). Final Report. In World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5-9 March 1990. New York: Inter-Agency Commission for the World Conference on Education for All.

UNECE - United Nations Economic Commis-sion for Europe (2003). Draft UNECE strategy for education for sustainable development. CEP/AC.13/2004/3.

West, A., Lewis, J., & Currie, P. (2009). Stu-dents’ Facebook ‘Friends’: Public and private spheres. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(6), 615–627. doi:10.1080/13676260902960752

Worldwatch Institute. (2012). State of the World 2012: Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity. Island Press. Australia: The Worldwatch Institute.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Environmental Awareness: Environmental awareness is a term which affects the developed awareness in people about the environment, envi-ronmental issues, negative environmental impacts,

119


as well as the possibilities for decreasing pollu-tion and further degradation of the environment.

Environmental Education: Environmental education is a specific form of education in the field of ecology, environment and environmental protection. Today, more than ever, societies have the need for high quality environmental education programs, which successfully improve the system of values and change behavior for sustainability and environmental protection.

Environmental Issues: Environmental issues refer to harmful impacts of human activity on the environment. The main environmental issues are: climate change, pollution, environmental degrada-tion, endangered species, disappearing plants and animals, water scarcity, resource depletion etc.

Environmental Knowledge: Environmental knowledge is the effect of environmental educa-tion and developing and improving environmental awareness. It is characterized by knowledge, values, attitudes, whose goal is a responsible and proactive behavior towards environment, in accordance with sustainable development.

Facebook: Originally designed for college students in the United States (Harvard) in early 2004, Facebook was created as a social network-ing website. Facebook allows each user to create a profile, updating it with personal information: home address, mobile phone number, interests, religious views, relationship status etc. Facebook users can also designate other users as friends, send private messages, join groups, post and/or tag

pictures and leave comments on these pictures as well as on either a group or an individual’s wall.

Social Network Sites: Social network websites are Internet websites that provide a platform for building and facilitating organized societal struc-tures with patterned social arrangements agreed on by its members. This structure is created out of the sum of all ties and links among its individual members and groups that interact with each other.

Sustainability: This is universally agreed to be the improving of the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems. The main goal of sustainability is a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

Sustainable Development: The concept of sustainable development is based on the principles of intergeneration justice (intergeneration equal-ity). This principle is related to inheriting the same state of environment from one generation to another (not meeting this standard, the environ-mental degradation we produce is transferred from one generation to another). Even though sustain-able development depends on the biosphere and its ecosystems, it is affected the most by people and their activities. A key feature of sustainable development is that it comprises three elements: environment, society and economy. All three, in no particular order, are balanced so that one does not destroy the other.

Modeling the Use of Facebook in Environmental Higher Education

Documents

Transcript of Modeling the Use of Facebook in Environmental Higher Education