Social media communication spaces to develop literacies in a higher education language classroom...

411© Unisa Press ISSN 1011-3487 SAJHE 28(2)2014 pp 411–436

Social media communication spaces to develop literacies in a higher education language classroom context

M. Harran*Applied Language Studiese-mail: [email protected]

C. Olamijulo*e-mail: [email protected]*Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Port Elizabeth, South Africa

AbstractThis article reports on a study that explored how social media or social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook facilitate communication spaces as well as literacies development in a higher education (HE) language classroom context. The study’s overarching theoretical orientation was social which challenges many contemporary writing theory and pedagogy assumptions. A social orientation necessitates stepping back from the pedagogical issues involved in the teaching and learning of writing and trying to find out how writing is actually used in a range of contexts, including social media. The qualitative study was situated in a comprehensive university and analysed the perspectives of 17 Public Management first-year English Additional Language participants on the use of the Facebook group page as a communication space in the language class. The data collection included the student Facebook group page postings, focus group interviews and journal reflection reports. Content analysis was used to code the data and access was identified as a critical orientation criterion to identify dominant themes from the data sources. The study found that the participants preferred Facebook as a communication space because of its convenience, mobility, learning freedom and team work. However, an access constraint that emerged was limited air time as mobile phones were mostly used to access the Facebook site. Although the participants often used informal texting in their wall postings, the research findings revealed that Facebook as an SNS could facilitate teacher-student communication if managed effectively.

Keywords: academic literacy, access, communication, dialogue, Facebook group page, higher education, literacies, mobiles, social network sites

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, classroom communication activities have been defined as acts of conveying information, usually by the teacher in face-to-face classroom contexts with time constraints often limiting and determining the amount of interaction. However, studies suggest that computer-mediated communication (CMC), like

SAJHE 28(2)2014_layout.indd 411 4/30/2014 17:14:05


412

social network sites (SNSs), presents more opportunities for interaction and the development of personal relationships than face-to-face contexts. Therefore, the use of CMC in instructional contexts could ultimately have a positive effect on student-teacher relationships and lead to ‘more positive student outcomes’ (Mazer, Murphy and Simonds 2007, 2). In addition, Mazer et al. (2007, 11) suggest that teacher self-disclosure via social networking ‘can increase motivation and improve classroom climate’. Hewitt and Forte (2006) also found that two-thirds of students surveyed were ‘comfortable’ with teachers on Facebook, and in Fischman’s (2008, ¶2) study, 39 per cent of college students wanted regular on-line discussions with their teachers. The New London Group (1996, 66) also emphasise the need for ‘an increasing range of text forms that are associated with information and multimedia technologies’ to facilitate teaching and induce learning.

Over the past 30 years, as computer-mediated SNSs, blogs, podcasts and multimedia sharing sites have been developing at an increasing rate, the practice of university students interacting and sharing in web-enabled environments has become ‘embedded’ (Ng’ambi and Rambe 2008). As a result, teachers need to evolve pedagogical approaches (Salmon 2007) that could support these forms of interactions. Redecker, Ala-Mutka, Bacigalupo, Ferrari and Punie (2009) also caution that the adoption of technology-enhanced teaching and learning practices necessitates fundamental and transformational pedagogy and technology innovation to support these computer-mediated spaces. Therefore, although these digital communication channels are features of modern technology, it is important that they are not only seen as structural tools which merely provide new ways of presenting and organising information. Rather, computer-mediated or web-enhanced forms of communication are tools that can potentially support a sustained conversation between a teacher and a student by providing authentic internal communication channels as opposed to the more traditional or conventional methods of face-to-face classroom communication.

For the current study, the Facebook group page was selected as the medium to support classroom communication practices digitally. Social media applications as communication tools not only facilitate dialogue spaces, but Facebook applications also include like buttons and tagging tools which both open and limit communication channels for teaching and learning practices. However, the use of SNSs, more than other communication channels, can be demanding and time-consuming as facilitators need to learn how to integrate SNSs effectively into their teaching and learning practices as well as provide constant feedback and support to maintain interaction. This necessitates a committed, attentive, proactive and knowledgeable facilitator who understands the philosophy and constant application updating of SNSs so that an appropriate, interactive and secure online environment can be set up and maintained. For example, Facebook application updates now allow for documents, pictures, pdfs and videos to be attached to messages sent. For sent messages, there is also a seen icon indicating the time the receiver received and read the message which is automatically indicated on the message thread. This application is also active on the Facebook group page, allowing facilitators to ascertain how many group members


413

have either seen and read messages or uploaded documents.Although academic research into the development and use of new media practices

to ‘systematically aid language acquisition and learning is very limited’ (EUROCALL 2002, 4), the results of the current study were encouraging. The Facebook group page opened a ‘third’ space (Canagajah 2007, 926) for classroom communication, which the participants preferred because of its convenience, mobility, learning freedom and team work. However, they often experienced access constraints because of limited mobile airtime.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Although literacy has been examined by many scholars and its definition varies, for the purpose of the current study, literacy can only be understood within the context of the social practices in which it is acquired and used (Scribner and Cole 1981). New Literacy Studies (NLS) have also carefully documented how literacy practices vary from one cultural context to another and base literacy acquisition on real texts and lived practices located in time, space and discourse, and not in terms of skills and competencies. In the past decade, many more academic studies have contributed to NLS, all challenging the autonomous literacy model and continuing the debate about the importance of theorising literacy as social and cultural practice rather than as decontextualised skills and competencies (Barton and Ivanic 1991; Barton, Hamiton and Ivanic 2000; Baynham 1995; Gee 1990, 1996; Hull 1993; Street 1993).

For Scribner and Cole (1981, 19), literacy is not just the ability to read and write but includes using this ability for ‘specific purposes in specific contexts of use’ including ‘technological aspects’. Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear and Leu (2008, 5) define literacy ‘as a rapid and continuous process of change in ways in which we read, write, view, listen, compose, and communicate information’. Therefore, new literacies mean the ability to read and construct multimodal texts, which Buckingham (2007, 147) refers to as a ‘fashionable proliferation’ of new literacies, including visual, media and digital literacies as multiliteracies. For Mills (2010, 132), these new ‘text forms’ are features of modern technology which often require structural tools to present and organise information, including: ‘blogging, creating digital animations, podcasting, writing fan fiction, producing manga comic, photo sharing on the Net, wordless picture books for adults, communicating with voice-over-Internet protocol and webcams and video gaming and game making’.

The study has been influenced by the shift towards integrating new media, especially SNSs, into current teaching and learning practices so that a sustained conversation between teachers and students could be facilitated by discursive spaces or walls as digital communication channels.

M. Harran and C. Olamijulo



414

FACEBOOK IN TEACHING

Social networks, such as Facebook, have many features that can be advantageous for both teachers and students, such as enabling teachers to broadcast tasks, upload pictures, documents and links as well as provide communicate spaces. In addition, Facebook indirectly facilitates a ‘learning community since it connects students with other students which is a vital component of student education’ (Baker 1999, 96). For Muñoz and Towner (2009, 5), Facebook as a medium also helps to magnify ‘teacher-student and student-student interaction in the form of web-based communication’. In Hilton and Plummer’s (2012, 212) Facebook study, the overarching benefit was increased attendance and students being better informed. Hamann and Wilson’s (2003, 534) study also found that students who ‘participated in a web-enhanced class out-performed those students in a traditional lecture format’. Therefore, any form of Internet-based learning modules that make use of Web 2.0 or 3.0 features such as Facebook vigorously engage students in unique ways when compared to conventional face-to-face classroom practices. Ivala and Gachago (2012, 154) also describe Facebook’s interactive features as building on traditional face-to-face teacher-student relationships by extending classroom activities:

to send course-related information to students; to provide a space where successes and failures in studies can be shared and discus-sions can take place; to improve communication between students and lecturers and to provide a forum where the lecturer can answer any academic questions.

In contrast to face-to-face communication, online communication allows teachers to control how they appear on Facebook as they ‘strategically reveal pictures, quotes, and personal information that present them as competent and trustworthy instructors who have the students’ best interests in mind’ (Mazer et al. 2007, 13). Although Hewitt and Forte’s (2006) study found that the presence of teachers on Facebook interfered with student privacy, made students anxious and was an inappropriate mixing of academic and social lives, Mazer et al. (2007, 5) found that Facebook improved student motivation, affective learning and classroom climate.

In addition, Reid’s (2011, 63) closed-book Facebook pages model illustrates how SNSs can be used to develop student informal literacies ‘to appropriate a literacy practice’. In the current study, the students were allowed to take chances with their literacies in a ‘safe space ... where affective filters [are] were lowered’ (Reid 2011, 63). As the students were encouraged to use their own codes to describe their learning practices, they were able to ‘redesign and reform their learning, letting their own voices be heard ... in unique ways’ as well as providing a forum for critical reflection through writing (Reid 2011, 78).

The establishment of safe spaces where students or learners can take risks is an important educational principle (Krashen 1989). Canagarajah (2007, 926) also identifies the need for a ‘third’ as well as ‘textual space’ where students can interact


415

informally in a digital space using hybrid textual forms with ‘divergent varieties of English’ (Canagarajah 2006, 598) to develop their proficiency levels. Social networking sites also provide ‘discursive’ (Jacobs 2007), ‘levelling’ (Marshall, Conana, Maclons, Herbert and Volkwyn 2011), and ‘dialogic’ (Mills 2010) spaces for meanings to be negotiated through various discourse codes to ensure mutual understanding (Mills 2010).

The current study, therefore, intended to explore the use of Facebook closed groups to develop classroom communication spaces as well as academic literacies in a higher education (HE) language classroom context.

STUDY CONTEXT

Nearly 45 per cent of the students at the research site were isiXhosa speakers who had mostly attended historically black schools which are mostly disadvantaged in terms of funding, school resources and teacher qualifications. As a result, they often encountered learning difficulties as their academic literacies proficiency levels tend to impact on their throughput and success rates in HE. Research at the institution has also revealed that many of the registered National Diploma students have found it ‘very difficult to cope with academic English which has severally hampered their progress at tertiary level’ (Blunt and Goodier 2000, 1).

As a consequence, the Communication in English B (BKI1120) course was developed specifically to prepare these National Diploma students to meet the English academic literacies requirements of various disciplines to complete assignments and projects successfully in various discipline-specific modules. For example, referencing is included in the BKI1120 course content as many students struggle with referencing conventions. Intensive writing, reading and speaking practices are also emphasised in the BKI1120 course content.

RESEARCH DESIGN

For the study, a qualitative research methodology was selected to make the world visible by ‘locat[es]ing the observer of the world’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2003, 3) and understanding the world through the meanings that participants bring to it. The data collection was based on student postings on the Facebook group page, their reflection journal report and focus group transcript analysis.

The 17 participants were first- and second-year National Diploma Public Management students taking BKI1120. They were selected for the study based on their willingness to participate in the Facebook group task. For the focus group, eight participants were selected according to their level of participation on the Facebook page to provide a comparison between those who participated and those who did not participate in the Facebook group tasks.

The study used content analysis as its data analysis tool to explore the communication content and make replicable and valid inferences from texts to the




416

contexts of their use (Krippendorff 2004, 18). Babbie (2004) defines content analysis as the study of ‘recorded human communications’ to make sense of what is mediated between people, textual matter, symbols messages, information mass-media content and technology-supported social interactions. For the content analysis, the selected texts were read recursively to identify themes from the Facebook group page as well as the focus group transcript and reflection journal reports.

RESEARCH PRACTICE IMPLEMENTATION

For the study, the participants were required to use the Facebook group page to access tasks and communicate with the researcher and their peers for a period of four weeks. The Facebook class task process was divided into five stages so that the page postings could be analysed using ‘multi-stage relevance sampling’ (Krippendorff 2004, 118–119).

Stage 1: Access and motivation (How to use/access Facebook)Although most of the participants indicated that they already had a Facebook account, some needed guidance on how to navigate the Facebook group pages. For example, as the participants could leave the group at any time, they needed to be aware of their option to click the leave group link (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Facebook drop-down menu to leave group

Stage 2: Online socialisation (Identify and connect with task friends)The participants were required to add the researcher who was already registered on Facebook in order to access the Facebook group page as it was a closed group. Firstly, to ensure anonymity, the participants were required to use pseudonyms as their Facebook names. They then sent friend requests to the researcher who responded by adding them as friends. The participants were also required to add their peers on the Facebook group page, which the majority did.


417

Stage 3: Information giving and receiving (Posting/answering task questions)Every week during the data collection period, information about the weekly tasks was posted on the Facebook group page wall. Participants who wanted to know more about their class work usually asked their questions on the Facebook group page and received answers from the researcher and/or their peers. For example, as most of the participants had indicated that they needed help with referencing, the researcher uploaded a referencing task on Facebook to assist them. Figure 2 depicts the referencing Facebook task posted with examples of in-text citing and referencing conventions.

Figure 2: Facebook referencing example

Figure 3 depicts the referencing Facebook task and subsequent interaction between the researcher and participants.




418

Figure 3: Facebook referencing task interactions

Stage 4: Knowledge construction (Online dialogue responding to questions)Task 2 was based on a visual literacy task which the participants had already completed in class. The researcher uploaded five pictures in the visual literacy album on the Facebook group page and asked the participants to:

• Identify the clothes you know.• Name the country under each picture.• State ‘I don’t know’ if you do not know.

Figure 4 illustrates that most of the participants completed the task although one participant clicked the ‘like button’ and did not answer all the questions.


419

Figure 4: Facebook like button and add photos

To assist the participants to answer tasks appropriately, the researcher decided to use the Facebook tagging tool to draw the participants’ attention to the task requirements. Tagging helped as each participant’s name was tagged on the note asking them to give their answers (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Facebook tagging tool

Facebook also sends notifications (alerts) to anyone who is tagged on a comment, picture and video. This works in a similar way to a teacher calling the name of a student to give his/her feedback in class. However, in their responses, most of the participants used texting and/or slang to answer questions, for example, lol (laugh out loud). Figure 6 illustrates some of the informal texting and slang that the participants used on the Facebook group page.




420

Figure 6: Facebook SMS, informal language and slang use

Stage 5: Development (Expands on task knowledge and experience with reflection journal report)Although the researcher uploaded three documents on the Facebook group page for the participants to access and answer the referencing questions, most of the participants did not complete the required tasks as regularly as required. Figure 7 illustrates the print screen of the documents uploaded which could be accessed by clicking on them.

Figure 7: Facebook documents uploaded


421

RESEARCH ANALYSIS

The content analysis of the Facebook group page data assisted in determining the extent to which the medium facilitated a digital communication space and developed academic literacies. The analysis also helped to provide a perspective on the nature of the communications taking place, the students’ disposition towards their digital tasks as well as examples of the codes used to communicate. From an analysis of the reflection report journals, focus group transcripts and Facebook group page, access was selected as a dominant emerging theme.

Reflection report journal analysisAlthough 17 students volunteered and participated in the Facebook group page tasks, only 14 participants described their Facebook learning experience in their reflection journals. Based on the journal reports, 13 out of 14 (93%) of the participants preferred using Facebook as a channel of classroom communication and their reasons included convenience, communication, mobility, learning freedom and team work. These reasons were then coded as themes.

ConvenienceThis theme was found in the majority of the reflection journal reports as the participants claimed that Facebook was easily accessible and ‘convenient’ for them to use, since most of them already had access to this medium. Furthermore, since most had access on their mobile phones, they found it quite easy to open the site. For example, a participant preferred the Facebook channel because it was ‘convenient to interact’ (see excerpts 1, 2 and 3).

CommunicationIn HE, the teaching and learning process is effective when communication is passed from the teacher to the students who understand the message fully. The researcher used the Facebook group page as a channel to upload various text forms including pictures, texts and graphs to communicate with the participants. This practice is also emphasised by the New London Group (1996, 6) as various ‘text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies’ are necessary for teaching literacy. The participants in their journal reports also found the medium a ‘useful’ and ‘helpful’ way to communicate with the researcher and peers to access the latest updates (see Excerpt 4).




422


423

MobilityBased on the journal report findings, all the participants usually accessed the Facebook group page on their mobile phones which made access flexible, easy and convenient. However, the disadvantage was that there was a constant need to buy more airtime for Internet access. Excerpt 5 describes how a participant preferred not to use Facebook as he/she was based off-campus and did not have access to the Internet at home.

Excerpt 5

Freedom of learningThe Facebook platform not only gave the participants the opportunity to participate in their own time but also to answer questions when it was convenient. In addition, one participant found it ‘easy to communicate in written words than verbally because of his/her accent’. The Facebook group page also provided the platform for English additional language speakers to think ‘critically’ before answering questions, especially those who were shy to ask their questions in class (see Excerpt 6).




424

Furthermore, the participants tended to ask and answer questions easily. For example, one participant stated that questions could be asked ‘freely on information I don’t know’ (see Excerpt 7).

TeamworkFor the participants, the essence of the BKI1120 communication group was to work together as a team to facilitate learning through continuous dialogue. This was especially true for the referencing and visual literacy sections which were regarded as challenging topics. Although one of the participants had ‘lost marks’ in the assessment on the referencing section, the Facebook group page provided the opportunity to ask questions (see Excerpt 8).


425

Focus group analysisA focus group interview was added to the study’s data collection when it was realised that only five (29%) of the participants actively participated in the study. Therefore, the focus group was divided into two groups, namely, those who participated and those who did not actively participate. To facilitate data discussion and ensure anonymity, the focus group participants were each given a letter of the alphabet.

Facebook participantsThose who participated in the Facebook tasks described their experiences using the medium as being not only ‘easy’ and ‘fast’, but also as allowing them to communicate, catch up their work and participate more freely.• Student A: ‘It was easy and there was time to login, reply, and participate. I

would like all our lecturers to also use Facebook to communicate to us instead of using the school email and the module SharePoint site as they are very difficult to access on the mobile phone.’

• Student B: ‘It was fast, if a question was asked within a matter of minutes/seconds it was answered.’

• Student C: ‘It’s easy for me since I’m used to using social networking sites as a means of communication and to communicate with others than in class.’

• Student D: ‘Facebook removes my shyness because sometimes you feel like an idiot if you ask a question in class, especially if you ask the question in front of everyone.’

• Student E: ‘Sometimes I feel lazy to come to school the Facebook page was used to catch up on what was missed.’

Facebook non-participantsThose who did not participate in the Facebook tasks described their experience using the medium as time-consuming and costly which was also often exacerbated by infrastructure and accessibility constraints.

• Student F: ‘I’m usually busy and no time. Also it takes a lot of airtime especially commenting, responding and writing things on the group wall. Answering the questions on the articles posted by the instructor.’

• Student G: ‘The labs are a very big problem on this campus because it is always full and I am very impatient to wait.’

• Student H: ‘Sometimes when you go on to Facebook, it is blocked; sometimes




426

they allow students to access the page sometimes they do not allow. We can only access the labs when we have other lectures in the labs.’

Facebook group page analysisFrom the Facebook group page data analysis, access to code, technology, diverse literacies, participation, code design/redesign and Facebook tools emerged as dominant access themes.

Code accessDuring the study, participants were constantly encouraged to contribute to the notifications or comments on the Facebook group page. In their postings, the participants were allowed to use their own codes and most used informal codes, including abbreviations, to ask questions. However, the researcher responded using formal language codes to ensure all participants understood the task requirements and to remove any form of message misunderstanding. The informal code response of one participant is illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Facebook informal coding trends

Technology access Although the students had physical access to computer labs on campus during the day, access not only depended on lab availability but also on Facebook access. Information and communication technology (ICT) administrators often blocked


427

access to Facebook during the day because students did not use the labs for their school work but for accessing Facebook when others needed the labs to print or do school work. Although some students had access to the institution’s wireless network on campus via their laptops and cell phones, most of the participants in the study used their mobile phones and airtime to access the Facebook group page. Figure 9 shows that most participants used their mobiles to respond to wall postings.

Figure 9: Mobile access

Palfrey and Gasser (2008, 3) also found that ‘most young people in many societies around the world carry mobile devices – cell phones, sidekicks, iphones – at all times’ and use their mobiles for computer as well as Internet access. As Facebook automatically records the time, date and device type used in postings, this helped the researcher to identify the devices the participants used which, in turn, helped to determine the type of message to upload on the Facebook group page.

Diverse literacies accessIn HE, the academic literacies required for learning are formal and require rigid rhetorical structures. However, there is a tension between gaining access to dominant literacies forms and valuing diverse literacies (Janks 2010, 24). Closed Facebook group pages provide a space for students to use and redesign their literacy codes as academic literacy is not the dominant discourse. Crystal (2008, 78) also identifies the use of SMS language as being innovative as ‘txt’ is created. Figure 10 illustrates that most participants constantly used informal language codes which is a form of ‘txtng’ to communicate with the other group members. For example:

Student: Gudluk classm8s. Lets do dz asa team. F wi go dwn, dan wi ol go dwn jus lyk in da Titanic :) lol!




428

The abbreviations used in the example included:

• Gudluk (Good luck) • Classm8s (Classmates)• dz (this) • asa (as a)• F (For) • wi (we)• dwn (down) • dan (than)• ol (all) • lyk (like)• da (the) • lol (laugh out loud)

Figure 10: Informal and SMS language use

Participation accessIn Reid’s (2011) study, the closed-group Facebook pages provided access for active participation as participants who did not normally say anything in class often commented online and shared experiences they would usually not ‘express face-to-face’ or in tutorial groups. This also occurred in the study, for example, Student D commented that the medium ‘removed shyness’ and enabled interaction:

Student D: Facebook removes my shyness because sometimes you feel like an idiot if you ask a question in class, especially if you ask the question in front of everyone.


429

Figure 11 also illustrates that two participants responded to the tutor’s explanation of no longer uploading documents for them to access. For example, a participant revealed his/her irritation towards students who were not downloading or accessing the documents by commenting, ‘stupidity to those who rejected this awesome responsibility’.

Figure 11: Participant’s personal expression in response

Code design/redesign accessThe use of closed Facebook group pages also provided a space for students to redesign and reform their learning experiences using informal codes (Reid 2011, 73). This finding is illustrated in the referencing question dialogue excerpt below. In the ensuing interaction with the researcher (Christy), the participant comments and asks questions using texting (see italics):

Student: how do u reference the list of a book that is non govern-mental but wth company members and one author?

Christy: is it a weekly, or monthly journal by the non-governmental organisation?

Student: im nt sure bt its peasons education international

Christy: did any of the company members also write any article in




430

the publication with one author?

Student: yeah only one mentioned n the others ar a some what members

Christy: Ok then if it is only one member’s name that is written on the top of the article as a major contributor then you have to refer-ence him or her as the source in pearson’s education international.

Student: ohk is that all? *smiling*

Christy: Check the document I uploaded titled ‘Reference for pe-riodicals and magazine’. For more Harvard referencing examples please click this link …

Facebook tools accessFacebook also has different tools for teachers to communicate with their students in order to ensure easy access (see Figures 12a to 12c). Figure 12a illustrates that facilitators are given an option to post a comment, upload pictures or ask questions which could also be turned into a poll. Figure 12b illustrates how a question can be designed using a multiple-choice format.

Figure 12c illustrates how questions can be answered and comments posted.

Figure 12a: Facebook tools: Adding an item or asking a question


431

Figure 12b: Facebook tools: Multiple choice options

Figure 12c: Facebook tools: Question and comment

DISCUSSION

An analysis of the data revealed various findings relating to the use of digital technology in the classroom, including Internet and laboratory access, informal language code use, feedback or response practices, as well as security and confidentiality issues.

Internet accessAlthough the participants preferred the use of SNSs for communicating with their teachers and peers rather than email, not all the participants had access to computers and the Internet at home. This access constraint as well as bandwidth availability institutionally should be a factor when considering the use of SNSs in classroom teaching and learning practices.




432

Laboratory accessThe institution’s computer labs were not always easily accessible for all the participants. Therefore, SNS access was often difficult when labs were full at the research site or when Facebook sites were blocked during school hours.

Informal language codesThroughout the study, informal language use or texting were the dominant literacy forms used when participants responded and posted comments. However, informal codes and hybrid textual forms can be used to develop academic proficiency levels (Canagarajah 2006). For students to become producers and users of various discourses, they need to be actively involved in the discourse dialogue by changing, contesting and pushing discourse boundaries through dialogic feedback practices and teacher-peer negotiations. Research supports that, rather than hampering the acquisition of English, the negotiation of codes can facilitate acquisition (Canagarajah 2006, 602). Sridhar (1994 in Canagarajah 2006) also argues that language acquisition in real life often takes place in multilingual contexts with an engagement with many codes, and, for Cummins (1991), one language can play a positive role in the development of another.

Feedback practicesAs feedback is vital to promote dialogue when using SNSs, failure to give feedback to students in time can often make ‘students lose interest’ (Ivala and Gachago 2012, 163). In addition, feedback responses, whether comments or questions, need to encourage dialogue so that writing can be viewed as an authentic social process to make meaning.

Security and confidentialityPrivacy is an important aspect of SNSs use as students using this medium need to be sure that they are protected. Therefore, teachers using Facebook as a teaching and learning medium should ensure that after opening a Facebook group page, privacy setting should be set on closed group. In this way, only members of the group can see posts, comments, pictures and uploads.

Finally, the study also provided valuable insight into the various uses of Facebook application tools, and the focus group discussion provided rich data from the participants’ insights to guide teachers to adapt their teaching and communication practices to better suit their students’ learning needs. The study could also contribute to understanding students’ motivation for either participating or not participating in online classroom tasks.


433

RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

Although SNSs teaching and learning research is currently not active as a teaching and learning practice at the research site, the study attempted to provide insights from the short-term use of social media in an HE context. The study’s results were encouraging as the findings revealed that social media could be a useful tool for creating communication spaces in a language classroom by facilitating classroom dialogue and interaction as well as providing access to task material and developing academic literacies. Although these findings are limited, the study context might support future research focuses, for example, the use of informal language codes to develop academic literacies as well as the impact of power, diversity and design on literacies acquisition. In addition, factors that could increase student-teacher closeness or ‘mediated immediacy’ (O’Sullivan, Hunt and Lippert 2004, 471) via computer-mediated channels could be explored, for example, font use, language and punctuation. Waldeck, Kearney and Plax (2001) also found that students are more likely to communicate with teachers online if students’ first names and emoticons (to convey emotion) are used in email messages. Furthermore, areas that would provide interesting insights and further research include:

• investigating acceptable language use parameters and perceptions regarding appropriate language styles;

• assessing the inverse proportionality of attendance and achievement;• exploring mobile literacy uses among students.

Finally, as technology should not be the emphasis but rather its pedagogical benefits, critical questions on how SNS applications impact on students’ learning and literacies development should be asked, particularly for students with limited technological skills (Rambe 2010, 102–103). It is also important to be mindful that students also need a ‘unique repertoire of skills, disciplinary language and intellectual competences that allow them to effectively deploy technology for the accomplishment of academic tasks’ (Rambe and Mawere 2011, 2). As a result, SNSs learning contexts often place additional cognitive demands on learners to generate, share, and meaningfully interact with online content, ‘notwithstanding their underdeveloped self-regulation and learning abilities’ (Rambe 2010, 102). The study, therefore, recommends teaching and learning practices that align technologies with pedagogical designs, and learning needs and styles of students (Rambe 2012, 132).

REFERENCES

Babbie, E. 2004. The practice of social research. 10th ed. Wadsworth: Thomson Learning.Baker, P. 1999. Creating learning communities: The unfinished agenda. In The social

works of higher education, ed. B. A. Pescosolido and R. Aminzade. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.




434

Barton, D. and R. Ivanic, eds. 1991. Writing in community. London: Sage. Barton, D., M. Hamilton and R. Ivanic, eds. 2000. Situated literacies: Reading and writing

in context. London: Routledge.Baynham, M. 1995. Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts. New

York: Longman.Blunt, S. V. and C. M. M. Goodier. 2000. The English placement assessment at the PE

Technikon. Paper presented at Academic Development: Changes and Challenges Conference, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.

Buckingham, D. 2007. Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Canagarajah, S. 2006. The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralisation continued. College Composition and Communication 57(4): 586–619.

–––. 2007. Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 91(Focus Issue): 923–939.

Cummins, J. 1991. Interdependence of first and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In Language processing in bilingual children, ed. E. Bialystok. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coiro, J., M. Knobe, C. Lankshear and D. Leu. 2008. Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In Handbook of research on new literacies, ed. J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear and D. Leu. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crystal, D. 2008. Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln. 2003. Introduction: The discipline and practice of

qualitative research. In Strategies of qualitative inquiry, ed. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

EUROCALL. November, 2002. The impact of information and communications technologies on the teaching of foreign languages and on the role of teachers of foreign language. A report commissioned by the Directorate General of Education and Culture. Presented at the International Certificate Conference. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/doc495_en.pdf (accessed 12 June 2013).

Fischman, J. 2008. Dear Professor, students want to chat with you. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3384/dear-professor-students-want-to-chat-with-you (accessed 13 June 2013).

Gee, J. P. 1990. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.

–––. 1996. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. 2nd ed. London: Falmer Press.

Hamann, K. and B. M. Wilson. 2003. Beyond search engines: Enhancing active learning using the Internet. Politics & Policy 31: 533–553.

Hewitt, A. and A. Forte. 2006. Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada.

Hilton, J. and K. Plummer. 2012. To Facebook, or not to Facebook? Digital culture and education (DCE). Available at: http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dce_1061_hilton.pdf (accessed 12 June 2013).

Hull, G. 1993. ‘Hearing other voices’: A critical assessment of popular views on literacy and work. Harvard Educational Review 63(1): 20–49.


435

Ivala, E. and D. Gachago. 2012. Social media for enhancing student engagement: The use of Facebook and blogs at a University of Technology. South African Journal of Higher Education 26(1): 152–167.

Jacobs, C. 2007. Mainstreaming academic literacy teaching: Implications for how academic development understands its work in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education 21(7): 868–879.

Janks, H. 2010. Literacy and power. London: Routledge.Krashen, S. 1989. Language acquisition and language education: Extensions and

applications. New York: Prentice Hall International.Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London:

Sage.Marshall, D., H. Conana, R. Maclons, M. Herbert and T. Volkwyn. 2011. Learning as

accessing a disciplinary discourse: Integrating academic literacy into introductory physics through collaborative partnership. ICL Conference: Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: Theory research and reflections, 17–18 January, Cape Town, South Africa.

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

Mills, K. A. 2010. The multiliteracies classroom. New perspectives in language and education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Muñoz, C. L. and T. L. Towner. 2009. Opening Facebook: How to use Facebook in the college classroom. Paper presented at Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference, 2–6 March, Charleston, South Carolina, United States.

Ng’ambi, D. and P. Rambe. 2008. Barriers to students’ use of electronic resources during lectures. Paper presented at the Sacla Conference, 13–16 July, Kruger National park, South Africa.

New London Group. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1): 60–92.

O’Sullivan, P. B., S. K. Hunt and L. R. Lippert. 2004. Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23: 464–490.

Palfrey, J. and U. Gasser. 2008. Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.

Rambe, P. 2010. Using contradictions to ravel teaching and learning challenges in a blended IS course in an African university. Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations 5: 101–124.

–––. 2012. Constructive disruptions for effective collaborative learning: Navigating the affordances of social media for meaningful engagement. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 10(1): 132–146. Available at: www.ejel.org (accessed 12 July 2013).

Rambe, P. and M. Mawere. 2011. Barriers and constraints to epistemological access to online learning in Mozambique schools. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance 2(2.3): 1–25.

Redecker, C., K. Ala-Mutka, M. Bacigalupo, A. Ferrari and Y. Punie. 2009. Learning 2.0: The impact of Web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. European




436

Commission/Joint Research Centre/Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 1–124.

Reid, J. 2011. ‘We don’t Twitter, we Facebook’: An alternative pedagogical space that enables critical practices in relation to writing. English Teaching: Practice and Critique Journal 10(1): 58–80. Available at: http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2011v10n1art4.pdf (accessed 12 June 2013).

Salmon, G. 2007. Learning futures. Keynote address, Connect Education Conference, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Scribner, S. and M. Cole. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Street. B. V., ed. 1993. Cross cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waldeck, J. H., P. Kearney and T. G. Plax. 2001. Teacher email message strategies and students’ willingness to communicate online. Journal of Applied Communication Research 29: 54–70.


Social media communication spaces to develop literacies in a higher education language classroom...

Documents

Transcript of Social media communication spaces to develop literacies in a higher education language classroom...