Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Let’s Face(book) It: Analyzing Interactions in Social Network Groups for Chemistry Learning

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examined how social network (SN) groups contribute to the learning of chemistry. The main goal was to determine whether chemistry learning could occur in the group discourse. The emphasis was on groups of students in the 11th and 12th grades who learn chemistry in preparation for their final external examination. A total of 1118 discourse events were tallied in the different groups. We analyzed the different events that were found in chemistry learning Facebook groups (CLFGs). The analysis revealed that seven types of interactions were observed in the CLFGs: The most common interaction (47 %) dealt with organizing learning (e.g., announcements regarding homework, the location of the next class); learning interactions were observed in 22 % of the posts, and links to learning materials and social interactions constituted about 20 % each. The learning events that were ascertained underwent a deeper examination and three different types of chemistry learning interactions were identified. This examination was based on the theoretical framework of the commognitive approach to learning (Sfard in Thinking as communicating. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008), which will be explained. The identified learning interactions that were observed in the Facebook groups illustrate the potential of SNs to serve as an additional tool for teachers to advance their students’ learning of chemistry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CLFG:

Chemistry learning Facebook groups

LMS:

Learning management system

SN:

Social network

References

  • Abel M (2005) Find me on Facebook… as long as you are not a faculty member or administrator. Esour Coll Transit 3(3):1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi R, Eylon B, Silberstein J (1987) Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction. Educ Chem 24:117–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Biton Y, Hershkovitz S, Hoch M (2014) Learning with Facebook-preparing for the mathematics Bagrut—a case study. In: The international group for the psychology of mathematics education (PME 38) and the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA 36) (2014, July), Vancouver, Canada

  • Blonder R, Rap S (2015) I like facebook: exploring Israeli high school chemistry teachers’ TPACK and self-efficacy beliefs. Educ Inform Technol 1–28. doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9384-6

  • Blonder R, Jonatan M, Bar-Dov Z, Benny N, Rap S, Sakhnini S (2013) Can you tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with technological tools and enhancing their efficacy beliefs. Chem Educ Res Pract 14:269–285. doi:10.1039/c3rp00001j

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell CC, Eison JA (1991) Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 1, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.oid.ucla.edu/about/units/tatp/old/lounge/pedagogy/downloads/active-learning-eric.pdf

  • Chi MTH (1997) Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. J Learn Sci 6(3):271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi MTH, Bassok M, Lewis MW, Reimann P, Glaser R (1989) Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cogn Sci 13(2):145–182. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiecher AC, Donolo DS (2013) Virtual dialogues and exchanges. The social and cognitive dimensions of interactions among students. RUSC Univ Knowl Soc J 10(2):285–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb P, Yackel E, Wood T (1992) Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educ Stud Math 23:99–122. doi:10.1007/bf00302315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong O, Blonder R, Oversby JP (2013) How to balance chemistry education between observing of phenomena and thinking in models. In: Eilks I, Hofstein A (eds) Chemistry education: a practical guide and textbook for teachers, teacher trainees and student teachers. Sense, Rotterdam, pp 97–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede C (2008) A seismic shift in epistemology. Educ Rev 3(3):80–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg P (1999) What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In: Dillenbourg P (ed) Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori YJ, Hameiri M (2003) Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. J Res Sci Teach 40:278–302. doi:10.1002/tea.10077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder RM, Brent R (2003) Learning by doing. Chem Eng Educ 37:282–283. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Columns/Active.pdf

  • Forkosh-Baruch A, Hershkovitz A (2012) A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. Internet High Educ 15:58–68. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison R, Anderson T, Archer W (2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High Educ 2:87–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow C, Robelia B, Hughes JE (2009) Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educ Res 38:246–259. doi:10.3102/0013189x09336671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Soc Behav Sci 15:1425–1430. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershkovitz A, Forkosh-Baruch A (2013) Student–teacher relationship in the Facebook era: the student perspective. Int J Contin Eng Educ Life Long Learn 23(1):33–52. doi:10.1504/IJCEELL.2013.051765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew KF (2011) Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Comput Human Behav 27(2):662–676. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA (1998) Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change 30(4):26–35. doi:10.1080/00091389809602629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone AH (1991) Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn 7(2):75–83. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junco R (2012) Too much face and not enough books: the relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Comput Hum Behav 28:187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind V (2004) Beyond appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas, 2nd edn. School of Education, Durham University, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood K (2010) The SNAP Platform: social networking for academic purposes. Campus Wide Inf Syst 27(3):118–126. doi:10.1108/10650741011054429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner PA, Karpinski AC (2010) Facebook® and academic performance. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1237–1245. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koichu B, Lachmy R (2014) Stretching the boundaries of the classroom: social networks as a means for facilitating collaborative problem solving in mathematics. In: Social networks and learning: interdisciplinary aspects research workshop (2014, June), Jerusalem, Israel

  • Kurtz G (2011) Assimilation of ICT in Israel: challenges and implementation. In: Chen D, Kurtz G (eds) ICT, learning and teaching. The Center for Academic Studies, Or Yehuda, pp 11–32 (in Hebrew)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankshear C, Knobel M (2007) Researching new literacies: Web 2.0 practices and insider perspectives. E-Learn Digit Media 4:224–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke JL (1990) Talking science: language, learning and values. Ablex, Norwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Pitts JP (2009) Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student-faculty interaction. J Inform Syst Educ 20:175–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn MC, Eylon BS (2011) Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge, New York and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazer JP, Murphy RE, Simonds CJ (2007) I’ll see you on “Facebook”: the effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Commun Educ 56(1):1–17. doi:10.1080/03634520601009710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazer JP, Murphy RE, Simonds CJ (2009) The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learn Media Technol 34:175–183. doi:10.1080/17439880902923655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazman SG, Usluel YK (2010) Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Comput Educ 55(2):444–453. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan H (1979) Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meishar-Tal H, Kurtz G, Pieterse E (2012) Facebook groups as LMS: a case study. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn 13(4):33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6):1017–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nana (2014) 10 years of Facebook: a decade in figures. Retrieved from http://net.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1035380 (in Hebrew)

  • O’Sullivan PB, Hunt SK, Lippert LR (2004) Mediated immediacy: a language of affiliation in a technological age. J Lang Soc Psychol 23:464–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pempek TA, Yermolayeva YA, Calvert SL (2009) College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. J Appl Dev Psychol 30(3):227–238. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1964) Part I: cognitive development in children: piaget development and learning. J Res Sci Teach 2(3):176–186. doi:10.1002/tea.3660020306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prescott J, Wilson SE, Becket G (2013) Facebook use in the learning environment: do students want this? Learn Media Technol 38(3):345–350. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.788027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell AA (1994) A rationally designed general chemistry diagnostic test. J Chem Educ 71(4):314. doi:10.1021/ed071p314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon G, Perkins DN (1998) Individual and social aspects of learning. Rev Res Educ 23:1–24. Retrieved from http://www.education.miami.edu/blantonw/2800/XBLANTON/READINGS/salomon.html

  • Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (2006) Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: Sawyer RK (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 97–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder J, Greenbowe T (2009) The chemistry of Facebook: using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry. Innov J Online Educ 5(4). Retrieved from http://gator.uhd.edu/~williams/AT/ChemOfFB.htm

  • Selwyn N (2010) Web 2.0 and the school of the future, today. In: Inspired by technology, driven by Pedagogy. OECD report

  • Semple A (2000) Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational technologies. Aust Sci Teach J 46(3):21–28. Retrieved from https://www.hadassah.org.il/NR/rdonlyres/E50BA60A-F482-457B-ACCE-EE10A82C5C5A/22862/sempel.pdf

  • Sfard A (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Res 27(2):4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard A (2001) There is more discourse than meets the ears: looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educ Stud Math 46:13–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard A (2007a) When the rules of discourse change, but nobody yells you: making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. J Learn Sci 16:565–613. doi:10.1080/10508400701525253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard A (2007b) Reconceptualizing conceptual change. In: Vosniadou S, Vamvakoussi X, Stathopoulou C (eds) Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 329–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard A (2008) Thinking as communicating. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair J, Coulthard M (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl G, Koschmann T, Suthers D (2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning: an historical perspective. In Sawyer RK (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 409–426. Retrieved from http://gerrystahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf

  • Subrahmanyam K, Reich S, Waechter N, Espinoza G (2008) Online and offline social networks: use of social networking sites by emerging adults. J Appl Dev Psychol 29:420–433. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanborn PG (1996) A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Qual Quant 30(1):19–35. doi:10.1007/BF00139833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teclehaimanot B, Hickman T (2011) Student-teacher interaction on Facebook: what students find appropriate. TechTrends 55(3):19–30. doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0494-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Woo HL, Quek CL, Yang Y, Liu M (2012) Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: an exploratory study. Br J Educ Technol 43:428–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Anna Sfard and Michal Tabach for their constructive comments and the fruitful discourse.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weizmann Institute of Science, 7610001, Rehovot, Israel

    Shelley Rap & Ron Blonder

Authors
  1. Shelley Rap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ron Blonder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelley Rap.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rap, S., Blonder, R. Let’s Face(book) It: Analyzing Interactions in Social Network Groups for Chemistry Learning. J Sci Educ Technol 25, 62–76 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9577-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9577-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation