Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 173–194 | Cite as

Instructional guidance in microblogging-supported learning: insights from a multiple case study

  • Tian Luo
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Microblogging tools such as Twitter show potential to enrich classroom experience and benefit student learning. Research shows that instructional guidance is particularly necessary in computer-assisted learning environments, but no research has been done to study the effects of instructional guidance in microblogging-based learning. Using a multiple-case study design, the researcher examined student learning in terms of the amount of participation, ability to focus on task, and depth of thinking in guided, semi-guided, and unguided modes. The findings suggest that in guided environments, students achieved higher levels of learning, especially with respect to focusing on task and depth of thinking. Variations in depth of learning existed between the semi-guided and the guided mode. Students’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using microblogging across three cases were also analyzed. The study has implications for future research on using microblogging tools for educational purposes and pedagogical practice.

Keywords

Microblogging Twitter Computer-mediated communication Social media Interactive learning environments Instructional guidance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Agherdien, N. (2011). Twitter and Edulink: Balancing passive consumption with knowledge creation. In Proceedings of the international conference on e-learning, pp. 489–492.Google Scholar
  2. An, Y.-J. (2010). Scaffolding wiki-based, ill-structured problem solving in an online environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/an_1210.htm.
  3. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 259–282. doi: 10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: the case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, A., & Duchan, G. (2012). The usage characteristics of Twitter in the learning process. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 8(1), 149–163. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/44767.
  9. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Costa, C., Beham, G., Reinhardt, W., & Sillaots, M. (2008). Microblogging in technology enhanced learning: A use-case inspection of PPE summer school 2008. In Paper presented at the workshop on social information retrieval for technology enhanced learning.Google Scholar
  11. Craig, E. M. (2007). Changing paradigms: Managed learning environments and Web 2.0. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(3), 152–161. doi: 10.1108/1065074071076218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis III, C. H. F., Deil-Amen, R., Rios-Aguilar, C., & González Canché, M. S. (2013). Social media and higher education: A literature review and research directions. Report printed by the University of Arizona and Claremont Graduate University. Retrieved Feb 27, 2013 from http://works.bepress.com/hfdavis/2/.
  13. De Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 63, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Divaharan, S., & Lim, C. P. (2010). Secondary school socio-cultural context influencing ICT integration: A case study approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 741–763. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/divaharan-2.html.
  16. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–155.Google Scholar
  17. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education—A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), 92–100. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ebner, M., & Maurer, H. (2009). Can weblogs and microblogs change traditional scientific writing? Future Internet, 1(1), 47–58. doi: 10.3390/fi1010047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elavsky, C. M., Mislan, C., & Elavsky, S. (2011). When talking less is more: Exploring outcomes of Twitterusage in the large-lecture hall. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 215–233. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2010.549828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 783–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  23. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. doi: 10.3102/0013189x09336671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herriot, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (p. c1997). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
  26. Holliday, W. G., & Mcguire, B. (1992). How can comprehension adjunct questions focus students’ attention and enhance concept learning of a computer-animated science lesson? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holotescu, C., & Grosseck, G. (2009). Using microblogging in education. Case study: Cirip.ro. Paper presented at the 6th conference on e-learning applications, Cairo, Egypt.Google Scholar
  28. Ito, M., Bittanti, M., Horst, A., Horst, H., Pascoe, C. J., Robinson, L., et al. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, c2010.Google Scholar
  29. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage andcommunities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis, San Jose, California. Google Scholar
  30. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kop, R., Fournier, H. & Mak, J. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 74–93. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1041/2025.
  33. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leutner, D. (1993). Guided discovery learning with computer-based simulation games: Effects of adaptive and non-adaptive instructional support. Learning and Instruction, 3, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luo, T. (2014). Enabling microblogging-based peer feedback in face-to-face classrooms. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.995202.Google Scholar
  37. Luo, T., & Gao, F. (2012). Enhancing classroom learning experience by providing structures to microblogging-based activities. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 199–211.Google Scholar
  38. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40, 237–253. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00129-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mcglathery, G. (1978). Analyzing the questioning behaviors of science teachers. In M. B. Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 1, pp. 13–30). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  42. Mcwilliams, J., Hickey, D. T., Hines, M. B., Conner, J. M., & Bishop, S. C. (2010). Voices from the field: using collaborative writing tools for literary analysis: Twitter, fan fiction and the crucible in the secondary English classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 3(3), 238–245.Google Scholar
  43. Naaman, M., Boase, J., & Lai, C. (2010). Is it really about me?: Message content in social awareness streams. In Proceedings ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Savannah, Georgia, USA. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1718918.1718953.
  44. Novak, J., & Canas, A. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Pensacola, FL. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm.
  45. Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom—The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Perifanou, M. A. (2009). Language micro-gaming: Fun and informal microbloggin activities for language learning. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 49, 1–14. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04757-2_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ross, C., Terras, M., Warwick, C., & Welsh, A. (2011). Enabled backchannel: conference Twitter use by digital humanists. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 214–237. doi: 10.1108/00220411111109449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  51. Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449–478. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning: The effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8, 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1348/000709908x380772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wright, N. (2010). Twittering in teacher education: Reflecting on practicum experiences. Open Learning, 25(3), 259–265. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2010.512102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2011). The effects of different on-line searching activities on high school students’ cognitive structures and informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 771–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Studies, Instructional Technology, College of EducationOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options