Advertisement

Monitoring the Learning Process to Enhance Motivation by Means of Learning by Discovery Using Facebook

  • Michele Della Ventura
Conference paper
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook book series (ECTY)

Abstract

This research paper introduces the concept of “serendipity” as a tool to design and to enhance the learning process, permitting students to find out new concepts and recognize seemingly unrelated connections among them. The research is based on the use of the social network Facebook: to make learning more efficient, permitting students to elaborate learning concepts and link them to what is already know (strength); to enhance the possibilities to find out new concepts (opportunity), through the flow of information generated by students and teachers; and to allow the inclusion of dyslexic students in the learning process (strength). The words chosen to generate messages have been analysed (conversation analysis) to avoid the use of such difficult terms or irrelevant information that could discourage an active participation of all students (threat). The analysis of the learning process has been done considering simultaneously three opposite qualities related to the students: objective/emotional, private/public and traditional/technological. The paper discusses how it is possible to analyse the learning process and make changes to facilitate serendipitous learning.

Keywords

Curiosity Design process Dyslexia Learning Motivation modelling Serendipity Social network 

References

  1. Åkerström, M. (2013). Curiosity and Serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review, IX(2), 10–18.Google Scholar
  2. Andrew, B. B., Hebets, E. A., Cleland, T. A., Fitzpatrick, C. L., Hauber, M. E., & Stevens, J. R. (2015, July). Embracing multiple definitions of learning. Trends in Neurosciences, 38(7), 405–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breedlove, S. M., et al. (2007). Biological Psychology an introduction to behavioural, cognitive and clinical neuroscience. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Chance, P. (1979). Learning and Behaviour. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Ciolfi L., Cooke M., (2006, March 23–24). Design, HCI for interaction designers: Communicating “the Bigger Picture”, in Inventivity: Teaching theory, design and innovation in HCI. Proceedings of HCIEd2006 (Limerick, 47-51.Google Scholar
  6. Della Ventura, M. (2016). Creating inspiring learning environments by means of digital technologies: A case study of the effectiveness of WhatsApp in music education, In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on e-learning, e-education, and online training, Dublin, Ireland, Springer (pp. 36–45), ISBN: 978-3-319-49624-5,  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49625-2_5 Google Scholar
  7. Della Ventura, M. (2017). Creating inspiring learning environments by means of digital technologies: A case study of the effectiveness of WhatsApp in music education. EAI Endorsed Transactions on e-Learning (Journal), 4, ISSN: 2032-9253,  https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.26-7-2017.152906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Della Ventura, M. (2018). Twitter as a music education tool to enhance the learning process: Conversation analysis, In Proceedings of the international conference on new media for educational change: Effect on learning and reflection on practice (HKAECT 2018), Hong Kongi, Springer, ISBN: 978-981-10-8895-7,  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8896-4_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felbo, B., Mislove, A., Søgaard, A., Rahwan, I., & Lehmann, S. (2017, September 9–11). Using millions of emoji occurrences to learn any-domain representations for detecting sentiment, emotion and sarcasm. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on Empirical methods in natural language processing, 2017 (pp. 1615–1625), Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  10. Fine, G., & Deegan, J. (1996). Three principles of Serendip: Insight, chance and discovery in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fini, M. E. Cicognini (2009), Web 2.0 e social networking. Nuovi paradigmi per la formazione Centro Studi Erickson.Google Scholar
  12. Furrer, C., Skinner, E., & Pitzer, J. (2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students’ classroom engagement and everyday resilience. National Society for the Study of Education, 113(1), 101–123.Google Scholar
  13. Gallistel, C. R. (2008). Learning and representation. In J. Byrne, R. Menzel (Ed.), Learning theory and behavior. Vol. 1 of Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (4 vols., pp. 227–242). Amsterdam: ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giovannella, C., & Camusi, A. (2008). Tools for an Augmented design: Quantitative virtual show&tell. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, 3–4, 117–124.Google Scholar
  15. Gritton J. (2007). Of Serendipity, free association and aimless browsing: Do they lead to Serendipitous learning? http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/e-learning/gallery/gritton_serendipitous_learning/conclusion/assets/assignment_print_version.pdf
  16. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings of CSCW-2006 (pp. 167–170). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  18. Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 793–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling-of-deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self- concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76, 397–416.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Riley E. (2007). The effects of a Cuban musical exchange Tripon the musical Journeys of Students from a Sydney High School, University of Sidney.Google Scholar
  24. Rivoltella, P. C. (2015). Smart Future. Didattica, media digitali e inclusione, Ed. Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  25. Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42, 70–83.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tyng, C. M., Amin, H. U., Saad, M. N. M., & Malik, A. S. (2017). The influences of emotion on learning and memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Della Ventura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Music TechnologyMusic Academy “Studio Musica”TrevisoItaly

Personalised recommendations