Abstract
Knowledge has evolved within the past decades. Thus, it is unfair to say the conventional method of teaching is still relevant to the present learners. With the vast changes in technology and lifestyle, educators need to be relevant as well in coping with the challenges faced in transferring knowledge. E-learning, blended learning and virtual learning are some of the common novel methods introduced. In this study four classes of diploma students participated. Data were collected through pre-test and post-test, observation through the use of social networking. The respondents in the controlled group did not show significant progress in the post-test. However, the respondents in both uncontrolled groups showed diverse result, although they were given the same stimulus. 45 % respondents of the first experimental group showed regression in the post-test, while 71 % respondents of the other experimental group displayed a positive growth in the post-test. From the observation of the responses given in the social network site, the first group showed positive involvement in responding to the online task while the second group did not respond as aggressively as the first group did. The study hopes to highlight the benefits and the challenges faced when employing social networking in the teaching and learning process as well as provides a venue in improving such employment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Al-Mukhaini, E., Al-Qayoudhi, W., & Al-Badi, A. (2014). Adoption of social networking in education: A study of the use of social networks by higher education students in Oman. Journal of International Education Research, 10(2), 143. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/docview/1516960787?accountid=42518.
Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. Jr. (2013). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Speaking of research. Retrieved from http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/browne/MNS_Seminar/JournalArticles/Pretest-posttest_design.pdf.
Duncan-daston, R., Hunter-sloan, M., & Fullmer, E. (2013). Considering the ethical implications of social media in social work education. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(1), 35–43. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9312-7.
Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of technology and contemporary critical theory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
Lanham, R. A. (1993). The electronic word: Technology, democracy, and the arts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation; 61, 6; Arts & Humanities Full Text pg. 700 Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm.
Masic, I., Sivic, S., & Pandza, H. (2012). Social networks in medical education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Materia Socio Medica, 24(3), 162–164
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453.
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Boston, MA: MIT Press
Ross, C.S. (2003). Reading in a digital age, available at http://www.camls.org/ce/ross.pdf
Stollak, M. J., Vandenberg, A., Burklund, A., & Weiss, S. (2011). Getting social: The impact of social networking usage on grades among college students. In: Proceedings from ASBBS Annual Conference, pp. 859–865.
Acknowledgement
Sincere gratitude hereby extended to the ones who directly and indirectly help us until this paper is structured. This is also extended to the unwavering moral, emotional, and financial support of the proponents’ family and friends, and above all, utmost appreciation to Allah the Almighty for the divine intervention in this academic endeavour. Although criticism is sometimes a bitter pill to swallow, it is worth to look back and smile.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Subject | Group | Pretest | Posttest | Gain | Subject | Group | Pretest | Posttest | Gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | A | 4.5 | 8 | 3.5 | 41 | B | 12 | 11.5 | −0.5 |
2 | A | 5.5 | 11 | 5.5 | 42 | B | 11.5 | 12 | 0.5 |
3 | A | 5.5 | 9.5 | 4 | 43 | B | 8 | 10.5 | 2.5 |
4 | A | 4 | 9.5 | 5.5 | 44 | B | 6.5 | 9.5 | 3 |
5 | A | 6 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 45 | B | 10 | 10.5 | 0.5 |
6 | A | 6.5 | 8 | 1.5 | 46 | B | 10.5 | 12.5 | 2 |
7 | A | 7 | 3 | −4 | 47 | B | 13.5 | 12.5 | −1 |
8 | A | 8.5 | 9.5 | 1 | 48 | B | 11.5 | 11.5 | 0 |
9 | A | 7.5 | 8 | 0.5 | 49 | B | 7.5 | 12.5 | 5 |
10 | A | 7.5 | 8.5 | 1 | 50 | B | 9.5 | 14.5 | 5 |
11 | A | 4.5 | 7 | 2.5 | 51 | B | 7.5 | 7 | −0.5 |
12 | A | 6.5 | 6.5 | 0 | 52 | B | 8 | 12 | 4 |
13 | A | 6.5 | 9.5 | 3 | 53 | B | 11 | 13.5 | 2.5 |
14 | A | 7 | 5 | −2 | 54 | B | 7.5 | 12.5 | 5 |
15 | A | 7.5 | 9 | 1.5 | 55 | B | 9 | 11 | 2 |
16 | A | 5.5 | 5 | −0.5 | 56 | B | 7.5 | 10.5 | 3 |
17 | A | 12 | 7.5 | −4.5 | 57 | B | 8.5 | 11.5 | 3 |
18 | A | 9.5 | 8 | −1.5 | 58 | B | 7.5 | 11.5 | 4 |
19 | A | 7 | 9 | 2 | 59 | B | 12 | 11.5 | −0.5 |
20 | A | 6 | 5 | −1 | 60 | B | 10.5 | 13.5 | 3 |
21 | A | 6 | 3.5 | −2.5 | 61 | B | 9 | 12 | 3 |
22 | A | 8 | 5 | −3 | 62 | B | 14.5 | 14.5 | 0 |
23 | A | 10 | 12 | 2 | 63 | C | 12.5 | 13 | 0.5 |
24 | A | 7 | 6 | −1 | 64 | C | 12.5 | 12 | −0.5 |
25 | A | 7.5 | 7 | −0.5 | 65 | C | 8.5 | 6.5 | −2 |
26 | A | 12 | 11 | −1 | 66 | C | 11.5 | 14 | 2.5 |
27 | A | 9 | 10.5 | 1.5 | 67 | C | 11 | 13 | 2 |
28 | A | 7 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 68 | C | 10.5 | 8 | −2.5 |
29 | A | 11 | 10 | −1 | 69 | C | 10 | 8 | –2 |
30 | A | 10 | 13 | 3 | 70 | C | 8.5 | 10 | 1.5 |
31 | A | 11 | 10.5 | −0.5 | 71 | C | 9.5 | 9 | −0.5 |
32 | A | 10.5 | 9.5 | −1 | 72 | C | 11 | 9.5 | −1.5 |
33 | A | 12 | 8 | −4 | 73 | C | 11 | 10.5 | −0.5 |
34 | A | 5 | 8.5 | 3.5 | 74 | C | 8.5 | 8.5 | 0 |
35 | A | 10 | 7 | −3 | 75 | C | 5 | 5.5 | 0.5 |
36 | A | 9 | 8 | −1 | 76 | C | 11.5 | 7 | −4.5 |
37 | A | 5.5 | 8 | 2.5 | 77 | C | 7.5 | 9.5 | 2 |
38 | A | 5.5 | 7.5 | 2 | 78 | C | 11.5 | 10.5 | −1 |
39 | B | 13 | 12 | −1 | 79 | C | 11 | 11.5 | 0.5 |
40 | B | 12.5 | 15 | 2.5 | 80 | C | 7 | 8 | 1 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this paper
Cite this paper
Malik, N.A., Rahim, P.R.M.A. (2016). Exploring the Use of Social Networking Site in the Teaching of Reading: Blessing or Bane?. In: Abdullah, M., Yahya, W., Ramli, N., Mohamed, S., Ahmad, B. (eds) Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2014). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1458-1_51
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1458-1_51
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-1456-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-1458-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)