Keywords

Introduction: ODDE as an Emerging Field

Over the course of its history, Open, Distance, and Digital Education (ODDE) has evolved in line with educational technology as a field (Moore & Kearsley, 2012). As such, ODDE practices and educational technology development converged (Bozkurt, 2019, 2020), and ODDE emerged as a part of mainstream education (Bozkurt & Zawacki-Richter, 2021). Like many of the technologies that have come to mark the twenty-first century, social media (SM), as a service empowered by online web technologies, has had a major impact on many areas of life, including ODDE practices and theory. Features of SM such as easy access, online interactivity, instant communication, establishing and maintaining social relationships, and forming communities require a closer look at the potential for supporting ODDE.

Web Technologies: Collective Intelligence and the Global Brain

Web technologies have been revolutionary for humankind in many aspects of life, especially education. The potential of these web technologies emerged from their ability to enhance two-way communication and interaction, their participatory nature, the opportunities they provided learners to produce and consume information, and, most importantly, their power to build communities that exhibit the social characteristics of humans. Through successive generations of web technologies, online networks enhanced human capabilities, offering a new online ecosystem, where the boundaries of the offline physical world were extended to virtual online digital worlds.

The first-generation Web 1.0 was static, read-only, and based upon hypertext technology (Barassi & Treré, 2012). Upon the emergence of Web 2.0 in the early 2000s (O’Reilly, 2005), which was followed by Web 3.0 (Barassi & Treré, 2012), social networking sites became popular and attracted millions of users worldwide. Web 2.0 technologies are based on the architecture of participation and motivated by harnessing “the collective intelligence of crowds to create value” and transform “the web into a kind of global brain” (O’Reilly, 2005: p. 25). While Web 2.0 is based on users’ participation, Web 3.0 (also known as the Semantic Web) is based on users’ cooperation. The changes marking the stages of the evolution of the web are numerically labeled (e.g., 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0) and indicate that it is an emerging, evolving space that must be regarded as a growing and living entity. In line with the idea that technology is an extension of the human body (McLuhan, 1964), Fuchs et al. (2010) highlighted that the different generations of the web require us to consider it as an integrated socio-technical system and that its value lies in its ability to enhance human cognition, communication, and cooperation.

Despite there being critical discourse arguing that there are two sides to the web, negative and positive (Barassi & Treré, 2012), the web is clearly a space that enables information flow across networks and thereby has potential for education. The opportunities provided by web technologies, specifically the second and third generations, point to the social characteristics of these spaces and suggest that these spaces are more than synthetic structures built by binary codes but rather have value waiting to be discovered and harnessed for teaching and learning. Thus, it is difficult to design ODDE learning environments without some understanding of social networks, social media technologies, and their application.

Social Media: Revisiting Its Definition and Concepts that Make It Popular

Despite the clear application of social media to ODDE, the concept of what constitutes social media is sometimes murky and should be defined. A network is a structure, a system that connects different identities. It can be visible (e.g., railway networks) or invisible (e.g., kinship), human-made or naturally emerging. The most basic, albeit significant, value of networks is their ability to connect entities through different channels or links and facilitate communication and interaction between and within the networks or the entities that are connected to these networks. In this regard, networks have always been vital in the evolutionary progress of human beings, insofar as they enable communication and interaction, both of which are crucial elements of being social and fostering socializing.

Referring to Wellman’s (1988, p. 37) argument that the world is “composed of networks,” McLuhan (1964) asserted the notion that technology is an extension of the human body and increases human capability, from which it can be claimed that SM is a virtual online extension of our networks that exist in the physical offline world. SM (also known as social networks or social networking sites) refers to a variety of online platforms and is used for many purposes, such as socializing with friends and family, romance and flirting, job seeking and professional networking, doing business, and teaching and learning (Aichner, Grünfelder, Maurer, & Jegeni, 2021). The wide spectrum of SM use indicates that these media are not merely online platforms but, rather, projections of many human practices.

SM is defined as “Web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (Boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 211). Likewise, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010, p. 61) defined SM as “A group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content.” In another definition, SM is defined as “Personal and personalisable spaces for online conversations and the sharing of content based typically on the maintenance and sharing of profiles, where individual users can represent themselves to other users through the display of personal information, interests, photographs, social networks and so on” (Selwyn, 2009, p. 157). Lastly, Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2012, p. 1) defined SM as “A variety of networked tools or technologies that emphasize the social aspects of the internet as a channel for communication, collaboration, and creative expression.”

All these definitions point out the opportunities that SM provides individuals to present themselves, build or join networks, and communicate and interact socially. In this context, users’ online profiles are especially important because their profiles not only present the facts of their life, but also (and perhaps even more importantly) how they want to be perceived by their social environment (Maranto & Barton, 2010). However, it is important to note that there is a continuum between actual and idealized self (Higgins, 1987) and that identity presentation is a performance (Goffman, 1959), meaning that what is presented on SM might be, in many cases, idealized selves (Manago, Graham, Greenfield, & Salimkhan, 2008) rather than actual selves with real identities. However, regardless of whether individuals choose to present their idealized or actual identities, they nonetheless are socially present in online spaces, which, in effect, is the true power of SM.

SM’s ability to nurture its users’ connections and make them visible and accessible is responsible for its growth in popularity (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009) and for encouraging billions of people to form a digital identity (Bozkurt & Tu, 2016), that is, to create a profile and be socially present online by building relationships and communities (Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2004). According to Social Capital Theory (Bourdieu, 1983), SM enables the bridging, bonding, and maintaining of social capital (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Equipped with all these features, SM has become the normal of the online-technology-centric twenty-first century.

The number of people who use SM demonstrates that SM goes well beyond merely being online platforms but, rather, is part of our daily lives and routines. Accordingly, as of 2021, the total population of the world is around 7.83 billion, and approximately 4.66 billion people are Internet users, of which 4.20 billion people are SM users (We Are Social, 2021). These figures suggest that SM has great potential as an educational technology, as it is already being used by nearly half of the world population.

Educational Affordances and Limitations of Social Media

In the online digitally intensive twenty-first century, radical transformations have taken place that have been driven by the massive increase in the diffusion of information facilitated by technological developments (Fischer & Konomi, 2005). This period of time has seen a high demand for information and lifelong learning (Fischer & Konomi, 2005), whose characteristic features are communication, collaboration, community, creativity, and convergence (Friedman & Friedman, 2008). Since its inception, there has been increasing interest in benefitting from social dynamic characteristics of SM (Barrot, 2021). SM can be used in online educational processes to meet learners’ needs for more autonomy, connectivity, and socio-experiential learning (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007) by sharing, creating, and remixing information to create affinity spaces (Gee, 2004).

Earlier systematic studies have reported that SM can be used for online and blended courses to enhance learning outcomes and face-to face courses, foster learning communities, understand student perceptions of tool affordances, and increase student engagement with SM by supporting educational processes with social elements such as self-presentation, instant and rich communication, multiple interaction points, and ability to collaborate (Sharma, Tohill, Tietjen, & Akgun, 2018). The opportunities provided by SM have been formed by their ability to enable individuals to communicate, interact, and collaborate through self-driven motivation in socially enriched online spaces that extend beyond formal learning settings (Kimmerle, Moskaliuk, Oeberst, & Cress, 2015). Even in cases where SM does not play a part in learning processes, learners themselves can use SM to build their personal learning environment where learners can create, organize, and share their learning content (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007) and thus build bridges between formal, nonformal, and informal learning spaces (Greenhow & Lewin, 2016). Moreover, as an alternative learning management system (LMS), SM has the potential for blended learning in higher education (Giannikas, 2020).

In addition to the above advantages, SM played a vital role in sustaining education (Cavus, Sani, Haruna, & Lawan, 2021), especially collaborative learning, during the Covid-19 pandemic (Khan, Ashraf, Seinen, Khan, & Laar, 2021). For educational institutions that were not prepared for the sudden shift to emergency remote online education, or which could not afford to invest LMS due to high costs, SM was an effective and working solution (Nadeak, 2020). Likewise, countries that could not afford LMS due to their high costs used SM to sustain and deliver education during the pandemic (Sobaih, Hasanein, & Abu Elnasr, 2020). In this regard, it can be argued that SM proved its value in a time of crisis and may lessen inequities and social injustice derived from the digital divide on national, institutional, or even individual levels.

However, while SM offers many advantages, there are still some limitations to consider. For instance, some faculty may resist adopting SM for delivering educational content and communication with learners (Willems, Adachi, Bussey, Doherty, & Huijser, 2018). Also, some instructors (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2013) or learners (Poellhuber, Anderson, & Roy, 2011) might be unwilling to integrate SM into their learning processes, and for some students, SM can be an online distraction (Hollis & Was, 2016). How to ensure integrity of SM into education is still an open-ended question for many educators (Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011), and there are concerns about user-generated data (Krutka et al., 2019), which potentially recognizes learners as products and SM learning processes as a market. Besides, algorithmic bias (Boratto, Fenu, & Marras, 2019) is an issue and less is known regarding on its effects on learners’ well-being. In addition to these points, the issues of cyber bullying (Clark, Werth, & Ahten, 2012) and how digital footprints and data privacy could compromise the value of SM in ODDE if normative, ethical, and legal measures are not taken (Buitrago-Ropero, Ramírez-Montoya, & Laverde, 2020). Moreover, students could experience conflicts when they shift from their private social identities to their learner identities (Dennen & Burner, 2017).

An Examination of Social Media in Terms of the Theoretical Underpinnings of ODDE

To better understand the value of SM, it is necessary to examine it from the perspectives of the theoretical bases of ODDE. In this regard, this section will first focus on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model. According to the CoI (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999), teaching (design and organization and facilitating discourse direct instruction), cognitive (triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution), and social (open communication, group cohesion, and personal/affective) presences lead to meaningful learning experiences in an online learning environment. Among these presence types, social presence is defined as the degree of salience of the other person in the (mediated) interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). In other words, the degree to which it is being perceived as real (Gunawardena, 1995). The value of social presence in online learning environments lies in the ability to help participants be seen as real and social in these environments (Kilgore & Lowenthal, 2015).

Intimacy and immediacy are two important concepts of social presence, and as such, are related to social context, online communication, and interactivity (Tu, 2000). In this sense, SM plays a pivotal role in not only sustaining social communication and interaction but also in increasing the social aspects of learners and learning by supporting their social presence and making them visible through real-life projected digital identities.

Another significant theory underpinning ODDE is the Community of Practice (CoP) model (Wenger, 2010), which highlights the importance of identity formation, joining a community, and initiating interaction for self and professional growth. CoP further suggests that learning does not occur only in formal spaces, arguing that when learners participate in self-emerging communities, informal learning may also occur. However, the development of CoP can be a challenge in online learning spaces (Brook & Oliver, 2003) owing to spatial and temporal distances (Moore & Kearsley, 2012). By virtue of their nature and features, SM platforms offer learners the opportunity to join an existing community or to build their own communities (Holcomb & Krüger-Ross, 2013) via socially empowered networks, where they can connect, network, communicate, and interact (Brady, Holcomb, & Smith, 2010). As a space that has the prerequisite features of building and developing a community, SM provides educational opportunities not only for formal learning but also for nonformal or informal learning.

Spatial and temporal distances are common features of ODDE (Moore & Kearsley, 2012), however, rather than narrowing these distances, it is more important to lessen the gap in transactional distance (Moore, 1993), that is, psychological and communicational distances. Transactional distance involves dialogue and structure (Moore, 1993), where the former reduces the transactional distance and the latter increases it. Tools and services like SM enable learners to meet, discuss, and engage with the learning content more actively, which reduces factors that increase transactional distance (Dron & Anderson, 2014). SM, in this regard, has the potential to lessen transactional distance by loosening the structure and facilitating different dialogue channels (Huang, Chandra, DePaolo, & Simmons, 2016; Quong, Snider, & Early, 2018). Recent studies confirm that SM enhances learners’ interaction, and engagement along with their social presence results in increase in dialogue and reduce in transactional distance (Quong et al., 2018).

While interaction is a significant component of all educational processes, it is even more important for ODDE learners due to the limitations stemming from spatial and temporal distances. In this regard, three types of interaction—learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content interaction—have been proposed as essential interaction types (Moore, 1989) that contribute to the satisfaction and academic achievement of learners (Bernard et al., 2009). However, fully online courses that use LMS may fail to completely provide learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction because they are primarily designed to deliver content. SM, which was originally developed to build and sustain social communication and interaction, can be adopted in ODDE to augment communication and interaction between learner-learner and learner-instructor.

In summary, SM can be a social glue for learners who are separated by time and space and isolated from their peers and instructors in cases where they do not have the tools to communicate and interact in online spaces. As explained in the above sections, SM is especially effective in supporting theoretical assumptions of ODDE (e.g., CoI, CoP, transactional distance, and interaction types). The empirical evidence presented in the related literature shows that SM can be used to support some, but not all, components of ODDE practices. The trick is to get the right mix (Anderson, 2003) to ensure meaningful equivalent learning experiences (Simonson, 1999) and facilitate interaction and communication by effectively using the capabilities of SM.

Reflections and Insights from Research on Social Media

This section provides a snapshot of the research that has been conducted on SM by examining articles and proceeding papers (n = 215; Articles: 99, Proceedings: 116) published in the Scopus database between 2001 and 2021. The research corpus was built in June 2021 by using predefined search strings (see “Appendix A”). Text-mining (Feldman & Sanger, 2007) and social network analysis (Hansen, Shneiderman, & Smith, 2011) were used to analyze the papers and identify research patterns. In the text mining process, the titles and abstracts of 215 papers (40,840 total words and 4,213 unique word forms) were analyzed to identify lexical patterns. A thematic map was then created to visualize these patterns (Fig. 1). In the social network analysis, from among the 575 keywords identified, a total of 91 with a minimum occurrence of two were included in the analysis, and a network graph was created to visualize the results (Fig. 2). The analysis identified the following four general themes by triangulating paths in Fig. 1 and nodes in Fig. 2. In other words, the data revealed through the text mining (Fig. 1) and social network analysis (Fig. 2) merged to identify the thematic research patterns and reach a broader perspective.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Text-mining of the titles and abstracts of the papers on social media

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Social network analysis of the keywords from the papers on social media

Full size image

Social media supports social communication, interaction, and collaboration in online learning communities (see path on Fig. 1 communication, social, interaction, learning, online, communities, CoP, CoI; see nodes on Fig. 2, social learning, communication, interaction, collaboration, participation, learning communities, communities of practice, computer-supported collaborative learning, online learning community, online social network).

The ODDE practices aim to promote social elements of learning and apply a pragmatic approach to the use of education technology. As explained earlier, meaningful learning through different presences (Garrison et al., 1999) and interaction (Moore, 1989, 1993) in a learning community (Wenger, 2010) is essential in ODDE practices. SM, in this context, mitigates many of the limitations that emerge with the spatial and temporal distances (Moore & Kearsley, 2012).

What is more promising, learning communities formed on SM contributes to learners’ interaction (Nunes, Palomino, Nakayama, & Silveira, 2016), and these communities can last after the course and provide opportunities to learners to further collaborate and sustain their scholarly discussions beyond course boundaries (de Lima & Zorrilla, 2017). The text mining and social network analysis indicate that the value of SM lies in its ability to promote participation and collaboration, both of which are desired in ODDE and all educational processes.

Social media supports engagement, motivation, and satisfaction of learners (see path on Fig. 1, satisfaction, communication, social, media, motivation, engagement; see nodes on Fig. 2, motivation, social influence, teaching, and learning).

The existing literature indicates that SM promotes student engagement and motivation (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007; Rueda, Benitez, & Braojos, 2017; Sharma et al., 2018), both of which can affect student learning satisfaction and success on account of the participatory nature of SM and learners’ willingness to use these platforms. However, it is important to remember that SM was primarily developed for personal use and that despite the many advantages and opportunities afforded by SM, not every learner will voluntarily adopt SM in their learning process (Poellhuber et al., 2011).

Social media serves as an alternative learning management system for blended courses in higher education (see path on Fig. 1, LMS, networking, e-learning, management and technology, higher, education, social, blended and MOOC, massive, open, course, media, social, educational, university; see nodes on Fig. 2, blended learning, Coursera, distance education, distance learning, educational technology, e-learning, Facebook, higher education, learning management system, m-learning, MOOCs, online education, online learning, open and distance learning, social network sites, university students).

LMS are limited in how they support the social aspects of learning (Sharma et al., 2018). Learners might prefer SM as an alternative to traditional LMS considering that they are more user friendly and always-on and provide opportunities to shift learning experiences between formal and informal online learning spaces (Andrews, Tynan, & Backstrom, 2012). Blended/hybrid modes of learning are becoming increasingly popular (EDUCAUSE, 2021), and as noted by Sharma et al. (2018), SM is mostly used for blended courses and can be a cost-effective, socially forged alternative type of LMS in higher education. Empirical studies confirm that learners demonstrate positive attitudes for the use of SM as a supplement in higher education, and learners find SM more attractive than conventional LMSs (Giannikas, 2020) owing to cost and accessibility opportunities (Perguna, Apriyanti, & Kurniasih, 2021).

Social media facilitates networked and connectivist informal learning (see paths on Fig. 1, informal, learning, online, active and connection, distance, education, social, media and connected, network, knowledge, building; see nodes on Fig. 2, connectivism, constructivism, informal learning, learning, online social networks, social network, social networking, social media, web 2.0).

The advent of online networks and SM not only provided new educational opportunities but also led to the emergence of new pedagogical approaches, such as networked learning (Gourlay et al., 2021) and connectivism (Siemens, 2006). Connectivism argues that networking is critical for accessing current information by building or nurturing connections. Networking through SM allows learners to communicate in and out of the formal learning environments (Alzain, 2019) by ensuring the continuity of the learning and moving learning beyond the course objectives by facilitation informal learning opportunities.

Networked learning requires collaborative, cooperative, and collective inquiry, and, in this sense, SM can play a pivotal role. Learners are able to present themselves through SM profiles and increase their social presence in online networks. Moreover, online networks are not limited to formal learning opportunities but rather have a chaotic, complex, emergent, dynamic, open, self-controlled, self-maintained, and self-organized nature that extends the boundaries of online learning to formal, nonformal, and informal learning.

Reflections and insights from research on SM confirm earlier research themes and further indicate the potential of SM in terms of self-presentation and social presence not only for formal educational processes but also for informal educational processes such as networked and connectivist learning. The prevalence and use of SM by too many people can be a good opportunity to further explore how SM promotes communication, interaction, and collaboration and how SM contributes to engagement, motivation, and satisfaction of the learners in ODDE and education in general. The social features of SM support ODDE by default, but it’s not just about its social features but also how we design learning processes and integrate SM.

Conclusion and Suggestions

SM, an innovative technology that defined the twenty-first century, has features that enrich and augment socializing in online networks and as such, and it has attracted the attention of all segments of society. It can be argued that the web, online network technologies, and SM have radically transformed how individuals interact and connect. They have also forced education to change and have shaped education based on the realities of the online and digitally intensive twenty-first century.

SM is inherently designed for private use, not for educational purposes. However, currently, it is being seen as an alternative or supplement to traditional LMS. Therefore, educators and learning designers must address certain questions surrounding this new phenomenon, such as: Why is SM seen as a supplement or an alternative? Why do educators design learning platforms that are isolated from the social characteristics of learning? Why is LMS seen as a means to delivering educational content rather than as a means to facilitating and fostering learning?

As argued in theories of ODDE, learning is about eliminating barriers, situating the content of learning in a social context, and facilitating learning through communication and interaction, all of which leads to increased motivation, engagement, and satisfaction of learners. In brief, human learning is social and largely involves socializing the processes involved in learning.

The research on SM demonstrates that SM technologies can be useful in supporting social communication, interaction, and collaboration in online learning communities. The nature and characteristic features of SM support the engagement, motivation, and satisfaction of learners in ODDE. Hybrid and blended modes of education are growing in popularity, and SM appears to be a ready-made alternative or supplement for LMS in some situations. Also, online networks and SM are well tailored for collaboration, participation, and community formation, which can increase their value as a social LMS in online learning. In many cases, learners use SM as a personal learning environment, meaning that their learning experiences are not confined to a single mode. In contrast, by taking advantage of SM, learners can easily shift between different learning modes (e.g., formal and informal learning). Lastly, since SM is controlled and formed by the users, it gives agency to learners to identify their own learning needs and to self-regulate, self-manage, and self-direct their learning processes. Taking into account these features, SM can be effective in networked and connectivist learning processes and empowering learners to engage in informal learning.

In the postmodern world, the borders between formal, nonformal, and informal learning are blurring. Information is distributed across networks, and learners traverse between different modes of learning to meet their learning needs. Given these new circumstances, how can ODDE adopt and position itself in the changing world, and how should learning be designed in the realm of online networks and networked society? It is also important to keep in mind that SM should not necessarily be placed at the center of the learning process but instead should be used to assist learning by facilitating discussions, sharing information, and weaving networks and can be used to bridge formal and informal learning.

Although SM offers many advantages for learning, and most educators are drawn to the features of SM, these socially enhanced technologies may not be as innocuous as they seem, as these technologies were originally meant for profit making and therefore should be approached with caution. Moreover, there are still many areas of concerns about the use of SM, such as data privacy, use of algorithms, ethics, and cyber bullying, which means that learning designers should be careful and find the right mix when they adopt SM in ODDE processes.

Based on the insights gained from the reviewed papers and analysis conducted to identify the recent main research themes, the following suggestions can be taken into consideration for future research directions.

First, SM has already been used by individuals, and it has many potentials to support ODDE, but this requires careful and purposeful instructional design to enable and ensure the participation, collaboration, and community formation. In this regard, instructional designers can focus on how to integrate SM to the curriculum and learning activities. Because some learners only use SM for private use, this still can be a challenge, but learners can be motivated to use SM for educational purposes. Second, conventional LMS can be improved by integrating social features of SM that can lessen the sense of being isolated from the real world. Additionally, another approach can be integrating SM into LMS tools so that learners can optionally present themselves with the digital identities they created. This can be important because profiles in LMS are generally composed of photos and basic personal information; the digital identities in SM can include the real-life connections and reflect real-life backgrounds of learners. As such, the degree of learners being perceived as real can be increased, and their social presence can be strengthened. Third, educational institutions can focus on how to best harness the capabilities of SM and use it beyond formal education. For instance, orientations or courses on SM literacy, how to best use SM in learning processes and how to protect themselves from the side effects can be an effective strategy in a long run. Such an approach can increase the awareness on SM in education and can further empower and give agency to learners. Finally, there is a need to develop regulations and policies to protect learners in case of cyber bullying, misuse of private data, and unethical use of digital footprints.

Cross-References