You are here:

Twitter vs. Facebook: Using Social Media to Promote Collaborative Argumentation in an Online Classroom
PROCEEDING

, , University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This study aimed to: 1) evaluate Twitter as a viable tool for promoting collaborative argumentation; 2) determine if scripting through sentence openers promotes a greater number of arguments within an online discussion; and 3) compare Twitter to Facebook as viable tools for promoting collaborative argumentation. Participants were 27 undergraduate students enrolled in an online introductory Educational Psychology course. A quasi-experimental, sequential explanatory mixed methods research design was employed. Data analysis focused on the difference in the number of argument components generated by participants between the two social media platforms, Twitter and Facebook. In addition, the impact of participants’ use of sentence openers on the amount of argument components was also examined. Facebook was found to be a more viable tool for promoting online collaborative argumentation, and specific affordances of Facebook were identified.

Citation

Owens, M. & Nussbaum, E.M. (2016). Twitter vs. Facebook: Using Social Media to Promote Collaborative Argumentation in an Online Classroom. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 1221-1234). Washington, DC, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 6, 2024 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp.1-25). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
  2. Cho, K.L., & Jonassen, D.H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (3), 5-22.
  3. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
  4. Fisher, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56-66.
  5. Golanics, J.D., & Nussbaum, E.M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167-180.
  6. Junco, R., Heibergert, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119-132.
  7. Lampe, C., Wohn, D.Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N.B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 329-347.
  8. Lipponen, L. (2002). Proceedings from CSCL ’02: The Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community.
  9. Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2012). A tale of tweets: Analyzing microblogging among language learners. System, 40(1), 48-63.
  10. Lowe, B., & Laffey, D. (2011). Is Twitter for the birds? Using Twitter to enhance student learning in a marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 183-192.
  11. Marttunen, M. (1998). Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative interaction in higher education studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 387-405.
  12. Nussbaum, E.M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G.M., Reynolds, R.E., & Bendixen, L.M. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 113-137.
  13. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK:
  14. Walton, D.N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169-184.
  15. Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  16. Walton, D.N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
  17. Walton, D.N. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123(3), 327-346.
  18. Wang, Q., Woo, H.L., Quek, C.L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 428–438.
  19. Yiong‐Hwee, T., & Churchill, D. (2007). Using sentence openers to support students’ argumentation in an online learning environment. Educational Media International, 44(3), 207-218.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections