Mishra, Koehler, and Greenhow (2015) mention the importance of studying, understanding, and analyzing data from ‘social networks’ of learners that extend beyond just face to face interactions. It seems to me, from Mishra et al. (2015), that the social networks are now more complicated than ever, especially since they mentioned that traditional social graphs and even theories of computer-supported collaborative learning contradict observations in social network sites. It’s imperative that we have an understanding of this landscape since teachers are using social media more than ever for ideas (Education Week, 2018). It’s important to understand how learning on social websites and face-to-face interactions affect each other and how they stand together and separately.
Indeed, Schlager and Fusco (2003), in their article about teacher professional development (PD), technology, and communities of practice, also mentioned ‘social networks’ as one of the ‘guideposts’ for future research. This was to ensure that teacher PD was effective and contextual to teachers and the hindrances they experience during technology integration. They further mentioned that it was necessary to explore ‘network patterns among “successful” groups and then be able to use social network analysis as a tool to analyze groups as they are developing and intervene if a group does not show structures that promote success’ (p. 215).
I am interested in social media in general and in particular how high school Computer Science teachers are using various social networks (online/face-to-face) to advance their learning. So, based on my research interests and the urgent *need* for understanding social networks, I find this line of research the most relevant to my work.
—–
Data: Where Do Teachers Get Their Ideas? (2018, January 23). Retrieved April 05, 2018, from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/data-where-do-teachers-get-their-ideas.html?cmp=SOC-EDIT-FB&override=web
Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse?. The information society, 19(3), 203-220.
Although it is not directly relevant to my interests and so did not show up in my post, I too was struck by Mishra, Koehler, and Greenhow’s (2015) mention that data from social networks shows a pattern that doesn’t match up with traditional social graphs. Anecdotally, I’ve observed that it’s pretty common for professional development to be offered via multiple means (e.g., there is an in-person option and a hybrid option and a fully online option). I think the intention behind providing multiple option is good. It makes the opportunity available to more people. But, Mishra et al.’s observation suggests that that not all the options are equal. Understanding how the options can work together, as you say, rather than as alternatives, seems an important future avenue.
Hi Sukanya, I also found it striking that Mishra, Koehler, and Greenhow’s (2015) mention that social networking patterns do not conform to existing theories of social networks, thus necessitating the need for new theories. I am unfamiliar with social networking theory, but I wonder if the validity of such theories is largely dependent on the contextual features of the social environment. Given that the contextual features of social media varies greatly from one medium to another (SnapChat vs Facebook vs Twitter), I wonder if the variability between platforms is one of the reasons it has been so challenging to develop a cohesive framework for social networking theory. It seems to me that technology seems to outpace theory in this field, perhaps because social media evolves so quickly and the associated phenomenon seems to shift alongside each social media platform. What are some ways in which we can develop social networking theories that have longevity while accounting for the ephemeral qualities of social networking patterns on social media?
Hi, Sukanya. Your focus on the contradiction between social network behavior and theories of collaborative learning is smart and interesting. You make some very interesting points, and you tie them clearly to your personal research interest. It’s great that you cite not only the reading mentioned in the prompt but other research literature as well.
One thing I noticed about the prompt is that it asks you to reflect on shifts in the work of education psychologists or researchers. You are basically doing that in this post, but you don’t frame it that way. If you use the word “shift,” you will more clearly and directly address the prompt. I mention this because in another year or so, when you take your comprehensive exam, your success will hinge on how well you directly answer the prompt. This can be key in grant-writing, submitting proposals for conferences — many kinds of academic writing.
I did a quick scan through a database of research about how teachers are using social media (Chris’ research team has built this database over the past few months). At first glance, I see no studies where the subjects were high school computer science teachers. So it looks like your research will fill a gap, which is great. Here’s a study that may interest you about math teachers using an Edmodo group:
Torrey Trust (2016) New Model of Teacher Learning in an Online
Network, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48:4, 290-305, DOI:
10.1080/15391523.2016.1215169
I wonder if such a group exists for high school computer science teachers? Additionally, I wonder how many high schools offer computer science classes. My children’s high school does not, and it’s among the top-ranked high schools in Michigan. But this school focuses on the International Baccalaureate curriculum, which does not rely much on technology.
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
4 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)