When Compelled to FB Around Academic Texts: Postgraduate Students Reflected on their Online Experience

Authors

  • Sarimah Shaik Abdullah School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Aizan Yaacob School of Education and Modern Languages Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Fauziah Abdul Rahim School of Education and Modern Languages Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2013.10.1

Keywords:

social media, adult learners, academic reading, talk around text

Abstract

Purpose â€“ This paper is part of a larger study which explored postgraduate students talk around academic texts via Facebook (FB). Our exploration is largely guided by the idea of reading as a social practice. In this paper, we specifi cally focus on the students’ refl ections of their online experience of talking around academic texts.
 
Method â€“ The qualitative data used in this paper were derived from students’ reflective diaries, students’ FB interactions, and informal conversations and were collected from a group of students (27) attending a master’s class in distance learning mode. Thematic analysis was conducted to examine the themes that emerged to represent their refl ections.
 
Findings â€“ The students’ reflections were grouped into two major categories: convenience and facilitation of learning. Students’ reflection on the convenience afforded by the FB talk centered mainly on the idea of distance and time. Their reflections on the facilitation of learning were broken down into the following themes: safe environment to explore, social support, self-regulation and autonomy. A separate category, “FB entries need respondingâ€, was assigned to students’ comments about the importance of lecturer’s and group members’ feedback.
 
Value â€“ This study revealed the potential of FB as a convenient, safe and an informal avenue for students to share their understandings and reading-related problems. The informal nature of their FB experience supported free exploration of ideas without the worry of having to appear “cleverâ€.

References

Al-Hilawani, Y. A., Merchant, G. J., & Poteet, J. A. (1993). Implementing reciprocal teaching: Was it effective? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Association of Teachers of Educational Psychology. Anderson, In. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 614).

Almasi, J. F. (1996). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussion of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 314-351.

Alvermann, D. & Qian, G. (1994). Perspectives on secondary school reading: Implications for instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 21-38.

Baran, B. (2010).Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 146-149.

Beckett, G. H., Amaro-Jimenez, C., & Beckett, K.S. (2010). Students’ use of asynchronous discussions for academic discourse socialization. Distance Education, 31(3), 315-335.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perspectives. New Jersey: Ablex.

Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cavanaugh, C. (2007). Effectiveness of K-12 online learning. In M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cloete, S., de Villiers, C. & Roodt, S. (2009). Facebook as an academic tool for ICT lecturers. Proceedings of the SACLA 2009 Conference. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id

Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Connor-Greene, P. A. (2000). Assessing and promoting student learning: Blurring the line between teaching and testing. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 84–88.

Connor-Greene, P. A. (2005). Fostering meaningful classroom discussion: Student-generated questions, quotations, and talking points. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 173–175.

Cowgill, Jennifer Anne, (2010). Talk opportunities around text and the responses they elicit from middle level English language learners. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(4-A), 2010. pp. 1245.

Dalsgaard, C. (2008). Social networking sites: Transparency in online education. Paper presented at EUNIS 2008 VISION IT – Vision for IT in Higher Education (June 24-27, 2008). Retrieved from http://eunis.dk/papers/p41.pdf

Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversation. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 4-29.

Ganakumaran, S. (2006). Sticability in online autonomous literature listening programme: Strategies for sustaining learner interest and motivation. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 2, 80-96. Retrieved from www.melta.org.

Gonzales, L. & Vodicka, D. (2010). Top ten internet resources for educators. Leadership, January/February, 8-37.

Graham, M. & Scarborough, H. (2001). Enhancing the learning environment for distance education students. Distance Education, 22(2), 232-244.

Greenhow, C. & Robelia, E. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, 119–140.

Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing research in the real world. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hadjioannou, X. (2007). Bringing the background to the foreground: What do classroom environments that support authentic discussions look like? American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 370-399.

Hart, E. R. & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 670-681.

Hiltz, S.R., Shea, P., & Kim, E. (2007). Using focus groups to study ALN faculty motivation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 11(1), 1–20. Retrieved from http://jaln. sloanconsortium.org/index.php/jaln

Hodge, E. A., Palmer, B. C., & Scott, D. (1992). Metacognitive training in cooperative groups on the reading comprehension and vocabulary of at-risk college students. College Student Journal, 26, 440-448.

Hungerford-Kresser, H., Wiggins, J., & Amaro-Jimenez, C. (2011-2012). Learning from our mistakes: What matters when incorporating blogging in the content area literacy classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 326-335.

Jang, S. –J (2007). A study of students’ construction of science knowledge: talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49(1), 65–81.

Kassop, M. (2003). Ten Ways online education matches, or surpasses, face-to-face learning. The Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://technologysource.org/article/ten_ways-online_ education_matches_or_surpasses_facetoface_learning

Kaur, S. & Thiyagarajah, R. (1999). The english reading habits of ELLS students in University Science Malaysia. Paper presented at the Sixth International Literacy and Educational Research Network Conference on Learning, Bayview Beach Resort, Penang, Malaysia.

Kiser, A. I. T., & Prter, T. (2011). Social networking: Integrating student and university professor utilization. Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings, 6(2), 191-196.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3-21.

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.

Lei, S. A., Bartlett, K. A., Gorney, S. E., & Herschbach, T. R. (2010). Resistance to reading compliance among college students: Instructors’ perspectives. College Student Journal, 44 (2).

Li, C. S., & Beverly, I. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns, and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42, 449-458.

Lineweaver, T.T. (2010). Online discussion assignments improve students’ class participation. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 204-205.

Lynch, D. J. (2010). Application of online discussion and cooperative learning strategies to online and blended college courses. College Student Journal, 44(3), 777-784.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher›s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94-112.

Marchant, G. J. (2002). Student reading of assigned articles: Will this be on the test? Teaching of Psychology, 29(1), 49-51.

Markel, S. (2001). Technology and education online discussion forums: It’s in the response. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www. westiga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/markel42.html

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Meishar-Tai, H., Kurtz, G. & Pieterse, E. (2012). Facebook Groups as LMS: A case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1294/2295

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. London: Routledge.

Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development. London: Kogan Page.

Nadzrah, A. B. & Kemboja, I. (2009). E-learning environment: Blogging as a platform for language learning. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(4), 594-604.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering -and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Pantaleo, S. (2011). Middle years students’ collaborative talk about The Red Tree: ‘A book that really works your mind’. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(3), 260-278.

Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12 (1), 41–68.

Purdy, J. (2008). Inviting conversation: Meaningful talk about texts for English language learners. Literacy, 42(1), 44-51.

Reichenberg, M. (2008). Making Students Talk about Expository Texts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52 (1), 17–39.

Revere, L., & Kovach, J.V. (2011). Online technologies for engaged learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113-124.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Ross-Gordon, J. (2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer nontraditional. Peer Review, AAC&U, Winter 2011, 26-29.

Rovai, A. P. (2002). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asychronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 41-56. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/ jaln/v6n1/v6n1_rovai.asp

Saljo, R. (1982). Learning and understanding: A study of differences in constructing meaning from a text. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Sappington, Kinsey, K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two studies of reading compliance among college students. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 212-214.

Schroeder, J. & Greenbowe, T. J. (2009). The chemistry of Facebook: Using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry laboratory. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(4). Retrieved from http://www. Innovateonline.info/print.php?

Selwyn, N. & Grant, L. (2009). Researching the realities of social software use—an introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, 79–86.

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, 157–174.

Shaik Abdullah, S. (2005). Constructing understanding around text: Investigating EFL reading as a social practice. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, UK.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2000). College students’ academic performance and self-reports of comprehension strategy use. Reading Psychology, 21, 283-308.

Thomson, D.L. (2010). Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4). 662-712.

Thorne, M. (2000). Extra credit exercise: A painless pop quiz. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 204–205.

Towner, T. & vanHorn, A. (2007). Facebook: Classroom tool for a classroom community? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p197133

Uskul, A. K., & Eaton, J. (2005). Using graded questions to increase timely reading of assigned material. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 116–118.

Usluel, Y. K. & Mazman, S. G. (2009). Adoption of Web 2.0 tools in distance education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 818–823.

Visagie, S. & de Villiers, C. (2010). The consideration of Facebook as an academic tool by ICT lecturers across five countries. Retrieved from http://web.up.ac.za/ecis/SACLA2010PR/SACLA 2010/Papers/SACLA_vISAGIE_DEvILLIERS.PDF

Yeh, Y.-C. (2010). Analyzing online behaviors, roles, and learning communities via online discussions. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 140-151.

Downloads

Published

26-12-2013

Issue

Vol. 10 (2013): Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction (MJLI) Vol. 10, 2013

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Shaik Abdullah, S., Yaacob, A., & Abdul Rahim, F. (2013). When Compelled to FB Around Academic Texts: Postgraduate Students Reflected on their Online Experience. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 10, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2013.10.1

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-22
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/mjli2013.10.1