such as blogs, wikis, photo and video sharing, podcasts, ... SOCIAL TECH OLOGIES FOR HIGHER ..... Australian Journal of Education Technology, vol. 20, pp.
Investigation of the Use and Benefits of Online Social etworking (OS) in Higher Education Suraya HAMID, Shanton CHANG, Sherah KURNIA Department of Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010 Australia
Abstract Online social networking (OSN) is a range of activities enabled by social technologies and operationalised by a group of people. More recently, social technologies such as blogs, wikis, photo and video sharing, podcasts, social bookmarking, social networking sites, instant messaging and online discussion boards have been widely used to facilitate OSN. OSN is popular mostly for non-educational purposes among young generation of students categorised as the Digital Natives. It can be appropriated and repurposed to support teaching and learning delivery. Despite the availability of implementation cases, studies on the effectiveness of the deployment are still lacking. Therefore, based on a critical literature review, this study analyses which OSN activities are relevant in the education context and what social technologies can support these activities. Specifically, four OSN activities that have been identified and relevant in the education context are content generating, sharing, interacting and collaboratively socialising. Furthermore this paper highlights the benefits that can be obtained from the appropriate deployment of social technologies in the education context. The study finding provides a general guide for academics who want to use OSN in improving their teaching and learning. Keywords: Online Social Networking (OSN), Social technologies, Web 2.0 tools, Educational activities, Higher Education 1. BACKGROUD The widespread use of social technologies (software and/or applications that are used for social purposes), in particular Web 2.0 tools is relatively a new phenomenon [1]. Web 1.0, the precursor of Web 2.0 is static, centralised, content-based, readable, rigid and individual. On the other hand, Web 2.0 is dynamic, distributed, service-based, writeable, loosely couple and social [2]. Web 2.0 popularity can be credited to highly utilised services like blogging, video sharing and social networking sites. To some extent, online discussion board stemmed from Web 1.0 is also frequently included in Web 2.0 discussion [3]. Although Web 2.0 technologies have only been around for about five years, yet they are already having a noticeable impact on higher education [4, 5].
2. APPROPRIATIO AD REPURPOSIG SOCIAL TECHOLOGIES FOR HIGHER EDUCATIO Conceptually and practically, OSN enables its users to socialise and create networks or communities online. In the higher education sector, these publicly available social technologies for OSN have started to be appropriated and repurposed for educational activities [6-8]. In this context, appropriation and repurposing refer to the process of appropriating originally designed social technologies and pedagogically repurpose them for educational purposes [6]. Previous works especially by Kennedy et al., [9, 10] who studied the general use of information technologies by young students, and Hemmi et al.,[6] and Jones et al., [11] who studied the use of social technologies informed this research that the appropriation and repurposing of social technologies are not an easy and straight forward process. As the higher education deals with digital natives who are perceived to be familiar with OSN and social technologies, the literature has shown evidence of some efforts made to use these technologies to support educational activities with a certain degree of success. However, at this stage, the effectiveness of appropriation and repurposing of the social technologies is not well understood. To address the gap, this paper analyses not only the phenomenon of Web 2.0 use in higher education but also how higher education can deploy OSN appropriately with consideration being given to pedagogical aspects. Therefore, the research questions addressed in this paper are: (1) What online social networking (OSN) activities are relevant in the education context? (2) What social technologies can support these activities? (3) What are the benefits and challenges of OSN to support educational activities? This paper, guided by the analysis of literature review is aimed at providing some insights and preliminary answers to the questions posed above. At the later stage of this research, empirical data would be collected from the field in order to explore and substantiate further the initial findings from the reported critical literature analysis reported in this paper.
3. DIGITAL ATIVES AD HIGHER EDUCATIO Characteristically, the “Digital Natives” (youngsters who are born roughly after 1980) are said to be very familiar with the most recent and up-to-date ICTs. They also spent their time and lives with high tech devices such as computer, video games, digital music and mobile phones [12] to the extent they get fully immersed in Web 2.0 in living their online lives and at the same time, seamlessly meld with their offline world [13]. They typically have low tolerance for lectures and also prefer to receiving fast information, being on multi tasking, being active learners, having non-linear access to information, and relying on ICT to access information as well as to carry out their social and professional interaction [12, 14]. On the other hand, Prensky [12] refers to lecturers in higher education as the “Digital Immigrants”. They are considered as foreigners in the digital lands of the digital natives and lack of technological literacy. The differences in the characteristics are speculated to create some degree of incompatibility between the two generations [12]. Since the potential of OSN in the formal academic setting is always tempting for educators and policy makers alike, therefore some have already started to incorporate OSN in the higher education context. However, Kennedy et al [15], Grosseck [16] and Bennett et al.,[17] suggest that careful planning must be made prior to adoption of the online technologies in classroom. This is because based on their research, not all young people categorised as digital natives are keen to have such technologies in classroom for various reasons: diversity of experiences, familiarity, attitudes and expectations of the students towards online technologies [15]. Bennett et al., [17] argue that this “digital native debate” has created an ‘academic moral panic’. To balance the arguments between supporters and critics [10, 17, 18], Bennett et al., [17] suggest there is a need to have more systematic research with sufficient evidence into these young students’ needs, skills and use of technologies in higher education. On the same note, Selwyn [19] also cautioned the educators to be wary of simply introducing new information technologies such as Web 2.0 applications into the classrooms on the assumptions of fulfilling the needs of these young students. The move also should be preceded with some forms of open dialogues between the young students and educators in gauging the students’ opinions [19]. Therefore, ‘one size fits all’ approach to the integration of ICTs into university curricula needs to be carefully reconsidered. In addition, it remains unclear what the users’ behaviours are in using OSN for higher education and it is essential to understand how educational activities can be supported by the social technologies. Ensuing to these arguments, scholars[6, 20-22] have proposed that educators need to adjust
their pedagogical models if they were to use social technologies for teaching and learning in order to suit this kind of new generation students [17, 23]. 4. LEARIG 2.0 AD OS EDUCATIOAL ACTIVITIES Beyond the users of the technology, it is also important to look at how learning has evolved with the advent of Web 2.0 in higher education. The concept of delivering educational activities using Web 2.0 is termed Learning 2.0 by some researchers. It is basically an innovative online learning space used to deliver teaching and learning [24]. The preceding concept, Learning 1.0 simply reproduces the old models of teaching via a spectrum of tools and applications like courseware, online discussion fora, online testing, course management system and virtual learning environments (VLEs), making Learning 1.0 essentially a teachercentred approach. On the other hand, with the newer social technologies like Web 2.0, it is the enhancement to the Learning 1.0 enabled by Web 2.0 technologies with a more flexible and student-centred approach. Learning 2.0 facilitates and stimulates collaboration and sharing [25]. Specific applications like real-time online discussions are used to improve active learning and discussion board threads are employed to foster cooperation among students [26]. Learning 2.0 is creating a new kind of a participatory medium that is ideal for encouraging multiple types of learning [27], in particular social learning and constructivist learning. It is based on the assertion that students’ understanding of content is socially constructed through conversations about the content and through interactions around problems or actions. Social learning permits not only “learning about” the subject matter but also “learning to be” full participant in the field. The nature of Web 2.0 is very much supportive of socialisation. Hence, OSN activities through online social technologies could potentially create a more engaging classroom climate and participation among students. Based on the literature analysis, the following activities have been identified as the common OSN educational activities performed by students and lecturers: Content Generating Most of the social technologies allow users to easily create their own content and also to actively share information, opinion and support across networks of users. For example, podcasts can deliver educational materials in addition to music while blogs can be used as reflective diaries and to develop online communities of practice [28]. Sharing Another educational activities that can be supported by social technologies is sharing of information. Students are able to put up their contents on the public space for others to view and download. For example, the produced multimedia files are shared on file sharing
websites such as Flickr, YouTube or Slideshare, bookmarking certain websites or tagging keywords for users with similar interests to peruse [15, 24, 28-32]. Hence, sharing contents and information using social technologies means much more than just publishing them online.
Collaboratively socialising This activity involves working collaboratively in online social environment to solve certain issues or problems with members of the groups, or organising social events through social networking sites [5, 6, 13, 15, 24, 30, 32-35].
Interacting Social technologies also support interactions among students by allowing them to actively participate in a discussion. They can leave comments on blog or discussion board and ask for more detail explanations, adding someone as a friend and initiate communication by leaving a message [6, 13, 31, 33].
In reviewing the existing literature regarding the various social technologies’ potential benefits for educational purposes, we can map the technologies to specific OSN activities. Based on the identification of various educational activities and social technologies through our literature analysis, Table 1 provides a matrix summarising various OSN activities that can be potentially supported by specific social technology and the related references.
Table 1: Matrix of OS Relevant for Educational Activities and Social technology Social Technologies
Online Social etworking (Educational Activities) Sharing Interacting
Content Generating Blogs
Wikis
Photo sharing
Video sharing
(Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Hargadon, 2008) (Churchill, 2009) (Murray, 2008) (Usluel & Mazman, 2009) (Ras & Rech, 2009) (Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Hargadon, 2008) (Kane & Fichman, 2009) (Murray, 2008) (Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Hargadon, 2008) (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008) (Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Hargadon, 2008)
(Usluel & Mazman, 2009)
Collaboratively Socialising
(Churchill, 2009) (Usluel & Mazman, 2009)
(Kane & Fichman, 2009) (Ras & Rech, 2009)
(Kane & Fichman, 2009) (Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Ras & Rech, 2009) (Rhoades, Friedel, & Morgan, 2009)
(Mason & Rennie, 2008)
Podcasting
(Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Minocha & Thomas, 2007) (Hargadon, 2008)
(Sandars & Schroter, 2007)
Social bookmarking
(Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Oradini & Saunders, 2008)
(Eysenbach, 2008) (Churchill, 2009) (Oradini & Saunders, 2008) (Minocha, 2009)
Online discussion board
(Hemmi, Bayne, & Landt, 2009)
Instant messaging
(Sandars & Schroter, 2007)
Social networking sites
(Murray, 2008) (Virkus, 2008) (Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Hargadon, 2008)
5. BEEFITS OF OLIE SOCIAL ETWORKIG I HIGHER EDUCATIO Besides understanding the potential of social technologies for supporting educational activities, it is also important to understand the benefits that can be derived from using OSN in Learning 2.0. Five major benefits have been identified from the literature which are discussed next: Improving Engagement OSN activities have the potential to improve student engagement and increase their participation in classroom, in particular among quieter pupils. They can work collaboratively online, without the anxiety of having to raise questions in front of peers in class – or by enabling expression through less traditional media such as video [36]. Quieter students may feel reluctant and hesitant to participate and interact actively in class. However, once they cast their shyness away through the use of online technologies (be it blogs, wikis, or SNS), they are likely to become active participants. As
(Wuensch, Aziz, Ozan, Kishore, & Tabrizi, 2009) (Sandars & Schroter, 2007) (Mason & Rennie, 2008) (Murray, 2008) (Oradini & Saunders, 2008) Virkus 2008
(Murray, 2008) (Minocha, 2009)
(Murray, 2008) (Supe, 2008) (Oradini & Saunders, 2008)
part of creating a sense of engagement while using OSN, students may also create a sense of belonging and ownership when they are given the freedom to publish their work online (for instance in the personal blog related to the course) or contribute in class’ blog by simply joining the class’ group in any popular SNS. Enhancing Learning Motivation Learning using social technologies can further boost students’ motivation, encourage their attention to detail and an overall improved quality of work. A study by Rifkin et al.,[37] indicates that when the students publish their work online for multiple audience, their input are mostly original, interesting and engaging for others to see. This in turn will lead to a more positive assessment from the peers and lecturer. In addition, lecturers have also reported that the use of online technologies can encourage online discussion amongst students outside school which is beyond the traditional classroom setting.
Offering Personalised Course Material Personalisation is what appeals the most to both students and lecturers from social technologies. In the case of social networking sites or even blog, when students put their user profiles and personalise their respective pages, they can provide comprehensive information about themselves (i.e full name, date of birth, address, educational background, hobbies, social, and even political or religious affiliations). The academics who are using such technologies in their classroom will then be able to learn more about the students they teach simply by viewing the students profiles [29]. In response to this, lecturers can personalise the course material based on the students’ profiles [38].
publishing and presenting their work to a wide audience through blogs, wikis, or podcasts, learners benefit from the opportunity to appropriate new ideas, and transform their own understanding through reflection [39, 40]. Appealing to Digital atives Another benefit of OSN activities is the compatibility of the technologies with the traits of digital natives [41] who are comfortable with the latest technology available in the Internet space [42]. As highlighted before, they are highly comfortable and familiar with using such tools which already integrated into their daily practices, mostly outside of school context. For instance, embracing online technologies and being engaged in OSN activities are part of their daily routines. According to Gaston [43], learning to teach digital natives does not necessarily require advanced studies in technology but rather the desire to engage students in the learning process and make learning fun to them.
Developing Collaborative Skills Some social technologies such as wikis and to some extent blogs, encourage inquiry-based and collaboration activities among students. This opens room for active participation and hence creates effective learning. Linked with this principle of collaborative production, there are additional facilities including sharing and publishing the artefacts (i.e course materials such as course syllabus, course notes, assignments, test cases, etc) produced as a result of the learning activity and inviting feedback from peers. By
The mapping of the benefits and the relevant social technologies briefly discussed above, complemented by a more extensive literature analysis yields the Table 2 below.
Table 2: The Benefits of OS Facilitated by Social Technologies Key: BLG=blog; WKI=wiki; PS=photo sharing; VS=video sharing; PD=podcast; SB=social bookmarking; ODB=online discussion board; IM=instant messaging; S'S=social network sites ('ote: due to space constraint, reference lists for the Table 1 and Table 2 above are available upon request) Benefits Improving engagement
Enhancing Learning Motivation
Offering personalised materials Developing collaborative skills
Appealing to Digital Natives
References Grantt, 2008 Murphy & Lebans, 2008 Wheeler & Boulos, 2008 Boulos, Maramba, & Wheeler, 2006 Dohn, 2009 Motteram & Sharma, 2009 Rafkin, Longnecker, Leach, Davis & Ortia, 2009 Ajja & Hatshorne, 2008 Dale & Pymm, 2009 Usluel & Mazman, 2009 Griffith & Liyanage, 2008 Ferdig, 2007 Dale & Pymm, 2009 Minocha, 2009 Usluel & Mazman, 2009 Brown & Adler, 2008 Grantt, 2008 Mason & Rennie, 2008 Salmon & Edirisingha, 2008 Gaston 2006
BLG
WKI
PS
√ √
√ √
√
√
√
√ √
√ √
√
ODB
IM
SS
√ √ √
√ √
Social Technologies VS PD SB √ √ √
√
√
√
√ √
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
√ √
√
√
√
√
In balancing the arguments of the benefits of OSN with its disadvantages, Harris and Rea [44] identified the following four disadvantages: (1) computing resources must be made available; (2) web resources can be vandalized or sabotaged; (3) plagiarism; and (4) levels of openness of social technologies to the public. We posit that these disadvantages be acknowledged and duly addressed during the process of appropriation and repurposing of OSN.
√ √
√ √ √ √
√
6. DISCUSSIO AD COCLUSIO Harnessing on the social technologies in particular Web 2.0 offers both opportunities and challenges for higher education. Opportunities arise because there are a number of potential benefits that have been identified from the application of the technologies in higher education and because of the students’ backgrounds which typically are classified as the digital natives. However, it poses some challenges as well because
there is little empirical evidence to showcase how social technologies are used to facilitate OSN activities and what benefits can be derived from each specific activity. Therefore, in this study, we address these challenges by reviewing the existing literature to identify and show how social technologies can support educational activities and the likely benefits obtained in order to understand the impact of OSN on the teaching and learning delivery and processes.
[4]
[5]
[6]
We set this study out based on the premise that various OSN activities that can be performed on social technologies are appropriate for the educational context. In particular, four educational activities have been identified, which include content generation, sharing, interacting and collaborative socialising. However, as the Internet keeps changing and developing, we expect that there will be additional activities that will emerge in the near future. In addition, we have also identified various benefits that can be obtained from the use of social technologies to support educational activities. To complement the findings of this study, further work is required to better understand the actual benefits and disadvantages of OSN derived from each educational activity and facilitated by a specific social technology. At this stage, no previous study has been done to map the use each social technology for supporting educational activities to any particular benefits. Yet, it is important to understand this because by consciously knowing which application is the most appropriate for a particular activity, the teaching and learning can be designed to be more effective, fun and engaging. It will also boost students’ interest in knowing more about the subject by not limiting their window of knowledge to a certain medium only but opening up the opportunities wider into the realm of wisdom made possible by the Internet. Harnessing the technological capabilities is only logical as the digital natives are familiar with these technologies. Also, since the demographics of current and future students in higher education are likely to be digital natives, the delivery of education must be tailored to their interests as well.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] [13]
[14]
[15]
7. REFERECES [1]
[2]
[3]
H. Shaohua and W. Peilin, "Web 2.0 And Social Learning in a Digital Economy," in IEEE International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling Workshop, 2008. KAM Workshop 2008, 2008, pp. 1121-1124. J. M. Silva, A. S. Rahman, and A. El Saddik, "Web 3.0: a vision for bridging the gap between real and virtual," in 1st ACM international workshop on Communicability design and evaluation in cultural and ecological multimedia system, Vancouver British Columbia, Canada, 2008, pp. 9-14 W. Shin and S. Lowes, "Analyzing Web 2.0 Users in an Online Discussion Forum," in World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
[16]
[17]
[18]
Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA) 2008, Chesapeake, VA, 2008, pp. 1130-1137. J. Armstrong and T. Franklin, "A Review of Current and Developing International Practice in the use of Social Networking (Web 2.0) in Higher Education," 2008. P. Sendall, W. Ceccuci, and A. Peslak, "Web 2.0 Matters: An Analysis of Implementing Web 2.0 In The Classroom," in Proceedings ISECO' 2008, 2008, pp. 1-5. A. Hemmi, S. Bayne, and R. Land, "The Appropriation and Repurposing of Social Technologies in Higher Education," Journal of Assisted Learning, vol. 25, pp. 19-30, 2009. V. Vratulis and M. T. Dobson, "Social negotiations in a wiki environment: a case study with pre-service teachers," Educational Media International, vol. 45, pp. 285–294, December 2008. S. Wheeler, P. Yeomans, and D. Wheeler, "The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating studentgenerated content for collaborative learning," British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, pp. 987–995, 2008. G. Kennedy , B. Dalgarno, S. Bennet, K. Gray, J. Waycott, T. Judd, A. Bishop, K. Maton, K. L. Krause, and C. Rosemary, Educating the 'et Generation: A Handbook of Findings for Practice and Policy. California, USA: Creative Commons, 2009. G. Kennedy, T. Judd, A. Churchward, K. Gray, and K. Krause, "First Year Students' Experiences With Technology: Are They Really Digital Natives?," Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET 24), vol. 24, pp. 108-122., 2008. C. Jones, R. Ramanau, S. Cross, and G. Healing, "Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university?," Computers & Education vol. 54, pp. 722-732, 2010. M. Prensky, "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants," in On the Horizon. vol. 9, 2001a, pp. 1-6. C. L. Munoz and T. L. Towner, "Opening Facebook: How To Use Facebook In The College Classroom," in Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference, Charleston, South Carolina, 2009, pp. 1-13. D. G. Oblinger, "Boomers and Gen-Xers Millennials: Understanding the New Students " EDUCAUSE Review Magazine, vol. 38, pp. 37-47, 2003. G. Kennedy, B. Dalgarno, K. Gray, T. Judd, J. Waycott, S. Bennet, K. Maton, K. L. Krause, A. Bishop, R. Chang, and A. Churchward, "The Net Generation Are Not Big Users of Web 2.0 Technologies: Preliminary Findings," in Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007, Singapore, 2007, pp. 517-525. G. Grosseck, "To Use or Not to Use Web 2.0 in Higher Education?," in Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, World Conference on Educational Science 2009, 2009, pp. 478–482. S. Bennett, K. Maton, and L. Kervin, "The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence," British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, pp. 775–786, 2008. S. Bayne and J. Ross, "The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: a dangerous opposition," in Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) 2007.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
N. Selwyn, "Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - a critical review," in OECD-KERIS expert meeting, 2007. R. E. Ferdig, "Editorial: Examining Social Software in Teacher Education," Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 15, p. 5, 2007. L. Bryant, "Emerging trends in social software for education," Emerging Technologies for Learning (Becta), vol. 2, pp. 9-22, 2007. S. Virkus, "Use of Web 2.0 Technologies in LIS Education: Experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia," Electronic Library and Information Systems, vol. 42 pp. 262-274, 2008. N. Selwyn, "An investigation of differences in undergraduates' academic use of the internet," Active Learning in Higher Education vol. 9, pp. 1122, 2008. C. Murray, "Schools and Social Networking: Fear or Education?," Synergy Perspectives: Local, vol. 6, pp. 8-12, 2008. F. Oradini and G. Saunders, "The Use of Social Networking By Students and Staff In Higher Education," in iLearning Forum, 2008, Paris, 2008. K. L. Wuensch, S. Aziz, E. Ozan, M. Kishore, and M. H. N. Tabrizi, "Technology And Pedagogy: The Association Between Students' Perceptions of the Quality of Online Courses and the Technologies Employed," MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, vol. 5, pp. 253-262, 2009. J. S. Brown, "How to Connect Technology And Content In The Service Of Learning " The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 55, 2008. J. Sandars and S. Schroter, "Web 2.0 Technologies for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical Education: An Online Survey," Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 83, pp. 759-762, 2007. S. Griffith and L. Liyanage, "An Introduction to the Potential of Social Networking Sites in education," in Proceedings of the Second Emerging Technologies Conference 2008, pp. 76-81. E. Ras and J. Rech, "Using Wikis To Support The Net Generation In Improving Knowledge Acquisition in Capstone Projects," The Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 82, pp. 553-562, 2009. L. Lockyer and J. Patterson, "Integrating Social Networking Technologies In Education: A Case Study Of A Formal Learning Environment," in Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2008, pp. 529533. P. Anderson, "What is Web 2.0? Ideas, Technologies and Implications for Education," Project Report 2007. C. McLoughlin and J. W. L. Lee, "Social Software and Participatory Learning: Pedagogical Choices
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
with Technology Affordance in the Web 2.0 Era," in Proceedings Ascilite Singapore, 2007, Singapore, 2007, pp. 664-675. G. C. Kane and R. G. Fichman, "The Shoemaker's Children: Using Wikis For Information Systems Teaching, Research and Publication," MIS Quarterly, vol. 33, pp. 1-17, 2009. G. Eysenbach, "Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness," Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 10, pp. 1-9, Sep 2008 2008. S. Wheeler and M. K. Boulos, "Mashing, Burning, Mixing and the Destructive Creativity of Web 2.0: Applications for Medical Education," Electronic Journal in Communication, Information and Innovation in Health, vol. 1, pp. 27-33, 2008. W. Rifkin, N. Longnecker, J. Leach, L. Davis, and L. Ortia, "Motivate students by having them publish in new media: An invitation to science lecturers to share and test," in Motivating Science Undergraduates: Ideas and Interventions, UniServe Science Proceedings, 2009, pp. 105-111. S. Buckley, G. Hasen, and M. Ainley, "Affective engagement: A Person Centred Approach to Understanding the Structure of Subjective Learning Experiences," Melbourne 2004. J. B. Williams and J. Jacobs, "Exploring the Use of Blogs as Learning Spaces in the Higher Education," Australian Journal of Education Technology, vol. 20, pp. 232-247, 2004. C. Dale and J. Pymm, "Podagogy – The iPod as a Learning Technology," Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 10, pp. 84-96, 2009. G. Kennedy , K. L. Krause, K. Gray, T. Judd, S. Bennett, K. Maton, B. Dalgarno, and A. Bishop, "Questioning the Net Generation: A Collaborative Project in Australian Higher Education," in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Ascilite Conference, Sydney, 2006, pp. 413-417. Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and C. Lampe, "The Benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites," Journal of ComputerMediated Communication vol. 12, pp. 1143-1168, 2007. J. Gaston, "Reaching and Teaching the Digital Natives. Library Hi Tech News," Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 3, pp. 12-13, 2006. L. A. Harris and A. Rea, "Web 2.0 and Virtual World Technologies: A Growing Impact on IS Education," Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 20, pp. 137-144, 2009.
