Facebook as learning platform: Argumentation superhighway or dead-end street?

Most SNSs - including Facebook - are more a broadcast tool than a discussion tool.Groups of Facebook users (i.e., friends) tend to confirm rather than discuss and/or argue.Flat-structured discussions such as what Facebook affords impede discussion and argumentation.Most SNSs - including Facebook - are not well-suited for knowledge construction via discussion and argumentation. Facebook? and other Social Network Sites are often seen by educators as multifunctional platforms that can be used for teaching, learning and/or the facilitation of both. One such strand is making use of them as tools/platforms for using and learning through argumentation and discussion. Research on whether this 'promise' is actually achieved - also the research reported on in this Special Issue - does not unequivocally answer the question of whether this is a good idea. This article as one of the two closing articles of this Special Issue discusses Social Networking Sites in general and Facebook specifically with respect to how they are 'normally' used by their members as well as with respect to their social and technical features. Then, in light of this, it discusses the learning results of the four studies. It concludes with a short discussion of whether they are capable of meeting the promise that many think they can.

[1]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[2]  J. Eichel.  Victims Of Groupthink A Psychological Study Of Foreign Policy Decisions And Fiascoes , 2016 .

[3]  Manisha Bajpai,et al.  Developing Concepts in Physics Through Virtual Lab Experiment: An Effectiveness Study , 2013 .

[4]  Chih-Hsiung Tu,et al.  Asynchronous Network Discussions as Organizational Scaffold Learning: Threaded vs. Flat-Structured Discussion Boards , 2010 .

[5]  J. Woods.  Beyond the comfort zone. , 2005, Australian nursing journal.

[6]  Armin Weinberger,et al.  Scripts, individual preparation and group awareness support in the service of learning in Facebook: How does CSCL compare to social networking sites? , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[7]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[8]  Hans Hummel,et al.  Personal recommender systems for learners in lifelong learning: requirements, techniques and model , 2007 .

[9]  Hendrik Drachsler,et al.  Personal recommender systems for learners in lifelong learning networks: the requirements, techniques and model , 2008, Int. J. Learn. Technol..

[10]  J. Mackie,et al.  The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioural Science , 1965 .

[11]  Laura E. Buffardi,et al.  Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[12]  Rob Phillips,et al.  Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) , 2004 .

[13]  Tracii Ryan,et al.  Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[14]  James Farmer,et al.  Communication dynamics : discussion boards, weblogs and the development of communities of inquiry in online learning environments , 2004 .

[15]  A. Margaryan,et al.  Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning , 2008 .

[16]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[17]  S. Hofmann,et al.  Why Do People Use Facebook? , 2012, Personality and individual differences.

[18]  P Ractham,et al.  Using Social Networking Technology to Enhance Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study Using Facebook , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  Christine Greenhow,et al.  Re-thinking scientific literacy out-of-school: Arguing science issues in a niche Facebook application , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Toward a Framework for CSCL Research , 2013 .

[21]  P. Alexander,et al.  Beliefs About Academic Knowledge , 2001 .

[22]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You , 2011 .

[23]  Barney Dalgarno,et al.  The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings , 2007 .

[24]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  Measuring Affective Benefits and Costs of Mediated Awareness: Development and Validation of the ABC-Questionnaire , 2009, Awareness Systems.

[25]  Pieter J. Beers,et al.  Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[26]  Armin Weinberger,et al.  Blending Facebook discussions into seminars for practicing argumentation , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[27]  Rakheli Hever,et al.  Learning from reading argumentive group discussions in Facebook: Rhetoric style matters (again) , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[28]  Jan Marco Leimeister,et al.  Social Connectedness on Facebook – an Explorative Study on Status Message Usage , 2022 .

[29]  Martin Ebner,et al.  Has the Net Generation Arrived at the University? – oder Studierende von Heute, Digital Natives? , 2008 .

[30]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education , 2013 .

[31]  Terry Anderson,et al.  E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice , 2016 .

[32]  Matthew J. Kushin,et al.  Getting Political on Social Network Sites: Exploring Online Political Discourse on Facebook , 2009, First Monday.

[33]  Barrie Gunter,et al.  The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future , 2008, Aslib Proc..

[34]  Elliot T. Panek,et al.  Mirror or Megaphone?: How relationships between narcissism and social networking site use differ on Facebook and Twitter , 2013 .

[35]  Rakheli Hever,et al.  Learning from reading argumentive group discussions , 2015 .

[36]  I. Janis.  Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. By Irving L. Janis. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. viii + 276 pp. Map, illustrations, chart, notes, sources, bibliography, and index. Cloth, $7.95; paper $4.50.) , 1973 .