Anderson, B., and Simpson, M. 1998. “Learning and Teaching at a Distance: A Social Affair.” Computers in NZ Schools 10 (1): 17–23.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. 2008. “Towards a Theory of Online Learning.” In Theory and Practice of Online Learning, edited by T. Anderson. Edmonton, AB: AU Press.Google Scholar
Andone, D. M., Dron, J., Pemberton, L., and Boyne, C. W. 2007. “E-Learning Environments for Digitally-Minded Students.” Journal of Interactive Learning Research 18 (1): 41–53.Google Scholar
Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., and Lai, S.-L. 2009. “Measuring Self-Regulation in Online and Blended Learning Environments.” Internet and Higher Education 12 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, R. 1997. Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, S., Maton, K., and Kervin, L. 2008. “The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: A Critical Review of the Evidence.” British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (5): 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookfield, S. 2006. The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bruce, B., and Payton, J. K. 1990. “A New Writing Environment and an Old Culture: A Situated Evaluation of Computer Networking to Teach Writing.” Interactive Learning Environments 1 (3): 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, D. D., and Lawson, M. J. 2001. “Exploring Collaborative Online Learning.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5 (1): 21–34.Google Scholar
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., and Lorentsen, A. 2003. “Transforming University Practice through ICT—Integrated Perspectives on Organizational, Technological, and Pedagogical Change.” Interactive Learning Environments 11 (2): 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doering, A. 2007. “Adventure Learning: Situating Learning in an Authentic Context.” Innovate: Journal of Online Education 3 (6).Google Scholar
Edmundson, M. 2008. Dwelling in Possibilities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 14.Google Scholar
Erickson, R. 1999. Schubert’s Vienna. Vienna: Lehner.Google Scholar
Flottemesch, K. 2001. “Building Effective Interactions in Distance Education: A Review of the Literature.” In The 2001/2002 ASTD Distance Learning Yearbook, edited by K. Mantyla and J. A. Woods. London: McGraw-Hill. 46–61.Google Scholar
Gabriel, M. A. 2004. “Learning Together: Exploring Group Interactions Online.” Journal of Distance Education 19 (1): 54–72.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R. 1993. “A Cognitive Constructivist View of Distance Education: An Analysis of Teaching-Learning Assumptions.” Distance Education 14 (2): 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. 1999. “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education.” The Internet and Higher Education 2 (2): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales, C. 2010. “What Do University Teachers Think Elearning Is Good for in Their Teaching?” Studies in Higher Education 35 (1): 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, C. R., and Misanchuk, M. 2004. “Computer-Mediated Learning Groups: Benefits and Challenges to Using Groupwork in Online Learning Environments” In Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, edited by T. S. Roberts. London: Information Science. 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamer, J., Kell, C., and Spence, F. 2007. “Peer Assessment Using Aropä.” Australian Computer Society. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~j-hamer/peer-assessment-using-Aropa.pdf.
Hannon, J. 2009. “Breaking Down Online Teaching: Innovation and Resistance.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25 (1): 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, D. 2002. “The Social Dimensions of On-Line Learning: Perceptions, Theories, and Practical Responses.” Paper presented at the Distance Education Association of New Zealand Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, April 10–12.Google Scholar
Helsper, E. J., and Eynon, R. 2009. “Digital Natives: Where Is the Evidence?” British Educational Research Journal 36 (3): 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., and Marra, R. M. 2002. Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. 2nd ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. M., and Haenlein, M. 2010. “Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media.” Business Horizons 53 (1): 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kek, M. Y. C. A., and Huijser, H. 2011. “The Power of Problem Based Learning in Developing Critical Thinking Skills: Preparing Students for Tomorrow’s Digital Futures in Today’s Classrooms.” Higher Education Research & Development 30 (3): 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Guin, E. 2006. Boccherini’s Body. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, A. 2008. “Facebook in the Classroom: Integration of Online and Classroom Debates into Courses.” http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-3300/face-book-in-the-classroom-integration-of-online-and-classroom-debates-into-courses.pdf.Google Scholar
Ng, P. Y., Goi, C. L., and Gribble, S. J. 2008. “Adaptation of Google Group for Online Teaching and Learning.” In HERDSA 2008: Engaging Communities. Milperra, NSW: HERDSA.Google Scholar
November, N. R., and Day, K. 2012. “Using Undergraduates’ Digital Literacy Skills to Improve Their Discipline-Specific Writing: A Dialogue.” International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 6 (2): Article 5.Google Scholar
Oblinger, D., and Oblinger, J. 2005. Educating the Net Generation. Edited by D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger. Louisville, CO: Educause.Google Scholar
Perkins, D., Jay, E., and Tishman, S. 1993. “Beyond Abilities: A Dispositional Theory of Thinking.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 39 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. 2003. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 499–541.Google Scholar
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., and Witty, J. V. 2010. “Findings on Facebook in Higher Education: A Comparison of College Faculty and Student Uses and Perceptions of Social Networking Sites.” Internet and Higher Education 13: 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, G. 2000. E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan Page.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, G. 2002. E-Tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., and Suthers, D. 2006. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: An Historical Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tapscott, R. 1998. Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Teo, T. 2013. “An Initial Development and Validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale (DNAS).” Computers & Education 67: 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warnock, S. 2009. Teaching Writing Online: How and Why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Wass, R., Harland, T., and Mercer, A. 2011. “Scaffolding Critical Thinking in the Zone of Proximal Development.” Higher Education Research & Development 30 (3): 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, M. 2000. “A Framework for Critical Thinking.” High School Magazine 7: 40–43.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. C., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W. C. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Yearsley, D. 2012. Bach’s Feet: The Organ Pedals in European Culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Strategies To Help Students Use Social Media For Critical Thinking
by Terry Heick
Social media is here to stay.
No matter how much we lament a loss of privacy, too much screen time, superficial identity, or countless other worries, media has been around since language was invented, and we have always sought to make that media as social as locally available technology would allow.
From chisels and tablets to the printing press to radio and television to twitter and Facebook, as long as we continue to have thoughts and ideas, we will continue to seek to publish and socialize them with others.
Technology & ‘Social Emotion’
It would make sense that as technology becomes more integrated, more accessible to all socioeconomic classes, and “smarter” itself, those connections will only deepen as we our priorities–and the tools we use to express them–change.
Existing learning theory says that it’s one or the other–we either connect, relate to, and belong or we devolve into selfishness, exploitation, and greed. And this isn’t a simple moral crossroads, but a matter of neurology.
Scientific American published an article discussing why being ‘connected’ matters. In the article, Matthew Lieberman discusses the idea of ‘social pain.’
‘Languages around the world use pain language to express social pain…As it turns out it is more than a metaphor – social pain is real pain.
The things that cause us to feel pain are things that are evolutionary recognized as threats to our survival and the existence of social pain is a sign that evolution has treated social connection like a necessity, not a luxury. It also alters our motivational landscape. We tend to assume that people’s behavior is narrowly self-interested, focused on getting more material benefits for themselves and avoiding physical threats and the exertion of effort.
But because of how social pain and pleasure are wired into our operating system, these are motivational ends in and of themselves. We don’t focus on being connected solely in order to extract money and other resources from people – being connected needs no ulterior motive.’
See also ‘Stop Worrying About Screen Time’
What are the implications for teachers?
For one, digital connectivity, which is already at the forefront of so much of teaching and learning have become.
Use of social media platforms like twitter, facebook, and instagram can walk a fine line, teetering back and forth between connectivity and narcissism.
More immediately for educators, it illuminates our need to create empathetic learning experiences that connect learners for deeply human purposes. The greater the dysfunction, the greater the need to belong.
So then, let’s take a look at 10 ways we can help children–students, in this case–use social media critically. Critical thinking begins with the self and extends out. Rather than fight things like ‘screen time,’ maybe we can help them use that time in more constructive ways grounded in critical thinking.
10 Strategies To Help Students Use Social Media For Critical Thinking
1. Think purpose, not platform.
Connect students through function and purpose, not technology and gadgets
2. Use social media to establish context.
Use social media to help students establish a context for themselves
3. Model intellectual tolerance.
Model for students how to relate to others who are different–that think, look, and act different than what they’re accustomed to, and how to respond to ideas different than their own.
And do so not simply from an ethical ‘be kind’ perspective, but from an intellectual one as well. A big part of intelligence is being able to learn from anything, and a big part of that is the ability to evaluate ideas without personal bias, as well as the ability to sit with an idea and analyze it without accepting or rejecting it.
4. Illuminate interdependence.
Help students clarify for themselves who and what they’re connected to–the obvious and less obvious. Encourage students to identify multiple “citizenships” they belong to, both locally and digitally, and their diverse participation within each.
5. Extend conceptual comfort zones.
Use place-based education and project-based learning to help students make new connections to people, places, and ideas outside of the curriculum map
6. Clarify categories of knowledge.
Help students see knowledge in categories–academic vs recreational; creative vs industrial, fluid vs fixed, etc–and how social media emphasize, supports, or otherwise makes these available. If they can at least begin to see these categories, they can be more aware of what they’re ‘ingesting.’
7. Analyze and compare citizenship and digital citizenship.
Help students see the effects of their behavior on others, and of others’ behavior on them. Further, offer digital citizenship strategies like “THINK!” so they have a kind of framework for doing so on their own.
8. Amplify cognition.
Have a new idea? Share it with others who are interested in those kinds of ideas.
Document the ‘process’ of that idea–where it came from, how it changed, what influenced it, what you can do with it, and so on. Amplify that understand using the connected and creative abilities of social media.
9. Analyze how the form affects the message.
Perspective is a big part of social media, as is identity and idea form (video versus tweet versus images, etc.) If students can see the how the form of the message affects the message itself, they can think ‘around’ and through the platform and see ideas and their roots themselves.
Have students concept map their own interdependence in a given context (home, family, hobby, neighborhood, classroom, content area, etc.)
10. Seek authenticity.
Assist students in identifying authentic roles in a community they care about.
To be “authentic,” the roles should naturally exist and allow a visible void when left unfilled, providing the student with a meaningful role that matters.