User:Mohd Afdhal

Social media in various higher education activities (teaching and learning)

Introduction

The widespread use of social media technology became more relative to people now days. Social media is media design to let people interact with each other online without limitation of earth geography. This social media is very particular with technology Web 2.0, that allows the creation and exchange of user-generated content. Web 1.0 is the precursor of Web 2.0 is static, distributed, content-based, readable, rigid and individual. On the other hand, Web 2.0 is dynamic, distributed, services-based, writeable, loosely couple and social. Even Web 2.0 has been around for 5 year, yet they already having a noticeable impact on higher education (Armstrong & Franklin, 2008; Sendall, Ceccuci, & Peslak, 2008). Social networking services routinely enroll million. Social sharing services continue to grow, such as Picasa well known as biggest photos gallery that let people sharing and upload their photo thorough internet. Other than that, RSS feeds application appears not only on the most blogs and news sites, but on campus home pages and corporate intranets. Such a list can go on, but student are sometimes better positioned than older campus staff members to enumerate it. Teenagers might blog at the moment, or have either a MySpace or Facebook account, then shift to another platform as it emerges. They might not maintain wikis, but Wikipedia became a very useful tools student to gain information and knowledge. To post to a forum, add to a friend’s wall, or follow a news via YouTube clips is generally unremarkable.

The Scope

For this literature review, we will focusing at the teaching and learning that using social media in higher education. The most popular application that has to do with this title is E-learning. The institution that we choose is University Technology Malaysia (UTM).

Introduction of E-learning

E-learning has evolved from its predecessor, namely distance learning. E-learning definition: Schank (2002), Roffe (2002), Sambrook (2003) and Tsai & Machado (2002) refer to e-learning as “communication and learning activities through computers and networks (or via electronic means)”. To be more specific, Fry (2000) defines e-learning as “delivery of training and education via networked interactivity and a range of other knowledge collection and distribution technologies.” Wild, Griggs & Downing (2002) also had the same definition as Fry’s – they defined e-learning as the creation and delivery of knowledge via online services in the form of information, communication, education and training. Bleimann (2004) stated that e-learning is a self-directed learning that is based on technology, especially web-based technology. He also stressed that e-learning is collaborative learning.

Internet and web technology is important in e-learning; Horton (2001) defines e-learning as “the use of Internet and digital technologies to create experience that educate fellow human beings.” Apart from web-based technology, e-learning seemed to require multimedia based courseware (Evans & Fan, 2002;Lahn, 2004). Therefore, it is clear that e-learning is centered on Information and Communication Technology (ICT). It is not surprising that Hamid (2002) and Lytras, Pouloudi & Poulymenakou (2002) mentioned that e-learning evolved around Information Technology to enhance the learning performance and efficiency. Furthermore, Evans & Hasse (2001) pointed out that technology is indeed needed in e-learning to educate the learner through the usage of two-way video, two-way computer interaction, cable, satellite downlinks and Internet. Honey (2001) provided many good examples of learning activities that involved ICT. These examples include learning from e-mail, online research, online discussion and coaching by e-mail. From these definitions and examples, we can therefore define e-learning as learning activities that involve computers, networks and multimedia technologies.

E-learning use the flexibility of internet to let student learn and gain knowledge from all over the world. It not surprising to see more and more componies verturing into e-learning in 2002 reached US$90 billion (Yong, 2003). Another case cited by Morgan (2001) refers to Fortune Magazine’s estimation in May 2000 that the online learning market will reach US$22 billion by 2003. These figures seem to suggest a bright market for e-learning.

The popularity of e-learning is not only limited to working adults who are seeking higher qualifications without leaving their jobs and losing their earning power (Lau, 2003). This trend seems ever increasing as the Internet and computer technology become widespread as a daily necessity of the younger generation. According to Lau (2003), research revealed that 16 to 18 year old teenagers are really towards on-line learning or elearning.

The Problem

As usual, almost every system has its own problem including this e-learning. E-learning problem can be categorized as technological limitation, limitation compared to traditional campus, and personnel issues.

Technological limitation

Students need necessary hardware for e-learning such as desktop or notebook computers and printers (Kathawala, Abdou, Elmulti, 2002;Hiltz, 1997). Therefore, one of the major technological limitations of e-learning is the necessity of computer hardware and relevant resources. Hardware and other ICT resources are necessary for e-learning implementation in institutions. Kearsley (2000) explained that, in order to participate in online learning, both learners and staff need to have access to networked computers. From all the points listed, it is not surprising that Broadbent (2003) indicated that learners may need to buy or rent new computer equipment in order to learn. According to World Bank data, there were only about 3 million computers in Malaysia in 2003, for a total population of about 24 million (ICT at a glance Malaysia, 2003). As a result, e-learning may not be widespread in Malaysia yet. Went we look back at the UTM, not all students have their own laptop or personal computer. Beside that user of computer is cover mostly for the students that can effort to buy the computer. Because the price of the computer is not like buying a food, the price of the technology also became a limitation of this problem.

Although, e-learning comes with benefits such as unlimited access 24 hours, 7 days a week, this privilege does not seem to be feasible for some people in rural areas due to the inability to access Internet services (Kearsley, 2000;Rumble,2000). The Internet penetration rate in Malaysia is only 31.8 % (Phang, 2004). Bose (2003) mentioned that, while it is feasible to access to high-speed bandwidth within the university campus, it becomes a problem outside the campus, where Internet facilities are less sophisticated. But in UTM, the problem that we facing a little different from the statement because even we in the university, internet connection still limited in certain area. The connection only strong at the faculty and cafe only. Uys (2003) stated that limited telecommunication infrastructure and facilities are hindering the e-learning process.

In addition to the limited Internet coverage, technological barriers, such as limited bandwidth, are issues in e-learning today, even with fast DSL connections introduced to replace outdated 14.4 Kbps bandwidth (Chadha & Kumail, 2002, p.28). While e-learning is supposed to be a multimedia-rich learning environment, the limited bandwidth may hinder the learning process as the downloading of multimedia materials may take a longer time. Good example of poor transfer rate is also have in UTM, even we have the internet connection the transfer rate are to slow and unstable. Sometimes in the middle of downloading the note the connection can lost. Beside that, the downloading a note can take a long time even the file size is small. This problem occurs continuously when we using the wireless connection. Because of this the session that contain video conferencing cannot be done. Baker (2003) mentioned that video conferencing might not be feasible for learners who rely on the slow dial-up connection from their homes. Even though broadband service is available in the Klang Valley of Malaysia now, this service is limited to certain locations with higher population density. For example, even in a township like Kajang and Serdang (both in Klang Valley) broadband service is only provided to certain households with certain telephone numbers and the wireless broadband services is provided to even lesser locations such as cafes and shopping malls (Streamyx Service Area, 2004; Hotspot Service Area, 2004). As a result, it is not surprising that many elearning courses are still text-based as the Internet bandwidth may still be limited.

Limitations compared to Traditional Campus

Lacking physical interaction is another limitation in e-learning. Schott et al. (2003) expressed that the lack of physical interactions made e-learning students feel isolated and apprehensive. Lacking physical interaction may also affect the completion rate (Haigh, 2004). Physical classrooms however will enable learners to learn faster, as they can always refer to the instructors or peers for guidance. Body language is absent in e-learning. An example is when a student stated that he missed “facial and hand gestures”, from which important cues can be derived (Meyer, 2003). The lack of physical interactions shown above will hinder the learning process as pointed out by McKnight (2000), that the omission of observation of student emotions may prevent professors or instructors from responding to student’s needs. In UTM, the application of e-learning didn’t uses fully because e-learning majorly used to download note. There are no learning happen in this e-learning except there are forum that let student to comment on the some issue and it is rarely been use. Moreover this e-learning application only been use by the faculty that majorly use computer in learning such as computer science faculty. Other faculty sometime didn’t use at all e-learning system even to download note because the lecture didn’t provide the material in that system.

Apart from this lack of physical interaction, e-learning is also criticized for not having facilities like traditional campuses: internship, volunteer opportunities, access to physical library, book stores, career and development counselling (McCraken, 2004). Some learning institutions tried to provide these facilities but they were too limited (McCraken, 2004). McCraken further pointed out problems such as budget, compatibility of software, and college policies, that hindered the development of integrated supporting systems.

E-learning may not be suitable for certain groups of learners, especially science students who need extensive physical science laboratory experiments (Vernon, 2002;Bourne, Harris & Mayadas, 2005). This may be due to the fact that these students need to carry out a lot of laboratory experiments in order to deepen their skills and knowledge, and this may be hard to achieve through e-learning laboratory simulations.

Difficulty in teaching in an e-learning environment is another issue, as instructors may not be able to teach well. Moving into elearning is difficult for instructors who are already familiar with the traditional teaching environment (Angelina, 2002a, p.12; Strauss, 2003; Kearsley, 2000;Wang, 2003). This is because the e-learning teaching environment is new and the e-learning technologies are developing and changing rapidly (Calvert,2001). Strauss (2003) said that transition into e-learning is rather difficult as it involves conversion of physical teaching materials into e-learning materials and this takes time to complete. Many instructors are not exposed to the necessary software, and do not want to change their teaching styles (Levy, 2003). Instructors need to have interpersonal skills to communicate effectively in an electronic classroom (White & Weight, 2000). As a result, instructors need e-learning training before transitioning. All these points seem to support Rogers’ (2000, p.23) argument that a good classroom instructor may not be a good online instructor. Palloff and Pratt (1999, p.349) also mentioned that some instructors might even underestimate e-learning, as they think that it is similar to face to-face instruction. All these complicates instructors’ transition towards e-learning.

Personal issues

Preparation is indeed needed for newcomers as they may think that nontraditional learning such as e-learning is the same as a traditional learning environment. Besides, Dearnley (2003) stated that newcomers to nontraditional learning may get lost because they do not know what to do as there is no detailed guidance from the teacher. Kember et al. (2001) stated that these newcomers need some orientation courses in order for them to get used to a nontraditional learning environment like e-learning. Therefore, it is not surprising to see newcomers needing to be psychologically prepared for the e-learning environment. For UTM, each of their student need to attend an orientation about how to use e-learning system. The problem is the size of the orientation is too big, this situation make not all student can understand what had been explain.

The lack of ICT skills is one of the barriers in e-learning training. As e-learning is the product of the advanced technology, e-learners will have to learn new skills and responsibilities related to the technology (Angelina, 2002a, p.12). E-learners should be Information & Communication Technology (ICT) savvy. Hamid (2002) stated that technical skills could cause frustration to e-learning students due to the unconventional e-learning environment and isolation from others. Consequently, having to learn new technologies may be a barrier or disadvantage in e-learning for ICT novices.

E-learning is not an easy task for many as it requires a lot of selfdiscipline. As Kearsley (2000) stated, e-learning provides autonomy or freedom to learn, but the learners should have “initiative and self-discipline to study and complete assignments”. Schott et al. (2003) asserted that the e-learning success rate was very dependent on students’ abilities to be selfdirected and internally motivated. It is therefore reasonable for Rivera and Rice (2002) to comment that learners who are not self-motivated will find web-based learning an unsatisfactory experience. Naturally, e-learning students have a higher dropout rate than their conventional counterparts (Abouchedid & Eid,2004). E-learners need additional encouragement and support, to compensate for the isolation; motivation is the key for them to successfully complete the course (Lessons from the e-learning,2002).

Other that, even lecture also didn’t use e-learning as a medium in learning. Sometimes there lecture that did not use e-learning to upload note for the student. The reason maybe because they didn’t know how to use e-learning system or the system is broke down.

References

Abouchedid, K. & Eid, G.M., (2004), ‘E-learning challenges in the Arab World: revelations from a case study profile’,Quality Assurance in Educational, vol.12, no.1, pp.15-27.
Akar, E., Ozturk, E., Tuncer, B. & Wiethoff, M., (2004), ‘Evaluation of a collaborative virtual learning environment’, Education + Training, vol.46, no. 6/7, pp. 343-352.
Angelina, P., (2002a), ‘Local initiatives in e-learning’, The Star Tech Plus, 29 Aug., p.11.
Angelina, P., (2002b), ‘E-learning: The alternative leaning process’, The Star Tech Plus, 29 Aug., pp.9-12.
Baker, R. K., (2003), ‘A Framework for Design and Evaluation of Internet-Based Distance Learning Courses Phase One – Framework Justification, Design and Evaluation’, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol.6, no.2.
Bird, J. & Morgan, C., (2003), ‘Adults Contemplating University Study at a Distance: Issues, themes and concerns’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.4. no.1.
Bleimann, U., (2004), ‘Atlantis University: a new pedagogical approach beyond e-learning’, Campus-wide Information Systems, vol.21, no.5, pp.191-195.
Bose, K., (2003), ‘An E-learning Experience: An written analysis based on my experience with primary school teachers in an e-learning pilot project’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.4, no.2.
Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F., (2005), ‘Online Engineering Education: Learning anywhere, anytime’, Journal of Engineering Education, vol.94, no.1, pp.131-146.
Broadbent, B., (2003), ‘Championing e-learning’,[online assessed 23 April 2004].URL:http://www.elearninghub.com/articles/chamioning.htm#Pro%20and%20c

ons%20of%20%20e-learning

Calvert, J., (2001), ‘Deakin University: Going online at a dual mode university’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.1, no.2.
Carr, J., (1999), ‘The role of higher education in the effective delivery of multimedia management training to small and medium enterprises’, Educational Technology & Society, vol.2, no.2.
Carrier, C.A., Davidson, G.V., Williams, M.D., & Kalweit, C.M., (1986), ‘Instructional options and encouragement effects in a microcomputer-delivered concept lesson’, Journal of Educational Research, vol.79, pp.222-229.
Chadha, G. & Kumail S.M.N, (2002), e-Learning : An Expression of the Knowledge Economy, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
Choy, S., (2002), ‘Nontraditional Undergraduates’, NCES 2002-012, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington D.C.
Collins, C., Buhalis, D. & Peters, M., A., (2003), ‘Enhancing SMTEs’ Business performance through the Internet and Elearning platforms ’, Education + Training, vol.45, no.8/9, pp.483-494.