M-Learning: Creating Social Presence through Mobile Social Media
Caroline Lego Muñoz
Associate Professor of Marketing
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Natalie T. Wood
Associate Professor of Marketing
Saint Joseph’s University
Edith Cowan University
Contact Author:
Caroline Lego Muñoz
Silberman College of Business
285 Madison Ave. M-MS2-04
Madison, NJ 07940
FAX: (973) 443-8377
munoz@fdu.edu
Voice: (973) 443-8093
1
“I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they learn.”
-Albert Einstein
Students’ digital lives are becoming more complex with the rise of mobile technology and its
social media applications. Smartphones and tablets are fast becoming the preferred method of
communication over desktop computers. As a result, educators must adapt and begin to engage
students in this new mobile frontier. M-Learning can provide new opportunities for sharing
more immediate and interpersonal information which facilitates social presence. This paper
explores the potential of social media mobile applications as an educational tool aimed at
creating a social presence and encouraging learning beyond the confines of the traditional
classroom. Specific social media mobile applications are provided to illustrate the different
levels of social presence that they provide.
Learning Styles of Today’s Students
Learning can occur anywhere and at anytime. It does not need to be confined to the classroom or
designated to a specific timeslot. Today’s traditional college students are largely part of
Generation Y (born after 1982). Generation Y is accustomed to having instant access to
information; pride themselves on their ability to multitask and value being connected to others
24/7 through their cell phones, instant messaging and other technologies (Brown 2000). Their
willingness to use media and the desire to be connected with, and work with others opens up
many exciting opportunities to create a social presence outside the regular class time. This may
not only assist in the learning process but also encourage students to view learning as an
enduring process rather than one that is confined to a specific day and time of the week.
2
Social Presence
Learning is also very much a social practice (Laffey and Lin 2006; Shea, Fredericks, Pickett,
Pelz, and Swan 2001). We learn with and through others. Learning outside the classroom can be
encouraged by designing the class in such a way that it encourages a virtual social presence.
Short, Williams and Christie (1976) defined social presence as “the degree of salience of the
other person in the interaction of consequent salience of interpersonal relationships” (p.65).
Scholars agree that social presence is affected by two factors: intimacy – the relationships we
have with others, in this case fellow students and the instructor, and immediacy - that events
happen without delay.
The level of perceived social presence varies depending upon the type of communication
mediums employed. Communication mediums exist on a continuum with face-to-face
communication exhibiting the highest level of social presence and text based communication the
lowest (Short, Williams and Christie 1976). The challenge for instructors is to select a
communication medium and appropriate application that offers the proper level of social
presence necessary for the level of interpersonal involvement that is required to complete the
assigned task. Despite the historical focus on online learning, a place does exist for social
presence in traditional face-to-face classroom based courses. In traditional settings instructors
attempt to create social presence by employing a variety of tools such as course companion sites,
blogs and wikis. As effective as these predominately web based tools are, some, but not all,
allow for spontaneous communication and interaction with fellow students - largely because the
student needs to be seated at a personal computer in order to utilize the tool. Given that students
are spending more time on some mobile applications than course management systems (e.g.
3
Blackboard) (Dahlstrom, de Boor, Gruwalk, and Vockley 2011; Towner and Munoz 2012) and
email use is decreasing (Bilton 2010; Kolowich 2011) it makes sense to explore alternative MLearning (Mobile Learning) opportunities.
M-Learning: Smartphones and Tablets
M-Learning (mobile learning) can be broadly defined as, “The point at which mobile computing
and e-Learning intersect to produce an anytime, anywhere learning experience” (Kambourakis,
Kontoni, and Sapounas 2004, p. 1). Since the mid-2000’s, technology that enables M-Learning
has exploded, enabling a rise of situated learning (Alexander 2004). Through mobile devices,
(such as smartphones and tablets), it is very easy for students to access information,
communicate and share ideas, information and media “on the fly” offering greater opportunities
over desktop and laptop computers for frequent interaction. The very nature of being mobile
facilitates social presence by making communication both immediate and intimate. They afford
students the opportunity to evaluate debate, share and strategize real world events together in
synchronous time. Mobile social media applications may in fact be a more reliable, quicker way
for instructors to interact with their students and for students to communicate and collaborate
with each other on class related activities. Indeed, a number of mobile technologies have the
potential to assist students in more easily creating work product - students are able to complete
projects anywhere they physically are (provided they have a Wi-Fi connection) and immediately
use information they find online. M-Learning, and the social media applications associated with
it, also facilitates intimacy. For instance, mobile communication technologies such as Google +
Group Video Chat can establish and forge working relationships among students.
4
Social Media Applications for Mobile Social Presence
Students have already begun to organically adopt mobile applications for education (Dahlstrom,
de Boor, Gruwalk, and Vockley 2011). Unfortunately, educators have been slower to embrace
them. This may be attributed to a lack of knowledge related to how they work, their academic
possibilities, and the logistics of how to use them effectively in the classroom.
In evaluating mobile applications and their potential for creating social presence, an instructor
must consider a number of factors. First, s/he should identify course content and associated
activities that require interaction and communication outside the classroom. Next, an instructor
should consider the types of communication (synchronous or asynchronous), communication
modes, and the level of interactivity (i.e. collaboration potential) desired to successfully
complete the activity. Before adopting or advocating for specific mobile applications an
instructor needs to understand the number of students who have adopted smartphones/tablet
technology in their courses and what operating systems they are using. From here, the instructor
needs to evaluate potential applications to ensure that they offer the required features both in
their mobile and desktop versions – for the benefit of those students who do not own a mobile
device and will need to use a personal computer. Instructors should also test potential
smartphone and tablet accessibility issues with online posted course materials. Finally,
instructors needs to decide just how much direction they should provide students and clearly
communicate their expectations for a task including level and type of participation.
Table 1 provides a summary of some the more popular forms of mobile social media, methods of
communication and additional features that they offer. Each of these applications listed provides
an instructor and their students with increased opportunities for immediacy and intimacy beyond
5
the conventional course management systems, wikis and blogs that have become staples of many
classes. In addition, the unique mobile nature of these applications encourages and facilitates
students’ abilities to capture, discuss and share still images, video, and online information
immediately when they come across them in their real and virtual world. While we attempt to
segment social media applications primarily by communication mode, it should be noted that it is
limiting to view social presence solely on the types of technology (e.g. text, video, etc.). There is
a continuum of social presence, with some technologies affording more social presence than
others, and evolving cultural practices (such as emoticons) can some overcome some
technological limitations.
Conclusion
In general, M-Learning is something that all instructors must consider. Mobile technology use is
high – and will only increase. It has the potential to dramatically enhance social presence in its
ability to create immediacy and efficiently convey intimacy. Social presence is not only for
online classes, but traditional, face to face classes can also benefit from outside classroom
learning using mobile applications. Creating a social presence requires the careful selection of
the right application/s for the tasks. Without question, M-Learning can facilitate conditions
where pupils learn for themselves.
6
TABLE 1. Level of Social Presence in Social Media Mobile Applications
Mobile
Application
Facebook
Synchronous
X
LinkedIn
Google+
WordPress
X
Asynchronous
Extensive
Text Info/
User/Profile
Information
Comments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Videos
with
Audio
X
X
X
Still
Images
Interactive
Document
Creation/
Collaboration
Messaging
(Chat/Instant
Message)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Twitter
X
X
YouTube
X
X
X
SocialCam
X
X
X
VoiceThread
X
X
X
X
Pinterest
X
X
X
X
Email
based
Messaging
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
References
Alexander, B. (2004). Going Nomanic: Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Educause
Review. 29-35. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0451.pdf.
Bilton, Nick. (2010, August 17). For the class of 2014, No e-mail or wristwatches. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/the-class-of-2014-no-e-mail-orwristwatches/
Brown, J.S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education and the ways people
learn. Change, 32(2), 10-20.
Dahlstrom, E., de Boor, T., Grunwald, P., & Vockley, M. (2011), The ECAR National Study of
Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2011 (Research Report). Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, October 2011. Retrieved from
7
http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
Kambourakis, G., Kontoni, D. P. N., & Sapounas, I. (2004). Introducing attribute certificates to
secure distributed e-learning or m-learning services. Proceedings of the IASTED
International Conference. Innsbruck, Australia, (436-440). Retrieved from
http://ben.upc.es/butlleti/innsbruck/416-174.pdf
Kolowich, S. (2011, January 6). How will students communicate? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/06/college_technology_officers_consider_changin
g_norms_in_student_communications.
Laffey, L., & Lin, G. Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 163–177.
Shea, P. J., Fredericks, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2001). Measures of learning effectiveness in
the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Online education: Learning
effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, and cost effectiveness, 2(31–54). Needham, MA: SCOLE.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Towner, T. & Muñoz, C. (2012). Facebook vs. web courseware: A Comparison. In C. Cheal, J. Coughlin,
& S. Moore (Eds.), Transformation in Teaching: Social Media Strategies in Higher Education,
(343-372). Santa Rosa, C.A.: Informing Science Institute.
8