The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a closed social media platform as an online tool to facilitate interactions among students and faculty participating in online and hybrid courses at a public university in North Texas (n = 330). Survey methods were used to measure undergraduate and graduate students’ perceptions of the platform. Variables included demographic information as well as perceptions of a social media platform, Ning’s 13 tools of interaction. Descriptive as well as regression and factor analyses were used to analyze relationships and group differences among the variables. Qualitative measures explored participants’ perceptions of the social media platform and how platform organization, participant autonomy, and dialogue influence participant interactions and dialogue. The results provide evidence to support the use of closed social networks as tools to enhance students’ engagement, interaction, and social presence as well as to reduce transactional distance in online and blended learning environments.
AbedinB. (2011).
Web 2.0 and online learning and teaching: A preliminary benchmarking study. Asian Social Science,
7(11), 5–12. doi:10.5539/ass.v7n11p5
2.
AllenI. E.SeamanJ. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States.
Babson Park, MA:
Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
3.
ArnoldN.PaulusT. (2010).
Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. Internet & Higher Education,
13(4), 188–196. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.002
4.
BaggetunR.MjelstadS. (2006).
eLogg: Facilitating ownership and openness in virtual learning environments. Educational Informational Technology,
11, 357–369.
5.
BensonR.BrackC. (2009).
Developing the scholarship of teaching: What is the role of e-teaching and learning?Teaching in Higher Education,
14(1), 71–80.
6.
BensonR.SamarawickremaG. (2009).
Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education,
30(1), 5–21.
7.
ChenY. (2001a).
Dimensions of transactional distance in the wide web learning environment: A factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology,
32(4), 459–470.
8.
ChenY. (2001b).
Transactional distance in World Wide Web learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
38(4), 327–338.
9.
CollisB.MoonenJ. (2008).
Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International,
45(2), 93–106.
10.
DomiziD. (2013).
Microblogging to foster connections and community in a weekly graduate seminar course. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,
57(1), 43–51. doi:10.1007/s11528-012-0630-0
11.
Ekwunife-OrakwueK. C. V.TengT. (2014).
The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education,
78, 414–427.
EngstromM. E.JewettD. (2005).
Collaborative learning the wiki way. TechTrends,
49(6), 12–15.
14.
GoelL.ZhangP.TempletonM. (2012).
Transactional distance revisited: Bridging face and empirical validity. Computers in Human Behavior,
28, 1122–1129.
15.
GorskyP.CaspiA. (2005).
A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
6(1), 1–11.
16.
HillmanD. C.WillisD. J.GunawardenaC. N. (1994).
Learner interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education,
8, 30–42.
17.
HuangW. D. (2010).
A case study of wikis’ effects on online transactional interactions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
6(1), 1–14.
18.
HuangX.ChandraA.DePaoloC.CribbsJ.SimmonsL. (2015).
Measuring transactional distance in web-based environments: An initial instrument development. Open Learning,
30(2), 106–126.
19.
HuangX.ChandraA.DePaoloC. A.SimmonsL. L. (2016).
Understanding transactional distance in web-based learning environments: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology,
47(4), 734–747.
20.
JonesS.LeaM. R. (2008).
Digital literacies in the lives of undergraduate students: Exploring personal and curricular spheres of practice. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning,
6(3), 207–216.
21.
MooreM. G. (1989).
Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education,
3(2), 1–7.
22.
MooreM. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In KeeganD. (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38).
New York, NY:
Routledge.
23.
MooreM. G.KearsleyG. (2013). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA:
Cengage Learning.
NortonP.HathawayD. (2008).
On its way to K-12 classrooms, web 2.0 goes to graduate school. Computers in the Schools,
25(3–4), 163–180.
26.
Sezen BalcikanliG. (2012).
Social networking in physical education: Undergraduate students’ views on Ning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,
13(2), 277–290.
27.
SteinD.WanstreetC. E.CalvinJ.OvertoomC.WheatonJ. E. (2005).
Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. The American Journal of Distance Education,
19 (2), 105–118.
28.
TowellL. (2009).
The student-teacher digital divide and six new technology roller coaster riders. Distance Learning,
6(2), 53–57.
29.
YilmazF. G. K. (2017).
Social presence and transactional distance as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual learning communities. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
0(0), 1–21.
