Online presentation is emerging when classroom presentation is not possible. This study was to compare students’ interactivity between the asynchronized online presentations with hashtags and the synchronized classroom presentations. This was a secondary analysis with seven courses conducted between 2016 and 2020. Students’ interactivity in group presentations was evaluated from the videos recorded in classrooms and the posts on social media. Three and four courses in the classroom mode and online mode, respectively were included. Students’ presentations if posted in social media with hashtags, it gained higher accessibility, more attention, more views and the interactions between the presenters and the audiences generated more themes. No significant difference was found between groups in students’ self-reported learning experience on exchanging ideas, learning from various sources and engaging in their own learning. The application of hashtags allowed more time and more viewers to give feedback to the students.
AndersonT. (2009). Social networking. In MishraS. (Ed.), Stride handbook 8 – E-learning (pp. 96–101). Gandhi National Open University.
2.
AndersonT.DronJ. (2010). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
3.
BjorkR.A.DunloskyJ.KornellN.. (2013). Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.
DabbaghN.KitsantasA. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
6.
DuffyP. (2011). Facebook or faceblock: cautionary tales exploring the rise of social networking within tertiary education. In LeeM. J. W.McLoughlinC. (Eds.), Web 2.0-base e-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 284–300). IGI Global.
7.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
8.
GarrisonD. R.ArbaughJ. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
9.
HewittJ. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 207–221. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/9215/
10.
JuncoR.ElavskyC. M.HeibergerG. (2013). Putting twitter to the test: assessing outcomes or student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x
11.
JuncoR.HeibergerG.LokenE. (2011). The effect of twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x
12.
KentC.RafaeliS. (2016). How interactive is a semantic network? Concept maps and discourse in knowledge communities. In HICSS. Kauai, Hawaii.
MancaS. (2020). Snapping, pinning, liking or texting: investigating social media in higher education beyond Facebook. The Internet and Higher Education, 44, 100707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100707
15.
MancaS.RanieriM. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12007
16.
MancaS.RanieriM. (2016). Facebook And the others. Potentials and obstacles of social media for teaching in higher education. Computers & Education, 95, 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.012
17.
MaureenM. (2008) Matching workplace training to adult attention span to improve learner reaction, learning score and retention. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 22(2), 6–13. https://repository.usp.ac.fj/9029/
MurphyE.ColemanE. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.21432/T27G7N
PageR. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in twitter. The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441
23.
PooleD. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2000.10782307
24.
RospigliosiP. (2019). The role of social media as a learning environment in the fully function ing university: preparing for generation Z. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(4), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1601849
25.
ScottK. (2018). “Hashtags work everywhere”: The pragmatic functions of spoken hashtags. Discourse, Content & Media, 22, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.07.002
VeletsianosG.KimmonsR. (2016). Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: How do education professors and students use twitter?Internet and Higher Education, 30, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.002
28.
WillemsJ.AdachiC.BusseyF.DohertyI.HuijserH. (2018). Debating the use of social media in higher education in Australasia: where are we now?Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3843
29.
WilliamsB.BrownT.BensonR. (2012). Feedback in the digital environment. In BoundD.MolloyE. (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. Routledge.
