Online social network contacts as information repositories

(1)

Gabriel Valerio Ureña and Jaime Ricardo Valenzuela González

142

RUSCVOL. 8No1|UniversitatObertadeCatalunya|Barcelona, January2011|ISSN1698-580X

CC

Abstract

Socialnetworkshaveexistedsinceancienttimes. Withadvancesintechnology, theyhaveevolved intomodernonlinesocialnetworks. Theexplosionofonlinesocialnetworkshashadabigimpacton societyingeneralandoneducationinparticular. Mostuniversitystudentsarenowmembersofsocial networkingsitesandspendseveralhoursaweekonline. Somesectionsofsociety, suchasparentsand teachers, areworriedabouttheeffectthatthismayhaveonstudents’academicworkandpersonal lives. However, accordingtoGeorgeSiemens’connectivismtheory, onlinesocialnetworkcontacts representapotentialand valuablesourceof information. Thisstudyseeks toidentifythefactors thatinfluencewhetheracontactonanonlinesocialnetworkbecomesasourceofinformationina learninginitiative. Theresearch* usesaqualitativeapproach, andwascarriedoutinaprivatehigher educationinstitutiononagroupof21graduateswhohadrecently finishedthesamecourse, and Submittedin:June2010 Acceptedin:October2010 Publishedin:January2011

* ThisresearchissupportedbyMonterreyInstituteof TechnologyandHigherEducation.

Recommended citation

VALERIO, Gabriel;VALENZUELA, JaimeRicardo(2011). “Onlinesocialnetworkcontactsasinformation repositories” [online article]. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC). Vol. 8,

No1, pp. 142-155. UOC. [Accessed:dd/mm/yy].

<http://rusc.uoc.edu/ojs/index.php/rusc/article/view/v8n1-valerio-valenzuela/v8n1-valerio

(2)

on13universitylecturers. Theresultsshowthatthefactorsaffectingwhetheronlinesocialnetwork contactsbecomesourcesofinformationare:knowingaboutthecontact;knowingwhatthecontact

knows;socialcloseness;thecontacthasacertainstanding;knowingthecontactinperson, and;the contactisaccessible.

Keywords

onlinesocialnetworks, e-learning2.0, virtualethnography, informationrepositories

Contactos de redes sociales en línea como repositorios de información

Resumen

Las redes sociales han existido desde la Antigüedad. Con el avance tecnológico, han evolucionado hacia

las modernas redes sociales en línea. La explosión de estas últimas ha ido acompañada de importantes

impactos sociales, incluido el del ámbito educativo. Un gran número de estudiantes universitarios

perte-necen ahora a alguna red social y pasan varias horas a la semana en ella. Algunos sectores de la sociedad,

como padres de familia y profesores, están preocupados por el impacto negativo que esto puede tener

tan-to en su actividad académica como en su vida personal. Sin embargo, según el conectivismo de George

Sie-mens, los contactos de una red social en línea representan una potencial y valiosa fuente de información.

En este estudio se buscó identificar los factores que favorecen que un contacto de una red social en línea se

convierta en una fuente de información, ante una iniciativa de aprendizaje. Se presenta una investigación,

de naturaleza cualitativa, que se realizó en una institución privada de educación superior, con un grupo de

21 estudiantes recién egresados de una carrera en particular y 13 profesores universitarios. Los resultados

demuestran que los factores que favorecen que un contacto se convierta en fuente de información en una

red social en línea son: que se tenga conocimiento sobre el contacto, que se conozca lo que el contacto

sabe, que se tenga cercanía social, que el contacto tenga cierto prestigio, que se conozca al contacto en

persona y que sea accesible.

Keywords

(3)

144 Gabriel Valerio Ureña and Jaime Ricardo Valenzuela González

144

144 144 144

CC

Literature review

Online social networks

Socialnetworkshaveexistedforalongtime;however, somepeoplebelievethatthesenetworks havebeensomewhatweakenedbytechnologicaladvances, suchasthecomputerandtheInternet.

Morris(2006)explainsthat, astribalbeings, wehavealwaysneededtocompensatecompetitiveness withcooperation. Accordingtothisauthor, aswellasthewilltotriumph, wehavealsoinheritedthe willtocooperate, notonmoralgrounds, butratheraspartofhumannature. Cooperation, according toMorris, isadefencemechanismagainstthefailureofthegrouptowhichwebelong. Thisprimitive behaviourisstillevidenttoday.

Withtechnologicaladvances, ancienttribeshavealsoevolvedinmodernsocialnetworks. New technologiesshouldnotonlybeunderstoodasinformationtechnologies, butalsoascommunication technologies. Theirevolutionalwaysbringswithitaseriesofsocialchangesandbehaviouralchanges thatcanhaveamuchgreaterimpactonsociety(Burbules&Callister, 2000). Thiswouldseemtobe thecase withonlinesocial networks, wheretoolssuchas Facebookand Twitterhavemillionsof usersallovertheplanet, withnumbersincreasingdaily. The fieldofeducationhasnotescapedits impact;accordingtoContardo(2008), upto70%ofhighereducationstudentsstartingcoursesin 2010alreadybelongtoasocialnetworkingsite.

Online social networks consist of information systems accessed viathe Internet. They bring millionsofpeoplefromacrosstheglobetogether, allofwhomhavemutualrelationships(Kazienko &Musial, 2006). AccordingtoEllison, LampeandSteinfield(2007), socialnetworkingsitessuchas Facebook, MySpace, FriendsterandHi5, allowpeopletointroducethemselves, organisetheirsocial networksandestablishnewrelationshipsorkeepuprelationshipswithothers. Thesesitescanbe orientated towardsdifferent contexts, such aswork, starting romanticrelationships, findingnew friends, orconnectingwithpeoplewithsharedinterests.

SocialnetworkingsitesareWeb2.0applicationsorsocialsoftware. Eventhoughitdoesnotyet haveagenerallyaccepteddefinition, bysocialsoftwarewemeansoftwarethathasacollaborative element, which facilitates the organisation and shaping of communities, social interaction and feedback between individuals. This ensures that a horizontal structure is achieved, where no relationshipsarebasedonsuperiorityorinferiority. Socialsoftwareallowsforastructuredmediation ofopinionsbetweenpeopleinacentralisedorself-regulatingmanner(Kollányi, Molnár&Székely,

2007).

These principles are in line with modern educational theories such as constructivism and connectivism, makingWeb2.0 applicationsattractivetostudents andteachers. Wikis, blogsand socialbookmarkingarenowcommonlyusedinlearning. ThepopularityofWeb2.0isgrowingalong withitsapplications(Borauetal., 2008). ForMcLoughlinandLee(2008), theadventofWeb2.0urges ustoreflectonthewaythatsocialsoftwaretoolscouldbreakwithindustrialisedlearningmodels, and evolvetowardsanothermodelbasedonstudents’individualachievementsbasedoncollaboration,

(4)

TheWeb2.0conceptandthetoolsavailablecantransformthelearningstyleofnewgenerations in the computer age. While students havetraditionally learnt by readingbooksand attending classesinperson, theuseofWeb2.0toolsallowstheteachertoexplorenewteachingmethods andgobeyondthebarriersofspaceandtimefor learning(Allen, 2008; Levy, 2009; andShihab,

2008).

Connectivism

Siemens(2004) introducestheconceptofconnectivism appliedtolearningandproposesanew

learningtheory asanalternativetothecontemporarytheoriesofbehaviourism, cognitivismand constructivism. This author claimsthat the three most commonly used learning theories in the creationoflearningenvironmentsweredevelopedpriortotheimpactoftechnologyonlearning. AccordingtoSiemens, technologyhasreorganisedhowpeoplelive, communicatewitheachother andlearn. Thelearningneedsandthetheoriesthatdescribelearningprinciplesandprocessesshould takeintoaccounttheunderlyingsocialenvironment.

Brown(2006)assertsthatcurrently, thevastmajorityofeducationinitiativesarebasedonthe constructivistparadigm. However, giventheimpactofICTsineducation, theauthorconsidersthe needtoadoptnew learningparadigms. Connectivismisatheory that hasemergedtodescribe the featuresof contemporarylearning, asocial interconnected learning, based oncommunities (McLoughlin&Lee, 2008).

Withtheinclusionoftechnologyandtheconceptofconnectivity, learningtheoriesarebeginning togravitatewithintheorbitofthedigitalera. Thebasicpremiseisthatitisnotpossibletoexperience inpersonorindividuallyacquireallthelearningneededtoresolvecurrentproblems. Stephenson (as quotedbySiemens, 2004)postulatesthat experienceisnolongerconsideredtobethe best teacherofknowledge. Sinceitisnotpossibletoexperienceeverything, otherpeople’sexperiences andpeoplethemselvesbecomesubstitutesforknowledge. “Istoremyknowledgeinmyfriends”isan axiomforcollectingknowledgethroughcollectingpeople(Siemens, 2004). Thisaxiomgivesusan insightintotheimportanceofnetworkcontactsinconnectivism. Infact, accordingtoMcLoughlin andLee(2008), inconnectivism, learningistheprocessofcreatingconnectionsbetweenthenodes that makeupa network, whichcoincideswiththeway thatpeople socialise andinteractusing Web2.0toolsonsocialnetworkingsites. A reviewoftheseconceptsconfirmstheimportancethat connectivismattachestonetworkcontactsforlearning.

(5)

146

CC

employedthetheoryofsocial capitalandsocial networkanalysistostudythefactors associated

withchoosingpeopleassources ofinformation. The resultsofthatresearchsuggestthatpeople deliberateoverwhotochooseasasourceofinformation, andthatthechoiceisnotalwaysbasedon theonerequiringtheleastamountofeffort. Inotherwords, theresearchsuggeststhatotherfactors comeintoplaywhenchoosingsomebodyasasourceofinformation.

BorgattiandCross(2003)proposeaformalmodelofinformationseekinginwhichtheprobability

ofseekinginformationfromanotherpersonisafunctionof(1)knowingwhatthatpersonknows;(2)

valuingwhatthatpersonknows;(3)beingabletogaintimelyaccesstothatperson’sthinking, and; (4)perceivingthatseekinginformationfromthatpersonwouldnotbetoocostly. Theauthorstested theirmodelintwodifferentorganisationsandtheydeducedthatthe firstthreevariablesmentioned abovearethemostpredictiveofinformation-seekingbehaviour. Thecost, eventhoughitemerged asanimportantfactorinapriorqualitativestudybythesameauthors, wasnotstatisticallysignificant inthenewstudy.

ThestudiescarriedoutbybothJohnson(2004)andBorgattiandCross(2003)werebasedon face-to-facesocialnetworks. Also, neitherofthestudieswerecarriedoutinlearningenvironments; Johnson’swascarriedoutamongtheresidentsofUlanBator, acityinMongolia, whileBorgattiand Cross’swascarriedoutinpharmaceuticalcompanies. Inthe fieldofeducation, itcanbeseenthat manyteachersarejoiningsocialnetworkingsiteswithaviewtokeepingintouchwithstudentsin

thehopethatthispromoteslearning. Theaimofthisresearchprojectwastostudythisphenomenon. Thespecificobjectivewastoidentifythefactorsthataffecttheprobabilityofacontactonasocial networkingsitebeingcontactedtoseekinformationandpromotelearning.

Methods

Inordertoidentifythefactorsaffectingtheprobabilityofacontactonasocialnetworkingsite being contacted to seek information and promote learning, a naturalistic methodology was chosen, sinceitwasimportanttostudythe experiences, valuesand beliefsof theparticipants in a “natural” way. In this kind of research, the data emerges and develops; the results are not premeditated(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). AccordingtoCreswell (1994 and 2008), oneof the advantages ofqualitative researchisthe possibility of getting aholisticunderstanding of the

phenomenonunderinvestigation.

Differentmethodswereemployedforcollectingdataaccordingtotheprofileoftheparticipants.

(6)

Study 1

TheparticipantsinStudy1were14universitystudentsandsevenrecentgraduates, allfromthesame courseinaprivateuniversityinnorthwestMexico. Theaverageageoftheparticipantswas22.9years; theyoungestwas22andtheoldest25. Sixoftheparticipantswerewomenand15weremen.

Thisgroup wasselected because theyhad interacted witheachother continually for about fouryears, andtheirinteractionwasexpectedtocontinueovertheresearchperiod. Inadditionto attendinguniversityatthesametime, thisgroupkeptintouchcontinuallyonFacebook.

GiventhattheparticipantsweregoingtobeobservedonFacebook, itshouldbenotedthat therewasa“secondary”groupofparticipants, consistingofthecontactsofeachmainparticipant inthestudy, whoseinteractionwasalsoobserved. Theethnographicinterviews, forthepurposeof clarification, wereonlyconductedwiththemaingroupconsistingof21participants. Theobservation periodlastedsixmonths, fromJanuarytoJune2009.

Study 2

A totalof13universitylecturerstookpartinStudy2. Theywereselectedaccordingtotheirexperience andabilitytouseWeb2.0tools, andalsofortheirexperienceine-learningprogrammes.

The firstfocus groupwas madeup ofalecturer in KnowledgeManagement, alecturer and directoroftheEducationalResearchandInnovationCentre, alecturerinInformationSystemsand alecturerinBasicComputing. A secondfocusgroupwasmadeupofsixparticipantsattendingan e-learningconferenceinMexico. Whereasthe firstfocusgroupwasmadeupofexpertsinthe field,

thesecondgroupwasmadeupoflecturersthat, althoughnotexperts, wereWeb2.0toolsusersand hadaninterestine-learningprogrammes.

Theinformation obtainedfromthefocusgroupswas completedbyin-depth interviewswith threekeypeoplewho, becauseofconflictingengagements, couldnottakepartinthefocusgroups. Theinterviewswereheldwithalecturerandco-ordinatorfromtheCentreforEducational Technology andInnovation, withalecturerinIntelligentSystems(whowasalsoanexpertinWeb2.0)andwith anotherlecturerinIntelligentSystems.

Results

Study 1

Inordertoidentifythefactorsaffectingwhetheracontactbecomesasourceofinformation, data wascollectedfromtheobservationoftheirinteractiononFacebookandalsofromtheinterviews

(7)

148

CC

betweendifferentparticipantsinthestudyover aperiodoftime. Thegraduatesarerepresented by squaresand the undergraduates bycircles. The sizeof the geometricshapesdepends on the number of contacts that each participant

hadatthetime ofthestudy. The figureshows marked differences between the participants in termsofthe numberof linesthat converge

in them: while some have a smaller number

of possible information repositories, others have a greater number of connections and,

consequently, a greater number of potential informationrepositories.

Byusingtheparticipantobservationmethod, itwaspossibletoidentifythoseparticipantsthat tendedtoconsulttheircontactsmoreinordertoobtaininformationforaspecificpurpose. Once theseparticipantswereidentified, theyunderwentanethnographicinterviewtounderstandhow theymakedecisionsregardingwhotheyconsultandforwhatpurpose.

The firstgroupof findingscorresponds totwomain activitiescarriedoutbytheparticipants toobtaininformation:(1)browsingtheinformationsharedbythecontacts, and(2)consultingthe contacts.

Onewaythatpeopleobtaininformationfromtheircontactsistolookattheircontacts’profile pages, similarlytolookingatwebpages. Thecontacts’profiles(theirwalls, notesandphotographs) arenotaccessedinordertoobtainspecificinformation, butratherbecausetheywantanupdateon thelivesoftheircontacts. Onoccasions, specificinformationissearchedforinthisway, forexample,

whenyouwanttoknowoneofthecontacts’telephonenumbers, theplacewheretheystudied, the namesoftheirpartnersoranyotherinformationintheirprofiles. Usersofthesesocialnetworking sites know that theyalwayshave this option toobtaininformation about any memberof their

network. Similarly, userswilloccasionallyaccessoneoftheircontactswallswhentheycannotrecall someinformationfromaconversationheldwithanindividualcontact.

Another way thatpeople obtain informationfrom their contactsis byconsulting withthem directly. Whenusersofasocialnetworkingsitehavespecificquestions, theycanmakethreekindsof consultations:individual, groupormass. Individualconsultationsarethosewhereusersdecidetoask oneoftheircontactsdirectly, viathechat, inboxoronthewallitself. Normally, thewallisusedifitdoes notmatterthatotherpeopleseetheconsultation. Thisstudyconcludedthat15%ofthemessageson thewallareindividualconsultations. Groupconsultationsarethoseinwhichpeopleusetheircontact liststoaskaquestionviatheirinbox, orbyaskingaquestioninagrouporeveninanevent. This kindofconsultationwasnotcommoninthestudyandwasmainlyobservedintheeventssection.

(8)

Table 1. Factors determining whether a contact is used as a source of information

FACTOR CONCEPT STUDENTS’ COMMENTS ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORKS

Knowing about the contact

This refers to how much information is remembered about the profile of the person who may be consulted. Students mentioned that knowing things about the other person is a fundamental ingredient for confidence in asking them something. Perhaps it is not known exactly what the other person knows, but this knowledge can be inferred from where they work, their tastes, group memberships, etc. In this way, the contact’s profile is a fundamental ingredient in determining whether a person is consulted.

“The Facebook groups and communities that a contact belongs to are very relevant and help us to choose contacts with the same interests and therefore a greater probability of sharing learning.”

“The information available to their friends on their profile is very relevant, from what they studied, what they do, and their interests or, for example, the nicknames that they use.”

Knowing what the contact knows

This refers to what a contact thinks they know about what the person knows. In other words, somebody is consulted when it is believed that they know about the subject in question. Students even stated that they decided to accept a new contact on Facebook, not only for friendship, but also because they believe that their knowledge could be useful to them.

“Having a friend on Facebook would depend on the skills that you know the other person has. You don’t add new contacts just for the sake of it; you add them because you know things about the people, about their aptitudes, you know what they know.”

“[One of the most influential factors in choosing a contact to ask is] that you know that the other person has the knowledge you need or are seeking. That is to say, that you know in advance that the contact is good at something, or has a particular skill or special knowledge.”

Social closeness This refers to how close the relationship is with the other

person. In general, family members, partners and best friends are socially closest; then friends, teachers, etc. However, a relationship can be very close with a teacher and very distant with a first cousin. In any case, this closeness is reflected in the confidence that we have to consult a person, even when we do not hold much hope of what the other person may know.

“[I decide who to ask] depending on how well I know them, regardless of whether they have the information I’m looking for, because they’ll be able to put me in touch with the right person.”

“In my list of contacts, I might have people that I hardly know and I’m not keen on asking them this kind of thing.”

Standing of the contact

This refers to how much we value a person’s knowledge. When looking for sources of information, their knowing about the subject is not the only thing that matters; the information seeker also considers what they really do know about it. The participants in this study commented that the standing of the contacts was related to the probability of consulting them.

“I would look for the person of highest standing; for example a lecturer before a classmate.”

“In general we go to somebody we trust, who really knows the subject well.”

Knowing the contact personally

This refers to whether the contact is known to us personally. Although this factor was not mentioned much, it seems to be closely related to social closeness, since in general, somebody that is not known in person is at the lower end of the scale of social closeness. In any case, knowing the contact “face-to-face” seems to be an important factor when deciding who to ask.

“First, you should know them personally; that is to say, not a virtual friend.”

Accessibility and availability of the contact

This refers to the fact that the contact is accessible and that the communication channel is kept open. Accessibility refers to the fact that the person in question can be contacted quickly. Social networking sites help, as they are a permanent communication channel, even though a response may not always be immediate. Their accessibility is not a synonym for availability. The latter refers to having the confidence that a

person can be consulted and will want to reply.

(9)

150

CC

A secondgroupof findingscorrespondstosixdeterminingfactorsinthechoiceofacontactasa sourceofinformation:(1)knowingaboutthecontact;(2)knowingwhatthatpersonknows;(3)social

closeness;(4)thecontacthasacertainstanding;(5)thecontactisknownpersonally, and;(6)thatthe personisaccessible. Table1isapresentationofeachfactor, anexplanationoftheconceptandsome examplesofparticipants’commentsonthesubject.

Study 2

InasimilarwaytoStudy1, thelecturersthatparticipatedalsocommentedthatthefactorsaffecting whethercontactsare usedas sourcesofinformationwere:theaccessibilityofthecontacts;what

theyknowaboutthem;whattheyknowabouttheirknowledge, and;socialcloseness. However, the lecturersalsobelievedthatanotherimportantfactorwasthefactthattheyhadbeenaclassmate,

andtheydidnotrefertoknowingsomebodypersonallyortheirstandingassignificantfactors, unlike theuniversitystudents.

Withregardtotheaccessibilityofthecontact, thiswasthefactorthatwasmentionedmostin bothstudiesandemergedintheinterviews. Anotherfactorthatcameupalotwasknowingabout thecontact. Accordingtoonelecturer, consultingacontactis“obviouslygoingtodependonthe profilesthatdifferentpeoplepublish, (andon)whichoneshavetheknowledgeIrequire”. Atthesame time, theresultsofStudy2showedthatknowingwhatknowledgecontactshaveandtheirsocial closenessarealsofundamentalfactorsforthelecturers.

Therewasgeneralagreementonallofthesefactors, but, forthelecturers, thefactthatacontact hadbeenaclassmatewasalsobelievedtobeanimportantfactor. Thisincreasedtheprobabilitiesof acontactbecomingasourceofinformationforalearninginitiative. Onelecturermadeacomment tothiseffect:“manyofmystudents, whentheyhaveaquestion, consultaclassmate;theydon’task astudentwhoisn’tintheirclass”. Thisispossiblylimitedtosituationswheretheinformationsought referstoaspecificclass. However, consideringalltheclassesthattheparticipantsinthestudyattend,

andthatbeingaclassmateimpliesknowingeachotherpersonally, onlythesecondfactoristaken intoconsideration.

A comparisonbetweenthefactorsinbothstudiesispresentedin Table2. Thesimilaritiesand differencescanbeseenwithregardtowhattheparticipantsconsideredtobedeterminingfactorsin

Table 2. Comparison between factors determining consultation with a contact (both studies

STUDY 1. STUDENTS AND RECENT GRADUATES STUDY 2. LECTURERS

Accessible Accessible

Knowing about the person Knowing about the person

Knowing what the person knows Knowing what the person knows

Social closeness Social closeness

Standing

(10)

decidingwhetheracontactonasocialnetworkingsitebecomesasourceofinformationinalearning

initiative.

Discussion

Thefactorsdeterminingwhethercontactsbecomesourcesofinformationonasocialnetworking sitearethat:(1)peopleknowaboutthecontact;(2)theyknowwhatthecontactknows;(3)theyare

sociallyclose;(4)thecontacthasacertainstanding;(5)thecontactisknownpersonally, and;(6)the contactisaccessible. Itisimportanttomentionthattheparticipantsinthisstudyveryoftengrouped allthesefactorsundertheword“trust”

AnanalysisofthesefactorsshowsthatthreeofthefactorsemployedbyBorgattiandCross(2003) intheirmodel, havealsocomeupinthisstudy. Itisusefultorecallthattheelementsintheirmodel were:(1)knowingwhattheotherpersonknows;(2)valuingwhatthatpersonknows;(3)beingable

togaintimelyaccesstothatperson’sthinking;and(4)perceivingthatseekinginformationfromthat

personwouldnotbetoocostly. Inthiscase, asintheirstudy, the firstthreefactorswerehighlighted asimportantfactors.

Withregardtoknowingwhattheotherpersonknowsandbeingabletogainaccesstotheother

person, thesefactorsemergedpracticallywordforwordinthisstudy. Inthecaseofvaluingwhat theotherpersonknows, thisfactorisconsideredtobeequivalenttowhathasbeentermedasthe “standingofthecontact”inthisresearch. Inthiscase, theparticipantsreferredtostandingintermsof thevalueattributedtowhatthecontactknows.

However, inadditiontothesethreefactors, afurtherthreefactorscameoutinthestudy:knowing aboutthecontact, socialclosenessandthekindoffriendship(personalorvirtual). Ofthesefactors,

thekindoffriendshipisconsideredtobecloselylinkedtothekindofsocialnetwork. Usersofthese socialnetworksusuallyhaveanumberofcontactsthattheydonotknowpersonally. Accordingtothe studentsparticipatingintheresearch, thiscanbeafactoraffectingwhetheracontactisconsultedornot.

Withregardtoknowingaboutthecontact, thisfactoriscloselyassociatedwiththefactthatthey areonlinesocialnetworks, sincetheparticipantsreferredtotheinformationavailableforconsultation inthecontacts’profilesregardingtheirinterestsandhobbies. Thispossibilityisnotusuallyavailable inothernon-virtualsocialnetworks, andforthisreason, itobviouslydidnotshowupintheresearch carriedoutbyBorgattiandCross(2003).

(11)

152

CC

Conclusion

Lecturersandanyoneinterestedinsharingtheirknowledgeononlinesocial networksshouldbe

awareofthefactorsaffectingwhetheruniversitystudentschoosetousethemasaninformation repositoryinalearninginitiative. Itisnotsufficientforalecturertoregisteronasocialnetworkingsite andmakecontact, throughthenetwork, withthestudents. Accordingtothetheoryofconnectivism,

contactsareanecessaryratherthansufficientconditionforlearningtobepromoted. Inaddition,

alecturerisrequiredtogainthetrustofthestudents. Accordingtotheresultsofthisresearch, in additiontobeingconnected, trustisgainedbysharinginformationaboutoneself, bybeingprepared toanswerwhenaskedaquestion, byhavingacertainstandingwithregardtoexpertiseinanarea ofknowledge, andbygettingsociallyclosertocontacts. Apparently, bybeingonthecontactlistof auniversitystudentandworkingonthesefactors, thechancesofgettingthesestudentstousea lecturerasaninformationrepositoryareincreased.

Returning totheinformalaxiomproposedbySiemens, “Istoremyknowledge inmyfriends”,

itseemsthatthepossibilityofthishappeningdepends firstly oncarefullyselectingthecontacts thatareaddedtoanetwork. Thatistosay, asmoretrustedcontactsareadded, thelikelihoodof usingthemasinformationrepositoriesisincreased. However, evenwhenthecontactsarenotwell selected, thelikelihoodofusingthemasinformationrepositoriesmaybeincreasedifthefactors describedinthispaperaredevelopedinordertoraisetheleveloftrust.

In short, the probabilityof using acontact as an information repositoryon an onlinesocial networkdependsasmuchonthecarefulselectionofcontactsasitdoesonthecapacityofthese

contactstoearnourtrust.

Bibliography

ALLEN, G. (2008). Practicing teachers and Web 2.0 technologies: Possibilities for transformative learning [onlinedocument]. In:Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. Publication No AAT 3327101. Doctoral

Thesis, TeachersCollege, ColumbiaUniversity, 2009. [Accessed:9January2009].

BORAU, K.;LUO, H.;SHEN, L.;etal. (2008). “WhyWeb2.0isgoodforlearningandforresearch:Principles andprototypes”[onlinearticle]. In:Proceedings of the 17th International World Wide Web Conference

(WWW2008). ACMDigitalLibrary. [Accessed:10October2008].

BORGATTI, S.; CROSS, R. (2003). “A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks”[onlinearticle]. Management Science. Vol. 49, No4. ACMDigitalLibrary. [Accessed:3 February2009].

BROWN, T. (2006). “Beyondconstructivism:navigationismintheknowledgeera”[onlinearticle].

On the Horizon.Vol. 4, No3, pages108-120. EmeraldGroupdatabase. [Accessed:17January

2009].

BURBULES, N.; CALLISTER, T. (2000). Watch it: The risks and promises of information technologies for

(12)

CONTARDO, O. (2008). “Facebook:Sumundoalinstante”[onlinedocument]. El Mercurio. [Accessed: 15October2008].

<http://blogs.elmercurio.com/cultura/2008/09/21/Facebook-su-mundo-al-instante.asp>

CRESWELL, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

CRESWELL, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. ThousandOaks, CA:Sage.

ELLISON, N.;LAMPE, C.;STEINFIELD, C. (2007). “ThebenefitsofFacebook ‘friends’:Socialcapitaland collegestudents’useofonlinesocialnetworksites”[onlinearticle]. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication.Vol. 12, No4. [Accessed:10October2008].

<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html>

JOHNSON, C. (2004). “Choosingpeople:theroleofsocialcapitalininformationseekingbehaviour” [onlinearticle]. Information Research. Vol. 10, No1. [Accessed:21January2009].

<http://InformationR.net/ir/10-1/paper201.html>

KAZIENKO, P.;MUSIAL, K. (2006). Social capital in online social networks[onlinedocument]. [Accessed: 23October2007].

<http://www.zsi.pwr.wroc.pl/~kazienko/eng_publications.htm>

KOLLÁNYI, B.;MOLNÁR, S.;SZÉKELY, L. (2007). Social networks and the network society [onlinedocument].

[Accessed:12September2008].

<http://www.ittk.hu/netis/doc/ISCB_eng/04_MKSZ_final.pdf>

LEVY, M. (2009). “WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management” [online article]. Journal of

Knowledge Management. Vol. 13, No1, pages 120-134. Emerald Groupdatabase. [Accessed:4

February2009].

LINCOLN, Y.;GUBA, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. ThousandOaks, CA:Sage.

MCLOUGHLIN, C.;LEE, M. (2008). “Mappingthedigital terrain:New mediaandsocial softwareas catalystsforpedagogicalchange”[onlinearticle]. Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. [Accessed: 21January2009].

<http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/mcloughlin.html> MORRIS, D. (2006). La naturaleza de la felicidad. Barcelona:Planeta.

SHIHAB, M. (2008). Web 2.0 tools improve teaching and collaboration in high school English language

classes[onlinedocument]. In:Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. PublicationNo AAT 3344829. Doctoral

Thesis, NovaSoutheasternUniversity, 2009. [Accessed:9January2009].

SIEMENS, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age onlinedocument]. [Accessed:18 September2008].

<http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm>

SPRADLEY, J. (1980). Participant observation. NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich.

VALERIO, G. (2010). E-learning 2.0 y el impacto de las redes sociales en línea en los estudiantes universitarios.

(13)

154

(14)