|Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
2012, 28(2), 295-314.
Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook postings
University of the Free State, South Africa
While research literature affirms the potential for social networking sites (SNSs) to democratise communication, their impact on micro-level, academic relations at university level has not been explored sufficiently in developing countries. The literature on SNSs (especially Facebook) has emphasised its appropriation for the marketing of university programs to prospective students and enhancing institutional-level contact between university administration and students. As such, the impact of SNSs on micro-level (educator-learner and learner-peer) relations and relational power remains speculative. Mindful of how discursive types and discourses inform the construction of social power, this study employs critical discourse analysis (CDA) and educator-learners Facebook conversations to expose the exercise of relational power and social learning in these interactional spaces. Facebook postings are examined to explore academic relations and associated learner challenges like limited meaningful engagement with peers and content, superficial learning and general academic under-preparedness. The findings suggest the prevalence of formal authoritative (or hierarchical) discourses, few informal liberating (horizontal) discourses, nascent peer-based collaboration and limited learner engagement with theory. These phenomena generally point at first year students' under-developed study skills and less sophisticated literacies. The challenges and potential for transformative learning are explored and possibilities for effective engagement suggested.
Despite the rising interest in the academic application of Facebook (Kolek & Saunders, 2008; Guess, 2008; Shim, 2008), there is a paucity of studies using critical discourse analysis (CDA) as an interpretive or analytical framework for exploring SNSs. Fairclough (1995) defines CDA as the study of opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power. As such, CDA examines the dual, reciprocal interplay of dialogic practices, events and textual constructions (in online environments) and broader social influences to understand their implications on social power. CDA is critical to the study of social / interactional power because discourse[s] are inherently part of, and influenced by social structure, and produced in social interaction (Van Dijk, 2003).
Several studies that have employed discourse analysis for exploring computer-mediated interaction, mobile instant messaging system, information and communication technology (ICT)-enhanced socio-economic development, education and spatial policy discourses (Richardson & Jensen, 2003; Thompson, 2005; Ng'ambi, 2008; Chigona & Chigona, 2008) have not explored SNSs. Moreover, a top down approach to discourse is evident in studies on public officials' speeches on the adoption of ICTs in emerging and advanced countries (Thompson, 2005; Roode, Speight, Pollock & Webber, 2004). Resultantly, little is known about the interplay of lecturer-student and student-peer interactional power at micro levels in social networking environments (SNEs). To bridge this gap, this study adopts a macro-micro level approach (speech genres of educators and students on Facebook) to discourse analysis, to examine how textual interactions on Facebook are informed by both immediate interactional context (micro level factors) and broader social structural issues.
Peculiarity of Facebook environment
A CDA framework resonates with Facebook dialogic conversations because these dialogues tend to be replete with manipulative tendencies of writers (knowledgeable learners, educators) aimed at influencing the psychology and social behaviour of readers / communicants (peers) through normalising discourses. However, Facebook's dialogic complexity lies in the flexibility that communicants often have with regard to where to post their messages, who to engage with, and the language to use during interactions. Moreover, Facebook's peculiarity is predicated on its blurring of the divide between private and public discourse through 'imagined audiences' and 'collision of contexts' (Boyd, 2011). Facebook is also grounded in the connectivism framework of knowledge production that values connected networks, co-generation of knowledge by novices and experts and use of complex, adaptive systems for knowledge generation (Siemens, 2006). More so, the informal and unregulated conversations on Facebook raise critical questions about the exercise of academic authority and democratic expression of views when academics are involved.
SNE-carriers of ideological interests
Understanding the influence of SNSs on lecturer-student power relations is crucial to student meaningful learning because Facebook is not a value-free technology but rather an instrument for articulating power. Feenberg (2003) suggested that a productive way of conceiving technology is as human controlled and value-laden. As such, technological agents (lecturers and students) can deploy Facebook's text-based interactions ideologically to direct their interactants' (other lecturers, peers, extended academic community) actions and mental dispositions towards their intentions and interests - like exertion of academic authority - and to communicate their learning needs respectively (Rambe, 2011). As Rambe (2011) elaborates, power circulates through technology's (the medium) affordances and constraints and manifests through the actions and reactions of academics and learners.
Given the potential of SNSs to communicate intentions and ideologies (e.g. imposing social control, academic discipline, influencing academic philosophies/ perspectives, improving equitable access and contributions from learners), Facebook can be drawn upon to overcome a learner's sense of psychological powerlessness. As Koper & Tattersall (2004) contend, making ICT facilities available is inadequate for ensuring that these facilities are applied effectively to overcome psychological barriers to learning, such as "poor family culture of learning, low aspiration, low self-esteem, bad childhood experience of learning" (Longworth, 2003). Addressing these barriers necessitates developing learning designs that meet the specific requirements for lifelong learning, including individual differences in needs, learning preferences, prior-knowledge and situational circumstances of learners (Koper & Tattersall, 2004). Extending these authors' views I argue that eliminating students' psychological barriers necessitates academic understanding of technologies as carriers of ideological interests and their potential use for overcoming social control. As Ng'ambi (2011) observes, new technologies like anonymous mobile instant messaging can be appropriated in class to elicit the participation of subverted voices and shy, less confident students.
Few studies have examined micro-level academic relations in blended learning environments involving Facebook. Other studies affirm Facebook discussion forums' potential to break language and intercultural barriers to communication (Rambe, 2010; McCarthy, 2010). In his study of 147 first year architecture students' experiences of a blended learning environments (traditional lectures and Facebook), McCarthy (2010) reported that Facebook served as a serendipitous space to overcome language and intercultural barriers and first years' introversion. Facebook discussions created perfect opportunities for student extended engagement with peers' comments and critiques rather than being put on the spot in lectures. Unlike the university's learning management system (LMS), which is provided by the institution, Facebook is a ubiquitous technology for social use by students rather that an academic networking platform for their courses (Rambe, 2010). Therefore, Rambe (2010) reports that most students conceive Facebook as a self-regulated space for individual expression that is less amenable to rigid institutional controls compared with course-based LMS.
Social media are vital tools for rendering student voice and control over learning. McLoughlin and Lee (2010) articulate exemplars of productive deployment of web based tools and applications like Flickr, wikis, vodcasts, blogs and digital voice recorders to create personalised learning environments for student self-regulation of learning and giving them voice. They report that these tools can shift control to learners, through promoting agency, autonomy and engagement in social networks that straddle multiple real and virtual learning spaces. They recognise the need for educators to balance demands for the scaffolding of learner reflection and development of generic competencies with student privacy issues and feelings of being unwelcome in students' social networks.
Shih (2011) investigated a blended approach that integrated Facebook use and online peer-assessment to explore Facebook's influence on English writing skills of English majors at a Taiwanese university. The study reported that the blended approach generated student opportunities for experiencing the learning of English writing skills, and improved student willingness to interact and express their own ideas in writing. We infer that Facebook peer assessment boosted their psychological empowerment through heightening their linguistic confidence and communicative abilities. Facebook collaborative learning is rendered through expansion of transactional networks, joining affinity groups that exchange academic interests, and student connections to extended academic communities. Valenzuela, Park, & Kee (2008) project that SNSs promote the formation of common interest groups that help users coordinate collective action. They also allow regular exchanges between users, which can foster trust and norms of reciprocity that are key antecedents of [academic] community life (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee 2008 ). Facebook's academic value lies in opportunities it gives students to connect with classmates in large lectures; form study groups; find high school classmates on remote campuses; and develop a sense of community by finding students with similar interests (Bishop-Russell et al, 2006). Judging from these studies, our inference is that Facebook is about artefact sharing, academic networking and relationship building. At the heart of these social practices are the negotiation of knowledge and psychological dominance through hierarchical control of discourses.
Fairclough (1989) identifies three levels of relational discourses as: (1) social conditions of production and interpretation, that is, factors in society that led to the production of texts and how these factors affect interpretation; (2) the process of production and interpretation, that is, how texts have been produced and this affects interpretation; (3) the product of the first two stages, the text. Corresponding to these levels of discourse, Fairclough (1989) prescribes three stages of CDA as:
Figure 1: Discourse as text, interaction and context
(after Fairclough, 1989; Thompson, 2005)
The first-year IS stream studied comprised about 450 learners whose lessons were conducted weekly in three groups. Two groups (clusters) comprised approximately 200 learners with fairly sophisticated ICT literacy skills while the third group comprised about 50 learners with limited or no experience with computers. These three groups covered the same lecture content. However, previously disadvantaged learners (the third group) were on an extended Academic Development Program (ADP) running for a year (INFO 1077B) while the other two groups accomplished the course within a semester (INFO1078A). These course codes are pseudonyms used to protect the identity of the courses. This coheres with the anonymity rule of this University's Code of Ethics for researching human subjects. Despite the heterogeneity in learner backgrounds and contact duration, all the learners had one main Facebook environment for question-based consultation with peers and lecturers.
The IS Department required learners to create personal Facebook accounts and join its Facebook group to activate student sustained participation. The course convenor designated one IS educator as an online administrator who addressed theoretical, practical and general course administration queries that learners posed to educators. The course convenor also maintained a social presence and occasionally addressed course administration queries on Facebook. The Department Facebook environment had three interactional spaces through which learners and educators interacted namely, the administrator's Facebook inbox for personal educator-learner consultation, Facebook discussion board, a special wall feature for public messages and discussions, and the Facebook wall, a public space for public discourse on academic matters.
Some authors (Thompson, 2005; Roode, Speight, Pollock & Webber, 2004) employ Fairclough's categorisations of SG and DT to develop a characterisation of power in discourses. For example, Thompson (2005) combines a semi-grounded theory analysis on the development discourses on ICT adoption and Fairclough's vertical and horizontal (SG and DT) formulation to develop a logical description of how ICT for Development discourses are deeply implicated in configurations of power (see Tables 1 and 2). Each text genre (TG) corresponds to a particular category of discursive type as shown below. For example, utterances and information should be factual for them to be conceived as legitimating a given claim.
|Text genre (TG)||Discursive type (DT)|
|1. Confidence||1. Technocracy|
|2. Factual information||2. Legitimacy|
|3. Humour||3. Neutrality|
|4. Persuasion||4. Corporatism|
|5. Techno(logical) optimism|
Neutrality discourse type adopts a middle of the road approach where the text message reflects no inclination to a given position or side. Mutual partnership and collaboration underscore the corporatism discursive type. Technological optimism discursive type stresses the affordances of technology in academic engagement, while pragmatism discursive type is located in the search for realistic or practical solutions. Legitimacy discursive type is founded on the expression of disciplinary authority while technocracy discursive type refers to "technocratic discourse" (Ng'ambi, 2008, p. 34). The text genres and discursive types all emerge from interaction of the three-tier hierarchy of description, interpretation and explanation. Hence, discursive types should not be taken in isolation but as functions of the recursive interaction of the micro and macro levels.
Thompson's (2005) analysis draws on data from the speech itself (Text column) to make a connection with identified discursive types and their description (Description column) towards the derivation of speech genres and discursive types (Interpretation) and their implications on power. Thompson's (2005) analysis, therefore, builds on Fairclough's analysis and semi-grounded theory approach to develop the following analytical framework (Table 2).
|Excerpt of raw data (the speech)|
My analytical framework involved the identification of TGs and DTs that emerged from Facebook textual messages. This process was accomplished using a semi-grounded approach involving the adoption of first order and second concepts (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985) from the Facebook postings. These concepts were iteratively processed until a set of refined concepts were developed.
Of the 450 first year students doing the IS course, a sample of 165 students posted 414 posts. They posted 154 wall posts, 121 discussion board posts, and 139 posts to the administrator's inbox. It is important to understand that several students' conversations with peers or the educator would contribute to one or several discursive types. The postings discussed constituted some generic comments posted by students and hence formed common threads throughout the conversations that appeared in the three discursive spaces. Postings comprised theoretical questions, procedural queries on practical exercises (the majority), course administration matters, social queries and compliments. These text messages were posted over approximately one year (two semesters).
In the next text analysis (Table 4 below), a student bemoans the limited elaboration of theoretical concepts (systems thinking and system) in the textbook. She poses a question on the operationalisation of these concepts in the IS discipline. The educator's elaboration activates another question from another student on the constituent elements of systems thinking. The online administrator passionately engages with the student's questions and as the conversation reaches its climax, another student renders a website with relevant information for peer access.
(text genre) (TG)
(discursive type) (DT)
|Discussion Board Post (DBP) 111. Hi Theron. I'd like to request some guidance on my topic 12.6 (ergonomics) and where I could possibly find relevant info. Thank you||Persuasion|
Learner implores the educator for information
Contraction "i'd" is used instead of "i would" to reflect the informality of the conversational context. "Info" also smacks of informality
Addressivity by first name is not honorific
Educator is the authoritative source of information
|Although the educator's designation as an authoritative source is implied by reference to "guidance", the tone of the consultation process is quasi-formal|
|DBP 112A. Working with your computer can be productive, rewarding and fun. Unfortunately, prolonged postures, coupled with high levels of concentration and the occasional frustration of things going less than perfectly, can lead to physical problems||Factual information|
Technology-enhanced productivity and technological disruptionsTechnological optimism
|The affordances and disincentives of technology are acknowledged|
Using examples students easily relate to is fundamental to their understanding
|Construction of technology as both liberating and disciplining for the users.|
Explicit teaching is a useful pedagogical strategy to inform under-prepared students with learning difficulties.
|DBP 112B [another learner] Does that relate to HCI?||Uncertainty|
Unsure about which discipline the concept is located
Rather than agree or critique the information given, a peer responds with another question
|Reinforcement - the learner seeks clarification on an issue (HCI) already addressed|
|DBP 113. Yes. A basic understanding of the way you "interface" with your computer can help prevent common health-related problems. Some knowledge of the principles of how people interact safely and efficiently with machines and their work environment, saves you from discomfort and maximize both productivity and enjoyment. This is ergonomics....||Factual information|
Educator gives practical information
Practical precautions on health related problems that emerge from HCI
(text genre) (TG)
(discursive type) (DT)
|Facebook Inbox Posting (FIP) 112A: hi Theron im just a bit confused as to what my topic entails for the literature review. I'm doing "what is a system? System thinking". Which is 1.3! In the text book 1.3 is just about systems in general and what their purpose is...the info is not even a page long! [Learner]||Uncertainty and humour|
Confusion is an expression of uncertainty. Confusion is understated "a bit" as if limited amounts of it are not as delusional
The content of a chapter and the number of pages is factual information
Understanding that sufficient background information is necessarily to adequately answer a question
|Textbook given as a prime canonical source|
|FIP 112 B: Simply put, a system is an organized collection of parts that are highly integrated to accomplish an overall goal. The system has various inputs, which go through certain processes to produce certain outputs, [...]. [Admin Response]||Factual information|
The definition of the term is factual
Expresses her desire to elaborate concepts to leverage student understanding
|Hierarchical discourses are reproduced as technological cognoscenti frame discursive practices in which students are functionally passive recipients|
|FIP 111A: [learner name] Thanks Theron. But Im not sure if im supposed to be talking about systems generally or i must say what an information system is as well. Please can you help me. Thanx very much||Persuasion|
The information need is expressed in form of a plea. The compliments entrench the persuasive approach
The two compliments demonstrate learner corporatism and appreciation of the educator's messages
|Passive reception with limited critical engagement undermines student intellectual growth and self-regulation|
|FIP 111B: For example, an organization is made up of many administrative and management functions, products, services, [...]. If one part of the system is changed, the nature of the overall system is often changed, as well -[...] . (This is not to be confused with systematic, which can mean merely that something is methodological. Thus, methodological thinking - systematic thinking -- does not necessarily mean systems thinking.)|
FIP 110 [Another student ] You can find this information on this IT website [URL link provided]
The academic confides in the student by distinguishing organisational system from systemic thinking. The sentence is framed by distantiation "this is not to be confused"
The educator assumes an authoritative voice by deconstructing and contrasting concepts
|Replication of educator's academic status as dominant information disseminator. "This is not to be confused with" is normalising and is negative framing of authority|
(text genre) (TG)
(discursive type) (DT)
|DBP 80A: [Learner] Hi [Theron], I have been assigned topic 2.6 for the literature review but there is one slight problem. I cannot find any information about the importance of hardware standards and I have been looking for a couple of days||Humour|
In spite of little success in accessing information, a humorous understatement "slight problem" is employed
Student legitimately seeks guidance from a disciplinary authority
|Appeal to academic authority for support|
|DBP 80B: Hi [learner name given], you need to read articles on related topic...not just the textbook. There is much work covered on this subject in IS related journals/books. The primary considerations for any hardware configuration are: ease of connectivity to a given network; connectivity to external systems and organizations; consistent performance of all integrated components in our networked environment; successful in-house experience with the chosen product and configuration; maximum period of machine functionality etc. [Administrator's response]||Confidence|
"there is much covered on..." Educator confides in the student that wide readership and diversification of sources is crucial for academic survival
"read articles on the topic...not just the text book". Academic performance is constructed around the consultation and mastery of information from diverse sources
|Provision of strategic direction on information sources is another mandates of an academic authority|
The textual constructions above on study processes demonstrate that although students generally understood the lecturer's expectations on assignments, they lacked the appropriate study and information management skills to execute them. They also struggled with procedural tasks like the working of percentiles and quartiles as shown in Table 6.
(text genre) (TG)
(discursive type) (DT)
|FIP. 119A: Hi. Please tell me how we should work out the PERCENTILE and QUARTILE staff.||Persuasion|
Pleading with the expert for academic support
Quest for a practical solution
|Appeal to academic authority on procedural matters|
|FIP. 119B: This example i am giving you below is based on the work you did in the lab on Thursday last week. To calculate the percentile, the pth percentile has p% of the data below it. For example, the median is the 50th percentile. To calculate the price at the 5th percentile you use the following formula: = percentile(price,0.05). To calculate the price of the first quartile (the 25th percentile) you use = quartile(price,1)|
Hope this helps, Cheers
Reference to a previous event-lab exercise and the procedural calculation are all factual expressions
The colloquialism "cheers" demonstrates the quasi-formal nature of conversations
The elaborate response demonstrates that the educator cooperates with the student
The calculation is a practical solution to novel procedural concepts learners struggle with
|Facebook visualises student problems. Learner's limited understanding is exposed.|
Their Facebook discursive practices illustrated dependence on primary texts (textbook and study guides) for the information necessary to accomplish procedural tasks and theoretical problems. The challenge of the over-reliance on books and stories is that [they] are decontextualised, the story and the illustration can be manipulated (Macdonald, 1987; 1990) thus distorting knowledge generation for under-prepared students. Moreover, since most questions were task or course administration-related, the administrators' responses were often similar and sometimes the responses were duplicated. Superficial learning also manifested in student failure to strategically harness Facebook discussions threads as information repositories for tracking the evolution of discussions, hence the tendency to repeat queries and responses. This redundancy was also caused by lecturer-student private conversations through Facebook private inbox messages/chats which constrained access to some students. Resultantly, the lecturer required all students to use the public Facebook discussion board to ensure the whole class benefited.
Teaching approaches that emphasise 'rote' learning and not transformation were alluded to in the quotation: "... Educators put no emphasis on what is important instead they rumbled on and it is impossible to remember everything they said (DBP 21)". Due to limited contact time, a complex trade-off emerged between syllabus completion and meaningful engagement with students. Rote learning is embodied in the emphasis on memorising content as demonstrated in the aforementioned statement . As such, educator-student class contact was not always productive. As Karpov & Haywood (1998) suggest, rote skills are meaningless and non-transferable and hence learners should develop their own empirical knowledge to deal with subject domain problems. However, I contend that developing own knowledge can be complex for first year students and hence may require academic scaffolding in their critical thinking.
(text genre) (TG)
(discursive type) (DT)
|DBP 21: IS in general was poorly run. The MC [multiple choice] quizzes are a good concept however even after attending the arduous and boring lectures I had to guess most questions. They were vague and the textbook is too long to bother for just a 5 minute test. Educators put no emphasis on what is important instead they rumbled on and it is impossible to remember everything they said. [...] trying to learn MS office in 2 sessions was difficult, and watching educators who know what they themselves are doing didn't help. [Learner name]||Unapologetic (New TG)|
The student makes no apology for his reliance on guess work
Length of textbook, and duration of the quiz and number of Microsoft Office sessions are factual expressions
Critical (New TG)
Student is critical of educator's perceivably superficial approaches that undercut emphasis on essential information. He critiques the lack of experiential learning in lectures/ demonstrations
Student raises legitimate issues about limitations of a transmission approach
Student is more intrigued by hands on approach to solving technical problems
|Weak academic literacies manifest in superficial engagement with content, over-reliance on primary texts and limited student experimentation with technology|
|DBP 19: The lectures were so boring. I didn't attend them and I and am not prepared to study a whole chapter just for a 5 min test. Half of the questions were out of the syllabus, and even too hard for the tutors. Vula [an LMS] itself had many problems like one week it crushed and other times you got given 8 options for a MCQ (multiple choice quiz).[...]. And the MCQs were just another problem with IS. No offence to anyone but yeah the quizzes sucked [learner name]||Unapologetic (New TG)|
Student expressed no remorse for missing lectures
The questions out of the syllabus, number of quiz options and that the LMS was offline is all factual information
That tutors struggled with the questions as a justification for under-performance is humorous and unapologetic
Emotive (New TG)
"No offence... yeah the quizzes sucked!" sounds emotive
Absconding quizzes was a pragmatic way of diverting attention to other academic commitments - practical but tactless strategy
The student had legitimate complaints about administrative problems like being offline, vague quiz questions
|Underdeveloped literacy practices manifest in poor attendance of lectures, missing quizzes, and poor information management and synthesis skills|
Hierarchical discourses, however, were sometimes replicated at student-peer levels as academically able students were affirmed by the educator as academically competent. This way, Facebook sometimes reproduced and entrenched hierarchical power relations between students. As Rose (2005) suggests, relations between students within every classroom and school, are unequal. As a result, the learner identities that are produced and maintained by the moral order of the classroom and school are stratified as successful, average or unsuccessful. This inequality is construed as differences in learning ability (Rose, 2005).
Liberating discourses also manifested in student ability to critique academics on matters of course administration. Facebook allowed students to openly question the department's course administration processes. They critiqued educators' pedagogical practices when their identities were conceivably 'hidden,' what they could not otherwise do in face to face contacts. One such critique was lectures' lack of focus which contributed to student difficulty in addressing weekly quizzes, which were supposedly based on them. CDA was therefore critical to exploring how students subtly employed textual language and discursive practices to question the taken for granted, but opaque departmental and problematic instructional practices. These talk back practices enabled public expression and negotiation of interactional power with lecturers through discourse.
Student critique of departmental practices illustrates SNS interaction's potential to subvert vertical relations of power and equalise educator and student access to knowledge claims. This critique supports claims about the power of computer mediated communication (Facebook) to democratise communication through filtering cues that denote social hierarchies (Short et al., 1976). Learners who could not otherwise criticise educators' academic practices in face to face contact for fear of sanction, found in Facebook a safe haven to question them.
Some students conceived educators as the predominant authoritative source of information. The lecturer-student discursive practices thus reproduced hierarchy and hegemonic dominance of the teacher over students. Such discourses were further reinforced by lecturers' affirmation of some "academically able" students' contributions, thus reconstructing academic categories of the 'academically powerful' and 'challenged.' Horizontal discourses that were conceivably liberating emerged through student collaboration with peers on procedural tasks. These collaborative discursive practices illustrate connectivism - that is, how learners connect and collate diverse content and conversation fragments to create an integrated (through sometimes) contradictory network of information (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009). As they reiterate, information acquisition is a mashup of dialogical pieces, reframing, rethinking, and developing connections to produce knowledge (p. 5). Similarly, Facebook discourses presented opportunities for student collaboration with both peer-generated content and pedagogical content knowledge.
Facebook potentially democratises academic relations by rendering students the agency to hold academics accountable as legitimate knowledge builders and givers and to intermittently neutralise their exercise of authoritative power. Yet such disruptions of asymmetrical power were circumstantial and often circumscribed by students' heavy dependence on the educator for academic support on theoretical and practical tasks. Transcending Siemens & Tittenberger's (2009) view, it can be inferred that horizontal discourses ironically reproduced differential power structures as academics unconsciously conferred academic power to academically able students by affirming their answers as correct and convincing.
The two discourses mentioned above have fundamental implications for pedagogical practice in higher education:
Boyd, D. (2007). Social network sites: Public, private, or what? The Knowledge Tree, 13. [verified 14 Mar 2012] http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id=28
Bishop-Russell, J., Dubord, M., Hansen, E. & Webster, K. (2006). Acknowledging a campus.com(munity): [thefacebook] and diversity college. The University of Maine. [verified 14 Mar 2012] http://www.studentaffairs.com/vcs/2006entries/UniversityofMaine.ppt
Centre for Educational Technology (2010). Projects. [viewed 12 Mar 2012] http://www.cet.uct.ac.za/projects
Chigona, A. & Chigona, W. (2008). Mix it up in the media: Media discourse analysis on a mobile instant messaging system. The Southern African Journal of Information and Communication, Issue 9, 42-57.
Facebook blog (2011). Facebook statistics [viewed 11 Jun 2011] http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
Fairclough, N. L. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Fairclough, N. L. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. L. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.
Feenberg, A. (2003). What is philosophy of technology? Lecture for the Komaba undergraduates, June 2003. http://www.sfu.ca/~andrewf/books/What_is_Philosophy_of_Technology.pdf
Guess, A. (2008). Taking Facebook back to campus. Inside Higher Ed, 24 October. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/24/socialweb
Jaffe, M., Lee, Y., Huang, L. & Oshagan, H. (1995). Gender, pseudonyms and CMC: Masking identities and baring souls. Paper submitted for presentation to the 45th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. [verified 15 Mar 2012] http://www.fragment.nl/mirror/Jaffe1995/
Karpov, Y. V. & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky's concept of mediation: Implications for instruction. American Psychologist, 53(1), 27-36. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.27
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(1), 1123-1134. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123
Kolek, E. A. & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: An empirical examination of undergraduate Facebook profiles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 45(1), 1-25. http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp/vol45/iss1/art2/
Koper, R. & Tattersall, C. (2004). New directions for lifelong learning using network technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6) , 689-700. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2004.00427.x/abstract
Koper, R. & Sloep, P. B. (2002). Learning networks connecting people, organizations, autonomous agents and learning resources to establish the emergence of effective lifelong learning. RTD Programma into Learning Technologies 2003-2008. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. http://hdl.handle.net/1820/65
Longworth, N. (2003). Lifelong learning in action: Transforming education in the 21st century. London: Kogan Page.
Macdonald, C. A. (2006). The properties of mediated action in three different literacy contexts in South Africa. Theory & Psychology, 16(1), 51-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354306060109
Macdonald, C. A. (1990). Crossing the threshold into Standard Three in black education: The main report of the Threshold Project. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
Macdonald, C. A. (1987). Le Bonniec's alethic modality: A cross-cultural investigation. Unpublished MS. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 729-740. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mccarthy.html
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28-43. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html
Mlitwa, N. B. & Nonyane. J. N. (2008). The status of ICT access and use in South African Schools: Comparing the rural and urban schools in the Mpumalanga Province. In Proceedings e/merge 2008, 7-18 July 2008. http://emerge2008.net/access/content/group/emerge2008/PresentationFiles/Mlitwa/Access_in_Schools.pdf
Moore, D. (2010). Join the conversation: How (some) South African universities are using social media. Creative Commons PowerPoint Presentation. [verified 15 Mar 2012] http://www.slideshare.net/weblearning/south-african-universities-and-social-media
Ng'ambi, D. (2011). Enhancing student interaction in didactic teaching approaches - the right to text during class. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on E-learning, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada, 27-28 June 2011. Academic Publishing International Ltd.
Ng'ambi, D. (2008). A critical discourse analysis of students' anonymous online postings. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 4(3), 31-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2008070104
Orellana, M. F. (1996). Negotiating power through language in classroom meetings. Linguistics and Education, 8(4), 335-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90016-9
Rambe, P. (2010). Social cultural discourse analysis of collaborative learning in Facebook postings. Presented at the 4th International Development Informatics Association Conference (IDIA) 2010, Exploring success and failure in development informatics: Innovation, research and practice, 3-5 November 2010, Cape Town, South Africa. http://www.developmentinformatics.org/conferences/2010/papers/rambe.html
Rambe, P. (2011). Exploring the impacts of social networking sites on academic relations in the university. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 271-293. http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10p271-293Rambe981.pdf
Ridgway, S. (2010). Profiles of success: Mark Zuckerberg, creator of Facebook. [viewed 20 July 2010] http://www.workingworld.com/articles/Mark-Zuckerberg-Creator-of-Facebook
Richardson, T. & Jensen, O. B. (2003). Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies, 40(1), 7-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980220080131
Roode, D., Speight, H., Pollock, M. & Webber, R. (2004). It's not the digital divide-It's the socio-techno divide! Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2004), Turku, Finland. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2004/112/
Rose, D. (2005). Democratising the classroom: A literacy pedagogy for the new generation. Journal of Education, 37, 131-167. http://dbnweb2.ukzn.ac.za/joe/JoEPDFs/joe%2037%20rose.pdf
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. Kogan Page.
Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(Special issue, 5), 829-845. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/shih.html
Shim, J. P. (2008). Social networking sites: A brief comparison of usage in the U.S. and Korea. Decision Line, October 2008, 16-18. http://www.decisionsciences.org/decisionline/Vol39/39_5/dsi-dl39_5ecom.pdf
Siemens, G. & Tittenberger, P. (2008). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. University of Manitoba.
Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning and knowledge today. Global summit 2006: Technology connected futures. [not found 15 Mar 2012] http://admin.edna.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2150/34771/1/gs2006_siemens.pdf
Sousa, T. (2011). Merging mobile and social media for a powerful mix. The Media Online, 24 November. http://themediaonline.co.za/2011/11/merging-mobile-and-social-media-for-a-powerful-mix/
Thompson, M. P. (2005). ICT, power and developmental discourse: A critical analysis. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 20(4), 1-26. http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/122/122
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of discourse analysis (Ch. 18). Wiley-Blackwell. http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0631205969.html
Van Maanen, J. & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organisation: Fragments of a theory. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds), Organisational culture (pp 31-54). Sage.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N. & Kee, K. F. (2008). Lessons from Facebook: The effect of social network sites on college students' social capital. Submitted to the 9th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, Texas, April 4-5, 2008. http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2008/papers/Valenzuela.pdf
Wodak, R. (1987). And where is the Lebanon? A socio-psycholinguistic investigation of comprehension and intelligibility of news. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 7(4), 377-410.
|Author: Patient Rambe PhD (UCT), Postdoctoral Research Fellow|
Department of Computer Science and Informatics, University of the Free State
205 Nelson Mandela Drive / Rylaan, Park West, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa
Email: RambeP@ufs.ac.za, firstname.lastname@example.org
Please cite as: Rambe, P. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook postings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 295-314. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/rambe.html