THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM TO PROMOTE AUTHENTIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION SETTING

Mulyono Herri; Suryoputro Gunawan

Science for Education Today

2020, том 10, № 2

http://sciforedu.ru

ISSN 2658-6762

УДК 378+314

Использование платформы социальных медиа для продвижения аутентичной среды обучения в высших учебных заведениях

Х. Мильоно, Г. Сурьопутро (Джакарта, Индонезия)

Проблема и цель. В настоящем обзоре предпринята попытка изучить восприятие преподавателями и студентами университетов использования социальных сетей для создания аутентичной среды обучения.

Методология. С этой целью 249 преподавателей университетов и 329 студентов приняли участие в опросе, в ходе которого им было предложено составить конкуренцию 27 пунктам перечня аутентичной среды обучения в социальных сетях (SOMALEVI). Статистический анализ Rasch с использованием программного обеспечения Winstep был выполнен для оценки ответов как преподавателей, так и студентов.

Результаты. Facebook-исследования показали, что участники ежедневно проводили большую часть своего времени в WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram и Twitter, соответственно, причем большая часть доступа была сделана с их мобильных телефонов. Большинство участников показали положительное отношение к использованию социальных сетей для продвижения аутентичной среды обучения (NT-преподаватели = 247,99 %; NST-студенты = 309,93,9 %), в то время как остальные показали свое негативное восприятие. Большинство тех, кто воспринимает позитивно, - женщины (64,53 %) в возрасте от 21 до 30 лет (32,18 %). Результаты также показывают, что социальные сети предоставляют студентам возможность поделиться своим опытом и учебной деятельностью (MR1, LVI = -0,97), предложить студентам возможность учиться у экспертов (EP1, LVI = -0,82), чтобы они могли получить много информации по конкретным вопросам (EP3, LVI = -0,70). Интересно, но не удивительно, что как преподаватели, так и студенты обнаружили, что социальные медиа помогли им в обучении с учебными ресурсами, такими как видео, демонстрация, учебные файлы, позволяя студентам понять учебные материалы (EP2, LVI = -0.85). Тем не менее, исследование выявило некоторые критические проблемы, касающиеся использования социальных медиа для аутентичной среды обучения,

Исследование было профинансировано Министерством исследований, технологий и высшего образования (Kementrian Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi) Республики Индонезия, грант № 225/SP2H/LT/DRPM/2019 контракт № 21/AKM/PNT/2019.

Мильоно Херри - доктор наук, преподаватель, факультет педагогической подготовки и педагогики, кафедра английского образования, Университет Мухаммадии им. проф. д-ра Хамка, Джакарта, Индонезия. E-mail: hmulyono@uhamka.ac.id

Сурьопутро Гунаван - доктор филологических наук, профессор кафедры прикладной лингвистики, аспирантура, кафедра английского образования, Университет Мухаммадии им. проф. д-ра Хамка, Джакарта, Индонезия. E-mail: gunawan_suryoputro@uhamka.ac.id

2020, том 10, № 2

http://sciforedu.ru

ISSN 2658-6762

такие как неподходящее представление реальной жизни, трудности в сотрудничестве с другими и трудности в признании их потенциала обучения.

Заключение. Социальные медиа - это альтернативная мобильная технология, которая облегчает преподавателям и студентам создание аутентичной среды обучения.

Ключевые слова: мобильные технологии; социальные медиа; аутентичное обучение; аутентичная среда.

1. Gikas J., Grant M. M. Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media // Internet and Higher Education. 2013. Vol. 19. Pp. 18-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/jiheduc.2013.06.002

2. Vázquez-Cano E. Mobile distance learning with smartphones and apps in higher education // Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2014. Vol. 14 (4). Pp. 1505-1520. URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045122

3. Husbye N. E., Elsener A. A. To move forward, we must be mobile: Practical uses of mobile technology in literacy education courses // Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 2013. Vol. 30 (2). Pp. 46-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784726

4. Parker J., Maor D., Herrington J. Authentic online learning : Aligning learner needs, pedagogy and technology // Issues in Educational Research. 2013. Vol. 23 (2). Pp. 227-241. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257308425_Authentic_online_learning_Aligning_learn er_needs_pedagogy_and_technology

5. Herrington J., Oliver R. An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments // Educational Technology Research and Development. 2000. Vol. 48. Pp. 23-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856

6. O'bannon B.W., Thomas K. Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters! // Computers & Education. 2014. Vol. 74. Pp. 15-25. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j .compedu.2014.01.006

7. Dabbagh N., Kitsantas A. Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning // The Internet and Higher Education. 2012. Vol. 15 (1). Pp. 3-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002

8. Chen B., Bryer T. Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning // International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2012. Vol. 13 (1). Pp. 87-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1027

9. Greenhow C., Lewin C. Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning // Learning Media and Technology. 2016. Vol. 41 (1). Pp. 6-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954

10. Chawinga W. D. Taking social media to a university classroom: teaching and learning using Twitter and blogs // International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 14. Article number: 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0041-6

11. Kaplan A. M., Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media // Business Horizons. 2010. Vol. 53 (1). Pp. 59-68. DOI: https://doi .org/ 10.1016/j .bushor.2009.09.003

12. Carr C. T., Hayes R. A. Social media: Defining, developing, and divining // Atlantic Journal of Communication. 2015. Vol. 23 (1), Pp. 46-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972282

13. Rodriguez J. E. Social media use in higher education: Key areas to consider for educators // Journal

_of Online Learning and Teaching. 2011. Vol. 7 (4). Pp. 539-550. URL:_

СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

2020, Tom 10, № 2 http://sciforedu.ru ISSN 2658-6762

http://hdl.handle.net/10323/2153

14. Sobaih A. E. E., Moustafa M. A., Ghandforoush P., Khan M. To use or not to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries // Computers in Human Behavior. 2016. Vol. 58. Pp. 296305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/jxhb.2016.01.002

15. Chugh R., Ruhi U. Social media in higher education: A literature review of Facebook // Education and Information Technologies. 2018. Vol. 23 (2). Pp. 605-616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9621-2

16. Irwin C., Ball L., Desbrow B., Leveritt M. Students' perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university // Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2012. Vol. 28 (7). Pp. 1221-1232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.798

17. Makoe M. Exploring the use of MXit: a cell-phone social network to facilitate learning in distance education // Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. 2010. Vol. 25 (3). Pp. 251-257. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2010.512099

18. Naidoo J., Kopung K. J. Exploring the use of WhatsApp in mathematics learning: A case study // Journal of Communication. 2016. Vol. 7 (2). Pp. 266-273. URL: http://krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JC/JC-07-0-000- 16-Web/JC-07-2-000-16-Abst-PDF/JC-7-2-266- 16-165-Naidoo-J/JC-7-2-266-16-165-Naidoo-J-Tx[13].pdf

19. Awada G. Effect of WhatsApp on critique writing proficiency and perceptions toward learning // Cogent Education. 2016. Vol. 3 (1). Art.no. 1264173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1264173

20. Bahati B. Extending student discussions beyond lecture room walls via Facebook // Journal of Education and Practice. 2015. vol. 6 (15). pp. 160-171. URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1079985

21. Siemens G., Weller M. Higher education and the promises and perils of social network // Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento. 2011. Vol. 8 (1). Pp. 164-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v8i1.1076

22. Kabilan M. K, Ahmad N., Abidin M. J. Z. Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? // The Internet and Higher Education. 2010. Vol. 13 (4). Pp. 179-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/jiheduc.2010.07.003

23. Aydin S. Foreign language learners' interactions with their teachers on Facebook // System. 2014. vol. 42 (1). pp. 55-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.001

24. Dougherty K. D., Andercheck B. Using Facebook to engage learners in a large introductory course // Teaching Sociology. 2014. Vol. 42 (2), Pp. 95-104. URL: https: //www.learntechlib.org/p/152538

25. Davis III C. H. F., Deil-Amen R., Rios-Aguilar C., Gonzalez Canche M. S. Social Media in Higher Education: A literature review and research directions. 2012. URL: https://www.academia.edu/1220569/Social_Media_in_Higher_Education_A_Literature_Review_ and_Research_Directions

26. Aubry J. Facebook-induced motivation shifts in a French online course // TechTrends. 2013. Vol. 57. Pp. 81-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0705-6

27. Wichadee S. Peer feedback on Facebook: The use of social networking websites to develop writing ability of undergraduate students // Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2013. Vol. 14 (4). Pp. 260-270. URL: https://arastirmax.com/tr/system/files/dergiler/43695/makaleler/14/4/arastirmax-peer-feedback-facebook-use-social-networking-websites-develop-writing-ability-undergraduate-students.pdf

28. Fattah S. F. E. S. A. The Effectiveness of Using WhatsApp Messenger as One of Mobile Learning Techniques to Develop Students' Writing Skills // Journal of Education and Practice. 2015.

Science for Education Today

2020, том 10, № 2

http://sciforedu.ru

ISSN 2658-6762

Vol. 6 (32). Pp. 115-127. URL: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/27324

29. Lau W. W. F. Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the academic performance of university students // Computers in Human Behavior. 2017. Vol. 68. Pp. 286-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j .chb.2016.11.043

30. Herrington J., Parker J. Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013. Vol. 44 (4). Pp. 607-615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12048

31. Bozalek V., Gachago D., Alexander L., Watters K., Wood D., Ivala E., Herrington J. The use of emerging technologies for authentic learning: A // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013. Vol. 44 (4). Pp. 629-638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12046

32. Herrington A., Herrington J. What is an authentic learning environment? // Authentic learning environments in higher education / Herrington A., Herrington J. (editors). Information Science Publishing, 2008. Pp. 68-77. URL: https://www.igi-global.com/book/authentic-learning-environments-higher-education/93

33. Herrington J., Parker J., Jelinek D. B. Connected authentic learning: Reflection and intentional learning // Australian Journal of Education. 2014. Vol. 58 (1). Pp. 23-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113517830

34. Shadiev R., Hwang W., Huang Y., Liu T. Facilitating application of language skills in authentic environments with a mobile learning system // Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2018. Vol. 34 (1). Pp. 42-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12212

35. Traxler J. Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock // Distance Education. 2010. Vol. 31 (2). Pp. 129-138. URL: https://www.coursehero.com/file/p6tc7un/Traxler-J-2010-Distance-education-and-mobile-learning-Catching-up-taking-stock/

36. Kominfo. Pengguna Internet di Indonesia 63 Juta Orang [Internet]. 2013. p. 1. URL: https://kominfo.go.id/content/detail/3415/kominfo-pengguna-internet-di-indonesia-63-juta-orang/0/berita_satker

37. Laksana N. C. Ini jumlah total pengguna media sosial di Indonesia. OkeZone [Internet]. 2018. URL: https://techno.okezone.com/read/2018/03/13/207/1872093/ini-jumlah-total-pengguna-media-sosial-di-indonesia

38. Herrington J., Reeves T. C., Oliver R. A guide to authentic e-learning. Routledge; 2010. URL: https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/1903/1/a_guide_to_authentic_learning.pdf

39. Pu Y., Wu T., Chiu P., Huang Y. The design and implementation of authentic learning with mobile technology in vocational nursing practice course // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2016. Vol. 47 (3). Pp. 494-509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12443

40. Linacre J. M. A user's guide to Winsteps Ministep Rasch-model computer programs (version 4.3.1). 2018. URL: https://www.winsteps.com/a/Winsteps-Manual.pdf

41. Linacre J. M. A User's Guide to Winsteps: Rasch Model Computer Programs. 2012. URL: https://www.winsteps.com/manuals.htm

42. Boone W. J., Staver J. R., Yale M. S. Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer, 2014. ISBN: 9789400768574

43. Kline P. Handbook of psychological testing. Routledge, 2013. ISBN: 9780415211581

44. Linacre J. M. What do infit and outfit, mean square and standardized mean? // Rasch Measurement Transactions. 2002. Vol. 16 (2). Pp. 878. URL: https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt162f.htm

45. Cox D., McLeod S. Social media strategies for school principals // NASSP Bulletin. 2013. Vol. 98 (1). Pp. 5-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636513510596

Science for Education Today

2020, Vol. 10, No. 2 http://en.sciforedu.ru/ ISSN 2658-6762

DOI: 10.15293/2658-6762.2002.07

Herri Mulyono

Dr. Senior Lecture,

Faculty of Teacher Training and Pedagogy, Department of English Education,

University of Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA, Jakarta, Indonesia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0668-0268 E-mail: hmulyono@uhamka.ac.id Gunawan Suryoputro

Dr. Professor in Applied Linguistics,

Graduate School,

Department of English Education,

University of Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA, Jakarta, Indonesia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6841-5753 E-mail: gunawan_suryoputro@uhamka.ac.id

The use of social media platform to promote authentic learning environment

in higher education setting

Introduction. This current survey attempts to explore university teachers and students' perception of using social media to promote an authentic learning environment.

Materials and Methods. To this end, 249 university teachers and 329 students participated in the survey where they were asked to compete of 27 items of A Social Media Authentic Learning Environment Inventory (SOMALEVI). Statistical Rasch analyses using Winstep software were performed to evaluate both teachers and students' responses.

Results. Findings of the study showed that participants spent most of their time daily on WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, respectively with most access was made from their mobile phones. Most of the participant showed positive views about the use ofsocial media to promote authentic learning environment (Nteachers = 247, 99 %; Nstudents = 309, 93.9 %) while the rests showed their negative perception. The majority of those who perceive positive are female (64.53 %) aged range 21-30 years (32.18 %). Findings also indicate that social media provided opportunities for students to share their experiences and learning activities (MR1, LVI = -0.97), to offer students the opportunity to learn from experts (EP1, LVI = -0.82) so that they were able to obtain a lot of insight on particular issues (EP3, LVI = -0.70). It is interesting, but not surprising that both teachers and students found that social media benefited them with learning resources such as video, demonstration, learning files, allowing students to comprehend the learning materials (EP2, LVI = -0.85). However, the study identified some critical issues regarding the use of social media for authentic learning environment, such as unsuitable reallife representation, difficulty to collaborate with others, and difficulty in recognizing their learning potential.

Conclusions. Social media is an alternative mobile technology that facilitate teachers and students with the creation of an authentic learning environment.

Keywords

Mobile technology; Social media; Authentic learning; Authentic environment.

Abstract

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by Kementrian Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi (Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education) of Republic of Indonesia, grant number 225/SP2H/LT/DRPM/2019 contract number 21/AKM/PNT/2019.

Introduction

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

The advancement of mobile technology has widened the students' access to education through formal and informal learning environment [1]. Many authors believe that the integration of advanced mobile technology in education settings not only allows communication and interaction between teacher and student as well as between students, without restrictions of time and place [1-3], but also to develop students' interest and motivation to demonstrate mastery of learning outcomes (Herrington and Oliver, 2000 [5]; Parker, Maor, and Herrington, 2013 [4]). Although, the integration of mobile technology into learning activities also raises concerns about its negative effects, such as disruption, texting, cheating, sexting, and accessing information or materials that are not relevant to learning [6].

Specifically, literature has suggested the use of social media application to facilitate formal and informal learning in higher education [7-10]. In this paper, the term social media is used to refer digital application, frequently embedded in a mobile technology, that enables users to generate content or online social interaction [11; 12]. The term media in social media is given to emphasizes the creation and exchange of information that occurs in social networks, digital networks and digital devices [13]. The term comprises of the following activities: "communication with friends; watching news; sharing photos, videos; involvement in public topic discussion; adding instant message with real-time web chat; and playing games" [14]. Some social media applications that fit with such definitions and activities include, among others, social network site (e.g. Facebook, Google+, © 2011-2020 Science for Education Today

Youtube, QQ), professional network sites (e.g. LinkedIn), chatboards, social games (e.g. Farmville), Tinder, Instagram, Wanelo and Yik Yak [12].

As the rapid growth of people using social media, the usage of social media at university remains to rise as well [15]. Many teachers have adopted social media to facilitate teaching and learning practices both in formal and informal settings. Irwin, Ball, Desbrow, and Leveritt [16] practiced of using Facebook pages to promote an interactive learning resources for university students. In the practice, Facebook pages were developed to provide students with relevant information regarding the courses they took and to enable interaction among the students and students and instructors. Makoe [17] developed and implemented social media application called MXit to facilitate collaborative learning within distance education settings at University of South Africa. Chawinga [10] integrated Twitter and blogs into two courses at Mzuzu University in Malawi. Naidoo and Kopung [18] devised WhatsApp to connect students with their mathematic learning community. Awada [19] adopted WhatsApp to increase learning motivation and to help her students learn about critique writing of English as a foreign language. Some accounted effects of social media adoption on students' learning include: it helps deliver teaching materials and information [15], facilitates peer-to-peer dialogue [20; 21], promotes the sharing of learning resources [21], increases students' interaction and engagement [22-25], facilitates collaborative learning [15; 17] and learning motivation [26]. Social media is also reported to help develop students' writing ability

[27; 28], though Lau [29] has remined that the usage of social media for academic purposes may not be a significant predictor of students' academic performance.

In addition to the above value of social media adoption for learning, studies suggest the benefits of social media to promote the creation of authentic learning environment [1; 30; 31]. Authentic learning in this paper is concerned with education approaches aiming to provide learners with opportunity to use their knowledge as well as ability to understand and engage in addressing real world problems [32]. Within an authentic learning environment facilitated by a mobile technology like social media application, students can learn to use the technology as a cognitive tool to solve problems, which are contextual or close to their daily life [30; 33]. Furthermore, Bozalek et al. [31], argue that the emerging of mobile technology for authentic learning enables learners to build the integration of collaboration, knowledge building, and individual or a group discussion.

The contextual aspect of learning in an authentic learning environment enable both teachers and the students to achieve an effective and meaningful learning activity [34; 35]. However, despite the values offered by the adoption of social media in learning activities, some authors have identified some challenges that researches, practitioners and teaches are required to address such as lack of teachers' interests due to the known negative effects of mobile technology integration [6; 13], complexity of learning environment, lack of learner's understanding, ability and experience in utilization of social media and lack of teachers' knowledge of adopting mobile technology to create authentic learning environment for learners [34].

In Indonesia, statistical data on internet and social media show a rapid increase in usage. A survey by the Indonesian Communications and

Informatics Ministry [36] disclose that 95 % of 63 million internet users are user of media users. Meanwhile, 55 million of the said internet users, access the web through mobile phones, at a rate of 28 million users per day. Such an increase is also reported in We are Social and Hootsuite in January 2018 as quoted in Laksana [37], showing that 97.9 % of 132,7 million internet users are social media users. Recent 2019 survey by We are Social also suggest that the active social media users are aged between 18 and 34 with YouTube, WhatsApp and Facebook are the most popular social media platforms. The ages of social media users have indicated the trend of using social media among upper secondary school and university students. However, little is known about how university teachers and students perceive the usage of social media for learning. The current study thus was motivated to address this inquiry, aiming to explore Indonesian university teachers and students' perspective of social media use to facilitate teaching and learning activities, in particular, to promote authentic learning environments. The study attempts to address the following research questions: 1) How do university teachers and students perceive the use of social media in promoting authentic learning environments? and 2) Do university teachers and students' perception differ accordance to their role (i.e. teachers and students), gender and ages?

Materials and Methods

A total of 578 university teachers and students participated in the survey where they were asked to complete 27 items of A Social Media Authentic Learning Environment Inventory (SOMALEVI). The 578 teachers and students were coming from both public and private university across Indonesia. The demography of the participants is detailed in the following table:

Table 1

Demography of the participants

Demography Details N Percentage

Status Teacher 249 43.08

Student 329 56.92

Regions Java 448 77.51

Sumatera 63 10.89

Kalimantan 27 4.67

Sulawesi 25 4.33

Bali 3 0.52

Papua 1 0.17

NTB 7 1.21

Maluku 4 0.69

Gender Male 185 32.01

Female 393 67.99

Ages < 20 Years 166 34.43

21 - 30 Years 201 34.78

31 - 40 Years 125 21.63

> 40 Years 86 14.88

Instrumentation

The current study employed social media authentic learning environment inventory (SOMALEVI) to gather data from the participants. The scale was developed based upon Herrington and Oliver's [5] elements of authentic learning environment and was in reference with the relevant literature [5; 30-32; 38-39]. The inventory instrument comprised of nine

authentic learning environment aspects with 27 items, including: authentic contexts (AC), authentic tasks (AT), expert performances (EP), multiple roles and perspectives (MR), collaboration construction (CC), reflection (R), articulation (A), coaching and scaffolding (CS), and authentic assessment (AA). Table 2 below presents the operating definitions for each construct in SOMALEVI:

Table 2

Herrington and Oliver [5] constructs of authentic learning environment and the operating definition

Construct Operating definitions

Authentic contexts (AC) Provide authentic contexts that reflect the way the knowledge will be

used in real life

Authentic tasks (AT) Provide authentic activities.

Expert performances (EP) Provide access to expert performances and the modelling of processes

Multiple roles and perspectives (MR) Provide multiple roles and perspectives

Collaboration construction (CC) Support collaborative construction of knowledge.

Reflection (R) Promote reflection to enable abstractions to be formed.

Articulation (A) Promote articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit

Coaching and scaffolding (CS) Provide coaching and scaffolding by the teacher at critical times

Authentic assessment (AA) Provide for authentic assessment of learning within the tasks

112

2020, Vol. 10, No. 2

http://en.sciforedu.ru/

ISSN 2658-6762

The 27 items of SOMALEVI was developed in a 5-point Likert scale, involving 5 alternative responses: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), fair (F), disagree (D) and strongly disagree (SD). Additional demographic and social media penetration questions were added to the inventory, such as status (i.e. teacher or student), gender, age, frequency of using social media, electronic equipment to access social media and types of social media use.

SOMALEVI was developed using the native of Bahasa Indonesia, to allow university teachers and students' comprehension towards each of items in the inventory. For the purpose of presenting and discussing the result of data analysis, in this paper, the items was translated to English. It is important to note that consent from the participants were collected prior to the data analytical procedure carried out.

Data analytical procedure The collected data were analysed under several stages: First, the quantitative data were tabulated using Microsoft Excel application and then imported into Winstep Application to enable the transformation of the raw ordinal data into log odd unit (logit). Linacre [40] argues that the transformation of ordinal data into help the researchers in maintaining an equal interval from a linear scale which thus may ease the data analysis. In the final stage, Rasch analysis was performed to 578 records to examine the reliability and validity of the inventory and to analyse the distribution of the quality of participants' responses towards the items in the inventory in reference to their role (i.e. teachers and students), gender and ages.

Findings and discussion

Internal consistency of the inventory Fit statistics were employed to examine the reliability of the SOMALEVI inventory with the result of a such statistic is presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Reliability of SMOLEVI inventory

Mean Reliability Separation Cronbach Alpha

Person 2.12 0.92 3.47 0.95

Item 0.00 0.98 7.01

As shown in Table 3, the participants' responses to the items in the inventory statistically shows consistent score alongside with the Cronbach a which is higher than 0.90 (Cronbach's a = .95). The reliability values of person and item revealed great results (rperson = .92, ritem = .98) together with good separation indexes (Person separation index = 3.47, item separation index = 7.01). Such results present good interactions between persons

(responses) and the items, suggesting that the item possessed excellent and reliable attributes [4143].

In addition, the validity of the SOMALEVI inventory was examined under a construct validity perspective. For such a purpose, fit statistics were employed to evaluate the unidimensionality aspects of the instrument with the use of Winstep [40; 44]. Table 4 below presents the result of item statistic measure,

evaluating the point measure correlation (PTME), 5 and 6 are employed to interpret the quality of

outfit mean square (OUTFIT MNSQ) and outfit instrument use respectively. z-standard (OUTFIT ZSTD) of the data and Table

Table 4

Item measure statistic

Item Total N Meas- Model INFIT INFIT OUTFIT OUTFIT PTME ITEM

No Score ure S.E. MNQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD CODE

6 2344 578 -0.25 0.07 1.26 3.56 1.20 2.61 0.59 AT3

3 2180 578 0.58 0.07 1.20 2.85 1.23 3.23 0.62 AC3

24 2402 578 -0.59 0.08 1.22 3.00 1.19 2.42 0.59 CS3

1 2261 578 0.19 0.07 1.16 2.34 1.16 2.16 0.62 AC1

5 2107 578 0.90 0.07 1.08 1.25 1.14 2.12 0.63 AT2

2 2137 578 0.77 0.07 1.12 1.79 1.13 1.90 0.63 AC2

22 2381 578 -0.46 0.08 1.1 1.39 1.08 1.14 0.6 CS1

7 2440 578 -0.82 0.08 1.09 1.26 1.06 0.83 0.59 EP1

10 2463 578 -0.97 0.08 1.01 0.14 1.08 1.02 0.6 MR1

11 2256 578 0.22 0.07 1.04 0.59 1.08 1.13 0.64 MR2

25 2267 578 0.16 0.07 1.04 0.55 1.08 1.21 0.66 AA1

18 2252 578 0.24 0.07 1.05 0.76 1.03 0.41 0.65 R3

8 2445 578 -0.85 0.08 1.01 0.20 1.04 0.48 0.58 EP2

15 2106 578 0.91 0.07 0.96 -0.6 1.02 0.36 0.68 CC3

19 2367 578 -0.38 0.08 1.02 0.34 1.01 0.14 0.62 A1

23 2371 578 -0.41 0.08 1.00 0.04 0.95 -0.69 0.63 CS2

27 2363 578 -0.36 0.08 1.00 -0.03 0.92 -1.13 0.64 AA3

17 2170 578 0.63 0.07 0.96 -0.57 0.99 -0.19 0.66 R2

4 2180 578 0.58 0.07 0.96 -0.52 0.97 -0.39 0.64 AT1

13 2261 578 0.19 0.07 0.96 -0.52 0.95 -0.74 0.66 CC1

14 2275 578 0.12 0.07 0.93 -1.1 0.92 -1.17 0.68 CC2

9 2421 578 -0.7 0.08 0.92 -1.25 0.89 -1.53 0.63 EP3

20 2296 578 0.01 0.07 0.85 -2.28 0.82 -2.78 0.67 A2

21 2315 578 -0.09 0.07 0.84 -2.53 0.8 -2.94 0.66 A3

16 2272 578 0.13 0.07 0.78 -3.55 0.82 -2.72 0.67 R1

26 2240 578 0.3 0.07 0.77 -3.68 0.79 -3.35 0.70 AA2

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

12 2303 578 -0.03 0.07 0.78 -3.53 0.76 -3.63 0.67 MR3

Table 5

Mean-square value for the instrument evaluation [44] ; Implication for measurement

Distorts or degrades the measurement system. May be caused by only one or two observations.

Unproductive for construction of measurement, but not degrading. Productive for measurement.

Less productive for measurement, but not degrading. May produce misleadingly high reliability and separation coefficients.

Table 6

Z-Standard value for the instrument evaluation [44]

Mean-squar value

> 2.0

1.5 - 2.0 0.5 - 1.5 < 0.5

Standardized value

Implication for measurement

> 3 Data very unexpected if they fit the model (perfectly), so they probably do not. But,

with large sample size, substantive misfit may be small. 2.0 - 2.9 Data noticeably unpredictable. -1.9 - 1.9 Data have reasonable predictability.

< -2 Data are too predictable. Other "dimensions" may be constraining the response pat-

terns.

The above Table 4 shows that all the value in the OUTFIT MNSQ fall between .5 and 1.5 with several items in the OUTFIT ZSTD column are observed less than -1.9 or higher than 1.9 (highlighted gray in the Table 4). These results indicate that all the items in SOMALEVI inventory were productive for measurement but with careful supervision for some items, such as item 1, 3, 6, 12, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 26.

Penetration of the social media

The result of the survey reveals that 97.75 % of the participants use social media daily (N=565, M=2.12). Less than 2 % of the participant have mentioned their use of social media on weekly or monthly basis. WhatsApp was reported to be the most frequent used social media platform by Indonesian university teachers and students followed by Facebook (79.58 %),

Instagram (9.52 %), Twitter (3.63 %) and other social media applications (2.77 %). In addition, participants reported to access social media from their smartphone (96.13 %), laptop (2.59 %), tablet (1.04 %), and Personal Computer (0.17 %). The participants also mentioned of using social media for communication with family (12.96 %), communication with friends (28.89 %), to access information about the campus life (17.47 %), to manage academic activities (17.65 %), and other businesses (23.01 %).

University teachers and students ' perception of social media to promote authentic learning environment

The first research question explored university teachers and students' perception about the use of social media to promote authentic learning environment. To address this question,

2020, Vol. 10, No. 2

http://en.sciforedu.ru/

ISSN 2658-6762

participants responses towards the items were stratified into 7 strata and were classified into two cohorts: positive and negative responses. The item stratification process uses percentile values of 14.28, 28.56, 42.84, 57.12, 71.40, 85.68,

and 99.96 respectively. Figure 1 below describes the details of participants' responses to all the items in SOMALEVI inventory and Table 7 presents the item stratifications.

Figure 1. Wreight map

116

Table 7

Item stratifications with their logit value item (LVI)

Category Criteria Item/LVI

More Difficult to be Considered

Difficulty Strata I LVI > 0.59 CC3 (LVI = 0.91)

AT2 (LVI = 0.90)

AC2 (LVI = 0.77)

R2 (LVI = 0.63)

Difficulty Strata II 0.59 > LVI > 0.23 AC3 (LVI = 0.58)

AT1 (LVI = 0.58)

AA2 (LVI = 0.30)

R3 (LVI = 0.24)

Difficulty Strata III 0.23 > LVI > 0.14 MR2 (LVI = 0.22)

AC1 (LVI = 0.19)

CC1 (LVI = 0.19)

AA1 (LVI = 0.16)

Moderate to be Considered 0.14 > LVI > -0.02 R1 (LVI = 0.13)

CC2 (LVI = 0.12)

A2 (LVI = 0.01)

Easier to be Considered

Difficulty Strata V -0.02 > LVI > -0.37 MR3 (LVI = -0.03)

A3 (LVI = -0.09)

AT3 (LVI = -0.25)

AA3 (LVI = -0.36)

Difficulty Strata VI -0.37 > LVI > -0.69 A1 (LVI = -0.38)

CS2 (LVI = -0.41)

CS1 (LVI = -0.46)

CS3 (LVI = -0.59)

Difficulty Strata VII LVI < -0.69 EP3 (LVI = -0.70)

EP1 (LVI = -0.82)

EP2 (LVI = -0.85)

MR1 (LVI = -0.97)

As shown in Table 7, four items considered the easiest to be agreed by the participants, such as EP3 (LVI = -0.70), EP1 (LVI = -0.82), EP2 (LVI = -0.85), and MR1 (LVI = -0.97). The findings indicate that both teachers and students perceived that social media provided students with opportunities to share their experiences and learning activities (MR1, LVI = -0.97). Social media also were sought to enable them to learn

from experts (EP1, LVI = -0.82) so that they were able to obtain a lot of insight on particular issues (EP3, LVI = -0.70). It is interesting, but not surprising that both teachers and students found that social media benefited them with model and resources such as video, demonstration, learning files that enabled students comprehend the learning materials (EP2, LVI = -0.85). It is important to note that it is common in Indonesian

university classrooms that teachers provided materials online to allow their students access to the materials without having time and place. These findings corroborate the exisiting literature documenting the value of social media to help teachers and students to access teaching and learning resources [15], to allow the sharing of learning resources [21], increases students' interaction and engagement [22-25], and to enable both teachers and students to connect to learning communities [45] within which they could learn from more able people.

In addition, four items were identified to be the most difficult for participants to agree, including R2 (LVI = 0.63), AC2 (LVI = 0.77), AT2 (LVI = 0.90), and CC3 (LVI = 0.91). The findings indicate that social media application was unlikely to allow students identify their strengths and weaknesses in learning

(R2, LVI = 0.63), to learn thing that reflected reallife situations (AC2, LVI = 0.74) and real-life problem (AT2, LVI = 0.90), and the last, students' collaboration in social media did not reflect reallife collaboration (CC3, LVI = 0.91).

University teachers and students' perception of social media to promote authentic learning environment from gender and age perspectives

The second research question explored university teachers and students' perceptions about the use of social media in reference to their role (e.g. teacher or students), gender and ages. To address the second question, Differential Item Functional (DIF) was calculated using Winsteps application. Table 8 describes the overall perception of teacher and students' perceptions and Figure 2 presents the result of DIF calculation.

Status Gender Ages

Perception N %

Lecture Student Male Female <21 21-30 31-40 >41

Positive 551 95.33 247 309 178 373 159 186 120 86

Negative 27 4.67 7 20 7 20 7 15 6 0

Table 8

Overall teachers and students' perceptions

Figure 2. DIF calcuation for role, gender and age

As shown in Table 8, most teachers and students had a positive perception towards the use of social media in authentic learning environments (N=551, 95.33%, LVI > -0.39) and only a few expressed negative views (N=27, 4.67 %, LVI <-0.33). Students found it more positive about promoting authentic learning using social media compared to teachers. In Figure 2a, students felt that social media eased the sharing of knowledge (MR1, diff. = -0.8343) and expressed opinions (A1, diff. = -0.1428) in community studies. Such findings correspond to a study by Cox and McLeod [45] that suggest the usage of social media for learning does not only allow communication among teachers and students but also enable them to create learning communities.

Teachers revealed the value of social media for facilitating teachers to provide instructional material in the form of video/file or demonstration (EP2, diff. = -0.6682). Social media was reported to enable teachers to monitor students'

performance and provide feedback (CS3, diff. = -0.453). The access to instructional materials and teachers' attention to their students over monitoring activity as well as giving feedback to the students may promote students' enthusiasm for learning and play an active role in authentic learning environments. However, both teachers and students had similar view that social media was unable to help them to reflect learning in accordance with real life (R1, diff. = 0.477).

In addition, female had more positive perception than male (64.53 %). As shown in Figure 2b, male students and teachers perceived that the use social media provided opportunities for students to interact with people and other activities in different conditions (AT3, diff. = -0.1207). Particularly, alongside the primary role of a facilitator, male teachers perceived that it is very essential to provide an evaluation for students to accomplish their reallife issues encountered (AA3, diff. = -0.101).

Whereas female students and teachers found it easy to express ideas through a social media or to carry out a group discussion (A1, diff. = -0.0799). Also, it is crucial for the female teachers to monitor, observe, and provide feedback to students during the learning process through social media (CS3, diff. = -0.371). Female teachers also felt that providing materials/models was also crucial to assist students to comprehend the material (EP2, diff. M= -0.5424, diff. F= -0.5199).

Furthermore, people from all aged had positive view on social media for learning. Students and teachers aged <30 years had a positive impression on the use of social media which can provide a cavity for students' mutual sharing (MR1, diff. < 20 = -0.6156, diff. 21 - 30= -0.9096). Regarding the use of social media, students and teachers age range 3140 years perceived that teachers had to provide students a well-done material/model for authentic learning environment (EP2, diff. = -0.9123). Learning activities using social media required

teachers to monitor, observe and provide positive evaluations to students (CS3, diff. = -0.7319).

Conclusions

This current survey aimed to explore university teachers and students' perception of using social media to promote an authentic learning environment. Most of the participant showed positive views about the use of social media to promote authentic learning environment. The adoption of social media is valued for its capability to offer opportunities for the students to share their experiences and learning activities, to offer students the opportunity to learn from experts so that they were able to obtain a lot of insight on particular issues. Social media helps students to access the teaching and learning resources such as video, demonstration, learning files, allowing students to comprehend the learning materials. However, the study identified some critical issues regarding the use of social media for authentic learning environment, such as unsuitable real-life representation, difficulty to collaborate with others, and difficulty in recognizing their learning potential.

REFERENCES

1. Gikas J., Grant M. M. Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet and Higher Education, 2013, vol. 19, pp. 18-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.10167j.iheduc.2013.06.002

2. Vázquez-Cano E. Mobile distance learning with smartphones and apps in higher education. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 2014, vol. 14 (4), pp. 1505-1520. URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045122

3. Husbye N. E., Elsener A. A. To move forward, we must be mobile: Practical uses of mobile technology in literacy education courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 2013, vol. 30 (2), pp. 46-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784726

4. Parker J., Maor D., Herrington J. Authentic online learning : Aligning learner needs, pedagogy and technology. Issues in Educational Research, 2013, vol. 23 (2), pp. 227-241. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257308425_Authentic_online_learning_Aligning_learn er_needs_pedagogy_and_technology

5. Herrington J., Oliver R. An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2000, vol. 48, pp. 23-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856

6. O'bannon B. W., Thomas K. Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters! Computers & Education, 2014, vol. 74, pp. 15-25. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j .compedu.2014.01.006

7. Dabbagh N., Kitsantas A. Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 2012, vol. 15 (1), pp. 3-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/jiheduc.2011.06.002

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

8. Chen B., Bryer T. Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2012, vol. 13 (1), pp. 87-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1027

9. Greenhow C., Lewin C. Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning Media and Technology, 2016, vol. 41 (1), pp. 6-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954

10. Chawinga W. D. Taking social media to a university classroom: Teaching and learning using Twitter and blogs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2017, vol. 14, Article number: 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0041-6

11. Kaplan A. M., Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 2010, vol. 53 (1), pp. 59-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.bushor.2009.09.003

12. Carr C. T., Hayes R. A. Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 2015, vol. 23 (1), pp. 46-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972282

13. Rodriguez J. E. Social media use in higher education: Key areas to consider for educators. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2011, vol. 7 (4), pp. 539-550. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10323/2153

14. Sobaih A. E. E., Moustafa M. A., Ghandforoush P., Khan M. To use or not to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, vol. 58, pp. 296305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.002

15. Chugh R., Ruhi U. Social media in higher education: A literature review of Facebook. Education and Information Technologies, 2018, vol. 23 (2), pp. 605-616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9621-2

16. Irwin C., Ball L., Desbrow B., Leveritt M. Students' perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, vol. 28 (7), pp. 1221-1232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.798

17. Makoe M. Exploring the use of MXit: a cell-phone social network to facilitate learning in distance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 2010, vol. 25 (3), pp. 251-257. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2010.512099

18. Naidoo J., Kopung K. J. Exploring the use of WhatsApp in mathematics learning: A case study. Journal of Communication, 2016, vol. 7 (2), pp. 266-273. URL: http://krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JC/JC-07-0-000- 16-Web/JC-07-2-000-16-Abst-PDF/JC-7-2-266- 16-165-Naidoo-J/JC-7-2-266-16-165-Naidoo-J-Tx[13].pdf

19. Awada G. Effect of WhatsApp on critique writing proficiency and perceptions toward learning. Cogent Education, 2016, vol. 3 (1), art.no. 1264173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1264173

20. Bahati B. Extending student discussions beyond lecture room walls via Facebook. Journal of Education and Practice, 2015, vol. 6 (15), p. 160-171. URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1079985

21. Siemens G., Weller M. Higher education and the promises and perils of social network. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 2011, vol. 8 (1), pp. 164-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v8i1.1076

22. Kabilan M. K, Ahmad N., Abidin M. J. Z. Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 2010, vol. 13 (4), pp. 179187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/jiheduc.2010.07.003

23. Aydin S. Foreign language learners' interactions with their teachers on Facebook. System, 2014, vol. 42 (1), pp. 55-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.001

24. Dougherty K. D., Andercheck B. Using Facebook to engage learners in a large introductory course. Teaching Sociology, 2014, vol. 42 (2), pp. 95-104. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/152538

25. Davis III C. H. F., Deil-Amen R., Rios-Aguilar C., Gonzalez Canche M. S. Social Media in Higher Education: A literature review and research directions, 2012. URL: https://www.academia.edu/1220569/Social_Media_in_Higher_Education_A_Literature_Review_ and_Research_Directions

26. Aubry J. Facebook-induced motivation shifts in a French online course. TechTrends, 2013, vol. 57, pp. 81-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0705-6

27. Wichadee S. Peer feedback on Facebook: The use of social networking websites to develop writing ability of undergraduate students. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 2013, vol. 14 (4), pp. 260-270. URL: https://arastirmax.com/tr/system/files/dergiler/43695/makaleler/14/4/arastirmax-peer-feedback-facebook-use-social-networking-websites-develop-writing-ability-undergraduate-students.pdf

28. Fattah S. F. E. S. A. The Effectiveness of Using WhatsApp Messenger as One of Mobile Learning Techniques to Develop Students' Writing Skills. Journal of Education and Practice, 2015, vol. 6 (32), pp. 115-127. URL: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/27324

29. Lau W. W. F. Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the academic performance of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017, vol. 68, pp. 286-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.043

30. Herrington J., Parker J. Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2013, vol. 44 (4), pp. 607-615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12048

31. Bozalek V., Gachago D., Alexander L., Watters K., Wood D., Ivala E., Herrington J. The use of emerging technologies for authentic learning: A. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2013, vol. 44 (4), pp. 629-638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12046

32. Herrington A., Herrington J. What is an authentic learning environment? In: Herrington A., Herrington J. (eds). Authentic learning environments in higher education. Information Science Publishing, 2008. pp. 68-77. URL: https://www.igi-global.com/book/authentic-learning-environments-higher-education/93

33. Herrington J., Parker J., Jelinek D. B. Connected authentic learning: Reflection and intentional learning. Australian Journal of Education, 2014, vol. 58 (1), pp. 23-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113517830

34. Shadiev R., Hwang W., Huang Y., Liu T. Facilitating application of language skills in authentic environments with a mobile learning system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2018, vol. 34 (1), pp. 42-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12212

35. Traxler J. Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock. Distance Education, 2010, vol. 31 (2), pp. 129-138. URL: https://www.coursehero.com/file/p6tc7un/Traxler-J-2010-Distance-education-and-mobile-learning-Catching-up-taking-stock/

2020, Vol. 10, No. 2 http://en.sciforedu.ru/

ISSN 2658-6762

36. Kominfo. Pengguna Internet di Indonesia 63 Juta Orang [Internet]. 2013. p. 1. URL: https://kominfo.go.id/content/detail/3415/kominfo-pengguna-internet-di-indonesia-63-juta-orang/0/berita_satker

37. Laksana N. C. Ini jumlah total pengguna media sosial di Indonesia. OkeZone [Internet]. 2018. URL: https://techno.okezone.com/read/2018/03/13/207/1872093/ini-jumlah-total-pengguna-media-sosial-di-indonesia

38. Herrington J., Reeves T. C., Oliver R. A guide to authentic e-learning. Routledge; 2010. URL: https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/1903/1/a_guide_to_authentic_learning.pdf

39. Pu Y., Wu T., Chiu P., Huang Y. The design and implementation of authentic learning with mobile technology in vocational nursing practice course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, vol. 47 (3), pp. 494-509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12443

40. Linacre J. M. A user's guide to Winsteps Ministep Rasch-model computer programs (version 4.3.1). 2018. URL: https://www.winsteps.com/a7Winsteps-Manual.pdf (accessed March 19, 2019)

41. Linacre J. M. A User's Guide to Winsteps: Rasch Model Computer Programs. 2012. URL: https://www.winsteps.com/manuals.htm

42. Boone W. J., Staver J. R., Yale M. S. Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer; 2014. ISBN: 9789400768574

43. Kline P. Handbook of psychological testing. Routledge, 2013. ISBN: 9780415211581

44. Linacre J. M. What do infit and outfit, mean square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 2002, vol. 16 (2), pp. 878. URL: https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt162f.htm

45. Cox D., McLeod S. Social media strategies for school principals. NASSP Bulletin, 2013, vol. 98 (1), pp. 5-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636513510596

Submitted: 11 December 2019 Accepted: 10 March 2020 Published: 30 April 2020

© ®

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM TO PROMOTE AUTHENTIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION SETTING Текст научной статьи по специальности «Науки об образовании»

Аннотация научной статьи по наукам об образовании, автор научной работы — Mulyono Herri, Suryoputro Gunawan

Похожие темы научных работ по наукам об образовании , автор научной работы — Mulyono Herri, Suryoputro Gunawan

ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ ПЛАТФОРМЫ СОЦИАЛЬНЫХ МЕДИА ДЛЯ ПРОДВИЖЕНИЯ АУТЕНТИЧНОЙ СРЕДЫ ОБУЧЕНИЯ В ВЫСШИХ УЧЕБНЫХ ЗАВЕДЕНИЯХ

Текст научной работы на тему «THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM TO PROMOTE AUTHENTIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION SETTING»