n.a.I <strong>of</strong>ten use itI seldom use it6.96.94.45.29.61519.223.228.134.840.254.9Yes, but I don't use it<strong>No</strong>10.417.211.510.82.12.644.252.80 10 20 30 40 50 60MySpace2009 MySpace2008 YouTube 2009 YouTube2008Figure 5 - Popularity <strong>of</strong> MySpace and YouTube in 2008 (N=1086) and in 2009 (N=1123)Other sites, that <strong>of</strong>ten are consi<strong>de</strong>red in recent literature as the most advanced innovation <strong>of</strong> thesocial web, still are not so popular among our sample, even if we can find mo<strong>de</strong>st increases from2008 to 2009. In particular, the great majority <strong>of</strong> our sample still doesn’t know, in 2009, about theexistence <strong>of</strong> sites such as Twitter (72.8%), Friendfeed (81.5%), LinkedIn (77.3%), Sli<strong>de</strong>Share(77.3%), Delicious (82.3%) and Flickr (70.2%). Data relating to the active creation <strong>of</strong> content donot show significant changes in the two surveys, too. The percentage <strong>of</strong> active and creative usersalways remains substantially low (Figure 6), ranging from the 27.2% for what concerns the creation<strong>of</strong> content on YouTube, to a negligible 1.7% if we look at the number <strong>of</strong> subjects who upload theirpresentations on Sli<strong>de</strong>Share and a 3.6% <strong>of</strong> subjects sharing their photos on Flickr. It is interesting toconsi<strong>de</strong>r, among other things, that while Wikipedia is “<strong>of</strong>ten used” by more than the half <strong>of</strong> oursample, with another 32.8% <strong>de</strong>claring to use it only rarely, only the 12.1% is actively involved inthe contribution <strong>of</strong> new content to this site. All things consi<strong>de</strong>red, it doesn’t seem that our sample isparticularly involved in the process <strong>of</strong> creating and sharing content in the Web 2.0; with theexception <strong>of</strong> Facebook, also the use <strong>of</strong> social network sites seems to be somehow lower than mightbe expected.
Sli<strong>de</strong>ShareFlickr1.72.13.62.1WikipediaMySpace12.112.323.224.920092008YouTube2127.20 5 10 15 20 25 30Figure 6 - Percentage <strong>of</strong> stu<strong>de</strong>nts who upload original content on specific sites(N=1086 for 2008, N=1123 for 2009)DiscussionThe results we have presented are obviously limited and they cannot pretend to sustain generalreflections. However, if consi<strong>de</strong>red in comparison with other similar research reported in theinternational literature 4 , they seem to point in a common direction, as far as the relationshipsbetween university stu<strong>de</strong>nts and social media is concerned. The new generation <strong>of</strong> stu<strong>de</strong>nts showsvery high rates <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> the computer and <strong>of</strong> connection to the Internet; on the other si<strong>de</strong>, wecannot infer that this use is automatically related to high levels <strong>of</strong> technological expertise and digitalliteracy. In particular, what are usually consi<strong>de</strong>red as the more advanced features <strong>of</strong> Web 2.0, areknown and commonly used only by a very limited minority <strong>of</strong> subjects.One <strong>of</strong> the most salient evi<strong>de</strong>nce coming out <strong>of</strong> our research was related to what we labelled as the“Facebook phenomenon”; there was an abrupt increase, between 2008 and 2009, in the number <strong>of</strong>subjects making use <strong>of</strong> Facebook, that corresponds also to a more general trend at the national level.The fact that, anyway, other applications still remain largely unknown to a great majority <strong>of</strong> oursample, and that among the least known we find sites for social bookmarking and sharing contentsuch as Delicious and Sli<strong>de</strong>Share, or for microblogging as Twitter, may lead us to reflect moreaccurately on the actual impact <strong>of</strong> the Web 2.0 in our sample.Like all general labels, talking <strong>of</strong> “social media” or <strong>of</strong> “Web 2.0” may be useful as it allows us torefer to a broad set <strong>of</strong> phenomena that present similar characteristics. On the other si<strong>de</strong>, thisgeneralization can also masks the presence <strong>of</strong> some specific differences between applications.Talking about the educational relevance <strong>of</strong> social media, these differences can, however, assume aspecific importance. Future research should perhaps further investigate these issues, looking morein <strong>de</strong>pth at the different activities that each specific application can support, and how this can belinked to its diffusion. Interesting suggestions in these sense can be found in the already mentionedresearch by Kennedy et al. (2009), who have classified the type <strong>of</strong> activities subjects can perform onthe Internet in five broad categories:4 Other evi<strong>de</strong>nce can be found for example in Bullen et al. (2009) for what concerns Canada, and in Nagler and Ebner(2009) for what concerns Austria. See also Hargittai (2010)
- Page 1: Revista de Informatica Sociala 14 /
- Page 7: ● ● ●CONTENTS● ● ●[9-20
- Page 10 and 11: THE TRANSITION FROM OLD TO NEW MEDI
- Page 12 and 13: 30252023.420.325.11510500.85.5Never
- Page 14 and 15: Overall, we can therefore sum up on
- Page 18 and 19: - Traditional web use: searching th
- Page 20 and 21: 19. Kvavik R.B., Caruso J.B. and Mo
- Page 22: IntroductionIn 1995, Bernie Dodge o
- Page 25 and 26: The Web-Inquiry Project [WIP] is a
- Page 27 and 28: and even orally. The teacher will a
- Page 29 and 30: environment in which the teacher gu
- Page 31 and 32: Transformation Through Online Learn
- Page 33 and 34: INTRODUCTIONLeading practitioners a
- Page 35 and 36: learning. We also describe how the
- Page 37 and 38: Some of these transformations are b
- Page 39 and 40: Recently, Twigg has received suppor
- Page 41 and 42: Stage III: Unbundled Learning, Mark
- Page 43 and 44: perhaps using Second Life-like virt
- Page 45 and 46: performance. Indeed, Stage V will l
- Page 47 and 48: Free-Range Open LearningOver time,
- Page 49 and 50: New communities, tools and services
- Page 51 and 52: Embed enterprise-wide predictive an
- Page 53 and 54: In collaboration with Strategic Ini
- Page 55 and 56: Wiki Tools and English for Academic
- Page 57 and 58: eality. Besides being an additional
- Page 59 and 60: StudentPage 1StudentPage nTeacher
- Page 61 and 62: 100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Ac
- Page 63 and 64: 200Correlation View/Page Edits150Vi
- Page 65 and 66: 14. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/s
- Page 67 and 68:
Simularea şi comunicarea electroni
- Page 69 and 70:
RespondenţiRăspunsuriLa nivelul
- Page 71 and 72:
RespondenţiRăspunsuriLa nivelul
- Page 73 and 74:
Respondenţii au fost rugaţi să i
- Page 75 and 76:
Itemul 9 doreşte să identifice ti
- Page 77 and 78:
Identificara opţiunii, chiar şi p
- Page 79 and 80:
EşantioaneRăspunsuri/Ranguriagita
- Page 81 and 82:
modalităţile practice prin care u
- Page 83 and 84:
1. INTRODUCEREÎn prezent, complexi
- Page 85 and 86:
Figura 1. Analiza grafică a evolu
- Page 87 and 88:
Faţă de această situaţie se deg
- Page 89 and 90:
variabilele acesti noi culturi cybe
- Page 91 and 92:
INTRODUCEREÎncă din anul 2000 am
- Page 93 and 94:
după tipul lecţiei: prezentare de
- Page 95 and 96:
Funcţiile oferite de AEL asigură
- Page 97 and 98:
• elevi/studenţi, beneficiari di
- Page 99 and 100:
Se poate folosi cadrul formal de co
- Page 102 and 103:
Evaluarea formativă este comentari
- Page 104 and 105:
Rezultatele elevilor, pe itemi:Diag
- Page 106 and 107:
Nr. Denumirea activităţii AEL MOO
- Page 108 and 109:
SEMNAL EDITORIALLaura MALITA, Vanna
- Page 110:
IN MEMORIAMConstantin TraianCHEVERE