Recibido: 12-02-2019 | Revisado: 15-02-2019
| Aceptado: 31-03-2019 | Publicado: 01-09-2020 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.69626
| Páginas: 225-240
Cómo citar este artículo:
Marín-Díaz, V., López-Perez,
M., & Fernández-Robles, B.(2020). Metodologías y
Tecnologías para enseñar STEM en Educación Primaria: análisis de necesidades. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 59, 225-240.
https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.69626
ABSTRACT |
RESUMEN |
Analyzing
the flow of movement that occurs in social networks is gradually acquiring
greater relevance in the scientific community, which allows us in the first
instance to establish the type of information "moving" within it
significance and also to analyze in detail the flow of information that
occurs in it. The article presents the process of creating a virtual
community through the program Google+, which is found within the R&D
research project "Augmented Reality to Increase Training
(RAFODIUN)" granted by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the
Government of Spain (key: EDU2014_57446P). The analysis is carried out from
different perspectives ranging from nationality analysis of the participants,
their gender, the volume of participations, the type of resources located,
their content, and references to the educational context of the messages
provided by the members. The replicas and counter-replies offered by the
participants in the same message are also observed, as well as the usage of
the option +1 provided by Google+ on the part of the community members. The
network is analyzed under a bipartite network model with the Pajeck program. One of the main conclusions that has been
reached is the need to establish dynamizations so that the network is in a
continuous flow of information. |
Analizar
el flujo de movimiento que se produce en las redes sociales está adquiriendo
de forma paulatina una mayor relevancia en la comunidad científica, lo cual
nos permite en primera instancia establecer el tipo de información que se
“mueve” dentro de las mismas y nos permite analizar pormenorizadamente el
flujo de información que se produce en la misma. En el artículo se presenta
el proceso de creación de una comunidad virtual a través del programa
Google+. Esta se encuentra dentro del proyecto de investigación I+D “Realidad
Aumentada para Aumentar la Formación, (RAFODIUN)” concedido por el Ministerio
de Ciencia e Innovación del Gobierno de España (clave: EDU2014_57446P). La
analítica llevada a cabo se realiza desde diferentes perspectivas que van
desde el análisis de la nacionalidad de los participantes, su género, el
volumen de participaciones, la tipología de recursos que se ubican, su
contenido, y las referencias al contexto educativo de los mensajes aportados
por los miembros. También se observan, las réplicas y contrarréplicas de los
participantes en un mismo mensaje, y la utilización de la opción +1 que
ofrece Google+, por los miembros de la comunidad. La red es analizada bajo
modelo de red bipartita con el programa Pajeck. Como
principal conclusión a la que se ha llegado es la necesidad de establecer
dinamizaciones para que la red esté en continuo flujo de información. |
KEYWORDS |
PALABRAS CLAVES |
social networks; augmented reality; learning communities; virtual
learning community |
Redes sociales; realidad aumentada; comunidades de
aprendizaje; comunidad virtual de aprendizaje. |
1.- Introduction
The exponential growth of the Internet in the last decade is
remarkable, its presence in the lives of individuals involves
an overlap with all areas in which this takes place. The web has increasingly
generated a network where Internet users can quickly develop their
communication and social skills as well as the digital or technological ones,
so that they can create an online identity, enabling them to
be in constant socialisation with
elements with which they can interact in their lives inside and outside the
network.
It is important to note that social networks are today considered as a
new way of establishing personal and learning relationships. As
Marín, Vázquez and McMullin (2014) or Cabero-Almenara, Del
Prete and Arancibia
(2019) have pointed out, they will allow the creation of rich environments
encouraging participation and interaction among members in support of improving organisations or
institutions in which these are generated. We share with Asmawi, Suat and Zahra (2015) the conclusion that the
incorporation of networks like Facebook to the teaching processes improves the
learning outcomes. This is the reason why the theorists and those
supporting the practical approach of higher education should be partakers of
them, in regards to
accomplish the request claimed to universities, that is to say, the actual
existence of knowledge transference to society.
If we pay attention to the professional field
linked to education, we will find that the creation of educational social
networks has increased in recent years. So, we find that the vast majority of
universities have been promoting their participation in them, understanding them as a showcase to raise awareness of college life.
Moreover, putting an emphasis on teachers, they use the social networks
primarily with the purpose of enhancing the process of teaching and learning,
as it enables them to share information and exchange experiences, work
collaboratively, create working groups, and answer questions or issues related
to the theme (Maldonado, García and Sampedro,
2019;). Thus, the involvement of the social sphere with the academic one is
enhanced, “trapping” the student’s desire to learn, as he/she
observes that the tools used in his/her daily work can be linked to his/her
academic life.
The incorporation of social networks like Facebook to teaching has
reflected that these could be an alternative not only to traditional learning platforms, such as Blackboard (Araujo, 2019; Maldonado,
García and Sampedro,
2019), but also a stimulus for the dynamics of the classroom, which can improve
students’ satisfaction with the teaching and learning process (Gaggioli, Mazzon, Mileni and
Rive, 2015). As Santamaria (2008), we consider that social networks carry more
advantages than disadvantages in a general way, with some of the following
advantages:
-
«They create a new dimension of socialisation;
allow the display of the contents from the plurality and with the
right tool, they can create community.
-
They provide the basis for thinking about
a powerful tool for inclusive education.
-
In primary and secondary schools, they
are being used as a meeting place between the various actors of the process of learning/teaching. They allow people to recreate
working groups and socialising
activities through parents, teachers and students, although the usage is
usually communicative, so in many cases we would talk more about social
software rather than social networks.
-
They are used as a connection with the
companies offering employment. Here the professional networking (sites like
Xing and LinkedIn) comes into play in order to come into contact with
professionals from a particular area or field of
knowledge.
-
As identity and personality in a campus,
they offer students a safe and convenient place to create links with other
community members.
-
They facilitate the work of immersion in
a foreign language environment through networks or communities… Therefore, students will be required to read and write texts in that
community, with the resulting learning built in practice.
-
The SRS are being used as a starting
point with regards to the organisation of
conferences, seminars, workshops, etc., so that the audience
can get to know and raise interesting issues for the organisers, speakers and lecturers. Thus, a
feedback previous to the
development of the event is generated, being very useful. Also, you can compile
and connect links of the subject to expand the event.
-
They can be used in educational organisations as a
tool to reduce knowledge and technological gaps.
-
We are inclined to advocate the creation
of practice communities and learning networks as catalysts and builders of a
digital identity».
Moving away from the negative aspects by which
they have been characterised
(isolation, addiction, creating false identities, sense of loss of time, ...),
taking the positive aspects mentioned above and overlapping them to an
educational perspective of networks, they represent a mechanism facilitating
the direct training activities and the creation of virtual learning communities
in which internet users share their concerns, knowledge, ignorance, needs…
about a specific theme (Araujo, 2019; Marín et al, 2014; Lee and Suh, 2015; Barroso and Gallego, 2017; Borromeo, 2016; Cruz, 2016).
Virtual learning communities, although being technologically supported
on a social network, usually have in common the fact of revolving around a
theme. As regards the educational field, we can
find examples in the Spanish-speaking country as it is the case of DIPRO 2.0
(http://tecnologiaedu.us.es/portal/que.html), Innovagogia (http://innovagogia.jimdo.com/) or in
English ASCILITE (https://ascilite.org/), ed10x (http://ed10x.com), or Classroom 2.0 (http://www.classroom20.com/). All of them have in common
regarding the learning process its flexibility, openness of the mentoring
process and the enhancing of professional identity of its members (Strunga,
2015) as well as the continuity of ideas result to daily teaching experience.
In the following pages we present a virtual learning community
supported by a social network (Google Plus) under the theme of augmented
reality in education.
In the Horizon Reports published in recent years (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine and Haywood, 2011; Durall, Gros, Maina, Johnson, & Adams, 2012; Johnson,
Becker, Gago, Garcia and Martin, 2013), it is noted that this is one of the
emerging technologies of the moment, also indicating that its incorporation
into the educational sphere will depend on the
training and development of active methodologies by teachers (Durall et
al, 2012). Its application to the field of education will be gradually done (Cabero and
Barroso, 2016a and b); so we find experiences as that developed by Baccaa, Baldirisa, Fabregata, Shuk and
Graf (2015), in a vocational training centre in Spain, in which through the design of
a mobile app called Paint-cAR, one
could learn how to work cooperatively the design and how to apply colour to a
car. In this experiment it was found that 71.4% of
the participating students indicated that the usage of the application improved
in a satisfactory way for their learning. Following this research line, the
results of the work by Chen, Lee and Lin (2016) with children with autism spectrum are also found. Their research confirmed that the
combination of teaching supported in augmented reality and the traditional one
improved the social and emotional behaviours of
the children who had this disability. In general, we can consider that the main advantage of the application of augmented
reality in education lies in the combination of three elements at the same
time, as without them its usage is difficult. According to Di Serio, Ibanez and
Delgado (2013), these elements are the combination of real and virtual
objects in the same real environment, their aligning with each other, and the
ability of running them in an interactive real-time way. In short, augmented
reality will involve the use of a constructivist view of the methodology classroom (Cabero and
Barroso, 2016a; Cabero and
Garcia, 2016; Barroso and Gallego, 2017; Garay, Tejada and Castaño, 2017; Sánchez, 2017), since it seeks to
enhance the active learning and the learning by means of discovering on the
part of the students.
As regards the social network used to support this community, we have
selected Google Plus or Google+ (G+). In previous experiences (Marín, Vázquez
and McMullin, 2014), it has been noted the volatility of some free public
networks, such as the case of Grouply, and the difficulties to create it. In
this sense this network since its creation in 2011 has incorporated a large number of
Internet users positioning itself in the second place in the social networks
with more followers, behind Facebook. In networks,
the privacy management and the community management are the same, the user can
decide who to share the information with and it allows to organise the content in groups. Also, both
incorporate the option of indicating that a content or comment is popular to the different members of the community, in the case of Facebook
is «Like» and in the case of G + is a «+1». However, G + allows group video
calls, whereas Facebook does not currently present this option. Therefore, this
feature allows the teacher to teach a class session and that
the students can follow it live or deferred. Also, it allows the opportunity to
work with the documents at the same time, thus it can be created on the network
as many groups as the groups formed in the classroom for teamwork. The main difference between the two networks is the ability to
correct the uploaded comments that G+ offers but Facebook does not, as well as
privacy on the rise of photographs if the first one does offer but not the
second.
2.- The social
network RAFODIUN
The proposal that we present here is part of the development of a
research project R+D+I granted by the Ministry of
Science and Innovation (key: EDU2014_57446P) in the call in 2014, called
Augmented Reality to increase Training, Design, production and Evaluation of
augmented reality programs for university education
The project has been based on the following objectives:
1. Assessing the opportunities and potential offered by the different
software used to create technological environments in the architecture of
Augmented Reality in order to be used in university learning contexts.
2. Analysing the
possibilities that the different types of Augmented Reality
devices offer for its application in university education contexts.
3. Designing and producing different contents in Augmented Reality
format to be applied in the university education context in different subject
areas and assessing their possibilities for the students’ performance.
4. Knowing the degree of motivation and satisfaction that the fact of
taking part in learning experiences supported by Augmented Reality inspires
among college students.
5. Creating a learning environment under the
architecture of Augmented Reality, in e-book format, for the training of
university teachers in the design, production and educational use of Augmented
Reality.
6 Putting into action and validating the environment produced for the training of university teachers in the design, production and
educational use of Augmented Reality.
7. Knowing the educational possibilities allowing the student to become
producers of learning experiences supported by Augmented Reality.
8. Inquiring about the technical, curricular and organisational
difficulties that Augmented Reality in order to be applied to university
education contexts.
9. Creating a virtual community formed by university teachers concerned
about the educational usage of Augmented Reality.
For the development of the first objective, it has been made a cast of
the software producing augmented reality, discriminating between the owner and
the free one. At present Aurasma and Junaio are
being analysed, taking into account that
they should cover all the research objectives, as
well as the ability to have access to the entire education community (students
and teachers). As regards the third objective, the unity of content called
«Design, production and evaluation of ICT in education» has been created, which will be taught during the course 2015/2016 and
2016/2017 in the universities participating in the project.
Objectives 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are in process, given the link that we
can find among them. Finally, the goal 9 has been fulfilled, presenting here the initial results of its achievement. For its
development the RAFODIUN community has been created under the architecture of
Google+ on July 19, 2015. As of December 14, 2018, the date of completion of
these analyses, the community had 654 members.
Figure
1. Inside of social nets
The analysis of social networks (ARS) is gradually acquiring some
significance and it allows us to analyse in
detail the flow of information produced in it (Wasserman,
2014). ARS, as Ferguson and Buckingham (2012, p. 4) suggest, «investigates
links, relationships, roles and network training, and the analysis of the
social learning network cares about how they are developed and maintain the support of learning. Due to the fact that it focuses on the development
of relationships, and that technology is part of this process, this kind of
analysis provides the ability to identify interventions that can increase the
potential of a network to support the learning of their actors».
This analysis is located within what has been called «Computer-Mediated
Communication» (CMC), whose research is becoming increasingly important (Hrastinski and
Keller, 2007), not only in the direction of seeking comparative elements
between face to face communication and the communication established by means
of electronic resources but also in the direction of analysing the type of interaction occurring in different tools of communication mediated both in a
synchronous and asynchronous way, such as the forums and blog (Araujo, 2019;
Garcia and Jocelyn, 2010) and virtual communities and social networks (Marin et
al 2014).
As Casquero, Ovelar,
Romo and Benito (2014, p. 722) point «conversations obtained in a learning
environment can be of two types: direct talks, in which the sender and receiver
of the message are clearly identified (eg. one email) and indirect talks, which
take place in a shared resource (eg. an entry of a blog, a forum thread or an
entry in an adding like FriendFeed) and
where the recipient of the message cannot be clearly identified». And as social
networks belong to the second type, the above authors propose to use models of
bipartite networks for their analysis (Casquero, Landaluce, Portillo, Benito and Romo, 2009; Casquero et
al., 2014; Wasserman, 2014).
Bipartite or bimodal networks are
considered to be networks «with two sets of nodes in
which connections are established only between the nodes of different sets»
(Casquero et
al, 2014, p. 725). In the particular case of the community in Google+, which is
the one used in this case, is a kind of node constituted by the community
members, whereas the other node is constituted by the
messages or posts that the members write within that community, as members do
not directly interact among themselves, but through the posts. The analysis
period presented corresponds to the 4 years of its working, the community have
652 members (53.05% are men and 46.95% are women). The
countries where people are participating can be found in Graph 1. As it can be
observed these countries are Spain (54%) followed by Mexico (9.06%). It is
worthy to highlight that 28.17% of the participants did not indicate the country of origin.
Graph
1. Members of RAFODIUN. Source: own production
If we compare the country and gender of the participants we can see
that except in Venezuela and Cuba, where the presence of women is
higher and in Costa Rica where it is parity, in all countries the male presence
is higher (Hidalgo and Muñoz, 2017). In analysing the network by means of the model of
bipartite network with the Pajeck
program, we offer a graphical representation (see figure 2)
in which the red colours make reference to
the members of the community and the green ones to the posts.
Figure 2. Analysis of the network RAFODIUN as a bimodal network
In this figure we can observe those members of the community who have
been more active, which are located in the centre of
the representation, with the members with less or no participation being on the
periphery.
Using another algorithm of representation that the
program offers, we can see the same network in a different way. Specifically,
the figure 3 shows how participation is distributed in layers, where the two
members, in the centre,
that is to say, in the first circle, unite a great
amount of messages (in green, first circle of post) around which other people
interact; in red, the second circle of the members. These, in turn, bring
together a lot of other messages, in green, the second circle of post, in which
people from the periphery who are less participatory are
also involved. We could therefore say that the virtual community is formed by a
small group making strong participations and by a large group of members with a
very significant participation, but
included within the core group and the different members.
The analysis also allows us to observe clearly how a number of members located at the periphery have
done a significant amount of contributions which have not been considered by
the members of the community yet. Also, we can check how four members have
made any some of participation which has not been considered by any member of
the community, and at the same time they have not participated nor interacted
with anyone in the community. Finally, some members who have participated only once but when receiving the contribution of any member they
are related to the community.
Figure 3. Interconnected relationships
However, as Casquero et
al. (2014, pp. 723-724) indicate, «while it is preferable to analyse
networks in its original form, there are a few methods for analysing these networks, so they tend to be
projected onto one-part networks (with one set of nodes) by a process in which two nodes are connected to a set of nodes if both
nodes are connected to the other set». In figure 4, we present the graphical
representation of the translation made, where the relationships established by
the different members of the community can be observed more
clearly.
Figure
4. Translation of relationships
In addition, if we count the number of conversations that each member
of the network has had with other colleagues of the same community, it can
also be used to represent the «strength» of the relationship between each pair
of members, which is represented by the thickness of the node and the
relationship line.
If we pay attention to the days and the number of posts that the members have made, it has been found that the day of greater
involvement has been in 2015 with 11 posts, followed by January 4, 2016 with 10
posts; 4 December, 2015 with 8 posts and September 15, 2015 with 6 posts, in
June 6, 2017 with 10 post and finally in September 20, 2018
with 3. In total, at the end of 4 years of working they have been published
2580 posts at a rate of 1.25 posts per day.
Of the 654 members in the network, we can only consider dated today,
the existence of 45 active participants, meaning participant or
active subject that has participated in the community at least once. As we can
appreciate only the 15.83% of subjects can be considered as active, with 46.51%
of them being male and 43.49% female. In
regards to the gender and
participation, 68.4% of the posts have made by men whereas 31.60% were women.
The highest number of posts made by a subject has been 47. It is significant to
note that six subjects assemble the 52.83% of all interventions the (f = 112):
S4H (47, 22.17%), S2H (17, 8.02%), S16M (13, 6.13%), S18M
(13, 6.13%), S11H (11, 5.19%), and S22H (11, 5.19%).
Out of the 212 posts in 94 there has been some involvement of a
community member, what represents a 44.34% of the total; that is to say, they
have produced some kind of
written response to what had been submitted by
the author. In 25 out of the 94 there has been some type of response by the
author of the post to the comments made by a member of the community, what
means that in 26.60% of the posts in which there has been
some kind of written participation, the author of the post has replied to the
comments made by a member of the community. In 3 of the 94 posts the discussion
has taken place between members of the community; that is, in 3.19% of the
posts it has happened that after being presented by one of
the members, others have discussed its contents without the participation of
the author of the post.
If we focus the attention on the feedback that the contributions
produce, we can say that this is very scarce, because we find that in 125 posts
nobody has participated, in 40 of them only one member participated, 21 posts
have been fed back by 2 participants; 12 by 3 participants; 8 posts
were fed back by 4 internet users; two posts were commented by 5 and 6 members
of the network, the same as 2 posts which were fed back by 7 and 8 active
subjects.
In relation to their themes, the first verse about «Augmented Reality Website of SAV from the University of Seville» and the last
one was called «Integrated video with notes through Augmented Reality». In
general, these have mainly dealt with educational experiences in formal
settings (32.5%) and in other settings (18.5%) (see graph 2).
Graph 2. Themes of the posts
Paying attention to the issues raised by the posts related to the
educational experiences in formal environments, we observe that 56.1% are referred to general experience, and 20.8% to various
educational levels simultaneously, The other hand, putting the turning point on
if any of the above experiences were related to a specific topic as the
inclusive or special education, it has been shown that only the 1.4% of the
posts were referred to it and 98.6% did not make mention of it. With respect to
the contribution in the posts of material we see that the 62.8% brought URL
Websites working or making reference to
the Augmented Reality
Finally, it is worth noting that Google+
unlike other networks allows the usage of the option +1. This means that the
Internet users taking part in the network can indicate which posts are the ones
they like most, with which they feel more identified or with which they agree more. It has been proven that this tool is not very
used, as we find that 45.3% of community members has not marked it in any of
the posts made, whereas 16% have done so in one of these and 15.6 % in two,
12.7% in 3 times, the 6.1% in 4 of the post of the community, and
2.8%, 0.9% and 0.5% have made it in 5, 6 and 7 interventions.
4.- Conclusions and limitations
The creation of a social network focused on a theme, which makes it a learning community, as we can appreciate, gain significant relevance.
However, the first handicap that we have found as Marin et al. (2014) is the
limited participation of its members, so their growth and creativity will be
undermined since this is made possible by the participation of all
the Internet users (Maldonado, García and Sampedro,
2019). In any case, we must not forget, as it is suggested by Wasserman and
Faust (2013) that all the networks tend to centrality, marked by the prestige
of some specific members. We believe that one of the
reasons for the limited participation may be the subject lacking attachment to
a community or group, foundation that according to Lin (2008), holds up, among
others, a virtual learning community. As in other studies we see that women are more reluctant to participate actively (Fogel an Nehmand,
2009). Consequently, for the RAFODIUN network to be more participatory and
dynamic, it will be necessary to generate a greater commitment on the part of
its members, which in turn means that those responsible for
it have to use
more time in invigorating interventions. This low participation contradicts the
results achieved by Eyyam, Menevis and Dogruer
(2011) who pointed out that social networks had increased by 56.6% the academic relationships among students, since as we have checked, they take the
technological dynamic role of learning and in this case of guiding (Hidalgo and
Muñoz, 2017). Two aspects stand out from the network. On the one hand, its
strong Latin American orientation and, on the other hand, the
existence of a percentage similar between men and women, although men are who
have participated more in making contributions. We have found that the RAFODIUN
network has incorporated materials of different typology that Google+ allows, although we have also found that some of the options that
the said network allows, such as those of events or surveys, have not been
used. Text options, links and videos have been mainly used.
We check that the difficulties in its creation and development are not subject to the fact that the tool in which it has
been generated lets this be public or private nor subject to technical
difficulties which are present. However, we believe that its privacy eliminates
the intrusion of subjects which do not contribute to the growth of the
network and its members. Finally, the biggest drawback from our point of view
that we have faced, is the lack of educational literature (research and
teaching innovation experiences) concerning the issue.
5.-
Limitations
On the one hand, the main limitation or handicap that this project
encounters are the disappearance of Google+ as a service. This has caused that
all the project study and the development process has
been affected therefore, as the visibility that the social network gave to
project has been lost.
On the other hand, as it is an eminently Latin American network, the
Anglo-Saxon side is left aside, what can limit the participation of other
positions, visions or beliefs around the topic.
Bibliographical references
Araujo, J. C. (2019). El componente social. Un indicador del trabajo
colaborativo online. EDMETIC, Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 8(1), 171-200. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v8i1.11104
Asmawi, A., Suat, M. L., & Zahra, N. (2015). Factors
educators should consider when integrating Facebook in education. International
Journal of Multidisciplinary Education and Research, 2(1), 32-37.
Baccaa,
J., Baldirisa, S., Fabregata,
R., Shuk, K., & Graf, S. (2015). Mobile Augmented
Reality in Vocational Education and Training. Procedia Computer Science, 75,
49-58. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.203
Barroso, J., & Gallego, O. (2017). Learning
resource production in Augmented Reality supported by education students. EDMETIC,
Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC,
7(1), 23-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v6i1.5806
Borromeo, C. (2016). Social networks for language
teaching: the case of teachers. Pixel Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, 48, 41-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2016.i48.03
Cabero, J., & Barroso, J. (2016a). Ecosystem
of learning with «augmented reality»: educational possibilities. Technology, Science and Education Journal, 5.141-154.
Cabero, J., & Barroso, J. (2016b). The
educational possibilities of Augmented Reality. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 5(1),
44-50. doi: 10.7821/naer.2016.1.140
Cabero,
J., & García, F. (coords) (2016). Realidad Aumentada. Tecnología para
la formación. Madrid: Síntesis.
Cabero, J., Fernández, B., & Marín, V.
(2017). Dispositivos
móviles y realidad aumentada en el aprendizaje del alumnado universitario. RIED.
Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia,
20(2), 167-185 http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.20.2.17245
Cabero-Almenara, J., Del Prete,
A., & Arancibia, M. L. (2019). Percepciones de estudiantes universitarios
chilenos sobre uso de redes sociales y trabajo colaborativo RIED. Revista
Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 22(2), 35-55. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.22.2.22847
Casquero, O., Landaluce, A., Portillo, J., Benito, M.,
& Romo, J. (2009). Meta-analysis of the- Articles
Published in SPDECE and its Comparison with IJELLO. Interdisciplinary
Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 399-418. Retrieved from: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/44843/
Casquero, O., Ovelar, R., Romo, J. Benito, B. (2014). Personal
learning environments, higher education and analytical learning: a study on the
effects. Cultura y
Educación, 26(4), 696–738. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2014.985945.
Chen, C-H., Lee, I-J., & Lin, L-Y. (2016).
Augmented reality-based video-modeling storybook of
nonverbal facial cues for children with autism spectrum disorder to improve
their perceptions and judgments of facial expressions and emotions. Computers
and Human Behaviour, 16, 477-485. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.033
Cruz, I. (2016). Perceptions in the use of social
networks and their application in the teaching of mathematics. Pixel Bit, Media and Education Journal, 48,
41-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2016.i48.11
Di Serio, A., Ibañez, M. B.,
& Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an
augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course. Computers
& Education, 68, 586-596. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002
Durall, E., Gros, B., Maina, M.,
Johnson, L., & Adams, S. (2012). Technological
perspectives: higher education in Ibero-America
2012-2017. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium Retrieved from http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/bitstream/10609/17021/6/horizon_iberoamerica_2012_ESP.pdf
Eyyam,
R., Menevis, I., & Dogruer,
N. (2011). Perceptions of teacher candidates towards Web 2.0 technologies. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2663-2666. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.166.
Ferguson, R., & Buckingham, S, (2012). Social Learning Analytics: Five Approaches,
In 2nd International Conference on
Learning Analytics & Knowledge, 29 Apr - 02 May 2012. Vancouver,
British Columbia.
Fogel, J., & Nehmand,
E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust and privacy
concerts. Computers in Human Behavior, 25,
153-160. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006.
Gaggioli,
A., Mazzoni, E., Mileni,
L., & Rive, G. (2015). The creative link: investigating the relationship
between social network indices, creative performance and flow in blended tearms. Computers in Human Behaviour, 42, 157-166. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016./j.chb.2013.12.003
Garay, U., Tejada, E., & Castaño, C.
(2017). Perceptions of students towards learning through
educational objects enriched with augmented reality. EDMETIC, Journal of Media Literacy and ICT, 7(1), 145-164 . doi: https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v6i1.5812
Hidalgo, M. D., & Muñoz, J. M. (2017). El
liderazgo en la formación inicial de docentes y educadores sociales: un estudio
con perspectiva de género. IJERI: International Journal
of Educational Research and Innovation, (9),
237-250. Retrieved from https://www.upo.es/revistas/index.php/IJERI/article/view/2674
Hrastinski,
S., & Keller, Ch. (2007). Computer-mediated Communication in Education: A
review of recent research. Educational Media International, 44(1),
61–77. doi: 10.1080/09523980600922746.
Johnson, L., Smith, R, Willis, H., Levine, A. & Haywood, K. (2011).
The 2011 Horizon Report, Austin,
Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2011-Horizon-Report.pdf
Lee, J., & Suh, A. (2015). How do virtual
community members develop psychological ownership and what are the effects of
psychological ownership in virtual communities? Computers in Human
Behaviour, 45, 382-345. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.002.
Lin, H.-F. (2008). Determinants of successful
virtual communities: Contributions from system characteristics and social
factors. Information &
Management, 45(8), 522–527. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.08.002.
Maldonado, G., García, J., y Sampedro-Requena,
B. (2019). El efecto de las TIC y redes sociales en estudiantes universitarios.
RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 22(2), 153-176. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.22.2.23178
Marín, V., Vázquez, A. I., & McMullin,
K. (2014). First
steps towards a university social network on personal learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 15(3), 1-27.
Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1679/2976
Sánchez, J, (2017). The potential of augmented reality
in the teaching of Spanish as a foreign language. EDMETIC,
Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 7(1), 62-80. doi:
https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v6i1.5808
Strunga,
A. (2015). The Integration of Virtual Learning Communities into Universities’
Knowledge Management Models. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Science, 197, 2430-2434. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.306.
Wasserman, S. (2014). Analysis of social networks:
methods and applications. Madrid: Centro de Investigación Sociológica.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2013). Analysis of social networks: methods and
applications. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.