Presentation made on 16th April 2012, during the STELLAR-SoMobNet One Day Seminar at CLTT, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. The presented research is based on Ranieri M., Manca S., Fini A. (under review). Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks’ groups? An exploratory study on professional Facebooking and its implications for lifelong learning. Submitted to the British Journal of Educational Technology

1. One Day Seminar at CLTT
University of British Columbia –
Vancouver (CA) – April 16, 2012
Motivations and dynamics of teachers’
engagement in social networks’ groups.
A case study of professional
Facebooking
Stefania Manca
Institute of Educational Technology - CNR, Genoa, Italy
With Maria Ranieri and Antonio Fini, University of
Florence, Italy

2. Preliminary remarks
It seems that something like a transition from a pure
form of recreational Facebooking to a new form of
professional Facebooking is taking shape on the web,
demanding a renewed attention to the social processes
occurring in these places. To date little empirical
research on the professional use of Social Network Sites
(SNS) has been conducted, particularly with reference
to groups of teachers on Facebook.

3. Aims and purposes
To explore the nature of professional Facebooking, i.e.
the use of Facebook for professional purposes (from
exchanging work-related information and resources to
get in contact with people working in the same (or
similar field) and, in particular, the motivations and
dynamics of professional groups in Facebook.

4. Theoretical Framework (1)
Social Capital Theory (SCT) and SNS studies
3.Bridging social capital = loose connections between individuals based
on the exchange of useful information or new idea but not emotional
support
2. Bonding social capital = benefits that individuals may derive from
emotionally close relationships, such as family and close friends, which
might include emotional support or other type of assistance
Although research suggests that the practice of using Facebook to
maintain existing social relationships is more common than that of
using it to create new connections with strangers, there is also some
evidence that ‘users may use the site to convert latent into weak ties’
(Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2011).

5. Theoretical Framework (2)
Studies on online communities and
“social learning” in professional contexts
Recent analyses of the concept of online communities underline that
different types of socio-technical entities are now living in the web
space giving rise to a complex ontology which goes beyond the unique
notion of online community:
•Community vs. Collective (Thomas & Brown, 2011)
•Crowds vs. Communities (Haythornthwaite, 2011)

6. Theoretical Framework (3)
Learning as a process of participation in a community of practice
(Wenger, 1998) where three structural elements become crucial:
(3)domain – a CoP is not merely a group of friends, but has an
identity defined by a shared domain of interest;
(4)community – in pursuing their interest in their domain, members
engage in joint activities (discussion, mutual help, sharing
information) that bind them together into a social group;
(5)practice – a CoP is not merely a group of people who like certain
books, for instance; rather, they develop a shared repertoire of
resources (i.e. experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing
recurring problems).

7. Provisional Framework of Analysis
A working hypothesis is to assimilate them to Networks of Practice (NoP)
(Brown & Duguid, 2000), which are characterized by the following
dimensions:
•Domain
•Network
•Practice
Where communities of practice typically consist of strong ties linking
individuals engaged in a shared practice who typically interact in face-to-face
situations, electronic networks of practice consist of weak ties.
Facebook, and other SNSs, also includes features which allow people to create
new connections, whose nature may be better described through the
construct of latent ties, defined by Haythornethwaite (2005) as connections
which are ‘technically possible but not yet activated socially’.

8. Research question (1)
Domain: how does the domain (and particularly the
way in which it is approached) impact on group
membership?
In particular:
Is there a relation between the group typology
(generic/thematic) and the group membership, i.e.
how the group is characterized with regard to
reasons to join, membership rules, type of content/
discussions within it?

9. Research question (2)
Network: does it make sense to distinguish between
different types of participatory attitudes and
behaviours, involving different levels of engagement
in the group?
In particular:
Is there a relation between seniority in a group and
participation habits?

10. Research question (3)
Practice: does engagement with a group of
professionals sharing practices have an impact on
‘real life’ and professional development?
In particular:
Is there a relation between seniority in a group and
effects on professional life? Is there also a relation
between these effects and the group typology
(generic/thematic)?

11. Research design
Study 1 : Exploratory study addressed to managers of 5
Facebook professional groups
Study 2 : A wider survey addressed to the participants
of 5 Facebook professional groups (n=1107)

12. Sample
Respondents
Group Group type Foundation Group size* (% of group
size)
A Generic 2010 1532 259 (16.9%)
B Generic 2011 698 92 (13.2%)
C Thematic 2009 746 125 (16.8%)
D Thematic 2011 1079 334 (31.0%)
E Thematic 2009 1510 297 (19.7%)
*Group size on 28 December 2011.

14. Method
Both studies were administered by online questionnaires
managed by Google Docs
Study 1 aimed at investigating the socio-demographic data of the
founders/administrators, the characteristics of groups and
behaviours related to group management  September–
October 2011
Study 2 intended to explore socio-demographic data, use of and
habits related to digital technologies, and participation in
Facebook groups  December 2011–January 2012

15. Findings from Study 1
Facebook group managers
•Gender: all females
•Age: more than 40 years
•Educational background: 4/5 have a university degree
•Job: teachers
•ICTs use: all have used PC and the Internet since more than 10 years, Facebook
profile: 3/5 more than 3 years, 3/5 use mobile devices to access it
•Reasons for founding the group:
• ethical-social: social media represents ‘the future for free and active
citizenship’
• participation: these devices would increase participation and improve the
process of sharing information and resources
• professional: the group can provide its members by offering tips,
suggestions and comments on specific topics
• personal: some of them founded their group out of curiosity, or in order
to understand how social networks work, their advantages, the relational
dynamics they activate, etc.

16. Findings from Study 2
Facebook group members
N (%)
Male 185 (16.7%)
Gender
Female 922 (83.3%)
Less than 29 105 (9.5%)
30–39 260 (23.5%)
Age 40–49 404 (36.5%)
50–59 294 (26.6%)
More than 60 44 (4.0%)
Educational professionals 769 (69.5%)
Social and health
94 (8.5%)
Occupation professionals
Parents 84 (7.6%)
Other 160 (14.5%)
Less than 1 year 566 (51.1%)
Seniority in the group
More than 1 year 541 (48.9%)

17. Findings from Study 2
Answers to Research Question 1
1) Is there a relation between the group typology (generic/thematic)
and the group membership?
• Sharing ideas and projects seem to be more important for those
who subscribe to a generic group, whereas strong adherence to the
main topic of the group and the need to belong in order to feel less
alone seems to matter most for those who join a thematic group
• More proactive behaviours are the basis of the choices made by
those who subscribe to a thematic group
• Sharing of professional content or topics of current interest are
equally distributed in the two groups, while expressions of feelings
and sharing personal experiences seem to count more for thematic
groups

18. Findings from Study 2
Answers to Research Question 2
2) Is there a relation between seniority in a group and participation
habits?
•The frequency with which members access the group is higher among
the senior members, who also show more active participation than the
junior members
•Senior members base their trust in other members primarily on their
personal acquaintance and on approval by other members. For these
members, legitimation of shared resources in the group relies mostly
on the reputation of the author of the resource

19. Findings from Study 2
Answers to Research Question 3
3) Is there a relation between seniority in a group and effects on
professional life? Is there also a relation between these effects and the
group typology (generic/thematic)?
•There is no significant correlation between seniority and benefits of
group membership
•Members of the generic groups report a greater impact of the virtual
activity on their real life in professional terms (i.e. new projects)

20. Discussion
• In the light of social capital theory, these data seem to suggest that a
difference exists between the two groups in terms of types of shared social
capital. Generic groups seem to be mainly characterized by bridging social
capital, whereas thematic groups by bonding social capital
• In generic groups SNS seems to play the role of an infrastructure enabling
the activation of ‘latent ties’. In thematic groups SNS plays the role of
supporting the maintenance of social capital and of existing ties
• In thematic groups the direction of the movement between online/offline
activities would be from offline to online, whereas in generic groups the
direction is reversed, from online to offline
• Groups in social networks may be meant as sub-networks delimited by virtual
boundaries

21. Conclusions
• Although SNS may have an impact on bridging social capital outcomes, there are
some differences between Facebook groups in terms of types of shared resources
(i.e. information or information and emotional support) and types of relationships
(i.e. activation of ‘latent ties’ and maintenance of social capital)
• The notion of ‘Legitimate Peripheral Participation’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991) may help
to understand why senior members show more active and confident behaviours
compared to junior participants
• Our results partially disconfirms the widely accepted thesis according to which SNS
are more often used to articulate previously established relationships (e.g. boyd &
Ellison, 2007). Facebook groups seemed to be used particularly in the direction of
generating new offline projects
• Further studies should be conducted to explore both the qualitative nature of the
social capital shared in these groups and how the dimension of shared practice in
terms of memory group is constructed and maintained (e.g. through Learning and
Knowledge Analytics tools)

22. Future developments
Elements that would deserve further investigation:
•To develop the understanding of the complex “ontology” now
emerging from the web: groups, communities, networks,
collectives, crowds… what else?
•The tacit mechanisms of participation: What kind of implicit
rules? Spontaneous or «directed» self-management groups?
•The need of a group memory: How to cultivate and storage it?

23. Main references
• boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1), 210–230.
• Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’: Social capital
and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 12 (4), 1143–1168.
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13 (6), 873–
892.
• Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information,
Communication & Society, 8, 125–147.
• Haythornthwaite, C. (2011). Online knowledge crowds and communities. In Knowledge
Communities. Reno, NV: Center for Basque Studies.
• Lave J., Wenger E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
• Park, N., Kee, K., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment:
Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12
(6), 729–733.
• Thomas, D. & Brown, J. S. (2011). A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a
World of Constant Change. CreateSpace.
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

24. One Day Seminar at CLTT
University of British Columbia –
Vancouver (CA) – April 16, 2012
Thanks!
For contacts:
Stefania Manca, ITD-CNR, Italy, manca@itd.cnr.it
Maria Ranieri, University of Florence, Italy, maria.ranieri@unifi.it
Antonio Fini, University of Florence, Italy, antonio.fini@gmail.com