Online Group Student Peer-Communication As an Element of Open Education

future internet

Article Online Group Student Peer-Communication as an Element of Open Education

Daria Bylieva 1,* , Zafer Bekirogullari 2 , Dmitry Kuznetsov 1, Nadezhda Almazova 1, Victoria Lobatyuk 1 and Anna Rubtsova 1

1 Institute of Humanities, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University (SPbPU), 195251 Saint-Petersburg, Russia; [email protected] (D.K.); [email protected] (N.A.); [email protected] (V.L.); [email protected] (A.R.) 2 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Near East University, North Nicosia CY-2417, Cyprus; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 26 July 2020; Accepted: 17 August 2020; Published: 26 August 2020

Abstract: Information and communication technologies transform modern education into a more available learning matrix. One of the unexplored aspects of open education is the constant communicative interaction within the student group by using social media. The aim of the study was to determine principal functions of student-led communication in the educational process, the method for assessing its strong points and the disadvantages disrupting traditional learning. For the primary study of the phenomenon, we used methods that made it possible to propose approaches to further analysis. Netnography is the main research method defining the essence and characteristics of the student-led peer-communication. In our research, we applied data visualization, analytical and quantitative methods and developed a set of quantitative indicators that can be used to assess various aspects of student communication in chats. The elaborated visual model can serve as a simple tool for diagnosing group communication processes. We revealed that online group chats perform a support function in learning. They provide constant informational resource on educational and organizational issues and create emotional comfort. Identified features serve to define shortcomings (e.g., lack of students’ readiness to freely exchange answers to assignments) and significant factors (e.g., underutilized opportunities for self-organization) that exist in the modern system of higher education.

Keywords: students; online; communication; chat; higher education; netnography

1. Introduction Education today is becoming more open and constantly accompanies a person thanks to information and communication technologies [1–3]. The term “open education” is often used in the scientific literature without proper definition. Since this form of education not only implies many diverse educational practices, some of which (massive open online courses, e-textbook and open educational recourses) are emphasized by the authors [4–6], but also determines transition of education to a new stage of development, we suggest it is necessary to denominate certain functional technologies in the definition of open education, as it is formulated by The University of British Columbia: a collection of practices that utilize online technology to freely share knowledge [7]. In Stracke’s denotation there are some important aspects which identify openness of education: visionary, operational and legal [8]. The European Commission’s meaning of open education highlights its principal goal: widen access and participation to everyone by removing barriers and making learning accessible, abundant and customizable for all [9].

Future Internet 2020, 12, 143; doi:10.3390/ﬁ12090143 www.mdpi.com/journal/futureinternet Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 2 of 13

Massive open online courses, video lectures, webinars, educational applications, etc. become a part of the everyday life of many people. One may learn at any time and any place. In some situations, it is difficult for students to distinguish the interweaving of educational and non-educational activities. Updating information on social networks, in email and messengers, which are constantly monitored throughout the day, creates a rich information space where questions related to education play an important role. University teachers today actively use social media not only to inform [10–12], but also for organizing student discussions [13–15]. Students are given assignments to create diverse content [16,17]. Many authors point out that social media creates a unique learning environment [18–20]. Several studies are devoted to the investigation of student communications; however, as a rule, we mean groups specially organized by teachers that solve a specific educational task [21,22] sometimes with a facilitator [23] or specially organized by teachers to support the course [24,25]. However, chat rooms of student academic groups are a recent trend. Students create them for themselves. Their role in education has been little studied thus far. Student communication using ICT is quite natural, but discussions can have different goals—entertaining, social or educational. Moreover, the latter seems to be the latest achievement. On the whole, a rather cautious attitude towards students’ increase in social networks was caused by their use for entertainment and social aims but only very rarely for educational purposes [26,27]. Selwyn, analyzing students’ Facebook walls, found five main themes emerged from the data.: (1) recounting and reflecting on the university experience; (2) exchange of practical information; (3) exchange of academic information; (4) display of supplication and/or disengagement; and (5) “banter” (i.e., exchanges of humor and nonsense) [28]. Nevertheless, the great educational potential of social media was evident to teachers and students [29]. It turned out that the use of social networks with information and educational goals has a positive effect on academic performance [30,31]. Recent studies indicate that social networks are increasingly used by students for learning purposes [18,32]. The university arsenal includes special groups in social networks dedicated to faculties, specific subjects or certain activities, which are primarily devoted to organizational issues related to training, as well as also include tasks and file sharing [33]. Coughlan and Perryman analyzed student-led Facebook groups and revealed that educational content ranged from 10% to 100% [34]. Ali pointed out that Facebook is being used for collaborative learning, assessment preparation, creating peer connections, providing support, organizing studies and sharing educational resources [35]. Chen et al., based on a study of student communication, claimed that new literacy arises, which is expressed in special types of messages aimed at community involvement [36]. The most common type of message is collective intelligence (to pool knowledge with others), followed by appropriation (to meaningfully sample and remix media content) and fun (to present things in an interesting or enjoyable way). Less popular types are performance (to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation) and play (to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving). Researchers consider student-led social media communications as open educational practices [34]. At the same time, the openness of student exchange of information generates some challenges. Coughlan and Perryman were concerned that tutors can be openly criticized in that environment [34]. Another problem is the great opportunities of academic dishonesty. On social networking sites, contract cheating is very common [37,38]. As a part of free ongoing exchange of information between students, the possibilities of cheating are increasing. Ali gave the example of exam questions distribution, which is prohibited by the rules [35].

2. Materials and Methods The aim of the study was to define principal functions of student-led communication in the educational process and identify the method for assessing its strong points for the open education improvement and disadvantages that disrupt traditional learning. The principal goal determined special tasks: the initial study of group peer-communication, its goals, content and specifics in the structure of student life. Based on this, the main method was netnography, which allows conducting Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 3 of 13 qualitative research of online communication [39,40]. Support functions were performed by some analytical, quantitative (statistical processing and content analysis) and data visualization methods. The study among those who wished to take part took place in two stages. The first stage was carried out in January 2020. We studied independent group communication of first-year students in Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic (SPbPU) using short informal interviews and print screens of conversations. The second phase was devoted to analyses of 100 consecutive messages in 14 student groups of 1–3 courses of study from several Russian universities (SPbPU, Siberian Federal University, Russian State Hydrometeorological University, St Petersburg University, Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation and RUDN University) starting from, 1 December 2019. Data were collected from students wishing to participate in the study, who obtained consent to submit anonymized messages from all group members. The groups included 10–29 people. Examples illustrating results of the study are anonymized in terms of students’ names and nicknames, as well as specific features of tasks, titles, toponyms and any other references that may identify an individual, teacher or course. Ethical approval was received from the Ethics Commission founded in the Institute of Humanities, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, which is ruled by the code of ethics of the Russian Society of Sociologists.

3. Results

3.1. The First Part of the Study: Qualitative Analysis of Student Group Conversation In the first part of the study, we identified the most common issues of student group communication. It was found that all groups of students have group conversations in the social network vKontakte (the most popular in Russia, an analog of Facebook). In some cases, there were several groups. Apart from the main group, supplementary thematic ones were created, which in some situations were used not only for the initial purposes. For example, initially, an additional group was created to organize the intragroup Secret Santa, but, later, it continued to be used to discuss less formal issues than a study conversation. Sometimes, WhatsApp was used as an additional communication platform. In particular, it was used by students of linguistics to discuss the Chinese language course in connection with the convenience of placing audio files. A group of foreign students with a predominance of Chinese used WeChat to communicate. Besides textual information, which for the most part was short phrases of several words, voice messages, images, attached files and photos were used in groups. Students used in the texts simplified language constructions, slang, sometimes deliberately incorrect spelling, anacoluffs and obscene expressions; often there were no capital letters or punctuation marks, e.g., periods, commas and question marks. Students tried to keep the main academic conversations with thematic ones, discussing educational and organizational issues. The content of communication related to study included answers to different questions and inquiries from those who did not see something, did not understand, did not have time and did not know educational material, for example:

A: guys A: anyone have boltzmann distribution or perrin experiment? A: that something fucking everywhere A: uh come on B: can only advise you sneak [secretly get] photos in *** C: In perrin experiment observed particles under microscope, noted the position of particle, marked trajectory. also checked num of particles on the emulsion layer. Determined the value of avogadro constant C: in short C: boltzmann distribution 1 formula with explanation Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 4 of 13

In this polylogue, it is interesting that the phrase “uh come” on was sent 6 min after the previous one and that the conversation took place at 12 a.m. It means that the student expected prompt “round-the-clock” peer support. A separate topic was the specifics of certification: how it is conducted, what you need to know firstly and the experience of training. Quite often, students were interested in how their groupmates prepare and how much they have learned: A: May I repeat where you get tickets for mpc? B: he sends it to email A: can’t find them there B: it is there B: scroll down C: sample list of questions C: just stuff like that A: found A: thank you D: Dear D: Anyone learned anything? B: No))) [a bracket and several brackets in a row in Russian computer correspondence mean a smiley] E: Out of current E: Rather trying Organizational issues usually included questions about the time of classes and announcements from the leader about the necessary activities. However, it would be wrong to consider such conversations as exclusively utilitarian. Groupmates’ support was also emotional. In conversations, there were joke pictures, stickers and emoticons. There was everyday communication in conversations: congratulations, jokes, expression of emotions regarding educational issues, empathy, debates, questions and answers, inquiries on how others are preparing, etc. This is an example of a joke response: A: The exam will be held on the 26th B: Has he [the teacher] told you that [missed question mark] A: no putin called me A: and said Off-topic conversations also took place, for example selling something in a group and invitations to city events. Nevertheless, in some cases, instead of concentrated educational information, the group simply discussed different topics. Several students did not like it and offered to “stop flooding” or even create a new group for exclusively academic communication. For example, such a dialogue took place after long conversations that turned into a conflict and then a new educational group was created. - Fucking changed the conversation - Ahah yes - Come on - All is peaceful - But got a billion messages - At first it was like a business conversation In general, the main function of the group could be considered as supporting learning: the students promptly received answers to questions (answers most often occurred within 10 min, and very rarely more than 1 h). The group contained information and files from teachers (tasks, presentations, Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 5 of 13

FutureFuture InternetInternet 20202020,, 1122,, xx FORFOR PEER REVIEW 55 ofof 1313 Future Internet 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Future5 of Internet13 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13 Futurequestions Internet for 2020 certification,, 12, x FOR PEER etc.). REVIEW A group member, even in the passive role of the reader, unwittingly5 of 13 issues,became which involuntarily is especially involved important in the circlefor first of- currentlyyear students relevant for whom educational the university issues, which atmosphere is especially can issues,issues, which which is is especially especially important important for for first first-year-year students students for for whom whom the the university university atmosphere atmosphereissues, can can which is especially important for first-year students for whom the university atmosphere can beissues,important difficult which forand is first-year muchespecially more students important autonomous for for whom firstthan-year theat school. universitystudents In some for atmosphere whom cases, the the canuniversity support be di wasffi atmospherecult offline and when much can bebe difficult difficult and and much much more more autonomous autonomous than than at at school. school. In In some some cases, cases, the the support support was was offline offlinebe when difficultwhen and much more autonomous than at school. In some cases, the support was offline when studebemore difficultnts autonomous help anded muchgroupmates than more at autonomous school. in specific In matters some than cases,at (pick school. theup aIn support gradebook some cases, was from otheffline thesupport whendean’s was students office, offline reforma helped whent studestudentsnts help helpeded groupmates groupmates in in specific specific matters matters (pick (pick up up a a gradebook gradebook from from the the dean’s dean’s office, office, reforma reformastudentst t helped groupmates in specific matters (pick up a gradebook from the dean’s office, reformat thestudegroupmates file,nts etc.). help inedGroup specific groupmates communication matters in specific (pick provide up matters a gradebookd (pickemotional up from a gradebooksupport. the dean’s The from ostudentffi thece, dean’s reformats were office, in the a reforma file,circle etc.). oft thethe file, file, etc.). etc.). G Grouproup communication communication provide providedd emotional emotional support. support. The The student studentss were were in in a a circle thecircle file, of of etc.). Group communication provided emotional support. The students were in a circle of liketheGroup -file,mindedcommunication etc.). people Group who communication provided shared the emotional same provide worries support.d emotional and experiences The support. students: The were student in a circles were of in like-minded a circle of likelike-minded-minded people people who who share sharedd the the same same worries worries and and experiences experiences: : like-minded people who shared the same worries and experiences: likepeople-minded who sharedpeople thewho same share worriesd the same and experiences:worries and experiences: A: At least 7 people got retake A:A: At At least least 7 7 people people got got retake retake A: At least 7 people got retake A: At least 7 people got got retake retake

B:: B: BB: : B:B: N, don't worry show this M how to pass physics B: N, don't worry show this M how to pass physics B:B: N, N, don't don't worry worry show show this this M M how how to to pass pass physics physics B:C:: Really N, don’t everything worry show is good, this you M how are still to pass all smart! physics Retake—not a sentence Love and hugs to everybody C: Really everything is good, you are still all smart! Retake—not a sentence Love and hugs to everybody CC: :Really Really everything everything is is good, good, you you are are still still all all smart! smart! Retake Retake——notnot a a sentence sentence Love Love and and hugs hugs to to everybody everybody C: Really everything is good, you are still all smart! Retake—not a sentence Love and hugs to everybody

D:D:: D: DD: : E:E: Oh that makes me me feel feel so so much much better better E: Oh that makes me feel so much better E:E: Oh Oh that that makes makes me me feel feel so so much much better better

B:B: B: B:B: However,However, in discussions discussions,, there were also disputes and even quarrels. Sometimes Sometimes conflicts conflicts were were However,However, in in discussions discussions, ,there there were were also also disputes disputes and and even even quarrels. quarrels. Sometimes Sometimes conflicts conflicts were wereHowever, in discussions, there were also disputes and even quarrels. Sometimes conflicts were constructive,constructive,However, helping helping in discussions to to resolve resolve, there intra-group intra were-group also problems. disputes problems. However, and However, even there quarrels. there were Sometimes personalwere personal conflicts conflicts conflicts usually were constructive,constructive, helping helping to to resolve resolve intra intra-group-group problems. problems. However, However, there there werewere personalpersonal conflictsconstructive, conflicts helping to resolve intra-group problems. However, there were personal conflicts usuallyconstructive,associated associated with helping learning. with to learning. For resolve example, For intra example,- ingroup the screenshots in problems. the screenshots presented However, presented by there students, wereby students, therepersonal was there a conflicts dispute was a usuallyusually associated associated with with learning. learning. For For example, example, in in the the screenshots screenshots pr presentedesented by by students, students, there thereusually was was a a associated with learning. For example, in the screenshots presented by students, there was a disputeusuallyabout priorities associated about priorities in educationalwith learning. in educationa activities For example,l and activities favorite in the and subjects. screenshots favorite It began subjects. presented in response It by began students, to a in sarcastic response there remark was to a disputedispute about about priorities priorities in in educationa educational l activities activities and and favoritefavorite subjects. subjects. It It began began in in response responsedispute to to aa about priorities in educational activities and favorite subjects. It began in response to a sarcasticdisputeto a message, aboutremark describing priorities to a message the in educationa situation, describing whenl activitiesthe the situation student and when favorite did not the get subjects.student certification. did It begannot Anget inindignant certification. response remark to An a sarcasticsarcastic remark remark to to a a message message, ,describing describing the the situation situation when when the the student student did did not not get get certification. certification.sarcastic An An remark to a message, describing the situation when the student did not get certification. An indignantsarcasticfollowed remark a re maliciousmark to fol a replica:lowedmessage a “ maliciousAfter, describing my words replica the you situation: could“After say my when liki words Yo the bro you student everything could didsay can linotki be Yoget, yes, bro certification. whole everything life ahead canAn”. indignantindignant re remarkmark fol followedlowed a a malicious malicious replica replica: :“ “AfterAfter my my words words you you could could say say li likiki Yo Yo bro bro everything everythingindignant can can remark followed a malicious replica: “After my words you could say liki Yo bro everything can beindignantIt, meansyes, whole that re marklife the ahead studentfollowed”. It means was a malicious indignant, that the replica student not receiving: “ Afterwas indignant, my the words usual you not sympathy couldreceiving say in li theki such Yo usual bro cases. everything sympathy Then, shecan in bebe, ,yes, yes, whole whole life life ahead ahead””. .It It means means that that the the student student was was indignant, indignant, not not receiving receiving the the usual usual sympathy sympathybe, yes, in inwhole life ahead”. It means that the student was indignant, not receiving the usual sympathy in suchbereceived, yes, cases. whole an Then answer life ahead, she that ”receive. It she means herselfd an that answer was the also student that previously she was herself indignant, insensitive, was also not saying, previously receiving “I see thei whynsensitive, usual the guy sympathy leftsaying, you”. “inI suchsuch cases. cases. Then Then, ,she she receive receivedd an an answer answer that that she she herself herself was was also also previously previously i nsensitive,insensitive, saying, saying,such cases.“ “I I Then, she received an answer that she herself was also previously insensitive, saying, “I seesuch why Thecases. the groups guy Then left discussed, sheyou ”receive. tasksd an that answer require that collaboration. she herself Inwas some also cases, previously elements insensitive, of self-organization saying, “I seesee why why the the guy guy left left you you””. . see why the guy left you”. seecould whyThe be the seen groups guy inleft the discussyou group.”. ed Fortasks example, that require students collaboration. tentatively agreed In some on a sequence cases, elements of speeches of self at a- TheThe groups groups discuss discusseded taskstasks that that require require collaboration. collaboration. In In some some cases, cases, elements elements of of self selfThe-- groups discussed tasks that require collaboration. In some cases, elements of self- organizationseminarThe and groups discussedcould discuss be seen theed distributionin tasks the group. that of requireFor topics example, and collaboration. participants students tentatively In in carrying some cases,agree out groupd elements on a assignments.sequence of self of- organizationorganization could could be be seen seen in in the the group. group. For For example, example, students students tentatively tentatively agree agreedd on on a a sequence sequenceorganization of of could be seen in the group. For example, students tentatively agreed on a sequence of speechesorganizationBelow, there at a isseminarcould a piece be and ofseen the discuss in discussion the edgroup. the aboutdistribution For example, sequence of topicsstudents of presentations and tentatively participants at the agree seminar:in carryingd on a sequence out group of speechesspeeches at at a a seminar seminar and and discuss discusseded the the distribution distribution of of topics topics and and participants participants in in carrying carrying out outspeeches group group at a seminar and discussed the distribution of topics and participants in carrying out group assignments.speechesA: Otherwise at a Belowseminar we’ll, there and quarrel isdiscuss aeven pieceed more of the the distribution discussion ofabout topics sequence and participants of presentations in carrying at the out seminar: group assignments.assignments. Below Below, ,there there is is a a piece piece of of the the discussion discussion about about sequence sequence of of presentations presentations at at the the seminar: seminar:assignments. Below, there is a piece of the discussion about sequence of presentations at the seminar: assignments.B: Let’s alphabetically Below, there and is a that’s piece it of the discussion about sequence of presentations at the seminar: А: Otherwise we’ll quarrel even more А: Otherwise we’ll quarrel even more А:C: Otherwise I’m actually we’ll for quarrel N going even first, more besides we didn’t manage to perform our presentation because of someone B:А: Let'sOtherwise alphabetically we’ll quarrel and that'seven more it B:B: Let's Let's alphabetically alphabetically and and that's that's it it B: Let's alphabetically and that's it A:C:B: Let's It’sI'm necessaryactually alphabetically for to giveN andgoing the that's firstfirst opportunityit, besides we todidn’t those manage who have to littleperform and our who presentation did not speak because of C:C: I'm I'm actually actually for for N N going going first first, ,besides besides we we didn’t didn’t manage manage to to perform perform our our presentation presentation becausebecause of of C: I'm actually for N going first, besides we didn’t manage to perform our presentation because of A:someoneC: andI'm theactually last ones for N are going those first who, havebesides more we creditsdidn’t andmanage text to perform our presentation because of someonesomeone someone АsomeoneMore: It’s complexnecessary optionsto give the for first self-organization opportunity to those were who also have discussed, little andfor who example did not speak the organization of АА: :It’ It’s snecessary necessary to to give give the the first first opportunity opportunity to to those those who who have have little little and and who who did did not not speak speak А: It’s necessary to give the first opportunity to those who have little and who did not speak collectiveА:А: andIt’s protest necessarythe last behavior ones to giveare those the against first who opportunity situations have more increditsto thethose educationand who text have processlittle and that who seem did not to speak be wrong or unfair: А:А: and and the the last last ones ones ar are ethose those who who have have more more credits credits and and text text А: and the last ones are those who have more credits and text А:- andI the suggest last ones not ar learninge those who questions have more that credits we did and not text have (marked with a check mark) [attached More complex options for self--organization were also discussed, for example the organizationMore of complex options for self-organization were also discussed, for example the organization of MoreMore complexphoto complex of questions options options withforfor self self diff-organizationerent-organization notes, tags, were were circles, also also etc.discussed, discussed,]. for for example example the the organization organization of of collectivecollective protestprotest behaviorbehavior againstagainst situationssituations inin thethe education process that seem to be wrong orcollective unfair: protest behavior against situations in the education process that seem to be wrong or unfair: collectivecollective- protest protestI suggest behavior behavior not learning against against questions situations situations[this in in is the athe joke education education that should process process show that that that seem seem reducing to to be be wrong wrong the number or or unfair: unfair: - I suggest not learning questions that we did not have (marked with a check mark) [attached photo of - -I Isuggest suggestof questions not not le learningarning will questions questions not change that that thewe we did situationdid not not have have when (marked (marked you with needwith a a tocheck check prepare mark) mark)much, [ attached[attached in contrast,photo photo of of - I suggest not learning questions that we did not have (marked with a check mark) [attached photo of questions- I suggest with not differentlearning notes,questions tags, that circles, we did etc. not]. have (marked with a check mark) [attached photo of questionsquestionsfor with example,with different different when notes, notes, you tags, tags, take circles, circles, a cardinal etc. etc.].] . decision not to prepare at all]. questions with different notes, tags, circles, etc.]. -questions I suggest with not differentlearning notes,questions tags, [this circles, is a etc. joke]. that should show that reducing the number of - -I Isuggest- suggestBut Inot not don’t learn learn rememberinging questions questions about [this business[this is is a a negotiations,joke joke that that should should we discussed? show show that that reducing reducing the the number number of of - I suggest not learning questions [this is a joke that should show that reducing the number of que- I suggeststions notwill learn not ingchange questions the situation[this is a joke when that you should need show to prepare that reducing much, in the contrast, number for of queque-stionsstionsnah willwill not not change change the the situation situation when when you you need need to to prepare prepare much, much, in in contrast, contrast, for for questions will not change the situation when you need to prepare much, in contrast, for example,questions when will notyou change take a cardinal the situation decision when not youto prepare need toat prepareall].. much, in contrast, for example,- I support when[ youquote: take I suggest a cardinal not learningdecision questions not to prepare] at all]. example, when you take a cardinal decision not to prepare at all]. -example,- But I don’t when remember you take about a cardinalbusiness negotiations,decision not we to discussed?prepare at all]. - But- I Thedon’t best remember solution about[quote: business I suggest negotiations, not learning we questionsdiscussed?] - But I don’t remember about business negotiations, we discussed? - nButah I don’t remember about business negotiations, we discussed? - -n nahah - nah - In sahupport [quote:: I suggest not learning questions] - -I Is upportsupport [ quote[ : I Isuggest suggest not not learn learninging questions questions] ] - I support [quote: I suggest not learning questions] - TheI support best solution [quote: [Iquote suggest: I suggestnot learn noting learn questionsing questions] ] - The best solution quote[quote: I suggest not learning questions] - The best solution [quote: I suggest not learning questions] - -The The best best solution solution [ [quote:: I Isuggest suggest not not learn learninging questions questions] ]

Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 6 of 13

FutureFuture Internet Internet 2020, 1202,20 x ,FOR 12, x PEER FOR PEERREVIEW REVIEW 6 of 136 of 13 Future Internet- We 20 are20, smart12, x FOR kids PEER and REVIEW we will learn everything 6 of 13 - We- -are WeThe smart are concept smart kids and ***kids we and will studied we learn will at learneverything the everything lecture [quote: I suggest not learning questions which - We are smart kids and we will learn everything - The -concept Thewe. .concept . . *** . . ] we *** studied we studied at the at lecture the lecture [quote [quote: I suggest: I suggest not learn not inglearn questionsing questions which which we…… we…… ] ] - The concept *** we studied at the lecture [quote: I suggest not learning questions which we…… ] - It’s -not ItIt’s’ smarked not marked marked [quote: [quote: The concept TheThe concept concept *** we *** ***studied………… we we studied………… studied. . . .] . . . .] . . . . - It- ’s not marked [quote:[quote: The concept *** we studied…………] ] - A - A - A- A - With- Wa checkmarkith a checkmark - W- ithWith a checkmark a checkmark - B [It- Bis [aIt joke.is a joke.After After A, which A, which means means “it turns “it turns out likeout thislike” this, the” ,next the nextletter letter of the of alphabet the alphabet - B- [ItB i[sIt a is joke. a joke. After After A, Awhich, which means means “it “it turns turns out out like like this this”,”, the the next next letter letter of the alphabetalphabet was said.]was said.] was wassaid.] said.] - Such- Suchogression ogression [quote: [quote: B] B] - Such- Such ogression ogression [quote:[quote: B] B] - Itis -called Itis called lofe lofe - Itis- Itiscalled called lofe lofe - And- thatAnd addressedthat addressed to me? to [me?quote: [quote: B] B] - And- And that that addressed addressed to me? to me? [quote:[quote: B] B]

- - - -

- - - - AtAt the theAt same the same same time, time, time, such such such group group group conversations conversations conversations ma maded ema it it deasiere easier it easier to to ask ask to for ask for help helpfor helpand and shareand share share assignment assignment assignment At the same time, such group conversations made it easier to ask for help and share assignment decisionsdecisions,decisions, even even, e whenven when when they they theywere were were intended intended intended for for individual individualfor individual work. work. work. In In most mostIn most cases, cases, cases, students students students help helped edhelp their theired their decisions, even when they were intended for individual work. In most cases, students helped their groupmates,groupmates,groupmates, but but not but not always. not always. always. Apparently, Apparently, Apparently, not not everyone not everyone, everyone, and and, notand not in not in any any in situation,any situation, situation, was was readywas ready ready to to share share to share groupmates, but not always. Apparently, not everyone, and not in any situation, was ready to share thethe resultsthe results results of of their theirof their intellectual intellectual intellectual work. work. work. Intragroup Intragroup Intragroup relationships relationships relationships might might might also also bealso relevant. bebe relevant.relevant. Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes,, the , the the results of their intellectual work. Intragroup relationships might also be relevant. Sometimes, the requestedtherequested task taskmight might be sent be sent personally personally personally,, instead, insteadinstead of being ofof beingbeing put up putput for upup a for forgroup aa groupgroup discussion. discussion.discussion. requested task might be sent personally, instead of being put up for a group discussion. HereHere,Here, are are ,sample are sample sample resp response onseresp onserequests: requests: requests: Here, are sample response requests: A:A: Guys GuyssssssssA: Guysssssssssssssss A: Guyssssssss Please,Please, throw throw KEYS, KEYS, photo photo Please,Please, throwthrow KEYS,KEYS, photo B: [photoB: [photo of the of task the donetask done] ] B:B: [photo[photo ofof the task done]done] A: ThankA: Thank you! youOr maybe! Or maybe someone someone else will. else will. A:A: ThankThank you!you! Or maybe someone else else will. will. BecauseBecause it's notit's all not clear all ))) clear [a))) bracket [a bracket or several or several brackets brackets in a in row a row in a in Russian a Russian computer computer BecauseBecause it’sit's not not all all clear))) clear))) [a[a bracket bracket or or several several brackets brackets in in a a row row in in a a Russian Russian computer computer correspondencecorrespondence mean mean a smile a smiley] y] correspondencecorrespondence meanmean a smiley]smiley] A: WellA: Wellheyyyyy heyyyyy A:A: WellWell heyyyyyheyyyyy A: ThrowA: Throw your youranswer answer A:A: ThrowThrow youryour answeranswer HereHere you canyou seecan that see thethat author the author of the of request the request count counted oned the on help the helpthat hethat receive he received withind within 1 h. 1 h. HereHere youyou can see that that the the author author of of the the request request count counteded on on the the help help that that he receive he receivedd within within 1 h. However,However, the request the request for the for “ thebest “”best version” version was wasno longerno longer considered considered “legitimate “legitimate” and” andwas wasnot not 1However, h. However, the therequest request for for the the “best “best”” version version was was no no longer longer considered considered “ “legitimate”legitimate” and and was notnot providedprovided by the by group. the group. providedprovided byby thethe group.group. SometimesSometimes the results the results of the of work the work were were not shared not shared in response in response to a straightforwato a straightforward request,rd request, but but SometimesSometimes thethe resultsresults ofof thethe workwork werewere notnot sharedshared inin responseresponse toto aa straightforwardstraightforward request,request, butbut as a resultas a result of joint of jointdiscussion discussion of existing of existing problems: problems: asas aa resultresult ofof joint discussion of existing problems: problems: A (theA leader(the leader): [sends): [sends an e -anmail e- mailfrom from the teacher the teacher with withthe task the taskto record to record the contents the contents of the of the AA(the (the leader): leader): [sends[sends anan e-mail e-mail from from the the teacher teacher with with the the task task to to record record the the contents contents of of the the audio audioaudio file w fileith wtheith text the] text] ﬁleaudio with file the with text] the text] B: WhoB: Whowrote wrote the names the names in hieroglyphs in hieroglyphs? ? B:B:Who Who wrotewrote thethe namesnames inin hieroglyphs?hieroglyphs? C: I C: I C:C:I I D: TrueD: Trueinfo? info? D:D:True True info? info? C: C: C: C:C:This isVika С: ThisС: isThis Vika is Vika E:С: Guys, This is Vika E: Guys,E: Guys, E:E: thereGuys, in the dialogue, where is talking about * E: thereE: therein the in dialogue, the dialogue, where where is talking is talking about about * * E:E: There’sthere in a the phrase dialogue, *** where is talking about * E: There'sE: There's a phrase a phrase *** *** E:E: isThere's this name a phrase[question *** mark is missed] E: is thisE: is name this name [question [question mark mark is missed is missed] ] G:E: Nois this one name knows [question mark is missed] G: NoG one: No knows one knows G: No one knows H: There'sH: There's a word a wordafter thatafter that H: There's a word after that G: [sendsG: [sends the photo the photo of his of version his version of the of text the recordingtext recording] ] G: [sends the photo of his version of the text recording]

Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 7 of 13

H: There’s a word after that G: [sends the photo of his version of the text recording] Future Internet 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13 Another option of academic dishonesty was sharing the assignments or answers to tests, which was Another option of academic dishonesty was sharing the assignments or answers to tests, which even more valuable for students, since this information would help to get a better mark in certification. was even more valuable for students, since this information would help to get a better mark in In the polylogue, it was reflected in emotional gratitude. certification. In the polylogue, it was reflected in emotional gratitude. A: Guys A: Guys A: Does anyone have a photo of your last math paper? or +- what will be in the tp? A: Does anyone have a photo of your last math paper? or +- what will be in the tp? A:A: I would be very grateful grateful!! B:B: I will put the question in in a a different different way way did did someone someone take take a apicture picture of of the the tp tp who who already already had had it it C:C: [photo[photo of the test test]] B:B: To thethe LeagueLeague of saints B:B: Out of turn B:В: Thank you WeWe defined defined the the main main content content of student of student conversations conversations (Figure (Figure 1). Messages1). Messages usually usually fell into fell one intoof three one of maj threeor major categories: categories: study, study, organization organization of the of the educational educational process process and and everydayeveryday communication.communication. Emotional Emotional support support can can be thematically be thematically related related to any to of the any available of the available topics. Elements topics. ofElements self-organization, of self-organization, when a groupwhen a develops group develops a definite a definite plan of plan action, of action, may may present present during during the implementationthe implementation of training of training tasks tasks and and in solving in solving organizational organizational issues. issues.

FigureFigure 1.1. The main content of student conversations.

Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 8 of 13

3.2. The Second Part of the Study: The Potential of Quantitative Analysis of Communication in a Group Conversation in the Social Network In this part of the study, 100 consecutive messages from 1 December 2019 in 14 conversations in the Russian social network vKontakte were analyzed. To evaluate the conversation, quantitative criteria were developed that can be useful for a comparative analysis of group conversations: Future Communicators’Internet 2020, 12, x FOR activity: PEER REVIEWThe number of people in academic groups in which communication8 of 13 was studied ranged from 10 to 29 people. The number of people participating in the studied part of the the polylogue ranged from 37% to 90%, on average 59%. The maximum participation was in the polylogue ranged from 37% to 90%, on average 59%. The maximum participation was in the smallest smallest group of 10 people. group of 10 people. The intensity of communication was estimated by the number of days for 100 messages. The The intensity of communication was estimated by the number of days for 100 messages. maximum intensity was 100 messages in two days, while the minimum intensity was 100 messages The maximum intensity was 100 messages in two days, while the minimum intensity was 100 messages in 16 days. The average value was 6.3 days. The average number of messages per day was 24.9. in 16 days. The average value was 6.3 days. The average number of messages per day was 24.9. Communicative syntax. As mentioned in the first part of the study, it was customary for Communicative syntax. As mentioned in the ﬁrst part of the study, it was customary for students students to divide sentences into short phrases and send each as a separate sentence. Therefore, there to divide sentences into short phrases and send each as a separate sentence. Therefore, there were were fewer completed phrases in 100 messages: from 45 to 93, on average 66. In this case, in fewer completed phrases in 100 messages: from 45 to 93, on average 66. In this case, in conversations, conversations, 2.2–6.1 words per message were used, and on average 4.5 words. 2.2–6.1 words per message were used, and on average 4.5 words. Emotional expressiveness. The traditional punctuation marks in online communication were Emotional expressiveness. The traditional punctuation marks in online communication were supplemented or replaced by visual symbols. The most common way to show certain emotions is to supplemented or replaced by visual symbols. The most common way to show certain emotions is to use smileys, special stickers, emoji, etc. Only one of the considered message sequences did not have use smileys, special stickers, emoji, etc. Only one of the considered message sequences did not have such visual expressors of emotions at all, while at maximum in 100 messages there were 29 smileys such visual expressors of emotions at all, while at maximum in 100 messages there were 29 smileys and 43 emoji. On average, one conversation had 14.2 visual expressive symbols. and 43 emoji. On average, one conversation had 14.2 visual expressive symbols. Interrogativity degree of the polylogue. Since one of the basic functions of conversations is Interrogativity degree of the polylogue. Since one of the basic functions of conversations is operational support, questions (whether a question mark is put or not) constitute an essential part of operational support, questions (whether a question mark is put or not) constitute an essential part of communication. In the conversations examined, they made up from 7% to 29% of the total number communication. In the conversations examined, they made up from 7% to 29% of the total number of of replicas, and on average 17%. replicas, and on average 17%. For intuitively clear and instant comparison of groups according to the features of For intuitively clear and instant comparison of groups according to the features of communicative communicative behavior, which is an advantage for the teacher, a visual scheme was developed behavior, which is an advantage for the teacher, a visual scheme was developed including basic including basic parameters. The approach, of course, can be used not only for the analysis of parameters. The approach, of course, can be used not only for the analysis of intragroup student intragroup student communication but also for other types of group communication. communication but also for other types of group communication. We defined the average data of groups in the form of illustration, where the character size is the We deﬁned the average data of groups in the form of illustration, where the character size is the activity of communicators (Figure 2). The size of the text cloud for message is the communication activity of communicators (Figure2). The size of the text cloud for message is the communication intensity. The average number of words in the sentence is shown in the cloud, interrogativity degree intensity. The average number of words in the sentence is shown in the cloud, interrogativity degree is is the size of the question and emotional expressiveness is the size of the smile. the size of the question and emotional expressiveness is the size of the smile.

FigureFigure 2. 2. AverageAverage indicators indicators for for group group communication, communication, presented presented as an image.

AA comparative visual visual representation representation of of several several group group conversations conversations show showeded the the difference diﬀerence in in thethe features features o off group group communication. communication. For For comparison, comparison, consider consider the the features features of two of two groups groups—with—with the longest (6.1) and the shortest average message size (Figure 3). Other features of the group were large emotional expressiveness (46), slightly increased proportion of participants (73%) and number of interrogative sentences (22) and significantly lower than average communication intensity (12.5 messages per day). The group with the shortest average message size (2.2) (Figure 3b) was characterized by weaker activity of communicators (52%), few interrogative sentences (11) and almost the complete absence of visual expressors of emotions (only three smileys).

Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 9 of 13 the longest (6.1) and the shortest average message size (Figure3). Other features of the group were large emotional expressiveness (46), slightly increased proportion of participants (73%) and number of interrogative sentences (22) and signiﬁcantly lower than average communication intensity (12.5 messages per day). The group with the shortest average message size (2.2) (Figure3b) was characterized by weaker activity of communicators (52%), few interrogative sentences (11) and almost theFuture complete Internet 20 absence20, 12, x FOR of visual PEER REVIEW expressors of emotions (only three smileys). 9 of 13

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 3. 3.Examples Examples of of visualvisual representation representation of of the the features features of of groups groups with with the the longest longest ( a(a)) and and shortest shortest (b(b)) average average message message size. size.

TheThe indicators indicators visually visually presented presented in in Figure Figure3 3are are indirect indirect in in nature; nature nevertheless,; nevertheless, a a certain certain overall overall picturepicture of of the the conversation conversation develops. develops. It seemsIt seems that that the firstthe offirst the of considered the considered groups groups to a greater to a greater extent fulfilledextent fulfill the supportiveed the supportive function forfunction the educational for the educational process: informational process: informational (interrogative (interrogative sentences) andsentences) emotional and (visual emotional expressors (visual of expressors emotions). ofA great emotions). interest A in great communication interest in communicationis visible. Longer is sentencesvisible. Longer may indicate sentences a higher may quality indicate of conversation, a higher quality while of the conversation, intensity of communication while the intensity in both of casescommunication is relatively in small. both cases is relatively small. TheThe available available data data allow allow us to provide us to providesome information some information about the content about side the of content communication side of incommunication Russian universities. in Russian Taking universities. all conversations Taking as a all whole, conversations we examined as a the whole, thematic we division examined of the the texts.them Threeatic division main categories of the texts. were Three as follows: main categories study (41%), were organizational as follows: study issues ( (33%)41%), andorganizational everyday communicationissues (33%) and (26%). everyday communication (26%). WeWe analyzed analyzed the the content content of of each each category category in in more more detail. detail. WithinWithin the the “study”“study”category, category, the the largest largest numbernumber ofof messages messages waswas devoteddevoted toto questionsquestions andand answersanswers onon variousvarious typestypes ofof certificationcertification (tests,(tests, exams,exams, termterm paperspapers andand independentindependent work) ( (18%)18%) of of all all messages messages in in this this category. category. The The popularity popularity of ofthis this topic topic was was associated associated wi withth the the selected selected review review period period ((DecemberDecember is the the last last month month before before certification).certification). The The next next most most popular popular topics topics were howwere others how completed others completed the task (14%) the and task clarification (14%) and ofclarification information of on information the task (13%). on th Lesse task popular (13%). topicsLess popular were questions topics were about questions the given about task andthe given how totask do and the taskhow (10% to do each) the task and (10 messages% each) relatedand messages to the organization related to the of org jointanization group workof joint (collection group work of necessary(collection information, of necessary direct information, work on direct the task) work (9%). on the We tas identifiedk) (9%). We scored identified categories scored of requestscategories for of sharingrequests information for sharing given information by the teacher given (7%)by the and teacher requests (7%) for and solving requests the task for (5%).solving Fewer the messagestask (5%). wereFewer associated messages with were sharing associated additional with sources,sharing additionalcompleted sources,tasks, requests completed and consent tasks, requests to do tasks and forconsent another. to do tasks for another. AmongAmong organizational organizational issues,issues,there there were were more more questions questions about about certification certification (what (what to to do, do, when when andand where where to to go go for for getting getting certification certification on on a a subject, subject, retake, retake, etc.) etc.) (30%). (30%). Next Next were were organizational organizational issuesissues related related to specific to specific classes classes (for example, (for example, who will who attend will/do something, attend/do the something, format, cancellations, the format, rescheduledcancellations, classes rescheduled and the c namelasses ofand the the teacher) name of (21%), the teacher followed) (21 by%) topics, followed not relatedby topics to n academicot related subjectsto academic (about subje thects things (about left, the addresses things left, of buildings,addresses of requests buildings, to pick requests up educational to pick up documents,educational documents, management schedule, library schedule, etc.) (16%). Questions about class schedules represented 13% of all organizational messages. It is interesting that this information was in most cases presented on the site, but students preferred to ask rather than look there. In one of the groups, a special bot was created that answered similar questions. Eight percent of messages were devoted to the topic of communication methods with the teacher. There were also messages about lateness (5%), as well as discussions about scholarships, skipping classes, etc.

Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 10 of 13 management schedule, library schedule, etc.) (16%). Questions about class schedules represented 13% of all organizational messages. It is interesting that this information was in most cases presented on the site, but students preferred to ask rather than look there. In one of the groups, a special bot was created that answered similar questions. Eight percent of messages were devoted to the topic of communication methods with the teacher. There were also messages about lateness (5%), as well as Future Internet 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13 discussions about scholarships, skipping classes, etc. The mainmain content content of of everyday everyday communication communication was was discussion discussion of diverse of diverse common common interests interests (49%), jokes(49%), and jokes answers and toanswers them (43%). to them There (43 were%). There also congratulations, were also congratulations, words of support, words organization of support, of jointorganization extra-university of joint extra events,-university cues of courtesy, events, cues etc. of courtesy, etc. We identiﬁedidentified thethe 3030 most common words in the student polylogues (Figure4 4).). TheThe mostmost popularpopular word waswas “thank“thank you”,you”, followedfollowed byby formsforms ofof appealappeal toto groupmates.groupmates. InIn Figurefigure 44,, thethe wordswords relatedrelated toto the obtaining of information are in violet,violet, the names of speciﬁcspecific subjects and forms of classes are in yellow,yellow, andand thethe wordswords thatthat describedescribe otherother elementselements ofof thethe educationaleducational processprocessare are inin blue.blue.

Figure 4. The most common words in student conversations.

4. Discussion We maymay conclude that the development of ICT guidesguides higher education to the open educational space. This This movement movement is is now now presented in the form of accessible openopen educationaleducational resourcesresources and massive open online courses. Today Today,, such forms of education are widely used as a lifelong learning opportunity in higher education [41 [41–43]43].. However, However, it it is clear that open education is not just a new technological solutionsolution providing providing free free access access to to educational educational content. content. It challenges It challenges existing existing practices practices and requiresand requires new new approaches. approaches. This study proves that student-led student-led group communication is a serious supporting factor that contributes to to the the inclusion inclusion of of students students in in current current educational educational processe processess and and problems. problems. Such Such kind kind of ofcommunication communication helps helps disseminate disseminate the the necessary necessary educational educational information information and and supports mutual assistance and collaborative learning. Thanks to conversations on social networks,networks, students become closer toto eacheach other.other. However, However, it it is is clear clear that that diﬀ differenterent groups groups to a to greater a greater or lesser or lesser extent extent perform perform these functions.these functions. The criteria The criteria given given in the in work the work can help can evaluate help evaluat diﬀerente different aspects aspects of such of activities. such activities. One of the valuable aspects of group communication is messages about collaborative learning, which, however, occupied only 9% of messages in this study. It proved the insufficient focus of education on such practices [44]. Some concerns were partially confirmed [34]. Open educational practices may lead to academic dishonesty. Although this practice was not the dominant topic, it was perfectly acceptable. This signal indicates that the current system of knowledge testing is not ready for the transition to open educational practices. An open educational system should encourage student interaction, collaborative learning and maintain the availability of given questions and answers that help whom needs it. Moreover, the control tests should ensure that the assessment is adequate.

Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 11 of 13

One of the valuable aspects of group communication is messages about collaborative learning, which, however, occupied only 9% of messages in this study. It proved the insufficient focus of education on such practices [44]. Some concerns were partially confirmed [34]. Open educational practices may lead to academic dishonesty. Although this practice was not the dominant topic, it was perfectly acceptable. This signal indicates that the current system of knowledge testing is not ready for the transition to open educational practices. An open educational system should encourage student interaction, collaborative learning and maintain the availability of given questions and answers that help whom needs it. Moreover, the control tests should ensure that the assessment is adequate. Higher education management and university teachers should consider in their practices the existence of the relationships between students. Permanent online connection makes it possible to distribute group tasks extensively, implying sharing knowledge, discussions and teamwork in the educational process, which develops great opportunities for soft skills progress. At the same time, it is required to make decisions about changing a number of certification forms that do not correspond to open education. Cronin noted that teachers are at different levels of “openness” and readiness for it, but “all thinking deeply about their digital and pedagogical decisions” [45] (p. 7). Nascimbeni et al. used open educators’ factory methodology to map the capacities of university teachers across four areas: open design, open content, open teaching and open assessment. Moreover, the authors emphasized that the latter area is the least open [46] (p. 521). The proposed method for assessing and visualizing student communication can be used by teachers and university administrators to evaluate various aspects of the polylogical communicative behavior of students in the network. A survey of the development and effectiveness of education-related communication oon social networks and messengers could be used not only to assess its role in the educational process, but also to identify possible psychological and adaptive problems within the student group. The results of the study are limited to the framework of several student groups at several universities in Russia that can give only an initial idea of intra-group communication. The opportunity to compare these findings with the features of electronic intra-group communication in other countries is of special interest. Collectivism, the desire to act together, and sharing what you have as well as laziness correspond to stereotypes related to the Russian mentality [47,48]. It may have an imprint on the thematic content of the conversations. It is interesting how the level of interaction in more individualistic cultures will differ from Russian communication strategies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.B., Z.B., N.A. and D.K.; methodology, D.B. and V.L.; software, V.L.; validation, A.R. and V.L.; investigation, D.B. and V.L.; resources, D.K., N.A. and A.R.; data curation, V.L.; writing—original draft preparation, D.B.; writing—review and editing, A.R. and Z.B.; visualization, D.B.; supervision, D.B.; project administration, N.A.; and funding acquisition, N.A. and D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This paper was financially supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on the program to improve the competitiveness of Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University (SPbPU) among the world’s leading research and education centers in 2016–2020. Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the undergraduate students who took part in the research. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Shipunova, O.; Evseeva, L.; Pozdeeva, E.; Evseev, V.V.; Zhabenko, I. Social and educational environment modeling in future vision: Infosphere tools. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 110, 2011. [CrossRef] 2. Shipunova, O.D.; Mureyko, L.V.; Kozhurin, A.; Kolomeyzev, I.V.; Kosterina, O.N. Resources to matrix control of mental activity in information environments. Utop. Prax. Latinoam. 2019, 24, 113–122. 3. Evseeva, L.I.; Shipunova, O.D.; Pozdeeva, E.G.; Trostinskaya, I.; Evseev, V.V. Digital Learning as a Factor of Professional Competitive Growth. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 1114, pp. 241–251. Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 12 of 13

4. Paskevicius, M.; Irvine, V. Open Education and Learning Design: Open Pedagogy in Praxis. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2019, 2019.[CrossRef] 5. Cronin, C. Open Education; Brill Sense: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 9–25. [CrossRef] 6. Zhang, K.; Bonk, C.J.; Reeves, T.C.; Reynolds, T.H. MOOCs and Open Education in the Global South: Challenges, Successes, and Opportunities; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2019. 7. Open Education. Available online: https://wiki.ubc.ca/Documentation:Open_Education (accessed on 8 August 2020). 8. Stracke, C.M. Quality Frameworks and Learning Design for Open Education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2019, 20.[CrossRef] 9. Andreia, I.D.S.; Yves, P.; Jonatan, C.M. Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016. 10. Nicolai, L.; Schmidbauer, M.L.; Gradel, M.; Ferch, S.; Antón, S.; Hoppe, B.; Pander, T.; Von Der Borch, P.; Pinilla, S.; Fischer, M.R.; et al. Facebook Groups as a Powerful and Dynamic Tool in Medical Education: Mixed-Method Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e408. [CrossRef][PubMed] 11. Neier, S.; Zayer, L.T. Students’ Perceptions and Experiences of Social Media in Higher Education. J. Mark. Educ. 2015, 37, 133–143. [CrossRef] 12. Aladyshkin, I.; Kulik, S.; Odinokaya, M.; Safonova, A.S.; Kalmykova, S.V. Development of Electronic Information and Educational Environment of the University 4.0 and Prospects of Integration of Engineering Education and Humanities. Artif. Intell. Techn. Adv. Comput. Appl. 2020, 131, 659–671. [CrossRef] 13. Henry, D.S.; Wessinger, W.D.; Meena, N.K.; Payakachat, N.; Gardner, J.M.; Rhee, S.W. Using a Facebook group to facilitate faculty-student interactions during preclinical medical education: A retrospective survey analysis. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 1–10. [CrossRef] 14. Chang, W.-L.; Lee, C.-Y. Trust as a learning facilitator that affects students’ learning performance in the Facebook community: An investigation in a business planning writing course. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 320–327. [CrossRef] 15. Anosova, N.; Dashkina, A. The Teacher’s Role in Organizing Intercultural Communication Between Russian and International Students. Artif. Intell. Tech. Adv. Comput. Appl. 2020, 131, 465–474. [CrossRef] 16. Frydenberg, M.; Andone, D. Creating micro-videos to demonstrate technology learning and digital literacy. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2016, 13, 261–273. [CrossRef] 17. Osman, G.; Koh, J.H.L. Understanding management students’ reflective practice through blogging. Internet High. Educ. 2013, 16, 23–31. [CrossRef] 18. Quansah, J.Y.D.; Fiadzawoo, J.K.; Kuunaagmen, C.K. Students’ engagement in social media and its mainstay for teaching and learning. The case of the wa nursing training college. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2016, 4, 961–969. [CrossRef] 19. West, B.; Moore, H.; Barry, B. Beyond the Tweet. J. Mark. Educ. 2015, 37, 160–170. [CrossRef] 20. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Moustafa, M.A. Speaking the Same Language: The Value of Social Networking Sites for Hospitality and Tourism Higher Education in Egypt. J. Hosp. Tour. Educ. 2016, 28, 21–31. [CrossRef] 21. Adanir, G.A. Detecting Topics of Chat Discussions in A Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Environment. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2019, 20, 96–114. [CrossRef] 22. Scoular, C.; Care, E. Monitoring patterns of social and cognitive student behaviors in online collaborative problem solving assessments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 104, 105874. [CrossRef] 23. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction. Comput. Educ. 2003, 41, 397–420. [CrossRef] 24. Estus, E.L. Using facebook within a geriatric pharmacotherapy course. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2010, 74, 145. [CrossRef] 25. Matli, W. How Undergraduate Students ‘Chat Language’in Whatsapp. In Proceedings of the 2019 Open Innovations (OI), Cape Town, South Africa, 2–4 October 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 401–407. 26. Murray, C. Schools and Social Networking: Fear or Education? Synerg. Perspect. Local 2008, 6, 8–12. 27. Madge, C.; Meek, J.; Wellens, J.; Hooley, T. Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learn. Media Technol. 2009, 34, 141–155. [CrossRef] Future Internet 2020, 12, 143 13 of 13

28. Selwyn, N. Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learn. Media Technol. 2009, 34, 157–174. [CrossRef] 29. Grosseck, G.; Bran, R.; Tiru, L. Dear teacher, what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 15, 1425–1430. [CrossRef] 30. Junco, R. Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 187–198. [CrossRef] 31. Lambić,A. Correlation between Facebook use for educational purposes and academic performance of students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 313–320. [CrossRef] 32. Toker, S.; Baturay, M.H. What foresees college students’ tendency to use facebook for diverse educational purposes? Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2019, 16, 9. [CrossRef] 33. Ean, L.C.; Lee, C.E. (Catherine) Educational use of Facebook by undergraduate students in Malaysia higher education: A case study of a private university. Soc. Media Technol. 2016, 1, 1–8. [CrossRef] 34. Coughlan, T.; Perryman, L.-A. Are Student-Led Facebook Groups Open Educational Practices? OER15: Cardiff, UK, 2015. 35. Ali, A. Medical students’ use of Facebook for educational purposes. Perspect. Med Educ. 2016, 5, 163–169. [CrossRef] 36. Chen, S.-Y.; Kuo, H.-Y.; Hsieh, T. New literacy practice in a facebook group: The case of a residential learning community. Comput. Educ. 2019, 134, 119–131. [CrossRef] 37. Amigud, A.; Lancaster, T. I will pay someone to do my assignment: An analysis of market demand for contract cheating services on twitter. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2019, 45, 541–553. [CrossRef] 38. Bretag, T.; Harper, R.; Burton, M.; Ellis, C.; Newton, P.M.; Rozenberg, P.; Saddiqui, S.; Van Haeringen, K. Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Stud. High. Educ. 2018, 44, 1837–1856. [CrossRef] 39. Kozinets, R.V. Netnography. In The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–8. 40. Bowler, G.M., Jr. Netnography: A method specifically designed to study cultures and communities online. Qual. Rep. 2010, 15, 1270–1275. 41. Hilton, J. Open educational resources, student efficacy, and user perceptions: A synthesis of research published between 2015 and 2018. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2019, 68, 853–876. [CrossRef] 42. Baas, M.; Admiraal, W.; Berg, E.V.D. Teachers’ Adoption of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2019, 2019.[CrossRef] 43. Bozkurt, A.; Koseoglu, S.; Singh, L. An analysis of peer reviewed publications on openness in education in half a century: Trends and patterns in the open hemisphere. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 35, 35. [CrossRef] 44. Abramczyk, A.; Jurkowski, S. Cooperative learning as an evidence-based teaching strategy: What teachers know, believe, and how they use it. J. Educ. Teach. 2020, 46, 296–308. [CrossRef] 45. Cronin, C. Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2017, 18, 18. [CrossRef] 46. Nascimbeni, F.; Burgos, D.; Campbell, L.M.; Tabacco, A. Institutional mapping of open educational practices beyond use of Open Educational Resources. Distance Educ. 2018, 39, 511–527. [CrossRef] 47. Bokova, T.N. Mentality Influence on the Learning Process in China and Russia. Eur. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. EpSBS 2019, 69, 164–172. [CrossRef] 48. Hoferichter, F.; Bakadorova, O.; Raufelder, D.; Francisco, M.B. A comparison of Russian and Philippine secondary school students on their sociomotivational relationships in school: A motivation typology. Int. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 7, 89–101. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).