↓ Skip to main content

Using social media to support small group learning

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using social media to support small group learning
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1060-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Duncan Cole, Emma Rengasamy, Shafqat Batchelor, Charles Pope, Stephen Riley, Anne Marie Cunningham

Abstract

Medical curricula are increasingly using small group learning and less didactic lecture-based teaching. This creates new challenges and opportunities in how students are best supported with information technology. We explored how university-supported and external social media could support collaborative small group working on our new undergraduate medical curriculum. We made available a curation platform (Scoop.it) and a wiki within our virtual learning environment as part of year 1 Case-Based Learning, and did not discourage the use of other tools such as Facebook. We undertook student surveys to capture perceptions of the tools and information on how they were used, and employed software user metrics to explore the extent to which they were used during the year. Student groups developed a preferred way of working early in the course. Most groups used Facebook to facilitate communication within the group, and to host documents and notes. There were more barriers to using the wiki and curation platform, although some groups did make extensive use of them. Staff engagement was variable, with some tutors reviewing the content posted on the wiki and curation platform in face-to-face sessions, but not outside these times. A small number of staff posted resources and reviewed student posts on the curation platform. Optimum use of these tools depends on sufficient training of both staff and students, and an opportunity to practice using them, with ongoing support. The platforms can all support collaborative learning, and may help develop digital literacy, critical appraisal skills, and awareness of wider health issues in society.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 240 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 12%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 6%
Other 62 26%
Unknown 75 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 21%
Social Sciences 32 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 9%
Computer Science 12 5%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 79 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,497,570
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#378
of 3,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,445
of 335,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#14
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.