Social Media and Artificial Intelligence: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Julia Lynn Parra
,
Suparna Chatterjee

Prior to and during the pandemic, social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook emerged as dynamic online spaces for diverse communities facilitating engagement and learning. As with all technology, social media is also riddled with complex issues and unfortunately, is increasingly considered unsafe. The emergence and popularity of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT, Lensa AI, and Canva Magic Write present new challenges and opportunities and cannot be avoided by the educational communities.

  • social media
  • Twitter
  • artificial intelligence
  • ChatGPT

1. Introduction

In the early 2020s, a series of pivotal events, for better or worse, have significantly reshaped the educational technology landscape. These included the global COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, which fundamentally impacted how education is delivered and experienced, the upheaval in the social media landscape, and the release of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools like Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT). There are many critical questions to ask and conversations to be had about uses of the Internet, everything on the spectrum from the concerns and problems of mental, physical, and digital health/safety which have been increasingly in the spotlight, to the implications of empowerment and engagement for teaching and learning. In higher education, it is too soon to fully understand the full impact of the pandemic; however, things seem to have settled a bit in a simultaneously concerning yet hopeful aftermath. It is a concerning time due to disruptions, failures and dehumanization in education due to the pandemic [1][2], as well as increased uncertainty and instability evidenced in existing and new technologies [3]; yet, it is hopeful because we are humans, and as we can, we will strive to take the next best steps for our students and for each other.

2. Intentional Uses of Social Media

Social media was not originally designed for educational purposes, but certain features such as Web 2.0 applications and social networking have made it a useful tool in education [4]. Twitter as a microblogging tool that includes the engaging and organizational feature of hashtags, supported professional [5] and self-directed learning [6], and has an impact on the community, communication, and casual (informal) learning for students [7]. Social media creates connections for niche communities and is often described in the context of the development of personal and/or professional learning networks (PLN) [8][9], creating broader individual and collective learning opportunities. Professional educational communities have found numerous types of interaction, engagement, and empowerment [10], and consider the criticality of Black Twitter [11], wherein exists “one of the largest gatherings of Black online users ever” and “serves as a potent example of Black digital expertise” (para 3); and some are asking, “What’s going to happen to Black Twitter?” (para 2).
The literature on social media and education highlighted that the use of social media platforms such as wikis [12], Twitter [13][14], and/or Facebook [15] resulted in higher participation and improved learning in secondary and higher education [16]. In a recent research, the researchers looked at social media and Twitter use in the online courses. In one study, the researchers identified “(1) evidence of cognitive, social, and teaching presence for students completing course activities using Twitter, that is, for their formal learning; and that (2) students developed course competencies during formal course activities using Twitter that supported cognitive and social presence beyond the course requirements, that is, for their informal learning” [17] (p. 327). In a follow-up study, the researchers identified the importance of engaging students with “(1) sharing of learning artifacts, (2) engaging in creative pedagogical practice, (3) the concept of fun, and (4) collaboration and teamwork”, which confirmed for us “(1) the importance of student-centered design, (2) the continued use and adoption of relevant technology tools and skills, and (3) building community with the frameworks of Community of Inquiry and the modes of interaction model” [18] (p. 251). This successful use of Twitter encouraged us to continue revising the courses, focusing on student engagement as a priority during and immediately after the pandemic, when the challenges for online learning were amplified. 

3. The Challenges and Concerning Status of Social Media

Until recently, the perceived benefits of integrating social media into education outweighed its disadvantages [19][20] prompting many educators, like us, to adopt it as a tool for facilitating engaged learning [21]. Of course, using social media in education has had its issues. Challenges have included classroom distractions [22], a perceived loss of control over students in the classroom [23], and reduced student focus and multitasking negatively impacting learning, performance, and retention [24]. Additionally, concerns have arisen among students who are not comfortable using social media due to concerns of social media addiction and cyberbullying [25][26][27][28], issues related to security and privacy such as the public accessibility of information [29], and an inundation of misinformation and disinformation [30].
Sundaram and Radha [31] investigated the security involved in social media use among youth internet users. They found that social networks store end users’ information remotely to personalize services and sell information to advertisers. These practices raise concerns about privacy and the commodification of personal information and contribute to the accumulation of “Big Data” [31]. Big data has been identified both as a priority and concern since 2014–2016 by the policy of the Obama White House Office of Science and Technology [32]. Moreover, this use of automated and algorithmic processes in social media has led to concerns about unintended bias and discrimination [33][34], which can be perpetuated through academic texts [35][36] and news outlets [37]. Bias in machine learning has been discussed by researchers [38][39], and experts argue that these technologies are not neutral; rather, they are value laden [40][41][42] and their design has the potential for “racialized, gendered and colonized hierarchies” [32] (pp. 2123–2124). These issues have become increasingly present in recent years, particularly with significant events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the sale of Twitter, and the rise of GenAI tools. Author B encountered increased concerns about the use of social media from students in an undergraduate course in 2022 and author A was experiencing increasing challenges using Twitter in her classes; both authors have felt the need to step back and hold critical conversations with each other and their students. As humans and educators, it is incumbent upon us to take responsibility and be accountable for the outcomes we are all experiencing. With increasing challenges and concerns in the social media landscape, educators and educational researchers are taking a step back, and with the advent of generative AI tools that carry many of the same issues alongside new challenges, Mishra et al. note both “hand-wringing-and some celebration-about the impact these tools will have on education” [3] (p. 235).

4. The Implications of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence in education has been the subject of research for over two decades [43]. However, it was not until the past couple of years (2022–2023) that AI tools, specifically generative AI tools like ChatGPT, DALL-E, MidJourney, Bard, Bing Chat, Lensa AI, and Canva Magic Write [3][44][45], became widely accessible and started to influence online teaching practices. ChatGPT was released by OpenAI to the world in the late fall of 2022, and at the time, it was estimated to have reached “100 million monthly active users in January 2023” [46] and was noted to be “the fastest-growing consumer application in history” (p. 1). Watters and Lemanski [47] conducted a review of the early literature on ChatGPT, with findings revealing a “predominance of negative sentiment across disciplines” and “raising concerns about employment opportunities and ethical considerations” similar to concerns of use of social media and the internet in general of “privacy, bias, transparency, and accountability”, yet holding “promise for improved communication” and needing further research “to address its capabilities and limitations” (Abstract and Discussion para 2). Dai, Liu, and Lim [48] identify ChatGPT as “a student-driven innovation” (p. 1) and a “potent enabler for enhancing education quality and transforming higher education” specifically, as it and tools like it “can be leveraged to enhance learning analytic techniques, generate customized scaffoldings, facilitate idea formation, and eventually expand educational access and resources for social justice” (p. 2).
Sok and Heng [49] highlighted some time-saving educational uses of ChatGPT, including helping teachers develop learning assessments, provide virtual tutoring, draft outlines, and brainstorming. They identified concerns related to such uses of ChatGPT, especially in regards to academic integrity including biased learning assessments, inaccurate or fake information, and an overreliance on AI tools. For example, using AI for brainstorming an idea or to create an outline could interfere with students developing these skills as well as losing the practical experience of becoming successful after struggle [50]. Part of the art of teaching and learning is scaffolding student learning and balancing it with the right amount of struggle, i.e., through the zone of proximal development [51]. If artfully used, these burgeoning GenAI tools might support scaffolding and assistance to the struggling learner, creating the opportunity for learning at the early stages where a student might give up, thereby facilitating and deepening learning experiences, e.g., “get away from the high school paper and go further, to write something larger, like a thesis” [50] (para 33).
The impact of GenAI on educational practices is in its early stages, and it is ChatGPT that is generating most of the discussion. The discussions cross the spectrum from the language of opportunity, time-saving strategies and efficiencies, hopeful transformations, and the potential to revolutionize education [52][53][54] to the language of challenges and fears; again, mostly regarding how assessments will be impacted and long-held concerns related to cheating and plagiarism [53], but also vulnerabilities related to bias, dis- and misinformation, and cybersecurity and privacy [47][55][56]. Fullan, Azorín, and Harris [53] note that “an assessment of the real impact that this technology will have on teaching and learning for good or bad, has yet to be made,” that “there is a lack of research, guidelines, and regulations specific to ethical issues raised by the application of GenAI to education,” (p. 2) and that there is a tangible fear regarding “whether AI in education has been designed to supplant teachers/leaders or reduce them to a functional role, rather than to assist them to teach/lead more effectively” (p. 5).
Of note, two key publications have been especially instrumental as we engaged in dialogue and critical conversations. The first, “TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and Generative AI” [3] was a product of interinstitutional coauthoring by one of our colleagues within our department who shared it with us. In this article, Mishra et al. [3] highlighted the need to further develop “TPACK in the age of Gen AI,” (p. 247) arguing for a “more expansive description of contextual knowledge (XK)” (p. 236) that accounts for the broader implications of GenAI on individuals and society. This work provided key essential descriptions and terminology, including a description of GenAI as “applications which are designed to create new content (text, images, video, music, artwork, synthetic data, etc.)” (p. 236). Additionally, they offered a set of probing questions that enriched our critical conversations. They note that these questions should have been “asked of social media over a decade ago” (p. 237) and we agree, as we step back from our own uses of social media. The first questions in their list are “What does it mean to teach in an era where GenAI becomes part of our everyday life? In a time when it will be increasingly difficult to distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated content?” (p. 237).
The second publication, “How do we respond to generative AI in education?” by Mills, Bali, and Eaton [57], proposes that open educational practices “can help educators cope and perhaps thrive in an era of rapidly evolving AI” (p. 16). It was shared with one of us on LinkedIn and begins to address the aforementioned questions by advocating for open educational practices, two of which stood out for their immediate relevance to this study: engaging with interdisciplinary and interinstitutional online communities for ideas exchange and reflection and collaborating with students. These practices are not just theoretical, as they are the very means by which these articles reached us, exemplifying the power of open educational resources. Furthermore, the practice of collaborating with students has been crucial for us in answering the question “where do we go from here?”

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/educsci14010068

References

  1. Nussli, N.; Oh, K.; Davis, J.P. Capturing the successes and failures during pandemic teaching: An investigation of university students’ perceptions of their faculty’s emergency remote teaching approaches. E-Learn. Dig. Media 2022, 21, 1–28.
  2. Robbins, K.; Cipollone, K. The real learning loss: A lost opportunity to reimagine schooling. Educ. Stud. 2023, 59, 184–205.
  3. Mishra, P.; Warr, M.; Islam, R. TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and generative AI. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 2023, 39, 235–251.
  4. Rehm, M.; Notten, A. Twitter as an informal learning space for teachers!? The role of social capital in Twitter conversations among teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2016, 60, 215–223.
  5. NASSP. Using Mobile and Social Technologies in Schools. 2019. Available online: https://www.nassp.org/policy-advocacy-center/nassp-position-statements/using-mobile-and-social-technologies-in-schools/ (accessed on 5 November 2023).
  6. Luo, T.; Sickle, J.; Cheng, L. Preservice teachers’ participation and perceptions of Twitter live chats as personal learning networks. TechTrends 2017, 61, 226–235.
  7. Reed, P. Hashtags and retweets: Using Twitter to aid community, communication and casual (informal) learning. Res. Learn. Technol. 2013, 21.
  8. Kreijns, K.; Van Acker, F.; Vermeulen, M.; Van Buuren, H. Community of Inquiry: Social presence revisited. E-Learn. Digit. Media 2014, 11, 5–18.
  9. Prenger, R.; Poortman, C.L.; Handelzalts, A. Professional learning networks: From teacher learning to school improvement? J. Educ. Chang. 2021, 22, 13–52.
  10. Li, J.; Greenhow, C. Scholars and social media: Tweeting in the conference backchannel for professional learning. EMI Educ. Media Int. 2015, 52, 1–14.
  11. Brock, A. What’s Going to Happen to Black Twitter? MSNBC. 2023. Available online: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/elon-musk-black-twitter-future-rcna93458 (accessed on 8 November 2023).
  12. Trocky, N.; Buckley, K. Evaluating the impact of wikis on student learning outcomes: An integrative review. J. Profs. Nurs. 2016, 32, 364–376.
  13. Aydin, S. Twitter as an educational environment. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2014, 15, 10–21. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Selami-Aydin/publication/274703688_Twitter_as_an_educational_environment/links/552644000cf25d66dc94822c/Twitter-as-an-educational-environment.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19 (accessed on 20 January 2020).
  14. Forgie, S.; Duff, J.; Ross, S.; Ellison, N.; Lampe, C.; Lenhart, A.; Purcell, K. Twelve tips for using Twitter as a learning tool in medical education. Med. Teach. 2013, 35, 8–14.
  15. Yang, Y.; Wang, Q.; Woo, H.L.; Quek, C.L. Using Facebook for teaching and learning: A review of the literature. Int. J. Cont. Eng. Educ. Life-Long Learn. 2011, 21, 71–86.
  16. Hew, K.; Cheung, W. Use of web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The search for evidence-based practice. Educ. Res. Rev. 2013, 9, 47–64.
  17. Chatterjee, S.; Parra, J. Undergraduate students engagement in formal and informal learning: Applying the community of inquiry framework. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2022, 50, 327–355.
  18. Chatterjee, S.; Parra, J. Using Twitter for engagement and student-centered design in online teacher preparation courses. In A Retrospective of Teaching, Technology, and Teacher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic; Baumgartner, E., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Ferdig, R.E., Hartshorne, R., Mouza, C., Eds.; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE): Waynesville, NC, USA, 2022; pp. 251–257. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/221522 (accessed on 19 September 2022).
  19. Dunlap, J.C.; Lowenthal, P.R. Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 2009, 20, 129–136.
  20. Sinnappan, S.; Zutshi, S. Using microblogging to facilitate community of inquiry: An Australian tertiary experience. In Changing Demands, Changing Directions, Proceedings of the ASCILITE, Hobart, Australia, 4 December 2011; Williams, G., Statham, P., Brown, N., Cleland, B., Eds.; Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Tugun, Australia, 2011; pp. 1123–1135.
  21. Sharma, P.; Tietjen, P. Examining patterns of participation and meaning making in student blogs: A case study in higher education. Am. J. Distance Educ. 2016, 30, 2–13.
  22. Piotrowski, C. Academic applications of social media: A review of peer-review research in higher education. Psychol. Educ. 2015, 52, 15–22.
  23. Tess, P. The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual): A literature review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 60–68.
  24. Raut, V.; Patil, P. Use of social media in education: Positive and negative impact on the students. Int. J. Recent Innov. Trends Comput. Commun. 2016, 4, 281–285.
  25. Andreassen, C.S.; Billieux, J.; Griffiths, M.D.; Kuss, D.J.; Demetrovics, Z.; Mazzoni, E.; Pallesen, S. The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2016, 30, 252.
  26. Andreassen, C.S.; Pallesen, S.; Griffiths, M.D. The relationship between addictive use of social media, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large national survey. Addict. Behav. 2017, 64, 287–293.
  27. Ryan, T.; Chester, A.; Reece, J.; Xenos, S. The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review of Facebook addiction. J. Behav. Addict. 2014, 3, 133–148.
  28. Baccarella, C.V.; Wagner, T.F.; Kietzmann, J.H.; McCarthy, I.P. Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 431–438.
  29. Gani, A.M.O.; Paik, Y. Factors influencing the retention of international IT talent: An empirical investigation in Singapore. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Dev. Manag. 2016, 16, 1.
  30. Di Domenico, G.; Sit, J.; Ishizaka, A.; Nunan, D. Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 329–341.
  31. Sundaram, A.; Radha, P. Social media security and privacy protection concerning youths. How to be safe, secure and social. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2019, 18, 453–471.
  32. Greene, D.; Hoffmann, A.L.; Stark, L. Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: A critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 8–11 January 2019; pp. 2122–2131.
  33. Muñoz, C.; Smith, M.; Patil, D.J. Big Data: A Report on Algorithmic Systems, Opportunity, and Civil Rights; Executive Office of the President: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. Available online: https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo90618 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  34. O’Neil, C. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy; Crown Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
  35. O’Neil, C. The Ivory Tower Can’t Keep Ignoring Tech. The New York Times, 14 November 2017. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/opinion/academia-tech-algorithms.html (accessed on 5 November 2023).
  36. Pasquale, F. The Black Box Society; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015.
  37. Angwin, J.; Larson, J.; Mattu, S.; Kirchner, L. Machine Bias: There’s Software Used Across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And it’s Biased against Blacks ProPublica, 23 May 2016. Available online: https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-biasrisk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  38. Hussein, M.A.; Hassan, H.; Nassef, M. Automated language essay scoring systems: A literature review. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2019, 5, e208.
  39. Matta, M.; Mercer, S.H.; Keller-Margulis, M.A. Implications of bias in automated writing quality scores for fair and equitable assessment decisions. Sch. Psychol. 2023, 38, 173–181.
  40. Eglash, R. Race, Sex and Nerds: From Black Geeks to Asian American Hipsters. Soc. Text 2002, 20, 49–64.
  41. Irani, L.; Vertesi, J.; Dourish, P.; Philip, K.; Grinter, R.E. Postcolonial computing: A lens on design and development. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; pp. 1311–1320.
  42. Weber, R.N. Manufacturing gender in military cockpit design. In The Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd ed.; MacKenzie, D., Wajcman, J., Eds.; McGraw Hill Education/Open University: Buckhingham, UK, 1999.
  43. Chen, X.; Zou, D.; Xie, H.; Cheng, G.; Liu, C. Two decades of artificial intelligence in education. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2022, 25, 28–47.
  44. Sottile, Z. What to Know about Lensa, the AI Portrait App All Over Social Media. CNN Style. 2023. Available online: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/lensa-ai-app-art-explainer-trnd/index.html (accessed on 10 November 2023).
  45. Wilson, M. Canvas’s New Generative AI Tools Are Now the Ones to Beat. Fast Company, 8 November 2023. Available online: https://www.fastcompany.com/90869562/canvas-new-generative-ai-tools-are-now-the-ones-to-beat. (accessed on 10 November 2023).
  46. Hu, K. ChatGPT Sets Record for Fastest-Growing User Base: Analyst note. Reuters, 1 February 2023. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/ (accessed on 10 November 2023).
  47. Watters, C.; Lemanski, M.K. Universal skepticism of ChatGPT: A review of early literature on chat generative pre-trained transformer. Front. Big Data 2023, 6, 1–10.
  48. Dai, Y.; Liu, A.; Lim, C.P. Reconceptualizing ChatGPT and generative AI as a student-driven innovation in higher education. Procedia CIRP 2023, 119, 84–90.
  49. Sok, S.; Heng, K. ChatGPT for education and research: A review of benefits and risks. SSRN Electron. J. 2023.
  50. Roberts, M. AI is forcing teachers to confront an existential question. The Washington Post, 12 December 2023. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/12/ai-chatgpt-universities-learning/ (accessed on 12 December 2023).
  51. Margolis, A.A. Zone of proximal development, scaffolding and teaching practice. Cult.-Hist. Psychol. 2020, 16, 15–26.
  52. Malik, T.; Hughes, L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Dettmer, S. Exploring the transformative impact of generative AI on higher education. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 69–77.
  53. Fullan, M.; Azorín, C.; Harris, A.; Jones, M. Artificial intelligence and school leadership:Challenges, opportunities and implications. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 2023, 1–8.
  54. Perera, P.; Lankathilake, M. Preparing to revolutionize education with the multi-model GenAI tool Google Gemini? A journey towards effective policy making. J. Adv. Educ. Philos. 2023, 7, 246–253.
  55. Shoaib, M.R.; Wang, Z.; Ahvanooey, M.T.; Zhao, J. Deepfakes, misinformation, and disinformation in the era of frontier AI, generative AI, and large AI models. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2311.17394.
  56. Gupta, M.; Akiri, C.; Aryal, K.; Parker, E.; Praharaj, L. From chatgpt to threatgpt: Impact of generative ai in cybersecurity and privacy. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 80218–80245.
  57. Mills, A.; Bali, M.; Eaton, L. How do we respond to generative AI in education? Open educational practices give us a framework for an ongoing process. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 2023, 6, 16–30.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback