Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) A
literature review
Paul A. Tess
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, 56 East River Road, Suite 250, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The ubiquity of social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) is no more apparent than at the university. Social
Available online 26 January 2013 media are increasingly visible in higher education settings as instructors look to technology to mediate
and enhance their instruction as well as promote active learning for students. Many scholars argue for
Keywords: the purposeful integration of social media as an educational tool. Empirical evidence, however, has lagged
Social media in supporting the claim. Most of the existing research on the utility and effectiveness of social media in
Higher education the higher education class is limited to self-reported data (e.g., surveys, questionnaires) and content anal-
Facebook
yses. This paper summarizes the scholarly writings as well as reviews the ndings of empirical investi-
Twitter
Blogs
gations. Some limitations are discussed, and future areas of research are proposed.
Educational technology 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The growth of social media and other Web 2.0 technologies is
unprecedented (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). Social
media technology has become an essential part of personal life as
users generate content, share photos, choose to like, or interact
in a game. The ubiquity of social media is no more apparent than
at the university where the technology is transforming the ways
students communicate, collaborate, and learn.
Even as todays college student experiences a variety of class-
room forms (i.e., brick and mortar, virtual, hybrid), social medias
use and inuence are evolving depending on context. Widely em-
braced as a tool for personal or business purposes, the notion that
social media could be an effective tool for educational purposes has
received recent attention. At the same time, this developing arena
is receiving an increased research interest. The potential role for
social media as a facilitator and enhancer of learning is worth
investigating. As a result, this literature review will explore the
question, What is the role of social media in the higher education
classroom (real and virtual)? as described in current scholarship
and studied in empirical investigations.
The review begins with a brief description of the literature re-
view methodology employed in the identication of relevant
works. An operational denition for social media is offered fol-
lowed by a look at usage trends of the most popular social net-
working sites. The next section of the review focuses on what
researchers have argued should be the antecedents of the educa-
tional use of social media. The affordances and drawbacks of social
media use in class are explored next. Scholarship surrounding each
E-mail address: tessx004@umn.edu
of the most popular social media applications follows. The review
concludes with suggestions for future research as gleaned from the
literature or proposed by the author.
2. Methodology
A review of the literature was undertaken in September and Octo-
ber of 2012. I systematically searched the following specialized data-
base sources: Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and ERIC. Additionally
Google Scholar searches were performed. Search words and phrases
included Facebook, Higher Education, Social Media, Social Media in
Education, MySpace, LinkedIn, Web 2.0, Social Networking, Social
Networking Sites, and Blogs. The snowball method of using the
most recent works to nd relevant articles cited in them provided
additional articles. Since keywords in research articles are not based
on common lists, it is highly likely that some of the literature was
missed. An interesting strategy from a literature review on the same
theme could be noted here. Conole & Alevizou, 2010, besides the tra-
ditional review approach, used social media (i.e., Cloudworks) to out-
source to other researchers inviting their collective input.
3. Denition and pervasiveness
3.1. Social media dened
Social media is a term that is broadly used to describe any num-
ber of technological systems related to collaboration and commu-
nity (Joosten, 2012). While it appears that a specic denition may
be elusive (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), social media is often de-
scribed by example. Social networking sites, blogs, wikis, multi-
media platforms, virtual game worlds, and virtual social worlds

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.032
 P.A. Tess / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68
are among the applications typically included in recent
illustrations (Barnes & Lescault, 2011; McEwan, 2012). To narrow
the range for this review, social networking sites (SNSs) were cho-
sen to be the focus in recognition of the prevalence of SNSs such as
Facebook and MySpace, and LinkedIn. Used interchangeably with
terms such as social networking or online social networks, SNSs
are web-based services that allow users to make personal proles,
create content, and share messages by connecting with other users
in the system (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Some researchers use the
more inclusive term Web 2.0 when referring to SNSs and other so-
cial media (Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk, 2011; Hemmi, Bayne, & Land,
2009; Kaplan & Haenline, 2010).
The task of dening social media is made more challenging by
the fact that it is constantly in a state of change. SNSs evolve as
developers create new or enhanced features that will meet the de-
mands of users. Some social networks are tailored to niche markets
so features may be differentiated for particular users. For example,
Match.com and eHarmony.com are SNSs that cater to dating (and
were not included in this review). Ning allows users to create their
own social networks. A brief description of Facebooks functional-
ity portrays most current capabilities of SNSs. Inside Facebook,
users can send messages, add friends, update personal proles, join
groups, develop applications, host content, and learn about other
users through their online proles (Haase, 2010).
3.2. Prevalence of social media
3.2.1. Facebook
Facebook may be the face of online social networks. Developed
in 2004 by then Harvard undergraduate Mark Zuckerberg, it is the
dominant social networking site (Lenhart et al., 2010). Among
the many studies reporting statistics related to Facebook adoption
and usage (e.g., Hargittai, 2007; Jones & Fox, 2009; Lenhart & Mad-
den, 2007; Salaway & Caruso, 2008), Ellison, Steineld, and Lampe
(2007), found that 94% of their college students were users of Face-
book spending an average of 1030 min on the site and having
150200 friends. More recently and in a larger study, 90% of under-
graduate college students were reported to have Facebook ac-
counts (Harvard, 2011). Reaching the one billion user mark
during the rst days of October, 2012 (Facebook.com), an interest-
ing usage trend has recently emerged. College-age users (Face-
books most mature market) reportedly spent 25% less time on
the site in August of 2012, a declining trend predicted to continue
(Blodget, 2012).
3.2.2. MySpace
MySpace, co-founded by Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson in
2003, was an early addition to the SNS eld. With enormous
growth in its rst few years, by 2009 it was considered the leading
social media site (Lenhart, 2009). Fifty percent of adult social net-
working users reported that they owned a MySpace account. Users
were found to be more likely women, Hispanic or black, and high-
school educated with some college experience. The median age
was 27 years old. Like Facebook it offers an interactive, user-sub-
mitted network of friends, personal proles, blogs, groups, photos,
music and videos (boyd et al., 2007).
3.2.3. LinkedIn
Used primarily for professional networking, LinkedIn is a net-
working site that launched in May, 2003. LinkedIn users usually
afliate with others in their work maintaining a list of contacts
for people they know and trust. The trust factor is an important
concept in this SNS as connecting with others requires either a
pre-existing relationship or some mutual contact (Papacharissi,
2009). Last December, comScore reported that LinkedIn had
reached the 35,000,000 user mark making it the third most visited
A61
SNS in the United States social networking market (comScore
December 23, 2011).
3.2.4. Blog
A weblog or blog is essentially an online journal where a num-
ber of contributors participate by dialoging about a particular topic
or focus. Like other social media, blogs allow users to post personal
content, to comment on and connect to other media sites, and to
make observations about other users posts (Du & Wagner, 2006).
The word weblog was used as early as 1997 (Blood, 2000). Indica-
tive of its growth, by 2004 the word blog was announced by Mer-
riam-Webster as its Word of the Year (http://www.merriam-
webster.com/info/04words.htm). One of the main tracking and
ranking services for blogs, Technorati.com (2012) (http://techno-
rati.com), lists over 1,315,000 active sites in its directory. As a basic
tool, blogs today are most often provided by hosting services such
as Blogger, ModBlog, and Xanga. Sophisticated and larger users
may need to host their own blogs (Du & Wagner, 2006).
3.2.5. Twitter
Twitter is a social networking site that is often termed a microb-
logging service. In contrast to Facebook or MySpace, Twitter limits
posts or updates to 160 characters. Some have suggested that Twit-
ter makes for a faster mode of communication because of the rel-
atively short post lengths (Java, Song, Finin, & Tseng, 2007). The
average blogger may update every few days whereas the average
microblogger will update several times a day (Java et al., 2007).
3.3. Social Impact
The Pew Internet Project, an initiative of the Pew Research Cen-
ter, has gleaned extensive data on the social impact of the internet
(www.pewinternet.org). Since 2007, the research organization has
studied the use of social networking sites. In their 2010 report of
social media use among young adults, Lenhart et al. found 72 %
of online 1829 year olds used SNSs which was signicantly higher
than the 39% of users older than 29. Sixty-six percent of young
adults maintained a prole on My Space but only 7% on LinkedIn.
Among all age groups, young adults led the way in using Twitter
as 33% of the group reported posting or reading status updates.
More recently, Madden and Zickuhr (2011) reported that 83% of
internet users within the ages 1829 group used social networking
sites (61% of those on a daily basis). Young adults were more likely
to use SNSs than older adults, but the percentage gap was reduced
signicantly from the previous 2 years. Fifty to sixty-four year old
users had more than doubled from 25% in 2009 to 51% in 2011. Of
all web-based applications, only email and search engines were
used more frequently than SNSs among all ages.
While social networks have similar functionality, they exhibit
different social norms and organization. In a comparative analysis
of Facebook, LinkedIn, and another SNS called ASmallWorld, Papa-
charissi (2009) concluded that Facebook was much more publicly
open (a glasshouse) where behavioral norms were looser. Users
could leave cues for one another, essentially constructing their
own norms. As was expected, LinkedIn was more tightly organized
offering less room for spontaneity or norm generation. The re-
searcher posited that users did not have to wonder what was con-
sidered right or wrong on this website.
4. Antecedents of classroom use
4.1. Conceptual and theoretical antecedents
Given the prevalence of social media in general and the satura-
tion of SNSs in particular, many higher education instructors have
A62 P.A. Tess / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68
looked to the technology to mediate and enhance their instruction
as well as promote active learning for students (Anderson, 2007;
Eijkman, 2008; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010; Selwyn, 2010). Of course,
using the media may require the looking instructor to consider
not only the practical integration of the tool into course goals,
but also (and more importantly) the theoretical framework for
implementing the technology as a learning resource. Some have
suggested that the latter has drawn little attention to date from
either instructors or researchers (Merchant, 2012). The notion of
bringing more scholarship into this area will be one of the research
recommendations.
Selwyn (2010) argued that three interrelated concepts should
motivate the use of social media in higher education: the appar-
ently changing nature of the student who comes to the university
highly connected, collective, and creative; the changing relation-
ship that todays university learner has with knowledge consump-
tion, knowledge construction, and formal education; the de-
emphasis of institutionally provided learning and emergence of
user-driven education.
Similarly, McLoughlin and Lee (2010) commented on the affor-
dances and principles of social software as a pedagogical choice.
They argued that one of social constructivisms (Vygotsky, 1978)
foremost tenets can be applied to teaching with social media. That
is, learning is conversational in nature including dialogue and
shared activity. In addition, social networks can become the impe-
tus for inquiry-based approaches and collaboration. The commen-
tators also posited that social software applications promote active
participation, learner self-direction, and personal meaning
construction.
In line with social constructivism, situated learning theory ap-
pears to support SNSs in the classroom (Hung & Yuen, 2010). The
theory views learning as set in a participatory social context.
According to Lave and Wenger (1991), situated learning extends
the model of knowledge construction by proposing that learning
is situated in a specic context and embedded in a particular social
and physical environment. The use of social media to enhance the
community of practice in the college classroom makes for a log-
ical argument. Hung and Yuen (2010) contend that a sense of com-
munity is an essential element for successful e-learning.
4.2. The argument from a philosophical perspective
Others would argue for social media use from a more philo-
sophical perspective (Anderson, 2007; Brown & Duguid, 2002). So-
cial media enables what Eijkman (2008) termed non-foundational
network-centric learning spaces. He contended that higher educa-
tions approach to using Web 2.0 architecture needed to funda-
mentally change from its implementation of Web 1.0. Instead of
the information-focused paradigm (foundationalist), Web 2.0
afforded knowledge construction that was vested in globally di-
verse networks of learning. Optimum use of social media meant
linking the architecture of participation to another architecture
built on non-foundational acculturation (Eijkman, 2008).
4.3. Antecedent cautions
The argument is not one-sided, however. Some scholars posit
that social media should not be adopted just because of availability
or affordances. Already in the early 1980s, Clark (1983) argued
that no available research supported any use of media. His argu-
ment included the often quoted grocery truck analogy about
claiming the delivery vehicle (media) as the cause for student
achievement. More recently Friesen and Lowe (2011) questioned
the ability of social media to foster debate and disagreement, a cru-
cial component of learning. Like others, they made the argument
that social networks were not developed for formal education. To
adopt their use simply because they were so readily available
was to employ a tool for a task for which it may be unsuitable. Cau-
tioning against the over-privileging of SNSs, Madge, Meek, Wel-
lens, and Hooley (2009) concluded that academic adoption of
social media should involve a study of ownership and boundaries.
5. Findings
5.1. Affordances and drawbacks
Researchers have been examining the role that social media
plays in the higher education classroom. Some of the work has
highlighted the affective outcomes of SNS integration. A few stud-
ies investigated learning outcomes and student achievement in
relationship to the educational use of social media in college
courses. While the majority of studies reported positive affor-
dances, there was evidence of drawbacks as well. This section sum-
marizes key ndings from the studies.
King, Greianus, Carbonaro, Drummond, and Patterson (2009)
described the development of an interprofessional team course in
the healthcare eld showing how to integrate social networking.
Recognizing the need for future healthcare providers to adopt a
community of practice paradigm, the researchers found that the
integration of an educationally structured social networking envi-
ronment facilitated growth toward the concept of effective com-
munication. One recommendation that surfaced was the
suggestion that the institutional website have a more intuitive for-
mat similar to the commercial applications such as MySpace.
Recently, Sadaf, Newby, and Ertmer (2012) studied pre-service
teachers beliefs about their intent to use Web 2.0 technology in
their future classrooms. The 12 participants in the exploratory
qualitative study (i.e., interviews, reections) were rst-year stu-
dents in a teacher education program at a large Midwestern uni-
versity. In addition to the 12 initial participants, 190 students
completed an open-ended survey. The results showed that a
majority (51%) were committed to Web 2.0 technology as an
instructional tool primarily because it may increase student
engagement. The pre-service teachers recognized that although
they were comfortable users of the technology, they would need
guidance as how to implement its effective use in the classroom.
Other students did not perceive the affordances and offered a
different perspective. Using a web-based questionnaire and stu-
dent interviews from four universities, Jones, Blackey, Fitzgibbon,
& Chew (2010) found a large distinction in student perceptions
regarding technology use in the personal space versus the learning
space. While more than 70% of the students reported having a so-
cial networking account, they also indicated that they rarely used
social media for educational purposes. Three of the ve themes
that emerged in the interviews may explain the reasons for the di-
vide. (a) The students tended to separate their social life (pleasur-
able) from their learning (painful); (b) concerns arose about the
difculty in identifying original sources of ideas that were posted
(concern for copyright infringement); and (c) the students were
not keen on information overload or the added time constraints
that technology may bring.
Brady, Holcomb, and Smith (2010) studied the use of Ning in
online graduate courses at North Carolina State University. A con-
venience sample of students (N = 50) from three different courses
were surveyed to determine their perceptions of the SNS for e-
learning benets. Seventy percent reported agreement with the
notion that Ning made more communication possible between
peers than a comparable face-to-face class. Nearly the same
amount (82%) indicated that Ning helped communication outside
of the class as well. Most users (74%) agreed that Ning allowed
them to reect and comment on others work more effectively than
may have occurred in a face-to-face class.
 P.A. Tess / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68
By conducting a small-scale survey of faculty and students at a
mid-size southern university (public), Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb,
Herman, and Witty (2010) compared the uses of Facebook between
the two groups. They reported that 95% of the students surveyed
compared to 73% of the faculty had Facebook accounts. Of all the
uses identied (e.g., communications with friends, career network-
ing), communication regarding coursework was least on the list.
The faculty were less likely to support Facebook as an instructional
tool (v2 = 17.464, p < .001).
Additional faculty perceptions were studied by Ajjan and Hart-
shorne (2008) in which they collected survey data from 136 faculty
members at a large university in southeast United States to inves-
tigate facultys awareness of technologies and benets of adopting
Web 2.0 tools for the classroom. Social networks were viewed as a
useful tool for improving student satisfaction (32%) and increasing
student to student interaction (56%). However, only 24% of the fac-
ulty used SNSs in their courses. In examining the factors that pre-
dicted potential use, the researchers discovered that attitudes and
perceived behavior control strongly inuenced adoption. Ease of
use, usefulness, and compatibility were the primary determinants
of attitudes with self-efcacy the sole signicant predictor for
behavior control. One of the conclusions suggested that training
in the integration of technology was an important mechanism in
inuencing decisions by faculty to utilize them in class.
Surveying a large group (N = 2368) of students from a Northeast
college, Junco (2012) investigated the relationship between type of
and frequency of Facebook use and student engagement. Prior re-
search had shown a positive relationship between use and engage-
ment (Heiberger & Harper, 2008). One of Juncos (2012) outcome
variables for student engagement was time spent preparing for
class. He found that Facebook time and Facebook activity were
mildly, but signicantly (p < .001) predictive of classroom prepara-
tion time (1.6%, 1.7%, explained variance, respectively). While a sig-
nicant nding statistically, the relationship seemed to provide
little in terms of practical importance especially since the direction
of the effect could not be determined.
A few studies have shown that time spent on social networking
sites can negatively impact student achievement. Paul, Baker, and
Cochran (2012) examined a number of predictors often shown to
inuence student achievement and included time spent on SNSs
to model behaviors. Business students (N = 340) at a large state
university were surveyed with an instrument developed from
questions used previously in research as well the authors own per-
sonal experiences. In their nal structural equation model, the
researchers found a small, but signicant negative relationship
(r = .119, p = .048) between time spent on an SNS and academic
performance as measured by course grades and cumulative GPA.
Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) reported a negative relationship
between Facebook use and GPA. Quantitative data showed that
there were mean differences between the GPAs of users
(M = 3.06) and nonusers (M = 3.82). Thirty-ve of the 219 partici-
pants provided qualitative data by stating their reasons for the im-
pact of Facebook on their performance. Those suggesting that
Facebook had a negative impact had comments about distraction
or poor time-management skills (as observed in less time study-
ing). The researchers were cautious about implying a causal rela-
tionship as the study design did not permit such an implication.
Rather they concluded that the ndings may show that activities
done in parallel (i.e., multitasking) were important factors to
explore.
Motivated to replicate ndings of the negative relationship of
Facebook use and GPA, Pasek, More, and Hargittai (2009) found in-
stead mixed results. They used three existing data sets containing
the variables needed for study. In the largest group (N = 1049), a
representative sample of rst-year students at the University of
Illinois Chicago, there was no statistically signicant result
A63
(r = .010, p = .746) when no variables were controlled. On the other
hand, the data set from the smallest group (N = 303) from the
National Annenberg Survey of Youth, showed a reliable negative
relationship (r = .148, p = .010). The third data set (a follow-up
to the NASY) reported a positive relationship between Facebook
use and academic performance (r = .122, p = .002). The researchers
concluded that there was more evidence to support a positive cor-
relation between Facebook use and grades.
5.2. SNSs as course management systems
Wang, Woo, Quek, Yang, and Liu (2011) explored Facebooks
capabilities as a substitute for or addition to a learning manage-
ment system. Two groups of course participants (N = 14, graduate;
N = 14, undergraduate) enrolled at a teacher education institute in
Singapore completed course-end surveys related to Facebook use
in their respective class work. Reporting averages of Likert-type
data, the researchers indicated that overall, participants viewed
Facebook as a successful LMS for the course (M = 3.9, out of 5-point
scale) although a high standard deviation value for the graduate
students suggested there was less general agreement among that
group. A limitation of Facebook as a LMS substitute was explained
in that it did not support direct uploads of resources in typical
course formats such as a pdf document or PowerPoint presentation
(i.e., ppt).
Similarly, Schroeder and Greenbowe (2009) studied the effects
of introducing Facebook as the course communication tool versus
a learning management system (i.e., WebCT). The posts of 128
undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory inorganic
chemistry lab at Iowa State University were examined at the end
of the semester. Even though only 41% of the students enrolled
in the Facebook group for the course, the number of discussion
posts was nearly four times (67 versus 17) those in the WebCT for-
um. The researchers noted that the Facebook groups activity was
fairly consistent throughout the semester and that communication
patterns were more complex. They surmised that from simply a
standpoint of access, Facebook usage for personal reasons could
explain the differences in post quantity and quality.
5.3. Results from specic SNSs
5.3.1. Facebook
Facebook has been more widely investigated than most SNSs as
an instructional tool in the college classroom. Irwin, Ball, Desbrow,
and Leveritt (2012) studied the use of Facebook pages within four
specic university courses. Based on student perceptions, the nd-
ings showed that many course participants (N = 135, 78%) felt ini-
tially that Facebook could be an effective learning tool. Among the
top responses, increased interaction, participation in course discus-
sions, and posted lecture notes or assessments were chosen as
anticipated benets. However, in post-course surveys, only half
of the students felt that the Facebook inclusion actually assisted
their learning. The researchers suggested one reason for the medi-
ocre perception was that the instructors were inconsistent in their
integration attempts.
Ophus and Abbitt (2009) reported similar ndings as far as stu-
dents perceptions of Facebook utility. Students (N = 100) in a sur-
vey biology course felt that communication with other students
(95.5%), access to notes and materials (86.3%), and schedule views
(82.8%) were likely outcomes. Interestingly, they anticipated that
less likely activities were online discussions that included the
instructor (64.3%) and general communication with the instructor
(56.4%).
Finding little research on the types of discourse activated be-
tween instructor and learner, Rambe (2012) used Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) to study Facebook posts during a course taught at a
A64 P.A. Tess / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68
South African university. The posts revealed that more participants
were communicating administrative or formal type posts. Fewer
horizontal posts or liberating communication was evident.
The posts also showed a supercial engagement regarding theory
and exposed unsophisticated study skills. Two implications were
derived by the researcher. Instructors should involve students in
critical engagement rather than allow them to passively receive
teacher-generated content. Weak study skills and an over-reliance
on the instructor can be overcome by developing a community of
learners modeled in Facebook.
McCarthy (2010) suggested that Facebook was the ideal host
site for a blended learning environment. In a rst-year elective
course for 120 architecture students, 95% of participants agreed
that the inclusion of Facebook helped them to develop peer rela-
tionships. Most (92%) appreciated the interactive discussions with
peers in the virtual classroom. The researcher also found an in-
crease in course engagement particularly with an assessment task
as indicated by the Facebook activity logs.
Some researchers have waved the yellow caution ag. Madge
et al. (2009) recognized the importance of Facebook for social net-
working, but cautioned over-privileging the site when it comes to
actual pedagogical purposes. As pervasive as it may be (over 95%
saturation for British college students), Facebook usage as a teach-
ing tool did not have strong support among the 213 British stu-
dents sampled (<10%). The students preferences showed that
Facebook was important for social reasons or potentially for infor-
mal learning purposes (46%).
In a survey study of 300 randomly chosen students at the Uni-
versiti Sains Malaysia, Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin (2010) found
that the 74% students agreed that Facebook inculcated a more po-
sitive attitude towards learning English as a second language. A
similar percentage (72%) of the respondents felt that the use of so-
cial networking motivated them to communicate in English. Of
those who were not as positive about Facebook use, the most often
reported reason for the negative feelings was a recognition that the
use simply had not helped improve English acumen. The research-
ers concluded that the integration of Facebook as an education pro-
ject should require language instructors to align course objectives
and outcomes in a meaningful way.
5.3.2. Blogs
The weblog or blog has high visibility and popularity in the
world of social media networks perhaps explaining its prominence
in research investigations. In 2010, Sim and Hew conducted an
extensive review of empirical research on the use of weblogs in
higher education settings. They found that most of studies relied
on self-reported data (e.g., surveys, interviews) or blog content
analysis upon which to draw conclusions. The researchers uncov-
ered six major uses of blogs: (a) a learning journal for gathering
or reporting course-related information, (b) a record of daily expe-
riences that disclose personal information, (c) an outlet for
expressing emotions and feelings, (d) a communication tool for so-
cial interaction with other people, (e) an assessment tool for peer
evaluation, and (f) a task management tool for posting assign-
ments. The authors also summarized the affective outcomes re-
ported by the research articles (N = 24) in the review. Most
students agreed with the idea that blogs were easy to use and
should be used more as a learning tool particularly for formative
purposes. Negative perceptions included those who disliked writ-
ing, had a concern for privacy issues, and were unfamiliar with
the technology.
Since Sim & Hews review (2010), recent work has continued to
explore blogs as an educational tool in the higher education class.
Deng and Yuen (2011) surveyed 37 student teachers in Hong Kong
about their experiences with the integration of a weblog during
their practicum. The study sought to build a framework for the
educational affordances of blogs. As anticipated, the researchers
found that blogs supported self-expression and self-reection, as
well as social interaction and reective dialogue. A surprising re-
sult showed that blog-reading added an important dimension to
the framework. By reading each others blogs, the student teachers
were sustaining the sense of togetherness and reecting on their
own practice. Also working with pre-service teachers attitudes,
Top (2012) studied the teachers sense of community in courses
that included blogging. Fifty students from a Turkish university re-
sponded to a survey that indicated they had moderate feelings
about sense of community. Perceived learning was found to have
a stronger relationship to the sense of community. The study was
not testing for relationships between blogging and sense of com-
munity per se, so conclusions regarding the connection were more
implied than real.
Huang, Huang, and Yu (2011) investigated the effects of incor-
porating a blog into a sophomore course titled Data Structure
at a large Taiwanese university. In the quasi-experimental design,
two groups of students (N = 57, experimental; N = 48, control) were
randomly assigned to either a blog-assisted cooperative activity or
the same activity in a face-to-face format. The results from the
questionnaires showed differences between the perceptions of
each group. The experimental group perceived the cooperative
activity as more positive (t(1, 113) = 2.622, p < .01). The same group
also agreed more often (47% versus 41%) that they did not feel
pressure from their peers when sharing their work. Even more
(79%) of the blog group agreed that they did not feel pressure to
present their work. A possible confound for the differences may
be found in the asynchronous learning environment of the blog
group.
Deed and Edwards (2011) examined the behaviors and cogni-
tive strategies of 400 education students at Liverpool Hope Univer-
sity who were involved in an unrestricted blog (i.e., no input or
oversight by the instructor during discussion). Data included stu-
dent responses to a survey and a sample (N = 19) of blog tran-
scripts. The researchers used a categorization scheme based on
Blooms cognitive taxonomy to analyze student posts. Overall post
frequency by category percentages were fairly uniform (remem-
bering, 18%; understanding, 17%; applying 12%; analyzing, 26%,
evaluating, 20%; creating, 7%). The authors concluded that the stu-
dents in general completed the assigned task (a ve-minute pre-
sentation based on group analysis of a contemporary education
theme) using an unrestricted blog efciently but not vigorously.
More posts tended to be perfunctory or personal opinion and
lacked critical construction of knowledge. However, the posts
deemed higher level suggested that unrestricted blogging could
support active learning and the building of a common knowledge
base.
5.3.3. Twitter
In one of the few experimental studies specically studying the
effects of social media on student engagement and achievement,
Junco, Heiberger, and Loken (2011) looked for differences in mean
engagement scores (from the National Survey of Student Engage-
ment) and average semester GPA across groups. A sample of 125
pre-health majors (70 in the experimental group) participated in
the same seminar course with the experimental group using Twit-
ter for educationally relevant activities (e.g., book discussion,
class reminders, low-stress means of asking questions, conversa-
tions that could continue after class). The change in student
engagement scores was signicantly higher in the Twitter sections
(p < .018). Semester GPAs were also signicantly higher for the
Twitter group (p = .037). The researchers saw implications for
leveraging Twitter as a tool for the classroom in line with Chicker-
ing and Gamsons general principles (1987). Mainly, (a) Twitter im-
proved contact between instructor and student; (b) Twitter
 P.A. Tess / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68
promoted active learning; (c) Twitter provided an avenue for
prompt feedback; and (d) Twitter maximized time on task. A cau-
tion regarding the results has to do with the achievement variable.
Using semester GPA as a measure for student performance in the
course was a confound.
Borau, Ullrich, Feng, and Shen (2009) described their experi-
ences with using Twitter as a training tool for communication
and cultural competence in the English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) blended environment. Eighty-two students at Shanghai Jiao
Tong Distance College registered for Twitter accounts (none had
experience with Twitter) and then followed classmates and
instructors. The instructors viewed Twitter as a supplementary
practice tool well equipped to sustain short turns (i.e., one or
two thoughts). The authors found that 32% of the students spent
less than 1 min writing a Twitter update (tweet) and another
37% needed between 1 and 2 min to create or respond substantiat-
ing their hope of the quick turnaround. In a post-course survey,
70% of the students agreed that Twitter was effective in developing
their English skills. One of Twitters capabilities as a research tool
was highlighted. The dataset containing all tweets, frequency data,
and time spent was readily available for analysis. The researchers
noted the value of the large dataset commending it to other inter-
ested investigators by posting it on a data visualization website by
IBM (http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com).
Another pair of researchers described their integration of Twit-
ter into an online instructional design and technology course (Dun-
lap & Lowenthal, 2009). The instructors wanted to move beyond
the scope and structure of course management systems (CMSs)
to a just-in-time interactive community of social learning.
Acknowledging that the primary benet of Twitter was the
enhancement of social presence, the researchers also indicated
several other advantages of Twitter over a CMS: (a) addressed is-
sues in a timely manner, (b) concise writing, (c) connecting with
a professional community of practice, (d) supported informal
learning, and (e) writing for an audience. Possible drawbacks of
Twitter use included a concern for time, cost, addiction, and bad
grammar encouragement due to the character limitation of tweets.
5.4. Rich data source
Research investigators have recognized that social network
sites are a rich source of behavioral data. With permissions in
place, physically and digitally, researchers can sift and sort through
a myriad of posts, pokes, and tweets in order to examine such vari-
ables as content, attitudes, and understanding. In some cases, auto-
mated collection techniques can capture large datasets containing
prole updates, linkages, and usage trends which are then able to
be explored (Borau et al., 2009).
6. Limitations and research agenda
6.1. Limitations
The results of this review of the literature on social media in the
higher education classroom were limited by a number of factors.
The rst was the inherent bias introduced to the study by virtue
of the methodology chosen and criteria identied. I purposefully
limited search words to the 10 key terms that became the search
engine entries. The focus, therefore, was conned to the most pop-
ular and prevalent social media applications. Undoubtedly, some
studies were excluded because they involved SNSs other than
Facebook or Twitter. Not measured evidence but simply anecdotal
observations results from the Google Scholar searches often picked
up these extraneous studies, and the number of them seemed low.
Another factor that limited the results of the review was the for-
mulation of a denition for social media. While authors suggested
A65
or proposed operational denitions for the term, there appeared
to be no standard. The difculty stemmed from the global, expan-
sive umbrella that social media covered. While some researchers
used a narrower view of the term (a perspective taken here), others
approached the concept from a broader viewpoint. Making the for-
mulation even more challenging today are the ever-evolving struc-
ture and capabilities of social media. Has social media become one
of those implicit terms that is difcult to categorize but still collo-
quially understood?
A nal limiting factor was the topic itself and the available re-
search. Empirical studies in this area were thin by my estimation.
It was interesting to nd that numerous articles were available in
the popular press about the phenomenon, but the number of re-
search studies in peer-reviewed journals was relatively few. A met-
ric that was not included in this review was a reporting of the
number of hits received for a particular key word. That number
is certainly arbitrary and potentially misleading and so avoided.
The results from the empirical studies in this review had some
common limitations. First, convenience sampling often made gen-
eralizability problematic. A shared, but signicant challenge to
having convenient samples (i.e., students in a course or faculty in
an institution) was the ability to make inferences about popula-
tions. As a result, the reader was left to extrapolate potential for
different contexts. Second, measurement instruments most often
relied on self-reported data. While surveys and questionnaires
can be effective data sources (Chan, 2009), they are more often ci-
ted as awed proxies for behavioral measures (Carrell & Willming-
ton, 1996). For example, in course-end surveys taken by students,
expectation bias or attention bias may be evident. Last, descriptive
designs, like convenience sampling, limited their generalization.
Most of the studies were reporting the social media intervention
or treatment as it occurred in specic contexts without a control.
Hence, conclusions based on the ndings could not distinguish
other factors which may have affected results.
6.2. Research agenda
Knowing the limitations of past research should help to plan for
future investigations. It is a rare study that suggests further explo-
ration in a particular area is not warranted. This review is not one
of those exceptions. Indeed, almost every study in the review pro-
posed some motivational questions to advance what is known
about social medias role in the higher education class. I concur
with the authors who viewed this research venue as only the tip
of the iceberg and endorse many of their proposals. A few broad
themes are summarized in the next paragraphs.
One of the broad themes of a proposed research agenda incor-
porates aspects of the implied promise that social media has been
hailed as offering. As social media tools become more integral to
the college classroom, questions to consider include the following:
Does the ubiquity of social media alone warrant its consideration
as an educational tool? Can social networking sites that are by de-
sign commercial products support learners in an educational envi-
ronment? What does the adoption of an SNS mean from an
instructional design perspective, and what determinants are prior-
ities when making decisions about integration? How important are
the design and functionality of social media in relation to the types
of curricular activities planned?
An early decision as far as scope of this review led to more stud-
ies being included but may have confounded ndings. The decision
was to remain agnostic about the potential differences in context.
In other words, I was not concerned about showing effects of an
on-line class versus a face-to-face group versus a hybrid combina-
tion of the two formats. Much work has focused on the effects of
on-line versus face-to-face education. Interestingly, a large body
of research has shown that the differences in terms of student
A66 P.A. Tess / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68
outcomes are not evident. In his comprehensive bibliography of
the literature, Russell (1999) concluded that the mode of delivery
was not a predictor of student outcomes as long as materials and
methodology were held constant. That is not to say that all studies
found no differences, but the overwhelming majority reported the
no signicant difference nding. What made the results even more
compelling was the traditional challenge for studies reporting no
differences to be published.
Contrary to Russells conclusion, a report from the United States
Department of Education stated that on-line students were on
average performing better than their counterparts in the real class-
room (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010). The report
was the culmination of a meta-analysis of over 1000 empirical
studies. However, only 45 studies eventually met the stringent
experimental criteria established by Department researchers those
being (a) studies with random-assignment or controlled quasi-
experimental designs, (b) studies that examined measured, objec-
tive outcomes of student learning while discarding those that
looked at affective or perception variables, and (c) studies of truly
Web-based instruction eliminating those that used technology as a
secondary instructional tool. Overall, the researchers concluded
that learning outcomes for students who were engaged in on-line
instruction were on average statistically better (effect size of
+.20, small effect by Cohens standard) than the outcomes for
students who experienced face-to-face learning. The researchers
were careful to interpret the nding as conditional. Other dimen-
sions were typically involved such as amount of time spent on
work or additional collaboration afforded by media.
While not necessarily endorsing their criteria, it should be
emphasized that the US Department of Education has adopted
strict standards for evaluation research which many refer to as
the gold standard (Slavin, 2008). Those standards are based on
three factors: the study design (randomized controlled trials and
quasi-experimental comparison groups), group equivalence, and
group attrition. The standards are used to review published re-
search in order to determine eligibility for inclusion on the What
Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc), a website
hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of
the US Department of Education. The essential characteristic of
effective studies is that they focus on a school-based interven-
tion such as the use of social media in the classroom.
Others have taken a more foundational perspective. Picking up
Windschitls (1998) mantle, Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes (2009)
outlined a research agenda for scholarship in the area of Web 2.0
and learning. They suggested that two overarching themes emerged
from their analysis of warranted future direction. One was the notion
of the learners participation as evidenced by interconnections, con-
tent creation and remixing, and interconnections. Expanding this re-
search theme meant inquiries into the learners participation
attitudes and creative acts as well as issues related to equity and ac-
cess in and out of the classroom. Their contention was that learning
was fundamentally changing due in part to Web 2.0 technologies. A
sampling of their ideas follows: (a) How and why do learners partic-
ipate and create content in digital learning spaces? (b) How do learn-
ers engage with others and interconnect during creation and
sharing? (c) How do learners activities suggest new practices for
the teacher in terms of pedagogy, curriculum, and policy?
The second broad theme was characterized as the learners
identity formation. Greenhow et al. (2009) proposed that todays
student experimented with different online identities because of
the new digital tools at hand (e.g., role-playing sites, virtual worlds,
online games). They argued that this development represented a
fundamental shift. Research should focus on the benets and chal-
lenges (including risks) associated with students developing their
identity in the virtual world. Traditional structures such as family,
school, or church are losing their inuence. As a result, the
researchers proposed questions such as the following: What is
the nature of the digital dossier for the learner? What kinds of scaf-
folding should educators provide in the development process?
What types of modeling and assessment are best for facilitating
competencies in the digital landscape?
Similarly, Crook (2008) advanced a broader view by considering
whether it may be better to explore Web 2.0 mentality rather
than Web 2.0 technology. That is, he argued that Web 2.0 tech-
nology was only symptomatic of an already present disposition to-
ward practices common in communication today. Todays cultural
norms emphasize participation, collaboration, and self-condent
creativity along with informality and irreverence he contended.
Research should concentrate in dening and exploring Web 2.0
mentality in order to nd explanations for peoples motives for
using Web 2.0 technology in educational settings.
7. Conclusion
Education likes to explore emerging technologies as new or im-
proved tools to enhance instruction and learning. Social media has
emerged as a highly useful personal communication technology.
Can the same affordances of social networking sites that support
individual level use, commend the integration of SNSs into the
higher education class? The jury is still out. In fact, the trial is just
beginning as researchers begin to gather evidence of social medias
position in the technology marketplace of the college classroom.
Although the infrastructure to support social medias presence
exists in most universities today, instructors have been slow in
adopting the tool as an educational one. Some, of course, are not
willing to accept the tool carte blanche preferring theoretical or
pragmatic reasons for an implementation. Adoptive instructors
are likely in an experimental stage of implementation as they look
for alignment between course activities and the SNS applications
(Bennett, Bishop, Dalgarno, Waycott, & Kennedy, 2012). That same
challenge applies to any decision related to educational technology
and its place in the curriculum.
This review has raised more questions than it has answered. A
number of reasons may explain the lack of evidence to support
an authoritative yes, no, or it depends to the question, Is social media
an efcient and effective software solution for the higher education
classroom? One reason is that social networking is a relatively re-
cent arrival, and researchers have now begun in earnest a thought-
ful research agenda. Certainly social media has been prevalent on
the college campus, but not until recently has its viability as a
learning medium been considered by a growing number of educa-
tors. Another reason that may explain the paucity of studies is that
SNS integration is a choice made at the instructor level rather than
an institutional decision. As a result, the implementation may be
more of a trial that lends itself to action research and ultimately
to more questions.
Perhaps the larger question, though, is one of direction. Does so-
cial medias presence in the college classroom reect a growing
interest in the technology as an educational tool, or does it repre-
sent a fundamental shift in the way students learn (Greenhow
et al., 2009)? While the notion sounds fundamentally philosophi-
cal, I believe the proposition is an empirical one.
References
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0
technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education,
11(2), 7180.
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0?: Ideas, technologies and implications for
education. JISC, 1(1). Bristol, UK.
Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. (2011). The 2011 inc. 500 social media update: Blogging
declines as newer tools rule. Center for Marketing Research Charlton College of
Business: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. <http://www.Umassd.edu/cmr/
studiesandresearch/2011inc500socialmediaupdate>.
 P.A. Tess / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68
Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing
web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 524534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.022.
Blodget, H. (2012). Analyst: Facebook has a big new problem you need to worry
about. Business insider. <http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-usage-
declining-2012-9>.
Blood, R. (2000). Weblogs: A history and perspective. <www.rebeccablood.net/
essays/weblog_history.html>.
Borau, K., Ullrich, C., Feng, J., & Shen, R. (2009). Microblogging for language learning:
Using twitter to train communicative and cultural competence. Advances in Web
Based LearningICWL 2009, 7887.
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Denition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210230.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393..
Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative social
networking sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the e-learning
benets of Ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2),
151170.
Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Carrell, L. J., & Willmington, S. C. (1996). A comparison of self-report and
performance data in assessing speaking and listening competence.
Communication Reports, 9(2), 185191.
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance &
R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends:
Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309336).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles to good practice in
undergraduate education. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation Inc.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of
Educational Research, 53(4), 445459.
comScore (December 23, 2011). State of the U.S. social networking market:
Facebook maintains leadership position, but upstarts gaining traction. <http://
www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/State_of_the_U.S._Social_Networking_
Market_Facebook_Maintains_Leadership_Position_but_Upstarts_Gaining_
Traction>.
Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in
highereducation. Technical report. The Open University, UK. <http://
www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf>.
Crook, C. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The current landscape
opportunities, challenges, and tensions. Becta Research Reports. Becta,
Coventry. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1474/1/becta_2008_web2_currentlandscape_
litrev.pdf.
Deed, C., & Edwards, A. (2011). Unrestricted student blogging: Implications for
active learning in a virtual text-based environment. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 12(1), 1121.
Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances
of blogs. Computers & Education, 56(2), 441451.
Du, H. S., & Wagner, C. (2006). Weblog success: Exploring the role of technology.
International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(9), 789798.
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to
enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2),
129135.
Eijkman, H. (2008). Web 2.0 as a non-foundational network-centric learning space.
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(2), 93104.
Ellison, N. B., Steineld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benets of Facebook friends: McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in
Social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 11431168.
Facebook.com (2012). <http://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/369856683093573>.
Friesen, N., & Lowe, S. (2011). The questionable promise of social media for
education: Connective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 183194.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship
in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246259. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3102/0013189X09336671.
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2011). Tenure and promotion in the age of online
social media. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 48(1), 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801154.
Haase, A. (2010). Uses and gratications of social media: A comparison of Facebook
and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology Society, 30(5), 350. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380009.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social
network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276297.
Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using
technology to increase student involvement. New Directions for Student Services,
2008(124), 1935.
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social
technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1),
1930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00306.x.
Huang, T. C., Huang, Y. M., & Yu, F. Y. (2011). Cooperative weblog learning in higher
education: Its facilitating effects on social interaction, time lag, and cognitive
load. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 95106.
Hung, H. T., & Yuen, S. C. Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology
in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 703714.
Institute of Politics, Harvard University. (2011, March). Spring 2011 survey. <http://
www.iop.harvard.edu/spring-2011-survey>.
A67
Irwin, C., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students perceptions of using
Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 28(7), 12211232.
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding
microblogging usage and communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network,
Analysis, pp. 5665.
Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010). Get out of MySpace!
Computers & Education, 54(3), 776782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2009.07.008.
Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Washington, DC: Pew Internet
& American Life Project.
Joosten, T. (2012). Social media for educators: Strategies and best practices. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation
in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1),
162171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student
engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x.
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online
environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The
Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.iheduc.2010.07.003.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 5968. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.
King, S., Greidanus, E., Carbonaro, M., Drummond, J., & Patterson, S. (2009). Merging
social networking environments and formal learning environments to support
and facilitate interprofessional instruction. Medical Education Online, 14(1), 5.
Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 12371245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2010.03.024.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social network websites. Washington, DC: Pew Internet
& American Life Project.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, privacy & online social networks: How teens
manage their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace.
Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet
use among teens and young adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American
Life Project.
Madden, M., & Zickuhr, K. (2011). 65% of online adults use social networking sites.
Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and
informal learning at university: It is more for socialising and talking to friends
about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2),
141155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923606.
McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites
to enhance the rst year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 26(6), 729740.
McEwan, B. (2012). Managing boundaries in the web 2.0 classroom. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 2012(131), 1528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
tl.20024.
the web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social
software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 2843.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of
evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of
online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Ofce
of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies
and schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5),
770782.
Ophus, J. D., & Abbitt, J. T. (2009). Exploring the potential perceptions of social
networking systems in university courses. Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 5(4), 639648.
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative
analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(12),
199220.
Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance.
Reconciling a media sensation with data. First Monday, 14(5).
Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on
student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6),
21172127.
Rambe, P. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in
Facebook postings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2),
295314.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on
Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses
and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education,
13(3), 134140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no signicant difference phenomenon: A comparative research
annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355
research reports, summaries and papers. North Carolina State University.
A68 P.A. Tess / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) A60A68
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers beliefs
about using web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education,
59(3), 937945.
Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. B. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and
information technology, 2008 (8). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research. Research Study.
Schroeder, J., & Greenbowe, T. (2009). The chemistry of Facebook: Using social
networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry
laboratory. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(4).
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of
educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 6573.
Sim, J. W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2010). The use of weblogs in higher education settings: A
review of empirical research. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 151163.
Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in educationwhat
works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational
Researcher, 37(1), 514.
Technorati.com (2012). Blog directory. <http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/>.
Top, E. (2012). Blogging as a social medium in undergraduate courses: Sense of
community best predictor of perceived learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 15(1), 2428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.02.001.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2011). Using the Facebook group
as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(3), 428438.
Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and classroom research: What path should we
take?. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 2833.