Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Research Report

Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school

students technology affordances and perspectives
Jin Mao
Department of Educational Leadership, Wilkes University, 84 W. South Street, Wilkes Barre, PA 18766, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 14 February 2014
Keywords:
Social media
Technology affordances
Attitudes and beliefs
Learning design

a b s t r a c t
Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the study investigated high school students
affordances for social media, their attitudes and beliefs about these new technologies, and related obstacles and issues. The affordance ndings indicate that students depend on social media in their daily lives
for leisure and social connections. Educational uses by teachers for classroom teaching and learning are
sporadic, while uses by students on their own for learning purposes seem to be abundant but also incidental and informal. Quantitative results suggest that in general, students show positive attitudes and
beliefs about social media use in education. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three components that
explained a total of 65.4% of the variance: (a) benets of social media use, (b) disadvantages of social
media use, and (c) current social media use in education. Three issues emerged from the interview data:
Conceptual understanding of social media for learning; close-minded, acquired uses versus open-minded,
innate uses of social media; and changed concepts of learning. The study results suggest that for social
media to be used as effective learning tools and to adjust students prior affordances with these tools,
complicated efforts in designing, scaffolding, and interacting with students during the process are
necessary.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The rapid development of mobile devices, apps, and tablet computing is revolutionizing the concept of socializing as well as mobile computing and learning. Graphing mathematical equations,
creating and sharing notes, electronic publishing, and employing
location-aware technologies are among the few educational uses
for mobile devices that can provide numerous potential opportunities for the academic world (Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012a,
2012b). In 2012 and 2013 NMC (New Media Consortium) K-12
and higher education Horizon reports, mobile devices and apps,
mobile learning, and tablet computing are predicted to be adopted
in one year or less. The use of new technologies, especially social
media, is becoming increasingly ubiquitous in students daily lives.
Free or inexpensive apps distributed through app stores have given
rise to a social-media-focused culture that is shaping how we
should communicate, teach, and learn.
However, the dramatically changed social and cultural environments do not seem to lead to similar changes in schools due to
many factors including rigid school networking policies, hardware
availability, and the complexity of effective technology integration.
Tess (2013) concluded that empirical evidence is lagging in sup Tel.: +1 570 408 7387.
E-mail address: jin.mao@wilkes.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002
0747-5632/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

porting the argument for integrating social media as effective educational tools. While most attention has been given to resources,
institutional culture, and professional development for teachers
in adopting new technologies for teaching and learning, it is necessary to consider students technology affordances and perspectives
that may inuence the design, development, and implementation
of effective instructional strategies. This is especially true when
using social media to support learning because of the perceived
difculties in integrating its emergent uid forms and meanings
into highly structured learning environments (Lewis, Pea, &
Rosen, 2010, p. 4).
In literature, the term social media has been used interchangeably with Web 2.0 tools and social networking software.
In this study, social media are dened as new technologies and
applications that utilize the Internet and Web 2.0 technologies
and allow users to create and participate in various communities
through functions such as communicating, sharing, collaborating,
publishing, managing, and interacting. Social media can be categorized into the following groups:
 Social networking tools such as instant messengers, (Skype,
ooVoo. . .), Facebook, Tumblr, and so on.
 Social publishing or sharing tools including blogs, wikis, Glogster, or Twitter; social bookmarking or tagging tools like Delicious, Symbaloo, or Diggo; photo or video sharing tools like

214

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

Flickr, YouTube, ZuiTube, or Picasa; collaborative ofce or brainstorming tools like Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Zoho Writer,
Webspiration, Gliffy, and so forth.
 Social and content management tools including Moodle or
Edmodo; Internet-based tools used for calendars, surveys, and
polls;
 Virtual worlds and gaming environments such as WeeWorld,
Webkinz World, Club Penguin, and Playstation Network.
1.1. Social media in education
The push to innovate teaching and learning using social media
has been a clear theme in both the early stage research on Web
2.0 technologies represented by blogs and wikis as well as recent
research on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Higher education has recognized the huge potential brought by
Web 2.0 technologies to improve student engagement, college
experiences, and pedagogical practices, and has been advocating
innovations and changes to stay current with the changed education market (Bradley, 2009; Grosseck, 2008).
Factors investigated in the context of higher education include
faculty use (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Chen & Bryer, 2012;
Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010), student engagement (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Hsu & Ching, 2012; Junco,
Elavsky, & Heiberger, 2012), impact on as well as relation to academic achievement (Junco, 2012; Junco, Heiberger, & Loken,
2011). Yang and Chang (2011) concluded that university students
showed more positive attitudes toward peer interaction and academic achievement through interactive blogs. The study by Junco
et al. (2011) showed that the use of Twitter signicantly improved
undergraduate students engagement and semester grade point
averages (GPA). However, in the other study (Junco, 2012), the
author found that time spent on Facebook was signicantly negatively related to college students GPA, and was weakly related to
time spent preparing for classes.
Most studies investigated individual social media tools such as
MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter as innovations in education, and
this research trend seems reasonable considering the sweeping
generalization of the term social media itself. It indicates that social media technologies have not become a mainstream technology
adopted in education. Roblyer et al. (2010) found that in higher
education, students are more positive about the potential of using
Facebook and other similar new technologies for supporting teaching and learning than faculty, who prefer traditional technologies.
In his review of social media in higher education classes, Tess
(2013) concluded that most universities have the infrastructure
and support for social media use, but instructors are slow in adopting it for educational purposes. In addition, while social media may
have the potential to promote personal learning environments
(PLE) as a promising new pedagogical approach to enhance selfregulated learning (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011), some caution
against the use of social media for academic purposes due to the
commercially contoured nature of social media services (Friesen
& Lowe, 2011, p. 193) or simply an academic form of a moral
panic without empirical evidence (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin,
2008, p. 775).
Compared with research on social media conducted in higher
education, research on social media in the context of K-12 education is less extensive and focuses more on secondary schools.
Factors investigated include student engagement and other academic inuences as well as cyber safety. Greenhow and Robelia
(2009) found that social network sites as social learning resources provided high school teenagers with opportunities for
the validation and appreciation of creative work, peer alumni
support, and school-task related support. Murphy and Lebans
(2008) also found that the integration of Web 2.0 tools in second-

ary school classroom teaching increased student engagement

with content, quality of assignments, and a sense of responsibility for their learning. Charitonos, Blake, Scanlon, and Jones (2012)
investigated how secondary school students aged 1314 in a history class used social and mobile technologies to enhance their
museum visiting experience. The authors found that students
interactions online supported meaning making, negotiation, and
a collective experience at the museum. A number of authors reported on cyber safety, exam cheating, and other concerns related to the use of social media in education (for example,
Sharples, Graber, Harrison, & Logant, 2008). Sharples et al.
(2008) surveyed and interviewed children aged 1116 years,
teachers, and parents regarding e-safety and Web 2.0, and they
found that teachers reported being constrained by a need to
show a duty of care that avoids worst-case risk to children, to restrict access to SN sites (p. 70). In the literature, fewer studies
investigated social media, either as individual tools or as a general category, in K-12 education than in higher education, and
apparently, students age and schools responsibility and protection awareness are among the reasons for this lack of research.
However, these apparent reasons do not diminish the efforts to
explore social media and other similar new technologies to support education in K-12 settings.

1.2. Technology affordances

The term technology affordance is dened differently in literature. Wijekumar, Meyer, Wagoner, and Ferguson (2006) dened
affordances as the interactions between users and tools, and users
prior experiences and age greatly inuence how they interact with
these tools (Carter, Westbrook, & Thompkins, 1999). Gaver (1991)
explored affordances as the strengths and weaknesses of technologies that can possibly be offered to the users. Graves (2009) examined thoughts related to technology affordances as a middle
ground between determinist and social constructivist perspectives.
According to Gagne et al. (2004), technology affordances are the
properties or functions of technology that extend our learning
and perceptual capabilities and they can be economic, social, cognitive, or affective.
All these denitions originated from the two views on technology affordances by Gibson (1979), who thinks that affordances are
what [a tool] offers. . .what it provides or furnishes, either for good
or ill (p. 127) and by Norman (1988), who focuses more on the
perceived and actual properties of the thing (p. 9). Bower
(2008) reafrmed the distinction between Gibsons concern with
utility and Normans usability focus in their denitions of technology affordances. Oliver (2005) questioned the use of technology
affordances because of the ambiguity between the absolute real
affordances and perceived affordances described in Normans
denition, similar to that between the positivist and constructivist
world views. Nevertheless, from a middle ground perspective,
technology affordances are still providing a useful lens for studying
learning technologies and how they impact human learning and
the philosophy of learning design. Bower (2008) proposed a framework based on affordance perspectives in designing learning tasks
with learning technologies. Roblyer and Wiencke (2003) considered interactivity affordances of technology as one of the ve components contributing to the success and pedagogical quality of
online courses. Roblyer et al. (2010) continued to use this as the
theoretical framework for investigating social networking sites
(SNS), which have an interactive nature that can enhance social
interactions and increase quality engagement. In this paper, the
denition and meaning discussed by Wijekumar et al. (2006) and
Carter et al. (1999) forms the basis for the concept of technology
affordances being studied.

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

1.3. Attitudes and beliefs

Research ndings suggest that teacher attitudes and beliefs
about technology can be one of the major barriers to effective technology integration in K-12 education (Hew & Brush, 2007). In the
literature, attitudes and beliefs are usually dened as separate constructs (Calderhead, 1996; Simpson, Koballa, Oliver, & Crawley,
1994; Wesely, 2012): Attitudes refer to feelings indicating favor
or disfavor, and beliefs are premises about something that are felt
to be true. A more comprehensive denition by Gall, Gall, and Borg
(2003) describes that an attitude is an individuals viewpoint or
disposition with affective, cognitive, and behavioral components,
and the cognitive component is ones beliefs or knowledge about
the attitude object. Bodur, Brinberg, and Coupey (2000) summarized that understanding the relations between cognitive structure
(i.e., beliefs), affect, and attitude has been the focus of attitude research. Their research ndings suggest that affect, as a noncognitive determinant, has a direct impact on attitude and can lead to
the inconsistency between attitude and behavior. By the denition
of technology affordance adopted in this paper, interaction between a user and a tool may become another determinant that
should be considered in the process of forming an attitude toward
technology use. This may be especially true when research on learner attitudes and beliefs is expanded from learner traits and learning environment, to the interaction between the learner and the
environment (Wesely, 2012).

1.4. Purpose of the study and research questions

While teachers try to meet the changed learning styles, preferences, and roles of digital native students by integrating new technologies into teaching and learning, little is known about how
students would use these new tools for learning besides their daily
uses for gaming and communication. Therefore, this study investigated the following research questions: What social media tools
are frequently used by high school students and what are the students affordances for these tools? What are the students attitudes
and beliefs about social media use in an educational context? What
obstacles, difculties, or problems do students see in using social
media in an educational context?

2. Methods
To address the research questions, the study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, which integrates the
quantitative and qualitative methods during the interpretation
phase (Creswell, 2003). The qualitative data collected through
open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews were used
to shed some light on the quantitative ndings (Bryman, Becker,
& Sempik, 2008). Junco (2013) discussed the limitation of using
self-reported data in assessing Facebook use and that limitation
applies to the investigation of social media use in this study. Therefore, the qualitative component in a mixed-methods study may
help mitigate the negative inuence of only collecting data from
a self-reported questionnaire.

2.1. The quantitative phase of the study

2.1.1. Participants
One hundred sixty-six students aged 1417 (52.4% males and
47.6% females) completed an online survey about social media
use in education.

215

2.1.2. Measures
The questionnaire was validated and improved through two pilot tests, with nine and 73 students (aged 1317) in each test. To
help the participants understand what social media were being referred to, the survey began with a Wordle image (Fig. 1) created by
using the social media tool categories dened in this study.
The questionnaire included the following categories of
questions:
(a) Demographic and background information related to technology use: Questions about gender, grade level, devices used
to connect to the Internet, and awareness of cyber safety
and security when using social media tools.
(b) Technology affordances: Questions developed based on the
denition of social media in this paper and focused on what
tools are being used, how they are being used, reasons and
number of personal uses per day, and concerns about social
media use. The participants were asked to report the number of accounts with prompts for social media tools categorized in the denition. They responded to open-ended
questions asking about the tools that are most often used
among themselves and in classes, examples of good and
poor school uses, and concerns about social media use. They
also responded to questions asking about the frequency of
logging onto social media account and switching to new
tools, and sources of inuence. To evaluate the reasons and
number of uses per day, the participants were asked to provide a number when responding to: How often do you, or
would you, use social media tools for each of the following
reasons per day? The question listed 10 reasons as prompts
and an additional text line for other reasons. More data
were derived from responses to one open-ended question
about the reasons for social media use and the interviews.
(c) The attitude and belief scale: Questions about the participants feelings about current social media uses and the opinions they held about the value of social media for learning.
On a ve-point Likert scale, the participants reported their
level of agreement for the 12 items (Cronbachs a = .93) for
attitudes and 10 items (Cronbachs a = .88) for beliefs about
social media use in education.
2.2. The qualitative phase of the study
Participants from the quantitative phase volunteered to participate in the second phase of the study. Although the researcher had
limited options in selecting participants according to Creswell and
Clarks (2011) four recommendations for a sequential approach,
structured interview questions were developed based on the initial
data analysis of the quantitative data to ensure that the follow-up
qualitative data provide a better understanding of the survey results. Semi-structured, follow up focus group interviews were conducted for the qualitative research phase and nine students were
interviewed. The rst focus group interview was completed as a
one-on-one interview due to the absence of one interviewee. Three
focus group interviews, ranging from 15 to 45 min, were conducted
with two to three participants in each session.
2.3. Data analyses and mixing the ndings
Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the 22 items of
the attitude and belief scale using IBM SPSS version 19 to extract
the underlying structure of the scale. The three negatively-worded
statements on the belief scale were reversed when calculating the
reliability. The data were coded to indicate that the higher the
summed scores, the more positive their attitudes and beliefs about
social media use in education. Constant comparison analysis

216

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

Fig. 1. Wordle image: examples of social media tools.

(Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech, & Zoran, 2009; Strauss & Corbin,

1998) was used as the main technique to guide the analysis of the
interview data. The qualitative data, including those from the six
open-ended questions in the questionnaire, were analyzed using
QDA Miner software. One of the important criteria for mixed methods research is that the ndings should be mixed or integrated
(Bryman et al., 2008). In this study, the qualitative analysis of both
the six open-ended questions and the interview data were integrated with the quantitative ndings in the results section. The
qualitative data support the ndings from the quantitative results
by providing detailed reasoning and stories behind the numbers.
The integration of ndings has enriched the quantitative data by
providing supporting and elaborative information, examples, anecdotes, explanation, and reasoning related to social media.

3.2. Affordances with social media

gaming environments (21.6%) are the two biggest groups, followed

by photo or video sharing tools (13.6%), social publishing or sharing tools (13.5%), and social or content management tools (7.7%).
Collaborative ofce or brainstorming tools (5.3%) and Internetbased tools used for calendars, surveys, and polls (5.0%) are less
frequently used. Social bookmarking or tagging tools are the least
used social media category (1.2%). Specic tools such as YouTube,
myYearbook, Reddit, eBay, Craigslist, and AIM were mentioned
by a few participants under the category of others, but they belong to the eight categories included in the denition of social
media.
Responses to two open-ended questions asking about popular
tools indicate that among the social media tools used by the participants and their peers, Facebook (48.3%), Twitter (12.8%), and Tumblr (10.4%) are the most popular ones, followed by Instragram (9%),
YouTube (6.2%), and Xbox Live (5.9%). Among the social media
tools that are most often used in classes, Facebook (26.76%), Edmodo (23%), YouTube (10.8%) are the most commonly used, followed
by Glogster (6.6%), and Google and Google Docs (6.1%), and Twitter
(3.8%). These ndings are consistent with responses from the other
open-ended question asking how social media tools have been
used well in schools. The analysis of the responses indicate that
Edmodo (23 responses), YouTube (16 responses), and Facebook
(9 responses) are the three most frequently mentioned examples
of good use of social media in classes: Edmodo was reported for
submitting assignments and managing homework and tests, and
YouTube videos for learning or getting more information about a
topic or to help teachers teach. Facebook was reported by many
participants for getting pictures for projects or to socialize with
friends when they have nothing to do in their classes.
Interestingly, the analysis results from the open-ended question
asking how social media tools have been used poorly in classes
suggest that Facebook is the most frequently mentioned tool as
an example of poor use of social media in classes. Many students
consider accessing Facebook during class time and spending
WAY too much time on Facebook inappropriate and they view Facebook as a distraction: You can go on Facebook and other social sites
so you might get distracted in class. As one participant responded:
Although we allow Facebook for research purposes (such as nding
quotes in a message for the school newspaper), some students abuse
the privilege and spend their whole day on it. A small number of students reported no social media use in classes when asked to describe good (16 responses) and poor (19 responses) uses.

3.2.1. What are being used?

Among the social media accounts owned by the students in the
current sample, social networking (31.5%) and virtual worlds and

3.2.2. How frequently and sources of inuence

Fifty-eight percent of the students reported that they log onto
their social media accounts many times a day. Most students began

3. Results
The results section is organized by the research questions.
Views on current uses of social media for learning and expectations
for social media use in education are the two categories used to
sort the qualitative ndings. Three issues emerged from the interview data: Conceptual understanding of social media for learning;
close-minded, acquired uses versus open-minded, innate uses of
social media; and changed concepts of learning. These themes
are merged with the quantitative results and the ndings from
the open-ended questions to provide a full description of social
media use for learning in K-12 education.
3.1. Background information related to technology use
The majority of the participants usually use computers at home
(74.7%). Over half of them use computers in school (53%) or their
cell phones (57.8%) to connect to the Internet, and 35.3% of them
also use iPod, iPod Touch, tablets, Xbox, or Wii. Most participants
reported that they were aware of school policies (70.3%), knew
the importance of cyber safety (67.9%), and knew how to use social
media safely (51.5%). Fewer than half of the participants indicated
that they knew how to deal with cyber safety problems (41.2%),
felt safe when using social media tools (39.4%), and could remember the online privacy tips taught in school. Only a small number of
respondents (9.1%) reported having safety problems.

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

using social media tools because of their friends (78%), followed by

inuence from their family (12.2%), teachers (6.7%), and the Internet or television commercials (3%). Once they start using certain
social media tools, 45% of them usually continue to use the same
tools and rarely switch to the others, 33% would sometimes switch,
12% of them would never switch to other tools, and only 8% of
them would switch to new tools very often. Among the 182 responses to the most frequent reason for switching to new social
media tools, 73.9% responses indicated that the students switched
to the tools used by their friends and only 10.6% were switching to
tools recommended by teachers and parents. Some participants
started using social media tools under the inuence of family
and friends, while one participant attributed it to the inuence of
media:
I just heard about it from like the media and it was all restorm
about Facebook and Twitter, and then I started listening to podcasts, and then theyre like, Follow us on Facebook. Follow us on
Twitter. Do this. Do that. Like, Okay, maybe Ill check this out,
and then I did that and I found everyone else has one. So I really
wasnt affected by people around me; it was just the outside inuences of the media.

3.2.3. Reasons and number of uses per day

Results presented in Table 1 show that entertaining, getting
connected with friends and family, and sharing pictures, interests,
videos, experiences are the rst three important reasons for using
social media. Collaborating on projects, sharing or getting updated
resources for school work, and learning about a new topic are the
three least cited reasons for using social media.
While qualitative analysis of the open-ended question about the
reasons for using social media tools produced ndings similar to
the quantitative results in primary reasons such as leisure and social connections, a number of new factors emerged from the participants responses. These factors are coded under emotion, usability,
objection to social media tools, and peer inuence. Although the
last two concepts are not common enough by coding frequencies,
they may be a natural part of the social media phenomenon. Emotion is a concept generated from responses that describe how social medial tools make them feel happy, comforted, secure, less
stressed, or allow them to vent and enjoy themselves. Usability is
comprised of responses about social media tools being easy to
use, easy to access, and fast. Compared with the multiple choice
question asking about reasons for use, the open-ended question
enabled the participants to share various reasons for using social
media tools without being limited to the choices provided to them.
The interview data revealed that students are attracted by the
usability of social media tools: they are user friendly, easy, fast,
convenient, fun, and immediate. Students feel connected, in the
loop, and relaxed when using social media tools. They feel in the
dark or outside when not using social media tools. Social media
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for reasons and number of uses per day.

Finding information
Sharing pictures, interests, videos, experiences or other
Getting connected with friends or family
Entertaining
Completing school work
Shopping or reading blogs/reviews
Sharing or getting updated resources for school work
Sharing or getting updated resources my own learning
Collaborating on projects
Learning about a new topic
Other

Mean

SD

3.05
3.24
3.83
4.84
1.90
1.35
1.13
1.63
1.07
1.60
1.32

3.16
4.40
5.21
5.16
2.14
2.39
1.56
2.67
1.76
2.21
6.23

217

tools provide a personalized, equitable social space and as one participant shared:
Im not a very social person. I have my friends and I stay with them,
and I really dont know whats going on in school, but when Im on
Facebook, I know everybody. I talk to everybody. Its just the fact
Im a little awkward when I talk to people in person.
The responses from the interviews indicated a sense of dependence on the use of social media tools. One participant described
her having a life on social media:
At home, not so much, because I spend too much time on it, and my
parents think that its usually a waste of time than Im on the computer more than Im outside or something. But basically, what I do
on my iPad or on the computer or anything, I feel good. I feel good
on that. I have a life on there, but like outside and everything, I just
only direct with people I know.

3.3. Attitudes and beliefs about social media use in education

3.3.1. Analysis of the attitude and belief scale
Table 2 shows the percentages of respondents in reporting their
attitudes and beliefs about social media use in education. In general, students show positive attitudes and beliefs. The majority of
the participants felt (50.684.4% agreed or strongly agreed) they
enjoy using social media; they are creative and can learn better
when using social media; they enjoy using social media for assignments or their own learning after school. Fewer participants show
positive attitude (42.2%) about the ways how social media are
being used in classes. They believed (48.860.8% agreed or strongly
agreed) social media use encourages sharing; makes learning fun,
meaningful, and interactive; helps get connected with the real
world; and extends learning. A smaller group of participants
(20.528.3%) believed that using social media is distracting, timeconsuming, and is good for socializing but not for learning.
The preliminary factor analysis results show an excellent KaiserMeyerOlkin value of .93. Bartletts test of sphericity was signicant, v2 (231) = 2695.71, p < .001. Therefore, the factorability
of the correlation matrix was supported by the data (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). Exploratory factor analysis revealed three components
with eigenvalues exceeding 1: (a) benets of social media use,
explaining 50.7% of the variance; (b) disadvantages of social media
use, explaining 8.5% of the variance; (c) current social media use in
education, explaining 6.2% of the variance. The three components
explained a total of 65.4% of the variance, and they are the three
most important factors in evaluating attitudes and beliefs.
An inspection of the screeplot also supported the solution. Table 3
presents the pattern matrix for the factors.
The qualitative data analysis of the interviews and open-ended
questions provided more textual information about the participants attitudes and beliefs about the use of social media tools in
education. The qualitative ndings are organized by the following
two subsections: (1) Views on current uses of social media for
learning: both benets and negatives or frustration with current
uses in education; (2) Expectations for social media use in education. The ndings correspond to the three components that resulted from the factor analysis: the benets and disadvantages of
social media use in education, as well as current practices in
education.
3.3.2. Views on current uses of social media for learning
The participants think that social media tools do help with
schoolwork. For example, they can get instant help with their
homework from peers or get inspiration for drawing or writing.

218

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

Table 2
Percentages of participant responses regarding their attitudes toward and beliefs about social media use in education.

(1) Enjoy using sm

(2) Creative when using sm
(3) Learn better with sm
(4) Being encouraged to use sm at home
(5) Being encouraged to use for school work
(6) Being encouraged to use for own learning
(7) Benets recognized by teachers
(8) Class uses are wonderful
(9) Enjoy using sm for own learning after school
(10) Enjoy using sm for assignments
(11) Opportunities of using sm for school projects
(12) Agree with how sm tools are used in classes
(13) Makes learning fun
(14) Makes learning meaningful
(15) Helps get connected with real world
(16) Using sm is time-consuming
(17) Using sm is distracting
(18) Good for socializing not for learning
(19) Extends learning
(20) Makes learning interactive
(21) Helps deepen understanding
(22) Encourages sharing

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

1.8
2.4
6.6
1.8
6.6
7.2
4.2
7.2
6.6
6.0
6.0
8.4
6.0
4.8
6.0
12.7
12.7
10.8
4.2
6.0
6.6
.6

1.8
4.8
4.2
9.0
7.2
6.0
12.0
11.4
10.8
7.8
13.9
4.8
5.4
9.0
7.8
28.3
31.9
20.5
8.4
5.4
11.4
4.8

12.0
28.3
27.7
36.1
36.7
38.6
34.9
39.2
29.5
27.1
29.5
32.5
27.7
33.1
27.7
38.6
31.9
40.4
38.6
36.1
39.8
28.3

44.0
36.1
38.0
33.1
27.7
25.9
36.7
25.3
36.1
37.3
33.1
38.6
34.9
30.7
33.7
16.3
13.3
19.9
36.1
32.5
28.9
41.6

40.4
28.3
23.5
19.9
21.7
22.3
12.0
16.9
16.9
21.7
17.5
15.7
25.9
22.3
24.7
4.2
10.2
8.4
12.7
19.9
13.3
24.7

Note: sm* = social media. Items 112 are attitudes and items 1322 are beliefs.

Table 3
Pattern and structure matrix for exploratory factor analysis with oblimin rotation method.
Attitude & belief item

Benets
Pattern

(2) Creative when using sm*

(1) Enjoy using sm
(22) Encourages sharing
(3) Learn better with sm
(4) Being encouraged to use sm at home
(13) Makes learning fun
(15) Helps get connected with real world
(14) Makes learning meaningful
(6) Being encouraged to use for own learning
(20) Makes learning interactive
(21) Helps deepen understanding
(17) Using sm is distracting
(16) Using sm is time-consuming
(18) Good for socializing not for learning
(11) Opportunities of using sm for school projects
(7) Benets recognized by teachers
(12) Agree with how sm tools are used in classes
(8) Class uses are wonderful
(9) Enjoy using sm for own learning after school
(10) Enjoy using sm for assignments
(5) Being encouraged to use for school work
(19) Extends learning

Disadvantages
Structure

.88
.81
.77
.75
.74
.68
.55
.55
.53
.51
.43
.09
.16
.01
.05
.14
.05
.05
.29
.31
.38
.35

.77
.80
.71
.84
.75
.84
.74
.76
.74
.74
.71
.23
.02
.25
.44
.38
.51
.53
.66
.67
.66
.62

Pattern
.05
.11
.10
.03
.06
.07
.17
.22
.08
.24
.24
.85
.78
.74
.10
.03
.03
.10
.01
.06
.10
.10

Current uses
Structure
.18
.09
.06
.25
.13
.31
.39
.39
.32
.46
.48
.84
.72
.78
.19
.29
.26
.37
.29
.33
.34
.32

Pattern
.22
.03
.05
.14
.03
.25
.26
.28
.32
.32
.39
.10
.07
.11
.89
.88
.81
.79
.62
.58
.45
.43

Structure
.31
.46
.36
.59
.44
.67
.64
.64
.66
.69
.72
.23
.10
.36
.83
.81
.83
.85
.80
.79
.70
.67

Note: Bolded numbers indicate items that have major loadings. sm* = social media.

When asked about whether social media tools are better for socializing than for learning, one male participant responded that
I think its 50-50 because I know when I get stuck on a question for
homework, I post it on Facebook andand my buddies who arent
in that class, who are in honors above me or something, theyll post
on it and give me the answer. Well, you could go on WikiAnswers
and the same question is going to be there with the answer. Its
notI dont feel its cheating. . .I think its just help.
They think that they get more help from social media for learning than other ways because . . .with the social site (is), you go on
Facebook and you see a thousand different conversations. You can
be part of any of those conversations. One participant said that
she used social media to go on ton of reading sites and read stories about random things or about like different perspectives of life.

One participant expressed that social media tools made it a lot

easier for her to do her school work and they made it a lot faster
and it actually (like) organizes better than she could do:
And that [NoodleTools] actually helps me do my research paper
because it kept it organized for me because these sections where
it goes, your name, the subjects, and then your thesis statement,
and then it will actually help you put like your body paragraphs.
Also, in my Careers class, they made us make resumes, and theres
myresume.com, and it helps you organize your resume by giving
you like examples, and then it has little boxes that will actually
set it up all for you so its right there.
The benets and examples of social media use in classrooms
shared by the participants mostly focus on the fun, convenience,
and ease in using them for creating media-based class projects

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

and searching for information or using supplemental resources for

textbooks. One participant shared an example of social media use
in a class:
My French teacher, shes really with the technology. She uses a
thing called SoftChalk. She makes lesson plans for us and she
throws all the stuff in it, and she just has us for weeks on weeks
going through it, and I like it because you still have her in the back
of the room to ask, but you have a wealth of information in front of
you.
One other use of social media for learning shared by the participants is the informal, social, collaborative online community,
where students can rene their skills in certain areas or collaborate
on projects. Compared with limited use of social media in structured classrooms, this type of learning environment created from
the students end, outside of classrooms, seems to be more natural
and powerful in changing students learning. As one participant
shared:
Because I know Im in a thing called Student Congress. Its a mock
Congress basically. We get together on Facebook and we decide the
docket beforehand. Its an agenda of the bills and we decide that
beforehand before we get there, so we have extra time, the right
speeches, questions, and all that stuff.
Another participant shared:
Like a few blogs I read like about like sometimes like information
you cant nd directly on like a website or something, you could like
kind of talk to people on a blog to see if like, to get around like a
basis of information. Because like sometimes, websites just cant
provide the right amount of information you need.
Rather than passively accessing information provided on web
pages, students can interact with information, people, and their
environment through social media. Also, this active, participatory
culture provides the power, freedom, exibility, and immediacy
that they cannot obtain from structured classroom learning environments. The informal learning generated through social media
helps students become internally-motivated learners who are
learning content and skills that are meaningful and relevant to
their life and experiences. As one participant shared:
Podcasting. . . I listen toits like a talk thing. Its like a daily radio
show that I couldYeah. Its like I could catch it the morning after,
so I have something to listen to on the bus or here in home and its
basically a talk show for nerdsbecause Im into the technology
and everything and they are big into everything, so. . .I nd out
most of the stuff in there. If you go on my phone right now, I have
tons of them. Some of them are from Boston College, the school I
want to go to and a few months ago, they released the law programs lectures, so I downloaded all of them and Ive been listening
to thembecause I want to go to the school to become an attorney,
and so Ive been listening to that, but the others are just for enjoyment. They vary because they bring in guest speakers. One was the
constitution and how we need to change it. One was civics, micro
civics, women in the law, and theres a series of them.
However, the participants shared a different side of social media
use when responding to two open-ended questions asking how
their school or class have used social media well as well as
poorly. The analysis results show that social media, if used in
classes, is mostly used for completing projects, searching and
researching topics and information for assignments. Some shared
managing assignments, grades, and keeping records as examples
for using social media well in classes. As one participant shared:
Using YouTube to watch educational videos, Edmodo to post and contain all assignments. Besides Facebook, YouTube and Edmodo are

219

the most frequently mentioned examples. As one participant stated We use YouTube to watch educational videos, but no other tools
are used, and some commented that well is a poor choose of
words, because, we do not use it well and The teachers dont know
enough about the Internet.
Students consider the following as poor or inappropriate uses of
social media in classes: using the wrong one at the wrong time;
pointless use of social media (for example, YouTube) when no clear
instructions are given; use when teachers and students have a lack
of training or familiarity with it; abuse of the privilege; or when
teachers use social media (for example, YouTube videos) to replace
teaching. Among the responses, pointless YouTube videos and
just to go on it and goof off are listed as examples for poor use
of social media. One participant commented: My school used it
poorly because some teachers go too far and use YouTube to teach instead of them. The results suggest that the participants are aware
of the difference between good and bad practices of social media
use in classes. Besides frustration with the Internet, blocked sites,
or other hardware problems, responses from the open-ended questions as well as the interview data suggest a generally limited, minimal, and unmeaningful uses of social media in classroom settings.
Compared with students passion about social media use in their
own lives, the results revealed a lack of familiarity, incomprehension, indifference, and frustration with social media use in classes
due to their limited exposure to effective and meaningful uses of
these tools in formal teaching and learning settings.
The participants expressed a few major concerns during interviews when asked about their current social media use and these
concerns are relevant to technology integration in general in K12 education. The interview data indicate that some participants
are not sure whether they are encouraged to use social media in
classes and the adoption of social media tools stays in individual
classes only. Even with limited uses, the participants felt that the
current use of social media tools and technology in general is limited, dated, and wrong because they are mostly used for assignment submission and grades management. Teachers are not
using the tools correctly and they need to manage the process better and interact with students more. They felt there is a lack of
trust in students in terms of cybersafey and they are very frustrated with the schools networking policy. They expressed concerns about using social media tools in education and think that
they can be distracting,
The way they could do it better is when I see Facebook, I see as
outthe version that we are using now is outdated. People are
reluctant to try the new versions of things because they dont know
how to work it. If they made the software more user-friendly,
instead of having all these technical stuff, because one day, I got
on Facebook and they just remodeled it to the Timeline, I didnt
know how to get to my news feed. So they need to make it more
user-friendly or setup a tutorial, like a link page. But in schools,
they just need to update like the eBackpack thing to Edmodo. Edmodo looks like a Facebook, but softer and like sweeter basically. But
EdmodoeBackpack, its like an outdated email from the 90s. Its
very harsh and scary.
One participant shared that
. . .but the way were using it now, is only to submit assignments,
and I feel thats wrong. I feel its wrong because there are so many
more uses for it, if were only using it for this little close-minded
idea of. . .submitting assignments.
The close-mindedness is virtually a summary phrase of the students impression of how social media or any technology tools are
currently being used in school. What the other participant shared

220

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

suggests that students hope to interact with teachers more

through the use of social media rather than having teaching replaced by using social media:
I like how it makes it easier, but I dont likesometimes the teachers just get to a point where they dont teach. They just dont come
in contact with us. Theyll just be like, Ill put a lesson up, take the
notes, learn it yourself, which we can manage, but its, like its easier to have a teacher teaching you there. Like, I have one teacher,
who just puts the lessons up. He just does it and just sits there
the whole time.
Other concerns expressed by the participants include distractions and meaningless time consumption, cyber safety, multitasking as a detrimental thing to do when taking tests online, false
information, and distracting advertisements. Students are aware
of the potential distractions and the differences between good
and poor social media uses. The results indicate that compared
with students natural uses of social media for learning, current social media uses in classes by teachers are close-minded, acquired
approaches, which may not t the natural affordances of social
media and those of formal learning environments. As reported in
the following section, students expect teachers and schools to
adopt an open-minded, innate approach that embraces the natural
characteristics of social media to enhance teaching and learning
rather than banning, rejecting, or applying them in a harsh way.
3.3.3. Expectations for social media use in education
The interview data revealed that students found current social
media uses in school undesirable. This aligns with the quantitative
results about students attitudes and beliefs. One participants
statement servers as a good summary of current social media use
in school from the students perspective:
You could really improve this, but the way were using it now, is
only to submit assignments, and I feel thats wrong. I feel its wrong
because there are so many more uses for it, if were only using it for
this little close-minded idea of submitting assignments.
While acknowledging the disadvantages of social media in education, the participants think that social media should be used to
enrich or to meet different learning needs rather than only using
them for submitting assignments. Teachers should interact with
students and manage the learning process when using social media
tools. As one participant suggested:
They should be used if we were having a class that is very boring
normally, like a history class that there are ways that we can
exploit it basically, so that it becomes better like if there is a YouTube clip to explain nevertheless, and theres something instead
of taking class time, you put that up on the social page and you
go, Watch that for homework. There will be a quiz tomorrow.
There you go. Theres no reading involved, so anyone who has a disability with reading doesnt have to do that.
They expect to have more opportunities that allow them to
have authentic learning experiences, such as interacting with
external experts through social media tools. As one participant
shared:
Like in our world, that class were talking about the Holocaust, and
if we could actually like to talk to somebody, who is either like an
expert on it or whatever, that would be really cool to be able to talk
to them through like the Skype.
The interview data indicate that students expect schools to improve social media use in education by communicating with students and changing the school networking policy. They felt that
blocking is not necessary and schools should be more

open-minded: It could be more open-minded, but also give a little

bit more privacy due to the fact that the teachers or the principals
actually can check on what were doing. One participant shared
his frustration with the school networking policy and summarized
what students wish to have in terms of privacy by differentiating
between checking my screen and checking my network usage:
If they check my phone, thats when Id cry invasion of privacy, but
if Im connected to their Wi-Fi like I am now, I dont mind having
them, if they pull up a list of people connected to their Wi-Fi popping up and my name is there. Just as long as they cant see what
Im doing on my screen, not that Im doing anything bad, its just
its my personal property.
They want to communicate with schools regarding the use of
social media, and as one participant said: (Schools should) listen
to the students because we have so many ideas and opinions about
how to use it or anything. They hope to dialogue with the school
personnel: I feel that all the unanswered concerns of the students
could be answered through a meeting with him (the technology manager), even if we could just ask him questions for a half hour. However, students feel that school administrators and teachers do not
trust them: Most teachers feel like that we dont use it for like any
purposes at all. They feel we just use it to like look at our news
feedand like talk to other friends orjust goof off. Besides these issues about social media use in classes from the students perspective, the next section reports other obstacles, difculties, and
problems related to social media use.
3.4. Obstacles, difculties, and problems related to social media use
3.4.1. Students concerns about social media
One open-ended question asked about the participants concerns they may have about using social media tools. Qualitative
analysis of the results indicate that besides a very small number
of responses revealing that the participants had no concerns about
using social media tools, most concerns focus on cyber safety and
security, dislikes or drawbacks of social medial tools, and technical
and non-technical troubles. The results are presented in Table 4.
3.4.2. Conceptual understanding of social media and learning
The interview data also revealed a lack of conceptual understanding of social media in the context of learning. Some participants were not sure what social media are and they talked about
the Internet or other computer programs such as PowerPoint when
asked about social media used for learning. Corresponding to the
quantitative results about reasons for using social media, interview
data suggest that entertainment and socializing are the two main
things students think social media are mainly used for: Because
you dont really learn anything. I dont really use any social media
other than Facebook and I dont know, I guess I learn some stuff, but
nothing like school related from that. And as the other participant
summarized: . . .unless theres like one for learning that we could
use, but from my experience, its only just talking to friends and posting pictures and everything.
Besides online gaming and getting connected with friends and
family, the data revealed a high level of familiarity among students
with using social media to get cyber gossip, follow cyber ghts, or
to make themselves feel in the loop, but they only mentioned a
very small number of classes that utilize social media tools. Does
minimal adoption of social media in formal classes lead to a limited
conceptual understanding of social media for learning? What
bridges social media and learning? Students think social media
can be used for learning, but they do not know how. When asked
about social media for learning, most of the anecdotes shared by
the participants indicate a focus on informal learning and changed

221

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

Table 4
Concerns about using social media tools.
Concerns

Cyber safety and security

Dislikes/drawbacks

Technical troubles

Non-technical troubles

Codes

Hacking
Privacy
Hurt feelings
Bullying
Virus
Safety
Security
Stalkers/creepers/predators/strangers

Time-consuming
Distractions
Obssession
Distracting
Grade
Meaningless
Stays forever
Inaccurate information
Over dependence
Abuse the system
Expectations for girls
Moral

Internet speed
Devices
Computers
Internet connection
Service shut down
Crashing
Advertisement
Blocked service
Copyright

Getting in trouble
Losing information
Unexpected
Fights
Fraud
Spam

24

15

16

Identity problem

Number of counts

164

concepts of learning. The concepts of learning described by the participants include learning combined with socializing, learning by
ones own interests, and learning with fun, exibility, enjoyment,
and awareness or mindfulness. The new concepts of learning derived from the interview data are more personalized and socialized
than traditional views of learning.
4. Discussion
This study has intended to investigate high school students
affordances with social media and their attitudes and beliefs about
the use of these new technologies in education. The ndings provide insights into the potential benets, problems, and issues related to social media use in education from the students
perspectives. An improved understanding of students perspectives
and new roles in participatory culture may help improve the design of learning activities utilizing new technologies. It might also
help to establish appropriate ways to embrace social media tools,
while valuing every opportunity to educate students in cyber
safety, security, and ethics instead of blocking access to all new
tools in school settings merely for the purpose of protection.
4.1. Limitations
Besides the limitation of self-reported measures discussed in
the methods section, an understanding of the other limitations of
the study is necessary when considering the ndings and discussions. Although example technologies were shared with the participants during the data collection process, the denition of social
media might affect the participants understanding of the questions if they were not active social media users. The other limitation might be that the participants were high school students in
a rural school district, which should be considered when generalizing the results to other sample and research settings.
4.2. Affordances, sporadic school uses, and abundant informal learning
opportunities
The ndings indicate that most students depend on social media in their personal lives, both in and out of school. Leisure and social connection are the top reasons for using social media.
Educational uses by teachers for classroom teaching and learning
are sporadic, while uses by students on their own for learning purposes seem to be abundant but also incidental and informal. Emotional comfort and the usability features of social media are the
main motivators for using social media.
Social networking sites, virtual worlds, and gaming environments are the most popular technologies among students, while
social bookmarking or tagging tools are the least used tools by

the students. The tools popular among the students and those used
for classes are not the same, except Facebook, which is the most
popular tool being used both by the students and their peers, as
well as in classes by teachers. However, Facebook is also the most
frequently cited example by students for poor use of social media
in classes. Students commented on pointless YouTube videos and
criticized failed attempts to use social media when teachers do
not provide feedback or interact with them during the process. Besides getting help from peers with homework, other forms of
learning through social media include searching for information
or doing research for class projects, using supplemental resources
for textbooks, and working with a collaborative learning community. However, most learning through social media falls under
the category of informal, incidental, and socialized learning, which
is part of the changed concepts of learning. The current uses of social media in a formal learning environment are not only limited in
the frequencies of use, but also in the shortage of meeting the students expectations. Students expect teachers to implement active
and thoughtful uses, interact more, manage the process better, and
provide feedback. The ndings suggest that while we consider
using the most popular tools among students for classroom teaching, the key to successful use is to consider technology affordances
and have meaningful learning activities supported by quality teacher interaction with students.
4.3. Affordances and learning design
Consistent with the denitions adopted in this study that students affordances are affected by their prior experiences (Carter
et al., 1999; Wijekumar et al., 2006), the ndings suggest that students expect to use social media for leisure and social connection
rather than naturally considering them as learning tools. This
means that for social media to be used as effective learning tools
and to adjust students prior affordances with these tools, complicated efforts in designing, scaffolding, and interacting with students during the process are necessary. Simply following the
usability features of social media to replace teaching or to ease
the administrative burden of teaching will not lead to good learning or student satisfaction.
Furthermore, the original designs for most social media tools
are intended for life or commercial purposes. For example, relationship maintenance, information seeking, amusement, style,
and sociability are the ve common gratications from social networking services (SNS) and instant messengers (IM) used to meet
users social and psychological needs (Ku, Chu, & Tseng, 2012). Social media are designed to serve commercial priorities by selling
users to advertisers rather than fostering the interests of social or
connective learning (Friesen & Lowe, 2011). Evidently, students
affordances align with what these media are designed and in-

222

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

tended for and this is referred to as the open-minded, innate approach of using social media in this paper. To transfer this approach into a structured learning environment requires a careful
examination of the tools, the students, the affordances, and many
pedagogical considerations. By his ecological approach to social
interaction, Gaver (1996) pointed out that the design of social
interaction using technologies should align with the affordances
and designing against their grain (p. 111) is difcult. Therefore,
it is important for educators to critically evaluate the adoption of
social media in education rather than being driven by the latest
craze in the technology market. Similar to the academic form of
a moral panic Bennett et al. (2008, p. 775) cautioned in the digital natives debate, a rational attitude and more research studies
are necessary for productive discussion of social media adoption
in education.
4.4. Attitudes and beliefs
Students technology affordances that are formed outside of formal educational environments as well as their attitudes and beliefs
may greatly inuence how they learn and how they perceive learning supported by new technologies. The survey results indicate
that most students are positive about social media use in education. These results align with qualitative results from the interviews and open-ended questions, but there is an inconsistency
between positive attitudes and beliefs, and the actual understanding and adoption of social media. While the participants are positive about the use of social media in education, they do not seem
to have a well-dened awareness of social media as a concept for
formal, structured learning in school environments. Although this
is explicable when considering the ndings by Bodur et al.
(2000) that the predominant inuence of affect in forming attitude
may explain the inconsistency between attitude and behavior, the
ndings provide evidence for further evaluation of the digital natives claims that may have been established upon positive
attitudes.
4.5. Implications for learning design and technology integration
Although the ndings indicate a contrast between openminded, innate uses by students versus close-minded, acquired
uses by teachers, the author is reluctant to use this as a parallel
comparison between digital native and digital immigrant.
What really matters is not the technology or tool only, but the user
(either a student or a teacher), technology affordances, and how
the user is using the tool. Also, students do not live in vacuum
but they interact with the outside world and are inuenced by a
technology-driven society and culture in daily life. This hidden curriculum (Gredler, 2009) is too signicant to be ignored. Ashraf
(2009) commented on the disappearance of experts and the meaning of learning from peer experts, and this corresponds to Hemmi,
Bayne, and Lands (2009) suggestion that social media may be a
challenge for academia epistemologically and ontologically.
Understanding and evaluating affordances is essential for effective
adoption of these tools. Therefore, the changed concepts of learning and informal learning derived from social media use may need
to be considered as the ultimate goals for designing future learning
environments.
Another implication for learning design and technology integration is that students should be considered as playing a different
role in the educational process. Rather than starting to meet the
needs of the changed student population, which is often referred
to as the reason for changing education, and which also indicates
the passive role students play in educational processes, we should
consider them as the power, the sources for inspiration, and as the

equal party to consult in designing learning or making decisions

regarding technology.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the blind reviewers for their
invaluable comments and suggestions, Kyle Peck and Fengfeng
Ke for their support, and Tim Arner for his helpful comments on
an earlier draft of this manuscript. The author is also grateful for
the professional development support from Wilkes University.
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.
Ashraf, B. (2009). Teaching the Google-eyed YouTube generation. Education +
Training, 51(5/6), 343352.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical
review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775786.
Bodur, H. O., Brinberg, D., & Coupey, E. (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude:
Alternative models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 9(1), 1728.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysismatching learning tasks with learning
technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 315.
Bradley, P. (2009). Whither Twitter? Community College Week, 21(19), 68. <http://
www.ccweek.com/news/articleles/1090-CCW051809-Allpages.pdf>.
Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative,
qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261276.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C.
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709725). New York:
Macmillan.
Carter, G., Westbrook, S. L., & Thompkins, C. D. (1999). Examining science tools as
mediators of students learning about circuits. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36(1), 89105.
Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (2012). Museum learning via social
and mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor
experience? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 802819.
Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social
media in formal and informal learning. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 87104.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Personal Learning Environments, social media,
and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and
informal learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 38.
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, 183194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.13652729.2011.00426.x.
Gagne, R. M., Wagner, W. W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. M. (2004). Principles of
instructional design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research. New York: Pearson
Education.
Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceeding of CHI 91 proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 7984). New York,
NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/108844.108856.
Gaver, W. (1996). Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design.
Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111129.
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifin.
Graves, L. (2009). The affordances of blogging: A case study in culture and
technological effects. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31, 331346. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0196859907305446.
Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. New Jersey:
Upper Saddle River.
Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social
network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication,
14,
11301161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.10836101.2009.01484.x.
Grosseck, G. (2008). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 478482.
Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using
technology to increase student involvement. In R. Junco & D. M. Timm (Eds.).
Using emerging technologies to enhance student engagement. New directions for
student services (vol. 124, pp. 1935). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social
technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25,
1930.

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213223

Hew, K. F., & Brush (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223252.
Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. (2012). Mobile microblogging: Using Twitter and mobile
devices in an online course to promote learning in authentic contexts. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 211227.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012a). NMC horizon report: 2012 K-12
edition. Austin, T: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012b). The NMC horizon report: 2012 higher
education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between
multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28, 187198.
Junco, R. (2013). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 626631.
Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2012). Putting twitter to the test: Assessing
outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of
Educational
Technology,
115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678535.2012.01284.x.
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.
Ku, Y.-C., Chu, T.-H., & Tseng, C.-H. (2012). Gratications for using CMC
technologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29, 226234.
Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning:
Mobile social media in generative learning communities. Social Science
Information, 49(3), 119.
Murphy, J., & Lebans, R. (2008). Unexpected outcomes: Web 2.0 in the secondary
school classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning,
4(2), 134147.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

223

Oliver, M. (2005). The problem with affordance. E-Learning, 2(4), 402413. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.4.402.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative
framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 121.
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. Internet and Higher Education, 13,
134140.
Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. (2003). Exploring the interaction equation: Validating
a rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. The Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 2437.
Sharples, M., Graber, R., Harrison, C., & Logant, K. (2008). E-safety and Web 2.0 for
children aged 1116. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 7084.
Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R., Jr., Oliver, J. S., & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on the
affective dimensions of science learning. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of
research on science teaching and learning (pp. 211235). New York: Macmillan.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. MA: Allyn &
Bacon: Boston.
Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and
virtual) A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, A60A68.
Wesely, P. M. (2012). Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in language
learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), s98s117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1944-9720.2012.01181.x.
Wijekumar, K. J., Meyer, B. J. F., Wagoner, D., & Ferguson, L. (2006). Technology
affordances: The real story in research with K-12 and undergraduate learners.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 191209.
Yang, C., & Chang, Y.-S. (2011). Assessing the effects of interactive blogging on
student attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academic
achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 126135.