1.Online Social Networking Sites:Student Engagement&Student AchievementElizabeth M. Power

2. Online Social Networking Sites:Student Engagement&Student AchievementSubmitted To: Prof. Robert KellyIn partial fulfillment of the requirements for Ed. 6590Faculty of Education, Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt. Johns, Newfoundland and LabradorJuly 31, 2012 3. ABSTRACTKey words: social networking sites, student achievement, student engage This paper reviews the available literature on the relationship and impactonline social networking sites have on student engagement andachievement. Online social networking sites are plentiful, varied and easilyaccessible to students and teachers alike. The potential for using these SNSs to further the goal of education isimmense, and teachers are making the foray into the world of online socialnetworking for educational purposes. However, educators cannotpresuppose that because SNSs are a timely technology, they willnecessarily engage students and improve student achievement. Infact, the research is inconclusive. This paper will review literature which has reported finding positive impactsof SNSs on student engagement and achievement, and other literaturewhich finds a negative correlation, or at best, no conclusive proof that thereis any kind of a link between the two. Aspects of online social networking such asengagement, collaboration, creativity, distraction, grade point average andacademic achievement are considered in the literature. Results of thisreview will indicate that, while there are many instances of researchreporting positive and negative results, there is no conclusive evidenceeither for or against the impact of SNSs on engagement and achievement. Generally, participation in online SNSs has a positive connection to student 4. ContentsIntroductionResearch Question and RationaleBackgroundDefinitionsReview of Related research and LiteraturePositive impact of SNSs on student engagement and achievementNegative impact of SNSs on student engagement and achievementNeutral impact of SNSs on student engagement and achievementSummary of FindingsSummaryDiscussion of Implications for Further ResearchReferences 5. INTRODUCTION Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Friendster,Cloudworks, Twitter, Ning People of all ages --- by the millions Facebook- 901 million monthly active users- 125 billion friend connections- March, 2012 1. 6. INTRODUCTION Educators are set to take advantage of- multiple collaboration tools- discussion opportunities provided by SNSs, 2, 3Teachers, always on the lookout for new andinnovative ways to try to motivate students and improve student achievement are lookingtowards social networking for inspiration. 7. RESEARCH QUESTION AND RATIONALE the benefits of Facebooks networking andsocial communication capabilities can benefitboth the instructor and the student bytapping into a greater number of learningstyles, providing an alternative to thetraditional lecture format, creating an onlineclassroom community, and increasingteacher-student and student-studentinteraction. (p. 9). 35 8. RESEARCH QUESTION AND RATIONALE The research question, then, that begs tobe asked is ... Does online social networking have an impact on student engagement and achievement? 9. ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES web-based services that permitindividuals to create a public or semipublic profile, display a list of other userswith whom they share a connection, andview and navigate through their list ofconnections and those made by otherswithin the system 17. Friends, families, neighbourhood, world18. 10. ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES Mobile connectivity Blogs Photo/video sharing Cross-posting Non-academic Social19 11. SNSS IN EDUCATION Three possible approaches: learning about SNSs (includingunderstanding and identifying theknowledge, skills, dispositions and learninginvolved), learning from SNSs (to understand andappreciate the kinds of learning a socialnetworking site can support), and learning with SNSs (making use of thestudents existing SNSs to support andextend curriculum-based work), 18, p. 16. 12. SNS IN EDUCATION Quality relationships Connectedness Modelling positive behaviours Sharing information25 13. BACKGROUND 95% of 18 and 19 year olds usingFacebook 5 Few democratic differences betweenusers and non-users 6 Frequently and extensively 36 14. BACKGROUNDWhile initially designed by Mark Zukerberg as ameans by which students could communicate withpeers at the University level 7 the popularity ofFacebook and other SNSs is growing to includeapplications in formal and informal educationalsettings. 15. BACKGROUND SNS use in Education is Underdeveloped 30% college students using SNS incourses 5 Students rarely use Facebook foreducational purposes 37 Students view SNSs differently for socialpurposes and educational purposes 16. EDUCATIONALPOTENTIAL OF SNS Instructors, learners, system designers & decisionmakers 3 Students by their own initiative 8 Use social networking sites for educationallyrelated activities, including significant educationalinnovations such as interactive and collaborativelearning 9 Knowledge sharing, creative production personalsense-making, reflection 38Social networking is a tool, with both itsadvantages and problems for usage in teachingand learning 17. Griffith and Liyange -Exploring SNS positive aspect of SNSs The National School and their use is startingBoard Association to be seen,recognizes the potential students are using SNSsvalue of using SNS in the in their academic studiesclassroom,for group and team-based work 12, recommending thatschool board members SNSs in variousfind ways to harness theacademic activities -educational value ofcommunicating withsocial networking, chat faculty and lecturers, androoms and collaborative discussing academiconline journals 11. issues with classmates13.Ajjan and Hartshorne - SNSs could be used toestablish a series of academic connections, or tofoster collaboration and cooperation in the highereducation classroom. 15 18. Should we exploit SNSs for education? Social networking Despite theis a tool, with both potential benefitsits advantages and they haveproblems for usage identified, harnessiin teaching andng sociallearning 2technologies offers both opportunities and challenges. 39 19. BACKGROUND Despite being a timely question, researchon social networking sites and studentachievement is limited when compared tostudies of SNSs relating to other issuessuch as student privacy, safety, socialcapital, and psychological well-being . 4 What then, does the research sayabout online social networking sitesand student engagement andachievement? 20. Definitions 21. POSITIVE IMPACT OF SNSS ON STUDENTENGAGEMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT 22. ENGAGEMENTStudent engagement 22, 41, 23 Student achievementNing - individual over class - students saw + advantages - instructors saw + effects of engagement 14 - + impact on motivation and achievement 2Facebook - + predictive of student engagement 24Twitter - + potential for improving engagement 22 23. ACHIEVEMENT - POTENTIALcollaborative nature of SNSs + effect on civicdevelopment 27Twitter improve grades in educationally relevant ways3provide significant e-learning benefits 14enhance language learning, particularly ESL 44 24. ACHIEVEMENTSNS - Students report a + impact 13- higher scores in verbal & visuo-spatial 42- improved psychological well-being, skill development, learning outcomes 43Ning Students report a + impact onachievement, collaboration, information exchange 14 25. NEGATIVE IMPACT OF SNSS ON STUDENTENGAGEMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT 26. Internet in general causes difficulties 28Negative correlation between Facebook & studentachievement users having a lower GPA; fewer hoursstudying; procrastination 29Negative predictors of lower GPA chatting, checking, posting 24 Specifically, large increases in time spent onFacebook relate to lower overall GPAs (p. 194).24 27. Negative impact on studies & homework completion 45Negative impact; attention deficit 46, 30 there is a significant negative association betweensocial networking site exposure and academicperformance (p. 278).31No A 4 U students continued multitasking despiteknown negative consequences 28. Effect of using SNSs on study habits and differences in academic performance on basis of time spent in SNSs ......Found SNSs significantly [negatively] affect the studying habits of the students and eventually their academic performance (p. 156). {self-reported} 33 29. Students report more time on SNSs = lower gradesSNSs ranged from mere distractions to obsession 47Time and accessibility issues with usingNing; preference with face-to-face overNing 14Facebook has only a limited role to play in student engagement or achievement 22 30. Relationship between SNSs and academic performance is inconclusive 45SNS use not significant enough to negatively affect performance 19Insufficient evidence to suggest Ning directly impacted student achievement 2No association between Facebook users and nonusers, and GPA 48Coin has two sides! (P. 1501) 43 31. Do online socialnetworking sites impact student engagement &achievement? PositiveNegative NeutralResearch ResearchResearch 32. Does online social networking have an impact on student engagementand achievement? Relativel y new (7)Online Growing SNSin popularitBeingIs .... yconsidere 1,5,6d byeducators14,11,361 33. SNSs(positive) StudentEngagement (14,22,24)Cognitive SkillStudentAchievementSkillsDevelopmen(14,2,13)(42)t (43)Civic Language TwitterNingengagemeLearningnt 2744 3 34. SNSs (negative) Student AchievementAffects Affects Distractionacademic from Studies Affects GPAstudy habits(24,32,30,45,36) performance (24,29)(33,47)(31,32, 46) 35. SNSs(neutral)No Not aNo connectionInsufficient conclusive significantconnection (45) (26) evidence (2) impact (19) 36. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES HAS BEEN THE FOCUS OF THIS REVIEW. Student achievement Studentengagement SNSs can improve engagement andthereby student achievement more conclusive evidence relating toimproved engagement, less evidence of actual increases instudent achievement. 37. Conclusions drawn from the body ofresearch analyzed lean towards indicating a negative or neutral correlation betweenonline social networking sites and theirimpact on student achievement. 38. The detrimental effect of time on academic studies indicates that students are using social networking for social reasons rather than educational reasons.Despite the reported potential of online social networking sites in education, opening/viewing of sites will often lead to distractive behavior, updating status, chatting, checking photos, etc. rather than attending to the preferred academic behavior 24 39. encouragingcorrelations reported potential for social The potential for thenetworking sitesvery popular socialhaving a positivenetworking sitesimpact is evidentbodes well for the directteachers interestedcontribution of in exploiting thisparticipation in online technology forsocial networking educational gain insites to studentthe classroomachievementremains to be proven2 40. the direct contribution of While this data gives anparticipation in onlineoverview of impressionssocial networking sites to by the subjects, a morestudent achievementvalid result may beremains to be proven 2 obtained by looking at quantitative data such as more research in thischanges in grade pointarea is warrantedaverage. conclusion Future for further investigationresearch needs to look into the types of onlinemore closely at studentsocial networking sitespractices in onlinethat will enhanceenvironments, and we learning, as well asmust go beyond gradesmatching these sites toand GPA to include the appropriate types ofdifferent forms of courses and applications 46assessment (p. 1155). 49 researchers should focus on a variety of popular social networking sites 41. Despite inconclusive or neutral attempts todetermine the impact of social networkingsites on student performance, there is ageneral agreement that there are a myriad ofeducational benefits to be derived fromSNSs. SNSs provide a viable alternative foreducators, that training and support shouldbe provided 14 Advantages of SNSs should be monitoredand encouraged by students, teachers, andparents alike, to enhance the educationalperformance of students. 33 42. When technology supports anaffirmative, constructivist learningenvironment and contributes to successfulpedagogical strategies without distractingfrom essential objectives for developmentof knowledge and skills, the result offormative evaluation of social networkingpotentials for distance learning is positive(p. 98). 2 43. With knowledge that there may be negativeassociations between SNSs, but thatresearchers are excited about the potentialof SNSs, educators developing curriculumconnections with social networking sitesshould be able to observe positive impactsof social networking sites on studentengagement and achievement. The research findings that social networkssuch as Facebook provide a distraction thattakes time away from academic pursuits is nosurprise to this writer (as a student and aparent), but the positive reports of enhancedengagement through the use of SNSs issomething that educators will have to explore. 44. In this age of 24/7 online connectivity, anyaspect of technology which engagesstudents should be fully explored forpossible inclusion in the curriculum, andpotential increases in studentachievement. 45. References1. Key Facts (2012). In Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved fromhttp://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=222. Hoffman, E. (2009). Evaluating social networking tools for distance learning.Presented at TCC 2009 Proceedings, Retrieved fromhttp://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2009/hoffman.pdf3. Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012). A case study of Israelihigher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the communityvia social networks. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 58-68. Retrievedfrom http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ947868&site=ehost-live&scope=site;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.0034. Ahn, J. (2011). The influence of social networking sites on high school studeacademic development. Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts InternationalSection A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(9-)http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2011-99050-075&site=ehost-live&scope=site.5. Smith, S., and Caruso, J., (2010). Key findings:The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010.Educause: Centre for Applied Research, 2010. Retrieved from and doi 46. 6. Hargittai, E. (2008). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 13, 276-297. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x7. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends:Social capital and college students use of online social network sites.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x8. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students education-relateduse of "facebook". Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157-174.Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ856841&site=ehost-live&scope=site; http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/174398809029236229. Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). Thestrengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software inhigher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, 26(3), 159-174. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00347.x10. Wodzicki, K., Schwammlein, E., & Moskaliuk, J. (2012). "Actually, Iwanted to learn": Study-related knowledge exchange on social networkingsites. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 9-14. Retrieved fromsearch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ947869&site=ehost-live&scope=site;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.008http:// 47. 11. Gewertz, C. (2007). Teenagers social networking found to have educational benefits in poll. Education week, 27 (1). 12. Griffith, S. (2008). An introduction to the potential of social networking sites in education. Proceedings of the Emerging technologies Conference, University of Wollongong, 18-21. 13. Helou, A. and Ab. Rahim, N. (2011). The influence of social networking sites on students academic performance in Malaysia. International Conference on Internet Studies, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia. September 8, 2010.14. Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternativesocial networking sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the E-learningbenefits of ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151-170.Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ938842&site=ehost-live&scope=site; http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/9.2.4.pdf 15. 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), 71-80. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002 16. 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(3), 134-140. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ886995&site=ehost-live&scope=site; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002 48. 17. Boyd, d., and Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites:Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 13, 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x18. Merchant, G. (2012). Unravelling the social network: Theory andresearch. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(1), 4-19. Retrieved fromhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ955170&site=ehost-live&scope=site;http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.56799219. Ahmed, I. and Qazi, T. (2011). A look out for academic impacts of socialnetworking sites (SNSs): A student based perspective. African Journal ofBusiness Management, 5 (12), 5022-5031.retrieved from www.Academicjournals.org/AJBM.20. Kuh, G. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (6), 683- 706. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.009921. Zhao, C. and Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities andstudent engagement. Research in Higher education, 45(2), 115-138. doi 0361-0365/04/0300-0115/022. Wise, L., Skues, J., and Williams, B. (2011). Facebook in highereducation promoted social but not academic agents. In G. Williams, P.Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, ChangingDirections. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011, 1332-1342. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/procs/Wise-full.pdf 49. 23. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of twitter oncollege student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 27(2), 119-132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x24. Junco, R. (2011). The relationship between frequency of facebookuse, participation in facebook activities, and student engagement. Computersand Education, 58, 162-171. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.00425. Martin, A. And Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonalrelationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields fortheory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of EducationalResearch, 79 (1), 327-365.doi: 10.3102/003465430832558326. Kolek, E., and Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: An empiricalexamination of undergraduate Facebook profiles. NASPA Journal of studentAffairs research and Practice, 54 (1), 1-25.Retrieved fromhttp://journals.naspa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?context=jsarp&article=1905&date=&mt=MTM0MTM5OTI1Mg==&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.naspa.org%2Fjsarp%2Fvol45%2Fiss1%2Fart2%2F&access_ok_form=Continue27. Beach, R., & Doerr-Stevens, C. (2011). Using social networking for onlinerole-plays to develop students argumentative strategies. Journal ofEducational Computing Research, 45(2), 165-181. Retrieved fromhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ943239&site=ehost-live&scope=site; http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=74788460TL43M27128. Kubey, R., Lavin, M., and Barrows, J. (2001). Internet use and collegiateAcademic performance decrements: Early findings.Journal of Communication, 366-382. 50. 29. Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academicperformance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.02430. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., and Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integratiand informal learning at university: It is more for socializing and talking o friends,about work than actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34 (2),141-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923606.31. Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academicand social outcomes of electronic media use among university students.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275-280.doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.013532. Junco, R. and Cotton, S. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship betweenmultitasking and academic performance. Computers and Education, 59, 505-514. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.02333. Ahmed, I., Amir, M., Qazi, T., Jabeen, S., (2011). An investigation of SNS usageand its impact on studying habits and academic performance of university students.Research Journal of International Studies, 21, 145-158.34. Martin, A. And Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonalrelationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields fortheory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of EducationalResearch, 79 (1), 327-365.doi: 10.3102/0034654308325583 51. 35. Munoz, C. & Towner, T. (2009). Opening Facebook: How to usefacebook in the college classroom. Presentation prepared for the SocietyforInformation Technology and teacher Educationconference, Charleston, S.C.36. Nemetz, P., Aiken, K., Cooney, V., & Pascal, V. (2012). Shouldfaculty use social networks to engage with students? Journal forAdvancement of Marketing Education, 20(1), 19-28.37. Akyildz, M. & Argan, M. (2010). Using online social networking: Studentpurposes of Facebook usage at the University of Turkey.Journal of Technology Research, 3.38. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M., 2008. The three ps of pedagogy forthe networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity.-International Journal of Teaching and learning in HigherEducation, 20(1), 10-27. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/39. Hamid, S., Waycott, J., Kurnia, S., & Chang, S. (2010). The use of onli social networking for higher education from an activity theory perspective.Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems Proceedings. Paper 135.Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2010/135 40. Brownlie, F., & Renihan, F. (2003). Enhanced learning: Report of the student achievement task force. As presented to the Minister of Education, British Columbia, Canada, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/taskforce/achieve_task_rep.pdf 52. 41. Zhao, C. & Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities andstudent engagement. Research in Higher education, 45(2), 115-138. doi0361-0365/04/0300-0115/042. Alloway, T., & Alloway, R. (2012). The impact of engagement withsocial networking sites (SNSs) on cognitive skills. Computers in HumanBehavior, 28, 1748-1754 43. Yu, a., Tian, S., Vogel, D., & Kwok, R. (2010). Can learning be virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts. Computers and Education, 55, 1494-1503. 44. Mahadi, N., & Ubaidullah, N. (2010). Social networking sites: Opportunitiesfor language teachers. The International Journal of Learning. 6, 313-323. Retrieved from http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494 45. Flad, K. (2010). The influence of social networking participation on student academic performance across gender lines. Counselor Education Masters Thesis. Paper 31. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/edc_theses/31 online social networking on 46. Paul, J., Baker, H., & Cochran, J. (2012). Effect of student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, In Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.016 47. Oye, N., Helou, A., & Ad.Rahim, N. (2012). Model of perceived influence of academic performance using social networking. International Journal of Computers & Technology, 2(2), 24-29. 53. 48. Kolek, E., & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: An empiricalexamination of undergraduate Facebook profiles. NASPA Journal of studentAffairs research and Practice, 54(1), 1-25. Retrieved fromhttp://journals.naspa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?context=jsarp&article=1905&date=&mt=MTM0MTM5OTI1Mg==&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.naspa.org%2Fjsarp%2Fvol45%2Fiss1%2Fart2%2F&access_ok_form=Continue49. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, newilliteracies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1130-1161. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01484.x