Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223

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 schoolstudents’ technology affordances and perspectives

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.0020747-5632/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Tel.: +1 570 408 7387.E-mail address: jin.mao@wilkes.edu

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 mediaTechnology affordancesAttitudes and beliefsLearning 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 obsta-cles and issues. The affordance findings indicate that students depend on social media in their daily livesfor leisure and social connections. Educational uses by teachers for classroom teaching and learning aresporadic, while uses by students on their own for learning purposes seem to be abundant but also inci-dental and informal. Quantitative results suggest that in general, students show positive attitudes andbeliefs about social media use in education. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three components thatexplained a total of 65.4% of the variance: (a) benefits of social media use, (b) disadvantages of socialmedia 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 socialmedia 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 arenecessary.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction porting the argument for integrating social media as effective edu-

The rapid development of mobile devices, apps, and tablet com-puting is revolutionizing the concept of socializing as well as mo-bile computing and learning. Graphing mathematical equations,creating and sharing notes, electronic publishing, and employinglocation-aware technologies are among the few educational usesfor mobile devices that can provide numerous potential opportuni-ties for the academic world (Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012a,2012b). In 2012 and 2013 NMC (New Media Consortium) K-12and higher education Horizon reports, mobile devices and apps,mobile learning, and tablet computing are predicted to be adoptedin one year or less. The use of new technologies, especially socialmedia, is becoming increasingly ubiquitous in students’ daily lives.Free or inexpensive apps distributed through app stores have givenrise to a social-media-focused culture that is shaping how weshould communicate, teach, and learn.

However, the dramatically changed social and cultural environ-ments do not seem to lead to similar changes in schools due tomany factors including rigid school networking policies, hardwareavailability, and the complexity of effective technology integration.Tess (2013) concluded that empirical evidence is lagging in sup-

cational tools. While most attention has been given to resources,institutional culture, and professional development for teachersin adopting new technologies for teaching and learning, it is neces-sary to consider students’ technology affordances and perspectivesthat may influence the design, development, and implementationof effective instructional strategies. This is especially true whenusing social media to support learning because of the ‘‘perceiveddifficulties in integrating its emergent fluid forms and meaningsinto highly structured learning environments’’ (Lewis, Pea, &Rosen, 2010, p. 4).

In literature, the term ‘‘social media’’ has been used inter-changeably with Web 2.0 tools and social networking software.In this study, social media are defined as new technologies andapplications that utilize the Internet and Web 2.0 technologiesand allow users to create and participate in various communitiesthrough functions such as communicating, sharing, collaborating,publishing, managing, and interacting. Social media can be catego-rized 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, Glog-

ster, or Twitter; social bookmarking or tagging tools like Deli-cious, Symbaloo, or Diggo; photo or video sharing tools like

214 J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223

Flickr, YouTube, ZuiTube, or Picasa; collaborative office or brain-storming 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, andpolls;� 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 mediahas been a clear theme in both the early stage research on Web2.0 technologies represented by blogs and wikis as well as recentresearch on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.Higher education has recognized the huge potential brought byWeb 2.0 technologies to improve student engagement, collegeexperiences, and pedagogical practices, and has been advocatinginnovations and changes to stay current with the changed educa-tion market (Bradley, 2009; Grosseck, 2008).

Factors investigated in the context of higher education includefaculty use (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Chen & Bryer, 2012;Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010), student engage-ment (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Hsu & Ching, 2012; Junco,Elavsky, & Heiberger, 2012), impact on as well as relation to aca-demic achievement (Junco, 2012; Junco, Heiberger, & Loken,2011). Yang and Chang (2011) concluded that university studentsshowed more positive attitudes toward peer interaction and aca-demic achievement through interactive blogs. The study by Juncoet al. (2011) showed that the use of Twitter significantly improvedundergraduate students’ engagement and semester grade pointaverages (GPA). However, in the other study (Junco, 2012), theauthor found that time spent on Facebook was significantly nega-tively related to college students’ GPA, and was weakly related totime spent preparing for classes.

Most studies investigated individual social media tools such asMySpace, Facebook, or Twitter as innovations in education, andthis research trend seems reasonable considering the sweepinggeneralization of the term social media itself. It indicates that so-cial media technologies have not become a mainstream technologyadopted in education. Roblyer et al. (2010) found that in highereducation, students are more positive about the potential of usingFacebook and other similar new technologies for supporting teach-ing 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 infrastructureand support for social media use, but instructors are slow in adopt-ing it for educational purposes. In addition, while social media mayhave the potential to promote personal learning environments(PLE) as a promising new pedagogical approach to enhance self-regulated learning (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011), some cautionagainst 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 ‘moralpanic’ without empirical evidence’’ (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin,2008, p. 775).

Compared with research on social media conducted in highereducation, research on social media in the context of K-12 educa-tion is less extensive and focuses more on secondary schools.Factors investigated include student engagement and other aca-demic influences as well as cyber safety. Greenhow and Robelia(2009) found that social network sites as social learning re-sources provided high school teenagers with opportunities forthe validation and appreciation of creative work, peer alumnisupport, 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 engagementwith content, quality of assignments, and a sense of responsibil-ity for their learning. Charitonos, Blake, Scanlon, and Jones (2012)investigated how secondary school students aged 13–14 in a his-tory class used social and mobile technologies to enhance theirmuseum visiting experience. The authors found that students’interactions online supported meaning making, negotiation, anda collective experience at the museum. A number of authors re-ported on cyber safety, exam cheating, and other concerns re-lated to the use of social media in education (for example,Sharples, Graber, Harrison, & Logant, 2008). Sharples et al.(2008) surveyed and interviewed children aged 11–16 years,teachers, and parents regarding e-safety and Web 2.0, and theyfound that teachers reported ‘‘being constrained by a need toshow a duty of care that avoids worst-case risk to children, to re-strict access to SN sites’’ (p. 70). In the literature, fewer studiesinvestigated social media, either as individual tools or as a gen-eral category, in K-12 education than in higher education, andapparently, students’ age and schools’ responsibility and protec-tion awareness are among the reasons for this lack of research.However, these apparent reasons do not diminish the efforts toexplore social media and other similar new technologies to sup-port education in K-12 settings.

1.2. Technology affordances

The term ‘‘technology affordance’’ is defined differently in liter-ature. Wijekumar, Meyer, Wagoner, and Ferguson (2006) definedaffordances as the interactions between users and tools, and users’prior experiences and age greatly influence how they interact withthese tools (Carter, Westbrook, & Thompkins, 1999). Gaver (1991)explored affordances as the strengths and weaknesses of technolo-gies that can possibly be offered to the users. Graves (2009) exam-ined thoughts related to technology affordances as a middleground between determinist and social constructivist perspectives.According to Gagne et al. (2004), technology affordances are ‘‘theproperties or functions of technology that extend our learningand perceptual capabilities’’ and they can be economic, social, cog-nitive, or affective.

All these definitions originated from the two views on technol-ogy affordances by Gibson (1979), who thinks that affordances are‘‘what [a tool] offers. . .what it provides or furnishes, either for goodor ill’’ (p. 127) and by Norman (1988), who focuses more on the‘‘perceived and actual properties of the thing’’ (p. 9). Bower(2008) reaffirmed the distinction between Gibson’s concern withutility and Norman’s usability focus in their definitions of technol-ogy affordances. Oliver (2005) questioned the use of technologyaffordances because of the ambiguity between the absolute ‘‘real’’affordances and ‘‘perceived’’ affordances described in Norman’sdefinition, similar to that between the positivist and constructivistworld views. Nevertheless, from a middle ground perspective,technology affordances are still providing a useful lens for studyinglearning technologies and how they impact human learning andthe philosophy of learning design. Bower (2008) proposed a frame-work based on affordance perspectives in designing learning taskswith learning technologies. Roblyer and Wiencke (2003) consid-ered interactivity affordances of technology as one of the five com-ponents contributing to the success and pedagogical quality ofonline courses. Roblyer et al. (2010) continued to use this as thetheoretical framework for investigating social networking sites(SNS), which have an interactive nature that can enhance socialinteractions and increase quality engagement. In this paper, thedefinition and meaning discussed by Wijekumar et al. (2006) andCarter et al. (1999) forms the basis for the concept of technologyaffordances being studied.

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223 215

1.3. Attitudes and beliefs

Research findings suggest that teacher attitudes and beliefsabout technology can be one of the major barriers to effective tech-nology integration in K-12 education (Hew & Brush, 2007). In theliterature, attitudes and beliefs are usually defined as separate con-structs (Calderhead, 1996; Simpson, Koballa, Oliver, & Crawley,1994; Wesely, 2012): Attitudes refer to feelings indicating favoror disfavor, and beliefs are premises about something that are feltto be true. A more comprehensive definition by Gall, Gall, and Borg(2003) describes that an attitude is an individual’s viewpoint ordisposition with affective, cognitive, and behavioral components,and the cognitive component is one’s beliefs or knowledge aboutthe attitude object. Bodur, Brinberg, and Coupey (2000) summa-rized that understanding the relations between cognitive structure(i.e., beliefs), affect, and attitude has been the focus of attitude re-search. Their research findings suggest that affect, as a noncogni-tive determinant, has a direct impact on attitude and can lead tothe inconsistency between attitude and behavior. By the definitionof technology affordance adopted in this paper, interaction be-tween a user and a tool may become another determinant thatshould be considered in the process of forming an attitude towardtechnology use. This may be especially true when research on lear-ner attitudes and beliefs is expanded from learner traits and learn-ing environment, to the interaction between the learner and theenvironment (Wesely, 2012).

1.4. Purpose of the study and research questions

While teachers try to meet the changed learning styles, prefer-ences, and roles of digital native students by integrating new tech-nologies into teaching and learning, little is known about howstudents would use these new tools for learning besides their dailyuses for gaming and communication. Therefore, this study investi-gated the following research questions: What social media toolsare frequently used by high school students and what are the stu-dents’ affordances for these tools? What are the students’ attitudesand beliefs about social media use in an educational context? Whatobstacles, difficulties, or problems do students see in using socialmedia in an educational context?

2. Methods

To address the research questions, the study adopted an explan-atory sequential mixed methods design, which integrates thequantitative and qualitative methods during the interpretationphase (Creswell, 2003). The qualitative data collected throughopen-ended questions and semi-structured interviews were usedto ‘‘shed some light on the quantitative findings’’ (Bryman, Becker,& Sempik, 2008). Junco (2013) discussed the limitation of usingself-reported data in assessing Facebook use and that limitationapplies to the investigation of social media use in this study. There-fore, the qualitative component in a mixed-methods study mayhelp mitigate the negative influence of only collecting data froma self-reported questionnaire.

2.1. The quantitative phase of the study

2.1.1. ParticipantsOne hundred sixty-six students aged 14–17 (52.4% males and

47.6% females) completed an online survey about social mediause in education.

2.1.2. MeasuresThe questionnaire was validated and improved through two pi-

lot tests, with nine and 73 students (aged 13–17) in each test. Tohelp the participants understand what social media were being re-ferred to, the survey began with a Wordle image (Fig. 1) created byusing the social media tool categories defined in this study.

The questionnaire included the following categories ofquestions:

(a) Demographic and background information related to technol-ogy use: Questions about gender, grade level, devices usedto connect to the Internet, and awareness of cyber safetyand security when using social media tools.

(b) Technology affordances: Questions developed based on thedefinition of social media in this paper and focused on whattools are being used, how they are being used, reasons andnumber of personal uses per day, and concerns about socialmedia use. The participants were asked to report the num-ber of accounts with prompts for social media tools catego-rized in the definition. They responded to open-endedquestions asking about the tools that are most often usedamong themselves and in classes, examples of good andpoor school uses, and concerns about social media use. Theyalso responded to questions asking about the frequency oflogging onto social media account and switching to newtools, and sources of influence. To evaluate the reasons andnumber of uses per day, the participants were asked to pro-vide a number when responding to: ‘‘How often do you, orwould you, use social media tools for each of the followingreasons per day?’’ The question listed 10 reasons as promptsand an additional text line for ‘‘other reasons.’’ More datawere derived from responses to one open-ended questionabout the reasons for social media use and the interviews.

(c) The attitude and belief scale: Questions about the partici-pants’ feelings about current social media uses and the opin-ions they held about the value of social media for learning.On a five-point Likert scale, the participants reported theirlevel of agreement for the 12 items (Cronbach’s a = .93) forattitudes and 10 items (Cronbach’s a = .88) for beliefs aboutsocial media use in education.

2.2. The qualitative phase of the study

Participants from the quantitative phase volunteered to partic-ipate in the second phase of the study. Although the researcher hadlimited options in selecting participants according to Creswell andClark’s (2011) four recommendations for a sequential approach,structured interview questions were developed based on the initialdata analysis of the quantitative data to ensure that the follow-upqualitative data provide a better understanding of the survey re-sults. Semi-structured, follow up focus group interviews were con-ducted for the qualitative research phase and nine students wereinterviewed. The first focus group interview was completed as aone-on-one interview due to the absence of one interviewee. Threefocus group interviews, ranging from 15 to 45 min, were conductedwith two to three participants in each session.

2.3. Data analyses and mixing the findings

Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the 22 items ofthe attitude and belief scale using IBM SPSS version 19 to extractthe underlying structure of the scale. The three negatively-wordedstatements on the belief scale were reversed when calculating thereliability. The data were coded to indicate that the higher thesummed scores, the more positive their attitudes and beliefs aboutsocial media use in education. Constant comparison analysis

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

216 J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223

(Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech, & Zoran, 2009; Strauss & Corbin,1998) was used as the main technique to guide the analysis of theinterview data. The qualitative data, including those from the sixopen-ended questions in the questionnaire, were analyzed usingQDA Miner software. One of the important criteria for mixed meth-ods research is that the findings should be mixed or integrated(Bryman et al., 2008). In this study, the qualitative analysis of boththe six open-ended questions and the interview data were inte-grated with the quantitative findings in the results section. Thequalitative data support the findings from the quantitative resultsby providing detailed reasoning and stories behind the numbers.The integration of findings has enriched the quantitative data byproviding supporting and elaborative information, examples, anec-dotes, explanation, and reasoning related to social media.

3. Results

The results section is organized by the research questions.Views on current uses of social media for learning and expectationsfor social media use in education are the two categories used tosort the qualitative findings. Three issues emerged from the inter-view data: Conceptual understanding of social media for learning;close-minded, acquired uses versus open-minded, innate uses ofsocial media; and changed concepts of learning. These themesare merged with the quantitative results and the findings fromthe open-ended questions to provide a full description of socialmedia 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 theircell phones (57.8%) to connect to the Internet, and 35.3% of themalso use iPod, iPod Touch, tablets, Xbox, or Wii. Most participantsreported that they were aware of school policies (70.3%), knewthe importance of cyber safety (67.9%), and knew how to use socialmedia safely (51.5%). Fewer than half of the participants indicatedthat they knew how to deal with cyber safety problems (41.2%),felt safe when using social media tools (39.4%), and could remem-ber the online privacy tips taught in school. Only a small number ofrespondents (9.1%) reported having safety problems.

3.2. Affordances with social media

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

gaming environments (21.6%) are the two biggest groups, followedby photo or video sharing tools (13.6%), social publishing or shar-ing tools (13.5%), and social or content management tools (7.7%).Collaborative office or brainstorming tools (5.3%) and Internet-based tools used for calendars, surveys, and polls (5.0%) are lessfrequently used. Social bookmarking or tagging tools are the leastused social media category (1.2%). Specific tools such as YouTube,myYearbook, Reddit, eBay, Craigslist, and AIM were mentionedby a few participants under the category of ‘‘others,’’ but they be-long to the eight categories included in the definition of socialmedia.

Responses to two open-ended questions asking about populartools indicate that among the social media tools used by the partic-ipants and their peers, Facebook (48.3%), Twitter (12.8%), and Tum-blr (10.4%) are the most popular ones, followed by Instragram (9%),YouTube (6.2%), and Xbox Live (5.9%). Among the social mediatools that are most often used in classes, Facebook (26.76%), Edm-odo (23%), YouTube (10.8%) are the most commonly used, followedby Glogster (6.6%), and Google and Google Docs (6.1%), and Twitter(3.8%). These findings are consistent with responses from the otheropen-ended question asking how social media tools have beenused well in schools. The analysis of the responses indicate thatEdmodo (23 responses), YouTube (16 responses), and Facebook(9 responses) are the three most frequently mentioned examplesof good use of social media in classes: Edmodo was reported forsubmitting assignments and managing homework and tests, andYouTube videos for learning or getting more information about atopic or to help teachers teach. Facebook was reported by manyparticipants for getting pictures for projects or to socialize withfriends when they have nothing to do in their classes.

Interestingly, the analysis results from the open-ended questionasking how social media tools have been used poorly in classessuggest that Facebook is the most frequently mentioned tool asan example of poor use of social media in classes. Many studentsconsider accessing Facebook during class time and ‘‘spendingWAY too much time on Facebook’’ inappropriate and they view Face-book as a distraction: ‘‘You can go on Facebook and other social sitesso you might get distracted in class.’’ As one participant responded:‘‘Although we allow Facebook for research purposes (such as findingquotes in a message for the school newspaper), some students abusethe privilege and spend their whole day on it.’’ A small number of stu-dents reported no social media use in classes when asked to de-scribe good (16 responses) and poor (19 responses) uses.

3.2.2. How frequently and sources of influenceFifty-eight percent of the students reported that they log onto

their social media accounts many times a day. Most students began

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223 217

using social media tools because of their friends (78%), followed byinfluence from their family (12.2%), teachers (6.7%), and the Inter-net or television commercials (3%). Once they start using certainsocial media tools, 45% of them usually continue to use the sametools and rarely switch to the others, 33% would sometimes switch,12% of them would never switch to other tools, and only 8% ofthem would switch to new tools very often. Among the 182 re-sponses to the most frequent reason for switching to new socialmedia tools, 73.9% responses indicated that the students switchedto the tools used by their friends and only 10.6% were switching totools recommended by teachers and parents. Some participantsstarted using social media tools under the influence of familyand friends, while one participant attributed it to the influence ofmedia:

I just heard about it from like the media and it was all firestormabout Facebook and Twitter, and then I started listening to pod-casts, and then they’re like, ‘‘Follow us on Facebook. Follow us onTwitter. Do this. Do that.’’ Like, ‘‘Okay, maybe I’ll check this out,’’and then I did that and I found everyone else has one. So I reallywasn’t affected by people around me; it was just the outside influ-ences of the media.

3.2.3. Reasons and number of uses per dayResults presented in Table 1 show that entertaining, getting

connected with friends and family, and sharing pictures, interests,videos, experiences are the first three important reasons for usingsocial media. Collaborating on projects, sharing or getting updatedresources for school work, and learning about a new topic are thethree least cited reasons for using social media.

While qualitative analysis of the open-ended question about thereasons for using social media tools produced findings similar tothe quantitative results in primary reasons such as leisure and so-cial connections, a number of new factors emerged from the partic-ipants’ responses. These factors are coded under emotion, usability,objection to social media tools, and peer influence. Although thelast two concepts are not common enough by coding frequencies,they may be a natural part of the social media phenomenon. Emo-tion is a concept generated from responses that describe how so-cial medial tools make them feel happy, comforted, secure, lessstressed, or allow them to vent and enjoy themselves. Usability iscomprised of responses about social media tools being easy touse, easy to access, and fast. Compared with the multiple choicequestion asking about reasons for use, the open-ended questionenabled the participants to share various reasons for using socialmedia tools without being limited to the choices provided to them.

The interview data revealed that students are attracted by theusability of social media tools: they are user friendly, easy, fast,convenient, fun, and immediate. Students feel connected, in theloop, and relaxed when using social media tools. They feel ‘‘in thedark’’ or ‘‘outside’’ when not using social media tools. Social media

Table 1Means and standard deviations for reasons and number of uses per day.

Mean SD

Finding information 3.05 3.16Sharing pictures, interests, videos, experiences or other 3.24 4.40Getting connected with friends or family 3.83 5.21Entertaining 4.84 5.16Completing school work 1.90 2.14Shopping or reading blogs/reviews 1.35 2.39Sharing or getting updated resources for school work 1.13 1.56Sharing or getting updated resources my own learning 1.63 2.67Collaborating on projects 1.07 1.76Learning about a new topic 1.60 2.21Other 1.32 6.23

tools provide a personalized, equitable social space and as one par-ticipant shared:

I’m not a very social person. I have my friends and I stay with them,and I really don’t know what’s going on in school, but when I’m onFacebook, I know everybody. I talk to everybody. It’s just the factI’m a little awkward when I talk to people in person.

The responses from the interviews indicated a sense of depen-dence on the use of social media tools. One participant describedher having a life on social media:

At home, not so much, because I spend too much time on it, and myparents think that it’s usually a waste of time than I’m on the com-puter more than I’m outside or something. But basically, what I doon my iPad or on the computer or anything, I feel good. I feel goodon that. I have a life on there, but like outside and everything, I justonly 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 scaleTable 2 shows the percentages of respondents in reporting their

attitudes and beliefs about social media use in education. In gen-eral, students show positive attitudes and beliefs. The majority ofthe participants felt (50.6–84.4% agreed or strongly agreed) theyenjoy using social media; they are creative and can learn betterwhen using social media; they enjoy using social media for assign-ments or their own learning after school. Fewer participants showpositive attitude (42.2%) about the ways how social media arebeing used in classes. They believed (48.8–60.8% agreed or stronglyagreed) social media use encourages sharing; makes learning fun,meaningful, and interactive; helps get connected with the realworld; and extends learning. A smaller group of participants(20.5–28.3%) believed that using social media is distracting, time-consuming, and is good for socializing but not for learning.

The preliminary factor analysis results show an excellent Kai-ser–Meyer–Olkin value of .93. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was sig-nificant, v2 (231) = 2695.71, p < .001. Therefore, the factorabilityof the correlation matrix was supported by the data (Tabachnick &Fidell, 2001). Exploratory factor analysis revealed three componentswith eigenvalues exceeding 1: (a) benefits of social media use,explaining 50.7% of the variance; (b) disadvantages of social mediause, explaining 8.5% of the variance; (c) current social media use ineducation, explaining 6.2% of the variance. The three componentsexplained a total of 65.4% of the variance, and they are the threemost important factors in evaluating attitudes and beliefs.An inspection of the screeplot also supported the solution. Table 3presents the pattern matrix for the factors.

The qualitative data analysis of the interviews and open-endedquestions provided more textual information about the partici-pants’ attitudes and beliefs about the use of social media tools ineducation. The qualitative findings are organized by the followingtwo subsections: (1) Views on current uses of social media forlearning: both benefits and negatives or frustration with currentuses in education; (2) Expectations for social media use in educa-tion. The findings correspond to the three components that re-sulted from the factor analysis: the benefits and disadvantages ofsocial media use in education, as well as current practices ineducation.

3.3.2. Views on current uses of social media for learningThe participants think that social media tools do help with

schoolwork. For example, they can get instant help with theirhomework from peers or get inspiration for drawing or writing.

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

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

(1) Enjoy using sm* 1.8 1.8 12.0 44.0 40.4(2) Creative when using sm 2.4 4.8 28.3 36.1 28.3(3) Learn better with sm 6.6 4.2 27.7 38.0 23.5(4) Being encouraged to use sm at home 1.8 9.0 36.1 33.1 19.9(5) Being encouraged to use for school work 6.6 7.2 36.7 27.7 21.7(6) Being encouraged to use for own learning 7.2 6.0 38.6 25.9 22.3(7) Benefits recognized by teachers 4.2 12.0 34.9 36.7 12.0(8) Class uses are wonderful 7.2 11.4 39.2 25.3 16.9(9) Enjoy using sm for own learning after school 6.6 10.8 29.5 36.1 16.9(10) Enjoy using sm for assignments 6.0 7.8 27.1 37.3 21.7(11) Opportunities of using sm for school projects 6.0 13.9 29.5 33.1 17.5(12) Agree with how sm tools are used in classes 8.4 4.8 32.5 38.6 15.7(13) Makes learning fun 6.0 5.4 27.7 34.9 25.9(14) Makes learning meaningful 4.8 9.0 33.1 30.7 22.3(15) Helps get connected with real world 6.0 7.8 27.7 33.7 24.7(16) Using sm is time-consuming 12.7 28.3 38.6 16.3 4.2(17) Using sm is distracting 12.7 31.9 31.9 13.3 10.2(18) Good for socializing not for learning 10.8 20.5 40.4 19.9 8.4(19) Extends learning 4.2 8.4 38.6 36.1 12.7(20) Makes learning interactive 6.0 5.4 36.1 32.5 19.9(21) Helps deepen understanding 6.6 11.4 39.8 28.9 13.3(22) Encourages sharing .6 4.8 28.3 41.6 24.7

Note: sm* = social media. Items 1–12 are attitudes and items 13–22 are beliefs.

Table 3Pattern and structure matrix for exploratory factor analysis with oblimin rotation method.

Attitude & belief item Benefits Disadvantages Current uses

Pattern Structure Pattern Structure Pattern Structure

(2) Creative when using sm* .88 .77 .05 .18 .22 �.31(1) Enjoy using sm .81 .80 �.11 .09 �.03 �.46(22) Encourages sharing .77 .71 �.10 .06 .05 �.36(3) Learn better with sm .75 .84 .03 .25 �.14 �.59(4) Being encouraged to use sm at home .74 .75 �.06 .13 �.03 �.44(13) Makes learning fun .68 .84 .07 .31 �.25 �.67(15) Helps get connected with real world .55 .74 .17 .39 �.26 �.64(14) Makes learning meaningful .55 .76 .22 .39 �.28 �.64(6) Being encouraged to use for own learning .53 .74 .08 .32 �.32 �.66(20) Makes learning interactive .51 .74 .24 .46 �.32 �.69(21) Helps deepen understanding .43 .71 .24 .48 �.39 �.72(17) Using sm is distracting .09 .23 .85 .84 .10 �.23(16) Using sm is time-consuming �.16 �.02 .78 .72 .07 �.10(18) Good for socializing not for learning .01 .25 .74 .78 �.11 �.36(11) Opportunities of using sm for school projects �.05 .44 �.10 .19 �.89 �.83(7) Benefits recognized by teachers �.14 .38 .03 .29 �.88 �.81(12) Agree with how sm tools are used in classes .05 .51 �.03 .26 �.81 �.83(8) Class uses are wonderful .05 .53 .10 .37 �.79 �.85(9) Enjoy using sm for own learning after school .29 .66 .01 .29 �.62 �.80(10) Enjoy using sm for assignments .31 .67 .06 .33 �.58 �.79(5) Being encouraged to use for school work .38 .66 .10 .34 �.45 �.70(19) Extends learning .35 .62 .10 .32 �.43 �.67

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

218 J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223

When asked about whether social media tools are better for social-izing than for learning, one male participant responded that

I think it’s 50-50 because I know when I get stuck on a question forhomework, I post it on Facebook and—and my buddies who aren’tin that class, who are in honors above me or something, they’ll poston it and give me the answer. Well, you could go on WikiAnswersand the same question is going to be there with the answer. It’snot—I don’t feel it’s cheating. . .I think it’s just help.

They think that they get more help from social media for learn-ing than other ways because ‘‘. . .with the social site (is), you go onFacebook and you see a thousand different conversations. You canbe part of any of those conversations.’’ One participant said thatshe used social media to ‘‘go on ton of reading sites’’ and read ‘‘sto-ries about random things or about like different perspectives of life.’’

One participant expressed that social media tools made it ‘‘a loteasier’’ for her to do her school work and they made it ‘‘a lot fasterand it actually (like) organizes’’ better than she could do:

And that [NoodleTools] actually helps me do my research paperbecause it kept it organized for me because these sections whereit 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 there’smyresume.com, and it helps you organize your resume by givingyou like examples, and then it has little boxes that will actuallyset it up all for you so it’s right there.

The benefits and examples of social media use in classroomsshared 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) 213–223 219

and searching for information or using supplemental resources fortextbooks. One participant shared an example of social media usein a class:

My French teacher, she’s really with the technology. She uses athing called SoftChalk. She makes lesson plans for us and shethrows all the stuff in it, and she just has us for weeks on weeksgoing through it, and I like it because you still have her in the backof the room to ask, but you have a wealth of information in front ofyou.

One other use of social media for learning shared by the partic-ipants is the informal, social, collaborative online community,where students can refine their skills in certain areas or collaborateon projects. Compared with limited use of social media in struc-tured classrooms, this type of learning environment created fromthe students’ end, outside of classrooms, seems to be more naturaland powerful in changing students’ learning. As one participantshared:

Because I know I’m in a thing called Student Congress. It’s a mockCongress basically. We get together on Facebook and we decide thedocket beforehand. It’s an agenda of the bills and we decide thatbeforehand before we get there, so we have extra time, the rightspeeches, questions, and all that stuff.

Another participant shared:

Like a few blogs I read like about like sometimes like informationyou can’t find directly on like a website or something, you could likekind of talk to people on a blog to see if like, to get around like abasis of information. Because like sometimes, websites just can’tprovide the right amount of information you need.

Rather than passively accessing information provided on webpages, students can interact with information, people, and theirenvironment through social media. Also, this active, participatoryculture provides the power, freedom, flexibility, and immediacythat they cannot obtain from structured classroom learning envi-ronments. The informal learning generated through social mediahelps students become internally-motivated learners who arelearning content and skills that are meaningful and relevant totheir life and experiences. As one participant shared:

Podcasting. . . I listen to—it’s like a talk thing. It’s like a daily radioshow that I could—Yeah. It’s like I could catch it the morning after,so I have something to listen to on the bus or here in home and it’sbasically a talk show for nerds—because I’m into the technologyand everything and they are big into everything, so. . .I find outmost of the stuff in there. If you go on my phone right now, I havetons of them. Some of them are from Boston College, the school Iwant to go to and a few months ago, they released the law pro-grams lectures, so I downloaded all of them and I’ve been listeningto them—because I want to go to the school to become an attorney,and so I’ve been listening to that, but the others are just for enjoy-ment. They vary because they bring in guest speakers. One was theconstitution and how we need to change it. One was civics, microcivics, women in the law, and there’s a series of them.

However, the participants shared a different side of social mediause when responding to two open-ended questions asking howtheir school or class have used social media ‘‘well’’ as well as‘‘poorly.’’ The analysis results show that social media, if used inclasses, is mostly used for completing projects, searching andresearching topics and information for assignments. Some sharedmanaging assignments, grades, and keeping records as examplesfor using social media ‘‘well’’ in classes. As one participant shared:‘‘Using YouTube to watch educational videos, Edmodo to post and con-tain all assignments.’’ Besides Facebook, YouTube and Edmodo are

the most frequently mentioned examples. As one participant sta-ted ‘‘We use YouTube to watch educational videos, but no other toolsare used,’’ and some commented that ‘‘‘well’ is a poor choose ofwords, because, we do not use it well’’ and ‘‘The teachers don’t knowenough about the Internet.’’

Students consider the following as poor or inappropriate uses ofsocial media in classes: ‘‘using the wrong one at the wrong time;’’pointless use of social media (for example, YouTube) when no clearinstructions are given; use when teachers and students have a lackof training or familiarity with it; abuse of the privilege; or whenteachers use social media (for example, YouTube videos) to replaceteaching. Among the responses, ‘‘pointless YouTube videos’’ and‘‘just to go on it and goof off’’ are listed as examples for poor useof social media. One participant commented: ‘‘My school used itpoorly because some teachers go too far and use YouTube to teach in-stead of them.’’ The results suggest that the participants are awareof the difference between good and bad practices of social mediause in classes. Besides frustration with the Internet, blocked sites,or other hardware problems, responses from the open-ended ques-tions as well as the interview data suggest a generally limited, min-imal, and unmeaningful uses of social media in classroom settings.Compared with students’ passion about social media use in theirown lives, the results revealed a lack of familiarity, incomprehen-sion, indifference, and frustration with social media use in classesdue to their limited exposure to effective and meaningful uses ofthese tools in formal teaching and learning settings.

The participants expressed a few major concerns during inter-views when asked about their current social media use and theseconcerns are relevant to technology integration in general in K-12 education. The interview data indicate that some participantsare not sure whether they are encouraged to use social media inclasses and the adoption of social media tools stays in individualclasses only. Even with limited uses, the participants felt that thecurrent use of social media tools and technology in general is lim-ited, dated, and wrong because they are mostly used for assign-ment submission and grades management. Teachers are notusing the tools correctly and they need to manage the process bet-ter and interact with students more. They felt there is a lack oftrust in students in terms of cybersafey and they are very frus-trated with the school’s networking policy. They expressed con-cerns about using social media tools in education and think thatthey can be distracting,

The way they could do it better is when I see Facebook, I see asout—the version that we are using now is outdated. People arereluctant to try the new versions of things because they don’t knowhow to work it. If they made the software more user-friendly,instead of having all these technical stuff, because one day, I goton Facebook and they just remodeled it to the Timeline, I didn’tknow how to get to my news feed. So they need to make it moreuser-friendly or setup a tutorial, like a link page. But in schools,they just need to update like the eBackpack thing to Edmodo. Edm-odo looks like a Facebook, but softer and like sweeter basically. ButEdmodo—eBackpack, it’s like an outdated email from the 90s. It’svery harsh and scary.

One participant shared that

. . .but the way we’re using it now, is only to submit assignments,and I feel that’s wrong. I feel it’s wrong because there are so manymore uses for it, if we’re only using it for this little close-mindedidea of. . .submitting assignments.

The close-mindedness is virtually a summary phrase of the stu-dents’ impression of how social media or any technology tools arecurrently being used in school. What the other participant shared

220 J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223

suggests that students hope to interact with teachers morethrough the use of social media rather than having teaching re-placed by using social media:

I like how it makes it easier, but I don’t like—sometimes the teach-ers just get to a point where they don’t teach. They just don’t comein contact with us. They’ll just be like, ‘‘I’ll put a lesson up, take thenotes, learn it yourself,’’ which we can manage, but it’s, like it’s eas-ier 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 therethe whole time.

Other concerns expressed by the participants include distrac-tions and meaningless time consumption, cyber safety, multitask-ing as a detrimental thing to do when taking tests online, falseinformation, and distracting advertisements. Students are awareof the potential distractions and the differences between goodand poor social media uses. The results indicate that comparedwith students’ natural uses of social media for learning, current so-cial media uses in classes by teachers are close-minded, acquiredapproaches, which may not fit the natural affordances of socialmedia and those of formal learning environments. As reported inthe following section, students expect teachers and schools toadopt an open-minded, innate approach that embraces the naturalcharacteristics of social media to enhance teaching and learningrather than banning, rejecting, or applying them in a ‘‘harsh’’ way.

3.3.3. Expectations for social media use in educationThe interview data revealed that students found current social

media uses in school undesirable. This aligns with the quantitativeresults about students’ attitudes and beliefs. One participant’sstatement servers as a good summary of current social media usein school from the students’ perspective:

You could really improve this, but the way we’re using it now, isonly to submit assignments, and I feel that’s wrong. I feel it’s wrongbecause there are so many more uses for it, if we’re only using it forthis little close-minded idea of submitting assignments.

While acknowledging the disadvantages of social media in edu-cation, the participants think that social media should be used toenrich or to meet different learning needs rather than only usingthem for submitting assignments. Teachers should interact withstudents and manage the learning process when using social mediatools. As one participant suggested:

They should be used if we were having a class that is very boringnormally, like a history class that there are ways that we canexploit it basically, so that it becomes better like if there is a You-Tube clip to explain nevertheless, and there’s something insteadof taking class time, you put that up on the social page and yougo, ‘‘Watch that for homework. There will be a quiz tomorrow.’’There you go. There’s no reading involved, so anyone who has a dis-ability with reading doesn’t have to do that.

They expect to have more opportunities that allow them tohave authentic learning experiences, such as interacting withexternal experts through social media tools. As one participantshared:

Like in our world, that class were talking about the Holocaust, andif we could actually like to talk to somebody, who is either like anexpert on it or whatever, that would be really cool to be able to talkto them through like the Skype.

The interview data indicate that students expect schools to im-prove social media use in education by communicating with stu-dents and changing the school networking policy. They felt thatblocking is not necessary and schools should be more

open-minded: ‘‘It could be more open-minded, but also give a littlebit more privacy due to the fact that the teachers or the principalsactually can check on what we’re doing.’’ One participant sharedhis frustration with the school networking policy and summarizedwhat students’ wish to have in terms of privacy by differentiatingbetween ‘‘checking my screen’’ and ‘‘checking my network usage’’:

If they check my phone, that’s when I’d cry invasion of privacy, butif I’m connected to their Wi-Fi like I am now, I don’t mind havingthem, if they pull up a list of people connected to their Wi-Fi pop-ping up and my name is there. Just as long as they can’t see whatI’m doing on my screen, not that I’m doing anything bad, it’s just—it’s my personal property.

They want to communicate with schools regarding the use ofsocial media, and as one participant said: ‘‘(Schools should) listento the students because we have so many ideas and opinions abouthow to use it or anything.’’ They hope to dialogue with the schoolpersonnel: ‘‘I feel that all the unanswered concerns of the studentscould be answered through a meeting with him (the technology man-ager), even if we could just ask him questions for a half hour.’’ How-ever, students feel that school administrators and teachers do nottrust them: ‘‘Most teachers feel like that we don’t use it for like anypurposes at all. They feel we just use it to like look at our newsfeed—and like talk to other friends or—just goof off.’’ Besides these is-sues about social media use in classes from the students’ perspec-tive, the next section reports other obstacles, difficulties, andproblems related to social media use.

3.4. Obstacles, difficulties, and problems related to social media use

3.4.1. Students’ concerns about social mediaOne open-ended question asked about the participants’ con-

cerns they may have about using social media tools. Qualitativeanalysis of the results indicate that besides a very small numberof responses revealing that the participants had no concerns aboutusing social media tools, most concerns focus on cyber safety andsecurity, dislikes or drawbacks of social medial tools, and technicaland non-technical troubles. The results are presented in Table 4.

3.4.2. Conceptual understanding of social media and learningThe interview data also revealed a lack of conceptual under-

standing of social media in the context of learning. Some partici-pants were not sure what social media are and they talked aboutthe Internet or other computer programs such as PowerPoint whenasked about social media used for learning. Corresponding to thequantitative results about reasons for using social media, interviewdata suggest that entertainment and socializing are the two mainthings students think social media are mainly used for: ‘‘Becauseyou don’t really learn anything. I don’t really use any social mediaother than Facebook and I don’t know, I guess I learn some stuff, butnothing like school related from that.’’ And as the other participantsummarized: ‘‘. . .unless there’s like one for learning that we coulduse, but from my experience, it’s only just talking to friends and post-ing pictures and everything.’’

Besides online gaming and getting connected with friends andfamily, the data revealed a high level of familiarity among studentswith using social media to get cyber gossip, follow cyber fights, orto make themselves feel in the loop, but they only mentioned avery small number of classes that utilize social media tools. Doesminimal adoption of social media in formal classes lead to a limitedconceptual understanding of social media for learning? Whatbridges social media and learning? Students think social mediacan be used for learning, but they do not know how. When askedabout social media for learning, most of the anecdotes shared bythe participants indicate a focus on informal learning and changed

Table 4Concerns about using social media tools.

Concerns Cyber safety and security Dislikes/drawbacks Technical troubles Non-technical troubles

Codes Hacking Time-consuming Internet speed Getting in troublePrivacy Distractions Devices Losing informationHurt feelings Obssession Computers UnexpectedBullying Distracting Internet connection FightsVirus Grade Service shut down FraudSafety Meaningless Crashing SpamSecurity Stays forever AdvertisementStalkers/creepers/predators/strangers Inaccurate information Blocked service

Over dependence CopyrightIdentity problem Abuse the system

Expectations for girlsMoral

Number of counts 164 24 15 16

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223 221

concepts of learning. The concepts of learning described by the par-ticipants include learning combined with socializing, learning byone’s own interests, and learning with fun, flexibility, enjoyment,and awareness or mindfulness. The new concepts of learning de-rived from the interview data are more personalized and socializedthan traditional views of learning.

4. Discussion

This study has intended to investigate high school students’affordances with social media and their attitudes and beliefs aboutthe use of these new technologies in education. The findings pro-vide insights into the potential benefits, problems, and issues re-lated to social media use in education from the students’perspectives. An improved understanding of students’ perspectivesand new roles in participatory culture may help improve the de-sign of learning activities utilizing new technologies. It might alsohelp to establish appropriate ways to embrace social media tools,while valuing every opportunity to educate students in cybersafety, security, and ethics instead of blocking access to all newtools in school settings merely for the purpose of protection.

4.1. Limitations

Besides the limitation of self-reported measures discussed inthe methods section, an understanding of the other limitations ofthe study is necessary when considering the findings and discus-sions. Although example technologies were shared with the partic-ipants during the data collection process, the definition of socialmedia might affect the participants’ understanding of the ques-tions if they were not active social media users. The other limita-tion might be that the participants were high school students ina rural school district, which should be considered when generaliz-ing the results to other sample and research settings.

4.2. Affordances, sporadic school uses, and abundant informal learningopportunities

The findings indicate that most students depend on social med-ia in their personal lives, both in and out of school. Leisure and so-cial connection are the top reasons for using social media.Educational uses by teachers for classroom teaching and learningare sporadic, while uses by students on their own for learning pur-poses seem to be abundant but also incidental and informal. Emo-tional comfort and the usability features of social media are themain motivators for using social media.

Social networking sites, virtual worlds, and gaming environ-ments are the most popular technologies among students, whilesocial bookmarking or tagging tools are the least used tools by

the students. The tools popular among the students and those usedfor classes are not the same, except Facebook, which is the mostpopular tool being used both by the students and their peers, aswell as in classes by teachers. However, Facebook is also the mostfrequently cited example by students for poor use of social mediain classes. Students commented on ‘‘pointless YouTube videos’’ andcriticized failed attempts to use social media when teachers donot provide feedback or interact with them during the process. Be-sides getting help from peers with homework, other forms oflearning through social media include searching for informationor doing research for class projects, using supplemental resourcesfor textbooks, and working with a collaborative learning commu-nity. However, most learning through social media falls underthe category of informal, incidental, and socialized learning, whichis part of the changed concepts of learning. The current uses of so-cial media in a formal learning environment are not only limited inthe frequencies of use, but also in the shortage of meeting the stu-dents’ expectations. Students expect teachers to implement activeand thoughtful uses, interact more, manage the process better, andprovide feedback. The findings suggest that while we considerusing the most popular tools among students for classroom teach-ing, the key to successful use is to consider technology affordancesand have meaningful learning activities supported by quality tea-cher interaction with students.

4.3. Affordances and learning design

Consistent with the definitions adopted in this study that stu-dents’ affordances are affected by their prior experiences (Carteret al., 1999; Wijekumar et al., 2006), the findings suggest that stu-dents expect to use social media for leisure and social connectionrather than naturally considering them as learning tools. Thismeans that for social media to be used as effective learning toolsand to adjust students’ prior affordances with these tools, compli-cated efforts in designing, scaffolding, and interacting with stu-dents during the process are necessary. Simply following theusability features of social media to replace teaching or to easethe administrative burden of teaching will not lead to good learn-ing or student satisfaction.

Furthermore, the original designs for most social media toolsare intended for life or commercial purposes. For example, rela-tionship maintenance, information seeking, amusement, style,and sociability are the five common gratifications from social net-working services (SNS) and instant messengers (IM) used to meetusers’ social and psychological needs (Ku, Chu, & Tseng, 2012). So-cial media are designed to serve commercial priorities by sellingusers to advertisers rather than fostering the interests of social orconnective 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) 213–223

tended for and this is referred to as the open-minded, innate ap-proach of using social media in this paper. To transfer this ap-proach into a structured learning environment requires a carefulexamination of the tools, the students, the affordances, and manypedagogical considerations. By his ecological approach to socialinteraction, Gaver (1996) pointed out that the design of socialinteraction using technologies should align with the affordancesand ‘‘designing against their grain’’ (p. 111) is difficult. Therefore,it is important for educators to critically evaluate the adoption ofsocial media in education rather than being driven by the latestcraze in the technology market. Similar to the academic form ofa ‘‘moral panic’’ Bennett et al. (2008, p. 775) cautioned in the ‘‘dig-ital natives’’ debate, a rational attitude and more research studiesare necessary for productive discussion of social media adoptionin education.

4.4. Attitudes and beliefs

Students’ technology affordances that are formed outside of for-mal educational environments as well as their attitudes and beliefsmay greatly influence how they learn and how they perceive learn-ing supported by new technologies. The survey results indicatethat most students are positive about social media use in educa-tion. These results align with qualitative results from the inter-views and open-ended questions, but there is an inconsistencybetween positive attitudes and beliefs, and the actual understand-ing and adoption of social media. While the participants are posi-tive about the use of social media in education, they do not seemto have a well-defined awareness of social media as a concept forformal, structured learning in school environments. Although thisis explicable when considering the findings by Bodur et al.(2000) that the predominant influence of affect in forming attitudemay explain the inconsistency between attitude and behavior, thefindings provide evidence for further evaluation of the ‘‘digital na-tives’’ claims that may have been established upon positiveattitudes.

4.5. Implications for learning design and technology integration

Although the findings indicate a contrast between open-minded, innate uses by students versus close-minded, acquireduses by teachers, the author is reluctant to use this as a parallelcomparison 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 howthe user is using the tool. Also, students do not live in vacuumbut they interact with the outside world and are influenced by atechnology-driven society and culture in daily life. This hidden cur-riculum (Gredler, 2009) is too significant to be ignored. Ashraf(2009) commented on the disappearance of experts and the mean-ing of learning from peer experts, and this corresponds to Hemmi,Bayne, and Land’s (2009) suggestion that social media may be achallenge for academia epistemologically and ontologically.Understanding and evaluating affordances is essential for effectiveadoption of these tools. Therefore, the changed concepts of learn-ing and informal learning derived from social media use may needto be considered as the ultimate goals for designing future learningenvironments.

Another implication for learning design and technology integra-tion is that students should be considered as playing a differentrole in the educational process. Rather than starting to meet theneeds of the changed student population, which is often referredto as the reason for changing education, and which also indicatesthe passive role students play in educational processes, we shouldconsider them as the power, the sources for inspiration, and as the

equal party to consult in designing learning or making decisionsregarding technology.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the blind reviewers for theirinvaluable comments and suggestions, Kyle Peck and FengfengKe for their support, and Tim Arner for his helpful comments onan earlier draft of this manuscript. The author is also grateful forthe professional development support from Wilkes University.

References

Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education,11(2), 71–80.

Ashraf, B. (2009). Teaching the Google-eyed YouTube generation. Education +Training, 51(5/6), 343–352.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘‘digital natives’’ debate: A criticalreview of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.

Bodur, H. O., Brinberg, D., & Coupey, E. (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude:Alternative models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 9(1), 17–28.

Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis—matching learning tasks with learningtechnologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15.

Bradley, P. (2009). Whither Twitter? Community College Week, 21(19), 6–8. <http://www.ccweek.com/news/articlefiles/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), 261–276.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C.Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York:Macmillan.

Carter, G., Westbrook, S. L., & Thompkins, C. D. (1999). Examining science tools asmediators of students’ learning about circuits. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 36(1), 89–105.

Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (2012). Museum learning via socialand mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitorexperience? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 802–819.

Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using socialmedia in formal and informal learning. The International Review of Research inOpen and Distance Learning, 13(1), 87–104.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodsapproaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methodsresearch. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Personal Learning Environments, social media,and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal andinformal learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 3–8.

Friesen, N., & Lowe, S. (2011). The questionable promise of social media foreducation: Connective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 28, 183–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00426.x.

Gagne, R. M., Wagner, W. W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. M. (2004). Principles ofinstructional design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research. New York: PearsonEducation.

Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceeding of CHI ‘91 proceedings of theSIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 79–84). 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), 111–129.

Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: HoughtonMifflin.

Graves, L. (2009). The affordances of blogging: A case study in culture andtechnological effects. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31, 331–346. 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: Socialnetwork sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 14, 1130–1161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01484.x.

Grosseck, G. (2008). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 478–482.

Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Usingtechnology to increase student involvement. In R. Junco & D. M. Timm (Eds.).Using emerging technologies to enhance student engagement. New directions forstudent services (vol. 124, pp. 19–35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of socialtechnologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25,19–30.

J. Mao / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223 223

Hew, K. F., & Brush (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.

Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. (2012). Mobile microblogging: Using Twitter and mobiledevices in an online course to promote learning in authentic contexts. TheInternational Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 211–227.

Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012a). NMC horizon report: 2012 K-12edition. Austin, T: The New Media Consortium.

Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012b). The NMC horizon report: 2012 highereducation edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship betweenmultiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers inHuman Behavior, 28, 187–198.

Junco, R. (2013). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use.Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 626–631.

Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2012). Putting twitter to the test: Assessingoutcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x.

Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college studentengagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x.

Ku, Y.-C., Chu, T.-H., & Tseng, C.-H. (2012). Gratifications for using CMCtechnologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in HumanBehavior, 29, 226–234.

Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning:Mobile social media in generative learning communities. Social ScienceInformation, 49(3), 1–19.

Murphy, J., & Lebans, R. (2008). Unexpected outcomes: Web 2.0 in the secondaryschool classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning,4(2), 134–147.

Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Oliver, M. (2005). The problem with affordance. E-Learning, 2(4), 402–413. 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 qualitativeframework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research.International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1–21.

Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings onFacebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student usesand perceptions of social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education, 13,134–140.

Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. (2003). Exploring the interaction equation: Validatinga rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. The Journal ofAsynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 24–37.

Sharples, M., Graber, R., Harrison, C., & Logant, K. (2008). E-safety and Web 2.0 forchildren aged 11–16. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 70–84.

Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R., Jr., Oliver, J. S., & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on theaffective dimensions of science learning. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on science teaching and learning (pp. 211–235). New York: Macmillan.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques andprocedures 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 andvirtual) – A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, A60–A68.

Wesely, P. M. (2012). Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in languagelearning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), s98–s117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01181.x.

Wijekumar, K. J., Meyer, B. J. F., Wagoner, D., & Ferguson, L. (2006). Technologyaffordances: The ‘‘real story’’ in research with K-12 and undergraduate learners.British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 191–209.

Yang, C., & Chang, Y.-S. (2011). Assessing the effects of interactive blogging onstudent attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academicachievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 126–135.