Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school students' technology affordances and perspectives

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

[1]  Ann C. Jones,et al.  Museum learning via social and mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor experience? , 2012, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[2]  Reynol Junco,et al.  Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[3]  Matt Bower,et al.  Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies , 2008 .

[4]  Reynol Junco,et al.  Using emerging technologies to enhance student engagement , 2008 .

[5]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[6]  Baiyun Chen,et al.  Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Social Media in Formal and Informal Learning. , 2012 .

[7]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[8]  Greg Heiberger,et al.  Have You Facebooked Astin Lately? Using Technology to Increase Student Involvement , 2008 .

[9]  M. E. Gredler,et al.  Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice , 1986 .

[10]  Norm Friesen,et al.  The questionable promise of social media for education: connective learning and the commercial imperative , 2012, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[11]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[12]  Yu-Hui Ching,et al.  Mobile microblogging: Using Twitter and mobile devices in an online course to promote learning in authentic contexts , 2012 .

[13]  Lon Ferguson,et al.  Technology affordances: the 'real story' in research with K-12 and undergraduate learners , 2006, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[14]  Koula Charitonos Doctoral Student.  Museum learning via social and mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor experience? , 2012 .

[15]  R. Pea,et al.  Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: mobile social media in generative learning communities , 2010 .

[16]  William W. Gaver.  Technology affordances , 1991, CHI.

[17]  D. Norman.  The psychology of everyday things , 1990 .

[18]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[19]  Thomas A. Brush,et al.  Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research , 2007 .

[20]  M. Roblyer,et al.  Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[21]  Alan Bryman,et al.  Quality Criteria for Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: A View from Social Policy , 2008 .

[22]  Nada Dabbagh,et al.  Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning , 2012, Internet High. Educ..

[23]  R. Hartshorne,et al.  Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests , 2008, Internet High. Educ..

[24]  Yi-Cheng Ku,et al.  Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  A. Freeman,et al.  The NMC Horizon Report: 2013 K-12 Edition. , 2009 .

[26]  Lucas Graves,et al.  The Affordances of Blogging , 2007 .

[27]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[28]  Gabriela Grosseck,et al.  To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education , 2009 .

[29]  Reynol Junco,et al.  Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[30]  Chyan Yang,et al.  Assessing the effects of interactive blogging on student attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academic achievements , 2012, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[31]  Sian Bayne,et al.  The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education , 2009, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[32]  Martin Oliver,et al.  The Problem with Affordance , 2005 .

[33]  Larry Johnson,et al.  The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. , 2012 .

[34]  Reynol Junco,et al.  Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success , 2013, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[35]  J. Calderhead.  Teachers’ beliefs and knowledge , 2019, Problem Solving for Teaching and Learning.

[36]  Bill Ashraf,et al.  Teaching the Google–Eyed YouTube Generation , 2009 .

[37]  Sue Bennett,et al.  The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[38]  Mike Sharples,et al.  E-safety and Web 2.0 for children aged 11-16 , 2009, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[39]  P. Winne,et al.  Handbook of educational psychology , 2015 .

[40]  N. Leech,et al.  A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research , 2009 .

[41]  Glenda Carter,et al.  Examining science tools as mediators of students' learning about circuits , 1999 .

[42]  Eloise Coupey,et al.  Belief, Affect, and Attitude: Alternative Models of the Determinants of Attitude , 2000 .

[43]  Paul A. Tess.  The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) - A literature review , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[44]  William W. Gaver,et al.  AFFORDANCES FOR INTERACTION: THE SOCIAL IS MATERIAL FOR DESIGN , 1996 .

[45]  Reynol Junco,et al.  The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades , 2011, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[46]  P. Wesely.  Learner Attitudes, Perceptions, and Beliefs in Language Learning , 2012 .

[47]  Christine Greenhow,et al.  Old Communication, New Literacies: Social Network Sites as Social Learning Resources , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[48]  Leslie J. Briggs,et al.  Principles of Instructional Design , 1974 .