23 The Impact of Facebook on the Curriculum

Jennifer Means

jennifer.means@uoit.net

Ontario Tech. University

Abstract

Facebook is currently one of the most popular social networking sites. Research has shown both advantages and disadvantages of using Facebook as a tool to support curriculum. This chapter explores the use of Facebook in supporting the learning agenda of the classroom, as well as implications of the use of Facebook in education. The research highlights the use of Facebook as a Learning Management System in the educational environment and provides examples of how to utilize Facebook to support a community of learners.

Keywords: community of learners, Facebook, learning agenda, learning management system, social networking sites.

Introduction

Social networking sites (SNSs) are virtual spaces where people can gather to communicate, share photos and discuss ideas with one another (Boyd & Ellison, 2008; Raacke & Bonds‐Raack 2008).  Communication methods have changed with the implementation of SNSs. It has also impacted the way we teach and learn (Crystal, 2008a, 2008b; Johnson, 2009; O’Brien & Sharber, 2008). Facebook has great potential for teaching and learning. A Facebook group could even be used in education as a Learning Management System (LMS). An LMS is the infrastructure responsible for delivery and management of educational content, it assesses learning goals, and collects and presents data for the learning process of the institution (Szabo & Flesher, 2002). Above the delivery of content, is the ability to handle course registration, administration, skills gap analysis, tracking and reporting (Gilhooly, 2001).

“Technology is not new to the education process of teaching and learning, education is one of the areas most heavily impacted by technology” (American Psychological Association, 2009, p. 455). Additionally, “The Internet and related technologies have the power to bring literature, research, information, and people from around the world directly into the classroom” (American Psychological Association, 2009, p. 456). Technology, which includes SNSs, has the ability to increase and improve communication and cooperation between students and teachers. SNSs allow users to connect and interact with one another (Correa, Hinsley & Gil de Zúñiga, 2010), by posting and sharing information (Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010). These options can be incorporated into the teaching and learning process.

Junco (2012), examined the relationship between frequency and participation in Facebook activities and student engagement and found a positive correlation. Gruzd, Staves & Wilk (2012) found that social networking tools, such as Facebook, are popular to the general public and have been embraced by academia in a professional context. Scholars are using Facebook as it is convenient for making connections with peers for collaboration. It can also be used as a powerful tool in teaching. Students are open to the possibility of using Facebook in education (McCarthy, 2013; Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman & Witty, 2010), however, it has not yet been taken to its full potential in education.

Students’ use of Facebook

In a fall of 2009 survey, it was noted that 73% of teens, aged 12 to 17, used SNSs (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith & Zickuhr, 2010). Students use Facebook for a variety of reasons, including communicating and collaboration with peers.  Users can broadcast messages to Facebook friends, post status updates, and use Messenger for private conversations (Smock, Ellison, Lampe & Wohn, 2011). Social interactions and connection is the objective of online social networks (Cheung & Lee, 2010).

Students can also use Facebook for educational purposes, including collaboration, discussion and to obtain extra help. Students can form groups on Facebook and post questions to obtain feedback from peers. They can share links, such as videos on the wall of the group page and in personal messages. Teachers can access the Facebook group to send reminders to their students about assignments and tests.

Facebook use in higher education has increased over the years. Both faculty and students have utilized the SNS to support learning. Research shows that SNSs can promote a community of learners and assist with the development of social relationships. However, SNSs can also cause distraction in the learning process.

A Community of Learning

A community of learners “can be defined as a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another-learners from teachers, teachers from learners, and learners from learners. They thus create a learning-centered environment in which students and educators are actively and intentionally constructing knowledge together. Learning communities are connected, cooperative, and supportive. Peers are interdependent in that they have joint responsibility for learning and share resources and points of view, while sustaining a mutually respectful and cohesive environment” (“Learning and the Adolescent Mind”, 2019).

For introverted students, creating a community of learners allows the student to feel more comfortable, therefore, making larger contributions to the educational community. “Once characteristics of a learning community are established, there is a ‘direct impact on the continuance of participation within the community” (Whitworth & DeMoor, 2003). A sense of community is imperative for learners to obtain meaningful experiences (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Facebook as part of the community of learners can be used to create more communication among teachers and students (Bowers-Campbell, 2007).

How to use Facebook as a Learning Tool

Bull, Thompson, Searson, Garofalo, Park, Young & Lee (2008) stated the following:

The informal learning that occurs in the context of participatory media offers significant opportunities for increased student engagement in formal learning settings. The experience with communication technologies that teenagers today possess must be tapped by educators and connected to pedagogy and content in order to address learning objectives in schools. Teacher education faculty members are experienced in this arena. We are currently at a moment in time in which the current and next generation of educators each can make a genuine contribution by working together. (p.106).

Research studies have demonstrated that the use of Facebook can increase the satisfaction and motivation of students. O’Sullivan, Hunt and Lippert (2004) and Mazer, Murphy and Simonds (2009) found when students reviewed the teacher’s page, there were higher reported levels of motivation, learning, teacher integrity and an overall positive attitude in regard to the course and the teacher.

According to Li and Pitts (2009), when a teacher has virtual office hours on Facebook, there is a positive impact on student satisfaction with the communication between the teacher and the student. This also addresses the students’ needs when it comes to the importance of teacher/student communication. Hewitt and Forte (2006) states that Facebook interactions have a positive impact on the perception of the professor and that two thirds of respondents shared they felt comfortable with having teachers on Facebook. This presents the opportunity for teachers to bring Facebook into education.

Teclehaimanot and Hickman (2009) provided the suggestion that teachers be passive when it comes to interacting with their students on Facebook outside of class time. Teachers should not comment on students’ personal pictures and not send Facebook invitations out to their students. This addresses students concerns regarding professional/personal relationship status discussed in disadvantages section of this chapter.

Students can be provided with information regarding the use of Facebook in education in order for them to begin the process of sharing information. Teachers and students can have access to school information, learning, and discussion. The information can be shared from student to student or student to teacher.  Facebook allows the exchange of information, making it an important educational tool for teaching and sharing knowledge on an ongoing basis (Alger, 2009).

Advantages of Facebook as a Learning Tool

We know that students are utilizing SNSs for social benefits, including communication with peers. As a result, the incorporation of tools, such as Facebook can be streamlined into education. This allows students to easily connect with teachers and peers after class hours. “Material can [now] be presented in more vivid ways than in the past, which may engage students more actively” (American Psychological Association, 2009, p. 456). Facebook allows students to access technology that provides the opportunity for interaction outside of class time, including online collaboration and multitasking by engaging in more than one class or topic concurrently. It provides rich learning and teaching practices in informal learning contexts.

Facebook has built in tools, such as discussion board (wall), instant messaging (chat) and email (messenger), which all allow for multitasking (Judd, 2013). Multitasking is more pronounced among students (Carrier, Cheever, Rosen, Benitez & Chang, 2009). Many people utilize technology in many areas of their lives, including in education (Wood et al., 2012). Facebook also offers available virtual office hours for teachers, which presents a positive impact on student satisfaction due to the ability of communication outside of the classroom (Li & Pitts, 2009).

When exploring the functions of Facebook, a consideration would be to use it as an LMS. The teacher would have the ability to create a course page or group and manually add the students. Research shows that using LMSs possesses numerous benefits for teaching and learning. It allows faculty to shift the focus from content to process based learning (Vogel & Klassen, 2001) and helps to “facilitate change from passive to active learning” (Herse & Lee, 2005, p. 51).

Schroeder and Greenbowe (2009) utilized a Facebook group and WebCT together to allow students to discuss course questions. They stated WebCT was compulsory and the Facebook group was optional. The end result showed the number of Facebook posts was four times higher than posts on WebCT.  The Facebook posts discussed more complex topics and there were more detailed responses to the posts.

Disadvantages of Facebook as a Learning Tool

Although we know students are using SNSs more frequently, there are still considerations around how to use them in education. Some students would prefer to keep their personal lives separate from their professional (education) lives. Many students believe that Facebook is a place for socialization and should be separate from academic work (Hew, 2011). A barrier to using Facebook as a learning tool could be the perception of technology use in one’s personal life over use in learning. It is rare that students use Facebook for education as they tend to keep their personal and professional lives separate (Jones, Blackey, Fitzgibbon & Chew, 2010).

Students seem to have positive experiences with Facebook as a “social study space” but feel it is off limits for teachers. This presents the question, would faculty do more harm than good by trying to formalize the use of Facebook in education (Gray, Annabell & Kennedy, 2010)? Facebook defines connections as “friends”, so students could have difficulty in understanding why the teacher wants to be a friend connection (Rambe, 2012). Students have frequently used Facebook, however, there are concerns about the use in education, as students do not want to be friends with their teachers on Facebook. Teachers who use Facebook may indirectly disclose information that could impact the teachers’ reputation and have a negative impact on the student/teacher relationship.

Facebook groups can be used as a LMS in the classroom. Students are generally pleased with how a Facebook group can be used as an LMS, however, there are limitations. Facebook may not provide a safe environment for sharing information and it does not fully support all components of an LMS (ie. support of files).

According to the American Psychological Association (2009), there needs to be a distinction between entertainment and engagement. Visual engagement does not necessarily represent intellectual engagement and too much use can be critical to learning (American Psychological Association, 2009, p. 456).

Facebook can also be a distraction to learning and some students may disagree with using Facebook as an educational tool. As teachers begin to understand how Facebook is being used, there will be a greater understanding of the impact during class time. Teachers can then develop options to use Facebook to support the learning agenda.

Conclusions and Future Recommendations

Particularly because of the immediacy, vividness, and on-demand nature of technology in the classroom, satisfaction may be mistaken for achievement. Thus, more than ever, attention needs to be devoted to the scholarship of teaching and specifically to how technology inside and outside the classroom affects learning outcomes for new generations of students (Mayer, Griffith, Jurokwitz & Rothman, 2008, p.338).

Research shows that students do not want to blend learning with their social lives (Jones, Blackey, Fitzgibbon & Chew, 2010). Future research is required to explore perceptions on using a different Facebook account specifically for learning. Many feel Facebook does not provide a safe environment due to privacy concerns. Further research can explore the safety of information and privacy issues within the platform.

Additional research can investigate the effectiveness of using Facebook as an LMS. Teachers can post announcements, facilitate online discussions and share resources with their students. Facebook allows the students to communicate with their peers and the teacher. This allows for continued collaboration and more accessible communication inside and outside the classroom. What will contribute to the effectiveness is the design, teacher attitude and technical support (Ozkan & Koseler, 2009).

References

Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education25(5), 743-751.

American Psychological Association. (2009). How technology changes everything (and nothing) in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(5), 454–463.

Bowers-Campbell, J. (2008) Cyber “pokes”: Motivational antidote for developmental college readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(1), 74-87. Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/72382/

Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210– 230.

Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100–107.

Carrier, L.M., Cheever, N.A., Rosen, L.D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 483-489.

Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028

Correa, T., Hinsley, A.W., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 247-253.

Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.

Gilhooly, K. (2001). Making e-learning effective. Computerworld, 35(29), 52-53. Available from https://www.computerworld.com/article/2582540/making-e-learning-effective.html

Gray, K., Annabell, L., & Kennedy, G. (2010). Medical students’ use of Facebook to support learning: Insights from four case studies. Medical Teacher, 32(12), 971-976. Available from https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.497826

Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2340-2350. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.004

Herse, P. & Lee, A. (2005). Optometry and WebCT: a student survey of the value of web‐based learning environments in optometric education. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 88(1), 46– 52. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2005.tb06663.x

Hew, K.F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 662-676. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020

Hewitt, A. & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Proc 2006 CSCW. Available from http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/HewittForteCSCWPoster2006.pdf

Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K. & Chew, E. (2010). Get out of MySpace. Computers & Education, 54(3), 776– 882. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.008

Junco, R., & Cotton, S.R. (2012).The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505-514. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171. Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/50678/

Kushin, M.J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 608-630. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.516863

Learning and the Adolescent Mind. (n.d.) [Web page]. Available from http://www.learningandtheadolescentmind.org/

Li, L. & Pitts, J. P. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student‐faculty interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175– 185. Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/105681/

Mayer, R. E., Griffith, E., Jurkowitz, I. T. N., & Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 329–339. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013835

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E. & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self‐disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 175– 183. Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/103867/

McCarthy, J. (2013). Learning in Facebook: First year tertiary student reflections from 2008 to 2011. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 337-356. Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/153167/

O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K. & Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: a language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 464– 490. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X04269588

Ozkan, S. & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi‐dimensional students’ evaluation of e‐learning systems in the higher education context: an empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285– 1296. Available from https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011

Raacke, J. & Bonds‐Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend‐networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169– 174. Available from https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0056

Rambe, P. (2012). Activity theory and technology mediated interaction: Cognitive scaffolding using question-based consultation on Facebook. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(8), 1333-1361. Available from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/rambe-2.pdf

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. Computers & Education, 13(3), 134-140. Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/108391/

Szabo, Michael & Flesher, Ken. (2002). CMI Theory and Practice: Historical Roots of Learning Management Systems. n M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2002–World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 929-936). Montreal, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/15322/

Schroeder, J. & Greenbowe, T. (2009). The chemistry of Facebook: using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry laboratory. Journal of Online Education, 5(4).  Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/104245/

Smock, A.D., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D.Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322-2329. Available from https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011

Teclehaimanot, B. & Hickman, T. (2009). Student-Teacher Interaction on Facebook: What Students Find Appropriate. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009–World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 3181-3190). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/32942/

Whitworth, B., & De Moor, A. (2003). Legitimate by design: Towards trusted socio technical systems. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(1), 31–51. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290301783

Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., DePasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365-374. Available from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/50697/

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Technology and the Curriculum: Summer 2019 by Jennifer Means is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book