Evaluating the use of Facebook to increase studentengagement and understanding in lecture-based classes

Benjamin Dyson • Kristin Vickers • John Turtle • Sara Cowan •

Adrianna Tassone

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Both lecture delivery and Facebook use are ubiquitous aspects of higher

education from staff and student points-of-view, respectively. An attempt was made to

integrate the two by setting up a Facebook group and delivering contemporary news stories

in preparation for in-lecture discussion in a large-scale (1,200 students across 5 sections)

Introduction to Psychology class. Each section experienced two-thirds of the class with

Facebook intervention and one-third without, thereby each section served as its own

control group. Overall, Facebook intervention did not yield higher self-report of course

engagement or understanding for those portions of the course. Only those individuals who

never viewed the Facebook postings reported lower engagement and understanding of the

in-lecture discussion, in addition to a lower appreciation of the link between the Facebook

content and the lecture material. Our data suggest that successful integration of social

media into the classroom is a challenging one and the relative success or failure of these

interventions may stand or fall on the basis of a complex interaction between a number of

factors including the timing of content delivery, the integration of social media content

with course assessment and the students’ own perspective on using social media for

academic purposes.

Keywords Social media � Facebook � Student engagement � Student understanding �Large-scale teaching

Introduction

‘‘Given that Facebook continues to be popular among college students, and that

universities are interested in engaging and retaining students, it is important for those

B. Dyson (&) � K. Vickers � J. Turtle � S. Cowan � A. TassoneDepartment of Psychology, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canadae-mail: ben.dyson@psych.ryerson.ca

123

High EducDOI 10.1007/s10734-014-9776-3

working in higher education to familiarize themselves with Facebook (and other such

technologies) and to design and support interventions that meet students where they

are, in order to help them get to where they are going.’’ (Junco 2012, p. 170).

Within the sphere of research on teaching and learning, lectures are considered a

ubiquitous but far from ideal mode of delivery (e.g., Huxham 2005). Furthermore, many

lecture-based classes are getting larger as university enrolments increase, and are expected

to keep increasing. On top of that, students coming to university now are part of the

‘‘millennial generation,’’ having grown up in a culture where the relationship between

interpersonal and electronic spheres is increasingly blurred. Equally ubiquitous for stu-

dents, then, is the use of social media, and this use has begun to punctuate the classroom.

Informal observations suggest that some students are not paying the sort of rapt attention

(or even faking it) that perhaps we once expected. Rather, they are online in class,

sometimes accessing the material for that lecture, but often accessing email, entertainment

and shopping sites, YouTube, and other social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. More

formal research supports that idea that such technological availability is not beneficial for

the classroom. For example, Wei et al. (2012) reported negative relationships between text

messaging in the classroom and both self-regulation and sustained attention. Wood et al.

(2011) observed somewhat poorer memory performance for in-class material when stu-

dents were multi-tasking with Facebook and MSN (Microsoft Network) relative to a

simpler paper-and-pencil note taking condition. Importantly, familiarity with these tech-

nologies did not significantly diminish the observed memory loss, suggesting that the

presence of technology may be a pervasive problem.

Two routes to ameliorating this problem currently suggest themselves. One option

would be to block students’ ability to access the internet in class, and/or prohibit laptops

and smartphones altogether (e.g., Richtel 2011). Such an approach is supported by data

suggesting that the use of such technology (for example, text messaging during class) is

negatively related to sustained attention, and sustained attention itself positively related to

academic performance (Wei et al. 2012). The second option would be utilize students’

familiarity with social media sites by incorporating them into lectures and the following

serves as one attempt to operationalize and evaluate how this might be done.

Of course we are not the first to look at how this might be accomplished. Schroeder

et al. (2010) reviewed 20 social-software initiatives in the U.K. and, through a strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis, offer valuable ideas regarding the

technical development and implementation of social media in the classroom. They note

that, in addition to the potential for improved learning, there are other prospective and

possibly more subtle benefits, such as helping to foster social relationships among students,

and enhancing communication between students and professors (teachers use social media

too; Hew 2011). In addition to the Schroeder et al. (2010) review, several examples of

social media intervention are also available, although the data are mixed both in terms of

the social media used and the outcome measured. For example, Deed and Edwards (2011)

considered the role of blogging as an element of active learning and expressed concern

regarding the suitability of this technique in the promotion of critical thinking. In contrast,

Colbert et al. (2007) used an internet-based forum dedicated to student-generated questions

in a large first-year biology class. They found that about 80 % of students asked at least

one question, 95 % of those students read the professor’s response, 75 % read questions

posted by other students in the class, and about 60 % overall reported that the intervention

facilitated their understanding of the course material.

High Educ

123

Proprietary social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook have also received

empirical attention (e.g., Kassens-Noor 2012; Rinaldo et al. 2011; Wilson et al. 2012). To

take one example, Junco et al. (2011) looked at the effect of using Twitter in large classes,

using the platform for a vast number of course activities including class reminders, book

discussion, study group organization, student support, four required assignments and two

optional assignments (Junco et al. 2011, p. 122–123). Their results showed that the

intervention led to significantly higher levels of engagement and better grades, and dis-

cussed the spinoff benefits of professors taking a more active role in communicating with

students. The Junco et al. (2011) study shows a positive social media outcome, although

the broad use of Twitter in this context precludes specific suggestions for more targeted

social media interventions. The current literature also suggests that the social media

platform Facebook, with over 1 billion monthly users worldwide (Tam 2013), is a ubiq-

uitous aspect in students’ lives (Wilson et al. 2012), but also one that appears negativity

correlated with academic performance. For example, Kirschner and Karpinski (2010, cited

in Hew 2011) showed that Facebook users had both lower GPAs and spent less time on

study relative to non-users. A more recent paper by Junco (2012) however reveals a more

complex interaction between Facebook and academic performance contingent on the types

of measures used; the frequency of Facebook use was negatively correlated with student

engagement when the content of Facebook interaction was playing games or friend

checking, but was positively correlated when the content revolved around post com-

menting. Against this, additional data extol the potential virtues of adopting Facebook as a

virtual educational forum over and above similar forums provided by the host institution

such as Moodle, Wimba Classroom and BlackBoard (Hollyhead et al. 2012; Hurt et al.

2012). In these examples, pre-existing familiarity, access and socialization are thought to

help foster the adoption of Facebook as communicative tool in higher education.

The current study attempts to take Facebook as one example of an asynchronous dis-

cussion forum (e.g., Hollyhead et al. 2012; Yang 2008), whereby course-relevant material

is made available both outside class time and space. Specifically, during intervention

weeks, a contemporary news story relevant to the course material of an Introduction to

Psychology class was posted on Facebook days prior to the lecture. Questions, discussion

and comments related to the materials were reviewed at the start of the relevant class as a

way of establishing the real-world importance of the subject about to be introduced. From

an andragogical point-of-view, this approach had a number of attractive features. First, the

delivery of class-relevant content across multiple time points promotes distributed learn-

ing. Here, we were inspired by the sizable literature indicating the benefits of spaced rather

than massed study (see Son and Simon 2012, for a review). One of the reasons for the

success of spaced study is an increase in contextual variability (Raaijmakers 2003, cited in

Son and Simon 2012), and introducing concepts in a social media news story format prior

to class and then revisiting that material during class seemed to be one way to achieve this

goal. Second, the ability to discuss course content outside the classroom and in an anon-

ymous manner potentially resolves some of the interpersonal issues that can inhibit

interaction in class (Caldwell 2007). Third, with the specific use of Facebook (as opposed

to university-based platforms such as Blackboard; e.g., Knight 2010) we were able to bring

the content to the students rather than have the students come to us (Junco 2012).

In terms of measurement, we were particularly concerned with student engagement and

understanding in the course. One priority was to increase the likelihood of adopting this

intervention amongst several faculty teaching individual sections of the same undergrad-

uate course. We felt it important that not only the delivery but also the assessment of the

intervention should not significantly compromise the limited time available or the

High Educ

123

academic freedom of individual teachers. Although a large literature exists on how to

measure student engagement, consensus regarding operational definition of this construct

has proven elusive and diverse measures have been advanced (for a review, see University

Partners 2011). For example, engagement scales have been used (e.g., the National Survey

of Student Engagement; Kuh 2002) as well as single-item measures (e.g., Heiberger and

Harper 2008, cited in Junco et al. 2012). Moreover, we were also sensitive to the ecological

validity of engagement (and understanding) from the students’ point-of-view, acknowl-

edging: ‘‘…a gap between what teachers consider engagement in learning and what stu-

dents consider engagement in learning’’ (University Partners 2011, p. 4). Thus any lack of

sensitivity in our measures might be compensated by the adoption of our intervention in all

sections of the same undergraduate course and hence the availability of a larger sample

size.

In sum, our hypotheses were that student course engagement and understanding would

be higher during the weeks when the Facebook intervention was running, relative to when

it was not. Additionally, we expected levels of course engagement and understanding to be

higher in individuals who reported interacting with the Facebook materials to greater rather

than lesser extent.

Methods

All students in Introduction to Psychology (PSY102) during the Fall 2012 semester were

eligible to take part in the study. All procedures and materials were approved by the

university Research Ethics Board (REB) prior to testing. Approximately 1,200 students

split across 5 sections initially enrolled in the course, and 1,025 finished it. In an attempt to

ensure parity in student experience, all sections experienced the Facebook intervention but

at various times during the semester. As a result of the use of three exams in PSY102, the

course was divided into thirds, and all sections experienced two-thirds of the course

involving a Facebook intervention and one-third which was Facebook free (see Fig. 1). All

sections were sent standardized instructions regarding our intention to test the effectiveness

of social media as an in-class aid, and students who wished to take part in the study were

asked to join their course’s Facebook group and post comments, either with an existing

Facebook account or using a new account, which could be anonymous (i.e., not identified

with their legal name).

The Facebook intervention had two components. First, and at least 2 days prior to class,

a news story was posted on Facebook relating to the content of PSY102 to be covered that

particular week (e.g., an individual surviving an accidental spear gun bolt through the head

in conjunction with the coverage of Biological Processes). The topic and content of the

news story were discussed between the authors prior to its posting on Facebook. The

majority of on-line interaction however was carried out by teaching assistants (SC and AT)

rather than PSY102 faculty (see Yang 2008). The intention here was to foster a supportive

environment and increase the likelihood that students felt they could integrate personal and

academic spheres without formal monitoring by their section leaders (c.f, Hew 2011).

Second, there was a short (10–15 min) discussion of the Facebook news story that typically

occurred at the beginning of class. This was delivered by one of the authors (SC) across all

times and all sections to ensure some standardization of delivery. The in-class portion

recapped the Facebook content, provided a summary of the comments posted on the

relevant Facebook wall, and generated discussion via additional questions. If class par-

ticipation was not forthcoming, the deliverer and instructor discussed the questions and/or

High Educ

123

shared impressions or anecdotes to stimulate interest and encourage student involvement,

which was generally effective at stimulating discussion. During non-intervention weeks of

each section, there was no Facebook material posted, no in-class discussion, and class

began as usual. In these respects, the nature of the intervention and the specific posting of

news stories to prepare students for forthcoming lectures was consistent with the flipped

classroom approach (see Bishop and Verleger 2013, for a review of the literature).

Quantitative measurement was conducted via a short anonymous questionnaire admin-

istered at the end of each third of the course for each section. On a 7-point Likert scale, all

students (both intervention and non-intervention groups) were asked to rate ‘How much did

this third of the course engage you?’ and ‘How much did you understand the materials from

this third of the course?’ Students who just completed an intervention block were additionally

invited to answer four more questions: a categorization of how often they looked at the

Facebook news stories prior to class (no weeks, some weeks, all weeks) and then three

additional 7-point Likert scale questions regarding ‘How much did the in-class news story

discussions engage you?’ ‘How much did you understand the in-class news story discus-

sions?’ and ‘How much did the in-class news story discussion help with your understanding of

the rest of the course material?’ Questionnaires were only included in analyses if the short

survey had been completed (a) in full and (b) appropriately relative to the current intervention

status of the specific section. Of the returned questionnaires, 1,392 met these criteria.

Results

To test the effects of the Facebook intervention on overall course engagement and

understanding, questionnaire data were submitted to separate Facebook intervention (off,

on) by course time (first, second, third) between-participants ANOVAs (see Fig. 2). For

engagement, there was no main effect of intervention, F (1, 1,386) = 0.64, p = .424,

gp2 \ .001, nor an interaction between intervention 9 time, F (2, 1,386) = 0.67, p = .511,

FIRST SECOND THIRD

PSY102_011

PSY102_021

PSY102_031

PSY102_041

PSY102_051

No Facebook Facebook

Fig. 1 Schematic of the studydesign. All sections of anIntroduction to Psychologycourse (PSY102) experiencedtwo-thirds of the courseinvolving a Facebookintervention and one-third whichwas Facebook free. In this way,each section served as their owncontrol group

High Educ

123

gp2 = .001. A time main effect, F (2, 1,386) = 6.37, p = .002, gp

2 = .009, revealed

engagement to be significantly higher for the third portion of the course, relative to the first

and second portions (Tukey’s HSD; p \ .05). Similar effects were found with respect to

overall course understanding: the absence of a main effect of intervention, F (1,

1,386) = 2.71, p = .100, gp2 = .002, no interaction between intervention 9 time F (2,

1,386) = 0.65, p = .521, gp2 = .001, but a main effect of time, F (2, 1,386) = 17.75,

p \ .001, gp2 = .025, such that understanding was highest again in the third portion of the

course. The absence of an interaction between intervention and course time indicates that

PSY102 students showed an overall difference in course engagement and understanding at

the end of the course, regardless of when they received the intervention during the course.

Consideration was then given to the frequencies with which students exposed them-

selves to our Facebook posts on weeks when the intervention was active (see Table 1).

With v2(4) = 17.09, p = .002, / = .14, the exposure distribution was not deemed equal

across cells and as is clear from Table 1, very few students engaged with the Facebook

stories during all weeks of their intervention phases. To test whether students’ exposure to

the Facebook intervention affected their engagement with and understanding of the in-class

discussion of the Facebook materials, as well as their subsequent understanding of the

course materials, questionnaire data from intervention blocks were submitted to separate

exposure (all weeks, some weeks, no weeks) by course time (first, second, third) between-

participants ANOVAs (see Fig. 3). With respect to in-class discussion engagement, there

was a significant main effect of exposure, F (2, 866) = 19.29, p \ .001, gp2 = .043 only:

time main effect F (2, 866) = 0.25, p = .778, gp2 = .001, exposure 9 time interaction,

F (4, 866) = 2.05, p = .085, gp2 = .009. Tukey’s HSD test (p \ .05) revealed students

who did not reportedly interact with the Facebook site in any way (no weeks) showed

lower engagement (3.72) than those who engaged some (4.48) and all (4.27) weeks. With

respect to in-class discussion understanding, there was a main effect of exposure, F (2,

866) = 14.94, p \ .001, gp2 = .033, time F (2, 866) = 5.65, p = .004, gp

2 = .013, and a

significant interaction F(4, 866] = 2.44, p = .046, gp2 = .011. As shown in Fig. 3, dif-

ferences were only statistically significant in the comparison between some and no weeks

for the second (5.19 and 4.58, respectively) and third (5.26 and 4.21, respectively) portion

of the course. Finally, with respect to the Facebook material facilitating the course

material, there was a main effect of exposure, F (2, 866) = 41.63, p \ .001, gp2 = .088,

but no main effect of time F (2, 866) = 0.15, p = .858, gp2 \ .001, nor an interaction

between group 9 time F (4, 866) = 0.86, p = .491, gp2 = .004. Similar to the findings for

engagement, students who did not interact with the Facebook site in any way (no weeks)

reported that the in-class discussion helped less with understanding the course material

(3.44) than those who engaged some (4.39) and all (4.70) weeks.

Discussion

The current study set out to evaluate one implementation of Facebook in the classroom.

Incorporating five sections of an Introductory Psychology class, news stories posted on

Facebook and in-class discussion of those stories were delivered across two-thirds of the

course, while the remaining third of the course served as a control period where no

intervention took place. We were able to answer two questions using this approach. First,

we were interested in whether the use of social media in the classroom impacted students’

engagement with and understanding of the course materials. Although we found a sig-

nificant difference in both self-reported engagement and understanding in the final third of

High Educ

123

the course, this did not interact with the intervention. Therefore, in this specific context the

use of Facebook did not impact on global measures of course appreciation. Second, we

were interested in whether the frequency of contact with the Facebook group impacted

students’ engagement and understanding of the course materials (cf., Junco 2012). Here,

the data suggest that only the lack of interaction with our novel Facebook group led to

lower self-report scores in engagement, understanding, and appreciation of the relationship

between the on-line and in-class materials. Were those students who reported consistent

interaction with our Facebook group already actively commenting and creating content on

their personal Facebook account (Junco 2012)? Further research would do well to assess

and, ideally, control for Facebook usage prior to experimentation.

Fig. 2 a Self-reported course engagement and b self-reported course understanding as a function ofFacebook intervention (off, on) and course time (first, second, third). Errors bars represent standard errors

Table 1 Number of question-naires analysed as a function ofweek, intervention and level ofself-reported exposure

Intervention off Intervention on

All weeks Some weeks No weeks

Course time

First 262 21 105 134

Second 46 27 118 203

Third 109 11 73 183

High Educ

123

One striking feature of the data was the low frequency of students who self-reported

looking at the Facebook new stories every week, and consideration should be given as to

why this might be the case and how these frequencies are to be improved if educators wish

to integrate Facebook into the classroom. In terms of how to get students to use Facebook

more in an academic context, a number of testable ideas suggest themselves. First, the

timing of the posting and subsequent in-class delivery of the Facebook content may be

Fig. 3 a Self-reported engagement and b understanding of the Facebook related in-class discussion andc facilitation of the course materials, as a function of exposure level (all weeks, some weeks, no weeks) andcourse time (first, second, third). Errors bars represent standard errors

High Educ

123

crucial. We approached the Facebook material in the current study as a way to engage

students in the lead-up to class (cf., distributed learning; Son and Simon 2012) and also as a

way to begin each week’s session in an interactive and contemporary way. An alternative

route would be to deliver the Facebook material in-class not at the start of the current

session but at the next session as a way of summarizing the previous week’s content and

allowing students time to consolidate the information. A second possibility is that students

may have set up separate Facebook accounts in the interests of anonymity, thereby

bypassing the pre-existing accounts that at least three quarters of all college students have

(cf. Junco 2012). However, there is a tension between the use of Facebook for both non-

academic and academic purposes, and it is possible that students are unwilling to integrate

these two domains on the same social media platform due to these very privacy issues

(Hew 2011). Consequently, it is possible that a separate platform such as an independent

blog (Deed and Edwards 2011) or use of the discussion board feature on Blackboard would

work just as well, if not better, than software that is used predominately for communicating

between friends (Wilson et al. 2012; although see Hollyhead et al. 2012, Hurt et al. 2012) 1.

Third, some students may have perceived the Facebook materials as extra work to be done

in the course for no extra credit. This could be easily remedied by either awarding course

credit for Facebook postings, and/or, including examination questions on the on-line

materials. Obviously, though, this provides external rather than internal motivation to

engage with the materials, the former commensurate with the principles of passive rather

than active learning (Prosser and Trigwell 1999). Fourth, increased presence of the course

leader on Facebook could additionally increase students’ engagement with respect to

academic purposes, although additional concerns have been raised when students and

teachers interact on this platform (Mazer et al. 2007).

Although other measurements of engagement and understanding are available (e.g.,

Junco et al. 2012; Kuh 2002; University Partners 2011), we felt the receipt of subjective

student feedback directly following class was more useful in serving as a first pass in

evaluating the Facebook intervention. It is worth restating that the intervention was con-

ducted across several sections of the course with different section leaders and we felt that

brevity of delivery and assessment increased the likelihood that such a study would be

adopted. However, the future use of anonymised personal identifiers during data collection

(such as favourite song; Dyson 2008) would also be useful in tracking students’ responses

across the semester, thereby allowing for a within-participant analysis of the classroom

intervention. The use of between-participants analysis for at least some repeated measures

data in the current study will have increased our error term, and thus our findings assuming

1 Such comments were supported in a focus group that was run after the project had ended (a similar focusgroup was run before the project to glean the attitudes of students regarding the project). There werecomments regarding Facebook as an easily available platform for discussion: ‘‘I am already on Facebook soI don’t need to go to a new website or do any searching, it’s easy because I am already there’’ and ‘‘Thenotification from the group served as a reminder that there was an article to read for class when I was onFacebook normally. I could connect with my peers.’’ (c.f., Hurt et al. 2012). However, comments were alsoexpressed suggesting that Facebook may not have been the best medium due to the combination of personaland academic spheres. These concerns included: ‘‘Some people simply do not like Facebook because theyfeel it does not protect their privacy’’ and ‘‘It is easy to get sidetracked on Facebook even if you signed on toread the articles for school.’’ In response to the question of how to improve the project in the future, studentsin the focus group vocalized a variety of divergent ideas, ranging from not using Facebook: ‘‘For me theonly problem is with Facebook- I see Facebook as being for entertainment and not for school. Maybe usingBlackBoard (BB) would be more contained and more professional. I just don’t think that Facebook is verysecure’’ to having participation on the Facebook site form a portion of the course mark: ‘‘I would like it to bemarked because it is an easy way to get a mark and to show the instructors that you are participating.’’

High Educ

123

independence may be too conservative (Howell 1992). It should also be a future goal to

compare these self-report measures with objective measures of academic success such as

class grade and GPA, and to test the assumption that increasing levels of student

engagement do eventually translate into successful university performance (cf., Hardy

et al. 2003). A final limitation of this research is its reliance on cross-sectional findings

(Facebook participation and course engagement assessed at the same time points), which

prevents ascertainment of causality. Students who are less engaged in general may report

both lack of engagement on self-report measures and also be unwilling to participate in an

optional course component. An important question for future research is thus how to

maximize student engagement to assist those students who are currently disinterested.

In summary, our pilot data suggest that successful integration of Facebook into the

classroom is a challenging one and the relative success or failure of these interventions

may stand or fall on the basis of a complex interaction between a number of factors (cf.

Kassens-Noor 2012; Yang 2008). It also remains an open question as to whether such

social media should be integrated into the classroom at all, with some classrooms adopting

a network- or computer-free environment placing the emphasis back on physical as

opposed to virtual interactions (Richtel 2011). While one study cannot provide a definitive

answer to which approach yields the most effective approach to social media, we hope that

the justification for our approach is clear such that it can be considered against other data.

Moreover, rather than consider different forms of virtual environment in competition with

one another (e.g., Hollyhead et al. 2012) or to put different implementations of the same

social media in competition with one another (Twitter; e.g., Junco et al. 2012), we believe

that a critical comparison remains the presence versus absence of social media interven-

tion. That is, although the adoption of such technology in the classroom may be beneficial,

comparison with a no-technology (‘waiting list’) condition is critical if the basic effect is to

be established. The continued evaluation of such schemes in addition to the clear report of

their instantiation will help educational institutions and instructors answer one of the most

pressing current questions in curriculum design.

Acknowledgments The research was funded by a Ryerson Learning and Teaching Enhancement Fund.Thanks go to section leaders Alba Agostino, Brad A. Meisner and Stephen Want and the students of PSY102for their participation in this project. We would also like to thank Pearson Education for support inestablishing the post-study focus group and also two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful commentsregarding earlier versions of manuscript

References

Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE NationalConference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.

Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE LifeSciences Education, 6, 9–120.

Colbert, J. T., Olson, J. K., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Using the web to encourage student-generated questionsin large-format introductory biology classes. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 42–48.

Deed, C., & Edwards, A. (2011). Unrestricted student blogging: Implications for active learning in a virtualtext-based environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12, 11–21.

Dyson, B. J. (2008). Assessing small-scale interventions in large-scale teaching: A general methodology andpreliminary data. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 265–282.

Flora-Wei, F.-Y., Wang, Y. K., & Kluasner, M. (2012). Rethinking college students’ self-regulation andsustained attention: Does text messaging during class influence cognitive learning? CommunicationEducation, 61, 185–204.

High Educ

123

Hardy, S. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Thompson, R. A., & Reay, D. (2003). Student background and courseinvolvement among first-year college students in Introduction to Psychology: Implications for coursedesign and student achievement. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 3, 6–10.

Hew, K. F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 662–676.Hollyhead, A., Edwards, D. J., & Holt, G. D. (2012). The use of virtual learning environment (VLE) and

social network site (SNS) hosted forums in higher education: A preliminary examination. Industry andHigher Education, 26, 369–379.

Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical Methods for Psychology. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press.Hurt, N. E., Moss, G. S., Bradley, C. L., Larson, L. R., Lovelace, M. D., Prevost, L. B., et al. (2012a). The

‘Facebook’ effect: College students’ perceptions of online discussions in the age of social networking.International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–24.

Hurt, N.E., Moss, G.S., Bradley, C.L., Larson, L.R., Lovelace, M.D., Prevost, L.B., Camus, M.S. (2012).The ‘Facebook’ effect: college students’ perceptions of online discussions in the age of social net-working. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6 (2). Retrieved 16thJanuary 2014 from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=int_jtl.

Huxham, M. (2005). Learning in lectures: Do ‘interactive windows’ help? Active Learning in HigherEducation, 6, 17–31.

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities,and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58, 162–171.

Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2012). Putting Twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for studentcollaboration, engagement, and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 273–287.

Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement andgrades. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 27, 119–132.

Kassens-Noor, E. (2012). Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in highereducation: The case of sustainable tweets. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13, 9–21.

Knight, J. (2010). Distinguishing the learning approaches adopted by undergraduates in their use of onlineresources. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 67–76.

Kuh, G. D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview ofpsychometric properties. Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Postsecondary Research.Retrieved January 18, 2013 from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/psychometric_framework_2002.pdf.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘‘Facebook’’: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate.Communication Education, 56, 1–17.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher edu-cation. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Richtel, M. (2011, October 22). A Silicon Valley school that doesn’t compute. The New York Times.Retrieved January 18, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html.

Rinaldo, S. B., Tap, S., & Laverne, D. A. (2011). Learning by tweeting: Using twitter as a pedagogical tool.Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 193–203.

Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats ofusing social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of ComputerAssisted learning, 26, 159–174.

Son, L. K., & Simon, D. A. (2012). Distributed learning: Data, metacognition and educational implications.Educational Psychology Review, 24, 379–399.

Tam, D. (2013). Facebook by the numbers: 1.06 billion monthly active users. Retrieved 1 May, 2013 fromhttp://news.cnet.com/8301-103_3-57566550-93/facebook-by-the-numbers-1.06-billion-monthly-active-users/.

University Partners University of Alberta. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what shouldwe do? Retrieved January 22, 2014 from http://education.alberta.ca/media/6459431/student_engagement_literature_review_2011.pdf.

Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research in the social sciences.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 203–220.

Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2011). Examining theimpact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers &Education, 58, 365–374.

Yang, Y. C. (2008). A catalyst for teaching critical thinking in a large university class in Taiwan: Asyn-chronous online discussions with the facilitation of teaching assistants. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 56, 241–264.

High Educ

123