Meaningful Engagement In Facebook Learning Environments: 
Merging Social And Academic Lives

Year 2013, Volume: 14 Issue: 1, 302 - 322, 01.03.2013

Jenny Wang Chun-Fu C. Lin Wei-Chieh W. Yu Emily Wu

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of different learning environments between interactive Facebook instructional method and non-Facebook instructional method for undergraduate students. Two outcome dimensions were measured: student grades and learning engagement. A preprest-posttest control group experimental design was used. The experimental group (n= 134) received the interactive Facebook instructional method, and the control group students (n= 57) received the non-Facebook instructional method. Data pertaining to student Facebook use and activities were also collected. Independent samples t-tests were used to measure significant differences in grades and engagement between the Facebook and non-Facebook classroom contexts. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to measure the relationships between interactive Facebook instructional method and grades. A linear regression was also performed to analyze the predictors of student grades. Content analyses of samples of Facebook communication exchanges were also conducted. The results revealed that experimental group had a significant positive effect on grades and engagement. This study concludes that Facebook use in instructional method assists students in achieving better grades, higher engagement, and greater satisfaction with the university learning experience. Thus, the authors provides experimental evidence that Facebook can be used as an educational communication and interaction tool to enable faculty to assume a more active and participatory role.

Keywords

Engagement Learning, Facebook, Learning Outcomes, Social Network, Web 2.0

References

• Ajjan, H. & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71-80.
• Alexander, B. (2006, March/April). A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning. Educause, 33-34.
• Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
• Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Banquil, K. et al. (2009). Social networking sites affect one’s academic performances adversely. Retrieved June 2, 2012, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/28919575/SOCIAL-NETWORKING-SITES-AFFECT
• ONE%E2%80%99S-ACADEMIC-PERFORMANCE-ADVERSELY Blattner, G. & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the language classroom: Promises and possibilities. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (ITDL), 6(1), 17-28.
• Boulos, M. N. & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24, 2-23.
• Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.
• Chen, P. D., Guidry, K. R., & Lambert, A. D. (2009). Engaging online learners: A quantitative study of postsecondary student engagement in the online learning environment. Paper presented at the 2009 American Educational Research Association
• Annual Conference. San Diego, CA. Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010).Engaging online learners: The impacts of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222-1232.
• Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1337-1343.
• Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, Fall). Seven Principles for Good Practice in
• Undergraduate Education. Washington Center News. Cotten, S. R. (2008). Students’ technology use and the impacts on well-being. In R.
• Junco & D. M. Timm (Eds.), Using Emerging Technologies to Enhance Student Engagement. New Directions for Student Services Issue#124, pp. 55-70. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. de Villiers, R. (2010). Academic use of a group on face book: Initial findings and perceptions. Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference, 2010(1), 173-1
• Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. e-Learn Magazine (Online). http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1 Access June 6, 2012
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:”
• Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1 (Online). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html. Access April 20, 2012
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices.New Media & Society.
• Eyadat, W. & Eyadat, Y. (2010). Instructional technology and creativity among university students: The missing link. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2(2), 87-99.
• Facebook (March, 2012). Statistics (Online). http://newsroom.fb.com/Key
• Facts/Statistics-8b.aspx. Access May 28, 2012.
• Franklin, T. & van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 Content for Learning and Teaching in
• Higher Education. Bristol, UK: JISC. Frost, E. A. (2011). Why teacher must learn: Student innovation as a driving factor in the future of the Web. Computers and Composition, 28, 269-275.
• Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Mobile computing technologies: Lighter, faster, smarter.
• Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 3-9. Heiberger, G. & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using technology to increase student involvement. In R. Junco & D. M. Timm (Eds.), Using Emerging
• Technologies to Enhance Student Engagement. New Directions for Student Services Issue #124, pp. 19-35. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hewitt, A. & Forte, A. (2006, November). Crossing Boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. presented at CSCW. Banff, Alberta, Canada.
• Junco, R. (2009). Teaching teens to Twitter: Supporting engagement in the college classroom. Presented at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society
• (Online). http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2009/12/junco. October 1, 2011
• Junco, R. (2011). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 187-198.
• Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance.
• Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1237-1245.
• Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professional need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 683-706.
• 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), 1-17.
• Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance:
• Reconciling a media sensation with data. First Monday, 14(5). Pempek, T., Yermolayeva, Y., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227-238.
• Ractham, P., Kaewkitipong, L., & Firpo, D. (2012). The use of Facebook in an introductory MIS course: Social constructivist learning environment. Decision Science
• Journal of Innovative Education,10(2), 165-188. Tuncay, N. & Uzunboylu, H. (2010). Walking in two worlds: From e-learning paradise to technologically locked-in. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 271-281.
• Wikipedia (2012). List of Virtual Communities with more than 100 Million Users
• (Online). Access March 14, 20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virtual_communities_with_more_100_million_users