The impact of social media on policy decisions in international higher education

173

Chapter 9

The Impact of Social Media
on Policy Decisions in
International Higher Education
Pamela A. Lemoine
University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA
P. Thomas Hackett
Columbus University, USA
Michael D. Richardson
Columbus University, USA

ABSTRACT
The infusion of technology is one of the major ironies of modern education because technology has
changed delivery techniques for higher education. The technological revolution of the past two decades has
changed communication in contemporary educational settings, particularly higher education. Educators
are teaching how to live successfully in a future that is increasingly ambiguous and fast-paced. That is
a formidable task in the quickly changing world of technology where educators must prepare students
to be able to find the information they need and the knowledge of how to analyze appropriately, not just
to regurgitate facts. Technology offers college students an array of options to socialize, network, stay
informed and connected, but they come with risks and consequences. As social media use by students
becomes more established, educators in higher education are pursuing methods to continue significant
and appropriate contact with their audience and are shifting from the acquisition of skills so prevalent
in today’s colleges to a true learning design focused on technology.

INTRODUCTION
Educators in higher education have begun exploring alternative means of instruction including social
communication tools designed for easy use, ease of use, instructional freedom, and constant online
discussions (Brady, Holcomb, & Smith, 2010; Lee & McLoughlin, 2010; Webb, 2009). Social media

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch009

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

is commonly defined as any media used to integrate technology into the lives of people to facilitate
communication (DeAndrea, Ellison, LaRose, Steinfield, & Fiore, 2012; Veletsianos, 2011). As social
media has proliferated in society, more higher education institutions are using social media tools such
as social networking, wikis, blogs, or video, to interact with or engage in students (Bayne, 2008; Veletsianos, 2010). There is compelling evidence that social media can be a prized instrument for increasing
student engagement (Martínez-Alemán, & Wartman, 2009). Increased engagement would also improve
student academic performance (Chen & Bryer, 2012; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Mastrodicasa &
Metellus, 2013). Social media has the potential enhance student participation and learning outcomes
(Buzzetto-More, 2012). . Some researchers speculate that the use of technology intensifies engagement
and generates innovation that could make students more attentive (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie & Gonyea,
2008; Records, Pritchard, & Behling, 2011). The uses of social networks have increased exponentially in
recent years although there is some controversy over the use of social mediums in educational settings
(Chu & Meulemans, 2008; Connell, 2009; Dron & Anderson, 2007; Schneier, 2010).
Colleges and university common areas once served as locations for social interaction between students
(Tess, 2013). However, in a 21st century technology-based world, virtual meeting areas such as Facebook
provide a venue for college students to make connections (Murray, 2008; Rambe, 2012). Social media
sites provide connections enabling users to link to others, to send messages, to link to social networking sites enabling users to connect with friends and colleagues, to send mails and instant messages, to
blog, to meet new people, to share pictures and information on common interests and to post personal
information profiles (Connell, 2009; Junco, 2011; Junco, Heibergert, & Loken, 2010).
Social media is changing the way people interact, present ideas and information, and judge the quality
of content and contributions. More than one billion people use Facebook regularly; other social media
platforms extend those numbers to nearly one third of all people on the planet. Educators, students,
alumni, … routinely use social media to share news about scientific and other developments. The impact

of these changes in scholarly communication and on the credibility of information remains to be seen,
but it is clear that social media has found significant traction in almost every education sector. (New
Media Consortium Horizon, 2013, p. 1)
Social media and social networking sites provide methods to communicate through Internet web
sites, forums, weblogs (blogs), microblogs, wikis, social media networks, podcasts, discussion forums,
photo sharing sites, and video sites (Ala-Mutka, Broster, Cachia, Cento, Feijoo, & Hache’, 2009; Chu &
Meulemans, 2008; Higdon & Topaz, 2009; Junco, Heigergert, Loken, 2010; LaRose, Kim, Peng, 2010;
McDermott & Kowalsky, 2011; Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007, Salmon, 2005; Shih & Waugh, 2011;
Yu, Tian, Vogel, & Kwok, 2010).
“The purpose of social networking sites is building relationships, moulding identities, and sharing
and hence, ‘networking’, which render them useful for unraveling social power relations in academia”
(Rambe, 2012, p. 72). Social networks permit participants to publish personal information and to communicate with friends, make new friends and share contents such as photos and videos (Ellison, Steinfield,
& Lampe, 2007; Wilson, 2008). Jones and Shao (2011) explain that while first-time students entering
higher education are particularly impacted by social networking technologies, services that support the
uploading sharing and manipulation of media such as YouTube, and the use of mobile devices, students
do not enter the university with particular demands for the use of new technologies. Further, they explain

174



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

that “The gap between students and their teachers is not fixed, nor is the gulf so large that it cannot be
bridged” (Jones & Shao, 2011, p 1).
Universities are using social media platforms to share their missions, market, and engage in conversations with future and current students.
In higher education, it is now a bit of an anomaly for a university to be without its own branded tablet
app that integrates features like campus maps, access to grades, university news, and more. Having an
app in the iTunes and Android marketplace has become essential to the recruiting process, to better
orient students to their surroundings, and alert them to campus opportunities. (Johnson, Adams-Becker,

Cummins, Estrada, Freeman, & Ludgate, 2013, p. 17)
Higher education students use digital media for communication and sharing information at an increasing rate and the focus on learning with digital media or cyberlearning is expected to escalate (Elmannai,
Odeh, & Bach, 2013). Cyberlearning has become a trend that includes both independent learning and
learning in collaboration with others (Greenhow, 2011; Hemmi, Bayne, & Land, 2009). This flexibility
is dependent on learning needs, motivations and contexts where students can use mobile devices for
personalized learning anytime and anywhere (Teclehaimanot & Hickman, 2011). A 2012 EDUCAUSE
survey reported “100 percent of colleges and universities surveyed use social media, but instructors
use it far less for teaching than they do for personal or professional reasons” (Tinti-Kane, 2013, p. 1).
Instructors using social media for instruction mostly use videos while some use “blogs and wikis” (p.1).
Social media provides a real time method to have a conversation between two or more people. Social
media formats include online platforms, which provide news updates, as well as information personalized
for the interests of social media subscribers (Nyland, Marvez, & Beck, 2007). Teaching and communication formats for teachers and students once confined to print and then email communications are now
methods to share information through social media tools such as Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, LinkedIn,
Google+, YouTube, and other emerging public platforms (Jones, Ramanau, Cross & Healing, 2010;
Mintel, 2010).

TRANSFORMING HIGHER EDUCATION
During the past 15 years’ methods of communicating and sharing have changed drastically (Bjerede,
Atlins & Dede, 2012; Griesemer, 2012). Today higher education professors facilitate the acquisition of
knowledge through Web 2.0 technologies. This necessitates a paradigm shift -teaching students how to
think. Instead of imparting knowledge the focus is on teaching students to understand where and how to
find knowledge (Gess-Newsome, Blocker, Clark, Menasco & Willis, 2003). Educators have historically
been dispensers of information; however, in today’s environment the exact opposite is true—educators
should be facilitators in the acquisition of knowledge. Students must be able to find the information they
need, analyze it appropriately, not just to regurgitate facts (Gunter, Nicholas, Huntington & Williams,
2002). Changing traditional higher education approaches to education from the acquisition of short-term
skills to proactive life-long learning attitudes are of paramount importance as colleges and universities
prepare students for the 21st century (Anderson, 2005).
Technology, like all innovations, is only as efficient and effective as the person who uses it (Chalaby, 2000; McGrail, 2005). Technology can give the instructor the ability to function more efficiently
175


The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

and effectively; however, professors must understand the capabilities and limitations inherent in the
technology. Technology can be the means to improving the curriculum, the delivery system and student
achievement (Ferguson & Tryjankowski, 2009). Educators need to analyze the curriculum first and
then determine whether or not the technology enhances the curriculum and in turn, increases student
achievement (Diaz & Bontenbal, 2000). Technology must be introduced as a means of enhancing the
curriculum. Only then will it prove to be a positive impact upon the ability of teachers to teach and students to learn. Technology must be viewed not as an end in itself, but as a part of the learning process
to enhance student achievement.

SOCIAL MEDIA
One of the largest technology developments over the past few years has been the global rise in online
social networking (Booth & Esposito, 2011). Students are very familiar with the technology and how
they use it to learn on their own. Can social media be incorporated into instruction (Hemmi, Bayne &
Land, 2009)? Teachers who have the capability can use social media to customize their teaching methods
to meet the individual needs of students thus allowing students to learn at their own speed. Social media
can be a catalyst for the 21st century educator (Long, 2009). The use of social networking and other
forms of technology illustrate the global reach of wireless technology for everyone, and is especially
critical for those teaching in today’s changing educational environment (Janoski-Haehlen, 2011; Shih &
Waugh, 2011; Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechler & Espinoza, 2008; Teclehaimanot & Hickman, 2011).
The increasing use of social networking in schools and in daily use demonstrates a generational shift
now impacting higher education institutions (Amey, 2010; Ntiri, 2010; Osbourne, 2011).
Using social media forces teachers to change how they teach and how students learn (Osbourne,
2011). Students respond when Web 2.0 technologies are used in the classroom. Many students already
possess the basic knowledge of how social media functions (Ratliff, 2011). Students who are familiar
will not be required to learn new technology skills in addition to learning new concepts and information
while others who do not have access to social media technologies will need introduction and practice

with social media skills (Jones, Ramanau, Cross, & Healing, 2010; Ophus & Abbitt, 2009).
As a new teaching procedure, Web 2.0 technologies have the capacity to strengthen collaboration
and communication among students by giving them the power to construct their own learning in a social
and instructional environment (Badge, Cann, & Scott, 2005). Integrating social mediums in education
instruction at the post-secondary level, allows for many significant benefits in student learning (Barnes
& Lescault, 2011). It provides a method to increase the level of interactivity and engagement among
learners because it essentially is a hands-on enterprise (Griesemer, 2012). Social media also provides
students with realistic preparation for their careers as it is now and will continue to be an integral tool
in the future (Bjerede, Atlins, & Dede, 2012).
Online higher education avenues expand daily (Oh & Kim, 2007). Some researchers have suggested
that students using online learning resources outperform students in traditional face-to-face teaching
settings (Allen & Seaman, 2010; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). They have also speculated that
online learning experiences meet individual student learning needs (Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson,
2009). With the requirement that 21st century student skills include the necessity to access and use
information effectively, social media provides post secondary educators access to different methods for
teaching and learning (Dede, 2011; Downes, 2004; Hew & Brush, 2007).
176



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY
All universities are not 21st century workplaces with equitable access to technology tools (Carr, 2009;
Greenhow, 2011). Older universities often need infrastructure improvements to sustain technology rich
environments; financial resources limit the ability of universities to upgrade technology (Greaves, Hayes,
Wilson, Gielniak, & Peterson, 2010). Universities face major challenges in providing access and devices
for every student and educator (Williams, 2009).
Higher education institutions are forced to provide faculty with the resources to augment social
media in institutional delivery (Salmon, 2005). Even with the rise of relatively low-cost mobile devices

most devices cost at least several hundred dollars and need to be replaced every few years. In addition,
universities are under constant scrutiny as international standards for public education become increasingly difficult due to shrinking budgets (Ala-Mutka et al., 2009).
Additionally, persuading some universities to allow educational access to social media tools has
been an issue (Prensky, 2001, 2005; Shih & Waugh, 2011). Three real challenges are evident for higher
education: (1) the struggle to keep up with the latest technology (2) the fight to find enough money for
the technology, and (3) the difficulty in getting faculty to adopt new technology (Tinti-Kane, 2013).
Professors face “problems such as electricity failure, low bandwidth of the internet, lack of infrastructure
like computers and laptops, managing time for social media during the semester, leakage of privacy,
cyber-bullying” (Hussain, Gulrez, & Tahirkheli, 2012, p. 193).
Hew and Brush (2007) report, “Without adequate hardware and software, there is little opportunity for
teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum” (p. 226). They further posit, “Access to technology
is more than merely the availability of technology in a school; it involves providing the proper amount
and right types of technology in locations where teachers and students can best use them” (p.226). To
ensure the integration of technology in classrooms, technology in terms of hardware (computers) and
software (programs) must be accessible for professors and students (Gillet, El Helou, Yu, & Salzmann,
2008; Waters, 2011; Yu, Tian, Vogel, & Kwok, 2010).

CHALLENGES
There is an assumption that students know how to use technology (George & Dellasaga, 2011). Sometimes it is presupposed that students have a base of technological understanding and sophistication …
particularly those who are known as Millenials (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). Jones et al. (2010)
contend that because students can use social media, it is taken for granted that students will automatically
know how to properly format a Word document or cite a picture on a blog. Students need to learn how to
appropriately and effectively use Web 2.0 technology. Learning about technology can happen as a result
of direct instruction, through group work, online tutorials and resources, or through any number of other
avenues. It is vital that this learning takes place, regardless of the specific avenue (Hargadon, 2008).
Students arrive in class with an array of digital instruments, – phones, laptops, and iPads while they
often sit in fairly traditional classrooms, some without technology, and reflect philosophies and practices evident for the last 150 years (Hrastinski & Aghaee, 2012; Pettit & Kukulska-Hulme, 2009). The
use of a multi-modal classroom requires teaching to become outcomes-based and student-centered, a
dramatic shift from traditional teaching, and one not readily accepted by teachers (Blankenship, 2011;
Grosseck, 2009).

177



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Students in a traditional classroom can be in the classroom and not interact with the instructor. Online
learning requires student engagement and the instructor becomes more of a facilitator of learning than a
dispenser of information (Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009). The paradigm shift offers enormous
potential for advancing educational quality, quantity, efficiency, effectiveness and productivity (Lefever
& Currant, 2010; Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011, 2012; National Science Foundation Task Force
on Cyberlearning, 2008).
Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, and Smith (2007) suggest students actually prefer multichannel communication, such as text messaging, instant messaging, and communication through social network sites, to
traditional e-mail and face-to-face communication (Kolowich, 2010). Indeed, 55% of online teenagers are
using Web 2.0 technologies, such as social network sites, outside of school and visit their social network
sites daily or several times a day, devoting an average of 9 hours per week to the network (Lenhart &
Madden, 2007). Through such sites, media is shared (e.g., photos, music, videos), messages exchanged,
collaborators form groups, request information, articulate or develop their personal connections, post or
remix digital content, and create or comment in blogs (Lenhart & Madden, 2007).
Researchers and educators observe students engaging in formal, informal, and non-formal learning
across a wide range of contexts and exercising considerable authority over how, when, and with whom
they learn (Marquis, 2012). Technology features allow learners to link up, create, consume, and share
independently produced information, media, and applications on a global scale (McLoughlin & Lee,
2008). Many features encourage interconnections among learners, allowing them to develop their networks
and increase the number and range of people to consult for feedback or support (Lee & McLoughlin,
2007). Learning can manifest itself across settings, and informal or formal crossing of boundaries might
enhance learning (McEwan, 2012; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007).
The implication for educators is clear; educators must critically examine how students are taught
(Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007). Educators must, themselves, possess an appreciation for critical
analysis and be able to transmit that knowledge to students, or even more importantly, serve as a facilitator to students as they find and interpret information for themselves (Ratliff, 2011). Today’s students

will experience several major career changes during their lifetimes, with many of those careers being
nonexistent at present (Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013). Educators must understand that learning is truly
a life-long process, for them just as much as for their students (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, &
Witty, 2010). Sharpe & Benfield, 2005). They must be willing to change and incorporate new ways
of reaching learners. They must be facilitators of learning (Smith, 2007; Subrahmanyam et al., 2008).
Since 2010, technical innovations have altered the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in the
workplace and society (Beetham & Oliver, 2010). Preparing technically educated and skilled individuals
is of great economic importance to the United States and other counties and requires significant attention
from educators and employers (Ala-Mutka et al., 2009; Partnership for 21st Century, 2012). Education is
the one area that influences an individual from early childhood through adult life (Darling-Hammond,
Barron, Pearson, Schoenfeld, Zimmerman, Cervetti, & Tilson, 2008). Therefore, the educator’s role is
particularly important in fostering learning, especially when utilizing technology (Jarvis, 2000). To keep
pace with technological development, educators must assume a leadership role in optimizing instructional
technology (Beetham, Littlejohn, & McGill, 2010; Blankenship, 2011).

178



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

PEDAGOGY 2.0
Grossbeck (2009) and other researchers (Dron & Anderson, 2007; Hargadon, 2008; McCoughlin & Lee,
2007) propose the emergence of a new pedagogy in the 21st century: pedagogy 2.0” (p. 479). Pedagogy
2.0 or Web 2.0 is defined as,
The social use of the Web, which allows individuals to collaborate, encouraging them to become active
participants and/or producers in knowledge creation and to share information online. Web 2.0 includes
blogs, wikis, social networking & bookmarking. At the heart of Web 2.0 is a culture of sharing, interaction, active content creation and continual communication with the online environment. (Web 2.0
European Resource Center, p. 3)
The use of social media in a classroom setting can provide equitable access to multimedia learning

tools that address inclusiveness, from special needs students to acceleration of learning for more capable
students (Miller & Jensen, 2007). Education instructors envision the use of Web 2.0 technologies as
a solution to help “transform education and improve student learning” (Hew & Brush, 2007, p. 224).
Social media can take many forms: blogging, text messages, podcasts, video sharing and video blogs
(vlogs), use of syndicated content through Really Simple Syndication (RSS), creation of personal learning
environments, peer-to-peer learning, collaborative writing and self-publishing (Bayne, 2008; Bjerede,
Atlins, & Dede, 2012; Rovai, 2003, 2007).
To establish effective instruction that uses social media, professors must listen and learn from current
conversations with students and participate in the use of social media to become familiar with students’
needs (Hrastinski & Aghaee, 2012; Linder, 2009; Matthews, 2006).
The demand for personalized learning is not adequately supported by current technology or practices.
The increasing demand for education that is customized to each student’s unique needs is driving the
development of new technologies that provide more learner choice and control and allow for differentiated instruction. It has become clear that one- size-fits-all teaching methods are neither effective nor
acceptable for today’s diverse students. Technology can and should support individual choices about
access to materials and expertise, amount and type of educational content, and methods of teaching. The
biggest barrier to personalized learning, however, is that scientific, data-driven approaches to effectively
facilitate personalization have only recently begun to emerge. (Johnson et al., 2013, p.10)
Communication forms the basic framework of social media (Barnes & Lescault, 2011). For example,
the intention of Facebook and Twitter is to provide a platform for people to connect and share aspects
of their personal life with profile details, text, images and videos (Chu & Meulemans, 2008; Edutopia,
2008). Blogs and YouTube on the other hand are geared towards content sharing with more thought out
ideas and information or videos (George & Dellasaga, 2011). Despite the variations in purpose, what
they have in common is unique communities develop, allowing students to easily communicate with
one another (Gillet, El Helou, Yu, & Salzmann, 2008; Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). Web 2.0
technologies can be used to communicate with students outside of class as well as inside the classroom
to generate class discussions, manage instruction in class, to incorporate students’ work on collective
research projects or even information on course topics (Greenhow, 2011; Long, 2009). Social media can
be used to track a particular concept, keep a journal or for assessment (Griesemer, 2012).
179


The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Social media is essentially a hands-on enterprise, meaning that it is interactive (Hargadon, 2008;
Wheeler, Yoemans, & Wheeler, 2008). Most educational research speculates that active involvement in
instruction increases the likelihood that student performance will increase (Grosseck, 2009; Osbourne,
2011). Interactivity and engagement are both positively correlated to each other and to learning, as students become responsible for their own knowledge building (Li, 2012). When students independently
interact with learning materials, they tend to care more about their individual progress making it more
important for them to succeed (Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011, 2012). “The benefits of social
media to students are plenty: greater engagement, greater interest, students taking more control and
responsibility for their education” (Blankenship, 2011, p. 40).
With social media the students have the opportunity to be actively engaged in their learning while collaborating with classroom peers in their learning (Richardson, 2006). If students are given the occasion to
personally influence their own knowledge attainment in a learning procedure they already know, use, and
enjoy, the potential for meaningful learning dramatically increases (Ratliff, 2011; Seaman & Tinti-Kane,
2013). When students are more engrossed and self-directed in their own learning, they are also more
likely to develop a deeper understanding of the knowledge and skills expected of them (Salmon, 2005).
Over the past few years, one of the leading developments affecting society on a global scale is the rise
in online social networking tools, especially Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogs (Namwar & Rastgoo,
2008; Orphus & Abbitt, 2009; Ratliff, 2011; Smith, 2007). In fact, because its usage has reached such
epic proportions in people’s daily lives, global society is considered to have entered an age of social
media (Barnes & Lescault, 2011; Hargadon, 2008). This is not surprising when social media statistics
are considered (McDermot & Kowalsky, 2011). There are over 1 billion Facebook users’ worldwide
posting material, blogs, links and photos (Scott, 2013). As a result, many educators, both in high school
and in post-secondary institutions, are now commonly adopting and integrating social media in their
instructional design strategies (Hartstein, 2011). When closely examined, it appears that learning benefits
arise from incorporating social media in educational instruction through its ability to enhance collaboration and communication as well as to satisfy the significant need to adequately prepare learners for their
future careers (Hemmi, Bayne, & Land, 2009; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007, 2008).

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Edutopia (2008) suggests integration of social media technologies include “four key components of
learning: active engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connection
to real-world experts” (p. 1). Engagement includes a participative classroom community, communication
facilitated through interactivity and grouping that includes helping other members (Rovai, 2003; Rovai
& Jordan, 2004). Researchers such as Junco, Heiberger, and Loken (2010) contend student engagement
can be increased through social media activities such as blogging (Junco, 2011; Junco, Heiberger &
Loken, 2010; Rovai, 2003, 2007; Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Schirmer, 2011).
Richardson (2006) notes that social media tools provide “vast opportunities to connect and learn
from and with authors, scientists, journalists, explorers, artists, athletes, and many others” but laments
universities are doing little to use these resources (p. 16). Technology, learning in a digital age, is not
going to go away; higher education “must change and adapt” (Lefever & Curant, 2010, p. 36). The
challenge for higher education is to move beyond traditional teaching methods and provide students

180



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

with social media skills and strategies in order to safely take charge of their own learning (Davis, 2007;
Kukulska-Hulme, 2012; Richardson, 2006).
Twenty-four/seven access to digital technologies can facilitate new media for professional learning
through interactive technology (Fullan, 2011; Keengwe, Onchwari & Onchwari, 2009). The use of social
media as educational tools presents professors with the possibilities of using technology means with
students to facilitate access to information for research, creativity and collaboration (Smith & KukulskaHulme, 2012). However, adding social media tools to instruction requires professors to restructure 20th
century pedagogies to leverage 21st century opportunities for learning (Hartstein, 2011; Selwyn & Grant,
2009). For professors and students, once isolated to their own individual classrooms with limited print
resources, social media promotes access, communication, tools for collaboration and analysis, and the
ability to interactively share their knowledge (Blaschke, Porto, & Kurtz, 2010; Junco, 2011; Klein, 2008).
Most academics are not using new technologies for learning and teaching, nor for organizing their own

research. Many researchers have not had training in basic digitally supported teaching techniques, and
most do not participate in the sorts of professional development opportunities that would provide them.
This is due to several factors, including a lack of time and a lack of expectations that they should. Many
think a cultural shift will be required before we see widespread use of more innovative organizational
technology. Some educators are simply apprehensive about working with new technologies, as they fear
the tools and devices have become more of a focus than the learning. Adoption of progressive pedagogies, however, is often enabled through the exploration of emerging technologies, and thus a change in
attitude among academics is imperative. (Johnson et al., 2013, p. 10)
Social media allow professors to expand their messages and listen to what students want (Taylor &
Kent, 2010). Not only is it important that professors communicate to students, but it is important that
the students transmit their needs to professors and administrators (Teclehaimanot & Hickman, 2011;
Wandel, 2008). Access to social media for higher education instructors has also resulted in a change for
education delivery systems (Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011, 2012). Social media permit students
to become more active participants in their learning and explore new learning opportunities (Byrom
& Bingham, 2001; Ellison, Steinfeild, & Lampe, 2007; Jones, Ramanau, Cross & Healing, 2010; Lee
& McLoughlin, 2007; Rambe, 2012). Social media permit students and teachers to have instant access
to news, information, and interactive experiences through computers, tablets, and smartphones (Davis,
2007; Osbourne, 2011; Pettit & Kukulska-Hulme, 2007).
The key concept behind is utilizing social media in higher education instruction is the ability to improve communication within the class, and the voice of each individual student (Edutopia, 2008; Hemmi,
Bayne, & Land, 2009). Social media also provides the benefit of increased collaboration, which can
be applied in many contexts and subjects (Grosseck, 2009). According to the Babson Survey Research
Group, 40% of college and university faculty across the United States use social networks to communicate with students outside of class and 80% use online videos, podcasts, blogs and wikis as collaborative
tools during class (Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011).

181



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

GUIDELINES FOR SOCIAL MEDIA USE

Additionally, administrators and professors need to be well versed in current technologies for professional and student use (Cousin, 2005; Ratliff, 2011). Some universities and colleges have done nothing;
some have very specific rules about what digital and communication technology is permitted and how
and when it can be used (Indiana University, 2013; Salmon, 2005). Other institutions have some variation of the two extremes (Shih & Waugh, 2011). Some higher education institutions are particularly
attuned to social networking and provide detailed guidelines and rules while others are oblivious to
the implications of teachers and students using social networks or the Internet (Grosseck, 2009; Long,
2009; McDermott & Kowalsky, 2011; Nelson, Simek, & Foltin, 2009-2010; Pauwells, 2013a, 2013b).
Additionally, professors have to be vigilant monitors when they are using social media for coursework
with students (McEwan, 2012; Nelson, Simek, & Foltin, 2009-2010).
Social media connections between teachers and students blur the lines of relationships (Bayne, 2005;
Ophus & Abbitt, 2009). Facebook and similar social media sites allow both teachers and students to see
profiles, pictures, and personal information about one another (Copyright Act, 1976; Kirwan & McGuckin 2013). Participation in social media sites is governed by university social media policies, which
provide general guidance (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Child Online Protection Act, 1998; Children’s Internet
Protection Act, 2000; Pauwels, 2013a, 2013b). University guidelines cover issues review confidentiality
of student and teacher data and should detail personal information guidelines and general guidelines for
academic coursework policies using social media (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 1974).
While employees are encouraged to showcase college and university programs through platforms such as
Facebook, university guidelines for social media use need to cover lewd and indecent and inappropriate
conduct, threats, disruption of university programs, and intentional use of malicious or defamatory or
hateful materials (Bayne, 2005; Child Pornography, 1990; Communications Decency Act, 1996; Indiana
University, 2013; Marquis, 2012; Pauwels, 2013a, 2013b).

HARDWARE
Educators and researchers support the need to provide for the appropriate use of technology in classrooms
or other delivery locations (Barnes & Lescault, 2011). However, some university faculty members are
reluctant to use social media when it is not a familiar tool or if they are hesitant to try new learning approaches (National Science Foundation Task Force on Cyberlearning (NSFTFC, 2008). Dede (2011)
suggests the professor has to become skilled in the technology as well as the pedagogy. Training for
professors is needed to ensure that they can use mobile learning technologies (Bayne, 2008; Hemmi,
Bayne, & Land, 2009; Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 2007).
Social networking should be pedagogically relevant (Anagnostopoulou & Parmar, 2008; Gillet, El
Helou, Yu, & Salzman, 2008). There is no reason to employ social media in higher education if there is

not a reasonable expectation that it is being used to further course objectives, learning, or to aid in the
formation of a learning community in support of the course content (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak,
& Peterson, 2010; Ituma, 2011; Marquis, 2012, p. 2).
Higher education institutions vary in the integration of Web 2.0 use (Badge, Conn, & Scott, 2005).
Some instructors are reluctant “to change from extensive existing web-based systems, concerns over
copyright issues and pedagogical arguments against a culture of ‘spoon feeding’ information to students”
182



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

(p. 5). Confidence in use of Web 2.0 pedagogies is also an issue (Junco, 2012; Wilson, 2008). Anagnostopoulou, Parmar, and Priego-Hernandez (2009) reported concerns with appropriate use of Web 2.0
technologies as a barrier to use.
Faculty training still does not acknowledge the fact that digital media literacy continues its rise in
importance as a key skill in every discipline and profession. Despite the widespread agreement on the
importance of digital media literacy, training in the supporting skills and techniques is rare in teacher
education and non-existent in the preparation of faculty. As lecturers and professors begin to realize that
they are limiting their students by not helping them to develop and use digital media literacy skills across
the curriculum, the lack of formal training is being offset through professional development or informal
learning, but we are far from seeing digital media literacy as a norm. This challenge is exacerbated by
the fact that digital literacy is less about tools and more about thinking, and thus skills and standards
based on tools and platforms have proven to be somewhat ephemeral. (Johnson et al., 2013, p. 9)
Without training, there is a possibility of not utilizing the potential of Web 2.0 technologies (Moran,
Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011). Some of these problems arise from a lack of training, some from the attitudes about using the technology, and still others by hardware problems (National Science Foundation
Task Force on Cyberlearning, 2008). Instructors need to be trained to use social media technologies, but
often they are not (Palloff & Pratt, 2000). Instructors should be trained to take advantage of both their
pedagogical training to be able to adapt to the use of Web 2.0 instruction (Salmon, 2005). Instructors
must be trained “not only to use technology, but also to shift the way in which they organize and deliver
material” (Palloff & Pratt, 2000, pg. 3).

BOUNDARIES
Social media use reduces boundaries between university faculty and students and audiences with access to open social media platforms (Matthews, 2006; McEwan, 2012; Valenzulea, Park, & Kee, 2009).
Higher education professors need to be knowledgeable about legal constraints (Cain & Fink, 2010;
Nelson, Simek, & Foltin, 2009-2010). Some schools place restrictions on access to online social media
(Amey, 2010). Universities may have added further restrictions for online access that affect professor
and student access to online technologies (Children’s Internet Protection Act, 2001; Indiana University;
Janoski-Haehle, 2011; Mazer, Murphy & Simmonds, 2007). The use of social media by university professors also provides challenges in addressing issues of student safety and privacy of student and instructor
information and data (Lederer, 2012; Osborne, 2011).
Grosseck (2009) suggests disadvantages for using Web 2.0 technologies include the necessity for a
broadband Internet connection, limited security, establishing a community without rules, and in some
cases, free access to information and sharing information (Miller & Jensen, 2007). Web 2.0 also provides
flexibility of choice for choice of social mediums that use a “low level of complexity” (Grosseck, 2009, p.
480), with the ability to create content, and, for educators, access to increased use of teaching modalities.
Social networking among teachers and students also suggests an increase in perceived intimacy and
the perception that there is nothing wrong with the use of social networking for whatever reason (Amey,
2010; Salmon, 2005). Professors should help to educate users of technology that there is an abundance
of materials available on the web, but few guarantees of the quality of the materials (Baran, Correia, &
183



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Thompson, 2011; Johnson, 2007; Kandari, 2010). So if students search the Internet for information, students should understand the lack of quality controls for materials found on the Internet (Kandari, 2010).
Marquis (2012) and McEwan (2012) suggest part of the responsibilities for professors is to include
responsible use of social media. Smith (2007) speculated that it is the responsibility of the professor to
speak openly to students and to train them to make ethical decisions about social networking, to become
digitally literate (Dede, 2011). Some universities have taken a proactive stance in the use of social media
in classrooms (Kleiner, Thomas & Lewis, 2007; Marquis, 2012). Addressed as professional social media

use, university social media guidelines often detail recommended practices for communication between
employees, as well as between employees and students (Bayne, 2005; Cain & Fink, 2010; Kirwan &
McGuckin, 2013). Professors are expected to review university guidelines for social media use “in order
to maintain a professional and appropriate relationship with students” (Dede, 2011, p. 4). Higher education instructors are responsible for instructing students concerning what they should and should not
do, as well as notifying and explaining to students which social media sites will be used in classrooms
(Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Friesen, 2009; Matthews, 2006).
Privacy issues with social media mean faculty must decide if the use of social media dialogue presents
inappropriate risks that can become controversial and challenging (Castagnera & Lanza, 2010; McEwan,
2012). Legal and ethical issues abound with social media and there are few defining laws that provide
regulations and guidance for teachers and social media use (Cain & Fink, 2010; Nelson, Simek, & Foltin,
2009-2010). In the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is stated,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Social media platforms, the Internet, tablets, and smart phones provide new technologies that have
not been addressed in current laws (Cain & Fink, 2010). What is known is that First Amendment rulings
by the Supreme Court have reflected that employees communicating on behalf of their employer in their
jobs are liable for what they communicate in open forums such as social media platforms (Castagnera
& Lanza, 2010; Kornblum & Marklein, 2006; Ophus & Abbitt, 2009).
Tinti-Kane (2013) points out, “Concerns about cheating and privacy top the list of barriers to adoption, though these concerns — like many of the others cited — are decreasing as time passes and social
media becomes more prevalent” (p.1). Cain and Fink (2010) contend the “central issue in communication
using social media is whether the individual dispatching the message or information had an expectation
of privacy regarding the information” (p. 28).
Because social media was not originally designed for educational use, social media publications are
open to the public and not under the control of the higher education institution and instructor (Bayne,
2005; Cain & Fink, 2010; Korblum & Marklein, 2006). Students should be allowed to choose to participate in social media when instructors choose to use the Internet rather than the institutions Learning
Management System (Bart, 2010).

Legal Constraints
While the use of social media is a popular method for communication among students, some social media tools in universities are “blocked and filtered” (Smith, 2007, para. 1) usually due to concerns with
184


The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

cyberbullying and other inappropriate uses of social media. Social media connections between teachers
and students blur the lines of relationships (Kirwan & McGuckin, 2013; Ophus & Abbitt, 2009). With
social media access to forums such as Facebook, both teachers and students can see information, profiles,
pictures, and communications about one another bringing about issues with professionalism (Copyright
Act, 1776; Tadros, 2011).
Universities are addressing social media use by employees by drawing up university policies regarding
the use of cyberlearning technologies, ethics, and employee and student conduct (Boyd & Ellison, 2007;
Child Online Protection Act, 1998; Children’s Internet Protection Act, 2000; Pauwels, 2013a, 2013b).
Guidelines cover issues with confidentiality of student and teacher data and personal information, use
for academic coursework, and cyber security policies (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Hughes, 2009; Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 1974; Marquis, 2012).
In a closely related area, teachers are now becoming the subject of dismissals and court cases as they
have used social media to post information of a personal nature, which is being interpreted as affecting
their ability to teach students (Bayne, 2005; Cain & Fink, 2010; Consumer Reports, 2012; Ophus &
Abbitt, 2009). Teachers have been asked to resign over comments regarding sexual performance, gender
preference, and photos with alcoholic beverages (Kirwan & McGuckin, 2013; Pauwels, 2013a, 2013b).
Undoubtedly, there will be court cases to determine the right of privacy for teachers as individuals as
compared to their professional responsibilities (Cain & Fink, 2010; Kolowich, 2010; Lederer, 2012;
Siegel+Gale, 2012).
Student privacy is a primary concern; thus, names of students, pictures, and personal information about students should not be allowed when students use online resources (Bayne, 2005; Fogel &
Nehmad, 2009; Hemmi, Bayne, & Land, 2009). Some universities also restrict direct communication
between professors and students on personal media sites (Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechter, & Espinoza,
2008). Student access to social media also has to be bounded by concerns for privacy and protection for
students (Cain & Fink, 2010; Fogel & Nehmad, 2009; Marquis, 2012). Professors must provide training for students in digital citizenship, building knowledge and responsibility for safe technology usage
(Kirwan & McGuckin, 2013; Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007). Issues also arise with responsibility

for respect for others and control over what is published (Sharpe & Benfield, 2005). Responsibility for
participation should be grounded with guidelines about respect for others and appropriate behavior in
social media contexts (Akbulut & Kiyici, 2007; Eberhardt, 2007; Miller, 2009). Additionally, Cain and
Fink (2010) report the need for social media content to be monitored for appropriateness of content.
The authors further report higher education instructors have an obligation, a “duty of due care” (p. 27)
to ensure students are aware that they must abide by established codes of conduct.
Students are producing knowledge and using social media resources to report their knowledge (Kandari,
2010). Issues of plagiarism and originality of student work (Novak, Razzouk, & Johnson, 2012) must
also be delineated by guidelines for appropriate and ethical use of materials found on line (Beetham,
Littlejohn, & McGill, 2010; Beetham & Oliver, 2010). Attribution for authorship of materials used
should be strictly followed through established classroom guidelines (Namwar & Rastoo, 2008). The
ability to “cut and paste” Web materials allows “the possibility of violating the copyright of the author
or owner of the original work” (Cain & Fink, 2010, p. 33). Further, students do not have the ability to
discern quality of information found on the Internet. Information has to be authenticated and verified
for accuracy (Collins & Haaw, 2012; Kandari, 2010; Kandari, 2010; Marquis, 2012).
There are legal and ethical concerns related to social media sites, as well as issues of physical safety,
professionalism, and etiquette (Hanson, 2009; Schroeder, Minocha, & Schneider, 2010). The primary
185



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

concern of social media is that people often provide too much information (Boyd, 2008). Students frequently put information or pictures on their sites regardless of their comfort level (Bullen, Morgan, &
Qayyum, 2011). Educators occasionally use social media just so they appear cool to their students, rather
than for an intended learning purpose (Beyers, 2009). Regardless of the reasons for social networking,
users need to be aware of the permanency, lack of privacy, implications, and repercussions from having
and using a social media website (Barbour & Plough, 2009; Wilson, 2008). Numerous organizations
and individuals have made substantive recommendations concerning procedures to limit social media
misconduct, but none have been widely accepted or implemented (Arnold & Paulus, 2010; Webb, 2009).

Higher education administrators face the dual challenge of evaluating their programs and their effectiveness when communicating with students. As a consequence, administrators are exploring innovative ways
to enhance student engagement with social media (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009).
Rachel Reuben (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012) in her Guide for Professionals in Higher Education
noted the four top concerns of administrators were loss of control, time commitment, information overload, and the openness of programs. However, information must be prudently managed online because
misinformation could cost a student a potential job opportunity and an opportunity to graduate (Iskender
& Akin, 2013). Some of the negative aspects that have been seen with social networking sites include
inappropriate content, cyberbullying, privacy issues, and security problems (Andrejevic, 2005; Gikas
& Grant, 2013).

FURTHER THOUGHTS
The use of social media may not be a panacea, but it is a technique that can change learning in higher
education institutions (Darling-Hammond, Barron, Pearson, Schoenfeld, Stage, Zimmerman, Cervetti,
& Tilson, 2008). Professors and administrators are challenged to use social media as one technique for
increasing cyberlearning and to collaboratively ensure the best learning opportunities for 21st century
students. Social media has some built in concerns, but can be used effectively when coupled with
professional development for professors who incorporate cyberlearning into their classrooms (Smith
& Kukulska-Hulme, 2012). Cyberlearning is the key to current and future learning but social media is
often the force driving the innovation (Blankenship, 2011; Griesemer, 2012; Grosseck, 2009; Hargadon,
2008; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012; Lederer, 2012; Lee & McLoughlin, 2007).

REFERENCES
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory
and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 1(2), 71–80. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
Akbulut, Y., & Kiyici, M. (2007). Instructional use of weblogs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 8(3), 6–15.
Ala-Mutka, K., Broster, D., Cachia, R., Centeno, C., Feijóo, C., Haché, A., . . . Valverde, J. A. (2009).
The impact of social computing on the EU information society and economy. JRC Scientific and Technical Report, EUR 24063 EN. Retrieved from: />
186


The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Needham,
MA: Sloan Consortium; Retrieved from />Amey, G. (2010). Social media and the legal system: Analyzing various responses to using technology
from the jury box. The Journal of the Legal Profession, 111.
Anagnostopoulou, K., & Parmar, D. (2008). Practical guide: Bringing together e-learning & student retention. London, UK: Centre for Learning and Quality Enhancement Middlesex University; Retrieved from
/>%26%20Parmar%2C%202008%29.pdf/48115811/Practical%20Guide%20%28Anagnostopoulou%20
%26%20Parmar%2C%202008%29.pdf
Anagnostopoulou, K., Parmar, D., & Priego-Hernandez, J. (2009). An exploration of perceptions of
learning and e-learning held by students who withdraw and those who persist with UK higher education.
E-Journal of Learning and Teaching, 2(4).
Anderson, T. (2005). Distance learning—Social software’s killer app?Proceedings of the Conference
of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia (ODLAA), Adelaide, South Australia,
University of South Australia.
Andrejevic, M. (2005). The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk, and governance.
Surveillance & Society, 2(4), 479–497.
Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating,
lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80.
Badge, J. L., Cann, A. J., & Scott, J. (2005). e-learning versus e-teaching: Seeing the pedagogic wood
for the technological trees. Bioscience Education, 5(1), 1–11. doi:10.3108/beej.2005.05000007
Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis
of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.610293
Barbour, M., & Plough, C. (2009). Social networking in cyberschooling: Helping to make online learning less isolating. TechTrends, 53(4), 56–60. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0307-5
Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. M. (2011). Social media soars as higher-ed experiments and reevaluates
its use of new communications tools. Retrieved from [REMOVED HYPERLINK FIELD]http://www.
umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/cmr/studiesandresearch/higherEd.pdf
Bart, M. (2010). Social media usage among college faculty. Trends in Higher Education, Faculty Focus.
Retrieved from trends-in-higher-education/social-media-usageamong-college-faculty/

Bayne, S. (2005). Deceit, desire and control: The identities of learners and teachers in cyberspace. In R.
Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Education in cyberspace (pp. 26–41). London: Routledge-Falmer.
Bayne, S. (2008). Higher education as a visual practice: Seeing through the virtual learning environment.
Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 383–394. doi:10.1080/13562510802169665

187



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Beetham, H., Littlejohn, A., & McGill, L. (2010). Beyond competence: digital literacies as knowledge
practices, and implications for learner development. ESRC Seminar Series Literacies for the Digital
University, Seminar Two. Glasgow, Scotland: Glasgow Caledonian University: Literacy in the Digital
University.
Beetham, H., & Oliver, M. (2010). The changing practices of knowledge and learning. In R. Sharpe,
H. Beetham, & S. De Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age (pp. 155–169). New York:
Routledge.
Beyers, R. N. (2009). A five dimensional model for educating the net generation. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 12(4), 218–227.
Bjerede, M., Atlins, K., & Dede, C. (2012). Ubiquitous mobile technologies and the transformation
of schooling. Retrieved from />Blankenship, M. (2011). How social media can and should impact higher education. Education Digest,
2011, 39–42.
Blaschke, L. M., Porto, S., & Kurtz, G. (2010, October 25-27). Assessing the added value of Web 2.0
tools for e-learning: The MDE experience. Proceedings of the European Distance and E-learning Network (EDEN)Research Workshop, Budapest, Hungary.
Booth, M., & Esposito, A. (2011). Mentoring 2.0 – High tech/high touch approaches to foster student
support and development in higher education. In L. A. Wankel & C. Wankel (Eds.), Higher education
administration with social media (Vol. 2, pp. 85-103). London, England: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Boyd, D. M. (2008). Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence, 14(1), 13–20.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. Retrieved from />issue1/boyd.ellison.html doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative social networking sites in
higher educational settings: A case study of the e-Learning benefits of Ning in education. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151–170.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not
the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 1–24.
Buzzetto-More, N. (2012). Understanding social media. In C. Cheal, J. Coughlin, & S. Moore (Eds.),
Transformation in teaching: Social media strategies in higher education (pp. 1–18). Santa Rosa, CA:
Informing Science Press.

188



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching and
learning: Lessons Learned from the SEIRTEC intensive site schools, (2nd ed.). Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina School of Education, Southeast Initiatives Regional Technology on Education
Consortium (SEIR*TEC). Retrieved from />Cain, J., & Fink, J. L. III. (2010). Legal and ethical issues regarding social media and pharmacy education.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(10), 1–8. doi:10.5688/aj7410184 PMID:21436925
Carr, N. (2009). Planning in a media sea change. The American School Board Journal, 196(6), 34–35.
Castagnera, J.O., & Lanza, I.V.J. (2010). Social networking and faculty discipline: A Pennsylvania case
points toward confrontational times, requiring collective bargaining attention. Journal of Collective
Bargaining in the Academy, 2(5). Retrieved from />Chalaby, J. K. (2000). New media, new freedoms, new threats. Gazette: International Journal for Communication Studies, 62(1), 19–29. doi:10.1177/0016549200062001002
Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and
informal learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 1–10.
Child Online Protection Act, 47 USCS 231 (1998).
Child Pornography 18 USC section 1466A (1990).
Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2001, 20 USCS 6301. (2001).

Chu, C., & Meulemans, Y. (2008). The problems and potential of MySpace and Facebook usage in
academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 77. doi:10.1300/J136v13n01_04
Collins, G., & Quan-Haaw, A. (2012, October 26-31). Social media and academic libraries: Current
trends and future challenges. Proceedings of ASIST ‘12, Baltimore, MD, USA. Retrieved from https://
www.asis.org/asist2012/proceedings/Submissions/272.pdf
Communications Decency Act, 47 USCS 230. (1996).
Connell, S.Ruth Sara Connell. (2009). Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach:
A survey of student opinion. Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 25–36. doi:10.1353/pla.0.0036
Consumer reports. (2012). Facebook and your privacy. Retrieved from sumerreports.
org/cro/magazine/2012/06/facebook-your-privacy/index.htm#
Copyright Act, 17 USCS Sections 101 et seq. (1976).
Cousin, G. (2005). Learning from cyberspace. In R. Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Education in Cyberspace
(pp. 117–129). London: Routledge Falmer.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated
learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002

189



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D.,
& Tilson, J. L. et al. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, A. (2007). Rationale for educational blogging. Retrieved from />pedagogy/
DeAndrea, D. C., Ellison, N. B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C., & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social media: On
the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15–23. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.009
Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A. K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1),
83–108. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x

Dede, C. (2011). Reconceptualizing technology to meet the necessity of transformation. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5(1), 4–16. doi:10.3776/joci.2011.v5n1p4-16
Diaz, D. P., & Bontenbal, K. F. (2001). Learner preferences: Developing a learner-centered environment
in the online or mediated classroom. Ed at a Distance, 15(8). Retrieved from />journal/AUG01_Issue/article03.html
Downes, S. (2004). Educational blogging. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 14–26.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2007). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-learning. In
T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 2460–2467). Chesapeake, VA: AACE; Retrieved
from www.editlib.org/index.cfm/files/paper_26726.pdf
Eberhardt, D. M. (2007). Facing up to Facebook. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 12(4), 18–26. doi:10.1002/abc.219
Edutopia. (2008, March 16). Why integrate technology into the curriculum? The reasons are many.
Retrieved from www.eductopia.org/technology-integration-introduction
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), 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Elmannai, W., Odeh, A., & Bach, C. (2013). Academic use of online social networks. International
Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 32, 337–345.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USCS 1232g. (1974).
Ferguson, J., & Tryjankowski, A. M. (2009). Online versus face-to-face learning: Looking at modes
of instruction in Master’s-level courses. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(3), 219–228.
doi:10.1080/03098770903026149
Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust and privacy
concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 153–160. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006

190



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Friesen, N. (2009). Open educational resources: New possibilities for change and sustainability. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5).
Fullan, M. (2011, October). Whole system reform for innovative teaching and learning. Retrieved from

www.itlresearch.com/images/stories/reports/Whole%20System%20Reform%20for%20Innovative%20
Teaching%20and%20Learning.pdf
George, D. R., & Dellasega, C. (2011). Social media in medical education: Two innovative pilot studies. Medical Education, 45(11), 1158–1159. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04124.x PMID:21939449
Gess-Newsome, J., Blocher, M., Clark, J., Menasco, J., & Willis, E. (2003). Technology infused professional development: A framework for development and analysis. Contemporary Issues in Technology
& Teacher Education, 3(3), 324–340.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on
learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002
Gillet, D., El Helou, S., Yu, C. M., & Salzmann, C. (2008, February). Turning Web 2.0 social software
into versatile collaborative learning solutions. Paper presented atThe First International Conference on
Advances in Computer-Human Interaction, Sainte Luce, Martinique. doi:10.1109/ACHI.2008.22
Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, R. (2010). Technology factor: Nine keys to
student achievement and cost-effectiveness. Retrieved from />ProjectREDPreview.pdf
Greenhow, C. (2011). Online social networking and learning. International Journal of Cyber Behavior,
Psychology and Learning, 1(1), 36–50. doi:10.4018/ijcbpl.2011010104
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age
– Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4),
246–259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671
Griesemer, J. A. (2012). Using social media to enhance students’ learning experiences. Quality Approaches in Higher Education, 3(1), 8–12.
Grosseck, G. (2009, January4). To use or not to use Web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia: Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 4780482. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087
Gunter, B., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Williams, P. (2002). Online versus offline research: Implications for evaluating digital media. Aslib Proceedings, 54(4), 229–239. doi:10.1108/00012530210443339
Hanson, J. (2009). Displaced but not replaced: The impact of e-learning on academic identities in higher
education. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(5), 553–564. doi:10.1080/13562510903186774
Hargadon, S. (2008). Web 2.0 is the future of education. Retrieved from vehargadon.
com/2008/03/web-20-is the future of education.html
Hartstein, D. (2011). How schools can use Facebook to build an online community. Retrieved from http://
mashable.com/2011/04/26/facebook-for-schools/

191


The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher
education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19–30. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00306.x
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into k-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development,
55(3), 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Higdon, J., & Topaz, C. (2009). Blogs and wikis as instructional tools. College Teaching, 57(2), 105–109.
doi:10.3200/CTCH.57.2.105-110
Hrastinski, S., & Aghaee, N. M. (2012). How are campus students using social media to support their
studies? An explorative interview study. Education and Information Technologies, 17(4), 451–464.
doi:10.1007/s10639-011-9169-5
Hussain, I., Gulrez, N., & Tahirkheli, S. (2012). Academic use of social media: practices and problems
of university students. Paper presented atInternational Conference on Education and Management Innovation IPEDR (Vol. 30, pp. 189-194). Singapore: IACSIT Press.
Indiana University. (2013, May 2). Social media guidelines for Indiana University. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Communications Department. Retrieved from />Iskender, M., & Akin, A. (2013). Social self-efficacy, academic locus of control, and internet addiction.
Computers & Education, 54(4), 1101–1106. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.014
Ituma, A. (2011). An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 57–68.
doi:10.1177/1469787410387722
Janoski-Haehlen, E. M. (2011). The courts are all a “twitter”: The implications of social media use in
the courts. Valparaiso University Law Review. Valparaiso University. School of Law, 46(1), 43–68.
Jarvis, P. (2000). Globalisation, the learning society and comparative education. Comparative Education,
36(3), 343–355. doi:10.1080/713656613
Jones, C., & Shao, B. (2011). The net generation and digital natives: Implications for higher education.
York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from />Johnson, G. M. (2007). College student internet use: Convenience and amusement. Canadian Journal
of Learning and Technology, 33(1).
Johnson, L., Adams-Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC
Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium; Retrieved

from />Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a
distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2009.09.022

192



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Junco, R. (2012). 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. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2011.08.026
Junco, R. (2011). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities,
and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2010). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and
grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x
Kandari, J. (2010). Information quality on the world wide web: A user perspective. (Doctoral dissertation). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Retrieved from .
edu/imsediss/16
Keengwe, J., Kidd, T. T., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Faculty and technology: Implications for faculty training and technology leadership. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 23–28.
doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9126-2
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Onchwari, J. (2009). Technology and student learning: Towards a learnercentered teaching model. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 17(1),
11–22.
Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024
Kirwan, G., & McGuckin, C. (2013, July). Professional reputation and identity in the online world. International Review of Information Ethics, 19, 41–58. Retrieved from />IRIE-Kirwan-McGuckin.pdf
Klein, J. (2008). Social networking for the K-12 set. Learning and Leading with Technology, 12(5), 1–5.
Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education programs for
initial licensure (NCES 2008–040). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

Kolowich, S. (2010, May 4). Professors and social media. Inside HigherEd. Retrieved from http://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/04/socialmedia
Kornblum, J., & Marklein, M. B. (2006, March 9). What you say online could haunt you. USA Today.
Retrieved from />Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5),
540–563. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0019
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in technology for teaching and learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 247–254. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2011.12.002

193



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

LaRose, R., Kim, J. H., & Peng, W. (2010). Social networking: Addictive, compulsive, problematic, or
just another media habit? In Z. Pappacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity community, and culture
on social network sites (pp. 59–81). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lederer, K. (2012, September 19). Pros and cons of social media in the classroom. Campus Technology.
Retrieved from />Lee, M. J. W., & McLoughlin, C. (2007). Teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 era: Empowering students through learner-generated content. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(10), 21-34.
Retrieved from />Lefever, R., & Currant, B. (2010). How can technology be used to improve the learner experience at
points of transition? Review of peer-reviewed academic literature, national and international resources
within Higher Education Institutions Literature. Bradford, UK: University of Bradford.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview. Pew Internet.
Retrieved from />Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A. R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media. Pew Internet
and American Life Project. Retrieved from />Li, Z. (2012). Application of online multimedia courseware in college English teaching based on constructivism theory. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 197–201. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n3p197
Linder, K. (2009, September 14). Students and social networking: Should you ‘friend’ your students/?
EdTech News and Trends. Retrieved from />students-and-social-networking-should-you-friend-your-students/#sthash.KpNZrpu1.dpuf
Long, C. (2009, June 18). Online social networking for educators: Educators build community and collaboration online. Retrieved from />Marquis, J. (2012, May 5). Applying NYC’s social media guidelines in higher education. Retrieved from
/>Martínez-Alemán, A. M., & Wartman, K. L. (2009). Online social networking on campus: Understanding what matters in student culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mastrodicasa, J., & Metellus, P. (2013). The impact of social media on college students. Journal of College and Character, 14(1), 21–30. doi:10.1515/jcc-2013-0004

Matthews, B. (2006). Do you Facebook? Networking with students online. College & Libraries News,
67(5), 306–307.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simmonds, 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, 36(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/03634520601009710

194



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

McDermott, E., & Kowalsky, M. (2011). From teaching to training: Considering the implications of
social media from school to the workplace.Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (pp. 1478-1480). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
McEwan, B. (2012). Managing boundaries in the Web 2.0 classroom. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 131(131), 15–28. doi:10.1002/tl.20024
McGrail, E. (2005). Teachers, technology, and change: English teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 5–24.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008, November). Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social
software as catalysts for pedagogical change. Proceedings from ASCILITE, November 30-December 3, 2008,
Melbourne. Retrieved from />McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007, December). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings from ASCILITE, December 2-5, 2007, Singapore. Retrieved from />mcloughlin.pdf
Miller, S., & Jensen, L. (2007). Connecting and communicating with student on Facebook. Computers
in Libraries, 27(8), 18–22.
Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2012, October). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and Facebook: How
today’s higher education faculty use social media. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions and Babson
Survey Research Group. Retrieved from />pearson-social-media-survey-2012-color.pdf
Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011). Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today’s higher
education faculty use social media. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Retrieved from http://
www.pearsonlearningsolutions.co/higher-education/social-media-survey.php
Murray, C. (2008). Schools and social networking: Fear or education. Synergy, 6(1), 8–12.
Namwar, Y., & Rastgoo, A. (2008). Weblog as a learning tool in higher education. Turkish Online Journal
of Distance Education, 9, 176–185.

National Science Foundation Task Force on Cyberlearning (NSFTFC). (2008). Fostering learning in
the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. Retrieved from />pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204_1.pdf
Nelson, S., Simek, J., & Foltin, J. (2009-2010). The legal implications of social networking. Regent
University Law Review, 22(1), 1–34.
New Media Consortium Horizon Report. (2013). 2014 Higher education preview. Retrieved from http://
www.nmc.org/pdf/2014-horizon-he-preview.pdf
Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). The educational use of social annotation tools in
higher education: A literature review. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2011.09.002

195



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Ntiri, D. W. (2010). Access to higher education for nontraditional students and minorities in a technologically focused society. Urban Education, 36(1), 129–144. doi:10.1177/0042085901361007
Nyland, R., Marvez, R., & Beck, J. (2007, February). MySpace: Social networking or social isolation?
Paper presented at themidwinter conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Reno, NV.
Oh, E., & Kim, J. (2007). How are universities involved in blended instruction? In G. Richards (Ed.),
Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher
Education 2007 (pp. 6407-6412). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Ophus, J. D., & Abbitt, J. T. (2009). Exploring the potential perceptions of social networking systems
in university courses. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 1–11. PMID:21546994
Osborne, N. (2011, December 20). Using social media in education, part 1: Opportunity, risk, and policy.
Retrieved from />Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2000, October). Making the transition: Helping teachers to teach online.
Paper presented at EDUCAUSE: Thinking it through, Nashville, TN.
Parameswaran, M., & Whinston, A. B. (2007). Social computing: An overview. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 19, 762–780.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2012). Partnership for 21st century skills framework. Retrieved from
/>Pauwels, A. M. (2013a, July 11). Social media and faculty discipline. Wassom.com. Retrieved from
/>Pauwels, A. M. (2013b, June 7). Social media and student speech in colleges and universities. Wassom.Com. Retrieved from />Pettit, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Going with the grain: Mobile devices in practice. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 23(1), 17–33. doi:10.14742/ajet.1271
Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Prensky, M. (2005). Listening to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.
Rambe, P. (2012). Constructive disruptions for effective collaborative learning: Navigating the affordances
of social media for meaningful engagement. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 132-146.
Ratliff, A. (2011). Are they listening? Social media on campuses of higher education. The Journal of
Technology in Student Affairs, 38.
Records, H., Pritchard, J., & Behling, R. (2011). Exploring social media as an electronic tool in the
university classroom. Issues in Information Systems, 12(2), 171–180.

196



The Impact of Social Media on Policy Decisions in International Higher Education

Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
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. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134–140. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002
Rovai, A. P. (2003). The relationships of communicator style, personality-based learning style, and classroom community among online graduate students. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(4), 347–363.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.07.004
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1),
77–88. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community. International Review

of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1–13.
Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation
in higher education institutions. Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 13(3), 201–218.
doi:10.1080/09687760500376439
Schirmer, J. (2011). Fostering meaning and community in writing courses via social media. In C. Wankel (Ed.), Teaching arts and science with the new social media (Vol. 3, pp.15-38). London, England:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/S2044-9968(2011)0000003005
Schneier, B. (2010). A taxonomy of social networking data. IEEE Security and Privacy, 8(4), 88.
doi:10.1109/MSP.2010.118
Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 26(3), 159–174. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00347.x
Scott, M. (2013, October 12). 5 surprising social media statistics for2013. Retrieved from />Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2013, October). Social media for teaching and learning. Boston, MA:
Pearson Learning Solutions and the Babson Survey Research Group.
Selwyn, N., & Grant, L. (2009). Researching the realities of social software use—An introduction.
Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 79–86. doi:10.1080/17439880902921907
Sharpe, R., & Benfield, G. (2005). The student experience of e-learning in higher education: A review
of the literature. Brookes e-Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(3). Retrieved from okes.
ac.uk/vol1/volume1issue3/academic/sharpe_benfield.html
Shih, C., & Waugh, M. (2011). Web 2.0 Tools for learning in higher education: The presence of blogs,
wikis, podcasts, microblogs, Facebook and Ning. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 33453352). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

197