Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269

DOI 10.1007/s10639-015-9444-y

Social teaching: Student perspectives on the inclusion

of social media in higher education

Samantha Cooke 1

Published online: 17 October 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract The traditional teaching methodologies employed within universities, com-

prising of lectures and seminars, have come to be scrutinised for their impersonal
approach. Recently, social media and networking sites have become increasingly
popular as learning and teaching resources in higher education, providing students
with increased opportunities for educational engagement. Whilst research has examined
the effects of including social media in class and whether it assists students in academic
engagement, it remains to be seen whether social media is understood to affect student
attitudes towards their learning experiences. Subsequently, this research endeavours to
understand student perspectives on the inclusion of social media in higher education
and seeks to establish whether the inclusion of social media sites, such as Facebook and
Twitter, can impact on student motivation and goal orientation. Whilst research in this
area is increasing, this paper provides valuable insight into student perspectives on the
inclusion of social media in higher education, whether they believe motivation and
goals to have been affected by it, and the broader reaching consequences of its
inclusions with regard to departmental interaction.

Keywords Social media . goal orientation . motivation . Twitter . Facebook . Higher

education

1 Introduction

This research examines whether the inclusion of social media in higher education has
affected student engagement with the learning process. The primary research question
is thus, ‘has social media in higher education affected student motivation and goal
orientation?’ Subsequent questions which will be addressed include whether students

* Samantha Cooke
s.cooke@surrey.ac.uk

1
Department of Politics, School of Social Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2
7XH, UK
256 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269

have found social media to be a useful tool in their learning experience; whether
motivation to participate in class has been affected by the information provided by
social media; whether they feel more involved in the learning and teaching process; and
whether they believe that their overall learning experience has been improved because
of the incorporation of social media in higher education.
Student responses to these questions will also permit insight to be obtained into how
these technologies can be adopted to serve students and academics in higher education
as both a tool for learning and teaching when aligned with the UK Professional
Standards Framework (UKPSF).1 Whilst the UKPSF pertains to those teaching within
higher education, its application within this research will enable insight into whether
student perceptions of the inclusion of social media correlate with aspects of this
framework. This will serve as supplementary to this research’s initial point of inquiry
which seeks to understand the impact of social media on student motivation.
Subsequently, these correlations will provide insight into the method[s] of implemen-
tation within the department with student responses functioning to indicate its success
of failure.
Through a discussion of the current literature on motivation (Järvelä et al. 2008;
Kolić-Vehovec et al. 2008; Wigfield and Eccles 2000) and goal orientation (Archer and
Scevak 1998; Skaalvik 1997; Wentzel 1991) within education, this research endeavours
to situate social media as an educational tool within the framework of good practice in
undergraduate education (Chickering and Gamson 1987). This research thus seeks to
fill a void in the literature by focusing on student perceptions of social media in
education, and whether its introduction has had positive or negative connotations for
those using it as an educational tool. Positive implications for its introduction refer to
whether it has shaped student’s motivation to complete work to a high standard for
personal gains rather than competing with colleagues. Negative repercussions refer to
the replacement of compulsory readings with forums such as Twitter as a means of
procuring information with minimal effort.
This research will also contribute to current debates pertaining to social media as an
educational instrument by concentrating on the undergraduate population of a single
department in a UK institution. Not only will this provide further insight into debates
surrounding the inclusion of social media in higher education, but it will indicate how
students have responded within a department with an already significant social media
presence.

2 Theoretical discussion: Social media, motivation & goal orientation

The addition of social media to higher education is understood by Collis (1998: 373) to
represent a form of pedagogical re-engineering as it denotes the introduction of a new
educational tool. This re-engineering does not necessarily entail the eradication of the
traditional lecture/seminar structure, what it does achieve however, is a more interactive

1
The UKPSF provides comprehensive standards and guidelines for those working in Higher Education and is
transferable between institutional and individual levels (www.heacademy.ac.uk/professional-recognition/uk-
professional-standards-framework-ukpsf).
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269 257

environment in which learning and teaching can occur, thus echoing the focus of A4,
UKPSF (2011: 3).
A 2011 report by Pearson (Moran et al. 2011: 3) indicated that approximately 90 %
of the American faculties surveyed had adopted social media as both an educational
and professional tool. Their inquiry revealed that around two-thirds used it in class, and
around one third used it to provide students with information. Moreover, more than
40 % had linked it to coursework and 20 % required students to participate in online
discussions; additionally, 80 % used online videos (Moran et al. 2011: 3).
The inclusion of social media is not only recognised as the implementation of a new
educational format and tool, but it is also understood to represent a change in the
student’s position in regard to the educational process. Nicol and McFarlane-Dick
(2006: 199) argue that is a way of empowering students by permitting them to regulate
an aspect of their education, as well as providing them with an increased sense of
responsibility in guiding their education towards the course’s intended learning out-
comes (ILOs).
Social software can have a positive impact on teaching and learning practices
(Grodeka & Wild, 2008, 6 ). New modes of learning and teaching brought into
play through the introduction of social media and software can be seen to have
improved the development of skills such as an increased understanding of a
subject, communication, and reflexive practices through forums such as student
blogs (Du and Wagner 2007). Scholars such as Trentin (2009) argue that wikis are
beneficial for accommodating team work and modification during the course, and
Ellison et al. (2007) indicate that social networking further integrates student’s
into university life (Schroeder et al. 2010: 159). Alternative learning environments
enable students to share ideas more easily (Chickering and Gamson 1987: 4), as
well as providing an alternative to the traditional lecture structure, thus allowing
and recognising diversity in learning techniques amongst individuals (V1, UKPSF
2011: 3; Chickering and Gamson 1987: 5). Despite these benefits, Pearson found
that members of the surveyed faculties disagreed with the potential value of social
media as an educational tool, claiming it has a Bnegative’ value^ (Facebook 53 %;
Twitter 46 %) (Moran et al. 2011: 16); thus raising questions pertaining to student
perspectives on the inclusion of social media as an educational instrument in UK
institutions.
In 2009, University of Texas, Dallas (USA) conducted an experiment examining
social media as educational apparatus. Overall, the experiment was considered suc-
cessful as it resulted in the participation of students who might not have engaged
(Rankin 2009), and an allotted time was provided for students to use Twitter during
class. Whilst this experiment indicated the potential benefit of using social media as a
learning platform, it did not indicate whether students were using Twitter, or other
forms of social media, as a means of engaging with their studies outside of the
classroom.
The adoption of social media as a platform used by both staff and students, can be
understood to assist in the removal of the ‘cold and impersonal study environment’
which is likely to occur when staff and students are uninspired or disengaged from the
educational process (Ulriksen 2009: 517; A4, UKPSF 2011: 3). From this, questions
arose with relation to student motivation and engagement with social media as a
learning platform, and how many participated due to personal interest or used it as a
258 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269

means to an end (see Hess 2008: 368). From this several hypotheses have been
developed for this project:

1. The inclusion of social media will have affected student motivation and achieve-
ment goals
2. Competition amongst students is less important than personal achievement
3. Students have found the inclusion of social media useful in their learning
4. Students feel more involved in the learning and teaching process due to the
inclusion of social media
5. Students feel more motivated to participate in discussions due to the information
provided by social media
6. Student’s believe that social media has improved their learning experience

2.1 Motivation & engagement

Theories of goal orientation and student motivation offer interpretations of motivation

amongst people, primarily students, and how this impacts on assigned activities.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are the two most common occurrences within moti-
vation theory; with the former referring to students ‘doing something because it is
inherently interesting or enjoyable’, and the latter referring to those who do ‘something
because it leads to a separable outcome’ (Deci and Ryan 2000: 55). From this emerges
goal orientation, which provides an understanding of why people complete tasks in a
specific way. It is also important to recognise the perceived ability of an individual when
undertaking a task. This has been stressed by Wigfield and Eccles (2000: 70) who
highlight the difference between ability and expectancy for success; noting that ‘ability
beliefs’ focus on the current task and expectancy concentrates on the future.
Recognising motivational differences amongst students, Chickering and Gamson
(1987) developed seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. They
argue that good practice ‘encourages contacts between students and faculty; develops
reciprocity and cooperation among students; uses active learning techniques; gives
prompt feedback; emphasizes time on task; communicates high expectations; respects
diverse talents and ways of learning’ (Chickering and Gamson 1987: 2). They further
argue that whilst each principle can work independently of the others, when working
collaboratively their effects are proliferated, engaging with ‘six powerful sources in
education’ which relate to ‘activity; cooperation; diversity; expectations; interaction;
responsibility’ (Chickering and Gamson 1987: 3). These principles can be understood
to correlate with areas of the UKPSF, specifically, the development of ‘effective
learning environments and approaches to student support and guidance’ (A4); ‘how
students learn, both generally and within their subject/disciplinary area(s)’ (K3); ‘the
use and value of appropriate learning technologies’ (K4); respecting ‘individual
learners and diverse learning communities’ (V1); and promoting ‘participation in
higher education and equality of opportunity for learners’ (V2) (2011: 3). Chickering
and Ehrmann (1996) also indicated the manner in which these principles can be assisted
through the introduction of technology. This was later supported by Kuh (2009) who
argued that the application of these principles can be understood to impact student
engagement (Junco et al. 2011: 120).
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269 259

When designing modules, student motivation is of great significance due to the main
aim being that of student engagement, thus linking to the design and planning of
‘learning activities and/or programmes of study’, A1 of the UKPSF (2011: 3).
Achievement motivation scholars have sought to understand ‘people’s choice of
achievement tasks, persistence on those tasks, vigor in carrying them out, and perfor-
mance on them’ (Eccles et al. 1998); additionally, value attribution to a subject and or
activity is understood (Wigfield and Eccles 2000: 68) to contribute towards completion
motivation. Moreover, student engagement is believed to be related to the amount of
time and effort students devote to academic tasks, with Kuh (2009) arguing this is
determined by the student’s ‘end goal’.

2.2 Goal orientation

This research defines goal orientation as relating to their desired degree classification,
thus linking to motivation and engagement by each student. Motivational levels are
thus understood to be affected by an individual’s goals, with it being argued that
motivation is ‘the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained’
(Pintrich and Schunk 2002: 5).
Goal orientation theories are understood to provide insight into why individuals
engage with tasks and their chosen approach (Yang et al. 2006: 279). Within goal
orientation theory, there are two principal types, performance and mastery. The
former refers to those preoccupied with public acknowledgement they gain by
performing well, in addition to competitiveness. The latter refers to those seeking
to become proficient in the task, increase their abilities, and further develop their
understanding (Kolić-Vehovec et al. 2008: 109). Within these lie further sub-
variations of goal orientation, with work avoidance being positioned in opposition
to mastery, and performance avoidance being at the opposite end of the perfor-
mance orientation spectrum. The former relates to individuals seeking to invest a
minimal amount of effort into a task and finishing it as soon as possible;
individuals in this category are also usually disinterested in the subject matter
and regard studying or class preparation as pointless. Those in the latter category
are inclined to avoid situations where inabilities or unfavourable judgement may
be highlighted. This is also understood to be another form of work avoidance, and
can be associated with Skaalvik’s (1997) self-enhancing and self-defeating ego
orientations.

3 Methodology

This research was undertaken in the Department of Politics at the University of Surrey
(UoS) due to their prominent social media presence which has gradually increased over
the last few years, and was conducted using its undergraduate population. Initially, the
project sought to limit participants to those enrolled on single honours degrees within
the Department of Politics. However, due to the introduction of new degree
programmes and the increasing number of students enrolled in double honours
programmes or on specific politics run modules as part of their degree, the focus
broadened to the experiences of students enrolled on modules within the Department of
260 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269

Politics. Whilst this substantially increased the amount of time spent collecting and
analysing data, it has provided a more balanced insight into student perceptions.
Due to the subjective nature of the educational process this project has adopted a
mixed-methods approach. Data collection began with the circulation of a voluntary
survey amongst the undergraduate students, with a focus group occurring at a later
stage to supplement the information obtained from the survey. A total of 93 students
were surveyed, with 66 (70 %) responding. In the survey, students were asked to
provide their year, whether they were full time or part time, and degree of study so as to
clarify their duration in the department and whether their experiences may be affected
by the amount of time they spend studying or interactions with other departments. The
survey consisted of 15 close-ended questions, with an additional question pertaining to
whether they will be willing to participate in a focus group.
Questions were clustered around four themes: 1) context of student usage of social
media—which sites they used, how often, and when and why they got their accounts
(Q1-5); 2) experience of social media usage in an academic environment—if they had
experiences with social media being used by lecturers and seminar leaders, which sites
were used the most, how they were made aware of social media usage, and if they
wanted to see an increase in its usage within the department (Q6-8, 13); 3) perceived
impact on learning and teaching experiences—how useful they found social media in
learning, if they felt more included in the learning and teaching process because of
social media, and if social media had improved their learning experience (Q9-10, 12);
4) impact on motivation and goals—if they felt more motivated to participate in
discussions, prepare for class, and motivation for completing assessments (Q11, 14–
15). The final theme was predominantly represented through the inclusion of a Likert
scale (Q14) 2; thus providing insight into student attitudes (Jamieson 2004: 1217)
pertaining to motivation and goals associated with various tasks. For theme 1 and
theme 2, students were asked to tick all the social media they used and experienced in
an academic environment.
Close-ended questions were used as they have proven effective in coding and
analysing responses, however they can lead to bias responses (Schuman and Presser
1979: 692). To overcome this limitation, a focus group was used to provide more
subjective insight and explore student engagement with social media.
Of the 66 (70 %) students who responded to the survey, 30 (45 %) indicated an
interest in participating in the focus group. When approached about arranging the
group, 1 person indicated that they were no longer interested in participating. Student
timetables then became the framework within which availability of students in each
year group was determined. Of those interested in participating, 10 (34 %) indicated
their availability, however, only 4 (40 %) of those who responded to the poll were able
to attend, and the focus groups were merged to form one.3
Despite the low turnout of students at the focus group, those that did participate,
provided an ‘insider perspective’ (Howe 1992: 238) of some student perceptions of
social media as a tool for learning and teaching within the department. Therefore,
2
This scale was developed by Likert in the early 20th century as a means of measuring attitudes within
prominent, intersecting spheres in global politics. See for example Lickert, R. A. (1932) A technique for the
measurement of attitudes Archives of Psychology.
3
A possible reason for such a low turnout from the initial sample of students interested in participating in the
focus group is its proximity to deadlines and timetable clashes for those enrolled in other departments.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269 261

further insight into student experiences with social media within higher education was
provided, enabling a broader picture to be [partially] developed.

4 Data analysis and results4

Survey data was analysed using SPSS and provided descriptive statistical analysis as
the predominant, quantitative component of this research. Information obtained from
the focus group was then used to supplement this data, by providing further insight into
some student perspectives into social media usage within the department. Whilst there
were only 4 participants, and perspectives cannot therefore be completely representa-
tive of the student population, they all play prominent roles in their respective years,
with one of them holding prominent positions within a departmental society and the
student’s union.
Prior to discussing the results, it is beneficial to examine the descriptive statistics
which serve to contextualise participants and their engagement with social media. Of
those who participated 27 (41 %) were first years, 15 (23 %) were second years, and 24
(36 %) were final years, and the mode of study for all respondents was full time. 5
Students were also asked to indicate their degree programme so as to ascertain whether
they were only studying within the politics department or whether they were studying
across departments. From the responses 9 different programmes were listed, 4 of which
were situated solely in the Department of Politics. From this, it is possible to determine
that 51 (77 %)6 of the respondents were only based in the department of politics, whilst
15 (23 %) were enrolled in modules in other departments across the university.
When asked which social media and networking sites they used, 64 (97 %) indicated
that they used Facebook, 48 (73 %) Twitter, 52 (82 %) YouTube, 15 (23 %) LinkedIn, 3
(5 %) Instagram, and 14 (21 %) indicated that they used other sites.7 When asked about
the frequency with which they used these sites, 62 (94 %) indicated daily usage; with
40 (61 %) using them for personal and professional reasons. Respondents were then
asked to indicate when they got their accounts or began using these forums, with 63
(96 %) getting them before university, with the primary reason for 59 (90 %) of them
getting them being friends, followed by personal/professional reasons (33 %), family
(17 %) and academic/professional reasons (17 %). 8 This therefore indicates that
university was not necessarily a determining factor in the acquisition of social media
accounts.
Having established student usage of social media and networking sites and reasons
for obtaining these accounts, the remaining results obtained from the survey and the
focus group will be structured around the previously outlined hypotheses.

4
Percentages which do not accumulate to 100 % are due to 3 % of respondents not answering some questions
following indications that they had no experience of social media in lectures and seminars. Additionally, some
questions permitted more than one answer and have resulted in a total greater than 100 % being evident.
5
Placement students were not included in the survey due to their commitments and potential communication
issues.
6
The student on the politics for exchange student’s programme is included in this category.
7
Respondents indicating that they use Instagram wrote this independent of the given options on the survey. It
is possible that students who responded ‘other’ also use this site.
8
Students were able to provide more than one answer for this question.
262 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269

1) The inclusion of social media will have affected motivation and achievement goals

During the survey students were presented with a Likert scale, with 1 representing
no motivation and 5 indicating high motivation. The first five questions related to
student motivation, the fourth related to mastery goal orientation, and the fifth related to
performance goal orientation. Respondents indicated that they were more intrinsically
motivated with regard to class preparation and participation, with 44 (67 %)9 indicating
3 and 4 on the scale for preparation, and 48 (73 %) indicating the same for participation.
During the focus group, the participants were asked whether they felt more motivated
to prepare for class because of the inclusion of social media, or whether it was viewed
as an alternative. The general consensus was that social media was a ‘supplement’ to
the core reading and that it had not been used as a ‘cop-out’ for the real thing (Student
2); therefore indicating that it had made the focus group participants more intrinsically
motivated with regard to preparation as they were exposed to it outside of an academic
environment (Student 1).
However, when asked whether they believed that the inclusion of social media in
higher education had affected their motivation and achievement goals, 18 (26 %) of
survey respondents believed it had, 31 (48 %) believed it had not, and 17 (26 %) were
indifferent. Focus group participants were later presented with the same Likert scale as
was present in the survey. When asked about motivation to achieve everything to the
best of their abilities, participants indicated that their motivation had increased since
they were at school. However, this increase was not attributed to the inclusion of social
media in higher education, rather it was attributed to their decision to continue
studying, with social media being perceived as an ‘added sort of benefit’ (Student 2).
Student interest can thus be considered a stronger contributing factor in motivation and
goal orientation than the inclusion of social media as a learning tool amongst focus
group participants. Responses from both the survey and the focus group thus indicate
that social media was not perceived to have affected student approaches to the required
work and what they sought to obtain from it.
When asked about goal orientations, motivations and the impact of social media on
these within higher education, focus group participants indicated that the main goal was
that ‘we all want to get out of education with the best grade’ (Student 4). However,
whilst subject interest was emphasised as a contributing factor to motivations and goals
throughout the degree, it was emphasised that this continued into the sub-fields of their
chosen degrees, and interest was therefore also module dependent (Student 3). It was
also stated that because ‘it’s been so widely put out there that first year doesn’t really
count for anything if you’re not taking a placement year’ (Student 2) that work
avoidance was generally prominent until it came to assessments (Student 1 & 2).
This is seen to echo Kuh’s (2009) sentiments that student engagement is believed to
be related to the amount of time and effort devoted to academic tasks. It also correlates
with Wigfield and Eccles (2000: 68) presupposition of value attribution.
It was also said that social media had been both helpful and a ‘hindrance’ with
regard to goals because it acts a distraction in one respect (Student 4), but provided
additional information in another. The internet was then described as a ‘short cut to

9
Responses over 50 % are interpreted as supporting a hypothesis, anything less than that is interpreted as
rejecting it.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269 263

knowledge’ (Student 3) and it was suggested that student’s had become lazier because
information was so readily available (Student 4). However, all the participants agreed
that motivation to complete a degree was driven by the decision to remain in education,
indicating that social media did not necessarily play a prominent role in altering
people’s level of interest. Based on survey responses and perspectives provided by
focus group participants, it is possible to determine that the participating cohort within
the Department of Politics, UoS, do not perceive social media to have played a
prominent role in affecting their motivation and goal orientation towards their work
and what they sought to achieve from its completion.

2) Competition amongst students is less important than personal achievement

The final two categories presented on the Likert scale pertained to performance and
mastery goal orientation, as previously defined by Kolić-Vehovec et al. (2008: 109).
The first of these sets of questions related to completing work to a high level for
personal satisfaction (mastery), with 59 (90 %) indicating 3–5 on the scale. The second
set of questions pertained to completing work to a high standard so as to perform equal
to or better than their colleagues (performance), with 54 (82 %) indicating 3–5 on the
scale. Whilst respondents indicated that personal satisfaction and competition with
colleagues are both important, what is observable is the 8 % differential between them.
This can therefore be interpreted as indicative of personal achievement being consid-
ered more important than competing with colleagues. Once again reinforcing Wigfield
and Eccles (2000: 68) notion of value attribution and activity comprehension in
contributing towards completion motivation.
Despite the high percentage of respondents who indicated that motivation for
completing work to a high standard for competitive reason, the seriousness of this
competitive nature was reduced during the focus group. General consensus
amongst focus group participants was that competition amongst peers does not
even come into it, with light hearted competition being acknowledged as motiva-
tion to achieve better in the next assessment for personal fulfilment rather than
social recognition of performance ability. This therefore indicates that focus group
participants perceived competition to be a more private aspect of work achieve-
ment which subsequently fed into motivation to complete work to a high standard
for personal satisfaction.
Therefore, whilst fewer participants indicated the prominence of completing work to
a high level as a means of competing with colleagues, further expansion of this through
focus group participant perspectives indicates that the two are intertwined.

3) Students have found the inclusion of social media useful in their learning

During the survey students were asked how useful they found the incorporation
of social media in their learning, with 35 (55 %) finding it useful, 5 (9 %) finding
it very useful, 21 (29 %) indicating that they had experienced no difference, and 3
(5 %) believed it was not useful. Expanding on this, focus group participants
agreed that it had proven to be beneficial in assisting them in finding new material
(Student 2), providing background context to certain subjects (student 3),
accessing information on contemporary events (Student 3), and accessing more
264 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269

opinion based sources (Student 2). It was also stated that increased access to
information through social media (primarily Twitter) has been useful in widening
their resource base (Student 1).
It also emerged that 13 (20 %) of survey respondents had experiences with YouTube
for academic purposes in the classroom and externally. Its benefits were further
indicated by focus group participants due to access to documentaries (Student 2).
Moreover, it was posited that it may be beneficial to incorporate it more into the
classroom as a means of providing examples or explaining theories, with it being noted
that it had further incentivised reading (Student 2).

4) Students feel more involved in the learning and teaching process due to the
inclusion of social media

Whilst the majority of respondents indicated that the inclusion of social media
had been beneficial to their learning, fewer felt that it had increased their involve-
ment in the learning and teaching process. In comparison to the 40 (64 %) who
had indicated that it was [very] useful in their learning, only 27 (41 %) of survey
respondents indicated that they felt more included in the process, 8 (12 %) did not,
and 29 (44 %) were indifferent. Respondents were also asked about social media
engagement within their modules. 31 (47 %) respondents indicated that they had
experienced both lecturers and seminar leaders using social media in modules and
5 (8 %) had not experienced this, with 2 (3 %) having only experienced social
media usage with seminar leaders, and 28 (42 %) only having experiences with
lecturers. From this, Twitter emerged as the most prominent social media site used
in modules (85 %), with respondents having less experiences with Facebook
(23 %) and YouTube (20 %). Whilst 27 (41 %) indicated that they did feel more
included in the learning and teaching process, thus reinforcing Nicol and
McFarlane-Dick’s (2006: 199) notion that it empowers students by permitting
them to regulate an aspect of their education; 37 (59 %) indicated indifference
or no. Therefore indicating that in this instance Nicol and McFarlane-Dick’s
(2006: 199) theory can be refuted as the majority of students did not feel more
involved in the learning and teaching process.
Despite the high number of respondents who indicated experiences of social
media being incorporated into modules, focus group participants all agreed that
divergences in staff social media presence resulted in a more uneven experience
between various modules. It was also suggested that if staff presence on social
media was more even and incorporated more into various modules, then it might
result in social media as a tool for learning and teaching being viewed in a more
normative manner. However, experiences with social media and modules, whilst
being understood by focus group participants to have encouraged participation in
various debates and discussions, is not considered to have resulted in a consensus
amongst survey respondents of a more inclusive environment regarding the learn-
ing and teaching process. Subsequently refuting Collis’ (1998: 373) argument that
it indicates the implementation of a new educational tool and implying that it has
not reached enough students, or been implemented in a manner which permits
such an environment to arise. Consequently, in this scenario, A4 of the UKPSF
(2011) has not been completely achieved.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269 265

5) Students feel more motivated to participate in discussions due to the information

provided by social media

Whilst focus group participants indicated that social media encouraged some people
to further participate in debates and discussions, only 30 (46 %) survey respondents
supported this. Rather, 10 (15 %) of respondents indicated that they did not feel more
motivated, and 24 (36 %) were indifferent. This indicates that the information provided
by social media was not considered to have increased student motivation to participate in
discussions, thus indicating that should social media be intended to be a medium through
which student involvement in the learning and teaching process is increased, its use needs
to be further encouraged and integrated into teaching methodologies. It also stands in
contrast to the findings of Rankin’s (2009) Twitter experiment, however, this is poten-
tially due to the structured environment within which Twitter was used in that instance.
Students were then asked how they were made aware of current social media usage
in the department, with 48 (73 %) of respondents indicating that they became aware of
its usage by using it to obtain information on current affairs, 20 (30 %) indicated that it
related directly to weekly topics, 26 (39 %) respondents were made aware of extracur-
ricular events, and 21 (32 %) indicated that they became aware of social media usage as
it provided information about the work of academic staff.
Whilst Twitter and Facebook emerged as the two most prominently used sites
amongst the surveyed population, LinkedIn was also indicated as a used site by
students but not prominently by staff. However, it emerged during the focus group
that participants would consider using it to raise their profiles ‘because it seems more
relevant’ (Student 2) and that it could be beneficial for placements (Student 3).
However, concerns were raised over the use of social networking as a replacement,
describing it as ‘unprofessional’ (Student 1), indicating that more traditional methods of
networking and job applications was preferred by focus group participants. This
concern led to a discussion on whether the use of social media as a means of
communication between the department and students was less personal. The result of
the discussion was that ‘it’s better for engagement’ between students and staff (Student
3) and can be seen to remove some issues of time constraints (Students 1&3); therefore
supporting Chickering and Gamson’s (1987: 2) principles for good practice which
encourage interactions between students and faculty.
Focus group participant’s interpretation of social media as a forum for communica-
tion however, indicates the multifaceted means by which these sites can be used, with
social media sites being more obviously used than specifically social networking sites
such as LinkedIn. It therefore becomes possible to observe how social media was
recognised within the department with regard to the information respondents procured
from it as well as the possibility for increased communications between staff and
students. Despite social media being used as a forum for various forms of communi-
cation, the manner in which it was implemented does not appear to have increased
student involvement in the learning and teaching process.

6) Students believe that social media has improved their learning experience

Survey respondents were also asked whether they believed that the inclusion
of social media had improved their overall learning experience. 37 (55 %)
266 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269

indicated that it had, with 9 (14 %) answering no, and 18 (29 %) being
indifferent. Echoing their perceptions outlined above, focus group participants
postulated that for social media to have improved their overall learning experi-
ence it needed to be integrated into more modules, thus requiring more staff to
actively engage with it (Student 1). It was also suggested that there should be an
increase in module specific hashtags (Student 3), stating that ‘everything needs
to be a bit more pushed’ (Student 2) if it is to be used as an effective and
integrating educational apparatus.
Finally, students were asked if they would like to see an increase in social
media/networking site usage in the department. 38 (58 %) indicated that they
would, 5 (8 %) did not want to see an increase, and 23 (35 %) were indifferent.
However, focus group participants, all of whom had different living arrangements,
10
indicated that the current social media usage had helped integrate them into the
student community, thus supporting Ellison et al.’s (2007) argument that social
networking further integrates students into university life. It was suggested that
whilst some staff actively engage with students on Twitter, it might further assist
with engagement if more staff did this (Student 4), not only to encourage discus-
sions and debates, but also because it ‘makes people more approachable’ (Student
2). When asked about exclusion bias, potentially due to generational differences
amongst students, it was said that ‘it’s not a base of knowledge, it’s more of an
added extra…’ (Student 2); it was also suggested that mature student’s might be
more inclined to follow a more traditional study route, possibly due to experiences
of studying without the internet (Student 2).
The use of social media as part of the educational experience was also under-
stood by focus group participants to further immerse the students in academia as
they are exposed more to lecturer’s specific fields of interest, and this is something
that is not always obvious in the classroom (Student 3). Moreover, social media
has worked as an incentive to do additional reading (Student 3) because it ‘sparks
my interest more’ (Student 1). Social media was also praised for taking students
out of the ‘theoretical bubble’ by putting ‘it into an outside context of just read all
these books’ (Student 2), thus providing examples of practical applications of
theories (Student 3).

5 Conclusions & recommendations

The aim of this research was to gain an understanding of student perspectives on

the inclusion of social media in higher education, focussing specifically on the
perceptions of those enrolled on undergraduate modules in the Department of
Politics, UoS. Findings indicate that whilst all participants had engaged with
social media for social reasons, and a vast majority had experienced it within an
educational context, almost half of the survey respondents did not believe that the
inclusion of social media in higher education had affected their motivation or
achievement goals.

10
One student resided on campus, two in town, and one had remained at home with parents.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269 267

The findings also support 3 of the 6 hypotheses outlined earlier. The research thus
indicates that within the context of the undergraduate population of the Department of
Politics, UoS, that:

1) Completing work to a high standard for competitive reasons is less important than
completing it to a high standard for personal satisfaction, thus indicating that the
majority of students fell into the mastery aspect of Kolić-Vehovec et al.’s (2008:
109) goal orientation theory. However, it was still considered to be highly impor-
tant amongst students, with focus group participants indicating that it served to
reinforce completion to a high standard for personal satisfaction rather than
replacing it.
2) Students have found the inclusion of social media useful in their learning.
However, it emerged that it benefit emerged from its role as a supplementary tool
rather than as a predominant teaching methodology.
3) Students believe that the inclusion of social media had improved their learning
experience. This was noted in the focus group however, to be due to more direct
access to additional sources, thus reinforcing the previous notion of social media
being a suitable supplementary tool.

In addition to this, the remaining 3 hypotheses were rejected and thus indicate that
different approaches should be considered in the adoption of social media in higher
education. Findings show that:

4) Student motivations and goals have not been affected overall by the inclusion of
social media. This indicates that social media is potentially not as prominent
educationally as it might be. Additionally, as evidenced by reference to the focus
group earlier, motivations and goal orientations could be determined more by the
voluntary nature of university education, and is thus determined more by interest.
However, evidence that it has affected motivation at a lower level is provided by
some focus group participants who indicate that it has motivated them to read more
broadly on subjects.
5) Students do not feel more involved in the learning and teaching process due to the
inclusion of social media. This indicates that there is still an absence in transpar-
ency between staff and students. However, introducing social media into tradition-
al teaching methodologies could delay a change in perception due to the contin-
uation of a more traditional learning environment.
6) Students do not feel more motivated to participate in discussions due to the
information provided by social media. Whilst some students indicated that they
felt more motivated as a result of information obtained from social media, the
argument outlined above regarding new methodologies in the same environment
can also be applied here.

From the above analysis, social media can be understood to represent an

important educational instrument. It provides a forum within which students are
able to engage with the subject matter further (A5), access relevant material (K1),
work in an interactive and dynamic learning environment (A4) which also recog-
nises different learning methodologies amongst individuals (V1) and, provides a
268 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269

new means by which students are able to engage with the learning process, thus
promoting participation (V2) (UKPSF 2011: 3).
It can also be understood to have created an environment in which ideas are shared
more easily, communicates high expectations due to the potential additional informa-
tion has on the quality of discussions, and provides a learning environment for students
engaged with social media as well as those who may not be comfortable voacalising
their thoughts in class, thus relating to Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven princi-
ples. From the responses outlined above, it can also be determined that social media is
an appropriate learning technology (K4, UKPSF 2011: 3) when properly utilised by
both staff and students, however, in its current format, its role appears supplementary to
more traditional methodologies.
From this it can be determined that the incorporation of social media into higher
education as an educational instrument can be seen to have had an impact on student
motivation and goal orientation in the sense that it provides them with more accessible
information; however, student perceptions indicate that it can result in a more laissez-
faire approach to class preparation. Moreover, focus group participants did not advocate
the compulsory inclusion of social media into learning, rather, they indicated that there
should be an option for all modules. Should it become a compulsory aspect of the
learning process, it was feared that social media risked losing its appeal and being
viewed through the same lens as weekly readings rather than as an added benefit should
students seek to engage with it. Therefore indicating that the ‘social’ aspect remained
prominent in social media when utilised within an educational context. This suggests
that whilst it is understood to have been useful in some respects and beneficial to the
overall learning experience, more needs to be done to fully integrate social media as a
tool for learning and teaching.
What remains to be seen however, is whether there are specific correlations
between perceptions of the various impacts social media could have and specific
modules. Moreover, further insight into specific aspects of learning experiences
and how social media impacted them would assist in futher understanding how its
inclusion can be considered beneficial or detrimental to students. Correlations
between departments and universities could also prove beneficial with regard to
their already existing online media presence to potentially establish whether
student perceptions on the impact of social media in higher education are reflected
in the prominence or absence of social media within the broader department. This
therefore requires further research into other existing variables which could po-
tentially impact upon student perceptions of the inclusion of social media in
higher education.

References

Archer, J., & Scevak, J. J. (1998). Enhancing Students’ Motivation to Learn : achievement goals in university
classrooms Enhancing Students’ Motivation to Learn : achievement goals in university class. Educational
Psychology, 18(2), 205–223.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: technology as a lever. AAHE
Bulletin, 49, 3–6.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.
AAHE Bulletin, 3, 3–7.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:255–269 269

Collis, B. (1998). New didactics for university instruction: why and how? Computers & Education, 31, 373–
393.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Du, H. S., & Wagner, C. (2007). Learning with weblogs: enhancing cognitive and social knowledge
construction. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 1–16.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Damon, W. & Eisenberg
(Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology Volume 3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development 5th ed.,
(pp. 1017–1095). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook Bfriends^: social capital and
college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12,
1143–1168.
Grodeka, K. & Wild, F. (2008). Introduction In Grodeka, K. Wild, F. & Kieslinger, B. (Eds.), How to use
Social Software in Higher Education, Wydawnicto Naukowe Akapit, 6. Retrieved from: http://www.
icamp.eu/. Accessed 13 Oct 2015.
Hess, G. (2008). Collaborative course design: not my course, not their course, but our course. Washburn Law
Journal, 47(2), 367–387.
Howe, K. R. (1992). Getting over the quantitative- qualitative debate. American Journal of Education, 100(2),
236–256.
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1212–1218.
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially
shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 122–135.
Junco, R., Heilbergert, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and
grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132.
Kolić-Vehovec, S., Rončević, B., & Bajšanski, I. (2008). Motivational Components of self-regulated learning
and reading strategy use in university students: The role of goal orientation patterns. Learning and
Individual Differences, 18, 108–113.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of
College Student Development, 50, 683–706.
Likert, R. A. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitdues. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011). Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today’s higher
education faculty use social media, Pearson Learning Solutions & Babson Survey Research Group,
Boston.
Nicol, D. J., & McFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and
seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.).
New Jersey: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Rankin, M. (2009). Some general comments on the BTwitter Experiment.^ Retrieved from http://www.
utdallas.edu/~mrankin/usweb/twitterconclusions.htm. Accessed 13 Oct 2015.
Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneidert, 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, 159–174.
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1979). The open and closed question. American Sociological Review, 44, 692–
792.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: relations with task and avoidance
orientation, achievments, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 71–81.
The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education. (2011).
Higher Education Academy, Guild HE, Universities UK. Retrieved from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
recognition-accreditation/uk-professional-standards-framework-ukpsf. Accessed 13 Oct 2015.
Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 43–55.
Ulriksen, L. (2009). The implied student. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 517–532.
Wentzel, K. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: motivation and achievement in context. Advances in
Motivation and Achievement, 7, 185–212.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Yang, C.-C., Tsai, I.-C., Kim, B., Cho, M.-H., & Laffey, J. M. (2006). Exploring the relationships between
students’ academic motvation and social ability in online learning environments. Internet and Higher
Education, 9, 227–286.