honours project

Incorporating Social networking in Higher Education to Enhance Learning

A dissertation submitted in [partial] fulfilment

of the requirements for the Honours degree in Information Systems in the Faculty of Eco-

nomic and Management Sciences

of the University of the Western Cape

by

Thulisile Joyi

Supervisor: Ms Petersen

Degree of confidentiality None Month year

i

Declaration

Hereby I, Thulisile Joyi, declare that incorporating social networking in higher education to

enhance learning is my own original work and that all sources have been accurately reported

and acknowledged, and that this document has not previously in its entirety or in part been

submitted at any university in order to obtain an academic qualification.

Thulisile Joyi 29 November 2013

ii

Incorporating social networking in higher education to enhance learning

Thulisile Joyi

Key words

Facebook

Learning

Higher education

Higher education institutions

Social networking

Social network sites

Social networking tools

iii

Abstract

Social networking tools particularly Facebook have potential to enhance learning. However,

higher education institutions have not yet realized the benefits of social networking as they

have not yet taken full advantage of the opportunities presented by social networking tools

such as Facebook by making best use of all Facebook features. This study is aimed at invest-

igating the impact of Facebook social network site in learning of higher education. In this re-

gard a qualitative case study is conducted. 20 participants from the Economic and Manage-

ment Sciences faculty, in Information Systems department were interviewed with the intent to

discover the role of Facebook in higher education.

The dissertation presents educational benefits of Facebook including its challenges.

Moreover, the study also examine Facebook use in higher education would enhance learning

or not. Results are discussed in relation to prior studies and based on these results, recom-

mendations for future research are provided. Lastly, the study concludes by indicating that

Facebook is for use in learning practices of higher education.

Key words: Facebook, higher education, higher education institutions, learning, social net-

working tools.

iv

CONTENTS

INCORPORATING SOCIAL NETWORKING IN HIGHER EDUCATION TO ENHANCE LEARNING III

KEY WORDS III

ABSTRACT IV

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 2

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 2

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 2

1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS 2

1.6 ABBREVIATIONS 4

1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 5

2 LITERATURE STUDY 8

2.1 INTRODUCTION 8

2.2 LITERATURE SEARCH 9

2.3 SOCIAL NETWORKING OVERVIEW 9

2.4 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL NETWORKING 10

3 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 25

3.1 INTRODUCTION 25

3.2 RESEARCH METHOD 25

3.3 THE POPULATION AND SAMPLING 26

3.4 INSTRUMENT 26

3.5 DATA COLLECTION 27

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS 27

3.8 LIMITATIONS 28

3.9 SUMMARY 28

4 EMPIRICAL RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 30

4.1 INTRODUCTION 30

4.2 CREDIBILITY 30

4.3 RESULTS 31

4.4 FINDINGS 34

4.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 36

4.6 SUMMARY 37

v

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 38

5.1 INTRODUCTION 38

5.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM 38

5.3 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS 38

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 39

5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 39

5.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS 40

6 APPENDICES 41

6.1 APPENDIX 1 41

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 42

vi

Acknowledgements/Dedication

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to each and every individual who have played a role in the success of this study. I thank Ms Petersen for all the support she provided throughout the duration of this study, without her I would not have made it. I cannot leave my research colleagues whom I was struggling with. They were really brothers and sister to me. The support they provided is immeasurable. The participants have also played a significant role to the success of this study; they ensured that I had the data needed in order to complete the study.

vii

CHAPTER 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Due to innovations in web technology (Gunawardena et al. 2009) which resulted to new

means for receiving and exchanging knowledge (Ayiah & Kumah 2011) a new communica-

tion technology known as social networking has emerged (Bosch 2009; Eteokleous et al.

2012; Gunawardena et al. 2009; Lazier 2010; Shambare et al. 2012). Now, millions of people

all over the world are participating in social media and social networking (Lazier 2010) and

the phenomenon, particularly Facebook has recently become a central subject in higher edu-

cation with authors investigating its potential use in educational activities, the purposes, per-

ceptions, habits and uses of SNSs by students.

Therefore on that note, this study investigates the impact of Facebook social network site in

higher education, with particular reference to its use as a tool to enhance learning.

1.1 BACKGROUND

In this learning landscape, it is essential to reconsider the methods of teaching and learning in

order to substitute outdated closed classroom methods, which place emphasis on the delivery

of information by lecturers and a textbook rather than being learner-centric (Mcloughlin &

Lee 2008). According to Petrović et al. (2012), lecturers must think of ways to meet the needs

of their students by making use of Web 2.0 and other social networking tools. Hence as learn-

ing is a social activity it is one such area which can significantly benefit from the use of so-

cial networking (Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate social

networking tools in education (Petrović et al. 2012).

According to McLoughlin and Lee (2007), Web 2.0 tools such as SNSs, wikis, blogs and

peer-to-peer media sharing utilities exude an ability to address the diverse needs of modern

students in a way that can improve their educational experiences through customization, per-

sonalization, networking and collaboration. For instance, Petrović, et al. (2012) suggest that

Facebook can enable teachers to provide learning outcomes that are helpful in various fields

through applying different methods of teaching in a way that inspires creativity and critical

thinking in order to serve the best interests of students.

In addition, social networking also affords students and lecturers an opportunity to foster the

student-lecturer relationship, which could eventually create a positive learning experience for

both parties (Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012).

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

According to previous research (Mcloughlin & Lee 2007a; Shambare & Mvula 2011;

Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012) social networking tools such as Facebook can enhance learning.

As a result, a recent study by Lazier (2010) indicates that higher education institutions in

United States (US) have started to embrace social media tools. Similarly to US higher educa-

tion institutions, institutions of higher education in South Africa are also taking note of this

trend as they too are starting to embrace these tools (see for example, Nelson Mandela Metro-

politan University 2013; University of the Western Cape 2013; University of Cape Town

2013; Stellenbosch University 2013; Witwatersrand University 2013; University of Johannes-

burg 2011). However, as noted by No and Spraggon (2011) higher education institutions are

not fully utilizing the opportunities presented by these tools. The author argues that higher

education institutions make inadequate use of the features of social networking tools as most

of their Facebook pages, for instance, are similar.

While Reuben (2009:3) cited in Lazier (2010:11) for instance, identify the following as

primary features of Facebook:

Status updates;

Networks;

Personal profiles;

Groups;

Applications; and

Fan pages.

Universities on the other hand, mostly use the following three features:

Status updates;

Networks; and

Personal profiles (see for example, University of the Western Cape 2013; University

of Cape Town 2013; Stellenbosch University 2013; Witwatersrand University 2013).

For instance, the personal profile feature is used for creating a profile for the university as

Hew (2011) identified this feature as the most basic in order for one to be able to use Face-

book. The network profile, on the other hand is used for connecting with the campus com-

munity and prospective students, as Schroeder et al. (2010) and Ellison et al. (2007) claim

that SNSs enable individuals to strengthen their existing relations and form new ones. The

University of the Western Cape, UWC in short for instance, has a LinkedIn account for

alumni, and the page is called University of the Western Cape (UWC Alumni). Lastly, is the

status update feature which is used as means for transmitting announcements, and updates on

the latest campus news and events. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the

impact of social networking tools such as Facebook in learning of higher education.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The primary research question of this study is: How do Facebook enhance learning?

In addition to the primary question, the following questions are included:

Does Facebook enhance learning in terms of encouraging interaction between stu-

dents and lecturers?

Does Facebook enhance learning in terms of encouraging collaboration between stu-

dents?

What are the potential challenges that Facebook-supported learning present to higher

education?

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This study is aimed at investigating the impact of social networking in learning of higher edu-

cation. In this regard the study tends to narrow its focus to Facebook social network site

(SNS) and its role in education. The main objectives of the study are:

To explore whether or not Facebook enhances learning.

To investigate whether or not Facebook has an effect in learning of higher education.

To investigate whether or not Facebook use in learning benefits students and lectur-

ers.

1.4.1 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

The study is developed on the basis to warn higher education decision-makers, higher educa-

tion institutions and lecturers about the opportunities of social networking in education.

1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS

The terms used in this study are defined to enable readers who are not familiar with them to

have an understanding.

1.5.1 Computer-mediated communication

According to Jonassen et al. (1995: 7), “computer-mediated communication refers to the use

of networks of computers to facilitate interaction between spatially separated learners; these

technologies include electronic mail, computer conferencing, and on-line databases. The most

prominent applications of CMC -computer conferencing and electronic mail- support sophist-

icated real-time or delayed group communication”.

1.5.2 Communities of practice

Communities of practice are groups of people who have mutual goals, a set of problems, or a

passion about a topic in which they intensify their knowledge and expertise on it by interact-

ing on a regular basis (Gunawardena et al. 2009; Moule 2006).

1.5.3 e-Teaching

According to Kent (2004), e-Teaching is a Learning Management System (LMS) which en-

tails the use of ICTs in order to improve the quality of teaching.

1.5.4 Facebook

Lazier (2010) refers to Facebook as a social utility (Lazier 2010) whose mission is to connect

the world by allowing users freedom to connect and share information, ideas, pictures, etc.,

regardless of geographical boundaries (Facebook 2013).

1.5.5 Higher education

According to Council on Higher Education (2013) , “higher education' means all learning

programmes which lead to qualifications which meet the requirements of the Higher Educa-

tion Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF), which is a sub-framework of the National

Qualifications Framework as contemplated in the South African Qualifications Authority

Act, 1995 (Act No. 58 of 1995)”.

1.5.6 Learning Management System

A Learning Management System (LMS) refers to an information system that manages both e-

learning courses and courses provided by lecturers and also monitors student progress

(Brown & Johnson 2007).

1.5.7 Social networking

According to Cinman (2008: 49) cited in Lazier (2010:10) “social media, social networking

and Web 2.0 are different ways of referring to the same phenomenon: the Web as more than

just information sharing, as a collaborative, interactive environment, which extends relation-

ships we have with one another, and where we can have them”. In addition, it is an activity of

cumulating knowledge by making connections with individuals of similar interests (Gu-

nawardena et al. 2009) through hooking up and engaging in online environments including

but not limited to Facebook, Google plus, LinkedIn and MySpace (Barczyk et al. 2011).

1.5.1 Social network sites

Social network sites refer to web-based services that enable people to (1) create an unrestric-

ted or semi-unrestricted profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users

with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and navigate their list of connections and

those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections

may vary from site to site (Ellison 2008).

1.5.2 Social networking tools

Social networking tools allow users to create a reasonably accurate and dynamic information

space in which content and applications can be stored that may span a wide spectrum inclu-

sive of email, pictures, journal entries, music, video, contacts, calendar, spreadsheets, book-

marks, chat transcripts, location information, and work-related content (Schlenkrich & Sewry

2012).

1.5.3 Web 2.0 tools

According to (Price 2006; Richardson 2006) cited in McLoughlin and Lee (2007: 665), Web

2.0 is ‘Read-Write Web’ because it goes beyond the provision of viewable or downloadable

content to enabling members of the general public to actively contribute and shape the con-

tent.

1.6 ABBREVIATIONS

CoP: Communities of Practice

EMS faculty: Economic and Management Sciences faculty

HE: Higher Education

HEI: Higher Education Institution

IFS 231/233: Information Systems 231/233

IS department: Information System department

LMS: Learning Management System

SNS(s): Social network site(s)

UWC: University of the Western Cape

1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

If social networking tools such as Facebook are effective tools that can enhance learning in

higher education, this study provides insights and expands the knowledge-base of decision-

makers about the opportunities of social networking for higher education. The findings might

be helpful to decision-makers when formulating learning strategies in the future. If the find-

ings of the study indicate that Facebook does enhance learning, the decision-makers should

advocate for the incorporation of Facebook in higher education curriculum. Data from the

study should also help higher education institutions to best utilize the opportunities brought

by social networking tools by means of fostering more effective learning environments using

these tools.

1.8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Having discussed the objectives and research questions as well as motivated the rationale of

the study, the research methodology is discussed. The study used both primary and secondary

data sources for data collection. First the researcher conducted a review of relevant literature

to provide context and insight to the study. During the review of literature the researcher con-

sulted academic papers, journals, conference proceedings’ papers, unpublished papers and

websites. When searching for literature key word search was used and sources including EB-

SCO Host Web, Google Scholar, Google search engine and Flipora search engine were con-

sulted.

Second, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews. Twenty people including un-

dergraduate and postgraduate lecturers, a tutor and students were interviewed.

1.9 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The current study is limited to the University of the Western Cape in South Africa;

therefore the findings cannot be generalized beyond the specific population from

which the sample was drawn.

Due to the small sample of the study, the data presented could have missing links.

The study is also limited to Facebook social network site.

Due to complications experienced with Atlas. ti qualitative data analysis software, the

data was analysed using an Ms Excel spreadsheet.

1.10 LAYOUT OF THE DISSERTATION

This study consists of five chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction, this chapter provides context to the study and define research ob-

jectives. This chapter also entails the research questions as well as definition of terms abbre-

viations to provide basic understanding of the terms and abbreviations used in the study.

Chapter 2: Literature study, this study provides a basic introduction to the literature and also

a brief discussion of how the literature was searched. Most importantly, this chapter provides

detail of social networking by providing a brief overview of social networking, definition of

social networking, discussion of Facebook as this study’s focus is narrowed to this SNS, edu-

cational benefits of Facebook, challenges with Facebook, legal guidelines for using Facebook

in class and also successful factors for using Facebook in higher education, as well as Com-

munities of Practice, a framework for using social networking in higher education..

Chapter 3: Empirical research design, in this chapter, the empirical research design and

method are defined. This chapter further discusses the population under investigation and the

sampling procedures used to select the participants of the study. Also, the chapter discusses

the instrument used to collect data, how the data was collected, the analysis of data, ethical

principles the researcher adhered to when collecting data as well as limitations of the study.

Chapter 4: Empirical results, analysis and interpretation of data, in this chapter the credibil-

ity of the study are briefly discussed and the results of the study are presented. Responses to

the questions are grouped in themes and are individually interpreted from the data presented.

Furthermore, findings and discussion are presented as well as implications for higher educa-

tion.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations, this chapter restates the problem statement,

discusses the findings in light of the literature study, as well as findings which answered the

research questions. In addition, this chapter also provides recommendations and recommend-

ations for the future including concluding remarks.

1.11 SUMMARY

This chapter provided insight to this study. The introduction to the study was presented, fol-

lowed by the background, a part which puts context to the given problem. The problem to-

gether with research questions under investigation was presented. What the study intended to

achieve, i.e. research objectives was discussed in this chapter. Also, in order to ensure that the

reader understands the contents of the study fully the terms and abbreviations used are

defined. The study concluded by presenting the structure the dissertation followed.

The next chapter presents a review of relevant literature to this study. It provides detail into

social networking phenomenon.

CHAPTER 2

2 LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Recently social networking, particularly Facebook has become a central subject for higher

education, such that several empirical studies have been conducted to examine the potential

opportunities and challenges presented by these tools for higher education. For example,

(Bosch 2009; Pollara 2011; Tiryakioglu 2011; Yunus & Salehi 2012a; Barczyk et al. 2011)

investigated the use of social network sites (SNSs) as educational tools. Hew 2011; Hurt et al.

2012; Irwin et al. 2012; Shambare et al. 2012; Shambare and Mvula 2011, on the other hand,

investigated the purposes, perceptions, habits and uses of SNSs by students. Lastly, Schlen-

krich and Sewry (2012) proposed factors for successful use of SNSs in higher education.

While Jalal and Zaidieh (2012) study discusses the challenges and opportunities presented by

SNSs for higher education.

Moreover, in spite of the pervasiveness of social networking in higher educational context, the

literature said little about this phenomenon (Bosch 2009; Shambare & Mvula 2011) in devel-

oping countries like South Africa (Shambare & Mvula 2011). Therefore, further research still

needs to be conducted on this phenomenon. In addition, a study which investigated the impact

of social networking tools such as Facebook in learning of higher education has not been

found as far too much attention has been given into using them as educational tools (see for

example, Barczyk et al. 2011; Bosch 2009; Pollara 2011; Tiryakioglu 2011; Yunus & Salehi

2012) and students perceptions of these applications (see for example, Hurt et al. 2012, Irwin

et al. 2012; Souleles 2012).

The dissertation is focused on investigating the impact of social networking in learning of

higher education in the context of South Africa, in particular Facebook SNS. Hence, a review

of relevant literature was conducted (Joseph 2011) to build a firm theoretical foundation

(Levy & Ellis 2006) for the study under investigation. In this regard it is highly important to

provide a brief overview of the concept of social networking as well as the definition of the

concept. As this study is narrowed to Facebook SNS this section further discusses the site, its

educational benefits, challenges, guidelines for using Facebook in class and also successful

factors for using Facebook in higher education as well as presents a framework for using so-

cial networking tools in higher educational context. Also, a conclusion is provided at the end

of the literature.

2.2 LITERATURE SEARCH

The researcher used a key word search when searching for relevant literature to the current

study through search mediums such as EBSCO host Web, Google Scholar, Google search en-

gine and Flipora search engine. The researcher made use of keywords such as social network-

ing/ or media in higher education to search for literature relevant to the current study. Sources

consulted in the process of conducting this review include academic papers, journals, confer-

ence proceedings papers, unpublished papers, and websites. Such a broad coverage of facts

contained on these sources provides profound insights to this study.

2.3 SOCIAL NETWORKING OVERVIEW

Innovations in web technology from first web generation (Web 1.0) to second web generation

(Web 2.0) has greatly influenced people’s behavioural patterns, interaction patterns, know-

ledge seeking and acquisition patterns (Gunawardena et al. 2009). Ayiah and Kumah (2011)

argue that these innovations have resulted to more pleasant and fun environments for receiv-

ing and exchanging knowledge. For instance, several studies (Bosch 2009; Eteokleous et al.

2012; Gunawardena et al. 2009; Lazier 2010; Shambare et al. 2012) suggest that innovations

in the web resulted to the emergent of communication technologies, which among others are

social network sites.

For instance, in her study, Lazier (2010) argue that the first web generation (Web 1.0) was de-

signed in a way that restricted user’s contribution to the website, users were forced to only

consume owner-generated content made available to them via the web, but that changed with

the evolution of the second web generation (Web 2.0), now users are able to make their con-

tributions to the website by means of posting comments, sharing information and engaging in

conversations with others. Hence web users in Web 2.0 era are “active consumers” of inform-

ation due to their active involvement in the process of generating it. Therefore, such informa-

tion can be referred as user-generated content.

Recently, due to innovations in the web, a new trend of communication technologies, which is

social networking, has emerged and it has created new ways in which people facilitate com-

munication and learning activities. Social networking offers people with common interests

and principles the opportunity to effectively connect and share views and information over the

Internet (Lazier 2010)and it is facilitated through social network sites such as Facebook, Twit-

ter, YouTube, LinkedIn, Google plus and many others. As a result, due to innovations in web

technology SNSs are increasingly becoming ubiquitous online (Muñoz & Towner 2009a).

According to Lazier (2010), millions of people all over the world are participating in social

media and social networking. Statistics by Nielsen Company indicate that people all over the

world people spend 110 billion minutes on social network sites and 75% of them visit social

media sites (Akyildiz & Argan 2011). Uri and Sawyer (2011) claim that social networking

tools provide a platform which enables all people from all corners of the world to communic-

ate, exchange messages, share information, and interact with each other irrespective of the

distance that separates them.

According to Schlenkrich and Sewry (2012), SNSs provide people with opportunities to share

personal experiences, share their stresses, offer their insights on social issues and express

themselves in a secured environment. They also encourage a development of communities of

practice among individuals (Brady et al. 2010) as they enable them to locate knowledge, share

content and collaborate to create content, and also enabling knowledge workers to form net-

works that extend beyond their scope of their professional relationships (Schlenkrich & Sewry

2012). Hence, Bosch (2009) posits that these tools enable users to participate in various mi-

cro-communities. SNSs enable people to strengthen their existing relations, while forming

new ones (Ellison et al. 2007; Schroeder et al. 2010).

For instance, Facebook enable people to connect. As a result, individuals use Facebook to

maintain their old social networks while allowing formation of new ones (Bosch 2009).

Therefore, people use Facebook for networking purposes (Bosch 2009). In addition, social

networking tools like blogs, and other related technologies enable effective project manage-

ment because they unite people who are separated by time or distance and thereby making the

communication process among team members easy by transferring the control of communica-

tions into the hands of its participants in so much that project heads become able to continu-

ally update team members about the project news and progress, as well as monitor feedback

from comments posted on the site (Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012).

Again, SNSs such as Facebook enable users to supervise one another as they are able to view

and follow other’s activities such as posts, profile data as well as other personal information

(Bosch 2009). For instance, in Facebook people poke (Hew 2011) and tag one another. In fact

SNSs no longer function only as communication medium, but they have gone beyond to serve

as hiring and dismissing tools (Bosch 2009) as companies and some universities in North

America started using them for hiring, dismissing and training personnel, advertising their

products and services as well as designing and developing new ideas (Barczyk et al. 2011;

Bosch 2009) by means of tracking individual’s behaviour through these tools. Lazier (2010)

for instance, claims that admission officers at universities use social network tools such as

Facebook to connect, attract and perform a background check of their prospective students be-

fore approving their applications.

2.4 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL NETWORKING

In nowadays social networking is a commonly used term and yet it is a concept difficult to

define precisely as Lazier (2010) notes that a unique definition of this phenomenon has not

yet emerged. For instance, Cinman (2008: 49) cited in Lazier (2010:10) posits that “social

media, social networking and Web 2.0 are different ways of referring to the same phe-

nomenon: the Web as more than just information sharing, as a collaborative, interactive envir-

onment, which extends relationships we have with one another, and where we can have

them”. Hence, some scholars as Tess (2013) notes normally use the Web 2.0 term when refer-

ring to SNSs and other social media as this term is more inclusive.

As mentioned earlier, this is because SNSs evolved from web technology innovations (Sham-

bare et al. 2012; Bosch 2009; Gunawardena et al. 2009; Lazier 2010). Since then, the social

networking field saw enormous growth (Shambare & Mvula 2011), with statistics reports in-

dicating that 98% of 18-24 year olds are using social networking media (Statistics Brain

2013). In addition, Gunawardena et al. (2009) perceives social networking as an activity of

cumulating knowledge by making connections with individuals of similar interests.

On the other hand, Barczyk et al. (2011) perceives social networking as an activity that in-

volves hooking-up and engaging in online environments including but not limited to Face-

book, Google plus, LinkedIn and MySpace, as these technologies afford individuals with

shared interests, beliefs or values opportunities to connect, exchange ideas and information,

upload personal information, and strengthen existing relations as well as form new ones (Elli-

son et al. 2007; Schroeder et al. 2010; Barczyk et al. 2011; Bosch 2009; Lazier 2010).

Therefore, SNSs as described by Ellison (2008) are web-based services that enable people to

(1) create an unrestricted or semi-unrestricted profile within a secured system, (2) articulate a

list of other users with whom they share a relationship, and (3) view and navigate their list of

connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of

these connections may vary from site to site.

Although social networking is possible in person through attending social gatherings such as

public forums, parties, dinners and so on, in this digital society, social networking is also

practiced online through online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google plus

and MySpace to mention a few. Hence, Ellison et al. (2011: 3) perceive SNSs as “bundles of

technological tools that integrate features of former technologies (such as personal websites)

but recombine them into a new context that supports users’ ability to form and maintain a

wide network of social connections”. As a result, SNSs are useful in fostering close social re-

lationships with a small group of people either within or outside their friends’ circles (Gremu

& Halse n.d.).

Moreover, all SNSs are common in this respect, in order to be able to use Facebook for in-

stance, one has to register online using a valid email address (Hew 2011). As a result, the fol-

lowing features are deemed common to all SNSs (Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012).

Individuals construct a profile for themselves,

Individuals then connect with other users by sending a “friend” request, which awaits

approval or rejection,

Individuals manage lists of friends by using a search engine to find them and invite

them from their email accounts,

Individuals send one another messages of many forms including email, but some sites

use instant messaging as well,

Individuals also post pictures in galleries, tag them, and share them with others, and

Modify multiply features in order to suit their preferences.

According to Sheedy (2011), the most popular SNSs include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,

Flicker and Tumblr. However, as suggested by many researchers (Bosch 2009; Hew 2011;

Hurt et al. 2012; Irwin et al. 2012; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012; Tess 2013a; Tiryakioglu 2011;

Uri & Sawyer 2011a; Yunus & Salehi 2012b) Facebook is by far the most dominant SNS, es-

pecially among university students (Hurt et al. 2012; Wesseling 2012) . As a result, Tess

(2013) suggests that Facebook may be the face of online SNSs. By way of illustration table

1.1 presents a summary of the dominance of Facebook SNS among universities.

Table 1.1 a summary of Facebook dominance among universitiesUniversity Local/ Foreign Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube Flickr iTunes Google+

UCT Local X X X X SUN Local X X X X

UWC Local X X X X X

WITS X X X

Yale Foreign X X X X X X X

Harvard Foreign X X X X X X

Cambridge Foreign X X X X X X

Therefore, this study narrows its focus to Facebook SNS, within the context of one South

African higher education institution, with particular reference to possible use of Facebook in

learning.

2.5 FACEBOOK

Established in February of 2004 at Harvard University by then undergraduate student Mark

Zuckerberg as Harvard’s communication exchange medium (Bosch 2009; Hew 2011; Uri &

Sawyer 2011a; Yunus & Salehi 2012a), Facebook is now at the forefront of the social net-

working industry as it is the most dominant site among all SNSs available on the web, espe-

cially among university students (Bosch 2009; Hew 2011; Hurt et al. 2012; Irwin et al. 2012;

Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012; Tess 2013; Tiryakioglu 2011; Uri & Sawyer 2011) and research

indicates that 85 to 99% of university students use Facebook (Junco 2012a).

In September of 2006 Facebook opened its doors to anyone with a valid email address (Bosch

2009; Facebook 2013, Hew 2011). Since then, the site saw enormous growth. Now Facebook

hosts more than 1.5 billion active users which reflect a 23% increase from March 2012 (Zeph-

oria Internet Marketing Solutions 2013). Facebook is thus a social utility (Lazier 2010) whose

mission is to connect the world by enabling users freedom to connect and share information,

ideas, pictures, etc., regardless of geographical boundaries (Facebook 2013).

From this, it can then be inferred that Facebook is a personalized profile as users take full

charge of its content (Yunus & Salehi 2012b). Hence, the researcher hypothesizes that it can

improve students’ academic performance, because as Blankenship (n.d.) posits social media

tools can trigger students in becoming more responsible for their education as they would act-

ively participate in discussions and debates, collectively seek learning material and solutions

to problems and as such, Facebook provides learners an environment in which they exercise

complete control of the learning content, which is both genuine and personalized (Yunus &

Salehi 2012b). Therefore, incorporating Facebook in learning could potentially help higher

education of South Africa to achieve its goals discussed in the General Notice, Notice 1196 of

1997.

These goals are set both at national and institutional level. According to Notice and Contents

(1997), at national level higher education of South Africa aims to:

Encourage the development of a flexible learning system, as well as distance educa-

tion and resource-based learning based on open learning principles.

Secure and develop a high-level research capacity which can equally ensure the per-

petuation of self-initiated, open-ended intellectual inquiry, and the continuous applica-

tion of research activities to technological improvement and social development.

Produce graduates with the skills and competencies that form the basis for lifelong

learning, including, critical, analytical, and problem-solving and communication skills,

as well as the ability to deal with change and diversity, in particular, the tolerance of

different views and ideas.

Ensure transparent and cost-effective management aimed at optimal use of available

resources.

At institutional level higher education of South Africa aims to:

Encourage interaction through co-operation and partnerships among institutions of

higher education and between such institutions and all sectors of the wider society.

Establish an academic climate characterized by free and open debate, critical question-

ing of prevailing orthodoxies and experimentation with new ideas.

Encourage and build an institutional environment and culture based on tolerance and

respect.

2.5.1 Educational benefits of Facebook social network site

As it is mentioned earlier above that one of the higher education goals is to develop a flexible

learning system (Notice & Contents 1997) SNSs such as Facebook thus provide users with

more flexibility (Shambare & Mvula 2011) as they may possibly benefit students with other

types of incapacities, characters, or learning preferences (Barczyk et al. 2011) because they

support various ways of learning, including e-learning since they enable every students (fast

or slow) to study at their own convenience (Jalal & Zaidieh 2012) as they extend the learning

activity beyond classroom environment (Brady et al. 2010; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012).

According to Barczyk et al. (2011), collaboration and interaction are key factors of learning in

higher education, and therefore, since SNSs are built in a way that encourage communication

and collaboration (Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012) Facebook SNS therefore potentially becomes a

suitable educational tool since it can facilitate the exchange of school-related information and

collaboration in assignments (Shambare & Mvula 2011) because it is inclusive of usage pat-

terns and technological capacities that support online and offline connections (Ellison et al.

2007). Therefore, allowing students to facilitate learning activities regardless of time and

venue.

In fact as Barczyk et al. (2011) postulate that in order to effectively do meaningful academic

work, collaboration and discussion among researchers is important. Using Facebook as a plat-

form to perform academic related work could help higher education achieve its goal of secur-

ing and developing a high-level research capacity which can equally ensure the perpetuation

of self-initiated, open-ended intellectual inquiry, and the continuous application of research

activities to technological improvement and social development (Notice & Contents 1997) be-

cause according to Schlenkrich and Sewry (2012), SNSs such as Facebook support research

and development through informal exchange of information among users, commentary on

posts, brainstorming, idea exploration and cross-fertilization.

In addition, SNSs such as Facebook promote a sense of unity among people by enabling them

to form relations, collaborate, generate and interchange information, as well as reflect on so-

cial issues and express views freely (Brady et al. 2010; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012). Hence, it

is vital to incorporate Facebook in learning of higher education since it can become for higher

education to fulfil its goal of encouraging interaction through collaboration and partnerships

among institutions of higher education and between these institutions and all sectors of the

wider society (Notice & Contents 1997)

Again, since Facebook is characterized by freedom of expression merits (Shambare & Mvula

2011), the site can also help higher education towards achieving its goal of establishing an

academic climate based on free and open debate, critical questioning of prevailing orthodox-

ies and experimentation with new ideas. Hence, the education sector is now starting to show

great interest in Web 2.0 tools like blogs, wikis, SNSs, peer-to-peer media sharing utilities be-

cause these tools are capable of addressing the diverse needs of modern students through im-

proving their educational experiences (Mcloughlin & Lee 2007b) by making it possible for

them to enter new networks of collaborative learning, which are the source to cater for inter-

ests and affinities not catered for in a normal classroom setting (Pollara 2011) because they

can extend learning activities outside of classroom boundaries (Brady et al. 2010; Schlenkrich

& Sewry 2012).

In fact Lavoy and Newlin (2003), cited in Shambare and Mvula (2011:10558) said that “effec-

tive use of computer-mediated communication can result in an increase, not a decrease, in

learning interactions such as student-student and instructor-student interactivity”. Hence,

Facebook is potentially a suitable educational tool because SNSs grant those students not

comfortable or unable to talk in class a platform to express themselves by typing or writing

(Barczyk et al. 2011; Blankenship n.d.; Shambare & Mvula 2011).

Unlike Learning Management Systems (LMS) which lack interacting and networking features

(Brady et al. 2010) social networks such as Facebook have sociability features (e.g., support

for conversational interaction; support for social comments; and support for social networks

and interactions between people) that are more likely to enhance educational activities

(Mcloughlin & Lee 2007b). As a result, due to the humanitarian aspect that SNSs such as

Facebook possess, participation of the human element in the educational process becomes

possible (Jalal & Zaidieh 2012), as Brady et al. (2010) argue that students easily engage on is-

sues posted on social networks than those posted on LMS. This is evident of Ssekakubo et al.

(2011) who found that LMS failed in Africa due to lack of interactive features, flexibility, us-

ability, high licence costs, and lack of user training.

In fact, Bosch (2009) indicated that although the University of Cape Town (UCT) runs on

Vula, an online LMS, which has both synchronous and asynchronous capabilities such as on-

line discussions in chat-rooms and discussion boards, however, students use of Facebook was

more extensive than that of Vula, as they rarely used Vula features more especially during

holiday periods. Similar to this is the University of the Western Cape e-Teaching site. Even,

the researcher rarely visits the e-Teaching site while with Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter is a

different case.

As a result, social networking tools such as Facebook shaped a culture that enables students to

participate in knowledge generation and exchange in so much that it significantly reshapes the

way they communicate, interact and learn (Petrović et al. 2012). Hence, Harris and Rea

(2009) posit that the use of Web 2.0 tools like SNSs in education can craft long-term know-

ledge products that totally engage the students and add value to society because these tools

encourage students to become more in control of and more responsible for their studies

(Blankenship n.d.). Thus, it is vital to incorporate Facebook into higher education’s cur-

riculum so to fulfil higher education’s goal of encouraging and providing opportunities for

lifelong learning (Notice & Contents 1997).

More recently, literature has emerged that offers contradictory claims about educational use of

social networking tools. Friesen and Lowe (2012) are dismissive of the idea that these tools

are effective for educational use, arguing that the conditions that Facebook and other SNSs

are built-in make them not suitable tools for educational activities. The authors went on claim-

ing that Facebook and other SNSs are structured to support specific kinds of interaction and

attention and thus excluding others such as traditional educational interaction where lecturer-

student relations could hardly be reported as friendship. Hence, the higher educational com-

munity is sluggish in the process of adopting these tools to their educational practices (Brady

et al. 2010). However, Friesen and Lowe’s claims are not fully convincing because they are

not supported by empirical evidence.

On the contrary to Friesen and Lowe, Yunus and Salehi (2012) study on the effectiveness of

Facebook groups for teaching and improving writing in University Kebangsaan Malaysia

(UKM) found that Facebook groups were effective for educational purposes like writing. In

soliciting students’ perceptions on using Facebook groups in learning activities such as writ-

ing, a Facebook group called “Write out Loud” was created and forty-three third year students

from the faculty of education were invited to participate in the study. Indeed this feature

proved to be useful in enhancing students’ writing. In all aspects that were investigated, res-

ults indicated that students agreed that Facebook groups help with:

Brainstorming and planning before writing (86.0%),

Learning new vocabulary (81.4%),

Spelling errors as the spell-check feature rectify these mistakes on an instance

(88.3%),

Soliciting ideas before writing with the help of their peers (95.3%), and

Easy completion of assignments (86.0%).

However, when the authors investigated how students perceive the effects of Facebook groups

on their affective domains, results showed that while 90.7% felt comfortable with posting

opinions and ideas on the group and 97.7% reporting that friends’ likes of their comments en-

couraged them, 46.5% of them reported that they prefer traditional face-to-face interactions

when asked if whether they prefer discussing over Facebook group rather than in the

classroom. This is indicative of Brady’s study which found that although students acknow-

ledge the benefits of SNSs in education, 54% of them still preferred the traditional face-to-

face communication.

It is therefore clear that incorporating Facebook to educational practices is still going to be a

challenging process as people hold contradictory perceptions about the usefulness of SNSs

such as Facebook in education. As such Blankenship (n.d.) notes that some lecturers are

totally against the use of these social networking tools in class arguing that students are un-

able to differentiate between personal and professional.

Another similar study is that of Hurt et al. (2012). This study evaluated students’ perceptions

on Facebook use in online discussions. Employing a quasi-experimental design, which in-

volved two introductory courses “Introduction to Philosophy and Introduction to Women’s

Studies” and comparison of Facebook SNS against e-Learning Commons (eLC), a LMS.

By measuring the proportion of responses made by both course participants, taking into ac-

count statements such as “online discussions should be part of college courses, “online discus-

sions increase my confidence as a writer”, “I enjoy online class discussions”, findings indic-

ated that when compared to eLC Facebook is more effective (88.0% and 77.2% respectively),

in addition, results further indicated that 62.0% of Facebook participants reported to having

participated several times a week in online discussions than 49.1% of eLC group. Truly, Face-

book has features that can be used for educational purposes. Even Bosch (2009) perceives

Facebook as a tool that can be used in educational context for encouraging collaborative stu-

dent led- learning.

Furthermore, Facebook is in fact a personalized profile because users are in charge of its con-

tent (Yunus & Salehi 2012b) as unlike the times of Web 1.0, authority over the web is no

longer vested to web owners but is dispersed among the masses with users in control as it is

now possible for anyone who has a desire to contribute towards the web to do so freely by

means of creating, editing or exchanging information (Barczyk et al. 2011). In contrast to tra-

ditional media, which is characterized by one-way communication, SNSs such as Facebook

involve two-way communication whereby users are able to facilitate conversational dialogues

among one another (Barczyk et al. 2011).

On the one hand, social networking tools such as Facebook are ubiquitous and therefore

provide an on-demand access to data in a way that facilitates just-in-time communication,

learning and information exchange (Publishing 2008; Jalal & Zaidieh 2012). On the other,

SNSs such as Facebook are inclusive of numerous low-cost and widely accessible electronic

tools that enable individuals with common interests to form relationships, collaborate on

tasks, as well as publish and access information (Barczyk et al. 2011). Therefore, incorporat-

ing Facebook in higher education is not only a wise choice but a rational thing to do because

it can enable the development of effective learning environment in a cost-effective manner.

However, while some studies (Barczyk et al. 2011; Bosch 2009; Blankenship n.d.; Brady et

al. 2010; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012; Shambare & Mvula 2011) perceive SNSs such as Face-

book as holding a potential to enhance educational practices through increased students’ parti-

cipation, engagement, interaction, and collaboration. On the contrary, other studies (Junco

2012b; Hew 2011) indicate that as compared to non-users, Facebook users report lower

grades because they normally study few hours in a week than non-users. Consequently, Hew

(2011) concludes that the educational use of Facebook is minimal as students’ opinions re-

garding what this site is to be used for vary. It seems clear from the evidence that incorporat-

ing social networking tools such as Facebook to educational practices is still going to be a

long and challenging process due to people’s mixed reactions about the educational use of

such tools.

On the other hand, Bosch (2009) found that Facebook facilitates community building as it en-

ables students to participate in various micro-communities including student societies, study

groups whereby members of a certain academic programme keep in contact with one another

as well as group memberships. Additionally, the site is useful for academic purposes such as

teaching and learning since it offers convenience as one of the participants mentioned that “it

allows quick communication”. This is consistent with Hurt et al. (2012) study which noted

that navigation on Facebook site is easy and it is often comfortable and easy to use.

Furthermore, students mentioned that it enables them to solicit help from other students re-

garding course learning material and class venues, times and assignments’ details (Bosch

2009).

Moreover, a study which was conducted by Irwin et al. (2012) at Griffith University’s Gold

Campus on students’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at uni-

versity found that students’ perceptions of Facebook use in education were positive. For in-

stance, of the participants, results indicated that 80.0% of students anticipated that the plat-

form will help with the facilitation of general discussions about course topics. To corroborate

this statement, Shambare and Mvula (2011) posit that Facebook extends discussions of com-

plex topics which could have been perceived embarrassing in class beyond classroom bound-

aries due to freedom of expression merits of Facebook.

About 80.8% anticipated that the platform will foster interactions between lecturers and stu-

dents as well as between students and students, another 75.6% anticipated that Facebook will

be convenient for notifications purposes about lecture notes availability and assessment items,

lastly 56.3% of the students anticipated that Facebook will help them with relevant media and

learning materials. This evidence supports Schlenkrich and Sewry’s perception that learning

can benefit from using social networking tools. After all, Facebook has been cited as the most

dominant SNS among students and therefore it is expected that students are quite aware of its

functionality.

2.5.2 Challenges with Facebook

Despite its promises, social networking use in educational context is without challenges.

Blankenship (n.d.) asserts that one of the key challenges with social media tools such as Face-

book is that of limited access to technology. The author further notes that even though most

students own computers and smartphones, however, it cannot be assumed that every student is

able to afford one. The University of the Western Cape for instance, caters for previously dis-

advantaged students, and therefore, as Blankenship posit not all students afford to own a com-

puter or a smartphone. In fact South Africa is a post-apartheid country so socio-economic di-

visions among its citizens still exist since the country is still recovering from the imbalances

of the past.

Another major challenge is that of bandwidth and network availability (Bosch 2009). In fact,

more recently, UWC has been experiencing challenges with Internet connection. Successfully

connecting to the Internet during peak hours, which is from morning till afternoon is challen-

ging due to more users being online during those specified times and therefore causing traffic

to network access. To (n.d.) and Bosch (2009) do in fact mention that Africa has low Internet

penetration rate as a result when compared to 78.6% and 61.3% of North America and

Europe, Africa stands on 13.5% (To n.d.). Consistent with Bosch, Schlenkrich and Sewry

found that fast Internet connection has a great impact on the successful use of online techno-

logy like SNSs in education.

Moreover, Blankenship (n.d.) also found that some lecturers are totally against the use of so-

cial media tools like Facebook in class due to university students’ inability to distinguish

between personal and professional. Some lecturers view Facebook as disruptive, arguing that

students tend to spend more time on Facebook than on their school work (Bosch 2009). As a

result, Yunus and Salehi (2012) found that the main challenge that lecturers will have to face

when using Facebook features like Facebook groups in educational practices is distractions

from other Facebook features such as Facebook chat, applications and games.

Furthermore, privacy and security concerns are also cited as major factors that contribute to

hesitancy of using SNSs for educational purposes (Jalal & Zaidieh 2012; Schlenkrich &

Sewry 2012; Yunus & Salehi 2012a). A classic example of this is Schroeder et al. (2010)

study which found that social software applications may be used for illegitimate purposes

such as cyber bullying, privacy violation and slander, people disguising their identity by steal-

ing other people’s identity, fraud, defamation of character (Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012). How-

ever, Barczyk et al. (2011) note that for social networking to be successfully incorporated into

education, users have to realize that there can be no expectations of privacy.

Moreover, Jalal and Zaidieh (2012); Schlenkrich and Sewry (2012) posit that using social net-

working tools such as Facebook for educational activities can affect students’ productivity be-

cause they might lose interest towards learning as sitting in front of a computer for long hours

can be tedious, especially if the material presented is free of audio and visual effects that will

attract the learner towards learning. In addition, over-dependency on social networks could

lessen students’ attendance of school (Tham & Niaz 2011). Furthermore, social networks can

have a bad effect on one’s health (Jalal & Zaidieh 2012). Regular use of Facebook can affect

the way genes function within the human body because sitting in front of the computer for

long hours browsing through social networking sites weakens the immune and hormone levels

and the function of arteries (Pantic et al. 2012; Jalal & Zaidieh 2012).

By way of illustration, Pantic et al. (2012) findings on their study on health issues associated

with social networking use at a high school in the city of Pozarevac indicate that of the parti-

cipants, 65% suffered from moderate depression, as opposed to 29% who suffered from mild

depression. The percentage is extremely low for those suffering from minimal depression at

6%.

2.5.3 Legal considerations for using Facebook in class

According to Barczyk et al. (2011), those that are thinking of integrating social media into

their teaching, it is important to establish institutional or personal guidelines in order to in-

crease the chances of social media based learning while reducing the chances of legal liability.

The following are the guidelines identified by Barczyk et al. (2011) for using social media in

class:

1. Keep things professional. Lecturers should use a different account for classroom pur-

poses because there is no need for students to know about their lecturer’s private life.

2. To avoid friend requests from your students’ parents and relatives ensure to make

proper use of privacy settings and check them often.

3. Students should be prohibited from posting to class page by disabling the wall posting

feature through privacy settings.

4. Be careful of the unintended audience.

5. Be careful not to post things or pictures that will put you in trouble with the faculty or

department’s head.

2.5.4 Factors for successful use of Facebook in higher education

The following are the factors for successful use of SNSs proposed by (Schlenkrich & Sewry

2012).

1. In order for Facebook to be successfully used in higher education, faster Internet con-

nection is a prerequisite and also the platform should have new and useful features that

are easy and quick to learn.

2. The platform should have appropriate settings to ensure the protection of user’s (stu-

dents and lecturers) privacy.

3. In order to ensure accuracy and reliability information should be checked before it is

posted.

4. In order to ensure successful use of Facebook in higher education users should distinct

between personal and professional by first completing professional work before enga-

ging on social activities.

5. Users should display professional and ethical behaviour by posting information that is

not harmful or offensive to others.

A theoretical framework for using Facebook in education is summarized below in table 1.2

through comparing theories that have been used in examining web-based learning, but only

one theory will be used as a framework for using social networking in learning of higher edu-

cation.

Table 1.2 presents a summary of a theoretical framework for using Facebook in educa-

tion

Theories Definition Key Elements Similarities How is it going to be ap-

plied

Communities of

Practice (CoP)

CoP are groups of people who

have shared goals, a set of

problems, or a passion about a

topic in which they intensify

their knowledge and expertise

on it by interacting on a regular

basis (Gunawardena et al. 2009;

Mitchell 2002a).

Mutual engagement involves

constant interactions that occur

among the members whom trans-

mit the purpose of the practice

(Gunawardena et al. 2009; Moule

2006).

Joint enterprise refers to the

activities that binds the com-

munity (Gunawardena et al. 2009;

Moule 2006).

Shared repertoire encompasses

all the daily activities and pro-

cesses integral to the community

practices (Gunawardena et al.

2009; Moule 2006).

In addition to key constructs CoP

has three structural elements

namely: a domain of knowledge, a

community and the practice (Gu-

nawardena et al. 2009; Mitchell

2002a).

A domain of knowledge provides

a place where members meet to

share their thoughts, knowledge

and stories (Gunawardena et al.

2009; Mitchell 2002a).

A community “creates the social

fabric of learning” (Gunawardena

et al. 2009: 7; Mitchell 2002: 19).

The practice is the specific know-

ledge the community develops,

shares, and maintains (Gunawar-

dena et al. 2009; Mitchell 2002a).

The commonalities that

exist among CoP, situated

learning theory and social

presence theory is that as

learning is a social process

(Schlenkrich & Sewry

2012) it occurs among in-

dividuals and between

them and their environ-

ment through interacting

on an ongoing basis.

Therefore, all these theor-

ies hold that learning is not

an individual activity but a

community activity, and

thus collaborating when

performing community

practices through constant

interactions among mem-

bers is the source of learn-

ing.

In all instances, relation-

ships emanate from regular

participation in community

activities.

With regards to constructs

and structural elements of

communities of practice,

Facebook provides a space

where students and lecturers,

can come together to carry

out activities that are integ-

ral to their community such

as exchanging learning ma-

terial, doing school-work

collaboratively by helping

one another with assign-

ments, learning material etc.

Facebook in fact encourages

community building (Bosch

2009) because it connects

people separated by time and

distance.

In the case where students

are separated by time and

distance from their peers and

lecturers, with Facebook

such impediments are dealt

with accordingly by enabling

students to still be able to

work together regardless, as

well as enable lecturers ad-

dress issues in which were

not adequately dealt with in

class.

Situated learning Situated learning is learning that

occur among individuals and

between them and their social

setting (Dynamics et al. 2002;

Kirk & Macphail 2002).

Participation enables or con-

strains opportunities to develop

identities and practice, including

linguistic practices (Handley et al.

2006).

Identity holds that 'learning' in-

volves more than just knowing the

activities we do, but also under-

standing who we are and our abil-

ities (Handley et al. 2006).

Practice forever stays a social

activity because it is made up of

past events and social setting that

give structure and meaning to

As Facebook is a shared space

which encourages community

building through interactions

among students and between

them and lecturers, this site

serves as a situational context in

which learning practices such

doing assignments, exchanging

of course material, etc., will take

place.

community activities (Handley et

al. 2006).

Social presence Social presence is the essence of

being regularly available to par-

take or engage in a communica-

tion activity facilitated via a

computer-mediated technology

(Lowenthal 2005) such as SNSs.

Social context refers to task ori-

entation, privacy, topics, recipi-

ents or social relationships, and

social process (Tu & McIsaac

2002).

Online communication is con-

cerned with the attributes of the

language used online and the ap-

plications of online language (Tu

&McIsaac 2002).

Interactivity includes the activit-

ies in which users engage and the

communication styles they use

(Tu & McIsaac 2002).

In order for any community to

make it, social presence is im-

portant, therefore, participation

from community members on

activities integral to the com-

munity is necessary. This theory

will then be applied on the basis

that regularly engaging in com-

munity practices or activities

such as collaborating in school-

work in this case will be seen as

online social presence.

2.5.5 Communities of Practice (CoP): A Framework For Using Social Networking in

Learning of Higher Education

A framework for understanding social learning systems must recognize learning as a social

process (Wenger 2000), because learning is not a process that happen on an individual capa-

city but on their collective capacity through the interactions among them and between them

and their social setting (Lave 1991). Communities of practice are appropriate for the current

study because they are a basic component of a social learning system as they are social con-

tainers of the practices that make up such a system (Wenger 2000).

Effectively, communities of practice are groups of people who have mutual goals, a set of

problems, or a passion about a topic in which they intensify their knowledge and expertise on

it by interacting on a regular basis (Gunawardena et al. 2009; Moule 2006). For the purpose of

this study students and lectures are those groups of people who are bound by mutual interests,

passions and problems, and whom need a place to meet regularly in order to carry out com-

munity practices.

They incorporate elements that promote the development of a social learning system since

Barczyk et al. (2011) note that collaboration and interaction are significant factors in higher

education. These elements include:

Mutual engagement which involves constant interactions that occur among the mem-

bers whom transmit the purpose of the practice (Gunawardena et al. 2009; Moule

2006) through working together , helping one another, talking, producing artefacts by

helping a peer with an assignment, course material, participating in discussions and

debates (Wenger 2000). Facebook is a platform that enable the occurrence of that in-

teraction among individuals due to the its designed as has technologies that support

online and offline connections (Ellison et al. 2007).

Joint enterprise refers to purposes and values that unite the community (Gunawardena

et al. 2009; Moule 2006). The common purpose of learners for instance is to obtain a

qualification that will secure them a job position in the work place.

Shared repertoire encompasses all the daily activities and processes integral to the

community practices (Gunawardena et al. 2009; Moule 2006) these include among

other things assignments, projects, discussions and debates that students do and en-

gage in.

A domain of knowledge provides a space where members meet to share their thoughts, know-

ledge and stories (Mitchell 2002b; Gunawardena et al. 2009). Facebook provides that space as

it enables students meet and interact by means of soliciting help from others regarding course

learning material, assignment details as well as class times and venues (Bosch 2009) as they

need a venue (Brady et al. 2010) that will enable them to interact on an ongoing basis. Hence,

SNSs like Facebook potentially become suitable educational tools. Therefore, incorporating

Facebook SNS in higher education could encourage mutual engagement as Gunawardena et

al. (2009).

A community “creates the social fabric of learning” (Gunawardena et al. 2009: 7; Mitchell

2002: 19). As mentioned earlier in this text, learning occurs in a social context in which indi-

viduals are part of through the interactions that occur among them and between them and their

social context (Dynamics et al. 2002). Social networking tools like Facebook create that social

fabric of learning as they enable individuals to interact on an ongoing basis through the online

electronic tools that are epitomised by interactive features such as chat functions, wall post,

inbox messaging. The practice is the specific knowledge the community develops, shares, and

maintains (Gunawardena et al. 2009; Mitchell 2002b) in which in this case are the activities

that students and lecturers engage in.

Social networking tools foster a development of a community among students and between

student and lecturers (Brady et al. 2010) by uniting them as they enable these individuals to

connect whether separated by time or distance (Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012), as Bosch (2009)

suggests that Facebook enable students to participate in various micro-communities like stu-

dent societies, study groups and group memberships. Facebook can therefore be labelled as a

platform that fosters a community of practice.

Moule (2006) says mutual engagement is paramount to community building because it is

through this practice that relationships emanate. The more the members of the community in-

teract, the stronger the community becomes. In addition, Brady et al. (2010) found social

presence as a critical factor towards building a stronger community of practice. Therefore,

teaching and learning facilitated via online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and so on re-

quires members who value regular interactions. Consistent with mutual engagement dimen-

sion of CoP is situated learning theory, which holds that learning does not occur within indi-

viduals’ cognition alone but through interactions among people and between people and their

social contexts (Dynamics et al. 2002).

Students can use the Facebook platform to regularly meet for their practices such as learning,

doing assignments and projects collaboratively. Hence, Brady et al. (2010) says SNSs enable

students to have a mutual understanding among one another through engaging and collaborat-

ing in discussions, while sharing common resources, such as readings, links, and videos.

2.6 SUMMARY

This chapter provided detail to social networking. Social networking was defined, followed

by discussing uses of Facebook, educational benefits of Facebook and challenges associated

with using Facebook. To date, there has not been a consensus about educational use of Face-

book and other SNSs as reactions are mixed towards the use of these tools for educational

purposes (Muñoz & Towner 2009b). For instance, while some claim that as learning is a so-

cial activity it can significantly benefit from the use of these tools (Schlenkrich & Sewry

2012), others are dismissive of that notion claiming that the conditions that these tools are

built-in make them not suitable for educational use as they are structured to support specific

kinds of interactions excluding education (Friesen & Lowe 2012). This then raises a question

of whether SNSs like Facebook are ideal tools for educational and pedagogical practices.

The following chapter presents how the participants to the study were selected and how the

data was collecting and the instrument used to collect data.

CHAPTER 3

3 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 INTRODUCTION

According to Moody (2002: 1), “empirical research methods are a class of research methods

in which empirical observations or data are collected in order to answer particular research

questions”. Hence, this chapter covers the method that this study adopted, the instrument used

to collect data, the population under investigation and the procedures taken to select the parti-

cipants of the study, data collection, data analysis, the ethical principles the researcher ad-

hered to when data was being collected, as well as limitations of the study.

3.2 RESEARCH METHOD

This study is a qualitative case study because its purpose is to tell a story which entails the re-

searcher’s opinions and ideas regarding the problem in question (Al-yaseen et al. 2012). The

study seeks to provide an answer to the question of how do Facebook enhance learning, a

case study approach from which this research question is investigated is best suited (Benbasat

1987). In addition, this study also seeks to understand how students and lecturers perceive

Facebook use in higher education and to understand the influence of Facebook on students

and lecturers (Kaplan & Maxwell 2005).

A case study approach was chosen because it allows for intensive investigation of a given re-

search problem within its natural setting using multiple data sources (Burns & Grove 2005).

Indeed this study is pursued through the use of multiple data sources, including primary and

secondary data sources. First, a review of relevant literature to the study under investigation

was conducted. According to Levy and Ellis (2006), a review of existing literature is an es-

sential component of academic research as it creates grounds for generating knowledge. In ad-

dition, literature review is a cost-effective method of data collection as large quantities of data

are collected at low costs (Marrelli 2012). The researcher used a key word search when

searching for relevant literature to the current study through search mediums such as EBSCO

host Web, Google Scholar, Google search engine and Flipora search engine.

Second, semi-structured interviews were used as another source of data collection.

3.3 THE POPULATION AND SAMPLING

According to Burns and Grove (2005: 34), a population is made up of all the elements, that is,

the people, things or substances that meet certain standards for inclusion in a particular soci-

ety. So, the current study is taking place at a university in South Africa, precisely the Univer-

sity of the Western Cape (UWC). Therefore, UWC is the target population of this study.

However, due to size, time and cost constraints, as well as accessibility the study population is

limited to the Economic and Management Sciences (EMS) faculty of the university. There-

fore, due to easy access to EMS lecturers, tutors and students, the EMS faculty is a sampling

frame of this study.

This included three Information Systems (IS) undergraduate and postgraduate (Honours) lec-

turers; a second year (IS) tutor as well as sixteen students registered for postgraduate (Hon-

ours) Information Systems’ courses with the EMS faculty. In short the sum of the sample con-

stituted twenty participants.

Table 1.3 population and sampling values of the participants

Participants Population Sampling frame Sample GenderLecturers (undergraduate and postgraduate)

12 12 3 2 males and 1 female

Tutor for second year courses 4 4 1 Male Students (Honours) 35 35 16 4 males and

12 females

Sampling is thus referred to a procedure followed when choosing participants, events, beha-

viours or elements to be included in a research study (Burns & Grove 2005) and the aim of

using a sampling strategy is to increase the chances of generating sufficient data to answer the

research question (Green & Thorogood 2009: 138). The research plan of this study adopted a

nonprobability sampling approach called purposeful sampling because the study could not in-

clude all the elements of the population (Burns & Grove 2001).

According to Patton (1990), the logic and power of purposeful sampling is centred on select-

ing in formation-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which

one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research,

thus the term purposeful sampling (Patton: 169). A maximum variation sample is used in this

study because recurring themes that emerged from the participants’ responses were captured

as they are of great value to this study (Patton 1990).

3.4 INSTRUMENT

The instrument used in this study in measuring the impact of Facebook in higher educational

context was semi-structured interviews. The interview technique was chosen because it allows

the researcher to obtain better understanding of the meaning (Burns & Grove 2005) through

probing (Valenzuela & Shrivastava 2002). Interviews entail verbal communication between

the researcher and the participant, whereby a researcher poses a question and the participant

provides a response to the question (Burns & Grove 2005).

The interview questions were designed based on the literature, previous questions asked in

prior studies regarding social networking use in higher educational context (Lazier 2010;

Shambare & Mvula 2011b) with some alterations and wording revisions to suit the purpose of

the current study (Akyildiz & Argan 2013) as well as on the elements of communities of prac-

tice (Wenger & Snyder n.d.; Gunawardena et al. 2009; Mitchell 2002b; Moule 2006). They

interviews were designed to explore how Facebook impacts teaching and learning. The inter-

view consisted of eight questions.

Participation was solicited from three undergraduate and postgraduate (Honours) lecturers

who are lecturing Information Systems (IS) courses at the University of the Western Cape, a

second year IS tutor and undergraduate and postgraduate (Honours) students registered for

courses with the EMS faculty. One of the participants (a lecturer) is and has been administrat-

ing UWC IS Honours Class Facebook pages from 2010-2013. In addition to soliciting parti-

cipation from lecturers, a second year Information Systems tutor who is also an administrator

of two Facebook pages for two Information Systems courses, Information Systems 231 and

233, IFS 231 and 233 in short was also interviewed.

3.5 DATA COLLECTION

The data was collected from late August till beginning of October, in the year 2013. A semi-

structured interview instrument was used. Appointments were arranged in advance with the

participants of the study. The interviews took place upon their availability. The lecturers and

tutor were interviewed in their offices. Students were interviewed at the library, library foyer,

the EMS foyer and at the student centre. Before the interview process began, the researcher

explained the contents and purpose of the study to the participants. During the interviews the

participants were also ensured anonymity as their identities were not revealed.

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

The data collected was transferred to an MS Excel spreadsheet. It was analysed following a

content analysis method (Elo & Kynga¨s 2007). According to Elo and Kynga¨s (2007: 107),

“Content analysis is a method of analysing written, verbal or visual communication mes-

sages”. Relevant patterns that emerged from the results were identified through coding (Re-

searchers 2008).

3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In this study, the researcher adhered to ethical principles identified by Babbie. Ethics are so-

cial principles associated with behaving in a way that is perceived appropriate and acceptable

in a particular society. They are concerned with differentiating between right and wrong (Bab-

bie 2001). These ethical principles are as follows:

Before the interview process began the participants were informed about the contents

of the study and its purpose. The participants were not deceived in any form.

The participants were never forced to participate in this study against their will, they

did so voluntarily.

The participants’ identities were protected as their participation was kept anonymous

sine the responses were separated from the participants.

3.8 LIMITATIONS

This study is limited to the University of the Western Cape in South Africa, so its findings

cannot be generalized to other local and international higher education institutions, as well as

to other faculties of the university due to different cultures, methods, policies and values. An-

other limitation to this study is that of the sample. The sample was too small, constituted only

twenty participants. Due to this there could be some missing links on the data collected such

as important information. In addition to the small sample, some participants did not give suffi-

cient information. Also, the study is only limited to Facebook excluding other SNSs including

but not limited to Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, and MySpace. Moreover, due to complica-

tions experienced with Atlas. ti qualitative data analysis software, the data was analyzed using

an Ms Excel spreadsheet.

3.9 SUMMARY

The researcher needed to answer “how do Facebook enhance learning?” Therefore a qualitat-

ive case study where the instrument design is in the form of semi-structured interviews was

considered appropriate to explore greater insight of the participants’ opinions about the use of

Facebook in higher education. A purposive sampling method was used to select the parti-

cipants to the study from the target population. The interviews were organised with the parti-

cipants and interviews were conducted upon participants’ availability.

CHAPTER 4

4 EMPIRICAL RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1 INTRODUCTION

As the previous chapter discussed the instrument design and how the participants of the study

i.e. the population were selected to participate in this study. This chapter discusses empirical

results by analysing the data collected via the data collection instrument discussed in chapter

three. According to Uri and Sawyer (2011), data analysis entails the careful scrutiny of the

patterns that arise from the participants’ responses to questions. In this chapter the responses

to interview questions are analysed on a question-by-question basis (Lazier 2010) and accord-

ing to the sequence the researcher asked the questions during the interviews. The lecturers

were the first group to be interviewed, followed by the tutor and the students respectively. The

responses received from the participants during the interviews were transferred to an Excel

spreadsheet for analysis.

The questions which were asked to the participants during the interviews were designed based

on the literature, previous studies (Lazier 2010), and elements of communities of practice

framework (Gunawardena et al. 2009; Mitchell 2002b; Moule 2006; Wenger & Snyder n.d.).

4.2 CREDIBILITY

In order to ensure credibility in this study, the researcher adopted Guba’s model of trustwor-

thiness of qualitative research (Krefting 1991). The truth value criteria was applied because

the researcher trusts the findings of this study as truthful since the data has been obtained

from the experiences of the participants (Krefting 1991). Also, as consistency is another im-

portant criteria of trustworthiness (Krefting 1991), the findings presented are consistent with

previous studies (Barczyk et al. 2011; Blankenship n.d.; Bosch 2009; Hew 2011; Hurt et al.

2012; Irwin et al. 2012; Jalal & Zaidieh 2012; Muñoz & Towner 2009a; Pollara 2011;

Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012; Shambare et al. 2012; Shambare & Mvula 2011; Tess 2013a;

Tiryakioglu 2011; Uri & Sawyer 2011b; Yunus & Salehi 2012b).

4.3 RESULTS

With regards to each of the questions asked about social networking and its potential use and

benefits in teaching and learning practices of higher education, the researcher noticed that

similar themes emerged from the responses provided by the participants. The results are sup-

ported by direct quotations from the participants’ responses.

These themes include social networking familiarity, Facebook use, Facebook use in higher

education, Facebook enhance learning, interaction, collaboration, convenience, flexibility,

cost-effective, slow internet access, distractions and absenteeism.

4.3.1 Social networking familiarity

As indicated in figure 1.1, all the participants indicated that they are familiar with social net-

working. Social networking is a concept popular among people and is facilitated through so-

cial network sites (Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012). People connect, meet and engage on social

network sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace by sharing information, ideas and

messages to one another.

4.3.2 Facebook use

Again when the participants were asked whether they used Facebook the results further indic-

ate that all the participants use Facebook; this is consistent with previous studies (Bosch 2009;

Hew 2011; Hurt et al. 2012; Irwin et al. 2012; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012; Tess 2013;

Tiryakioglu 2011; Uri & Sawyer 2011; Yunus & Salehi 2012) that suggest that Facebook is

the most dominant social network site among university students. This is depicted in figure

1.1 with 100%.

4.3.3 Facebook use in higher education

When asked about their opinion of Facebook use in higher education, participants expressed

mixed reactions. 80% of them support the use of Facebook in higher education. They perceive

it as the most effective and convenient tool for educational use. Some indicated that as com-

pared to e-Teaching, Facebook would make the process of learning effective. One participant

indicated that “It is a great idea because as compared to e-Teaching Facebook would offer a

great platform for teaching and learning at university since it is interactive and therefore

would create conducive educational environment”. The other one said that “It can be a great

thing to do because Facebook exposes us to things we would not have exposure or access to”.

Another indicated that “I think it is a good platform for educational use because it is free and

more convenient than e-Teaching. Students do not use the capabilities of e-Teaching such as

discussion forums often because they find this platform uninteresting and boring. Facebook is

that platform that can capture their attention” This statement is indicative of Bosch (2009)

who indicated that students at UCT rarely use features of Vula, a Learning Management Sys-

tem used at UCT.

However, there were a 10% of the participants who suggested that Twitter would be more ef-

fective than Facebook would be. From the responses of these participants one indicated that

“Facebook is good for being an outside of class communication and learning tool because

students get distracted with its other features. I prefer Twitter because it is a lot faster and is

a solution for in-class communication and learning. Also, Twitter is a lot more private than

Facebook is”. Another participant indicated that “It would be nice to integrate Facebook into

learning because it is cheap and more convenient than e-mails and e-Teaching, but Twitter is

the best”.

Moreover, there were other 10% of the participants who felt that Facebook use in higher edu-

cation would be disastrous. One participant indicated that “I think using Facebook for educa-

tional purposes would result into chaos. Students are easily distracted with entertaining

things. We would not even see the point of attending classes if it can be used”. Another one

argued that “I have not used it for learning purposes. Facebook is for my private use. I do not

think it would good for educational use because it’s a platform for socialising so people might

end up doing things outside the scope of learning”.

But nonetheless majority of participants have indicated that Facebook use in education is a

good idea.

4.3.4 Facebook enhances learning

Furthermore, as indicated in table 1.4, 80% of the participants are in consensus that Facebook

enhances learning because it encourages other forms of learning and helps them learn new

things. This implies that, Facebook is not only used for personal purposes but also for profes-

sional purposes as learning. For instance, one participant stated that “From my personal ex-

perience it does. “It helped me to discover new things and learn new knowledge from other

people”. To add, another participant expressed that “Yes, it encourages other forms of ex-

tensive reading through the use of links to online videos, links to articles, etc.” Moreover, the

other participant expressed that “it does enhance one’s knowledge, for example, in my case I

use it to get updates about developed markets, e.g. United States” and the other said “It does

through debates, discussions and collaboration in school activities”.

However, similarly to Friesen and Lowe (2012), 20% of the participants contrasted the idea

that Facebook enhances learning on the basis that it is not suitable for educational purposes.

Friesen and Lowe (2012) believe that SNSs like Facebook are not built in a manner that sup-

ports educational use. One participant argued that “According to my own opinion it would not

because it is not a good tool for academic practices”. The other indicated that “No, it is not

good for learning purposes and it is distractive”. Additionally, this participant felt that “No,

because it is not an academic tool for me”.

4.3.5 Interaction

From the participants’ responses on whether Facebook encourages interaction between stu-

dents and lecturers, there were mixed responses. 85% of the participants felt that Facebook

encourages students and lecturers to interact for educational purposes. Participants indicated

that they use Facebook to ask for assistance from other students and lecturers if they are strug-

gling with school-work. For instance, one participant felt that “Yes it does, it allows students

to ask for help from one another and from their lecturers when struggling with school-work”.

Another indicated that “Yes I get help from other students through the platform”. This is

evident of mutual engagement element of communities of practice which holds that working

together, helping one another, talking; producing artefacts by helping a peer with an assign-

ment, course material, participating in discussions and debates is a core practice of a com-

munity (Gunawardena et al. 2009; Moule 2006).

However, 15% of the participants felt that Facebook does not encourage any interaction

between students and lecturers. As a result, one participant expressed how Facebook has

never encouraged her to interact with anyone, and so this implies that Facebook has no influ-

ence on students and lecturers interactions. “No it does not encourage any interaction. I can

be part of a Facebook group and still choose to not to interact with anyone. It has never en-

couraged me to interact with anyone”. Another participant said that “Facebook does encour-

age interaction among friends but not with other students and lecturers”. Even though there

were those who felt that Facebook does not influence interactions between students and lec-

turers, however, from these results one can infer that Facebook plays a huge role in encour-

aging students to interact with one another and their lecturers.

4.3.6 Collaboration

Again, when asked whether Facebook encourages collaboration between students, parti-

cipants’ 75% of responses indicated that Facebook plays a huge role in ensuring that group

tasks are effectively managed through enabling collaboration among group members and also

enable students to collaborate on individual work too because whenever they encounter diffi-

culties with executing school related tasks, they refer to others for assistance. This is reflect-

ive of social learning systems theories (situated learning, social presence and communities of

practice) that hold that learning does not happen on an individual capacity but on a collective

capacity through the interactions among individuals and between them and their social setting

(Lave 1991).To illustrate, one participant stated that “Yes Facebook helps a lot with team

work”. The other indicated that “Facebook helps me to do my work effectively with the help

of other students”. This means that collaboration heavily influences learning in higher educa-

tion.

In contrast, 25% of the participants did not feel the same way. They indicated that

When asked about the benefits of Facebook about the benefits and challenges of using Face-

book in higher education, themes including convenience, flexibility, cost-effective, slow inter-

net access, distractions and absenteeism emerged.

4.3.7 Convenience and flexibility

Moreover, the analysis of participants’ responses revealed that there are benefits that can be

achieved from using Facebook in higher education. While 80% of the participants indicated

that Facebook is convenient, 70% of them reported that the site is flexible. The results indic-

ated that through convenience Facebook creates a flexible learning environment in which al-

lows students to exercise learning activities anytime and anywhere. One participant indicated

that “Facebook is flexible, supports distant learning, interactive, cheap and convenient”.

This is consistent with Jalal and Zaidieh (2012); Shamabare and Mvula (2011), and Barczyk

et al. (2011), who indicated that SNSs are flexible because they support diverse needs of stu-

dents and their learning preferences through enabling them multiple ways of learning includ-

ing e-learning, since they extend learning out of classroom boundaries (Brady et al. 2010;

Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012) and therefore affording students an opportunity to study at their

own convenience. Another stated that “It is flexible because it extends students’ time with lec-

turers and tutors; students can have extra consulting times with their lecturers and tutors”. In

addition, another participant indicated that “Facebook provides a learning platform because it

is interactive and designed to be convenient due to its ability to facilitate instant access to in-

formation”.

4.3.8 Cost-effective

As Ssekakubo et al. (2011) noted that LMS failed in Africa due to high licence fees, inflexib-

ility, usability, lack of interactive features, consistent with Barczyk et al. (2011) who stated

that SNSs like Facebook are inclusive of numerous low-cost and widely accessible electronic

tools that enable individuals with common interests to form relationships, collaborate on

tasks, as well as publish and access information. 90% of the participants indicated that Face-

book is cost-effective because the site is cheap.To give illustration, one participant indicated

that “the site is free; I mean the page that I created for my class is costing the department

nothing”. The other added by stating that “Facebook is cheap and collaborative”.

It is only a minimum of 10% who did not indicate anything about the convenience of Face-

book. In fact, it is only a minority of participants who perceive Facebook as not benefiting to

higher education. With one participant indicating that there are no benefits at all associated

with use of Facebook in higher education. When asked about the benefits of Facebook in

higher education one participant said that “None”. The other indicated that he does not per-

ceive the platform as benefiting because it is distractive. “There are no benefits in using

Facebook in higher education because Facebook is for entertainment and thus not good for

academic purposes because of distractive nature”.

4.3.9 Slow internet access

Shambare and Mvula (2011) said Facebook usage depends on Internet connection. This state-

ment is reinforced by the results of this study as 85% of the participants indicated that reports

slow internet connections make Facebook as not effective as it would with be with faster in-

ternet connections. This is consistent with previous studies (Bosch 2009; Shambare & Mvula

2011; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012)who found that faster Internet connection is one of the key

factors that influences the successful use of Facebook in higher education. For instance, one

participant indicated that “distractions and slow internet connections” are the challenges that

would hinder the successful use of Facebook in higher education. The other also felt that “In-

ternet access and having your personal profile being visible to people you wouldn’t want

them to see it”.

4.3.10 Distractions

Similarly to Yunus and Salehi (2012) and Bosch (2009) who found that other features of

Facebook such as games, applications and chat function can be distractive to students, this

study also found that Facebook can pose threats into effective learning. According to the res-

ults 65% of the participants stated that Facebook can be distractive. To elaborate, one parti-

cipant expressed that “Facebook is distractive”. The other further expressed that “Respond-

ing to personal chats while the lecturer is busy delivering a seminar”. Moreover, the other

participant also perceives Facebook as distracting the process of learning with him stating that

“Internet access and Facebook can shift one’s attention away from learning”. Therefore, that

is why it is important before introducing Facebook in class to set guiding principles to govern

the use of Facebook in class.

4.3.11 Absenteeism

From these results as indicated in table 1.4, 55% of the participants expressed concerns of stu-

dents missing classes. This is indicative of Tham and Niaz (2011) who argued that over-de-

pendency on social networks could result in the reduction of school attendance by students.

Participants expressed concerns such as “Possible bunking of classes and distracting the stu-

dent while in the classroom”. “It would make students to be lazy to attend lectures” and “Ab-

senteeism and also it would make students to be dependent upon others and not try to find

things on their own”. However, not attending classes is a matter of choice and therefore it

should not discourage higher education institutions from incorporating Facebook into their

educational practices.

Figure 1.1

Themes and participants’ response rate

Table 1.4

Themes and participants response rate

Themes Yes % No %Social Networking Familiarity 20 100% 0 0%Facebook use 20 100% 0 0%Facebook use in higher education 16 80% 4 20%Facebook enhance learning 16 80% 4 20%Interaction 17 85% 3 15%Collaboration 15 75% 5 25%Convenience 16 80% 4 20%Flexibility 14 70% 6 30%Cost-effective 18 90% 2 10%Slow internet access 17 85% 3 15%Distractions 13 65% 7 35%Absenteeism 11 55% 9 45%

4.4 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of social networking tools, particularly

Facebook in learning of higher education. The findings of this study elicit many important im-

plications for higher education. Contrary to Friesen and Lowe (2012) these findings indicate

that Facebook maybe a suitable tool for educational use, providing higher education institu-

tions with numerous low-cost and widely accessible electronic tools that afford students and

lecturers opportunities to connect, interact, collaborate on tasks and also access and share in-

formation.

Facebook is a SNS familiar to majority of university students. Similarly the dominance of

Facebook use by university students has been observed previously (Hew 2011; Hurt et al.

2012; Irwin et al. 2012; Tess 2013b; Tiryakioglu 2011; Uri & Sawyer 2011a; Yunus & Salehi

2012a; Bosch 2009; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012). This level of access indicates that Facebook

is well recognized by students and affords lecturers an opportunity to use a platform most fa-

miliar to students (Irwin et al. 2012). In addition, the participants in this study seem to be en-

thusiastic about the use of Facebook in higher education as the results indicate that 80% of the

participants are for Facebook use in higher education.

The participants indicated that Facebook enhances learning through encouraging other forms

of learning and learning of new things. Moreover, they also reported that Facebook encour-

ages interaction between students and lecturers, where students engage with other students

and lecturers to solicit assistance from them when they are struggling with school-work. Also,

the results indicated that Facebook influences collaboration among students whereby students

do school-work collectively. In their studies Irwin et al. (2012); Yunus and Salehi (2012) re-

ported similar data, indicating that students are behind the use of Facebook in higher educa-

tion learning. In addition, results from the current study and that of Hurt et al. (2012) indicate

that participants perceive Facebook as more convenient, flexible and effective than LMS.

4.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Social networking sites such as Facebook in education provide exciting platform for teaching

and learning. In this study, for a majority of participants, Facebook use in education has a lot

of benefits. Findings from this study help to provide insights as to how social networking

tools such as Facebook can help in enhancing learning practices of higher education. In addi-

tion, these findings can guide the Information Systems’ department management on how to

make best use of the opportunities presented by social networking tools in order to meet the

needs of modern students (Brady et al. 2010).

Barczyk et al. (2011) contend that collaboration and interaction are key components of learn-

ing in higher education. Due to SNSs capacities, Facebook SNS provide a viable platform for

collaboration and interaction. Equally important, Facebook enables users to participate in

various micro-communities including student societies, study groups as well as group mem-

berships (Bosch 2009). Furthermore, incorporating social networking tools in educational

practices may have positive implications for higher education. Expanding the vision of educa-

tion by creating a learning environment that can encourage students to actively engage in

knowledge creation, so that learning can be a participatory, social process that supports per-

sonal life, goals and needs is the most logical thing to do (Mcloughlin & Lee 2007a). Based

on participants’ responses it is clear that Facebook do encourage students to engage in learn-

ing activities.

4.6 SUMMARY

In this chapter participants’ responses with regards to Facebook use in higher education were

analysed. Due to problems encountered with Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software, an MS

Excel spreadsheet was used to analyse the data. A sum of twenty people participated in this

study. Three were Information Systems lecturers undergraduate and post graduate lecturers,

one second year Information Systems tutor and sixteen undergraduate and postgraduate stud-

ies. Even though questions asked to lecturers, tutor and students were slightly different some

were identical.

Different views about whether Facebook is good for educational use were expressed. Some

find the platform beneficial. Others felt it is not beneficial. Internet connectivity, privacy and

distractions were reinforced in this study as challenges associated with the use of Facebook. A

new finding of airtime costs was reported as a challenge in this study. The following chapter

concludes and provides recommendations for the future.

CHAPTER 5

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

As indicated by McLoughlin and Lee (2007) SNSs such as Facebook possess sociability fea-

tures that are more likely to enhance educational activities. These sociability features include

support for interaction and collaboration, which according to Barczyk et al. (2011) are key

factors of learning in higher education. As indicated in chapter four interaction and collabora-

tion do influence learning in higher education. Therefore this chapter summarises the findings

consistent with the literature as well as findings that have answered the research questions,

followed by recommendations for future research. But it will with restating the problem.

5.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM

Social networking tools have a potential to enhance learning practices (Mcloughlin & Lee

2007a; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012; Shambare & Mvula 2011), however, higher education in-

stitutions do not take full advantage of social media opportunities (No & Spraggon 2011).

Therefore, the study was initiated on the basis to warn higher education decision-makers,

higher education institutions and lecturers about the opportunities of social networking in edu-

cation.

5.3 THE LITERATURE IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS

Consistent with Yunus and Salehi (2012) study which found that Facebook groups enable stu-

dents to do pre-planning before writing, learning new vocabulary, soliciting ideas from other

students and also help with easy completion of assignments. This study also found that Face-

book use for educational purposes enable students to learn new things, solicit help from one

another and lecturers through interacting.

Similarly to Irwin et al. (2012) study, this study Facebook fosters interactions among students

and between them and lecturers. Again, as the participants in Irwin et al. (2012) anticipated

that Facebook is convenient for notifications. In this study it was found that Facebook is con-

venient and flexible and offers a platform for discussion.

Moreover, in relation to Schlenkrich and Sewry (2012) and Bosch (2009) this study found

that Internet is a key challenge to successful use of social networking in education. Also, con-

sistent with Yunus and Salehi (2012) and Bosch (2009), this study reported concerns about

possible distractions of Facebook in class. Again, the current study reported concerns of ab-

senteeism. These findings echo Tham and Niaz (2011) who stated that over-dependency on

social networks could lessen students’ attendance of school.

5.4 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS

This study was conducted with the intent to find answers to the research questions that are

identified in chapter one. After the data was collected and analysed it became possible to find

the answers to the research questions. The primary research question to the study is “how

Facebook do enhance learning?” and it is further defined by the following questions:

Does Facebook enhance learning in terms of encouraging interaction between students

and lecturers?

Does Facebook enhance learning in terms of encouraging collaboration between stu-

dents?

What are the potential challenges that Facebook-supported learning present to higher

education?

In order to find answers to the question “Does Facebook enhance learning in terms of encour-

aging interaction between students and lecturers?” Interviews were conducted and the data

collected from the interview responses clearly indicated that Facebook does enhance learning

through influencing interactions between students and lecturers as the results indicated that

Facebook is not only used for personal interaction but also educational interaction as it is used

as a medium to solicit help from other students and lecturers with regards to school-work.

Therefore, Facebook is an effective tool for learning which should be used in higher education

institutions.

In addition, the second research question which is “Does Facebook enhance learning in terms

of encouraging collaboration between students?” has also been answered. The results indic-

ated that Facebook encourages students to effectively manage group work and individual

work through collaboration with other students. This means that Facebook use in educational

activities is a rational thing to do because it makes learning not an individual process but a

collective one.

Furthermore, the third question about potential challenges that Facebook-supported learning

present to higher education is answered. It is shown by the results that Facebook use in learn-

ing is without challenges. The participants expressed concerns about internet problems, dis-

tractions and absenteeism. Therefore, this means in order for Facebook to effectively work,

Internet should be faster. In addition, with regards to distractions ground rules on how Face-

book should be used in class are to be set. Lastly, being absent in class is one’s choice which

has nothing to do with Facebook use and therefore higher education institutions should not be

discouraged from using it in learning.

Again, the fact that participants indicated that Facebook can be distractive can be related to

Jalal and Zaidieh (2012) and Schlenkrich and Sewry (2012) claim that SNSs can affect stu-

dents’ productivity. However, on the contrary to Jalal and Zaidieh (2012) and Pantic et al.

(2012) study which indicated that social networking can pose threats to one’s health. In this

study health threats associated with using Facebook are hardly reported as the participants did

not mention anything about Facebook causing health issues.

In addition, as many studies (Jalal & Zaidieh 2012; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012; Schroeder et

al. 2010; Yunus & Salehi 2012b) reported privacy issues with regards to social networking

use in educational context. In the current study it is only one participant who expressed con-

cerns of privacy and therefore that means that privacy is not a major concern as it has been re-

ported previously.

5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to time constraints the author the author did not investigate all the elements of the popu-

lation, the study only investigated 20 elements and therefore a study consisting of a large

sample is recommended. In addition, this research study was only limited to the IS department

of EMS faculty therefore a further study including all departments and faculties of UWC is

warranted. Furthermore, this study was qualitative in nature and adopted a case study ap-

proach; therefore a study using a different approach such as longitudinal has to be conducted

in order to find out as to what extent social networking tools such as Facebook can be used for

educational purposes.

5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

As some of the participants in their responses indicated that they prefer Twitter than Face-

book, a study as to what extent Twitter can be used for educational purposes in order to en-

hance learning has to be conducted. In addition, as Jalal and Zaidieh (2012) and Pantic et al.

(2012) indicated that social networking can be detrimental to one’s health, a study about in-

vestigating health threats posed by Facebook is recommended. Moreover, previous studies

(Jalal & Zaidieh 2012; Schlenkrich & Sewry 2012; Schroeder et al. 2010; Yunus & Salehi

2012b) reported privacy concerns regarding social networking use in education, a concern

which was hardly reported in this study, and therefore a study investigating as to what extent

are privacy concerns have an effect in educational use of Facebook has to be conducted.

5.7 SUMMARY

While Facebook has benefits for higher education, incorporating it into higher education re-

quires a thorough understanding of its implications. Facebook use in higher education institu-

tions cannot substitute the traditional methods of learning, but instead complement them with

more innovative ways to practice learning in a convenient and flexible manner. The depart-

ment of Information Systems at EMS faculty should incorporate Facebook in its curriculum

and use it together with traditional methods of learning. Therefore, this study should be able

to provide insights about the benefits of Facebook in learning of higher education, and that the

findings will be used as a basis for formulating future learning strategies in higher education

institutions.

6 APPENDICES

6.1 APPENDIX 1

Social networking interview

I kindly invite you to participate in a study that I am currently conducting as part of my Hon-

ours Research Project. The study focuses on incorporating social networking tools such as

Facebook in higher education to enhance learning. Its aim is to explore the impact of social

networking in higher education. The study aims to solicit students and lecturers’ perceptions

of the use of Facebook for educational activities. By taking 20 minutes of your time to parti-

cipate in this interview you will be adding great value to this study as the information collec-

ted can potentially influence the Information Systems department learning strategies. When

participating in the interview your participation will be kept anonymous as the responses will

separated from the participants.

Your participation will be highly appreciated

Interview questions

1. How familiar are you with social networking?

2. Do you use Facebook?

3. Recent literature suggests that the use of social networking sites like Facebook in

higher education would or can enhance teaching and learning practices. What is your

opinion on the use of Facebook in higher education?

4. Do you think educational use of Facebook enhances learning practices?

5. Do you think Facebook encourages interaction between students and lecturers?

6. Do you think Facebook encourages students to collaborate?

7. What are the benefits for using Facebook in higher education?

8. What challenges are associated with using Facebook for educational purposes?

6.2 APPENDIX 2

SOCIAL NETWORKING INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 2013

MORNING

INTERVIEW

AFTERNOON

INTERVIEW

14:30 pm. IS under-

graduate and post-

graduate Lecturer

The participant reported in room 4.29 IS department.

12:00 pm. IS under-

graduate and post-

graduate Lecturer

The participant reported in room 4.33 IS department.

10:00 am. IS under-

graduate and post-

graduate Lecturer

The participant reported in room 4. 31 IS department.

18:15 pm. IS second

year tutor

The participant reported in room R208 at a residence

in UWC.

13:00 pm. Student

(Honours)

The participant reported in library foyer of the Univer-

sity of the Western Cape.

12:20 pm. Student

(Honours)

The participant reported in postgraduate lab in the

EMS faculty of UWC.

10:45 a.m. Student

(Honours)


EMS faculty of UWC.

9: 00 a.m. Student

(Honours)

The participant reported in level 9, inside the library

of the University of the Western Cape.

13:30 pm. Student

(Honours)

The participant reported in EMS foyer of the Univer-


13:45 pm. Student

(Honours)


EMS faculty of UWC.

10: 15 a.m. Student

(Honours)



19:30 pm. Student

(Honours)

The participant reported in Zasembo Coffee Shop, in

the student centre of the University of the Western

Cape.

12:10 pm. Student

(Honours)



15:40 pm. Student

(Honours)



13:00 pm. Student

(Honours)

The participant reported in Zasembo Coffee Shop, in

the student centre of the University of the Western

Cape.

10: 37 a.m. Student

(Honours)



13:00 pm. Student

(Honours)



09: 50 a.m. Student

(Honours)



10: 30 a.m. Student

(Honours)



14: 00 a.m. Student

(Honours)


EMS faculty of UWC.

13: 08 a.m. Student

(Honours)


EMS faculty of UWC.

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-yaseen, H., Hourani, M. & Al-jaghoub, S., 2012. Success and Failure of e-Learning Projects : Alignment of Vision and Reality , Change and Culture. , 3(2), pp.277–284.

Barczyk, C.C. et al., 2011. Social Networking Media as a Tool for Teaching Business Admin-istration Courses. , 1(17), pp.267–276.

Benbasat, B.I., 1987. The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems Case Re-search : Definition. , (September).

Blankenship, M., How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education. , pp.11–12.

Bosch, T.E., 2009. Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the University of Cape Town. Communicatio, 35(2), pp.185–200.

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. , 9(2), pp.151–170.

Brown, A. & Johnson, J., 2007. Five Advantages of Using a Learning Management System. , pp.1–2.

Dynamics, R.N., Sciences, L. & Mckelvey, B., 2002. Situated Learning Theory : Adding Rate and Complexity Effects via Kauffman ’ s NK Model. , (1975).

Ellison, N.B., 2008. Social Network Sites : Definition , History , and Scholarship. , 13, pp.210–230.

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), pp.1143–1168.

Friesen, N. & Lowe, S., 2012. The questionable promise of social media for education: con-nective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), pp.183–194.

Gremu, C. & Halse, M., The Educational Value of Integrating a Social Networking Platform and a Learning Management System.

Gunawardena, C. et al., 2009. A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), pp.3–16. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09523980802588626 [Ac-cessed September 23, 2013].

Hew, K.F., 2011. Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), pp.662–676.

Hurt, N.E., Moss, G.S. & Bradley, C.L., 2012. http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v6n2.html. , 6(2), pp.1–24.

Irwin, C. et al., 2012. Students ’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning re-source at university. , 28(7), pp.1221–1232.

Jalal, A. & Zaidieh, Y., 2012. The Use of Social Networking in Education : Challenges and Opportunities. , 2(1), pp.18–21.

Joseph, M.S., 2011. The Perceptions and Experiences of Auxiliary Nurses regarding Breast-feeding in a Pediatric setting of an Academic Hospital in the Western Cape. , (March).

Junco, R., 2012a. The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Face-book activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), pp.162–171.

Junco, R., 2012b. Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), pp.187–198.

Kirk, D. & Macphail, A., 2002. Teaching Games for Understanding and Situated Learn- ing : Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model. , pp.177–192.

Krefting, L., 1991. Trustworthiness. , 45(3), pp.214–222.

Lave, J., 1991. CHAPTER 4 SITUATING LEARNING IN COMMUNITIES OF PRAC-TICE.

Lazier, N., 2010. Investigating social media usage patterns in the stakeholder groups of the University of Stellenbosch Business School. , (December).

Levy, Y. & Ellis, T.J., 2006. A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of Information Systems Research. , 9.

Lowenthal, P.R., 2005. Social Presence. , pp.1–9.

Marrelli, A.F., 2012. Literature Reviews. Ultrasound quarterly, (August), pp.40–44.

Mcloughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W., 2007a. Social software and participatory learning : Pedagogi-cal choices with technology affordances in the Web 2 . 0 era Introduction : Social trends and challenges. , pp.664–675.

Mcloughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W., 2007b. Social software and participatory learning : Pedagogi-cal choices with technology affordances in the Web 2 . 0 era Introduction : Social trends and challenges. , pp.664–675.

Mcloughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W., 2008. The Three P ’ s of Pedagogy for the Networked Soci-ety : Personalization , Participation , and Productivity. , 20(1), pp.10–27.

Mitchell, J., 2002a. E F F E C T I V E LY S T R U C T U R I N G COMMUNITIES OF PRAC-TICE IN VET,

Mitchell, J., 2002b. E F F E C T I V E LY S T R U C T U R I N G COMMUNITIES OF PRAC-TICE IN VET,

Moule, P., 2006. E-learning for healthcare students : developing the communities of practice framework. , 370.

Muñoz, C.L. & Towner, T.L., 2009a. Opening Facebook : How to Use Facebook in the Col-lege Classroom. , pp.1–13.

Muñoz, C.L. & Towner, T.L., 2009b. Opening Facebook : How to Use Facebook in the Col-lege Classroom. , pp.1–13.

Notice, G. & Contents, T.O.F., 1997. GENERAL NOTICE A PROGRAMME FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF.

Pantic, I. et al., 2012. Association between online social networking and depression in high school students: behavioral physiology viewpoint. Psychiatria Danubina, 24(1), pp.90–3. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22447092.

Pollara, P., 2011. SOCIAL NETWORKING AND EDUCATION : USING FACEBOOK AS AN EDUSOCIAL SPACE. , 2011.

Publishing, I.G.I., 2008. Web 2.0:

Researchers, Q., 2008. An Introduction to Codes and Coding. , (2006), pp.1–31.

Schlenkrich, L. & Sewry, D.A., 2012. Factors for Successful Use of Social Networking Sites in Higher Education. , (49), pp.12–24.

Schroeder, a., Minocha, S. & Schneider, C., 2010. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learn-ing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), pp.159–174.

Shambare, R. & Mvula, A., 2011. South African students’ perceptions of Facebook: Some implications for instructors. African Journal of Business Management, 5(26), pp.10557–10564.

Shambare, R., Rugimbana, R. & Sithole, N., 2012. Social networking habits among students. , 6(2), pp.578–586.

Tess, P. a., 2013a. The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), pp.A60–A68.

Tess, P. a., 2013b. The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), pp.A60–A68.

Tiryakioglu, F., 2011. Use of Social Networks as an Education Tool. , 2(2), pp.135–150.

To, A.N.I., AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNET,

Uri, D. & Sawyer, R., 2011a. The Impact of New Social Media on Intercultural Adaptation.

Uri, D. & Sawyer, R., 2011b. The Impact of New Social Media on Intercultural Adaptation.

Valenzuela, D. & Shrivastava, P., Interview as a Method for Qualitative Research.

Wenger, E., 2000. Organization.

Wenger, E. & Snyder, W.M., Cultivating Communities of Practice.

Wesseling, N., 2012. HOW STUDENTS USE FACEBOOK. , pp.20–25.

Yunus, M. & Salehi, H., 2012a. The Effectiveness of Facebook Groups on Teaching and Im-proving Writing : Students ’ Perceptions. , 6(1).

Yunus, M. & Salehi, H., 2012b. The Effectiveness of Facebook Groups on Teaching and Im-proving Writing : Students ’ Perceptions. , 6(1).

honours project

Documents