Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice

Volume 10 | Issue 1 Article 6

3-14-2013

Face to Facebook: Social media and the learning

and teaching potential of symmetrical, sychronous
communication
George VanDoorn
Monash University, [email protected]

Antoinette A. Eklund
Monash University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp

Recommended Citation
VanDoorn, George and Eklund, Antoinette A., Face to Facebook: Social media and the learning and
teaching potential of symmetrical, sychronous communication, Journal of University Teaching &
Learning Practice, 10(1), 2013.
Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the

University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW
Library: [email protected]
Face to Facebook: Social media and the learning and teaching potential of
symmetrical, sychronous communication
Abstract
Social networking offers teachers and learners exciting opportunities to communicate. Web 2.0 and its
synchronous communications platforms provide new avenues for teachers to deliver curriculum and facilitate
learning. Further, they provide new avenues for students to engage and intensify their own learning. Being
able to chat in real-time with a teacher, usually via face-to-face discussions, is something that many students
studying in on-campus (or day) mode take for granted, and is something that distance or off-campus students
are generally unable to experience. In the evolving, flexible-learning tertiary environment, viable and effective
computer mediated communication (CMC) alternatives to face-to-face teaching need to be explored. These
alternatives will only work if they prove useful to students. This article considers student reactions to social
media as a teaching tool, probing its benefits and limitations. Over the course of a semester, third year on- and
off-campus students communicated with an academic, outside lecture times, via the social networking site
facebook®. Students were allowed to ask any questions they had that related to the unit. At the end of the
semester students were provided with a 10-item questionnaire asking them to evaluate their experience. This
study looked at a specific aspect of social networking — synchronous text-based chat — and the students’
perceptions of its usefulness for their learning.

Keywords
social media, computer mediated communication, sychronous communication, distance eductation

Cover Page Footnote

Acknowledgements Mr Ben van Poppel, Adjunct Associate Professor Andrys Onsman and Professor Erik
Eklund

This journal article is available in Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6
 VanDoorn and Eklund: Face to Facebook

Introduction
Social networking is the new black. A substantial number of articles about social networking begin
by noting the staggering figures for user uptake. In 2011, Facebook was the most frequently
visited website, attracting an audience worldwide of 606 million, and almost half of the Australian
population were reported to be active users (Ryan & Xenos 2011, p1658). Social media generates
great interest as much from the virtual friend as from the educator. There is a growing body of
evidence (e.g. Cheung & Lee 2010) suggesting that Web 2.0 and social networking have the
potential to increase social connectedness and that students — secondary and university — spend a
great deal of time plugged in to all manner of internet services.

The challenge for educators is how to use social media — which is, after all, social — to enhance
learning outcomes. According to Cheung and Lee, in conjunction with high-speed internet access,
“Web 2 applications have created a new world of collaboration and communication” (2010, p24).
Whereas in the United States there is an increasing range of competitors to Facebook, it seems that
its domination of the Australian social-networking market is overwhelming (Ryan & Xenos 2011).
Facebook has its origins at Harvard University, and given universities' rapid uptake of
technologies like email, it was to be expected that Facebook would be looked to by teachers,
students and management alike as a potential delivery and communication system (Freeman
2009). Further, Facebook is reminiscent in structure of a more concrete university environment —
with walls to write on, and party invitations to distribute — and it is perhaps this, along with its
impressive membership, that has driven researchers to investigate the potential of Facebook-based
social networking to enhance learning (Bart 2010).

Many studies investigating Facebook (e.g. Roblyer et al. 2010) concentrate on enhancing student
outcomes — ability to demonstrate understanding of the unit material, for example — and
developing student-centred practices — learners constructing knowledge for themselves — for a
day (or on-campus) cohort. Facebook seems to be privileged as the “social site” to which
educators turn to develop social connectedness with their students. As such, it is an adjunct to
presumed face-to-face teaching, enhancing links built in a physical or actual place (Roblyer et al.
2010). Thus, the sense of community being formed through Facebook is enacted on- and off-line.
Although many studies identify great potential for the widening of student networks, more recent
studies (e.g. Subrahmanyam et al. 2008) have suggested that, in fact, a student’s Facebook
community is limited (with rare exception) to pre-established peer-groups. Thus, the friends on-
line are known off-line.

In the broader context of a push toward flexible learning, Facebook as a learning tool and a
learning environment seems to offer a win-win. It allows institutions to offer dual-mode courses
across on- and off-campus cohorts, and develop learning communities that facilitate positive
learning outcomes. As Yu, Tian, Vogel and Kwok note, “students’ social networking, especially
when the networking increasingly shifts to online, is more likely to be self-initiated learning, in
which individuals create a system of information and support by building and nurturing personal
links” (2010, p1494). In other words, social networking helps establish peer-to-peer, self-
motivated learning. Yet the benefits of flexible learning are to some extent reliant upon the same
set of assumptions that underpin the scholarly investigation of the uses of Facebook. Specifically,
flexible learning is about time management, and it is primarily on-campus students choosing
between modes of delivery; off-campus students typically do not have a choice (see below). Thus,
on-campus students have pre-existing or ongoing social and professional off-line contact with the
university and the teaching staff.

1
 Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 10 [2013], Iss. 1, Art. 6

Distance or off-campus students are not in this category. The opportunity afforded by Web 2.0 —
namely the erasure of geographical distance — is matched by dramatic technological limitations
that are also geographically determined. In other words, internet services become slower and less
reliable the further a person is from a metropolitan centre. The requirement for distance students to
attend residential school on a university campus, which established some face-to-face
communication between student and teacher, has been phased out by most intuitions offering
distance education, with varying levels of paper-based or fully online delivery modes. The
distance student does not have the opportunities afforded by proximity to select delivery modes. It
is distance or nothing. Further, they cannot rely on previously existing social networks as the
bedrock of a new learning community. Thus the use of social media for curriculum delivery and
learner engagement has significant implications for equity in student experience and outcome.

Distance students, however, like their on-campus fellow students, do have Facebook pages. Thus
the question becomes: how can educators use familiarity with social networks to build a virtual on-
campus relationship for day and distance students? In this study day and distance students were
offered an opportunity to develop a scholarly relationship usually taken for granted by day
students — the capacity to speak in real time with their teacher, in this case through Facebook
chat. This was a small study and represents the beginning of an exploration of issues of equity and
access, as well as student responses too and outcomes from the use of social networks. The
primary source of evidence is questionnaire responses; thus, what can be demonstrated is student
perceptions of their experience of using Facebook chat.

Facebook chat is a form of social media or networking that involves an open and synchronous
internet platform. This makes it computer-mediated communication (CMC). Respondents type
messages that are received instantaneously. The platform, small box and instant messaging
influences style and content, with short, direct and abbreviated messaging the norm. It differs
from, say, telephone calls in that there is an absence of physical communication cues such as
timbre or tone. It should be noted also that a chat window sits alongside other pages that the
computer user may be accessing, so students can be researching or writing their assignments while
“chatting" with their lecturer. Telephone calls for example cannot necessarily be conducted in this
way. The lecturer’s availability to chat is indicated via an icon.

It should be noted that opportunities for wide-ranging interactions between teachers and students
in general have always been part of the practice of teaching. The capacity to speak either face-to-
face or by phone, for example, is part of a scaffolded learning experience offered by many teachers
of day and distance students. What is different here is the technology, and its implications for
education.

By moving beyond issuing party invitations and writing on walls to synchronous CMC, this study
explores the possibility that social networking can enhance the specific learning needs of day and
distance students. It looks at the way in which the traditional approaches of teachers can be
mobilised and peer-learning enabled through CMC. The specific aspect of social media CMC
investigated in the study is text-based synchronous chat.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6 2
 VanDoorn and Eklund: Face to Facebook

The Tertiary Context

Since 1972 the School of Applied Media and Social Sciences (SAMSS) and its predecessor
organisations have been offering distance education at the Gippsland campus of Monash
University, Australia. The campus houses the Off Campus Learning Centre, which oversees the
production and delivery of materials for off-campus students and, as such, is recognised as the hub
of distance learning for the University as a whole.

Some 30% of the 4,500 students enrolled at Monash Gippsland are distance students, with the
added complexity that students are increasingly choosing mixed-mode attendance. That is, they
study some subjects (or "units" in Monash terms) in day mode and some in distance mode. Thus
distance education is complemented by an on-campus cohort with similar socio-economic and
cultural diversities. The tradition practised in the school is one of scholarly materials (such as
guides and readers) delivered in hard copy, although there has been movement over time towards
multimedia delivery. Digitised (audio and visual) lectures, website unit development and other
innovations of delivery characterise the school’s approach to distance education.

Quality distance education requires a commitment to the development of resources and innovative
teaching that target the distance learner specifically. In the contemporary context, flexible learning
and a dual-mode education focus have introduced a new complexity into the provision of
innovative distance education. As King points out “the democratising nature of online
developments has blurred the distinctions between on-campus and off-campus delivery” (2010,
p136). Online enrolment, class distribution and all manner of online university administrative
processes mean that a student’s experience is universalised across the day and distance cohorts. At
the same time, the blurring of the distinctions between modes of delivery has potentially eroded
some of the focus upon the distance student and the quality of delivery and experience (King 2010,
p136).

The differences between students primarily stem from the distinction between the physical
inhabiting of the institution as a day student and the geographically remote (and potentially
isolating) experience of the distance student. In other words, the daily enactment of being a student
in the physical environment of the university is fundamentally involved in creating the student
identity. The centre court for this enactment is the tutorial teaching space. This is what the distance
student forgoes, and is what all curriculum development and innovation seeks to address. Is it
possible for social networking to not merely mitigate against, but effectively erase the part of the
distance experience that denies the interaction of students — the face-to-face contact with the
scholar? In other words, does social media, specifically synchronous CMC, provide a method of
teaching that enhances the learning outcomes for distance as well as day students by providing a
virtual real-time environment? It is in this context that Facebook chat was explored as a potentially
innovative educational tool for learning for the distance student, as well as day students. Using the
principle of “let’s go to the students”, a pilot study was initiated into the use of synchronous
communication on Facebook with day and distance students. It should be noted that this study had
modest goals —to measure student perceptions of CMC — and that it represents the beginning of
broader research, not an attempt to provide definitive answers.

Computer-Mediated Communication
CMC is of significant scholarly interest. Over the last decade there has been a dramatic shift in the
accessibility, number of users and availability of CMC. The contemporary expression of CMC is

3
 Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 10 [2013], Iss. 1, Art. 6

social media, with the numbers of student users alone warranting significant study. CMC is
focused on the use of computer technologies to deliver curriculum and facilitate learning and
teaching. Although CMC is not always equivalent to interactive learning environments that
employ social media (through CMC), there are significant links to, among other things,
incorporating digital literacy capabilities and defraying the isolating aspects of distance learning.

There is debate about the broad effectiveness of this approach. Several authors have championed
its use in educational settings (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell & Haag 1995; Simpson
2005; Lund 2006). Some, chiefly Barnes, Marateo and Ferris (2007) and Oblinger and Hagner
(2005), have declared CMC to be an essential tool in teaching today’s “Net Generation” students.
Barnes et al., for example, argue that these students “express a need for more varied forms of
communication and report being easily bored with traditional learning methods” (2007, p2), while
Glenn (2000) similarly noted that today’s students flourish in interactive learning environments.

A specific concern relates to “pandering” to the Net Generation’s “self-reported preference for
immediacy” (Barnes et al. 2007, p2). It has been argued that using the internet to immediately
access information has taught these students to expect immediate answers, and subsequently
impaired their ability to delay gratification. The use of CMC, then, runs the risk of reinforcing a
reliance on the educator as a source of information at the expense of independent investigation,
encouraging the completion of work with minimal effort and/or discouraging sustained
concentration. Conversely, it is also argued that immediate feedback reinforces learning (Carlson
2005; Barnes et al. 2007) and allows a person to spend more time on a task (Skinner 1938).
Increased time spent researching a topic has the potential to strengthen connections between pieces
information, and helps develop a holistic map of the field of study (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins,
Campbell & Haag 1995).

It should also be noted that immediacy in the context of distance education is a significant
development. The delay in submission of work and feedback creates a disjunction between the
learning and skill development and the feedback. In this case immediacy does not mean that there
is an expectation that a question be answered immediately; rather, it means that there is an
arrangement that allows a conversation to take place at specific times.

Although interest in the pedagogical value of CMC is consistent, the research focus to date has
been limited. There is an emphasis in the research, for example, on transmitting an educator’s
image to remote students (Jonassen et al. 1995). Several studies have looked at asynchronous
(email) and synchronous (real-time) text-based CMC in the acquisition of a second language
(Eröz-Tuğa & Sadler 2009; Lamy 2004), but little has been done on assessing the benefits of CMC
in a university context.

Both synchronous video-conferencing and text-based chat allow for an immediate response to
questions, and allow students to engage directly with an educator. While these examples of CMC
deal with time (for example, time taken to deliver materials and time taken to answer simple
questions) there are also inherent constraints (Crystal 2001). A technical limitation of video-
conferencing is the requirement for significant bandwidth to function optimally. Thus the
communication can be compromised by poor reception or breaks in service.

A constraint of synchronous text-based chat is that students ask and answer questions in
abbreviated language (Herring 1999; Lotherington & Xu 2004; Jenks 2009). This has the potential
to blur the boundaries between formal learning environments (the language and context of the
classroom) and informal (peer-to-peer). This is an issue that arises specifically with dissociative

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6 4
 VanDoorn and Eklund: Face to Facebook

technologies like email and text messaging, where the combination of the abbreviated and/or
colloquial written message, the removal of physical proximity and the speed of message delivery
(in the case of synchronous messaging) can manifest in students mistaking register and etiquette
(Freeman 2009).

Moreover, McDonald and Elias (1976, cited in Jonassen et al.) suggest that in a traditional
classroom the “teacher contributes up to 80% of the verbal exchange” (1995, p16), but onl 10 to
15% when using CMC (Winkelmans 1988, cited in Jonassen et al. 1995). Thus the technology
itself may require a teacher to modify their teaching approach when interacting with students.

Hampel (2006) and Jonassen et al. (1995) argue that instructors employing CMC channels are
more akin to facilitators who support learning. As co-facilitators, students are encouraged to take
an active role through goal-directed behaviour; for example, finding and evaluating material,
generating questions and discussing ideas.

Although informal interaction and “facilitating” learning are quite different, both are interesting
from a social-learning point of view. Communicating with students via social networks (as
opposed to structured learning-management systems such as Blackboard or Moodle) has the
potential to enhance the students' perception of the educators’ approachability. In an environment
where teaching is evaluated based on students’ perceptions, this may be desirable for some
academics. There is reason to be cautious, however, when using social-networking sites to develop
approachability or accessibility, as

… these sites do not operate according to normative notions concerning power and sexual
hierarchies between adults and youth. Because of this, teachers might undermine their ethos
by creating their own profiles and adding their students as “friends” …
(Maranto & Barton 2011, p37).

In other words, a necessary and important separation between teachers as teachers and teachers as
friends is broken down through the nature of the CMC itself, with ramifications for the teacher and
the learner.

The transmission model used to bridge distance is not all that CMC offers the educator. Jonassen
and colleagues argue that learning is a social, conversational process in which “the thinking and
intelligence of a community of performers or learners is distributed throughout the group” (1995,
p9). Collaboration, then, scaffolds learning and supports the development, testing and evaluation
of context-specific hypotheses. It is this that Jonassen et al. argue is essential for the construction
of knowledge.

Little of the contemporary research focuses on student perceptions, however. It remains unclear
whether students themselves perceive CMC mediums as possessing pedagogical benefit. In other
words, what do the learners gain from the technology and its usage? This is one of the questions
that prompted this study.

5
 Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 10 [2013], Iss. 1, Art. 6

The Study
The aim was to explore the issue of student perceptions of the use of CMC by assessing the
perceived social-interactional and learning benefits of Facebook chat. Although Facebook has
several functions — among others, wall posts and news updates — the synchronous text-based
CMC was of particular interest in this study.

Text-based communication between Facebook users is free of charge regardless of geographical

distance. It is a synchronous text-based CMC medium: teacher and student converse through typed
messages in real time.

Twenty students volunteered to participate in the study. They were undertaking at least one of two
third-year Psychological Studies units at Monash University’s Gippsland Campus. They were
enrolled in either day or distance modes. Students were given permission to add the lecturer as a
“friend” on Facebook, which provided them with the opportunity to “chat” in real time with the
lecturer outside regular lecture and tutorial hours.

During “NetMeetings” between a student and the lecturer, students were allowed to ask any
questions they had that related to the unit. The length of each session ranged from 10 seconds to
15 minutes, but the length of any “conversation” was not limited arbitrarily.

At the end of the semester, students who had used Facebook to communicate with the lecturer
were provided with a questionnaire. The questions concerned user familiarity, communication
(preferred features, for example), quality of the CMC, quality of feedback from the lecturer and
usefulness. Students were also asked for their opinion regarding the potential of the tool for
educational use. The 10-item questionnaire contained five Likert-scale questions and four short-
answer questions (Appendix A).

The data from the questionnaires was analysed using both quantitative and qualitative measures.
Responses to open-ended questions were examined to identify themes and patterns. The answers
revealed that most students (18 of the 20) considered themselves to be either “extremely” or
“very” familiar with the features of Facebook (MLikert rating = 1.55 [Mode = 1], SD = 0.69). Fifteen
(75%) thought that Facebook was either “extremely” or “very” reliable (M = 2.00 [Mode = 2], SD
= 0.73). All of the respondents had used Facebook in the last six months, with students reporting
that they use Facebook either “every day” or “every few days” (M = 1.25 [Mode = 1], SD = 0.44).

Nineteen students (95%) reported using Facebook to contact the lecturer during the semester; with
two (10.5%) stating that they did do so “every few days”, eight (42.1%) “once a week” and six
(31.6%) “once a month”. Three (15.8%) identified that they contacted the lecturer “less than once
a month”. All students rated Facebook as either “extremely” useful or “very” useful as a tool for
contacting the lecturer (M = 1.37 [Mode = 1], SD = 0.50).

Of the 19 students who made contact with the lecturer via Facebook, all selected “chat” as
particularly useful. Nine (47.4%) also selected “messages (email)”, three (15.8%) chose “news
feed (notifications)”, three (15.8%) chose “status updates (comments)”, one (5.2%) selected
“friend requests” and four (21.1%) chose “wall posts”. All thought that the lecturer was able to
provide adequate responses to their questions using Facebook.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6 6
 VanDoorn and Eklund: Face to Facebook

In response to the question “In getting answers to questions about unit material and assignments,
how would you prefer to communicate with your lecturer?”, 17 students (85%) selected “web-
based chat”. Ten (50%) chose “email”, one (5%) chose “phone”, two (10%) selected “one-on-one,
face-to-face” and four (20%) chose “classroom, face-to-face”. Finally, 18 (90%) students thought
that Facebook was an appropriate teaching tool.

The thematic analysis revealed that students’ communication was largely assessment-driven.
Many of the questions posed by students on Facebook were associated with assessment tasks. One
manifest theme was immediate feedback. It became obvious that the rapid turnaround of
information was important to students. Several students acknowledged how helpful it was to
receive information pertinent to completing an assignment in a timely fashion. For example:

I got a quick response so I could quickly move along to the next part of my assignment.
Blackboard responses from other students often make me more confused, so a "straight"
answer from the lecturer was extremely helpful.

I got an answer straightaway and was able to continue on with my assignment.

Having Facebook chat makes these responses instant so you do not have to wait around all
day for an email.

Being able to use Facebook to contact lecturers makes me feel more comfortable about
asking questions or asking for feedback. Facebook is a more informal tool, and in my
opinion will create greater engagement with students.

It was a quick and effective way of getting information and answers.... Being an off-campus
student, it meant that I could be studying/doing assignments in the evening and the lecturer
was available to assist with questions.

Survey responses revealed that one of the benefits of the “chat” option was, again, the immediacy
of communication. For example:

Useful if lecturer is online. Quicker.

I found chat useful as it allowed for a quick reply and it meant you could see if you were
able to get into immediate contact with the lecturer.

This was helpful when I had a question that I needed an answer to quickly, so did not have
to wait for email or [a] Blackboard reply.

Chat enabled me to ask questions and get an immediate response, which was very helpful
whilst writing my essay. I was also able to contact the lecturer during the weekend when I
am usually writing my essays.

It is helpful to be able to log on and see your lecturer on Facebook, as it means you can ask
a question and get an immediate response. As I am off-campus and working full-time, I
appreciate being able to get a quick response.

7
 Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 10 [2013], Iss. 1, Art. 6

I have found it is much easier to contact or ask questions via Facebook, as I can ask
questions as I think of them. I am unlikely to call a lecturer and even less likely to see a
lecturer at their office as I can never remember what times they are available. I have also
found the feedback to be more instantaneous, which is helpful when asking questions
relating to assignments.

Quick reply like having a conversation but don’t need to call or drive down. Don’t have to
move from computer and lose train of thought.

I found this quite useful as I received an instant reply to my question. It also meant that if I
didn’t understand the lecturer’s reply, I could say so, and they could attempt to answer my
question in a different manner.

Despite this broad appreciation of the benefits of Facebook, there were some concerns.
Respondents expressed concerns over privacy, and the use of a social space as a teaching space:

...for some students they would prefer to keep their private life away from the lecturers, or
may not have a Facebook account, therefore [Facebook] should not be the only way that
students can contact people.

...having a separate Facebook account purely for work purposes may be beneficial to the
lecturer and possibly students. Whilst having the lecturer use their personal account does
make the lecturer more accessible and personable, it does pose an issue of breaching lines
between teacher and student. This is a personal choice of the lecturer, though, and has not
in my experience hindered the advantages of having Facebook as a communication tool
with the lecturer.

I think email is better; Facebook is more a social way of communicating, would prefer to
keep that separate from uni!

Overall, then, students expressed an appreciation for immediate feedback. The data also indicated
that, given the opportunity, the majority of students would contact a lecturer at least once a week,
and that they prefer synchronous communication (chat) over asynchronous communication
(email).

Students’ responses suggested that providing them with immediate feedback facilitated the
researching (and writing) of their assignments. The immediacy of the response meant that time
was not lost seeking specific information. Acknowledging their understanding of the material and
addressing their concerns seems to have facilitated their engagement with the material; this,
potentially, contributed to more structured and goal-oriented investigation (see Jonassen et al.
1995).

This seemed to be particularly important for distance students who have no face-to-face access to
their lecturers, and therefore infrequent opportunities for immediate feedback. The contact these
students have with their lecturers is “usually limited to feedback on the assignments” (Hampel
2006 p. 112).

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6 8
 VanDoorn and Eklund: Face to Facebook

Benefits and Disadvantages

The findings here are consistent with Barnes et al., who suggest that by merging the evolving work
paradigms of net-literate students with established teaching techniques, “educators can tap into the
distinctive proficiencies of their students while ensuring focused learning and positive outcomes”
(2007, p. 5). In other words, familiarity with social networking is a useful pedagogical platform.

There are several potential benefits in using text-based communication. Social-networking sites,
with their reliance on short, simple text messages, mitigate the difficulties for users on slow
internet connections. As another example, Facebook runs inside the user’s web-browser of choice,
requiring no additional software that must be learned. Furthermore, it has been argued that the use
of emoticons may, to a limited extent, substitute for non-verbal cues available through video-
conferencing or face-to-face communication, and although some have argued that they are
culturally specific, may assist in reducing ambiguity in text-based communication (Walther &
D'Addario 2001).

Interestingly, another potential benefit of using text-based communication tools, in particular over
video-conferencing, is that this form of contact is relatively “faceless”. Although, as Feenberg
(1989, cited in McCabe 1998) contends, people have increasing control over how they manage
their online persona, the perceived anonymity allows them to ask questions they would perhaps
not ask in a face-to-face interaction. While much has changed since Feenberg made this
observation, and there are now serious issues around internet privacy, the specific technological
characteristics of internet communication do still provide for a level of anonymity in the specific
areas of synchronous and asynchronous communication (chat and email) as well as gaming
(Second Life is an example of the deliberate management of an online persona or avatar). In the
context of learning and teaching, this is a double-edged sword. It can provide a space for nervous
or timid students, for example, to ask questions in a less intimidating environment, but can also
suggest a level of protective anonymity (dissociative behaviour) that provides space for
inappropriate language, commentary or engagement.

In this study the students overwhelmingly reported that they had been on Facebook before the
study, and thus had a pre-existing familiarity with the technology. Students were reassured by the
real-time dialogue with their lecturer. To this end then, CMC was perceived favourably by
distance and day students as actively scaffolding their learning. The synchronous communication
provided distinct benefits, including overcoming or neutralising distance.

The data indicated that the majority of students completing the survey felt comfortable contacting
the lecturer at least once a week — a finding consistent with reducing “unapproachability” and
establishing an environment where the student-teacher division was legitimately blurred, and
where students were encouraged to engage with the material. The ownership of engagement, the
move from teacher-directed to learner-focused learning, is inherent in distance education, as it
relies on the motivation of the individual. However, CMC and the relatively newly accessible
Facebook chat (along with interactive learning environments) offer another opportunity to support
distance-education learning by providing an equivalence of on-campus availability, thus
neutralising one possible limitation of off-campus study.

Furthermore, while communication between students and educators can occur in a variety of ways,
importantly, when the student communicates with the lecturer using CMC the onus is on the

9
 Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 10 [2013], Iss. 1, Art. 6

student to formulate questions and therefore engage with the material. For a session to be
successful, students must come prepared with ideas and questions (Hampel 2006). A
supplementary benefit of text-based interaction is that the act of writing itself compels students to
formulate and express their ideas clearly so they can be understood. This helps them develop
higher-order thinking, and examine their reasoning (Harasim 1990; McCabe 1998).

It is clear, then, that CMC offers sources of communication that can augment existing media and
complement existing methods. It is also clear that the specific CMC opportunities to enhance
learning that are afforded by social networking are vast. Being able to speak with a teacher in real
time over any distance does go a substantial way towards neutralising distance, encouraging
participation and creating a collegiate environment.

In terms of disadvantages, the principal issue identified by the students was the blurring of "social"
and "educational" domains, together with privacy concerns. The strong student emphasis on timely
feedback also put pressure on the lecturing staff to be online and to reply as soon as possible. This
may have the effect of increasing workloads unless students are given clear directions on what
they can reasonably expect of the lecturing staff.

A potential issue that educators also need to remain cognisant of is that Facebook and other social-
networking sites are “for-profit” commercial enterprises. By using them to deliver curriculum
advice, for example, we are exposing our students to advertising and asking individuals (both staff
and students) to move beyond the protected sphere of the university. As the students noted, there
are concerns over privacy that are directly relevant to the use of the public space of the social
network. CMC itself is not restricted to Facebook, of course, so perhaps one option is to use
university platforms rather than public ones.

Conclusion
Synchronised communication — social-media chat — was generally perceived positively by
students. A quickly answered question allowed students to spend more time completing their
assignment. Further, they formulated questions and answers in writing. The immediacy of the
response and the irrelevance of distance, along with anonymity, all helped the students in
completing the unit.

It is important, however, to distinguish between CMC and the specific social network of
Facebook. There needs to be more research on the broader uses of multiple CMC platforms, rather
than simply equating its effectiveness with that of Facebook itself. Concerns about privacy and the
potential confusion of modes (social versus education), as well as exposure to advertising, need to
be taken seriously if these forms of scaffolded learning are to be implemented more broadly.
Educators need to be mindful about the rates of uptake and usage of Facebook. The largest cohort
of new students at the Monash Gippsland campus is mature-age students who have come through
TAFE or other post-secondary pathways. Not all of our new learners are net-savvy generation
Xers; consequently, not all students have used Facebook, or are familiar with it. Therefore a
blanket use of social networking to address specific disadvantages (distance, for example) could
potentially introduce another set of discriminating factors.

A word of caution too, there is a significant time component for this form of teacher availability. If
synchronised chat communication is to be incorporated into teaching more uniformly, it needs to
be done with an awareness of the resource-intensity of the practice. Educators will need to be

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6 10
 VanDoorn and Eklund: Face to Facebook

adequately resourced with the time to provide this level of learning support. This was a pilot study
with a small sample that, while it can claim some representativeness, should be followed up by
more-comprehensive studies that employ rigorous qualitative and quantitative research techniques,
so educators can fully develop an understanding of not only student perceptions, but the
relationships of this form of CMC to learning outcomes.

References
Barnes, K. Marateo, R. C. & Ferris, S. P. (2007). Teaching and learning with the Net Generation.
Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(4), 1-7.
Boyle, E. Anderson, A. & Newlands, A. (1994). The effects of visibility on dialogue and
performance in a cooperative problem-solving task. Language and Speech, 37(1), 1-20.
Bruce, V. (1996). The role of face in communication: Implications for videophone design.
Interacting with Computers, 8(2), 166-176.
Burt, S. (2010). Always On. London review of Books, 32(11), 21-22.
Carlson, S. (2005). The Net Generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education
(October 7). http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i07/07a03401.htm
Cheung, C. M. & Lee, M. K. (2010). A theoretical model of intentional social action in online
social networks. Decision Support Systems, 49, 24-30.
Chun, D. & Plass, J. (2000). Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition.
In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language and teaching: Concepts and
practice (pp. 151-170). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Crystal, D. (2001) Language and the Internet. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for Computer Assisted
Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183-194.
Eröz-Tuğa, B. & Sadler, R. (2009). Comparing six video chat tools: A critical evaluation by
language teachers. Computers & Education, 53, 787-798.
Freeman, J. (2009). Shrinking the World: the 4000-year story of how email came to rule our lives.
Text: Melbourne.
Glenn, J. M. (2000). Teaching the Net Generation. Business Education Forum, 54(3), 6-14.
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A. & Dozier, D. M. (2006). The Excellence Theory. In Botan, C. &
Hazelton, V. (Eds.), Public Relations Theory II. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching
and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18, 105-121.
Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual
amplification. In Harasim, L. (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment.
Praeger, New York.
Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication, 4(4), 1-13.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J. & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and
computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 9(2), 7-26.
Jenks, C. J. (2009). Getting acquainted in Skypecasts: Aspects of social organization in online chat
rooms. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 26-46.
King, B. (2010). Reshaping distance and online education around a national university in regional
Australia. Open Learning, 25(2), 131-140.
Kinchin, I. M. & Hay, D. B. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 13, 43-61.

11
 Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 10 [2013], Iss. 1, Art. 6

Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. & Reed, C. (1989). Haptic integration of object properties: Texture,
hardness, and planar contour. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception &
Performance, 15, 45-57.
Lamy, M. (2004) Oral conversations online: Redefining oral competence in synchronous
environments. ReCALL, 16, 520-538.
Levy, M. (1998). Two conceptions of learning and their implication for CALL at the tertiary level.
ReCall, 10(1), 86-94.
Lotherington, H. & Xu, Y. (2004). How to chat in English and Chinese: Emerging digital language
conventions. ReCALL, 16, 308-329.
Lund, A. (2006). The multiple contexts of online language teaching. Language Teaching
Research, 10, 181-204.
McCabe, M. F. (1998). Lessons from the field: Computer conferencing in higher education.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 7, 71-87.
Maranto, G. & Barton, M. (2010). Paradoa and Promise: MySpace, Facebook, and the Sociopolitics
of Social Networking in the Writing Classroom. Computers and Composition, 27, 36-47.
Millar, S. (2005). Network models for haptic perception. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(3),
250-265.
Oblinger, D. G. & Hagner, P. (2005). Seminar on educating the Net Generation. Paper presented
at EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/section_params/conf/esem052/OneDayv2-HO.ppt#3
Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three
communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J. & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on
Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions
of social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 134-140.
Ryan, T. & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between
the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27, 1658-1664.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse
Studies, 7, 337-361.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century, Oxford.
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational
communications. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N. & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social
networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29, 420-433.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wang, Y. (2004). Supporting synchronous distance language learning with desktop
videoconferencing. Language, Learning & Technology, 8(3), 90-121.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The
Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Walther, J. B. & D'Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of Emoticons on message interpretation in
Computer-Mediated Communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324-347.
Yu, A., Yan, S., Wen, T., Vogel, D. & Kwok, R. C. (2010). Can learning be virtually boosted? An
investigation of online social networking impact. Computers & Education, 55, 1494-1503.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6 12
 VanDoorn and Eklund: Face to Facebook

Appendix A
Effectiveness and Usefulness Survey

Please tick the appropriate boxes. Your help is very much appreciated.
1. Do you have a personal Facebook page?
� Yes � No

If yes, how familiar are you with Facebook’s features (e.g., chat)?
� Extremely
� Very
� Somewhat
� Only a little
� Not at all

2. How reliable is Facebook?

� Extremely
� Very
� Somewhat
� Only a little
� Not at all

3. Have you used Facebook in the last six months?

� Yes � No

If yes, how often?

� Every day
� Every few days
� Once a week
� Once a month
� Less than once a month

4. Have you used Facebook to contact your lecturer this semester (i.e., Semester 1, 2010)?
� Yes � No

If yes, how often?

� Every day
� Every few days
� Once a week
� Once a month
� Less than once a month

5. Overall, how helpful have you found Facebook as a tool for contacting the lecturer?
� Extremely
� Very
� Somewhat
� Only a little
� Not at all

13
 Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 10 [2013], Iss. 1, Art. 6

6. Which features of Facebook, if any, did you find particularly useful in interacting with the
lecturer? (Tick as many as apply, and we would appreciate any comments)
� Chat
………………………………………………………………….
� Messages (Email)
………………………………………………………………….
� News Feed (Notifications)
………………………………………………………………….
� Status Updates (Comments)
………………………………………………………………….
� Friend Requests
………………………………………………………………….
� Photos
………………………………………………………………….
� Wall Posts
………………………………………………………………….
� None of the above

7. In your experience, do you think that, using Facebook, the lecturer was able to provide adequate
responses to the questions you posed? (We would appreciate your comments.)
� Yes � No
………………………………………………………………….

8. Do you have suggestions for how the lecturer could have been more helpful?
� Yes � No

If yes, please explain.

………………………………………………………………….

9. In getting answers to questions about unit material and assignments, how would you prefer to
communicate with your lecturer?
� Web-based chat
� Email
� Phone
� One-on-one, face-to-face
� Snail mail
� Classroom, face-to-face

10. Is Facebook an appropriate teaching tool for the students of Monash University?
� Yes � No

If no, what would be your suggestions for change?

………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………….

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. Your input is invaluable

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6 14