enhancing engagement in large course in the wake of a ... · skinner & belmont, 1993)....

Enhancing Engagement in Large Course in the Wake of a Crisis The Facebook Experiment

Trevor Nesbit

Ara Institute of Canterbury New Zealand

trevornesbitaraacnz

Angela Martin

University of Canterbury New Zealand

angelamartincanterburyacnz

Vanesa Tenant

Independent Scholar Kingston Jamaica

vanesatennantgmailcom

ABSTRACT

The use of social media in higher education has attracted attention from many

researchers In this paper the results of a study into the use of Facebook in two

offerings of a large first year Information Systems course and one offering of a

large second year Accounting Information Systems course are presented

The courses that were the subject of the study were offered during 2011 at the

University of Canterbury in Christchurch New Zealand This creates added context

for the study of the major disruptions caused by the major earthquake on 22nd

February of that year and significant snowfalls in August of that year

The results show that the decisions to use Facebook as an additional

communication channel in these courses in the wake of the earthquake and

snowfalls was justified provided that joining the groups was not a mandatory

requirement for enrolment in the courses

Keywords

Student Engagement Social Media Facebook Crisis Event

Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology Volume 23 Issue 1 2019 --- ISSN 2230-4398

1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH METHOD

The use of social media tools has been the subject of a number of experiments in

higher education The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a study into

the effectiveness of using a social media tool (Facebook) as an additional

communication channel between staff and students in large classes particularly in

the wake of natural disasters and extreme weather events

Facebook was used extensively as an additional communication channel in two

offerings of a large (approximately 300 and 500 students respectively) first year

Information Systems course and one offering (approximately 170 students) of a

second year Accounting Information Systems course at the University of

Canterbury during 2011 a year which was disrupted significantly by earthquakes

and to a lesser extent by snow storms

A literature review covering the use of social media in higher educational contexts

is presented This is followed by an outline of the methodology followed in the

paper and a description of how Facebook was used across the courses The results

from a survey of students enrolled in the courses are then presented The

questions that were included in the survey are presented as part of that section of

the paper This is followed by an analysis and discussion after which conclusions

pertaining to the success of the experiment are drawn

The research question that this paper seeks to address is

ldquoWhat are the benefits and risks associated with using Facebook as an

additional communication channel between students and lecturers in the

wake of a crisisrdquo

It should be noted that at the time of these earthquakes the feature in Facebook

that allows people to mark themselves as safe had yet to be implemented


2 LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction to Literature Review

The literature that has relevance to this study can be found in four bodies of

research First that of student engagement and different aspects of student

engagement second in the social nature of learning third in the use of social

technologies in education and fourth in the use of social media surrounding crisis

events The aspects relating to the use of social technologies in higher education

are explored in the contexts of social technologies for collaborative learning social

communication technologies for the communication and exchange of information

social technologies for emotional support whether social media can be a

substitute for course management systems privacy and internet safety and the

creation of distractions

22 Engagement

Engaging students and keeping them engaged has often proved to be a problem

As can be imagined this problem gains new factors that influence it and

compound to produce a larger student engagement issue in the wake of a crisis

The concept of engagement in learning has been the subject of much research in

an attempt to address student motivation in learning situations (Fredricks

Blumenfeld amp Paris 2004) Three types of engagement have been identified as

being behavioural engagement emotional engagement and cognitive engagement

(Fredricks et al 2004)

Behavioural engagement relates to positive conduct and following rules and norms

(Finn 1993 Finn Pannozzo amp Voelkl 1995 Finn amp Rock 1997) Emotional

engagement refers to students affective reactions in the classroom including

interest boredom happiness sadness and anxiety (Connell amp Wellborn 1991

Skinner amp Belmont 1993) Cognitive engagement refers to psychological

investment in learning a desire to go beyond the requirements and a preference


for challenge (Connell amp Wellborn 1991 Newmann Wehlage amp Lamborn 1992

Wehlage et al 1989) Cognitive engagement includes flexibility in problem solving

preference for hard work and positive coping in the face of failure (Connell amp

Wellborn 1991)

Other researchers had also identified an increase in student engagement as being

one of the benefits of using social media in this context (Cuesta Eklund Rydin amp

Witt 2016 Roblyer et al 2010) with others highlighting that Facebook is a great

tool for promoting student engagement (Sobaih Moustafa Ghandforoush amp

Khan 2016)

The nature of engagement referred to in this study is predominantly that of

cognitive engagement in particular the ldquostudents psychological investment in an

effort directed toward learning understanding and mastering the knowledge

skills or crafts that the academic work is intended to pro-mote (Newmann et al

1992) however in the analysis section of this paper are some aspects that emerge

that relate to behavioural engagement and some that relate to emotional

engagement

23 Social Nature of Learning

Tying student engagement into a form of social activity relies on the idea that

learning has a social nature and is well established in Social Learning Theory

(Vygotsky 1978) This has been evident in studies involving the use of technology

in education This is particularly used when the technology being used by the

students is also used by the students for social communication (Nesbit amp Martin

2011)

The term Prevailing Personal Social Communication Technologies (PPSCTs) has

been developed to cover those technologies that are personally owned andor

used by a large percentage of students in a given context where the students


frequently use those technologies for personal and social communication (Nesbit

amp Martin 2011)

24 Social Technologies in Education in General

Although interaction through social media is not providing true social activity (in a

form that has been historically deemed ldquosocial activityrdquo) social media interaction

does provide a platform for people with common interests and goals to put an

almost anonymous voice to their questions and their social transactionsdealings

Basing this in an educational setting could mean increased learning potential

The volatile nature of interaction enabled by social media can sit uncomfortably

within existing higher education practice (Hemmi Bayne amp Land 2009)

A number of issues have been identified in the use of social media in education

but despite these there are a range of student and tutor perspectives which show

that these technologies have significant potential as new collaborative volatile and

challenging environments for formal learning (Hemmi et al 2009)

A study conducted in 2010 that included a survey of a similar group of students at

the University of Canterbury showed that Facebook was by far the most dominant

form of social media amongst them This study went on to identify a number of

potential risks and challenges relating to the use of social media in a business

setting (see Table 1) and that these had the potential to be generalised into a

higher education setting (Nesbit 2011)

Divulging of confidential information outside the organisation and breaches of security

The organisation itself being unaware of their use wasting employee time and loss of control

Reducing trust and use of the tools being incompatible with the culture of the organization

Table 1 - Risks and Challenges from Using Social Media in a Business Setting (Nesbit 2011)


The use of social media such as Facebook is one of the latest examples of

communications technologies that have been widely-adopted by students and

consequently have the potential to become a valuable resource to support their

educational communications and collaborations (Roblyer et al 2010) The

indications from this study were that students would be much more likely to use

Facebook and other similar technologies than academic teaching staff

Of particular note is the significant difference between the perceived role of

technologies like Facebook as being social rather than educational (Roblyer et al

2010) with this having potential links to Social Learning Theory (Vygotsky 1978)

and the ideas of using PPSCTs as part of studentsrsquo learning (Nesbit amp Martin 2011)

It was also noted in some studies that Students are the ones that are more willing

and enthusiastic in its adoption compared with academics (Saacutenchez et al 2014

Balakrishnan 2017 Peacuterez Araiza amp Doerfer 2013 Roblyer et al 2010) It has also

been noted that social media can be a platform for fast and efficient

communication convenience with resource sharing time-saving increasing

interaction and facilitating in collaborative classroom activities (Akccedilayır 2017)

25 Social Technologies for Collaborative Learning

Social technologies have been reported in many studies as being useful in enabling

collaboration between students in a higher education context

In one study it was found that Facebook friends helped students to identify and

find learning material on the Internet and to answer questions about logistics

(course venues times assignment details etc) In this study students interviewed

also talked about how Facebook allowed them to learn from the older students

whom they did not usually meet with in person allowing them to network with

groups who had similar academic interests (Bosch 2009)

In a second study students reported that facebook provided a space where they

can discuss and share their success and challenges Furthermore Facebook offered


opportunities for active learning and an open-ended forum for student

consultation that may allow students who are introverts in class to give feedback

to their fellow peers and lecturers (Ivala amp Gachago 2012)

In a third study it was found that much of studentsrsquo lsquoeducationalrsquo use of Facebook

was based around either the post-hoc critiquing of learning experiences and

events the exchange of logistical or factual information about teaching and

assessment requirements (Selwyn 2009)

In another study Facebook provided opportunities for student collaboration with

both peer generated content and pedagogical content knowledge (Rambe 2012)

In a further study students revealed that Facebook was most helpful in providing

study tips and suggestions Students shared that posts that asked questions (and

the related discussion that followed) were beneficial to their learning (DiVall amp

Kirwan 2012)

The concept that interactions via Facebook supported community building and

provided opportunities for modeling both of which promote learning has also

been identified (Arnold amp Paulus 2010)

In a further study students stated that Facebook is an environment in which they

feel comfortable and motivated to research discover create and fulfill school

assignments (Grosseck Bran amp Tiru 2011)

In another study the findings included that interaction and connectedness was

very important to the studyrsquos participants For several of the students in this study

the preference was for informal interactions with other learners The study

indicates that some students are actively seeking opportunities for informal

learning and use new media to support this (Andrews Tynan amp James 2011)

The idea that students perceive the use of Facebook positively as a tool to enhance

communications community building and engagement emerged from another

study In this study students shared that they use Social media for topically related


questions addressed to peers andor the sharing of links to articles new events

multimedia files or other matters of interest (Buzzetto-More 2012)

In a further study it was revealed that Facebook users who participated in the

study kept their relationships and communication with their colleagues classmates

or people with whom they are studying they also exchange information share

ideas and views during this communication process (Mazman amp Usluel 2010) with

this facilitation of collaboration also being commented on (Milošević Živković

Arsić amp Manasijević 2015 ) The Openness interactivity and sociability which are

the nature of social media has been noted as bringing about an increase in

communication collaboration and interaction (Manca amp Ranieri 2016)

26 Social Technologies for Communication and Exchange of Information

The concept that social technologies could be used in higher education to facilitate

communication and exchange of information has been reported in a number of

studies

In one study is was found that Students also used Facebook during university

vacations to connect with others about holiday projects and share lecture and

study notes (Bosch 2009)

The idea that Facebook groups have the potential of enhancing student levels of

engagement in learning through its promotion of improved interaction and

communication between lecturers and students and vice versa was one of the

findings one study (Ivala amp Gachago 2012)

In one study it was revealed that students would exchange information about

academic and intellectual requirements of their courses usually concerning the

nature of required reading for seminars the speculated content of examinations or

the required content of essays and other assessment tasks In some instances

potentially privileged information and advice given to one student by a lecturer or

tutor was relayed dutifully to a wider audience (Selwyn 2009)


In a further study it was identified that Facebook benefited students by promoting

visibility of common problems that students had with course-based concepts

(Rambe 2012)

In another study the Facebook page used enhanced communication and

interaction between students and the course instructors Students were able to

receive updates and information which may have been missed via other

communication means Response to questions and facilitation of discussions were

faster than relying on email and discussion boards on a platform familiar to

students and allowed access to academic information on a system that they are

constantly engaged with (Irwin Ball Desbrow amp Leveritt 2012)

It was found in another study that students strongly agreed or agreed that they

were more likely to post on Facebook than Blackboard and 77 strongly agreed or

agreed that they were more likely to see and read posts on Facebook than on

Blackboard (DiVall amp Kirwan 2012)

In another study it was found that the majority of participants highlighted the

educational advantages including increased levels of communication and

collaboration to deeper levels of reflection (Brady Holcom amp Smith 2010) with

other studies commenting on the Openness interactivity and sociability that are

enabled (Manca amp Ranieri 2016) and the increases in communication and

interaction (Ahern Feller amp Nagle 2016 Peacuterez et al 2013)

27 Social Technologies for Emotional Support

A number of prior studies have covered the use of social technologies for

emotional support in a higher education context

In one study it was demonstrated how one example of student community

building on Facebook was an online group set up to provide emotional support to

the friends of a student who had been killed in a car crash (Bosch 2009)


In further study it was found that another category of Facebook exchange

centered on supplication and the seeking of moral (rather than intellectual)

support with regards to the demands of the studentsrsquo studies In these postings

students would often present themselves as rendered helpless in the face of their

university work in the expectation that their peers would then offer support and

comfort (Selwyn 2009)

In another study conducted Facebook was used as an important social tool by the

majority of the respondents to aid transition to university (Madge Meek Wellens

amp Hooley 2009)

It has also been revealed that students who experience stress might use Facebook

as an outlet for voicing this stress Students may share concerns about stress in

their natural frequently used environment (Egan amp Moreno 2011)

In another study when students shared their experiences in efforts to help others

through the Facebook messages they wrote especially students from Virginia Tech

who went through a shooting incident before other campuses their efforts most

likely helped others learn about coping Besides helping others they probably re-

directed their own emotions in a constructive manner The study outlined how in

the case of Northern Illinois University following the shooting the university

canceled classes for over a week and encouraged students to return to their

homes and be with their families Instead of being with their friends on campus

those students scattered yet they could remain in contact with each other and

with other students sharing the same experiences through Facebook Additionally

many alumni community members and students from other universities joined

groups and sent messages and students could then see that there were people

outside the university who cared (Shelton 2009)

It has also been found that involvement in a Facebook Group correlated with

studentsrsquo sense of belonging in the course and their sense of belonging strongly

related to their perceptions of learning Students who felt greater belonging in the


course aided by their involvement in the Facebook Group perceived themselves

to have learned more (Dougherty amp Andercheck 2014)

It was found in one study that students who were anxious about face-to-face

communication went to Facebook to pass time or to feel less lonely (Sheldon

2008)

In a further study the findings revealed that students used Facebook or MySpace

as a means to communicate with each other or to the greater community in the

case of campus crises For example after the Virginia Tech shootings postings

such as ldquoAre you OKrdquo helped students locate their friends find out what was

happening or tell their stories of the event More than three thousand students

joined a Facebook group called ldquoIrsquom OK at VTrdquo which allowed them to say that

they were safe inquire about missing others and eventually list the names of the

victims (Mastrodicasa 2008)

More than ten thousand students at Virginia Tech used social network sites such as

Facebook or MySpace to communicate on the day of the shootings (PaperClip

Communications 2007) Gifts or individual tributes on each victimrsquos profile page

were left in mourning (Heffernan 2007)

In a further study it was revealed that the largest number of posts included those

that were associated with affective communication such as group reinforcement

encouragement and support These posts were typically positive and encouraging

in nature indicating that the group sense of community was strong among

participants (English amp Duncan-Howell 2008)

28 Social Media and Crisis Event

In the same way that social media replaced the church as a form of support after

the Christchurch earthquakes (Veer 2012) social media also replaced the

classroom to support students


Investigation of recent disasters reveals use of online social media as an emergent

significant and often accurate form of public participation and backchannel

communication This highlights the value of social media as an additional

communication channel in the wake of natural disasters (Palen 2008)

The large earthquakes in Christchurch (New Zealand) in February 2011 had

significant impacts on many aspects of life in the city A study investigating how

first year commerce courses at UC were managed in the wake of the earthquakes

described briefly how Facebook was used as an additional communication channel

with students (Nesbit amp Martin 2011)

A more recent study found that in a crisis situation Facebook serves as an

effective pedagogical tool (Ramadan 2017)

29 The Nature of Social Media Not a Substitute for Course Management

Systems

A number of studies have identified that the nature of social media is such that it

should not be a substitute for a course management system

In one study it was identified how students perceive the use of Facebook positively

as a tool to enhance communications community building and engagement

however they do not want to see social networking services replace course

management systems like Blackboard (Buzzetto-More 2012)

In another study it was identified that that Facebook appeared to be a good tool to

support communication and social interaction but not for formal learning (Wang et

al 2012)

In a further study it was revealed that some students do not necessarily want their

educationmdashwhich they may see as quite a separate part of their livesmdashto mix with

their social environment (Sclater 2008)


Finally in another study some concern was raised about the need to keep up to

date with the course Facebook activity in addition to other communication media

such as emails and the learning management system (LMS) discussion boards

(Irwin et al 2012) It has also been commented that Facebook can be more

convenient than a LMS (Staines amp Lauchs 2013) however this concept has been

disagreed with by some (Lee amp Chong 2017) and there is also the view that

Facebook could be used in parallel with a LMS (Cooke 2017)

210 Privacy and Internet Safety

A number of studies have identified that the issue of privacy and internet safety

relating to the use of social media in higher education is of significance

In one study students were concerned about using Social Media in their courses

with some reasons including they did not want their friends to know what they

were doing in the course they felt insecure as non-registrants for the course might

easily join course events and Facebook was more appropriate for interactions

between social friends (Wang et al 2012)

In another study several students noted that student profiles often contain

information they do not want professors to see Some students conveyed a sense

of anxiety about interacting with faculty Many students indicated that the

studentfaculty relationship should remain professional and should not be familiar

or sociable (Hewitt amp Forte 2006)

A further study found that students consistently regarded Facebook as a social

study space beyond the reach of university staff It appears problematic for staff to

try to formalise Facebook use in education considering this student attitude and

the issues of privacy (the sharing of personal information that Facebook entails)

and equity relating to the not-insignificant number of students who do not use

Facebook at the time of the study (Gray Annabell amp Kennedy 2010)


These issues of privacy and related concepts has been a common thread in a

number of other studies (Balakrishnan 2017 Cheng Chan Kong amp Leung 2016

Foogooa amp Ferdinand-James 2017 Miron amp Ravid 2015 Smith 2016 Stanley

2017)

211 Distraction

The issue of social media usage creating a distraction for students in higher

education has been identified In one study Facebook users reported a negative

impact with participants stating that Facebook use caused them to procrastinate

and were distracted from school work and that they had poor time-management

skills (Kirschner amp Karpinski 2010) In another study some students found the

blurring of studying and socializing caused distraction (Gray et al 2010) with this

having also been noted in other studies (Purvis Rodger amp Beckingham 2016)

212 Summary of Literature Review

A number of threads emerge from the literature reviews that are of relevance to

this study The emerging threads are presented in Table 2

Student Engagement

Social Learning Theory

Social Communication in an Education Setting

Use of Social Technologies in the Wake of Crisis Events (in Education) to enable emotional support

Social Technologies Promoting Collaborative Learning in Higher Education

Social Technologies to Facilitate Communication and Exchange of Information in Higher Education

Using Social Technologies to Replace Course Management Systems

Privacy and Internet Security

Creation of Distractions

Table 2 - Threads Emerging from the Literature


The focus of this study is on student engagement and in particular cognitive

engagement (Fredricks et al 2004) The concepts of Social Learning Theory

(Vygotsky 1978) social communication in education settings (Nesbit amp Martin

2011 Hemmi et al 2009) and exploring the use of social media or PPSCTS (Nesbit

amp Martin 2011) are relevant to this study

The use of social media such as Facebook has the potential to become very

valuable in a higher education setting provided there is awareness of some of the

risks and challenges in the use of social media in an educational setting (Nesbit

2011 Sobiah et al 2016)

Social Technologies have been used successfully in a number of studies to promote

collaborative learning (Bosch 2009 Ivala amp Gachago 2012 Selwyn 2009 Rambe

2012 DiVall amp Kirwan 2012 Arnold amp Paulus 2010 Grosseck et al 2011

Andrews et al 2011 Buzzetto-More 2012 Mazman amp Usluel 2010 Sanchez et

al 2014 Perez et al 2013 Milosevic et al 2015)

The use of social technologies to enable the communication and exchange of

information has been commented on in a number of studies (Bosch 2009 Ivala amp

Gachago 2012 Selwyn 2009 Rambe 2012 Irwin et al 2012 Ball Desbrow amp

Leveritt 2012 DiVall amp Kirwan 2012 Brady at al 2010 Manca amp Ranieri 2016

Ahern et al 2016 Perez et al 2013)

The use of social technologies to provide emotional support in an educational

setting in the wake of a crisis has also been commented on by many (Bosch 2009

Selwyn 2009 Madge et al 2009 Egan amp Moreno 2011 Shelton 2009 Dougherty

amp Andercheck 2014 Sheldon 2008 Mastrodicasa 2008 English amp Duncan-

Howell 2008) It has also been shown that the use of social media is very valuable

(Palen 2008) and this coupled with the high potential for use of social media in an

education setting suggests that this is a very advantageous approach to dealing

with students in a higher education setting in the wake of a crisis (Nesbit amp Martin


2011 Ramadan 2017) and can become quite a significant source of support not

just in an education setting (Veer 2012)

When it comes to issues and risks related to the use of social technologies in a

higher education context it has also been highlighted that

Social technologies should not be used to replace formal course management

systems (Buzzetto-More 2012 Wang et al 2012 Sclater 2008 Irwin et al

2012 Staines amp Lauchs 2013 Lee amp Chong 2017 Cooke 2017)

There are privacy and internet security issues to contend with (Wang et al

2012 Hewitt amp Forte 2006 Gray et al 2010 Balakrishnan 2017 Cheng

Chan Kong amp Leung 2016 Foogooa amp Ferdinand-James 2017 Miron amp Ravid

2015 Smith 2016 Stanley 2017)

The use of social media can cause distractions to students (Gray et al 2010

Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY

31 The Population Surveyed and Introductory Questions

The survey was made available via the Moodle (the Learning Management System

used at the University of Canterbury) for the students in the course offerings

shown in Table 3 Note that for the purposes of this paper INFOXX3 refers to either

INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester

INFO123 Information Systems and Technology 2011 One

INFO123 Information Systems and Technology 2011 Two

INFO243 Accounting Information Systems 2011 Two

Table 3 - Courses Surveyed

The students were asked to respond to a number of categories in the demographic

section of the survey including their gender age at the start of the semester


frequency of use of Facebook prior to the semester starting whether they joined

the Facebook group and their reasons for joining or not joining the Facebook

group

32 Perceptions of the Course Facebook Group

The students were asked to rate each of the statements shown in Table 4 on the

following 5 point likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree

Having the Facebook group made it easier to ask questions and have them answered

Having the Facebook group helped me feel part of the INFOXX3 class

INFOXX3 should have a Facebook group created every semester

All students in INFOXX3 should be required to join the Facebook group

Table 4 - Statements the Students Were Asked to Rate

The students were also asked three open ended questions that are reproduced in

Table 5

What do you think was the biggest advantage of having the Facebook group for INFOXX3 in this particular semester

Do you think there were any risks in having the Facebook group for INFOXX3 this semester and if so what were they

Are there any other social media tools (eg Twitter bebo yahoo messenger etc) that you would have preferred to use instead of Facebook

Table 5 - Open Ended Questions Students Asked To Respond To

4 RESULTS

Prior to analysing the result from the survey students who had been enrolled in

semester one in INFO123 were removed from the responses from the semester

two courses so that their responses were not counted twice

41 Enrolments and Response Rates

The number of students enrolled in each of the courses and the numbers that

responded to the survey are shown in Table 6


Course Enrolled Responses Percent

INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225


42 Responses to Closed Ended Questions

The responses to the statement ldquoHaving the Facebook group made it easier to ask

questions and have them answeredrdquo are shown in Table 7 This shows a very high

level of agreement across all three course offerings that the use of the Facebook

group with 169 of the 211 total respondents (801) either strongly agreeing or

agreeing with the statement

Total Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24

of all respondents 488 313 81 00 05 114

of those joining 551 353 91 00 05

Table 7 - Responses to ldquoHaving the Facebook group made it easier to ask questions and have them answeredrdquo

The responses to the statement ldquoHaving the Facebook group helped me feel part

of the classrdquo are shown in Table 8 This shows a reasonably high level of agreement

with the statement with 129 of the 211 respondents (611) either agreeing or

strongly agreeing with the statement and a further 47 respondents (223) being

neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24



Table 8 - Responses to ldquoHaving the Facebook group helped me feel part of the classrdquo

The responses to the statement ldquoINFOXX3 should have a Facebook group created

every semesterrdquo are shown in Table 9 this shows a very high level of agreement

with 185 of the 211 respondents (876) either agreeing or strongly agreeing with

the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14

Table 9 - Responses to ldquoINFOXX3 should have a Facebook group created every semesterrdquo

The responses to the statement ldquoAll students in INFOXX3 should be required to

join the Facebook grouprdquo are shown in Table 10 This shows a much lower level of

agreement than the other statements with only 29 of the 211 respondents (232)

agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement and a total of 81 of the 211

respondents (384) either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123

Table 10 - Responses to ldquoAll students in INFOXX3 should be required to join the Facebook grouprdquo


43 Students Reasons for Joining or Not Joining the Facebook Group

The students were asked to describe their reasons for joining the facebook group

Table 11 shows an analysis of the main reasons that were given This shows that

the three most cited reasons were all communication related Note Some

students gave more than one reason whilst other students gave no reasons

INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total

Access to information and updates 33 29 25 87

Easier to communicate 19 8 15 42

Getting answers to questions 8 19 11 38

Number of Students Giving Reasons

55 53 47 155

Table 11 ndash Main Reasons for Students Joining Facebook Group by Course



the three most cited reasons were all communication related Of the reasons

shown less than one third were related to the students having found that other

ways of accessing information was sufficient Note Some students gave more than

one reason whilst other students gave no reasons

INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total

Moodle was sufficient for requirements 6 - 2 8

Didnrsquot know it existed - 4 - 4

Donrsquot use Facebook (much) - 2 7 9

Couldnrsquot find it 2 1 - 3

Forgot to or didnrsquot get around to it - 2 - 2

Number of Students Giving Reasons 8 9 9 26

Table 12 ndash Reasons for Students Not Joining Facebook Group by Course


44 Biggest advantage of having the Facebook group

As shown in Table 13 of the students who responded to the survey 155 out of 211

(735) responded to the question asking what they saw as being the advantage of

having the Facebook group for the courses and 139 of the 211 (659) responded

to the questions asking what they saw as being the risks associated with having the

Facebook groups

Course Semester Enrolled Responses to Survey

Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question

INFO123 - Information Systems amp Technology

Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41

INFO243 - Accounting Information Systems

Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139

Table 13 ndash Responses to the Survey

The responses relating to the advantages of having the Facebook group for the

courses were analysed and there were a number of themes identified in the

responses These themes are shown in Table 14 along with the number of times

each theme appeared in the comments

Perceived Advantage Frequency

Information ndash ease of access to information 89

Easier Communication ndash an easier platform to use than the Learning Management System

74

Timely ndash faster access to information and answers to questions 47


Lecturer Contact ndasheasier to make contact with the lecturer 37

Feeling Connected ndash feeling more connected with the course and the university

23

Earthquake ndash specific mentions of the impact of the earthquakes 18

Prevailing Technology ndash a technology that is used by most people 10

Snow ndash specific mention of the disruptions caused by snow storms in the second semester

10

Assessments - finding out information about assessments 8

Mobile Phone ndash specific mention of being able to access facebook from mobile phones for no cost

3

Table 14 ndash Themes Relating to Perceived Advantages of Having the Facebook Groups

45 Risks in having the Facebook group

The responses relating the risks of having the Facebook group for the courses were

analysed and there were a number of themes identified in the responses These

themes are shown in Table 15 along with the number of times each theme

appeared in the comments

Perceived Risks Freque

ncy

No risks (explicitly stated) 51

Comparing answers and seeking help with assessments 34

Irrelevant postings 25

Not everyone has facebook or checks it regularly or has internet or computer access

15

Incorrect postings 11

Possible risks were dealt with by the lecturers responding quickly 8

Privacy 7

Distraction from study 4 Table 15 ndash Themes Relating to Perceived Risks of Having the Facebook Groups

46 Other social media tools that would have been preferred

The responses (that mentioned other social tools) to the question of what other

social media tools would have been preferred are shown in Table 16 Note that the

14 responses shown are the only ones that mentioned other social media tools


with this being 66 of the 211 respondents (Note that the responses are

recorded here are exactly as they were made by the students)

Google+

I also use hotmail messager to cotact my friends and families in China online

If they were to implement it better on learn therefore by logging 2into learn you log into a socialinformal connection to students across differen subjects

in the future depends on what the carriers give on for free if theres such thing as 0twittercom for mobiles then give twitter a go )

It is easier to use messenger Skype or yahoo but it doesnt make a big difference

As a side note though I think it would be usefull for other courses at Canterbury to have a similar group on Facebook to this one

Nope for me having the facebook group was most helpful although a lot of my friends are using Twitter and it seems to be an increasing trend so Perhaps in future twitter and facebook )

Nope perhaps Google + if that takes off in the future

one is enough and easy for lectouer to look after

Some people might like Twitter which depending on intentions it could be better

Twitter could be useful but facebook is the best medium for interactivity

Twitter would be good too Youtube

Twitter would be interesting

twitter

Table 16 ndash Responses Mentioning Other Tools Relating to What Other Social Media Tools Would be Preferred

5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The high level of agreement to the statement ldquoHaving the Facebook group made it

easier to ask questions and have them answeredrdquo as shown in Table 7 is consistent

with a number of the representative comments about why the students joined the

Facebook groups that were created for the courses (see Table 11) This connects

quite strongly to the thread identified in the literature review that related to the

use of social technologies to promote collaborative learning (Bosch 2009 Ivala amp

Gachago 2012 Selwyn 2009 Rambe 2012 DiVall amp Kirwan 2012 Arnold amp

Paulus 2010 Grosseck et al 2011 Andrews et al 2011 Buzzetto-More 2012

Mazman amp Usluel 2010)



of the classrdquo (see Table 8) did not have as high a level of agreement as the

statement regarding the ease of asking questions and having them answered but

still had more than half of the students agreeing with it and less than 6 of

students disagreeing with it This pattern of responses is connected to the thread

identified in the literature that is related to the use of social media in the wake of

crisis events to enable emotional support (Bosch 2009 Selwyn 2009 Madge et

al 2009 Egan amp Moreno 2011 Shelton 2009 Dougherty amp Andercheck 2014

Sheldon 2008 Mastrodicasa 2008 English amp Duncan-Howell 2008)

A combination of the responses to the statement relating to where the courses

should have a Facebook group every semester (Table 9) and whether all students

should be required to join the Facebook group (Table 10) reveals a significant

difference in responses to the statements 876 of the students agree or strongly

agree with the statement that there should be a Facebook group created every

semester whereas only 232 agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that

students should be required to join the Facebook groups The comparison of

responses is shown in Table 17

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

The Facebook groups should be created every semester 114 71 21 2 3

Students should be required to join the Facebook groups 15 34 81 55 26

Table 17 ndash Comparing Whether the Facebook Groups Should be Created with Whether Students Have to Join the Groups

Conducting a Mann-Whitney test to determine the significance of the difference in

the responses to the two questions produced a U-value of 59155 and a

corresponding Z-score of -1305 which indicates that the difference between the

two sets of responses is very significant at P lt 001


This result is connected to the thread emerging from the literature relating to

privacy and internet security in that people donrsquot want to be forced to engage in

the use of social technologies because of these types of concerns

This particular aspect is quite important for the future as INFO123 is a compulsory

course for the Bachelor of Commerce and INFO243 being a required course for

entry to a number of professional accounting bodies This required nature of both

courses could create issues if use of any social technologies were enforced

The reasons for students choosing to join the Facebook groups (see Table 11)

appear to be consistent with the reasons for the Facebook groups being created in

the first place The reasons for students not joining the Facebook groups (see Table

12) reinforces the potential issue(s) of making membership of the Facebook groups

compulsory with many of these issues being connected to the thread from the

literature of privacy and internet security

The advantages of having the Facebook groups (see Table 14) are consistent with

why the groups were created and the risks in having the Facebook groups (see

Table 15) are consistent with some of the risks identified (Nesbit 2011) and are

also consistent with idea that membership of the groups should not be mandatory

These advantages and risks are consistent with the threads in the literature

relating to the use of social technologies to promote collaborative learning enable

emotional support in the wake of a crisis and to facilitate communication and the

exchange of information

That the most frequently cited themes relating to the advantages of having the

Facebook groups were to do with accessing information communication and

timeliness (Table 14) This is consistent with the thread in the literature relating to

the use of social technologies to facilitate communication and exchange of

information This is not a surprise given the nature of what social media is all about

and are consistent with the responses to the first statement in the summary of

results from the first phase of the study where 80 of the respondents had agreed


with the statement ldquoHaving the Facebook group made it easier to ask questions

and have them answeredrdquo (Table 7) The next most cited themes were related to

feeling connected and contact with lecturers (Table 14) with this being consistent

with the responses to the second statement in the summary of the results from

the first phase of the study where 611 of the respondents agreed with the

statement ldquoHaving the Facebook group helped me feel part of the classrdquo (Figure B)

and is also consistent with the thread in the literature relating to the use of social

technologies to enable emotional support

The responses to the question about the perceived risks of having the Facebook

group were of interest in that of the 139 students who responded to the question

51 (367) responded saying that there were no risks in having the Facebook

pages (Table 15) This shows that while the literature pointed to the use of social

media having the potential to become very valuable in a higher education setting

providing there is awareness of some of the risks and challenges in the use of

social media in an educational setting (REDACTED) that over one third of this

particular group of student respondents did not identify any risks in having the

Facebook groups Some of the risks identified related to a thread that was

identified in the literature of not using social technologies to replace formal course

management systems

That some students were using the Facebook group to seek what appeared to be

ldquotoo muchrdquo help with assessments was identified by most students as being a risk

along with irrelevant postings and that not everybody has access to Facebook

through either not having a Facebook account internet access or access to a

computer (see Table 15) The issue of seeking too much help with assessments was

elaborated on with some of the comments with some indicating that ldquoat least the

lecturers could see who was getting too much helprdquo The issue of irrelevant

postings was commented on by some who indicated that many of these were

deleted by the lecturers reasonably quickly highlighting the need for lecturer


involvement The issue of not everybody having access to the Facebook group is

problematic if this approach was to be made a requirement for the courses

particularly as the two courses involved in the study are mandatory for some

groups of students

Many of the advantages identified by the respondents are likely to be shaped by

the context of the earthquakes that caused the initial disruptions and that

continued throughout the year and to a lesser extent the snowstorm that caused

disruptions in the second semester That more than a third of the students

perceived there was no risk associated with having the Facebook groups may be

due to the risks being very minimal compared to the benefits in what was a very

difficult time with this being related to the idea of social technologies being used

for emotional support that was identified in the literature This suggests that a

study relating to the use of social media in higher education in similar ways to this

study but without the context of natural disasters may highlight some differences

to the findings of this study some of which may be due to changing patterns in the

use of social media in general

A number of students mentioned that the Facebook groups were particularly

useful in the wake of earthquake and snow events that took place during the

semesters under review with this again being connected a number of threads that

were identified in the literature While it might be tempting to only create groups

such of these when a crisis event occurs having the group already available makes

it easier to utilise when the crisis events take place As a consequence of this

creating the groups at the start of a semester would in essence be a form of

disaster recovery planning

With less than 7 of the students specifically mentioning other social media tools

when asked which other tools would have been preferred the decision to have

used Facebook for these courses appears to have been justified


The extent that students used Facebook for an alternative communication

channel and their reasons for doing so indicated a high level of cognitive

engagement (Fredricks et al 2004) while a smaller number of the reasons given

for joining the Facebook groups indicated some level of behavioural engagement

and emotional engagement (Fredricks et al 2004)




Andrews et al 2011 Buzzetto-More 2012 Mazman amp Usluel 2010) with these

responses from the students in this scenario being consistent with this


information has been commented on in a number of other studies (Bosch 2009

Ivala amp Gachago 2012 Selwyn 2009 Rambe 2012 Irwin et al 2012 DiVall amp

Kirwan 2012 Brady at al 2010) with the findings from this scenario being

consistent with these comments





Howell 2008) with these comments being consistent with the findings from this

scenario It has also been shown that the use of social media is very valuable




2011) and can become quite a significant source of support not just in an

education setting (Veer 2012)


6 CONCLUSIONS

The decision to use a social media tool in these courses as an additional

communication channel appears to be well justified from a student perspective

provided that it is not made a mandatory requirement for all students in these

courses (partly as consequence of the compulsory nature of these courses and also

due to privacy and internet security concerns)

The decision for the social media tool to be Facebook appears to be justified from

the student perspective mainly due to (a) it being a highly used tool amongst the

students and (b) very few students suggesting other possibilities

The use of Facebook across the course served to increase the level of student

engagement with a particular emphasis on cognitive engagement and served to

promote collaborative learning enable communication and exchange of

information and provide emotional support in the wake of a crisis

Issues identified with the use of social media in this way included that it may be

unwise for social media to replace formal learning management systems that

privacy and internet security factors needed to be considered and that the use of

social media can create a distraction for students

Further research is needed to see if these findings can be generalised into a

context that is not in the wake of a crisis event This could take the form of a

survey of students about their willingness to engage in a similar way that was not

in the wake of a crisis event to ascertain what the impact of the crisis event was

and whether this crisis event context outweighed the notion that some students

do not want their education to mix with their social environment (Sclater 2008)

7 REFERENCES

Ahern L Feller J amp Nagle T (2016) Social media as a support for learning in

universities an empirical study of Facebook Groups Journal of Decision systems

25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421


Akccedilayır G (2017) Why do faculty members use or not use social networking sites

for education Computers in Human Behavior 71 378-385

httpdoiorg101016jchb201702028

Andrews T Tynan B amp James R (2011) The lived experience of learners use of

new media in distance teaching and learning On the Horizon 19(4) 321-330

httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448

Arnold N amp Paulus T (2010) Using a social networking site for experiential

learning Appropriating lurking modeling and community building The Internet

and Higher Education 13(4) 188-196 httpdoiorg101016jiheduc201004002

Balakrishnan V (2017) Key determinants for intention to use social media for

learning in higher education institutions Universal Access in the Information

Society 16(2) 289-301 httpdoiorg289 101007s10209-016-0457-0

Bosch T E (2009) Using online social networking for teaching and learning

Facebook use at the University of Cape Town Communicatio South African

Journal for Communication Theory and Research 35(2) 185-200

httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648

Brady K P Holcomb L B amp Smith B V (2010) The Use of Alternative Social

Networking Sites in Higher Educational Settings A Case Study of the E-Learning

Benefits of Ning in Education Journal of Interactive Online Learning 9(2)

httpwwwncolrorg

Buzzetto-More N A (2012) Social Networking in Undergraduate Education

Interdisciplinary Journal of Information Knowledge amp Management 7

httpwwwinformingscienceorgJournalsIJIKM

Cheng I N Y Chan J K Y Kong S S Y amp Leung K M Y (2016)

Effectiveness and obstacle of using Facebook as a tool to facilitate student-centred

learning in higher education In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning amp


Teaching 17 2 1-14 The Education University of Hong Kong Department of Science and

Environmental Studies httpwwweduhkhkapfslt

Connell J P amp Wellborn J G (1991) Competence autonomy and relatedness A

motivational analysis of self-system processes In M Gunnar amp L A Sroufe (Eds)

Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol 23) Chicago University of

Chicago Press httpwwwpressuchicagoedu

Cooke S (2017) Social teaching Student perspectives on the inclusion of social

media in higher education Education and Information Technologies 22(1) 255-

269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y

Cuesta M Eklund M Rydin I amp Witt A K (2016) Using Facebook as a co-

learning community in higher education Learning Media and Technology 41(1)

55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952

DiVall M V amp Kirwin J L (2012) Using Facebook to facilitate course-related

discussion between students and faculty members American journal of

pharmaceutical education 76(2) httpdoiorg105688ajpe76232

Dougherty K D amp Andercheck B (2014) Using Facebook to Engage Learners in a

Large Introductory Course Teaching Sociology 42(2) 95-104

httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022

Egan K G amp Moreno M A (2011) Prevalence of stress references on college

freshmen Facebook profiles Computers informatics nursing CIN 29(10) 586

httpjournalslwwcomcinjournal

English R M amp Duncan-Howell J A (2008) Facebooknotcopy goes to college Using

social networking tools to support students undertaking teaching practicum

Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 4(4) 596-601 httpjoltmerlotorg


Foogooa R Ferdinand-James D (2017) Use of Facebook for Enchancing

Student Engagement in a Higher Education Blended Engineering Course

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences 10(1) 8-31

httpdoi1012959issn1855-0541IIASS-2017-no1-art1

Fredricks JA Blumenfeld PC and Paris AH (2004) Review of Educational

Research 74(1) 59-109 httpdoiorg10310200346543074001059

Finn J D (1993) School engagement and students at risk Washington DC

National Center for Education Statistics httpncesedgov

Finn J D Pannozzo G M amp Voelkl K E (1995) Disruptive and inattentive-

withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders Elementary School

Journal 95 421-454 httpdoiorg101086461853

Finn J D amp Rock D A (1997) Academic success among students at risk for

school failure Journal of Applied Psychology 82 221-234

httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221

Gray K Annabell L amp Kennedy G (2010) Medical students use of Facebook to

support learning Insights from four case studies Medical teacher 32(12) 971-976

httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497

Grosseck G Bran R amp Tiru L (2011) Dear teacher what should I write on my

wall A case study on academic uses of Facebook Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences 15 1425-1430 httpdoiorg101016jsbspro201103306

Hemmi A Bayne S and Land R (2009) The appropriation and repurposing of

social technologies in higher education Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25

19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x


Hewitt A amp Forte A (2006) Crossing boundaries Identity management and

studentfaculty relationships on the Facebook Poster presented at CSCW Banff

Alberta 1-2 httpdlacmorg

Irwin C Ball L Desbrow B amp Leveritt M (2012) Students perceptions of using

Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology 28(7) 1221-1232 httpdoiorg1014742ajet798

Ivala E amp Gachago D (2012) Social media for enhancing student engagement

The use of Facebook and blogs at a University of Technology South African Journal

of Higher Education 26(1) 152-167 httpwwwjournalsaczaindexphpsajhe

Kirschner P A amp Karpinski A C (2010) FacebooknotAElig and academic performance

Computers in human behavior 26(6) 1237-1245


Lee C E C amp Chong A Y W (2017) Studentsrsquo adoption of Facebook in higher

education A gender-based comparison In SHS Web of Conferences 33(10)

httpdoi101051shsconf20173300010

Madge C Meek J Wellens J amp Hooley T (2009) Facebook social integration

and informal learning at universitysbquoAumlograveIt is more for socialising and talking to

friends about work than for actually doing worksbquoAumlocirc Learning Media and

Technology 34(2) 141-155 httpsdoiorg10108017439880902923606

Manca S amp Ranieri M (2016) Facebook and the others Potentials and obstacles

of social media for teaching in higher education Computers amp Education 95 216-

230 101016jcompedu201601012

Mastrodicasa J (2008) Technology use in campus crisis New Directions for

Student Services 2008(124) 37-53 httpdoiorg101002ss294


Mazman S G z amp Usluel Y K a (2010) Modeling educational usage of

Facebook Computers amp Education 55(2) 444-453

httpdoiorg101016jcompedu201002008

Milošević I Živković D Arsić S amp Manasijević D (2015) Facebook as virtual

classroomndashSocial networking in learning and teaching among Serbian students

Telematics and Informatics 32(4) 576-585 httpdoiorg101016jtele201502003

Miron E amp Ravid G (2015) Facebook Groups as an Academic Teaching Aid

Case Study and Recommendations for Educators Journal of Educational

Technology amp Society 18(4) httpwwwj-etsnetETS

Nesbit T (2011) Social Media In the Work Place and Patterns of Usage

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 5(9)

Nesbit T amp Martin A (2011) eLearning A solution in a crisis Donrsquot forget the

pedagogy In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Computing and Information

Technology Research and Education New Zealand (CITRENZ) Conference

Rotorua

Newmann F WehlageG G amp Lamborn S D (1992)T he significancea nds

ources of student engagement In F Newmann (Ed) Student engagement and

achievement in American secondary schools (pp 11-39) New York Teachers

College Press httpwwwtcpresscom

Palen L (2008) Online Social Media in Crisis Events Educause Quarterly 3 76-78

httpereducauseedu

Peacuterez T Araiza M D J amp Doerfer C (2013) Using Facebook for learning A

case study on the perception of students in higher education Procedia-Social and

Behavioral Sciences 106 3259-3267 httpdoi101016jsbspro201312375

Purvis A Rodger H amp Beckingham S (2016) Engagement or distraction The

use of social media for learning in higher education Student Engagement and

Experience Journal 5(1) httpresearchshuacukSEEJindexphpseej


Ramadan R (2017) Unravelling Facebook a pedagogical tool during the Syrian

crisis Open Learning The Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning 32(3) 196-

213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303

Rambe P (2012) Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in

Facebook postings Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 28(2) 295-

314 httpdoiorg1014742ajet875

Roblyer MD McDaniel M Webb M Herman J amp Witty JV (2010) Findings on

Facebook in higher education a comparison of college faculty and student uses

and perceptions of social networking sites The Internet and Higher Education 13

134ndash140 httpdoiorg101016jiheduc201003002

Saacutenchez R A Cortijo V amp Javed U (2014) Students perceptions of Facebook

for academic purposes Computers amp Education 70 138-149


Sclater N (2008) Web 20 personal learning environments and the future of

learning management systems Research Bulletin 13 2008-2009

httpeducauseedu

Selwyn N (2009) Faceworking exploring students educationsbquoAumlecircrelated use of

Facebook Learning Media and Technology 34(2) 157-174

httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622

Sheldon P (2008) The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and

students Facebook use Journal of Media Psychology Theories Methods and

Applications 20(2) 67 httpdoiorg1010271864-110520267

Shelton K (2009) Using Facebook following tragedies A lesson for community

colleges Community amp Junior College Libraries 15(4) 195-203

httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464


Skinner E A amp Belmont M J (1993) Motivation in the classroom Reciprocal

effect of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year Journal

of Educational Psychology 85 571-581 httpdoiorg1010370022-0663854571

Smith E E (2016) ldquoA real double-edged swordrdquo Undergraduate perceptions of

social media in their learning Computers amp Education 103 44-58


Sobaih A E E Moustafa M A Ghandforoush P amp Khan M (2016) To use or

not to use Social media in higher education in developing countries Computers in

Human Behavior 58 296-305 httpdoiorg101016jchb201601002

Staines Z R amp Lauchs M (2013) The use of Facebook in tertiary education

Case study of a unit-related Facebook page in a university justice class Interactive

Technology and Smart Education 10(4) 285-296 httpdoiorg101108ITSE-05-

2013-0008

Stanley N (2017) Facebook-the classroom of the 21st century Independent

Education 47(1) 20 httpwwwieuasnau

Veer E (2012) Communitas and Catharsis The role of social media post crisis

event presentation at the Australasian Natural Hazards Management Conference

Christchurch 23 Aug httpanhmcorg

Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in Society Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

httpwwwhupharvardedu

Wang Q Woo H L Quek C L Yang Y amp Liu M (2012) Using the Facebook

group as a learning management system An exploratory study British Journal of

Educational Technology 43(3) 428-438 httpdoiorg101111j1467-

8535201101195x


Wehlage G G Rutter R A Smith G A Lesko N L amp Fernandez R R (1989)

Reducing the risk Schools as communities of support Philadelphia Farmer Press

httpopenlibraryorgpublishersFalmer_Press


1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH METHOD

The use of social media tools has been the subject of a number of experiments in

higher education The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a study into

the effectiveness of using a social media tool (Facebook) as an additional

communication channel between staff and students in large classes particularly in

the wake of natural disasters and extreme weather events

Facebook was used extensively as an additional communication channel in two

offerings of a large (approximately 300 and 500 students respectively) first year

Information Systems course and one offering (approximately 170 students) of a

second year Accounting Information Systems course at the University of

Canterbury during 2011 a year which was disrupted significantly by earthquakes

and to a lesser extent by snow storms

A literature review covering the use of social media in higher educational contexts

is presented This is followed by an outline of the methodology followed in the

paper and a description of how Facebook was used across the courses The results

from a survey of students enrolled in the courses are then presented The

questions that were included in the survey are presented as part of that section of

the paper This is followed by an analysis and discussion after which conclusions

pertaining to the success of the experiment are drawn

The research question that this paper seeks to address is

ldquoWhat are the benefits and risks associated with using Facebook as an

additional communication channel between students and lecturers in the

wake of a crisisrdquo

It should be noted that at the time of these earthquakes the feature in Facebook

that allows people to mark themselves as safe had yet to be implemented


2 LITERATURE REVIEW












22 Engagement



















Wellborn 1991)





Khan 2016)







engagement







2011)






amp Martin 2011)
































































Kirwan 2012)





























studies

















(Rambe 2012)

































amp Hooley 2009)

























2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x






2 LITERATURE REVIEW












22 Engagement



















Wellborn 1991)





Khan 2016)







engagement







2011)






amp Martin 2011)
































































Kirwan 2012)





























studies

















(Rambe 2012)

































amp Hooley 2009)

























2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x









Wellborn 1991)





Khan 2016)







engagement







2011)






amp Martin 2011)
































































Kirwan 2012)





























studies

















(Rambe 2012)

































amp Hooley 2009)

























2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x







amp Martin 2011)
































































Kirwan 2012)





























studies

















(Rambe 2012)

































amp Hooley 2009)

























2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x














































Kirwan 2012)





























studies

















(Rambe 2012)

































amp Hooley 2009)

























2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x



















studies

















(Rambe 2012)

































amp Hooley 2009)

























2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x








(Rambe 2012)

































amp Hooley 2009)

























2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x














amp Hooley 2009)

























2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x










2008)



































Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x


















Systems









al 2012)



































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x




































2017)

211 Distraction











Student Engagement



















































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x














































Purvis et al 2016)

3 THE SURVEY





INFO123 or INFO243

Course Code

Title Year Semester










group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x








group










Table 5





4 RESULTS









INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x







INFO123 Sem One 278 69 248

INFO123 Sem Two 491 78 159

INFO243 Sem Two 167 64 383

Total 936 211 225








Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 40 16 6 0 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 34 31 5 0 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 19 6 0 1 9

211 103 66 17 0 1 24








neutral


Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x






Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

I didnt

join

INFO123 Sem One 69 25 16 18 3 0 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 15 35 16 4 0 8

INFO243 Sem Two 64 16 22 13 3 1 9

211 56 73 47 10 1 24







the statement

Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 36 26 5 1 1

INFO123 Sem Two 78 49 25 4 0 0

INFO243 Sem Two 64 29 20 12 1 2

211 114 71 21 2 3

540 336 100 09 14







Total Strongly

Agree


Disagree

INFO123 Sem One 69 5 16 25 16 7

INFO123 Sem Two 78 6 11 33 21 7

INFO243 Sem Two 64 4 7 23 18 12

211 15 34 81 55 26

71 161 384 261 123








INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x











INFO123 Sem One

INFO123 Sem Two

INFO243 Sem Two

Total





55 53 47 155








INFO123 Sem 1

INFO123 Sem 2

INFO243 Sem 2

Total














Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x











Facebook groups


Responses to

Advantage Question

Responses to Risks

Question


Semester One 2011

278 69 61 55


Semester Two 2011

491 78 52 41


Semester Two 2011

167 64 42 43

Total 936 211 155 139









74





23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x








23




10



3








ncy





15



Privacy 7









Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x








Google+













twitter






























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x























Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
























































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x





















































management systems














groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x









groups of students




















































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x

































6 CONCLUSIONS























7 REFERENCES



25(sup1) 35-49 httpdoiorg1010801246012520161187421







httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x











httpdoiorg10110810748121111179448










httpdoiorg10108002500160903250648




httpwwwncolrorg
















269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x














269 httpdoiorg 101007s10639-015-9444-y



55-72 httpdoiorg1010801743988420151064952






httpdoiorg1011770092055X14521022





















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x



















httpdoiorg1010370021-9010822221



httpdoiorg1031090142159X2010497






19-30 httpdoiorg101111j1365-2729200800306x























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x



























230 101016jcompedu201601012


















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x




















Rotorua






httpereducauseedu










213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x








213 httpdoiorg1010800268051320171345303













httpeducauseedu



httpdoiorg10108017439880902923622






httpdoiorg10108002763910903255464














2013-0008











8535201101195x


















2013-0008











8535201101195x






enhancing engagement in large course in the wake of a ... · skinner & belmont, 1993)....

Documents