This paper reviews literature on the impact of online social networking sites (SNS) on student engagement and achievement, highlighting that while some studies report positive benefits, others indicate negative or inconclusive results. Despite the potential for SNS to enhance educational outcomes, there remains no definitive evidence linking their use to improved student performance, with many studies suggesting distractions rather than educational benefits. The paper calls for more targeted research to explore the actual effects of SNS on various aspects of student learning and achievement.

1. Online Social Networking Sites:
Student Engagement
&
Student Achievement
Elizabeth M. Power

2. Online Social Networking Sites:
Student Engagement
&
Student Achievement
Submitted To: Prof. Robert Kelly
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for Ed. 6590
Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador
July 31, 2012

3. ABSTRACT Key words: social networking sites, student achievement, student engage
 This paper reviews the available literature on the relationship and impact
online social networking sites have on student engagement and
achievement. Online social networking sites are plentiful, varied and easily
accessible to students and teachers alike.
 The potential for using these SNSs to further the goal of education is
immense, and teachers are making the foray into the world of online social
networking for educational purposes. However, educators cannot
presuppose that because SNSs are a timely technology, they will
necessarily engage students and improve student achievement. In
fact, the research is inconclusive.
 This paper will review literature which has reported finding positive impacts
of SNSs on student engagement and achievement, and other literature
which finds a negative correlation, or at best, no conclusive proof that there
is any kind of a link between the two.
 Aspects of online social networking such as
engagement, collaboration, creativity, distraction, grade point average and
academic achievement are considered in the literature. Results of this
review will indicate that, while there are many instances of research
reporting positive and negative results, there is no conclusive evidence
either for or against the impact of SNSs on engagement and achievement.
 Generally, participation in online SNSs has a positive connection to student

4. Contents
Introduction
•Research Question and Rationale
•Background
•Definitions
Review of Related research and Literature
•Positive impact of SNSs on student engagement and achievement
•Negative impact of SNSs on student engagement and achievement
•Neutral impact of SNSs on student engagement and achievement
Summary of Findings
•Summary
•Discussion of Implications for Further Research
References

6. INTRODUCTION
 Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Friendster,
Cloudworks, Twitter, Ning
 People of all ages --- by the millions
 Facebook - 901 million monthly active users
- 125 billion friend connections
- March, 2012 1.

7. INTRODUCTION
 Educators are set to take advantage of
- multiple collaboration tools
- discussion opportunities provided by SNSs, 2, 3
Teachers, always on the lookout for new and
innovative ways to try to motivate students and
improve student achievement are looking
towards social networking for inspiration.

8. RESEARCH QUESTION AND RATIONALE
 “the benefits of Facebook’s networking and
social communication capabilities can benefit
both the instructor and the student by
tapping into a greater number of learning
styles, providing an alternative to the
traditional lecture format, creating an online
classroom community, and increasing
teacher-student and student-student
interaction.” (p. 9). 35

9. RESEARCH QUESTION AND RATIONALE
 The research question, then, that begs to
be asked is ...
“Does online social networking have an
impact on student engagement and
achievement?”

10. ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
 web-based services that permit
individuals to create a public or semi
public profile, display a list of other users
with whom they share a connection, and
view and navigate through their list of
connections and those made by others
within the system 17.
 Friends, families, neighbourhood, world
18.

11. ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
 Mobile connectivity
 Blogs
 Photo/video sharing
 Cross-posting
 Non-academic
 Social19

12. SNSS IN EDUCATION
 Three possible approaches:
 learning about SNSs (including
understanding and identifying the
knowledge, skills, dispositions and learning
involved),
 learning from SNSs (to understand and
appreciate the kinds of learning a social
networking site can support), and
 learning with SNSs (making use of the
student’s existing SNSs to support and
extend curriculum-based work), 18, p. 16.

13. SNS IN EDUCATION
 Quality relationships
 Connectedness
 Modelling positive behaviours
 Sharing information25

14. BACKGROUND
 95% of 18 and 19 year olds using
Facebook 5
 Few democratic differences between
users and non-users 6
 Frequently and extensively 36

15. BACKGROUND
While initially designed by Mark Zukerberg as a
means by which students could communicate with
peers at the University level 7 the popularity of
Facebook and other SNSs is growing to include
applications in formal and informal educational
settings.

16. BACKGROUND
 SNS use in Education is Underdeveloped
– 30% college students using SNS in
courses 5
 Students rarely use Facebook for
educational purposes 37
 Students view SNSs differently for social
purposes and educational purposes

17. EDUCATIONAL
POTENTIAL OF SNS
 Instructors, learners, system designers & decision
makers 3
 Students by their own initiative 8
 Use social networking sites for educationally
related activities, including significant educational
innovations such as interactive and collaborative
learning 9
 Knowledge sharing, creative production personal
sense-making, reflection 38
 “Social networking is a tool, with both its
advantages and problems for usage in teaching
and learning”

18.  Griffith and Liyange -
Exploring SNS  positive aspect of SNSs
 The National School and their use is starting
Board Association – to be seen,
 recognizes the potential  students are using SNSs
value of using SNS in the in their academic studies
classroom, for group and team-
based work 12,
 recommending that
school board members  SNSs in various
find ways to harness the academic activities -
educational value of communicating with
social networking, chat faculty and lecturers, and
rooms and collaborative discussing academic
online journals 11. issues with classmates
13.
Ajjan and Hartshorne - SNSs could be used to
establish a series of academic connections, or to
foster collaboration and cooperation in the higher
education classroom. 15

19. Should we exploit SNSs for education?
 “Social networking  Despite the
is a tool, with both potential benefits
its advantages and they have
problems for usage identified, harnessi
in teaching and ng social
learning” 2 technologies offers
both opportunities
and challenges. 39

20. BACKGROUND
 Despite being a timely question, research
on social networking sites and student
achievement is limited when compared to
studies of SNSs relating to other issues
such as student privacy, safety, social
capital, and psychological well-being . 4
 What then, does the research say
about online social networking sites
and student engagement and
achievement?

21. Definitions

23. POSITIVE IMPACT OF SNSS ON STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT

24. ENGAGEMENT
Student engagement
22, 41, 23
Student achievement
Ning - individual over class
- students saw + advantages
- instructors saw + effects of engagement 14
- + impact on motivation and achievement 2
Facebook - + predictive of student engagement 24
Twitter - + potential for improving engagement 22

25. ACHIEVEMENT - POTENTIAL
collaborative nature of SNSs + effect on civic
development 27
Twitter – improve grades in educationally relevant ways
3
provide significant e-learning benefits 14
enhance language learning, particularly ESL 44

26. ACHIEVEMENT
SNS - Students report a + impact 13
- higher scores in verbal & visuo-spatial 42
- improved psychological well-being, skill development,
learning outcomes 43
Ning – Students report a + impact on
achievement, collaboration, information exchange 14

27. NEGATIVE IMPACT OF SNSS ON STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT

28. Internet in general causes difficulties 28
Negative correlation between Facebook & student
achievement – users having a lower GPA; fewer hours
studying; procrastination 29
Negative predictors of lower GPA –
chatting, checking, posting 24
 “Specifically, large increases in time spent on
Facebook relate to lower overall GPAs” (p. 194).24

29. Negative impact on studies & homework completion 45
Negative impact; attention deficit 46, 30
 “there is a significant negative association between
social networking site exposure and academic
performance” (p. 278).31
No A 4 U – students’ continued multitasking despite
known negative consequences

30. Effect of using SNSs on study habits and
differences in academic performance on
basis of time spent in SNSs ......
Found – SNSs “significantly [negatively]
affect the studying habits of the students
and eventually their academic
performance” (p. 156). {self-reported} 33

31. Students report – more time on SNSs =
lower grades
SNSs ranged from “mere distractions” to
“obsession” 47
Time and accessibility issues with using
Ning; preference with face-to-face over
Ning 14
Facebook has only a limited role to play in
student engagement or achievement 22

33. Relationship between SNSs and academic
performance is inconclusive 45
SNS use not significant enough to negatively
affect performance 19
Insufficient evidence to suggest Ning directly
impacted student achievement 2
No association between Facebook users and
nonusers, and GPA 48
“Coin has two sides!” (P. 1501) 43

36. Do online social
networking sites
impact student
engagement &
achievement?
Positive Negative Neutral
Research Research Research

37. “Does online social networking have
an impact on student engagement
and achievement?”
Relativel
y new (7)
Online Growing
SNS in
popularit
Being Is .... y
considere 1,5,6
d by
educators
14,11,36
1

38. SNSs
(positive)
Student
Engageme
nt
(14,22,24)
Cognitive Skill
Student
Achievement Skills Developmen
(14,2,13)
(42)
t
(43)
Civic Language Twitter Ning
engageme Learning
nt 27 44 3

39. SNSs
(negative)
Student
Achievement
Affects
Affects Distraction academic
from Studies Affects GPA
study habits (24,32,30,45,36)
performance (24,29)
(33,47)
(31,32, 46)

40. SNSs
(neutral)
No Not a
No connection Insufficient
conclusive significant
connection (45)
(26)
evidence (2) impact (19)

42. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES HAS BEEN THE
FOCUS OF THIS REVIEW.
 Student achievement Student
engagement
 SNSs can improve engagement and
thereby student achievement
 more conclusive evidence relating to
improved engagement,
 less evidence of actual increases in
student achievement.

43. Conclusions drawn from the body of
research analyzed lean towards indicating
a negative or neutral correlation between
online social networking sites and their
impact on student achievement.

44. The detrimental effect of time on academic
studies indicates that students are using
social networking for social reasons rather
than educational reasons.
Despite the reported potential of online social
networking sites in
education, opening/viewing of sites will often
lead to distractive behavior, updating
status, chatting, checking photos, etc. rather
than attending to the preferred academic
behavior 24

45.  encouraging
correlations reported
 potential for social
 The potential for the
networking sites
very popular social
having a positive
networking sites
impact is evident
bodes well for
 the direct teachers interested
contribution of in exploiting this
participation in online technology for
social networking educational gain in
sites to student the classroom
achievement
remains to be proven
2

46.  the direct contribution of  While this data gives an
participation in online overview of impressions
social networking sites to by the subjects, a more
student achievement valid result may be
remains to be proven 2 obtained by looking at
quantitative data such as
 more research in this changes in grade point
area is warranted average.
 conclusion “Future  for further investigation
research needs to look into the types of online
more closely at student social networking sites
practices in online that will enhance
environments, and we learning, as well as
must go beyond grades matching these sites to
and GPA to include the appropriate types of
different forms of courses and applications
46
assessment” (p. 1155). 49
 researchers should
focus on a variety of
popular social
networking sites

47.  Despite inconclusive or neutral attempts to
determine the impact of social networking
sites on student performance, there is a
general agreement that there are a myriad of
educational benefits to be derived from
SNSs.
 SNSs provide a viable alternative for
educators, that training and support should
be provided 14
 Advantages of SNSs should be monitored
and encouraged by students, teachers, and
parents alike, to enhance the educational
performance of students. 33

48.  “When technology supports an
affirmative, constructivist learning
environment and contributes to successful
pedagogical strategies without distracting
from essential objectives for development
of knowledge and skills, the result of
formative evaluation of social networking
potentials for distance learning is positive”
(p. 98). 2

49.  With knowledge that there may be negative
associations between SNSs, but that
researchers are excited about the potential
of SNSs, educators developing curriculum
connections with social networking sites
should be able to observe positive impacts
of social networking sites on student
engagement and achievement.
 The research findings that social networks
such as Facebook provide a distraction that
takes time away from academic pursuits is no
surprise to this writer (as a student and a
parent), but the positive reports of enhanced
engagement through the use of SNSs is
something that educators will have to explore.

50. In this age of 24/7 online connectivity, any
aspect of technology which engages
students should be fully explored for
possible inclusion in the curriculum, and
potential increases in student
achievement.

53. References
1. Key Facts (2012). In Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved from
http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22
2. Hoffman, E. (2009). Evaluating social networking tools for distance learning.
Presented at TCC 2009 Proceedings, Retrieved from
http://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2009/hoffman.pdf
3. Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012). A case study of Israeli
higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community
via social networks. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 58-68. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ947868&site=ehost-live&scope=site;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.003
4. Ahn, J. (2011). The influence of social networking sites on high school stude
academic development. Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International
Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(9-)
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2011-99050-075&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
5. Smith, S., and Caruso, J., (2010). Key findings:
The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010.
Educause: Centre for Applied Research, 2010. Retrieved from and doi

54. 6. Hargittai, E. (2008). Whose space? Differences among users and non-
users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13, 276-297. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x
7. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:”
Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
8. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students' education-related
use of "facebook". Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157-174.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ856841&site=ehost-
live&scope=site; http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/17439880902923622
9. Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). The
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in
higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 26(3), 159-174. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00347.x
10. Wodzicki, K., Schwammlein, E., & Moskaliuk, J. (2012). "Actually, I
wanted to learn": Study-related knowledge exchange on social networking
sites. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 9-14. Retrieved from
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ947869&site=ehost-live&scope=site;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.008http://

55. 11. Gewertz, C. (2007). Teenagers’ social networking found to have educational
benefits in poll. Education week, 27 (1).
12. Griffith, S. (2008). An introduction to the potential of social networking sites
in education. Proceedings of the Emerging technologies Conference, University of
Wollongong, 18-21.
13. Helou, A. and Ab. Rahim, N. (2011). The influence of social networking sites on
students’ academic performance in Malaysia. International Conference on Internet
Studies, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia. September 8, 2010.
14. Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative
social networking sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the E-learning
benefits of ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151-170.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ938842&site=ehost-
live&scope=site; http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/9.2.4.pdf
15. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt
web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher
Education, 11(2), 71-80. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
16. Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V.
(2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college
faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. Internet
and Higher Education, 13(3), 134-140. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ886995&site=ehost-live&scope=site;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002

56. 17. Boyd, d., and Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites:
Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13, 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
18. Merchant, G. (2012). Unravelling the social network: Theory and
research. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(1), 4-19. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ955170&site=ehost-live&scope=site;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.567992
19. Ahmed, I. and Qazi, T. (2011). A look out for academic impacts of social
networking sites (SNSs): A student based perspective. African Journal of
Business Management, 5 (12), 5022-5031.retrieved from www.
Academicjournals.org/AJBM.
20. Kuh, G. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about
student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (6), 683-
706. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0099
21. Zhao, C. and Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and
student engagement. Research in Higher education, 45(2), 115-138. doi 0361-
0365/04/0300-0115/0
22. Wise, L., Skues, J., and Williams, B. (2011). Facebook in higher
education promoted social but not academic agents. In G. Williams, P.
Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing
Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011, 1332-1342. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/procs/Wise-full.pdf

57. 23. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of twitter on
college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 27(2), 119-132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x
24. Junco, R. (2011). The relationship between frequency of facebook
use, participation in facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers
and Education, 58, 162-171. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004
25. Martin, A. And Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal
relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for
theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational
Research, 79 (1), 327-365.doi: 10.3102/0034654308325583
26. Kolek, E., and Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: An empirical
examination of undergraduate Facebook profiles. NASPA Journal of student
Affairs research and Practice, 54 (1), 1-25.Retrieved from
http://journals.naspa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?context=jsarp&article=1905&date=&mt=MTM0MTM5OTI
1Mg==&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.naspa.org%2Fjsarp%2Fvol45%2Fiss1%2Fart2%2F&acce
ss_ok_form=Continue
27. Beach, R., & Doerr-Stevens, C. (2011). Using social networking for online
role-plays to develop students' argumentative strategies. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 165-181. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ943239&site=ehost-
live&scope=site; http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=74788460TL43M271
28. Kubey, R., Lavin, M., and Barrows, J. (2001). Internet use and collegiate
Academic performance decrements: Early findings.
Journal of Communication, 366-382.

58. 29. Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic
performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024
30. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., and Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integrati
and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socializing and talking o friends,
about work than actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34 (2),
141-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923606.
31. Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic
and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275-280.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0135
32. Junco, R. and Cotton, S. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between
multitasking and academic performance. Computers and Education, 59, 505-
514. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
33. Ahmed, I., Amir, M., Qazi, T., Jabeen, S., (2011). An investigation of SNS usage
and its impact on studying habits and academic performance of university students.
Research Journal of International Studies, 21, 145-158.
34. Martin, A. And Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal
relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for
theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational
Research, 79 (1), 327-365.doi: 10.3102/0034654308325583

59. 35. Munoz, C. & Towner, T. (2009). Opening Facebook: How to use
facebook in the college classroom. Presentation prepared for the Society
for
Information Technology and teacher Education
conference, Charleston, S.C.
36. Nemetz, P., Aiken, K., Cooney, V., & Pascal, V. (2012). Should
faculty use social networks to engage with students? Journal for
Advancement of Marketing Education, 20(1), 19-28.
37. Akyildz, M. & Argan, M. (2010). Using online social networking: Student
purposes of Facebook usage at the University of Turkey.
Journal of Technology Research, 3.
38. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M., 2008. The three p’s of pedagogy for
the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity.
-International Journal of Teaching and learning in Higher
Education, 20(1), 10-27. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
39. Hamid, S., Waycott, J., Kurnia, S., & Chang, S. (2010). The use of onli
social networking for higher education from an activity theory perspective.
Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems Proceedings. Paper 135.
Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2010/135
40. Brownlie, F., & Renihan, F. (2003). Enhanced learning: Report of
the student achievement task force. As presented to the Minister of
Education, British Columbia, Canada, 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/taskforce/achieve_task_rep.pdf

60. 41. Zhao, C. & Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and
student engagement. Research in Higher education, 45(2), 115-138. doi
0361-0365/04/0300-0115/0
42. Alloway, T., & Alloway, R. (2012). The impact of engagement with
social networking sites (SNSs) on cognitive skills. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28, 1748-1754
43. Yu, a., Tian, S., Vogel, D., & Kwok, R. (2010). Can learning be
virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts.
Computers and Education, 55, 1494-1503.
44. Mahadi, N., & Ubaidullah, N. (2010). Social networking sites: Opportunities
for language teachers. The International Journal of Learning. 6, 313-323.
Retrieved from http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494
45. Flad, K. (2010). The influence of social networking participation on
student academic performance across gender lines. Counselor Education
Master’s Thesis. Paper 31. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/edc_theses/31 online social networking on
46. Paul, J., Baker, H., & Cochran, J. (2012). Effect of
student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior,
In Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.016
47. Oye, N., Helou, A., & Ad.Rahim, N. (2012). Model of perceived influence of
academic performance using social networking. International Journal of
Computers & Technology, 2(2), 24-29.

61. 48. Kolek, E., & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: An empirical
examination of undergraduate Facebook profiles. NASPA Journal of student
Affairs research and Practice, 54(1), 1-25. Retrieved from
http://journals.naspa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?context=jsarp&article=1905&dat
e=&mt=MTM0MTM5OTI1Mg==&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.naspa.org
%2Fjsarp%2Fvol45%2Fiss1%2Fart2%2F&access_ok_form=Continue
49. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new
illiteracies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1130-1161. doi:10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2009.01484.x