Tapping the Educational Potential of Facebook:

Guidelines for Use in Higher Education

Rex Wang, Phil Scown, Cathy Urquhart, and Julie Hardman

Despite the recent changes in the rate of growth in different geographical areas: US, UK, Canada, Norway and Russia
(Arthur, 2011) Facebook has many millions of members. Facebook allows a user to create and share a rich online identity with
his/her networking friends, through pictures, wall posts. Users can create and join groups based on interests, and can connect to others
through a range of channels. It has also been used for information, knowledge and document sharing through the built-in
applications (Mack et al. 2007; Cho and Lee 2008). Universities are important venues for the formation of social networks.
Educational researchers have argued that interaction between students from different backgrounds, cultures, and social groups
provides a better learning and effective collaborative environments to prepare students for an increasingly diverse workforce and
society (Bowen and Bok, 1998; Kreijns et al 2007). However, the asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning
environments adopted by most universities can be characterized as functional and task-oriented, disregarding explicit support for the
social aspect of learning in groups (Kreijns et al 2007; Stone and Posey 2008). In contrast, social networking sites, as CMEs,
emphasize the social aspects of group learning but have been given less attention by formal educational learning. To date, the
reactions to the use of social networking sites for educational purpose are mixed. There are concerns related to legal issues and anxiety
about interacting with educators in this environment, a belief it does not serve an academic purpose (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis 2007)
and the opinion that universities and colleges should avoid “educationally appropriating” these social spaces (Selwyn 2007). However,
other studies have supported notions of using SNS such as Facebook in education; for instance, about 70% of students surveyed in one
study feel “comfortable” with their faculty being on Facebook (Hewitt and Forte 2006). The significant adoption rates of Facebook by
students makes it essential to have a deep understanding of the role of Facebook within and across cohorts, from both social and
academic perspectives. There are limited numbers of features that make Facebook amenable to educational pursuits; for instance, it is
equipped with bulletin boards, instant messaging, email and the ability to post videos. Nonetheless, Facebook has opened up the
development of downloadable applications, which can further supplement the educational functions of Facebook (Munoz and
Towner 2009; Skeels and Grudin 2009).

Most published research papers focus on social networking sites in general (Kreijns et al 2007; Boyd and Ellison 2007a;
Dwyer, Hiltz et al. 2008; Wang 2008), and there is little or no formal research conducted on the role that Facebook plays in levels of
higher educational. In addition, even though some studies mention that the social capital in Facebook is closely associated with social
identity and educational pursuits in Facebook, the linkage among the social capital, social identity, knowledge management and
educational pursuits in Facebook remains untouched. Alongside this, it is important to note that students give high value to face-to-
face interactions in an educational context (Deakin and Deakin, 2010). Thus whilst we may seek to maximize the potential for using
the virtual world to achieve educational aims we must not forget that it is only one of a set of tools available to the educator, and must
be used in balanced combination with others. The research question of this paper is: ‘What guidelines should be applied by academics
in Higher Education to maximize the educational potential of Facebook and similar social networks?’ The question takes cognizance
of the inherent social intent of Facebook and other social networks or CMEs which may be inconsistent with full adoption for
academic uses.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Facebook
In the span of a little over three years, from 2005 to 2008, the Facebook users count increased by over 20 times in size. In
2005, Facebook.com took its first steps, with a mere 3.5 million members (Arrington 2005), further growing steadily as more college
networks were added to eventually encompass them all. By October 2008 Facebook was reported to have more than 120 million
registered members, meaning users who had returned to the site over the past 30 days (Facebook-Press-Room 2008a). With an
enormous number of members, Facebook was ranked as the most trafficked social media site in the world and the 4th most-trafficked
website in the world (Facebook-Press-Room 2008b). Even though sources vary in the report, it is considered that so far university
network membership saturation has ranged between an average of 85% and 95% (Lampe et al. 2006; Golder et al. 2006; Ellison et al.
2007; Facebook-Press-Room 2008b) at most colleges in the US.

It comes as no surprise that Facebook friendships mirror interaction on campus. According to Mayer and Puller’s (2008)
quantitative research studies, students describe their Facebook friends as acquaintances made at school or through social activities. To
illustrate this argument, some of the main channels for meeting friends, studied in Mayer and Puller’s research paper, show the
following figures: about 26% are co-members of a school organization, 16% meeting through another friend, 14% attending the same
high school, and 12% taking a course together, and very few friendships as merely online interaction. Thus, Facebook users are likely
to include not only close friends, but also the “weak ties”, including alumii and others with similar interests".

Social Capital
The theoretical debate of ‘concept of social capital’ was introduced primarily by three authors who have prestige in the field
of social capital: Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman, and Robert Putnam (Schuller et al 2000). Bourdieu (1986) defines social capital as
“the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network or more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition…which provides each of its members with the backing of
collectively-owned capital”(pp.248).Like all forms of capital, social capital is accumulated labour. It has its own capitalists who
accumulate it in the form of relationships, networks, and contacts. “The network of relationships is the product of investment
strategies, individual or collective, consciously or unconsciously aimed at establishing or reproducing social relationships, which are
directly usable in the short or long term (pp.249)” (Bourdieu 1986). Bourdieu (1986) additionally explains that different forms of
social capital shape the social world.

On the other hand, Coleman defines the significance of social capital primarily as a way of understanding the relationship
between educational achievement and social inequality (Schuller et al 2000). More clearly in the educational context, Coleman refines
the concept of social capital as the set of resources that inhere in family relations and in community social organization, which is why
these resources are beneficial for the cognitive or social development of a child or young person (Coleman 1988). While differing in
the scope of their definitions, both of these authors highlight the close interaction between social and human capital.

The question about the usefulness and appropriateness of computer-mediated communication or environments (CMC/CME)
has been hotly debated in recent years. Arguments against CME highlight the ways the reduced cues of the environment make it
inappropriate for building trust and close friendships. At the same time, arguments in favour of CME celebrate the release from cues
associated with offline bodies, personal status, and gender (Haythornthwaite and Wellman 1998; Haythornthwaite and Nielsen 2007).

More recently, the debate has moved to the social level, for instance, Nie (2001) argues that a rapid increase in the use of the
Internet might diminish an individual’s social capital (Nie 2001). In contrast, some researchers claim that online interaction
supplements the interactions among individuals (Wellman et al. 2001). Recent research has emphasised the formation of weak ties
through the Internet, while serving as the foundation of bridging social capital. This issue has generated a great deal of debate among
researchers in relation to whether Internet has increased social ties. The concluding idea would be that different online activities may
be differently related to the formation and maintenance of social ties.

Bridging social capital and bonding social capital are clearly distinguished by Putnam (1995). The former is linked to what
the network researchers refer to as “weak ties”, i.e. loose connections between individuals who may provide information to others but
not typically emotional support (Granovetter 1983). Bonding social capital generally happens between individuals in an “anchored
relationship” (Zhao 2006a), emotionally close friendships, such as family members, college mates, off-line based online relationship
or close friends. Further to this distinction, Ellison et al (2007) introduce the third dimension of social capital named “maintained
social capital”, which deals with the issue of whether web network techniques enable individuals to keep in touch with a social
network after physically disconnecting from it. Zhao (2006), on top of that, names two levels of social ties by distinguishing between
institutionally based relationships and voluntarily based relationships. Institutionally based relationship are “involuntary” (Goldstein
and Warren 2000; Zhao 2006b), which implies that the social ties are not formed by personal choice but by institutional arrangement,
apparently not reflecting the participants’ sociability, in contrast to the social ties in voluntarily based relationships, which are
established and maintained by participants’ own choice according to their common interest.

With rapid Internet development, people are more anxious to belong to virtual communities, i.e. groups who interact
primarily through CMEs identify themselves with a group, and have developed relationships, feelings of belonging and attachment to
each other (Blanchard 2004). These subjective feelings are known as the “sense of community” (McMillan and Chavis 1986).
Blanchard and Horan (1998) contend that virtual communities can either be place-based, in which the virtual groups are centralized
around a particular geographic place, or dispersed, in which the virtual groups are scattered (Blanchard and Horan 1998). For instance,
a place-based community could be a bulletin board or a discussion board in an organization, a university or an association; a dispersed
virtual community includes a discussion board for movie lovers, or for viewers of popular TV shows.

Face-to-face communities may have an effect on the formation of virtual communities. High density of the face-toface social
network community relationship is more likely to result in a place-based community; on the other hand, the place-based virtual
community may increase the density of the Face-to-Face social community relationship. This means that people within a place-based
virtual community may be friends and/or have some relationship in the Face-to-Face social community. This, similarly, does not mean
all the relationships in a place-based community have been built through the Face-to-Face community. Accordingly, there will be
some people in the virtual community network who are not in the Face-to-Face network and vice versa. The fact that information
about norms and trustworthiness is considered to flow more easily within this more densely connected network (Coleman 1988;
Putnam 1995) implies that the virtual community has actually increased social capital and strengthened social ties.

Huysman (2004) extends Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) dimensional classification of social capital, by developing three
dimensions in terms of: structural opportunity to share, cognitive ability to share, and relation-based motivation to share. These
dimensions each have their components. There are four main elements identified within the first component “structural opportunity to
share” in terms of general issues, information technology, activities of the network, and structural affordances (Cummings, Heeks et
al. 2003). As well, the second component “cognitive ability to share” is divided into four elements – inputs, cognitive affordances,
outputs and outcomes. For instance, Facebook users, like members of other CMEs, share stories, music, and other items of common
interest. The “relation-based motivation to share” is concerned with human relationships in online networking, including bridging,
bonding and linking capital (Cummings, Heeks et al. 2003). The theories of three dimensions can be employed here to expound why
Facebook strengthens social ties, and supports educational objectives. More recently, Cummings, Heeks and Huysman (2003) propose
a framework for understanding the functioning of online networks in development. This framework is founded on the three
dimensions of social capital identified by Huysman, additionally incorporating elements of the MOTA model (Cummings, Heeks et al.
2003).

Research has begun to surface showing just how important Facebook can be in the production of social capital (Lampe et al.
2006; Ginger 2007). As an illustration, the result of a quantitative research (regression analysis of survey) of MSU undergraduate
students indicate that Facebook has a significant impact on students’ abilities to maintain bridging social capital at college (Ginger
2007). One focus of this study is on the exploration of social capital on Facebook. In typical use, social ties are voluntarily formed on
Facebook according to members’ mutual likes and interests. Even though some studies speculate about whether the Internet
supplements or supplants strong ties, there is little empirical work explicitly examining the effects of the Internet on bonding social
capital. In addition, the review of the current literature cannot provide clear evidence of how social capital formation occurs when
online and offline connections are closely coupled. This has particular significance if Facebook is to become an infrastructure resource
exploited by HE teachers. If joining a Facebook learning group is going to be a requirement, a strong indicator or pre-requisite of
successful learning, then membership is no longer truly voluntary. However, at this stage, it is not known if this is a significant
drawback.

On Facebook, the meaning of “friend” has a different connotation from the traditional one, which Tong, Heide and Langwell
(2008) explore as to outline several meanings (Tong et al. 2008):

• “Friend” often reflects that individuals have some forms of associates based on offline interaction. Social networking sites can
facilitate mixed-mode relationships. Walther and Parks (2002) define mixed-mode relationships as those that move from a face-
to-face setting to an electronic context or vice versa (Walther and Parks 2002). Owing to social networking systems, many
relationships frequently hover between the virtual and physical world. Donath and Boyd (2004) argue that online social
networking systems, such as Facebook, can help individuals to maintain a large number of close ties as the system allows people
to check one another’s profile for updates and new activities, as well as to facilitate brief verbal exchange through both
asynchronous wall postings and instant messages.

• The label “friend” in Facebook does not correspond to the same label offline, and this difference inflates the potential size of a
friend network. Similarly, Ellison, et al (2006) note that “friending” a large number of people proves to be one of the main
activities of Facebook, and a large network of weak social ties via Facebook becomes a source of social capital. The size of one’s
ostensible friend network on Facebook can easily become much larger than traditional offline networks because technology
facilitates more connection and interaction at some levels, enabling friendship to be in some cases more superficial in the virtual
world.

If Facebook is to be used to support interaction within cohorts we should be clear about the nature of the interactions. Being
friends on Facebook is a voluntary activity, that is an analogue of real-world / face-to-face interaction. It seems reasonable to conclude
that requiring Facebook friendships to be established to undertake learning activities is not something that can be justified. In an
educational context we may require “soft” interactions, such as general information sharing; or a “harder”, more focused interaction,
such as is required for group work focused on achieving a specific goal, e.g. a group assessment. Requiring all participants in either
type of interaction to become “friends” may be considered unreasonable. Thus Facebook mechanisms need to be found to support hard
and soft educational interactions without requiring friendship.
 The impact of virtual communities is increasingly pervasive, with activities ranging from marketing and economics, to social
and educational. Many individuals purposefully participate in virtual communities, social or professional,, seeking knowledge to
resolve problems in either sphere of life. The virtual community has a limited value without rich knowledge, the content of the virtual
community is important (Chiu, Hsu et al. 2006). As forming a community memory and knowledge base, the digital repository should
be expanded from the virtual community’s digital library to support computer-mediated communications (Bieber, Engelbart et al.
2002). Much of the knowledge generation and social learning in development are available increasingly in online networks, which is
why virtual communities have played an important role in facilitating social learning and the improvement of development practice
(Cummings, Heeks et al. 2003).

Virtual communities are online social networks in which people with common interests, goals, or practices interact to share
information and knowledge, and engage in social interactions; consequently, social interaction and the set of resources are embedded
within the networks that sustain virtual communities (Chiu, Hsu et al. 2006). Unlike general Internet users, members of virtual
communities are brought together by shared interests, goals, needs or practices. This may solicit the question of whether social capital
in virtual communities is powerful enough to stimulate members to overcome the barriers of a complex knowledge sharing process,
and thus share valuable knowledge (Chiu, Hsu et al. 2006). Checkland and Holwell (1998) explain a sophisticated distinction between
information and knowledge (Checkland and Holwell 1998; Urquhart et al. 2008). Information is defined as meaningful facts
surrounded by a context that helps make sense of that information.

Knowledge is defined as larger and longer living structures of meaningful facts. In an educational context both information
and knowledge are significant assets, the gaining of which is the purpose of learning activities. That such gain is expected may help to
overcome the barriers to participation perceived by any given individual. The community’s knowledge has both explicit and tacit
components (Bieber, Engelbart et al. 2002). The community’s explicit knowledge includes its documents, recorded discussions,
decision strategies, conceptual models, and defined workflows, whereas its tacit knowledge resides in the minds of the community
members but can be shared with others through the processes of socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization.
Polyani (1966) defines tacit knowledge as ‘persona, context-specific and thus, not easily visible or expressible – not easy to formalise
and communicate to others (Urquhart et al. 2008), though specific educational goals will encourage knowledge to be made explicit,
even if originally tacit.

From the social networking perspective, knowledge is a social and collective outcome and is always embedded in a social
context – both created and sustained through ongoing social relationships (Cho, Lee et al. 2005). This is why Nahaphiet and Ghoshal
(1998) argue that, in order to understand how individuals attain and build knowledge, it is necessary to analyse how they are situated
in networks of social relations, resource exchange and social support.

Following Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998)’s theoretical model, social capital is defined in terms of three distinct dimensions:
structural, relational, and cognitive. The structural dimension of social capital is manifested as social interaction ties, the relational
dimension is manifested as trust, norm of reciprocity and identification, and the cognitive dimension is manifested as shared vision
and shared language. According to the social capital perspective, tacit knowledge resides in the relational dimension (people are
interacting over the network) (Urquhart et al. 2008). Within the communities of practice, people with shared practice feel a need to
share what they know and to learn from others (Cummings, Heeks et al. 2003). Thereby, members of the community of practice
construct knowledge by actively participating in discussion and sharing knowledge with their learning partners.

Relationship between Learning and Community

In order to examine the role learning plays in the community, Hoadley and Kilner (2005) explicitly propose four major
learning models in terms of behaviourist learning, development learning, cognitive learning and socio-cultural learning (Hoadley and
Kilner 2005). Behaviourist learning theory explains learning as a result of conditioned responses, developmental learning theory
describes learning as a result of interaction with the world plus biologically mediated maturation, cognitive learning theory sees
learning as a result of active cognition that yields new mental representations and predispositions, and socio-cultural learning theory
explains learning as a result of appropriation of social practice.

The key concept of Poole and DeSanctis’s (1990) adaptive structuration theory is the interplay between technology, human
interaction, and the social structure, and a tension between stability and change (Cho and Lee 2008). According to this theory, the use
of new communication technology is situated in social contexts and structures, is socially influenced, and is appropriated by various
groups, and social and cultural factors. Similarly, current studies indicate that computer mediated learning environments can facilitate
collaborative knowledge building processes by requesting students to engage in activities beneficial for learning when cooperatively
solving a problem task in a project or discussing and elaborating test material (Weinberger, et al. 2006). They further expound that
working in small groups should prepare learners for life-long learning activities, which are largely embedded in a social context
(Weinberger et al. 2006; Urquhart et al. 2008). Collaborative learning has gained in popularity, with several studies demonstrating
positive motivational and learning outcomes in higher education contexts (Alavi & Dufner, 2005).

That social environment has an impact on finding information and acquiring knowledge is not a new concept. Huysman
(2004) proposes a theory of social capital dividesd into three dimensions. This approach is largely compatible with the Poole and
DeSanctis’s (1990) adaptive structuration theory, and appears to provide a useful foundation for enhancing our understanding of CME
interactions, social context, and collaborative information seeking activities. According to the theory of three dimensions of social
capital, “structural opportunity to share” as a strategy for educational objective allows students to work together over the online
CMEs, also known as collaborative learning (Cummings, Heeks et al. 2003; Janssen et al. 2007a; Janssen et al. 2007b). Collaboration
is defined as a process in which two or more learners need to work together to achieve a common goal, usually the completion of a
task or a project (Beatty & Nunan, 2004).

The positive effect of collaborative learning has been studied and well documented, enhancing students’ cognitive
performance (Cummings, Heeks et al. 2003; Janssen et al. 2007a; Janssen et al. 2007b). Johnson et al (2002) explicated the
development of teams in an online course setting using Knowles & Knowles storming, forming, norming, and performing model of
small group evolution, which tends to have more communication, and more identifiable leadership compared with face-to-face groups.
Similarly, recent research has shown that existing social relationships significantly affect the ways individuals seek information from
others. Social capital theory has noted that people tend to look for information from within their social networks and extract
knowledge from that information because it is easily accessible, quickly retrieved, and contextually rich (Borgatti and Cross 2003;
Cho and Lee 2008).

Placing Facebook in an educational context gives another dimension to its utility. McFadden and Munns (2002) examine the
significance of social relations in the educational process. They do this from both student-teacher, and, the student-student
perspectives. Both are considered to be important factors in determining student engagement in the learning process. An important
factor is student association with a peer group, whether in the class, or amongst a wider society, for example, perceived social-class
membership. This may result in feelings of inclusion with the educational group, leading to engagement; or of exclusion and
disengagement. From this perspective it can be seen that Facebook could be a tool for manipulating feelings on the inclusion -
exclusion dimension; though exactly how this could be done remains to be determined. However, Pheiffer et al (2005) consider that
matching teaching styles to learning styles "can increase achievement and retention".

In the current context, where Facebook is used by students to exchange information of many different types, then it would
seem that including Facebook in the set of teaching tools would be appropriate. It may be possible to use the work of Åkerlind (2004)
to determine the role of the lecturer / teacher in using social spaces such as Facebook. Central to their argument is that teaching, from
the teachers’ perspective, should not be separated from research but should be seen as an integral part of it. Internalizing this view
overcomes the reluctance of research oriented individuals to engage in teaching, and it reflects a change in attitude to those being
taught; which in turn would have implications for any use made of social spaces in a teaching context. Many student interactions
would then cease to be perceived as overheads, and become part of research, helping to develop ideas and ways of presenting them.
The outcome of this could be that teacher interactions on Facebook could be seen more positively by teachers and students alike if
they are an expression of being a teacher, rather than merely undertaking some teaching function. A development of this can be seen
in the work of Park (2003) that considers the educational benefits of learning journals, diaries or logs, to students. The core task for
students is to record reflections on themes, tasks, and the approaches the student takes to them. A parallel can be seen between the
works of Park and Åkerlind - the student undertakes to be a student, not just undertake student type tasks. In a Facebook context the
journal would be formed from the record of the interactions between students and others: fellow students, teachers, and other experts.
An advantage that Facebook may have over a journal is that it may be undertaken in a less self-conscious way if Facebook is already
something that the student does - the necessary transformation in activity would be relatively small. If successful then it should result
in a cohort of students that are more reflective, insightful, and coherent as a learning community.
Using Facebook for Knowledge Management
Using Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) three dimensions of social capital, Lave and Wenger (1991), Cox (2005) have
summarized a new model for learning through the community of practice (Cox 2005), which illustrates how learning is performed in
the web-based virtual community, and is different from the traditional class format.

METHODOLOGY

Wang et al (2010) report a number of insights from their work on Facebook and social capital.
 The guidelines are developed from data gathered from the literature, and from data collected in relation to student behaviours
at the University of Auckland. By combining these data sources it is expected that the guidelines will have both theoretical and
ecological validity.
METHODS

This paper draws on two studies to explore the educational potential of Facebook. The first is a study using interviews and
focus groups at the University of Auckland. The second is a study using focus groups at Manchester Metropolitan University.

In the first study, both students and faculty were interviewed about their uses of Facebook. Two separate focus groups, one
for students and one for faculty, were then held looking at the educational potential of Facebook. Details of data collection are given
below. By using these sets of participants we were able to collect data from both main educational user groups, but excluding
administration. Collecting data across two institutions helps to balance for possible cultural differences between institutions. This
should make the results more representative of English speaking HE as a whole, though it is admitted that a greater range of
institutions would increase robustness of generalizability. For example, it may be helpful to collect data from North American
institutions, and from other institutions where English is not the first language.

The primary data collection was supported by secondary sources. These sources were used for both cross-checking
data, to confirm or refine focus group findings; and to identify errors of omission.
 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

What is presented here is a set of potential guidelines for the use of CMEs in higher education. They have been developed
from the literature and data above, but have yet to be tested in live educational situations. The guidelines are presented in the table
below. They fall into two parts: guidelines related to purpose of interaction via social network environments, and guidelines
related to the process of interaction using this medium.

CONCLUSION

This paper has focused on the uses of Facebook, as representative of Computer Mediated Environments (CMEs) and social
networks in general, in Higher Education. Its selection was based on its relative popularity in the Social Network arena.

However, in the context of teaching in Higher Education and shared virtual space, we also need to consider how the
guidelines might apply more generally to the now ubiquitous Virtual Learning Environments (VLE). It could be argued that a VLE is
a specialized form of CME, with the addition of software tools supporting assessment and administration. A VLE fit for purpose will
have facilities for supporting group work, such as chat rooms, shared and private file repositories. A significant difference between
VLEs, and more specific CMEs is that VLEs are much more under the control of individual teaching staff rather than either the CME
owner (e.g. Facebook Corp.) or the individual user, in our case this would be the individual student. Teachers using VLEs, along with
faculty administration, are typically responsible for adding students to the VLE, establishing the view of the VLE each student has –
including setting privacy levels, and adding content. Facebook users are much more responsible for content and privacy. All of
that said, it is our belief that the above guidelines apply to both VLEs and CMEs, as the similarities are more significant that the
differences.

The above guidelines are yet to be tested. Even if these guidelines are refined or significantly modified, through
experimentation or application, it can be seen that a clear set of guidelines will be useful in maximizing educational gains and
improving the student experience; both key areas for HE policy makers. However, the balance between on-line and virtual teaching
may need to be adjusted according to student needs and expectations (Deakin and Deakin, 2010) which will vary within and between
cohorts. This will make the setting of hard-and-fast rules inappropriate, something already known to many teachers in higher
education. In examining the need for guidelines it has become clear that there are a number of potential pitfalls to trap the unwary.
The higher education teacher who plans to use Facebook, or other CME, would do well to consider the guidelines we propose
in advance of adoption of the technology. Institutional policy makers may find the guidelines useful when considering the adoption
of new technologies that may emerge. This will make it more likely that the teaching and learning experience will be more controlled
and focused,; and less likely to be diverted by unwelcome surprises as uncertainty should be reduced. Social networks provide a
versatile and powerful infrastructure with great educational potential. The adoption of appropriate guidelines should enable that
potential to be maximised, legal risks to be minimised; and student experience and achievement to improve.

REFERENCES

Adam, M. S. and Myers, M. D. (2003) In Proceedings of the International Federation of Information Processing, IFIP9.4 and 8.2 Joint
Conference on Organizational Information Systems in the Context of Globalization(Eds, Korpela, M., Montealegre, R. and
Poulymenakou, A.) Kluwer, Dordrecth, The Netherlands, pp. 101-115.

Åkerlind, G. S. (2004) A new dimension to understanding university teaching, Teaching in Higher Education Vol.9, Iss.3

Alavi, M. and D. Dufner (2005). Technology-mediated Collaborative Learning: A research Perspectitive. Learning Together Online,
Research on Asychronous Learning Networks. S. R. Hiltz and R. Goldman. London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New
Jersey.

Arrington, M. (2005). "85% of College Students use FaceBook." Retrieved 1, September, 2008, from
http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/09/07/85-of-college-students-use-facebook/.

Arthur C. (2011) Guardian.co.uk, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/13/Facebook-growth-slows-for-secondmonth

Beatty K., Nunan D. (2004) Computer-mediated collaborative learning, System, Volume 32, Issue 2, June 2004, pp 165–183

Bieber, M., D. Engelbart, et al. (2002). "Toward Virtual Community Knowledge Evolution." Journal of Management Information
Systems Spring, 18(4): 11-35.

Blanchard, A. L. and T. Horan (1998). "Virtual Communities and Social Capital " Social science computer review 16: 293-307.
Borgatti, s. P. and R. Cross (2003). "A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks."Management
Science 49(4): 432-445.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Form of capital. Handbook of theory and Research for the sociology of education. J. G. Richardson. New
York, Greenwood Press.

Bowen, W. G. and D. Bok (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University
Admissions, Princeton University Press.

Boyd, D. and N. Ellison (2007a). "Social network sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship." Journal of Computer-mediated
Communication 13(1): article 11.

Bury, J. B. (1987) The Idea of progress: An inquiry into its origin and growth [1932] Dover Publications, New York, NY, USA.

Charnigo, L. and P. Barnett-Ellis (2007). "Checking out Facebook.com: The impact of a digital trend on academic libraries. ."
Information Technology and Libraries 26: 210-230.

Checkland, P. and S. Holwell (1998). Information, Systems and Information systems - Making Sense of the field, Wiley: Chichester.

Chiu, C. M., M. H. Hsu, et al. (2006). "Understanding Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and
social cognitive theories." Decision support system 42: 1872-1888.

Cho, H., J.-S. Lee, et al. (2005). "Development of Computer-supported collaborative social networks in a distributed learning
community." Behaviour & Information Technology 24(6): 435-447.

Cho, H. and J.-S. Lee (2008). "Collaborative Information Seeking in Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication Groups:
Testing the influence of social context using social network analysis." Communication Research 35(4): 548-573.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). "Social Capital in the creation of human capital." American Journal of Sociology 94 (supplement): 95-120.

Cox, A. (2005). "What Are Communities of Practice? A Comparative Review of Four Seminal Works." Journal of Information
Science 31(6): 527-540.

Cummings, S.; Heeks, R; Huysman M.. (2003). "Knowledge and Learning in online Networks in Development: A social Capital
Perspective." Institute For Development Policy and Management 1-24.

Deakin P.H. and Deakin R.N. (2010) How Important is Study Mode in Student University Choice? Higher Education Quarterly,
0951–5224 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2009.00435.x Volume 64, No. 2, April 2010, pp 161–182

Donath, J and Boyd D (2004) Public displays of Connection, BT TECHNOLOGY JOURNAL Volume 22, Number 4 (2004), 71-82,
DOI: 10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.cc

Dunbar R.I.M (1993) Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans, Bahavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681-
735

Dwyer, C., S. R. Hiltz, G. Widmeyer. (2008). Understanding Development and Usage of Social Networking sites: The social software
performance model. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Science.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007), The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of
Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12: 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2007.00367.xFacebook-Press-Room. (2008a). "Fact Sheet." Retrieved 20, Oct, 2008, from
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php? factsheet.

Facebook-Press-Room. (2008b). "Statistics." Retrieved 17th March 2008, from www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.

Ginger, J. (2007). The Facebook Project, performance and construction of Digital Identity. Department of Sociology. URBANA-
CHAMPAIGN, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Master in Sociology.

Gladwell M. (2000) Designs for working, The New Yorker, Dec 11, 2000

Golder, S., Wikinson, D. M.; and Huberman B.A.. (2006). Rhythms of social interaction: messaging within a massive online network.
3rd International Conference on Communities and Technologies (CT2007). East Lansing, MI.
Goldstein, J. R. and J. R. Warren (2000). "Socioeconomic reach and Heterogeneity in the extended family: Contours and
Consequences." Social Science Research 29(3): 283-404.

Granovetter, M. (1983). "The Strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited." Social Theory 1: 201-233.

Haythornthwaite, C. and A. L. Nielsen (2007). Revisiting Computer-mediated Communication for Work, Community, and Learning
Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications J. Gackenbach. Alberta, Canada,
Elsevier/Academic Press.

Haythornthwaite, C. and B. Wellman (1998). "Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked
organization." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49(12): 1101-1114.

Hewitt, A. and A. Forte (2006). Crossing Boundaries: Identity Management and student/Faculty relationships on the Facebook. A
paper presented at Computer Supported Cooperative work 2006, November 4-8, Banff, Alberta, Canada.

Hoadley, C. M., & Kilner, P.G., (2005). "Using Technology to Transform Communities of Practice into Knowledge-Building
Communities " ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin 25(1): 31-40.

Huysman, M. H. (2004). Design requirements for knowledge sharing tools: a need for social capital analysis. Social capital and
Information Technology. M. H. Huysman, & Wulf, V., , MIT Press, Cambridge.

Janssen, J., Erkens G.; Broeken M.; ; and Kanselaar G. (2007a). "Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during
computer-supported collaborative learning." Computers in Human Behavior 23(3): 1105-1125.

Janssen, J., Erkens G.; Kanselaar G; and Jaspers J.. (2007b). "Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-
supported collaborative learning?" Computers & Education 49(4): 1037-1065.

Kreijns Karel; Kirschner Paul A.; Jochems Wim; van Buuren Hans (2007) Measuring perceived sociability of computersupported
collaborative learning environments, Computers & Education, Volume 49, Issue 2, September 2007, Pages 176-192,
ISSN 0360-1315, 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.004. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131505000904)

Lampe C.; Ellison, N..; and Steinfield C. (2006). "A Facebook in the crowd, Social Searching vs. social browsing. Proceedings of the
2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative work." New York: ACM Press:167-170.

Lave J. and Wenger E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press. Mack, Daniel;
Behler, Anne; Roberts, Beth; and Rimland Emily (2007) “Reaching Students with Facebook: Data and Best Practices”,
Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, v.8 no.2 (Summer 2007)
http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n02/mack_d01.html

Mayer, Adalbert; and Puller, Steven L. (2008) The old boy (and girl) network: Social network formation on university campuses,
Journal of Public Economics, Volume 92, Issues 1–2, February 2008, Pages 329–347

McFadden M., Munns G. (2002) Student Engagement and the Social Relations of Pedagogy, British Journal of Sociology of
Education, Volume 23, Issue 3, 2002 357-366

McMillan, D. W. and D. M. Chavis (1986). "Sense of community: A definition and theory." Journal of Community Psychology,
14(1): 6-23.

Munoz, C. L. and T. L. Towner (2009). Opening Facebook: How to use Facebook in the college classroom. 2009 Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference. Charleston, South Carolina.

Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S., (1998). "Social Capital, Intellectual capital and the organization advantage." Academy of Management
Review 23(2): pg.242-266.

Nie, N. H. (2001). "Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings." American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3): 426-437.

Pheiffer G., Holley D., and Andrew D., (2005) "Developing thoughtful students: using learning styles in an HE context", Education +
Training, Vol. 47 Iss: 6, pp.422 - 431
Park Chris (2003) Engaging Students in the Learning Process: The learning journal, Journal of Geography in Higher Education , Vol.
27, Iss. 2, 2003

Polyani M (1966) The Tacit Dimension, London Routledge & Keegan Paul.

Pool M.S. and DeSanctis G. (1990) Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration,
Organisations and Communication Technology, pp173-193

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital New York, Simon & Schuster.

Schuller, T., Barson, S., Field, J., (2000). Social Capital: A review and critique. Social Capital: critical perspective. J. F.

Stephen Baron, Tom Schuller. USA, Oxford University Press.

Selwyn, N. (2007). "Screw blackboard ... do it on Facebook!": An investigation of students' educational use of Facebook. Presented at
the "Poke 1.0 - Facebook Social Research Symposium", , University of London.

Skeels, M. M. and J. Grudin (2009). When Social Networks Cross Boundaries: A Case Study of Workplace Use of Facebook and
LindedIn. ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work Florida, U.S.A, ACM.

Stone, N. J., Posey, M., (2008). "Understanding Coordination in Computer-mediated versus Face-to-Face groups." Computers in
Human Behavior 24: pg.827-851.

Tong, S. T., Heide, B. V. D.; and Langwell L.. (2008). "Too much of a Good Thing? The relationship between Number of Friends and
Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook." Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 13: 531-549.

Urquhart, C., S. Liyanage, Muhammadou M.O.K. (2008). "ICTs and Poverty Reduction: A Social capital and knowledge perspective."
Journal of Information Technology 23: pg.203-213.

Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends’ behavior on evaluations of
individuals’ Facebook profiles: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49.

Walther, J. B. and M. R. Parks (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filters in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships.
Handbook of Interpersonal communication. M. L. Knapp and J. A. Daly. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 3rd ed: 529-563.

Wang, R. (2008). Reading paper in Facebook. INFOSYS 732 Research paper. Auckland, The University of Auckland.

Wang, Rex; Urquhart, Cathy; Scown, Philip; and Hardman, Julie, (2010) "Tapping the Educational Potential of Facebook: Leveraging
Social Capital and Knowledge". AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 308. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/308

Weinberger, A.; . Reiserer M.; Ertl B.; Fischer F. and Mandl H. (2006). Facilitating Collaborative Knowledge Construction in
Computer-mediated Learning Environments with Cooperation Scripts. Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated
Knowledge Communication: and how they may be overcome. R. Bromme, R.W. Hesse and H. Spada. U.S. A, Springer
Science + Business Media, Inc. .

Wellman, B., A. Q. Haase, J. Witte and K. Hampton. (2001). "Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?"
American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): pg.436-455.

Wellman, B. and K. Hampton (1999). "Living Networked On and Offline." Comtemporary Sociology 28: 648-654.

Zhao, S. (2006a). Cyber-gathering places and online-embedded relationships. The Annual Meetings of the eastern sociological society
in Boston.

Zhao, S. (2006b). "Do Internet users have more social ties? a call for differentiated analyses of Internet use." Journal of Computer-
mediated Communication 11(3): article 8.

Source: Wang, R. et al. (2014). Tapping the Educational Potential of Facebook: Guidelines for Use in Higher Education. Education
and Information Technologies. Adfaith Management Consulting Inc. Manchester Metropolitan University Business
School,Manchester Metropolitan University.