Social media as a support for learning in universities: an empirical study of Facebook Groups

Abstract

This paper explores social media use for learning in universities, through a study of the use of Facebook Groups by undergraduate students. The objective of the research is specifically to understand what motivates students to use Facebook Groups and what benefits they receive from doing so. The study is grounded in the Guo et al. (2012) Student Technology Use Hierarchical Framework (STUH), drawn from Uses and Gratifications Theory (U&G), and from Means End Chain Theory (MEC). The STUH Framework was adapted by this research, and validated and revised through survey research to create an amended STUH framework for Facebook Groups. The findings conclude that the attributes of Facebook Groups lead to interaction which in turn satisfies the higher level information and decision making needs of students. The findings have important implications for software designers and educators, as well as for researchers interested in using social networking software for learning. Overall, a better understanding of student motivations is critical to the successful implementation of such technologies in the educational arena.

Keywords:

• Social media
• higher education
• information and decision making needs
• motivations

1. Introduction

Contemporary students entering third level education communicate, collaborate, and learn differently from their predecessors; specifically, technology is ingrained in their lives and they rely more heavily on the use of personal technologies such as social media (Tapscott, 1998). Social media is a twenty-first century term used to broadly define a variety of networked tools or technologies that emphasise the social aspects of the internet as a channel for communication, collaboration, and creative expression, and is often interchangeable with the terms Web 2.0 and social software (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). Studies show that social network tools support educational activities by making interaction, collaboration, active participation, information and resources sharing and critical thinking possible (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Mason, 2006; Mazman & Usluel, 2010; Selwyn, 2007).

In recent years, social media usage by students has increased to a level that requires that its role in education be better understood. Social media platforms like Facebook supports group interaction toward establishing communities, and creating and exchanging content and while it is generally accepted as a social network, Facebook could also gain a unique position as a learning technology for educational purposes (Haefliger, Monteiro, Foray, & Von Krogh, 2011; Mazman & Usluel, 2010; Tess, 2013; Tiryakioglu & Erzurum, 2011; von Krogh, 2012). Several authors have admitted the need to conduct studies that analyse the use of social networking in tools in educational contexts (Arteaga Sánchez, Cortijo, & Javed, 2014; Mazman & Usluel, 2010; Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010) accordingly research on Facebook usage by college students has significantly increased during the last few years.

This paper thus explores social media use for learning in universities, through a study of the use of Facebook Groups by undergraduate students. Such groups represent private shared spaces within public social networks and create a system for information sharing, collaboration and decision making. The objective of this research is specifically to understand what motivates students to use Facebook Groups and what benefits they receive from doing so.

Prior research on Facebook Groups mostly focuses on using Facebook Groups to engage and/or support students in their formal education; where groups are setup by someone outside the student population i.e. lecturer/tutor (Arteaga Sánchez et al., 2014; Manca & Ranieri, 2013; Ng & Wong, 2013; Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009; Pi, Chou, & Liao, 2013; Roblyer et al., 2010; Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011; Tess, 2013; Wang, Woo, Quek, Yang, & Liu, 2012; Yunus & Salehi, 2012). This study, however, explores Facebook Groups that are solely student organised and mediated, as such contexts align with the notion of informal learning and potentially give greater insight into user motivations and benefits.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section presents a review of prior research on Facebook in university education and on Facebook Groups, and outlines the motivation for the study and the research questions. The following section presents the theoretical model used in the study, namely the Guo, Li, and Stevens (2012) Student Technology Use Hierarchical Framework. This is followed by a description of the research methodology used. The next section presents the findings of the study and answers the research questions. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the Guo et al. (2012) framework is adopted, adapted and extended by this research, and the contribution of the study for both research and practice.

2. Literature review

2.1. Facebook in university education

By the mid-2000s, is was already clear that social networking sites such as Facebook allow students to develop campus-based social capital and social support networks which facilitate their integration into university life (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), thus enabling new forms of community-based collaborative learning (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). Indeed, Grant et al. (2006) declared: “Call it community learning; communicative learning or collaborative learning, at its heart learning is a social process” (Crook, 2008, p. 38).

Crook (2008) argues that a dynamic sense of community is formed from the solidarity of belonging to the same educational group because each member shares one common learning goal or purpose. Indeed, it is well documented that social software supports group interaction toward establishing communities, creating and exchanging content (Haefliger et al., 2011; von Krogh, 2012) and furthermore participation in the Facebook community enables efficient and convenient contact to be maintained with a larger and more diverse group of acquaintances, thus extending potential social capital (i.e. important relationships) (Young, 2011). Additionally, research conducted by Schroeder et al. (2010) details how social software helped students to build valuable relationships within a course or programme. By accessing each other’s social networking profiles, students were able to overcome relational barriers, which in turn contributed to the development of a community spirit among the students. The generation of content is a by-product of the various community-building activities. To put it another way, to support community building, social networking sites allow their members to create and update individual profiles, share photos, join groups and networks or receive updates on activities by other members (Schroeder, Minocha, & Schneider, 2010).

This raises the question: is Facebook indirectly creating a learning community connecting students with students? According to Bosch (2009, p. 193) “Facebook fosters micro-communities of people who share interests or partake in similar activities, and the question is whether this kind of effective social networking might be similarly extended from the personal, into the realm of the academic”. Young (2011) argues that continued research is needed to evaluate the quality of social capital built online and to understand how individuals in an online community may work cooperatively to achieve shared goals and to deal with difficulties. Indeed, Facebook may be just the tool we need to stimulate collaborative student-led learning (Bosch, 2009).

2.2. Facebook Groups

According to Shirky (2008), it is easier for groups to self-assemble and for individuals to contribute to group effort without requiring formal management, social media has furnished people with tools for gathering people together and getting things done; in other words new technology enables new kinds of group forming. In contemporary society, Facebook groups facilitate easier formation of groups for people. People collectively advocate to create digital spaces, to harness participation of a group of people with similar interests. In fact, the Facebook Groups feature was overhauled and re-introduced in October 2010, six months after the launch of Facebook groups, people had created over 50 million Groups on Facebook (Ta, 2011). Ta (2011) believes it has grown quickly because of its social design, instead of coercing everyone to build and manage individual friend lists, one person can create a group for a particular group and all the members of that group can use it. Facebook is a digital home for many students; so a group based there is comfortable to them – it’s on their virtual turf (Douch, 2011). To be clear this research disassembles Facebook offerings and focuses specifically on Facebook Groups. Fundamentally, Facebook can be referred to as an umbrella service which offers a toolkit of features, users will select features that they believe will best meet their needs (Smock et al., 2011). Furthermore, Facebook groups are an online space where people can interact and share with a focused group. Additionally, Facebook groups enable students to communicate to a smaller audience; these groups can be quickly created with their access limited to a particular cohort of people.

2.3. Digital natives

According to Tapscott (1998), Digital Natives have experienced a lifelong exposure to technology and expect technology to be part of their experience. Furthermore, this new brand of student has characteristics which differentiate them from previous students at third level however, Bennett (2012) believes that people adopt technologies for a wide variety of reasons and argues that it would be wrong to generalise about a section of a population based on their presumed exposure to technology. Indeed he echoed Valtonen et al. (2010) who argues that treating the Net Generation as a homogenous group with similar online preferences is also a misrepresentation. Their findings conclude that more research is needed about how students understand social software, how they use social software and what social software means to them (Valtonen, Dillon, Hacklin, & Väisänen, 2010). Similarly Jones, Ramanau, Cross, and Healing (2010) who surveyed technology use by university students stated that focusing on motivations for using technology provides a fuller and more complex picture of the new generation of learners who are making choices and using technology to gratify their social and academic needs (Jones et al., 2010). In addition, Selwyn (2010) argues that greater attention needs to be paid to how digital technologies are actually being used – for better and worse – in ‘real-world’ educational settings.

Based on the literature reviewed above, which (1) highlights the roles played by social media in higher education and (2) raises questions about the motivations and behaviours of contemporary (Digital Native) students, this study addresses two research questions:

RQ 1:

What motivates students to use Facebook Groups?

RQ 2:

What are the benefits students wish to obtain from their choice of social media? These issues are conceptualised further in the next section of the paper.

3. Theoretical model

The theoretical grounding for this study is the Guo et al. (2012) Student Technology Use Hierarchical Framework. Guo et al. (2012) investigated how student technology use motivations can be represented as a set of interrelated and hierarchically organised elements and consequently constructed the Student Technology Use Hierarchical Framework. Drawn from Uses and Gratifications Theory (U&G) approach and from Means End Chain Theory (MEC); the integration of these approaches provides a conceptual framework of goal directed consumer behaviours and correspondingly it is useful for understanding peoples’ motivations and their usage behaviour in relation to social media (Guo et al., 2012).

Consequently, Guo et al. (2012) developed a 5 level relationship model (See Figure 1). The development of this framework involved Guo et al. (2012) collecting a set of relevant data concerning students’ technology use motivations using the Repertory Grid Interview Technique and content analysis methods. Eleven student technology use motivations were identified and structured by adopting Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique. Subsequently, by using the Multiplication Applied to Classification (MICMAC) technique, the eleven identified factors were further classified (drawing on MEC theory) into 3 different types, namely (i) means, (ii) consequences and (iii) ends. The relationship between these variables determines whether students will achieve their goals (gratifications), and, according to Guo et al. (2012), it is more comprehensive to focus on means, consequences and ends, rather than just the ENDS.

Figure 1. Student technology use hierarchical framework (Guo et al., 2012).

According to Guo et al. (2012, p. 200), “… we can only teach our students well if we know what they actually want”, thus the framework could provide a guide to understand why students select or reject technologies. Interestingly, according to Guo et al. (2012) interaction is the only reason students use technologies and consequently, it plays a significant role in assisting students to achieve their learning goals. Similarly, the variable interaction is higher up the Student Technology Use Hierarchical Framework and this indicates that for students to use technologies in a learning context, they must first learn how to use the technologies to interact well. In fact, any shortcomings in the entire technology use process could have a negative impact on fulfilling top level technology use needs (Guo et al., 2012).

The first six motivations, namely: access and content control, accessibility, communication mode, managing contents, self-disclosure, and course management, are the interrelated technology attributes of the technology (means) according to the Guo et al. (2012) framework. The technical attributes are independent variables and are the means that accommodate student interactions (consequences). Furthermore, it is these interactions that enable certain goals (ends) to be realised (namely information seeking, communication efficiency, communication quality, and learning capabilities).

4. Research method

Data was gathered for the study using a web-based survey of undergraduate students. Prior to designing the survey, informal interviews were conducted with representative students to discuss their use of Facebook Groups. These interviews, in combination with the theoretical framework in the previous section, were used to design a questionnaire (hosted by Survey Monkey). The survey comprised 16 questions exploring students’ access to, use of, skills with, and preferences for features of Facebook Groups (as well as collecting demographic information). Questions primarily used Likert-scales to measure respondent’s agreement with statements however there was one open question asking students to express the greatest benefit of being a member of the Facebook Group in their own words. The survey was tested and disseminated to all of the students in each of the four years of a single undergraduate degree programme. The data was then collected and analysed using SPSS.

The participants in this research were undergraduate students in a four-year Business Information Systems undergraduate programme who had an account on Facebook and who were also a member of the Facebook Group specific to their year in the programme. (These particular Facebook groups are created by class reps in the first year of the course and people registered for the course are invited by email to join the group.) The response rate was high, with 260 students responding to the survey (53% of the population). In terms of sex, 66% were male and 34% female, which reflects the general ratio of male/female in the population of students. The survey data was anonymized prior to analysis. The responses to the open question were downloaded to excel and hand coded. Coding was guided by the constructs and ideas inherent in Guo’s (2012) theoretical model (STUH). All the data except the responses to the open question were exported in a condensed numeric format and analysed using SPSS (see Table 1 and Table 2).

Table 1. Quantitative data collected from survey for means.

Means	Question	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Access & Content Control	My Privacy would be invaded if FB was integrated into the Course (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	16.7	5	3.3	11.7	12.1	15.5	35.6
	Becoming a FB Group member (Difficult 1 - Easy 7)	1.7	1.3	0.9	3	4.3	6.9	81.8
	Communicate quickly with Multiple People (Difficult 1 - Easy 7)	0.4	0.4	2.2	2.6	6.1	6.9	81.4
	Students couldn’t use tools provided by the university (Not Significant 1 – Very Significant 7)	24.5	11.6	12	15.7	13	7.9	15.3
	Students didn’t want to use something provided by the university (Not Significant 1 - Very Significant 7)	22.5	8.5	8.5	14.6	13.1	14.6	18.3
	Students can independently control FB Group (Not Significant 1 - Very Significant 7)	2.8	3.7	2.8	4.1	12	17.1	57.6
Accessibility	Using the FB Group (Difficult 1 - Easy 7)	0.4	0.4	0.4	2.2	3	7.4	86.1
	Accessing FB Group Anytime anywhere on any device (Difficult 1 - Easy 7)	0.4	0.9	0.9	3.5	5.2	6.9	82.3
	Access FB Group Using Mobile Device (Light 1 - Heavy 7)	9.3	4.7	4.2	18.7	15.4	11.7	36
	Access FB Group Using University Lab Computer (Light 1 - Heavy 7)	7.5	5.1	5.6	22	17.3	14	28.5
	Access FB Group Using Personal Laptop (Light 1 - Heavy 7)	4.7	4.2	4.2	23.8	16.4	17.8	29
Managing Contents	Download Docs Importance (Not important 1 - Very important 7)	1.8	2.7	3.2	7.7	13.1	22.6	48.9
	Upload docs Importance (Not important 1 - Very important 7)	3.2	2.3	6.3	13.1	12.7	18.6	43.9
	Upload Photos Importance (Not important 1 - Very important 7)	26.2	14	13.6	17.6	15.4	4.5	8.6
	Download docs frequency (Frequently 1 - Not frequently 7)	23.6	21.8	16.4	15	7.3	5.9	10
	Upload Docs Frequency (Frequently 1 - Not frequently 7)	14.7	8.3	14.2	14.7	11.9	10.6	25.7
	Upload Photos Frequency (Frequently 1 - Not frequently 7)	4.1	5.5	4.1	9.5	8.6	13.6	54.5
	The Facebook Group is a file repository for the whole class (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	2.8	5.1	5.5	12.4	19.4	16.6	38.2
Communication Mode	View Frequency (Light 1 - Heavy 7)	2.5	2.5	5.7	35.2	20.5	18	15.6
	Post Frequency (Light 1 - Heavy 7)	57.4	17.7	7.6	9.3	4.2	3	0.8
	Chat Importance (Not important 1 – Very important 7)	44.1	12.2	9	14.4	7.2	5.4	7.7
	Direct Messages Importance (Not important 1 - Very important 7)	37.4	13.5	8.6	14	9.9	8.1	8.6
	Posting on the groups Timeline importance (Not important 1 - Very important 7)	5	4.5	2.3	9	14	19.4	45.9
	Chat Frequency (Frequently 1 – Not frequently 7)	5.5	7.3	4.1	6.4	5	6.8	65
	Direct Message Frequency (Frequently 1 - Not frequently 7)	6.8	5.9	5	7.3	9.1	18.6	47.3
	Posting Frequency (Frequently 1 – Not frequently 7)	11.4	8.2	15.9	16.8	13.2	9.5	25

Table 2. Quantitative data collected from survey for consequences and ends.

	Question	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Interaction	I participate in the Facebook Group To stay in touch with people on the course (Disagree1 - Agree 7)	8.7	5.2	10	12.1	26.4	13.9	23.8
	Build professional Relationships (Disagree 1- Agree 7)	23.1	12	17.1	24.8	12	2.6	9
	Collaborating with others in the Group (Difficult 1 - Easy 7)	0.4	2.6	2.6	7.4	11.3	11.3	64.5
	Makes it easier to establish and maintain relationships (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	7.2	5.4	7.2	26.9	18.4	10.3	24.7
Information Seeking	I participate in the Facebook Group To get info about the course (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	4.3	1.7	2.1	6.4	21.3	24.7	39.6
	I participate in the Facebook Group To get Info about on campus events (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	7.3	8.2	7.3	14.2	24	17.6	21.5
	Facebook Group is a safe Environment for sharing ideas and Resources (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	1.3	3.6	5.4	9.8	19.2	21.4	39.3
	Information provided by Facebook Group is reliable (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	3.1	4	5.8	14.3	24.7	20.6	27.4
Learning Capability	Social Reasons (Mostly 1 - Not as much 7)	11.6	21	21.6	16	10.8	9.6	9.2
	Educational Reasons (Mostly 1 - Not asmuch 7)	32.5	27	19	9.9	6.7	4.4	0.8
	Facebook Group is Personal Social not educational (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	43.7	23	13	15.5	3.8	0.8	0.4
	Facebook Group is a Waste of Time(Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	77.3	11	3.8	4.2	2.5	1.3	0
	Facebook Group is Effective For Learning(Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	2.1	2.9	5	12.2	27.7	23.9	26.1
	Facebook Group is Solely for entertainment	55	21	8.4	9.2	3.8	1.7	0.4
	Use Facebook Group To Support my lectures/tutorials at university (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	7.2	1.3	6.8	21.7	24.3	20	18.7
	Facebook Group Increase Assessment performance (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	4.5	2.7	5.8	16.5	18.3	23.7	28.6
Communication Efficiency	I joined because I feel peer pressure to participate in the Facebook Group (Disagree1 - Agree 7)	84.5	8	2.1	3.8	0.8	0	0.8
	Most efficient communication Tool I use to communicate with students on my course (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	5.3	3.5	3.1	8.4	13.7	12.8	53.1
	All students in the degree are FB Members anyway (Not Significant 1 - Very Significant7)	3.2	3.7	3.2	3.7	6.5	22.1	57.6
	Find it easier to stay up-to-date with what’s happening on FB (Not Significant 1 - VerySignificant 7)	0.9	1.8	0	3.2	6	24.4	63.6
Communication Quality	Allows me to know who I am talking to (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	3.1	1.3	2.7	13.8	18.7	17.3	43.1
Community	I participate in the Facebook Group to get support from others (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	2.6	1.7	2.6	11.1	28.1	15.7	38.3
	I participate in the Facebook Group to provide support to others (Disagree 1 - Agree7)	2.1	2.6	4.7	18.4	28.2	14.1	29.9
	I participate in the Facebook Group to Feel like I belong to a Community (Disagree 1 - Agree 7)	12.4	4.7	6.4	24	16.7	14.6	21

5. Findings

Demographically, 93% of students surveyed were aged 18–24 years and this would categorise them as Digital Natives. As discussed, contemporary university students have grown up digital and therefore they have the expectation that technology will be an integral part of their education. However technology merely offers a passport for these Digital Native students; what they decide to use in terms of technology is altogether a more complex decision. The data gathered through the survey thus provides a useful perspective on the decision making of undergraduate students to use Facebook Groups.

5.1. What motivates students to use Facebook Groups? (RQ1)

Focusing on the means contributes to answering the first research question: what motivates students to use Facebook Groups? The findings reveal that the attributes of Facebook Groups lead to interaction, which in turn satisfies the higher level needs of students. Specifically, a combination of a number of factors is necessary to achieve the end needs of the user; thus means (preferred features of FB Groups) can be described as interrelated technical features to achieve the desired ends. The user may not be aware that the technology attributes are a significant factor in the process of gratifying needs, nevertheless, if these entry level technology attributes are inhibiting access to a technology than the needs will not be realised. To this end, it is important to discover what technological attributes of Facebook Groups are preferred by students and how these attributes motivate and enable students to decide how to achieve their needs.

5.1.1. Access and content control: ease of use and ease of control

Facebook Groups facilitate the creation of groups by students independent of the university. In line with prior research, the findings reveal that these groups connect students from real world environments (a geographically bound campus). Furthermore, students are connecting with other students on the same course, which is a prerequisite to join the group, and similarly this is a motivating factor for students to join the group; knowing that access to the group is controlled ensures the content is controlled and is therefore focused on the common interests of the group.

Indeed, the fact that students can independently control the group is a significant factor to create Facebook Groups in the first place. It is important to emphasise that students are the administrators of the group which basically means the administrative settings of the group can be controlled by the students including privacy settings, membership approval and posting permissions. The creation and use of Facebook Groups by the students is entirely student-initiated and student-maintained, which reflects that the students are enthusiastic about and capable of using Social Software such as Facebook on their own to meet their various needs collaboratively. However, there are varying opinions among the four years of the undergraduate programme regarding privacy but the fact that the Facebook Groups are secret, indicates that students overall are concerned with privacy and limiting access to the groups.

5.1.2. Accessibility: accessing the facebook group anytime anywhere any device

In terms of accessibility and from the standpoint of motivation and demotivation, students are particularly motivated to use Facebook Groups because of the perceived accessibility. Furthermore, 86.1% of students participating in this research find using Facebook and Facebook groups very easy. In reality, Facebook and Facebook groups are easily accessible on a variety of devices. In particular mobile technology has increased the potential ease of access and accessibility to Facebook and Facebook Groups and student’s value 24/7 access to the group.

5.1.3. Communication mode and managing contents

There are various ways for students to communicate with each other via Facebook Groups. From the data it was found that the Groups timeline is the most preferred communication mode of the Facebook Group with 45.9% of students regarding posting on the groups timeline as very important. Additionally it is also noted that students use chat and direct message albeit infrequently. Also Facebook groups is an exemplary example of knowledge sharing by integrating managing content features in its platform it not only enables knowledge sharing but encourages it. It was found that the students upload and download documents to the Facebook Group which enables knowledge sharing. Indeed, the Facebook groups appear to be groups with compelling contents and this is one of the key reasons that new users joined groups. More importantly, the sustainability of these groups require rich information and knowledge and one can infer that the groups are rich in information/knowledge as students remain members for the entire duration of the course.

5.1.4. Group Management – impact of Class Reps

It was found that the Class Reps initially set up the Facebook Groups to disseminate information from the University’s Students Union. Interestingly, these Facebook Groups are outside the official structures of the Students Union (who have their own Facebook Groups) and members of the Facebook Group can discuss issues pertaining to them equally and as a collective. Furthermore, the interactive nature of Facebook groups allows students to post comments on the timeline (which as discussed is the most preferred feature) and all members can see the comments so it facilitates a very democratic environment. Additionally, the Class Reps have a powerful role; departmental staff could harness this power and engage with Class Reps to disseminate information to the students. In other words, rather than encroaching on their territory and interacting with students on Facebook, Class Reps can act as mediators and distribute information to students. For example, prior to the survey being posted on the Facebook Group timeline there was very little response to the survey. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Class Reps act as “trusted filters” or to post relevant information to the group and there may be an attitude “well the class rep posted it so it must be important”. Furthermore, what began as a handy tool for Class Reps subsequently became a handy tool for the entire class. The importance of Class Reps was evident in the open question data.

Students have exhibited satisfaction with the means (tools and capabilities) offered by Facebook Groups but also preference for some features over others especially the groups timeline and the fact that they can independently control the group. Furthermore, the fact that all students are members of the group and students can post on the timeline from a range of devices is definitely positively encouraging motivating students to use Facebook Groups among students. Correspondingly, it is the satisfaction generated by the means: Access and Content Control, Accessibility, Communication Mode, Managing Contents and Group Management impact of Class Reps which will contribute to the accomplishment of students’ higher level needs.

Therefore, in line with Guo et al. (2012) framework, the means of Facebook Groups certainly motivate students to use Facebook Groups; all things considered, it is accessible, student mediated and student controlled, students have the ability to manage contents and enjoy various modes of communication. According to Guo et al. (2012) from a technology-mediated behaviour perspective, these “Means” can be considered as aspects that are necessary (though not sufficient) to achieve the desired ends. In other words, without these technology attributes, student-learning goals are impossible to achieve (Guo et al., 2012).

5.1.5. Interaction

The significance of interaction in itself is that it is the vital link between the means and the ends in other words, interaction is vital to achieve the end goals and the means can either inhibit or promote interaction among students. In terms of the framework Communication Mode, Managing Contents and accessibility all have direct impacts on interaction. In fact, various communication modes encourage interaction especially the timeline, this supports the notion “that the greatest affordance of the Web for educational use is the profound and multifaceted increase in communication and interaction capability” (Anderson, 2004; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). This is the case with these Facebook Groups, interaction is first rate, the tools and capabilities of Facebook Groups and the means are conducive to encouraging and motivating interaction among students. Shirky (2003) argued that Social Software is simply software that supports group interaction. However, while interaction is vital to achieve end user goals the importance of the means cannot be underestimated as without the Means Interaction will not occur.

5.2. What are the benefits students wish to obtain from Facebook Groups?

The second research question: What are the benefits students wish to obtain from their choice of social media can be answering by focusing on the Ends (the higher level variables which are dependent on interaction which is facilitated by the means). By focusing on the ENDS we are querying what are the benefits students’ wish to obtain from Facebook Groups. The following benefits (ends) were identified in the findings which also support and extend the Guo et al. (2012) Student Technology Use Hierarchical Framework and these benefits are discussed in the following sections.

5.2.1. Information seeking

There is no doubt that the information seeking on the Facebook Groups studied can be referred to as purposive seeking for information. Indeed, students were very specific about what information they were looking for from the group. Furthermore, students were very open about the information they seek but the actual content of the group was not privy to the researcher. Future research could investigate the postings to the Facebook Group Timeline to gauge a real sense of the content of a Facebook Group.

5.2.2. Communication efficiency

There was a high level of enthusiasm among students regarding Facebook as a highly useful personal communication tool. It emerged from the data that students have a preference to communicate with each other through Facebook Groups rather than utilising email or black board (open question comments) this concludes that Digital Natives are not passive they are choosing what technology they feel will fulfil their needs. Furthermore, students enjoy the rich user interface offered by Facebook Groups and are not so enamoured with the interface of more formal tools like Blackboard.

5.2.3. Communication quality

Results of the data gathered showed that students use Computer Mediated Communication media for very specific communication goals such as to make their communication clearer, more convenient, efficient, in-depth and more frequent (Guo, Lu, Li, & Li, 2011). In line with Guo et al. (2012) interaction facilitates the higher level need of communication quality when students engage in information seeking. All members of the group have a common purpose and therefore all information that is shared is relevant and specific to the group. Facebook groups provide a mechanism for the members to connect, communicate, and interact with each other which the findings deemed to be an efficient and focused form of communication. Indeed, it can be inferred the quality of communication determines the success of the group.

5.2.4. Learning capability

The data showed that students are members of the group both for social and educational reasons therefore the Facebook Groups could be referred to as an Edusocial space (Pollara & Zhu, 2011). Informal peer learning was also evident. Instead of being useful as a formal learning tool the data gathered suggests that the Facebook Groups are a good tool for encouraging peer support and informal learning between students such as increased communication and support about course content and assessments. Moreover, the data gathered suggests that students would use Facebook Groups as a good medium not only for communication but for a broader engagement in the process of learning. In addition, it is interesting to note that students did not want academic staff to participate in their group with one student stating “there wouldn’t be the same craic, banter if academic staff were part of the group”. Furthermore, students also reflected that Blackboard was not the primary source of information pertaining to their course and surmises that students prefer Facebook Groups to collaborate their learning with others in the group.

5.2.5. Community

Community was found to be an additional factor within this study. In particular, the Facebook Groups facilitate learning in a collaborative environment but the nature of the environment is perceived as supportive; a ready source of peer support that is manifested through obtainable help as well as emotional support. Indeed, a strong online learning community should have its social and emotional as well as intellectual and academic dimensions, which is evident from the data collected.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Figure 2 summarises the findings of the study in the form of a revised framework, specific to Facebook Groups, which extends and modifies the Guo et al. (2012) framework.

Figure 2. A: student technology use hierarchical framework (Guo et al. (2012) compared with the proposed framework B student technology use hierarchical framework: facebook groups which adopts framework A.

The Guo et al. (2012) Student Technology Use Hierarchical Framework was instrumental in this research. The model provided clear constructs on which to base the research, influencing the formulation of the research strategy and subsequent data analysis. Furthermore, focusing on the means, consequences and ends of student technology use (rather than just needs) produced a richer set of data for understanding user decision making in the context of Facebook Groups.

Overall, the findings of this research support the Guo et al. (2012) framework. However, there are notable differences in both the means and the ends. The preferred attributes (means) of access and content control, communication mode, managing contents and accessibility are common to both frameworks, whereas self-disclosure and course management did not feature in the Framework for Facebook Groups emerging from this study. However, a new motivation emerged from the findings, namely Group Management (the impact of Class Reps).

Interaction is the vital link between means and ends and therefore, not surprisingly, the consequences (interaction) were the same for both frameworks. Both frameworks exhibit similar ends (information seeking, communication efficiency, communication quality and learning capability); however the revised framework includes an additional ‘end,’ namely community, which was included as a result of the study.

This extension of Guo et al.’s (2012) Student Technology Use Hierarchical Framework improves our understanding of how social media (in the form of Facebook Groups) supports students and learning in a university setting, and is the main intellectual contribution of this study, with several implications for researchers.

First, the Facebook Groups in this research are student led groups created by students for students (access and content control) and above all every student has the potential to play an equal role and share an equal stake in managing the content which leads to interaction and it is this interaction that leads to the benefits being attained. Students exhibit a Web 2.0 mentality (Crook, 2008), in that they want to be highly connected, highly collective and highly creative and they expect technology to be the same. Furthermore, Digital Natives use social media as their primary source of information and communication. In fact, students favour using Facebook Groups as their preferred channel of communication and are critical of the official channels of communication, namely email and Blackboard, which they do not consider as their primary source of information. We would thus call for future research on the relationship between “official” and “unofficial” social (media) spaces in higher education.

Second, student led Facebook Groups provide an informal learning community, offering peer support and interaction regarding general course and college related items. Furthermore, students’ bond in a supportive community environment, mutually supporting each other along the road to graduation. It would appear despite the benefits of Facebook Groups for informal learning that students would resist its full usage as a formal learning tool. In fact, students employ their own social networks to enhance their learning, transferring initiative from staff to the learners themselves. Students are members of the group both for social and educational reasons therefore these Facebook Groups could be referred to as an Edusocial space (Pollara & Zhu, 2011). We would thus call for further research on the interplay between “social” and “learning” motivations and behaviours in this context.

Finally, if the means (i.e. bottom level motivations) are conducive for students and interaction occurs, students’ benefits at the top level will be gratified. Interaction is the vital link between the means and the ends. Interaction motivates students to use Facebook Groups in Education. If the means, bottom level motivations are conducive for students and interaction occurs students’ benefits, at the top level will be gratified. Therefore, as the findings indicate, motivations are related and influence one another, in other words the variables at the bottom of the hierarchy influence those higher up the hierarchy due to their higher dependence. The findings show that an easy to access technology such as Facebook groups motivates students to use it for interacting with one another, which is the reason for using such technologies in learning, since interaction is critical to achieve their goals. Subsequently, the benefits for students using BIS Facebook Groups are information seeking, efficient and quality communication, learning and community. Thus we call for research investigating the impact on group membership and platform use if academic staff were invited to join such groups.

On a practical level, the Student Use Hierarchical Framework for Facebook Groups emerging from this study can potentially be used by educators. In particular, it gives educators insights into how students use Facebook Groups and what features they prefer, suggesting that students need more interactive environments. Educators could thus use the findings to create their own Facebook Groups but also to be aware that student led groups are preferred by students and that while students may join the educators group they will always have their own informal groups discreetly in the background.

The findings can have some important implications for software designers, teachers as well as researchers who are interested in enhancing online communication or using social networking software for learning. In particular, software designers could replicate the preferred features of Facebook groups into University Learning Management Systems and Content Management Systems. A thorough understanding of student motivations for using technologies plays a vital role in the ensuring the successful implementation of such technologies in the educational arena and additionally provide a guide to understand why students select or reject technologies (Guo et al., 2012).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.