Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities

  • Cliff Lampe
  • Donghee Yvette WohnEmail author
  • Jessica Vitak
  • Nicole B. Ellison
  • Rick Wash


Social network sites such as Facebook are often conceived of as purely social spaces; however, as these sites have evolved, so have the ways in which students are using them. In this study, we examine how undergraduate students use the social network site Facebook to engage in classroom-related collaborative activities (e.g., arranging study groups, learning about course processes) to show how Facebook may be used as an informal tool that students use to organize their classroom experiences, and explore the factors that predict type of use. Data from two surveys (N = 302, N = 214) are used to analyze how Facebook use, social and psychological factors, self-efficacy, and types of instructor-student communication on Facebook are related to positive and negative collaboration among students. We found that predictors of Facebook use for class organizing behaviors include self-efficacy and perceived motivation to communicate with others using the site. When placed in the context of social and psychological factors, Facebook intensity did not predict either positive or negative collaboration, suggesting that how students used the site, rather than how often they used the tool or how important they felt it was, affected their propensity to collaborate.


Bricolage Classroom Computer-supported collaborative learning Facebook Sensemaking Social network sites 


  1. Ackerman, M. S. (Ed.). (2002). The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1909–1912). New York: ACMGoogle Scholar
  5. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
  6. DiMicco, J., Geyer, W., Millen, D., Dugan, C., & Brownholtz, B. (2009). People sensemaking and relationship building on an enterprise social network site. In Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (in press). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society Google Scholar
  9. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009a). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009b). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1130–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grudin, J. (1988). Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 85–93). New York: ACMGoogle Scholar
  12. Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton, A. (2009). What Facebook users share: Lower grades. Time Magazine, April 14Google Scholar
  14. Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Poster presented at the CSCW '06, Banff, Alberta, Canada. NovemberGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283–307). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: Motives and use of Facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1027–1036). New York: ACMGoogle Scholar
  17. Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2008). Changes in use and perception of Facebook. In Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 721–730). ACM: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Lang, K. J. (2009, November 19). Facebook friend turns into Big Brother. LaCrosse Tribune. Retrieved July 13, 2010 from
  19. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: “It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCabe, D. (2007). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociological Inquiry, 62(3), 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 464–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2), 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance: Reconciling a media sensation with data. First Monday, 14(5)Google Scholar
  27. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed.). Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. Boulder: Educause Center for Applied Research.Google Scholar
  30. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. B. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2009. Boulder: Educause Center for Applied Research.Google Scholar
  32. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Tomai, M., Rosa, V., Mebane, M. E., D’Acunti, A., Benedetti, M., & Francescato, D. (2010). Virtual communities in schools as tools to promote social capital with high schools students. Computers & Education, 54, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cliff Lampe
    • 1
  • Donghee Yvette Wohn
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jessica Vitak
    • 1
  • Nicole B. Ellison
    • 1
  • Rick Wash
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.East LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations