Social Media Use Among College Students

1. Johanna Prince University of Maine http://jprince.org Social Media Use Among College Students

2. Introduction • The Millennial Generation includes people born between 1980 and 2000 • (Howe & Strauss, 2000) • 75% of the students enrolled in higher education are members of the Millennial Generation • (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009) • Millennials use media more than 7 hours a day, but with multi-tasking that number becomes 11 hours of day (The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010)

3. Literature Review: College Students • Existing research on Millennials focuses on personal rather than academic uses of technology, and shows the extent to which Millennials rely on technology for social reasons • (Bennett et al., 2008; Wilber, 2008, Pew Research Center, 2010; Smith, Salaway, & Borrensom Caruso, 2009) • While research has been conducted on ownership and use patterns of technology, little has been done to examine the impact of this connectivity on cognitive development

4. Literature Review: Technology • Ownership of personal and mobile technology only continues to increase • (Lenhart et al., 2010; S. Smith et al., 2009). • In two studies there was a correlation between instant messaging and poorer academic performance • (Johnson, 2010; Levine, Waite, & Bowman, 2007) • In another study of college students there was a more positive correlation for some students between educational technology use and engagement in college • (Laird & Kuh, 2005; Strayhorn, 2006). • Research to date is inconclusive, and likely a more complex pattern between use and academic performance and engagement

5. Literature Review: Social Media Use • Millennials are used to participatory culture that is marked by “low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship…they believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection” • (Jenkins et al., 2006, p. 3) • Some have praised the virtues of this participatory culture while others have examined and criticized this generation for their narcissism as evidenced with their social media use • (Bauerlein, 2008; Twenge, 2007; Twenge & W. K. Campbell, 2009, S. M. Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport, & J. Z. Bergman, 2011; Buffardi & W. K. Campbell, 2008; Joinson, 2008)

6. Literature Review: Cognitive Development • This study is grounded in Piagetian view of human development. There are four stages of development: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operations and formal operations • (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Kuhn, 2008; Muller, Carpendale, & L. Smith, 2009) • Formal operations is marked in part by the ability to engage in perspective taking, in this stage individuals are moving from the egocentric position of the child toward a less self-centered view of the world • (Muller et al., 2009) • While age attainment of stages has been criticized, this final stage is typically associated with later adolescence or early adulthood • No research could be found on the relationship between social media use and achievement of formal operations

7. Theoretical Framework Social Media Centered on self (MySpace and Facebook) What is the nature of the relationship between social media use and cognitive development in college students?

8. Research Question • What is the nature of the relationship between social media use and cognitive development in college students?

9. Methods • Case study • Data collected from 6 students (~100 former students were invited to participate) • Interview data • 50 status updates from facebook • Protection of Human Subjects was ensured through: • Voluntary participation, ability to withdraw from the study without penalty • Adherence to IRB proposal and protocol for the institution

10. Analysis • Data was brought into Nvivo for management and coding • Interviews were transcribed in Nvivo • Facebook wall files were shared with the researcher, names were taken out in text files (images had already been removed) • Coding began with open coding • Coding continued with constant comparison

11. Sample

12. Finding #1: Variety in Frequency • All participants reported daily use of facebook • “if I have internet, it is always open” • “I probably check it every hour, especially on my phone” • All participants had rules and patterns around how and when they checked facebook • “I always have to have the typed in password, cause that is my monitor to myself, I am like 'oh I have to type it all in again' so I won't have it saved on my computer because it is that much easier to get to, cause it is, it is an addiction, it is something that you always know it is there, and it is great to find out about other people's lives”

13. Finding #1: Variety in Frequency

14. Finding #2: Variety in Content • Mentioning academic tasks did not have a relationship with academic performance • (Status Update) chemistry lab, homework, and then english...tonight i have a crc meeting and a dance team meeting, plus i have to finish reading my chemistry and working on my religion project • Referencing more articles, quotes and specific readings or books in status updates was related to higher academic performance • (Status Update) Dear Shakespeare, Would it kill you to put a complete set of parents in a play? Seriously. You're worse than Disney. Sincerely, Me

15. Finding #3 Perspective Taking • Students engage in perspective taking when posting their updates to varying degrees • “well I am sure I say to myself, if I don't want everyone to see this, then I am sure I shouldn't have it on there, but that was like when I first started teaching preschool, I remember going through my entire profile and deleting pictures that I didn't want them to see and stuff like that just because I knew that I wanted to be a professional, and I want to get, want to be that person that they are respected” (Participant 3) • “I have been known to hide status updates from my extended family when I feel, like the next day I am like, oh maybe I shouldn't have posted how my mom is driving me absolutely insane and I can't wait to go back to [school]”. (Participant 1)

16. Finding #3 Perspective Taking • Some students believe that they can keep personal and private separate and therefore do not feel that current digital choices will have long run consequences • “I think it is possible to close it off or I would make it so people couldn't post on my page. I would do anything I could to make it not viewable to the public eye and set up a page, as a public figure page, for the campaign work aspect of it” • “I think what I might do is keep a professional page for facebook that anyone could see. It would make it easier, you know maintaining my goofy, myself facebook that my mom can see, and then having a professional facebook would be a good thing. “

17. Conclusions • Content on social media does reveal differences in cognitive development • Students using facebook without skills in perspective taking may engage in behaviors that have long term implications

18. Limitations • The study did not include a specific measure of cognitive ability, used GPA as a proxy • Descriptive, not experimental study, so the nature of the relationship needs further examination • The small sample size is a limitation in this study • The sample included only one male • The short study did not allow for follow up interviews

19. Future Research • Mixed methods research with cognitive performance level and series of interviews • Longitudinal study of students as they enter professional world and confront digital past

20. References • Bauerlein, M. (2008). The dumbest generation: how the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (or, don’t trust anyone under 30). New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin. • Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39. • Bergman, S. M., Fearrington, M. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, J. Z. (2011). Millennials, narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on social networking sites and why. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 706-711. • Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1303 -1314. doi:10.1177/0146167208320061 • Flowers, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2000). Information technology use and cognitive outcomes in the first year of college. Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 637–667.

21. References • Fuller, R. G., Campbell, T. C., Dykstra, D. I., & Stevens, S. M. (Eds.). (2009). College teaching and the development of reasoning. Science and Engineering Education Sources. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. • Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46-64. doi:10.1007/BF02940852 • Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books. • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. (A. Parsons, Tran.). Basic Books. • Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (p. 61). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

22. References • Johnson, G. M. (2010). Internet use and child development: The techno-microsystem. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 32-43. • Kuhn, D. (2008). Formal operations from a twenty-first century perspective. Human Development, 51(1), 48-55. doi:10.1159/000113155 • Laird, T. F. N., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 211-233. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-1600-y • Levine, L., Waite, B., & Bowman, L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and academic distractibility in college youth. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 560-566. • Muller, U., Carpendale, J., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge companion to Piaget. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.

23. References • National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Fast Facts. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 • Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials understanding the new students. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 37-47. • Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583 -15587. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106 • Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: a portrait of generation next: confident, connected, open to change. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/millennials/ • Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). • Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6).

24. References • Strayhorn, T., L. (2006). College in the information age: Gains associated with students’ use of technology. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(2), 143-155. • Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., Kraut, R., & Gross, E. (2001). The impact of computer use on children’s and adolescents’ development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 7-30. • Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. • The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010). Generation M2 media in the lives of 8-to18-year olds. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. • Twenge, J. M. (2007). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled–and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press.

25. References • Twenge, J. M. (2009). Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: teaching Generation Me. Medical Education, 43. • Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York, NY: Free Press. • USDOE. (2010). National educational technology plan. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.