University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

(USC Thesis Other)

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE SOCIAL MEDIA DILEMMA IN EDUCATION:
POLICY DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTS

by

Devery J. Rodgers

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Devery J. Rodgers
ii
EPIGRAPH
―If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow.‖

John Dewey
Educator and Philosopher

―Every moment presents a learning opportunity. It‘s up to us to take advantage of it.‖

Devery J. Rodgers
Educator

iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this study to my students, colleagues, parents, and community
partners—past, present, and future--across the world. Thank you for your dedication to
continuous improvement, which makes a difference every day.
To my mother, Clara Rodgers, the wind beneath my wings, and to the memory of
my father, Joseph Rodgers, who provided the inspirational seed and guiding
encouragement until my own desire took root. Most of all, I dedicate this to the Lord
God, who supports us all.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I‘d like to express my deepest appreciation to God, for sustaining me through this
process and all the life events that contributed to this feat.
Thank you to my chair, Dr. Guilbert C. Hentschke, and dissertation committee,
including Dr. Patricia Burch and Dr. Pedro Garcia, for their support and guidance during
this journey to enlightenment. My gratitude also resides with Dr. Dennis Hocevar for
quantitative guidance. Continual thanks to Provost Susan Metros and Dr. Brandon
Martinez, who allowed me to bounce conceptual ideas off of their brains throughout my
research process. Additional thanks to my HHS thematic group, and DSC Writing
Groups. Boundless thanks to my 2009 Cohort of professional colleagues (especially
Wed I) and my professors, Drs. Rueda, Rousseau, Escalante, Marsh, Love, Hocevar,
Seder, Picus/Hentschke, Burch, Riconscente, Slayton, Chidester and Garcia. Also many
thanks to Dr. Linda Fischer (go ODA!) for her guidance in the writing task.
Thank you to the faculty, staff, and students of the schools and districts in which I
researched, for opening their doors and allowing me to study all they are doing to prepare
global scholars to be technically-adaptive citizens. Thank you to my school
administrative teams and colleagues for sharing the challenges of leading large inner-city
intermediate schools and high schools while simultaneously completing doctoral studies.
To my inspirations through the process: Torray Johnson, Frances Martinez, my
esteemed colleagues of the Pan-African Doctoral Scholars, Eric Medrano, NBGSA
Mentor Dr. Patrick DeWalt, and my family Delfred Rodgers and Clara Rodgers, sincere
gratitude.
To God be the glory!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EPIGRAPH ........................................................................................................................ ii

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER ONE: Overview of the Study ......................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 4
Importance of the Study ................................................................................................. 5
Methods towards Answering the Research Questions ................................................... 7
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ................................................................... 7
Limitations.................................................................................................................. 7
Delimitations .............................................................................................................. 8
Definitions of Terms ...................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................ 12

CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review .............................................................................. 14
Social Media ................................................................................................................ 16
Section One: Five Categories of Social Media Tools .............................................. 16
Section Two: Ubiquitous Social Media Use by Teens ............................................. 20
Section Three: Neomillennial Learning Styles ........................................................ 25
Section Four: Educational Practices with Social Media .......................................... 29
Education Technology Policy ...................................................................................... 41
Section Five: Education Technology Policy ............................................................ 41
Section Six: Acceptable Use Policies ....................................................................... 44
Section Seven: Risk Management ............................................................................ 48
Section Eight: Social Media Initiatives in Education ............................................... 58
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 63

vi
CHAPTER THREE: Research Design and Methodology ............................................... 65
Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 65
Methodology Overview ............................................................................................... 66
Sample and Population ................................................................................................ 67
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................ 75
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................... 82
Data Analysis Procedure .............................................................................................. 85
Limitations and Delimitations of Methods .................................................................. 87
Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................. 89

CHAPTER FOUR: Presentation and Analysis of Data ................................................... 91
Results from Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 92
Emergent Themes from the Data Collection ............................................................... 93
Defining K-12 Social Media Policy ......................................................................... 93
Supporting/Hindering Factors of K-12 Social Media Policy ................................. 105
Factors Reconciled ................................................................................................. 119
Social Media Policy Best Practices ........................................................................ 129
A Framework for Social Media Policy Development ................................................ 138

CHAPTER FIVE: Findings and Discussion .................................................................. 141
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................. 142
Key Findings from RQ1: Definition of Social Media Policy ................................. 142
Key Findings from RQ2: Supporting/Hindering Factors of Social Media Policy . 144
Key Findings from RQ3: Reconciliation of Social Media Policy Factors ............. 145
Key Findings from RQ4: Best Practices ................................................................ 146
Research Limitations ................................................................................................. 152
Document Analysis ................................................................................................ 152
Respondent Sample ................................................................................................ 152
Interview ................................................................................................................. 153
Focus Group ........................................................................................................... 154
Survey ..................................................................................................................... 155
Implications for Practice and Policy .......................................................................... 155
Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................... 156
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 163

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 165

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 178
Appendix A: Sample: K-12 Social Media Policies ................................................... 178
Appendix B: Document Analysis Tool ...................................................................... 179
Appendix C: Qualitative Interview Guide ................................................................. 180
Appendix D: Qualitative Interview Guide: Focus Group .......................................... 181
Appendix E: Qualitative Interview Guide: Focus Group-Chalk Talk ....................... 183
Appendix F: Interview/Focus Group Respondents .................................................... 183
Appendix G: Survey .................................................................................................. 185
Appendix H : Data Collection Calendar .................................................................... 193
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Taxonomy of Educational Technology Leadership Decisions with
Illustrative Policy Decisions or Actions (Anderson & Dexter, 2000) ............... 40

Table 2: Data Collection, Sample Totals ......................................................................... 68

Table 3: Matrix of Qualitative Question Options ............................................................ 78

Table 4: Type of Social Media Policy in K-12 Schools, from Survey ............................ 95

Table 5: Factors that Support the Development Social Media Policy,
Table from Survey ............................................................................................ 106

Table 6: Factors that Hinder the Development Social Media Policy,
Table from Survey ............................................................................................ 110

Table 7: Ranked Factors of Importance, from Survey .................................................. 118

Table 8: Factor Reconciliation within K-12 Social Media Policies,
Table from Survey ............................................................................................ 121

Table 9: Optimal School/District Response to Social Media Use,
Table from Survey ............................................................................................ 122

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics: Present School/District Response to
Social Media Use ............................................................................................. 128

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Major Themes Attributing to Social Media Policy .......................................... 14

Figure 2: Themed Sub-Categories of Social Media and Education Technology
Policy ................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 3: Social Media Tools: Categorical Focus ........................................................... 17

Figure 4: Benefits of Digital Content within Instruction ................................................. 38

Figure 5: A Model of Learning, Powered by Technology............................................... 42

Figure 6: Sample of Population, combined methods ....................................................... 92

Figure 7: Categories of Social Media Policy .................................................................. 94

Figure 8: Types of Social Media Policy in K-12 Schools/Districts, from
Document Analysis ........................................................................................... 96

Figure 9: Creation Timelines of K-12 Social Media Policy ............................................ 99

Figure 10: "Specific" vs. "General" Social Media Policies ........................................... 100

Figure 11: Content Factors within K-12 Social Media Policies, from
Document Analysis ....................................................................................... 102

Figure 12: Student- vs. Staff-Centered Social Media Policies ...................................... 103

Figure 13: Social Media Policy Categorization, District Location ................................ 104

Figure 14: Factors that Support the Development of Social Media Policy,
Graph from Survey ........................................................................................ 107

Figure 15: Factors that Hinder the Development of Social Media Policy,
Graph from Survey ........................................................................................ 110

Figure 16: Important Factors within K-12 Social Media Policies, from Survey ........... 115

Figure 17: Important Factors within K-12 Social Media Policies from Interview
and Focus Group ........................................................................................... 116

Figure 18: Risk Assessment of Factors Affecting Development and
Implementation of Social Media Policy ........................................................ 119

ix
Figure 19: Factor Reconciliation within K12 Social Media Policies,
Graph from Survey ...................................................................................... 120

Figure 20: Optimal School/District Response to Social Media Use,
Graph from Survey ...................................................................................... 123

Figure 21: Framework for Design and Development of K-12 Social Media Policy ..... 140

x
ABSTRACT
While internet technologies are transforming much of society in general, the use
of social media seems to be at a standstill in many K-12 schools. The limited use of
blogs, online collaborative projects, content communities, social networks, and virtual
worlds in the formal teaching and learning process has been stunted by social media
policies. This field study was designed to clarify what defines K-12 social media policy,
examining three primary areas:
1. Factors that support and/or hinder the development and implementation of a
social media policy within a school/district,
2. How these factors are reconciled in a school‘s/district‘s social media policies, and
3. Best practices for implementation.
Secondary level school districts were the primary unit of analysis, with teachers
and school administrators as the sample. Four triangulated methods (document analysis,
interview, focus group, and survey) were used to address the research questions during
the fall 2011 session. Findings reveal that K-12 policy has been designed for both the
student and employee as an amended Acceptable Use Policy or new Board Policy
addressing social media content both generally and specifically, with as many factors that
hinder the development and implementation of social media policy for education as
support it. Among these are legal, instructional, and privacy issues. Findings also reveal
that best practices include all stakeholder groups in the development, implementation,
and monitoring process for social media use. This study establishes significant base data
for more extensive future studies.

xi
Key words: social media, social media policy, Internet policy, social media protocols,
acceptable use policy, (instructional/education) technology policy.
1
CHAPTER ONE: Overview of the Study
The United States Department of Education (2006) has stated that, ―Walls—both
physical and philosophical--have held back new, more creative and more effective uses
of the Internet in schools‖ (para. 1). This is in part due to one faction of stakeholders
championing web use as a pathway for global citizenry, while another faction opposes
use based on liabilities to school systems. According to a nationwide survey of 294,399
K-12 students, 71% of high school students and 62% of middle school students declare
that the number one way schools could make it easier to use technology would be to
allow greater access to the digital content and resources that Internet firewalls and school
filters block (Project Tomorrow, 2011). Raised in the "always on" world of interactive
media, the Internet, and digital messaging technologies, today's student has different
expectations and learning styles than did previous generations (Baird & Fisher, 2006).
This net-centric generation values their ability to use the Web to create self-paced,
customized, on-demand learning paths that include multiple forms of interactive, social,
and self-publishing media tools. Through this demand, the use of Web technologies has
challenged and changed the concept of ―acceptable use‖ in schools.
Practitioners and policy makers are eager to understand the ways in which
technology use in schools affects student learning—especially participatory learning
environments (USDE, 2010). A critical preliminary step toward assessing the impact of
Web 2.0 tools, or social media, requires the examination of the design, implementation,
and effects of policy and the contexts that regulate social media use in schools. Previous
research examining technology use focused on teacher characteristics and neglected to
explore the potentially alterable, organizational characteristics that may be affecting the
2
adoption and use of technology in the classroom (Bebell, Russel, & O‘Dwyer, 2004).
These organizational characteristics may be enacted at the school site or governed by the
district.
Background of the Problem
School systems ban and block web use to protect privacy and promote safety.
This could inadvertently deny access to 21
st
century learning tools. Responding to
potential misdeeds perpetrated through the Internet, there have been zero-tolerance
polices enacted from the White House to the schoolhouse. However, adolescent
participation with social media can foster learning that reinforces and complements what
is taught in traditional classrooms (Tynes, 2007). The decision to embrace social media
technology is a risk-based decision, not a technology-based decision.
Social media policies are originating in classrooms as teachers struggle to
introduce students to social media as instructional tools. Policies are also originating at
school sites as administrators handle consequences to misbehaviors with social media
tools. Meanwhile districts may view social media instructionally and operationally.
While social media use as 21
st
century learning tools seems promising, the alternate
argument is the organizational strain that such uses will put on the district‘s network and
resources. These are just some of the factors to be examined when examining social
media policy.
Statement of the Problem
While social media presents a new world of opportunity in education, it also
presents a new wave of potential problems. Social media allows creation, collaboration
and communication through blogs, content communities, social networks, collaborative
3
projects, and virtual worlds. Through these tools, it also allows privacy and safety
concerns not yet addressed in education. New terms such as ―cyberbullying,‖
cyberpredators,‖ and ―cyberstalking‖ have emerged with the ubiquitous use of social
media. Yet the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) maintains that,
―[t]he people of the United States need to know that individuals in our society who do not
possess the levels of skill, literacy and training essential to this new era will be
effectively disenfranchised, not simply from the material rewards that accompany
competent performance, but also from the chance to participate fully in our national life‖
(p. 9). To help students build social capital and social competencies through social media
tools, changes are needed at every level: pedagogy, curriculum, policy, infrastructure,
organization and governance, at the local institution as well as at system levels (Owen &
Moyle, 2008).
Since the advent of the Internet in education, schools have had Acceptable Use
Policies (AUPs) which govern its use. AUPs were written before the advent of social
media and its promise for education. An acceptable use agreement must ―become more
specific to the kinds of things kids are doing and the kinds of tools they are using‖
(Scrogan, 2011, para. 8). AUPs must now take into consideration personal, mobile and
emerging devices, along with rapidly evolving Web 2.0 applications (Scrogan, 2011).
Purpose of the Study
Jenkins (2009) states that, ―[w]e all need to face the importance of these core
social skills and cultural competencies [developed exclusively through social media] that
young people need to acquire if they‘re going to be fully active and ethical participants in
this emerging participatory culture‖ (para. 4). Given the increasing evidence that Internet
4
technologies are transforming much of society, there is little reason to believe that it will
not be the defining transformative innovation for education in the 21st century. Social
media is leading this charge. This study is timely, problematic and relevant to education.
The gap in the literature lies at the cognitive benefit of social media use in
classrooms, but that cannot be examined until educators identify why social media tools
are not being used at the same pace as they are in informal learning environments. This
empirical study sought to explore how social media policy is developed and implemented
within a school district. It is timely because, in August 2011, the Federal
Communications Commission lifted its restrictions on Internet communications for users
of eRate funds, creating new opportunities for social media integration in K-12, making
the field ripe for policy change (FCC, 2011). The issue remains problematic because the
social media dilemma refers to two countervailing forces in schools today: the explosive
growth in use of social media among young people (Lenhart et al, 2007, 2010) and its
potential for use to enhance learning (Greenhow, Robelia & Hughes, 2009) versus the
anti-social media use policies adopted at schools as a defense against abuse and ultimate
liability (Ofsted, 2010). Its relevance is seen in the discovery of strategies that schools are
developing to successfully address both sides of the dilemma.
Research Questions
This empirical study sought to explore how social media is used in the secondary
school environment and if the use of social media outweighs the (lack of) policies to
regulate its use. This purpose was examined through the following questions:
1. What defines ―social media policy‖ and what are the different types of social
media policies presently in place at the K-12 level?
5
2. What factors support and/or hinder the development and implementation of a
social media policy within a school district?
3. How are these factors reconciled (or not), and to what degree, in a school
district‘s social media policies?
4. What are the most promising practices for the development and implementation
of social media policy?
Exploration of these questions should help develop a clearer picture of the
impetus of social media policy and how schools/school districts are addressing associated
risks. It was important to examine if policies were developing in response to risk
management versus support of instructional and organizational objectives. Examining
how policy was anticipated to change was also important in developing an understanding
about some of the challenges this technology has placed on the school environment.
Using a grounded theory approach (Martin & Turner, 1986; Patton, 2002), the
researcher used both inductive and deductive reasoning to generate theory from data in
the process of conducting research. During this analysis, it was found that there were
valid pro and con principle factors for social media use and non-use in a school district.
Thus, better policies need to be in place to support/deflect use, yet policies to ban and
block social media use are valid. As the goal is to support student success, if the benefits
of use outweigh the policies to ban and block social media, schools and districts need to
further explore ways to allow social media use while considering liabilities of that use.
Importance of the Study
Teens are ―spending the equivalent of a full-time work week using media, plus
overtime‖ (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). Education would agree that ―[a]nything
6
that takes up that much space in [students‘] lives certainly deserves our full attention‖
(Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). Understanding the dimensions of (potential) use of
social media in secondary education determines educational benefit versus outlay. Once
analyzing for liabilities and benefits, it can then be determined if more resources should
be allocated towards developing policies that support infusion of social media tools, or if
schools and districts should continue to promulgate blocks and bans. The United States
Department of Education (2004) has already stated, ―Public schools that do not adapt to
the technology needs of students risk becoming increasingly irrelevant‖ (p. 45).
The primary goal of every educational institution is student success. A twin goal
with social media is to see how, instructionally and organizationally, education can best
support learning through this medium. Since practice is usually regulated by policy, it
becomes necessary to examine existing school policies and cause for potential change.
By identifying current activities and policy trends, institutions may find a clearer path to
evaluate and create more consistent, standardized polices governing social media use.
Information garnered from this study will be of interest to all practitioners and
policy makers. Educators who lead organizations in which stakeholders use the Internet,
specifically social media tools, may presently find themselves grappling with the
integration of social media and policies to regulate its use. Social media has garnered
worldwide interest over the past decade, spiking with the growth of social networks.
Since that time, society, specifically education, has been reactively creating policies
without necessarily considering the operational and instructional visions of the
organization and planning for social media integration. It is hoped that with the
conclusions of this study, practitioners will better understand the (intended) use of social
7
media and how competing factors are best reconciled within a school‘s/school district‘s
policies.
Methods towards Answering the Research Questions
The research questions inquire about the factors that support and/or hinder
development of social media policies and how those factors are reconciled in a
school‘s/district‘s policies. For the purpose of this study, secondary school education
settings were compared through a sample of teachers and school site and district-level
administrators. Document analysis included present social media policies in secondary
settings (n=41). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample
(n=14). Triangulation of data included focus groups (n=46). One was online (i.e.,
discussion board) with a stratified random sample of teachers and administrators, and two
were face-to-face with a clustered random sample of teachers and administrators. Lastly,
surveys (n=100) were completed by a simple random sample of teachers and
administrators. These methods provided answers to define social media policy and the
factors contributing to best practices.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
Limitations
Answering the research questions relied on perceptual data from interviews with
teachers and administrators. The accuracy of data depended on the honesty of
participants‘ responses and the factors contributing to their outlook. As the online focus
group was mediated within an online discussion board, respondents may have had a
predetermined bias about social media tools. Due to asynchronous hosting, the
8
researcher also had no control over how much respondents participated and how they
interacted with one another. Accessibility and subject willingness are also limitations for
this study.
Delimitations
An important delimitation is that the study was conducted on a narrow sample of
the overall population at institutions not necessarily representative (with respect to
demographics, resources, and instructional models) of all secondary institutions. The
researcher made a concerted effort to sample schools with varying demographics,
resources, and instructional models. Regardless of the exact sample, the study is highly
generalizable because documents across school districts can be studied and compared
with interviews, focus groups, and surveys from teachers and administrators.
Focusing on a finite set of social media tools is a classifying delimitation of this
study. Web technologies, since their advent, have grown exponentially, mostly defying
measurement. Published research is not definitive on typology of social media tools.
The nature of web technologies makes it hard to extrapolate the current trends and predict
future directions. As all social media tools were identified through literature review
research, they were categorized according to five groups, based off a model by Kaplan
and Haenlein (2010).
Resources and time were also delimitations for this study. The amount of time
dedicated by the researcher to the interviews and focus groups was dependent on external
factors. As the researcher was bound by release time from her employer, time dictated
which sites were chosen and which persons were interviewed and at which times.
9
A final delimitation of this study lies in the nature of the inquiry where the
researcher was the instrument of data collection and analysis, which carries the potential
for bias (Patton, 2002). As the only instrument for data collection, it was important to
remove any bias from the data instrument tools. To ensure removal of bias, observation
tools, focus group and interview questions, and survey prompts were vetted with
qualitative and quantitative professors as well as graduate students in statistics classes.
Definitions of Terms
 Social Media is a group of Internet-based applications that build on the
ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, turning communication
into interactive dialogue by allowing the creation and exchange of user-generated
content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
o Blogs, which represent the earliest form of social media, are special types
of websites that allow interactivity on (typically) date-stamped entries in
reverse chronological order (OECD, 2007). Text or media-based, web
logs are usually managed by one person, but provide the possibility of
interaction with others through the addition of comments. Examples
include Twitter and Blogger.
o Collaborative projects enable the joint and simultaneous creation of
content by many end-users. The main idea underlying collaborative
projects is that the joint effort of many actors leads to a better outcome
than any actor could achieve individually (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Examples include social bookmarking and wikis.
10
o The main objective of content communities is the sharing of media
content between users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Examples include
podcasts and YouTube.
o Social networking sites are applications that enable users to connect by
creating personal information profiles, inviting friends and colleagues to
have access to those profiles, and sending e-mails and instant messages
between each other (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Examples include
Facebook and MySpace.
o Virtual worlds are platforms that replicate a three-dimensional
environment in which users can appear in the form of personalized avatars
and interact with each other as they would in real life (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010). Providing the highest level of social presence and media richness
of all social media, examples include massively multiplayer online role-
playing games (MMORPG) like World of Warcraft, and massively
multiplayer online real-life games (MMORLG) like Second Life.
 An Acceptable Use Policy, commonly known as an AUP, is a legal document
that sets standards for responsible use of computer technology. ―At the school
level, an AUP acts as a written contract between administrators, teachers, parents
and students. It outlines the terms and conditions for Internet use by defining
access privileges, rules of online behavior, and the consequences for violating
those rules‖ (Media Awareness Network, 2003).
11
o Digital Citizenship is the norms of behavior with regard to technology
use (USDE, n.d.). This is also often referred to as netiquette, Internet
etiquette.
o Cyberstalking is defined as the use of the Internet or email to stalk,
harass or threaten another individual (Reno, 1999).
o Cyberbullying is the use of technology for social cruelty, which can
include harassment, impersonation, denigration, trickery, exclusion and
stalking (CTAP, 2003).
o A cyberpredator uses the Internet to hunt for victims to take advantage of
in any way, including sexually, emotionally, psychologically or
financially (CTAP, 2003).
o Privacy is the ability of a person to control the availability of information
about and exposure of themselves on the Internet (Bertino, n.d.)
 Cyberlearning is learning that is mediated by networked computing and
communications technologies (CTAP, 2003).
o Web 1.0, the ―old web‖, refers to the first stage of the World Wide Web.
Web 1.0 was a taxonomy where the vast majority of users were simply
acting as consumers of content (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008).
Examples include personal web pages, Craigslist, and Encyclopedia
Britannica Online.
o Web 2.0 has been the term used to describe the social web, where users
co-construct a collective intelligence. Web 2.0 is a bi-directional medium
that emphasizes the Web as a platform (O‘Reilly, 2005) for the evolution
12
of social media (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Web 2.0 is commonly used
to encompass various novel phenomena on the World Wide Web
including ―richer methods of user interaction, new technologies, and
fundamentally different philosophy‖ (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008)
where users can create, communicate, and collaborate. This folksonomy,
while running on the same substrate as Web 1.0, is live, with a broader
mixture of audio, video, text, and images, compared to typical Web 1.0
site. Examples include mashups, social networks, RSS feeds, blogs, and
wikis.
o Web 3.0, or the semantic web, enables machines to understand the
semantics, or meaning, of information on the World Wide Web. Berners-
Lee, Hendler and Lassila (2001) define Web 3.0 as the insertion of
machine-readable metadata about pages and how they are related to each
other, enabling automated agents to access the Web more intelligently and
perform tasks on behalf of users.
Organization of the Study
This chapter has been an overview of the study. Following in chapter two is a
literature review of extant literature organized into two themes which attribute to social
media policy: (1) social media and (2) education technology policy. Each theme is
organized into four sub-themes. Each sub-theme examines a factor for the development
and implementation of social media policies. The methodologies proposed to answer the
research questions are further explained in the third chapter. More than ample data is
offered through document review of school district social media policies, and interviews,
13
focus groups, and surveys of teachers and administrators. Chapter four details the
significant results of the study, organized by research question. These results form a
framework for the development and implementation of K-12 social media policy.
Chapter five presents the overall findings, organized by research question. It also gives
implications for practice and policy, and suggests recommendations for future research.

14
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review
The development and implementation of social media policy is dependent on a
number of factors: present policy, instructional and organizational uses, societal beliefs,
economy, et cetera. This review of literature explores factors relating to teen use of
social media tools and the factors contributing to that use in secondary education. Social
media will be defined, as will present policies defining use in secondary education. This
nexus is the crux of social media policy, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Major Themes Attributing to Social Media Policy
Literature has been organized into two themes which attribute to social media
policy: social media use and education technology policy (Figure 1). Each theme is
organized into four sub-themes. Each sub-theme examined is considered a factor for the
development and implementation of social media policies. All have a significant impact
on twenty-first century learning environments, teens, or the guiding principles for use in
secondary school settings. Within social media, the following are examined: (1) social
media tools, (2) teenagers‘ use of social media, (3) neomillenial learning styles, and (4)
Social Media
Policy
Social
Media
Education
Technology
Policy
15
educational practices as they deal with social media. Within education technology
policy, the following are examined: (1) present education technology policies, (2)
acceptable use, (3) risk management, and (4) present social media initiatives in
education. Each section, other than the introduction of social media tools in section one,
explores a factor of consideration for social media policy.
Figure 2: Themed Sub-Categories of Social Media and Education Technology Policy
This study is concerned with research in American education that is in
consideration of student use of social media. Studies were searched to find research that
focused on: (a) social media policy, specifically in secondary education and (b) social
media use in secondary education. The purposes, theories and ways in which learning
with technologies ought to be conceptualized and operationalized is generating an
increasing body of literature; however, not enough is known about the ways in which
these technologies intersect with teaching and learning (Owen & Moyle, 2008). The
purpose of this review was to ascertain what recent research has already been undertaken
Social Media
Social Media
Tools
Ubiquitous
Social Media
use by Teens
Neomillennial
Learning Styles
Educational
Practices with
Social Media
Education
Technology
Policy
Education
Technology
Policy
Acceptable
Use Policies
Risk
Management
Social Media
Initiatives in
Education
16
in the field, ascertain the research methods used to underpin existing research, and
determine the gaps in existing knowledge.
Social Media
The ubiquitous spread of social media has affected today‘s teenagers
tremendously. Students presently beginning a 4-year degree will have learned outdated
technical information by their third year of study (Moore, 1965; Fisch & McLeod, 2009).
Social media tools are proving to be software for life-long learning (Dinevski & Kokol,
2011; Sirkemaa, 2011). The advent of the Web 2.0 (O‘Reilly, 2005) upgraded the Web
to include community-based sharing, user-created content, and personalization. What is
still being explored is whether it is the learning tools, the dedicated use, specific learning
style, the acquired learning skills (i.e., collaboration, problem-solving, critical thinking,
creation, communication), or a combination which contribute to cognitive development.
This section provides a foundation for examining social media use in education.
Section One: Five Categories of Social Media Tools
Social media is ushering the breaking away from the highly-centralized industrial
model of teaching, towards achieving individual empowerment of learners through
designs that focus on collaborative, creative, user-generated, networked communication
and interaction. Tools like blogs, collaborative projects, content communities, social
networks and virtual worlds, used appropriately, have the potential to make student-
centered learning a reality by promoting learner activity, autonomy and engagement in
social networks that straddle multiple real and virtual communities independent of
physical, geographic, institutional and organizational boundaries. While the key
17
sociological features are fairly consistent, the cultures that emerge around social media
sites are varied (Boyd & Ellison, 2008); some are purely social while others are purely
professional. Following, the definitions and uses of these tools will be discussed.
Social Media is a group of Internet-based applications that build on the
ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, turning communication into
interactive dialogue by allowing the creation and exchange of user-generated content
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). There are countless social media tools on the market; many
tools popular for a moment have a user following that quickly morphs into interest for
another application. For this reason, the researcher classified tools into five static
categories for social media, as adapted from Kaplan and Haenlein (2010). These five
kinds of social media, as illustrated in Figure 3, will be the categorical reference
throughout this study: 1) blogs, 2) collaborative projects, 3) content communities, 4)
social networking, and 5) virtual worlds.
Figure 3: Social Media Tools: Categorical Focus
Blogs, or web logs, represent the earliest form of social media. Created with the
Usenet around 1960, it allowed members to post public messages to those with Internet
18
access. Blogs resemble online diaries and represent a popular space to write about one‘s
experiences and instantly publish these thoughts and feelings to the web with very little
technical understanding (Huffaker, 2006). Blogs are special types of websites that allow
interactivity on (typically) date-stamped entries in reverse chronological order (OECD,
2007). Text or media-based, they are usually managed by one person, but provide the
possibility of interaction with others through the addition of comments. Blogs facilitate
publication of knowledge, opportunities for subsequent reflection and analysis, and help
learners understand the relational and contextual basis of knowledge, knowledge
construction, and meaning making (Ferdig & Trammell, 2008). Twitter and Blogger are
presently two of the most common types of blogs.
Collaborative projects enable the joint and simultaneous creation of content by
multiple end-users. The main idea underlying collaborative projects is that the joint
effort of many users leads to a better outcome than any user could achieve individually
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Collaborative projects facilitate the creation of shared
knowledge, dissemination of information, and group interaction (Augar, Raitman, &
Zhou, 2004). Examples of collaborative projects include social bookmarking and wikis.
Presently the most common in education are de.li.cious or Diig for social bookmarking,
Wikipedia or PBWiki for wikis, and Google Docs as a general collaborative tool.
Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) presage that collaborative projects are trending toward
becoming the main source of information for many consumers.
The main objective of content communities is the sharing of media content among
users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Content communities exist for a wide range of
different media types, including text, photos, videos, and multimedia presentations. They
19
also provide an innovative way for people to improve communication, collaboration and
social networking (Ractham & Zhang, 2006). Users are able to upload and download
content from a central location, even without becoming a member of a particular site.
Examples include podcasts and a present favorite, YouTube.
Social networking sites are applications that enable users to connect by creating
personal information profiles, inviting friends and colleagues to have access to those
profiles, and sending e-mails and instant messages between each other (Kaplan &
Haenlein, 2010). Most sites support the maintenance of pre-existing social networks, but
others help strangers connect based on shared interests, political views, or activities.
Personal profiles can include any type of information, including photos, video, and audio
files. The beginnings of social networks are attributed to online diary writers, who first
created an online community around 1960 (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), but the growing
availability of high-speed Internet has further added to the popularity of the concept with
sites such as Facebook and MySpace, presently two of the largest and most common sites
for social networking.
Virtual worlds are platforms that replicate a three-dimensional environment in
which users can appear in the form of personalized avatars and interact with each other as
they would in real life (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Providing the highest level of social
presence and media richness of all social media, there are two examples of multi-user
virtual environments (MUVE). Massively multiplayer online role-playing games
(MMORPG) include games like World of Warcraft. Massively multiplayer online real-
life games (MMORLG) include simulations like Second Life.
20
Social media tools update before some brands can capture massive audiences.
For this reason, social media tools are categorized on an adaptation from Kaplan and
Haenlein (2010), into five main groups: 1) blogs, 2) collaborative projects, 3) content
communities, 4) social networking, and 5) virtual worlds. When referenced, this study
refers to social media within one of these five categories. The remainder of the literature
review delineates factors by section that may play pivotal roles in the development of
social media policy in education.
Section Two: Ubiquitous Social Media Use by Teens
As new technologies have become available, young people have been quick to
make use of them, changing how they use media as well as which media they use. Note-
passing has been replaced with instant messaging; face-to-face conversations have been
replaced by text messages; message boards in hallways have been replaced by
―comments‖ found on social networks; and fliers, brochures, and bulletins have been
replaced with social network posts, which can be sent to all friends at once. Where in
generations past, pastimes evolved around listening to the radio and watching television,
teens can now contribute to their own forms of entertainment and learning by creating
and collaborating within social media.
Today‘s teens own and use the electronics that keep them connected to the world.
Teens spend about seventy-two hours a week using electronic media (i.e., Internet, cell
phones, television, music, and video games) (Harrison Group, 2006). Ninety-three
percent of teens use the Internet (Rainie, 2009). Eighty-six percent of families with
teenagers (12-17 years old) have some type of Internet access (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, &
Zickuhr, 2010). Sixty-one percent of teens (14-17 years of age) have Internet access on
21
their home computer with twenty-nine percent having access from a computer in their
bedroom (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). Even though not every teen has a computer
at home, ninety-three percent of teens are online (Lenhart et al., 2010). Internet access is
not limited to computers; teens also access the Internet through cell phones, game
consoles, and portable devices (Klaus, 2011). Ninety percent of online teens use their
browsers for cloud computing (Rainie, 2009), or Web 2.0 technologies. With so many
―connected‖ teens, an obvious conclusion is that they are engaged with Web 2.0 tools.
As mobile technologies simply allow the ubiquitous use of social media tools,
they are not a focus of this study. However, the researcher would be remiss to not
mention the pervasive use of mobile technologies in the past few years and their
contribution to the exponential use of social media. Prensky (2001) reports that,
annually, college graduates spend more than 10,000 hours talking on a cell phone, send
and receive over 200,000 e-mails, and the average teen sends approximately 2,200 texts
per month. Besides open content, mobile computing is the most trending technology for
teaching, learning, and creative inquiry (Johnson, Levine, Smith & Stone, 2010). In a
nationwide study of nearly 300,000 teens, Evans (2010) found that more than fifty
percent of middle school students nationwide have stated that, if allowed to use cell
phones, they would use them for learning in the following ways: check grades (69%),
take notes (66%), research (64%), collaborate with peers (52%), access online texts
(55%), organize schoolwork (47%), find out about student activities (42%), and record
lectures (41%). Sixty-seven percent of these parents are willing to purchase a mobile
device (54% with a data plan) for their students to participate in 21
st
century learning at
22
school. There are no published studies of K-12 schools acknowledging stakeholder
interest embracing this technology.
Text messaging has become the primary way that teens reach their friends
(Lenhart, Ling, Campbell & Purcell, 2010), surpassing face-to-face contact, email, instant
messaging and voice calling. Based on a 2009 nationwide survey which obtained
telephone interviews with a sample of eight hundred teens age 12-to-17 years-old and
their parents, and in nine focus groups conducted in four U.S. cities in June and October
2009 with teens between the ages of 12 and 18, Lenhart et al. (2010) found that daily text
messaging among American teens has shot up, from thirty-eight percent of teens texting
friends daily in February of 2008 to fifty-four percent of teens texting daily in September
2009. Not just frequency – teens are sending enormous quantities of text messages a
day. Half of teens send 50 or more text messages a day, or 1,500 texts a month, and one
in three send more than 100 texts a day, or more than 3,000 texts a month (Lenhart et al.,
2010). Forty-three percent of teens stated their main reason for getting a cell phone was
for texting purposes (Nielson, 2010).
Bloggers have more technological tools than non-bloggers, including cell phones
and personal digital assistants (PDAs), and are more likely to use them to go online
(Mitchell, Wolak & Finkelhor, 2008). Huffaker and Calvert (2006) find that blogs are
dominated by youth, with fifty-two percent of all blogs being developed and maintained
by teens ages thirteen to nineteen. A nationwide study of teenagers (H.E.R.I., n.d.;
Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin, 2005) finds that thirty-five percent of teens own a blog.
According to Goodstein (2007), one in five teens who are online regularly read blogs,
and thirteen percent post to their blogs. In a national survey of over 1,500 Internet users,
23
Mitchell et al., (2008) found a number of relevancies. Teens who keep blogs tend to be
heavy Internet users and savvy about technology. Twenty-seven percent of daily Internet
users keep a blog, compared to eleven percent of those who go online several times a
week, and ten percent who go online less frequently. Bloggers are also more likely to
have their own computer in their home and to use it in a private space. Finally, bloggers
are more likely than non-bloggers to engage in a variety of everyday online activities
(e.g., instant messaging and e-mail, looking for entertainment information, getting news
or information about current events, and making online purchases).
Blogs have been around for more than a decade while social networks are the
newest social media to engulf this generation. Nielsen (2010) reports that social
networking now accounts for twenty-two percent of all time spent online in the United
States. The Art and Science Group (2009) persist that students visit social networking
sites one or more times a day and spend 32 minutes per visit. Seventy-three percent of
teenagers 12 to 17 years of age use a social networking site (Rainie, 2009; Lenhart et al.,
2010). On average, students visit social networking sites one or more times a day and
spend 35 minutes per visit (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). The most frequently cited uses
of social networking included (a) communicating and staying in touch with friends
students rarely see in person (86%), (b) communicating and staying in touch with friends
students see on a regular basis (80%), (c) communicating with friends met at camp, on
vacation, and other places (72%), (d) contacting classmates in school to get class notes,
help with homework assignments, and other academic purposes (61%), and (e) because
their friends use these sites (57%) (Art & Science Group, 2009). A fall 2008 national
online survey (Art & Science Group, 2009) explored the degree to which college-bound
24
high school seniors in America were using social networking sites. In their survey,
eighty-nine percent of the nine hundred-sixty randomly sampled students who completed
the survey indicated that they use social networking sites; eighty-four percent of those
students reported having a personal page or profile on one or more of these sites.
Students generally indicated that the use of synchronous media enhanced their learning
experience and complemented other delivery modes used in their course--including face-
to-face.
Content creation by teenagers continues to grow, with sixty-four percent of online
teens, ages 12 to 17, engaging in at least one type of content creation (Lenhart, Madden
& Smith, 2007). Fifty-seven percent of teens are media creators (i.e., created a blog, web
page, posted artwork, or remixed content into own creation), while thirty-three percent
share what they create online with others (Oblinger, 2008). Sixty to seventy percent of
online teens post photos online while twenty-five percent of online teens have uploaded
videos (Rainie, 2009). Thirty-two percent have created a personal website or web page
(Lenhart, et al., 2007). Forty to fifty percent of teens create social networks by tagging
content (Rainie, 2009). Lenhart et al. (2007) found that with teens, content creation is
not just about sharing creative output; it is also about participating in conversations
fueled by that content. By posting and tagging, teens are most times creating content
through mash-ups, a re-mix of digital data. Leaving comments on others‘ posts, or
simply tagging their posted content also makes teens content creators.
Virtual worlds have a large following of youth, but statistics veer to MMORPGs,
or games, for teens versus MMORLGs, or simulations. The typical eighth grade student
plays video games at least five hours per week (Jones, 2003), but there are no published
25
statistics for how many teens log into role-playing games. By high school, seventy-seven
percent of students have played video games; sixty-nine percent of those have been
involved in virtual worlds since elementary school (Jones, 2003). By the time a student
reaches college age, one hundred percent of teens have experienced massively
multiplayer online role-playing games (Castonova, 2005).
Leveraging social media in the classroom is critical to connecting with teen
culture (Berk, 2003, 2009). Teens are ―spending the equivalent of a full-time work week
using media, plus overtime‖ (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). Overall, many students,
silent and passive in face-to-face settings, ―find their voices‖ in various forms of
mediated interaction (Dede, 2005). While seventy-four percent of principals, seventy-
two percent of teachers, and sixty-two percent of parents believe that schools are doing a
good job of using technology to enhance learning and student achievement, only forty-six
percent of students do (Evans, 2010). Education may need to review its practices, as
―[a]nything that takes up that much space in [students‘] lives certainly deserves our full
attention‖ (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). Evans (2010) discovered that the most
common reason high school students believe they are unable to use social media on
campus are filters and firewalls, teachers and rules.
Section Three: Neomillennial Learning Styles
Learning style is a distinctive and habitual manner of acquiring knowledge, skills
or attitudes through study or experience while learning preference is the favoring of one
particular mode of teaching over another (Saeed & Yang, 2008). These are still
qualitatively different from one another and distinct from abilities, the natural or acquired
skills and talents that result in being able to do something (Saeed & Yang, 2008). While
26
this generation of learners may prefer to engage in social media, and their learning styles
are thusly developed, they still may not be adept at using these tools towards their most
productive functions for learning. The learning styles, strengths, preferences, and
abilities for students of all ages are changing as their usage of media alters the processes
by which they receive, create, and share knowledge (Dede, 2005).
The influence of technology on student learning styles tends to contrast various
generations who grew up with different technologies (Tapscott, 1998, 2009; Oblinger,
2003, 2004; Dunleavy, Dede & Mitchell, 2009; Greenberg & Weber, 2008). Today‘s
teens are digitally driven to the point that they feel as if they cannot function without
their computers, cell phones, and portable music players (Neal, 2007). It is a rare
occasion to catch a student for five minutes who is not texting, linked to an MP3 player,
talking on the cell phone, or otherwise connected to an electronic device. Prensky (2001)
presents today‘s students, born from the late 70s to the late 90s, as the first generation to
grow up with new technologies which cause them to think and process information
fundamentally differently. These ―Digital Natives‖ are birthed a generation after ―Digital
Immigrants,‖ and at least two generations after the present majority of K-12 teachers,
―Digital Aliens.‖ Some commentators have claimed that the millennials‘ immersion in
technology during their developmental years has changed the way that they learn and
perhaps even the physiology of their brains.
Neomillennial learning styles are media-based shifts in the learning process that
stem primarily from extensive use of Web 2.0 (Tapscott, 1998, 2009; Oblinger, 2003).
Web 2.0 requires the ability to pay attention to multiple media—all at once. As social
media technologies not only frame the way individuals interact and learn, but actually
27
affect a learner's thinking process and development of future consciousness, new
pedagogies are needed to effectively integrate these communication mechanisms into the
learning environment (Dawley, 2009). These learning styles might include: 1) Fluency in
multiple media, valuing each for the types of communication, activities, experiences, and
expressions it empowers; 2) Learning based on collectively seeking, sieving, and
synthesizing experiences rather than individually locating and absorbing information
from a single best source; and 3) Active learning based on both real and simulated
experiences that includes frequent opportunities for reflection (Dede, 2005; Dieterle,
Dede & Schrier, 2007). Millennials must be engaged, constantly connected with first-
person learning, games, simulations, and role-playing (Tapscott, 1998, 2009; Oblinger &
Oblinger, 2005; Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007; Gibson, Aldrich, & Prensky, 2007). Not
necessarily net savvy, millennials are exposed to tons of information, but lack an
understanding of how to find, evaluate, use, and present that information (Lorenzo &
Dziuban, 2006). They need to be taught information literacy and strong critical thinking
skills (Oblinger & Hawkins, 2006). Berk (2009) states ―These students have grown up
with…the Internet, PCs/Macs, video games, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Skype, iPods,
iPhones, iPads, PDAs…as appendages to their bodies‖ (p. 3). Yet students only know
limited functions of these social media tools in the formal learning environment.
The learning preferences of the millennial cohort are geared toward ―teamwork,
experiential activities, structure, and the use of technology. Their strengths include
multitasking, goal orientation, positive attitude, and a collaborative style‖ (Oblinger,
2004, p. 1). Teens want to use their strengths with these social media tools to increase
their learning potential. Today‘s students are accustomed to negotiating among various
28
media sources—at the same time (Oblinger, 2004). Whereas many researchers connect
these characteristics to those born after 1980, others assert that these qualities are
observable to varying degrees in learners of all ages that make extensive use of modern
interactive media.
Opponents of this argument (Sax, Ceja, & Terenishi, 2001; Dieterle, Dede, &
Schrier, 2007; Dede 2005; The Art & Science Group, 2009) state that these assumptions
are supported largely by anecdote or a few small sample focus groups, not empirical
evidence to support the speculation about the values and behavior of the turn-of-the-
century generation. To understand true generational change, consistent measures have to
be taken. There is only one source of longitudinal data, which conducted surveys with at
least one generation or more, for about 40 years. The Cooperative Institutional Research
Program (H.E.R.I., n.d.) has conducted an annual survey of incoming college freshmen
every year since 1966. Administered to high school seniors by more than 700 colleges
and universities nationwide, the findings confirm that generational change is gradual and
transitional, with few abrupt shifts, and that gross generalizations about an entire
generation do not capture important subtleties and differences.
A review of learning theory suggests that learning styles and preferences
influence the effectiveness with which individual learners learn (Saeed & Yang, 2008).
In her nationwide survey upwards of 200,000 youth annually, Evans (2010) has
discovered consistent results since 2003, finding that students are frustrated with the
unsophisticated use of technologies in education, are exacerbated by the lack of
relevancy with technology and education, and feel a persistent disconnect between
students and adults. This new digital divide, between the technological comfort and
29
knowledge of the instructor, and the technological comfort and knowledge of the student
presents another gap in practice. Current and emerging social networking media can
support neomillennial learning styles, facilitate the formation of learning communities,
foster student engagement and reflection, and enhance the overall user experience for
students in synchronous and asynchronous learning environments, but within the
industrial model of education, knowledge facilitation is still in the hands of the teacher.
Prensky (2001) maintains that the single biggest problem facing education today is that
our Digital Immigrant and Digital Alien instructors, who speak an outdated language
(that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely
new language.
Section Four: Educational Practices with Social Media
Historically, controversies have arisen among scholars about the relationship
between information technologies and pedagogy. Since 2003, consistent results have
been found annually: students 1) readily adopt and adapt emerging technologies for
learning, 2) are frustrated with the unsophisticated use of technologies in education, 3)
are exacerbated by the lack of relevancy with technology and education, and 4) feel a
persistent disconnect between students and adults (Evans, 2010). A classic example of
this is the extended debate between researchers who feel that there is no significant
difference in learning between technology use for delivery (Kozma, 1991, 1994;
Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006) versus face-to-face delivery methods only
(Clark, 1983, 1994; Brown & Liedholm, 2002; Ferguson & Tryjankowski, 2009).
Beginning in the early 1980s, Clark wrote a series of articles (1983, 1994), arguing that
media are ―mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student
30
achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our
nutrition‖ (p. 445) Clark (1994) further claimed that ―media not only fail to influence
learning, they are also not directly responsible for motivating learning,‖ (p. 23) citing
research evidence that students‘ beliefs about their chances to learn from any given
media are different for different students and for the same students at different times.
During the early part of the 1990s, Kozma responded with a series of articles
(1991, 1994), taking a different position and fueling a dynamic scholarly debate. Other
researchers (Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006) have since added to this
debate, arguing that innovative applications of new media result in improved learning
outcomes. Ultimately, Kozma (1994) suggested a reframing of the debate, from ―Do
media influence learning?‖ to ―In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to
influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations?‖ (p. 18). Social media
will both advance the development of our field and contribute to the restructuring of
schools through the improvement of education and training (Kozma, 1994).
Rainie (2009) finds that social media has changed our learning ecosystem. In
biological terms, an ecosystem is the complex of a community and its environment
functioning as an ecological unit. Learners using social media are creating new learning
ecosystems by changing, or ―mashing,‖ concepts over time, place, and space. This
creates a content community. The volume and variety of information grows
exponentially within content creation communities as students ―mash‖ varied social
media together and link within. Content changes drastically, creating new folksonomies
based on current interests. The velocity of information changes and increases constantly
with the intersecting of people and information. This causes users‘ vigilance for
31
information to change in two directions: (1) attention is truncated and elongated as the
immersive qualities of media environments make learning more compelling and (2) the
semantic web improves relevance. Additionally, the collective voice democratizes the
web and the visibility of new creators is enhanced. Social media allows for the
ventilating about and voting on content, proliferating a collective intelligence. Finally,
networked individualism takes hold as social media tools become more vivid.
Wellman et al. (2003) hold that networked individualism gives students a sense of
the rewards and challenges of networking for social, economic, political, and cultural
purposes. Through constant interaction, teenagers have an ambient sense of information
availability. Their ―continuous partial attention‖ to the online community in relation to
face-to-face interaction is also termed an ―absent presence‖ (Wellman et al., 2003). This
definition of being ―always on‖ is what helps create personal learning environments with
anytime, any place learning as the base.
Recognizing this ―always on‖ pretext is a critical preliminary step toward
assessing the impacts of social media technologies on teaching and learning. An
examination of the varied uses of technology in schools as well as the contexts that are
likely to affect the use of technology in the classroom as a teaching and learning tool are
required knowledge. Unfortunately, technology planning has too often been limited to
the goal of simply acquiring hardware and software. Schools have focused on equipment
purchases and infrastructure, without considering the substantial organizational and
cultural changes that are necessary to support appropriate use of technology to enhance
student learning (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003). Identifying a suite of research studies that
assess the power of all types of pedagogical social media is difficult. Web technologies,
32
since their advent, have grown exponentially, mostly defying measurement. The range of
these instructional technologies is quite broad, and the kinds of knowledge and skills they
aid in learning are diverse and sophisticated, undercutting attempts to identify
quantitative measures that span this range of teaching media (Dede, 2008). That is why
the researcher classified tools into five social media categories, as adapted from Kaplan
and Haenlein (2010): 1) blogs, 2) collaborative projects, 3) content communities, 4)
social networking, and 5) virtual worlds. Broad definitions help social media tool
classification over time.
Research with social media has tended to focus on evaluating students‘
experiences within a specific course. Regardless, research has usually been done at
either the collegiate level or within business. Empirical research has been done with
virtual worlds (Delwiche, 2006; Coffman & Klinger, 2007; Shen & Eder, 2009), social
networks (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2006, 2007; Lockyer & Patterson, 2008;
Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008), content communities (Hemmi, Bayne & Land,
2009), collaborative projects (So & Brush, 2008; Hilton, Kaplan, Hooks, Harrell, Fischer
& Sorto, 2009) and blogs (Williams & Jacobs, 2004; Duffy & Bruns, 2006; Huffaker &
Calvert, 2006). Few studies have been conducted at the K-12 level (Ahn, 2010). While
all have positive reviews of social media use towards student engagement and social
capital, use of these tools towards student learning is mixed, and based on myriad
variables.
Leslie and Landon (2007) argue that the use of social software aligns well with
―learner-centricity.‖ As the users generate the content, social media is definitely a
student-centered medium. When teachers use social media in the K-12 classroom, they
33
may aim to motivate students‘ interest in the subject, build communication and critical-
thinking skills, encourage political activism, or promote personal and social development
(Hobbs, 2004). Social media tools have leveled the playing field between facilitators of
knowledge and learners. Communicating with students through social networking
websites can sometimes be more time-effective and resourceful than what previous
generations of teachers used for communication with students. Social bookmarking
within blogs and wikis is gaining traction as a method to facilitate online collaboration
among students and between students and their teachers. Virtual worlds have taken the
place of simulation software, requiring students to problem solve and think critically
about the dynamics of their interactions. Uses of social media show that it is a powerful
form of communication (Colaric & Jonassen, 2001), but the goal is to determine if it can
also be a clear measure of learning where work products can be assessed and evaluated.
Historically, technology-based education has suffered from widespread
misconceptions that any virtual form of learning is inferior to the traditional ―gold
standard‖ of face-to-face instruction (Dede, in press). Such false beliefs, which are
contrary to considerable evidence across multiple research studies (Dede, Whitehouse, &
L‘Bahy, 2002; Cavanaugh, 2001), have retarded the adoption of powerful models for
teaching based on instructional technology tools. Now, many levels of education are
finally recognizing the value of technology to aid learning. Mehlinger (1996) claims
that, unlike other educational innovations, successful technology use is driven by
teachers rather than outside experts. However, Becker (2000) found evidence for both
―top-down‖ and ―bottom-up‖ effective technology decision-making in American schools.
Thus, both teachers and administrators can initiate and maintain technology innovation.
34
From the point of view of a learning organization, the most important thing is that both
groups share the vision and work together supportively.
Leadership: Teachers. When one thinks of formal learning with social media, it
is naturally associated with the teaching staff, as teachers usually facilitate learning
within the classroom environment. Social media, however, has presented ways for
students to direct their own learning. A popular saying between technological
generations is, ―If you can‘t beat them, help them.‖ This is most apropos with the use of
social media tools. Most times, students recognize social media tools as products of their
environment versus transformative learning tools. Just as with any content, the owness is
reassigned to the educator, for helping students to understand (1) the tool of instruction
and (2) how to best use the tool to manage knowledge. Even though students seemingly
know how to text, instant message, post to various sites, et cetera, there are rare studies of
these uses in K-12 education; those published are mainly action research from individual
classrooms.
The National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (2007) provide a
framework for educators to use as they transition schools from the Industrial Age to
Digital Age places of learning. It charges teachers with five edicts to meet the needs of
digital age teaching: (1) facilitating and inspiring student learning and creativity, (2)
designing and developing digital age learning experiences and assessments, (3) modeling
digital-age work and learning, (4) promoting and modeling digital citizenship and
responsibility, and (5) engaging in professional growth and leadership. These standards
guide social media use in the classroom with essential technology leadership and support.
35
Gathered from more than 600 schools in a national probability sample (Becker &
Anderson, 1998), survey data point to six important factors affecting how students
experience computers in school. First, is the age-old issue of access. This has been
addressed by varied federal funding initiatives, although access is still an issue in some
districts or schools. Second is the idea of the ―new digital divide.‖ Teacher computer
expertise on the whole is lagging behind that of their learners. This lack of knowledge
may play into the third issue of teacher philosophy and objectives for computer use.
Unless teachers have a broad knowledge base for social media use, students may never
recognize the full benefits of these technologies. This is why it takes the fourth factor,
teacher collaboration and leadership. Whether that collaboration and leadership is
gathered formally or informally, it affects the fifth factor: teacher judgments of class
ability. Whether anecdotal or from the realities of stereotype, the sixth factor affecting
student technology in school is the school SES level.
NCES (2010) differentiated among types of teachers‘ technology uses and
reported that, although the vast majority of teachers were using technology for some
aspects of their professional activities, non-instructive technology uses were pervasive.
Maybe this is why Becker (2000) found that most computer use at schools falls short of
helping students reach a high level of mastery. NCES‘ (2010) continued findings are that
eighty-five percent of teachers use a computer to create instructional materials at home
and seventy-eight percent do so at school; approximately half of all teachers use
computers for administrative record-keeping at school and at home; approximately half
of all teachers use e-mail to ―communicate with colleagues‖ and about a quarter of
36
teachers communicate with parents by e-mail; approximately twenty percent of teachers
post homework and assignments on the Internet.
Varied instruments (e.g., those developed by the CEO Forum and the
International Society for Technology in Education) appear to be effective in spurring
reflection among school leaders and discussion regarding technology‘s impact in schools
(Bebell, Russell, & O‘Dwyer, 2004). Frequently, these instruments collect information
on a variety of different types of teachers‘ technology use and then collapse the data into
a single generic ―technology use‖ variable. Unfortunately, the amalgamated measure
may be inadequate both for understanding the extent to which social media is being used
by teachers and for assessing the impact of social media tools on learning outcomes
(Bebell, Russell, & O‘Dwyer, 2004).
Previous research examining technology use focused on teacher characteristics
and neglected to explore the potentially alterable, organizational characteristics that may
be affecting the adoption and use of technology in the classroom (Bebell, Russel &
O‘Dwyer, 2004). Bebell et al.‘s research examines the school and district organizational
characteristics that are associated with increased use of technology as a teaching and
learning tool and consequently finds that schools‘ organizational characteristics are
associated with teachers‘ use of technology in the classroom. Organizational
characteristics such as districts‘ and schools‘ leadership practices and emphasis on
technology, the type and amount of technology-related professional development
available to teachers, as well as the amount of technology-related restrictive policies in
place were found to be associated with the teachers‘ use of technology examined in this
study.
37
Leadership: Administration. Educational practice is influenced by leadership,
which within, the school environment, usually includes school administration (Youngs &
King, 2002; Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Kozloski, 2006). Kearsley and Lynch (1994)
delineate leadership responsibilities for technology, and how classroom educators, school
site administration, and district and state administration affect policy. Teachers are
responsible for effective and appropriate classroom use, inclusive of articulating and
monitoring ethical use policies. Technology specialists help support this mission by
recommending curriculum and dually monitoring for ethical use. Technology specialists
also support school site administration in maintaining school-level networks and use
policies. It may be through this lens that school site administration understands use
priorities. School site administration communicates with district-level administration,
who reviews communiqué alongside district-level objectives. All of this is under the
umbrella of state and federal mandates. These responsibilities show us how policy is
developed from an organic classroom need, filtered up, and recycled back to assess if the
policy met the need or not.
Ultimately, teachers may not exert the efforts to plan social media lessons
because of the restraints of the organization (SEHS teachers, personal communication,
Fall 2010). If connectivity, access to resources, appropriate professional development,
firewalls, and such are hindrances to social media use, teachers may feel that their efforts
are better expended on paper and pencil content than 21st century learning tools. While
studies of teacher uses of social media tools in the classroom have been sparse,
administrative leadership also remains a topic that is not frequently considered when
theorists or practitioners discuss the unfulfilled promise of technology in education.
38

From Project Tomorrow. (2011). Learning in the 21st century: Taking it mobile! Blackboard K-12. Retrieved March 30, 2011
from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/MobileLearningReport_2010.html
Figure 4: Benefits of Digital Content within Instruction
Administrators play a pivotal role in determining how well technology is used in
our schools. The National Education Technology Standards (NETS) for Administrators
(2009) are a curricular tool defining what administrators need to know and be able to do
in order to discharge their responsibility as leaders in the effective use of technology in
schools. The five charges determined by this national conglomerate of educators and
policy-makers are (1) visionary leadership, (2) digital-age learning culture, (3) excellence
in professional practice, (4) systematic improvement, and (5) digital citizenship. All
edicts outline leadership that includes maximizing the use of digital-age resources and
advocating for this technology-infused vision. Specifically, administrators should
―promote, model and establish policies for safe, legal, and ethical use of digital
information and technology‖ (5b).
39
Project Tomorrow (2011) notes how administrators are shifting their perspective
about what it takes to be societally-successful. Of the Fall 2010 sample of 3,578 school
site and district-level administrators, Project Tomorrow (2011) found that administrators
are concerned with the quality of the student-teacher interaction online (30%), creating
academically rigorous online courses (28%) and evaluating the quality of online courses
(26%). Both school site and district administrators understand the value of digital
content as a vehicle for engaging students in learning. Additionally, they understand how
the use of such resources can increase the context or relevancy of instruction and provide
unique opportunities for personalizing learning, as shown in Table 1. In the ongoing
quest to improve teachers‘ skills with technology, it is also noteworthy that both
principals and district administrators view the use of digital content as a means to this
end.
Administrative decisions that pertain primarily to infrastructure should be
distinguished from those that deal primarily with instructional processes, although one is
reliant on the other. Unfortunately, school administrators have had to make decisions
regarding equipment purchases, wiring, and networking that ultimately affect
instructional use. Flanagan and Jacobsen (2003) support the argument that, in the
absence of an understanding of how hardware choices and deployment scenarios
seriously affect student learning, administrators have often relied on advice from
technicians. The result, in many cases, is a restricted, locked-down approach to school
networks that is meant to protect the machines from the teachers and students rather than
support instructional objectives. Instead of providing further opportunity for learning,
restrictive networks serve as barriers, impeding use by both teachers and students.
40
The taxonomy provided by Anderson and Dexter (2000) in Table 1 divides
decisions into six functions: (1) strategic planning and goal setting, (2) budgeting and
spending, (3) organization, (4) curriculum, (5) evaluation, and (6) external relations.
These functions may play a significant role in assessing social media use and policy
development and implementation. Depending on the stakeholder role outlined by
Kearsley and Lynch (1994), one stakeholder group is liable to value one of these
functions more than another. Although these policy decisions work together for a fully
functioning strategy, policy decisions may be determined by leadership hierarchy versus
student need. By examining school/district need within these factions, decision-makers
are able to more closely assess their needs and weigh the benefits and liabilities before
enacting policies. As Flanagan and Jacobsen (2003) discussed, both organizational goals
and instructional goals should be considered when designing technology policies.
Table 1: Taxonomy of Educational Technology Leadership Decisions with
Illustrative Policy Decisions or Actions (Anderson & Dexter, 2000)
Technology Infrastructure Instructional Practice
Using Technology
Strategic Plans, Goal
setting, Vision and Vision
Sharing
 Priorities for different
types of hardware and
software now and in the
near future.
 Policy for equal access to
technology.
 Planning for ensuring
student learning of 21
st

century skills.
Budgeting and Spending  Equipment renewal plan.
 Grant-writing and fund
raising.
 Adequate technology
budget.
 Substantial share of the
budget for support.
 Varieties of software
acquired as needed.
 District funding
support.

Organizational Structure
and Processes
 Principal attentive to
technology issues.
 Staff use of e-mail and
other IT for personal and
professional work.
 Technology Committee.
 Rewarding and
encouraging staff.
 Staff for instructional
support services.
 Staff technology
professional
development program.
41
Table 1, continued
Technology Infrastructure Instructional Practice Using
Technology
Curriculum  diverse groups including
at-risk students of all
types.
 Content standards for
infusion of technology.
 Media literacy opportunities
for all.
Program Evaluation and
Impact Assessment
 Periodic measuring of
resource utilization.
 Formative evaluations of
implementations.
 Monitor digital divide.
 Regular monitoring of
student learning indicators.
 Evaluation of instructional
practices.
External Relations and
Ethical Issues
 Build links with parents and
community, e.g., home access
to school server.
 Policy on filtering software.
 Program for instructional
content on Web.
 Intellectual property (e.g.,
AUP) policy in place.

Education Technology Policy
Section Five: Education Technology Policy
Since the 1990s, there has been federal and state policy regarding the integration
of the Internet in education. U.S. laws and popular use have been driving discussion.
Policy, including 'what' and 'why' something is done, has outlined infrastructure to
participatory learning tools as the progressive ‗what,‘ and to prepare future scholars and
industrialists as the constant ‗why.‘ The National Education Technology Plan (USDE,
2010) outlines goals for public education to achieve with technology in order to ―apply
the advanced technologies used in our daily personal and professional lives to our entire
education system to improve student learning, accelerate and scale up the adoption of
effective practices, and use data and information for continuous improvement‖ (para. 1).
The five goals presented are each an essential component of learning powered by
technology, as illustrated in Figure 5: (1) Learning, (2) Assessment, (3) Teaching, (4)
Infrastructure, and (5) Productivity. The 2010 National Education Technology Plan calls
for ―Connected Teaching‖ through the use of social media tools. This idea puts all
42
stakeholders at the center of their own learning environments. Guided by a 24/7
approach of access to data and learning resources, learners are able to use social media as
knowledge-building tools to manage information and communication, connect and
collaborate with peers of a common interest to create learning communities, and find the
expertise and authoritative sources needed to create a personal learning network (USDE,
2010).
From United States Department of Education (USDE). (2010). Learning Powered by Technology.
National Technology Plan. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education Technology
Figure 5: A Model of Learning, Powered by Technology

43
As foundational technology skills are expected learned skills in formal schooling,
students are expected to apply basic technological skills in authentic, integrated ways to
solve problems, complete projects, and creatively extend their abilities. The International
Society for Technology in Education (2007) presents six areas of foci within the National
Education Technology Standards towards creating prepared technology scholars: 1)
Creativity and Innovation, 2) Communication and Collaboration, 3) Research and
Information Fluency, 4) Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making, 5)
Digital Citizenship and 6) Technology Operations and Concepts. Upon delving into the
concrete examples provided of each, all six allude to the use of social media tools to help
students prepare to work, live, and contribute to the social and civic fabric of their
communities.
Rapid advances in technology are putting new demands on educators and
students. Both federal and state regulations specify classroom use of technology, and
more recently, social media. The National Education Technology Plan (USDE, 2010),
National Education Technology Standards for Administrators (ISTE, 2009) and National
Education Technology Standards for Teachers (ISTE, 2007) provide a framework for
educators to use as they transition schools from Industrial Age to Digital Age places of
learning. These standards set a foundation for the integration of social media within the
education setting. Specifically within California, California Education Code 52295.15
states that districts should improve pupil academic achievement using technology and
technology-based resources that are aligned with state-adopted instructional materials,
curriculum frameworks, and academic content standards adopted by the State Board of
Education. The Public Employment Relations Board recently recognized that the
44
implementation of an information technology policy was critical to the performance of a
public entity‘s mission and, as such, implicated a fundamental managerial prerogative
outside the scope of representation (Trustees of the California State University, 2007).
Education policy has regulated use of the Internet since 1996. Policy design is
always years behind the advent of technology and its influx into society. It is no different
with social media and policies surrounding its use, especially within education. But a
foundation is set. An abundance of literature was available to assist education policy
writers in developing AUPs, the precedent to social media policy. Much of the AUP
research is anecdotal; there is little definitive research in K-12 relating to AUP outcomes.
This is foundational literature for social media policies, their design, and implementation.
Section Six: Acceptable Use Policies
An Acceptable Use Policy, commonly known as an AUP, is a legal document that
sets standards for responsible use of computer technology. ―At the school level, an AUP
acts as a written contract between administrators, teachers, parents and students. It
outlines the terms and conditions for Internet use by defining access privileges, rules of
online behavior, and the consequences for violating those rules‖ (Media Awareness
Network, 2003, n.p.). In most cases, an AUP is comprised of five sections. The first
section defines the Internet and provides a rationale for implementing an AUP, followed
by a description of digital citizenship (i.e., netiquette). The specific do‘s and don‘ts are
the heart of the AUP (Carter, 1998) and provide users with rules and guidelines
associated with legal and ethical issues. Repercussions for violating the policy and
procedures for reporting inappropriate use are also clearly stated. Finally, a form is
45
appended for parents and students to sign indicating they have read, understood, and
agree to the terms of the AUP.
K-12 schools are using AUPs to address concerns surrounding the Internet with
areas of liability, online behavior, system integrity, and content quality as key issues
(Flowers & Rakes, 2000). As a passive form of control, AUPs do not physically restrict
a user from inappropriate online behavior, but act as a guideline for appropriate use.
Some AUPs however, have become lists of what not to do versus examples of
appropriate use. Examining the presence, origins, contents, and purposes of AUPs in 100
selected K-12 schools in the United States, the online survey and content analysis of
twenty-four AUPs also served as the basis of data which found that most policies are
developed at the district or school level and violation of policies usually resulted in loss
of Internet use (Flowers & Rakes, 2000).
Students develop a sense of responsibility and ownership for their online
experience when agreeing to abide by an AUP (iSafe, n.d.). Many schools provide
orientation sessions discussing the issues addressed in the AUP. ―As a legal
document,…the AUP‘s language may be difficult for kids [and even adults] to
understand‖ (Miller, n.d., p. 25). In some cases, students are only issued an account login
name and password after they have verification of an orientation and received appropriate
training (Kinnaman, 2003). There is little definitive research in the literature relating to
AUP outcomes in the K-12 arena. That which is published is mostly anecdotal, and pre-
2000. Federal and state laws are driving their discussion (i.e., Communications Decency
Act (CDA, 1996), Child Online Protection Act (COPA - 1998), and the Children’s
Internet Protection Act (CIPA - 2000).)
46
Miller (n.d.) stresses that the way in which an AUP is developed depends on the
school‘s culture. Whether the document is the work of an individual or a collaborative
often makes a difference on whether all perspectives were considered and whether it will
be upheld. Although the final district AUP is approved by the school board, the school
district‘s legal counsel should be consulted during its development because an AUP is an
official agreement requiring signatures from teachers, parents and students. Additionally,
once an AUP has been adopted, its development should not be considered complete, but
constantly evolving, undergoing periodic review and revision. Miller (n.d.) maintains
that an AUP should be a fluid document that is modified when necessary to meet to the
needs of the school and its clientele.
Evaluation of acceptable use policies should be continual, and should now
address social media use, if there are not separate policies for such. Laughton (2008)
developed an analysis tool for Acceptable Use Policies. This Hierarchical Analysis of
Acceptable Use Policies is based off of identifying trends from various researchers
(Flowers & Rakes, 2000; Kelehear, 2005; Scott & Vass, 1994). This analytical tool was
developed by identifying themes in AUPs across businesses and noting where important
concepts were missing from the consulted literature. A hierarchical structure developed
as the concepts identified more often were placed higher in the hierarchy, denoting
importance. The hierarchy consists of the following areas of analysis: legal, security,
netiquette, privacy and organization property. Laughton notes that he was ―not looking
for what was missing, so much as what was there‖ (personal communication, June 20,
2011). This analysis tool can be used to assess social media policy within the same
frame.
47
However reactive, once written, Miller (n.d.) admits ―[t]he most challenging
aspect of the Acceptable Use Policy is its enforcement‖ (p. 27). Even though most
commonly written at the district level, ultimately teachers are most responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of a school‘s Acceptable Use Policy. In the final
analysis, the strength of any particular Acceptable Use Policy is not measured by the
words printed on the page, but how the document is used as an actual guide for decisions
regarding technology usage. If an organization puts forward the effort to create,
structure, communicate, and enforce its policy, then that effort will be rewarded through
the creation of a new culture of enlightened, responsible technology use (Miller, n.d.).
Ofsted (2010) conducted a review evaluating the extent to which schools teach
pupils to adopt safe and responsible practices in using new technologies. Between April
and July 2009, inspectors visited thirty-five schools (i.e., infant, primary, secondary,
boarding, special and a pupil referral unit), selected to represent differing geographical
locations, sizes and contexts. The provision for e-safety was ‗outstanding‘ in five of the
schools, ‗good‘ in sixteen, ‗satisfactory‘ in thirteen, and ‗inadequate‘ in one. The twenty-
one most effective schools visited had a well-considered, active approach to keeping
pupils safe when they were online and helping them to take responsibility for their safety.
There was a close relationship between the provision that the schools made and the
pupils‘ knowledge and understanding. These factors had a positive impact in terms of e-
safety for pupils.
Rather than just rely on the AUP, some schools/districts take other proactive
approaches. Klaus‘ (2011) study of six Ohio counties found that most schools rely on
computer courses to teach Internet safety to students (65.6%), while 10.2 percent said
48
that their school does not teach any Internet safety and 26.6% stated that Internet safety
was taught during assemblies or large group settings. From respondents who knew of the
curriculum implementation, Internet Safety Curriculum generally covered a wide variety
of topics (e.g., mobile technologies, communication through the Internet, cyberpredators,
etc.) and consisted of teacher-created (12.8%), local school site-created (2.2%), or online
curriculum (3%). With the assistance of counsel, districts might consider amending their
AUPs or creating brand new policies to provide a detailed explanation of what is
considered ―acceptable use‖ in the age of social media.
Section Seven: Risk Management
There are a few areas of concern for education technology, specifically social
media and risk management. While some researchers (Dede et al., 2002; Tynes, 2007;
Ahn, 2010) maintain that that the potential benefits of social media tools far outweigh the
negative aspects, there are both direct and downstream liability for schools and districts.
There are lifetime risks for students, including efficiency adjustments, with non-exposure
to appropriate uses of social media tools, but there are also very real risks associated with
the use of these tools in education. Evans (2010) discovered that the most common
reason high school students believe they are unable to use social media on campus are
filters and firewalls, teachers and rules. Teachers instate rules to maintain order in
classrooms just as schools and districts create policies to regulate organizational systems.
Both suppress risks and liabilities. While examining the benefits and the detriments of
use, it is important to note that policy is usually reactive versus preventative. Ofsted
(2010) found that banning and blocking websites ―did not encourage the pupils to take
responsibility for their actions,‖ (p. 8) but that children are less likely to understand
49
proper Internet safety when outside of school. This section will examine why reactive
measures usually result in blocks and bans to social media versus preventative measures,
which allow decision-makers to consider the value of use and alignment to organizational
and instructional goals.
Benefits of Social Media. Social media promotes both formal and informal
learning. While ―formal‖ learning is what happens within the classroom, the National
Science Foundation (2006) employs the term ―informal learning‖ to describe learning
and engagement that occurs outside of formal school settings. Formal learning may or
may not be guided by a teacher, but it definitely happens within the context of supervised
instruction. Informal learning most commonly comes through inter- and cross-cultural
interaction. The online environment becomes a learning community with personalized
learning experiences allowing for creativity and self-expression. Group learning is
especially enhanced by social and participatory approaches, in which learners--regardless
of their location or the time of day--can build knowledge structures or tackle inquiry
problems that are posed together. Social media content created by teachers and learners
in virtual worlds enrich such learning (OECD, 2007; Jenkins, 2009; Johnson, Levine,
Smith & Stone, 2010).
From a developmental perspective, blogs offer teens a place to construct
narratives and share stories, an important aspect of identity exploration. From a
cognitive perspective, they help promote critical and analytical thinking, creative and
associative thinking, and intuitive and analogical thinking (Richardson, 2006). From a
social perspective, blogs have many characteristics that can help create or maintain social
ties (Huffaker, 2006). The blogosphere offers ongoing distributed expression that
50
empowers teens with the ability to create and communicate ideas, and to link to other
bloggers, forming a community in which all bloggers read and comment on each other‘s
post (Kumar, Raghavan, Novak, & Tomkins, 2005). These components can enhance
developmental, cognitive, and social connections for teens.
Tynes (2007) maintains that ―banning adolescents from social networking sites…as
well as monitoring too closely might close off avenues for beneficial cognitive and
psychosocial development that are available to young people in the online social world‖
(p. 576). If we completely bar youths from the many opportunities for social interaction
online, educators do not protect students so much as deny them the myriad educational,
psychosocial, and emotional benefits the Internet has to offer. Social networking sites
can be very beneficial in promoting adolescent development. These sites can help with
communication, expression, identity, a social backboard, artistic expression, music
exploration, literature, and friendships (Neal, 2007; Tynes, 2007). Adolescent
participation in social networks can foster learning that reinforces and complements what
is taught in traditional classrooms (Tynes, 2007; Ahn, 2010). Leslie and Landon (2007)
observe that people desire to form groups in order to support their learning and that social
networking helps to create both an environment and an infrastructure for ―informal and
borderless learning.‖
The same benefits can be recognized in content communities and collaborative
projects. Bonk and King (1998) identify some benefits of online collaboration as
democratizing of student input, minimal off-task behaviors and deeper reflection time,
immediate access to resources through the Internet, larger audience for
presentation/publication, extended discussion, and student-centeredness. This medium
51
encourages students to work more collaboratively where physical and time barriers may
have previously prevented such. These virtual team environments have garnered much
positive feedback as instructional tools (Precup, O'Sullivan, Cormican, & Dooley, 2006;
Stahl, Koschmann, Suthers, 2006; Davis, 2007).
Teachers and students report that the technology-mediated narrative and the
interactive, situated, collaborative problem-solving affordances of augmented reality
simulations are highly engaging, especially among students who had previously
presented behavioral and academic challenges for the teachers (Dunleavy, Dede &
Mitchell, 2008). Through multiple qualitative case studies across two middle schools (6
th

and 7
th
grade) and one high school (10
th
grade) from the student and teacher perspective,
augmented reality simulations were found to provide potentially transformative added
value, although adding unique technological, managerial, and cognitive challenges to
teaching and learning. Research also suggests that (online) video games may help
adolescents develop cognitive skills such as spatial visualization, analog representation
(i.e., the ability to read images), and divided visual attention (i.e., being able to manage
multiple components in a visual field at once) (Tynes, 2007; Subrahmanyam, Greenfield,
Kraut, & Gross, 2001). Recent research (Delwiche, 2006) demonstrates that video
games enhance literacy, attention, reaction time, and higher-level thinking. Delwiche
(2006) also states MMORPGs and MMORLGs have instructional promise because they
immerse students in complex communities of practice, because their immersive nature
invites extended engagement with course material, and because they encourage role-
playing.
52
Detriments of Social Media. The biggest detriment of social media use is fear of
the unknown. There is a concern of threatening email, fraud, cyberstalking,
cyberbullying, cyberpredators, etc.—all potential misuses of social media tools. Schools
have been quick to block and ban social media sites rather than be susceptible to any
associated liabilities. Some threats are blocked by most schools‘/school district‘s web-
filtering systems; some are not. Thirty-four percent of child exposure to porn on the
Internet happens in spite of the filters that are used to prevent pornographic pop-ups
(Kelsey, 2007). The more and more social media proliferates society, the more education
has to recognize the need to address it—not only from the information technology
standpoint, but also from the instructional technology perspective.
Armstrong and Franklin (2008) discuss some of the barriers of implementing
social media tools. Institutional and network restrictions have to be considered for each
stakeholder group, in adherence with the organization‘s mission. Funds have to be
earmarked for support of and investment in instruction and operations. Resources have
to be put forth to support knowledge acquisition and sharing. Lastly, the generational
divide has flipped the roles of teachers and learners. The use of social media tools also
presents a certain privacy paradox. In order for users to use social software, they usually
have to agree to give up some of their privacy rights to engage in information-sharing.
Minors do not fully understand the ramifications of sharing personal information on the
Internet. Most alarming to popular society however, has been the criminal activities that
could be perpetrated through sharing this information through social media tools.
The considerable amount of personal information that is revealed in social media,
especially real names, age, and offline location, make teens susceptible to three kinds of
53
dangers: (1) cyberstalking, (2) cyberbullying (Huffaker, 2006), and (3) cyberpredtors. In
a 1999 report from the U.S. Attorney General to the Vice President, cyberstalking was
presented as a growing danger to all Internet users (Reno, 1999). Cyberstalking is
defined as the use of the Internet or email to stalk, harass or threaten another individual.
It is considered as dangerous or frightening as being stalked or harassed in the real world
(Reno, 1999). A survey of 1,500 teenagers, ages 10 -17, suggests that one in seventeen
teenagers who regularly use the Internet have been harassed or threatened online
(Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000). Over 25% of teens had been cyberbullied (Li,
2007). Cyberbullying is the use of technology for social cruelty, which can include
harassment, impersonation, denigration, trickery, exclusion and stalking (CTAP, 2003).
Another frightful scenario involves actual sexual predators and pedophiles using social
media to contact youth. In fact, Finkelhor et al. (2000) found that one in five (20%)
teenage Internet users had been approached or received a sexual solicitation within the
last year of Internet use. Worse still, one in thirty-three teens had been aggressively
solicited in which the predator asked to meet them, called them on the telephone or sent
them regular mail, money or gifts (Finkelhor et al., 2000). Cyberpredators use the
Internet to hunt for victims to take advantage of them sexually, emotionally,
psychologically or financially (CTAP, 2003).
Another issue schools must deal with is the distraction correlated with the use of
social media tools. Specifically, schools have tried to minimize the cell phone distraction
by eliminating cell phones on school property (24%) or allowing cell phones at school
but not in the classrooms (62%) (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010). Some
schools ban the use of technology (particularly cell phones), except for use of the school
54
computers for research, which was recommend by the National Education Association,
since these items can be a source of distraction (Simpson, 2008). House Bill No. 363
(2009) proposes elimination of all electronic devices on school grounds. Between
sexting, bullying, cheating, texting, privacy issues and the general distraction social
media can create, it is no wonder schools are cautious of their use.
The advent of mobile technologies is perpetuating the ubiquitous use of social
media. Specifically, cell phones have the potential to become the academic ―Swiss Army
Knife,‖ with the capability to be calculators, digital cameras, an Internet tool, notepads,
e-books, timers, and digital recorders. Information downloaded and uploaded co-
constructs knowledge with all users—some good, and some bad. While some students
―beam‖ one another contact information and class notes, still others have shared
digitally-recorded assaults on other students. ―Sexting,‖ the act of ―sending sexually
charged messages or images via cell phone‖ (Muscari, 2009, p.1), has become a new
trend amongst teenagers. Twenty percent of the teenage population admits to ―producing
and distributing nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves‖ (Humbach, 2009, p. 435).
Fifty-eight percent of teens owning cell phones admit they have sent a text message
during a class where cell phones were banned from school (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, &
Purcell, 2010). Of the teens who take their cell phone to class, forty-three percent stated
they text at least once a day during class, (Lenhart et al, 2010). Twenty-five percent have
made or received a phone call during a class, (Lenhart et al, 2010). This, despite sixty-
three percent of administrators stating they support a policy of no mobile devices, citing
network security and theft as two of the five top concerns (Evans, 2010).
55
Klaus‘ (2011) study included punitive measures schools and districts enacted for
violations of social media expectations. Almost thirty-five of respondents said that their
district had required a student to remove something they had posted online, with an
additional three percent stating that they involved the police or parents. Less than one
percent responded that removal of offensive material was strongly suggested but not
required, while nearly twenty-one percent stated their district had never required a
student to remove anything they posted online. Only 25.6 percent stated a student had
not been punished for something posted on the internet. Some schools in Britain have
chosen to ―lock down‖ their systems, allowing access to only verified websites.
However, Ofsted (2010) found that this approach had disadvantages in the schools visited
by taking up time and detracting from learning.
Besides the academic and social benefits, adolescent participation in social
networks may also lend themselves to a decline in student character. Unfortunately,
social media websites have become a great source of information for nefarious
individuals (Klaus, 2011), with information on everything from how to create a business
plan to how to make a bomb. Students sometimes take advantage of the Internet‘s wealth
of information for negative versus positive means. Social scientists are also concerned
that students will replace face-to-face social interaction, such as going out with their
friends, with social technology, such as sitting at home and texting their friends on their
cell phones or surfing social networking sites (Kelsey, 2007). This contribution
however, could be attributed to any number of competing immoral factions in society.
Ofsted (2010) conducted a review of the risks that children face when using video
games and the Internet. Between April and July 2009, inspectors visited 35 schools (i.e.,
56
infant, primary, secondary, boarding, special and a pupil referral unit), selected to
represent differing geographical locations, sizes and contexts. The schools visited
reported that they had dealt with a variety of e-safety incidents, such as pupils accessing
inappropriate websites, as well as problems with social networking sites and instant chat
sites. The 21 most effective schools visited, as identified by their low levels of
incidences, were attributed to their active awareness and monitoring campaigns. The five
schools where provision for e-safety was outstanding all used ‗managed‘ systems to help
pupils to become safe and responsible users of new technologies. ‗Managed‘ systems
have fewer inaccessible sites than ‗locked down‘ systems and so require pupils to take
responsibility themselves for using new technologies safely. Although the 13 schools
which used ‗locked down‘ systems kept their pupils safe while in school, such systems
were less effective in helping them to learn how to use new technologies safely. These
pupils were therefore more vulnerable overall. This was a particular concern when pupils
were educated away from their main school, for example, in work-based learning. In at
least one high school where cell phone use was part of the curriculum, the principal noted
that inappropriate use of technology is exceedingly rare. In other words, blocking access
to social media sites may ultimately prove more distracting — and potentially more
dangerous — to students.
No instructional technology tool is comparable to fire, where one only has to
stand near it to get a benefit from it. Knowledge does not intrinsically radiate from
computers—or social media tools, infusing students with learning as fires infuse their
onlookers with heat. However, social media are able to aid various aspects of learning.
The question becomes if these benefits outweigh the associated risks of social media use.
57
According to the literature, practitioners and policy-makers must consider online
citizenship, personal safety and privacy, network resources, and required disciplinary
procedures. Within consideration of information technology, users should be bound by
adherence to awareness and expectations as far as instructional technology.
Ofsted (2010) assessed training on Internet safety for the staff in the schools
visited and considered the schools‘ links with families in terms of e-safety. Between
April and July 2009, inspectors visited 35 schools (i.e., infant, primary, secondary,
boarding, special and a pupil referral unit) representing differing geographical locations,
sizes and contexts. The training for staff was well established and the curriculum was
planned and coordinated effectively. These factors were shown to have a positive impact
in terms of e-safety for pupils. The weakest aspect of provision in the schools visited
was the extent and quality of training provided for staff. It did not always involve all the
staff and was not provided systematically. Even the schools that organized training for
all their staff did not always monitor its impact systematically. In turn, children were less
likely to understand proper Internet safety when outside of school. By contrast, in those
schools that took a more educative approach to e-safety, teachers could use incidents of
phishing, cyberbullying, and inappropriate material as a way to discuss how such
encounters should be dealt with in the future.
The management of risks is all about access control policies Bertino (n.d.). Policy
says what is, and is not, allowed. While policy defines security (i.e., prevention,
detection, and recovery Bertino (n.d.)), mechanisms enforce policies. Mechanisms
include systems and personnel through assurance monitoring. Assurance is a measure of
how well the personnel and system meets its requirements. It does not say what the
58
personnel and system is to do; rather, it only covers how well the personnel and systems
do it. It is this unknown that needs specification. What liabilities are there to prevent
and how can policy help prevent them?
A cost-benefit analysis weighs the benefits of allowing social media access
against the costs associated with such. In this sense, among the considerations are the
overlap of social media‘s effects (i.e., one policy may allow multiple beneficial or
detrimental services, so its cost is amortized) and the non-technical aspects of the policy
(e.g., improbabilities of enforcement). Cost-benefit analyses help determine the risk.
Section Eight: Social Media Initiatives in Education
The use of social media tools is a double-edged sword. Some schools are trying
to avoid any issues from surfacing by prohibiting social media, while others are
struggling to tap into the myriad of benefits with social media beyond the classroom.
Advancements in educational technology are taking place so swiftly that statutory and
case law are continually developing and striving to keep the pace. As laws and the
liability of risks basically govern policy, this section will review laws directly relating to
the development and implementation of social media policy. The Internet and social
media give rise to issues (e.g., copyright, trademark, and defamation, etc.) that courts--
less known schools--are still working to apply existing laws. Many existing laws were
enacted long before the advent of the Internet and social media. Educators must
nevertheless find a way to interpret newly enacted laws without any precedent to guide
them.
A number of basic rights arising under the US Constitution can be implicated in
cases involving use of social media – freedom of speech, search and seizure issues, right
59
to privacy, and denial of due process. Within schools, these Constitutional rights are
most times compromised because of the in parentis loco clause. In parentis loco, Latin
for ―in place of the parent,‖ refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization
to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. It allows education
institutions to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects students‘ Internet
postings, yet the Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
case usurps students‘ rights in order to maintain order in schools. The Supreme Court
(1969) stated that ‗‗. . .conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason -
whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts class work or
involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not
immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.‖ With the Supreme
Court‘s dictum and case law since Tinker (i.e., Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986;
J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, 2010), courts have steadily diminished the reach of
schoolchildren‘s rights while increasing the power and authority of school officials. So
while free speech is a Constitutional right, limits of such exists within education for
students.
Students‘ Fourth Amendment rights are challenged when institutional officials
attempt to gain access to a student‘s social media communications or the equipment used
for such exchanges. Doe v. Renfrow (1979) establishes that such can be done—if there is
a reasonableness of scope and suspicion. Rights of the school to maintain a safe
environment have been repeatedly upheld (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1980; Vernonia School
District 47J v. Acton, 1995), with legitimate interests of the government in maintaining
60
order and discipline outweighing any intrusion on student privacy rights. The Fourth
Amendment provides protection against ―unreasonable‖ searches and seizures. Justified
by the in loco parentis authority, school officials are authorized to take ―any action which
is then reasonably necessary to carry out, or to prevent an interference with, the
educational function.‖
The Fifth Amendment is drawn into cases when institutional officials question
students regarding the content of social media communications. While students have the
right not to incriminate themselves by revealing their involvement with any Internet
crimes, students rarely recognize that right. In ensuing events however, the Fifth
Amendment is used to claim due process rights. The oft-quoted language of Lanzetta v.
New Jersey (1939) is the “void for vagueness‖ doctrine derived from and embodied in
the Fifth Amendment‘s Due Process Clause (Jones, 2011). Determining whether a
statute is unconstitutionally vague, and therefore violates the due process clause, requires
an inquiry into whether a statute provides fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and
what a student must do to be in compliance with the law. However, Goldberg v.
University of California (1967) ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not apply in public
schools.
Examining the progression of Congressional bills pertaining to Internet filtering
can be helpful in understanding the context for the current law. At least one bill
regulating Internet filters and child protections has been introduced at each session of
Congress since 1996. The Communications Decency Act (CDA), Title V of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, was an attempt to regulate pornographic material on
the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States
61
Supreme Court defined the anti-indecency provisions of the Act. This Act affected the
Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, by defining and
writing provisions of protection, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available
to children) and obscenity in cyberspace. Second, Section 230 of the Act has been
interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers-
-and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services. Yet,
schools are liable if students access any obscene information while on campus.
As parts of the Communications Decency Act had been struck down as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997, the Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act (COPPA) addresses issues not previously addressed. COPPA applies to the online
collection of personal information by persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction from
children under 13 years of age. It details what a website operator must include in a
privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable consent from a parent or guardian, and
what responsibilities an operator has to protect children's privacy and safety online
including restrictions on the marketing to those under 13.
The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000 is a federal law enacted by
Congress to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on
school and library computers. CIPA imposes certain types of requirements on any school
that receives funding for Internet access or internal connections from the E-Rate program
– a program that makes certain communications technology more affordable for eligible
schools. In early 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued rules
implementing CIPA which includes: (1) Schools must have an Internet safety policy that
includes technology protection measures blocking or filtering Internet access to pictures
62
that are: (a) obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors; (2) adopt and
enforce a policy to monitor online activities of minors; and (3) adopt and implement an
Internet safety policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the
Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms,
and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including
so-called ―hacking,‖ and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized
disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e)
measures restricting minors‘ access to materials harmful to them. Many schools have
adjusted their Acceptable Use Policies to meet the requirements of this law versus
creating social media policies inclusive of such.
The Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008 mandated that a school district's
Internet safety policy now include educating students about appropriate online behavior,
including interacting with other individuals on social networking web sites and in chat
rooms as well as cyberbullying awareness and response. Netiquette, short for "network
etiquette" or "Internet etiquette," is a set of social conventions that facilitate interaction
over Internet communications. Like many Internet phenomena, the concept and its
application remain in a state of flux, and vary from community to community. Common
rules such as brevity, descriptive subject lines, certain rights to privacy, and avoiding
flamewars and spam are constant across most mediums and communities. This law has
enacted a bevy of online netiquette curricula, as well as teacher-created and district-
mandated classes for students.
Since the year 2000, there has been federal and state policy regarding the
integration of technology in education. Policy, including 'what' and 'why' something is
63
done, has outlined infrastructure to participatory learning tools as the progressive ‗what,‘
and to prepare future scholars and industrialists as the constant ‗why.‘ The National
Education Technology Plan (USDE, 2010) outlines goals for public education to achieve
with technology in order to ―apply the advanced technologies used in our daily personal
and professional lives to our entire education system to improve student learning,
accelerate and scale up the adoption of effective practices, and use data and information
for continuous improvement‖ (para. 1). Social media is the answer for 24/7 access to
data, resources, and student learning in order to connect to students, professional content
and other resources to promote engaging learning experiences both inside and outside of
school.
Summary
Chapter two offers a narrative review of emerging research on factors that could
possibly affect social media policies. While it has become clear that public schools can
no longer ignore the impact that technology, specifically social media, has on their
students and on the school environment, what is not clear is if and how education will
balance these learning tools against the factors hindering their implementation. The
literature has shown a preponderance of evidence that today‘s teens are involved with a
ubiquitous amount of social media but there is a dismal percentage of use within
America‘s classrooms. The question becomes how these tools can best be harnessed for
education and what may be hindering implementation.
Factors considered from the literature review include teens‘ pervasive use of
social media tools, neomillenial learning styles, present and intended educational practice
with social media, education technology policy, Acceptable Use Policies, risk
64
management for schools and districts, and social media initiatives. All factors should be
considered in the development and implementation of policies that support or ban the use
of these tools for formal education. The concept of school technology leadership is
operationalized and may not necessarily consider the benefits of social media use along
with the detriments.
What educators do not know is with teens‘ ubiquitous use of social media, why it
is not being harnessed in formal learning environments. Trends with other technology
advancements allude to access, lack of facilitator professional development,
infrastructure, and other organizational matters. It is thus necessary to examine the
current policies and those being considered to encourage and/or regulate school use of
social media tools. Chapter three will use the literature to formulate a plan in examining
(1) what defines social media policy; (2) what factors support and/or hinder the
development of a social media policy within a school district; (3) how these factors are
reconciled in a school district‘s social media policies; and (4) what best practices can be
defined from benchmarking other school districts. Chapter four presents the results of
empirical research while chapter five presents the findings.

65
CHAPTER THREE: Research Design and Methodology
The literature review has revealed that there is a need to examine how potential
uses of social media are encouraged or thwarted by present technology policies at the
school site and district. This empirical study sought to understand how social media is
used in the secondary school environment and if its use outweighs the (lack of) policies
to regulate its use. Exploring why social media is not used as ubiquitously in education
as data reveals in teens‘ lives (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004; Jones, 2003; Huffaker &
Calvert, 2006; Art and Science Group, 2009; Evans, 2010; Lenhart et al., 2010) is
essential to growth in this field.
Research Questions
This empirical study sought to understand how social media is used in the
secondary school environment and if the benefits of use outweigh the (lack of) policies to
regulate its use. This purpose was examined through the following questions:
1. What defines ―social media policy‖ and what are the different types of social
media policies presently in place at the K-12 level?
2. What factors support and/or hinder the development and implementation of a
social media policy within a school district?
3. How are these factors reconciled (or not), and to what degree, in a school
district‘s social media policies?
4. What are the most promising practices for the development and implementation
of social media policy?
Exploration of these questions should help develop a clearer picture of the
impetus of social media policy and how schools/school districts are addressing associated
66
risks. Recognizing that most technology policies are reactive instead of proactive, it is
important to examine if social media policies are developing in response to risk
management versus support of instructional and organizational objectives. Examining
how policy is anticipated to change is also important in developing an understanding
about some of the challenges social media has placed on the school environment.
Methodology Overview
The research questions inquire about the factors that support and/or hinder
development of social media policies and how those factors are reconciled in a
school‘s/district‘s policies. The researcher employed mixed methods, triangulated in
document analysis, interview, focus group and survey. Data from all four methods
contributed to answering the research questions. Additionally, the researcher explored
individual and collective opinion on why social media tools are (not) being used in
secondary school settings and which policies encourage or thwart its use.
For the purpose of this study, secondary school districts were the unit of analysis.
Social media policies were compared using a triangulation of data to neutralize any
biases of any single method (Creswell, 2009). Triangulation occurred for methods,
sources, and respondents. Sources of data were documents and respondents. Document
analysis (Appendix B) included present social media policies in secondary settings
(n=41) to define ―social media policy‖ in education and what the different types of social
media policies were presently in place at the K-12 level. Semi-structured interviews
(Appendix C) with a purposive sample (n=14) of teachers, board members, and
administrators from districts with current social media policies in place helped determine
factors that support and/or hinder the development of a social media policy within a
67
school district. Focus groups (Appendix D) with both stratified and clustered random
samples (n=46) of teachers and administrators helped to determine how and to what
degree these factors are reconciled (or not) in a school district‘s social media policies,
and the most effective practices for the development and implementation of social media
policy. Triangulation of data also included surveys with a simplified random sample of
teachers and administrators (n=100). The proposed study would be less reliable and less
valid if the researcher used a singular method, source of data, or the same respondents
exclusively (Creswell, 2009).
Because of the simultaneous collection and analysis of data, this study qualified
as grounded theory (Patton, 2002). Using a grounded theory approach (Martin & Turner,
1986; Patton, 2002), the researcher used both inductive and deductive reasoning to
generate theory from data in the process of conducting research. During this analysis, it
was found that there are valid pro and con principle factors for social media use in a
school district, so better policies need to be in place to support/deflect use; also as
proposed factors were dubious, then present policies may be valid. As the goal is to
support student success, if the benefits of use outweigh the policies to ban and block
social media, then schools and districts will need to further explore ways to allow social
media use while considering liabilities of that use.
Sample and Population
The unit of analysis was secondary school districts. The population for this study
was composed of secondary school personnel, both teachers and administrators at the
school site and district level. These groups were chosen as the population because there
is a greater likelihood of social media use at the secondary level of K-12 education than
68
the primary level (CDE, 2010). Additionally, it is the charge of secondary educators to
prepare students for industry (USDE, 2010). As identified by Kearsley and Lynch
(1994), although technology is everyone‘s responsibility, administrators usually define
policy in their working environments. Thus both district-level and school site
administrators were the specific population for this study. Because teachers are usually
entrusted to put policy into practice at the school site, teachers were also included in the
population for this study. A table of the sample is described in Table 2.
Table 2: Data Collection, Sample Totals
Procedure Number
Document Analysis: Social Media Policies 41
Interviews 14
Focus Groups/Participants 3/46
Surveys 100

In regards to the documents for this study, school districts‘ social media policies
were gathered nationwide (n=41). School district social media policies, which were web-
accessible, were searched in an advanced web crawl. The crawl consisted of any
secondary school district that had social media policies online. The search terms
included ―social media policy‖ in–―secondary education,‖ ―secondary school,‖ and ―high
school.‖ Any searches for mobile technologies were purposely excluded. A preliminary
web crawl showed that there were fewer than one hundred social media policies enacted
in secondary school districts in the United States, exclusive of revised AUPs. AUPs
governed Internet use in schools before the advent of social media. These policies did
not commonly mention use or regulation of social media, but research was done to
determine if any school districts updated their acceptable use policies to include social
media tools. While some school districts devised new Board policies to address social
media, some school districts revised their AUPs to include policies on social media use.
69
Fourteen certificated employees were interviewed for the study. Nine local
school site personnel and three district personnel participated in face-to-face interviews.
Two district administrators participated in an interview by phone. In total, eleven
administrators were interviewed and three teachers. Of the eleven, six were local school
site administrators. A description of each participant as it relates to the study follows.
The first respondent, Jim, is a high school Dean of Discipline at a local school site
in a large urban district. Jim has been in this administrative role for five years. His role
purely includes responsibilities for student discipline. As a high school Dean of
Discipline, he has one other counterpart who shares the title and responsibility for student
safety and discipline. In his estimation, he ―deals with the hard issues and [his
counterpart] mostly deals with the issues [referenced in the study]‖ (personal
communication, August 25, 2011).
The second respondent, Alana, is a high school Assistant Principal at a local
school site in a large urban district. Alana has been in this administrative role for over
twenty years. She has previously been a middle school Principal and a district office
administrator. Her present role includes responsibilities for discipline and attendance, for
both students and staff.
The third respondent, Mary, is a classroom teacher of Social Sciences and the
Student Leadership Advisor at a high school in a large urban district. Mary has been a
teacher for five years. Her role includes responsibilities for her classroom and
schoolwide activities. Mary has admittedly been overwhelmed these past few years with
joining the teaching profession, the requirements of BTSA, joining a new staff, and being
70
the Student Leadership Advisor, but ―honestly never thought of the issues [brought up by
the study] before now‖ (personal communication, August 19, 2011).
The fourth respondent, Rick, is a local school site high school Network
Administrator in a large urban district. Rick has been a teacher and Network
Administrator at the same school for five years. His role includes responsibilities for
maintenance of the network, besides classroom instruction. Rick is also a Network
Engineer, having joined the teaching profession ―as a retirement Plan B‖ (personal
communication, August 20, 2011). Rick is not only an avid user of Internet technologies,
but he is an innovator of such for the classroom.
The fifth respondent, June, is a district Technology Curriculum Support Specialist
in a large urban district. June has been in this district role for two years. Prior to moving
to the district, she was a full-time out-of-the-classroom Technology Coordinator for her
school, who conducted regular professional development in her school community. Her
present role is purely as an instructional link between district information and
instructional technologies.
The sixth respondent, Mabel, is a high school Principal at a local school site in a
large urban district. Mabel has been in an administrative role at this school for six years,
recently promoted to Principal from Assistant Principal. She was five years comfortable
in a role responsible only for curriculum and instruction. Her present role includes
oversight of governance, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and school culture.
The seventh respondent, Dolores, is a high school Technology Coordinator at a
local school site in a large urban district. Dolores has been in this administrative role for
five years. Her role includes responsibilities for hardware, software, infrastructure, and
71
professional development. However, Dolores is also Program Coordinator for four other
major school programs on campus. While Dolores ―love[s her] job, [she] just doesn‘t
have time to do it all—well‖ (personal communication, September 17, 2011).
The eighth respondent, Garr, is a District Superintendent of a large urban district.
Garr has been in this administrative role for over a decade. He has been ―a
superintendent of some sort so long [he doesn‘t] remember‖ (personal communication,
September 4, 2011). His role includes district oversight of governance, curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and school culture. His special relationship with the Board
piques his interest in social media policy as a ―hot topic.‖
The ninth respondent, Alex, is a middle school Principal at a local school site in a
mid-sized urban district. Alex was recently promoted to this administrative role, having
served as an Assistant Principal for fifteen years prior. His present role includes
oversight of governance, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and school culture—of a
Technology Magnet.
The tenth respondent, Chris, is an Assistant Superintendent in a mid-sized urban
district. Chris was recently promoted to this administrative role from his position as a
Human Resources Director. His role includes monitoring personnel behaviors for action.
The eleventh respondent, Anthony, is the district Technology Director of a mid-
sized urban district. Anthony has been in this administrative role for over five years. His
role includes maintenance of the district network and security—and collaborating with
Curriculum Specialists. This interview was conducted synchronously over the telephone.
The twelfth respondent, Jaime, is a high school Media Specialist at a local school
site in a large urban district. Jaime has been in this quasi-administrative role for three
72
years. Although fully out-of-the-classroom, Jaime has admittedly treated the position
like a classroom position versus an administrative position. He does not actively seek
opportunities to help teachers integrate technology or media, but does offer resources
when sought (personal communication, December 13, 2011). His responsibilities include
maintenance of student Acceptable User Policies, e-mail addresses, and network access.
The thirteenth respondent, Joann, is a middle school Assistant Principal at a local
school site in a mid-sized urban district. Joann was recently promoted to this
administrative role from her district staff position in the technology office. Her
responsibilities include oversight of technology hardware and infrastructure and student
discipline.
The fourteenth respondent, Gabe, is the Interim Director of Technology and a
district Network Administrator of a mid-sized suburban school district. He has held
similar positions in the district for four years. His roles have included oversight of
technology operations, and recently collaboration with instructional personnel. One of
his main functions is relation of operations to the Board of Education. This interview
was conducted synchronously over the telephone.
The three focus groups (n=46) respondents revealed factual knowledge and
perceptions which defined social media policy in their environment, determined which
factors mattered in development and implementation of policy, how and to what degree
factors are reconciled (or not) in a school district‘s social media policies, and the most
effective practices for the development and implementation of social media policy. A
stratified random sample was selected for an online focus group. Two face-to-face focus
groups were held with a clustered random sample. The stratified sample included
73
teachers and administrators from school districts nationwide. The clustered random
sample was gathered from the researcher‘s professional networks. District level
administrators were invited to offer their instructional and operational viewpoints on the
benefits and detriments of social media use within their districts. Local school site
administrators were invited because they have the daily charge of creating policy on the
use of these tools within their sites. School site administrators offered the realities of
social media use in secondary schools and the challenges that come with the benefits of
use. Teachers were invited because they offered a practical viewpoint of implementation
issues and projected concerns.
The online focus group was a stratified random sample (n=18) of teachers and
administrators nationwide. Five participants were administrators, of which one was a
district-level administrator, while the rest were classroom teachers. The district
administrator was from a small suburban district. The other four administrators worked
at a school site; three from a large urban district and one from a small suburban district.
All but two teachers were from a large urban district. Of those two teachers, one worked
in a small rural district and one worked in a mid-sized urban district. The discussion
board was open for two months. Participants were invited indiscriminately via e-mail
from the researcher‘s extensive list of colleagues. Administrators and teachers were
recruited for the discussion board from two types of personal networks: 1) education-
related organizations (i.e., school districts, unions, professional organizations, etc.) and 2)
specific general-purpose sites (i.e., Twitter, Facebook for Education, etc.). Participants
were invited via leaflet, personal e-mail or message board post within a web group.
74
To ensure a stratified random sample, participants registered their demographics
and agreed to the informed consent before engaging in site use. If one population
registered more than the other (e.g., more teachers than administrators), members of the
other population were recruited from the researcher‘s personal networks. To encourage
registration, sign-up consisted of only four demographic questions: (1) name, (2) job title,
(3) school/district, and (4) school/district location. These items are needed to track
responses and categorize and code during data collection and analyses. While this
information was required for registration, only the job title and school/district location
were a mandatory reveal within the forum. All other demographic information was only
revealed in respondents‘ answers. Discussion board participants were screened for their
job titles and employment within a secondary school setting before invite. While the
initial sample for the discussion board was purposive, the moderator invited other
participants, to achieve a stratified random sample.
The face-to-face focus groups were held in two factions: one was asynchronous
and the other synchronous. The asynchronous focus group, a Chalk Talk (NSRF, n.d.),
consisted of twenty-two educational professionals. Respondents from the classroom
(n=17) to the district office (n=5) responded to research questions two and three, the
factors that support and/or hinder social media policy and how those factors are
reconciled. The common theme tying these participants was their interest in technology
integration in the classroom, as this focus group was conducted at the Computer-Using
Educators Fall Conference. Questions were posted on tables during lunch and
respondents answered the research questions asynchronously.
75
The synchronous focus group consisted of six high school teachers within a
technology-themed small learning community. Participants were chosen because they all
taught within the same technology-focused small learning community. The researcher
had a previously-established working relationship with the faculty, having worked with
them in school site professional development. There were two teachers of English, two
of social science, one of technology, and one of science. Four teachers (English 1, social
science 1, technology and science) accepted the invitation to join the focus group at the
beginning of the session and the other two (English 2 and social studies 2) joined during
the session.
The survey consisted of 100 respondents, only 54 of whom completed each
qualitative response in addition to the quantitative portion. Seventy-four percent of
respondents were teachers and 26% were administrators. Sixteen respondents chose not
to respond to this demographic question. Of the teachers, seven of 88 held out-of-the-
classroom positions. Of the administrators, eight of 22 were at the district office. Thirty-
three respondents declined to answer demographic information about their district. Out
of 77 respondents, 83% are from a southern California District, 4% in other parts of
California, and 13% sprinkled in various parts of the United States. Sixty-eight percent
report that they work in an urban school district, 25% suburban, and 2% rural. All but
one respondent worked for a public school district; that respondent worked for a private
school.
Instrumentation
School district education technology policies regarding social media were
compared using mixed methods of document analysis, interview, focus group and survey.
76
To neutralize any biases of any single method (Creswell, 2009), triangulation of
instruments included a document analysis tool, an interview guide, focus group protocol
and a survey. A tool was needed for the comparative document analysis to determine the
leniency and stringency of policies across schools and school districts that have already
established social media policies. The interview guide focused upon the reconciliation of
factors of social media implementation in a school/school district‘s social media policies.
The focus group protocol helped facilitate equitable conversation leading to a revelation
of competing factors reconciled in social media policies. The survey elicited responses
within all four research questions.
The first method of data collection was document analysis with quota sampling.
The gathering tool is a listing of each school district that has web-accessible social media
policies in the United States (Appendix A). The listing includes the school district name,
location of school district, type of school district, uniform resource locator (URL) of
social media policy, date of adoption, and the coded category in which the district‘s
social media policies have factored. The document analysis tool (Appendix B) is in two
factions: a hierarchal analysis based on frequency of factors (analysis tool), and a listing
of school districts whose social media policies have those factors (gathering tool). This
gathering tool is meant to work in tandem with the analysis tool.
The analysis tool is based on Laughton‘s Hierarchical Analysis of Acceptable Use
Policies (2008). This analytical approach was developed by identifying trends in AUPs
and noting where important concepts were missing from the consulted literature. A
hierarchical structure developed as the concepts identified more often were placed higher
in the hierarchy, denoting importance. This same method was applied to the researcher‘s
77
analysis of social media policies. The researcher identified trends, observed what was
absent from the literature, and developed a hierarchy of factors that are both present and
absent from presently incorporated social media policies. Laughton‘s (2008) analysis
tool consists of legal, security, netiquette, privacy and organization property factors.
While using these areas as a basis, the researcher was guided by the literature review to
dictate the hierarchal factors of analysis.
The second method of data collection consisted of interviews with a purposive
sample. As the research questions pointed toward discovery, interview questions
gathered opinion and perception on social media use and policies of constraint or
autonomy within a district. Participants were engaged in semi-structured interviews.
Thus, an interview guide was used (Appendix D). The 10-question interview guide
delimited issues to be explored (Patton, 2002) and took respondents between 30 minutes
and 45 minutes to respond. Through the use of a topical guide, ―logical gaps in data can
be anticipated and closed‖ (Patton, 2002, p. 349). Through continual data analysis,
developing themes throughout the process, systematic data was controlled. Informal
interview was used when formal interview could not be scheduled.
Interview questions were assembled from a ménage of instruments, mainly from
personal professional experience under Kipling‘s (1902) framework. Kipling‘s (1902)
framework asks the essential, ―Who?‖, ―What?‖, ―When?‖, ―Where?‖, ―Why?‖, and
―How?‖ These six questions were used to discover arguments both for and against the
adoption of social media policies in education and which factors are weighed in decision-
making. All questions were intended to ask for a cognitive response around eleven
central themes reflected within the two research questions (Table 3). The eleven themes
78
are (1) learning, (2) assessment, (3) teaching, (4) infrastructure, (5) productivity and (6)
online citizenship, (7) personal safety and privacy, (8) inappropriate material, (9) network
resources, (10) illegal activities, and (11) disciplinary procedures. These themes were
chosen for two reasons. The first five categories were chosen as mandates under the
National Technology Plan (USDE, 2010). The latter five were chosen as measures under
effective AUPs (Carter, 1998; Media Awareness Network, 2003). Questions are
sequenced to elicit responses to first explore and then ensure an acceptable social media
policy.
Table 3: Matrix of Qualitative Question Options
Research Question(s) Addressed Interview Question
Research Question(s) Addressed
Research Question #1: What defines
―social media policy‖ and what are the
different types of social media policies
presently in place at the K-12 level?

Research Question #2: What factors
support and/or hinder the development
and implementation of a social media
policy within a school district?

Research Question #3: How are
these factors reconciled (or not), and to
what degree, in a school district‘s
social media policies?

Research Question #4: What are the
most effective practices for the
development and implementation of
social media policy?

Research Question #2 What topics do schools/districts need to address for
the successful implementation of Web 2.0 (social
media)?
Research Question #1, #2, #3, and #4 From your frame of reference, please tell me about
your school‘s/district‘s social media policies.

79
Table 3, continued

Research Question(s) Addressed Interview Question
Research Question #2 and #4 What are the opportunities/challenges in
developing a social media strategy within your
organization?
Research Question #2, #3 and #4 What is the school/district opinion of the
advantages and disadvantages of social media
use/policy?
Research Question #1 and #2 What are the (intended) areas of focus for your
school‘s/district‘s social media activities (e.g.,
governance, curriculum, instruction, assessment,
culture)?
Research Question #1, #2, #3 and #4 How does the school‘s/district‘s operational plan
support the vision for student learning through
social media tools?
Research Question #1, #2, #3 and #4 How does the school‘s/district‘s instructional plan
support the vision for student learning through
social media tools?
Research Question #2, #3 and #4 How are multiple stakeholders (i.e., students,
teachers, parents, and staff) included in the process
of design and implementation?
Research Question #1, #2, #3 and #4 What data sources are employed/will you employ
for assessing the (mis)use of social media?
Research Question #1, #2, #3 and #4 I will pose a few scenarios of social media use and
ask you to respond to present and optimal district
response with social media policy.
Research Question #1, #2, #3 and #4 How does/will this school/district invest in helping
teachers, administrators, and students understand
and use social media (policies)?
Research Question #1, #2, #3 and #4 How do you plan to create a responsive posture and
flexible language to remain current or ahead of
emerging technologies?
Research
Question #1:
What defines
―social media
policy‖ and
what are the
different types
of social
media policies
presently in
place at the K-
12 level?
8 Research
Question #2:
What factors
support and/or
hinder the
development of a
social media
policy within a
school district?

12 Research
Question #3:
How are these
factors
reconciled (or
not), and to what
degree, in a
school district‘s
social media
policies?

9 Research
Question #4:
What are the
most effective
practices for the
development
and
implementation
of social media
policy?
10
80
Another mode of data collection was focus group. The researcher hosted three
types of focus groups, an online focus group, and two face-to-face focus groups. One of
the face-to-face focus groups was an asynchronous Chalk Talk (NSRF, n.d.). The online
focus group was chosen because the researcher felt more diverse respondents would have
the opportunity to participate. The Chalk Talk (NSRF, n.d.) was chosen because of its
successful implementation with large groups. The face-to-face focus group was held to
gather more in-depth responses from respondents. All three are detailed below.
The online focus group, or discussion board, was located at
http://socialmediapolicy.ning.com. This online medium freed respondents from undue
influence commonly associated with a face-to-face focus group (Creswell, 2002). The
NingMini-hosted forum was a closed network following the Focus Group Protocol in
Appendix D. The protocol follows a blend of Kipling‘s (1902) and NSRF‘s (n.d.)
frameworks, which moves from asking ―Who?‖, ―What?‖, ―When?‖, ―Where?‖, ―Why?‖,
and ―How?‖ in broad probing questions, to specific probing questions, to general and
specific clarifying questions. All questions address all research questions, as participant
responses could veer from factors of consideration to how these factors are reconciled
within one individual post.
Participant interaction around the topic was the most vital part of this data
collection method. Thus, the instrumentation was set up to be user-friendly. Only the
forum function was active, so as not to spread user-generated content too thinly. But as a
content community, users may post text, links, or videos in support of their posts. These
items did not distract from the end goal, as effective moderation kept this at a minimum.
81
Additionally, the ―share‖ tab was active, so that present participants could invite others
into the conversation.
Participant activity was encouraged a number of ways. To encourage registration,
sign-up consisted of only four demographic questions. Those demographic questions
were name (private viewing for forum administrator only), username, job title, secondary
district (yes or no), district (private viewing for forum administrator only), and district
location. Only the respondent‘s job title and district location appeared to other users.
All new users were welcomed with an initial welcome post as a personal note, to
encourage initial login and post. Broadcast messages were sent out bi-weekly to
encourage continued participation. The broadcast message updated users about the most
popular discussion in the forum. Personalized activity feeds were updated weekly.
Activity feeds included factual information about teen usage of social media. A poll
within the website was used to draw participants back into the discussion board for
further comment. Poll questions were developed from the most popular topic of
discussion during that period of time.
The face-to-face focus group was a clustered random sample of teachers who
taught in a technology-themed small learning community. Using the Focus Group
Protocol in Appendix D, teachers were first asked broad probing questions, then specific
probing questions. Teachers were given the opportunity to respond to the researcher and
to one another. Clarifying questions were asked throughout the session.
The asynchronous focus group was designed as a Chalk Talk (NSRF, n.d.). The
essential questions were written on butcher paper, set out in a high traffic area with pens
for response, while the researcher stood by for respondent-initiated questions. This
82
method, outlined in Appendix E, allowed the clustered random sample to ponder on the
research questions then come back to answer, answer the research questions immediately,
or respond to someone else‘s answer to the research questions. As this protocol was a
silent exchange of thoughts, it was meant to be a forum where neither respondent title nor
physique made a difference.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection occurred in three stages, as organized in Appendix H. Document
collection commenced immediately following approval of the research proposal, and
concluded when data saturation was reached, approximately July 2011 through January
2012. Social media policies were collected for analysis immediately upon completion of
the oral qualification exam and continued until exhaustion of the sample (n=41).
Interviews commenced immediately upon completion of the IRB process and continued
until a purposive sample was reached (n=14). The discussion board was opened
immediately after IRB approval and concluded by January 2012. A stratified random
sample of participants was able to join through the duration of document collection.
Face-to-face focus groups were conducted from July 2011 through January 2012 (n=46).
The survey was launched to a simple random sample in September 2011 and closed in
February 2012. Respondents were teachers and administrators nationwide (n=100).
While some methods of data collection begin subsequently, data was collected
simultaneously.
Document collection of present school district social media policies was a
purposive sample gathered from secondary school districts nationwide. Social media
policies were gathered from secondary school districts to help define social media policy
83
at the K-12 level and the factors that support and/or hinder the development and
implementation of a social media policy within a school district. As social media
policies were few in number, a nationwide web crawl was conducted on the Internet.
Using ―social media policy‖ as the primary phrase, social media policies were searched
across categories such as ―education,‖ ―secondary school,‖ and ―high school.‖ A
preliminary web crawl revealed discovery of less than one hundred social media policies
in the American secondary school arena. Data collection continued through exhaustion
(n=41). Documents will be examined according to the analysis tool found in Appendix
B.
Over the course of the fall semester, during the 2011-2012 school year, interviews
were conducted. Interviews were administered individually in one of three ways: 1) face-
to-face, 2) via telephone, or 3) via e-mail. Interviews were designed for thirty minutes,
and the interview protocol was designed for twenty, allowing a ten-minute buffer.
Interview participants who chose to be interviewed face-to-face were interviewed in an
environment of their choosing. The setting ranged from their school office to an outside
venue. Interview participants may have also chosen to be interviewed via telephone. As
―[t]he quality of the information obtained during an interview is largely dependent on the
interviewer‖ (Patton, 2002, p. 341), the primary investigator was the only interviewer and
note-taker. Each session was audio recorded. Interview participants could have also
responded via e-mail, as a last alternative. Although a non-synchronous method is not
ideal because there is opportunity for the interviewer to miss affective cues, the
information given by the expert is still valid.
84
Another form of asynchronous data collection was within a web forum. The
researcher hosted a discussion board following the focus group protocol (Appendix D).
Research questions were used to focus discussion. As the goal is quality over quantity,
clarifying or probing posts were left to the discretion of the moderator, but in the order of
the Focus Group Protocol (Appendix D). The moderator posted probing questions
(NSRF, n.d.) to generate more substantive discussion. Otherwise, the moderator only
posted clarifying questions (NSRF, n.d.) to encourage forum discussion. This cost-
effective means of data collection enhanced data quality, as participants provided checks
and balances with one another and reflected upon and refined their own posts (Patton,
2002). Again, affective cues were not able to be noticed and recorded, but because
respondents interacted with more than the researcher as facilitator, more emotional
reactions were noted for the interplay between respondents. At the end of the data
collection session, the discussion board was closed and all data was archived for analysis.
Two face-to-face focus groups were hosted; one was asynchronous and the other
synchronous. In the asynchronous focus group, participants were given the opportunity
to answer research questions posted on butcher paper, in a high-traffic area, during lunch.
Following the Chalk Talk Protocol (NSRF, n.d.) in Appendix E, the poster was posted
prominently, the questions aesthetically inviting, and pens provided for multiple users.
The researcher stood as clarifying facilitator during the silent activity. Subjects
responded to the research question prompt, and to one another. In the synchronous focus
group, the session was audio-recorded while facilitating according to protocol (Appendix
D).
85
The survey of a simple random sample of teachers and administrators was
gathered through Qualtrics. Respondents were sent a link, leading them directly to the
survey. After agreeing to the research intent, they were led to the 15-question survey.
Upon completion, answers were instantly added to survey results.
Data Analysis Procedure
Data analysis was conducted on the social media policies, interviews, focus group
discussions and surveys. The data was analyzed with Creswell‘s 6-step method. The
steps are 1) organize and prepare the data for analysis, 2) read through all the data, 3)
begin detailed analysis with a coding process, 4) use the coding process to generate a
description of the setting or people as well as categories or themes for analysis, 5)
advance how the description and themes will be represented in the narrative, and 6) make
an interpretation or make meaning of the data (Creswell, 2002). Quantitative analysis
was run for frequency and a t-test between administrators and teachers. Qualitative
analysis was coded for themes by statistical technique. Then, the data was organized
research question.
As making meaning of the data coding is a continual process (Patton, 2002),
coding was begun with the first analysis of documents, continued with the interviews and
focus groups, and concluded with emerging themes from the qualitative methods to the
quantitative analysis. Being an exploratory study, new themes were bound to emerge and
were identified for analysis. Coding was detailed and cross-analyzed. The coding
process generated a description of the respondents as well as themes for analysis. During
analysis, determinations were made on how to advance the description and themes
represented in the narrative.
86
Document analysis was organized by research question. Social media policy
analysis contributed to answering all research questions. As data was recorded from the
data gathering process, it was important to code and re-code, to assure alignment between
policies and among study goals. These codings were captured in the data analysis tool,
as demonstrated in Appendix B. Tabulated data in the analysis tool (Appendix B) gives a
clear picture of shaping social media priorities for secondary schools. Analysis of this
data determines answers to the first and second research questions. The first research
question asks the definition of ―social media policy‖ and the different types of social
media policies presently in place at the K-12 level. The second research question asks of
the factors that support or hinder the development and implementation of social media
policy. All data was analyzed against the literature to determine the competing factors of
social media policy development.
As social media policies were examined, factors were noted as themes emerged,
in accordance with important concepts from the consulted literature. A hierarchical
structure was developed as the concepts more frequently identified were placed higher in
the hierarchy, denoting importance. The researcher noted frequency by titled tally, along
with the factor of importance. This tally was used with the partnered analysis tool
(Appendix B) to determine the most common factors in present social media policies.
These factors were weighed against those which emerged from the literature and the data
from other methods. Survey responses were analyzed per question across the
demographic, for frequency and for type. After all survey data was collected, the
researcher organized the qualitative responses within the established coding scheme.
87
Interviews and focus groups were also organized coded theme. After coding, all data was
organized by research question.
Besides Creswell (2022), data was analyzed under Kipling‘s (1902) framework,
asking the essential, ―Who?‖, ―What?‖, ―When?‖, ―Where?‖, ―Why?‖, and ―How?‖
These six questions were used when looking through each data lens. As the researcher
was conducting a discovery process, looking for arguments both for and against the
adoption of social media policies in education, these six questions served as the
theoretical foundation for coding. Questions inquired as to who contributes to the
development of social media policy; what factors should be considered in development
and implementation; when certain factors start to effect the shape of social media policy,
and at which levels social media policy has the most impact. Finally, they framed what
contributed to best practices.
The researcher used a grounded theory approach to analyzing data. Grounded
theory is a systematic methodology in the social sciences emphasizing generation of
theory from data in the process of conducting research (Martin & Turner, 1986).
Grounded theorizing involves both inductive and deductive processes (Patton, 2002).
The researcher used inductive analysis to discover patterns, themes, and categories in the
data. Then, the researcher used deductive reasoning to test and affirm the authenticity
and appropriateness of inductive content analysis.
Limitations and Delimitations of Methods
There are a few limitations and delimitations to the methods of this study. This
study is heavily dependent on perception data. To balance for this limitation, the
researcher recommends further study that delves into emerging topical matters.
88
Additionally, scientifically valid results may be compromised upon disclosure of the full
purpose of the study, as stakeholders may want to portray themselves and their district in
the best light for the report. To balance for this limitation, the researcher assured
anonymity of personally-identifiable information. Lastly, a limitation may include
respondent bias because of their personal use of social media tools. As a delimitation,
some respondents may have an enlightened bias about the positive uses for social media
tools through participating in the online focus group. Similarly, respondents who
answered the interview via e-mail might have been more reflective of their answers, as
the asynchronous nature of the medium allowed more time for the respondent to consider
social media ramifications in light of the questions posed. Also, the researcher is not able
to record any affective behaviors from respondents who choose to participate via
asynchronous means.
Documents for analysis only included social media policies. Some schools and
school districts may have outlined the use of social media in their instructional
technology plans, AUPs, or had separate mobile technology policies, these documents
were not examined. The likelihood of social media discussion within these documents
was too low to conduct an exploratory study on factors supporting or hindering social
media policy. Preliminary interview reveals that some schools/school districts may
revise or add onto their AUPs, but as K-12 social media policies have only been adopted
within the past year, the likelihood of any AUPs presently address social media (mis)use
is unlikely. If instructional technology plans include the use of social media tools, then
the school site or district leadership would presumably be aware of impending
integration. Also, the exclusion of mobile technologies within the study is of note.
89
Along with district-level administrators the researcher chose to interview only
secondary teachers and school site administrators. While their responses gave a broad
overview of some of the competing factors of social media policy development, the
student perspective would have greatly added to the argument for social media policy
implementation.
Ethical Considerations
To assure research participants were aware of their involvement in a research
study, each data collection measure was prefaced with the purpose, benefits, procedures,
alternatives, foreseeable risks or discomforts, proposed length of time, contact
information for the researcher, and notification of voluntary status and rights therein.
Informed consent was obtained from each stakeholder before data was collected. With
the survey, informed consent waiver was required for participation. During interviews,
the primary investigator stated the information before participants began. For the
discussion board, information was stated on the invitation and the registration page,
requiring birthdate verification before membership was granted. If participants agreed to
be recorded, a waiver was required before questions were released. Discussion board
participants agreed to this as they registered for membership. To ensure anonymity of
the participants in the interviews, a coding system was used. This system protects the
confidentiality of the respondents while disclosing enough demographic information to
assess significance for the study.
As there was interaction with individuals, this was approved by the University of
Southern California‘s (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB process is
designed to ensure that the research protects the rights and welfare of human subjects by
90
minimizing risks, selecting subjects equitably, obtaining informed consent, ensuring
privacy and confidentiality, and other changes specified by the IRB. The researcher
passed the Human Subjects Protections Course, mandatory for all investigators
conducting human subjects research, although this study was considered a policy study.
Nevertheless, all participants were presented with an informed consent. Whenever
appropriate, the subjects were provided with additional pertinent information after
participation. Data is filed in confidence for three years as required by the IRB process.

91
CHAPTER FOUR: Presentation and Analysis of Data
This study seeks to improve the design and delivery of services that promote
learning and improves the management of the school environment by exploring how
social media is used in the secondary school environment and the policies that regulate its
use. Analysis of social media use in schools and its effectiveness towards instructional
and operational goals will determine efforts of focus for integrating social media tools in
secondary education. There is an additional need to examine how potential uses are
encouraged or discouraged by present technology policies at the district and school site
for growth in this field.
The analysis of data that supports this exploration will be presented by research
question: 1) what defines ―social media policy‖ by what is currently in place at the K-12
level, 2) the factors that support and/or hinder the design, development, and
implementation of a social media policy within a school district, 3) how those factors are
reconciled (or not), and to what degree, in a school district‘s social media policies, and 4)
the most effective practices for the development and implementation of social media
policy in a school district. As a triangulation of data neutralizes any biases of any single
method (Creswell, 2009), these questions were examined through varied methods:
document analysis, interview, focus group, and survey. Themes from these four methods
will be summarized in relation to the four research questions.
Data from each method was applied to answering each research question. With
the school district as the unit of analysis, social media policies were gathered from school
districts nationwide. Interviews and focus groups were held with a medley of certificated
district employees, from the Superintendent to the classroom teacher. Surveys were
92
issued to secondary school teachers and administrators. The analysis of data is presented
by results within each research question.

Figure 6: Sample of Population, combined methods
Results from Data Analysis
The unit of analysis for the study was secondary school districts. Forty-one
social media policies were gathered from secondary school districts nationwide for
document analysis. The population for the study was composed of 160 secondary school
personnel at the school site and district level, 63% teachers (n=101), 27% administrators
(n=43), and 10% other (n=16). Sixteen participants in the survey declined to state which
role they held. Fourteen interviews were conducted with school site and district-level
administrators and out-of-the-classroom and classroom teachers. Three focus groups
were hosted, with the total of forty-six participants. One hundred persons responded to
the survey, from which descriptive data was gathered from the qualitative responses. The
Classroom
Teachers
51%
Out-of-Classroom
Teachers
12%
School Site
Administrators
18%
District
Administration
9%
Other
10%
Sample of Population
93
quantitative data was used from the fifty-four persons who completed the survey. The
sample of the population, from combined methods, is illustrated in Figure 6.
Emergent Themes from the Data Collection
There was a four-pronged goal in determining emergent themes from the data
collection: 1) define social media policy in K-12 education, 2) identify which factors
support and/or hinder social media policy development, 3) examine how those factors are
acquiesced or not, and 4) identify best practices for policy development and
implementation. Each of these research goals was answered through document analysis,
interview, focus groups, and survey. Several themes emerged related to each research
question. The findings will be presented by emerging themes for each of the four
research questions.
Defining K-12 Social Media Policy
In the K-12 arena, social media policy is defined from two lenses: content and the
impetus for creation. Content of K-12 social media policies include the five categories of
social media defined by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010): 1-blogging, 2-content
communities, 3-social networking, 4-virtual worlds, and 5-collaborative projects. The
impetus for creation included two stakeholder groups, employees and students, and a
foundational principle, instruction. These categories which define social media policy
are illustrated in Figure 7. These are the two statistically significant themes in which the
data is presented (Figure 7).
94
Figure 7: Categories of Social Media Policy
Content of K-12 Social Media Policies. Schools and school districts proved to
have multiple types of social media policies in a few distinct categories. Social media
policies either addressed social media as a whole content, or addressed one or two areas
of social media solely. Alana, a high school Assistant Principal, commented that her
large urban district somewhat mirrored that of other districts across the country with ―no
less than 15 policies on the use of media‖ (personal communication, August 18, 2011).
While some districts had multiple policies on the uses of technology (e.g., infrastructure,
instructional technologies, district network use, etc.), the policies examined for this study
were instructional technologies that fit within the five categories of social media (Kaplan
& Haenlein, 2010), notwithstanding mobile technologies. It is assumed that all other
districts still govern social media through the AUP.
As AUPs were the precursory Internet technology policy for K-12 education,
some schools made an addendum to AUPs versus create new Board policies to address
social media. Mabel, a high school principal, stated, ―Everything regarding social media
use is defined in our district‘s Acceptable Use Policy‖ (personal communication, August
•Blogging
•Content Communities
•Social Networking
•Virtual Worlds
•Collaborative Projects
Content

•Employees
•Students
•Instruction
Targeted Subject
95
26, 2011). Many districts chose to amend their AUPs or ―let the AUP cover any
occurrences until there‘s a need to rewrite the policy or write a new one‖ (Gabe, district
Network Administrator, personal communication, November 3, 2011). These amended
AUPs were examined alongside social media policies.
Table 4: Type of Social Media Policy in K-12 Schools, from Survey
Type Frequency
Mobile Technology Policy 5
Social Networking Policy 9
Blogging Policy 2
Acceptable Use Policy Amendments 19
Social Media Policy 14
Gaming Policy 0
None of the Above 0
Other 1

For survey respondents whose schools/districts had a social media policy in place,
two significant categories of policy were found: an amendment to the Acceptable Use
Policy (38%) or a brand new Social Media Policy (28%), as illustrated in Table 3.
Another 36% defined specific types of social media for which policies existed. Only
40% of respondents identified their school/district as having a written policy that
addressed social media; 60% stated that there was no such policy in place. Qualitative
data from the surveys mirrored this teacher‘s response, ―While much of the policy is
unwritten in the formal sense, much of the social media policy centers on what is not
allowed such as students are not allowed to use sites like YouTube and Facebook (sites
that are not allowed on the school's computers).‖ Content of these policies were revealed
in interviews, focus groups, and document analysis.
Document analysis contradicted what was found within survey data. As
illustrated in Figure 8, the document analysis showed that thirty-one percent of school
and district policies that addressed social media were actually amended AUPs, versus the
96
79% of new Board policies to address the use of social media. Similarly identified within
the survey, some school policies only focused on blogging (8%) or social networking
(10%). The document analysis revealed that policies address use for all types of social
media (51%). Some schools/districts even had policies that qualified for more than one
category (5%). This was usually due to one policy for students and another for staff (e.g.,
an amended AUP for students and a social networking policy for employees).
Regardless, as Jim, a high school Dean of Discipline stated, ―A social media policy is
about finding ‗What is that acceptable use?‘‖ (personal communication, August 25,
2011).

Figure 8: Types of Social Media Policy in K-12 Schools/Districts, from Document Analysis
Analysis of interviews and focus groups reveals that some educators (58%) define
social media policy as an unwritten policy of practice. As corroborated by June, a district
Technology Curriculum Support Specialist (personal communication, August 31,
2011), ―Many schools/districts have no ‗official‘ social media policy, and thus policy is
51%
8%
10%
31%
Types of "Social Media Policy" in K-12
Schools/Districts
social media blogging social networks amended AUP
97
grown organically out of practice at the local school sites.‖ Analysis continued to reveal
the content of social media policy as defined by practice. Eighty-five percent of
respondents were most concerned about student privacy while seventy-one percent were
most concerned about the effectiveness of social media instructional practice. Sixty-four
percent were concerned about delegating specific responsibilities regarding the
implementation of policy while fifty-seven percent were most concerned about how to
use social media tools productively and respectfully. Fifty percent of interview and focus
group respondents equally shared concern for user security while using these tools and
discipline for misuse of the tools. These concerns have shaped what is becoming
standard for the content of K-12 social media policy.
Data analysis further revealed that the date of creation affected content, the extent
of subject matter determined by the laws or societal events governing it. Document
analysis also revealed that the length of the social media policy may have been
determined by its content. Policies ranged from one-paragraph statements on the virtues
of social media to a twenty-eight-page booklet on the contribution of social media to
sexual misconduct and abuse in schools.
The social media policy timeline creations, illustrated in Figure 9, reveal findings
about how K-12 is defining social media policy. As illustrated, policies analyzed ranged
from an Acceptable Use Policy in 2001 to a recently-passed social media policy in 2011.
Social media policies created prior to 2010 might have been in response to the Children’s
Internet Protection Act (2000) or the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act (2008),
relating the use of the Internet in terms of student safety. Board minutes and staff
bulletins attached to social media policies prior to 2010 allude to these federal laws.
98
Since 2010, creation of social media policies have more than doubled, and include
specific mention of various types of social media. Dolores, a high school Technology
Coordinator commented, ―Two years ago, we were guesstimating policy by our own
individual practices‖ (personal communication, September 17, 2011). Now her district
has an unwritten policy, imposed by the firewalls. The Federal Communications
Commission‘s new August 2011 ruling will affect the number of social media policies
created by 2013.

99

Figure 9: Creation Timelines of K-12 Social Media Policy
100
As illustrated in Figure 10, the document analysis revealed that most (59%) social
media policies were general in nature, meaning that they outlined rules in generalities.
General policies touched on the same items an AUP would, with the inclusion of social
media tools. Outlining the terms and conditions for Internet use by defining access
privileges, rules of online behavior, and the consequences for violating those rules was
standard, but not all-inclusive. June commented upon the tweaking of AUP policies
versus creating a stand-alone social media policy, ―AUP policies are archaic and don‘t
touch what needs to be covered with the use of social media in schools‖ (Rick, Network
Administrator, personal communication, August 20, 2011). Specific social media
policies (41%) specified exact details of what could or could not lawfully be done within
the policy. Specific policies outlined behaviors for use of each social media
environment. These policies thus consisted of one paragraph to twenty-eight pages.

Figure 10: "Specific" vs. "General" Social Media Policies
As illustrated in Figure 11, document analysis of social media policies continued
to reveal issues of importance to K-12 by the frequency count of items. More than half
general
59%
specific
41%
Detail of Social Media Policy
101
(73%) of social media policies outlined legal descriptions such as the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA ) (#1 factor), intellectual property rights and personal
responsibility (#2 factor), and a defined scope of illegal acts (#3 factor). A mention of
instructional practice (65%) was the next largest category expressed in K-12 social media
policies with a statement of awareness as the most mentioned factor, classroom-based use
as the next most important factor, and best practice guidelines as the next factor of
importance. The third largest category considered (55%) in K12 social media policies
were privacy rights of students and employees, with FERPA (#1 factor), the district‘s
rights to monitor (#2 factor) and limits of with whom employees could communicate (#3
factor) being the most mentioned factors within policies. The last issue with more than
half of K-12 policies addressing such factors were general netiquette issues (50%),
including mandates to act responsibly (#1 factor), provide value in interactions (#2
factor) and remember employee status as a role model (#3 factor). These repeated
concerns have shaped what is becoming standard for K-12 social media policy Other
factors affecting the definition of social media policy were hypothesized, but not proven
as statistically significant. The researcher tested for development of social media policy
by school type (i.e., public, private, or parochial) and geographical location, but neither
were found to be significant factor in content development.

102

Figure 11: Content Factors within K-12 Social Media Policies, from Document Analysis

Targeted subjects for K-12 Social Media Policy Design. Social media policy,
like many school-based policies, is assumed to be governing policies for students. Data
analysis suggests otherwise. Data analysis suggests that social media policies are
designed for other educational stakeholders. Analysis of survey data did not reveal any
information regarding impetus for policy design. The analysis of document, interview
and focus group data lend themselves to this argument.
Data analysis revealed that policies were directed towards multiple stakeholder
groups, extending from students to visitors. AUPs, a product of federal law (Children’s
Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act of
2008), were designed for the student. Document analysis revealed that only 38% of the
social media policies in this study were found to be designed specifically for the student.
Sixty-two percent of social media policies were designed for the education employee. As
illustrated in Figure 12, while most social media policies are designed for the employee, a
0
10
20
30
Content Factors within K-12 Social Media
Policies
from Document Analysis
#1 Factor
#2 Factor
#3 Factor
103
portion (n=12) of schools/school districts designed social media policies for both the
students and the staff, if not all stakeholders.

Figure 12: Student- vs. Staff-Centered Social Media Policies
Whether student-centered, staff-centered, or both, document analysis revealed
that most public school social media policies (52%) were adopted by School Board
action and found within the Board minutes. As illustrated in Figure 12, there were yet a
great number (48%) which were found on other parts of the district website: employees
(13%), students (0.3%), technology, (0.2%), general (29%), and instruction (6%).
Placement of social media policy alludes for whom the policy is designed, thus giving it
further definition.

student-centered
staff-centered
both students and staff
student-centered staff-centered both students and staff
totals 20 32 12
Student/Staff-Centered Policies
104

Figure 13: Social Media Policy Categorization, District Location
Interviews with district personnel revealed more about the impetus for policy
design than did other respondent discussions. While teacher interview (n=3) revealed no
mention of employee improprieties versus student misuse, all district personnel (n=11)
mentioned employee improprieties when discussing the impetus for social media policy.
Specifically, Chris, an Assistant Superintendent, who was a former Director of Human
resources, stated that ―it was the major reason for our district considering the
implementation of a social media policy‖ (personal communication, August 23, 2011).
The discussion with Garr, a District Superintendent, also turned to news stories of
teachers using social media tools to forward inappropriate relationships with students.
Gabe, an Interim District Technology Director, commented that that is why he was
specifically promoted at this time, because a number of teachers had ―crossed the lines of
impropriety and it‘s my job to help create a policy of awareness about safe use [of social
media]‖ (personal communication, November 6, 2011).
employees
13%
students
0%
instruction
6%
technology
0%
general
29%

board policies
52%
District Location of Social Media Policies
105
Summary. Document analysis, interview, focus group, and survey data analysis
reveal that K-12 social media policy is still being defined and that multiple
considerations are made with both content and impetus of social media policies. Overall
findings reveal that social media policies mainly deal with privacy issues, instructional
objectives, responsibility, and definition of role responsibility. They are more-than-likely
social networking or blogging policies, if not generally encompassing all social media.
Policies range from general one-paragraph hails of instructional technology benefits to
booklets about stakeholder behaviors with such. Social media policies address student
use of social media to employee abuse of such; social media policy has come to regulate
stakeholder behaviors more than outline Web 2.0 tools for instruction. Present written
social media policies are either amendments to the Acceptable Use Policy or new policies
to address social media specifically.
Supporting/Hindering Factors of K-12 Social Media Policy
To determine the supporting and hindering factors of social media policy design,
development, and implementation, analysis from all four methods were employed.
Survey data was analyzed along eight themes: 1) ubiquitous social media use by teens,
2) cyberbullying, 3) 21st Century learning initiatives, 4) personal/school liabilities, 5)
federal/state educational technology policies, 6) stakeholder collaboration, 7)
school/district policies (i.e., firewalls) and 8) other factors. Topical frequencies were
tabulated from the documents and surveys, and matched with the discussion threads from
the interviews and focus groups. Thematic alignment proved to surface factors that
supported a culture of social media use or thwarted such use through policy design,
106
development and implementation. Significant factors of support and hindrance will be
presented within these two strands.
Supporting Factors of Social Media Policy. The document analysis, interviews,
focus groups, and surveys contributed to the data supporting the design, development,
and implementation of social media policy. Significant findings will be presented by
method of instrumentation.
Table 5: Factors that Support the Development Social Media Policy, Table from
Survey
Factor N Mean Std. Deviation
Cyberbullying 56 3.61 0.755
Personal/School Liabilities 57 3.39 0.774
21
st
Century Learning Initiatives 55 3.25 0.775
School/District Policies (i.e., firewalls) 56 3.14 0.862
Ubiquitous Social Media Use by Teens 57 3.12 0.927
Federal/State Educational Technology Policies 55 3.02 0.871
Stakeholder Collaboration 54 2.76 0.91

As illustrated in Table 4 and Figure 14, almost all factors were significant
considerations in the design and development of social media policy. The top three
factors are considered the most significant: cyberbullying (86%), personal/school
liabilities (83%), and 21st Century learning initiatives (82%). The last four factors,
school/district policies (81%), ubiquitous social media use by teens (77%), federal/state
educational technology policies (73%) and stakeholder collaboration (65%) are also
considered significant factors.
All eight factors previously identified in the literature were analyzed within the 41
social media policies. The three factors that proved statistically significant from the
document analysis were social media use by students (63%), use of social media tools as
a 21
st
century skill (63%), and netiquette (54%). Social media use by students included
the pervasive use in formal and informal learning environments. The idea of using social
107
media tools for 21
st
century learning defined the skills. Netiquette suggestions included
acting responsibly, being a role model, and providing value when engaging with social
media tools.
Figure 14: Factors that Support the Development of Social Media Policy, Graph from Survey
Within analysis of documents, most (63%) social media policies showed a
support for proficiency with social media tools as a 21
st
century skill. This was
evidenced in a clause like that within Minnetonka Public Schools‘ policy for Employee
Use of Social Media, ―…the [schools/district] recognizes the value of teacher inquiry,
investigation, and innovation using new technology tools to enhance the learning
experience‖ (MPSB, 2010, p. 1). Sixty-three percent of social media policies specifically
mentioned social media initiatives for instruction. Thirty-two percent of social media
policies had specific initiatives for classroom-based instructional use.
All eight factors initially discovered in the literature were addressed in the
interviews and focus groups. One question directly asked which factors might support a
social media policy within the school/district. Three statistically-significant factors
108
emerged: ubiquitous social media use by teens, 21st Century learning initiatives, and
school/district policies.
The most supportive factors are teachers and students using social media for
instructional purposes. Because of the personal and school liabilities associated with the
use and abuse of social media in schools, ―there‘s an assumption that social media is
‗dangerous‘ and not usable‖ stated a focus group respondent (personal communication,
September 2011). However, ―There‘s large amounts of usable content on the web,‖
exclaimed Dennis, one of the focus group teachers (personal communication, December
15, 2011), ―and lots of it gets accessed by social media tools.‖ Interview revealed that
school site administrators in a high school district in Southern California are piloting an
iPad initiative (personal communication, September 4, 2011). A Michigan District
Education Technology Consultant comments on his district‘s use of inverted learning,
where students use class time for guided practice, and teachers prepare social-media
inspired vodcasts for student homework (personal communication, December 23, 2011).
A Southern California librarian comments on his district‘s initiative to check out e-books
to students (personal communication, December 15, 2011). Learning through social
media is for students as well as teachers. An Alabama math teacher comments that ―the
best thing about social media within a school is that teachers from same department or
teachers within the school can share their best practices and everyone (the whole world)
can benefit from it‖ (personal communication, September 17, 2011).
School/district policies would seem to hinder progress of social media use, but
teachers and administrators interviewed agreed that school site leadership made the
difference in supporting social media use in education. District policy versus schoolwide
109
practice could be different. Referring to their school site practices, Mary, a Social
Science teacher, stated they only ―need to discuss our plans with our Technology
Coordinator before we are given access to whatever we want‖ (personal communication,
August 19, 2011). Conferring with Rick, a high school Network Administrator, he feels
he‘s been empowered by administration to make decisions to circumvent the firewall, if
for valid instructional purposes. General theme from focus groups specified a need for
support from district and local school site administration for instructional priority through
human resources, infrastructure, hardware, software, and professional development.
An interview with a district technology representative seemed to align with the
stated mission (LAUSD, 2002) of its Education Technology Division. The Instructional
Technology Plan states, ―Society is completing an evolutionary shift from the Industrial
Age to the Digital Age. Accordingly, educational institutions must realign their practices
with Information Age standards…to fulfill their mission of preparing students for the
future‖ (p. 1).
Hindering Factors of Social Media Policy. Impeding factors were revealed
within documents, interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Significant findings will be
presented by method of instrumentation.
Survey revealed three factors that were looked upon as reason to deter the
implementation of social media: school/district policies (i.e., firewalls), personal/school
liabilities, and cyberbullying and other abuses of web privileges. Other significant
factors that the data raised that hinder social media policy are discussed below.

110
Table 6: Factors that Hinder the Development Social Media Policy, Table from
Survey
Factor N Mean Std. Deviation
School/District Policies (i.e., firewalls) 53 3.13 0.856
Personal/School Liabilities 51 2.98 0.99
Cyberbullying 50 2.94 1.018
Ubiquitous Social Media Use by Teens 51 2.75 1.111
Federal/State Educational Technology Policies 50 2.68 0.957
Stakeholder Collaboration 50 2.66 1.022
21st Century Learning Initiatives 48 2.48 1.01

As illustrated in Table 5 and Figure 15, all factors were significant considerations
in the design and development of social media policy. School/district policies (i.e.,
firewalls) were the most statistically-significant factors supporting the development of K-
12 social media policy. Cyberbullying and other abuses of web privileges was the next
most important consideration. Personal/school liabilities were the fourth most important
consideration in the design, development, and implementation of social media policy.
Federal/state educational technology policies were the last primary statistically
significant considerations in the hindrance of design and development of social media
policy.

Figure 15: Factors that Hinder the Development of Social Media Policy, Graph from Survey
111
All eight factors were analyzed within the document analysis of social media
policies, which produced three statistically-significant factors that hinder the use of social
media in classrooms: school/district policies (71%), personal/school liabilities, and
federal/state educational technology policies. Similar to survey data, 71% of social
media policies refer stakeholders to other governing Board policies, specifically
addressing legal issues. Fifty-one percent of social media policies outline disciplinary
consequences for violation of Board rules dealing with social media. While personal and
school liabilities were the topical predominant, references to preventative mentions of
liability actually support versus hinder the use of social media. Fifty-four percent of
social media policies allude to the need for netiquette, although not revealing if netiquette
is taught to stakeholders before allowing use. Also, fifty-four percent of social media
policies refer to FERPA guidelines, if not specifically outline such for their district. In
contrast to the survey data, only forty-one percent of social media policies analyzed had
sections addressing the committal of illegal acts on school computers. Cyberbullying
was only directly mentioned 12% of the time, and other illegal acts (e.g., harassment,
commerce, and identity assumption) had even less frequency (7%). Although not
statistically significant, interestingly 37% of social media policies had sections that
addressed boundaries for student-teacher communication.
Within interview and focus groups, one question directly asked which factors
might hinder a social media policy within the school/district. Although participant
responses were threaded throughout the discussion to other questions, there were three
significant factions to the hindrance of social media use and affected policy development.
Ubiquitous social media use by teens, cyberbullying and other abuses of web privileges,
112
combined with personal/school liabilities, and school/district policies (i.e., firewalls)
were the three factors most readily negatively impacting social media use and policy
development surrounding such.
A common theme expressed by most (64%) interview and focus group
respondents was the fact that technological innovations are moving at a fast rate and
while most teenagers seem abreast of its capabilities, these skills are not being taught
through the schools. With over 75% of respondents noting it as important, survey
showed that teens‘ ubiquitous use of social media was the second factor of concern in the
use of social media within classrooms. Approximately 70% of respondents felt that this
use affected 21
st
century learning objectives.
During interviews, the main concern for administrators (64%) was the possible
abuses of social media in education; this was not a significant concern for teachers.
―Hierarchy of school and district priorities is a relevant factor for attention to social
media‖ (Mabel, a high school principal, personal communication, August 26, 2011). A t-
test from the survey showed this as a significant concern for both teachers and
administrators. With over 95% of respondents noting it as important, survey showed that
cyberbullying and other misuses of social media was the number one concern in the use
of social media within classrooms. Within the interview with Jim, a high school Dean of
Discipline, efforts of varied social media use were applauded--all except blogging, which
he said significantly contributed to the number of suspensions and expulsions (personal
communication, August 25, 2011). Alana, an Assistant Principal, summarized about the
use of social media in the classroom, ―Parents are worried about bullying, teacher-student
online relationships are questioned, and school security can be compromised all too
113
easily‖ (personal communication, August 18, 2011). Joann, another Assistant Principal
commented, ―We (parents and school personnel) can‘t even get together with a release
for photos. We try to get a signed form from each student, but can barely get that. I
don‘t know what we‘re going to do about permissions for social media like Facebook‖
(personal communication, December 11, 2011).
Another common concern amongst most (64%) respondents was privacy.
―Especially with the semantic web,‖ remarked Rick, a high school Network
Administrator from California (personal communication, August 20, 2011), ―Everyone‘s
business is in anyone‘s hands, depending on your level of sophistication with accessing
Web content.‖ While Internet gatekeepers such as Google and Facebook revised their
algorithms to bring users more personalized information by creating a system that relies
on a history of preferences, they also invaded privacy rights—to a point where ―it‘s most
times easier to block the site versus sift through its usefulness‖ (Gabe, District Network
Administrator, personal communication, November 3, 2011).
As most social media policies are addressed to more than the student stakeholder
group, it can be concluded that there have been more than instructional issues to address
with social media. While 63% address the instructional uses of social media, 71%
address the potential threat of use. The Virginia Department of Education titled their
social media policy, ―Proposed Guidelines for the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct and
Abuse in Virginia Public Schools‖ (VDE, 2011). Missouri Schools Social Media Policy
was proposed after an Associated Press investigation found 87 Missouri teachers had lost
their licenses between 2001 and 2005 because of sexual misconduct, some of which
involved exchanging explicit online messages with students. As a matter of fact, each
114
district respondent mentioned employee misconduct of a sexual nature when queried
about the hindrances of social media implementation.
All administrators mentioned their primary concern for meeting assessment
standards versus a focus on the use of social media as an instructional tool. Teachers
interviewed and within focus group (83%) mentioned access issues when planning use of
social media. An example used by Jesse, a social science teacher, was that his
professional learning community had decided to try Google Earth for a common project.
The use of bandwidth slowed the lab use to a halt, which came with a district warning the
next day about use of bandwidth. Communications such as these without an articulated
plan for solution deters use or hope for such‖ Rick, a high school Network Administrator
agreed.
To combat school and district blocking policies and allow social media use for
education purposes, some advocates have taken the forefront. A Michigan high school
teacher headed his region‘s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) campaign to call on
high school administrators and the makers of web filtering software to stop blocking
students‘ access to information supporting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) communities (personal communication, August 23, 2011). A Connecticut high
school librarian created a day of protest, Banned Sites Day, to draw attention to the issue
of banned social media sites in K-12 schools. ―The same issues of censorship, fear and
free speech that make banned books resonate also apply to social-networking sites that
most public schools block‖ (personal communication, August 25, 2011). Teachers also
protested Missouri‘s new Social Media Policy through the state‘s teachers union, which
115
sued, saying the law ―would have a chilling effect‖ on free-speech rights guaranteed
under the U.S. Constitution (Beeterm, 2011).
―Consistency in implementation is needed; I've seen instances where unwritten or
informal policies have been developed but are inconsistent in its implementation with one
student receiving consequences for an offense that another does not receive. This does
little to send the message of the importance of such policies. Clear communication in the
policies and the outcomes of certain actions is also needed to ensure all stakeholders are
on the same page with respect to the policy.‖
Survey data, illustrated in Figure 16, shows cyberbullying as the issue of most
concern for stakeholders when considering social media use. Second is the ubiquitous
use of social media by teens. Third are 21
st
Century Learning Initiatives, and the last
statistically-significant factor is personal/school liabilities.
Figure 16: Important Factors within K-12 Social Media Policies, from Survey
As illustrated in Figure 17, analysis of K-12 personnel interview and focus group
data revealed the factors that most contribute to the content of social media policy.
Eighty-five percent of respondents were most concerned about student privacy. Seventy-
116
one percent were most concerned about the effectiveness of social media instructional
practice. Sixty-four percent were concerned about delegating specific responsibilities
regarding the implementation of policy. Sixty-four percent also repeatedly mentioned
other factors including: introducing and maintaining students‘ 21st century skills,
competing with students of other nations, school resource cost-efficiency, community
response to use/non-use, ongoing professional development for teachers, and the wonder
if an enacted policy would help stakeholders stay within legal compliance. Fifty-seven
percent were most concerned about how to use social media tools productively and
respectfully. These repeated concerns have shaped what is becoming standard for K-12
social media policy.

Figure 17: Important Factors within K-12 Social Media Policies from Interview and Focus Group
Teacher interview revealed that their thought behind the design of social media
policy was tri-fold: 1) as an instructional roadmap for teachers, 2) to prevent misuse and
abuse by students, and 3) not to overburden district resources, as illustrated in Figure 17.
While each teacher mentioned all three items within individual interview, these topics
were further explored within focus groups. Once each topic was broached, there was
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Important Factors within K-12 Social Media
Policies from Interview and Focus Group
Factor of Concern
117
unprompted discussion by other teachers. Addressing the first conclusion, Focus Group
#3 dwelled on prior professional development implementation, as Margot, a high school
social science teacher commented, ―If the district implements a social media policy, I‘m
then assuming they will also provide resources to assure we use these tools
instructionally‖ (personal communication, December 15, 2011). Addressing the second
conclusion, it seems that all teachers understood their shared responsibility as some in
Focus Group #3 agreed with Evelyn, a high school science teacher, when she
perfunctorily stated, ―That‘s why I don‘t use it in the classroom. I don‘t want the
responsibility of some child ‗hooking up‘ with some stranger they met through one of my
legitimate projects‖ (personal communication, December 15, 2011). Addressing the last
conclusion, engaged discussion revealed that teachers felt that their technology use had
been regulated since its introduction in the classroom (e.g., computer lab rotation, use of
bandwidth, wireless access, etc.). Thus, the collective believed the district would tell
them how and what they could and could not have access to.
Summary. Data analysis from all four methods was employed to discover the
most supportive and obstructing factors to social media policy design, development, and
implementation in K-12. Survey discovered cyberbullying to be the most significant
factor. Document analysis revealed driving factors to be 21st Century learning initiatives
and school liabilities, conversely. Interviews proved interesting results, with teachers‘
most supportive factors as ubiquitous social media use by teens and the most hindering
factor as school/district policies (i.e., firewalls). Administrators‘ most supportive factors
were 21st Century learning initiatives, while their most deterring factor was
cyberbullying and other abuses of web privileges. Focus groups ranked stakeholder
118
collaboration as the most supportive factor, while school/district policies remained the
most hindering. Thematic alignment proved to surface factors that supported a culture of
social media use from personal/school liabilities and 21
st
century skills. Thematic
alignment proved to surface factors that thwarted social media use through
personal/school liabilities and school/district policies. To advance the use of social
media as instructional tools, these factors need to be reconciled.
When examining the factors of most importance when considering a social media
policy, all seven factors were found to be significant, as listed in Table 6. Cyberbullying
ranked as the factor of most significance, with a mean of 2.6. The ubiquitous social
media use by teens and impending 21
st
century learning initiatives mad the next most
significant impact on social media use, with means of 3.3 and 3.6, respectively.
Personal/School liabilities ranked of next importance with a mean of 3.9. The last three
factors, School/District Policies (mean=4.4), Federal/State Educational Technology
Policies (mean=4.9), and Stakeholder Collaboration (mean=5.4), while still considered
significant findings, ranked last as factors to be considered when designing and
developing social media policy.
Table 7: Ranked Factors of Importance, from Survey
Factor N Mean Std. Deviation
Stakeholder Collaboration 49 5.449 1.67159
Federal/State Educational Technology Policies 49 4.9388 1.94088
School/District Policies (i.e., firewalls) 49 4.4286 1.84842
Personal/School Liabilities 49 3.8776 1.73964
21
st
Century Learning Initiatives 49 3.551 1.73279
Ubiquitous Social Media Use by Teens 49 3.3061 2.02283
Cyberbullying 49 2.5918 1.63195

Collectively, data reveals four statistically significant factors that support and
hinder social media policy development and implementation, as illustrated in Figure 18.
School/district policies are the most influential factor for implementation of social media.
119
If school policy allowed social media, more stakeholders would engage in the medium.
Present practice, which translates into policy, deters use. Twenty-first century learning
objectives, ubiquitous social media use by teens, and personal/school liabilities were also
significant factors in the development and implementation of social media. Pervasive use
in informal learning environments cannot be ignored. Respondents recognize the need to
incorporate social media, yet know that their skill levels may fall behind that of their
learners, making the students the actual teachers of the medium. Personal/school
liabilities are prevalent on respondents‘ minds, so while hindering practice, respondents
still feel the need to collaborate upon policy development and implementation.

Figure 18: Risk Assessment of Factors Affecting Development and Implementation of Social Media
Policy
Factors Reconciled
Understanding how multiple supportive and encumbering factors came together
in policy implementation is essential in forwarding a social media agenda in education.
Factors that both hindered and supported social media policy implementation were
examined in light of the school district‘s design, development, and implementation of
social media, as revealed through documents, interviews, focus groups, and surveys. It is
•statistically
insignificant
at 33%
federal/state
educational
technology policies
•statistically
significant at
67%
21st Century
learning initiatives
•statistically
insignificant
at 33%
cyberbullying
•statistically
significant at
67%
ubiquitous social
media use by
teens
•statistically
insignificant
at 33%
other
•statistically
significant at
100%
school/district
policies (i.e.,
firewalls)
•statistically
insignificant
at 0%
stakeholder
collaboration
•statistically
significant at
67%
personal/school
liabilities
120
essential to understand how these factors are presently reconciled in school policy and
practice. From a data analysis of social media policies, interviews, and focus groups, two
major themes emerged. Either school districts were reacting to stakeholder practice or
they were adapting their policies towards stakeholder practice. Data analysis will be
presented within these two statistically significant themes.
Survey results, as illustrated in Figure 19, revealed four statistically-significant
factors respondents felt were reconciled within their school‘s/district‘s social media
policy: cyberbullying, school/district policies, personal/school liabilities, and ubiquitous
social media use by teens. Districts are adapting to teens ubiquitous use of social media
through school/district policies. Similarly, districts are reacting to cyberbullying and
personal /school liabilities. Data will be presented within these two themes. The six
write-in responses differed and were thus insignificant.
Figure 19: Factor Reconciliation within K12 Social Media Policies, Graph from Survey

121
The degree to which factors are reconciled in school district‘s policies was
measured by varying levels of social media infractions within scenarios. Respondents
were asked about optimal social media policy, reflecting the adaptation of policy to
practice. They were also asked about present social media policy, reflecting the reaction
to practice with policy.
The survey revealed that policies are broadly adapted to stakeholder use.
Frequency analysis, illustrated in Table 8, revealed which factors are reconciled in
district policy and practice regarding social media. Survey data did not show any factors
more significant than others when considering how they are reconciled within school
districts. However, the first three factors, Cyberbullying (mean=2.9), School/District
Policies (mean=2.8), and Personal/School Liabilities (mean=2.7) are more significant
than the last four, Ubiquitous Social Media Use by Teens (mean=2.5), 21st Century
Learning Initiatives (mean=2.4), Federal/State Educational Technology Policies
(mean=2.3) and Stakeholder Collaboration (mean=2.2).
Table 8: Factor Reconciliation within K-12 Social Media Policies, Table from
Survey
Factor N Mean Std. Deviation
Cyberbullying 54 2.85 1.071
School/District Policies (i.e., firewalls) 53 2.75 1.036
Personal/School Liabilities 53 2.7 1.049
Ubiquitous Social Media Use by Teens 53 2.47 1.103
21
st
Century Learning Initiatives 53 2.4 0.968
Federal/State Educational Technology Policies 53 2.32 1.034
Stakeholder Collaboration 53 2.23 0.954

Adapting to Social Media Practice. As illustrated in Table 9, survey data did
not show any optimal policies more significant than others when considering district
response to social media use/abuse. However, the first three scenarios, show a noticeable
difference in response than the last three. The first three scenarios are violations of
122
present social media policies in all most districts, but they are phrased to end with
positive interactions for all students. The last three scenarios are similar violations of
social media policies, but more explicitly state possible ramifications of violating actions.
Respondents reacted more heavily to the last three scenarios than they did the first three.
Table 9: Optimal School/District Response to Social Media Use, Table from Survey
Response N Mean Std. Deviation
A school club has begun an organized movement to clean
the local beach. They are recruiting student members
through Facebook.
49 2.86 1.137
A teacher has organized a pen pal program where students
exchange messages with another class online. Besides the
classroom component, students may still correspond with
these persons outside of the formal setting.
49 2.73 1.016
Students in a law-themed small school have the
opportunity to participate in a Career Day online.
Lawyers, judges, law clerks, etc. will be available to chat
online with students. These are simultaneous live web
connections.
50 2.7 1.093
Journalism students are encouraged to RSS feed
newswires to include in the school newspaper. The filters
on their school e-mail accounts have to be raised to allow
this curricular use. However, SPAM with inappropriate
content also seems to make it through this filter setting.
51 2.29 0.901
A student hosts an ―anti-gay‖ website on a private server
and invites other students to join.
50 1.82 1.101
A student is taking inappropriate pictures of another
student using a personal cell phone and then electronically
distributing those photos to friends. At the time the
picture is taken, this fictional high school student was
attending an athletic event being hosted in another district.
(involving no school-owned systems but at a school-
sponsored event)
51 1.51 0.758

As illustrated in Figure 20, the more detailed consequential actions of the social
media violation, the more stringent respondents wanted the consequences. With both the
cell phone violation and the SPAM to student accounts, respondents wanted a more
stringent social media policy. Similarly, when other students‘ rights are violated, it
becomes a significant point of concern.
123

Figure 20: Optimal School/District Response to Social Media Use, Graph from Survey
Within document analysis, to some extent, all school districts (n=41) were found
to have adapted their policies towards stakeholder use. The most telling way of knowing
that district social media policies are adapting to stakeholder use is the fact that there are
social media practices, versus the common policy of a firewall that blocked all use of
social media. Specificity within social media policies proved that some districts were
adapting their policies to the technologies in which stakeholders most interacted.
Document analysis revealed that factors are reconciled in the verbiage displayed within
the policy, to whom the policy is directed, as well as the web placement of the social
media policy. Analysis disclosed the most district social media policies dealt with legal
issues referencing FERPA, harassment, intellectual property, etc. Because there are
policies directed at students, employees (faculty and staff), volunteers, board members,
independent contractors, student teachers, visitors, and even spelled out for ―workshop
attendees,‖ it is known that policies are most times all-encompassing. Additionally, the
locator seemed to be aligned with the impetus of the policy. If policies were developed
124
mainly for instructional purposes, they were found in instructional Board policies; if they
were designed around operational factors, they were found within personnel, etc.
Interview and focus groups revealed that stakeholders did not feel like policies
were yet adapted to their needs, and expressed the improbabilities of an efficient social
media policy without doing so. Focus groups disclosed how district firewalls prevented
use of social media, even though there seemed to be a growing voice for use.
Interviewees further disclosed how strong desire to use social media led to the use of
proxies to circumvent the firewall. As stated by Dolores, a high school Technology
Coordinator, ―students are frustrated by proxies, but learning essential hacking skills [as
problem-solving skills]‖ (personal communication, September 15, 2011). This increasing
desire to use social media seemed to encourage district policy to include social media-
cognizant language.
Teachers revealed a few examples of classroom, school, and district adaptation.
Within classrooms, all teachers (n=36) admitted to downloading at home and bringing
files to school to share with their students. Administrators (n=10) admitted to such uses
as well. Focus groups agreed that users sometimes give up on using social media
because of the hassles of finding the content at home (during personal time),
downloading to an "acceptable" file extension, saving it, and bringing it back to school to
hope it works on the school's system and district network. However, these practices are
adapted because worthwhile content is found outside of the district firewall.
These uses have encouraged the firewall to be lowered or opened. Where there
was a previous block on all social networking sites, which slowly moved to the
allowance of paid-account social networks, many school sites now allow teachers to set
125
up free social network accounts in which members are invited or which are considered
closed groups. This helps ease privacy and safety concerns. Rather than the liable uses
of Facebook, for years teachers used the Ning to provide a digital forum for classrooms.
Moodle is also a popular open-source software platform for classrooms, although it takes
a higher level of navigable knowledge.
Where districts before had strict ―no mobile device‖ policies, some districts are
moving towards Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) policies. This method will aid
budget-strapped schools as technology use grows and affects curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. SmartPhones, tablets, gaming devices and other mobile technologies are
encouraged in districts such as Georgia‘s Forsyth County Schools. June, a member of the
district IT team, outlines how teachers received face-to-face and web-based professional
development that included modeled examples of what BYOD activities might look like in
a classroom. Forsyth also boosted its wireless access points to support the pilot,
maintaining a separate wireless network for students ―to keep them from accessing
sensitive school district information‖ (personal communication, December 15, 2011).
While no one was required to adopt the policy, ―it took off in a viral fashion among [the]
school leadership and among [the school] community.‖ An unexpected upside to this
initiative is IT operations are not burdened with a BYOD initiative because students
handle the maintenance and updates for their own devices.
Laymen are even able to recognize district acknowledgement of the benefits of
social media by the creation of official district Facebook pages, Flikr embedding or
Twitter accounts. This acknowledgement of the pervasive use of social media shows that
126
even though some districts are presently in a reactive stage, they understand that policies
must adapt to the technologies and social norms of the day.
Reacting to Social Media Practice. The majority of school districts were found
to have created policies as a reaction to stakeholder practice. Joann, a high school
Assistant Principal aptly stated, ―Social Media Policy is what practices one has with
social media. One may make the argument that practice and policy are different, but
practices define policy‖ (personal communication, December 11, 2011). The most telling
way of knowing that district social media policies are reacting to stakeholder use is the
fact that there are now social media policies where, before, there were none.
Social media policy analysis revealed that many school districts created policy in
reaction to events surrounding stakeholder use of social media. Whether it was
inappropriate use (as defined by the AUP) by students, teachers, or others, most social
media policies include a statement like that found in the Davidson County School
System‘s policy for Personnel Internet Use, ―Any employee found to have created and/or
posted inappropriate content on a website or profile that has a negative impact on the
employee‘s ability to perform his/her job as it relates to working with students will be
subject to discipline, up to and including dismissal‖ (DCSS School Board, 2009, p.1).
Interview and focus group respondents unanimously believed policy was reactive.
Dolores, a high school Technology Coordinator, commented that, at one point, ―[t]he
district blocked everything, so at my school the practice was to proxy around it so you
could access useful content.‖ Proxies were later outlined as part of the school Internet
access policy (personal communication, September 17, 2011). "Blocking access in
schools denies kids the chance to practice sharing their knowledge with the real world in
127
a supervised setting‖ (Jaime, high school Media Specialist, personal communication,
August 25, 2011).
From the administrative group, a recurring theme was the ―watch and see‖
method of disciplinary discovery. Social media participants would violate an unwritten
policy and wait to see the consequences. Alana, a high school Assistant Principal, states,
―The policy is to take the equipment away or to limit its use,‖ (personal communication,
July 18, 2011). ―We‘re still running around confiscating technology that will help pole
vault our students into the 21
st
century.‖ If the consequences were weighed as less than
the projected use, practice would outweigh policy. Thus, a stricter policy had to be
enacted and repercussions attached to violations of such. ―We become liable for what we
allow into the filter, so it should be raised as needed.‖ These reactive policies seemed to
be the standard operating procedures for school districts, with proactive districts as the
exception versus the norm.
A high school teacher within the focus groups was initially shocked by her state‘s
unveiling of a social media policy for all districts, ―The law goes as far as to tell us that
we cannot ‗friend‘ students if we have Facebook accounts‖ (personal communication,
December 21, 2011). Her state‘s policy development may have been in reaction to the
wave of teachers getting fired for questionable interactions with students on social
networking sites. Sometimes the reaction is not to directly tied to stakeholder action so
much as it is the supporting networks, ―Our school/district would be strictly concerned
about the bandwidth expended in these exchanges‖ stated Rick, a high school Network
Administrator (personal communication, August 20, 2011).
128
Survey data did not show any present policies more significant than others when
considering district response to social media use/abuse, as illustrated in Table 10.
However, the first three scenarios, as with policy adaptation, have a greater response than
the last three scenarios.
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics: Present School/District Response to Social Media
Use
Response N Mean Std. Deviation
A school club has begun an organized movement to clean
the local beach. They are recruiting student members
through Facebook.
51 3.02 1.086
A teacher has organized a pen pal program where
students exchange messages with another class online.
Besides the classroom component, students may still
correspond with these persons outside of the formal
setting.
52 2.87 1.01
Students in a law-themed small school have the
opportunity to participate in a Career Day online.
Lawyers, judges, law clerks, etc. will be available to chat
online with students. These are simultaneous live web
connections.
52 2.81 1.085
Journalism students are encouraged to RSS feed
newswires to include in the school newspaper. The
filters on their school e-mail accounts have to be raised to
allow this curricular use. However, SPAM with
inappropriate content also seems to make it through this
filter setting.
51 2.37 1.095
A student hosts an anti-gay‖ website on a private server
and invites other students to join.
51 2.33 1.178
A student is taking inappropriate pictures of another
student using a personal cell phone and then
electronically distributing those photos to friends. At the
time the picture is taken, this fictional high school
student was attending an athletic event being hosted in
another district. (involving no school-owned systems but
at a school-sponsored event)
52 2.08 1.212

Summary. Whether adapting or reacting, whether written or simply understood
within the school culture, as Garr, a District Superintendent, remarked, ―Whether we
have a policy or not, every school is handling the use of social media somehow. There
may not be a written policy on social media, but there‘s a policy on employee behavior,
student Internet use, instructional materials—something to govern the use of social media
129
in schools‖ (personal communication, September 4, 2011). These School Board-
approved de facto policies support qualitative data from the surveys, which revealed that
most respondents feel that these are ―opportunit[ies] to educate students on appropriate
use [and] ramifications,‖ (David, personal communication, December 15, 2011) and,
―Both prior and optimal action are dependent upon local school site administration.‖
(focus group respondent, personal communication, October 2011).
Social Media Policy Best Practices
Benchmarking is an essential part of social media policy design. ―Examination
of how similar schools are utilizing social media and sharing their successes is how we
build successful policy,‖ (Chris, personal communication, August 23, 2011). By first
examining what social media policy presently looks like in schools, then analyzing the
supporting and hindering factors to social media policy design, development, and
implementation, followed by how competing factors are reconciled within school district
policies, we can finally identify best practices for benchmarking success. Through
systematic examination of qualitative survey, interview, and focus group data, effective
practices were found for the development and implementation of social media policy.
Findings will be presented within these two themes.
Development of Social Media Policy. A survey respondent commented, ―It
seems like districts and schools are waiting for legislation [to design policy]—a huge
lawsuit kind of paves the way....‖ While most social media policies may have been
developed in response to a negative occurrence, school districts can be proactive in the
design and development of a social media policy. From the qualitative data, four
predominant themes were found to have served respondents well in the design and
130
development of their social media policies: 1) tiered job-level access, 2) instructional
focus for social media activities, 3) ensuring social media education prior to access, and
4) stakeholder representation. Data is presented here by predominant theme.
Tiered job-level admittance allows access to the district‘s network only through
role-level login. Only a few schools had implemented these policies, but all respondents
agreed that this is a good plan. To combat personal/school liabilities, one school district
started job-level access to the Internet where students, teachers and administrators have a
different access level. ―You log into the Internet with your single sign-on which gives
you this access. Thus, the district now knows who's trying to access what. If you still
have burning content you're blocked from, you request access and within 48 hours, you
have a response,‖ explains Dolores, a high school Technology Coordinator (personal
communication, September 17, 2011).
Like Weymouth Public Schools‘ (WPSB, 2011) varying grade level access,
having varied levels of access will allow varied levels of content through web filters per
users‘ roles. Mary, a high school teacher, remarked that their district‘s policies of ―user
login to the network makes everyone accountable for their actions‖ (personal
communication, November 11, 2011). As echoed by a Southern California focus group
of high school teachers (personal communication, December 15, 2011), ―Blocking
everything doesn't work, and neither does allowing everything.‖
Another predominant theme towards best practices is to ensure an instructional
focus for social media. Sixty-six percent of social media policies mentioned
instructional goals with use; all interview and focus group respondents mentioned the
instructional value of social media tools. Ensuring an instructional focus for social media
131
activities includes both necessitating expectations through learning objectives and a
provision of supports for implementation. Educators should examine what type of
learning is to occur and if the use of social media tools will enhance delivery or make
instruction more efficient. Echoed in interviews and focus groups was the need for
identification of proven-effective content-related uses for social media. Technology
integration specialists can assist in this task. They could also guide from misuse.
Realizing that many of her students already had Facebook accounts, social science
teacher Mary set up a group within this interface as a supplemental means of student
involvement. ―My goal was to get students talking about class topics in everyday life
application. This seemed to be happening on Facebook, so I set up an account to help
facilitate some of the right answers as they posted links, comments, pictures…‖ Mary
did all of this at home, outside of the district‘s firewall and against the district‘s social
media policy, yet is still liable is misuse or abuse occurs. Realizing this, many teachers
have shied away from the use of social media. ―Policy needs to allow for innovative
implementation at the school and classroom level. Unnecessary barriers to
implementation need to be eliminated,‖ commented a social science survey respondent,
in frustration of trying to use social media tools instructionally but being blocked by
school and district policies.
The Francis Howell School District (2009) was the first district to set best
practice guidelines regarding the use of social media for classroom use. While providing
guidelines to avoid liability, they also focus on instruction, comprising what echoes
across other districts‘ social media policies: use netiquette while sharing expertise.
Engaging in transparent practices and setting clear expectations for use as an instructional
132
tool should be a primary goal of social media use, according to combined data. If
activities of focus are always tied to learning objectives, there is no room for misuse or
abuse.
Another predominant theme towards best practices is to educate the stakeholder
population prior to granting access. Respondents offered that sharing expectations and
examples of appropriate social media use would deter misuse and abuse. As one of the
Missouri School Board attorneys wrote on behalf of the school board, ―Many of the
problems that have resulted from student-teacher interaction on social networking sites
could have been avoided if the teachers involved had worked to create clear separation
between their personal and school-related roles. Communication with students doesn‘t
have to be banned, but there are ‗best practices‘ teachers should embrace‖ (FHSD, 2009).
Best practices can be shared in informational settings, as Alex, a middle school
principal of a Technology Magnet, does with his staff. To assure continual and
appropriate use of technologies, ―teachers are empowered to use these tools for formal
learning experiences from day one, and reminded throughout the school year‖ through
faculty meetings and professional development (personal communication, October 24,
2011). Staff members are encouraged to establish separate sites and pages for personal
and professional use, noting that all material on the Internet should be presumed to be
public. Many districts educate their staff through written policies, issued via hard copy
along with other compliance measures, or as an ―I agree‖ statement prior to network
access. While that may suffice for liability, ―more awareness [of the policies] has to be
brought to the mind of the user, ―comments June, a district technology facilitator
(personal communication, August 31, 2011).
133
Another predominant theme towards best practices is to assure stakeholder
representation on decision-making committees. The Commonwealth of Virginia (2011)
lists as a best practice, ―Principals appoint — in consultation with faculty and parents —
school committees with responsibility for increasing awareness of state laws and school
board polices. Divisions provide training to school committees in order for committees
to oversee training of building-level employees and volunteers.‖ All respondents (100%)
from interviews and focus groups agreed that a collaborative approach would be the best
practice for social media access. A collaborative approach was punctuated within focus
groups and interviews, ―Involve all stakeholders: teachers, students, staff, parents, IT
staff, administrators, and IT professionals,‖ (personal communication, December 15,
2011).
―Communication and collaboration among stakeholders is key to the development
of policy in social media,‖ Joann, a high school Assistant Principal stated (personal
communication, December 11, 2011). If all stakeholders are involved, there is
distributed monitoring of practice. The Minidoka County School District (2011) includes
a statement reminiscent of other districts which have outlined a stakeholder-
representative Internet Safety Team, to ―develop and maintain administrative procedures
to enforce the provisions of [the social media] policy and coordinate with the appropriate
District personnel regarding the internet safety component of the District‘s curriculum.‖
Social media is becoming an essential learning tool, and its technological changes and
instructional impact can only be conquered through collaborative planning of use.
―We must be familiar with the current laws and applicable cases recently
presented before our judicial system concerning social media policy,‖ states Chris, an
134
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources (personal communication, August 23,
2011). Education can only control and be responsible for a very small portion of what
has become an enormously popular media. Chris continues, ―We can make students,
faculty, staff, parents and the community stakeholders aware of what the law says about
social media. As we develop effective practices we need to focus on using social media
in a positive and productive way to educate and realize that the degree to which we can
restrict behavior is relative.‖
The social media policy for districts in the Commonwealth of Virginia (2011)
states as an identified best practice, ―Division technology and instructional staff [will]
collaborate to develop local policies that allow for appropriate electronic communications
between school board employees and students while deterring misconduct and providing
accountability.‖ Yet the reality for some schools and districts is quite different, ―There is
very little collaboration on social media policy amongst our stakeholders—at the district
or local school site. But we have to—need to collaborate on so much more, and there‘s
only so much time‖ (Alana, high school Assistant Principal, personal communication,
August 18, 2011).
Implementation of Social Media Policy. With the use of social media and the
implementation of social media policy, qualitative methods found three predominant
themes for the effective implementation of social media: 1) embracing and adapting, 2)
progress monitoring, and 3) a cycle of feedback. Schools that adopted all three methods
had fewer incidences of misuse and abuse than schools that chose other methods of social
media integration. Success is measured in number of incidences or severity of misuse by
users of the school district network. Data is presented here by predominant theme.
135
School leadership responded to social media implementation in various ways.
Data found that schools that embrace and adapt to social media practices are more
successful than schools that have reacted to social media use and blocked access. Social
media is becoming a pervasive learning tool which users access both within and outside
of the formal learning environment. For seamless integration into formal learning
environments, school districts have to look at ways they can embrace social media tools
and adapt to neomillenial practices with social media.
Eric, a high school principal, made the decision to embrace social media. Besides
encouraging ―the use of cell phones as mobile learning devices,‖ (personal
communication, December 19, 2011), with over 15,000 Twitter followers, he‘s also
encouraged his teachers to use Facebook to communicate with teachers and parents.
Having revamped the school‘s static web page for a Facebook page, he says, ―Sites such
as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube — long banned and roundly derided by my peers —
actually push kids to do better work and pay attention to important issues such as
audience, quality research and copyright laws‖ (personal communication, December 19,
2011). This theme was joined by other high school administrators who state that
―working online pushes education beyond the confines of school, allowing kids to
broaden discussion of their work, forcing them to do authentic work that gets tested out
in the real world, as outside viewers see it and respond to it‖ (personal communication,
November 10, 2011).
Whether for student or educator use in school, social media has promises for
education. Rick, a high school Network Administrator, witnesses, ―Web 2.0 tools work
wonderfully well for students who don‘t have Microsoft Office at home‖ (personal
136
communication, August 20, 2011). ―Our school uses Google Docs and YouTube for
professional development. Our professional learning communities collaborate through
Google Groups and we post trainer-of-trainer models on YouTube for LAN parties,‖
Dolores, a high school Technology Coordinator comments (personal communication,
September 17, 2011). The benefits of social media continue with the relation from
Assistant Principal Alana ―The microblogging Twitter offers is perfect for crisis
situations. It‘s faster than e-mail and easier to use‖ (personal communication, August 18,
2011).
BYOD, or ―Bring Your Own Device,‖ is a method of social media use embraced
by some budget-strapped schools. SmartPhones, tablets, gaming devices and other
mobile technologies are encouraged in districts such as Georgia‘s Forsyth County
Schools. Famhe, a member of the district IT team, outlines how teachers received face-
to-face and web-based professional development that included modeled examples of
what BYOD activities might look like in a classroom, and the district boosted its wireless
access points to support the pilot, maintaining a separate wireless network for students
―to keep them from accessing sensitive school district information‖ (personal
communication, November 10, 2011). While no one was required to adopt the policy, ―it
took off in a viral fashion among [the] school leadership and among [the school]
community.‖ An unexpected upside to this initiative is IT operations are not burdened
with a BYOD initiative because students handle the maintenance and updates for their
own devices.
While a portion of decision-makers look at this freedom as burden-relieving,
others find these initiatives to be burdensome. Monitoring of the network is where
137
accountability meets use or abuse. Superintendent Garr states, ―You cannot expect what
you do not inspect‖ (personal communication, September 4, 2011). Thus, data should be
collected and information shared with vested stakeholder groups. A survey respondent
commented, ―There must be communication and explanation, district wide, then site-
based, then district-wide [again].‖ These actions would constitute a continual feedback
cycle.
One challenge is how to monitor the devices to make sure students, faculty, and
staff use them only for tasks connected to learning and are not inappropriate content. ―It
is the teacher's responsibility to ensure students remain on task. The reality that students
will come across inappropriate content in the "real world" is high (and realistic). This is a
‗teachable moment‘.‖ Superintendent Garr believes that dealing with social media in the
classroom is a classroom management issue. ―[Classroom management issues] exist
separate from technology, and they exist with technology. It‘s a challenge for
[struggling] teachers regardless of whether [social media] is allowed in the classroom or
not‖ (personal communication, September 4, 2011).
A simple way to monitor the impending barrage of social media use is via
network management software. Gabe comments, ―It‘s inevitable that students eventually
will be allowed to bring their mobile devices into school, and mobile device management
software can help make this happen‖ (personal communication, November 3, 2011).
Similarly, network management software can do this for each school network. Each
network user would have an account, and any time someone wants to use a wireless
device or social media tool, they would be required to log into the school‘s wireless
network, where they could be monitored.
138
Someone needs to monitor stats of violation for login or request, both at the
school site and district levels. ―In my district there‘s a survey of use and projected use,
but we don‘t ever get any feedback from that survey, even though it‘s annually mandated
that we complete it‖ (personal communication, July 18, 2011). Progress monitoring is
essential to successful implementation of a social media policy and communication of
that progress to stakeholders will help make more informed decisions about policy
adjustment towards student improvement.
Summary. Education is still trying to define the best policies for school use,
taking into account the need to focus on 21
st
century skills through these tools while not
allowing for potential abuse. Data found that school districts that implement tiered job-
level access, keep an instructional focus and ensure social media education prior to
access, and allow for perspective-taking from various stakeholder groups within the
design of policy see more success in the design and development of their social media
policies. School districts that embrace and adapt to social media practices, while
monitoring policy implementation and incorporating a cycle of feedback will assure
fewer incidences of misuse and abuse and build on more appropriate and functional uses
of social media towards learning objectives. The final result is a framework that
identifies the aforementioned elements for the design, development, and implementation
of a social media policy.
A Framework for Social Media Policy Development
Developing a social media policy consists of considering best practices in the
design of a conceptual framework. From discovery to collaborative management, policy
makers must look at the creative services as well as the tools and tactics of use
139
(Smiciklas, 2011). There are essentially six strategic points towards developing and
successfully implementing a social media policy: (1) defining activities, (2) prioritizing
objectives, (3) establishing governance, (4) developing capabilities, (5) collaborating, and
(6) measuring and refining (Dawson, 2010). Once the reason to use social media tools is
established, objectives can be prioritized from the classroom through administrative
offices. Specific activities can be defined to accomplish objectives, and then governance
of those objectives can be established. Within these frames of priority, capabilities can
be determined through stakeholder collaboration. Finally and continually, progress
towards objectives need to be continually evaluated.
This framework is based on Dawson‘s Social Media Strategy Framework (2010),
Smiciklas‘ Social Media Strategy Frameworks (2011), Petersen‘s IT Policies Framework
(2004), and the Scott and Vass (1994) ―Seven Ps‖ Model (1994). Dawson‘s Social
Media Strategy Framework (2010) is a progression of eight benchmarks towards full
development of an effective social media strategy. Smiciklas‘ Social Media Strategy
Frameworks (2011) includes three process methods for discovery, strategy, and
management for both tools and tactics of use, and creative services of that use. It
continues to represent social media strategies as an iceberg below the surface while the
tactics are the visible social media tools. Petersen‘s IT Policies Framework (2004)
gathers four countervailing forces into a model IT Policy Framework. Scott and Vass
(1994) identify seven different points and issues that need to be addressed in the drafting
and implementing of an effective AUP. By combining these frameworks against the
results of this study, Figure 21 can be developed to represent a model of design and
development for K-12 social media policy.
140

Figure 21: Framework for Design and Development of K-12 Social Media Policy

•role-level
•grade-level
•other
•perspective-taking
from students,
parents, faculty,
and staff
•prior to network
access
Educational
Awareness
Campaign
Stakeholder
Collaboration

Multi-Tiered
Access

Instructional
Focus
141
CHAPTER FIVE: Findings and Discussion
Social media presents a new world of opportunity and a new wave of potential
problems for education. Students and teachers want to use social media in the classroom,
but are discouraged by district filters and firewalls that prevent use (Evans, 2010; USDE,
2009). Districts want students to use 21
st
century tools, but want to protect stakeholders
from any unwarranted dangers (NCES, 2010). School Internet use is governed by
Acceptable Use Policies which were written before the advent of social media and its
promise for the classroom. A knowledge gap exists between the ubiquitous use of social
media by today‘s students, and an education policy that regulates this use. This empirical
study sought to understand how social media is used in the secondary school
environment and if the benefits of use outweigh the (lack of) countervailing factors
influencing its use. This purpose was examined through the following research
questions:
1. What defines ―social media policy‖ and what are the different types of social
media policies presently in place at the K-12 level?
2. What factors support and/or hinder the development and implementation of a
social media policy within a school district?
3. How are these factors reconciled (or not), and to what degree, in a school
district‘s social media policies?
4. What are the most promising practices for the development and implementation
of social media policy?
These questions were examined through document analysis, interview/focus
group, and survey with the school district as the unit of analysis. A document analysis of
142
forty-one social media policies (n=41) were quota sampled from school districts.
Fourteen (n=14) purposive sampling interviews were held with school site and district
office administrators, out-of-the-classroom and classroom teachers. Three focus groups
(n=3) were held with a total of 27 teachers and administrators. One stratified random
sample was hosted online, one clustered random sample was held face-to-face, and
another clustered random sample was hosted asynchronously. The survey was a simple
random sample of one hundred (n=100) school site and district office administrators, out-
of-the-classroom and classroom teachers.
Summary of Findings
Following is a discussion of the findings from this study. There are two findings
to define K-12 social media policy. There is one finding on the supporting and hindering
factors of social media policy development and implementation. There is also one
finding on the reconciliation of these factors. Lastly, there are two findings for best
practices in the development and implementation of social media policy. All findings are
supported by literature.
Key Findings from RQ1: Definition of Social Media Policy
Finding One. Social media policy is defined by content. Excluding mobile
technologies, there are four different types of social media policies in place at the K-12
level: social media (51%), amended AUPs (31%), social networks (10%), and blogging
(8%). Social media content can be described in five different areas, adapted from Kaplan
and Haenlein (2010): 1) blogging, 2) content communities, 3) social networking, 4)
virtual worlds, and 5) collaborative projects. While all allow for interaction around
143
learning, blogging and social networking lend themselves more to conversational
learning, which has led to some infractions of policy and the law. Categorizing social
media activities is important for examining its use. Data shows that most times, when
there are infractions for misuse of social media, it is within the blogging or social
networking domains. It is important to recognize this in relation to the development and
implementation of social media policy to ascertain where energies should be focused.
Energies should presently be focused on these two social media content categories when
pondering the countervailing factors of social media policy.
Finding Two. Social media policy is defined by targeted subject. The targeted
subject refers to the factors most contributing to policy design and development. There
are three different targeted subjects for social media policies at the K-12 level: students,
staff, and/or instruction. Seventy-eight percent of existing social media policies were
directed to employees, alluding that there was misuse or abuse within this stakeholder
group. Forty-nine percent of existing social media policies were student-centered, with
themes of warning and consequences. Lastly, 29% of existing social media policies were
focused on instructional purpose rather than directed at a particular stakeholder group.
Noting the impetus of social media policy design is important to ascertain and
analyze situations leading to policy development. By the revelations of impetus revealed
within this study, social media policy development may not be needed so much as efforts
focused in enforcing existent Board policies regulating conduct. There is also a need to
provide education awareness of these policies prior to network use. All states have an
education code that includes codes of conduct for students and employees. Many echo
the California Education Code stating, ―Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the
144
minds of the pupils the principles of morality…and to instruct them in manners and
morals‖ (Section 233.5). Along with state regulating policies, school district Board
policies also include a clause for crimes of ―moral turpitude.‖ These codes, enforced,
should regulate unwarranted actions of employees without restricting social media use.
Key Findings from RQ2: Supporting/Hindering Factors of Social Media Policy
The same factors that support social media policy development also hinder it;
personal/school liabilities are a significant factor. Schools have aimed to put policy in
place that will protect their interests in case of lawsuit. As social media is such a
ubiquitous tool, it is difficult for school personnel to be in control of the environment.
Schools are responsible for their students while on school grounds and during school
functions, and the school is somewhat liable for their actions—and that of other
stakeholders acting on behalf of the school. The most encompassing way to assure non-
liability is to issue policy stating what stakeholders should do to ensure safety, and what
the school district will not be liable for, when policy has been outlined. Policy, by
definition, is a proposed or adopted principle of action. Schools have to take action
behind stakeholder misuse of social media--before they are included in a lawsuit.
In August 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarified an
earlier ruling that led to widespread blocking of social media networks by school districts
receiving discounted Internet access through federal E-Rate dollars. According to the
ruling, ―Although it is possible that certain individual Facebook or MySpace pages could
potentially contain material harmful to minors, we do not find that these websites are per
se harmful to minors or fall into one of the categories that schools and libraries must
block‖ (CIPA 49.17). By clarifying that schools can allow access to social media
145
websites without violating the Children‘s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and risk losing
E-Rate dollars for telecommunications, the FCC opened access to Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, and other top social media sites for instructional use. School officials have
until July 2012 to update their acceptable use policies to allow appropriate use of social
media networks at school. Schools must now show with more specificity how they are
teaching students to behave appropriately online, whether that interaction occurs at home
or at school. This includes cyber-bullying awareness, prevention, and intervention.
Allowing access to more social media networks, while still filtering out child
pornography, obscene images, and other material considered harmful to minors,
represents both a new opportunity and a challenge for teachers, principals, school boards,
and school IT professionals. Although the notion of controlled access is likely an
oxymoron when it comes to social media and Internet access, that seems to be what the
FCC was intending in its latest ruling, which updates rules created before the emergence
of social media sites.
Key Findings from RQ3: Reconciliation of Social Media Policy Factors
There are four significant factors to be reconciled within present school district
social media policies: school/district policies, 21st Century learning initiatives,
ubiquitous social media use by teens, and personal/school liabilities. This finding
supports the literature review. Students and teachers want to use social media in the
classroom, but are discouraged by district filters and firewalls that prevent use (Evans,
2010; USDE, 2009). Districts want students to use 21
st
century tools, but want to protect
stakeholders from any unwarranted dangers (NCES, 2010). As stated in Glenbrook High
School District‘s Board Policy on Social Media, ―The Board of Education recognizes the
146
potential benefits for the use of social media and other online technologies by employees,
students and school-based groups. At the same time, the Board also recognizes the
potential impact on students, employees and the school community as well as the liability
that can occur if such resources are used improperly or not conscientiously managed‖
(GHSSB, 2011).
The social media dilemma refers to two countervailing forces in schools today:
the explosive growth in use of social media among young people and its potential for use
to enhance learning, versus the anti-social media use policies adopted at schools as a
defense against abuse and ultimate liability. School districts realize the duality of social
media use. Present school/district policies prove that many governance bodies know the
countervailing forces of ubiquitous social media use by teens and personal/school
liabilities. Social media has the promise to engage students, cut overhead, and become
the platform for professional development and collaboration. Social media also has the
power to wreak havoc on technical networks and in the lives of its users. With new FCC
rulings, there is an immediate need for school districts to address social media in
education. The reconciliation of these factors is explored within the identification of best
practices.
Key Findings from RQ4: Best Practices
There are two findings most relevant to promising practices: development, for
which there are four criteria, and implementation, for which there are three criteria.
Finding One: Development-Criteria One. Districts with a multi-tiered access
system found less violation of technology policy. Tiered access was found to be job-
level or grade-level, meaning that users were granted access to the network based on their
147
role in the system or their grade-appropriate level. That is, administrators might have
more access to some social media tools than teachers, and teachers than students.
Similarly, some school districts tiered grade level access, with higher grades having more
access to social media tools than lower grades. Leveled access allows certain users more
access than other stakeholder groups. If districts created a multi-tiered access system on
the network, this allowed varied stakeholder groups the right to use the social media tools
towards accomplishing learning objectives. Tiered network access systems are employed
in business, but no empirical research exists as to its effectiveness. Whether by grade
level or job role, research proves that these allowances provide for less overall incidences
of wrongdoing. This finding is important because it isolates the misuse to job role, grade
level, or other tiered access category. Further isolation would determine the bulk of
infractions and concerns within certain frames of tiered access category.
Finding One: Development-Criteria Two. School districts that had an
instructional focus for social media activities had less infractions of use. Examining
detail of social media violations led to discovery that when infractions were made, users
were not aiming to achieve stated instructional goals. If a school district includes
technology use of social media tools as a portion of their instructional plan, stakeholders
are more likely to learn its best use and use it towards the outlined goals. Presently,
many districts do not have instructional goals in place for the use of social media tools.
Education leaders should rethink the uses and rules surrounding the uses of social media
in schools. An instructional focus to harness the potential of social media to enhance
access, engagement, communication, and learning in a way that benefits students,
148
educators, and families, while giving students and teachers opportunities to understand
and practice responsible, ethical uses of social media.
The values of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) are ―to improve education
through a performance-based accountability system built around student test results‖
(Stecher & Kirby, 2004). The way these values are measured has caused districts to
maintain decision rights that focus resources away from technology leadership and
support. Although ―accountability should be first and foremost to those served than to
whom one reports,‖ (Urbanski & Nickolaou, 1997, p. 247) the language of accountability
at the federal and state levels has established the goal of schools as the raising of test
scores and this goal has trumped technology integration efforts. Accountability
relationships ignore technology‘s impact on instructional practices and student
motivation levels in achieving the standards, narrowing the curriculum to the point that
raising math and reading scores of all students has become the de facto goal of our
nation's schools (von Zastrow & Janc, 2004).
In part due to other instructional foci, ―Education leaders‘ relatively unfamiliarity
with social media is slowing the formulation of policy around this issue‖ (ACSD, 2011).
―Today‘s students…are far ahead of their teachers in computer literacy‖ (USDE, 2004),
so it would be interesting to see how districts decide to fold in these learning practices.
The data acknowledges that it is naïve to think that students raised online will respond to
school the same way as previous generations. One high school principal stated,
"Students are coming to us bored…disconnected. It's a challenge for us to figure out how
to leverage the tools inherent in the real-time Web" (personal communication, October
24, 2011), but it is necessary to keep this generation of students engaged and competitive.
149
Finding One: Development-Criteria Three. School districts ensuring social media
education prior to access had fewer infractions associated with social media. Users were
required to complete an educational awareness piece, with assessment, prior to receiving
network access. Commonly, permission to access the school network is presently
granted through the Acceptable Use Policy. When AUPs were first implemented in
schools, they came with education awareness forums explaining the personal
responsibilities that came with access. Parents and students were asked to sign an
agreement with the school, and that agreement listed the school‘s responsibilities in kind.
As Internet access in schools became common, awareness forums dissolved into the
federally-mandated written policy only, which many sign without awareness of what it
entails. Now that Internet technologies have introduced social media tools, which have
added new dimensions for learning, awareness forums need to be instituted to defray any
wrongdoing.
Awareness forums were employed with AUPs, but not widely with social media
policies. Awareness forums will educate the population on what social media are, their
capabilities in education, safety and privacy concerns, and possible misuses and their
consequences. These awareness forums, that can mirror those given for AUPs, are
important because they empower each stakeholder to be responsible for their own
actions. If safety is stressed, they also encourage stakeholders to report violating actions
of others.
Finding One: Development-Criteria Four. Stakeholder collaboration in the
process of design and development is essential. If school districts seek stakeholder
collaboration beginning with the design of social media policy, through development, it
150
will be easier to implement and monitor. Districts, thus far, have mainly developed
social media policy within administrative ranks. As expressed in focus groups, these
policies apply to all stakeholders, so have affected some stakeholder groups negatively.
Just as any other school reform, buy-in from all affected stakeholder groups is optimal.
Literature states that stakeholder buy-in is important (Laszlo & Cooperrider,
2010; Morse, 2010). Valuing the perspective of each stakeholder group increases buy-in.
Stakeholder buy-in is important because each person has a vested interest that needs to be
validated. Each member has a stake in the process, and when empowered, they are more
apt to monitor the direct of implementation of a process and participate in a feedback
cycle towards solutions.
Finding Two: Implementation-Criteria One. Districts that embrace and adapt
social media practices have more success with implementation than districts that block
access. Districts that have assessed the ubiquitous use of social media among teens and
adapted their teaching and learning practices to changing times have seen more success
with their stakeholders. Success is defined as implementation of social media tools with
low levels of incidence. More lenient and accepting policies encourage users to abide
within those policies and use social media tools towards shared end goals.
Recognizing the need to adapt practices and adopt social media as learning tools
is important. Until this point, most school districts blocked social media use, and have
dealt with varying levels of misuse that have become problematic. Ofsted (2010) found
that banning and blocking websites ―did not encourage the pupils to take responsibility
for their actions‖ (p. 8). Firewall blockage correlates to the need for proxies and shared
151
violations of access. School districts with more lenient policies encourage users to use
social media tools as appropriate learning tools.
"Being literate in 2011 means being digitally literate," states a high school
principal who has been using social media since the school opened in 2006 (personal
communication, November 10, 2011). There is a need for a systemic change—a
paradigm shift. ―We cannot assume that our schools will naturally drift towards using
technology effectively…Together, we can use technology to ensure that no child is left
behind‖ (Bush, 2002). Social media is presently, and will continue to, shape how
students learn (Dieterle, Dede, & Schrier, 2007), thus the need to adapt and embrace this
learning schema.
Finding Two: Implementation-Criteria Two. School districts found that
progress monitoring benefits end goals. Progress monitoring is dedicated attention to a
process towards program improvement. If each stakeholder group monitors the space for
which they are responsible, and notices how it affects others, these observations can
contribute to perspective-taking and progress. Reporting this progress would contribute
to the feedback cycle.
Finding Two: Implementation-Criteria Three. School districts found that the
early implementation of a feedback cycle benefits end goals. If stakeholders continually
offer feedback on the benefits and detriments of social media use, a communicative cycle
will be established towards continual improvement. Stakeholders would be responsible
for appropriately articulating how the social media policy affects their access and use.
Collectively, classes and schools should share similar feedback with the district. The
district, in turn, should share data regarding use, and, if not violating privacy,
152
consequences for infractions. The feedback should be a constant flow among all
stakeholder groups, to ensure open communications.
Research has expressed that school communities work better when all
stakeholders are active members (Laszlo & Cooperrider, 2010; Morse, 2010). Setting up
some type of feedback cycle (via meetings, survey, etc.) is necessary continued
improvement. June, a district technology teacher, shared, ―Our district collects data on
access points from user roles, but no one is looking at that data to see who is making
what type of infractions at what times,‖ (personal communication, August 31, 2011).
These actions echoed through other study respondents, proving that although
(automatically) monitored, no one is effectively using the data towards improvement.
Research Limitations
Document Analysis
When the researcher was unable to find the official Social Media Policy for a
school or district, the process of discovery became dependent upon stakeholder inclusion.
Some webmasters were able to locate the social media policy, and some Board
secretaries were not. Some Board members answered phone and e-mail queries; some
did not. Discovery may have influenced the number of social media policies to compare
and contrast, but predominant findings would have remained the same.
Respondent Sample
The initial goal was to interview teachers and administrators from districts that
had already developed a social media policy. Not enough teachers or administrators
153
answered the requests to join the study. Realizing that their process would mirror that of
other teachers and administrators dealing with the same issue, but without written
policies, the respondent sample was opened to all secondary school teachers and
administrators. Interview from the initially designated sample may have revealed other
and additional details regarding the impetus of social media policy and how
countervailing factors have been reconciled in the district‘s policies.
A preliminary study alluded that there would be a significant difference in
responses between teachers and administrators. Thus, the researcher had a goal to recruit
50% school administrators and 50% teachers. That was easy for interviews because of
the researcher‘s professional network; it was more challenging for a stratified random-
sampled survey. A t-test of the survey data showed no significant difference in teacher
and administrator response. Administrator response balanced teacher response within
interview and focus group.
Interview
Synchronous. Due to geographical constraints, willing participants for the
interview agreed to do so via telephone or webconference. Those interviewed via
webconference may have already had a bias towards the benefits of social media. In
telephone conference, some affective cues may have been missed, but respondent tone
and pauses were noted. Those interviewed face-to-face fed off of the researcher‘s
affective cues to expound upon or close a topic.
Asynchronous. Due to time conflicts with the first school of contact, interview
questions were transcribed into a Google form and the link sent out via e-mail. Affective
cues were missed altogether for those participating in the interview asynchronously. The
154
researcher then made a point to follow up with the respondents in a synchronous manner.
Those interviewed asynchronously seemed to give more reflective and in-depth
responses, but were unavailable for follow-up.
Focus Group
Discussion Board. One of the greatest challenges of setting up a discussion
board to facilitate a discussion group was choice of a simple interactive interface that
would not further confound the process. The challenge was choosing a forum that would
allow access easy enough for participants not to think it was too cumbersome, yet filter
out participants who were neither secondary school teachers nor administrators. The
ubiquitous use of Facebook and Twitter begged use of their tools, but filtering was a
concern. The researcher settled upon the most popular education alternative of
Facebook, The Ning.
The online forum used for data collection, The Ning, proved prohibitive to
respondent efforts. E-mailed feedback from online respondents confirmed that an online
means of data collection proved cumbersome. Clicking a link within an e-mail that
would send someone directly to a discussion board in which they could both view and
comment would have been the best case scenario. However, there would be no control
for respondent roles, as direct e-mails could be sent to other persons, not befitting the
criteria for the study. Thus, login was necessary.
To maintain fidelity of the sample, once in receipt of an invitation, participants
had to register with their username, job title, and school/district of employ. They then
had to wait for approval in order to post to the discussion board. According to oral
discussions with 50% of the respondents, this lag was due to forgetfulness of the
155
impending task, versus non-responsiveness. Ninety-nine percent of respondents needed
reminders to post. Reminders were sent via e-mail on a weekly basis until members
posted to the forum.
Asynchronous. At the technology conference, the researcher attempted to
conduct two focus groups. The face-to-face was quickly foiled, as the researcher realized
she could not recruit survey participants, conduct a face-to-face focus group, and invite
participants to Chalk Talk at the same time. As Chalk Talk is designed to be a silent yet
synchronous activity, the modification did not work out as well as planned, as the activity
was held during lunch, inviting participants to answer the Chalk Talk as they passed by.
Face-to-Face. Face-to-face interviews, as opposed to phone interviews, proved
to be a better mode of interaction. Respondents reacted from the researcher‘s silence or
expressions, and affective cues were noted for later inquiry.
Survey
The survey was distributed via link in three different venues: social media
postings, technology conferences, and via e-mail to colleagues. It was believed that
social media postings would garner enough participation because of the quickly
interactive nature of thematic blogging. The same thought was behind distributing the
link at a technology conference, as interest was already established by theme. However,
neither venue proved as gainful as direct e-mail.
Implications for Practice and Policy
This study informs the practice of professionals in four areas: classroom teachers,
education administrators, legislators, and technologists. Each stakeholder group has
156
vested perspective to add to the discussion. Classroom teachers want to know the best
ways to use social media in their content area, but social media use has to first be allowed
within district policies. Education administrators have long dealt with the liabilities
associated with social media infractions and have not focused on the instructional value.
This study validates the interests of teachers and administrators in the
development and implementation of social media policy. As educators discover where
practice meets policy, legislators already prevailed with obstructions of social media use
in K-12 education for safety, privacy and liability reasons. This study informs legislators
that a system of education awareness, and rollout with monitoring and a cycle of
feedback prove to serve the needs of our students. As technologists design social media
software, this study informs them to be cognizant of ubiquitous teen use and the possible
impact of social media within education. Safety net designs for education (e.g., private
groups, verified locale before posting, removal of privacy information, etc.) would
persuade educators to use these technologies for instruction. Policymakers and
practitioners can reference the conceptual framework for developing social media policy
in the K-12 environment. Based on Dawson‘s Social Media Strategy Framework (2010),
Petersen‘s IT Policies Framework (2004), and the Scott and Vass (1994) ―Seven Ps‖
Model (1994), this framework incorporates proven best practices with the findings from
this study into a workable model for K-12 education. This conceptual framework should
be considered in the design, development, and implementation of social media policy.
Recommendations for Future Research
There are four recommended areas for future research: advancing a social media
agenda, making generational connections, attending to social media stakeholders, and
157
discovering effective interaction with social media tools. Collectively, there are thirteen
recommendations for future research within these topics. Each topic is aligned to a
research questions within this study and further research within these areas would help
practitioners further understand the impact of social media in education. Each area of
research is presented below with discussion.
Advancing a Social Media Agenda. Aligned to research question one, this topic
has four recommendations for future research: analyzing data analysis of (mis)use,
examining the cost-effectiveness of social media tools, exploring rigor, relevance, and
relationship through social media, and developing a ―best practices‖ portal for social
media use in education. These four areas are discussed below.
Data analysis of social media (mis)use is an area for future research. All
interactions within this study produced data in which stakeholders misused or abused
social media to some extent, yet no district officials were able to describe what was being
done with the data collected on stakeholder infractions of social media policy. It would
be interesting discover uses for this data in three factions. What social media interactions
are categorized as infractions? To what extent are infractions acknowledged and
addressed? To what extent are consequences similar—within the same district, and
district-to-district comparatively?
An area researchers have started to look into is the cost-effectiveness of web 2.0
tools (Berk, 2009). Improving learning and reducing cost through social media is a new
model for online learning. Some districts are enjoying a cost-savings due to their efforts
to ―go green‖ through the cloud. Further case studies, on the classroom, school site, and
158
district level would be beneficial in these budget-strapped times. How can using the
cloud save schools time, money and resources?
Daggett (2005) has already done research on developing rigor, relevance, and
relationship through social media, but this foundation of education needs further study.
The inverted classroom has presented much research (Carlisle, 2010; Gannod, 2007) on
the benefits of supplemental learning through technology outside of the classroom and
deeper learning through labs and discussion during class time. Social media tools lend
themselves to this model. How can social media tools be effectively used for the
development of rigor, relevance, and relationship for class content?
There are many websites touting habits of practice. The development of a ―best
practices‖ portal for instructional technology divisions across districts would be ideal for
schools. These portals are seen in county and state education technology sites, but they
do not tout best practices of innovative technologies inclusive of social media. Whenever
learning communities need an answer, they turn to Google. Google has almost 11
million hits for ―best practices in social media integration in a school environment.‖
Researchers would be able to narrow this into categories beneficial for the academe.
How can one portal of findings related to best practices with social media, with links to
case studies, further research and influence practice?
Making Generational Connections. Aligned to research questions two and
three, this topic has two areas for future research: examining the digital disconnect
between students and teachers and connecting informal and formal learning experiences
in the age of participatory media. These two areas for research are discussed below.
159
Noting the research on neomillenial learning styles, there is an obvious digital
disconnect and a need for further research in this area. There is a widening gap between
Internet-savvy students and their schools, as represented by teachers. Because social
media integration into the formal learning environment is directly dependent upon the
classroom teacher, it behooves researchers to discover how best to decrease the widening
knowledge gap between today‘s students and their digital immigrant and digital alien
teachers (Prensky, 2001). Whether professional development models are considered, or
curriculum design, the digital generation gap needs to be researched, with the factors that
most affect it. How can the digital achievement gap between teachers and their students
be closed?
The ubiquitous use of social media by teens has been noted (Rainie, 2009), but
what yet has been examined is how these learning experiences translate in the formal
learning environment of school. In the age of participatory media, how well are learning
experiences connected by social media from informal to formal learning environments?
Attending to Social Media Stakeholders. Aligned to research questions two
and three, this topic has two areas for future research: exploring human resource issues
associated with social media and examining the role of social media in the development
of school culture.
Considering the human resource issues associated with social media and
educators is another area for future research. Within data collection for this study, the
researcher advanced an untapped wellspring directly related to human resources and
social media: teachers and inappropriate associations with students. Most state education
codes include a moral turpitude clause stating, ―Each teacher shall endeavor to impress
160
upon the minds of the pupils the principles of morality…and to instruct them in manners
and morals.‖ (California Education Code, Section 233.5). This phrase has been
interpreted to mean that everything from teachers may not wear bikinis on the beach to
teachers are not able to attend a weekend party –on their own time (Olson, Clough,
Penning, 2009). Many recent actions have been due to a teacher‘s (mis)use of social
media tools. Educators are losing their jobs for varied interpretations of this Education
Code. To what extent have the use of social media tools contributed to positive or
negative student-teacher interaction?
Another area researchers have started to study is the role of social media in social
networks amongst professional staff. Research has proven that other portions of a school
(e.g., curriculum, instruction, assessment), cannot be addressed without first addressing
the school culture (Lohrmann, Vamos, & Yeung, 2011; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).
As schools are still trying to decide how to best host professional development, design
release time, and promote their schools as learning organizations, it would behoove
researchers to look into this topic. What is the role of social media, specifically social
networks, and its impact upon a school‘s culture?
Discovering Effective Interaction with Social Media Tools. Aligned to
research question four, this topic has five areas for future research: examining the
pro/reactive value of stakeholder input, measuring the effectiveness of multi-tiered access
systems, analyzing a social media implementation case study, comparing technology-
themed schools and their use of social media with regular comprehensive schools, and
examining the implementation of social media tools with effective teachers.
161
Considering the proactive and reactive value of stakeholder input in policy
development is a recommendation for future research. The value of stakeholder input is
well documented (Laszlo & Cooperrider, 2010; Morse, 2010). Thus far, social media
policies have mainly been designed exclusively by district administrators and School
Board members. Reactive value is what is being documented as social media policy
develops in the K-12 arena. If stakeholder input was solicited prior to policy
implementation, there would a proactive approach to policy development. Each
professional role has a different perspective for use and perspective-taking (Todd,
Galinsky & Bodenhausen, 2012) is sure to add value. What impact would stakeholder
perspective have upon the development of social media policy?
The impact of multi-tiered access is also a recommendation for future research.
Multi-tiered access was a best practices finding of the study. If there were varied levels
of access within an educational system, the first consideration would be the best way to
separate access levels and how much each level would be permitted to access. This study
revealed that some districts have granted access by grade level; others have granted
access by job role. In which ways could education benefit from research ascertaining
how differentiating roles can be used, and how those levels of access impact instruction?
Due to the need to create and implement a social media policy in each federally-
funded district, case studies of social media policy implementation in a school/district
would be helpful. It would be worthwhile to districts still in the throes of policy
development to have full case studies of social media policy design, development, and
implementation. Perspective from Board members, Information and Instructional
Technology professionals, administrators, legal, teachers, students, and parents would be
162
helpful. Schools would then be able to tailor their policies and processes with
information that could assist their unique school cultures. What are the best practices to
the formulation of a social media policy in a K-12 district?
Patton (2002) has used extreme case sampling to examine schools with touted
uses of education technology. The trend over the past few years has been to create
thematic small learning communities. It would benefit the academe to discover what
differentiates a technology-themed school from the traditional comprehensive school or
another themed school, and if and how they are using technology in innovative and
efficient ways. Does the performance at a technology-themed school infusing social
media differ from the performance at a non-technology focused school? If other schools
are not focusing on technology, how are these schools using Web 2.0 tools to increase
students‘ 21
st
century skills?
Understanding how effective teachers use social media tools would also be a
helpful study. Within the context of this study, teachers expressed the need for more
models of effective content-based uses. Exploring social media uses with effective
teachers would not only answer a present need, but lay the foundation for future practice.
Research has shown that some social media tools lend themselves more to some subjects
(e.g., spreadsheets for math), but what is to be said about the English teacher who uses
Google Earth, commonly referred to as a social studies tool, to create a Lit Trip
(Cavanaugh & Burg, 2011)? Teaching styles vary and they have been proven to be the
most impactful on student achievement (Aaronson, Borrow & Sander, 2007; Weisberg,
Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2005). Thus, what type of social media is used by
163
successful teachers, and how do they use it towards the fulfillment of instructional
objectives?
Conclusion
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Report and Order on
August 11, 2011, adding the statutory language to existing Commission Rules
implementing the Children‘s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) for schools. Some aspects
of the FCC Order represent an expansive development of federal policy but also present
new challenges. In particular, by July 2012, schools receiving E-Rate funding for
Internet access and internal connections must certify that they have updated their Internet
safety policy to include provisions about educating minors about appropriate on-line
behavior. The FCC requires local determination of what matters are ―inappropriate for
minors,‖ and what defines ―social networking‖ or ―cyberbullying,‖ but there is definite
reference to social media.
Of particular significance, the FCC responds to the concern raised by many
schools that threat of violation of CIPA prevents access to Facebook, MySpace, and other
social media sites. This in turn hinders students‘ educational experience. Historically,
schools block access to these sites for what this study found to be liability‘s sake.
Possibly anticipating issues raised by schools about the impeding interpretation of
CIPA‘s requirements, the FCC now re-interprets CIPA in a significantly different
fashion:
Although it is possible that certain individual Facebook or MySpace pages
could potentially contain material harmful to minors, we do not find that
these websites are per se ―harmful to minors‖ or fall into one of the
categories that schools and libraries must block… Declaring such sites
categorically harmful to minors would be inconsistent with the Protecting
Children in the Twenty-First Century Act‘s focus on ―educating minors
164
about appropriate on-line behavior, including interacting with other
individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms, and
cyberbullying awareness and response.‖ (49.17)
As shared by Leitch (2011), ―Now that social media is everywhere, the
applicability of CIPA‘s protection mandate wholesale to social media sites poses an
impediment rather than facilitating education and guidance on student use of social
media.‖ It should be noted that, although students can be allowed access to social media,
there is no requirement that students must be allowed access, or provided access without
any sort of limitation. Thus, the suggestions from respondents in this study should be
referenced and benchmarked for easier design, development, and implementation of
social media policy.

165
REFERENCES
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L. and Sander, W. (January 2007). Journal of Labor Economics,
25(1), p. 95-135.
ASCD, (2011). Students like social media. Retrieved December 19, 2011 from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/policypriorities/pp_v17n04_infographic
_pdf.pdf
Ahn, J. (2010). The influence of social networking sites on high school students‘ social
and academic development. Retrieved July 5, 2011 from
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/search/controller/view/usctheses-
m3188.html?x=1295854490271
Anderson, R.E. and Dexter, S.L. (2000). School technology leadership: Incidence and
impact. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey, Report #6.
Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of
California, Irvine and University of Minnesota.
Anderson, R.E. and Dexter, S.L. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical
investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly,
41(1), pp. 49-82.
Armstrong, J. and Franklin, T. (2008). A review of current and developing international
practice in the use of social networking (Web 2.0) in higher education‖, a report
commissioned by the Committee of Enquiry into the Changing Learner
Experience, Retrieved June 3, 2011 from www.franklin-consulting.co.uk/
Art & Science Group. (2009). Student poll. The College Board and Art & Science
Group, LLC. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from
http://www.artsci.com/studentpoll/v7n2/
Augar, N., Raitman, R. and Zhou. W. (2004, December 5-8). Teaching and learning
online with wikis, In Proceedings of the ASCILITE'04, Perth, Australia.
Baird, B. and Fisher, J.M. (2006). Neomillenial user experience design strategies:
Utilizing social networking media to support ―always on‖ learning styles.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), pp. 5-32.
Bebell, M., Russell, D. and O‘Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers‘ technology uses:
Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 37(1), pp. 45-64.
Becker, H.J. (2000, Autumn -Winter). Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to
and use of computer technology. Children and Computer Technology, The
Future of Children, 10(2), pp. 44-75.
166
Becker, H. J., and Anderson, R. E. (1998). Teaching, learning and computing survey.
Retrieved June 11, 2011 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/
Beeterm, J.E., Circuit Judge, (2011, August 26). Order Entering Preliminary Injunction
in Missouri State Teachers Association, et al. v. State of Missouri, et al. Case No.:
11AC-CC00553, Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri.
Berk, R. A. (2003). Professors are from Mars®, Students are from Snickers®. Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing.
Berk, R. A. (2009). Teaching strategies for the net generation. Transformative Dialogues:
Teaching & Learning Journal, 3(2), pp. 1–23.
Berk, R. A. (2010). How do you leverage the latest technologies, including Web 2.0
tools, in your classroom? International Journal of Technology in Teaching and
Learning, 6(1), p. 1-1.
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O. (2001, May 17). "The Semantic Web".
Scientific American Magazine. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web&print=true.
Bertino, E. (n.d.). Overview of information security. CERIAS and CS &ECE
Departments. Purdue University. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from
homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~bhargav/cs526/security-1.ppt
Bonk, C.J. and King, K.S. (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner centered
technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2008, October). Social network sites: Definition, history,
and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), pp. 210-
230.
Brown, B. W. and Liedholm, C. E. (2002). Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in
Principles of Microeconomics? American Economics Review, 92, pp. 444-448.
Bush, G.W. (2002). The impact of no child left behind. Office of Education
Technology, USDE. Retrieved January 2, 2012 from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/theplan/edlite-
NCLB.html
California Education Code. (2012). Section 233.5. Retrieved January 14, 2012 from
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/civilrights/01CRhandbook/chapter6.php
California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP). (2009). Social networking policies.
California Technology Assistance Project.
http://www.myctap.org/index.php/cybersafety-home/72-social-networking-
policies
167
Carlisle, M.C. (2010). Using YouTube to enhance student class preparation in an introductory
Java course. Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer
science education.
Carter, K. (1998). How to teach students the rules of the online road. Technology &
Learning, (18) 7, 18-20, 22.
Cavanaugh, C.S. (2001). The Effectiveness of Interactive Distance Education
Technologies in K-12 Learning: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of
Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73-88.
Cavanaugh, T.W. & Burg, J. (2011). Bookmapping lit trips and beyond. Retrieved April
16, 2012 from http://www.cnets.iste.org/images/excerpts/BOOMAP-excerpt.pdf.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of
Educational Research, 43, pp. 445–459.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42(2), pp. 21–29.
Coffman, T. and Klinger, M.B. (2007). Utilizing virtual worlds in education: The
implications for practice. International Journal of Social Science, 2(1), pp. 29-
33.
Colaric, S. and Jonassen, D. (2001). Information equals knowledge, searching equals
learning, and hyperlinking is good instruction: myths about learning from the
World Wide Web. Computers in the Schools, 17(3-4), pp. 159-169.
Cormode, G. and Krishnamurthy, B. (2008, February 13). Key differences between web
1.0 and web 2.0. AT&T Labs–Research.
Daggett, W.R. (2005) Achieving academic excellence through rigor and relevance.
Retrieved September 2, 2011 from
http://www.dupage.k12.il.us/pdf/121306%20Achieving%20Academic%20Excell
ence%20through%20Rigor%20and%20Relevance.pdf
Davidson County School Board. (2009). Board policy 4.28: Personnel internet use.
Retrieved August 10, 2011 from
Davis, R. (2007). A Web 2.0 education. University of Edinburgh. Retrieved June 3,
2011 from www.education.ed.ac.uk/e-
learning/gallery/davis_web2education.html#%5B%5BStart%20Here%5D%5D
Dawley, L. (2009). Social network knowledge construction: emerging virtual world
pedagogy, On the Horizon, 17(2), pp.109 -121.
168
Dede, C. (in press). Technology-based and distance learning strategies. The condition of
education in rural schools. Washington, DC: Center for Rural Education, U.S.
Department of Education.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly,
28(1), pp. 7–12.
Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology
in teaching and learning. International Handbook of Information Technology in
Primary and Secondary Education, (20)1, pp. 43-62.
Dede, C., Whitehouse,P., L‘Bahy, T.B. (2002). Designing and studying learning
experiences that use multiple interactive media to bridge distance and time.
Chapter in Distance Education and Distributed Learning, Vrasidas, C. and Glass,
G.V. (eds.).
Delwiche, A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) in the new media
classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (3), 160-172.
Dieterle, E., Dede, C. and Schrier, K. (2007). ―Neomillennial‖ learning styles progated
by wireless handheld devices. Idea Group, Inc.
Dinevski, D. and Kokol, P. (2011). ICT and Lifelong Learning. European Journal of
Open, Distance, and E-Learning. Retrieved July 9, 2011 from
http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=2&article=2
37
Duffy, P.D. and Bruns, A. (2006) The Use of Blogs, Wikis and RSS in Education: A
Conversation of Possibilities. In Online Learning and Teaching Conference 2006,
26 Sep. 2006, Brisbane.
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C. and Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of
immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning.
Journal of Science and Education Technology, 18, pp. 7-22.
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially bounded online social
networks and social capital: The role of facebook. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), June 19-23,
2006 in Dresden, Germany.
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(4).
Evans, J. (2010). Project tomorrow: Speak-up 2010 national findings. Congressional
briefing.
169
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2009). Children‘s internet protection act.
Retrieved October 29, 2010 from
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2011). Schools and libraries universal
service support mechanism: A national broadband plan for our future. Retrieved
January 2, 2012 from
ftp://ftp.fcc.gov/pub/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0819/FCC-11-
125A1.txt
Ferdig, R. M. and Trammell, K. D. (2008, January 8). Content Delivery in 'Blogsphere',
retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/16626.
Ferguson, J. and Tryjankowski, A. (2009). Online Versus Face-to-face Learning:
Looking at Modes of Instruction in Master's-level Courses. Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 33(3), pp. 219-228.
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K.J. and Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A report on the
nation's youth. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved
March 3, 2011 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications
Fisch, K. and McLeod, S. (2009). Did you know? Shift Happens. XPlane. Retrieved
February 27, 2011 from http://shifthappens.wikispaces.com/
Flanagan, L. and Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first
century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2).
Flowers, B. and Rakes, G. (2000). Analyses of acceptable use policies regarding the
Internet in selected K-12 schools. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 32(3), pp. 351-365.
Francis Howell School District. (2009). Social media guidelines for schools. Retrieved
August 7, 2011 from
http://socialmediaguidelines.pbworks.com/w/page/17050879/FrontPage
Gannod, G.C. (2007). WIP: Using podcasting in an inverted classroom. Presented at
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
Gibson, D., Aldrich, C. and Prensky, M. (2007). Games and simulations in online
leaning. Idea Group: USA.
Goodstein, A. (2007). Totally wired: What teens and tweens are really doing online. St.
Martin‘s Griffin Reading Group Discussion Guide. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from
http://totallywired.ypulse.com/images/tw_discussion_guide.pdf
Greenberg, E.H. and Weber, K. (2008). Generation we: How millennial youth are taking
over america and changing our world forever. Pachatusan: Emeryville, CA.
170
Harrison Group. (2006). VNU teen trend report. VNU Business Media.
Hemmi, A. Bayne, S. and Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social
technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 25(1),
pp. 19-30.
Higher Education Research Institute (H.E.R.I.). (n.d.). CIRP surveys and services.
Graduate School of Education & Information Studies at the University of
California, Los Angeles. Retrieved January 3, 2011 from
http://www.heri.ucla.edu/herisurveys.php
Hilton, S., Kaplan, J., Hooks, T., Harrell, L., Fischer,D., and Sorto, M.A. (2009).
Collaborative Projects in Statistics Education. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from
http://www.causeweb.org/uscots/uscots09/cluster/
Hobbs, R. (2004, September). A review of school-based initiatives in media literacy
education. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), pp. 42-59.
Huffaker, D. (2006). Teen blogs exposed: The private lives of teens made public. Paper
presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
in St. Louis, MO., February 16-19.
Huffaker, D.A. and Calvert, S.L. (2006, June). Gender, identity, and language use in
teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2).
Humbach, J. (2009). ―Sexting‖ and the first amendment. Pace Law Faculty Publications,
37, 432-486.
International Society for Technology Education (ISTE). (2009). National education
technology standards for administrators. Washington, D.C.: ISTE.
International Society for Technology Education (ISTE). (2007). National education
technology standards for teachers. Washington, D.C.: ISTE.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of a participatory culture: Media
education for the 21
st
century. MIT Press.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R. and Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report.
Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Jones, R. M. (2003). Local and national ICT policies. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.),
Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 163–
194). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Jones, C.G. (2011). Computer hackers on the cul-de-sac: MySpace suicide indictment
under the computer fraud and abuse act sets dangerous precedent. Widener Law
Review, 17, pp. 261-287.
171
Junco, R. and Mastrodicasa, J. (2007). Connecting to the Net. Generation: What higher
education professionals need to know about today's students. NASPA.
Kaiser Family Foundation, (2004). Media multi-tasking: Changing the amount and
nature of young people‘s media use. Retrieved April 26, 2011 from
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia030905nr.cfm
Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2010, January). Users of the world, unite! The challenges
and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), pp. 59-68.
Kelehear, Z. (2005). When email goes bad: be sure that your AUP cover staff as well as
students. American School Board Journal, January: 32-34.
Kelsey, C. M. (2007). Generation MySpace: Helping Your Teen Survive Online
Adolescence. New York, NY: Marlow & Company.
Kearsley, G. and Lynch, W. (1994). Educational Leadership in the Age of Technology:
The New Skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Education Technology Publications.
Kinnaman, D. (2003). Critiquing acceptable use policies. Retrieved January 3, 2011from
http://www.io.com/~kinnaman/aupessay.html
Kipling, R. (1902). Just so stories. Leipzig, Bernhard and Tauchnitz.
Klaus, J.N. (2011). School and technology: The schools‘ responses to today‘s
technological trends. University of Akron. Retrieved May 28, 2011 from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-
pdf.cgi/Klaus%20Jennifer%20Noel.pdf?akron1302570531
Kozloski, K.C. (2006). Principal leadership for technology integration: a study of
principal technology leadership. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from
http://dspace.library.drexel.edu/handle/1860/886
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, pp.
179–212.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2), pp. 7–19.
Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., Novak, J., & Tomkins, A. (2005). On the bursty evolution of
blogspace. World Wide Web, 8(2), 159-178.

172
Laszlo,C. & Cooperrider, D.L. (2010). Creating sustainable value: A strength-based
whole system approach, in Tojo Thatchenkery, David L. Cooperrider, Michel
Avital (ed.) Positive Design and Appreciative Construction: From Sustainable
Development to Sustainable Value (Advances in Appreciative Inquiry, Volume 3),
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.17-33
Laughton, P.A. (2008). Hierarchical analysis of acceptable use policies. SA Journal of
Information Management, 10(4).
LAUSD. (2002). Instructional technology plan. Retrieved July 21, 2011 from
www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/techplan/LAUSDITP2K2.pdf
Leitch, C. (2011). The FCC unlocks social media for students. IKeepSafe. Retrieved
April 6, 2012 from http://www.ikeepsafe.org/educational-issues/the-fcc-unlocks-
social-media-for-students/
Leslie, S. and Landon, B. (2007). Social software for learning: what is it, why use it?
Report, The Observatory of Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved June 3, 2011
from www.obhe.ac.uk/documents/view_details?id
Lenhart, A., Ling, R, Campbell, S. and Purcell, K. (2010). Social media and mobile
internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet and American Life
Project. Retrieved December 21, 2010 from
http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/idahoStatePreventionConf2011/IPC%202011%20P
resentations/Using%20Social%20Media/PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_Adults_
Report_Final_with_toplines.pdf
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., and Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are
leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Pew Internet and
American Life Project. Retrieved February 13, 2011 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Teens_Tech_July20
05web.pdf.pdf
Lenhart, A., Madden, M. and Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media: An overview.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. April 10, 2009 workshop presentation at
the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A. & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile
internet use among teens and young adults. Retrieved February 19, 2011 from
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx
Li, Q. (2007, July). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools.
Computers and Human Behavior, 23(4), pp. 1777-1791.
Lockyer, L. and Patterson, J. (2008). Integrating social networking technologies in
education: A case study of a formal learning environment. Eighth IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. DOI Bookmark:
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICALT.2008.67
173
Lohrmann, D., Vamos, S. and Yeung, P. (2011). Creating a healthy school using the
healthy school report card: An ASCD action tool. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Lorenzo, G., and Dziuban, C. (2006, September). Ensuring the net generation is net
savvy (ELI Paper 2). EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 1–19.
Martin, P.Y., and Turner, B.A.. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141.
Media Awareness Network. (2003). Acceptable use policies for internet use. Retrieved
March 8, 2011 from http://www.media-
awareness.ca/english/resources/special_initiatives/wa_resources/wa_teachers/bac
kgrounders/acceptable_use.cfm
Miller, J. (n.d.). Intellectual freedom and the internet: Developing acceptable use
policies. Journal of the Canadian Association for School Libraries, 23(3).
Minnetonka Public School Board. (2010). Policy for employee use of social media.
Retrieved August 10, 2011 from
http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/policies/470.pdf
Mitchell, K.J., Wolak, J. and Finkelhor, D. (2008, February). Are blogs putting youth at
risk for online sexual solicitation or harassment? Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(2),
pp. 277-294.
Moore, G.E. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics
Magazine. pp. 4. Retrieved May 22, 2011 from
ftp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-
Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf.
Morse, R.S. (2010). Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create
public value. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), pp. 231–245.
Muscari, M. E. (2009). Sexting: New technology, old problem. Medscape Public Health
and Prevention Retrieved May 29, 2011 from
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/702078.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). Public-use data files and
documentation (FRSS 93): Educational technology in public school districts, fall
2008. Retrieved February 27, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). Common core of data.
Retrieved September 3, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sdds/index.aspx.
National School Reform Faculty. (n.d.) NSRF Materials: Protocols. Retrieved June 23,
2011 from http://www.nsrfharmony.org/protocol/index.html
174
National Science Foundation. (2006). Informal science education program solicitation
(NSF 06-520). Retrieved June 2, 2011 from
www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06520/nsf06520.htm
Neal, C. W. (2007). MySpace for Moms and Dads. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Nielsen. (2010). Mobile youth around the world: Who‘s paying for their talking and
texting? The Nielson Company. Retrieved May 11, 2011 from
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/mobile-youth-around-the-world-whos-
paying-for-their-talking-and-texting/
Oblinger, D. (2003, July-August). Boomers, gen-xers, and millennials: Understanding
the "New Students." EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), p. 36-45.
Oblinger, D. (2004). The Next Generation of Educational Engagement. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education, 2004 (8). Special Issue on the Educational
Semantic Web.
Oblinger, D. (2008). Growing up with Google: What it means to education. Emerging
technologies for learning.
Oblinger, D., & Hawkins, B.L. (2006). The myth about student competency.
EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2). Retrieved July 12, 2010 from
http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm06/erm0627.asp.
Oblinger, D.G. and Oblinger, J.L. (2005). Educating the net generation. EDUCASE.
Retrieved January 12, 2011 from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted). (2010). The
safe use of new technologies. Royal Exchange Buildings, Manchester, England.
Olson, J., Clough, M., Penning, K. (2009). Prospective elementary teachers gone wild?
An analysis of Facebook self-portrayals and expected dispositions of preservice
elementary teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
9(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss4/general/article1.cfm
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007) Participative
web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis, and social networking,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
O‘Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software. Retrieved May 7, 2011 from
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-
20.html
Owen, S. and Moyle, K. (2008) Students‘ expectations about learning with technologies:
A literature review. University of Canberra.
175
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Precup, L., O'Sullivan, D., Cormican, K. and Dooley, L. (2006). Virtual team
environment for collaborative research projects. International Journal of
Innovation and Learning, 3(1), pp. 77-94.
Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, MCB
University Press, 9(5).
Project Tomorrow. (2011). Learning in the 21st century: Taking it mobile! Blackboard
K-12. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from
http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/MobileLearningReport_2010.html
Ractham, P. and Zhang, X. (2006, April 13-15). Podcasting in academia: A new
knowledge management paradigm within academic settings, In Proceedings of
the SIGMISCPR’06, Claremont, CA.
Rainie, L. (2009). Networked learners. Presentation at Michigan Virtual University,
Michigan State University. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Reno, J. (1999). Cyberstalking: A new challenge for law enforcement and industry.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for
classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Saeed, N. and Yang, Y. (2008). IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies. ICALT '08, pp. 967-971.
Sax, L.J., Ceja, M.C. and Terenishi, R.T. (2001). Technological preparedness among
entering freshmen: The role of race, class, and gender. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 24(4), pp. 363-383.
Scott, V. and Voss, R. (1994). Ethics and the 7 'P's of computing use policies. Ethics in
Computing Age: 61-67.
Scrogan, L. (2011). AUPs in a web 2.0 world. EdTech Magazine. Retrieved February
27, 2011 from http://www.edtechmag.com/k12/issues/august-september-
2007/aups-in-a-web-2.0.html
Shen, J. and Eder, L.B. (2009). Intentions to use virtual worlds for education. Journal of
Information Systems Education, 20(2), pp. 225-233.
Simpson, M. (2008, October). Rights watch: No more classroom paparazzi! NEA Today.
23
176
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, O., & Wisher, R. (2006). The Comparative
Effectiveness of Web-based and Classroom Instruction: A Meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 59(3), pp. 623-664.
Sirkemaa, S. (2011). Information technology in developing a meta-learning
environment. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning. Retrieved
July 9, 2011 from
http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=2&article=2
37
So, H-J. and Brush, T.A.. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social
presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and
critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), pp. 318-336.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B., and Lampe, C. (2008, November-December). Social capital,
self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), pp. 434-445.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: A historical perspective. Cambridge handbook of the learning.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Retrieved November 14, 2005, from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Todd, A.R., Galinsky, A.D. & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2012). Perspective taking
undermines stereotype maintenance processes: Evidence from social memory,
behavior explanation, and information solicitation. Social Cognition, 30(1), pp.
94–108.
Trustees of the California State University. (2007). PERB Dec. No.1926-H, 188 CPER
103.
Tynes, B.M. (2007). Internet safety gone wild? Sacrificing the educational and
psychosocial benefits of online social environments. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 22(6), pp. 575-584.
United States Department of Education (USDE). (n.d.). Model acceptable use policy.
Information Technology Resources in the Schools. Retrieved October 29, 2010
from http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/rules/acceptableUsePolicy.htm
177
United States Department of Education (USDE). (2004). Toward a new golden age in
american education: How the internet, the law and today's students are
revolutionizing expectations. National Technology Plan. Washington, D.C.:
Office of Education Technology.
United States Department of Education (USDE). (2010). Learning Powered by
Technology. National Technology Plan. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education
Technology.
United States Department of Education (USDE). (2011). Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html
Urbanski, A. and Nickolaou, M.B. (1997). Reflections on teachers as leaders.
Educational Policy, 11(2), pp. 243-254.
Virginia Department of Education. (2011). Proposed Guidelines for the Prevention of
Sexual Misconduct & Abuse in Virginia Public Schools. Retrieved August 13,
2011 from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2011/01_jan/agenda_items/item_j.pdf
Waldron, N.L. and McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture
through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 20(1), p. 58-74.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., and Keeling, D. (2009, Oct). The widget effect:
Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher
effectiveness. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick
Review, 75(2), p 31-35.
Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Isla deDiaz, I., Miyata,
K. (2003). The social affordances of the internet for networked individualism.
Journal of Higher Education Conversation, 8(3).
Williams, J.B. and Jacobs, J.S. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in
the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
20(2), pp. 232-247.
Youngs, P. and King, M.B. (2002, December). Principal Leadership for Professional
Development to Build School Capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly,
38(5), pp. 643-670.

178
APPENDIX A: Sample: K-12 Social Media Policies

school / district State, City
Glastonbury School District CT, Glastonbury
St. Thomas Episcopal School TX, San Antonio
Virginia Department of Education VA
Bishop Lynch High School TX, Dallas
Mobile County Public Schools AL, Mobile
Murrieta Valley Unified School District CA, Murietta
West Hartford Public Schools CT, West Hartford
Baldwin-Woodville Area School District WI, Baldwin
Francis Howell School District MO, St. Charles
Westport Public Schools CT, Westport
Minidoka County School District ID, Rupert
Santa Rosa County School District FL, Pensacola
Coventry Public Schools RI, Coventry
Manatee School District FL, Manatee
Miami-Dade County Public Schools FL, Miami
Rockingham County Public School VA, Harrisonburg
West Bend Joint School District WI, West Bend
Hartford Union High School District WI, Hartford
Slinger School District WI, Slinger
Alamance-Burlington School System NC, Burlington
Davidson County Schools NC, Lexington
St. Henry District High School KY, Erlanger
Hudson High School of Learning Technologies NY, New York
Oxford Public Schools MA, Oxford
Glenbrook High School District IL, Glenview
WELD-RE4 School District CO, Windsor
Weymouth Public Schools MA, Weymouth
Arapahoe High School CO, Centennial
Goochland County Public Schools VA
Kennett Consolidated School District PA, Kennett Square
Laramie County School District #2 WY, Pine Bluffs
Maine School Administrative District #22 MA
St. Anne's School of Annapolis MD, Annapolis
Lee County Public Schools FL, Ft. Myers
Milford Public Schools CT, Milford
Village Christian Schools CA, Sun Valley
Minnetonka Public Schools #276 MN
Springfield Local School District OH, Holland
College Community School District IA, Cedar Rapids
Newton Public Schools KS, Newton
Mooresville Consolidated School Corporation IN, Mooresville
179
APPENDIX B: Document Analysis Tool

180
APPENDIX C: Qualitative Interview Guide
Name District
Title
1. What are the responsibilities of your position?
2. What topics do schools/districts need to address for the successful implementation of Web 2.0
(social media)?
3. From your frame of reference, please tell me about your school‘s/district‘s social media policies.
4. What is the school/district opinion of the advantages and disadvantages of social media
use/policy?
5. What are the (intended) areas of focus for your school‘s/district‘s social media activities (e.g.,
governance, curriculum, instruction, assessment, culture)?
a. How does the school‘s/district‘s operational plan support the vision for student learning
through social media tools?
b. How does the school‘s/district‘s instructional plan support the vision for student learning
through social media tools?
6. How are multiple stakeholders (i.e., students, teachers, parents, and staff) included in the process
of design, development and implementation?
7. What data sources are employed/will you employ for assessing the (mis)use of social media?
8. I will pose a few scenarios of social media use and ask you to respond to present and optimal
district response with social media policy.
 A student is taking inappropriate pictures of another student using a personal cell phone and
then electronically distributing those photos to friends. At the time the picture is taken, this
fictional high school student was attending an athletic event being hosted in another district.
(involving no school-owned systems but at a school-sponsored event)
 A student hosts an ―anti-gay‖ website on a private server and invites other students to join.
 A school club has begun an organized movement to clean the local beach. They are
recruiting student members through Facebook.
 A teacher has organized a pen pal program where students exchange messages with another
class online. Besides the classroom component, students may still correspond with these
persons outside of the formal setting.
 Students in a law-themed small school have the opportunity to participate in a Career Day
online. Lawyers, judges, law clerks, etc. will be available to chat online with students. These
are simultaneous live web connections.
 Journalism students are encouraged to RSS feed newswires to include in the school
newspaper. The filters on their school e-mail accounts have to be raised to allow this
curricular use. However, SPAM with inappropriate materials also seem to make it through
this filter setting.
9. How does/will this school/district invest in helping teachers, administrators, and students
understand and use social media (policies)?
10. How do you plan to (create a responsive posture and flexible language to) remain current or ahead
of emerging technologies?
- What would you have asked about social media policy that we didn‘t discuss today?
181
APPENDIX D: Qualitative Interview Guide: Focus Group

Name School/District
Title School/District Location

Stage 1: Broad Probing Questions
1. What is your overall opinion of social media use in education?
2. If social media is a technology you have used in your work environment, please share
its use.
3. How have district policies supported or hindered such use of social media?
4. What is the most important outcome of social media use for you and your
environment? (Perhaps a story about something that happened to this regard would help
us understand what you mean.)
5. How do you feel district policies can best assist you in achieving this outcome?
6. What is the most frustrating or wasteful consequence of social media use for you and
your environment? (Perhaps a story about something that happened to this regard would
help us understand what you mean.)
7. How do you feel district policies can best assist you in deterring this outcome?

Stage 2: Specific Probing Questions
Has the use of social media in [insert name of the course, course of study, service, or
education at a particular institution]
 impacted your ability to understand and/or remember course/professional
development material? Why or why not? Please explain.
 impacted your students‘ abilities to understand and/or remember course
material? Why or why not? Please explain.
 enhanced your professional creativity? Why or why not? Please explain.
 enhanced your students‘ professional creativity? Why or why not? Please
explain.
 improved the skills needed in your profession? Why or why not? Please
explain.
 improved the skills students may need in their profession? Why or why not?
Please explain.
 affected your professional interaction? Why or why not? Please explain.
 affected your professional interaction with students? Why or why not? Please
explain.
 affected your involvement in your school community? Why or why not?
Please explain.
 affected student involvement in your school community? Why or why not?
Please explain
182

Stage 3: Clarifying Questions
Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experience with this [insert
name of the course, course of study, service, or education at a particular institution]?
183
APPENDIX E: Qualitative Interview Guide: Focus Group-Chalk Talk
Chalk Talk is a silent way to reflect, generate ideas, check on learning, develop
projects, or solve problems. Because it is done completely in silence, it gives groups
a change of pace and encourages thoughtful contemplation.

Format
Time: Varies according to need, can be from 5 minutes to an hour.

Materials: Chalk board and chalk or paper roll on the wall and markers.

Process:
1. The facilitator explains VERY BRIEFLY that Chalk Talk is a silent activity. (No
one may talk at all. Anyone may add to the chalk talk as they please.) You can
comment on other people’s ideas simply by drawing a connecting line to the
comment. It can also be very effective to say nothing at all except to put
finger to lips in a gesture of silence and simply begin with #2.

2. The facilitator writes a relevant question in a circle on the board.
What factors support and/or hinder the development and
implementation of a social media within a school/district?
How are these factors reconciled in a school’s/district’s social
media policies?

3. The facilitator either hands a piece of chalk/pen to everyone or places many
pieces of chalk/pens at the board/near the poster and hands several pieces to
people at random.

4. People write as they feel moved. There are likely to be long silences—that is
natural, so allow plenty of wait and wonder time.

5. How everyone interacts with the Chalk Talk influences its outcome. Expand
thinking by:
 _ writing your opinion to the question posed
 _ stating facts about the question posed
 _ writing questions about a participant comment
 _ circling other interesting ideas, thereby inviting comments
to broaden
 _ adding your own reflections or
ideas about others’ comments

6. The only thing you CAN’T do is cross someone
else’s comment out. You may, however, point to it and
make a counter-argument.
7. Enjoy writing, reading, and learning!
APPENDIX F: Interview/Focus Group Respondents
Interviews
184
Respondent Title Date of Interview
1-Jim Dean of Discipline August 25, 2011
2-Alana Assistant Principal August 18, 2011
3-Mary Leadership Advisor/Social Science
Teacher
August 19, 2011
4-Rick Network Administrator/Technology
Teacher
August 20, 2011
5-June Technology Curriculum Support
Specialist
August 31, 2011
6-Mabel Principal August 26, 2011
7-Dolores Technology Coordinator September 17, 2011
8- Garr Superintendent September 4, 2011
9- Alex Principal October 24, 2011
10- Chris Assistant Superintendent August 23, 2011
11- Anthony Information Technology Director August 17, 2011
12- Jaime Media Specialist December 13, 2011
13-Joann Assistant Principal December 11, 2011
14-Gabe Network Administrator November 3, 2011

Focus Group #1 - online
Respondent Title Date of Focus Group
1- English Teacher

September 2011 – January
2012
2- Assistant Principal
3- Teacher
4- Math Teacher
5- Teacher
6- Teacher

Focus Group #3 – face-to-face
Respondent Title Date of Focus Group
1-Jesse Social Science Teacher

December 15, 2011
2-Margot Social Science Teacher
3-David English Teacher
4-Dennis English Teacher
5-Evelyn Science Teacher
6-Rick Network Administrator/Technology
Teacher

185
APPENDIX G: Survey

Social Media Policies
Informed Consent Form
Introduction This study seeks to improve the design and delivery of services that promote
learning and improve the management of the school environment by exploring how social media
are used in the secondary school environment and the policies that regulate their use. Analysis of
current social media policies and use in schools and their pedagogical effectiveness will shape
future uses of social media tools in secondary education.
Procedures You will be asked questions about the actual and perceived design and
implementation of social media policy within your school/district. The questionnaire consists of
15 questions and will take approximately 15 minutes. Questions are designed to determine the
design and delivery of services that promote learning and improve the management of the school
environment by exploring how social media is used in the secondary school environment and the
policies that regulate their use. This questionnaire will be conducted with an online Qualtrics-
created survey.
Confidentiality All data obtained from participants will be kept confidential and will only be
reported in an aggregate format (by reporting only combined results and never reporting
individual ones). All questionnaires will be concealed, and no one other than then primary
investigator listed below will have access to them. The data collected will be stored in the
HIPPA-compliant, Qualtrics-secure database until it has been deleted by the primary
investigator.
Participation Participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You have the right to
withdraw at anytime or refuse to participate entirely. Questions about the Research If you have
questions regarding this study, you may contact Devery Rodgers, M.Ed., principal investigator,
at Devery.Rodgers@usc.edu. Questions about your Rights as a Research Participant If you
have questions you do not feel comfortable asking the researcher, you may contact Dr. Guilbert
Hentschke, faculty advisor, at 213.740.3491, Rossier School of Education WPH 901F,
ghentsch@usc.edu.

I have read, understood, and printed a copy of, the above consent form and desire of my own free
will to participate in this study.
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
186
Q1 For which K-12 entity are you employed? Please answer all survey questions from this K-12
perspective.
 local school site (1)
 district office (2)
 other (3) ____________________

Q2 For which school/district are you employed?

Q3 What is your position classification? Please answer all survey questions from this role
perspective.
 teacher (subject) (1) ____________________
 administrator (title) (2) ____________________

Q4 In which area is your school/district located?
 urban (1)
 suburban (2)
 rural (3)

Q5 What defines ―social media policy‖ (even if that is the unwritten practice) in your
school/district?

Q6 Besides the Acceptable Use Policy, does your school/district have an official (board-
approved) social media policy?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To What factors support and/or hinder th...
187
Q7 If your school/district has a policy that regulates use of social media, what type of policy is
it?
 Social Media Policy (1)
 Acceptable Use Policy amendment (2)
 Blogging Policy (3)
 Social Networking Policy (4)
 Gaming Policy (5)
 Mobile Technology Policy (6)
 other (7) ____________________
 none of the above (8)

Q8 What factors SUPPORT the development of a social media policy within your school/district?
Not at all
Important (1)
Somewhat
Unimportant (2)
Somewhat
Important (3)
Extremely
Important (4)
Ubiquitous Social
Media Use by
Teens (1)
   
Cyberbullying (2)    
21st Century
Learning
Initiatives (3)
   
Personal/School
Liabilities (4)
   
federal/state
Educational
Technology
Policies (5)
   
stakeholder
collaboration (6)
   
school/district
policies (i.e.,
firewalls) (7)
   
other (8)    

188
Q9 What factors HINDER the development of a social media policy within your school/district?
Not at all
Important (1)
Somewhat
Unimportant (2)
Somewhat
Important (3)
Extremely
Important (4)
Ubiquitous Social
Media Use by
Teens (1)
   
Cyberbullying (2)    
21st Century
Learning
Initiatives (3)
   
Personal/School
Liabilities (4)
   
federal/state
Educational
Technology
Policies (5)
   
stakeholder
collaboration (6)
   
school/district
policies (i.e.,
firewalls) (7)
   
other (8)    

Q10 Which of the aforementioned factors are most important to address? (Please drag and drop
selection into ranked order.)
______ Ubiquitous Social Media Use by Teens (1)
______ Cyberbullying (2)
______ 21st Century Learning Initiatives (3)
______ Personal/School Liabilities (4)
______ federal/state Educational Technology Policies (5)
______ stakeholder collaboration (6)
______ school/district policies (i.e., firewalls) (7)
______ other (8)

189
Q11 To what degree are these factors reconciled in your school's/district‘s social media policies
or unwritten practices?
Not At All (1) A Little (2) Somewhat (3) Very Much (4)
Ubiquitous Social
Media Use by
Teens (1)
   
Cyberbullying (2)    
21st Century
Learning Initiatives
(3)
   
Personal/School
Liabilities (4)
   
federal/state
Educational
Technology
Policies (5)
   
stakeholder
collaboration (6)
   
school/district
policies (i.e.,
firewalls) (7)
   
other (8)    

190
Q12 Below are a few scenarios of social media use in the K-12 environment. Please respond to
both PRESENT and OPTIMAL school/district response with social media policy.
PRESENT School/District Response OPTIMAL School/District Response Comment

Stringen
t (1)
Moderat
e (2)
Mil
d
(3)
No
Actio
n (4)
Stringen
t (1)
Moderat
e (2)
Mil
d
(3)
No
Actio
n (4)
Within
your
comments,
please
delineate
whether
you are
commentin
g on
PRESENT
or
OPTIMAL
social
media
policy. (1)
A student is
taking
inappropriat
e pictures of
another
student
using a
personal cell
phone and
then
electronicall
y
distributing
those photos
to friends.
At the time
the picture
is taken, this
fictional
high school
student was
attending an
athletic
event being
hosted in
another
district.
(involving
no school-
owned
systems but
at a school-
sponsored
event) (1)
       
Journalism        
191
students are
encouraged
to RSS feed
newswires
to include in
the school
newspaper.
The filters
on their
school e-
mail
accounts
have to be
raised to
allow this
curricular
use.
However,
SPAM with
inappropriat
e content
also seem to
make it
through this
filter setting.
(2)
A student
hosts an
―anti-gay‖
website on a
private
server and
invites other
students to
join. (3)
       
Students in
a law-
themed
small school
have the
opportunity
to
participate
in a Career
Day online.
Lawyers,
judges, law
clerks, etc.
will be
available to
chat online
with
students.
These are
simultaneou
       
192
s live web
connections.
(4)
A school
club has
begun an
organized
movement
to clean the
local beach.
They are
recruiting
student
members
through
Facebook.
(5)
       
A teacher
has
organized a
pen pal
program
where
students
exchange
messages
with another
class online.
Besides the
classroom
component,
students
may still
correspond
with these
persons
outside of
the formal
setting. (6)
       

Q13What are the most effective practices for the DEVELOPMENT of social media policy?
Q14 What are the most effective practices for the IMPLEMENTATION of social media policy?
Q15 What would you have asked about Social Media Policy that was not queried in this survey?
Q16 If you don't mind being contacted for a follow-up interview regarding Social Media Policy,
or if you would like a link to the publication of survey results, please indicate such by adding
your e-mail address below:

193
APPENDIX H : Data Collection Calendar
Social Media Policy
Data Collection and Analysis
July 2011 -- August 2011 Collect Social Media Policies
August 2011 – November 2011 Analyze Social Media Policies
September 2011 – January 2012 Moderate Discussion Board
November 2011 -- December 2012 Analyze Online Focus Group
July 2011 – January 2012 Conduct Interviews and Focus Groups
November 2011—February 2012 Analyze Interviews and Focus Groups
September 2011--January 2012 Launch Survey and Recruit Participants
February 2012--March 2012 Analyze Survey Results

Abstract (if available)

Abstract While internet technologies are transforming much of society in general, the use of social media seems to be at a standstill in many K-12 schools. The limited use of blogs, online collaborative projects, content communities, social networks, and virtual worlds in the formal teaching and learning process has been stunted by social media policies. This field study was designed to clarify what defines K-12 social media policy, examining three primary areas: 1. Factors that support and/or hinder the development and implementation of a social media policy within a school/district, 2. How these factors are reconciled in a school‘s/district‘s social media policies, and 3. Best practices for implementation. ❧ Secondary level school districts were the primary unit of analysis, with teachers and school administrators as the sample. Four triangulated methods (document analysis, interview, focus group, and survey) were used to address the research questions during the fall 2011 session. Findings reveal that K-12 policy has been designed for both the student and employee as an amended Acceptable Use Policy or new Board Policy addressing social media content both generally and specifically, with as many factors that hinder the development and implementation of social media policy for education as support it. Among these are legal, instructional, and privacy issues. Findings also reveal that best practices include all stakeholder groups in the development, implementation, and monitoring process for social media use. This study establishes significant base data for more extensive future studies.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations

PDF

Outsourcing technology and support in higher education

PDF

Digital literacy: teacher pedagogy and practices among upper elementary students with growing interest in social media

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Care and social-emotional well-being: organizational conditions in policy and practice

PDF

The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in mathematics at the community college

PDF

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

PDF

The impact of globalization on the development of educational policy, 21st century learning, and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Perceptions of TESOL teacher education: strengths, weaknesses, characteristics, and effective components

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

Social media in community policing: a vehicle for communication

PDF

Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

PDF

Contracting for special education: a case study of a charter school contract for special education

PDF

The evolution of superintendents as instructional leaders: past, present, and future

PDF

Understanding the globalization of K-12 schooling through the lens of a multinational education company: a case study of Fairmont Education Group

PDF

Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process

PDF

Atole con el dedo: learning from low-income parents' lived experiences with educational choice policies

Asset Metadata

Creator Rodgers, Devery J. (author)

Core Title The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/09/2012

Defense Date 05/17/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag (instructional/education) technology policy,acceptable use policy,Internet policy,OAI-PMH Harvest,social media,social media policy,social media protocols

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Burch, Patricia E. (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email Devery.Rodgers@usc.edu,educate2elevate@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-53189

Unique identifier UC11288309

Identifier usctheses-c3-53189 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RodgersDev-922.pdf

Dmrecord 53189

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rodgers, Devery J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA