University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How college students use online social networks to gather information

(USC Thesis Other)

How college students use online social networks to gather information

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

1

How College Students Use Online Social Networks to Gather Information

by

Gabriella Helena Perez

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

April 2014

2014 Gabriella Helena Perez

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

2

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the individuals who guided and supported me
through the process of writing this thesis. First, I would like to extend my sincere
gratitude to Dr. Kristan Venegas, my chair, who took on this responsibility in addition to
the already very full list of academic obligations and opportunities that she had
committed to this academic year. Dr. Venegas was nothing but supportive through the
process. Her words of encouragement and guidance through this process and as a faculty
member during my time in my academic program have been invaluable. Dr. Venegas
was the first person to show me, through example, the impact and importance of sharing
social capital.
Next, I would like to thank Dr. Zoe Corwin and Dr. Patricia Tobey. Dr. Corwin
first guided me through choosing and narrowing he topic of this paper and introduced me
to the importance of strategically chosen methodology. Without her guidance, and focus
on narrowing my topic, I would not have been able to complete this process. Dr. Corwin
also taught me how exciting data could be and how much of an impact it can make on
others. Her enthusiasm for research has been inspiring. I would also like to thank Dr.
Tobey for her guidance in developing a methodological approach for this study and
encouraging me to apply a practical application component to the study. Dr. Tobey is
extremely knowledgeable and was pivotal in guiding me through Chapters Three and
Four.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends, and the student affairs staff at
USC and the student affairs staff at my sample university. Without the help of Juliana
Calhoun, Dr. Janice Schafrick, and Brianna Moffitt, a quantitative study would not have
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

3

been possible. Thank you for providing me with references and guidance to help develop
the literature and methodology of Chapters Three and Four. I also want to thank the
student affairs staff at my sample university, who distributed the survey and made data
collection possible. Finally, I want to thank my family and friends, for your love,
support, and understanding as I completed this thesis.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 11
Abstract 12
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 13
Introduction 13
Online Social Networking and College Student Engagement 16
Research Problem 17
Significance 17
Purpose of the Study 19
Definition of Terms 20
Chapter Two: Literature Review 21
Online Social Networks 21
Facebook 23
Twitter 24
Other Social Networks 26
How People Use Social Networks 27
Millennial College Students 28
Non-Traditional Aged College Students 29
Higher Education and Technology 30
Social Networking Successes and Failures in Higher Education 31
Businesses and Social Network Marketing 35
Weak Ties 38
Conceptual Framework 39
Scope of the Study 41
Chapter Three: Methodology 43
Study Design 43
Data Collection Procedure 44
Site Selection 44
Sampling Procedure 45
Data Collection Mode 47
Question Form 49
Description of Data Analysis 49
Limitations of the Study 50
Chapter Four: Results 51
Respondent Demographics 53
Description of General Social Media Use 56
Engagement with the University on Social Networks 59
Obligational Relationships with the University and Administrators 65
Online Social Networks as an Information Channel 68
Online Social Networks as a Norm 71
Difference in Use with Universities and Other Entities 73
Recommendations from Students 96
Summary 112
Chapter Five: Discussion 113
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

5

Purpose of the Study 113
Summary of Findings 114
General Social Media Use 116
Engagement with the University on Social Networks 116
Social Capital 117
Recommendations from Students 119
Implications for Practitioners 120
Recommendations for Further Study 123
Conclusion 124
References 126
Appendix 136
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

6

List of Tables
Table 1: Biological Sex of Participants 53
Table 2: Ethnicity of Participants 54
Table 3: International Student Status of Participants 54
Table 4: Class Standing of Participants 55
Table 5: Devices used to Access Social Networks 56
Table 6: Primary Device Used by Participants 56
Table 7: Participant Access to Online Social Networks 58
Table 8: Frequency of Following University on OSNs 59
Table 9: Frequency of Seeing Updates from University on OSNs 60
Table 10: Participant Activities on Official University Pages 61
Table 11: Crosstabulation of Class Standing and University OSN Followers 62
Table 12: Crosstabulation of Ethnicity and University OSN Followers 63
Table 13: Crosstabulation of Biological Sex and University OSN Followers 64
Table 14: Crosstabulation of Device Used to Access Internet ant Following
University on OSNs 64
Table 15: Influencing Factors on University OSN Following 66
Table 16: Crosstabulation of Following the University and Using a Service 67
Table 17: Crosstabulation of Using a University Service and Feelings of
Obligation 67
Table 18: Crosstabulation of Likelihood of Using OSN to Gather Information
and Following University on OSN 71
Table 19: Crosstabulation of Classmate Influence and Following University on
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

7

OSN 73
Table 20: Crosstabulation of Friend Influence and Following University on
OSN 73
Table 21: Frequency of Following University OSN by Network 75
Table 22: Crosstabulation of Following University on Bebo and Using Bebo 76
Table 23: Crosstabulation of Following University on Blogger and Using
Blogger 76
Table 24: Crosstabulation of Following University on Delicious and Using
Delicious 77
Table 25: Crosstabulation of Following University on Digg and Using Digg 77
Table 26: Crosstabulation of Following University on Facebook and Using 78
Facebook
Table 27: Crosstabulation of Following University on Flickr and Using
Flickr 78
Table 28: Crosstabulation of Following University on Foursquare and Using
Foursquare 79
Table 29: Crosstabulation of Following University on Friendster and Using
Friendster 79
Table 30: Crosstabulation of Following University on Google+ and Using
Google+ 80
Table 31: Crosstabulation of Following University on Instagram and Using
Instagram 80
Table 32: Crosstabulation of Following University on LinkedIn and Using
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

8

LinkedIn 81
Table 33: Crosstabulation of Following University on MySpace and Using
MySpace 81
Table 34: Crosstabulation of Following University on Pinterest and Using
Pinterest 82
Table 35: Crosstabulation of Following University on Reddit and Using Reddit 82
Table 36: Crosstabulation of Following University on Skype and Using Skype 83
Table 37: Crosstabulation of Following University on Snapchat and Using
Snapchat 83
Table 38: Crosstabulation of Following University on StumbleUpon and Using
StumbleUpon 84
Table 39: Crosstabulation of Following University on Tumblr and Using
Tumblr 84
Table 40: Crosstabulation of Following University on Twitter and Using Twitter 85
Table 41: Crosstabulation of Following University on Vimeo and Using Vimeo 85
Table 42: Crosstabulation of Following University on Vine and Using Vine 86
Table 43: Crosstabulation of Following University on WordPress and Using
WordPress 86
Table 44: Crosstabulation of Following University on Yelp and Using Yelp 87
Table 45: Crosstabulation of Following University on YouTube and Using
YouTube 87
Table 46: Crosstabulation of Following University on Other and Using Other 88
Table 47: Crosstabulation of Feeling Obligated with University and with Company
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

9

or Organization 90
Table 48: Crosstabulation of Knowing an Employee at University and at Company
or Organization 90
Table 49: Crosstabulation of Close Relationship with Employee at University and at
Company or Organization 91
Table 50: Crosstabulation of Wants More Information about University and Company
or Organization 91
Table 51: Crosstabulation of Friends Follow University and Company or Organization
On OSN 92
Table 52: Crosstabulation of Friends Follow University and Company or Organization
on OSN 92
Table 53: Types of Information Wanted by Students 98
Table 54: Networks Students Want the University to Use 100
Table 55: Types of Content Wanted by Students 101
Table 56: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Activities
Related to Photos 102
Table 57: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Activities
Related to Videos 103
Table 58: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Activities
Related to Status Updates 103
Table 59: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Reading
Related to Message Boards 104
Table 60: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Posting
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

10

Related to Message Boards 105
Table 61: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Posting
Related to Blogs 105
Table 62: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Reading
Related to Blogs 106
Table 63: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation Related to
Reposting Content 107
Table 64: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation Related to
Messaging with Administrators 107
Table 65: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation Related to
Messaging with Students 108
Table 66: Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation Related to
Messaging with Faculty 108
Table 67: Student Preference for SUNs the University Should Not Use 109
Table 68: Reason for Student Preference of University Not to Use OSNs 110
Table A1: Survey Questions 136
Table A2: Liklihood of Participant Access to Information Channels 143
Table A3: Rates of Student Activity with University and Companies or Organizations
on OSNs
144

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

11

List of Figures
Figure 1: Respondent likelihood of using online social networks to gather
information about a university service. 70
Figure 2: Respondents who reported liked or followed the page, group, or profile
of a company or organization on an online social network. 88
Figure 3: Respondents who reported liking or following an official university
page, group, or profile on an online social network. 89
Figure 4: Respondents who reported liking or following an unofficial university
page, group, or profile on an online social network. 89
Figure 5: Respondent reported frequency of seeing updates from official
university pages, groups, or profiles on online social networks. 93
Figure 6: Respondent reported frequency of seeing updates from an unofficial
university page, group, or profile on an online social network. 94

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

12

Abstract
This paper uses Coleman’s (1988) theory of social capital to address one gap in
existing literature on the use of online social networks with regard to student engagement
and the efforts of student affairs staff. By examining how students use online social
networks, the author presents practitioners with insight as to how students engage in
online social network based communication. This information then is then applied to
understanding how students would prefer to interact with universities on a variety of
online social networks at the sample university. Finally, recommendations for the
adaptation of this information to improve communication with students on other colleges
are presented.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

13

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“…the emergence of social media technologies has brought an exciting new wave of
innovation and opportunity to educators and administrators across the university
campus....The potential opportunity to enhance university life and community
development through the creative and effective implementation of social media
technologies is an important and emerging phenomenon.”
(Wankel & Wankel, 2011, p. xi)
Introduction
The rapid integration of the Internet into the daily lives of Americans has
impacted the lives and work of individuals within American colleges and universities
(Green, 1996; Treuer & Belote, 1997). While many forms of technological innovation
have taken several decades for the general public to adopt, the Internet was quickly
integrated into the daily lives of Americans within four years of being made available to
the public (Milliron & Miles, 2000). A 2012 report released by the Pew Internet Project
stated that more than 50% of Americans own a laptop computer, almost 20% own a tablet
computer, and 88% have a cellular phone (Zickhur & Smith, 2012). Americans are
quickly adapting and consuming technological innovations.
Researchers have made a point of quantifying and tracking the impact that
technology and the Internet has had on the American populations for a number of years
(Brenner & Smith, 2013; Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010; Rainie, Brenner, &
Purcell, 2012; Rainie, Smith, & Duggan, 2013a; Smith, 2011a, 2011b; Smith & Brenner,
2012). As of 2012, four out of five American adults reported using the Internet (Zickhur
& Smith, 2012). Time spent accessing the Internet by American adults has also
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

14

increased. Additionally, individuals in minority groups are quickly reaching a similar
level of Internet use as their counterparts (Zickhur & Smith, 2012). It is important to note
that 71% of individuals with high school diplomas are Internet users and most of them
report accessing the Internet through their mobile devices (Zickhur & Smith, 2012).
The Internet has also evolved since it was first introduced (Thackeray, Neiger,
Hanson, & McKenzie, 2008). It has advanced dramatically from the message boards that
were first presented to the public as a method of collaborating and obtaining information
in the 1970s (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). The original embodiment of the Internet, Web
1.0, only allowed for one-way communication (Thackeray et al., 2008). It has since been
redeveloped into what is commonly referred to as Web 2.0, a version of web
development that facilitates two-way communication (Thackeray et al., 2008). The
introduction of this online form of communication and sharing has enabled individuals to
engage with one another on a much larger scale than previously possible and provides an
alternative form of interpersonal communication to in person contact (Fischer & Peuber,
2010; Merchant, 2012; Valensuela, Park, & Kee, 2009). Web 2.0 and two-way online
communication has changed the way Americans communicate with one another.
How the Internet is being used is equally important as frequency of use. As early
as 1995, faculty members and college students at American colleges reported using the
Internet regularly (Green, 1996; Treuer & Belote, 1997). Since then, the percentage of
college age adults using the Internet has almost doubled (Lenhart et al., 2010). As of
2010, 86% of undergraduate students in the United States used the Internet to access
online social networks (Smith, Rainie, & Zickuhr, 2011).
One reason for the increase in the use of the Internet is the advent of online social
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

15

networks. Online social networks are “web-based services,” which enable users to create
online profiles and post content within the infrastructure of the online community, invite
the user to create connections with other users, and see the profiles and content of other
users (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p.211). These networks have quickly become a popular
method of communication among college students.
As a result, colleges have tried to keep up with advances in online
communication. Their efforts have fallen short of increased student expectations
(Kleinglass, 2005; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Since students are using online social
networks as a primary means of communication, college administrators could benefit
from understanding why their use of these networks is not meeting student expectations.
This study explores how college students use online social networks to gather
information. This chapter offers a broad overview of the research problem, the
significance of the study, and the purpose of the study. It concludes with a presentation
of the main and supporting research questions. Chapter Two explores the body of
literature which provides possible explanations for the lack of success administrators
have faced while trying to utilize online social networks. It presents examples of how
other industries have used online social networks to successfully engage their target
audiences. Chapter Three explains the methodology behind the study. Chapter Four
explains the findings of the study. Chapter Five then explores the implications of these
findings and makes recommendations for further research. By the end of this thesis, the
reader will have a solid understanding of why it is important for student affairs
practitioners to use online social networking websites, as well as how students use social
media to learn about programs and services available on college campuses.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

16

Online Social Networking and College Student Engagement
In the 1990’s students affairs departments advertised programs and services to
students through letters, posters, and college newspapers. Now, students affairs
departments distribute information to students via email, websites, and online social
networks. Some colleges have experienced success in embracing online social networks
as a form of communication with students. These schools are aware of the
communication preferences of the technologically savvy students they serve (Lowery,
2004). The administrators at these colleges are aware that students occupy online spaces
as much as they occupy student unions and campus lounges (Heiberger & Harper, 2008).
Other colleges struggle with using online social networks to reach their student
populations. The slow adaptation rate of most administrators in comparison to student
populations they serve is central to the problem (Heiberger & Harper, 2008). For
instance, Kleinglass (2005) asserts that, “While technology is changing the fundamental
way that students receive services and communicate, professionals have yet to
demonstrate insight for the importance of their role and voice in the decisions around
technology that affect student learning and development outcomes” (p. 25). This slow
adaptation rate created a gap between how students gather information and how
administrators disseminate it.
This is potentially a missed opportunity. According to Fischer and Peuber (2010),
online social networks facilitate social interaction and provide the opportunity for
individuals to connect with others in ways that were not formerly possible. Heiberger
and Harper (2008) suggest that student affairs practitioners listen to the information that
students provide about their online interactions and desired methods of communication.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

17

In order “to support and communicate well with college students, student affairs staff
must embrace and explore new technologies” (Heiberger & Harper, 2008, p. 32). This
includes understanding how college students use online social networks and how they can
be used to increase student awareness of programs and services on campus.
Research Problem
Heiberger and Harper (2008) determined that college students actively use online
social network users. These authors recommend that college administrators engage in
using these networks at a rate similar to that of college students (Heiberger & Harper,
2008). Additionally, practitioners need to balance using traditional methods of
communicating with students and using these online networks (Kleinglass, 2005). To
accomplish this, practitioners must be visible in the lives of the students they serve. One
way to remain visible is to use the communication platforms that their students are using
and by bringing university services online (Heiberger & Harper, 2008). Platforms such
as Facebook and Twitter are only two of the many online social networks available today
(Brenner & Smith, 2013). The intention of engaging students can remain central to the
work of student affairs practitioners; however, these professionals must to learn how to
adapt to a new medium of communication.
Significance
Merchant (2012) is the first to encourage educators to take a methodical approach
to engaging audiences over online social networks. He explains that to be successful,
educators must understand how online social networks are a part of students’ lives.
Merchant (2012) states, “doing this is crucial in understanding the worlds that our
students inhabit as well as in identifying the knowledge, skills and dispositions involved
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

18

as social and cultural capital” (p. 13). Then he explains that educators must understand
how online social networks can support learning. His last recommendation is that
educators use the online social networks that students are already engaged in using to
support educational objectives (Merchant, 2012).
Merchant’s research based recommendations establish an easy to follow guide
for educators, but neglect to incorporate the objectives of out-of-classroom learning and
engagement. This is the case with a majority of the research to date (Gemmill &
Peterson, 2006; Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010). Others researchers
focus on technology and student engagement in student affairs work but do not focus on
online social networks (Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2011). Roblyer et al. (2010) explain
that the lack of use among practitioners may be the result of the how new these online
social networks are. The research that has focused on using online social networks to
communicate and connect with students within student affairs work has generally
concluded that administrators are not using social media effectively (Moneta, 2005;
Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Lowery, 2004; & Kleinglass, 2005).
While a number of articles had been published specifically relating to the use of
Twitter in an academic setting, no literature currently exists which specifically focuses on
the effect of Twitter on student engagement outside of the classroom (Chamberlin &
Lehmann, 2011; Junco et al., 2011; Rinaldo, Tapp, & Laverie, 2011). However,
published literature does exist for another social networking website, Facebook (Ellison,
Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Valensuela et al., 2009). Beyond
these two online social networks, little to no literature has explored how other available
online social networks have or can affect student engagement.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

19

Other professions create strategic workflows for targeting consumers or patrons
using a wide range of online social networks (Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Rainie et al.,
2012; Wilson, Guinan, Parise, & Weinberg, 2011). Even arts organizations are adopting
social media into their marketing campaigns (Thomson, Purcell, & Rainie, 2013). The
problem is that none of these strategies have been researched, tested, or proposed for
college administrators. In order to effectively use online social networks, administrators
first need to determine why other industries have been successful at integrating these
networks. Then they can compare their efforts to those of successful industries, and
examine the differences.
Purpose of the Study
This study addresses one gap in existing literature on the use of online social
networks with regard to student engagement and the efforts of student affairs staff. By
examining how students use online social networks, the author presents practitioners with
insight as to how students engage in social media based communication. This
information then is then applied to understanding how students would prefer to interact
with universities on various social media platforms.
The guiding research question for the study focuses on students’ use of online
social networks within a college environment. How do students use online social
networks to learn about programs and resources offered at a university? The supporting
research questions are based on James Coleman’s (1988) definition of social capital and
guide the study in further determining three things: If students perceive obligational
relationships with university administrators; If so, the extent to which these obligational
relationships impact students’ decisions to follow university sponsored online social
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

20

networks; How students perceive university sponsored online social networks as an
information channel; Finally, if students perceive the norms of using social media as
resource for gathering information from the university. These supporting research
questions provide a framework for understanding student’s preferred online interactions
with administrators. The next chapter will justify the selection of this framework and
present an overview of current literature.
Definition of Terms
Online social network. Online social networks are “web-based services” in
which individuals can engage with one another through online profiles “within a bounded
system” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 211).
Weak tie. A weak ties is a connection between individuals who are not closely,
personally connected (Granovetter, 1973).
Social Capital. Social capital explains the actions of individuals and the
development of social organizations and is built upon the relationships that an individual
has with others (Coleman, 1988).

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

21

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
One of the guiding principles of student affairs work is to foster student
development, thus fostering creation of social capital within student populations should
be a key component of student affairs practitioners’ work (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton,
& Renn, 2009). Helping students to build social capital can and should be done through
all available avenues of communication. The following literature review defines online
social networks and then presents an overview of popular online social network
platforms. How these innovations and platforms have affected millennial and non-
traditional aged students in the United States is explored, along with the ways in which
higher education professionals have effectively and ineffectively implemented online
social network strategies. This review provides a short overview of how other industries
have effectively used social media to reach the masses. The success of these strategies is
explained through a review of literature on information dissemination through “weak tie”
relationships (Granovetter, 1973, p. 201). Finally, the literature review provides an
overview of Coleman’s (1988) theory of social capital, which is the basis for the
conceptual framework is used to explore the research question: How do students use
online social networks to learn about programs and resources offered at a university?
Online Social Networks
One increasingly popular form of online communication is online social
networking, which has been gaining momentum since the first social networking
website’s introduction in 1997 (Benevenuto, Rodrigues, Cha, & Almedia, 2012; boyd &
Ellison, 2007). Social networking websites are defined as:
Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

22

profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom
they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and
those made by others within the system. (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 211)
72% of online adults in the United States spend time online using social
networking websites (Brenner & Smith, 2013). So many in fact, that online social
networking has surpassed email in popularity (Nielsen Inc., 2009). As a result of this
increase in popularity, online social networking websites rank among the highest visited
websites on the Internet (Alexa Internet Inc., 2013b; Fischer & Peuber, 2010). 87% of
adults using social networking websites in 2012 were adults under the age of 30 (Zickhur
& Smith, 2012). The percentage of young adults using the Internet was even higher,
especially those with some college experience (Zickhur & Smith, 2012).
Researchers through Pew Research Center have spent years exploring the
demographics of who uses what social network (Brenner & Smith, 2013; Lenhart et al.,
2010; Rainie et al., 2013a; Smith, 2011a, 2011b; Smith & Brenner, 2012). A majority of
current literature focuses on two of the most popular social networking websites,
Facebook and Twitter. A number of early studies on social networking websites also
explored MySpace, a platform that initially had a high volume of user interaction, but has
since decreased in popularity (Benevenuto et al., 2012; boyd & Ellison, 2007; Clemons,
Barnett, & Appadurai, 2007; Merchant, 2012). This review of the literature explores the
use of Facebook and Twitter, but also includes information about YouTube, a popular
video sharing social network; Pinterest, a network that allows users to create a social
network in which they can organize and share photo content; Tumblr, a photo and video
based blogging network; Instagram; a popular photo blogging network; LinkedIn, a
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

23

business based social network; and Snapchat a mobile application that allows users to
send videos or pictures to one another which disappear after an allotted length of time
(boyd & Ellison, 2007; Magid, 2013; Rainie et al., 2012).
Facebook
Facebook is a social networking platform that allows users to connect and
socialize with other users through an online interface (Reuben, 2008). Users can upload
photos, videos, share links and post short text-based updates for others on the platform to
see. Since the Facebook website launched in 2004, Facebook’s user base has grown
exponentially. Originally the network only allowed students at Harvard University to
create an account. Today, anyone over the age of 13 with an Internet connection and a
computer, tablet, or Internet enabled mobile phone can access the platform via the
website or a mobile application and create a profile (Reuben, 2008).
After only four years, Facebook has the fourth highest web traffic rating of all
websites online (Heiberger & Harper, 2008). As of 2011, 92% of social networking
website users were members of Facebook (K. Hampton, Goulet, Rainie, & Purcell, 2011).
Today, Facebook is the second most trafficked website on the Internet and the most
popular social networking platform (Alexa Internet Inc., 2013b, 2013c). A 2013 study by
Rainie, Smith, and Duggan (2013b) discovered that 67% of American adults used
Facebook. Thirteen percent of these users have increased the amount of time that they
spend on the website over the last year and 38% of people ages 18-29 believe they will
spend less time on Facebook in the upcoming year (Rainie et al., 2013b). Another study
has found, however, that the length of time an individual is a Facebook user, the more
active the user becomes on the network (K. N. Hampton, Goulet, Marlow, & Rainie,
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

24

2012).
Twitter
Another popular social networking website is Twitter (Alexa Internet Inc.,
2013c). Twitter is an information based social network that allows its users to connect
with information that is interesting or relevant to them (Rinaldo et al., 2011). It was
originally established to focus on individual user’s personal activities, but has since
shifted to an information source about current events (Rinaldo et al., 2011). Researchers
have described Twitter as a “micro-content” cross between an instant messaging system
and a blogging platform, since users are limited to 140 typed characters for posting
content (Krishnamurthy, Gill, & Arlitt, 2008, p.19; Reuben, 2008).
Between May 2008 and March 2013, Twitter increased from 1.6 to 200 million
users (Fischer & Peuber, 2010, p. 19; Wickre, 2013). The number of adults who reported
having used twitter has more than doubled within the last three years (Brenner & Smith,
2013). 18% of online adults currently use Twitter and those adults ages 18-29 are the
most active users (Brenner & Smith, 2013; Lenhart et al., 2010). All of this information
indicates that Twitter, while less popular than Facebook, is a valuable tool for
information dissemination with a rapidly growing audience.
A number of researchers have studied the influence that Twitter users have, how
they interact with one another, and the topics that prove the most popular within the
network (Bakshy, Hofman, Mason, & Watts, 2011; Bandari, Asur, & Huberman, 2012;
Cha, Haddadi, Benevenuto, & Gummadi, 2010; Huberman, Romero, & Wu, 2008; Kwak,
Lee, Park, & Moon, 2010). One example of this is a study conducted by Bakshy et al.
(2011). The study sought to understand the predictability of user influence on Twitter.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

25

The authors discovered that users who had content retweeted in the past were likely to
continue to have their posts retweeted in the future. The likelihood of this happening was
aided by the number of followers that a Twitter user had (Bakshy et al., 2011).
Cha et al. (2010) ascertained that general users could gain influence on Twitter by
posting thought-provoking and creative updates which other users would find valuable.
By studying data set of information collected from Twitter users over time, the
researchers sought to compare the influence of indegree, retweets, and mentions within
the online social network. They discovered that popularity on the network, as defined by
having a large number of followers, did necessarily have a lot of their content retweeted
among users. Additionally, the study revealed that individual influential users held
influence over a wide variety of topics. Last, the study discovered that influence could be
gained by focusing tweets on one topic or subject. The researchers suggested that in
order to maintain influence, users must remain active on the network (Cha et al., 2010).
Kwak et al. (2010) expanded this by conducting a study, which evaluated the
influence of Twitter as a network for information sharing. The researchers revealed that
any retweeted tweet has an average reach of approximately 1000 twitter users,
independent of the number of users following the user who originated the post. These
authors related information dissemination on the network to that of a breaking news
media platform (Kwak et al., 2010). This work and the work of the researchers preceding
it, justify the importance of social networks in disseminating information to large
audiences.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

26

Other Social Networks
Facebook and Twitter are only two of the major online social networks
influencing information flow today. According to Alexa, a website analytics company
that tracks daily website traffic, social networking websites are four of the top ten most
visited websites in the Unites States (Alexa Internet Inc., 2013a, 2013d). Interactions on
social networking websites aside from Facebook and Twitter are also facilitated through
sharing of pictures, videos, or words (Reuben, 2008; Benevenuto et al., 2012). Within the
top twenty social networking sites are LinkedIn, and Pinterest (Alexa Internet Inc.,
2013c).
As of 2012, 20% of online adults were using LinkedIn (Rainie et al., 2012). In a
study, conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 12% of adults reported
using Pinterest (Rainie et al., 2012). A majority of these users were female (Rainie et al.,
2012). The same study discovered that 12% of adults use Instagram, though a majority
of adult Instagram users were between the ages of 18 and 29. While only 5% of adults
surveyed used Tumblr, 11% of the young adults surveyed used the website (Rainie et al.,
2012). YouTube, a forum for sharing videos is the third most visited website in the
United States (Alexa Internet Inc., 2013d; Thackeray et al., 2008). Women dominated as
the primary user population of every social networking website, with the exception of
LinkedIn (K. Hampton et al., 2011).
Snapchat is a video sharing mobile app, which allows users to send short video
clips or pictures, which have been taken with a mobile device to another user (Magid,
2013). The individuals sending the video or photo decide upon sending the content, how
long they would like for the content to remain visible on the mobile device of the person
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

27

they are sending it to. This time frame ranged from one to 10 seconds (Magid, 2013). As
of November 2012, the application had millions of users who shared content with one
another 30 million times per day (Colao, 2012). Social networks, such as Snapchat, are
also attracting large audiences of young Americans.
How People Use Social Networks
Social networking websites are designed to foster interconnectedness (Merchant,
2012). Many people join them to be involved in social interaction (Valensuela et al.,
2009). Valensuela et al. (2009) asserted that people join social networking websites to
find a sense of belonging and to connect with family, friends, and other individuals. Each
network has different activities for members to facilitate interconnectedness.
Benevenuto et al. (2012) conducted a study to understand the activities that social
network users engage in while participating in a social network. The researchers
discovered that browsing user content on the website was the most dominate activity. A
clickstream is the items and pathways they clicked through to reach specific content
within the social networking websites. Users spent approximately 92% of their time on
an online social network browsing the pages and photos available within their network
(Benevenuto et al., 2012).
Other studies have also explored the activities of online social network website
using adults (K. N. Hampton et al., 2012; Rainie et al., 2012). A study by Rainie et al.
(2012), which explored the use of photo and video content on social networking websites
discovered that 56% of adults upload photos or videos. In a separate study, K. Hampton
et al. (2011) found that 15% of Facebook users post a status update while online. The
same study revealed that 22% of Facebook users post comments on the posts or status
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

28

updates of people within their networks and 20% of users post comments on the photos
of individuals within their network. Only 10% of users reported sending a message
through Facebook directly to another user (K. Hampton et al., 2011).
Millennial College Students
Young adults today are members of the millennial generation and are among the
highest consumers of social media (Lenhart et al., 2010). Born after 1980, members of
the millennial generation grew up with technology as a part of everyday life (Jonas-
Dwyer & Pospisil, 2004; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). They are a technologically confident
generation for whom social interaction has always been mediated by technology
(Lowery, 2004; Oblinger, 2003; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Ninety-three percent of these
young adults go online every day and they rely on the Internet for a majority of the
information that they ingest (Lenhart et al., 2010; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). As of 2010,
72% of young adults used social networking websites (Lenhart et al., 2010). This group
has only increased involvement in online social networking since then.
These young adults are now college age and universities are being impacted by
the influence that technology and social media has had the lives and socializing activities
of millennial students (Jonas-Dwyer & Pospisil, 2004; Moneta, 2005). Seventy-five
percent of college students use the Internet for a period of one to three hours per week for
social purposes (Heiberger & Harper, 2008). Facebook had the eighth highest percentage
of websites visited by college students as of 2008 (Heiberger & Harper, 2008). As of
2011, a majority of the students who used Twitter accessed the social network via their
mobile phones (Rinaldo et al., 2011). As this group’s interaction with technology has
shifted, colleges have struggled to adapt.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

29

The level of technological immersion that millennial students possess
distinguishes them from the professors and administrators who work at the colleges they
now attend (Ito et al., 2010, p. 2; Jonas-Dwyer & Pospisil, 2004; Oblinger, 2003). This
paradox is curious since universities were among the first to use email on a widespread
scale (Corwin, Tierney, Fullerton, & Ragusa, 2014). Professors and administrators
predominantly reflect the baby boomer generation and generation-x (Howe & Strauss,
2007). These educators and practitioners were not raised with technology integrated into
every part of their daily lives and must work to learn and adapt to the technologically
facilitated lifestyles of the students that they serve (Howe & Strauss, 2007; Jonas-Dwyer
& Pospisil, 2004; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). This slow rate of adaption may also be the
result of urgency displayed by universities to incorporate social media into practice
(Corwin et al., 2014). Students who have grown up with technology expect services to be
delivered quickly and to be available 24 hours a day (Heiberger & Harper, 2008;
Oblinger, 2003). These expectations place additional pressure on administrators and
faculty to reassess how they are using technology and how they can stay up to date with
the latest innovations (Jonas-Dwyer & Pospisil, 2004; Kleinglass, 2005; Lowery, 2004).
Non-Traditional Aged College Students
With the number of non-traditional aged students enrolling in postsecondary
institutions rising, it is important to consider the implications among non-millennial
student groups of increasing the use of technology in college environments. The National
Center for Education Statistics (2012) reported that the percentage of non-traditional aged
students enrolling in postsecondary institutions has increased over that of the enrollment
of traditional aged students. As of 2010, 8.9 million of the students enrolled in
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

30

postsecondary institutions were over the age of 25 (US Department of Education, 2012).
The National Center for Education Statistics (2012) predicts that percentage of the
students over the age of 25 who enrolled in college will increase 20% by the year 2020.
While some of these adult learners were not raised using newer forms technology in day-
to-day life, research shows that some adult age groups have adapted well (Brenner &
Smith, 2013; Zickhur & Smith, 2012). Eighty-seven percent of adults ages 30 to 49 and
74% of adults ages 50 to 64 used the Internet as of 2011 (Zickhur & Smith, 2012). The
rates of online social network use among these groups, however is lower (Brenner &
Smith, 2013). Only 78% of adults ages 30 to 49 and 60% of adults ages 50 to 64 use an
online social network (Brenner & Smith, 2013). While adapting the promotion of student
services to online social networks may work well for traditional aged students, the impact
on raising awareness among the increasing number of non-traditional age student groups
may be lower.
Higher Education and Technology
Since the 1970s colleges have recognized the importance of incorporating new
technologies into their work with students (Platt et al., 1972, pp. 57-59). Administrators
have since enhanced college campuses with a number of technological improvements.
As early as the late 1990s, Harvard university installed Ethernet jacks into it’s college
classrooms; though these have now been replaced on some campuses by wireless Internet
hotspots, the effort was innovative at the time (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008, p. 238).
Classrooms are not the only part of the higher education environment that has
been updated. Information technology directors are appearing on some college campuses
to guide the implementation of digitally enabled initiatives (Moneta, 2005). Orientation
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

31

programs are now online for some institutions and the Blackboard learning management
system has been implemented on most campuses nation wide (Lowery, 2004; Moneta,
2005). One of the latest technological innovations to evolve on college campuses is the
availability of massively open online courses, or MOOCs (Johnson et al., 2013).
Despite the technological enhancement efforts just discussed, most colleges and
universities have a long history of not adapting new technologies, or adapting them long
after other industries have implemented them (Roblyer et al., 2010). Kleinglass (2003)
conducted a study to assess the technological proficiency levels of college administrators
at a Midwest university. The results showed that less than 40% of the staff surveyed felt
proficient in their ability to do Internet searches. The study also revealed that only about
53% of administrators spent half of their day or more using a computer (Kleinglass,
2003). This percentage is very low compared to the connected students they work with,
who are connected to the Internet all day everyday.
Social Networking Successes and Failures in Higher Education
When first starting to implement online social networks in their outreach to
students, colleges and universities failed to adapt in a timely manner (Davis, Deil-Amen,
Rios-Aguilar, & Gonzalez Canche, 2012). In 2008, less than 60% of colleges reported
having an official Facebook page for their campus, 67% of colleges did not have an
official Twitter account, and only a little over 50% had a YouTube account (Reuben,
2008). Many of these colleges spent between one and four hours a week maintaining
their Facebook page and a majority only updated their Twitter one to four times per week
(Reuben, 2008). This level of interaction was significantly lower than the college
students they are trying to reach through these networks and is not congruent with
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

32

researchers recommendations of how to be an influential user.
Since 2008, however, colleges and universities have significantly increased their
use of online social networks and have been more timely in implementation (Barnes &
Lescault, 2011; Davis et al., 2012). A study conducted by the University of
Massachusetts, Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research stated that, as of 2011, 100%
of colleges were represented on a social media platform (Barnes & Lescault, 2011). 98%
of the universities they studied had a Facebook page, 84% had a Twitter account, and
85% had a YouTube channel. This study also indicated a high rate of success for those
campuses who did created and maintained accounts on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube
(Barnes & Lescault, 2011). How frequently colleges update their profiles and pages,
however, was not included in this study (Barnes & Lescault, 2011).
The Barnes and Lescault (2011) study, along with a majority of the literature to
date which stresses the success of online social network usage by colleges and
universities, has focused on admissions and enrollment management and not on
implementation at the institutional level (Davis et al., 2012). The Barnes and Lescault
(2011) study focused on social media use in outreach to prospective students. It revealed
that 68% of admissions administrators surveyed felt that online social network
technologies were “very important” to their recruiting strategy (Barnes & Lescault, 2011,
p. 9).
A study by Kelleher and Sweetser (2012), conducted at two different universities,
further defined the reasoning behind the implementation of an online social network
strategy for departments which rely heavily upon communicating university information
to external entities. These researchers discovered four themes in the reasoning behind
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

33

implementing a strategy, which included online social networks. The first was that
administrators felt that since prospective students were already using these social
networks, it made sense to use the networks to convey university information. They also
felt that using these networks provided the universities with an opportunity to showcase
the university’s areas of expertise. Additionally, these administrators found these
networks to be cost effective, since they relieved the necessity of printing and mailing
promotional materials. The last reason for using these networks was convenience. It was
significantly easier for administrators to post updated information to blogs or pages than
it was to recreate printed materials or update university webpages (Kelleher & Sweetser,
2012).
Other university departments have since also discovered these advantages and
have integrated online social networks into communication with current students
(Roblyer et al., 2010). Social networks provide an inexpensive method for conveying
information to students (Heiberger & Harper, 2008). They have been used for program
marketing, communicating event information, and university marketing campaigns
(Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Roblyer et al., 2010). Orientation programs have begun
using networks such as Facebook to connect students before they arrive on campus and
college libraries are using social media to collect information about user preferences
(Connell, 2009; Heiberger & Harper, 2008).
Most literature on the effectiveness of implementing online social networks in
college environments, however, focuses on implementation within the classroom (Palfrey
& Gasser, 2008; Roblyer et al., 2010). This body of literature indicates that lack of
training and misalignment of student and faculty understanding of the uses of social
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

34

media are the main contributors to ineffective uses of social networks in college
environments (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Roblyer et al., 2010). Of the few studies that do
measure the effectiveness of administrators in utilizing social networks, indicates that
they, like faculty, are not utilizing new technology effectively (Heiberger & Harper,
2008; Kleinglass, 2005; Moneta, 2005; Rios-Aguilar, Canché, Sacramento, Deil-Amen,
& Davis, 2012).
This body of research points to a number of reasons why administrators struggle
with social networking. One reason is lack of resources or staff to properly implement
new technologies (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Johnson et al., 2013; Rios-Aguilar et al.,
2012). A second reason that administrators are hesitant to use social networking
platforms is fear of negative comments from student users (Reuben, 2008). In reality,
only a small portion of student interaction through these platforms has been negative.
These negative comments have in fact provided useful, immediate feedback for colleges
in some instances (Reuben, 2008).
Another hesitation is rooted in the misconception that students do not want to
connect with colleges over social networks (Berg, Berquam, & Christoph, 2007; Connell,
2009; Heiberger & Harper, 2008). Clemons et al. (2007) stated that students today are
wary about having their privacy invaded online. A 2009 study found that a majority of
students surveyed were willing to connect with an college library through a social
network (Connell, 2009). Less than 12% of the students surveyed felt that connecting
with the university on a social network was an invasion of their personal privacy and
many of the student comments stated that an online relationship with the library could be
positive. Student did make clear, however, that they did not want to be spammed, and
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

35

wanted communication through the social networks to be relevant to them (Connell,
2009).
Heiberger and Harper (2008) instruct practitioners to meet students “where they
are” online, despite these misconceptions and obstacles and to embrace new technology
in order to better serve college students (p. 33). Researchers recommend that upper
administration should give staff adequate training and give them the proper to connect
with students in online environments (Reuben, 2008; Treuer & Belote, 1997). Berg et al.
(2007) encourage administrators to be flexible and find efficient and effective ways to
use social networks to provide services to students. Rios-Aguilar et al. (2012) encourage
practitioners to have develop a strategy for social media, use social media applications to
“add value” to current work, remain cognizant of privacy, and assess the outcomes of
using social media to reach goals (p. 8). Treuer and Belote (1997) also emphasize that
technological initiatives must constantly be assessed and evolve on college campuses.
Businesses and Social Network Marketing
While higher education institutions have had a difficult time integrating the
recommendations of researchers regarding implementing social media into their daily
practices, companies and organizations in other industries have been successful
(Thackeray et al., 2008; Thomson et al., 2013). Other industries realize that social
networking platforms present an additional venue for advertising products and services to
customers and that these networks have a large amount of influence over consumer
opinion (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). As a result, they have successfully used social
networking platforms to supplement print and additional media based communication
(Thackeray et al., 2008). Additionally, they have been able to use these networks to
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

36

gather information from and about their customers (Mangold & Faulds, 2009).
One of the reasons that other industries have been so successful in using social
networking platforms for advertising, is because they have recognized early on that social
media consumers are in control of the content they see (Mangold & Faulds, 2009;
Ruddock, 2013). Companies have capitalized on this by involving the consumer in
content creation (Jansen, Zhang, Sobel, & Chowdury, 2009; Thackeray et al., 2008).
They have discovered that product or service related messages that are generated by the
consumers, rather than the company, gain attention from the desired audience (Thackeray
et al., 2008). Two well-known examples of this are the Superbowl Doritos commercials
and the Dove commercial aired during the 2008 Oscars broadcast. Both Doritos and
Dove asked customers to create their own commercials about their products. The
winning commercial was then aired on live TV for the nation to see. Both commercials
cost relatively little money for the company to produce and were popular among viewing
audiences (Thackeray et al., 2008).
Businesses have also been able to spread product or service related messages on
social networks through viral marketing, a process in which popular content is uploaded
and then shared rapidly to progressively large number of networked users (Thackeray et
al., 2008). This is also known as “word of mouth” marketing and involves audiences
sharing information and opinions about products, services, or companies with the people
in their networks (Benevenuto et al., 2012; Jansen et al., 2009, p. 2169). Thackeray et al.
(2008) discovered that with proper consideration of the target audience’s preferences and
selection of the appropriate applications, viral marketing could be a useful tool in
disseminating information.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

37

Twitter, in particular, is an especially useful social networking platform for of
information dissemination (Jansen et al., 2009; Rinaldo et al., 2011) The network’s short
bursts of information related content is a cost-effective way to spread information. One
company that used this feature of Twitter well is Georgetown Cupcakes (Thackeray et al.,
2008). The small bakery, which invested no money into print, or traditional media based
advertising, was able to sell $2,200 worth of cupcakes in two weeks because of a viral
marketing campaign carried out through social media (Thackeray et al., 2008).
In addition to spreading information, social networks also provide companies and
organizations with a tool to manage customer relationships (Jansen et al., 2009; Thomson
et al., 2013). Arts organizations have discovered that social networks are a particularly
useful tool in engaging their target audiences outside of events (Thomson et al., 2013).
Additionally, a study by Jansen et al. (2009) determined that company related customer
engagement on social networks was predominately positive messages. Almost 80% of
the tweets reviewed in the study reflected a positive brand sentiment. The 22% of
negative comments could be used as opportunities for gathering feedback about the
products, services, or customer experience (Jansen et al., 2009).
Taking all of this information into consideration, Wilson et al. (2011) emphasized
the importance of strategizing an organization’s social media presence. The authors
identified four types of organizational approaches to social media strategizing, the
“predictive practitioner,” the “creative experimenter,” the “social media champion,” and
the “social media transformer” (Wilson et al., 2011, pp. 23-25). The “predictive
practitioner” is the recommended strategy for organizations that want to avoid
uncertainty and integrate previously established assessment tools (Wilson et al., 2011, p.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

38

23). The “creative experimenter” approach is for organizations that are comfortable with
uncertainty and that want to integrate social networking on a small scale to improve
lesser noticed workflows (Wilson et al., 2011, p. 23). The “social media champion” is
designed for large-scale implementation of social networking that will enhance the
workflow of many levels of the organization (Wilson et al., 2011, p. 24). The “social
media transformer” approach embraces the participation of the organization’s audience
and uses it as a catalyst to generate change within the organization (Wilson et al., 2011, p.
25). Regardless of the best fit for an organization, the authors warned those
implementing the strategies not to loose sight of their goals as they move through the
process of integrating social media and engaging their target audience (Wilson et al.,
2011). Similar strategies could be adapted to student’ affairs practitioners’ outreach to
students, with consideration of institutional size, readiness, and resources.
Weak Ties
The findings of the case studies mentioned in the previous section align with
research that has explored how to leverage weak ties to disseminate information.
Bakshy, Rosenn, Marlow, & Adamic (2012) explored how information is consumed and
disseminated via social networking. This study relied on the findings of an earlier study
by Bakshy et al. (2011), which discovered that a majority of individuals in a person’s
online social network is comprised of weak ties. Weak ties are connections between
individuals who are not closely, personally connected (Granovetter, 1973). While the
people who comprise weak ties may be considered friends with a user on the social
network, they are individuals who would be considered a personal acquaintance or and
acquaintance of a close personal friend outside of the online network. Individuals with
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

39

weak tie relationships do not actually have a close personal relationship with the user
outside of the network and therefore are not actually close personal friends, or close ties.
The more recent study discovered that people within an individual’s network who
would be considered a weak tie disseminate a majority of the information consumed by
social media users (Bakshy, Rosenn, Marlow, & Adamic, 2012). Prior to the 2011 and
2012 studies, Levin and Cross (2004) explored the influence of trust in the information
disseminated through of weak ties. Through the study the authors revealed that when
perceived trustworthiness was controlled for, weak ties were more useful in
disseminating non-redundant information than were strong ties (Levin & Cross, 2004).
According to Granovetter (1973), people connect themselves with weak ties in order to
gain access to information contained in social circles of which they are not a part. This is
relevant because weak ties serve as the primary relationship for communicating via
online social networks and because weak ties form the basis for social capital theory,
which will be explained in the following section (Bakshy et al., 2012; Coleman, 1988).
Both of these concepts are integral in creating a strategy for student affairs practitioners
to use to leverage online social networks for disseminating information to students.
Conceptual Framework
Coleman (1988) introduced the theory of social capital as a conceptual tool for
explaining the actions of individuals and the development of social organizations. Social
capital, he explained, is built upon the relationships that an individual has with others.
Bourdieu (2008) explained social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources which are linked to … membership in a group– which provides each of its
members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a “credential” which entitles
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

40

them to credit, in the various senses of the word” (p. 286). Bourdieu (2008) defines
social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to…
membership in a group” (p. 286). In a later work, Bourdieu (1989) introduced how
power dynamics affect the formation of social capital. While Coleman (1988) sought to
understand how social capital could elevate the social status of an individual, Bourdieu
(1989) recognized how power dynamics within social institutions could limit the progress
of individuals with less inherent capital. This study, however, focuses on one group of
individuals, in this case, students, who have elected to enter into a relationship with the
educational institution that they attend. The institution that these students attend is
expected to impart knowledge upon the students it serves, therefore, Bourdieu’s (1989)
explanation of social capital is less relevant than Coleman’s (1988) in this case.
Coleman (1988) expands upon the preceding definitions by stating that the
creation of social capital is heavily affected by the nature of the relationships that an
individual has within his or her community. Social capital, in essence, is the utility an
individual has to take advantage of the resources within his or her network of family,
friends, and acquaintances. Coleman (1988) proceeds to identify three ways in which of
social capital can be gained: obligations and expectations, information flow, and norms
(pp. 102-105).
Obligations and expectations are based on the trustworthiness of the individuals
involved in the action (Coleman, 1988). It is described as a transaction based
relationship, where in one individual performs a favor for another individual, resulting in
the indebtedness of the second individual. Trustworthiness comes into play when the
indebted individual decides whether or not to repay the favor in the future. It is also
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

41

depends on the extent of the obligation; essentially, how taxing was the investment of
time, resources, etc. for the individual who performed the action to the now indebted
individual (Coleman, 1988)?
The second and third sources of social capital are information channels and
norms. Information channels are relationships based information sharing. Within these
relationships, one individual wants information but is not interested enough in obtaining
the information to acquire the information themselves (Coleman, 1988). The individual
seeking information then relies upon other individuals within their network, for whom
this type of information is a priority, to share the information with them. The third
concept, norms, are behaviors that are condoned and encouraged within the society that
the individual resides (Coleman, 1988).
Coleman (1988) asserts that social capital can be developed through the people
within an individual’s network. Part of a student’s network while in college is the student
affairs staff at the college or university that they attend. In work related to online social
networks, Ellison et al. (2007) and Valensuela et al. (2009) found that platforms such as
Facebook and Twitter also have significant impact on the formation of social capital.
College administrators could leverage social networks to assist students in the formation
of social capital among the students with whom they work.
Scope of the Study

The purpose of this study is to understand how students engage in social media
based communication and to understand how they would prefer to interact with
universities on various social media platforms. Coleman’s (1988) concept of social
capital guides the research questions in an attempt to understand how students perceive
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

42

university administrators in terms of obligation, expectation, and trustworthiness; how
this relationship enhances or hinders student’s perception of administrators as an
information channel; and how students perceive the norms of using social media as a
pathway of communication with administrators. Additionally, the study will investigate
how these students perceive these same pathways with other companies and
organizations. The study will then compare students’ perceptions of interactions between
the two entities. This data, in conjunction with the literature, will be used to understand
how students gather information from social media platforms and how these online
interactions impact students’ awareness of the programs and resources available at their
university.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

43

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The literature to date has determined that there is a gap in the analysis of the use
of online social networks between college students and university administrators, but has
failed to explore why this gap exists. The study examined this problem through a
quantitative survey. A college student affairs department that utilizes a variety of online
social networks to engage its’ students but does not have a centralized strategy was
selected as the primary research site. The goal of the study was to assess the amount of
interaction the undergraduate students at the selected site have with the university and
with other companies and organizations via online social networks. The quantitative
survey included a concluding open-ended question that gave study participants the option
of including specific recommendations to the university about using online social
networks. This data, in conjunction with the literature, was then used to develop an
understanding of how the surveyed students use online social interactions to gather
information about programs and services.
Study Design

Campbell and Fiske (1959) were the first researchers to use both qualitative and
quantitative methods within formal research. Their 1959 study defined a multitrait-
multimethod approach to research based inquiry and helped introduce both qualitative
and quantitative procedures within the same study to modern research (Creswell, 2009).
Since then, other researchers, such as Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie (as cited in
Creswell, 2009), as well as John Creswell and Viki Plano Clark (2011) have further
defined this type of research procedure. This study utilized the both types of question
within the study design to understand the experiences and interactions of one
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

44

undergraduate student population. Coleman’s (1988) social capital framework acted as
the explicit theory which guided the strategy of the study.
The primary goal of this study was to collect quantitative data to test the
hypothesis, which predicted that students gather information through online social
networks from peers and organizations or companies in a manner, which differs from
how they gather information from the university that they attend. This hypothesis has
been proposed because of three factors: The first is that current literature concludes that
colleges and universities have not been successful in using social media to connect with
students. Second, other organizations and businesses have been very successful in
implementing online social network based campaigns to engage customers. Third,
college students are among the heaviest users of online social networks.
Because of the focus on testing the hypothesis, the weight of the study focused on
quantitative data collection. The qualitative data was included only at the end of the
survey. The purpose of this was to further expand upon the quantitative data collected
and support the qualitative data with more depth of understanding. The qualitative data
was gathered in support of the quantitative data. Timing of qualitative and quantitative
data collection was concurrent (Creswell, 2009).
Data Collection Procedure
Site Selection
Data for this study was collected using purposeful sampling, so that the
individuals who participated would be able to provide information that would be relevant
to the research questions (Maxwell, 2012). The individuals needed to be college students
who had access to online social networks. The college selected as the site for data
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

45

collection was also purposefully selected (Maxwell, 2012). The university is a four-year,
private academic degree granting institution, which has student life offices that have
implemented the use of a variety of online social networks to connect with students. The
university, which uses online social networks, was selected because it does not have a
centralized social media strategy. This is the case in most colleges across the country,
and so the results may be relatable to the environment at other institutions (Flick, 2007).
Sampling Procedure
This study utilized a volunteer sample (Creswell & Clark, 2011; Isaac & Michael,
1971). Fowler (2009) explained that some studies are conducted for the purpose of
gaining initial insight into a “range of ideas or opinions that people have or the way that
variables seem to hang together” (p. 10). In preliminary studies, such as this one,
collecting information from individuals who are readily available is sufficient (Fowler,
2009). A non-probabilistic sampling method was utilized, allowing students who were
available and who volunteered to participate in the study to be included in the sample
(Creswell & Clark, 2011). The lead to an initial sample that was not entirely
representative of the university’s student population (Fowler, 2009).
As Isaac and Michael (1971) have also indicated, conducting surveys with a
sample of volunteers may also compromise the study’s validity because volunteers have a
high likelihood of differing from non-volunteers. Efforts were made to minimize this
effect through advertising that encouraged participants who were engaged in the topic of
the study as well as those who are not actively invested in the subject matter to participate
(Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). Though this study did not create generalizable data,
it did provide an in-depth understanding of the perceived influence of one university’s
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

46

efforts to engage students (Creswell & Clark, 2011).
In this survey, the sample frame was made up of students at the research site who
have engaged with student affairs offices at the university (Creswell & Clark, 2011). The
sample frame was comprised of any undergraduate student who had at some point been
involved with the university’s student affairs offices. Thus, the sample was only
representative of a population that was engaged with the offices in student affairs at the
sample site (Fowler, 2009). Because some students may be involved with more than one
office, and there is no central list of all of the students who engage with the university
through these offices, a list of participants could be generated (Fowler, 2009).
It was also possible that the sample frame may have included some students who
were not part of the intended sample (Fowler, 2009). Some of the individuals who were
enrolled as graduate students may have accidentally participate in the survey because
some offices serve both graduate and undergraduate students. Two tactics were used to
minimize the number of graduate students who participate. First, the advertisements
included an appeal specifically to undergraduate students and second, the survey
incorporated a reminder to complete the survey only if the student is an undergraduate
student. These two initiatives helped minimize graduate student participation in the
sample.
Isaac and Michael (1971) emphasized that large samples have increased reliability
and lower sampling errors. Because larger samples sizes preferable when feasible, this
study sought to include a large enough sample to be representative of the undergraduate
population at the university (Isaac & Michael, 1971). Unfortunately, the sample size was
not large enough to be representative of the population and thus, the data collected was
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

47

not representative.
The university selected had 18,316 enrolled undergraduate students. The sample
should have been large enough to meet the requirements of statistical validation for the
entire undergraduate student population of the university selected and will allow for
flexibility with rate of response (Fowler, 2009). Thus the intended sample size should
have been approximately 318 undergraduate students however only 281 students
participated. The minimum sample size requirement is based the following formula
proposed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970):
S = x
2
NP (1 – P) ÷ d
2
(N – 1) + x
2
P (1 – P)
This formula presents the basis for determining the sample size needed for a randomly
chosen population within a sample that has a finite population (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970).
Therefore, had a sample size of at least 318 undergraduate students participated; the
sample would have been representative of the given population with a ninety-five percent
confidence level.
Data Collection Mode
The sole method of data collection was one distributed survey, which
incorporated one qualitative and multiple quantitative questions. The open-ended
question will allowed the researcher to collect information relevant to the supporting
research questions (Creswell & Clark, 2011; Seidman, 1991). The open-ended question
also allowed students to bring up issues related to this topic which were not covered in
other parts of the survey and will allow students the opportunity to expand upon their
quantitative survey responses (Seidman, 1991; Spradley, 1979). The quantitative
questions on the survey additionally assessed if interactions within online social networks
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

48

have affected the students’ knowledge of campus programs and services.
The survey was distributed as a link through email and the online social networks
that are connected with student affairs office that chose to participate in the study. These
offices included two cultural centers, residential life, Greek life, parent programs, judicial
standards, and a scholars program. An online survey, rather than paper survey was
chosen, because email surveys tend to garner a higher response rate than traditional postal
methods (Dillman et al., 2009). Since this survey was conducted in order to understand
an aspect of Internet use, it also made sense to distribute the survey online. Dillman et al.
(2009) assert that people tend to participate in surveys when the “perceived rewards
outweigh the expected costs” (p. 22). In an effort to increase rewards, the survey took
less than 30 minutes to complete and offered respondents the opportunity to enter into a
raffle of two 25 dollar gift cards for the university’s bookstore.
In addition to the financial incentive, the survey was advertised in a way that will
make it appealing to a wide variety of individuals within the undergraduate student
population at the university. Paper advertisements also displayed the survey link and
information about the lottery-based prize for those who completed the survey. These
were posted in high-traffic areas within the participating offices and residence halls.
The survey also allowed respondents to remain anonymous in an effort to ensure
confidentiality (Dillman et al., 2009). Questions relating to demographic information
were included, but only for the purpose of comparing the sample to the demographics of
the entire undergraduate population for purposes of assessing validity (Dillman et al.,
2009; Fowler, 2009). This was explained to survey participants at the beginning of the
survey (Dillman et al., 2009). Respondents were not asked for their names or student
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

49

identification numbers. They were asked for their email address. However, providing a
response to that question, as was the case with all questions except the question in which
students agreed to participate in the survey, was optional. Email address information was
only be used for inclusion in the raffle and was not be used for identification purposes.
Question Form
Because the population would have completed at least one semester of college by the
time the survey was distributed, the population should have had the reading and writing
skills to be able to adequately complete a self-administered survey (Fowler, 2009). Since
the survey was comprised of close-ended quantitative questions, a self-administered
survey was the most effective method of data collection for gathering the data. This was
in part due to the fact that questions on the survey was similar in form (Fowler, 2009).
The quantitative questions predominately measured facts or objective information
(Fowler, 2009). Many of these questions gathered nominal or ordinal data. The
qualitative question measured subjective information such as feelings and attitudes
(Fowler, 2009). In order to ensure consistent measurement, each student was asked the
same questions on the survey (Fowler, 2009). Please, refer to Table A1 in the Appendix
for the survey questions.
Description of Data Analysis
Both qualitative and quantitative data were included in the analysis phase of the study
(Creswell, 2009). First the quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics to
answer the main research question (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Then the qualitative data
was analyzed thematically and were presented at the end of the analysis to call attention
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

50

to concerns or suggestions raised by students, which were not addressed in the
quantitative survey questions.
Limitations of the Study
The study provided an understanding of the online interactions and preferences of
students at one higher education institution (Flick, 2007). Participation was limited to
individuals who elected to participate in the survey, and may not have accurately
captured the opinions of the entire student population (Isaac & Michael, 1971; Maxwell,
2012). While the survey questions were worded with the intention of eliminating bias,
some students may have had a different understanding of the terminology used in the
survey than what is intended (Spradley, 1979). This could have altered the researcher’s
ability to accurately understand of student responses (Spradley, 1979). Not all student
respondents answered the qualitative question with enough detail for the researcher to
fully understand their meanings (Gibbs, 2007). Survey participation was also lower than
expected which affected the statistical relevance of the data (Fowler, 2009). Finally, the
survey was not generalizable to the entire undergraduate population of the university or
to the experience of students at other colleges because the sample was limited to one data
collection site and the population sample was comprised of volunteers (Fowler, 2009).

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

51

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter includes an overview of the findings gathered through the study. It
begins with an overview of the respondent demographics. Then the chapter explores
explore how the research questions were explored through the question groupings listed
in Chapter Three. Then, findings related to each of Coleman’s (1988) social capital
theory are presented. Next, the researcher explains the findings in relationship to how
student use of online social networks with the university compares to their use of the
networks with other entities. The chapter concludes with information pertaining to
student recommendations for the sample university to use in engaging students through
online social networks.
A total of 281 students took the survey with 236 of these students completing the
survey. Since the survey only required a forced response to the first question, which
verified that the respondent was over 18 and an undergraduate student at the sample site
university, some respondents did not answer all of the question sets. The data from all
respondents was analyzed, including those who did not complete the entire survey. The
lack of respondent answers to all questions resulted in a fluctuation of n values
throughout the analysis. The p value for this analysis was set at .05.
The analysis generated descriptive statistics about the sample population in the
form of frequencies, cross tabulations, and chi-squared tests. Specific questions were
composed to understand the guiding research questions and test the hypothesis. These
questions were grouped together in alignment with Coleman’s (1998) social capital
framework and were based on more specific questions which were aligned with
Coleman’s (1988) three pathways for gaining social capital: obligational relationships,
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

52

information channels, and norms. The first set of questions which helped the researcher
to understand the existence and use of obligational relationships were:
• How do students use online social networks to learn about services offered at a
university?
• Are the online interactions of students influenced by obligational relationships
with the university and administrators?
The second set of questions included the first question along with a clarifying question,
which explored student perception of online social networks as an information channel.
These questions were
• How do students use online social networks to learn about services offered at a
university?
• Do students use university sponsored online social networks as an information
channel?
The third set of questions sought to establish an understanding of the social norms
associated with using online social networks and included
• How do students use online social networks to learn about services offered at a
university?
• Do students recognize using online networks as a social norm for gathering
information about the university?
The last set of questions sought to understand if the relationship between using these
networks with the university differed from students’ use of these networks with other
entities. These questions were
• Do students gather information through online social networks from peers and
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

53

non-university entities in a manner, which differs from how they gather
information from the university?
• How do students recommend universities use online social networks to share
information?
These question groupings will be explored in the following sections.
Respondent Demographics
A total of 276 students responded to demographical questions. Among these
respondents, 26.8% of were male and 73.2% were female, as shown in Table 1. Asian
students were the most represented group in the sample (36.6%). The next most
represented group was students who self-identified as White or Caucasian. Hispanic
students comprised 13% of the sample. 7.6% were Black or African American and 8.3%
identified as “other”.
Table 1

Biological Sex of Participants

Group Frequency Percent
Male 74 26.8
Female 202 73.2
Total 276 100.0

Table 2 displays the distribution of ethnicities among the sample population.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

54

Table 2

Ethnicity of Participants

Group Frequency Percent
Asian 101 36.6
Black/African-
American 21 7.6
Hispanic 36 13.0
White/Caucasian 95 34.4
Other 23 8.3
Total 276 100.0

Seven point six percent of the student respondents identified themselves as an
international student, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3

International Student Status of Participants

Group Frequency Percent
International Student 23 7.6
Domestic Student 253 83.5
Total 276 100.0

A majority of respondents were freshmen (53.6%). Twenty-four point three percent of
the sample population was sophomores and 12.3% were juniors. Eight percent were
seniors and 1.8% of respondents were fifth year seniors. This is represented in
Table 4.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

55

Table 4
Class Standing of Participants

Group Frequency Percent
Freshman 146 53.6
Sophomore 67 24.3
Junior 34 12.3
Senior 22 8.0
Fifth Year Senior 5 1.8
Note. n = 276.

The sample was not representative of the student population at the sample
university. One example of this is that the distribution of biological sex is 51.6% female
and 48.4% male. The number of female respondents to the survey represented a much
higher proportion of female students than exists in the actual population. Additionally,
only 23% of the actual student population is Asian. An additional 5% identified as Black
or African-American, 14% identified as Hispanic, and 39% identified as White or
Caucasian. Additionally, the sample university considers international student status as a
stand-alone category within racial identity. This identifier represents 12% of the student
population. The actual demographics of the student population are very different than
that of the sample population.
Two hundred and seventy-five respondents answered the question about which
devices they used to access the Internet. Ninety-nine point three percent of respondents
indicated using a computer, 36% indicated using a tablet device, and 96% indicated using
a cellular phone. Only 3.3% (9) of question respondents indicated using another device
to access the Internet, as shown in Table 5.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

56

Table 5
Devices Used to Access Social Networks

Group Frequency Percent
Computer 273 99.3
Tablet Device 99 36.0
Cellular Phone 264 96.0
Other 9 3.3

Note. n = 275.

Two of these respondents used a video gamming console, 6 indicated using an
iPod and one question respondent indicated using a Google glass device. When asked
about their primary method of connecting to the Internet, 66.5% of question respondents
indicated using a computer, 30.9% indicated using a cellular phone, and 2.5% indicated
that they use a tablet. This information is displayed in Table 6.
Table 6
Primary Device Used By Participants

Group Frequency Percent
Computer 183 66.5
Tablet 7 2.5
Cellular Phone 85 30.9
Other 0 0.0
Note. n = 275.

Description of General Social Media Use
Out of 303 total survey respondents, 270 answered questions about which online
social networks they used. The least used networks were Digg (0.4%), Friendster (0.4%),
and Bebo (0.7%). Delicious, MySpace, Foursquare, Blogger, and Flickr were used
slightly more than the preceding networks, but use ranges fell below 10%. StumbleUpon,
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

57

Reddit, Vimeo, Vine, and WordPress were used among 10% and 20% or respondents.
Google+ and Pinterest both were reportedly used among 26.3% and 28.5% of users. The
next most widely used network was Yelp, which 34.1% of respondent indicated using.
41.1% and 43% of users used LinkedIn and Tumblr, respectively. Slightly less than 50%
of respondents reported using Twitter. Skype then followed in rate of use, with 61.5% of
respondents indicating use of the network. Snapchat and Instagram had similar levels of
use, 69.3% and 70%. YouTube was the second most used network, with 82.2% of
respondents indicating use of the network. Facebook had a much higher rate of use,
95.9%. Table 7 displays the respondents’ rate of use for each network.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

58

Table 7

Participant Access to Online Social Networks

Network Frequency Percent
Bebo 2 0.7
Blogger 16 5.9
Delicious 3 1.1
Digg 1 0.4
Facebook 259 95.9
Flickr 25 9.3
Foursquare 8 3.0
Friendster 1 0.4
Google+ 71 26.3
Instagram 189 70.0
LinkedIn 111 41.1
MySpace 5 1.9
Pinterest 77 28.5
Reddit 46 17.0
Skype 166 61.5
Snapchat 187 69.3
StumbleUpon 32 11.9
Tumblr 116 43.0
Twitter 131 48.5
Vimeo 41 15.2
Vine 2 0.7
WordPress 41 15.6
Yelp 92 34.1
YouTube 222 82.2
Other 15 5.6
Note. n = 270.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

59

Engagement with the University on Social Networks
In order to understand how students gather information via online social
networks, cross tabulations and chi-squared tests were run. These tests sought to
understand the relationship between subgroups within the sample population and rates of
use. First frequencies were generated to understand how many survey respondents like or
follow an official university social network. Among the 250 respondents who answered
the question about official university social network use, 176 (58.1%) respondents
indicated that they do like or follow an official university page, group, or profile.
Seventy-four students (24.4%) indicated that they did not. This information is displayed
on Table 8.
Table 8
Frequency of Following University on OSN

Group

Frequency

Percentage
Yes

176

70.4
No

74

29.6
Note. n = 250; OSN = Online Social Network.

Additionally, 21.2% of students who answered the question about frequency of
seeing updates on an official university social network indicated that they saw an update
from an official university social network on a monthly basis. Fourty-eight point eight
percent of these student respondents indicated seeing an update on a weekly basis.
Twenty-five point three percent of these respondents indicated seeing an update daily and
4.7% indicated seeing an update multiple times a day, as shown on Table 9.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

60

Table 9

One hundred and sixty student respondents answered questions related to their
activities on official social media pages, groups, and profiles. Ninety-four point four
percent of these question respondents stated that they post or send photos, 80% look at
photos, 3.8% post or send videos, 49.4% look at videos, 5.6% post status updates or
tweets, 70.6% look at the statuses, updates, or tweets of other users, 15.6% comment on
content on a group or public page, 58% read comments or content on a group or public
page, 10.6% repost content from another user, 54.4% like, favorite, or rate the content of
another user, and 48.1% click on a web link that was posted by another user, as shown on
Table 10. Based on this information, a majority of the activities that students engaged in
on official university online social network pages, groups, and profiles are passive in
nature. The one exception to this observation, however, was the rate at which students
post or send photos.
Frequency of Seeing Updates from University on OSNs
Group Frequency Percentage
Monthly 36 21.2
Weekly 83 48.8
Daily 43 25.3
Multiple times per day 8 4.7
Note.&n=170;&OSN=&Online&Social&Network.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

61

Table 10
Participant Activities on Official University Pages

Activity Frequency Percentage
Post or send photos

9 5.6
Look at Photos

128 80.0
Post or send videos

6 3.8
Look at Videos

79 49.4
Post status updates or tweets

9 5.6
Look at the status updates or tweets of
others

113 70.6
Comment on content on a group or public
page

25 15.6
Read comments or content on a group or
public page

93 58.1
Re-post content from another user

17 10.6
Like, favorite, or rate the content of
another user

87 54.4
Click on a web link that was posted by
another user 77 48.1
Note. n=160.

The next set of tests sought to determine the relationship between different groups
within the sample population and use rates of official university online social network
pages, groups, and profiles. Two hundred and fifty students answered questions about
both their class standing and their use of official university social networks. Seventy
point eight percent of freshmen, 73% of sophomores, 71.9% of juniors, 59.1% of seniors,
and 66.7% of fifth year seniors indicated liking or following an official university social
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

62

network. There was not, however, a statically significant difference between the
proportions of students in each class standing who liked or did not like an official
university social network page, group, or profile. Table 11 further outlines the results of
these two groups and the chi-squared test.
Table 11
Crosstabulation of Class Standing and University OSN Follower

University
OSN
Follower
Class Standing

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

5th Year
Senior
F P F P F P F P

F P
Yes

92 70.8

46 73.0

23 71.9

13 59.1

2 66.7
No

38 29.2

17 27.0

9 28.1

9 40.9

1 33.3
Note. n= 250; x
2
= 1.62*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .81; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*2 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .89.

The second question assessed the relationship between following an official
university online social network page, group, or profile, and respondent ethnicity.
Among the 250 respondents who answered questions about both ethnicity and official
social network use, self-identified Asian and White/Caucasian students were the most
represented. Thirty-five point eight percent of self-identified Asian students and 33% of
self-identified White/Caucasian students indicated liking or following an official
university online social network page, group, or profile. Fourteen point eight percent of
respondents, who indicated that they did follow an official social network page, group, or
profile self-identified as Hispanic, and 6.8% identified as Black or African American.
Additionally, 9.7% of respondents who reported liking or following an official university
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

63

social network self-identified as other. There was not a significant relationship between
ethnicity and use of official university social network pages, groups, or profiles. More
detailed information about this relationship is displayed on Table 12.
Table 12
Crosstabulation of Ethnicity and University OSN Follower

University
OSN
Follower
Ethnicity
Asian
Black/
African
American Hispanic
White/
Caucasian Other
F P F P F P F P F P
Yes

3 35.8

12 6.8

26 14.8

58 33.0

17 9.7
No 27 36.5 9 12.2 8 10.8 27 36.5 3 4.1
Note. n= 250; x
2
= 4.62*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .33; OSN=
Online Social Network; F= Frequency; P= Percentage.
*0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.92.

The researcher then sought to understand if there was a relationship between
biological sex and use of official university online social network pages, groups, and
profiles. Among 250 respondents who answered both questions, 74.8% were female and
25.2% were male. 23.9% of the respondents who indicated liking or following an official
university online social network page, group, or profile were male. The remaining 76.1%
were female. There was no significant difference between being male or female and
liking or following an official university online social network page, group or profile, as
displayed on Table 13.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

64

Table 13
Crosstabulation of Biological sex and University OSN Follower

University OSN
Follower
Biological Sex
Male Female
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Yes

42 23.9

134 76.1
No 21 28.4 533 71.6
Note. n=250; x
2
= .56*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .45; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
18.65.

The relationship between devices used to access the Internet and students who
indicated following an official university online social network was then explored.
61.9% of the students who indicated following an official university social network page
primarily use a computer to access the Internet. Thirty-five point two percent primarily
used a phone to access the Internet and 2.8% primarily used a tablet device to access the
Internet. The relationship between these two variables was not significant, as indicated in
Table 14.
Table 14
Crosstabulation of Device Used to Access Internet and Following the University on
OSNs

Follows
Univ.
on
OSN
Primary Device Used
Computer

Tablet Device

Cell Phone
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Yes 109 61.9

5 2.8

62 35.2
No 57 77.0 2 2.7 15 20.3
Note. n =250; x
2
=5.58*; degrees of freedom=2; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=.06; OSN=
Online Social Network; Univ. = University.
*2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
2.70.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

65

Overall, there was not a significant relationship between any of the subgroups
within the sample population and student use of official university online social network
pages, groups, and profiles. While results showed that there were some differences in use
of these networks to gather information about university services, the differences among
gender, ethnicity, and class standing were not relevant. Additionally, the frequencies run
display a predominately passive type of engagement among student respondents on
official university social network pages, groups, and profiles. The only notable exception
to this was the number of students who reported posting or sending photos. The last
notable finding is that a majority of students who like or follow an official university
social network page, group, or profile saw an update from the university through these
mediums at least once per week.
Obligational Relationships with the University and Administrators
The next set of tests sought to explore if and how social capital theory impacts
students’ use of official university social network pages, groups, and profiles. The first
question explored was whether or not obligational relationships with university
administrators or offices exist and then if they have influenced students’ decisions to like
or follow an official university page, group, or profile. Of the 164 students who shared
their motivations for liking or following an official university social network, 65.2%
indicated that using a service offered at the university and later feeling obligated to
follow the network of the office or center was a factor. Thirteen point one percent of
question respondents indicated that knowing an administrator who worked at the office
was an influencing factor. Twelve point eight percent of respondents indicated that
having a close relationship with an administrator in the office or center was a factor. This
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

66

information, along with information about other influencing factors relating to student
perception of these pages, groups, and profiles as an information channel and social norm
is displayed in Table 15.
Table 15
Influencing Factors on University OSN Following

Activity Frequency Percentage
Used a service and later felt obligated
to follow the social network of the
office or center

107 65.2
Knew an administrator in the office or
center

22 13.4
Had a close relationship with
administrator in the office or center

21 12.8
Wanted to learn more about the office
or center

98 59.8
Had classmates who follow the page,
group, or profile of the office or
center

53 32.3
Had friends who follow the page,
group, or profile of the office or
center

74 45.1
Note. n=164. OSN= Online social network.

In order to understand if there was a relationship between using a university
service and liking an official university page, group, or profile, a cross tabulation and chi-
squared test were run. Out of 250 respondents who answered both questions, 75.4% of
students who used a university service liked or followed an official university social
network. There was a significant relationship between the proportions of those who did
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

67

indicate having used a university service and liking or following a page group or profile,
as displayed in Table 16.
Table 16
Crosstabulation of Following the University and Using a Service
Used a University
Service
Follows the University
Yes No
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Yes

125 75.4

41 24.6
No 50 60.2 33 39.8
Note. n=250; x
2
=6.15*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .01; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 24.57.

Additionally, out of 164 question respondents, 64.1% of students who used a university
service reported later feeling obligated to follow a social network of the office or center.
The relationship between these two variables, however, was not statistically significant,
as shown in Table 17.
Table 17
Crosstabulation of Using a University Service and Feelings of Obligation

Used a
University
Service
Later Felt Obligated to Follow University on OSN
No

Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Yes

42 35.9

75 64.1
No 15 31.9 32 68.1
Note. n=164; x
2
=.24*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=.63; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.34.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

68

In summary, the results of these analyses indicate that there is a significant
relationship between using a university service and the decision to like or follow an
official university social network page, group, or profile. It is also important to note that
a majority of student respondents to questions relating to obligational relationships,
indicated directly that using a service made them feel obligated to like or follow the
office or center. However, relationships with administrators, regardless of whether the
nature of the relationship was close or based in weak ties, were not an influencing factor
for a majority of students. This could also be the case, however, because students who
used these services may not have the opportunity to build a relationship with an
administrator while using the service. Finally, while a majority of students reported
having used a university service and also later felt obligated to like a page, the
relationship between these two variables was not significant.
Online Social Networks as an Information Channel
The next set of analyses sought to understand if students perceive official
university online social network pages, groups, and profiles as information channels and
if that influenced their decision to like or follow the university on these networks. This
information was gathered using a survey question that asked about students’ motivation
for liking or following the university on social networks and a Likert (1932) scale
question about likelihood to use a variety of methods to gather information. The analysis,
again, was based in frequencies, cross tabulations, and chi-squared tests.
As mentioned previously, students who indicated liking or following the
university on a social network were asked about the factors, which influenced their
decision to do so. One hundred and sixty-four students shared their motivations for
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

69

liking or following an official university social network. A majority (59.8%) of
respondents indicated that wanting to learn more about the office or center was a factor.
This information is also represented in Table 15.
Subsequently, students were asked to rank their likelihood of using six different
methods of gathering information about a university service. A range of 1 to 5 students
did not provide an answer for each option; the overall n value for all options was 234
respondents. A frequency analysis of these results indicated that a majority of student
respondents were likely or extremely likely to ask a friend or a classmate for information
about a university service. A majority of answers fell between unlikely (18.4%), neutral
(28.6%), and likely (31.6%) when asked about seeking information from a student leader.
The range was similar among respondents for asking a university employee. Twenty-
four point eight percent of question respondents indicated that they were unlikely to ask
an employee, 32.1% indicated that they were neutral on this option, and 28.2% were
likely to seek information from this channel. Thirty point three percent of question
respondents reported that they were likely to call a center directly to gather information.
Likelihood to call responses were similar to that of asking a student leader.
Using electronic methods of information gathering were more popular among
student respondents. A slight majority of question respondents were extremely likely to
look for information on the university website (50.4%) and an additional 34.6% were
likely to use this option. Emailing the center garnered 31.2% likely results, 26.1%
neutral results, 16.7% extremely likely results, and 17.9% unlikely results. Results
indicated similar levels of unlikelihood (20.5%) and neutrality (20.9%) for using a social
network to gather more information (n=234). The option, which garnered the largest
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

70

response rate for this category was likely to use social media. Figure 1 displays a
breakdown of the results, specifically for likelihood to gather information from an online
social network. The results for all information channels are displayed in Table A2 in the
Appendix. Overall, it appeared that a majority of respondents would use either the
university website or an online social network to gather information about a university
service.

Figure 1. Respondent likelihood of using online social networks to gather information
about a university service.
Finally, the relationship between liking an official university social network page,
group, or profile and likelihood of using social media to gather information about a
service was tested. Among the students who reported liking an official university social
network page, group, or profile, 40.4% indicated that they were likely to use a social
media page to gather information about a university service. Nineteen point nine percent
and 20.5% were unlikely or neutral, respectively, about using this method to gather
information. Fifteen point five percent were extremely likely to use a social network to
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

71

gather information. The results of the chi-squared test indicated that the relationship
between these factors was significant, as displayed in Table 18.
Table 18
Crosstabulation of Likelihood of Using OSN to Gather Information and Following University on OSN

Follows
Univ. on
OSN
Use an OSN to Gather Information
Skipped
Question

Extremely
Unlikely

Unlikely

Neutral

Likely

Extremely
Likely
F P F P F P F P F P F P
Yes

1 0.6

5 3.1

32 19.9

33 20.5

65 40.4

25 15.5
No

2 2.7 12 16.4 16 21.9 16 21.9

21 28.8 6 8.2
Note. n=234; x
2
=18.07*; degrees of freedom=5; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=.00; OSN= Online Social
Network; F= Frequency; P= Percentage.
*2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .94.

The results of this analysis indicate that student respondents at the sample site do
perceive social networks as an information channel for gathering information about
university services. The results indicate that student respondents follow official
university social networks in order to gather information about university services.
Additionally, students are likely or very likely to seek out information about a service
through an official university online social network, page, group, or profile. Finally,
there is a significant relationship between student respondents liking an official university
page, group, or profile and their likelihood of using a social network to gather
information from the university. As a result, it appears that students do consider official
university social network pages, groups, and profiles to be an information channel.
Online Social Networks as a Norm
The third research question focused on understanding if students perceived liking
or following official university social networks as a social norm. One frequency table
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

72

was generated and two cross tabulations were run in order to explore this question. The
tests first focused on understanding if there was a relationship between following a social
an official university social network page, group, or profile and having friends who liked
or followed the university on a social network. The second test sought to understand a
similar relationship between liking or following the university on a social network and
having classmates who did so. The third test measured self-reported influencing factors
that impacted students’ decision to like or follow the university on a social network.
As displayed in Table 15, 164 students shared their motivations for liking or
following an official university social network and having friends who followed the page,
group, or profile. Forty-five point one percent of these respondents indicating that having
friends like or follow an official university page, group, or profile as a factor. Of the
students to reported liking an official university social media page, 32.3% indicated that
having a classmate like or follow the page influenced their decision. No significance
value was computed, however. This was because all students who answered the question
about influencing factors relating to liking or following the university on a social network
had previously indicated liking or following an official university social network page,
group, or profile. This information is displayed on Table 19. Forty-five point one
percent of student respondents indicated that friends were an influencing factor. Again, a
significance value was undeterminable, since liking or following the university on a
social network was a constant. This information is displayed in Table 20.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

73

Table 19
Crosstabulation of Classmate Influence and Following University on OSN

Follows
University
on OSN
Classmates Were Influence
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Yes

111 67.7

53 32.3
Note. n=164; x
2
= *
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on OSN is a constant.

Table 20
Crosstabulation of Friend Influence and Following University on OSN

Follows
University
on OSN
Friends Were Influence
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Yes

90 54.9

74 45.1
Note. n=164; x
2
= *
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on OSN is a constant.

Based on this assessment, it is difficult to determine whether students perceive
liking or following the university on a social network is a norm. It does appear that
friends have more of an influence than classmates. The significance of the relationship
between these influencing factors and actually liking or following the university on a
social network is unable to be determined. As a result, no conclusions could be made
about student perception and influence in this component of building social capital.
Differences in Use with Universities and Other Entities
The hypothesis being tested by this study is that college students interact
differently through online social networks with the university than they do with other
entities based on the social capital framework. To explore the validity of this hypothesis,
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

74

the analysis tested the relationships between how students decided to like or follow each
entity on social media. Comparisons of use on the networks among student respondents
were also compared, between official university, unofficial university, and company or
organization online social networks. The networks on which students regularly
participate was also compared to the networks they reported using to like or follow the
university.
The first information analyzed was the percentage of the students who follow an
official university page group or profile on each network. None of the students who liked
or followed an official university social network did so on the networks Bebo, Blogger,
Delicious, Digg, Foursquare, Friendster, MySpace, StumbleUpon, Vine, and WordPress.
Ninety-six point fiver percent of these users did connect with an official university page,
profile or group on Facebook. Only 0.6% did so on the network Flickr. One point two
percent did so on the network Google+. Thirty-three point five percent reported doing so
on the network Instagram and 9.4% did so on the network LinkedIn. Only 2.4% of
student did so on the network Pinterest. Similarly, only 1.2% did so on the network
Reddit. Skype, Vimeo, and Yelp had an even lower rate of use in this regard, with only
0.6% using the network to connect with the university. Snapchat and YouTube had a
higher rate of use in comparison, with 5.9% of question respondents using the network to
connect with the university. One point eight percent reported using Tumblr to like or
follow the university. Twitter was third most used network to connect with the
university, at a rate of 28.8%. Instagram and Facebook were the most used. This
information is displayed on Table 21.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

75

Table 21
Frequency of Following University OSN by Network

Network Frequency Percentage
Bebo - 0.0
Blogger - 0.0
Delicious - 0.0
Digg - 0.0
Facebook 164 96.5
Flickr 1 0.6
Foursquare - 0.0
Friendster - 0.0
Google+ 2 1.2
Instagram 57 33.5
LinkedIn 16 9.4
MySpace - 0.0
Pinterest 4 2.4
Reddit 2 1.2
Skype 1 0.6
Snapchat 10 5.9
StumbleUpon - 0.0
Tumblr 3 1.8
Twitter 49 28.8
Vimeo 1 0.6
Vine - 0.0
WordPress - 0.0
Yelp 1 0.6
YouTube 10 5.9
Other - 0.0
Note. n=170, Dash denotes no respondents selecting option.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

76

Next, the researcher sought to understand how the social networks that students
reported using compared to the social networks on which students connected with official
university pages, groups, and profiles. No survey respondents reported following an
official university social network on Bebo. Only two survey respondents however,
reported using the network, as displayed on Table 22.
Table 22
Crosstabulation of Following University on Bebo and Using Bebo

Uses Bebo
Follows University on Bebo
No
Frequency Percentage
No

168 100.0
Yes 2 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *.
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on Bebo is a
constant.

While 14 respondents indicated that they used the network Blogger and followed
official university social networks, as displayed in Table 23, none of the respondents
reported following an official university page on Blogger.
Table 23
Crosstabulation of Following University on Blogger and Using Blogger

Uses
Blogger
Follows University on Blogger
No
Frequency Percentage
No

156 100.0
Yes 14 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *.
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on Blogger is a
constant.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

77

This was also the case for Delicious. The survey respondents who followed
university social network pages reported using the network Delicious. However, no
respondents reported following the university on the network, as seen in Table 24.
Table 24
Crosstabulation of Following University on Delicious and Using Delicious

Uses
Delicious
Follows University on Delicious
No
Frequency Percentage
No

167 100.0
Yes 3 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on Delicious is a
constant.

This was also the case for Digg. As show on table 25, only one respondent who
followed official university social network pages indicated that they used Digg, but this
respondent did not follow the university on the Digg network.
Table 25
Crosstabulation of Following University on Digg and Using Digg

Uses Digg
Follows University on Digg
No
Frequency Percentage
No

169 100.0
Yes 1 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *.
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on Digg is a constant.

Facebook had a higher rate of use among official university social network
student followers than the previously mentioned networks. With the exception of three
respondents, all student respondents followed the university on Facebook, as indicated on
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

78

Table 26. One respondent, however, who indicated that they did not use the Facebook
network, did indicate following an official university page on the network. The
relationship between using Facebook and following an official university page, group, or
profile on the network was statistically significant (p = .00).
Table 26
Crosstabulation of Following University on Facebook and Using Facebook

Uses
Facebook
Follows University on Facebook
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

3 75.0

1 25.0
Yes 3 1.8 163 98.2
Note. n=170; x
2
= 61.46*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

Of the 15 survey respondents who reported using Flickr, only one stated that they
followed the university on the network. The relationship between these two variables
was also statistically significant (p = .00), indicating if a student does not already use the
Flickr network, they are unlikely to unlikely to use Flickr to follow the university. Table
27 displays this information.
Table 27
Crosstabulation of Following University on Flickr and Using Flickr

Uses
Flickr
Follows University on Flickr
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

155 100.0

- 0.0
Yes 14 93.3 1 6.7
Note. n=170; x
2
= 10.39*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; OSN=
Online Social Network; dash denotes no respondents selected option.
*2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

79

Only six survey respondents who followed official university social network pages
indicated use of the network Foursquare. None of these respondents reported using the
network to follow the university, as displayed on Table 28.
Table 28
Crosstabulation of Following University on Foursquare and Using Foursquare

Uses
Foursquare
Follows University on Foursquare
No
Frequency Percentage
No

164 100.0
Yes 6 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on Foursquare is a
constant.

Additionally, none of the survey respondents who reported following an official
university page, group, or profile, use the network Friendster or follow the university on
the network. Table 29 displays this information.
Table 29
Crosstabulation of Following University on Friendster and Using Friendster

Uses
Friendster
Follows University on Friendster
No
Frequency Percentage
No

170 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on Friendster and Uses
Friendster is a constant.

Forty-six of the students who indicated that they followed the university on social
networks used Google+. As show on Table 30, only two of these respondents, however,
followed the university on the Google+ network. The results of this relationship were
statistically significant (p = .02).
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

80

Table 30
Crosstabulation of Following University on Google+ and Using Google+

Uses
Google+
Follows University on Google+
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency
Percentag
e
No

124 100.0

- 0.0
Yes 44 95.7 2 4.3
Note. n=170; x
2
= 5.46*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .02; OSN=
Online Social Network; dash denotes not respondents selected option.
*2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .45.

Additionally, 44.4% of Instagram-using individuals also followed the university
on the network. The relationship between using Instagram and following the university
on the network was also statistically significant (p = .00). This information is displayed
on Table 31.
Table 31
Crosstabulation of Following University on Instagram and Using Instagram

Uses
Instagram
Follows University on Instagram
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency
Percenta
ge
No

44 95.7

2 4.3
Yes 69 55.6 55 44.4
Note. n=170; x
2
= 24.10*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
15.42.

Nineteen point seven percent of students who used LinkedIn followed the
university on the network. This relationship between these variables was also statistically
significant (p = .00), as show on Table 32.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

81

Table 32
Crosstabulation of Following University on LinkedIn and Using LinkedIn

Uses
LinkedIn
Follows University on LinkedIn
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

93 98.9

1 1.1
Yes 61 80.3 15 19.7
Note. n=170; x
2
= 17.19*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.15.

Only 1.2% of students who reported using MySpace used the network to follow
the university. This information is displayed on Table 33.
Table 33
Crosstabulation of Following the University on MySpace and Using MySpace

Uses MySpace
Follows University on MySpace
No
Frequency Percentage
No

168 100.0
Yes 2 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *.
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on MySpace is a constant.

Table 34 displays that 5.7% of Pinterest users follow the university on the
network. There was not a significant relationship between Pinterest use and following
the university on the network.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

82

Table 34
Crosstabulation of Following University on Pinterest and Using
Pinterest

Uses
Pinterest
Follows University on Pinterest
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

116 99.1

1 0.9
Yes 50 94.3 3 5.7
Note. n=170; x
2
= 3.67*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .06; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*2 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.25.

The results were similar for the network Reddit. Only 5.7% of student
respondents who used the network Reddit followed the university on the network, as
indicated on Table 35. The relationship between these two variables, however, was
statistically significant (p = .01).
Table 35
Crosstabulation of Following University on Reddit and Using Reddit

Uses
Reddit
Follows University on Reddit
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

136 100.0

- 0.0
Yes 33 94.3 2 5.7
Note. n=170; x
2
= 7.81*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .01; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*2 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .41.

Only one respondent indicated using the network Skype in relation to an official
university page, group, or profile. Table 36 displays this information.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

83

Table 36
Crosstabulation of Following University on Skype and Using Skype

Uses
Skype
Follows University on Skype
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

58 100.0

- 0.0
Yes 111 99.1 1 0.9
Note. n=170; x
2
= .52*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .47; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*2 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .34.

As displayed on Table 37, 7.4% of Snapchat using respondents followed the
university on the network.
Table 37
Crosstabulation of Following University on Snapchat and Using Snapchat

Uses
Snapchat
Follows University on Snapchat
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

47 97.9

1 2.1
Yes 113 92.6 9 7.4
Note. n=170; x
2
= 1.74*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .19; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*1 cell (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.82.

None of the users who reported using the network StumbleUpon used the network
to follow the university. This information is displayed on Table 38.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

84

Table 38
Crosstabulation of Following University on StumbleUpon and Using StumbleUpon

Uses
StumbleUpon
Follows University on StumbleUpon
No
Frequency Percentage
No

148 100.0
Yes 22 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *.
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on StumbleUpon is a constant.

Only 2.8% of Tumblr users reported following the university on the network.
Table 39 displays this data.
Table 39
Crosstabulation of Following University on Tumblr and Using Tumblr

Uses
Tumblr
Follows University on Tumblr
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency
Percentag
e
No

97 99.0

1 1.0
Yes 70 97.2 2 2.8
Note. n=170; x
2
= .74*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .39; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.27.

Conversely, 91.8% of Twitter using survey respondents indicated following the
university on the network. Only the relationship between using Twitter and following the
university on the network was significant (p = .00). Table 40 displays this information.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

85

Table 40
Crosstabulation of Following University on Twitter and Using Twitter

Uses
Twitter
Follows University on Twitter
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

78 95.1

4 4.9
Yes 43 48.9 45 51.1
Note. n=170; x
2
= 44.27*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
23.64.

Only one respondent of 26 total network users indicated using the Vimeo to
follow the university. Table 41 contains more information relating to this
crosstabulation.
Table 41
Crosstabulation of Following University on Vimeo and Using Vimeo

Uses
Vimeo
Follows University on Vimeo
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

144 100.0

- 0.0
Yes 25 96.2 1 3.8
Note. n=170; x
2
= 5.57*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .02; OSN=
Online Social Network; dash denotes no respondents selected option.
*2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .15.

None of the respondents who reported using Vine used the network to follow the
university, as displayed on Table 42.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

86

Table 42
Crosstabulation of Following University on Vine and Using Vine

Uses Vine
Follows University on Vine
No
Frequency Percentage
No

136 100.0
Yes 34 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *.
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on Vine is a constant.

This was also the case for WordPress and Yelp, as indicated on Table 43 and
Table 44. One Yelp non-user, however, indicated that they used the network to connect
with the university. A misunderstanding of the question on behalf of the respondent may
have caused this response.
Table 43
Crosstabulation of Following University on WordPress and Using WordPress

Uses
WordPress
Follows University on WordPress
No
Frequency Percentage
No

138 100.0
Yes 32 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *.
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on WordPress is a constant.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

87

Table 44
Crosstabulation of Following University on Yelp and Using Yelp

Uses
Yelp
Follows University on Yelp
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

108 99.1

1 0.9
Yes 61 100.0 - 0.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= .56*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .45; OSN=
Online Social Network; dash denotes no respondents selected option.
*2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .36.

Just 7% of respondents who use the network YouTube reported using it to follow
the university. This information is available on Table 45.
Table 45
Crosstabulation of Following University on YouTube and Using YouTube

Uses
YouTube
Follows University on YouTube
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

27 100.0

- 0.0
Yes 133 93.0 10 7.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= 2.01*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .16; OSN=
Online Social Network; dash denotes no respondents selected option.
*1 cell (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.59.

Among those student respondents who reported using another unlisted network,
none reported using the networks to follow the university, as indicated in Table 46.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

88

Table 46
Crosstabulation of Following University on Other and Using Other

Uses Other
Follows University on Other
No
Frequency Percentage
No

160 100.0
Yes 10 100.0
Note. n=170; x
2
= *.
*No statistics are computed because Follows University on Other is a constant.

Next, the researcher sought to understand how student use of official university
pages, groups, and profiles compared to student use of company and organization pages,
groups, and profiles. Out of 216 respondents, just over 80% reported liking or following
the online social network pages, groups, or profiles of a company or organization, as
shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Respondents who reported liked or followed the page, group, or profile of a
company or organization on an online social network.

Seventy point four percent of 250 question respondents reported liking or
following an official university page, group, or profile. This is displayed in Figure 3.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

89

Figure 3. Respondents who reported liking or following an official university page,
group, or profile on an online social network.

Similarly, out of 247 question respondents, 70.9% reported liking or following an
unofficial university page, group, or profile. Figure 4 shows this data.

Figure 4. Respondents who reported liking or following an unofficial university page,
group, or profile on an online social network.
The analysis also included a test of the relationship between the obligational
impact of using a service by an organization or company and that of using a service at the
university. Seventy-eight percent of 150 student respondents indicated that using a
service by a company or organization as well as a university service influenced their
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

90

decision to like or follow a page, group, or profile. The relationship was statistically
significant (p - .00), as outlined in Table 47.
Table 47
Crosstabulation of Feeling Obligated with University and with Company or
Organization

Feeling
Obligated
with
Company or
Organization
Feeling Obligated with University
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

28 57.1

23 22.8
Yes 21 42.9 78 77.2
Note. n=150; x
2
= 17.37*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
16.66.

Sixty percent of respondents indicated that knowing someone who works at the
entity in both cases was a factor. However, this relationship was not statistically
significant. The results of this cross tabulation and chi-squared test are displayed in
Table 48.
Table 48
Crosstabulation of Knowing an Employee at University and at Company or
Organization

Knows
Employee
Company or
Organization
Knows Administrator at University
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

65 50.0

8 40.0
Yes 65 50.0 12 60.0
Note. n=150; x
2
= .69*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .41.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.73.

Sixty-five percent also indicated that having a close relationship was a factor.
The results, however, were not statistically significant, as displayed in Table 49.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

91

Table 49
Crosstabulation of Close Relationship with Employee at University and at Company or
Organization

Close
Relationship
with Employee
at Company or
Organization
Close Relationship with Administrator at University
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

69 53.1

7 35.0
Yes 61 46.9 13 65.0
Note. n=150; x
2
= 2.27*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .13.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.87.

Wanting to learn more about the entity was a factor for 74.4% of respondents and
was statistically significant (p = .02). Table 50 displays this information.
Table 50
Crosstabulation of Wants More Information about University and Company or
Organization

Wants More
Information
about
Company or
Organization
Wants More Information About University
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

26 43.3

23 25.6
Yes 34 56.7 67 74.4
Note. n=150; x
2
= 5.17*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .02.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
19.60.

Fifty-six point nine percent of respondents indicated that classmates were an
influencing factor for both types of entity. This was statistically significant (p = .00) and
the test results are available in Table 51.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

92

Table 51
Crosstabulation of Classmates Follow University and Company or Organization on
OSN

Classmates
Follow
Company or
Organization
Classmates Follow University
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

64 84.8

22 43.1
Yes 15 15.2 29 56.9
Note. n=150; x
2
= 28.25*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
14.96.

Fifty-one point five percent of respondents indicated that having friends follow
the page, group, or profile was a factor for both entities. This result was also statistically
significant (p = .00) and is displayed in Table 52. Based on these results, it seems that
student respondents have similar reasoning for liking or following the pages, groups, and
profiles of both the university and other entities.
Table 52
Crosstabulation of Friends Follow University and Company or Organization on OSN

Friends Follow
Company or
Organization
Friends Follow University
No Yes
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
No

60 73.2

33 48.5
Yes 22 26.8 35 51.5
Note. n=150; x
2
= 9.58*; degrees of freedom=1; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; OSN=
Online Social Network.
*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
25.84.

A comparison was then made between how frequently student respondents saw
posts from official university social media pages and posts from unofficial social media
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

93

pages. Of the 170 students who liked or followed official university social network
pages, groups, or profiles, 21.2% saw updates monthly, 48.8% saw updates weekly,
25.3% saw updates daily, and 4.7% saw updates multiples times a day. This information
is displayed in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Respondent reported frequency of seeing updates from official university
pages, groups, or profiles on online social networks.

Of the 181 students who liked or followed unofficial university pages, groups, or
profiles, 1.7% did not answer the question, 16.6% saw updates monthly, 46.4% saw
updates weekly, 28.2% saw updates daily, and 7.2% saw updates multiple times a day.
This information is displayed on the bar graphs in Figure 6.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

94

Figure 6. Respondent reported frequency of seeing updates from an unofficial university
page, group, or profile on an online social network.

Finally, the interactions that students reported taking part in with a company or
organization on online social networks were compared to the interactions they reported
having with the university on online social networks. Two hundred and six respondents
reported liking or following the online social network pages, groups or profiles of a
company or organization. Among them, 5.6% reported posting or sending photos on an
official university page, group, or profile and 18.9% reported doing so with a company or
organization. Similar percentages of students, 80% and 86.9%, reported looking at photos
for each type of organization, respectively. There was a 6.4% difference between the
number of students who posted or sent videos with each type of entity. There was a
slightly larger discrepancy between the percentage of students who looked at videos
posted on university page, group, or profile (49.8%) and those who looked at videos on a
company or organization social network page, group, or profile (57.8%). The largest
difference was between the percentages of students who posted status updates, 5.6% and
21.4%. Looking at the status updates and tweets of others had only a 1.2% gap, which
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

95

more students did on university pages, groups, and profiles. Commenting on the content
of another user, however, had a 12.1% gap in favor of companies or organizations.
Reading such comments resulted in a 7.9% gap, with more students doing this on the
page of a company or organization. There was also a 12.6% gap in those who reposted
content on the sites. Additionally, there was a 15.5% gap resulting a higher percentage of
liking, favorite-ing, or rating the content of another user on company or organization
pages. Finally, there was a small gap, 5.8%, between respondents who clicked on a web
link on these sites. The relationship between participating in activity on an official
university page, group, or profile, and doing so on a company or organizations’ page,
group, or profile was significant. Therefore, there is a relationship between participating
in the activities with each of the entities. This information is displayed on Table A3 in
Appendix A.
While the rates of use on some networks were similar among student respondents,
there were other networks, which students used that they did not use to interact with the
university. It appears, however, that there is a relationship between use on some
networks and use of that network to follow an official university page, group, or profile.
There was a similar percentage of students who liked official university pages and
unofficial university pages. This was slightly lower in comparison to the number of
students who liked the page, group, or profile of a company or organization. It also
appeared that students had similar motivations for liking or following the social media
pages of the university and of outside entities. There were also similarities in the
frequency with which student respondents saw posts from official and unofficial social
network pages. While there was a gap in activity between the interactions student
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

96

respondents had with companies and organizations on social media pages for some
networks, there was a relationship between taking part in the activity with one entity and
doing so on another.
Recommendations from Students
The final purpose of the study was to understand how students recommended the
university use social media. First, students were asked what types of information they
wanted to see provided via these networks. Then they were asked what networks they
would prefer the university use. This information was then compared to the networks
that students reported having used. The analysis also included a comparison of the types
of content students indicated wanting to see and the types of interactions they reported
having on social networks. Finally, a comparison was made of the network students used
most and the networks they did not want the university to use.
A frequency test was run to find out which types of information students wanted
the university to share with students through online social networks. Out of 227
respondents, 81.5% wanted to see updated information about programs and services.
82.2% of these students were individuals who had used a university service in the past.
Seventy-seven point one percent wanted to see information about class cancellations and
room changes. Forty-six point three percent wanted to see updates about the college.
63% wanted updates about academic offerings. Eighty point six percent wanted
reminders about deadlines. Fifty-four point two percent wanted tips on how to complete
processes. Fifty-two percent wanted tips about college life. Fewer students, 36.6%,
wanted student recognition updates. Eighty point two percent, however, wanted
reminders about events on campus. Sixty-two point one percent wanted updates about
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

97

clubs and organizations. Fifty-two point nine percent wanted opportunities for online
involvement in clubs and organizations. Thirty-four point eight percent of respondents
wanted to see highlighted profiles of university programs and services. Thirty-three point
five percent wanted instructional videos. Seventy-two point seven percent wanted to see
job postings. Eighty-five percent of students wanted to see prizes and giveaways offered
over social networks. These frequencies are displayed in Table 53.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

98

Table 53
Types of Information Wanted by Students

Group Frequency Percentage
Updated information about
programs and services 185 81.5
Class cancellations and room
changes 175 77.1
Updates about the college 105 46.3
Updates about academic
offerings 143 63.0
Reminders about deadlines 183 80.6
Tips about how to complete a
process 123 54.2
Tips about college life 118 52.0
Student recognition 83 36.6
Reminders about events on
campus 182 80.2
Updates about clubs and
organizations 141 62.1
Opportunities for online
involvement in clubs and
organizations 120 52.9
Opportunities for online
involvement in academic support 120 52.9
Highlighted profiles of programs
and services 79 34.8
Instructional videos 76 33.5
Job postings 165 72.7
Prizes and giveaways 193 85.0
Note. n=227.

Students were then asked which networks they would prefer the university use.
Out of 228 question respondents no respondents indicated that they would want the
university to use Bebo, Digg, and Foursquare. Zero point four percent wanted the
university to use Delicious, Friendster, MySpace, Skype, or an unlisted network. One
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

99

point three percent wanted the university to use Yelp. One point eight percent wanted the
university to use Blogger, Flickr, and Reddit. Between 2% and 10% of respondents
wanted the university to use Vimeo, WordPress, Pinterest, Google+, and Tumblr. Ten
point five percent of respondents wanted the university to use LinkedIn on Snapchat.
23.7% wanted the university to use YouTube. Thirty-three point eight and 36.8% wanted
the university to use Instagram and Twitter. Finally, 89.9% wanted the university to use
Facebook. This information is represented in Table 54.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

100

Table 54
Networks Students Want the University to Use

Network Frequency Percentage
Bebo - 0
Blogger 4 1.8
Delicious 1 0.4
Digg - 0
Facebook 205 89.9
Flickr 4 1.8
Foursquare - 0
Friendster 1 0.4
Google+ 11 4.8
Instagram 77 33.8
LinkedIn 24 10.5
MySpace 1 0.4
Pinterest 9 3.9
Reddit 4 1.8
Skype 1 0.4
Snapchat 24 10.5
StumbleUpon 2 0.9
Tumblr 21 9.2
Twitter 84 36.8
Vimeo 6 2.6
Vine 2 0.9
WordPress 7 3.1
Yelp 3 1.3
YouTube 54 23.7
Other 1 0.4
Note. n=228. Dash indicates that no respondents selected option.

A frequency analysis was then conducted to understand which types of content
students would like offered by the university. Out of 224 responses, over 80% of student
respondents wanted original photo content and status updates. Fifty-six point three
percent wanted original video content. Between 30% and 40% of respondents wanted to
see message boards, re-posted content from outside sources, live messaging with an
administrator, and live messaging with faculty. Twenty point one percent of respondents
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

101

wanted blogs. Interest in live video chats with administrators, other students, and faculty
ranged between 15% and 17%. This information is also displayed on Table 55.
Table 55
Types of Content Wanted by Students

Group Frequency Percentage
Original photo content 186 83.0
Original video content 126 56.3
Status updates 193 86.2
Message boards 74 33.0
Blogs 45 20.1
Re-posted content from outside sources 74 33
Live messaging with an administrator 86 38.4
Live messaging with other students 73 32.6
Live messaging with faculty 84 37.5
Live video chat with an administrator 36 16.1
Live video chat with other students 34 15.2
Live video chat with faculty 38 17
Note. n=224.

The analysis then compared the types of content students reported wanting the
interactions that the responded indicated participating in. Out of 224 responses, 84.9% of
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

102

students who stated they would want to see original photo content posted frequently
looked at photos on social networks. This information is displayed on Table 56.
Table 56
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Activities Related to Photos
Photos

Wants
Original
Photo
Content
Looks at Photos
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selected - 0.0

28 73.7

9 23.7

1 2.8

- 0
Yes 1 0.4 156 84.9 23 12.4 3 1.6 1 0.5
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 3.90*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .42; F=
Frequency; P= Percentage.
*6 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17.

Of the students who stated they would want to see original video content, 52.4%
frequently looked at videos and 38.1% sometimes looked at videos on social networks.
Of those students who did not indicate wanting to see original video content, 32.7%
frequently watched videos on social networks and 35.7% sometimes watched videos on
social networks. The relationship between wanting to see original video content and self-
reported frequency of watching video content on social networks was statistically
significant (p = .00). This information is represented on Table 57.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

103

Table 57
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Activities
Related to Videos

Wants
Original
Video
Content
Watches Videos
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selected 3 3.1

32 32.7

35 35.7

22 22.4

6 6.1
Yes 2 1.6 66 52.4 48 38.1 8 6.3 2 1.6
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 19.37*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; F=
Frequency; P= Percentage.
*4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .2.19

Of the students who indicated that they would want to see status updates, 66.3%
reported frequently reading the status updates of others. Twenty-six point nine percent
reported sometimes reading the status updates of others. The relationship between
wanting to see status updates and reading status updates was statistically significant (p =
.01). This data is displayed in Table 58.
Table 58
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Activities
Related to Status Updates

Wants
Status
Updates
Reads Status Updates
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selected - 0.0

18 58.1

7 22.6

3 9.7

3 9.7
Yes 2 1 128 66.3 52 26.9 10 5.2 1 0.5
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 14.27*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .01; Dash
denotes that not respondent selected this option; F= Frequency; P= Percentage.
*5 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .28.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

104

Of the students who reported wanting the university to use message boards,
25.7% frequently read message boards, 41.9% sometimes read message boards, and 23%
rarely read message boards. Of those students who did not indicate wanting to see
message board content, 21.3% frequently read message boards, 26.7% sometimes read
message boards, and 32.7% rarely read message boards. The relationship between
reading message boards and wanting to see message board content was statistically
significant (p = .01). This information is represented on Table 59.
Table 59
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Reading Related to Message
Boards

Wants
Message
Boards
Reads Message Boards
No
Response
Frequentl
y
Sometim
es Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selected 2 1.3

3
2 21.3

4
0 26.7

4
9 32.7

2
7 18
Yes 3 4.1
1
9 25.7
3
1 41.9
1
7 23 4 5.4
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 12.94*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .01; F=
Frequency; P= Percentage.
*2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.65.

There was not a significant relationship, however, between individuals who post
to message boards and wanting the university to use message boards. Of those students
who indicated they want the university to use message boards, only 10.8% frequently
posted to message boards. Twenty-nine point seven percent, however, reported
sometimes posting to message boards. The largest group indicating wanting the
university to use message boards reported only rarely posting to message boards (45.9%),
as displayed on Table 60.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

105

Table 60
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Posting Related to Message
Boards

Wants
Messag
e
Boards
Posts to Message Boards
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selected 2 1.3

18 12.0

35 23.3

64 42.7

31 20.7
Yes 2 2.7 8 10.8 22 29.7 34 45.9 8 10.8
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 4.26*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)=.37; F=
Frequency; P= Percentage.
*2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.32.

There was a significant relationship (p = .00) between wanting the university to
use blogs and students who blog. Additionally, 22.2% of students who blog frequently
wanted the university to use blogs, 28.9% of students who blog sometimes wanted the
university to use blogs, and 22.2% of students who wanted the university to use blogs
rarely use blogs. This information is displayed on
Table 61.
Table 61
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Posting Related to Blogs

Wants
Blogs
Participates in Blogging
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selected 4 2.2

12 6.7

38 21.2

34 19.0

91 50.8
Yes - 0.0 10 22.2 13 28.9 10 22.2 12 26.7
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 15.51*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; F=
Frequency; P= Percentage.
*3 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .80.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

106

There was also a statistically significant relationship (p = .00) between students
who want the university to use blogs and students who read blogs. Forty-two point two
percent of students who want the university to use blogs read blogs frequently, 27.2% of
students who want the university to use blogs read them sometimes, and 26.7% of
students in this group rarely read blogs. This information is displayed on Table 62.
Table 62
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation in Reading Related to Blogs

Wants
Blogs
Reads Blogs
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selecte
d 5 2.8

28 15.6

50 27.9

55 30.7

41 22.9
Yes - 0.0 19 42.2 11 24.4 12 26.7 3 6.7
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 18.55*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .00; Dash
denotes no respondents selected option; F= Frequency; P= Percentage.
*2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.00.

There was no significant relationship between looking at reposted content and
actually reposting content, as displayed on Table 63.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

107

Table 63
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation Related to Reposting
Content

Wants Re-
posted
Content
Re-posts Content
No
Response Frequently
Sometime
s Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not Selected 2 1.3

24 16.0

44 29.3

55 36.7

25
16.
7
Yes - 0.0 10 13.5 22 29.7 28 37.8 14
18.
9
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 1.35*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .85; Dash
denotes no respondents selected option; F= Frequency; P= Percentage.
*2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
.66.

This was also the case for sending and receiving direct messages with another
user and wanting to live chat with an administrator, with other students, or with faculty.
This information is displayed in detail in Table 64, Table 65, and Table 66.
Table 64
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation Related to Messaging with
Administrators

Wants Live
Messaging
with Admin.
Sends or Receives Direct Messages with Other Users
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not Selected 4 2.9

83 60.1

39 28.3

8 5.8

4 2.9
Yes - 0.0 60 69.8 17 19.8 6 7 3 3.5
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 4.97*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .29; Dash
denotes no respondents elected this option; F= Frequency; P= Percentage, Admin.=
Administrators.
*4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.54.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

108

Table 65
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation Related to Messaging with
Students

Wants Live
Messaging
with Other
Students
Sends or Receives Direct Messages with Other Users
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selected 4 2.6

97 64.2

40 28.3

5 3.3

5 3.3
Yes - 0.0 46 63 16 21.9 9 12.3 2 2.7
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 8.81*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .07; Dash
denotes no respondents selected this option; F= Frequency; P= Percentage.
*5 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.30.

Table 66
Crosstabulation of Desired Content and Participation Related to Messaging with
Faculty

Wants
Live
Messaging
with
Faculty
Sends or Receives Direct Messages with Other Users
No
Response Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
F P F P F P F P F P
Not
Selected 3 2.1

84 60.0

41 29.3

8 5.7

4 2.9
Yes 1 1.2 59 70.2 15 17.9 6 7.1 3 3.6
Note. n= 224; x
2
= 4.13*; degrees of freedom=4; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)= .39; F=
Frequency; P= Percentage.
*4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.50.

Student recommendations of which networks not to use were then assessed. The
network that the largest percentage of question respondents indicated they would not
want to university to use was MySpace. Between 30 and 40 percent of respondents did
not want the university to use Yelp, Flickr, Foursquare, Blogger, Reddit, Digg, Vine,
Delicious, StumbleUpon, Snapchat, Bebo, and Friendster. Twenty to 30 percent of
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

109

student respondents did not want the university to use WordPress, Pinterest, Tumblr,
Skype, Vimeo, and Google+. Finally, less than 20% of respondents indicated that they
did not want the university to use a network, which they used but was not listed, as well
as, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Instagram. This information is displayed
on Table 67.
Table 67
Student Preference for OSNs the University Should Not Use
Network Frequency Percentage
Bebo 89 37.4
Blogger 74 31.1
Delicious 81 34.0
Digg 76 31.9
Facebook 10 4.2
Flickr 73 30.7
Foursquare 73 30.7
Friendster 94 39.5
Google+ 70 29.4
Instagram 41 17.2
LinkedIn 40 16.8
MySpace 102 42.9
Pinterest 65 27.3
Reddit 74 31.1
Skype 69 29.0
Snapchat 85 35.7
StumbleUpon 83 34.9
Tumblr 66 27.7
Twitter 27 11.3
Vimeo 69 29
Vine 76 31.9
WordPress 60 25.2
Yelp 72 30.3
YouTube 28 11.8
Other 2 0.8
Note. n=238; 43 students did not answer the question.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

110

The researcher then sought understand why student respondents did not want the
university to use these networks. Of the seven listed reasons, the most cited reason for
not wanting the college to use certain networks was that students did not think the
network was a good medium for conveying information from the college to a student.
Sixty-seven point seven percent of the 198 questions respondents indicated that they did
not think they college would be able to provide relevant content via the networks they
selected. Less than 20% of question respondents indicated not having time to interact
with other students or the college online and preferring to interact with other students or
administrators in person. Finally, invasion of privacy was the least chosen reason for not
wanting to interact with the university on the social networks that respondents selected.
This information is available on Table 68.
Table 68
Reason for Student Preference of University Not to Use OSNs
Reason Frequency Percentage
Invasion of privacy 28 14.1
Do not have to interact online with other
students 34 17.2
Do not have to interact online with the
college administrators 35 17.7
Prefer to interact with students in person 30 15.2
Prefer to interact with college administrators
in person 41 20.7
Do not think the college would be able to
provide relevant content via the networks
selected 134 67.7
Do not think the selected networks were a
good medium for conveying information
from the college to students 161 81.3
Note. n=198.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

111

Finally, student respondents were given the opportunity to give specific
recommendations as to how the college could use social media to improve the student
experience. Many of the responses in this section reinforced the quantitative data that
students supplied throughout the survey. However, there were a couple of common
themes. The first of which was students wanting to see more frequent posts about events
on campus. One student’s comment captured this idea by saying, “The college can use
social media to update the student body with events and reminders on a page or group. If
a page or group already exists, it needs to reach out better to the student body.”
Additionally, some students made recommendations to the college to reply to students
more quickly and frequently on social networks. Very few students expressed a
disinterest in connecting with the university on social networks.
Another area in which a couple students felt the university could improve was
listening to students’ concerns. On respondent explained, “I think it would be a good
way for students to voice their concerns. People complain about school all the time on
social media. Maybe have a school-wide hashtag or Facebook page where students can
complain and the school can publicize the improvements they have made.” Another
student mirrored this sentiment, saying, “I know in recent times students have felt they
have no avenue to get the attention of university officials other than creating a disruption
on campus.”
This same student presented a specific idea of a strategized effort for the college.
The comment was, “One idea is to split your social media strategy into different pro
files/pages that I can choose to follow individually.” A second student had a similar idea
of several different accounts to fulfill different purposes:
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

112

[The University] should definitely invest in different twitter accounts for different
purposes (ex: one for administrative reasons like deadlines for financial aid, one
for DPS/crime alert notifications, one for sporting events). A lot of people check
their twitter feed daily so if they follow relevant/applicable accounts, it would
help everyone know what's going on.
One international student respondent made a suggestion to include more
international networks. The respondent stated, “For international students, some of them
may want to see [the university] in the social media from his own country. In China, for
example, most people use RENREN instead of Facebook, so a official page of [the
university] on RENREN is helpful.” This was the only comment to make this suggestion.
Summary
In conducting this study, the researcher sought to understand how students decide
to like or follow a university on an online social network and what factors influenced that
decision. The findings in this chapter provide an overview of how these decisions are
made through a social capital framework. Overall, it appears that two of the three
methods of gaining social capital do exist in student’s perception as influencing factors
on using online social networks to connect with the university. Students indicated that
both obligational relationships and information channels exist and their perceptions of
their existence have influenced how these students connect with the university and how
they seek information from the university. Additionally, this study revealed that students
actually seek information in similar ways and for similar reasons from both their
university and from other entities. How these findings could impact practice is explained
in Chapter Five, along with recommendations for further study.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

113

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

This chapter includes a discussion of the findings and implications for practice.
Each of the six areas that were studied in relationship to student use of official university
online social network pages, groups, and profiles will be discussed. These include
student engagement with the university on online social networks, the existence of
obligational relationships, online social networks as information channels, online social
networks as norms, student engagement with different entities, and recommendations
from students. In addition, implications based on the findings will be presented. Finally,
recommendations for future research will be addressed.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to address a gap in existing literature on the use of online social
networks with regard to student engagement and the efforts of student affairs staff. In
doing so the researcher sought to understand the actions of students on online social
networks through a framework based on Coleman’s (1988) social capital theory. This
framework supported the study of the guiding research question: How do students use
online social networks to learn about programs and resources offered at a university?
Additionally, the researcher sought to test the hypothesis, which predicted that students
gather information through online social networks from peers and outside organizations
or companies in a manner that differed from how they gather information from the
university that they attend.
According to Coleman’s (1988) theory, one method of gaining social capital is
through obligational relationships. Coleman’s (1988) theory also asserts that social
capital can be gained from information channels. Through this study, the researcher
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

114

sought to understand if students perceived online social networks as an information
channel for gathering information from the university. Coleman’s (1988) theory
proposed that individuals were the information channels. The study modified this idea to
consider the actual social networks as an information channel. The third method of
building social capital according to Coleman’s (1988) framework is through social
norms. This method is based on the society within which an individual lives condoning
an action.
Summary of the Findings
The student sample collected was not representative of the student population at
the sample university. There was a 46.4% difference in the percentage of students who
identified their biological sex as female and those who identified as male. The actual
student population at the sample site had only a 3.2% difference between the groups.
Therefore, female representation within the survey is much higher than would be
representative.
Additionally, just over one third of student respondents were Asian, a group that
represents fewer than 25% of the student population at the sample university. A slightly
larger sample of African American or Black students then exist at the university also
participated in the survey. Four point six percent fewer white or Caucasian students are
represented in the sample as well. The representation of Hispanic students and students
who identified as “other” within the sample were within approximately 1% of the
reported student demographics. International students made up 12% of the student
population in the 2012 to 2013 academic school year, however only 7.6% of student
respondents identified themselves as international students.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

115

There are two things that are important to note, however. The first is that this
comparison is to data from the previous academic school year, since the demographical
make up of the student population from the current school year is not yet published. The
second is that the sample university considers international student status within the
ethnic demographic distribution, not a category apart from it, where as the study
differentiated the two. This could account for the high Asian student representation in
the sample population, and the comparatively low percentage of international students.
This observation is based on the fact that a majority of the international student
population at the sample university comes from Asian countries.
The findings also skewed from previous research which indicated that young
adults use laptops and cell phones at similar rates to access the wireless internet (Lenhart
et al., 2010). The sample indicated their use of computers and cellphones to access the
Internet in a range above 95%. This same study reported that young adults use another
type of device to access the internet wirelessly at a rate of 28% (Lenhart et al., 2010).
Less than 4% of respondents indicated using another device to access the Internet. The
rates of use differed from previous literature, even when controlling for primary device
used. This could be due to the fact that Lenhart et al. (2010) studied device use four
years prior to this study or because this study surveyed a college student population.
College students at the sample site have a high level of access to computers both through
personal ownership of laptop computers and through university services such as libraries,
and laptop rental programs.
In addition to the sample not being large enough to be representative, the opinions
and reported habits of female respondents were over represented in the sample
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

116

population. This may have produced biased recommendations, which are not reflective
of the options of the entire university population. Additionally, more or less students
may use each type of device to access the Internet. This could impact recommendations
related to how the university should strategize the use of social media to connect with
students.
General Social Media Use
The study also produced a different representation of preferred social networks
than that of the general population. According to Alexa Internet Inc. (2013c), the top six
most visited networks were Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, Pinterest, and Flickr.
While the sample population also used Facebook most, YouTube was the second most
popular network among respondents. Twitter was fifth. Instagram and Snapchat also
were ranked in the top six most used networks by the sample population (Alexa Internet
Inc., 2013c). However, Snapchat is accessible only through a mobile device app and
would not be included in the Alexa website rankings. Skype was still more popular
among respondents than Twitter. Even though this sample is not representative, it does
raise awareness of the importance of surveying a specific population to understand their
network preferences. It appears that even among small sample populations, the
preferences may differ from that of the general population.
Engagement with the University on Social Networks
Since no previous studies have explored the rate at which students choose to like
or follow official university pages, groups, and profiles on social networks, the
information generated cannot be compared to previous literature. The fact that a majority
of student respondents did report liking or following the university on a social network,
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

117

however, may imply that students are more interested now in interacting with the
university through social media than in the past. Also, since a majority of students
indicated that they see updates from the university on a social network, at least weekly, it
is apparent that students are receiving the information that the university is conveying.
As noted in the results section, the reported interactions of student with the university on
social networks are primarily passive. This suggests that students are willing to consume
information from the university on social networks, but may not engage in active
dialogue or activity.
The sample population revealed similar rates of following or liking the university
on a social network for freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, and revealed a slight decline
in use for seniors and fifth year seniors. Since the relationship between class standing
and liking or following the university on a social network was not significant, no one
group is likely or unlikely to participate in this type of engagement more than another.
This was also the case for student ethnicity and biological sex.
It also appeared that preferred device was not related to whether or not a student
liked or followed the page, group, or profile of the university. This relationship should be
expanded to explore of the relationship between preferred device and liking or following
the university on a particular network. The justification for this is that some networks are
only available on specific device types.
Social Capital
According to Coleman’s (1988) definition of social capital, obligational
relationships exist at the sample university. Based on the analysis, a majority of students
felt an obligation to like or follow the university on a social network as a result of using
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

118

the service. Having a relationship with an office or department employee had far less of
an impact on students decision to like or follow the university on a social network. Based
on this information, it seems that an obligational relationship existed.
Whether or not students considered the online social network pages, groups, and
profiles of the university as information channels was explored next. Based on the
respondent data, it appears, that a majority of student respondents indicated that wanting
to learn more about an office or center was a factor which made them decide to like or
follow an official university page, group or profile. In contrast, slightly less than 50% of
question respondents were likely or extremely likely to use a social network to find out
more information about a university service. Other methods of information gathering
were more popular. Additionally, the relationship between liking or following the
university on a social network and methods of gathering information on a social network
was also significant.
While social networks are not the most utilized information channels, they are
used by a number of students to gather information. It would appear then, that some
students do view social networks as an information channel. What is also interesting to
note is that students were more likely to use a social network as an information channel
than they were to use a university employee, call the center, or ask a student leader. This
is important since most colleges and universities do not offer opportunities for online
student assistance and have not allocated adequate funding or staffing to the upkeep of
social networks or websites. While exploring the existence of norms, many question
respondents indicated that having friends or classmates was an influencing factor in
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

119

deciding to like or follow the university on a social network, not enough information was
gathered to verify if students considered this a norm.
Next, the overarching hypothesis was tested. The analysis displayed mixed
results in student use of online social networks to connect with the three different types of
entities. While in some ways students did use different networks to connect with each,
their interactions were similar. Therefore, it seems that while fewer students use social
networks to connect with the university than with other entities, they use the networks for
similar purposes.
Recommendations from Students
The results of this part of the analysis indicated that there were relatively few
networks on which a majority of students at the sample site wanted the university to use.
Students were also interested in message boards, re-posted content from outside sources,
and live chatting with administrators and faculty. Three of the four of these types of
content allow for students to engage on the network, rather than passively consume
content provided by the university. Based on this information, it seems that the sample
university should focus social networking efforts on Facebook first, and then on
Instagram and Twitter.
What is also important about student responses in this section is that the major
reason students indicated they would not want these networks to be used, was that
students did not think that the networks were a good medium for conveying information
from the college to a student. The second most cited reason was that students thought the
university would not be able to provide relevant content on the networks. The least
indicated reason for not wanting the university to use a network was invasion of privacy.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

120

This contradicts previous literature, which states that students do not want to interact with
the university because of concerns over privacy (Clemons et al., 2007). It supports later
research, however, by Connell (2009) which found a relatively low number of students
with concerns over privacy.
Implications for Practitioners
Many of the findings from this study provide guidance for practice. Though the
results are not generalizable, they provide insight that practitioners can use to develop
their own assessment and strategies of engaging students on social media. This section
explores these implications as they relate to the sample university’s practice. Finally, an
explanation will be provided of how these findings could impact practice outside of the
sample university.
The first implication is based on the finding that students are willing to consume
information from the university on social networks, but may not engage in active
dialogue or activity. This could make using social networks as an online student
engagement tool at the sample university difficult. There was one exception to this,
however, which was posting and sending photos. Based on this information, encouraging
students to post photos to social networks may be a good activity to initiate student
engagement on social networks. Also based on student responses, a majority of the
content that the university should put on these pages should center around or include
photographs and videos. This recommendation is based on the crosstabulation of student
activities on social media networks and the content that they indicated wanting to see the
university distribute. Should the university be interested in promoting active student
engagement online, message boards, re-posted content from outside sources, and live
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

121

chatting with administrators and faculty might be the best methods to enact. There may
however, be a low level of student engagement on message boards, despite student
interest in the outlet. Other universities could base their own efforts to build student
engagement on social networks off of this model by gathering data on their own student
populations’ activities on social media.
A second implication is based on the importance of knowing what type of device
a student population uses. Since this student population primarily accesses the Internet
on computers, students may not engage with the university on networks, which are only
available via mobile device platforms. Based on this information, administrators at the
sample university should focus efforts, at least initially, on networks that are accessible
through the computer. This would not include networks such as Snapchat.
Administrators on all campuses should understand which devices their own student
populations use before creating a social media strategy. This is especially important on
campuses in low-income areas, which serve minority or adult student populations, as
these populations tend to use mobile phones as their primary means of internet access,
which may be the case at a community college (Zickhur & Smith, 2012). To expand
upon this further, it is additionally important that the college understand how the student
population that it serves may be similar or different than the general population in the
area in which it is located. For instance, the sample university is located in a low-income
area, but serves students from a wide variety of socio-economic backgrounds and
therefore cannot use generalized area population to understand the habits of the students
that attend the school or to create strategies to serve their students.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

122

Additionally, the college should focus on providing students with updated
information for opportunities on campus and as a network for communication, as
recommended by students. Existing literature states that millennial students expect
updates and information immediately (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Oblinger, 2003). This
concept carries over to the sample population as well and is displayed prominently in
their qualitative responses. This requires administrators to dedicate time throughout the
day or at least daily to monitor their pages, groups, and profiles on social networks.
Student responses indicate that this may not be what is currently happening at the
university. A number of student comments indicated wanting frequent updates or more
up to date information. The administration may want to consider hiring individuals to
manage these efforts. Other colleges should also consider the level of interest students
have in receiving information immediately and assess whether this option is necessary for
their own campuses. Since official university pages, groups, and profiles are the second
most likely information channel that is controlled by the university, which is used by
students focusing on providing accurate and relevant information on these networks is
pivotal.
Many students indicated feeling obligated to like or follow a university social
network after using a service, so it may also be advisable for practitioners to remind
students of the opportunities available for students to connect with their offices or
departments at the time that a student receives a service. This may increase the number
of students who like or follow the office or department on social media and will help to
increase the social capital of the students they see, in relationship to other available
services. This recommendation is solidified by the significant relationship between
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

123

students who reported using a university service and students who liked or followed the
university on a social network. Administrators on other campuses may want to
implement this concept on a trial basis and track the number of students who like or
follow a network after using a service. Practitioners could leverage this obligational
relationship in order to disseminate information to students about the services their office
or departments offer.
Finally, the findings also indicate that practitioners may be able to use some of the
successful strategies of other industries to engage students online through social
networks. It will be important for practitioners to understand which networks students
use in general, verses the networks that students use to connect with the university. This
is because the networks that students use to connect with non-university entities and with
other students or friends differ from the networks, which students reported using to
engage with the university. The university should also heed student responses indicating
which networks not to use. Since less than 20% of respondents had reservations about
the university using YouTube and LinkedIn, these might be useful networks for the
sample university to consider using. Practitioner efforts on networks, such as Yelp,
Flickr, Blogger, Vine, and Snapchat, however may not be useful. The general
recommendations presented here are also applicable to other universities, however, each
campus should assess the networks on which students on their campus specifically would
want or would not want to connect.
Recommendations for Further Study
The results of this study are congruent with past observations and literature, but
also add insight as to how student decide to like or follow a university on social media
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

124

and the types of interactions students want to have with the university through these
networks. Though the information is not generalizable, additional research can expand
on these findings in order to contribute to the body of knowledge available to
practitioners. Further research should repeat this study with multiple schools to generate
data that would be generalizable to a variety of schools.
Additional research that further investigates whether like-ing a social network is
perceived as a norm should also be conducted. An analysis of specific strategies
implemented on college campuses should be conducted to understand the reliability of
student reported data in relationship to their actual action on social networks, when
engaging with the university. While it cannot be justified based on this study, a further
investigation of whether student engagement on official university pages, groups, and
profiles differs by student demographic should also be explored further. Further study
may inform specific best practiced for engaging with each group through social media.
Whether or not a majority of students liking or following the university on a social
network has an impact on other students to take similar action also requires further
investigation.
Conclusion
The study provided clarification as to the actions of students on online social
networks and provided insight as to why college students have been less engaged with
universities through these networks. Using Coleman’s (1988) social capital theory as a
framework, the researcher was able to answer the guiding research question: How do
students use online social networks to learn about programs and services offered at a
university? Students use online social networks as one of their primary means of
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

125

information gathering. A majority of students, however, began to follow the university
on these networks after having used a service. While, some students did indicate that
friends or classmates were an influence on the decision to like or follow the university on
one of these networks, there was not enough evidence to conclude that students view
these networks as a social norm.
Additionally, the study was also able to test and disprove the hypothesis that
students gather information through online social networks form peers and outside
organizations or companies in a manner which differs from how they gather information
from the university that they attend. The researcher discovered, that this was not the
case. While students did interact with the university slightly less and on different
networks than they did with peers and outside companies or organizations, the
interactions that they had and motivations for liking or following the pages, groups, and
profiles of all entities were similar. Additional research should be conducted to explore
why this rate is lower and what strategies are effective in raising the rates of participation
are successful in a university environment.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

126

References
Alexa Internet Inc. (2013a). About. Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/company
Alexa Internet Inc. (2013b). Alexa top 500 global sites. Retrieved from
http://www.alexa.com/topsites
Alexa Internet Inc. (2013c). Top sites by category: Social networking. Retrieved from
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Online
_Communities/Social_Networking
Alexa Internet Inc. (2013d). Top sites in the United States. Retrieved from
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US
Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011, Februrary). Everyone’s
an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. Paper presented at the Fourth
ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Hong Kong.
Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. (2012, April). The role of social
networks in information diffusion. Paper presented at the 21st International
Conference on World Wide Web, France.
Bandari, R., Asur, S., & Huberman, B. A. (2012, June). The pulse of news in social
media: Forecasting popularity. Paper presented at the Sixth International AAAI
Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Ireland.
Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. (2011). Social media adoption soars as higher-ed
experiments and reevaluates its use of new communications tools. North
Dartmouth, MA: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

127

Benevenuto, F., Rodrigues, T., Cha, M., & Almedia, V. (2012). Characterizing user
navigation and interactions in online social networks. Information Sciences, 195,
1-24.
Berg, J., Berquam, L., & Christoph, K. (2007). Social networking technologies: A" poke"
for campus services. Educause Review, 42(2), 32-44.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25.
Bourdieu, P. (2008). The forms of capital. In N. W. Biggart (Ed.), Readings in Economic
Sociology, 4, 280-291.
boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Brenner, J., & Smith, A. (2013). 72% of online adults are social networking site users.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research
Center.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. P. (2010). Measuring uder
influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. Paper presented at the Fourth
International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington D.C.
Chamberlin, L., & Lehmann, K. (2011). Twitter in higher education. In C. Wrankle
(Series Ed.), Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education: Vol. 1 (pp. 375-
391).
Clemons, E. K., Barnett, S., & Appadurai, A. (2007). The future of advertising and the
value of social network websites: Some preliminary examinations. Paper
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

128

presented at the Ninth International Conference on Electronic Commerce,
Minneapolis, MN.
Colao, J. J. (2012). Snapchat: The biggest no-revenue mobile app since Instagram.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2012/11/27/snapchat-the-
biggest-no-revenue-mobile-app-since-instagram/
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Connell, R. S. (2009). Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach:
A survey of student opinion. Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 25-36.
Corwin, Z. B., Tierney, W. G., Fullerton, T., & Ragusa, G. (2014). Postsecondary play:
The role of games and social media in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Davis, C. H., III, Deil-Amen, R., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Gonzalez Canche, M. S. (2012).
Social Media in Higher Education: A literature review and research directions.
The Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona and
Claremont Graduate University.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode
Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

129

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:"
Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice: San Fransisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Fischer, E., & Peuber, R. A. (2010). Social interaction via new social media: (How) can
interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior? Journal of Business
Venturing, 26(1), 1-18.
Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (Vol. 1): Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Gemmill, E., & Peterson, M. (2006). Technology use among college students:
Implications for student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 43(2), 280-300.
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analysing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology,
78(6), 1360-1380.
Green, K. C. (1996). The coming ubiquity of information technology. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(2), 24-28.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

130

Hampton, K., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and
our lives. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington D.C.: Pew
Research Center.
Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Marlow, C., & Rainie, L. (2012). Why most Facebook
users get more than they give. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington
D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using
technology to increase student involvement. New Directions for Student Services,
2008(124), 19-35.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). Millennials go to college. Great Falls, VA: LifeCourse
Associates.
Huberman, B., Romero, D., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under
the microscope. First Monday, 14(1-5).
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1971). Handbook in research and evaluation for education
and the behavioral sciences (Third ed.). San Diego, CA: EdITS.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H.A.,
Lange, P. G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K. Z., Pasco, C. J., Perkel, D., Robinson,
L., Sims, C., Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out:
Kids living and learning with new media: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as
electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169-2188.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

131

Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013).
The NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Stanford, CA: New
Media Consortium.
Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004, 2004). The millenial effect: Implications for
academic development. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of
the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia, Sarwak.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student
engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Living, 27(2), 119-132.
Kelleher, T., & Sweetser, K. (2012). Social media adoption among university
communicators. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 105-122.
Kleinglass, N. (2005). Who is driving the changing landscape in student affairs? New
Directions for Student Services, 2005(112), 25-38.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Krishnamurthy, B., Gill, P., & Arlitt, M. (2008). A few chirps about twitter. Paper
presented at the First Workshop on Online Social Networks, Seattle, Washington.
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a
news media? Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on World Wide
Web, Raleigh, NC.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile Internet
use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Washington D.C.: Pew Research Center.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

132

Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating
role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-
1490.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology,
22(140), 5-55.
Lowery, J. W. (2004). Student affairs for a new generation. New Directions for Student
Services, 2004(106), 87-99.
Magid, L. (2013). What is Snapchat and why do kids love it and parents fear it?
(Updated). Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2013/05/01/what-is-snapchat-and-why-
do-kids-love-it-and-parents-fear-it/
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the
promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357-365.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41):
Thousnad Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Merchant, G. (2012). Unravelling the social network: theory and research. Learning,
Media and Technology, 37(1), 4-19.
Milliron, M. D., & Miles, C. L. (2000). Education in a Digital Democracy: Leading the
charge for learning about, with, and beyond technology. Educause Review, 35(6),
50-62.
Moneta, L. (2005). Technology and student affairs: Redux. New Directions for Student
Services, 2005(112), 3-14.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

133

Nielsen Inc. (2009). Social Networks and Blogs Now 4th Most Popular Online Activity.
Nielsen Online Report. New York, NY: The Nielsen Company.
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers Gen-Xers Millennials. Educause Review, 500(4), 37-47.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digitial: Understanding the first generation of
digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Platt, J. B., Hernandez, R. A., Long, D., Enersen, B., Hart, D. M., Heilbron, L. H.,
Hinderaker, I., Hurford, D.D., Lawrence, P. F., Legro, S. W., McGrath, T. H.,
Marshall, G. S., Pettitt, R. C., Reed, C., Sarafian, A., Smith, G. P., Sugarman, S.
D. (1972). The California master plan for higher education in the seventies and
beyond (Vol. 72, pp. 57-59).
Rainie, L., Brenner, J., & Purcell, K. (2012). Photos and videos as social currency online.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Rainie, L., Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013a). Coming and going on Facebook. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Rainie, L., Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013b). Coming and going on Facebook. Pew
Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew
Research Center.
Reuben, R. (2008). The use of social media in higher education for marketing and
communications: A guide for professionals in higher education. EduGuru.
Rinaldo, S. B., Tapp, S., & Laverie, D. A. (2011). Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as
a pedagogical tool. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 193-203.
Rios-Aguilar, C., Canché, G., Sacramento, M., Deil-Amen, R., & Davis, C. H. F., III.
(2012). The role of social media in community colleges. The Center for the Study
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

134

of Higher Education at the University of Arizona and Claremont Graduate
University.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on
Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses
and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education,
13(3), 134-140.
Ruddock, A. (2013). Youth and media. London, England: SAGE Publications, Ltd. .
Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Smith, A. (2011a). 13% of online adults use Twitter. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Smith, A. (2011b). Why Americans use social media. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Smith, A., & Brenner, J. (2012). Twitter use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Smith, A., Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2011). College students and technology. Pew
Internet & American Life Project (Vol. 19). Washington, D.C.: Pew Research
Center.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Belomnt, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Hanson, C. L., & McKenzie, J. F. (2008). Enhancing
promotional strategies within social marketing programs: Use of Web 2.0 social
media. Health Promotion Practice, 9(4), 338-343.
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

135

Thomson, K., Purcell, K., & Rainie, L. (2013). Arts organizations and digital
technologies. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew
Research Center.
Treuer, P., & Belote, L. (1997). Current and emerging applications of technology to
promote student involvement and learning. New Directions for Student Services,
1997(78), 17-30.
US Department of Education. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics 2011. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Valensuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social caiptal in a social network
site?: Facebook use and college student's life satisfaction, trust, and participation.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875-901.
Wankel, L. A., & Wankel, C. (2011). Connecting on campus with new media:
Introduction to higher education adminsitration with social media. In Wrankel, L.
A. & Wrankel, C. (Series Eds.), Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education,
Vol. 2 (pp. xi-xvii).
Wickre, K. (2013). Celebrating #Twitter7. Retrieved from
https://blog.twitter.com/2013/celebrating-twitter7
Wilson, H. J., Guinan, P. J., Parise, S., & Weinberg, B. D. (2011). What’s your social
media strategy? Harvard Business Review, 89(7/8), 23-25.
Zickhur, K., & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

136

Appendix
Table
A1

Survey
Protocol

Survey Question

Answer Options

Are you an undergraduate
student?

Yes, No

What is your biological
sex?

Male, Female, Other

What is your ethnicity? Asian, Black/African-American, Hispanic,
White/Caucasian, Other

Are you an international
student?

Yes, No

What is your current class
standing?

Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, 5
th
Year
Senior

Please select ALL the
devices you use to access
the internet.

Computer, Tablet Device, Cell Phone, Other
On a typical day, what type
of device do you
PRIMARILY use to access
the internet?

Computer, Tablet Device, Cell Phone, Other

An example of a university
service would be the
Counseling Center, Career
Services, Residential
Education, or an on campus
cultural center. Have you
ever used a service offered
by the university?

Yes, No

For the purposes of this
survey, an online social
network is an online
network what you use to
connect with other
individuals or entities, using
Bebo, Blogger, Delicious, Digg, Facebook,
Friendster, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn,
MySpace, Pinterest, Reddit, Skype, Snapchat,
StumbleUpon, Tumblr, Twitter, Vimeo, Vine,
WordPress, Yelp, YouTube, Other

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

137

text, video, or photos.
Please, check the online
social networks that you
use. If a network that you
use is not listed, please list
it below under "other".

Please choose the five
social networks that you use
most often.
Bebo, Blogger, Delicious, Digg, Facebook,
Friendster, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn,
MySpace, Pinterest, Reddit, Skype, Snapchat,
StumbleUpon, Tumblr, Twitter, Vimeo, Vine,
WordPress, Yelp, YouTube, Other

Do you like or follow the
social network pages,
profiles, or groups of any
companies or
organizations?

Yes, No

Which of the following has
influenced your decision to
like or follow the pages,
profiles, or groups that you
currently follow. (Select
ALL that apply.)
I used a service offered by the organization
and later felt obligated to follow the social
network of the organization, I know someone
who works for the organization, I have a close
relationship with someone who works for the
organization, I want to learn more about the
organization, My classmates follow the
organization, My friends follow the
organization

Please select ALL the
activities that you
participate in on the pages,
groups, or profiles that you
follow.
Post/Send Photos; Look at Photos; Post/Send
Videos; Look at Videos; Post Status
Updates/Tweets; Look at the
Status/Updates/Tweets of other users;
Comment on content on a group or public
page; Read comments/content on a group or
public page; Repost content from another user;
Like, favorite, or rate content form another
user; Click on a web link that was posted by
another user

How frequently do you
access the online social
networks that you use?

Monthly, Weekly, Daily, Multiple Times a
Day
What time(s) of day do you 6am or earlier, 6am to 8am, 8am to 10am,
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

138

typically view content from
each of these networks?
Select ALL that apply.

10am to 12pm, 12pm to 2pm, 2pm to 4pm,
4pm to 6pm, 6pm to 8pm, 8pm to 10pm, 10pm
or later

How often do you
participate in the following
activities on social media?
(Post photos, Look at
photos, Post videos, Watch
videos, Read the status
updates of others,
Send/receive direct
messages with another user,
Send/receive group
messages, Post to message
boards, Read message
boards, Blog, Read blogs,
Comment on a group page,
Read comments on a group
page, Repost content from
another user)

Frequently, Sometimes, Rarely, Never

An official university social
network page is a page
sponsored by the university
(e.g. Dinning, Official
Residence Hall page, etc.)
Do you like or "follow" any
official university social
network pages, groups, or
profiles?

Yes, No

Which OSNs host the
official university pages,
groups or profiles that you
like or follow?
Bebo, Blogger, Delicious, Digg, Facebook,
Friendster, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn,
MySpace, Pinterest, Reddit, Skype, Snapchat,
StumbleUpon, Tumblr, Twitter, Vimeo, Vine,
WordPress, Yelp, YouTube, Other

How frequently do you see
updates from an official
university social network?

Monthly, Weekly, Daily, Multiple Times a
Day

Which of the following has
influenced your decision to
like or follow the official
university pages, profiles,
I used the service at the university and later felt
obligated to follow the social network of the
office or center, I know an administrator who
works at the office or center, I have a close
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

139

or groups that you currently
follow. (Select ALL that
apply.)
relationship with an administrator who works
at the office or center, I want to learn more
about the office or center, My classmates
follow the page, group, or profile of the office
or center, My friends follow the page, group,
or profile of the organization

Please select ALL the
activities that you
participate in on official
university pages, groups, or
profiles.
Post/Send Photos; Look at Photos; Post/Send
Videos; Look at Videos; Post Status
Updates/Tweets; Look at the
Status/Updates/Tweets of other users;
Comment on content on a group or public
page; Read comments/content on a group or
public page; Repost content from another user;
Like, favorite, or rate content form another
user; Click on a web link that was posted by
another user

An unofficial university
social network page is a
page which has content
related to the university but
is not sponsored by the
university (e.g. University
Secrets, unofficial residence
hall pages, etc.) Do you
like or follow any unofficial
university social network
pages, groups, or profiles?

Yes, No

How frequently do you see
updates from an unofficial
university social network?

Monthly, Weekly, Daily, Multiple Times a
Day

Please select ALL the
activities that you
participate in on unofficial
university pages, groups, or
profiles.
Post/Send Photos; Look at Photos; Post/Send
Videos; Look at Videos; Post Status
Updates/Tweets; Look at the
Status/Updates/Tweets of other users;
Comment on content on a group or public
page; Read comments/content on a group or
public page; Repost content from another user;
Like, favorite, or rate content form another
user; Click on a web link that was posted by
another user

How likely are you to use Extremely Unlikely, Unlikely, Neutral, Likely,
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

140

the following when you are
trying to gather information
about a university service:
Extremely Likely

Ask a friend, ask a
classmate

Ask a student leader (such
as an RA or Peer Advisor)

Ask a university employee

Call the center that offers
the service directly

Look on the university
website

Email the center that
provides the service

Use an online social
network to find out more
information

If the university were to
offer content via social
media which of the
following types of
information would you
want to see? (Select ALL
that apply.)
Updated information about programs and
services (changes of hours, new services being
offered), Class cancellations/room changes,
Updates about what the college (new funding,
construction projects, faculty awards), Updates
about academic offerings (changes to
program/class offerings, new faculty),
Reminders about deadlines (class registration,
financial aid), Tips about how to complete
processes (register for classes, apply for
financial aid, obtain a parking permit, register
for childcare, etc.),Tips about college life
(balancing classes with work, study tips, being
a commuter student), Student Recognition
(student awards, highlights of student
accomplishments in the community),
Reminders about events on campus (career
day, talent shows, speakers, etc.), Updates
about clubs and organizations (meeting
time/location, elections, etc.), Opportunities
for online involvement in clubs and
organizations (online meetings, online
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

141

elections, online discussions/webinar speakers,
group pages), Opportunities for online
involvement in academic support (online
tutoring, study groups, study guides, ,
Highlighted profiles of university programs
and services (what counseling does, services
available at the health center, etc.),
Instructional Videos (step by step how to use
the college catalog, filling out the FAFSA,
overview of transfer requirements, etc.), Job
postings (student work opportunities, jobs
available in the community, etc.), Prizes and
giveaways (bookstore gift cards, etc.)

If the university were to
offer content via social
media, which networks
would you want us to use?
(Select ALL that apply.)
Bebo, Blogger, Delicious, Digg, Facebook,
Friendster, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn,
MySpace, Pinterest, Reddit, Skype, Snapchat,
StumbleUpon, Tumblr, Twitter, Vimeo, Vine,
WordPress, Yelp, YouTube, Other

For those networks that you
indicated you would want
the university to use,
indicate what types of
content you would like to
see presented on each these
websites. (Select ALL that
apply).
original photo content, original video content,
status updates, message boards, blogs, reposted
content from outside sources (e.g. newspapers,
buzzfeed, etc.), live messaging with an
administrator, live messaging with other
students, live messaging with faculty, live
video chat with an administrator, live video
chat with other students, live video chat with
faculty

If the university were to
offer content via social
media, which networks
would you not want us to
use? (Select ALL that
apply.)

Bebo, Blogger, Delicious, Digg, Facebook,
Friendster, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn,
MySpace, Pinterest, Reddit, Skype, Snapchat,
StumbleUpon, Tumblr, Twitter, Vimeo, Vine,
WordPress, Yelp, YouTube, Other

For those networks that you
indicated you would not
want the university to use,
please tell us why you
would not want the
university to use them.
(Select ALL that apply.)
Invasion of privacy, don't have time to interact
online with other students, don't have time to
interact online with the college, prefer to
interact with other students in person, prefer to
interact with college administrators in person,
don't think the college would be able to
provide relevant content via this network, don't
think this network is a good medium for
conveying information from the college to a
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

142

student.

How should the college use
social media to improve
students’ experience at the
university? Please, provide
specific examples.
Open Ended

HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

143

Table A2

Liklihood of Participant Access to Information Channels
Activity Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Ask a friend or classmate 2 0.9 6 2.6 6 2.6 21 9.0 93 39.7 106 45.3
Ask a studen leader 2 0.9 21 9.0 43 18.4 67 28.6 74 31.6 27 11.5
Ask a university employee 2 0.9 19 8.1 58 24.8 75 32.1 66 28.2 14 6.0
Call the center that offers the
service 1 0.4 19 8.1 39 16.7 63 26.9 71 30.3 41 17.5
Look on the university website 5 2.1 4 1.7 9 3.8 17 7.3 81 34.6 118 50.4
Email the center that provides
the service 3 1.3 16 6.8 42 17.9 61 26.1 73 31.2 39 16.7
Use an online social network to
find out more infromation 3 1.3 17 7.3 48 20.5 49 20.9 86 36.8 31 13.2
Note. n=234.
Extremely Likely Likely Neutral Unlikely Skipped Question Extremely Unlikely
HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS USE ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

144

Table
A3

Rates of Student Activity with University and Companies or Organizations on OSNs
Activity
Official
University
Pages
(n=160)

Company or
Organization
Pages (n=206)

Significance
(n=147, df=2)
F P

F P

Chi-
Squared
Value
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
sided)
Post or send photos 9 5.6

39 18.9

22.57 0.00
Look at photos 128 80

179 86.9

50.04 0.00
Post of send videos 6 3.8

21 10.2

39.55 0.00
Look at Videos 79 49.4

119 57.8

53.41 0.00
Post status updates or
tweets 9 5.6

44 21.4

11.36 0.00
Look at the status
updates or tweets of
others 113 70.6

143 69.4

31.29 0.00
Comment on content
on a group or public
page 25 15.6

57 27.7

8.12 0.02
Read comments or
content on a group or
public page 93 58.1

136 66

39.89 0.00
Re-post content from
another user 17 10.6

48 23.3

23.68 0.00
Like, favorite, or rate
the content of another
user 87 54.4

144 69.9

57.66 0.00
Click on a web link that
was posted by another
user 77 48.1 111 53.9 57.41 0.00

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This paper uses Coleman’s (1988) theory of social capital to address one gap in existing literature on the use of online social networks with regard to student engagement and the efforts of student affairs staff. By examining how students use online social networks, the author presents practitioners with insight as to how students engage in online social network based communication. This information then is then applied to understanding how students would prefer to interact with universities on a variety of online social networks at the sample university. Finally, recommendations for the adaptation of this information to improve communication with students on other colleges are presented.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The gamification of judicial affairs: addressing learning for 'digital students'

PDF

Collaborative social networks in student affairs: an exploration of the outcomes and strategies associated with cross‐institutional collaboration

PDF

Preparing for the field of student affairs: White graduate students and the social justice and inclusion competency

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences

PDF

Coloring the pipeline: an analysis of the NASPA Undergraduate Fellows program as a path for underrepresented students into student affairs

PDF

Student perceptions and experiences: deconstructing race in fraternity/sorority life

PDF

The effectiveness of a peer mentorship program: a mixed methods study

PDF

Chinese students’ college choice: targeting the U.S as the top study destination

PDF

Organizational structures of religious life offices at private secular universities: a qualitative study

PDF

Beyond the binary: a phenomenological study of the campus experiences and social identities of bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer students at a public university

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

PDF

Persistencia de nuestro ingeniera/os: examining the persistence of Latina/os in engineering at a minority serving community college

PDF

Bridging the gap: a case study of an African American residential community at a predominantly White institution

PDF

A grounded theory study on the academic success of undergraduate women in science, engineering, and mathematics fields at a private, research univerisity

PDF

Resilient voices of success: counter‐narratives of foster youth in graduate school

PDF

The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students

PDF

University ready: examining the relationships between social capital and an online college access program

PDF

Visibly invisible: the experiences of black queer women on campus

PDF

Students with disabilities experience in higher education online courses: an exploratory study of self-efficacy, use of assistive technologies and mobile media

Asset Metadata

Creator Perez, Gabriella Helena (author)

Core Title How college students use online social networks to gather information

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Master of Education

Degree Program Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs

Publication Date 07/03/2014

Defense Date 05/20/2014

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

Tag college student,OAI-PMH Harvest,social networks

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Venegas, Kristan M. (committee chair), Corwin, Zoe (committee member), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee member)

Creator Email gabriehp@usc.edu,gabriellahperez@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-430494

Unique identifier UC11287077

Identifier etd-PerezGabri-2616.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-430494 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PerezGabri-2616.pdf

Dmrecord 430494

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Perez, Gabriella Helena

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