Introduction

We have already established that participation in contemporary society is increasingly reliant on digital technologies. This is a trend that shows no sign of abating and it is the communication function of these technologies that is driving this trend. The Ofcom survey of 2012 shows that, in the United Kingdom, young people spend on average 17.1 hours per week engaged in online activity. A large proportion of this time is spent developing their social relationships and online identity through social networking sites (Livingstone, 2008; Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield, 2012). Social networking has arisen from our transition to more collaborative digital forms of technology. The early Internet often thought of as Web 1.0 technology, was used primarily for static information: material to be downloaded or delivered to the Internet user. Web 2.0 is more participatory and interactive and this has seen an increase in our use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) allowing interchanges to occur through the use of two or more networked computers. From its beginnings in email, bulletin boards and list servers, CMC technology has increased in complexity and diversity to cover a broad spectrum of applications such as social networking sites (SNSs), e-communities, collaborative authoring, information sharing and multiplayer games. As Borland (2007, p. 1) clearly acknowledges:

Web 1.0 refers to the first generation of the commercial Internet, dominated by content that was only marginally interactive. Web 2.0, characterized by features such as tagging, social networks, and user-created taxonomies of content called folksonomies, added a new layer of interactivity.

Such technologies are simply the most recent manifestations in a long line of communication media (see Fidler, 1997). Unlike most of these technologies, even email and social networking appears to be omnipresent and routinely embedded within the daily lives of millions of people worldwide (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009). SNSs comprise of bundles of information coupled with communication tools that allow individuals to accomplish multiple goals. In an SNS such as Facebook users share common interests, photos, music and videos and generally socialize online. Facebook along with other social networking tools are collectively referred to as Web 2.0 applications. SNSs are increasingly popular. More than 700 million people worldwide now have an SNS profile, on sites such as Myspace and Facebook attracting over 1.2 billion members worldwide (Statistic Brain, 2012). The nature of SNSs and the perceived educational benefits of promoting new Web 2.0 technologies for communication and collaboration is the focus of this chapter.

Facebook as a Popular Networking Tool

Although initially we would assume that SNSs are akin to the types of attributes we use in everyday social interactions, they often share many features with computer-mediated communication (CMC). Walther (2007) argues that computer-mediated communication has four key features that distinguish it from face-to-face interactions. These are editability, time flexibility, physical isolation from the receiver and loss of visual cues, which results in reduced cognitive load allowing greater concentration on the intended message. This perspective suggests that CMC can lead to equal or even more socially desirable interactions than do face-to-face interactions (Walther, 1996). This positive interpretation of the loss of visual cues is possibly the most contentious, as they have been shown to affect communication processes, the social judgements individuals make about each other and also task performance (Burgoon, et al., 2002; Sia, Tan, & Wei, 2002).

Facebook, the most prevalent SNS, has two of the four CMC features. However, its multimodality reduces physical isolation and allows the cues and subsequent biases prominent in face-to-face interaction to re-emerge, providing an online equivalent of physical or face-to-face social networks. SNSs then are social mediating technologies that provide multiple means of interacting and socializing so distinguishing them from more restricted CMC of simple communication in email, chat and instant messaging into applications. SNSs allow individuals to select to connect with others in either a semi-public space with close friends or relatives within a ‘close’ bounded system or a public space with relative strangers, who may have nothing more in common than ‘latent ties’. Either way individuals are not necessarily looking to meet new people; they primarily communicate with people who are already part of their extended social network (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).

An individual’s SNS profile is a projection of their identity (Selwyn, 2009) and is comprised of personal information created from a blank template, which can be publicly displayed or suppressed by enacting privacy settings. In addition to the individual’s name and age, a user may supply personal information on date of birth, residence, sexual preference, contact information as well as work and leisure activities (Tong, Van Der Heide, et al., 2008). Message boards, known variously as The Wall, Testimonials, and Comments, are public spaces located on profiles on which friends are encouraged to leave messages, which can be read by interested third parties who are granted access to the profile (Granovetter, 1973). SNSs have quite clearly revolutionized how we promote ourselves and communicate with others online, providing a wealth of opportunities to keep in touch with people.

Social Capital

The rich platforms that compose the current generation of SNSs are designed to connect people with both those in their own circle of friends and family and with extended and new groups of individuals known only through the virtual world. Such linkage can have a strong influence on an individual’s social capital or social support and hence on their psychological wellbeing. Social capital is the benefit derived from an individual’s position in a social network, both in terms of the number and character of the ties and the resources those ties themselves possess. A characteristic of all forms of capital (social, financial, human, intellectual) is that they are convertible to another form of capital. In the case of social capital this might, for example, be favours from another member of the group or, in the case of a SNS, the network itself (Resnick, 2001). Although across the social disciplines different aspects of social capital are emphasized, there is a measure of agreement that social networks have value and that people derive benefits from their interpersonal relationships and the groups they belong to, ranging from improved health to access to expertise and financial resources (Coleman, 1988). More recent conceptualizations of social capital acknowledge the importance of community to build generalized trust but also recognize the importance of individual choice in order to create a more cohesive society (Ferragina, 2012).

Two constructs, bonding and bridging, are central to our understanding of social capital (Katz & Aspden, 1997). While close relationships such as those with family or good friends provide bonding social capital, a large number of weaker ties lacking the specific reciprocity, emotional support and companionship of the family generate bridging social capital. The value of bridging social capital is that an individual often gains novel information from these diverse links whereas the close ties of friends and family tend to furnish known, redundant information (Granovetter, 1973). However, the external groups are less likely to provide emotional support. Bridging and bonding are not mutually exclusive, but rather different dimensions of the resources in a social network.

Facebook’s features appear to be particularly well suited to the development of bridging social capital, with studies showing a stronger relationship between Facebook use and bridging than with bonding (Ellison, et al., 2007). Manago and colleagues’ (2012) survey results show that Facebook facilitates more expansive social networks in which there is significant growth of the network through less intimate relationships with acquaintances or activity connections. This does not preclude the expansion of the number of close relationships or indeed stranger relationships, but these take place at slower rates. Longitudinal surveys have shown that receiving messages from friends is associated with increases in bridging social capital, but that this is not the case for other forms of social interactions. However, individuals with lower social fluency who are passive consumers do draw value from their connections as demonstrated by the number of followers of various celebrities’ sites. The value of those connections differs depending on the demographics and social resources of individuals and individual differences are apparent in its use (Bessière, Kiesler, et al., 2008; McKenna & Bargh, 1998). For example, some users focus on one-on-one or one-to-few communication while others openly broadcast to a much wider audience (Burke, Kraut, & Marlow, 2011, Underwood, et al., 2011). As with other potentially interactive media there are also passive consumers of social news who find interest in following others without the need to broadcast.

One study, which at first seems counter-intuitive, gives pause for thought. In a study by Weiser (2001), which explored the reasons and goals for using the technology, two types of use were identified. Weiser termed these goal and reasons socio-affective regulation (that is a social orientation toward Internet use) and the goods-and-information acquisition (a utilitarian or practical orientation toward Internet use). He found that when users’ goals appeared to be related to socio-affective regulation then their reported psychological wellbeing tended to be negative, which resulted in reduced social integration. However, Internet use motivated principally by goods-and-information acquisition appeared to have a favourable effect on reported psychological wellbeing and an increase in social integration.

What should we make of this study, which suggests that those looking for social contact may be damaged by the digital world? Perhaps those reaching out are already more vulnerable than those who see a more utilitarian use for the Internet. This muddies the waters in our understanding of SNS use but a possible explanation lies in Underwood, et al.’s, (2011) broadcaster–communicator dichotomy. Communicators have a clear utilitarian reason for using Facebook, the maintenance of their group, while broadcasters have a less focused goal or perhaps less coherent goal of ‘being out there’. There are no clear findings to substantiate this claim but it has a level of plausibility.

Since an SNS provides a number of ways for users to interact and constantly create connections among users, it has a broad appeal. Facebook in particular has captivated many students who then spend large amounts of time using it. It is no surprise, therefore, that those hard-pressed educational institutions are attracted to tools that students find alluring as a pedagogical device. However, despite some reports of success (McCarroll & Curran, 2013), the evidence for engaging with SNS as a potential tool for improving educational performance is not always compelling.

Social Networking in Educational Contexts

There is no doubt that SNSs are seen as having great educational potential and a number of commercial companies are exploiting the opportunities they afford. For example, Connectivity Learning are using Facebook as they are inspired by collaboration, co-teaching and global connections within a twenty-first century community. The Facebook organization itself has its own dedicated page to education applications that shares the experiences of teachers and provides examples of effective practice. The European Union funded SVEA project¹ also explores the educational use of Facebook. It provides a useful starter guide for those educators who are relatively new to social networking. Facebook provides an easy-to-use and familiar technology for learners to leverage social networking to share and generate tacit knowledge between each other within the small group environment.

One characteristic of SNSs that can be exploited for educational purposes is the function that allows the creation of special interest groups. It is clear that an online site designed for people with similar interests to communicate and collaborate would have great potential for group work, collaborative assignments and other class-based activities. A Facebook Group has the overall look and feel of an individual Facebook page but its use can be restricted to an invited membership and it is intended for group communications and resource sharing. The key features of the group are that there is a closed membership managed by the person who has set up the group. Students and tutors in such a group can communicate and share resources, post messages and comment on those of others. Documents can be collectively created and shared. There is also a group chat facility for real-time discussions and a notification facility. Group members can also choose to be automatically informed by email of all activities happening on the group page.

Within Web 2.0 technologies, the interactive sites and facilities that can be found in cyberspace allow learners to share, create and broadcast information relatively easily. An example of the power of this approach is a facility created for teachers of psychology. For example, Psychexchange² is an interactive site, which allows teachers to upload and comment on teaching resources, ideas, videos and material. Since it was created in 2008 it has developed into a large and active community of psychology teachers. Psychexchange provides a valuable repository for storing teaching materials and provides a strong community network for the sharing of good practice. It had over 21,700 users of which 5,000 have been active in the last month (as of May 2010). There were 3,700 files uploaded and these have been downloaded over 800,000 times. A community of practice, that is a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and who learn how to do it better as they interact regularly, has been created within a short time that allows teachers to share resources and good practice (Banyard, Underwood, et al., 2011). This site is now part of an amalgamated set of sites supporting open learning^3.

A second key use of SNS is as a tool for social support. Learners enjoy and appreciate both the social learning experience afforded by the online social network and the reciprocal support of their learning, enhancing their own and other students’ experiences. The notion of online learning communities is not new (see, for example, Fontana, 1997). Buckingham, Shum and Ferguson (2010) acknowledge the impact of technology in facilitating the growth of online learning communities. They also cite shifts in social values, problems that require social knowledge to address, and changes to institutional views as contributing factors. Selwyn’s (2009) indepth qualitative analysis of contributions to Facebook walls by 909 UK undergraduates found that five main education-related interactions emerged:

• recounting and reflecting on the university experience
• exchange of practical information
• exchange of academic information
• displays of supplication and/or disengagement
• humour.

Selwyn’s (2009) study showed that Facebook walls were certainly a valuable means of exchange for those students primarily maintaining strong links between people on a course, that is individuals already closely linked in offline relationships. The technology tended not to be used to create new contacts in other courses or institutions, but rather activity was confined to a geographically-bounded campus community (Ellison, et al., 2007).

Status updates can be viewed as a restricted form of microblogging, that is the exchange of small elements of content such as short sentences, individual images, or video links. In Facebook News Feed these short messages are posted to the individual’s own welcome page to all Facebook Friends of the user as well as the user’s own profile page. In this way users receive a constantly updated list of their friends’ Facebook activity.

A more recent and interesting manipulation of student use of Facebook has been conducted by Deters and Mehl (2013). In this experiment they investigated the value of undergraduate students posting regular status updates on Facebook. Some 100 regular users of Facebook were randomly divided between a target and control group. The target group was then asked to increase their rate of message posting for a week, while the control group received no instructions on use. Deters and Mehl were interested to find out whether status updates as a means of communication were both an impoverished form of communication and also undermined quality face-to-face contact, as has been argued elsewhere (see, for example, Moody, 2001). Although, as Ryan and Xenos (2009) found, Facebook activity was linked to personality type, we should be careful in assigning a causal link between engagement with any SNS and loneliness. They found that Facebook users were more extrovert and narcissistic than non-users, while the latter were more conscientious and socially lonely than users. In the Manago, et al. (2012) study those users with larger networks self-reported that larger numbers of contacts in their networks were observing their status updates. Such users were keen to demonstrate others’ interest in their activities, a finding that resonates with that of Deters and Mehl. Further Manago and colleagues found that larger networks and larger estimated audiences predicted higher levels of life satisfaction and perceived social support on Facebook. They argue that the findings show the psychological importance of audience in the Facebook environment and this appears to be the case for high-users. However, as with many activities, we need to recognize that users are a self-selecting group and the opportunity to communicate with many is naturally sought out by the extroverts but not the shy or withdrawn.

The key finding from Deters and Mehl’s (2013) study was that increased status updating reduced loneliness in the target group while there was no change in self-reported loneliness for the control group. Those students who regularly updated their status updates felt more connected and in touch with friends as they shared the highs and lows of their daily experiences with them. Possibly worth noting is that the level to which an individual received responses to their postings was not found to be an important factor is reducing loneliness, as the very act of communicating with an audience appeared to be sufficient to bring about the feeling of connectedness. This finding is consistent with studies that show psychological benefits, including improved social functioning, when individuals simply write about personally important topics (Pennebaker & Chung, 2011). Although, in Deters and Mehl’s study, the finding should be viewed with some circumspection as the majority (79%) of posts did elicit responses and could simply represent a ceiling effect.

A number of studies have shown that higher wellbeing is associated with spending less time alone and more time talking to others but that the talk should be substantive rather than small talk (Diener & Seligman, 2002; Mehl, Vazire, et al., 2010). Deters and Mehl (2013) argue that the benefits seen from postings online might well be because increased contact led to more substantive exchanges in which individuals showed interest in the comings and goings of their fellow students, showing awareness of their activities and soliciting information, and in so doing fostered feelings of social inclusion.

Exploiting social media to improve student engagement, but also their health and wellbeing, is a central reason why educators have an interest in this tool. While Selwyn found positive but limited educational use of Facebook, Wise, Skues, and Williams (2011) present a less positive picture. In their study of Facebook use in a group of first year psychology students they found that 94 per cent of the students had Facebook accounts that they used predominantly for personal activity. Such activities occupied a social land that was inhabited by students for an average of an hour a day. However, as with many studies, this average hid significant variance between the students with more conscientious students tending to use Facebook less than less conscientious ones. As a consequence they argued that Facebook was a distracting influence rather than a way of increasing academic engagement, a tool to socialize with rather than one supporting the students’ own learning. While it is self-evident that student engagement is important for positive learning outcomes, they argue that simply increasing the metrics associated with student engagement does not necessarily create good students. So an effort to promote social engagement, through social media, does not necessarily result in the improved cognitive engagement that is required for successful learning. Engagement needs to promote the behavioural and cognitive activities required for learning to occur (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).

So why is the Educational use of an SNS different from Using a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)?

Phipps, Cormier, and Stiles (2008) argue that while the VLE has an important role in enhancing the student experience making it a safe and sensible option from the perspective of the institution, it is a solution to an old problem, which may have lost its relevance in a world of continuous change that requires commensurate reskilling of the population. In particular they question the appropriateness of the VLE as a tool to encapsulate the full sum of a student’s educational experiences: in so doing they are highlighting the need for enhanced e-portfolios that may be held across a range of interactive tools, devices and platforms.

The VLE is able to provide access to a range of learning resources and activities as well as providing the most basic types of information about courses and assessments (see Weller 2010; Sclater 2010, for an in depth discussion). It is also able to facilitate interaction between users but this facility does not appear to be well developed or used. Many learners are ambivalent towards the VLE. Learners and teachers prefer to use facilities outside the VLE and outside school. Even the humble data-stick can be a tool of choice because it gives an element of privacy while the VLE allows the learner to be tracked (Underwood, et al., 2009). We have found a number of teachers have rejected VLEs because of this perceived bias towards teachers rather than students.

Good news stories abound concerning the transformational nature of a VLE (Banyard, et al., 2011). On the other hand there are numerous stories of abortive attempts to install a working VLE that illustrate the frustration of embedding large-scale technology innovations into an institution (Underwood, et al., 2010). With emerging ways of working with the technology provided by the potentialities of Web 2.0, Ofsted (2009a, pp. 34–35) has questioned whether this technology may become redundant even before it is fully embedded as it is unable to meet people’s expectations. They found no direct correlation between computer expertise and VLE development. However, more skilled and confident teachers and tutors were able to deploy them effectively as just another tool in a good teacher’s repertoire, not an end in itself (Ofsted, 2009b, p. 12).

The VLE appears self-evidently to be a good idea but does it deliver as much as it promises? What are the key benefits and also the key barriers to success? One perceived benefit is the possibility of predicting student performance from the large body of log file and other data concerning student activity through the application of data mining methods to discover hidden patterns, associations and anomalies (Nagi, Suesawaluk, & U-Lan, 2008; Superby, Vandamme, & Meskens, 2006). However, this function requires greater technical skills and as such is not extensively used. The VLE is currently used to store content and to communicate with students and so has extensive overlap with the functions available on any SNS. Therefore individuals deemed ‘technologically savvy’ are already looking elsewhere for increased functionality by using facilities outside the VLE, such as blogs and other Web 2.0 tools to increase their knowledge and identify resources. This frustration is mirrored by many of our digital natives, those who have grown up in a digital society, who show a preference for Google to their library interface in their attempts to seek out appropriate learning resources. Nonetheless, care should be taken not to overhype the value of Web 2.0 software. Underwood and Stiller (2013) have shown in recent studies that the rhetoric does not always match actual usage.

Where Does This Leave Us?

If we go back to the digital divide, then the rise of social software means that learners are able to personalize their learning outside the structures of their schools and colleges (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). The technological affordances offered by Web 2.0 technology have been grasped by many learners and also some teachers as they find new ways to excite and encourage their students. However, a 2009 comparison of staff and student responses to Facebook showed that students were much more likely than faculty to use Facebook and were significantly more open to the possibility of using Facebook and similar technologies to support classroom work. Faculty members were more likely to use more ‘traditional’ technologies such as email (Roblyer, McDaniel, et al., 2010). Staff members are also more responsive to the VLE although this might in part be due to the need to follow institutional policy (Underwood & Stiller, 2013)

While the school VLE provides a valuable data resource for teachers and managers, the utility of these data is enhanced though the activities of a dedicated data manager. Teachers are confident with this aspect of the network and appreciative of the gains it provides. The usefulness of network facilities as an aid to pedagogy is less developed, which is a common observation in schools. Could it be that the VLE provides a basic resource for teachers for them to build their teaching on? This can work well for teachers who can use it as foundation for their teaching, but the perceived value of the VLE is such that many teachers and managers see it as a sufficient teaching resource rather than a starting point.

However, is this simply a case of information overload? How is the information flow in social networking best managed? Many of us who are Facebook users find that it can become overwhelming very quickly. Much of the information seems like ‘noise’. In the face-to-face classroom, both students and tutors generally know how to deal with such ‘noise’. This may not be the case in the online environment. Social Learn⁴, a platform for online open learning at The Open University, utilizes open educational resources with the goal of improving the quality of material available to online learners (Buckingham, Shum & Ferguson, 2010). It is based on the premise that the understanding of content is socially constructed through conversations and interactions with others (Brown & Adler, 2008). However, there have been significant problems for students with information overload, which has left learners struggling to identify what represents useful material, or to understand how to build connections between concepts or even to recognize solutions when they find them. We tend to lose sight of the learning process in providing a wealth of resources to students online.

The Need to Establish Rules of the Game: Netiquette

The idea of ‘netiquette’ was a concept established during the early adoption of the Internet and described a set of social norms that govern proper decorum in using online computer-mediated interactions (Shea, 1994). Although Internet users no longer embrace netiquette, the utility of social norms is not lost within online communities (Yee, Bailenson, et al., 2007). Social norms unique to SNSs are learned through other users and cues available in the environment. However, some newer media, such as SNSs, have loosely articulated social or interactional norms dictating appropriate actions and behaviours.

One further issue concerning the use of new Web 2.0 technologies is how best to allay parental concerns of risk. There are of course concerns about the use of social media in schools although this is less prevalent within higher education institutions. Guarding the safety of the student and protecting the reputation of the institution make these two groups very wary. Some are concerned that the students might encounter inappropriate content or be exposed to bullying online. Others are just as concerned about students wasting valuable learning time and overloading technical resources. Wolak, Finkelhor, et al. (2008) argue that society’s perception of these dangers is distorted. They argue that the belief that there are online ‘predators’ who prey on naive children using trickery and violence is erroneous. They argue that Internet sex crimes involving adults and juveniles better fit a model of underage seduction than one of forcible assault. While this does frame the issue in a different way, lowering the level of violence, it does not take away the gravity of such acts. Wolak, et al. (2008) and Wolak, Finkelhor, and Mitchell (2007) suggest that what is needed is not an excessive reaction to the problem but to equip students with the necessary skills and awareness to protect themselves. Our own research has shown that schools that discuss these difficult issues with the students in the context of open but monitored Internet access tend to produce more risk aware and therefore potentially safer cohorts of pupils (Underwood, et al., 2008). While Facebook has a set of tools that allow reporting of anti-social online behaviour, these often appear cumbersome but, by encouraging students to use these tools as well as informing relevant adults, a less frightening environment is possible.

Risks, Skills and Opportunities

There is a growing awareness around the potential risks of embedding Web 2.0 technologies within educational contexts. This is not simply the view that SNS often work as a distraction from academic learning, but a recognition about the potential bullying, victimization and access to unsolicited information, which cannot be dismissed or simply ignored. For example, Ybarra, Boyd, et al. (2012) recently noted that Internet harassment, bullying and victimisation is a growing concern, one that may often lead to serious psychological consequences for the individual involved. That it is not recognized as bullying by those submitting their peers to abuse, is perhaps the most worrying finding from current research. For example, Palasinski (2012) has shown that ‘happy slapping’, using a mobile phone to record a physical assault on an unsuspecting victim and then making the act public via the Internet, is perceived by many adolescents as a form of entertainment and not abuse. Her young interviewees distinguished between harmless ‘happy slapping’ and injury inflicting ‘unhappy slapping’, the former being viewed as a comedic prank showing an individual’s creativity. Recording the event is portrayed, by Plasinski’s interviewees, as a safety measure to prevent things going too far. Similar findings were identified in a subsequent study in which students were interviewed about harmless pranks and happy slapping (Palasinski, 2013).

Nonetheless, there is a recognition that Internet dangers are perhaps no worse than real-life equivalents (Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross, 2009) and, as we have seen in the case of bullying, this often occurs more within traditional face-to-face arenas than online. Although bullying and similar behaviours do not require the use of technology, the technology does add two new dimensions to the problem (see Sugarman & Willoughby, 2013). The first dimension is that abuse can occur at any time and in any place. The second is the level to which the abuse becomes a very public act again leaving little respite for the victim. Perhaps the way forward is to raise individuals’ awareness of the potential risks involved in negotiating interactions online and to build up their resilience to trust in their maturity and judgement to deal with the matter appropriately (a theme we return to in Chapter 10). Once we see beyond the risks, Web 2.0 technologies have a great deal of benefits for the learner. More importantly, once these risks have been identified and addressed, then there is real scope for the pedagogic advantage of fully embracing digital technologies, particularly SNSs such as Facebook, into the curriculum (McCarroll & Curran, 2013).

Conclusions

The activities and interactions encouraged through SNSs will no doubt produce more informed citizens of the digital age. Social networking is hugely popular, with more than 700 million people worldwide known to have access to their own networking profile. However, there is still no clear decision as to whether social networking can actually support and enhance students’ engagement within the context of their formal learning. We are aware that even within formal learning settings, such as lectures or tutorials, many students use laptops, iPads and smartphones to access course materials or related resources and do so easily and effectively (Kraushaar & Novak, 2010). However, while exploiting social media may help to improve student engagement, and to promote the behavioural and cognitive activities required for learning to occur (Fredericks, et al., 2004), this does not always translate into effective learning. Many aspects of these tools can be distractions rather than facilitating features and care must be taken to identify what aspects of these social networking tools are relevant or pedagogically useful to students before they can be fully implemented (Gehlen-Baum & Weinberger, 2012). In part, this lack of successful integration into the educational contexts is perhaps fuelled by teachers’ perceptions of social networking. Teachers’ reluctance to embrace SNSs could be due to the perceived risks associated with cyber-bullying and exposure to online ‘predators’ or simply by their own negative perceptions that SNS, will detract students from the very principle of learning, seeing SNSs as a distraction at best. Whatever the reason, there is at least some evidence to suggest the SNSs can offer skills to learners that cannot be found within VLEs and the difficulty remains in the affordances that can be instilled within the classroom context.