You are on page 1of 9

To be published in: Hofhues, S. & Schiefner-Rohs, M. (in print). Education Beyond Facebook.

Critical Reflections on the Current Sta-te of ICT in Higher Education. In B. Patrut (ed.), Social Media in Academia: Research and Teaching. Proceedings of SMART 2013. Heidelberg: Springer (further data not yet known).

Education Beyond Facebook. Critical Reflections on the Current State of ICT in Higher Education Sandra Hofhues, Heidelberg School of Education, Germany Mandy Schiefner-Rohs, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany - Keywords Media Education, ICT in Higher Education, Media Pedagogy, Critical Media Literacies, Educational Ambient

Abstract Nobody would deny how important information and communication technologies (ICT) have become for everyday life as well as for universities and, indeed, the whole range of educational requirements. But among the many and varied tools, which are used at university, one tool seems to stand out: Facebook. Because of its omnipresence in everyday life it also stirs up a radical change in the way, in which the use of ICT in teaching and learning is perceived: instructors, learners and even the individual learning institutions are facing a student-driven approach to use social software, especially Facebook, in university teaching and learning. We would like to give a pedagogically oriented view of students' media usage in relation to university practices. Examples for the integration of Facebook into teaching and learning will help to form an idea of the general potentials and pitfalls of media education in Higher Education “beyond Facebook”. The questions, which are raised as a result of an ubiquitous use of Facebook, concern the kind of media education beyond this particular social network tool. We will conclude with referring to the importance of creating an educational ambient with and about media – of going into detail and looking beyond this specific tool, which today is Facebook and which may be surpassed by a quite different tool tomorrow. Therefore, we should have a closer look at the formal and informal learning processes and, in addition, the relation between the individual, university and society in media education. 1. Introduction Sometimes facts are created outside the Academia. Who would not believe, that the wellknown scenario of the online students by Oblinger and Oblinger (2005, p. 2.1) is becoming more and more a reality of everyday life? And what technological and pedagogical facts are indeed created by using just one tool, namely the social network Facebook, which came into existence ten years ago? Not even a decade ago, Oblinger and Oblinger stated clearly that a younger generation will grow up with media or, even more so, in a mediatized world. The authors called them the net generation. Indeed, some of their comments are now outdated, considering the influence on the tools described in their key publication (e.g. Yahoo). But the students’ behavior remains the same or has become more evident than before. This is illustrated by the possession of hardware and the daily consumption of media (for Germany e.g. van Eimeren & Frees, 2012): nearly every student in industrialized countries owns a PC or, today, a tablet and/or smartphone. Nearly every one of them uses the Internet and several applications of digital media in every day life. Students commonly use technology very easily in the private context,

and some of the media are explored for university purposes. Information and communication through media are very popular among students and create new social practices with closer or wider reference to university or Higher Education. And Facebook as a tool plays a key role in students’ lives. But while these students are often described in catchy terms as net generation, generation millennium, “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) and so on, first and foremost consideration should be given to the notion, that it does not seem to be fair to form a prejudice against a new generation as a whole, especially when thinking of the close relationship between social practices, technology and education (Schulmeister, 2010; Schulmeister, 2012, p. 37). This relationship becomes clear, when we consider the four typical ways of media use in Higher Education. Information is researched in order to keep up to date with current research; it is also processed, be it as theories, models or concepts or to form research questions and hypotheses, and it is printed in books and journals or published digitally, thus being documented and made available as new findings to a wider audience. Media as means or transmitters of information are therefore indispensable for scientific knowledge production, whether in past or in present. Often the use of media also means communication with various partners. In science this often happens through publications and their reception, so that media for information can become media for communication. Hence media become a form of communication. Collaboration can also be seen as a part of communication in science, in particular, if communication primarily serves the purpose of cooperation between different target groups. The intended exchange aims at shared findings, the explanation and the utilization of scientific knowledge. In addition, various research tools can be used which, for example, allow to jointly process data, facilitate interpersonal exchange in the first place or establish new ways of cooperation within the medium. Thus media are a part of and a way of collaboration. Media as such also offer opportunities for reflection, however, this does not refer occasions on which media and media contexts are contemplated. It rather addresses media types the inherent nature of which encourages an approach to reflective learning and teaching processes. This may happen, for instance, when thoughts are made explicit and are jointly processed on weblogs or, for example, when e-portfolios encourage a (structured) record of individual events, experiences and finds in the sense of a process-accompanying reflection (Meyer et al. 2009; Reinmann, 2009). The four goals of media use give us an idea of the complex media literacies needed for a genuinely appropriate “use” of the different kinds of media in the context of Higher Education. These media literacies need to be learned and developed to a high degree by educators and peers and fostered by general media experiences outside the Academia. And they show, that the discussion about ICT in Higher Education begins with and is underpinned by the literacies of the people involved. In order to bring this to effect, it makes sense to look at comprehensive media literacies of both target groups, the students and the educators. Regarding this, we need to consider different aspects: Firstly, the use of media does not imply that all people, students and teachers actually use them. As raised above, there are differences in media use in society as well as in university and between students and teachers. We need to differentiate between goals, forms and contexts of media use. Furthermore, digital media in Higher Education set complex requirements for all people involved, especially for the target groups, the students and teachers. It is not enough to implement digital media in teaching and learning processes. There is also the element of change, which is inherent in digital media and which influences all processes at university. In any case, questions about integrating digital media in Higher Education are raised by the users themselves, the presumably “younger” students and the “older” teachers.

2

Conference Proceeedings SMART 2013 | 2013-06-08

From the introduction it can already be seen that the eye-catching Facebook and its dissemination is our reason for writing about “the media”. Our actual interest, however, lies in the use of media for working towards educational goals, which may but does not necessarily needs to include tools like Facebook. On the contrary, through Facebook and all the other social media tools perpetual problems in Higher Education become much more evident. As a result, widespread misperceptions concerning overall media literacies need to be clarified. Especially with the imperative of selfexploration in mind – the use of social media can also be seen as a private sphere for exploration (e.g. Schmidt, Paus-Hasebrink, Hasebrink & Lampert, 2009) – what are the consequences for teaching and learning if educators use Facebook and social media for teaching? Accordingly, from our point of view, a critical reflection of Facebook and, combined with that, of ICT in Higher Education is needed. Using the example of Facebook, we will show how mediatization affects the social practices of teaching and learning. An indication of this has already been given in the title and we will expand on this later. 2. Media Education at Universities or: Why Facebook Does Matter We have already explained how important it is to consider the integration of digital media in teaching and learning from an educational viewpoint. In short, the pedagogical view on the use of media in Higher Education leads us to education-driven rather than technology-driven decisions. This educational perspective involves that thoughts focus on learning objectives which are pursued by means of media. Accordingly, it is necessary to take a closer look at the current practices of use, i.e. which media practices are of closer or wider concern for Higher Education? Media Consumption and Examples: How are Media Used? Over the last decade there have been shifts from university hosted tools like learning management systems to student-driven usage of social software for information research (e.g. Wikipedia) and tools for social communication such as Facebook (Kleimann, Özkilik, & Göcks, 2008; Ebner, Schiefner & Nagler, 2008; Grosch & Gidion, 2011). Students often use Wikis and online tests or exercises (Kleimann, Özkilik, & Göcks, 2008). In addition, the usage of mobile tools is on the increase in Germany (Grosch & Gidion, 2011). A particular tool has gained a lot of attention: the use of Facebook is discussed in Higher Education among students as well as among teachers. Often teachers need to face the challenge of using Facebook either because students use it as a tool for exchange or because they feel that there is a demand to use it in teaching. But why is this phenomenon of interest and needs to be discussed in Higher Education? Our view is, that through the use of Facebook it becomes visible for the first time how the boundaries in institutional settings shift. When looking at tools for fostering learning from the university perspective, it can be said that, over the last years, learning management systems have been accompanied or replaced by social media tools like Twitter, blogs or Facebook. A lot of educators use these participatory forms of media in their teaching and learning processes, and a lot of learning management systems include them in their system, which counteracts the nature of these tools. However, particularly one of these latest developments, the social network Facebook, has been discussed both in society and in university. Looking at students from bachelor to doctoral level, digital media are integral part of their learning environment. Most students have their own computers and laptops and are using
Conference Proceeedings SMART 2013 | 2013-06-08 3

them for their studies (Kleimann et al., 2005, 2008; Ebner, Schiefner & Nagler, 2008; Grosch & Gidion, 2011). Most of the media are used for the preparation of courses or for exam preparation, e.g. by recorded lectures. Focused on social media, there are only few figures available for students’ use in Germany: Grosch and Gidion (2012) asked students about their acceptance, their usage and their satisfaction of using different social media tools and found out that social networks like Facebook ranked between Instant Messenger and Weblogs (Grosch & Gidion, 2012, p. 74). This picture does not seem to change during the study process. Looking at doctoral students, Facebook as a social network also gained a lot of attention during the PhD, compared with other social software tools (see Hofhues & Schiefner-Rohs, 2012). Social networks are relevant for them in every phase of the research project. Especially the exchange of information under doctoral students is high, 38 of 72 students agreed in our survey using tools for informational goals. The pedagogically driven use of digital media often is justified with the individual, the technological and the social development in all educational institutions. Digital media are used in research and teaching in diverse forms: they include the collection of different data (see Schenk, Taddicken, & Welker, 2008; Scholz, 2008), the analysis and interpretation of data, managing one’s own literature and public forms of science communication (Ball, 2007). The production of scientific knowledge is team-based and distributed in working groups and during conferences, via print and online media. National and international contacts, collaborations and networks of researchers are central for generating knowledge and communication in science. But the implementation in teaching has been hesitant and has changed over the last years. Learning With and About Digital Media: What Does It Mean? Although the practices involve both students and educators, previous studies focus almost exclusively on learners and their learning behavior in and with Facebook. E.g. most attention was paid to the use of Facebook by students (Selwyn, 2009; see also Junco, 2011). But the different forms of media use and refinements influence the way how people act when they use or participate in technology and media, especially if students take them to the educational institutions, as we observed in the case of Facebook. In this regard, social media put high demands on universities. These demands are different from former issues regarding digital media in universities (the role of teachers and learners, the role of technology, teaching and learning goals and so on). Whereas in traditional media the individual facets of media are distinguishable, the challenges of nowadays media lie in the context of the aspects described above. This makes their integration in education much more complex. The broader appreciation of media in educational settings is challenging for all subjects involved. They are often not explicit part of the instructional design, and often begin with an initiative by the students. Connecting educators and learners can be described as an early use of self-directed learning by informal communication. In social media tools “being a friend of someone” is integral part and purpose of using the tools and is one of their main benefits. Educators and students are sometimes friends in social networks like Facebook or they follow each other on Twitter. In doing so, looking at each other's information stream becomes relevant. While the people involved might distantly know each other, they might also coincidentally look at each other's pages. Apart from being used for educational purposes, students’ and educators’ information can also spark learning and teaching initiatives. As Selwyn pointed out: “As such most of the learning that takes place on Facebook is the learning that would have taken place previously
4 Conference Proceeedings SMART 2013 | 2013-06-08

in the corridors, back of classrooms, cafeterias and after-school telephones conversations.” (Selwyn, 2008, pp. 4-5). It can be stated that the mere connection of people on Facebook or in other social media tools can trigger exchange of information that is relevant to teaching and learning, and of informal information, which is also essential for teaching and learning. Information shared by students can also be commented or shared and students get a direct feedback on how helpful or relevant the information is at present. Students can even comment on each other's input. For example, they can rate it (good, nice and so on) or may add what they think about the information provided. Facebook can also be used for information sharing between different groups: among students and between students and educators. In this regard, information plays a significant role in building knowledge. Information must be well researched, processed, stored and distributed, on the educators' side and on the learners' side. In all areas digital tools can help to organize and allocate, to share and discuss information, in Facebook for example in special groups with membership with or without educators. This form can be used in a student- and teacher-driven way: students use Facebook as an everyday practice to share information. In many groups only students are involved and membership is critical. Educators are e.g. excluded in order to ensure a “free” exchange between the learners. Groups without educators mostly share information about the university and/or individual lectures: for example, students share scripts and their solution for group work, they inform each other about student related topics and they share their preparations for exams (Mavasheva, 2012). Therefore, going into detail and taking a close look at Facebook shows, that Facebook creates different and unusual opportunities for socialization. In our opinion Facebook in Higher Education enables two separate environments to be put together for students (mostly) and by students: more informally oriented learning outside the institution and formal learning within the institution. While this dichotomy is more or less black and white and discussions about the relationship of formal and informal learning focus on continuum-based models, Facebook bridges the gap between them. Even more can be said: the use of Facebook fulfills a special educational goal in Higher Education, which is characterized by communication, discussions and participation. Media Literacies or: What We Need to Know About Media To find a differentiated approach to dealing with Social Media in Higher Education, a critical view needs to be taken on media literacy as it presents itself at universities. A look at different concepts reveals, that there is a lack of understanding in regard of media literacy at university: keeping in mind that the university pursues the goal of dealing with information and creating knowledge, media literacy at university is almost defined by the tradition of information literacy concepts (see also Schiefner-Rohs, 2012). But a look at the current convergence of media shows, that boundaries between information and other media are becoming blurred (see Buckingham, 2010, p. 59) in the same way as the boundaries between university and society or education and socialization. Therefore, from our point of view, definitions should be broken up and brought in line with the definition of Buckingham, according to which media literacy can be defined as ”the ability to access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts“ (Buckingham, 2005, p. 3). This understanding of media literacy does not focus on technology or technology use as a main category, but on communication as the main issue and can be linked to the German tradition of (social) communication-oriented media pedagogy (Baacke, 1996). Therefore, looking at settings at university which foster a media perspective that follows this
Conference Proceeedings SMART 2013 | 2013-06-08 5

understanding, there should be much more open settings in order to enhance different ways and forms of communication between different audiences – and therefore an active engagement with social media based on a sole understanding of media by use and communication (see Münker, 2009). Such a concept of literacies for teachers and students goes further than personal media literacies and instructional design. The first challenge is to develop critical media literacy of educators. While educators are usually interested in digital media and well able to perceive them and their use in teaching processes more or less adequately, others use media with concrete goals: Students will be more motivated, there will be a practical orientation in teaching lessons and teaching and learning is evident even outside university. But there is one reflection of media-based processes and their constitutive elements, that is often omitted: the openess of the learning and teaching situation outside university. While pedagogical spheres are often inaccessible for the public, they open up through the use of social media: they open socially, spatially, chronologically and also in terms of the boundaries between institution and society. Clear boundaries disappear in favor of processes in which anyone in any place can participate. Learning is not restricted to universities at all, it reaches out to other places and forms of learning. These are crucial factors, which will change teaching and learning processes as well as educational phenomena. And these factors must be considered in Higher Education as they will be an important feature of learning, for educators as well as for students. Therefore concepts like a broader understanding of media literacy for everyone at university are required: “Taking the current subject-related discussion as a reference point, neither students nor teachers will be attributed with ‘media literacy’ as such – media literacies are acquired and developed too individually, and with regard to the intended development of media literacies, there are too many different perspectives on the academic learning environment with its core subject areas.” (Hofhues, Geier & Griesshammer, p. 90). But looking at media literacies within the Academia, open opportunities and complex confrontation with media and their requirements, as represented in action-based concepts, seem to be rare. Often there are special courses with a focus on handling or integrating tools at university. In our view, such concepts are not enough to deal with the complex requirements of social media in Higher Education. 3. From the Use of ICT to an Educational Ambient With and in Social Media The integration of Facebook into teaching and learning often just happens, without having been previously wanted or been planned by educators as part of an instructional design. For example, it may have been initiated by students or lecturers to enable more efficient interaction between them or between peers or to simplify information processes, because probably everyone has joined the network anyway. A drive by students to integrate Facebook into university will result in the university being significantly influenced from outside. In this regard, Facebook underlines the need for a change among media in Higher Education. In the light of students taking charge of media and creating media based personal learning environments, the use of Facebook makes a difference: external influences do not stop at the university gates like before and they are not kept out by other tools. With the opening of Facebook for teachers or the sharing of
6 Conference Proceeedings SMART 2013 | 2013-06-08

information among students, the use of Facebook facilitates reactions between spheres outside university and spheres inside university. This is a change that affects individual and institutional habits. By integrating social software in Higher Education, the roles of media and, associated with this, the roles of students and educators still are in progress. So, nowadays teaching and learning must be seen as a unit in which formal and non-formal education, traditional processes of socialization into Academia and enculturation into society with “new” media or other upcoming social developments are intertwined. Whereas our perspective is to reflect the differences in media use at university, other teachers and educators might consider the use of Facebook as superfluous. It is not part of any curricula and regarding other external university practices it could be neglected. Therefore, the perceived relevance of the content differs insofar that even those who are at least familiar with the term assume that excessive expectations, as described above, loom large over them (Hofhues, Geier & Griesshammer, 2012, pp. 89–90). This highlights in two ways the need for open dealings with social media in Higher Eduation: regarding social media as relevant content or practice and as a significant issue with regard to subject-based perspectives. A student-driven use of Facebook enables students to take responsibility for their own learning and learning environment. Facebook therefore represents an example for media appropriation. While in common media-based learning scenarios at university media use is teacher-driven, educators often neglect to encourage students’ active contribution, which can be motivated by means of action-based learning. But transferring responsibility for their media-based personal learning environment to students also upsets students who are burdened by the demands of self-organized learning in complex media scenarios (Reinmann, 2009) and also by the accumulative complexity and density of content. But not only students are affected. It also touches teachers who resort to apparently proven teaching methods in consideration of their own routine, when confronted with the requests imposed on them. And in universities, a structural framework for these questions is either vague or missing. This vagueness corresponds with challenges for Higher Education and for everyone within the system who is concerned with teaching and learning. Using Facebook as a tool to enhance communication on different levels by designing educational ambients at university from an educators point of view is interconnected with institutional conditions; curricula, teaching concepts and individual needs (Flechsig, 1975). In conclusion, we should have a closer look at the formal and the non-formal, maybe informal learning processes and, in addition, the relation between the individual, university and society (Schiefner-Rohs & Hofhues, submitted). References Baacke, D. (1996). Medienkompetenz - Begrifflichkeit und sozialer Wandel [Media Literacy Terminology and Social Change]. In A. von Rein (ed.), Medienkompetenz als Schlüsselbegriff [Media Literacy as Key Term] (pp. 112–124). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Ball, R. (2007). Wissenschaftskommunikation der Zukunft [Science Communication in Future.]. Jülich: Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich. Buckingham, D. (2005). The Media Literacy of Children and Young People. A review of the research literature on behalf of Ofcom. http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/145/1/Buckinghammedialiteracy.pdf (2013-06-08)

Conference Proceeedings SMART 2013 | 2013-06-08

7

Buckingham, D. (2010). Defining Digital Literacy. In B. Bachmair (ed.), Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen. [Media Education in New Cultural Spaces] (pp. 59-71). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ebner, M., Schiefner, M. & Nagler, W. (2008). Has the Net Generation Arrived at the University? – oder Studierende von Heute, Digital Natives? [Has the Net Generation Arrived at the University?– Or Today’s Students, Digital Natives?.] In S. Zauchner, P. Baumgartner, E. Blaschitz & A. Weissenbäck (eds.), Offener Bildungsraum Hochschule – Freiheiten und Notwendigkeiten (pp. 113–123). Münster: Waxmann. Flechsig, K.-H. (1975). Handlungsebenen der Hochschuldidaktik. [Dimensions of Higher Education.] ZIFF-Papiere Fernuniversität 3. [ZIPF Papers Distance Education 3.] http://deposit.fernuni-hagen.de/1703/1/ZP_003.pdf (2013-06-08) Grosch, M. & Gideon, G. (2011). Mediennutzungsgewohnheiten im Wandel. Ergebnisse einer Befragung zur studiumsbezogenen Mediennutzung. [Changing Habits in Media Use. Findings of a Survey of the Use of Media in Studying.] Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing. Hofhues, S., Geier, C. & Grießhammer, L. (2012). Fostering Crossmedia Literacy in Formal Educational Contexts: Conceptual Considerations and Case-Specific Results. In A. Tokar, M. Beurskens, S. Keuneke, M. Mahrt, I. Peters, C. Puschmann, T. van Treeck & K. Weller (eds.), Science and the Internet (pp. 87–98). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. Hofhues, S. & Schiefner-Rohs, M. (2012). Doktorandenausbildung zwischen Selbstorganisation und Vernetzung: zur Bedeutung digitaler sozialer Medien. [Doctoral Education between Self-Organisation and Connection: the Relevance of Digital Social Media.] In G. Csanyi, F. Reichl, A. Steiner (eds.), Digitale Medien – Werkzeuge für exzellente Forschung und Lehre [Digital Media – Tools for Excellent Research and Teaching.] (pp. 313–323). Münster: Waxmann. Junco, R. (2011). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computer & Education, 58(1), 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004 (2013-06-08). Kleimann, B., Özkilik, M., & Göcks, M. (2008). Studieren im Web 2.0. [Studying in Web 2.0.] HISBUS‐Kurzinformation Nr. 21 (Vol. 21). Mavasheva, O. (2012). Das Social Web als Bildungsraum. Wie organisieren sich Studenten in dem sozialen Netzwerk Facebook? [The Social Web as Educational Space. How do Students Organize Each Other in the Social Network Facebook?] Unpublished BachelorThesis, University of Duisburg-Essen. Meyer, T., Mayrberger, K., Münte-Goussar, S. & Schwalbe, C. (eds.) (2011), Kontrolle und Selbstkontrolle. Zur Ambivalenz von E-Portfolios in Bildungsprozessen. [Control and Self-Control. To the Ambivalence of E-Portfolios in Educational Processes.] Wiesbaden: VS. Münker, S. (2009). Emergenz digitaler Öffentlichkeiten. Die Sozialen Medien im Web 2.0. [Emergence of Digital Publics. The Social Media and Web 2.0.], Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation (Chapter 2). In D. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (eds.), Educating the Net Generation. Washington: Educause. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf (2013-06-08). Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. 9/5. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf (2013-06-08). Reinmann, G. (2009). Selbstorganisation auf dem Prüfstand: Das Web 2.0 und seine Grenzen(losigkeit) [Self-Organization on Test Bench: The Web 2.0 and its
8 Conference Proceeedings SMART 2013 | 2013-06-08

Boundlessness]. In B. Bachmair (Hrsg.), Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen. [Media Education in New Cultural Spaces.] Wiesbaden: VS. Schenk, M., Taddicken, M., & Welker, M. (2008). Web 2.0 als Chance für die Markt- und Sozialforschung? [Web 2.0 as Chance for Market and Social Research.] In A. Zerfaß, M. Welker, & J. Schmidt (eds.), Kommunikation, Partizipation und Wirkungen im Social Web [Communication, Participation and Effects at the Social Web.] (pp. 243–266). Köln: Halem. Schiefner-Rohs, M. (2012). Kritische Informations- und Medienkompetenz im Spannungsfeld zwischen Hochschul- und Disziplinenkultur. [Critical Information and Media Literacies between University and Disciplinary Culture.] Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung [Journal of Higher Education.], 7(3), 16-27. Schiefner-Rohs, M. & Hofhues, S. (submitted). Education beyond Facebook. Pleading for an Appropriate Media Use in Higher Education. Digital Culture and Education (further data not yet known). Schmidt, J.-H., Paus-Hasebrink, I., Hasebrink, U. & Lampert, C. (2009). Heranwachsen mit dem Social Web: Zur Rolle von Web 2.0-Angeboten im Alltag von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen. [Growing Up with the Social Web: The Role of Web 2.0 Options in the Everyday Life of the Youth and Younger Adults.] http://www.hans-bredowinstitut.de/webfm_send/367 (2013-06-08). Scholz, J. (2008). Forschen mit dem Web 2.0 – eher Pflicht als Kür [Research with the Social Web – More Compulsory than Optional.]. In A. Zerfaß, M. Welker, & J. Schmidt (Eds.), Kommunikation, Partizipation und Wirkungen im Social Web [Communication, Participation and Effects at the Social Web.] (pp. 229–242). Köln: Halem. Schulmeister, R. (2010). Deconstructing the Media Use of the Net Generation. Qwerty Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education. Vol 5, No 2, 26-60. Schulmeister, R. (2012). Der Schlüssel zur Medienkompetenz liegt im Begriff der Kontrolle. [The Key to Media Literacy is the Term Control.] Zeitschrift für E-Learning. [Journal of E-Learning.] 4, 35-45. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, 157–174. Van Eimeren, B. & Frees, B. (2012). 76 % der Deutschen online – neue Nutzungssituationen durch mobile Endgeräte. Ergebnisse der ARD-/ZDF-Onlinestudie. [76 % of the Germans Online – new Use Cases with Mobile Media. Findings from the ARD-/ZDF-Online Study.] Media Perspektiven. [Media Perspectives.] 7–8, 362–379.

Conference Proceeedings SMART 2013 | 2013-06-08

9