Social Networking Sites in “New Europe 2020” education:

A Bibliographic Overview

Plamen Miltenoff (St. Cloud State University)

Galin Tzokov (Plovdiv University)

Gary Schnellert (University of North Dakota)

John Hoover (St. Cloud State University)

1

Abstract:

A discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of employing

social networking sites, in particular Facebook for educational

purposes was organized by four faculty members from three

different educational institutions in two countries, the USA and

Bulgaria. The faculty organized an extensive bibliographic

overview of published research from around the world regarding

the application of social networking sites (SNS) in education.

The findings were organized into topics and issues regarding the

application of social networking in education. The bibliographic

review of publications reveals strong interest by all

stakeholders: administrators, instructors, students, and

librarians in determining if SNS, Facebook in particular, can

improve recruitment and retention for education and the learning

process for both K-12 and higher education. Parallels with Course

Management Systems such as Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai and with

other Web 2.0 tools are involved in the discussion. Suggestions

for future research, based on the conclusions are shared. Other

noticeable findings, such as difficulty of finding similar

research on other languages, then English, are reflected in the

article.

2

Social Networking Sites and their potential in education:

A Bibliographic Overview

Educational technology in the new Millennium is moving in

accelerating pace. The lightning recognition and adoption of Web

2.0 and its applications, including Social Networking Sites (SNS)

is leaving strong imprint on how education is conducted.

Educational leaders, faculty, and students from higher education

and P-12 (pre-school to 12th grade) display similar interest in

the adoption of SNS as potential teaching/learning tool. However,

the same administrators and significant number of educators are

often hesitant to encourage the use of Facebook, mainly because

of privacy issues.

We adopt the generic term social networking sites (SNS) in

reference to Facebook and similar applications, (Boyd & Ellison,

2007); Hargittai et al., 2010). We also employ the term social

networking sites as synonymous with social media. Social Networking

Sites are generally classified as Web 2.0 technology.

Review of the literature revealed a dominance of

publications in English language publications. While the rest of

the world is also pursuing SNS research, non-English language

publications are difficult to find. This is in contrast with the

3

direction established in the New Europe 2020 documents, which

sets education as a priority. However, the New Europe 2020

documents seek education, which aims fostering national

strengths. Essentially this means that each European nation will

establish SNS research in their own language. Which will expand

the research in the near future. (European Council – Conclusions,

2011).

This bibliographic review and the consequent research

conducted at educational institutions in the United States and

Bulgaria explores the opportunity to apply SNS as

teaching/learning tools. The application of tools with universal

interface, such as, e.g. Facebook may offer a possibility of

bringing educators and students from different countries closer

together.

The bibliographic overview was based on searches in the

following databases: Academic Search Premier and Science Direct

in the U.S. and SciVerse in Bulgaria. Sources such as the

Techblog of the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Distance Education

listserv (DEOS), and the listserv of the Library and Information

Technology Association (LITA) were followed for years and

information regarding SNS was organized accordingly. In addition,

an Internet search was conducted to survey information in

English, German, Russian and Bulgarian. Periodical and popular

literature from last several years were tracked for information

concerning the use of Web 2.0 tools, SNS and Facebook in

particular. The bulk of the literature reviewed for this article

4

is peer-reviewed material and to a great degree quantitative in

nature. It is worthy to note that the American School Board Journal as

very active in promoting the idea of SNS in education.

In the span of about six years, Facebook exploded in

popularity, its rapid adoption rivaling in scope only the advent

of the Internet itself. Facebook now boasts a feature movie about

its creators. News about Facebook and SNS appears daily in the

popular media. Facebook and its services stretch across borders

and continents and are subscribed by both males and females of

all ages. Facebook has been identified as the largest factor

contributing to the riots in Asia. The rapid increase of SNS is

clearly presented in graph by the Pew Internet survey: In April

2009, 46% of online American adults, age 18 and older, use SNS

such as Facebook, MySpace, LindedIn and similar. This increase is

in stark contrast to the 8% from February 2005.

(http://www.pewinternet.org/Infographics/Growth-in-Adult-SNS-Use-

20052009.aspx). Data from the United States, the United Kingdom,

Canada, and Australia show a comparable rapid increase of

Internet tools among the youngest adult generation, identified in

the literature as “digital natives” (Prensky; Bennett et al,

2008) and Millennials (Hansford and Adlington, 2009; Howe and

Strauss, 2007). During its short history, Facebook has survived

competition from other SNS applications such as Bebo (United

Kingdom), Orkut (Brazil and India) and Hi5 (Eastern Europe and

Asia). In addition, the allegiance to the collegiate constituency

of Facebook was challenged by applications such as Wirehog (Move

5

Over, Facebook--Here Comes Wirehog, 2005) and CollegeOnly (Li,

2010).

The popularity of Facebook among young people led to

attempts for adaptation of Facebook for educational purposes.

Johnson (2010) advised that the use of social networking tools in

education should acquire a specific term and proposed

“educational networking” instead of “social networking.” Renaming

SNS applications is only one indication that there is a need for

structured assessment of Facebook and SNS as a potential

educational tool.

Livingston and Brake (2010 focused on the the fast pace of

Facebook’s social penetration and acceptance. The authors argued

that the discussion of SNSs effects should be couched in

empirical research. Coherent public policy and comprehensive

education will likely minimize shortcoming and foster advantages.

Similarly, Galagan (2010) shares a teacher’s testimony focusing

on the challenges of the Web 2.0 invasion and way to resolve

them. Distance educators, naturally, are in the forefront of

embracing Facebook as a Web 2.0 tools (Getting Faculty Ready for

Web 2.0, 2008), though little data are cited to either support or

the denigration of SNSs.

A bibliographic overview reveals another visible trend; the

dominance of English language publications. Most of the

literature reviewed in this article originates from North

America, Western Europe, and Australia. Isolated publications in

6

English encompass Thailand (Couros, 2008), Hong Kong (Cheung et

al, 2010), China (Yan Yu et al 2010), Malysia (Kabilan et al,

2010), and Cyprus (Huseyin and Cavus, 2010). Our attempts to

retrieve Eastern European literature proved futile; perhaps, it

could be argued, the lack of resources from Eastern Europe

suggests the existence of a digital divide. It will be

informative for observers to track SNS events from emerging

nations in Asia and the Far East.

Most available literature deals with specific issues,

concerning SNS and practical solutions for the use of SNS in

education. These specific issues will be shared later in this

document. However, it is worth initiating the review with the few

articles on the educational implications of SNS (e.g., Hargittai,

Maranto & Barton, 2010). Other researchers identify SNS as an

example of so-called multiliteracies (Williams, 2008). Boyd and

Ellison (2007) offer the first comprehensive study of social

network sites. Australian scholars reveal a blueprint for the

assessment, measurement and application of Facebook in education.

Facebook’s application is studied in the context of first-year

college students. Thus, it is different from the usual research

on the use of Facebook among experienced students as part of the

technology application in education (Brownlee et al, 2009).

Another Australian team rightfully draws attention to an

existing digital divide among Millennials themselves (Hansford &

Adlington, 2009). Digital natives, as dubbed by Mark Prensky, are

not a homogeneous group; Vaidhyanathan (2008) and Hargittai

7

(2010) explain that it might be counterproductive to assume that

so-called digital natives are equally versed in technology. In

assessing the use of Facebook by the so-called Millinnials, it is

essential to consider differing levels of technology knowledge.

While SNSs unquestionably demonstrate a very high rate of

penetration among Millennials, unless proven, it cannot be

assumed by default that Millennials are consistently

technologically savvy and Facebook can be used as learning

platform based on the mere fact that it is an extensively adopted

communication tool. (Hargittai, 2010; Vaidhyanathan, 2008)

For the past several years, many researchers and policy

analysts have discussed the positive and negative implications of

SNS. Pasek et al (2009) claims that there is no negative

relationship, between course grades and this type of technology.

This finding is contrary to those reported by other researchers

(Karpinsky,2009; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010), which show a

negative impact for SNSs on grades. Students are drawn to

Facebook because of the social interaction (e.g., Pempek et al,

2009; Yan Yu et al 2010).

The application of Facebook in education is split into

several polarizing topics: e.g., students’ involvement in the

learning process, privacy, moral and ethical consequences, etc.

Proponents and opponents of SNSs’ use in education, explore

whether Facebook distracts students and whether it negatively

affects grades (Marklein, 2009) or, on the contrary; does it

involve students in the learning process (Maranto and Barton,

8

2010; Lester and Perini, 2010; Networking it, 2008; Skerrett et

al, 2010; Towner et al, 2007).

Data-mining students and collecting suggestions about

Facebook is the bedrock of a learning community began as early as

2006 (Towner et al, 2007). Public, school and academic librarians

have been the most staunch proponents of Facebook as a tool with

the potential to improve student-teacher’s interactions and

communication (Stewart, 2009).

Facebook application in education faces strong criticism.

Negative implications include the disruptive nature of social

networking sites in the classroom (Jones et al, 2010; Study

Confirms Pervasive Issues with Social Networking in Academia,

2009), which leads to blurred boundaries between real and virtual

learning spaces (Thomas, 2010) and pollution of language

(Philology, Etymology, and Phonetics, 2009). The notion for

caution regarding the use of SNS, which usually is voiced by

educational administrators, often finds support among teachers

(Boon and Sinclair, 2009).

The issue of privacy has frequently been addressed by policy

analysts (Couros, 2008; Ellaway, 2010; Rosen, 2010; Schwartz,

2009; Vaughan, 2009. The intensity of the debate increases as

analysts consider K-12 education (MacDonald et al, 2010; Mazer et

al, 2009; Kist, 2008; Maranto and Barton, 2010; Minocha, 2009;

Schwartz, 2009; How to Make Facebook Your New Best Friend, 2006).

As discussed in the Chronicle of Higher Education, privacy concerns

9

regarding SNSs acquires different dimensions than Facebook

privacy in general: Facebook educational use to a great degree

connected with boundaries of teacher-students relations

(Schwartz, 2009).

A British survey reveals that eighty four percent of 4,000

teachers believe that SNSs help them share ideas, regardless of

time and place (Networking it, 2008). Ninety five percent of

British students use SNS, mostly for interrelationships, although

face-to-face socialization is still important (Madge et al,

2009). Administrators interpret these facts differently. British

higher education administrators found it unacceptable for

students and instructors to use social networking as a tool to

criticize the institution (Cunnane, 2010). Canadian

administrators evidenced a similar view, where the danger of

harming the reputation of the institution motivates

administrators to demand development of principles, which must

precede the use of Facebook (Ellaway, 2010). Fister (2008)

raises the point that with the advent of Facebook as part of the

Web 2.0 movement, it might be time to reflect on the morals and

ethics of society and academia and readjust the norms.

An Ohio Educational Association memo of October 2007 urged

teachers to remove their profiles from Facebook, in a clear

contrast with the attitude of “information specialists,

linguists, librarians, compositionists, rhetoricians, and others

who study and embrace Web 2.0” (Maranto & Barton, 2010, p. 37;

see also Pu-Shih, 2009). The memo is also in stark contrast with

10

the opportunities for social engagement argued by both students

and instructors (Maranto & Barton, 2010, p.44).

Some of the authors emphasize the positive opportunities for

education presented by SNS (e.g., Towner et al, 2007; Roblyer et

al, 2010; Oblinger, 2008; Mazer et al, 2007; Madge et al. 2007;

Connell, 2009). Educators readily share best practices for

introducing students to social networking tools starting as early

as kindergarten (Ramig, 2009). School districts, such as

Minnetonka in Minnesota, organize efforts to develop a plan for

strategic use of social networking tools (McCrea, 2010).

Minnetonka school district, as many other school districts in the

U.S., faces a tough question: How much financing will it take to

enable a technological turnaround?

Recruitment and retention are the two buzz words for higher

education administrators when it comes to Web 2.0 tools, Facebook

in particular, (Orrell, 2008; How Students Choose Colleges,

2010). In addition, Educause, the leading organization for

advancement of information technologies in education, offers

online sessions on using social networking sites as retention

tools

(http://www.educause.edu/E09+Hybrid/EDUCAUSE2009FacetoFaceConfere

n/HowtoUseSocialNetworkingasaRet/176050). Educators report the

impact of Internet telephony and Facebook on international

students (Greengard, 2009), which is a new trend in retention;

administrators need to consider the wide ranging diversity of

student populations. Facebook entangles the hopes of

11

administrators to resolve the issue of retention as well as

students’ engagement in the learning process (Santovec, 2006; 319

Read 2006). In K-12, administrators are considering Facebook as

an option for online communication with parents, alumnae and

donors (Carr, 2010).

A 2006 report (Read, 2006) raises consideration of higher

education administrators to use Facebook as a vehicle for

freshman orientation programs. Similar opinion regarding the use

of SNS as an opportunity to meet peers on campus are reported in

a later British study (Madge et al, 2009).

A poll of higher education administrators reveals an

increase in willingness to use social networking sites (Joining

the Social Media Conversation, 2009).Joly (2007; 2008) promotes

the use of Facebook in higher education. Teacher’s self-

disclosure in Facebook is considered by students an effective

teaching method (Mazer et al, 2009). These opnions coincide with

the research on online education that retention is based on

community, and building community is based on personal presence,

which can be achieved through Facebook self-disclosure.

The necessity of policy and the need for moral and ethics

discussed above is reflected in Fister’s (2008) report regarding

a controversy between a student and a professor. The student was

charged with cheating when using Facebook as collaborative tool,

while instructor’s directions were that students should work

independently. The incident is reminiscent of faculty rejection

12

of Wkipedia shortly after its inception (Read, 2007), which was

swiftly followed by a wide acceptance of Wikipedia as legitimate

reference tool. An increasing number of instructors report their

affinity to promote collaboration on SNSs as a teaching tool

(Aquino, 2009; Charlton et al, 2009; Harrington and Floyd, 2009).

One way to explain the incident reported by Fister (2008) can be

the inherent discrepancy between the pace of technology adoption

by students and faculty. A survey conducted by Roblyer et al

(2010) suggests that instructors are much less prone to venture

into using Facebook or any other technology; this different rate

can impede a discussion of the need for revision of policies

regarding academic honesty.

In addition to the varied paces of technology adoption in

education, another factor adds to the complexity of adapting

Facebook for educational use. Berg et al (2007) noted that

students want to be left alone on Facebook, a place where they

can procrastinate, not learn. This is an issue, which precedes

Facebok. Before Facebook blew away instant messaging, students

considered “teaching” with instant messenger an invasion of their

privacy (Wymer, 2006). Likewise, it is worth exploring whether

the “hip” professor “friending” students via Facebook might

actually be reducing her effectiveness in what is seen as an

unwanted intrusion.

Facebook potentially changes the structure of educational

institutions and teacher-student relationships. The use of

Facebook may pose a risk of “fraternizing” (Lipka, 2007;

13

Facebook: Some Implications for Academic Freedom, Intellectual

Property, and Education, 2009); on the other hand it could

strengthen the learning community and bring students and

instructors closer in their quest for knowledge (Ellaway, 2007;

Lipka, 2007; Mazer et al, 2007; Minocha, 2009; Skerrett, 2010;

Selwyn, 2009; Steinfeld et al, 2008).

The use of social networking sites is becoming ubiquitous

among American adolescents and pre-teens. As of 2008 (National

School Boards Association and Grunwald Associates’ survey), “96

percent of American children ages 9 to17 who have Internet access

have used social networking technologies… Yet more than 80

percent of districts prohibit students from online chatting and

instant messaging at school, and more than 60 percent prohibit

blogging” (see also Richardson, 2007, p. 68; Ward, 2008, p. 53;

Teacher’s Pal, 2008). In 2007 and 2008, Richardson and Ward

argued in an opinion piece that teachers must tap into the

knowledge of students to figure out how to utilize social

networking tools versus prohibiting their use. Of course, as

Richardson and Ward’s argument is not based on longitudinal data,

their point must remain conjectural. Lower grades, bullying, and

sexual predators are only some of the factors that build a

negative reputation around social networking and keep educators

from utilizing SNS. Similar attitudinal barriers findings were

reported in UK by Charlton, Devlin and Drummond (2009).

Selwyn (2009) also looked for a solution of how best to

apply Facebook in education in terms of building a learning

14

community. Based on 909 student interviews, Selwyn outlined

themes of Facebook use and the “auxiliary” role of Facebook in

the learning process. Grant (2008), on the other hand, report

other results, namely that Facebook harms students by distracting

them during classes and making them sleep deprived due to

addiction. This controversial findings are a reminder that

establishing good practices for using Facebook as an educational

tool must be the goal when pursuing application of SNSs in

education.

Facebook is seriously considered by administrators in both

higher education and K12 for administrative purposes (Weis,

2010). The January 2010 issue of the Association of the

California School Administrators urges administrators to embrace

Web 2.0 tools (Weis, 2010; Wayne, 2010). On the other hand, the

facts reveal that, although K-12 administrators employ Facebook,

K-12 students remain blocked from using SNSs in educational

settings (Nagel, 2010).

As early as 2007, SkoolPool, an application for Facebook was

developed as a tool for recruitment, a not uncommon use of SNSs

(T.G., 2007). An exchange between school board members regarding

the use of Facebook as a communication tool among school

administrators emphasizes the participatory nature of the medium,

yet, similar to the concerns of their British colleagues

(Cunnane, 2010), T. G warned about inappropriate use (You were

asked to start a Facebook page?, 2009). The early years of social

networking sites are inevitably connected with the cautious

15

attitude of K-12 administrators. To a great degree, such

attitudes stem from the fact that the lack of a structured

approach on how to address the implications the rapid advent of

technology and the Internet in P12 and higher education (Brydolf,

2007).

A great number of authors advocate building on the lessons

learned from the negative sides of social networking by focusing

on the opportunities it offers; seemingly in a notion that

follows the venerable folk aphorism: If you can’t beat them—join

them (e.g., Couros, 2008; Maranto & Barton, 2010; 266 Mazer et

al, 2009; Schwartz, 2009). One of the common themes in addressing

the challenges and opportunities presented by social networking

is developing policies for educational use. As early as 2006,

Kermit Hall, President of the State University of New York at

Albany, suggests addressing such concerns (Q&A: Facebook and

Legal Limits to Institutional Response, 2006)

Social networking reinforces the old notion of school

librarians and faculty working together (Harris, 2010; Stewart,

2009). Not surprisingly, librarians, both in K-12 and higher

education are in the forefront of adopting Facebook as a learning

tool and are very active in the use of social networking tools in

educational environments (Harris, 2010; Ward, 2008; Kenneth and

Seeholzer, 2009). Academic librarians habitually see the

potential and the positive sides in using social networking sites

(Conell, 2009; Chu and Nalani, 2008; Click and Petit, 2010).

Similar are the attitudes toward Facebook and social networking

16

sites by the British librarians (Secker and Lloyd, 2008). Pan et

al (2009) go beyond promoting Facebook in education and rally to

integrate it in their information literacy program targeting

First Year students. Similarly, Canadian librarians are rallying

teachers to apply Web 2.0 tools as part of the information

literacy for the 21st century (Branch, 2009). Academic

librarians, similar to teachers and administrators, are aware of

privacy issues and working toward assisting faculty with

expanding their traditional commitment to privacy (Fernandez,

2010). Ishizuka (2009) reports librarians’ attitudes congruent

with the usual librarian trend to be ahead of the curve, yet

librarians will cave under the pressure of the administration to

cautiously approach the implementation of Web 2.0 tools.

The literature constantly reminds educators that they are

falling behind in utilizing Facebook as educational tool (DeVoe,

2009). An interesting glimpse of the early days of librarians on

Facebook and other SNS is provided by the American Library

Association (Social Networking Services, 2007)

Research conducted by a for-profit company in August and

September of 2009 reveals that six out of ten educators have SNS

accounts, mostly in Facebook, and would like to use the account,

but don’t. Another conclusion of the survey is that those who

have a Facebook account are more likely to use technology in the

classroom (Survey: Educator Participation in Social Networking

Lags Well Behind Interest, 2010). Similar are the trends in the

U.K., where teachers are advised by the Teacher Support Network

17

to prevent students’ access to Facebook (Vaughan, 2009). The

irony is that a year later the same Teacher Support Network has

on their web site (http://teachersupport.info/) a mashup linking

to Facebook.

The emerging of social networking tools raises serious

issues, which in isolated cases have grievous consequences and

thus shape the opinion about SNS in education. For example, Stacy

Snyder, a teacher from Pennsylvania, had posted a picture on her

MySpace account with a caption “Drunken Pirate.” The posting led

to administrative actions by the university she was attending.

Stacy Snyder’s story ties up with the issues of privacy, which

goes beyond educational settings and it is a major societal

concern right now (Rosen, 2010, Reed 2007; Foulger et al, 2009).

Stacey Snyder’s case and the case described by Fister (2008) are

the opposite trend of what Mazer et al (2009) refer to in their

research. They claim that self-disclosure of instructors via

Facebook increases the rapport with students, although the

authors also warn that Facebook must be used with caution.

Further, Foulger et al (2009) are working toward a model, which

can prepare future educators with the “ethical vulnerabilities

that may be unlike those encountered in other areas of the

teaching profession” of using Facebook in education ( p.18).

Peripheral to education, ethical issues involved in the use of

Facebook and similar SNS are discussed by professional

organization, such as the American Psychology Association (Taylor

et al, 2010).

18

Another topic fueling debates is the issue of intellectual

property. SNS and their popularity opens again the controversies

around the issues of intellectual property. (Facebook: Some

Implications for Academic Freedom, Intellectual Property, and

Education, 2009; Bauerlein, 2009).

An unique approach to the use of Web 2.0 tools in education,

Facebook included, is presented by a South African researcher who

looks at the impact of social networking tools on the concept of

learning spaces. Facebook and similar blur the difference between

physical and virtual environments in education, and thus “space

and learning are inextricably linked, such that the space in

which a particular type of learning takes place is an integral

part of the definition of that particular kind of learning”

(Thomas, 2010, p. 508). A similar notion is reflected in boyd and

Ellison (2007) in terms of bringing “online and offline social

networks” and by Skerrett et al (2010) about the impact of the

“third space,” the out-of-school experience, including social

networking sites.

Thomas’ research about the connection between physical and

virtual environments needs to be tied up with the notion that

social networks are used to “solidify offline connections, as

opposed to meeting new people” (boyd and Ellison, 2004, p. 12).

Boyd and Ellison’s observations are confirmed by Subrahmanyam et

al (2008), whereas the latter team also confirmed the findings of

boyd and Ellison that SNS are used to strengthen offline social

networks. On the other hand, Kenneth and Seeholzer (2009) point

19

out that students clearly distinguish educational and social

spaces on the Web, which is confirmed with earlier studies

(Wymer, 2006)

Additional topics researched in the bibliography compiled on

the educational use of Facebook include academic freedom

(Facebook: Some implications for academic freedom, intellectual

property, and education.(2009), the integration of Facebook with

other SNS, e.g. Twitter (Young, 2010), and Facebook as a data-

harvesting tool for educational administrators (301 What Can Be

Measured, 2009). Additional concerns raised in the bibliography

include the level of involvement of educational, non-profit

institutions with commercial products such as Facebook (Mitrano,

2008). Last but not least, according to the compiled

bibliography, the research reflects dominance of “Facebook”

awareness among instructors in the medical field and English.

With several exceptions of research done by instructors on

chemistry, the “exact” sciences are not presented in a rather

opulent research of the educational use of SNS. It is noteworthy,

though, that both K-12 and higher education are equally vested in

establishing parameters for the educational use of SNS.

Among the large number of articles devoted on the use of

Facebook in education, a great number comprise serious

quantitative or qualitative approach (e.g., Steinfield et al,

2008; MacDonald et al, 2010; Roblyer et al, 2010; , Subrahmanyam

et al, 2008; Selwyn, 2009; Chu and Nalani, 2008; Yan Yu et al,

2010; Huseyin and Cavus, 2010). The use of SNS in education is

20

represented only in the English-speaking world. Sporadic articles

in English about the application of Facebook in education appear

in the publications from other countries, yet a clear digital

divide is noticeable in this aspect. On the other hand,

Facebook’s own group “Facebook in Education” reveals clearly that

educators from around the world do care about the possibilities

of using SNS. The peer-reviewed world might be offering a skewed

view with its dominance of English language as lingua franca; an

impediment which defies the potencies of the Internet or

perpetuates the limitations of old, pre-Internet norms. Moreover,

as boyd and Ellison (2007) have noticed, the Anglo-centric

approach influences the limitation of topics and how they are

addressed by researchers. Both authors draw attention to the fact

that a global process is actually turned into a very local, if

not parochial feature. The use of SNS in education, as many other

topics in education, has a long way to go before it turns into a

true global approach.

Since the inception of social networking sites, there is

much confusion in the educational world whether SNS should be

embraced or banned from the learning process. Mitrano (2008)

outlines three challenges with Facebook as a possible “killer

app” for education: 1. Educating both adolescents and their

parents on how to use Facebook; 2. Customizing Facebook to the

needs of higher education; 3. Considering the legal and policy

implications on a global scale.

21

Facebook, similarly to other Web 2.0 tools, is not a silver

bullet and will not resolve issues and problems in education.

Findings in a study about the impact of the shootings at colleges

and the use of Facebook to reach out to each other, reveals that

while there were short-term benefits, there was no lasting

effect. Facebook like any other technology requires intimate

knowledge of use and consequent profound experience applying it

didactically. There will be no blueprint-, textbook-like manual

to guide instructors and students; only a pool of “best

practices,” which can assist both educators and mentees to make

better choices how, if at all, to apply SNS in the learning

process.

“So devil or darling, social networking is here to stay.

Used with care it can be a powerful tool not only to engage

pupils, but also to network with colleagues” (Network it, 2008).

If it is not Facebook per se, it will be a similar social

networking application, which will inherit the positive sides of

Facebook and continue to evolve. In recent news, it is reported

that social SNS with specific application for education has been

tested at universities (Parry and Young, 2010).

Wirehog is gone, but it is a reminder how whimsical such

applications are in the time of the Internet. Facebook is

attempting to assert itself in P-24, but it can be replaced

anytime by another interface. Then what? It is not how we use the

application itself; it is the didactic around using such tools

(Move Over, Facebook--Here Comes Wirehog, 2005). Moreover,

22

academia just released its answer to Facebook – Sophia (http://

www.sophia.org), a social teaching and learning network. It will

be interesting to see what direction instructors and learners

will take in Europe and around the world.

References

Adults on social network sites, 2005-2009 . (2009). Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Infographics/Growth-in-Adult-SNS-Use-20052009.aspx

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289-1295.

Aquino, J. (2009). Studying on MySpace. Working Mother, 32(6), 105-105.

Baker, S., Mayer, A., & Puller, S. L. Do more diverse environments increase the diversity of subsequent interaction? evidence from random dorm assignment. Economics Letters, In Press, Accepted Manuscript

Bennet, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives”debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39(5), 775-786.

Berg, J., Berquam, L., & Christoph, K. (2007). Social networking technologies: A "poke" for campus services. Educause Review, 42(2), 32-44.

Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2010). The most preferred social network sites by students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5864-5869.

Boon, S., & Sinclair, C. (2009). A world I don't inhabit: Disquiet and identity in second life and facebook. Educational Media International, 46(2), 99-110.

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated

23

Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Bradley, P. (2009). CCSSE finds increasing use of social networking tools. Community College Week, 22(7), 5-5.

Branch, J. L. (2009). Practising what we preach: Information literacy for teacher-librarians in the 21st century. Feliciter, 55(3), 98-100.

Brownlee, J., Walker, S., Lennox, S., Exley, B., & Pearce, S. (2009). The first year university experience: Using personal epistemology to understand effective learning and teaching inhigher education. Higher Education, 58(5), 599-618.

Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2010). Science 2.0. Science Teacher, 77(1), 12-13.

Brydolf, C. (2007). Minding MySpace: Balancing the benefits and risks of students' online social networks. Education Digest, 73(2), 4-8.

Burhanna, K. J., Seeholzer, J., & Salem Jr., J. (2009). No natives here: A focus group study of student perceptions of web 2.0 and the academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 523-532.

Campbell, W. G. Teaching and learning with web 2.0.Carmichael, P., & Burchmore, H. Social software and academic

practice: Postgraduate students as co-designers of web 2.0 tools. The Internet and Higher Education, In Press, Corrected Proof

Carr, N. (2010). Expand your reach. American School Board Journal, 197(9), 50-51.

Charlton, T., Devlin, M., & Drummond, S. (2009). Using facebook to improve communication in undergraduate software development teams. Computer Science Education, 19(4), 273-292.

Chen, P. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-1232.

24

Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. O. Online social networks: Why do students use facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, In Press, Corrected Proof

Chu, M., & Nalani Meulemans, Y. (2008). The problems and potential of MySpace and facebook usage in academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 69-85.

Click, A., & Petit, J. (2010). Social networking and web 2.0 in information literacy. International Information & Library Review, 42(2), 137-142.

Connell, R. S. (2009). Academic libraries, facebook and MySpace, and student outreach: A survey of student opinion. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 9(1), 25-36.

Cook, G. (2009). FROM THE EDITOR help us help you. American School Board Journal,196(8), 4-4.

Couros, A. (2008). Safety and social networking. Technology & Learning, 28(7), 20-22.

Cunnane, S. (2010). Facebookers force leeds to trash gagging code. Times Higher Education, (1949), 17-17.

Davies, L. (2010). Tweeters' lessons must be welcomed in class. Times Educational Supplement, (4893), 6-6.

DeVoe, K. M. (2009). Bursts of information: Microblogging. Reference Librarian, 50(2), 212-214.

Do something! (cover story).(2008). Library Journal, 133, 35-35.Ellaway, R. (2007). eMedical teacher. Medical Teacher, 29(8), 849-

850.Ellaway, R. (2010). eMedical teacher. Medical Teacher, 32(8), 705-

707.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, 1143-1168.

Ellison, N. (2008). Introduction: Reshaping campus communication and community through social network sites. In G. Salaway, J.B. Caruso, & M. R. Nelson (Ed.), The ECAR study of undergraduate

25

students and information technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.

European Council – Conclusions. Brussels, 2011. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/120296.pdf

Facebook: Some implications for academic freedom, intellectual property, and education.(2009). Distance Education Report, 13(24),4-6.

Fernandez, P. (2010). Privacy and generation Y: Applying library values to social networking sites. Community & Junior College Libraries, 16(2), 100-113.

Fernandez-Villavicencio, N. (2010). Helping students become literate in a digital, networking-based society: A literaturereview and discussion. International Information & Library Review, 42(2), 124-136.

Fister, B. (2008). Learning in the present tense Prakken Publications.

Fontana, A. (August 2, 2010). Using a facebook group as a learning management system., September 6, 2010, from http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=191921000271

Foulger, T. S., Ewbank, A. D., Kay, A., Popp, S. O., & Carter, H.L. (2009). Moral spaces in MySpace: Preservice teachers' perspectives about ethical issues in social networking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 1-28.

G., T. (2007). Facebook application helps students choose a college. University Business, 10(11), 18-18.

Galagan, P. (2010). BURP, CHATTER, TWEET: New sounds in the classroom. T+D, 64(7), 26-29.

Getting faculty ready for web 2.0.(2008). Distance Education Report, 12(24), 1-2.

Glazer, H. (2009). Clever outreach or costly diversion? College & Research Libraries News, 70(1), 11-19.

Gonzales, L., & Vodicka, D. (2010). Top ten internet resources for educators. Leadership, 39(3), 8-37.

26

Grant, I. (2008). Half of schoolchildren use facebook during lessons, study says. Computer Weekly.

Greengard, S. (2009). Learning goes global. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 18-19.

Grigsby, J. Strengthening weak ties with facebook. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=191921000271#!/note.php?note_id=355327135569

Groat, R. K., & Jacobsen, E. K. (2009). Become a fan: Support your favorite element on facebook. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(10), 1168-1169.

Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478-482.

Hansford, D., & Adlington, R. (2009). Digital spaces and young people's online authoring: Challenges for teachers. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 32(1), 55-68.

Haque, F. Next generation education for 21st century skill. September 6, 2010, from http://bdeducation24.blogspot.com/

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “Net generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113.

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults' use of the internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621.

Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2010). Predictors and consequencesof differentiated practices on social network sites. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 515-536.

Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 87(2), 432-448.

Harrington, S. J., & Floyd, K. S. (2009). Enhancing engagement and the value of the course to the student through course organization and active learning. Online Classroom, 3-5.

Harris, C. (2010). Friend me? School Library Journal, 56(4), 16-16.

27

Haverback, H. R. (2009). Facebook: Uncharted territory in a reading education classroom. Reading Today, 27(2), 34-34.

Hechinger, J. (2008). College applicants, beware: Your facebook page is showing. The Wall Street Journal.

Hoadley, C. M., Xu, H., Lee, J. J., & Rosson, M. B. (2010). Privacy as information access and illusory control: The case of the facebook news feed privacy outcry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), 50-60.

How students choose colleges.(2010). BizEd, 9(1), 10-12.How to make facebook your new best friend. (cover story).

(2006). Student Affairs Leader, 34(4), 1-2.Howe, N., Strauss, W. Millennials Go to College Surveys and Analysis: From

Boomer to Gen-X Parents, 2006 College Student and Parent Surveys, 2007. In this issue.(2010). Medical Education, 44(8), 743-743.Ishizuka, K. (2009). Facebook fracas. School Library Journal, 55(4),

17-17.Johnson, D. (2010). Don't confuse social networking with

educational networking. Library Media Connection, 28(5), 98-98.Joly, K. (2007). Facebook, MySpace, and co. University

Business, 10(4), 71-72.Joly, K. (2008). Facebook applications: The game

changer? University Business, 11(2), 65-66.Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010). Get

out of MySpace! Computers & Education, 54(3), 776-782.Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2010). A five-year study of on-campus

internet use by undergraduate biomedical students. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1564-1571.

Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. Facebook: An onlineenvironment for learning of english in institutions of highereducation? The Internet and Higher Education, In Press, Corrected Proof

Kelly, R. (2009). USC's online graduate education program: Cherrypicking the best pieces

28

Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.

Kist, W. (2008). "I gave up my space for lent": New teachers and social networking sites. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(3),245-247.

Kist, W. (2008). "I gave up my space for lent": New teachers and social networking sites. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(3),245-247.

Köse, U. (2010). A blended learning model supported with web 2.0 technologies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2794-2802.

Lafond, Robert H. and Stewart, Virginia L. and Thibeault, Dennis.(Nov 5th, 2009). How to use social networking as a retention tool in your campus portal. Educause.

LaPlante, M. D. (January 5, 2010). Building online learning communities through facebook connections. Retrieved September6, 2010, from http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=191921000271#!/note.php?note_id=411829690569

Lester, J., & Perini, M. (2010). Potential of social networking sites for distance education student engagement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(150), 67-77.

Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., & Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using facebook.com. Social Networks, 30(4), 330-342.

Li, S. (August 30, 2010). College-only social network debuts in the ivy league., September 6, 2010, from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/College-Only-Social-Network/26519/

Lipka, S. (2007). For professors, 'friending' can be fraught. (cover story). Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(15), A1-A28.

Livingstone, S., & Brake, D. R. (2010). On the rapid rise of social networking sites: New findings and policy implications. Children & Society, 24(1), 75-83.

29

M., A. (2009). Joining the social media conversation. University Business, 12(3), 16-16.

MacDonald, J., Sohn, S., & Ellis, P. (2010). Privacy, professionalism and facebook: A dilemma for young doctors. Medical Education, 44(8), 805-813.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: 'it is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work'. Learning, Media, & Technology, 34(2), 141-155.

Maranto, G., & Barton, M. (2010). Paradox and promise: MySpace, facebook, and the sociopolitics of social networking in the writing classroom. Computers & Composition, 27(1), 36-47.

Marklein, M. B. (2009). Facebook and grades: The debate continues. USA Today. Last retrieved Nov 14, 2010 from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-05-07-facebook-grades_N.htm

Mayer, A., & Puller, S. L. (2008). The old boy (and girl) network: Social network formation on university campuses. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1-2), 329-347.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I'll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom ClimateThis project was funded in part by a teaching-learning development grant from the center. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effectsof teacher self-disclosure via facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media, & Technology, 34(2), 175-183.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effectsof teacher self-disclosure via facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media, & Technology, 34(2), 175-183.

Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usageof facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444-453.

30

McCrea, B. (2010). It goes both ways. T H E Journal, 37(4), 14-19.

McGee, J. B., & Begg, M. (2008). What medical educators need to know about "web 2.0". Medical Teacher, 30(2), 164-169.

Minocha, S. (2009). A case study-based investigation of students'experiences with social software tools. New Review of Hypermedia & Multimedia, 15(3), 245-265.

Mitrano, T. (2008). Facebook 2.0Move over, facebook--here comes wirehog. (2005). National on-

Campus Report, 33(1), 1-3.Nagel, D. (2010). Principals Voice Enthusiasm for Social

Networking, Though Concerns Remain. T.H.E. Journal. Last retrieved October 31, 2010, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2010/09/09/Principals-Voice-Enthusiasm-for-Social-Networking-Though-Concerns-Remain.aspx?sc_lang=en&Page=2

Networking it.(2008). Times Educational Supplement, (4802), 8-13.NIR, S. M. (2010). An online alias keeps colleges off their

trail. New York Times, , 8.Oblinger, D. G. (2008). IT: Doing things for people. Educause

Review, 43(2), 76-76.Odom-Forren, J. (2010). Technology: Facebook, tweets, and the

medical record. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, 25(5), 337-339.

Ögüt, H. Faculty ethics on facebook. Orrell, L. (2008). Recruitment renovation: How to enroll your

fair share of the millennial generation. Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 22(2), 3-6.

Pan, D., Valliant, M., & Reed, B. (2009). Creative collaboration:Developing a partnership with an academic advisor to promote information literacy and student success. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 16(2), 138-152.

Pasek, J., More, E., and Hargittai, E. (2009). acebook and academic performance: Reconciling a media sensation with

31

data. First Monday, 14(5). Last retrieved February 17, 2011, fromhttp://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2498/2181

Parker, J. (2009). Academics' virtual identities. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 221-224.

Parry, M. and Young, J. (2010). New Social Software Tries to MakeStudying Feel Like Facebook. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Last visited December 3, 2010 at: http://chronicle.com/article/New-Social-Software-Tries-to/125542/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Pember, M. A. (2010). Initiative grants access to STEM curriculum. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 27(3), 7-8.

Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students' social networking experiences on facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227-238.

Philology, etymology, and phonetics.(2009). Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(4), B2-B2.

Plesing, M. (2007). Facebook: Friend or foe? Times Educational Supplement, (4754), 14-19.

Q&A: Facebook and legal limits to institutional response.(2006). Student Affairs Leader, 34(16), 6-6.

Ramaswami, R. (2010). Nothing to lol about. T H E Journal, 37(6), 24-30.

Ramig, R. (2009). Social media in the classroom. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 16(6), 8-10.

Read, B., & Young, J. R. (2006). Facebook and other social-networking sites raise questions for administrators. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(48), 37-37.

Read, B. (2007). A MySpace photo costs a student a teaching certificate. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 24,2008, from http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/2029/a-myspace-photo-costs-a-student-ateaching-certificate

Read, B. (2007). Middlebury College History Department Limits Students' Use of Wikipedia. Chronicle of Higher Education, Section: 32

Information Technology Volume 53, Issue 24, Page A39. Last retrieved November 15, 2010 from http://chronicle.com/article/Middlebury-College-History/23736

Richardson, W. (2007). Social tools in schools taking root. (cover story). District Administration, 43(11), 68-68.

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. Internet & Higher Education, 13(3), 134-140.

Rosen, J. (2010). The end of forgetting. New York Times Magazine, 30.

Rozental, T. D., George, T. M., & Chacko, A. T. (2010). Social networking among upper extremity patients. The Journal of Hand Surgery, 35(5), 819-823.e1.

Schwartz, H. L. (2009). Facebook: The new classroom commons? Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(6), B12-B13.

Secker, J., & Lloyd, C. (2008). Libraries, social software and distance learners: The adventures of LASSIE. Health Information on the Internet, (62), 6-8.

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students' education-related use of facebook. Learning, Media, & Technology, 34(2), 157-174.

Skerrett, A. (2010). Lolita, facebook, and the third space of literacy teacher education. Educational Studies, 46(1), 67-84.

Skiba, D. J. (2007). Nursing education 2.0: Poke me. where's yourface in space? Nursing Education Perspectives, 28(4), 214-216.

Skiba, D. J. (2010). NURSING EDUCATION 2.0: Social networking andthe WOTY. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(1), 44-46.

Social networking services. (2007). Library Technology Reports, 43(5),45-51.

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites:A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 434-445.33

Stewart, P. (2009). Facebook and virtual literature circle partnership in building a community of readers. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 28-33.

Study confirms pervasive issues with social networking in academia.(2009). Distance Education Report, 13(24), 4-4.

Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420-433.

Survey: Educator participation in social networking lags well behind interest.(2010). T H E Journal, 37(1), 7-7.

Taylor, L., McMinn, M. R., Bufford, R. K., & Chang, K. B. T. (2010). Psychologists' attitudes and ethical concerns regarding the use of social networking web sites. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 41(2), 153-159.

Teacher's pal.(2008). Current Events, 108(2), 7-7.Thomas, H. (2010). Learning spaces, learning environments and the

dis‘placement’ of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 502-511.

Torgovnick, M. (2008). File under fleeting. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(2), B14-B16.

Towner, T. L., VanHorn, A., & Parker, S. L. (2007). Facebook: Classroom tool for a classroom community? Conference Papers -- Midwestern Political Science Association, 1-18.

Using online networking to engage and retain students. (cover story).(2006). Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 20(3), 1-5.

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2008). Generational Myth. . Chronicle of Higher Education. Last accessed April 30, 2011 at: http://chronicle.com/article/Generational-Myth/32491

Vasalou, A., Joinson, A. N., & Courvoisier, D. (2010). Cultural differences, experience with social networks and the nature of “true commitment” in facebook. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10), 719-728.

Vaughan, R. (2009). Poll: Half teachers fear facebook. Times Educational Supplement, (4857), 14-14.34

Vie, S. (2008). Digital divide 2.0: “Generation M” and online social networking sites in the composition classroom. Computers and Composition, 25(1), 9-23.

Ward, A. (2008). The power of connections. American School Board Journal, 195(9), 52-54.

Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102-106.

Wayne, G. (2010). Are you wired? Leadership, 39(3), 16-18.Weis, C. (2010). Web 2.0: Your tool for

innovation. Leadership, 39(3), 7-7.What can be measured?(2009). University Business, 12(9), 56-56.Williams, B. (2008). “What south park character are you?”:

Popular culture, literacy, and online performances of identity. Computers & Composition, 25(1), 24-39.

Williams, B. T. (2008). "Tomorrow will not be like today": Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(8), 682-686.

Wymer, K. (2006). The Professor as Instant Messenger. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Last Retrived November 15, 2010 from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professor-as-Instant/46916/

You were asked to start a facebook page?(2009). American School Board Journal, 196(6), 48-48.

Young, J. R. (2010, July 22, 2010). How social networking helps teaching (and worries some professors). Message posted to http://chronicle.com/article/How-Social-Networking-Helps/123654/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Young, J. R. (2010). Teaching with twitter. Education Digest, 75(7),9-12.

Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogel, D., & Chi-Wai Kwok, R. (2010). Canlearning be virtually boosted? an investigation of online social networking impacts. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1494-1503.

35

Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 90(2), 274-291.

Холивудски звезди на протест срещу социалните мрежи.(2010). DarikNews.

36