Guiding Social Media at Our Institutions

Planning for Higher Education V41N2 | Joosten-Pasquini-Harness Article | 1

Guiding Social Media at Our Institutions
by Tanya Joosten, Laura Pasquini, and Lindsey Harness

The pedagogical benefit of social media use beyond its application as a motivational technique
continues to be unaddressed by many universities.

INTRODUCTION

Given the increasing use of social media in our society and the growing number of individuals preferring to use social
media over other communications tools (e.g., e-mail), many educators are examining how to effectively implement social
media on their campuses. Many institutions are using social media to communicate with their communities. They are also
looking to use social media to engage students both inside and outside the classroom. These institutions are making
decisions on how to support and encourage social media use while considering the costs and implications.

Social media tools have unique characteristics, and the resulting implications go beyond those of traditional technologies.
Social media applications are open and primarily free to use. Also, social media platforms are built based on principles of
interactivity, allowing users to connect with each other, gather news and information, and create and share content. The
functionality of social media provides opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of our institutional processes while
providing challenges as well. For example, Joosten (2012) notes, “Because many social media tools are not institutional
enterprise systems, educators are concerned about using them in the classroom. At the heart of this concern are issues
related to student behavior online, information privacy, and student identities” (p. 79). Concerns arise from a lack of
control and ownership of these systems. Additional considerations include the challenge of providing staff, teachers, and
researchers with the infrastructure, training and development, and support they need in order to effectively use social
media on campus.

Social media is a classification for a wide variety of popular technologies that are open, facilitate interactivity, and
encourage connectivity. In the broadest terms, social media spaces exist as “virtual places where people share; everybody
and anybody can share anything anywhere anytime” (Joosten 2012, p. 14). Although there are dozens of tools that can be
classified as social media, each provides unique media characteristics that have led to their widespread adoption. Social
networking applications (e.g., Facebook) are one of the most popular types of social media. Described as a unique place on
the web, social networking technologies like Facebook are used by individuals to share a public profile within a bounded
system. The unique service offered by such applications is the articulation of a list of other users with whom the user
shares a connection (Boyd and Ellison 2007). Other popular social media applications include microblogging (e.g.,
Twitter), video sharing (e.g., YouTube), and social bookmarking (e.g., Delicious). The ability of individuals to connect with
each other and with institutions, to openly share ideas and contribute content, and to view others’ connections are reasons
for the vast diffusion of social media.

Social media applications are gaining in popularity, becoming a mainstream way in which students, staff, and faculty
communicate and share information. Facebook has one billion users (Zuckerberg 2012), YouTube has more than 800
million monthly users who watch four billion hours of videos (Lawler 2012), Twitter has 500 million total users (Lunden


2012), and Google+ has 400 million registered users (Schroeder 2012). As of August 2012, 69 percent of online adults use
social networking sites, and 92 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds use social networking sites (Brenner 2012). Further, 71
percent of online adults now use video sharing sites (Moore 2011), and 15 percent of online Americans now use Twitter,
with eight percent using it daily (Smith and Brenner 2012). Many individuals use social media regularly, and their
experiences lead to expectations for communication with and within our educational institutions.

SOCIAL MEDIA IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Social media is transforming the way individuals communicate in higher education. Technologies such as Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube have the potential to enhance learning and strengthen instructors’ pedagogical practices (see
Joosten 2012). A growing number of faculty, instructors, instructional designers, and staff are beginning to explore how
social media technologies can successfully enhance student learning and, as a result, assist higher education institutions in
encouraging digital literacy among their students (Bennett et al. 2012). While the definition of digital literacy differs
depending upon the context in which it is discussed, people who are considered digitally literate can be generally thought
of as possessing the knowledge and skills to effectively match information with its appropriate medium. According to
Gilster (1997), digital literacy means “adapting our skills to an evocative new medium, [and] our experience of the Internet
will be determined by how we master its core competencies” (as stated in Pool 1997, p. 6). As social media technologies
become more enmeshed in our lives, there is an expectation that students will develop digital literacy, including skills
related to continuous discovery, digital curation, and network development, along with the ability to connect to real-world
issues and take responsibility for their own learning (Danciu and Grosseck 2011). The same can be said of higher
education staff and faculty. As a result, institutions are increasingly responsible for addressing the role of digital literacy
within the educational environment. In other words, there is an existing expectation that institutions will concentrate on
providing adequate support (i.e., resources and guidance) to their organizational members that assists in identifying,
implementing, and communicating about the relationship between digital literacy and social media.

Institutions are increasingly responsible for addressing the role of digital literacy
within the educational environment.

Existing scholarship regarding technology and student learning indicates that the era of Web 2.0 provides the ability to
collaborate in a virtual community culture, leading to social and innovative learning and, in turn, to the motivation of
students (Cerda and Planas 2011). This is in part due to the positive impact that interactivity and engagement can have on
student learning (Carini, Kuh, and Klein 2006; Chickering and Gamson 1987). One way that digital literacy and student
learning are enhanced in the digital era is through social media, which has the potential to greatly impact both teaching
and learning.

The benefits of social media within education have inspired a growing number of educators to consider the impact these
technologies can have on learning. Existing scholarship that focuses on social media for instructional and institutional use
indicates that the growth of social media creates new opportunities, especially for enhancing student interaction and
engagement beyond the formal learning environment. Social media has features and characteristics that can facilitate
interactivity (Hung and Yuen 2010; Joosten 2012; Silius, Kailanto, and Tervakari 2011), specifically through collaborative
learning (Cerda and Planas 2011; Hrastinski and Aghaee 2012; Hung and Yuen 2010; Silius, Kailanto, and Tervakari 2011;


Vaughan et al. 2011; Wang, Woo, and Quek 2012). Further, social media can move learning beyond the classroom to real-
life issues (Danciu and Grosseck 2011; Joosten 2012; Wang, Woo, and Quek 2012).

The potential of social media to impact teaching and learning leaves instructors looking for training, development, and
support in establishing effective practices. The role of the instructor is altered when using social media and other Web 2.0
technologies into which s/he infuses interdisciplinary experiences and activities that facilitate group discussion, problem
solving, active reading, and critical thinking (Danciu and Grosseck 2011). Instructors must meet the regular
responsibilities required of them as well as illustrate an effort and a commitment to becoming social media savvy.

In addition to its effect on student learning and instructional development, social media can impact institutional services
and operations. Social media can affect communication and marketing efforts (Constantinides and Zinck Stagno 2011),
student support services (DeAndrea et al. 2012), and recruitment and orientation efforts (Nyangau and Bado 2012).
However, even though there is some literature on the impact of social media on teaching and learning and on services and
operations, research on the impact of social media on organizational processes within educational institutions is quite
scarce. Research on efforts to guide social media use is also rare, and further study is made challenging by changing
technology platforms, their use on campus, and the influence of community members within our educational institutions.
Nevertheless, there is a clear need for more research relating to the role of social media in higher education.

While colleges and universities are quite complex and manage everything from student development to research growth
and instructional needs, the previous social media literature does not address our holistic needs for guidance, training,
faculty support, understanding protection and legal use, and developing digital literacy among our students. Given the
popularity of social media as well as the benefits of using social media for educational purposes, organizations and
institutions need to consider how social media guidance and usage can impact instructional, research, administrative, and
other functions on campus.

RESEARCH QUESTION

The purpose of this study was to understand how institutions are guiding the use of social media on their campuses. The
study’s overarching question asked about what practices campuses are using to guide social media use by students, staff,
and faculty. Specifically, we identified four areas in which to ascertain current practices in education: student services and
support, business services and operations, instruction, and research.

METHODS

PARTICIPANTS

The study consisted of responses from administrators, staff, teachers and faculty, students, and others who use social
media in educational institutions. The participants were asked via e-mail and social media to complete a 29-item web-
based survey reporting on how they and their institutions are using and supporting social media. The survey included
individual demographic questions, institutional demographic questions, and open-ended questions.


The participants (n = 30) consisted of 24 females (80 percent) and 6 males (20 percent) representing all age categories
with the average age between 30 and 39 years. The majority of respondents reported higher education affiliation; however,
K–12 educators were also represented. A range of roles was represented in the sample, with participants primarily
representing support (58 percent), administration (42 percent), and teaching (28 percent) roles. Other roles included
marketing and communications, and many participants had multiple roles within their institution. Academic affairs (39
percent) and student affairs (26 percent) were the primary units represented by the sample. Others reported being in units
that were a combination of academic and student affairs or indicated that they were not sure.

In addition to demographic information, participants reported their social media use and contribution. Regarding which
social media they use, the majority reported using Twitter (90 percent), Facebook pages (87 percent), and YouTube videos
(77 percent). When asked to which social media they contribute, the majority reported contributing to microblogs (71
percent), video sharing sites (57 percent), and blogs (50 percent).

Finally, participants reported their institution’s classification and size. Sixteen were from a doctorate-granting university
(53 percent), four from a baccalaureate college (13 percent), four from an associate’s college (13 percent), two from a
master’s college or university (7 percent), two from a K–12 institution (7 percent), and two from another type of institution
(7 percent). Regarding size, the majority of participants were from smaller institutions; specifically, 11 participants were
from institutions with 0–5,000 students (37 percent), and three were from institutions with 5,001–10,000 students (10
percent). There was also representation from mid-sized and large institutions. Four participants were from institutions
with 10,001–20,000 students (13 percent), six were from institutions with 20,001–30,000 students (20 percent), five
were from institutions with 30,001–40,000 students (17 percent), and one was from an institution with 50,000+ students
(3 percent). The sample represented diverse demographic groups, roles, and institutions, and all respondents were
familiar with social media uses and contributions.

DATA ANALYSIS

Open-ended questions were analyzed using an inductive analytic process incorporating many of the procedures of the
constant comparative method to conduct theoretical sampling (Patton 2001). Researchers analyzed participants’
responses to the open-ended questions for key themes and then compared data to further distill the themes. Themes were
coded into response matrices to identify key issues, concerns, and topics shared among the respondents. The data were
grouped into the key areas under study—student services and support, business services and operations, instruction, and
research—to best understand the content shared by the respondents. Researchers compared this grouped data to further
distill the themes and then organized the data into central themes based on the four areas of study. Quality control
measures included peer reviews (Lincoln and Guba 1985) that took place as two researchers double-checked coding and
verified the themes throughout the study.


RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS TO GUIDE SOCIAL MEDIA

There were two primary findings regarding how institutions support and guide social media use. First, social media is
being used as a broadcast medium. Second, social media is often supported through a new position or the partial
redesignation of an already existing position to include social media responsibilities.

A key discovery identified institutional efforts to implement social media for use as a broadcast medium, a channel of one-
way communication for general university information. In other words, social media is now serving the function of
broadcast communication that historically has been designated to university radio stations, newspapers, or static websites.
Social media, then, is perceived as a “medium to communicate what is happening in our school.” University employees
report that social media’s primary purpose is to “communicate with the general community, but not specifically to
students.” In this perspective, technologies like Facebook are used not to engage or support students but as a new
mechanism to transmit and disseminate official university communications to a large audience.

Social media outlets are popular and therefore are an obvious choice for transmitting campus information and
news. Given the popularity of social media over traditional media, it is a strategic choice to use Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube as methods for organizational broadcast communications. Further, social media applications such as Facebook
and Twitter have been proven to be effective broadcast media and to increase communication and encourage contact
(Joosten 2012).

In the rare instance that social media is supported, it is usually through the creation of a new position or the changing of a
position description to include social media responsibilities. Two participants indicated that their universities added new
positions titled “director of new media” and “social media specialist,” respectively. Each position originated in response to
the growing interest in social media’s role in higher education. However, many participants explained that in their
organizations the responsibilities of existing positions were expanded to include a small portion of social media
management. Similarly, another explained that his/her university had “realigned social media management to our
communications staff.” In the cases in which a new position was created or an existing position was adjusted to address
social media in some manner, that position’s chief responsibility is to use these technologies for university or school
relations. However, the study did offer an indication that social media efforts may be slowly moving beyond business
services and operations, such as marketing and communications, to student services. For instance, one participant stated,
“Our school has designated 10 percent of four advisors’ jobs to social media for student outreach. They have supported this
through investing in training, platforms, and marketing merchandise.” Using social media as a broadcast medium is
natural, but the study suggests that harnessing the potential of such tools to support students, instruction, and research
may take more time to grow and develop.

SOCIAL MEDIA GROWS ORGANICALLY

Many of the study’s participants indicated that any use of social media technologies beyond official university
communications is individualized. Universities, it seems, are leaving social media implementation up to individual
departments—if they allow it at all. As one respondent noted, “Efforts are decentralized right now, with many departments


creating and maintaining their own Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Facebook profiles.” Given the traditional stance on
the role these technologies play in higher education, it is no wonder that faculty interested in implementing social media
have had to develop organic or grassroots approaches without institutional support or resources, including training and
infrastructure.

For those instructors employing social media within their departments, Facebook and Twitter are reported as the leading
technologies. They are being used for a variety of purposes, but particularly to enhance classroom discussion and mirror
life outside the academy. For example, one participant explained, “Facebook and blogs are used to create communities
mirroring professional communities. It is also used to support students engaged in research at different levels (sic), to
create peer mentoring opportunities.” Another participant explained how s/he employed Twitter to add a critical thinking
dimension to a lesson to allow students to make a connection between the general information they learned from their
reading to the “real” world. Individuals reported that once social media is used in conjunction with the traditional course
text, the educational experience for students and instructors is enhanced, particularly in regard to discussions between
students.

SOCIAL MEDIA USE CAN BE INHIBITED BY CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY

Despite the benefits of using social media like Facebook and Twitter for educational purposes, there is significant
institutional hesitation to endorse such pedagogical uses because of privacy issues. The study’s findings identified a
possible reason: universities are very concerned about FERPA/FIPPA and the related legal implications, thus inhibiting
their use of social media. As one faculty member explained, “Our registrar’s office goes way overboard on FERPA and
interprets it to mean that you pretty much shouldn’t communicate anything to student (sic) except in person.” Another
stated, “We are concerned that grades or feedback will accidentally be delivered in social media and available to someone
other than the student and instructor. Further, as a faculty member, I am concerned about inadvertently sharing personal
information that I wouldn’t want my students to know.” As a result of increasing anxiety over the possible legal
implications of social media use, strict codes of conduct are being embedded into university policies. When asked what
concerns about student privacy his/her university has regarding student use of social media, one participant responded,
“Huge. Our provincial legislation severely restricts what we can ask students to do. It has inhibited the use of SM (social
media) tools across higher ed institutions in our jurisdiction.” Similarly, another staff member stated, “Students are
encouraged to maintain professionalism and use their best judgment at all times. They are constantly reminded that they
are affiliated with the school, and anything they do will have the school’s name attached to it.” Many of the study’s
respondents indicated that their university’s apprehensiveness regarding social media use significantly influences if and
how these technologies can be employed for higher learning.

In addition to the limitations that are caused by measures taken to avoid FERPA/FIPPA and the legal implications of
social media use, the study’s participants commented on their own institution’s perception about its responsibility or legal
liability for such technologies. One participant stated, “Our institution’s Professionalism policy outlines student
involvement with social media, and the school’s responsibility for it. It is clear that if a student posts something that is
deemed unprofessional, they will face serious ramifications (including expulsion) from the program.” Another said, “We
feel a responsibility to educate users reasonably about the effects of their social media use.” However, despite the reported
responsibility universities feel, many of them do not provide the necessary resources to guide safe and effective social
media use among faculty and students. Instead, institutions prefer to either craft a professional communications policy
that speaks directly to social media technologies or to place such media under the umbrella policy for the university in


general. Institutions need to focus on applying traditional technology, behavior, and conduct policies to social media as
well as on effectively training and orienting organizational members.

SOCIAL MEDIA NEEDS MORE INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

One of the key findings of this study is that there exists an overall lack of institutional support for social media use by
students, faculty, and staff. The exact reason for this lack is unclear, but limited financial, pedagogical, and knowledge
resources along with a high concern for legal consequences could be severely hindering educational institutions in
providing the assistance necessary to incorporate social media and reap the benefits of technologies such as Facebook and
Twitter in education. Many of the study’s participants reported a significant lack of effort by their institutions to encourage
and promote student support through social media. Engaging students in the higher education experience through social
media and facilitating the development of 21st-century literacy among students were continually identified as low
priorities for many institutions. Participants noted that not only was general institutional support unavailable, but there
was also a particular deficiency in supporting faculty who desire to integrate social media into their teaching practices.
One respondent noted, “It (the university) isn’t supporting it at all. It doesn’t even encourage faculty to use it (social
media).” Another participant explained, “Absolutely no support. Seen only as a marketing function.” As evident in this
statement, many institutions will only use social media, if they use it at all, for transmitting general information about the
university.

For many institutions, technologies such as Twitter and Facebook are perceived only as ways to broadcast news to a large
population, rather than as tools with pedagogical value or worthy of research support. One individual explained a possible
reason for the perception of social media as a transmitter of communication: “It is not clear what social media can bring to
courses that already have Web 2.0 capabilities like chats, webinars, and wikis … social media tools change so quickly that
teaching how to use a specific tool (rather than the theory behind its use) does not seem worthwhile, except as a
motivating factor to students.” Statements such as this indicate that the pedagogical benefit of social media use beyond its
application as a motivational technique continues to be unaddressed by many universities. This perception contributes to
the possible lack of support for instructors. As a result, faculty must depend upon individual expertise or seek assistance
independent of the university. As one respondent noted, “Faculty are required to set up their own hosting for any outside
social media/technology beyond e-learning.” It appears that faculty members do not adequately use social media due to
the lack of institutional support.

The pedagogical benefit of social media use beyond its application as a motivational technique
continues to be unaddressed by many universities.

Despite the lack of support for instructors and students wanting to use social media in higher education, the study
identified that social media’s pedagogical possibilities are of interest to some faculty. For example, one participant
explained that his/her university provided zero incentive for teaching or researching social media, but “it would be pretty
awesome if something was offered.” In sum, many faculty and staff are without the resources necessary to explore the
possibilities of social media at the university level, yet there exists an underlying interest and curiosity in learning more
about social media’s role in higher education.


It is natural for institutions to use social media to share information with their communities. Social media facilitates the
ability to provide students with information on campus services, educational planning, and learning. It facilitates
community building among students inside and outside the classroom and allows instructors to more seamlessly bring the
outside world into the academy. As noted, this requires a new position or an alteration in staff members’ current position
descriptions. However, institutional strategy has to move beyond the “one mic” approach to implementing social media.
Social media offers a multitude of functionality that not only enhances the way we push down communication to the
general community, but also allows us to connect with our students, staff, and faculty in new and engaging ways.

Institutional strategy has to move beyond the “one mic” approach to implementing social media.

Social media can enhance the effectiveness of the organizational communications process based on the cues available to
better meet the needs of our audiences, especially students. Institutions and units should offer social media training and
development to all students, staff, and faculty on maintaining privacy, following policy, developing best practices, and
guiding implementation and use across the organization.


REFERENCES

Bennett, S., A. Bishop, B. Dalgarno, J. Waycott, and G. Kennedy. 2012. Implementing Web 2.0 Technologies in Higher
Education: A Collective Case Study. Computers & Education 59 (2): 524–34.

Boyd, D. M., and N. B. Ellison. 2007. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 13 (1), article 11. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html.

Brenner, J. 2012. Pew Internet: Social Networking (full detail). Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
February 1, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-
Networking-full-detail.aspx.

Carini, R. M., G. D. Kuh, and S. P. Klein. 2006. Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages.
Research in Higher Education 47 (1): 1–32.

Cerda, F. L., and N. C. Planas. 2011. Facebook’s Potential for Collaborative E-learning. Revista de Universidad y
Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC) 8 (2): 197–210.

Chickering, A. W., and Z. F. Gamson. 1987. Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE
Bulletin 39 (7): 3–7.

Constantinides, E., and M. C. Zinck Stagno. 2011. Potential of the Social Media as Instruments of Higher Education
Marketing: A Segment Study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 21 (1): 7–24.

Danciu, E., and G. Grosseck. 2011. Social Aspects of Web 2.0 Technologies: Teaching or Teachers’ Challenges?
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011): 3768–73.

DeAndrea, D. C., N. B. Ellison, R. LaRose, C. Steinfield, and A. Fiore. 2012. Serious Social Media: On the Use of Social
Media for Improving Students’ Adjustment to College. Internet and Higher Education 15 (1): 15–23.

Gilster, P. 1997. Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing.

Hrastinski, S., and N. M. Aghaee. 2012. How are Campus Students Using Social Media to Support Their Studies? An
Explorative Interview Study. Educational and Information Technologies 17 (4): 451–64.

Hung, H., and S. C. Yuen. 2010. Educational Use of Social Networking Technology in Higher Education. Teaching in
Higher Education 15 (6): 703–14.

Joosten, T. 2012. Social Media for Educators: Strategies and Best Practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, R. 2012. YouTube is Launching a Redesign to Reduce Clutter and Put Videos Front and Center. TechCrunch,
December 6. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/06/youtube-
redesign-i-like-videos/.


Lunden, I. 2012. Twitter May Have 500M+ Users but Only 170M Are Active, 75% on Twitter’s Own Clients.
TechCrunch, July 31. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/31/twitter-
may-have-500m-users-but-only-170m-are-active-75-on-twitters-own-clients/.

Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Moore, K. 2011. 71% of Online Adults Now Use Video-Sharing Sites. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
February 1, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Video-sharing-sites/
Report.aspx.

Nyangau, J. Z., and N. Bado. 2012. Social Media and Marketing of Higher Education: A Review of the Literature.
Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology 8 (1): 38–51.

Patton, M. Q. 2001. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pool, C. R. 1997. A New Digital Literacy: A Conversation with Paul Gilster. Educational Leadership 55 (3): 6–11.

Schroeder, S. 2012. Google+ Has 400 Million Members. Mashable, September 18. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from the
World Wide Web: http://mashable.com/2012/09/18/google-has-400-million-members/.

Silius, K., M. Kailanto, and A. Tervakari. 2011. Evaluating the Quality of Social Media in an Educational Context.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 6 (3): 21–27.

Smith, A., and J. Brenner. 2012. Twitter Use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved February 1, 2013,
from the World Wide Web: www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Twitter-Use-2012.aspx.

Vaughan, N., T. Nickle, J. Silovs, and J. Zimmer. 2011. Moving to Their Own Beat: Exploring How Students Use Web
2.0 Technologies to Support Group Work Outside of Class Time. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 10 (3): 113–27.

Wang, Q., H. L. Woo, and C. L. Quek. 2012. Exploring the Affordances of Facebook for Teaching and Learning.
International Review of Contemporary Learning Research 1 (1): 23–31.

Zuckerberg, M. 2012. One Billion People on Facebook. Facebook Newsroom, September 14. Retrieved February 1,
2013, from the World Wide Web: http://newsroom.fb.com/News/457/One-Billion-People-on-Facebook.


AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Tanya Joosten is the director of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (UWM) Learning Technology Center, the
author of Social Media for Educators (Jossey-Bass 2012), and an international speaker on learning technologies, such as
social media, and the future of education. She teaches blended and online courses at UWM on human communication and
technology, organizational communication, and social media and community. Her work on social media and other
emerging technologies has been highlighted in The Chronicle of Higher Education, EdTech magazine, eCampus News,
and other news and media publications. Follow her on Twitter @TJoosten.

Laura Pasquini is an academic counselor, doctoral researcher, educator, and consultant at University of North Texas.
She is an international speaker and author on topics of technology, including social media, in advising, tutoring,
supplemental instruction, and training and development. She currently serves as NACADA’s Technology in Advising
Commission chair. Follow her on Twitter @LauraPasquini.

Lindsey Harness is a learning technology consultant at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (UWM) Learning
Technology Center (LTC). She teaches in the Department of Communication and researches emerging technologies and
their impact on social processes, including teaching and learning. She supports UWM faculty and instructors seeking to
use technologies in pedagogically effective ways to improve teaching and increase student learning. Follow her on Twitter
@LindseyHarness.

Guiding Social Media at Our Institutions

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Guiding Social Media at Our Institutions

Semelhante a Guiding Social Media at Our Institutions (20)

Mais de Laura Pasquini

Mais de Laura Pasquini (20)

Guiding Social Media at Our Institutions