Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school students’ technology affordances and perspectives

Mao, Jin·2014·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Ajjan, 2008, Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests, The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ashraf, 2009, Teaching the Google-eyed YouTube generation, Education + Training, 51, 343, 10.1108/00400910910987165 · DOI
  3. Bennett, 2008, The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bodur, 2000, Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative models of the determinants of attitude, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 17, 10.1207/s15327663jcp0901_2 · DOI
  5. Bower, 2008, Affordance analysis—matching learning tasks with learning technologies, Educational Media International, 45, 3, 10.1080/09523980701847115 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bradley, 2009, Whither Twitter?, Community College Week, 21, 6
  7. Bryman, 2008, Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 261, 10.1080/13645570701401644 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Carter, 1999, Examining science tools as mediators of students’ learning about circuits, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 89, 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<89::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-7 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199901)36:1<89::aid-tea6>3.0.co;2-7
  9. Charitonos, 2012, Museum learning via social and mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor experience?, British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 802, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01360.x · DOI
  10. Chen, 2012, Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13, 87, 10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1027 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dabbagh, 2011, Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning, Internet and Higher Education, 15, 3, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Friesen, 2011, The questionable promise of social media for education: Connective learning and the commercial imperative, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 183, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00426.x · DOI
  13. Gaver, 1996, Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design, Ecological Psychology, 8, 111, 10.1207/s15326969eco0802_2 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Graves, 2009, The affordances of blogging: A case study in culture and technological effects, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31, 331, 10.1177/0196859907305446 · DOI
  15. Greenhow, 2009, Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1130, 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01484.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Grosseck, 2008, To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 478, 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Heiberger, 2008, Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using technology to increase student involvement, vol. 124, 19
  18. Hemmi, 2009, The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 19, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00306.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. Hew, 2007, Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research, Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223, 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hsu, 2012, Mobile microblogging: Using Twitter and mobile devices in an online course to promote learning in authentic contexts, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13, 211, 10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1222 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1222
  21. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012a). NMC horizon report: 2012 K-12 edition. Austin, T: The New Media Consortium.
  22. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012b). The NMC horizon report: 2012 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
  23. Junco, 2012, Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance, Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 187, 10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Junco, 2013, Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use, Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 626, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.007 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Junco, 2012, Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success, British Journal of Educational Technology, 1–15
  26. Ku, 2012, Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail, Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 226, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.009 · DOI
  27. Lewis, 2010, Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: Mobile social media in generative learning communities, Social Science Information, 49, 1, 10.1177/0539018410370726 · DOI
  28. Murphy, 2008, Unexpected outcomes: Web 2.0 in the secondary school classroom, International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4, 134
  29. Oliver, 2005, The problem with affordance, E-Learning, 2, 402
  30. Onwuegbuzie, 2009, A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8, 1, 10.1177/160940690900800301 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Roblyer, 2010, Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites, Internet and Higher Education, 13, 134, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Roblyer, 2003, Exploring the interaction equation: Validating a rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses, The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, 24
  33. Sharples, 2008, E-safety and Web 2.0 for children aged 11–16, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 70, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00304.x · DOI
  34. Tess, 2013, The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A literature review, Computers in Human Behavior, 29, A60, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.032 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Wesely, 2012, Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in language learning, Foreign Language Annals, 45, s98, 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01181.x · DOI
  36. Wijekumar, 2006, Technology affordances: The “real story” in research with K-12 and undergraduate learners, British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 191, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00528.x · DOI
  37. Yang, 2011, Assessing the effects of interactive blogging on student attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academic achievements, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 126, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00423.x · DOI

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Mao, J.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-04
Volume
33
Pages
213-223
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002
OpenAlex
W2028500870
Cited by
320
References
3
FWCI
73.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.