This is where we’ll discuss the article by Josh Pasek, eian more, and Eszter Hargittai, “Facebook and academic performance: Reconciling a media sensation with data.”
As you can tell from the abstract (and probably the title), the basic premise here is that Pasek and his colleagues tried to replicate a draft of a study about the correlation between poor grades and Facebook, and they more or less found the exact opposite conclusion.
There are three things right off the bat that I like about this essay as a reader: first, I’m always a sucker for references to how previous technologies freaked people out too– in the introduction, they write “Mass expansions of new technologies, especially among young people, have been ripe topics for hysteria. Indeed, a large portion of the early research in mass communications was prompted by fears that the motion picture industry might be clouding children’s minds (Blumer and Hauser, 1933).”
Second, this approach of replicating a study is something that is frankly not done enough in the humanities. Seems to me like it would be a good approach for an MA project, depending on the study and the replication….
And third, it points out something that I see all the time in the popular media when reporting on “studies” about everything from Facebook to cancer research: what those studies actually say and what eager reporters say they say are often two very different things.
Pasek and his colleagues are obviously more interested in the statistical research than I am not able to verify myself (math never was a strong suit), but I think the point here is pretty clear: Facebook isn’t that bad– though, as they point out in their conclusion, it isn’t that good either: “In that vein, we do not suggest that Facebook use is some unmitigated good. As with most engaging hobbies and community activities, Facebook use can be an effective means of participating in society as well as a means of withdrawing from it. The question is not whether individuals are using a particular medium, but how.”
I too am not good at math – I think, Prof. Krause, that’s why we’re English teachers and not teaching math! Anyway, I was interested in this study nonetheless, and I found their conclusions to be pretty logical.
Like the authors state in the quote above, I assumed that there wouldn’t be a direct correlation between the use of FB and struggling students, but, instead, a connection with how people use FB and their grades. And, even that, isn’t indicating that FB is the cause of the struggling student because a correlation like that would be pretty hard to prove! For instance, if the logic that FB = bad students was true than students before FB would have been oh so much better students. Clearly any entertainment/socializing could be considered a “distraction” from academic pursuits, so accusing FB is ridiculous.
I am glad that the authors of this piece were skeptical about the study released finding a correlation between Facebook users and their academic performance. And, although quanitative studies often are rather thick to me (because I, too, am a diehard English major) this one seemed very reasonable and clearly laid out.
I definitely think that some people on Facebook use it to such a degree that it affects their studies. After all, observing classes, you see so many people with their laptops and instead of taking notes and paying attention, they are on Facebook! In addition, time after time I see other student friends with status posts of, “I should be doing homework and not be on FB right now” or something to that degree. Does this mean that they are failing? Not necessarily. Students today know how to multi-task like no other generation before! They are used to functioning in a world of distractions– due to the distractions that have flooded in thanks to new technologies. So, it shouldn’t automatically be assumed that regular or excess use is a detriment. True, some students take it way too far and become obsessed. But, for regular users, Facebook is nothing more than a distraction that students fall victim to– no more than hanging out with friends or watching television. To demonize it might be going a little too far…
Well, I’m not sure how much more I could add to this discussion. Obviously, one could say that anything that draws 20-30 hours of your attention/week away from school work could be detrimental to grades. And, in some cases, it might not. Like they said, it’s not using it…. it’s how it’s used. I mean, the same study could be done asking if having a job equates to lower GPA. It’s not the job, but how much time the job takes away from time for school.
Anyways, the more disturbing thing for me is the media reaction to the study. This just reaffirms my uneasiness with seeing reporters, pundits and politicians cite studies in their stories/speeches. We assume that just because they say, “studies have shown” that it must be true. And, they assume that whatever the authors of the study state in their conclusions must be an accurate portrayal of what the numbers show. Seems this would be a great excersise for students to participate in. Critically analyzing studies and their results for inacuracies and misrepresentations.
You’re right, Dave. I read a report several months ago (I wish I remember the name/source) that talked about the inaccuracy of the news media outlets today. They believe it is the pressure of 24-hour news that has made things more sensationalized and less fact-checked than ever before. The networks they cited as being the worst in their inaccuracies were… interesting… and made me re-evaluate what I hear from the news.
I hate to admit this, but when I want to convince my students of things I say, “studies have shown…” but it’s true! When you throw those words out there people’s ears perk up and they listen/believe what you’re saying!!! It’s hard to know what’s true and not these days.
OMG!.. you’re such a horrible person! J/K… J/K… I’ve done it too
But I think it’s differrent in the context of a teacher trying to get their students to, for example, write multiple drafts or increase the amount of time they spend on revision, read everyday,etc. You clearly have a motive and you’re not hiding it behind objectivity. When a news outlet or politician claims to be objective but blatantly misrepresents the findings… that’s different.
So glad it’s not just me, lol. But I do, I busy out the “official studies” whenever I need to, but like you said, I definitely don’t have a negative motive like many politicians may. i’m not purposely trying to mislead my students down a path that only serves my own agenda.
Interesting stuff. Is it really that the individuals responsible for the original study were so biased against Facebook and other social media sites? That seems very awkward — and to devote such time to it! From a graduate student perspective, duplicating a study is an approach that does seem fun!
Having done the readings in a somewhat reverse order, this simply supports the previous reading –the “Thanks for the Add, now..” I think it is interesting that they began with one concept, and their conclusion supported the other-albeit slightly. Like anything, it has to depend on using common sense. If someone watches TV for 30 hours a week, it is bound to affect them–but if they watch TV for fewer hours a week, then it would depend on whether they are watching something that adds to their education or something that detracts from it. I know some of my brightest students watch the Discover Channel or the History Channel or PBS or just a somewhat intelligent show on the main networks, while others might simply watch “Jackass the Movie.” It seems the same would apply to any of the social networking sites, and it seems their conclusion makes plain common sense. It has to be based on time spent and quality of time.
Okay just like with anything too much is never a good thing. FB can and should be used for good and not evil…well that is taking it far, but that is how it is seen by many. FB is and social networking site, and as the name implies it is a place to network with others, and if doing homework is on way then that is a good thing. I mean if people are meeting people with simular interests, job asperations, college goals, homework questions and so forth isnt that a good thing? I found it interesting in this article that the assumption was that FB was not that good and found out it was not as bad as they thought it was. It is not an evil place, but just like anything it needs to be done in moderation. I wonder if teachers dont like the idea of students sharing or doing homework together? That is something I heard a lot of when I taught high school. Teachers would get so mad if they found out students worked together on some homework. I never got why that was. As if there was some secret that they didnt want them to know about. I like the idea of creating a FB page for my classes so they can communicate with each other and me on there. I am going to do that in the future.
Cristin, I agree, everything is fine in moderation! I wouldn’t want to have students to spend all their time indoors, reading any more than I would want them to be indoors playing games or on fb all day and night. but I think like a lot of us, it’s a good distraction and way to stay in touch with people we care about but can’t be close to for whatever reason. The book I am reviewing talks about this, how fb and texting have become a means for students going off to college for the first time and who don’t have close friends and support where they’re at can use it to talk to their HS friends and their parents.
I also think that there is a way for teachers to harness these technologies in positive ways, and again, that’s something my book gives examples of, ways for teachers and librarians to implement some of this stuff to draw teens in. I would just be afraid of the creepy treehouse effect though if we start trying to invade all areas of teens’ lives.
Weirdly, I like numbers. I tend to be attracted to quantitative analyses of language/writing. Statistical analyses like these are a bit harder for me to wrap my head around, though, so I definitely feel y’all on the math thing.
I like how Pasek et al include all of these different variables (parental education level and GPA, for example, in addition to the more standard identity makers like gender and race), and I like that they take a longitudinal approach to their data-gathering–something more possible now that Facebook has been around for a while. I found it very interesting that their results show more-or-less no correlation between academic performance and Facebook use, not just because of the news headlines, but also because of my own experiences of using Facebook, its addictive qualities, and its profound ability to facilitate time-wasting. I wonder if the students who do marginally better in their courses (the Facebook users) do better because of HOW they use the site (as other mentioned), or because they are generally good students who are better at managing their time, or because they are using it to facilitate their learning in ways like getting homework help, or because of some other reason entirely? It’s too bad a study like this doesn’t make CNN, but the $4-billion budget losses due to social-media-related productivity loss do…
There is obvious debate about fb. The negative commentary about its users bothered me. Students obsessions with fb worries people. It’s got a siren affect. For my own sake, I needed to understand why I use fb every day. I read theory on how it is like a utopian society, used to construct a feeling or place that people can control.
I’m glad they did this study. Numbers are always useful and credible.
I think the psychology behind fb and its users is really extremely important to think about.
Utopian like places have a blinding affect to which the user cannot see its dysfunctions, its flaws, and what they should be doing, what they should be thinking about.
I agree Renee, people feel comfortable with numbers. Until we see “evidence” of something, we don’t believe it. Like we talked about earlier in the semester with the Phaedrus and how written text wasn’t trusted in the day because you couldn’t have a “dialogue” with it, nowadays, we need that stuff written and spelled out for us.
This article made me think about the summer class in TC where all of us grad students were playing around and working on our technology projects while you were in the back talking and walking us through stuff. We were easily able to multitask! We were sometimes working on podbean stuff even though you were talking about Twitter or whatnot, I don’t think students should be on facebook or texting in class, but at the same time, like with the Twitter experiment, students were able to understand what the instructor was saying, keep up with the class discussion, and participate all at once. Like several of our other readings have noted, this is a generation that needs to be multitasking. They thrive on doing many things at once and I think we need to give them more challenging things to do in the class or else they will multitask with the materials they brought with them.
I agree, Angie. I think that one of the ways that multitasking has gotten a “bad rap” lately is because of cell phones and driving, and i guess it depends a lot on the circumstances and just what it is that people are attempting to “multitask.” The example you give here is pretty accurate, from my point of view.
I believe the Xers and Milennials have to be multitasking and if they are not busy in a classroom with hands on things out comes the cell phones or laptops with FB on them. This is something they have been brought up doing. We just need to incorporate it in our lesson plans to benefit the learning process.
Oh by the way, I say “Studies have shown” and Angie you are right….student ears perk up and you have their attention.