Presentation held at Sirem-Siel 2014 conference - Perugia, 13-15 October 2014

1. Social media in higher education. How
Italian academic scholars are using or not
using Web 2.0 tools in their personal,
teaching and professional practices
Stefania Manca*, Maria Ranieri**
*ITD-CNR, Genova
**Università di Firenze
14 Novembre 2014
Sirem-Siel 2014 – Perugia, 13-15 Novembre 2014

2. Purpose of the study
• This study aims to contribute to research on the
digital practices of academics, focusing on Social
Media and on the actual uses and perceptions
that they have about the potential of these tools.
• The main results of a survey addressed to Italian
academic scholars with the aim of researching
how the latter use Social Media tools for
personal, teaching and professional purposes are
presented.

3. Theoretical background
• Social Media tools have been seen by many scholars as powerful
drivers of change for teaching and learning practices, in terms of
openness, interactivity and sociability. They are usually described
as “dynamic”, “interactive”, “democratic”, “social” and “user-
centred.
• Considering the academic context, several authors have
underlined that the adoption of these devices generates or
requires a radical change of the pedagogical paradigm with
“revolutionary” consequences for academic institutions.
• However, it must be noted that much of the literature in the field
focuses on the potential of Social Media for learning but provides
little empirical evidence relating to the use of social media in
higher education by academic scholars.

4. Methodology
• During the October–December 2013 period a survey
about the use of social media was addressed to the entire
Italian university scholar population.
• The survey was adapted and translated from a
questionnaire annually administered by Pearson and the
Babson Survey Research Group in the USA.
• They were asked to respond with reference to several
tools: Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Plus, Podcasts,
Blogs and Wikis, YouTube and Vimeo, ResearchGate and
Academia.edu, SlideShare.

5. Main results
• Out of 58.175 subjects involved, the rate of response was
10.5%, corresponding to 6.139.
• The sample has shown to have overlapping
characteristics, with specific reference to a series of
socio-demographic variables such as gender, role,
scientific discipline, type of institution, geographical area.

6. Frequency of personal use
89.3% of respondents use at least one tool; this percentage decreases
to 75.7% if at least the monthly use is considered.
Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Do not
use
Twitter 3.4% 4.0% 2.9% 11.9% 77.8%
Facebook 20.2% 12.2% 5.8% 13.0% 48.8%
LinkedIn 2.0% 8.3% 9.8% 19.4% 60.6%
Podcasts 1.5% 3.2% 3.8% 7.5% 84.1%
Blogs and
Wikis
5.6% 11.1% 8.6% 10.1% 64.6%
YouTube e
Vimeo
8.4% 22.1% 16.4% 19.2% 34.0%
ResearchGate
and
Academia.edu
4.8% 14.7% 12.6% 14.1% 53.8%
SlideShare 0.6% 2.0% 2.8% 6.9% 87.7%

7. Frequency of teaching use
36.0% of respondents declare not to use any tool. This datum rises to
55.1% if at least the monthly use is considered.
Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Do not
use
Twitter 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 2.9% 94.5%
Facebook 2.7% 4.8% 3.6% 7.0% 82.0%
LinkedIn 0.5% 1.5% 1.9% 5.6% 90.5%
Podcasts 0.5% 1.2% 1.9% 5.2% 91.2%
Blogs and
Wikis
3.0% 8.2% 7.7% 9.8% 71.3%
YouTube e
Vimeo
1.9% 7.8% 11.4% 18.1% 60.7%
ResearchGate
and
Academia.edu
2.5% 6.0% 6.4% 10.8% 74.4%
SlideShare 1.0 3.0% 4.0% 7.5% 84.5%

8. Frequency of professional use
74.5% reported they use at least one tool. This percentage decreases
to 58.7% if at least the monthly use is considered.
Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Do not
use
Twitter 1.6% 2.3% 1.7% 4.3% 90.1%
Facebook 3.9% 6.1% 4.5% 8.2% 77.3%
LinkedIn 2.4% 8.8% 10.3% 16.5% 62.1%
Podcasts 0.5% 1.2% 1.6% 4.7% 92.0%
Blogs and
Wikis
3.6% 7.9% 8.1% 9.1% 71.3%
YouTube e
Vimeo 1.9% 6.7% 8.5% 14.6% 68.3%
ResearchGate
and
Academia.edu
5.2% 16.3% 14.3% 14.7% 49.6%
SlideShare 0.8% 2.3% 4.0% 7.2% 85.7%

9. Perceived usefulness
58.90%
38.60%
53.90%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Perceived usefulness
Personal use
Teaching use
Professional useFacebook
YouTube-
Vimeo
YouTube-
Vimeo
Blog-Wiki
ResearchGate
Academia.edu
LinkedIn

10. Teaching and learning uses
Fruition of content
material
Commenting content
material
New content material
production
YouTube-
Vimeo
SlideShare
ResearchGate-
Academia.edu
Facebook
Twitter
Blog – Wiki

11. Limitations of the study: low level of
response
• difficulties related to retrieving email addresses or the actual
receipt of emails sent
• invitations sent by email might have been blocked by spam
filters
• further reasons for this low response rate may be linked to a
lack of familiarity with the topic, or to negative preconceptions
of Social Media and learning, or also to the time required to fill
in the questionnaire (20 minutes)
• since the survey required participants with a teaching
background, this requirement might have brought the
researchers who do not hold a teaching position not to fill in the
survey

12. Conclusions
Two different trends:
1. A positive attitude that emphasizes the importance that
these tools may have especially for personal and
professional development purposes, whereas more
resistances are allocated to the teaching side
2. Deep scepticism and cultural resistance if not real
hostility: scattering, redundancy, distraction, lack of
time, lack of institutional support, restricted limit to these
sites within the faculty’s digital network, lack of specific
features for teaching and learning, digital divide
between students and teachers reveal themselves to be
issues that discourage greater interest towards Social
Media as learning tools in higher education

13. Further references about the study
Manca, S. (2014). I Social Media nell’università italiana.
Diffusione degli usi personali, didattici e professionali negli
Atenei italiani. Rapporto Tecnico ITD-CNR, Giugno 2014,
scaricabile da http://bit.ly/1ru178f
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2014). I Social Media vanno
all’università? Un'indagine sulle pratiche didattiche degli
accademici italiani. Journal of Educational, Cultural and
Psychological Studies, 10.

14. GRAZIE!
Stefania Manca,
manca@itd.cnr.it