Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Quantitative Indices of Student Social Media Engagement in Tertiary Education: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy

Quantitative Indices of Student Social Media Engagement in Tertiary Education: A Systematic... Recent studies have evaluated the use of social media as learning aids in tertiary education. Emerging research in this area has focused primarily on non-quantitative approaches to student social media engagement. However, quantitative engagement outcomes may be extracted from student posts, comments, likes, and views. The goal of the present review was to provide a research-informed taxonomy of quantita- tive and behavior-based metrics of student social media engagement. We selected 75 empirical studies comprising a pooled sample of 11,605 tertiary education students. Included studies used social media for educational purposes and reported student social media engagement outcomes (source databases: PsycInfo and ERIC). We used independent raters and stringent interrater agreement and data extraction pro- cesses to mitigate bias  during the screening of references. Over half of the studies (52%, n = 39) utilized ad hoc interviews and surveys to estimate student social media engagement, whereas thirty-three studies (44%) used some form of quantitative analysis of engagement. Based on this literature, we present a selection of count- based, time-based, and text-analysis metrics.  The proposed taxonomy of engage- ment metrics resulting provides the methodological basis for the analysis of social media behavior in educational settings, particularly, for human operant and behavio- ral education studies. Implications for future research are discussed. Keywords Social media · Social media engagement · Achievement · Tertiary education · Behavioral engagement · Online education * Javier Virues-Ortega j.virues-ortega@auckland.ac.nz Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Social media have been defined as Internet applications that allow users to connect and interact with each other while creating, sharing, or reacting to online content (see, for example, Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). From a behavioral standpoint, social media is a complex social environment where users engage in a diverse range of online behaviors receiving a variety of social and automated consequences as a result. It is expected that social media platforms will reach five billion users by 2024, with platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter serving as the main communication networks (Statista, 2021, 2023). This trend is particularly prominent among university students. For example, a recent survey indicated that 82% of tertiary education students are regular Facebook users (Statista, 2022). The global COVID-19 pandemic galvanized an on-going shift towards online education, expediting the adoption of teaching strategies, content design standards, and time management processes aligned with the new medium (Papademetriou et  al., 2022). Some institutions quickly enabled educational plat- forms (e-learning platforms), while those with less resources relied on social media platforms as a readily available educational channel (Sobaih et al., 2022). Despite these trends, universities have only just started to use these platforms for educational purposes. Social media has the potential of supporting traditional classroom environments by adding accessible, barrier-free virtual spaces that could enhance collaborative peer- and instructor-mediated learning. There is evi- dence to suggest that student engagement in social media discussions moderated by an instructor may be an important indicator of course content elaboration and social learning (Parks-Stamm et al., 2017). Studies within this emerging field often rely on indirect measures of engage- ment (e.g., satisfaction surveys, teacher reports), which fail to describe the quanti- tative dimensions of online behavior; dimensions such as frequency, latency, and intensity (Giannikas, 2019; Slim & Hafedh, 2019). Social media platforms make it possible to quantify student engagement in a variety of ways. For example, most social media platforms log the exact time and date of posts, comments, and user reactions (e.g., likes) affording a myriad of metrics (e.g., posting frequency, comment latency). These metrics have the potential to inform the teaching–learn- ing process when social medial channels are used in educational contexts. Quantitative measures of engagement allow us not only to quantify the effec- tiveness of interventions directed at increasing engagement, but also to detect operant learning mechanisms such as reinforcement, extinction, and punish- ment, that could be influencing students’ online behavior (Honig & Staddon, 2022). Recently, Lindström et al. (2021) used a computational approach to assess whether operant processes could explain engagement responses in social media. These authors used response "latency" (the time elapsed between two successive social media posts) as an indicator of engagement. Their results showed that users of social media platforms space out their posts according to a model of social reinforcement maximization. This finding may have implications for the use of social media for educational purposes. An operant model of social media interaction could provide the conceptual basis for future evidence-based strategies to foster positive and learning-enhancing inter- ventions, for example, by using online social rewards such as offering immediate 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education or near-immediate feedback. Moreover, it may be possible to create educational contexts in which high rates of social reinforcement are available for appropriate engagement, which could ultimately maximize academic performance. We could also obtain evidence of operant behavior allocation by monitoring posting behavior at times when instructor responses have a shorter latency or are more relevant (e.g., specific feedback), relative to times when instructor responses are delayed or are less relevant (e.g., collective feedback). More frequent posting in the former sce- nario and less frequent posting in the latter would provide evidence (whether cor- relational or experimental) of operant behavior allocation. The analyses suggested above may have direct practical implications. In order to evaluate operant processes in the social media context, it would be necessary to establish quantitative metrics of discrete student and instructor social media responses. While the literature on the use of social media for educational purposes has grown steadily over the last decade (Tawafak et al., 2021), most of this research seems to be qualitative and does not contain behavioral data on engagement or performance (Papademetriou et al., 2022), making it difficult to capitalize on this important line of research. In addition, in order to evaluate an operant model of social media inter- action in educational settings, it would be important to define and validate behavio- rally based quantitative metrics of social media interaction. For example, Lindström et  al. (2021) were able to demonstrate reinforcement effects by focusing on inter- post time (which they labeled "latency") as a key social media engagement met- ric. Further progress in this area in both human-operant and applied studies would require a better understanding of the quantitative metrics that can be retrieved from the social dynamics in this medium. While numerous classifications of generalist behavioral metrics have been published over the years (e.g., Floyd et al., 1998; John- ston et  al., 2019) and there are a few systematic reviews on the general theme of online behavior in social media (see for example Masrom et al., 2021), we are not aware of any systematic reviews of behavior-based metrics that could be obtained from social media platforms. The Linnaean and Mendeleev systems have been instrumental to the develop- ment of the evolutionary and atomic theories (see, for example, Hettema & Kuipers, 1988, and Paterlini, 2007). Likewise, the role of methodological taxonomies has been amply recognized in psychology as a preliminary step for conceptual devel- opment and applied research (see for example Chafetz, 1986). Similarly, functional taxonomies in behavior analysis have played a key role in galvanizing conceptual, technological, and applied advances. For example, the classification of problem behavior function by the stimulus dimension of the reinforcer (social vs. automatic) and the stimulus manipulation preceding changes in behavior (positive vs. negative reinforcement), led to the development of functional analysis methodology by Iwata et al. (1982), which in turn has resulted in further refinements in functional analysis outcomes subtypes (see, for example, Virues-Ortega et  al., 2022a, 2022b). In this connection, the development of a behavior-analytic research subfield of social media online behavior would greatly benefit from a systematic classification of behavior metrics and dimensions that could be utilized to study the interactions of individuals with online platforms and with other users in the medium. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education The goal of the current study was to review the literature that has evaluated social media engagement in the context of tertiary education programs with integrated social media platforms to determine the relative presence of qualitative and quantita- tive engagement outcomes. This evidence will be used to ascertain the basic trends in this literature and as the basis for a preliminary taxonomy of quantitative engage- ment metrics that could be widely used in human-operant research and applied behavioral education. Methods Study Selection We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the PsycInfo and ERIC databases (ProQuest search engine) on October 28, 2020. After repeated preliminary searchers to test search sensitivity, the following search strategy was implemented: (“Face- book” OR “social media”) AND (“engagement,” “education,” OR “achievement”) without time or search field restrictions. We included studies meeting the following inclusion criteria: (a) the study included college-level, undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate students (Criterion 1), (b) the study used a social media platform for educational purposes (Criterion 2), and (c) the study included at least one social media engagement variable (Criterion 3). We screened the abstracts of the studies identified through the initial search to assess Criteria 1 and 2. We retrieved and processed the full manuscripts of studies meeting Criteria 1 and 2 for the purposes of verification and for evaluating Criterion 3. The initial search returned 766 distinct references. We implemented inclusion cri- teria sequentially. Figure  1 presents a detailed record of the implementation of the inclusion criteria (see also Supplementary Online Material, Table A). Seventy-five studies met all inclusion criteria and proceeded to the data extraction phase. Three raters participated in the study. The first rater applied inclusion criteria to all references originally retrieved (ATR). For the purposes of evaluating interrater agreement during the screening of references, two secondary raters (APG, JVO) independently applied inclusion criteria to the first 400 references (52% of all refer - ences). The primary and secondary raters applied the inclusion criteria to all 400 references identically, resulting in an interrater agreement of 100%. We also com- puted interrater agreement for the data extraction process for the selected studies. Specifically, a secondary rater (APB) extracted the 11 target variables of all selected studies (total number of participants, participants’ age, participants’ gender, field of study, social media platform utilized, country, course level, study design, social media engagement, quantitative outcome variables, qualitative outcome variables). Raters used closed lists (dropdown menus) to input each variable extracted onto the study database. We computed the interrater agreement of the data extraction pro- cess for each selected reference as the number of agreements plus disagreements divided by 11 and converted this ratio into a percentage. We then computed the mean interrater agreement across all selected references. An agreement was defined as both raters extracting the exact same piece of information for a target variable of 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Fig. 1 Study Selection Flowchart a selected reference. A disagreement was defined as the two raters extracting differ - ent information for a target variable of a selected reference. Overall, there were four disagreements pertaining to four distinct selected references. Therefore, the mean interrater agreement of the data extraction process was 99.5% (range, 90.9–100%). The data extracted by the primary rater was used during the analyses. The use of multiple databases, independent raters, and an interrater agree- ment process was intended to minimize the risk of bias during the selection of references. The current systematic review adheres to the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews (see Supplementary Online Information). The data- base resulting from the systematic review has been made available via Figshare (Virues-Ortegaet al., 2022a). Data Extraction The following variables were extracted from all studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Number, Age, Gender, and Country of Participants We recorded the total number of participants as well as their age, gender, and educational level (high school, college, master’s or PhD). We also recorded the country in which the study was conducted. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Field of Study We recorded the field of study of all educational interventions. These were then clas- sified according to an ad hoc category system. For example, research conducted with astronomy or physics students was categorized as "physical and life sciences", psychol- ogy and sociology students were categorized as "social sciences", second language students were included within "language and communication," and students in man- agement of information and digital content were grouped under "computer and technol- ogy". Additional categories were used for "art," "business," and "professional courses." Study Design Studies simply using a questionnaire or interview at the end of the course were classi- fied as "qualitative (retrospective)." Studies that implemented their assessments before and/or during the intervention were categorized as "qualitative (prospective)". Studies presenting correlation analyses for two or more variables at a given time point were classified as "observational." Studies using experimental designs were divided into two categories: "intervention (within subject),” for studies where all participants were exposed at least to a control and treatment or posttreatment condition; and "intervention (between groups)" when students were assigned to control and interventions groups. Randomization was not considered part of the classification process as none of the selected studies included random assignment. Predictive and Outcome Variables We also recorded predictive and outcome variables reported in the studies reviewed, including study time, academic achievement, user satisfaction, and personality con- structs. Predictive and outcome variables were further classified as quantitative (objec- tive and standardized tests) or qualitative (interviews, surveys, ad hoc questionnaires). Additional personal outcomes (e.g., motivation, sense of community, positive feelings) were included in a miscellaneous category. Social Media Platforms and Engagement We recorded the social media platform utilized in each study included in the review. Engagement could be evaluated with ad hoc interviews or surveys ("interview or sur- vey”), standardized tests ("standardized test"), or quantitative engagement metrics ("behavioral”). The latter included discrete outcomes such as posting, commenting, and reaction frequencies, among others. Rational Process for Developing a Metrics Taxonomy The development of the taxonomy of behavior-based metrics of social media engage- ment followed a three-step process of systematic review, classification, and rational extension. Completing the systematic review and obtaining a complete repertoire of 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education the quantitative metrics of social media engagement in the existing literature was the initial step in the process of developing the taxonomy. Metrics were then classified by two key dimensions: (a) type (i.e., count-, time-, and topography-based), and (b) level of analysis (i.e., group, post, individual). The type dimension closely follows existing classifications of generalist behavioral observation metrics that often rely on the reoccurrence, time distribution, and topography of behavioral events (e.g., Johnston et al., 2019). For example, frequency is a count-based dimension, whereas latency is a time-based dimension under this classification. Metrics relying on more complex aspects of the event (e.g., length, meaning, use of emoticons) were consid- ered topography-based metrics. The level of analysis is a result of the practical use of engagement metrics in social media, which may be reported at the level of the individual (e.g., commenting frequency of Student A), group (e.g., commenting fre- quency of Group A), or post (e.g., commenting frequency of Post A). Evidently, not all metrics could be practically implemented at all levels of analysis, for example, posting frequency could only be obtained at the group and individual levels, but not at the post level. A final step in this process involved extending the identified metrics by adding new exemplar metrics within the proposed categories. These additions have not been used in the literature yet but are conceivably practical in this context. For example, reacting latency is a time-based metric that is yet to be utilized in this literature. The taxonomy was developed by consensus among the authors and is intended as an evidence-informed non-comprehensive repertoire of metrics. It should be noted that taxonomies proposed in psychology, and in behavior analysis in particular, often follow a rational process (e.g., Hackenberg 2018), and only rarely can a taxonomy be the result of a purely quantitative classification (e.g., Matthews et al., 1987). Results General Characteristics of Studies Table  1 summarizes the results of the data extraction process. A pooled sample of 11,605 students participated in a total of 75 selected studies (age range, 17–60, 69.1% female). Social sciences (e.g., psychology and sociology) was the most com- mon field of study among the studies reviewed (30.7%, n = 23), followed by lan- guage and communication (e.g., second language learning courses) (29.3%, n = 22), computer and technology (16%, n = 12), physical and life sciences (e.g., astronomy) (9.3%, n = 7), and vocational programs (e.g., digital content management) (5.3%, n = 4). The studies were geographically varied. There were missing values in some of the variables targeted for data extraction, including age of the students (n = 52), gender of the students (n = 42), course level (n = 1), and field of study (n = 3). Overall, 53.3% of studies (n = 40) evaluated an intervention mediated by a social media platform. Of these, 26.7% (n = 20) used a between-group design, and 26.7% (n = 20) used a pre-post within-subject design with no control group. None of the between-group studies was a randomized controlled trial. Observational or correla- tional studies that did not evaluate an intervention but conducted regression analyses 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 Characteristics of Included Studies (n = 75) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Abd-El-Aal and 99 NR 88% SS F Egypt UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Steele (2017) hoc SIT) Abney et al. 144 21 49.3% B T US UG Observational SIT (ad hoc) N/A Achievement (2018) (SIT) Akcaoglu and 62 adults NR PC F US NU Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Lee (2018) (WS) hoc SIT) Al-Azawei 143 18–20 47.6 C&T F Iraq UG Observational SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (2019) hoc SIT) Albayrak & 42 NR NR P&L F Turkey UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Yildirim(2015) hoc SIT) Alberth (2019) 64 NR NR L&C F Indonesia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement, Other (SIT) (WS) writing skills (objective) Alghazo & Nash 322 NR 34.2% SS W Saudi Arabia UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement N/A (2017) (BG) missed ses- (objective) sions) 96 NR NR SS F Turkey UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Altunkaya and Topuzkanamış (BG) (2018) Arabacioglu and 42 NR 61.9% C&T F Turkey UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Other (SIT) Akar-Vural (BG) (2014) Bacile (2013) 86 NR NR B F/T/I US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A (WS) posts, likes) Bahati (2015) 84 NR 28.6% SS F Rwanda G Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad hoc SIT) Bajko et al. 76 18–40 64.5% C&T NR Canada UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (2016) (BG) hoc SIT) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Balcikanli (2015) 113 18–23 85% L&C F Turkey UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Carver (2019) 83 NR NR L&C I US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (WS) hoc SIT) Chen (2015) 134 18–40 48.6 SS F Taiwan UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement Satisfaction (ad (WS) (objective) hoc SIT) Clements (2015) 78 NR NR P&L F Canada UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement Other (SIT) (WS) posts, com- (objective) ments, likes) Daniels & Bill- 20 19–34 NR NR F US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A ingsley (2014) (WS) posts) Delen, (2017) 58 NR NR SS F Turkey UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement N/A (WS) comments) (objective) Demirbilek 51 NR 80% C&T F Turkey UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Other (SIT) (2015) Dizon & Than- 23 NR NR L&C F Japan UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A yawatpokin  (WS) (2018) Dougherty & 170 NR NR SS F US UG Observational Behavioral (# Achievement, Satisfaction (ad Andercheck posts and completed hoc SIT) (2014) likes) assignments (objective) Duncan & Barc- 586 18- + 25 49.1% PC F US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad zyk (2016) (BG) hoc SIT) Ercoskun et al., 1450 NR 68% SS NR Turkey UG Observational Behavioral (# of NA NA 2019 posts) Evans (2014) 252 18–24 51% PC T UK UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Gamble & 97 18 48.4% L&C F Japan UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Wilkins (2014) hoc SIT) Giannikas (2019) 14 25–60 75% L&C F Republic of UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Cyprus hoc SIT) Goktalay (2015) 41 NR 86% SS F Turkey UG Intervention Standardized N/A Achievement (BG) test (UTAUT) (SIT) Gordon (2016) 21 NR NR C&T F US UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts, com- ments, likes Gregory et al. 78 NR 32.1% PC F US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction and (2014) (BG) achievement (ad hoc SIT) Gregory et al. 138 NR NR P&L F US UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A (2016) Guo et al. (2018) 129 18–24 NR B F US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (BG) hoc SIT) Harting (2017) 9 NR NR L&C F Japan UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement Satisfaction (ad (WS) posts) (objective) hoc SIT) Hennessy et al. 150 20 a 35 53.3% P&L F UK UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) Achievement Satisfaction (ad (2016) (objective) hoc SIT) Hou et al. (2015) 50 NR NR C&T F Taiwan UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts and comments) Ibarra (2018) 30 NR NR L&C F Ecuador NU Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement Satisfaction (ad (WS) (objective) hoc SIT) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Lee and Lee 108 NR NR NR F South Korea NR Intervention Behavioral N/A N/A (2016) (BG) (semantic analysis metric for comments) Luo (2018) 24 19–22 NR SS T US UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts and characters per post) Martínez-Car- 92 NR NR C&T T Spain UG Observational Behavioral N/A N/A dama and Cari- (# specific dad-Sebastián hashtags) (2019) Miller (2013) 59 NR NR P&L F US UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement N/A (WS) posts and (objective) comments per student) Moghavvemi 170 NR NR P&L F Malaysia UG Intervention Standardized N/A N/A and Salarzadeh (WS) test (UTAUT) Janatabadi (2018) Montoneri (2015) 23 NR NR L&C F Taiwan UG Observational Behavioral Achievement Satisfaction (ad (# likes and (objective) hoc SIT) views by post) Montoneri (2017) 32 NR NR L&C F Taiwan UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Other (SIT) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Naghdipour 25 NR 52% L&C F Turkey UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A & Eldridge, comments (2016) and posts and comment- generating posts) Narayan et al. 336 NR NR SS T New Zealand UG Intervention Behavioral N/A Other (SIT) (2019) (WS) (# tweets, hashtags and posts) Nazir and Brou- 74 20–34 30% NR F Netherlands UG Intervention Behavioral N/A Satisfaction (ad wer (2019) (BG) (students and hoc SIT) instructors # posts and comments) Nkhoma et al., 136 NR NR SS F Vietnam UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Achievement (2015) (WS) (ad hoc SIT) Orawiwatnakul 82 NR NR L&C F Turkey UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement Satisfaction (ad & Wichadee (WS) posts) (objective) hoc SIT) (2016) Owens & Nuss- 27 NR 93% SS T US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A Other (SIT) baum (2017) (WS) posts) Pai et al. (2017a) 154 NR NR C&T F US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A (BG) posts, com- ments, likes) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Pai et al. (2017b) 142 18 NR C&T F US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A (BG) posts, com- ments, likes; textual length of posts and comments) Peeters and Pre- 157 17–52 NR L&C F Belgium UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A torius (2020) (BG) posts across students) Ping and Maniam 30 NR NR L&C F Malaysia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement N/A (2015) (BG) (objective) Popescu and 74 22–40 23% SS T Romania UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A Badea (2020) (BG) tweets) Purnamasari 56 NR NR L&C F Indonesia UG Observational SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (2019) hoc SIT) Rahman et al. 108 16–35 54.2% SS F US UG Observational SIT (ad hoc N/A Satisfaction (ad (2020) hoc SIT) Riady (2014) 1194 NR NR SS F Indonesia UG Qualitative Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts, links, photos,events, updates, shared docs) Rubrico & 59 19–27 98.3% L&C F Malaysia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Hashim (2014) (WS) hoc SIT) Saifudin et al. 58 22–26 57% SS F Malaysia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A (2016) (WS) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Schroeder and 128 NR NR C&T F US UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A Greenbowe posts) (2009) Sheeran and 471 17–59 76.7% SS F Australia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Cummings (BG) hoc SIT) (2018) Shih (2011) 23 NR 78.3% L&C F Taiwan UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement Satisfaction (ad (WS) comments and (objective) hoc SIT) likes) Sittiwong & 38 NR NR C&T F Thailand UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Wongnam (2015) Slim & Hafedh, 102 NR NR L&C F Saudi Arabia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement N/A (2019) (BG) (objective) Teixeira & Hash 45 NR NR SS T US UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (2017) hoc SIT) Tran (2016) 21 NR 14.3% L&C F Vietnam UG Observational Behavioral (# Achievement Satisfaction (ad posts and (objective) hoc SIT) likes) Tucker (2015) 16 NR 75% PC F US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Other (SIT) (BG) Tur & Marin 153 NR NR SS T Spain UG Observational Behavioral N/A N/A (2015) (# tweets, retweets, and comments) VanDoorn & 20 NR NR SS F Australia UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Achievement Eklund (2013) (SIT) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Wang et al. 415 NR 63.2% SS F Taiwan UG Observational SIT (ad hoc) Personality tests N/A (2013) (Standarized) Whittaker et al. 42 NR NR P&L F Australia UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A (2014) posts) Wu et al., (2020) 24 NR 52.2% C&T F Taiwán UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts and aver- age of words) Yagci (2015) 177 NR 54.2% L&C F Iraq UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Yu (2014) NR NR NR L&C F Taiwan UG Qualitative Behavioral (# N/A Satisfaction (ad posts) hoc SIT) Zhang and Lu 41 18–29 NR L&C F Ireland UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement N/A (2014) (BG) characters) (objective) B Business, BG Between-groups design,  C&T Computer and technology, F Facebook, G Graduate, L&C Language & communication, N/A Not applicable, NR Not reported, NU Non-university course, P&L Physical & life sciences, PC Professional courses, SIT Survey or interview, SMP Social media platform, SS Social sciences, T Twitter, UG College/Undergraduate, UTAUT User acceptance of information technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003), W WhatsApp, WS Within-subjects design If available, quantitative engagement metrics are reported in the column Engagement metric Journal of Behavioral Education of engagement and personal outcomes cross-sectionally were the second most fre- quent study design (24%, n = 18). The remaining studies were prospective qualitative studies that did not include a formal intervention or control group (21.3%, n = 16). Predictive and Outcome Variables Some studies introduced social media platforms as an intervention intended to enhance academic achievement. Among intervention studies, 22.7% (n = 17) used pre-post academic achievement evaluated through ad hoc surveys, assignment marks, objective tests, and course grades. Sixteen of these intervention studies pro- spectively manipulated the introduction of a social media platform as a deliberate intervention. Finally, 11 studies (14.7%) evaluated both engagement and achieve- ment with qualitative methods. Some qualitative studies used ad hoc surveys to evaluate additional outcomes of the students’ educational experience while using the social media platform. Spe- cifically, 28 studies evaluated student satisfaction using the social media platform (37.3%, n = 19), and five studies assessed the sense of community belonging (10.2%, n = 5). Additional outcomes (e.g., intrinsic motivation) were not observed more than twice in the pool of studies included in the review. The vast majority of included studies that used qualitative methods did not report any additional outcomes (see Table 1 for details). Social Media Platforms and Engagement Approximately half of the studies selected (52%, n = 39) utilized ad hoc inter- views and surveys to estimate the degree of social media participation among stu- dents, whereas thirty-three studies (44%) used some form of quantitative analysis of engagement based on the metrics provided by the social media platform (e.g., frequency of likes, comments, and posts). Table 2 summarizes the objective meas- ures of social media engagement present in this literature. Specifically, Clements (2015), Gordon (2016), and Pai et al., (2017a, 2017b) computed the total number (frequency) of likes, comments, and posts from the group of students using the social network as a teaching and communication channel. In addition, eight stud- ies used the frequency of posts and comments only (Hou et al., 2015; Lim, 2010; Luo, 2018; Miller, 2013; Naghdipour & Eldridge, 2016; Nazir & Brouwer, 2019; Peeters and Pretorius 2020; Wu et  al., 2020). Miller (2013) departed from this trend by extracting the frequency of posts and comments per student as well as exploring posting immediacy. Luo (2018) and Wu et al., (2020) extracted the total number of characters composing each social media comment, while Nazir and Brouwer (2019) conducted a systematic theme analysis using the text of Face- book comments as samples. Bacile (2013), Dougherty and Andercheck (2014) and Tran (2016) collected the frequency of posts and likes, Shih (2011) the fre- quency of likes and comments, and Montoneri (2015) the frequency of views and likes per post. Finally, eight additional studies reported the frequency of posts as their single quantitative engagement outcome (Daniels & Billingsley 2014; 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Table 2 Objective Measures of Social Media Engagement in the Tertiary Education Literature References Platform Level of analysis Frequency Other posts Comments Reactions Bacile (2013) Facebook Group • • Clements (2015) Facebook Group • • • Daniels & Billingsley (2014) Facebook Group • Dougherty & Andercheck (2014) Facebook Group • • Ercoskun et al., 2019 Facebook Group • Gordon (2016) Facebook Group • • • Harting (2017) Facebook Group • Hou et al. (2015) Facebook Group • • Lee and Lee (2016) Facebook Group • Lim (2010) Facebook Group • • Luo (2018) Facebook Group • • • Martínez-Cardama and Caridad- Twitter Group • Sebastián (2019) Miller (2013) Facebook Student • • Montoneri (2015) Facebook Post • • Naghdipour & Eldridge, (2016) Facebook Group • • Narayan et al. (2019) Twitter Group • • • Nazir and Brouwer (2019) Facebook Group • • Orawiwatnakul & Wichadee Facebook Group • (2016) Owens & Nussbaum (2017) Facebook Group • Pai et al. (2017a) Facebook Group • • • Pai et al. (2017b) Facebook Group • • • Peeters and Pretorius (2020) Facebook Group • • Popescu and Badea (2020) Twitter Group • Riady (2014) Facebook Group • • Schroeder and Greenbowe (2009) Facebook Group • Shih (2011) Facebook Group • • Tran (2016) Facebook Group • • Tur et al. (2015) Twitter Group • • • Whittaker et al. (2014) Facebook Group • Wu et al., (2020) Facebook Group • • • Yu (2014) Facebook Group • Zhang & Lu (2014) Facebook Group • • Posts, comments, and reactions are considered equivalent to tweets, replies, and retweets, respectively Ercoskun et  al., 2019; Harting, 2017; Orawiwatnakul & Wichadee 2016; Owens & Nussbaum 2017; Riady, 2014; Schroeder & Greenbowe, 2009; Whittaker et al., 2014; Yu, 2014). All above-mentioned studies utilized Facebook as their integrated social media platform. Four additional studies used Twitter; Tur and Marin (2015), Narayan et al. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education (2019), and Popescu and Badea (2020) extracted the frequency of tweets, retweets, and replies to tweets, while Martínez-Cardama and Caridad-Sebastián (2019) com- puted the total number of hashtags. Finally, Alghazo and Nash (2017) used the tex- ting social media app WhatsApp and monitored class attendance and missed assign- ments (social media engagement outcomes were not reported). In addition, Goktalay (2015), and Moghavvemi and Salarzadeh Janatabadi (2018) used standardized tests as an indirect assessment of social media engagement. Discussion The current study reviewed the literature on social media as aids to education with the end goal of proposing a taxonomy of behavioral outcomes that could be utilized in experimental, translational, and applied research. Specifically, we reviewed the engagement metrics reported in studies using social media platforms as a learning channel in tertiary education. While most of the studies reviewed were qualitative, the systematic review provided a solid basis for a taxonomy including frequency- and time-based outcomes. Our descriptive analysis showed that most studies utilized ad hoc surveys to document social media engagement and satisfaction (e.g., Gregory  et al., 2014), while a minority of studies focused on objective engagement indicators including posts, comments, and reactions (e.g., Peeters & Pretorius 2020). Most interventional studies evaluated the addition of a social media platform on student satisfaction (Akcaoglu & Lee 2018), while few focused on objective or standardized academic achievement outcomes. For example, Dougherty & Andercheck (2014) correlated engagement, as estimated by the frequency of Facebook posts and reactions, with objective academic performance evaluated through weekly multiple-choice tests. Interventional studies followed pre-post within-subject and between-groups designs. Control groups were either withdrawn from the possibility of interacting through a target social media platform (Alghazo & Nash, 2017) or were exposed to a passive course instructor (Peeters & Pretorius 2020). Controlled studies lacked randomiza- tion (no RCTs were identified). Specifically, participants in experimental groups were often offered a choice to participate in a social media platform as part of their course, while those in the control group underwent the usual course format without a social media channel to enhance peer-to-peer or instructor-to-student interaction (e.g., Gregory et al., 2014). Overall, this literature offers a limited picture of the quantitative engagement responses that could be recorded from social media platforms. Objectively defined engagement responses involved primarily posting and reacting frequency, whereas more sophisticated time-based or event-related outcomes were rarely explored (e.g., comment latency, percentage of individuals posting). In a notable exception, Miller (2013) studied posting frequency and posting immediacy. Posting immediacy may be defined as the time elapsed from a target instructor post to a post-related student response. Textual analysis methodology, including theme detection and sentiment analysis, which have become common social media research methods (Angus, 2017; Thelwall, 2017), were rare occurrences within this literature. Nazir and Brouwer 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education (2019) illustrate an exception to this trend by qualitatively analyzing 67 post tran- scripts and comments made by both students and instructors in a Facebook group over the course of eight weeks. The aim of the textual analysis was to classify posts and comments according to three categories, “social presence,” “cognitive pres- ence,” and “teaching presence.” As per our taxonomy development process, we used the metrics documented in the literature (Table  2) as the basis to propose a non-compressive collection of behavior-based engagement metrics (Table 3). This summary is provided as a sam- ple of relevant and intuitive metrics and is not intended as an exhaustive collection of all possible outcomes. Some of the proposed metrics are yet to be utilized in empirical studies. Existing metrics were divided into three categories, those based on the frequency or count of responses (count-based), those derived from the tim- ing of the response (time-based), and those involving the automated analyses of the response length, content, and semantics (topography-based or text analysis). Some of these metrics can be applied to an individual, group, or post as level of analysis. For example, commenting frequency (i.e., total number of comments over a period of time), could refer to a group (i.e., total number of comments made by a group of individuals over a period of time), an individual (i.e., total number of comments made by an individual over a period of time), or a post (i.e., total number of com- ments by any individual responding to a particular post over a period of time). Posting frequency provides yet another example of a count-based metric, which may be defined as the total number of posts over a period of time (e.g., week, semes- ter) and could be applicable to a group or an individual (Table 3). For example, Pai et. al. (2017a) monitored the instructor-led interactions in a Facebook group con- sisting of 150 biology students over a period of eight weeks. Authors extracted the total number of monthly posts by both students and instructors. The results of their descriptive analysis indicated that spontaneous student posting increased gradu- ally over time (for an individual-level analysis of posting frequency see for example Tran, 2016). Posting frequency is significant in that, unlike commenting and react- ing, reveals a spontaneous (unprompted) engagement with the discussion topic. Posting frequency can also be computed as a relative measure (i.e., total number of posts made by an individual or subgroup of individuals as a fraction of the total number of posts in the whole group or a different subgroup). Relative posting fre- quency may be used to obtain valuable information such as peer-to-peer or instruc- tor-to-peer subgroup interaction or to provide data and compare the frequency of participation between subgroups within a wider social media group. These outcomes could also inform the correlation between engagement and academic performance or the effects on participation of an instructor-led intervention directed to a particu- lar subgroup. An example of relative posting frequency can be found in Nazir and Brouwer (2019). The authors obtained the percentage of total posts and comments, including those specifically made by students and moderators in a Facebook group. However, relative measures are rarely used in the literature. Time-based measures require additional attention. We highlight two common behavior dimensions yet to be explored as part of a quantitative analysis of engage- ment responses in education: latency and inter-response time (e.g., Rohrer & Wix- ted, 1994). Comment latency can be obtained by calculating time elapsed between 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 3 A proposed taxonomy of quantitative metrics of social media engagement Metric & level of analysis Definition & example reference if available Count-based Posting frequency Total number of posts over a period of time (e.g., week, semester). Pai et. al. (2017a) G, I, P Commenting frequency Total number of comments over a period of time (e.g., week, semester). Naghdipour & Eldridge, G, I, P (2016) Reacting frequency Total number of reactions over a period of time (e.g., week, semester). Montoneri (2015) G, I, P Percentage individuals posting Ratio of the total number of students publishing to the total number of posts Percentage individuals commenting Ratio of the total number of students commenting to the total number of comments in the study group G, P Student-instructor posting ratio Ratio between the number of posts published by a specific group of people (e.g., students) and the total number of posts published (e.g., students and faculty members). Nazir and Brouwer (2019) Student-instructor commenting ratio Ratio between the number of comments posted by a specific group of people (e.g., students) and the total number of comments posted (e.g., students and faculty members). Nazir and Brouwer (2019) Percentage individuals reacting Ratio between the number of reactions posted by a specific group of people (e.g., students) and the total number of reactions posted (e.g., students and faculty) Time-based Commenting latency Time elapsed between the appearance of a post and the appearance of a comment G, I, P Reacting latency Time elapsed between the appearance of a post and the appearance of a reaction to that post G, I, P Posting inter-response time Time elapsed between successive posts. Lindström et al. (2021) G, I Commenting inter-response time Time elapsed between the publication of a comment made by a person and the next comment I, P Reacting inter-response time Time elapsed between the reaction published by one person to the next reaction I, P Text analysis Post length Total number of characters in a post. Pai et al., (2017a, 2017b) G, I, P Comment length Total number of characters in a comment. Pai et al., (2017a, 2017b) G, I, P Theme analysis Occurrence and co-occurrence of words appearing in a text using an algorithmic process generated G, I, P by software. Angus (2017) Sentiment analysis Total occurrence of terms analyzed by lexicon algorithms using software to detect sentiment-related G, I, P patterns. Thelwall (2017) I Individual, G Group, P Post Journal of Behavioral Education a post or comment and its response. This parameter can be obtained for an indi- vidual (e.g., mean commenting latency of an individual), group (e.g., mean com- menting latency of a group) or post (e.g., mean commenting latency of comments to a post). An example of the use of comment latency on social networks can be found in Lindström et al. (2021), who used this metric to evaluate the effects of receiving feedback in the form of “likes” from other participants. Comment latency allowed Lindström et al. to demonstrate that the posting behavior of participants has operant characteristics and is causally influenced by social rewards. Even though the study did not have an educational component, Lindström et  al. pioneering quantitative analysis demonstrates the potential of engagement responses to reveal operant pro- cesses. On the other hand, inter-response time can be defined as the time that elapses between two comments (comment inter-response time) or two reactions (reaction inter-response time) made by an individual. Inter-response time describes the pace at which a behavior is performed, which may be informative in online environments where receiving positive responses may be in part a function of response omission (e.g., an instructor may be more likely to respond favorably to posts from students that have not participated recently in a social media group). Most of the proposed metrics are widely used in applied behavior analysis, spe- cifically when evaluating teaching procedures for students with and without devel- opmental disability. For example, latency has been used to monitor the time elapsed from the presentation of an instruction to the initiation of a relevant response (Koegel et  al., 2010). Frequency, defined as the total number of times a behavior occurs (Kubina & Lin, 2008), is also widely used in educational settings (Bishop et al., 2020). Frequency provides information on how often target responses are met being a critical outcome for self-paced and fluency-based teaching–learning para- digms (Kubina & Morrison, 2000). It is likely that these metrics that have already demonstrated their effectiveness on educational contexts will also prove useful in the rapidly expanding field of educational applications of social media. In the cur - rent review we identified only six studies that quantitatively measured engagement using frequency (i.e., total number of posts and reactions) concurrently evaluated academic performance. For example, Shih (2011) and Montoneri (2015) obtained measures before and after completing questionnaires based on a 5-point Likert scale assessing content, organization, structure, and orthographic content. By contrast, Alghazo and  Nash (2017), Dougherty and Andercheck (2014), Miller (2013), and Tran (2016) used final exams grades or course assignment marks to estimate aca- demic performance. The evidence available still portrays a much fragmentary pic- ture on the potential relation between social media engagement and academic per- formance (meta-analyses remain impractical). Text analysis provides an additional means for processing social media engage- ment inputs in educational contexts. Text length (i.e., post length or comment length) is among the most elementary text analysis metrics available. For example, Pai et al., (2017a, 2017b) found that character count was larger for posts than com- ments. However, the authors did not assess the association between textual length and academic performance. Secondly, theme and sentiment analysis may also have heuristic value in this context. Theme analysis allows for the automated process- ing of natural language in order to generate a hierarchy of topics, identify patterns 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education of interest, and interpret communicative processes (Angus, 2017). There are multi- ple text analysis algorithms available (see, for example, Xu et al., 2022) that can be useful for processing large volumes of text extracted from social media and obtain thematic trends that would be impossible to obtain otherwise. In addition, textual analysis metrics can provide an indication of the social validity of interventions. For example, in a recent study by Anderson et  al. (2021), thematic and textual analy- ses were conducted to assess the social validity of Likert-type behavioral-analytic scales. The more complex textual analysis metrics (i.e., sentiment and theme analy- sis) are yet to be implemented in the scientific literature on educational interventions using social media as a potential learning channel. Lastly, sentiment analysis metrics can help to understand the role of emotional and motivational factors in communication processes (e.g., Thelwall, 2017). Various algorithms can estimate the intensity and quantity of sentiments expressed in a large volume of texts to ascertain sentiment patterns over time. A study by Ortigosa et al. (2014) demonstrated the possibility of obtaining useful data from Facebook posts to obtain information about learning experiences arising from interaction and posts generated in social networks. Data extraction was evaluated, although not the useful- ness of the information obtained from the interactions. Sentiment analysis can also provide instructors with critical ongoing information about student engagement and performance (see, for example, Zhou & Jun-min, 2020). Various limitations to the current analysis and its supporting literature should be noted. Our review identified limitations in the analyses commonly used to assess engagement.. Specifically, studies that assessed engagement often relied on ad hoc Likert-type questionnaires. Only a few studies reported behaviorally derived direct engagement responses (e.g., frequency of posting). In addition, over one-third of the studies reviewed were conducted in the context of second language learning courses (e.g., English as a second language, ESL), thereby limiting the diversity of fields of study sampled in this review. The motivation and social dynamics of vocational (e.g., ESL) versus academic courses may be fundamentally different. Third, while most studies focused on social media engagement (using qualitative and quantitative approaches), only a handful of studies concurrently monitored academic achieve- ment and other relevant outcomes. Fourth, none of the studies reviewed included a control group or control condition that equated student exposure to instructor inputs. This limitation is not trivial, as equating instructor-led inputs and exposure to course content may be a critical methodological standard to ensure the relevance of the control group in future RCTs. Fifth, the data extraction process including the sec- ondary observations were conducted by the authors, which were privy to the goals of the study and may have been subjected to bias. Finally, the proposed taxonomy of social media engagement metrics is not com- prehensive as it is intended only to illustrate the range of potential outcomes that could be utilized in this context. Moreover, the metrics proposed ex novo (without precedent in the literature) have not been validated in empirical studies. Validation studies have the potential of expanding the proposed taxonomy further. For example, indices known to provide the same information may be combined as part of sum- mary metrics (e.g., combined engagement indices may result from adding views, comments, and reactions). 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Conclusion The analysis of discrete engagement responses opens the door to human operant and applied behavior-analytic studies within this field. In addition, pre- and post- test measures of students’ academic performance should be incorporated to confirm whether the increase in engagement may be a good predictor of academic achieve- ment. Randomized controlled trials are also missing from this literature, which are critical to determine the effectiveness of educational interventions delivered through the social media channel. These efforts could help to establish and empirical basis for the now pervasive trend of integrating social media in higher education (Aldah- douh et al., 2020). This line of research could potentially help higher education insti- tutions and educators to adopt social media platforms in the development of educa- tional plans and teaching strategies. Finally, wider use of quantitative behaviorally based metrics is needed in order to further evaluate an operant learning model of online behavior in educational settings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10864- 023- 09516-6. Author Contributions AT-R: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing—original draft preparation. JV-O: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Fund- ing acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing—reviewing & editing. AP-BP: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing—reviewing & editing. AC-E: Writing—reviewing & editing. SC: Writing—reviewing & editing. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Council of Australian University Librar- ies and its member The University of Auckland. The first author received a one-year research contract funded through a Ramon y Cajal Fellowship (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain) awarded to second author (reference no. RYC-2016-20706). This work was supported by a research contract between ABA España (Madrid, Spain) and The University of Auckland (Auckland, New Zealand) (project no. CON02739). Declarations Conflict of interest This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor in Psychology of Dr. Aida Tarifa-Rodriguez at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain). The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education References References included in the review are highlighted with an asterisk *Abd-El-Aal, W. M. M., & Steele, A. (2017). We all need we: The effect of using Facebook and group fieldwork on students’ interdependence and awareness of STSE Issues. World Journal of Educa- tion, 7(1), 53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5430/ wje. v7n1p 53 *Abney, A., Cook, L., Fox, A., & Stevens, J. (2018). Intercollegiate social media education ecosys- tem. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(3), 254–269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02734 75318 *Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2018). Using Facebook groups to support social presence in online learn- ing. Distance Education, 39(3), 334–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01587 919. 2018. 14768 42 *Al-Azawei, A. (2019). What drives successful social media in education and e-learning? A compara- tive study on Facebook and moodle. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 18(June), 253–274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 28945/ 4360 *Albayrak, D., & Yildirim, Z. (2015). Using social networking sites for teaching and learning: Stu- dents’ involvement in and acceptance of Facebook® as a course management system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 155–179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07356 33115 571299 *Alberth. (2019). Use of Facebook, students’ intrinsic motivation to study writing, writing self-effi- cacy and writing performance. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(1), 21–36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14759 39X. 2018. 15528 92 Aldahdouh, T. Z., Nokelainen, P., & Korhonen, V. (2020). Technology and social media usage in higher education: The influence of individual innovativeness. SAGE Open. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 21582 44019 899441 *Alghazo, Y. M., & Nash, J. A. (2017). The effect of social media usage on course achievement and behavior. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(2), 161–167. *Altunkaya, H., & Topuzkanamış, E. (2018). The effect of using facebook in writing education on writ- ing achievement, attitude, anxiety and self-efficacy perception. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(10), 2133–2142. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13189/ ujer. 2018. 061010 Anderson, R., Taylor, S., Taylor, T., & Virues-Ortega, J. (2021). Thematic and textual analysis methods for developing social validity questionnaires in applied behavior analysis. Behavioral Interven- tions. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bin. 1832 Angus, D. (2017). Theme detection in social media. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (pp. 530–544). SAGE. *Arabacioglu, T., & Akar-Vural, R. (2014). Using facebook as a LMS? Turkish Online Journal of Educa- tional Technology, 13(2), 202–215. *Bacile, T. J. (2013). The Klout challenge: Preparing your students for social media marketing. Market- ing Education Review, 23(1), 87–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2753/ mer10 52- 80082 30114 *Bahati, B. (2015). Extending student’ discussions beyond lecture room walls via Facebook. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(15), 160–172. *Bajko, R., Hodson, J., Seaborn, K., Livingstone, P., & Fels, D. (2016). Edugamifying media studies: Student engagement, enjoyment, and interest in two multimedia and social media undergraduate classrooms. Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ), 14(6), 14. Balcikanli, C. (2015). Prospective English language teachers ’ experiences in Facebook: Adoption, use and educational use in Turkish context. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 11(3), 82–99. Bishop, S. K., Moore, J. W., Dart, E. H., Radley, K., Brewer, R., Barker, L. K., Quintero, L., Litten, S., Gilfeather, A., Newborne, B., & Toche, C. (2020). Further investigation of increasing vocalizations of children with autism with a speech-generating device. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(1), 475–483. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jaba. 554 *Carver, J. (2019). InstaFrench: An investigation of learner perceptions of social media and images to develop L2 writing. Dimension, 8, 27. Chafetz, M. D. (1986). Taxonomy in psychology: Looking for subatomic units. The Journal of Psychol- ogy, 120(2), 121–135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00223 980. 1986. 97126 21 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education *Chen, Y. C. (2015). Linking learning styles and learning on mobile Facebook. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(2), 94–114. https:// doi. org/ 10. 19173/ irrodl. v16i2. *Clements, J. C. (2015). Using Facebook to enhance independent student engagement: A case study of first-year undergraduates. Higher Education Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5539/ hes. v5n4p 131 *Daniels, K. N., & Billingsley, K. Y. (2014). “Facebook”- It’s not just for pictures anymore: The impact of social media on cooperative learning. I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 26634/ JET. 11.3. 3008 *Delen, I. (2017). Teaching argumentation by using facebook groups. International Journal of Instruc- tion, 10(1), 151–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12973/ iji. 2017. 10110a *Demirbilek, M. (2015). Social media and peer feedback: What do students really think about using Wiki and Facebook as platforms for peer feedback? Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 211– 224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14697 87415 589530 Dizon, G., & Thanyawatpokin, B. (2018). Web 2.0 tools in the EFL classroom: Comparing the effects of Facebook and blogs on L2 writing and interaction. EuroCALL Review, 26(1), 29–42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4995/ euroc all. 2018. 7947 Dougherty, K. D., & Andercheck, B. (2014). Using Facebook to engage learners in a large introductory course. Teaching Sociology, 42(2), 95–104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00920 55X14 521022 *Duncan, D. G., & Barczyk, C. C. (2016). Facebook’s effect on learning in higher education: An empiri- cal investigation. Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ), 14, 14–28. *Ercoşkun, N. C., Ozan, C., & Kıncal, R. Y. (2019). Investigation of affinity towards social media and expectations for success of university students. Journal of Educational Issues, 5(2), 73. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5296/ jei. v5i2. 14703 *Evans, C. (2014). Twitter for teaching: Can social media be used to enhance the process of learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 902–915. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12099 Floyd, F. J., Baucom, D. H., Godfrey, J. J., & Palmer, C. (1998). Observational methods. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive Clinical Psychology (pp. 1–21). Pergamon. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B0080- 4270(73) 00223-6 *Gamble, C., & Wilkins, M. (2014). Student attitudes and perceptions of using Facebook for language learning. Dimension, 49, 72. *Giannikas, C. (2019). Facebook in tertiary education: The impact of social media in e-learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53761/1. 17.1.3 *Goktalay, S. B. (2015). The impact of Facebook in teaching practicum: Teacher trainees perspectives. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(17), 2489–2500. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5897/ err20 15. 2446 *Gordon, J. (2016). How is language used to craft social presence in Facebook? A case study of an under- graduate writing course. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1033–1054. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639- 014- 9366-0 *Gregory, P., Gregory, K., & Eddy, E. (2014). The Instructional Network: Using Facebook to enhance undergraduate mathematics instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teach- ing, 33, 5–26. *Gregory, P. L., Gregory, K. M., & Eddy, E. R. (2016). Factors contributing to student engagement in an instructional Facebook group for undergraduate mathematics. The Journal of Computers in Math- ematics and Science Teaching, 35(3), 249. *Guo, R., Shen, Y., & Li, L. (2018). Using social media to improve student-instructor communication in an online learning environment. International Journal of Information and Communication Tech- nology Education, 14(1), 33–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ IJICTE. 20180 10103 Hackenberg, T. D. (2018). Token reinforcement: Translational research and application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(2), 393–435. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jaba. 439 *Harting, A. (2017). Using Facebook to improve L2 German students’ socio-pragmatic skills. The Euro- CALL Review, 25(1), 26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4995/ euroc all. 2017. 7014 *Hennessy, C. M., Kirkpatrick, E., Smith, C. F., & Border, S. (2016). Social media and anatomy educa- tion: Using Twitter to enhance the student learning experience in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(6), 505–515. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ase. 1610 Hettema, H., & Kuipers, T. A. F. (1988). The periodic table - its formalization, status, and relation to atomic theory. Erkenntnis, 28(3), 387–408. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF001 84902 Honig, W. K., & Staddon, J. E. R. (2022). Handbook of Operant Behavior (1st ed.). Routledge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97810 03256 670 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education *Hou, H. T., Wang, S. M., Lin, P. C., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Exploring the learner’s knowledge con- struction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: Comparison of an online dis- cussion forum and Facebook. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(6), 610– 620. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2013. 847381 *Ibarra, F. D. E. (2018). Is Facebook beneficial for writing practice? Ecuadorian polytechnic students speak up! Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 3–17. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis & Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2(1), 3–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0270- 4684(82) 90003-9 Johnston, J. M., Pennypacker, H. S., & Green, G. (2019). Strategies and Tactics of Behavioral Research and Practice (4th ed.). Routledge. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bush- or. 2009. 09. 003 Koegel, L. K., Singh, A. K., & Koegel, R. L. (2010). Improving motivation for academics in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(9), 1057–1066. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10803- 010- 0962-6 Kubina, R. M., & Lin, F.-Y. (2008). Defining frequency: A natural scientific term. The Behavior Analyst Today, 9(2), 125–129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0100 651 Kubina, R. M., & Morrison, R. S. (2000). Fluency in Education. Behavior and Social Issues, 10, 83–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5210/ bsi. v10i0. 133 *Lee, H. Y., & Lee, H. W. (2016). Comparing social network analysis of posts with counting of posts as a measurement of learners’ participation in Facebook discussions. Turkish Online Journal of Educa- tional Technology, 15(1), 11–19. *Lim, T. (2010). The use of Facebook for online discussions among distance learners. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(4), 72–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17718/ TOJDE. 17195 Lindström, B., Bellander, M., Schultner, D. T., Chang, A., Tobler, P. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2021). A computational reward learning account of social media engagement. Nature Communications, 12, 1311. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41467- 020- 19607-x *Luo, T. (2018). Delving into the specificity of instructional guidance in social media-supported learning environments. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 17(March), 37–54. https:// doi. org/ 10. 28945/ 3974 *Martínez-Cardama, S., & Caridad-Sebastián, M. (2019). Social media and new visual literacies: Pro- posal based on an innovative teaching project. Education for Information, 35(3), 337–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3233/ EFI- 180214 Masrom, M. B., Busalim, A. H., Abuhassna, H., & Mahmood, N. H. N. (2021). Understanding students’ behavior in online social networks: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educa- tional Technology in Higher Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s41239- 021- 00240-7 Matthews, B. A., Shimoff, E., & Catania, A. C. (1987). Saying and doing: A contingency-space analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20(1), 69–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1901/ jaba. 1987. 20- 69 *Miller, S. T. (2013). Increasing student participation in online group discussions via facebook. Astron- omy Education Review. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3847/ AER20 12031 *Moghavvemi, S., & Salarzadeh Janatabadi, H. (2018). Incremental impact of time on students’ use of E-learning via Facebook. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 560–573. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12545 *Montoneri, B. (2015). Impact of students’ participation to a Facebook group on their motivation and scores and on teacher’s evaluation. IAFOR Journal of Education, 3(1), 61–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22492/ ije.3. 1. 04 *Montoneri, B. (2017). Facebook posts as complementary teaching material for a French University course in Taiwan. IAFOR Journal of Education, 5(1), 141–162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22492/ ije.5. 1. 08 *Naghdipour, B., & Eldridge, N. H. (2016). Incorporating social networking sites into tradi- tional pedagogy: A case of Facebook. TechTrends, 60(6), 591–597. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11528- 016- 0118-4 *Narayan, V., Herrington, J., & Cochrane, T. (2019). Design principles for heutagogical learning: Imple- menting student-determined learning with mobile and social media tools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 86–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14742/ ajet. 3974 *Nazir, M., & Brouwer, N. (2019). Community of inquiry on Facebook in a formal learning setting in higher education. Education Sciences. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci901 0010 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education *Nkhoma, M., Cong, H. P., Au, B., Lam, T., Richardson, J., Smith, R., & El-Den, J. (2015). Facebook as a tool for learning purposes: Analysis of the determinants leading to improved students’ learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(2), 87–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14697 87415 574180 *Orawiwatnakul, W., & Wichadee, S. (2016). Achieving better learning performance through the discus- sion activity in facebook. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 1–8. Ortigosa, A., Martín, J. M., & Carro, R. M. (2014). Sentiment analysis in Facebook and its application to e-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31(1), 527–541. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2013. 05. 0244 *Owens, M., & Nussbaum, M. (2017). Twitter vs. Facebook: Using social media to promote collaborative argumentation in an online classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 28(3), 249–267. *Pai, A., McGinnis, G., Bryant, D., Cole, M., Kovacs, J., Stovall, K., & Lee, M. (2017a). Using Facebook groups to encourage science discussions in a large-enrollment biology class. Journal of Educa- tional Technology Systems, 46(1), 103–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00472 39516 675898 *Pai, A., Cole, M., Kovacs, J., Lee, M., Stovall, K., & McGinnis, G. (2017b). As long as you are here, can I interest in you some science? Increasing student engagement by co-opting a social networking site, Facebook for science discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(2), 153– 177. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00472 39517 729505 Papademetriou, C., Anastasiadou, S., Konteos, G., & Papalexandris, S. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of the social media technology on higher education. Education Sciences. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci120 40261 Parks-Stamm, E. J., Zafonte, M., & Palenque, S. M. (2017). The effects of instructor participation and class size on student participation in an online class discussion forum. British Journal of Education Technology, 48(6), 1250–1259. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12512 Paterlini, M. (2007). There shall be order. The legacy of Linnaeus in the age of molecular biology. EMBO Reports, 8(9), 814–816. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ sj. embor. 74010 61 *Peeters, W., & Pretorius, M. (2020). Facebook or fail-book: Exploring “community” in a virtual com- munity of practice. ReCALL, 32(3), 291–306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0958 34402 00000 99 *Ping, N. S., & Maniam, M. (2015). The effectiveness of facebook group discussions on writing per - formance: A study in matriculation college. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 4(1), 30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11591/ ijere. v4i1. 4489 *Popescu, E., & Badea, G. (2020). Exploring a community of inquiry supported by a social media-based learning environment. Educational Technology and Society, 23(2), 61–76. *Purnamasari, A. (2019). Pre-service EFL Teachers’ perception of using Facebook group for learning. JET (journal of English Teaching), 5(2), 104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 33541/ jet. v5i2. 1064 *Rahman, S., Ramakrishnan, T., & Ngamassi, L. (2020). Impact of social media use on student satisfac- tion in Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(3), 304–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ hequ. 12228 *Riady, Y. (2014). Assisted learning through facebook: A case study of universitas terbuka’s students group communities in Jakarta, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Educa- tion, 15(2), 227–238. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17718/ tojde. 71656 Rohrer, D., & Wixted, J. T. (1994). An analysis of latency and interresponse time in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 22(5), 511–524. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ bf031 98390 *Rubrico, J. G. U., & Hashim, F. (2014). Facebook-photovoice interface: Empowering non-native pre- service English language teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 16–34. *Saifudin, A. M., Yacob, A., & Saad, R. (2016). The Facebook-in-action: Challenging, harnessing and enhancing students class assignments and projects. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 1259–1265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13189/ ujer. 2016. 040602 *Schroeder, J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2009). The chemistry of Facebook: Using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry laboratory. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 5(4), 1–11. *Sheeran, N., & Cummings, D. J. (2018). An examination of the relationship between Facebook groups attached to university courses and student engagement. Higher Education, 76(6), 937–955. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 018- 0253-2 *Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Inte- grating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829–845. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14742/ ajet. 934 *Sittiwong, T., & Wongnam, T. (2015). The effective of using 5 simple steps (QSCCS) learning activities on Facebook to promote self-learning in the 21st century in technology printing and advertising 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education course for undergraduate students in education technology and communications. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(11), 843–846. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13189/ ujer. 2015. 031110 *Slim, H., & Hafedh, M. (2019). Social media impact on language learning for specific purposes: A study in English for business administration. Teaching English with Technology, 19(1), 56–71. Sobaih, A. E. E., Palla, I. A., & Baquee, A. (2022). Social media use in e-learning amid COVID 19 pan- demic: Indian students’ perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5380. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1909 5380 Statista (2021). Global social networks ranked by number of users 2021 https:// www. stati sta. com/ stati stics/ 272014/ global- social- netwo rks- ranked- by- number- of- users/ Statista (2023). Number of social media users worldwide from 2017 to 2027. https:// www. stati sta. com/ stati stics/ 278414/ number- of- world wide- social- netwo rk- users/ Statista (2022). Facebook: distribution of global audiences 2022, by age and gender. https:// www. stati sta. com/ stati stics/ 376128/ faceb ook- global- user- age- distr ibuti on/ Tawafak, R. M., AlFarsi, G., Jabbar, J., Malik, S. I., Mathew, R., AlSidiri, A., Shakir, M., & Romli, A. (2021). Impact of technologies during COVID-19 pandemic for improving behavior intention to use e-learning. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(1), 184–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3991/ IJIM. V15I01. 17847 *Teixeira, S., & Hash, K. M. (2017). Teaching Note—Tweeting macro practice: Social media in the social work classroom. Journal of Social Work Education, 53(4), 751–758. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10437 797. 2017. 12870 25 Thelwall, M. (2017). Sentiment analysis. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (pp. 545–556). SAGE. *Tran, P. (2016). Training learners to use Quizlet vocabulary activities on mobile phones in Vietnam with Facebook. JALT CALL Journal, 12(1), 43–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 29140/ jaltc all. v12n1. 201 Tucker, V. (2015). Using social media for student collaboration. Journal of Faculty Development, 29(2), 45–56. *Tur, G., & Marín, V. I. (2015). Enhancing learning with the social media: Student teachers’ perceptions on Twitter in a debate activity. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(1), 46–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7821/ naer. 2015.1. 102 *VanDoorn, G., & Eklund, A. A. (2013). Face to Facebook: Social media and the learning and teaching potential of symmetrical sychronous communication. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53761/1. 10.1.6 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information tech- nology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 30036 540 Virues-Ortega, J., Tarifa-Rodriguez, A., Pérez-Bustamante Pereira, A. G., Calero-Elvira, A., & Cowie, S. (2022a). Systematic review of quantitative indices of student social media engagement in tertiary education. Fighare. https:// doi. org/ 10. 6084/ m9. figsh are. 20105 219 Virues-Ortega, J., Clayton, K., Pérez-Bustamante, A., Gaerlan, B. F. S., & Fahmie, T. A. (2022b). Func- tional analysis patterns of automatic reinforcement: A review and component analysis of treatment effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 55(2), 481–512. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jaba. 900 *Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learn- ing, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01587 919. 2013. 835779 *Whittaker, A. L., Howarth, G. S., & Lymn, K. A. (2014). Evaluation of Facebook© to create an online learning community in an undergraduate animal science class. Educational Media International, 51(2), 135–145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09523 987. 2014. 924664 *Wu, J. Y., Hsiao, Y. C., & Nian, M. W. (2020). Using supervised machine learning on large-scale online forums to classify course-related Facebook messages in predicting learning achievement within the personal learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(1), 65–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2018. 15150 85 Xu, Q. A., Chang, V., & Jayne, C. (2022). A systematic review of social media-based sentiment analysis: Emerging trends and challenges. Decision Analytics Journal, 3, 100073. *Yagci, T. (2015). Blended learning via mobile social media & implementation of “EDMODO” in read- ing classes. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7575/ aiac. alls.v. 6n. 4p. *Yu, L.-T. (2014). A case study of using Facebook in an EFL English writing class: The perspective of a writing teacher. The JALT CALL Journal, 10(3), 189–202. https:// doi. org/ 10. 29140/ jaltc all. v10n3. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education *Zhang, Q., & Lu, Z. (2014). The writing of Chinese characters by CFL learners: Can writing on Face- book and using machine translation help? Language Learning in Higher Education, 4(2), 441–467. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ cercl es- 2014- 0023 Zhou, J., & Ye, J.-M. (2020). Sentiment analysis in education research: A review of journal publications. Interactive Learning Environments. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2020. 18269 85 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Behavioral Education Springer Journals

Quantitative Indices of Student Social Media Engagement in Tertiary Education: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy

Download PDF
29 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/quantitative-indices-of-student-social-media-engagement-in-tertiary-rIi3C0b0fy

References (128)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
ISSN
1053-0819
eISSN
1573-3513
DOI
10.1007/s10864-023-09516-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Recent studies have evaluated the use of social media as learning aids in tertiary education. Emerging research in this area has focused primarily on non-quantitative approaches to student social media engagement. However, quantitative engagement outcomes may be extracted from student posts, comments, likes, and views. The goal of the present review was to provide a research-informed taxonomy of quantita- tive and behavior-based metrics of student social media engagement. We selected 75 empirical studies comprising a pooled sample of 11,605 tertiary education students. Included studies used social media for educational purposes and reported student social media engagement outcomes (source databases: PsycInfo and ERIC). We used independent raters and stringent interrater agreement and data extraction pro- cesses to mitigate bias  during the screening of references. Over half of the studies (52%, n = 39) utilized ad hoc interviews and surveys to estimate student social media engagement, whereas thirty-three studies (44%) used some form of quantitative analysis of engagement. Based on this literature, we present a selection of count- based, time-based, and text-analysis metrics.  The proposed taxonomy of engage- ment metrics resulting provides the methodological basis for the analysis of social media behavior in educational settings, particularly, for human operant and behavio- ral education studies. Implications for future research are discussed. Keywords Social media · Social media engagement · Achievement · Tertiary education · Behavioral engagement · Online education * Javier Virues-Ortega j.virues-ortega@auckland.ac.nz Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Social media have been defined as Internet applications that allow users to connect and interact with each other while creating, sharing, or reacting to online content (see, for example, Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). From a behavioral standpoint, social media is a complex social environment where users engage in a diverse range of online behaviors receiving a variety of social and automated consequences as a result. It is expected that social media platforms will reach five billion users by 2024, with platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter serving as the main communication networks (Statista, 2021, 2023). This trend is particularly prominent among university students. For example, a recent survey indicated that 82% of tertiary education students are regular Facebook users (Statista, 2022). The global COVID-19 pandemic galvanized an on-going shift towards online education, expediting the adoption of teaching strategies, content design standards, and time management processes aligned with the new medium (Papademetriou et  al., 2022). Some institutions quickly enabled educational plat- forms (e-learning platforms), while those with less resources relied on social media platforms as a readily available educational channel (Sobaih et al., 2022). Despite these trends, universities have only just started to use these platforms for educational purposes. Social media has the potential of supporting traditional classroom environments by adding accessible, barrier-free virtual spaces that could enhance collaborative peer- and instructor-mediated learning. There is evi- dence to suggest that student engagement in social media discussions moderated by an instructor may be an important indicator of course content elaboration and social learning (Parks-Stamm et al., 2017). Studies within this emerging field often rely on indirect measures of engage- ment (e.g., satisfaction surveys, teacher reports), which fail to describe the quanti- tative dimensions of online behavior; dimensions such as frequency, latency, and intensity (Giannikas, 2019; Slim & Hafedh, 2019). Social media platforms make it possible to quantify student engagement in a variety of ways. For example, most social media platforms log the exact time and date of posts, comments, and user reactions (e.g., likes) affording a myriad of metrics (e.g., posting frequency, comment latency). These metrics have the potential to inform the teaching–learn- ing process when social medial channels are used in educational contexts. Quantitative measures of engagement allow us not only to quantify the effec- tiveness of interventions directed at increasing engagement, but also to detect operant learning mechanisms such as reinforcement, extinction, and punish- ment, that could be influencing students’ online behavior (Honig & Staddon, 2022). Recently, Lindström et al. (2021) used a computational approach to assess whether operant processes could explain engagement responses in social media. These authors used response "latency" (the time elapsed between two successive social media posts) as an indicator of engagement. Their results showed that users of social media platforms space out their posts according to a model of social reinforcement maximization. This finding may have implications for the use of social media for educational purposes. An operant model of social media interaction could provide the conceptual basis for future evidence-based strategies to foster positive and learning-enhancing inter- ventions, for example, by using online social rewards such as offering immediate 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education or near-immediate feedback. Moreover, it may be possible to create educational contexts in which high rates of social reinforcement are available for appropriate engagement, which could ultimately maximize academic performance. We could also obtain evidence of operant behavior allocation by monitoring posting behavior at times when instructor responses have a shorter latency or are more relevant (e.g., specific feedback), relative to times when instructor responses are delayed or are less relevant (e.g., collective feedback). More frequent posting in the former sce- nario and less frequent posting in the latter would provide evidence (whether cor- relational or experimental) of operant behavior allocation. The analyses suggested above may have direct practical implications. In order to evaluate operant processes in the social media context, it would be necessary to establish quantitative metrics of discrete student and instructor social media responses. While the literature on the use of social media for educational purposes has grown steadily over the last decade (Tawafak et al., 2021), most of this research seems to be qualitative and does not contain behavioral data on engagement or performance (Papademetriou et al., 2022), making it difficult to capitalize on this important line of research. In addition, in order to evaluate an operant model of social media inter- action in educational settings, it would be important to define and validate behavio- rally based quantitative metrics of social media interaction. For example, Lindström et  al. (2021) were able to demonstrate reinforcement effects by focusing on inter- post time (which they labeled "latency") as a key social media engagement met- ric. Further progress in this area in both human-operant and applied studies would require a better understanding of the quantitative metrics that can be retrieved from the social dynamics in this medium. While numerous classifications of generalist behavioral metrics have been published over the years (e.g., Floyd et al., 1998; John- ston et  al., 2019) and there are a few systematic reviews on the general theme of online behavior in social media (see for example Masrom et al., 2021), we are not aware of any systematic reviews of behavior-based metrics that could be obtained from social media platforms. The Linnaean and Mendeleev systems have been instrumental to the develop- ment of the evolutionary and atomic theories (see, for example, Hettema & Kuipers, 1988, and Paterlini, 2007). Likewise, the role of methodological taxonomies has been amply recognized in psychology as a preliminary step for conceptual devel- opment and applied research (see for example Chafetz, 1986). Similarly, functional taxonomies in behavior analysis have played a key role in galvanizing conceptual, technological, and applied advances. For example, the classification of problem behavior function by the stimulus dimension of the reinforcer (social vs. automatic) and the stimulus manipulation preceding changes in behavior (positive vs. negative reinforcement), led to the development of functional analysis methodology by Iwata et al. (1982), which in turn has resulted in further refinements in functional analysis outcomes subtypes (see, for example, Virues-Ortega et  al., 2022a, 2022b). In this connection, the development of a behavior-analytic research subfield of social media online behavior would greatly benefit from a systematic classification of behavior metrics and dimensions that could be utilized to study the interactions of individuals with online platforms and with other users in the medium. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education The goal of the current study was to review the literature that has evaluated social media engagement in the context of tertiary education programs with integrated social media platforms to determine the relative presence of qualitative and quantita- tive engagement outcomes. This evidence will be used to ascertain the basic trends in this literature and as the basis for a preliminary taxonomy of quantitative engage- ment metrics that could be widely used in human-operant research and applied behavioral education. Methods Study Selection We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the PsycInfo and ERIC databases (ProQuest search engine) on October 28, 2020. After repeated preliminary searchers to test search sensitivity, the following search strategy was implemented: (“Face- book” OR “social media”) AND (“engagement,” “education,” OR “achievement”) without time or search field restrictions. We included studies meeting the following inclusion criteria: (a) the study included college-level, undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate students (Criterion 1), (b) the study used a social media platform for educational purposes (Criterion 2), and (c) the study included at least one social media engagement variable (Criterion 3). We screened the abstracts of the studies identified through the initial search to assess Criteria 1 and 2. We retrieved and processed the full manuscripts of studies meeting Criteria 1 and 2 for the purposes of verification and for evaluating Criterion 3. The initial search returned 766 distinct references. We implemented inclusion cri- teria sequentially. Figure  1 presents a detailed record of the implementation of the inclusion criteria (see also Supplementary Online Material, Table A). Seventy-five studies met all inclusion criteria and proceeded to the data extraction phase. Three raters participated in the study. The first rater applied inclusion criteria to all references originally retrieved (ATR). For the purposes of evaluating interrater agreement during the screening of references, two secondary raters (APG, JVO) independently applied inclusion criteria to the first 400 references (52% of all refer - ences). The primary and secondary raters applied the inclusion criteria to all 400 references identically, resulting in an interrater agreement of 100%. We also com- puted interrater agreement for the data extraction process for the selected studies. Specifically, a secondary rater (APB) extracted the 11 target variables of all selected studies (total number of participants, participants’ age, participants’ gender, field of study, social media platform utilized, country, course level, study design, social media engagement, quantitative outcome variables, qualitative outcome variables). Raters used closed lists (dropdown menus) to input each variable extracted onto the study database. We computed the interrater agreement of the data extraction pro- cess for each selected reference as the number of agreements plus disagreements divided by 11 and converted this ratio into a percentage. We then computed the mean interrater agreement across all selected references. An agreement was defined as both raters extracting the exact same piece of information for a target variable of 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Fig. 1 Study Selection Flowchart a selected reference. A disagreement was defined as the two raters extracting differ - ent information for a target variable of a selected reference. Overall, there were four disagreements pertaining to four distinct selected references. Therefore, the mean interrater agreement of the data extraction process was 99.5% (range, 90.9–100%). The data extracted by the primary rater was used during the analyses. The use of multiple databases, independent raters, and an interrater agree- ment process was intended to minimize the risk of bias during the selection of references. The current systematic review adheres to the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews (see Supplementary Online Information). The data- base resulting from the systematic review has been made available via Figshare (Virues-Ortegaet al., 2022a). Data Extraction The following variables were extracted from all studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Number, Age, Gender, and Country of Participants We recorded the total number of participants as well as their age, gender, and educational level (high school, college, master’s or PhD). We also recorded the country in which the study was conducted. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Field of Study We recorded the field of study of all educational interventions. These were then clas- sified according to an ad hoc category system. For example, research conducted with astronomy or physics students was categorized as "physical and life sciences", psychol- ogy and sociology students were categorized as "social sciences", second language students were included within "language and communication," and students in man- agement of information and digital content were grouped under "computer and technol- ogy". Additional categories were used for "art," "business," and "professional courses." Study Design Studies simply using a questionnaire or interview at the end of the course were classi- fied as "qualitative (retrospective)." Studies that implemented their assessments before and/or during the intervention were categorized as "qualitative (prospective)". Studies presenting correlation analyses for two or more variables at a given time point were classified as "observational." Studies using experimental designs were divided into two categories: "intervention (within subject),” for studies where all participants were exposed at least to a control and treatment or posttreatment condition; and "intervention (between groups)" when students were assigned to control and interventions groups. Randomization was not considered part of the classification process as none of the selected studies included random assignment. Predictive and Outcome Variables We also recorded predictive and outcome variables reported in the studies reviewed, including study time, academic achievement, user satisfaction, and personality con- structs. Predictive and outcome variables were further classified as quantitative (objec- tive and standardized tests) or qualitative (interviews, surveys, ad hoc questionnaires). Additional personal outcomes (e.g., motivation, sense of community, positive feelings) were included in a miscellaneous category. Social Media Platforms and Engagement We recorded the social media platform utilized in each study included in the review. Engagement could be evaluated with ad hoc interviews or surveys ("interview or sur- vey”), standardized tests ("standardized test"), or quantitative engagement metrics ("behavioral”). The latter included discrete outcomes such as posting, commenting, and reaction frequencies, among others. Rational Process for Developing a Metrics Taxonomy The development of the taxonomy of behavior-based metrics of social media engage- ment followed a three-step process of systematic review, classification, and rational extension. Completing the systematic review and obtaining a complete repertoire of 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education the quantitative metrics of social media engagement in the existing literature was the initial step in the process of developing the taxonomy. Metrics were then classified by two key dimensions: (a) type (i.e., count-, time-, and topography-based), and (b) level of analysis (i.e., group, post, individual). The type dimension closely follows existing classifications of generalist behavioral observation metrics that often rely on the reoccurrence, time distribution, and topography of behavioral events (e.g., Johnston et al., 2019). For example, frequency is a count-based dimension, whereas latency is a time-based dimension under this classification. Metrics relying on more complex aspects of the event (e.g., length, meaning, use of emoticons) were consid- ered topography-based metrics. The level of analysis is a result of the practical use of engagement metrics in social media, which may be reported at the level of the individual (e.g., commenting frequency of Student A), group (e.g., commenting fre- quency of Group A), or post (e.g., commenting frequency of Post A). Evidently, not all metrics could be practically implemented at all levels of analysis, for example, posting frequency could only be obtained at the group and individual levels, but not at the post level. A final step in this process involved extending the identified metrics by adding new exemplar metrics within the proposed categories. These additions have not been used in the literature yet but are conceivably practical in this context. For example, reacting latency is a time-based metric that is yet to be utilized in this literature. The taxonomy was developed by consensus among the authors and is intended as an evidence-informed non-comprehensive repertoire of metrics. It should be noted that taxonomies proposed in psychology, and in behavior analysis in particular, often follow a rational process (e.g., Hackenberg 2018), and only rarely can a taxonomy be the result of a purely quantitative classification (e.g., Matthews et al., 1987). Results General Characteristics of Studies Table  1 summarizes the results of the data extraction process. A pooled sample of 11,605 students participated in a total of 75 selected studies (age range, 17–60, 69.1% female). Social sciences (e.g., psychology and sociology) was the most com- mon field of study among the studies reviewed (30.7%, n = 23), followed by lan- guage and communication (e.g., second language learning courses) (29.3%, n = 22), computer and technology (16%, n = 12), physical and life sciences (e.g., astronomy) (9.3%, n = 7), and vocational programs (e.g., digital content management) (5.3%, n = 4). The studies were geographically varied. There were missing values in some of the variables targeted for data extraction, including age of the students (n = 52), gender of the students (n = 42), course level (n = 1), and field of study (n = 3). Overall, 53.3% of studies (n = 40) evaluated an intervention mediated by a social media platform. Of these, 26.7% (n = 20) used a between-group design, and 26.7% (n = 20) used a pre-post within-subject design with no control group. None of the between-group studies was a randomized controlled trial. Observational or correla- tional studies that did not evaluate an intervention but conducted regression analyses 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 Characteristics of Included Studies (n = 75) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Abd-El-Aal and 99 NR 88% SS F Egypt UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Steele (2017) hoc SIT) Abney et al. 144 21 49.3% B T US UG Observational SIT (ad hoc) N/A Achievement (2018) (SIT) Akcaoglu and 62 adults NR PC F US NU Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Lee (2018) (WS) hoc SIT) Al-Azawei 143 18–20 47.6 C&T F Iraq UG Observational SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (2019) hoc SIT) Albayrak & 42 NR NR P&L F Turkey UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Yildirim(2015) hoc SIT) Alberth (2019) 64 NR NR L&C F Indonesia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement, Other (SIT) (WS) writing skills (objective) Alghazo & Nash 322 NR 34.2% SS W Saudi Arabia UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement N/A (2017) (BG) missed ses- (objective) sions) 96 NR NR SS F Turkey UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Altunkaya and Topuzkanamış (BG) (2018) Arabacioglu and 42 NR 61.9% C&T F Turkey UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Other (SIT) Akar-Vural (BG) (2014) Bacile (2013) 86 NR NR B F/T/I US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A (WS) posts, likes) Bahati (2015) 84 NR 28.6% SS F Rwanda G Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad hoc SIT) Bajko et al. 76 18–40 64.5% C&T NR Canada UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (2016) (BG) hoc SIT) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Balcikanli (2015) 113 18–23 85% L&C F Turkey UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Carver (2019) 83 NR NR L&C I US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (WS) hoc SIT) Chen (2015) 134 18–40 48.6 SS F Taiwan UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement Satisfaction (ad (WS) (objective) hoc SIT) Clements (2015) 78 NR NR P&L F Canada UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement Other (SIT) (WS) posts, com- (objective) ments, likes) Daniels & Bill- 20 19–34 NR NR F US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A ingsley (2014) (WS) posts) Delen, (2017) 58 NR NR SS F Turkey UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement N/A (WS) comments) (objective) Demirbilek 51 NR 80% C&T F Turkey UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Other (SIT) (2015) Dizon & Than- 23 NR NR L&C F Japan UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A yawatpokin  (WS) (2018) Dougherty & 170 NR NR SS F US UG Observational Behavioral (# Achievement, Satisfaction (ad Andercheck posts and completed hoc SIT) (2014) likes) assignments (objective) Duncan & Barc- 586 18- + 25 49.1% PC F US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad zyk (2016) (BG) hoc SIT) Ercoskun et al., 1450 NR 68% SS NR Turkey UG Observational Behavioral (# of NA NA 2019 posts) Evans (2014) 252 18–24 51% PC T UK UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Gamble & 97 18 48.4% L&C F Japan UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Wilkins (2014) hoc SIT) Giannikas (2019) 14 25–60 75% L&C F Republic of UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Cyprus hoc SIT) Goktalay (2015) 41 NR 86% SS F Turkey UG Intervention Standardized N/A Achievement (BG) test (UTAUT) (SIT) Gordon (2016) 21 NR NR C&T F US UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts, com- ments, likes Gregory et al. 78 NR 32.1% PC F US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction and (2014) (BG) achievement (ad hoc SIT) Gregory et al. 138 NR NR P&L F US UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A (2016) Guo et al. (2018) 129 18–24 NR B F US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (BG) hoc SIT) Harting (2017) 9 NR NR L&C F Japan UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement Satisfaction (ad (WS) posts) (objective) hoc SIT) Hennessy et al. 150 20 a 35 53.3% P&L F UK UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) Achievement Satisfaction (ad (2016) (objective) hoc SIT) Hou et al. (2015) 50 NR NR C&T F Taiwan UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts and comments) Ibarra (2018) 30 NR NR L&C F Ecuador NU Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement Satisfaction (ad (WS) (objective) hoc SIT) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Lee and Lee 108 NR NR NR F South Korea NR Intervention Behavioral N/A N/A (2016) (BG) (semantic analysis metric for comments) Luo (2018) 24 19–22 NR SS T US UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts and characters per post) Martínez-Car- 92 NR NR C&T T Spain UG Observational Behavioral N/A N/A dama and Cari- (# specific dad-Sebastián hashtags) (2019) Miller (2013) 59 NR NR P&L F US UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement N/A (WS) posts and (objective) comments per student) Moghavvemi 170 NR NR P&L F Malaysia UG Intervention Standardized N/A N/A and Salarzadeh (WS) test (UTAUT) Janatabadi (2018) Montoneri (2015) 23 NR NR L&C F Taiwan UG Observational Behavioral Achievement Satisfaction (ad (# likes and (objective) hoc SIT) views by post) Montoneri (2017) 32 NR NR L&C F Taiwan UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Other (SIT) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Naghdipour 25 NR 52% L&C F Turkey UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A & Eldridge, comments (2016) and posts and comment- generating posts) Narayan et al. 336 NR NR SS T New Zealand UG Intervention Behavioral N/A Other (SIT) (2019) (WS) (# tweets, hashtags and posts) Nazir and Brou- 74 20–34 30% NR F Netherlands UG Intervention Behavioral N/A Satisfaction (ad wer (2019) (BG) (students and hoc SIT) instructors # posts and comments) Nkhoma et al., 136 NR NR SS F Vietnam UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Achievement (2015) (WS) (ad hoc SIT) Orawiwatnakul 82 NR NR L&C F Turkey UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement Satisfaction (ad & Wichadee (WS) posts) (objective) hoc SIT) (2016) Owens & Nuss- 27 NR 93% SS T US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A Other (SIT) baum (2017) (WS) posts) Pai et al. (2017a) 154 NR NR C&T F US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A (BG) posts, com- ments, likes) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Pai et al. (2017b) 142 18 NR C&T F US UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A (BG) posts, com- ments, likes; textual length of posts and comments) Peeters and Pre- 157 17–52 NR L&C F Belgium UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A torius (2020) (BG) posts across students) Ping and Maniam 30 NR NR L&C F Malaysia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement N/A (2015) (BG) (objective) Popescu and 74 22–40 23% SS T Romania UG Intervention Behavioral (# N/A N/A Badea (2020) (BG) tweets) Purnamasari 56 NR NR L&C F Indonesia UG Observational SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (2019) hoc SIT) Rahman et al. 108 16–35 54.2% SS F US UG Observational SIT (ad hoc N/A Satisfaction (ad (2020) hoc SIT) Riady (2014) 1194 NR NR SS F Indonesia UG Qualitative Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts, links, photos,events, updates, shared docs) Rubrico & 59 19–27 98.3% L&C F Malaysia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Hashim (2014) (WS) hoc SIT) Saifudin et al. 58 22–26 57% SS F Malaysia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A (2016) (WS) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Schroeder and 128 NR NR C&T F US UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A Greenbowe posts) (2009) Sheeran and 471 17–59 76.7% SS F Australia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad Cummings (BG) hoc SIT) (2018) Shih (2011) 23 NR 78.3% L&C F Taiwan UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement Satisfaction (ad (WS) comments and (objective) hoc SIT) likes) Sittiwong & 38 NR NR C&T F Thailand UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Wongnam (2015) Slim & Hafedh, 102 NR NR L&C F Saudi Arabia UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) Achievement N/A (2019) (BG) (objective) Teixeira & Hash 45 NR NR SS T US UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Satisfaction (ad (2017) hoc SIT) Tran (2016) 21 NR 14.3% L&C F Vietnam UG Observational Behavioral (# Achievement Satisfaction (ad posts and (objective) hoc SIT) likes) Tucker (2015) 16 NR 75% PC F US UG Intervention SIT (ad hoc) N/A Other (SIT) (BG) Tur & Marin 153 NR NR SS T Spain UG Observational Behavioral N/A N/A (2015) (# tweets, retweets, and comments) VanDoorn & 20 NR NR SS F Australia UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A Achievement Eklund (2013) (SIT) Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Study n Age Gender (% Field of study SMP Country Level Study Design Engagement Outcome variables female) metric Quantitative Qualitative Wang et al. 415 NR 63.2% SS F Taiwan UG Observational SIT (ad hoc) Personality tests N/A (2013) (Standarized) Whittaker et al. 42 NR NR P&L F Australia UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A (2014) posts) Wu et al., (2020) 24 NR 52.2% C&T F Taiwán UG Observational Behavioral (# N/A N/A posts and aver- age of words) Yagci (2015) 177 NR 54.2% L&C F Iraq UG Qualitative SIT (ad hoc) N/A N/A Yu (2014) NR NR NR L&C F Taiwan UG Qualitative Behavioral (# N/A Satisfaction (ad posts) hoc SIT) Zhang and Lu 41 18–29 NR L&C F Ireland UG Intervention Behavioral (# Achievement N/A (2014) (BG) characters) (objective) B Business, BG Between-groups design,  C&T Computer and technology, F Facebook, G Graduate, L&C Language & communication, N/A Not applicable, NR Not reported, NU Non-university course, P&L Physical & life sciences, PC Professional courses, SIT Survey or interview, SMP Social media platform, SS Social sciences, T Twitter, UG College/Undergraduate, UTAUT User acceptance of information technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003), W WhatsApp, WS Within-subjects design If available, quantitative engagement metrics are reported in the column Engagement metric Journal of Behavioral Education of engagement and personal outcomes cross-sectionally were the second most fre- quent study design (24%, n = 18). The remaining studies were prospective qualitative studies that did not include a formal intervention or control group (21.3%, n = 16). Predictive and Outcome Variables Some studies introduced social media platforms as an intervention intended to enhance academic achievement. Among intervention studies, 22.7% (n = 17) used pre-post academic achievement evaluated through ad hoc surveys, assignment marks, objective tests, and course grades. Sixteen of these intervention studies pro- spectively manipulated the introduction of a social media platform as a deliberate intervention. Finally, 11 studies (14.7%) evaluated both engagement and achieve- ment with qualitative methods. Some qualitative studies used ad hoc surveys to evaluate additional outcomes of the students’ educational experience while using the social media platform. Spe- cifically, 28 studies evaluated student satisfaction using the social media platform (37.3%, n = 19), and five studies assessed the sense of community belonging (10.2%, n = 5). Additional outcomes (e.g., intrinsic motivation) were not observed more than twice in the pool of studies included in the review. The vast majority of included studies that used qualitative methods did not report any additional outcomes (see Table 1 for details). Social Media Platforms and Engagement Approximately half of the studies selected (52%, n = 39) utilized ad hoc inter- views and surveys to estimate the degree of social media participation among stu- dents, whereas thirty-three studies (44%) used some form of quantitative analysis of engagement based on the metrics provided by the social media platform (e.g., frequency of likes, comments, and posts). Table 2 summarizes the objective meas- ures of social media engagement present in this literature. Specifically, Clements (2015), Gordon (2016), and Pai et al., (2017a, 2017b) computed the total number (frequency) of likes, comments, and posts from the group of students using the social network as a teaching and communication channel. In addition, eight stud- ies used the frequency of posts and comments only (Hou et al., 2015; Lim, 2010; Luo, 2018; Miller, 2013; Naghdipour & Eldridge, 2016; Nazir & Brouwer, 2019; Peeters and Pretorius 2020; Wu et  al., 2020). Miller (2013) departed from this trend by extracting the frequency of posts and comments per student as well as exploring posting immediacy. Luo (2018) and Wu et al., (2020) extracted the total number of characters composing each social media comment, while Nazir and Brouwer (2019) conducted a systematic theme analysis using the text of Face- book comments as samples. Bacile (2013), Dougherty and Andercheck (2014) and Tran (2016) collected the frequency of posts and likes, Shih (2011) the fre- quency of likes and comments, and Montoneri (2015) the frequency of views and likes per post. Finally, eight additional studies reported the frequency of posts as their single quantitative engagement outcome (Daniels & Billingsley 2014; 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Table 2 Objective Measures of Social Media Engagement in the Tertiary Education Literature References Platform Level of analysis Frequency Other posts Comments Reactions Bacile (2013) Facebook Group • • Clements (2015) Facebook Group • • • Daniels & Billingsley (2014) Facebook Group • Dougherty & Andercheck (2014) Facebook Group • • Ercoskun et al., 2019 Facebook Group • Gordon (2016) Facebook Group • • • Harting (2017) Facebook Group • Hou et al. (2015) Facebook Group • • Lee and Lee (2016) Facebook Group • Lim (2010) Facebook Group • • Luo (2018) Facebook Group • • • Martínez-Cardama and Caridad- Twitter Group • Sebastián (2019) Miller (2013) Facebook Student • • Montoneri (2015) Facebook Post • • Naghdipour & Eldridge, (2016) Facebook Group • • Narayan et al. (2019) Twitter Group • • • Nazir and Brouwer (2019) Facebook Group • • Orawiwatnakul & Wichadee Facebook Group • (2016) Owens & Nussbaum (2017) Facebook Group • Pai et al. (2017a) Facebook Group • • • Pai et al. (2017b) Facebook Group • • • Peeters and Pretorius (2020) Facebook Group • • Popescu and Badea (2020) Twitter Group • Riady (2014) Facebook Group • • Schroeder and Greenbowe (2009) Facebook Group • Shih (2011) Facebook Group • • Tran (2016) Facebook Group • • Tur et al. (2015) Twitter Group • • • Whittaker et al. (2014) Facebook Group • Wu et al., (2020) Facebook Group • • • Yu (2014) Facebook Group • Zhang & Lu (2014) Facebook Group • • Posts, comments, and reactions are considered equivalent to tweets, replies, and retweets, respectively Ercoskun et  al., 2019; Harting, 2017; Orawiwatnakul & Wichadee 2016; Owens & Nussbaum 2017; Riady, 2014; Schroeder & Greenbowe, 2009; Whittaker et al., 2014; Yu, 2014). All above-mentioned studies utilized Facebook as their integrated social media platform. Four additional studies used Twitter; Tur and Marin (2015), Narayan et al. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education (2019), and Popescu and Badea (2020) extracted the frequency of tweets, retweets, and replies to tweets, while Martínez-Cardama and Caridad-Sebastián (2019) com- puted the total number of hashtags. Finally, Alghazo and Nash (2017) used the tex- ting social media app WhatsApp and monitored class attendance and missed assign- ments (social media engagement outcomes were not reported). In addition, Goktalay (2015), and Moghavvemi and Salarzadeh Janatabadi (2018) used standardized tests as an indirect assessment of social media engagement. Discussion The current study reviewed the literature on social media as aids to education with the end goal of proposing a taxonomy of behavioral outcomes that could be utilized in experimental, translational, and applied research. Specifically, we reviewed the engagement metrics reported in studies using social media platforms as a learning channel in tertiary education. While most of the studies reviewed were qualitative, the systematic review provided a solid basis for a taxonomy including frequency- and time-based outcomes. Our descriptive analysis showed that most studies utilized ad hoc surveys to document social media engagement and satisfaction (e.g., Gregory  et al., 2014), while a minority of studies focused on objective engagement indicators including posts, comments, and reactions (e.g., Peeters & Pretorius 2020). Most interventional studies evaluated the addition of a social media platform on student satisfaction (Akcaoglu & Lee 2018), while few focused on objective or standardized academic achievement outcomes. For example, Dougherty & Andercheck (2014) correlated engagement, as estimated by the frequency of Facebook posts and reactions, with objective academic performance evaluated through weekly multiple-choice tests. Interventional studies followed pre-post within-subject and between-groups designs. Control groups were either withdrawn from the possibility of interacting through a target social media platform (Alghazo & Nash, 2017) or were exposed to a passive course instructor (Peeters & Pretorius 2020). Controlled studies lacked randomiza- tion (no RCTs were identified). Specifically, participants in experimental groups were often offered a choice to participate in a social media platform as part of their course, while those in the control group underwent the usual course format without a social media channel to enhance peer-to-peer or instructor-to-student interaction (e.g., Gregory et al., 2014). Overall, this literature offers a limited picture of the quantitative engagement responses that could be recorded from social media platforms. Objectively defined engagement responses involved primarily posting and reacting frequency, whereas more sophisticated time-based or event-related outcomes were rarely explored (e.g., comment latency, percentage of individuals posting). In a notable exception, Miller (2013) studied posting frequency and posting immediacy. Posting immediacy may be defined as the time elapsed from a target instructor post to a post-related student response. Textual analysis methodology, including theme detection and sentiment analysis, which have become common social media research methods (Angus, 2017; Thelwall, 2017), were rare occurrences within this literature. Nazir and Brouwer 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education (2019) illustrate an exception to this trend by qualitatively analyzing 67 post tran- scripts and comments made by both students and instructors in a Facebook group over the course of eight weeks. The aim of the textual analysis was to classify posts and comments according to three categories, “social presence,” “cognitive pres- ence,” and “teaching presence.” As per our taxonomy development process, we used the metrics documented in the literature (Table  2) as the basis to propose a non-compressive collection of behavior-based engagement metrics (Table 3). This summary is provided as a sam- ple of relevant and intuitive metrics and is not intended as an exhaustive collection of all possible outcomes. Some of the proposed metrics are yet to be utilized in empirical studies. Existing metrics were divided into three categories, those based on the frequency or count of responses (count-based), those derived from the tim- ing of the response (time-based), and those involving the automated analyses of the response length, content, and semantics (topography-based or text analysis). Some of these metrics can be applied to an individual, group, or post as level of analysis. For example, commenting frequency (i.e., total number of comments over a period of time), could refer to a group (i.e., total number of comments made by a group of individuals over a period of time), an individual (i.e., total number of comments made by an individual over a period of time), or a post (i.e., total number of com- ments by any individual responding to a particular post over a period of time). Posting frequency provides yet another example of a count-based metric, which may be defined as the total number of posts over a period of time (e.g., week, semes- ter) and could be applicable to a group or an individual (Table 3). For example, Pai et. al. (2017a) monitored the instructor-led interactions in a Facebook group con- sisting of 150 biology students over a period of eight weeks. Authors extracted the total number of monthly posts by both students and instructors. The results of their descriptive analysis indicated that spontaneous student posting increased gradu- ally over time (for an individual-level analysis of posting frequency see for example Tran, 2016). Posting frequency is significant in that, unlike commenting and react- ing, reveals a spontaneous (unprompted) engagement with the discussion topic. Posting frequency can also be computed as a relative measure (i.e., total number of posts made by an individual or subgroup of individuals as a fraction of the total number of posts in the whole group or a different subgroup). Relative posting fre- quency may be used to obtain valuable information such as peer-to-peer or instruc- tor-to-peer subgroup interaction or to provide data and compare the frequency of participation between subgroups within a wider social media group. These outcomes could also inform the correlation between engagement and academic performance or the effects on participation of an instructor-led intervention directed to a particu- lar subgroup. An example of relative posting frequency can be found in Nazir and Brouwer (2019). The authors obtained the percentage of total posts and comments, including those specifically made by students and moderators in a Facebook group. However, relative measures are rarely used in the literature. Time-based measures require additional attention. We highlight two common behavior dimensions yet to be explored as part of a quantitative analysis of engage- ment responses in education: latency and inter-response time (e.g., Rohrer & Wix- ted, 1994). Comment latency can be obtained by calculating time elapsed between 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education 1 3 Table 3 A proposed taxonomy of quantitative metrics of social media engagement Metric & level of analysis Definition & example reference if available Count-based Posting frequency Total number of posts over a period of time (e.g., week, semester). Pai et. al. (2017a) G, I, P Commenting frequency Total number of comments over a period of time (e.g., week, semester). Naghdipour & Eldridge, G, I, P (2016) Reacting frequency Total number of reactions over a period of time (e.g., week, semester). Montoneri (2015) G, I, P Percentage individuals posting Ratio of the total number of students publishing to the total number of posts Percentage individuals commenting Ratio of the total number of students commenting to the total number of comments in the study group G, P Student-instructor posting ratio Ratio between the number of posts published by a specific group of people (e.g., students) and the total number of posts published (e.g., students and faculty members). Nazir and Brouwer (2019) Student-instructor commenting ratio Ratio between the number of comments posted by a specific group of people (e.g., students) and the total number of comments posted (e.g., students and faculty members). Nazir and Brouwer (2019) Percentage individuals reacting Ratio between the number of reactions posted by a specific group of people (e.g., students) and the total number of reactions posted (e.g., students and faculty) Time-based Commenting latency Time elapsed between the appearance of a post and the appearance of a comment G, I, P Reacting latency Time elapsed between the appearance of a post and the appearance of a reaction to that post G, I, P Posting inter-response time Time elapsed between successive posts. Lindström et al. (2021) G, I Commenting inter-response time Time elapsed between the publication of a comment made by a person and the next comment I, P Reacting inter-response time Time elapsed between the reaction published by one person to the next reaction I, P Text analysis Post length Total number of characters in a post. Pai et al., (2017a, 2017b) G, I, P Comment length Total number of characters in a comment. Pai et al., (2017a, 2017b) G, I, P Theme analysis Occurrence and co-occurrence of words appearing in a text using an algorithmic process generated G, I, P by software. Angus (2017) Sentiment analysis Total occurrence of terms analyzed by lexicon algorithms using software to detect sentiment-related G, I, P patterns. Thelwall (2017) I Individual, G Group, P Post Journal of Behavioral Education a post or comment and its response. This parameter can be obtained for an indi- vidual (e.g., mean commenting latency of an individual), group (e.g., mean com- menting latency of a group) or post (e.g., mean commenting latency of comments to a post). An example of the use of comment latency on social networks can be found in Lindström et al. (2021), who used this metric to evaluate the effects of receiving feedback in the form of “likes” from other participants. Comment latency allowed Lindström et al. to demonstrate that the posting behavior of participants has operant characteristics and is causally influenced by social rewards. Even though the study did not have an educational component, Lindström et  al. pioneering quantitative analysis demonstrates the potential of engagement responses to reveal operant pro- cesses. On the other hand, inter-response time can be defined as the time that elapses between two comments (comment inter-response time) or two reactions (reaction inter-response time) made by an individual. Inter-response time describes the pace at which a behavior is performed, which may be informative in online environments where receiving positive responses may be in part a function of response omission (e.g., an instructor may be more likely to respond favorably to posts from students that have not participated recently in a social media group). Most of the proposed metrics are widely used in applied behavior analysis, spe- cifically when evaluating teaching procedures for students with and without devel- opmental disability. For example, latency has been used to monitor the time elapsed from the presentation of an instruction to the initiation of a relevant response (Koegel et  al., 2010). Frequency, defined as the total number of times a behavior occurs (Kubina & Lin, 2008), is also widely used in educational settings (Bishop et al., 2020). Frequency provides information on how often target responses are met being a critical outcome for self-paced and fluency-based teaching–learning para- digms (Kubina & Morrison, 2000). It is likely that these metrics that have already demonstrated their effectiveness on educational contexts will also prove useful in the rapidly expanding field of educational applications of social media. In the cur - rent review we identified only six studies that quantitatively measured engagement using frequency (i.e., total number of posts and reactions) concurrently evaluated academic performance. For example, Shih (2011) and Montoneri (2015) obtained measures before and after completing questionnaires based on a 5-point Likert scale assessing content, organization, structure, and orthographic content. By contrast, Alghazo and  Nash (2017), Dougherty and Andercheck (2014), Miller (2013), and Tran (2016) used final exams grades or course assignment marks to estimate aca- demic performance. The evidence available still portrays a much fragmentary pic- ture on the potential relation between social media engagement and academic per- formance (meta-analyses remain impractical). Text analysis provides an additional means for processing social media engage- ment inputs in educational contexts. Text length (i.e., post length or comment length) is among the most elementary text analysis metrics available. For example, Pai et al., (2017a, 2017b) found that character count was larger for posts than com- ments. However, the authors did not assess the association between textual length and academic performance. Secondly, theme and sentiment analysis may also have heuristic value in this context. Theme analysis allows for the automated process- ing of natural language in order to generate a hierarchy of topics, identify patterns 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education of interest, and interpret communicative processes (Angus, 2017). There are multi- ple text analysis algorithms available (see, for example, Xu et al., 2022) that can be useful for processing large volumes of text extracted from social media and obtain thematic trends that would be impossible to obtain otherwise. In addition, textual analysis metrics can provide an indication of the social validity of interventions. For example, in a recent study by Anderson et  al. (2021), thematic and textual analy- ses were conducted to assess the social validity of Likert-type behavioral-analytic scales. The more complex textual analysis metrics (i.e., sentiment and theme analy- sis) are yet to be implemented in the scientific literature on educational interventions using social media as a potential learning channel. Lastly, sentiment analysis metrics can help to understand the role of emotional and motivational factors in communication processes (e.g., Thelwall, 2017). Various algorithms can estimate the intensity and quantity of sentiments expressed in a large volume of texts to ascertain sentiment patterns over time. A study by Ortigosa et al. (2014) demonstrated the possibility of obtaining useful data from Facebook posts to obtain information about learning experiences arising from interaction and posts generated in social networks. Data extraction was evaluated, although not the useful- ness of the information obtained from the interactions. Sentiment analysis can also provide instructors with critical ongoing information about student engagement and performance (see, for example, Zhou & Jun-min, 2020). Various limitations to the current analysis and its supporting literature should be noted. Our review identified limitations in the analyses commonly used to assess engagement.. Specifically, studies that assessed engagement often relied on ad hoc Likert-type questionnaires. Only a few studies reported behaviorally derived direct engagement responses (e.g., frequency of posting). In addition, over one-third of the studies reviewed were conducted in the context of second language learning courses (e.g., English as a second language, ESL), thereby limiting the diversity of fields of study sampled in this review. The motivation and social dynamics of vocational (e.g., ESL) versus academic courses may be fundamentally different. Third, while most studies focused on social media engagement (using qualitative and quantitative approaches), only a handful of studies concurrently monitored academic achieve- ment and other relevant outcomes. Fourth, none of the studies reviewed included a control group or control condition that equated student exposure to instructor inputs. This limitation is not trivial, as equating instructor-led inputs and exposure to course content may be a critical methodological standard to ensure the relevance of the control group in future RCTs. Fifth, the data extraction process including the sec- ondary observations were conducted by the authors, which were privy to the goals of the study and may have been subjected to bias. Finally, the proposed taxonomy of social media engagement metrics is not com- prehensive as it is intended only to illustrate the range of potential outcomes that could be utilized in this context. Moreover, the metrics proposed ex novo (without precedent in the literature) have not been validated in empirical studies. Validation studies have the potential of expanding the proposed taxonomy further. For example, indices known to provide the same information may be combined as part of sum- mary metrics (e.g., combined engagement indices may result from adding views, comments, and reactions). 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education Conclusion The analysis of discrete engagement responses opens the door to human operant and applied behavior-analytic studies within this field. In addition, pre- and post- test measures of students’ academic performance should be incorporated to confirm whether the increase in engagement may be a good predictor of academic achieve- ment. Randomized controlled trials are also missing from this literature, which are critical to determine the effectiveness of educational interventions delivered through the social media channel. These efforts could help to establish and empirical basis for the now pervasive trend of integrating social media in higher education (Aldah- douh et al., 2020). This line of research could potentially help higher education insti- tutions and educators to adopt social media platforms in the development of educa- tional plans and teaching strategies. Finally, wider use of quantitative behaviorally based metrics is needed in order to further evaluate an operant learning model of online behavior in educational settings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10864- 023- 09516-6. Author Contributions AT-R: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing—original draft preparation. JV-O: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Fund- ing acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing—reviewing & editing. AP-BP: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing—reviewing & editing. AC-E: Writing—reviewing & editing. SC: Writing—reviewing & editing. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Council of Australian University Librar- ies and its member The University of Auckland. The first author received a one-year research contract funded through a Ramon y Cajal Fellowship (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain) awarded to second author (reference no. RYC-2016-20706). This work was supported by a research contract between ABA España (Madrid, Spain) and The University of Auckland (Auckland, New Zealand) (project no. CON02739). Declarations Conflict of interest This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor in Psychology of Dr. Aida Tarifa-Rodriguez at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain). The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education References References included in the review are highlighted with an asterisk *Abd-El-Aal, W. M. M., & Steele, A. (2017). We all need we: The effect of using Facebook and group fieldwork on students’ interdependence and awareness of STSE Issues. World Journal of Educa- tion, 7(1), 53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5430/ wje. v7n1p 53 *Abney, A., Cook, L., Fox, A., & Stevens, J. (2018). Intercollegiate social media education ecosys- tem. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(3), 254–269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02734 75318 *Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2018). Using Facebook groups to support social presence in online learn- ing. Distance Education, 39(3), 334–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01587 919. 2018. 14768 42 *Al-Azawei, A. (2019). What drives successful social media in education and e-learning? A compara- tive study on Facebook and moodle. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 18(June), 253–274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 28945/ 4360 *Albayrak, D., & Yildirim, Z. (2015). Using social networking sites for teaching and learning: Stu- dents’ involvement in and acceptance of Facebook® as a course management system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 155–179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07356 33115 571299 *Alberth. (2019). Use of Facebook, students’ intrinsic motivation to study writing, writing self-effi- cacy and writing performance. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(1), 21–36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14759 39X. 2018. 15528 92 Aldahdouh, T. Z., Nokelainen, P., & Korhonen, V. (2020). Technology and social media usage in higher education: The influence of individual innovativeness. SAGE Open. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 21582 44019 899441 *Alghazo, Y. M., & Nash, J. A. (2017). The effect of social media usage on course achievement and behavior. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(2), 161–167. *Altunkaya, H., & Topuzkanamış, E. (2018). The effect of using facebook in writing education on writ- ing achievement, attitude, anxiety and self-efficacy perception. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(10), 2133–2142. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13189/ ujer. 2018. 061010 Anderson, R., Taylor, S., Taylor, T., & Virues-Ortega, J. (2021). Thematic and textual analysis methods for developing social validity questionnaires in applied behavior analysis. Behavioral Interven- tions. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bin. 1832 Angus, D. (2017). Theme detection in social media. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (pp. 530–544). SAGE. *Arabacioglu, T., & Akar-Vural, R. (2014). Using facebook as a LMS? Turkish Online Journal of Educa- tional Technology, 13(2), 202–215. *Bacile, T. J. (2013). The Klout challenge: Preparing your students for social media marketing. Market- ing Education Review, 23(1), 87–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2753/ mer10 52- 80082 30114 *Bahati, B. (2015). Extending student’ discussions beyond lecture room walls via Facebook. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(15), 160–172. *Bajko, R., Hodson, J., Seaborn, K., Livingstone, P., & Fels, D. (2016). Edugamifying media studies: Student engagement, enjoyment, and interest in two multimedia and social media undergraduate classrooms. Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ), 14(6), 14. Balcikanli, C. (2015). Prospective English language teachers ’ experiences in Facebook: Adoption, use and educational use in Turkish context. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 11(3), 82–99. Bishop, S. K., Moore, J. W., Dart, E. H., Radley, K., Brewer, R., Barker, L. K., Quintero, L., Litten, S., Gilfeather, A., Newborne, B., & Toche, C. (2020). Further investigation of increasing vocalizations of children with autism with a speech-generating device. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(1), 475–483. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jaba. 554 *Carver, J. (2019). InstaFrench: An investigation of learner perceptions of social media and images to develop L2 writing. Dimension, 8, 27. Chafetz, M. D. (1986). Taxonomy in psychology: Looking for subatomic units. The Journal of Psychol- ogy, 120(2), 121–135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00223 980. 1986. 97126 21 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education *Chen, Y. C. (2015). Linking learning styles and learning on mobile Facebook. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(2), 94–114. https:// doi. org/ 10. 19173/ irrodl. v16i2. *Clements, J. C. (2015). Using Facebook to enhance independent student engagement: A case study of first-year undergraduates. Higher Education Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5539/ hes. v5n4p 131 *Daniels, K. N., & Billingsley, K. Y. (2014). “Facebook”- It’s not just for pictures anymore: The impact of social media on cooperative learning. I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 26634/ JET. 11.3. 3008 *Delen, I. (2017). Teaching argumentation by using facebook groups. International Journal of Instruc- tion, 10(1), 151–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12973/ iji. 2017. 10110a *Demirbilek, M. (2015). Social media and peer feedback: What do students really think about using Wiki and Facebook as platforms for peer feedback? Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 211– 224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14697 87415 589530 Dizon, G., & Thanyawatpokin, B. (2018). Web 2.0 tools in the EFL classroom: Comparing the effects of Facebook and blogs on L2 writing and interaction. EuroCALL Review, 26(1), 29–42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4995/ euroc all. 2018. 7947 Dougherty, K. D., & Andercheck, B. (2014). Using Facebook to engage learners in a large introductory course. Teaching Sociology, 42(2), 95–104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00920 55X14 521022 *Duncan, D. G., & Barczyk, C. C. (2016). Facebook’s effect on learning in higher education: An empiri- cal investigation. Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ), 14, 14–28. *Ercoşkun, N. C., Ozan, C., & Kıncal, R. Y. (2019). Investigation of affinity towards social media and expectations for success of university students. Journal of Educational Issues, 5(2), 73. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5296/ jei. v5i2. 14703 *Evans, C. (2014). Twitter for teaching: Can social media be used to enhance the process of learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 902–915. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12099 Floyd, F. J., Baucom, D. H., Godfrey, J. J., & Palmer, C. (1998). Observational methods. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive Clinical Psychology (pp. 1–21). Pergamon. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B0080- 4270(73) 00223-6 *Gamble, C., & Wilkins, M. (2014). Student attitudes and perceptions of using Facebook for language learning. Dimension, 49, 72. *Giannikas, C. (2019). Facebook in tertiary education: The impact of social media in e-learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53761/1. 17.1.3 *Goktalay, S. B. (2015). The impact of Facebook in teaching practicum: Teacher trainees perspectives. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(17), 2489–2500. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5897/ err20 15. 2446 *Gordon, J. (2016). How is language used to craft social presence in Facebook? A case study of an under- graduate writing course. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1033–1054. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639- 014- 9366-0 *Gregory, P., Gregory, K., & Eddy, E. (2014). The Instructional Network: Using Facebook to enhance undergraduate mathematics instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teach- ing, 33, 5–26. *Gregory, P. L., Gregory, K. M., & Eddy, E. R. (2016). Factors contributing to student engagement in an instructional Facebook group for undergraduate mathematics. The Journal of Computers in Math- ematics and Science Teaching, 35(3), 249. *Guo, R., Shen, Y., & Li, L. (2018). Using social media to improve student-instructor communication in an online learning environment. International Journal of Information and Communication Tech- nology Education, 14(1), 33–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ IJICTE. 20180 10103 Hackenberg, T. D. (2018). Token reinforcement: Translational research and application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(2), 393–435. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jaba. 439 *Harting, A. (2017). Using Facebook to improve L2 German students’ socio-pragmatic skills. The Euro- CALL Review, 25(1), 26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4995/ euroc all. 2017. 7014 *Hennessy, C. M., Kirkpatrick, E., Smith, C. F., & Border, S. (2016). Social media and anatomy educa- tion: Using Twitter to enhance the student learning experience in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(6), 505–515. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ase. 1610 Hettema, H., & Kuipers, T. A. F. (1988). The periodic table - its formalization, status, and relation to atomic theory. Erkenntnis, 28(3), 387–408. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF001 84902 Honig, W. K., & Staddon, J. E. R. (2022). Handbook of Operant Behavior (1st ed.). Routledge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97810 03256 670 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education *Hou, H. T., Wang, S. M., Lin, P. C., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Exploring the learner’s knowledge con- struction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: Comparison of an online dis- cussion forum and Facebook. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(6), 610– 620. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2013. 847381 *Ibarra, F. D. E. (2018). Is Facebook beneficial for writing practice? Ecuadorian polytechnic students speak up! Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 3–17. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis & Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2(1), 3–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0270- 4684(82) 90003-9 Johnston, J. M., Pennypacker, H. S., & Green, G. (2019). Strategies and Tactics of Behavioral Research and Practice (4th ed.). Routledge. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bush- or. 2009. 09. 003 Koegel, L. K., Singh, A. K., & Koegel, R. L. (2010). Improving motivation for academics in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(9), 1057–1066. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10803- 010- 0962-6 Kubina, R. M., & Lin, F.-Y. (2008). Defining frequency: A natural scientific term. The Behavior Analyst Today, 9(2), 125–129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0100 651 Kubina, R. M., & Morrison, R. S. (2000). Fluency in Education. Behavior and Social Issues, 10, 83–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5210/ bsi. v10i0. 133 *Lee, H. Y., & Lee, H. W. (2016). Comparing social network analysis of posts with counting of posts as a measurement of learners’ participation in Facebook discussions. Turkish Online Journal of Educa- tional Technology, 15(1), 11–19. *Lim, T. (2010). The use of Facebook for online discussions among distance learners. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(4), 72–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17718/ TOJDE. 17195 Lindström, B., Bellander, M., Schultner, D. T., Chang, A., Tobler, P. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2021). A computational reward learning account of social media engagement. Nature Communications, 12, 1311. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41467- 020- 19607-x *Luo, T. (2018). Delving into the specificity of instructional guidance in social media-supported learning environments. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 17(March), 37–54. https:// doi. org/ 10. 28945/ 3974 *Martínez-Cardama, S., & Caridad-Sebastián, M. (2019). Social media and new visual literacies: Pro- posal based on an innovative teaching project. Education for Information, 35(3), 337–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3233/ EFI- 180214 Masrom, M. B., Busalim, A. H., Abuhassna, H., & Mahmood, N. H. N. (2021). Understanding students’ behavior in online social networks: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educa- tional Technology in Higher Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s41239- 021- 00240-7 Matthews, B. A., Shimoff, E., & Catania, A. C. (1987). Saying and doing: A contingency-space analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20(1), 69–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1901/ jaba. 1987. 20- 69 *Miller, S. T. (2013). Increasing student participation in online group discussions via facebook. Astron- omy Education Review. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3847/ AER20 12031 *Moghavvemi, S., & Salarzadeh Janatabadi, H. (2018). Incremental impact of time on students’ use of E-learning via Facebook. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 560–573. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12545 *Montoneri, B. (2015). Impact of students’ participation to a Facebook group on their motivation and scores and on teacher’s evaluation. IAFOR Journal of Education, 3(1), 61–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22492/ ije.3. 1. 04 *Montoneri, B. (2017). Facebook posts as complementary teaching material for a French University course in Taiwan. IAFOR Journal of Education, 5(1), 141–162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22492/ ije.5. 1. 08 *Naghdipour, B., & Eldridge, N. H. (2016). Incorporating social networking sites into tradi- tional pedagogy: A case of Facebook. TechTrends, 60(6), 591–597. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11528- 016- 0118-4 *Narayan, V., Herrington, J., & Cochrane, T. (2019). Design principles for heutagogical learning: Imple- menting student-determined learning with mobile and social media tools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 86–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14742/ ajet. 3974 *Nazir, M., & Brouwer, N. (2019). Community of inquiry on Facebook in a formal learning setting in higher education. Education Sciences. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci901 0010 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education *Nkhoma, M., Cong, H. P., Au, B., Lam, T., Richardson, J., Smith, R., & El-Den, J. (2015). Facebook as a tool for learning purposes: Analysis of the determinants leading to improved students’ learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(2), 87–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14697 87415 574180 *Orawiwatnakul, W., & Wichadee, S. (2016). Achieving better learning performance through the discus- sion activity in facebook. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 1–8. Ortigosa, A., Martín, J. M., & Carro, R. M. (2014). Sentiment analysis in Facebook and its application to e-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31(1), 527–541. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2013. 05. 0244 *Owens, M., & Nussbaum, M. (2017). Twitter vs. Facebook: Using social media to promote collaborative argumentation in an online classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 28(3), 249–267. *Pai, A., McGinnis, G., Bryant, D., Cole, M., Kovacs, J., Stovall, K., & Lee, M. (2017a). Using Facebook groups to encourage science discussions in a large-enrollment biology class. Journal of Educa- tional Technology Systems, 46(1), 103–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00472 39516 675898 *Pai, A., Cole, M., Kovacs, J., Lee, M., Stovall, K., & McGinnis, G. (2017b). As long as you are here, can I interest in you some science? Increasing student engagement by co-opting a social networking site, Facebook for science discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(2), 153– 177. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00472 39517 729505 Papademetriou, C., Anastasiadou, S., Konteos, G., & Papalexandris, S. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of the social media technology on higher education. Education Sciences. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci120 40261 Parks-Stamm, E. J., Zafonte, M., & Palenque, S. M. (2017). The effects of instructor participation and class size on student participation in an online class discussion forum. British Journal of Education Technology, 48(6), 1250–1259. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12512 Paterlini, M. (2007). There shall be order. The legacy of Linnaeus in the age of molecular biology. EMBO Reports, 8(9), 814–816. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ sj. embor. 74010 61 *Peeters, W., & Pretorius, M. (2020). Facebook or fail-book: Exploring “community” in a virtual com- munity of practice. ReCALL, 32(3), 291–306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0958 34402 00000 99 *Ping, N. S., & Maniam, M. (2015). The effectiveness of facebook group discussions on writing per - formance: A study in matriculation college. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 4(1), 30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11591/ ijere. v4i1. 4489 *Popescu, E., & Badea, G. (2020). Exploring a community of inquiry supported by a social media-based learning environment. Educational Technology and Society, 23(2), 61–76. *Purnamasari, A. (2019). Pre-service EFL Teachers’ perception of using Facebook group for learning. JET (journal of English Teaching), 5(2), 104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 33541/ jet. v5i2. 1064 *Rahman, S., Ramakrishnan, T., & Ngamassi, L. (2020). Impact of social media use on student satisfac- tion in Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(3), 304–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ hequ. 12228 *Riady, Y. (2014). Assisted learning through facebook: A case study of universitas terbuka’s students group communities in Jakarta, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Educa- tion, 15(2), 227–238. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17718/ tojde. 71656 Rohrer, D., & Wixted, J. T. (1994). An analysis of latency and interresponse time in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 22(5), 511–524. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ bf031 98390 *Rubrico, J. G. U., & Hashim, F. (2014). Facebook-photovoice interface: Empowering non-native pre- service English language teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 16–34. *Saifudin, A. M., Yacob, A., & Saad, R. (2016). The Facebook-in-action: Challenging, harnessing and enhancing students class assignments and projects. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 1259–1265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13189/ ujer. 2016. 040602 *Schroeder, J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2009). The chemistry of Facebook: Using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry laboratory. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 5(4), 1–11. *Sheeran, N., & Cummings, D. J. (2018). An examination of the relationship between Facebook groups attached to university courses and student engagement. Higher Education, 76(6), 937–955. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 018- 0253-2 *Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Inte- grating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829–845. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14742/ ajet. 934 *Sittiwong, T., & Wongnam, T. (2015). The effective of using 5 simple steps (QSCCS) learning activities on Facebook to promote self-learning in the 21st century in technology printing and advertising 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education course for undergraduate students in education technology and communications. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(11), 843–846. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13189/ ujer. 2015. 031110 *Slim, H., & Hafedh, M. (2019). Social media impact on language learning for specific purposes: A study in English for business administration. Teaching English with Technology, 19(1), 56–71. Sobaih, A. E. E., Palla, I. A., & Baquee, A. (2022). Social media use in e-learning amid COVID 19 pan- demic: Indian students’ perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5380. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1909 5380 Statista (2021). Global social networks ranked by number of users 2021 https:// www. stati sta. com/ stati stics/ 272014/ global- social- netwo rks- ranked- by- number- of- users/ Statista (2023). Number of social media users worldwide from 2017 to 2027. https:// www. stati sta. com/ stati stics/ 278414/ number- of- world wide- social- netwo rk- users/ Statista (2022). Facebook: distribution of global audiences 2022, by age and gender. https:// www. stati sta. com/ stati stics/ 376128/ faceb ook- global- user- age- distr ibuti on/ Tawafak, R. M., AlFarsi, G., Jabbar, J., Malik, S. I., Mathew, R., AlSidiri, A., Shakir, M., & Romli, A. (2021). Impact of technologies during COVID-19 pandemic for improving behavior intention to use e-learning. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(1), 184–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3991/ IJIM. V15I01. 17847 *Teixeira, S., & Hash, K. M. (2017). Teaching Note—Tweeting macro practice: Social media in the social work classroom. Journal of Social Work Education, 53(4), 751–758. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10437 797. 2017. 12870 25 Thelwall, M. (2017). Sentiment analysis. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (pp. 545–556). SAGE. *Tran, P. (2016). Training learners to use Quizlet vocabulary activities on mobile phones in Vietnam with Facebook. JALT CALL Journal, 12(1), 43–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 29140/ jaltc all. v12n1. 201 Tucker, V. (2015). Using social media for student collaboration. Journal of Faculty Development, 29(2), 45–56. *Tur, G., & Marín, V. I. (2015). Enhancing learning with the social media: Student teachers’ perceptions on Twitter in a debate activity. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(1), 46–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7821/ naer. 2015.1. 102 *VanDoorn, G., & Eklund, A. A. (2013). Face to Facebook: Social media and the learning and teaching potential of symmetrical sychronous communication. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53761/1. 10.1.6 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information tech- nology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 30036 540 Virues-Ortega, J., Tarifa-Rodriguez, A., Pérez-Bustamante Pereira, A. G., Calero-Elvira, A., & Cowie, S. (2022a). Systematic review of quantitative indices of student social media engagement in tertiary education. Fighare. https:// doi. org/ 10. 6084/ m9. figsh are. 20105 219 Virues-Ortega, J., Clayton, K., Pérez-Bustamante, A., Gaerlan, B. F. S., & Fahmie, T. A. (2022b). Func- tional analysis patterns of automatic reinforcement: A review and component analysis of treatment effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 55(2), 481–512. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jaba. 900 *Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learn- ing, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01587 919. 2013. 835779 *Whittaker, A. L., Howarth, G. S., & Lymn, K. A. (2014). Evaluation of Facebook© to create an online learning community in an undergraduate animal science class. Educational Media International, 51(2), 135–145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09523 987. 2014. 924664 *Wu, J. Y., Hsiao, Y. C., & Nian, M. W. (2020). Using supervised machine learning on large-scale online forums to classify course-related Facebook messages in predicting learning achievement within the personal learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(1), 65–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2018. 15150 85 Xu, Q. A., Chang, V., & Jayne, C. (2022). A systematic review of social media-based sentiment analysis: Emerging trends and challenges. Decision Analytics Journal, 3, 100073. *Yagci, T. (2015). Blended learning via mobile social media & implementation of “EDMODO” in read- ing classes. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7575/ aiac. alls.v. 6n. 4p. *Yu, L.-T. (2014). A case study of using Facebook in an EFL English writing class: The perspective of a writing teacher. The JALT CALL Journal, 10(3), 189–202. https:// doi. org/ 10. 29140/ jaltc all. v10n3. 1 3 Journal of Behavioral Education *Zhang, Q., & Lu, Z. (2014). The writing of Chinese characters by CFL learners: Can writing on Face- book and using machine translation help? Language Learning in Higher Education, 4(2), 441–467. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ cercl es- 2014- 0023 Zhou, J., & Ye, J.-M. (2020). Sentiment analysis in education research: A review of journal publications. Interactive Learning Environments. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2020. 18269 85 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3

Journal

Journal of Behavioral Education – Springer Journals

Published: Apr 12, 2023

Keywords: Social media; Social media engagement; Achievement; Tertiary education; Behavioral engagement; Online education

There are no references for this article.