Comments on: ZOMG! Facebook use and student grades

By: jkd

jkd — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:19:17 +0000

All the focus on this one conference paper seems a bit crazy to me!

Well yes, but this result does (purportedly) confirm the media’s favorite storyline around SNS (i.e., Facebook is teh suxxor1!).

And as Fred points out, our research on FB at UNC showed close-enough-to-universal adoption rates such that non-adopters are, as Barry notes, probably atypical in other ways. I really would like to see the full numbers on this one, though.

By: Kevin R. Guidry

Kevin R. Guidry — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:56:13 +0000

I stopped by this poster session today and for what it’s worth Aryn seemed aghast at the press coverage and how this is being (mis)spun (her first words to me after I introduced myself were to timidly ask “Are you going to tear [my research] apart, too?” My heart went out to her!). From what I saw in her poster and what I heard in our brief discussion, she wasn’t making and causal links or any really strong conclusions whatsoever given the limitations of this small study. This seems to be a tempest in a teapot stirred vigorously by our friends in the media. Of all of the interesting, exciting, and important research that could (and should) have been (mis)reported at AERA it’s sad that this seems to have been one of the bigger stories.

But I’m making lemonade from this lemon by using this an another example of how the media report on and write about research. It’s a very timely example as this is exactly what I’m discussing with my students right now. And having all of this expert commentary makes this an incredibly rich example!

By: Barry Wellman

Barry Wellman — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:51:55 +0000

I also wonder if the small minority who don’t use Facebook are equivalent in other characteristics to those who do use it. I’d suspect they are atypical in other ways.

By: Nicole Ellison

Nicole Ellison — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:30:01 +0000

E, We also found no relationship between self-reported GPA and FB use in our 2006 ICA paper which later became the JCMC article. We dropped it out because it didn’t seem that interesting. Little did we know! I’ve also surveyed students about other educational uses of Facebook and have found that many use FB to set up study groups, talk about course material, and arrange project meetings. All the focus on this one conference paper seems a bit crazy to me!
Thanks for this thoughtful piece.

By: Eszter Hargittai

Eszter Hargittai — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:38:29 +0000

Sandeep, that may be the case, but you may end up writing a better paper by having considered the details of this press phenomenon, uhm, not that I want to draw a direct link between your paper and this issue.:-)

By: Sandeep Ray

Sandeep Ray — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:52:01 +0000

I should really be writing my paper instead of reading this which was a link off of Facebook.

By: HolfordWatch

HolfordWatch — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:13:38 +0000

Just to add to the moral alarm about Twitter, the Daily Mail reveals that an upcoming PNAS publication reveals that Twitter can make users immoral.

“A study suggests rapid-fire news updates and instant social
interaction are too fast for the ‘moral compass’ of the brain to
process.

The danger is that heavy Twitters and Facebook users could become
‘indifferent to human suffering’ because they never get time to
reflect and fully experience emotions about other people’s feelings.”
Declining grades, declining moral sensation, next thing it will be announced that it rots teeth (too busy tweeting to floss).

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:36:34 +0000

Eszter – yes, most of these high-engagement studies use online surveys, so coverage is certainly an issue. Reading my comment, I realize I didn’t mean to emphasize the particular percentage, but that the non-user cell is typically small. For the record, I don’t think that 95% adoption is typical, but rather that high adoption is typical. Does that make sense…looking forward to your data!

By: Eszter Hargittai

Eszter Hargittai — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:42:04 +0000

Fred, Facebook use in my study was 78.8%. We’re in the midst of entering data for another round this year, based on 650 cases entered so far, it looks like it’s going to be below 90%. Unlike most studies, my data collection is done on paper surveys so I may be getting more of the low-level Internet users who’re much more likely not to be Facebook users than others. (I don’t know how the studies you’re looking at collected their data, but my impression is that data collection is often done online, which is problematic when online engagement is one of the variables of interest.) Just a thought as you work on your piece.

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:02:38 +0000

Following Anomie, I also wonder about how this study was powered. In my research – using a list-based SRS at UNC, I found 95% adoption among undergraduates (+/-3). I’m also working on a meta-analysis and have found similar adoption rates at other universities. There would be no reason I can think of to suspect that OSU or ODU differ. If the sample is comprised of 200 undergraduates, you’re talking about 10 non-users.

In an analysis of variance, you can get significance between unbalanced groups if the variance is small. For example, if all ten of those non-users report an A GPA, and the 190 users have a more normally distributed B GPA, an ANOVA will find significance. This problem is compounded when the researcher asks for GPA data as interval (I’m not sure if that was the case here). For this reason, ANOVA (and other tests of difference) generally assume homogeneity of variances.

The tremendous uptake of Facebook on most college campuses hampers interesting research. In our study we looked at privacy behaviors by length of adoption. The number of subjects in the <1yr cell was so small that it has caused some analytic issues.

By: Anomie

Anomie — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:09:06 +0000

If they looked at grad students and undergrads, I can maybe see why they’d get a correlation. Grad students tend to get better grades just as a result of the way the system is set up (I mean, a C is failing for us). Grad students also are probably still less likely to be on Facebook or, at the least, use it less. But that’s more of a spurious effect based on cohort, not a causal one based on study habits.

And aren’t like 90% of all undergrads on Facebook now? Isn’t it hard make relevant distinctions on an action’s effects when damn near everyone is engaging in said action?

By: Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:44:42 +0000

Is there a relationship between facebook use and dissertation completion/quality?

Oh god I hope not I hope not Ihopenot hopenothopenothopenot…

By: Ankit Guglani

Ankit Guglani — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:58:22 +0000

Thanks for the post. None of the versions of the media articles (about this study) I’ve come across so far, go into detail of survey method, sampling method or anything. CNet also called a “technically incorrect” on it: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10217704-71.html.

– Ankit.G