The Platform Adoption Model (PAM): A Theoretical Framework to Address Barriers to Educational Networking

  • Dawn B. Branley-BellEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Social Networks book series (LNSN)


Social networking platforms are widely adopted as a social tool in everyday life. Research has identified that networking platforms may also bring many benefits when used in an educational environment. For instance, educational networking may lead to enhanced communication skills; increased teamwork and collaboration; greater comprehension of alternative viewpoints; improved creativity, productivity, and work efficiency; and increased learning speed. However, uptake of educational networking has been slower than expected, and there is an absence of theoretical models or frameworks to help understand and address this. The aim of this chapter is threefold: firstly, to provide a comprehensive overview of the current body of knowledge, identifying and collating barriers toward educational networking adoption and increased usage; secondly, to identify key theories of behavior change relevant to educational networking uptake; and thirdly, to build a comprehensive model and framework for overcoming the identified barriers and improving the contribution of educational networking platforms. This chapter achieves this by drawing upon four of the leading behavioral theories from psychology, computer science, and behavioral economics (theory of planned behavior, technology acceptance model, information system success model, and protection motivation theory) to build the platform adoption model. The model provides a theory-driven basis for future research that will be beneficial within academia and the wider audience, e.g., developers, educators, and learning establishments.


Theoretical model, Blended learning, Platform adoption Platform adoption model Behavior change 



Educational networking platform


Information system success model


Protection acceptance model


Protection motivation theory


Structural equation modelling


Social networking platform


Technology acceptance model


Theory of planned behavior


  1. Abdel Meguid, E., & Collins, M. (2017). Students’ perceptions of lecturing approaches: Traditional versus interactive teaching. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 8, 229–241. Scholar
  2. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80. Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Scholar
  4. Al-Mukhaini, E. M., Al-Qayoudhi, W. S., & Al-Badi, A. H. (2014). Adoption of social networking in education: A study of the use of social networks by higher education students in Oman. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 10(2), 143. Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. In Social learning theory (pp. 1–46). New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  6. Banks, M. S., Onita, C. G., Meservy, T. O., Banks, M., Shane, & Onita, C. G. (2010). Risky behavior in online social media: Protection motivation and social influence. In AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. Retrieved from
  7. Blythe, J. M., Coventry, L., & Little, L. (2015). Unpacking security policy compliance: The motivators and barriers of employees’ security behaviors. Retrieved from
  8. Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2002). The use of alternative social networking sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the E-learning benefits of Ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151–170. Retrieved from Scholar
  9. Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative social networking sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the E-learning benefits of Ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151–170. Retrieved from Scholar
  10. Branley, D. (2015). Risky behaviour: Psychological mechanisms underpinning social media users’ engagement. Durham University.Google Scholar
  11. Branley, D. B., & Covey, J. (2017a). Is exposure to online content depicting risky behavior related to viewers’ own risky behavior offline? Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 283–287. Scholar
  12. Branley, D. B., & Covey, J. (2017b). Pro-ana versus pro-recovery: A content analytic comparison of social media users’ communication about eating disorders on Twitter and Tumblr. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1356. Scholar
  13. Branley, D. B., & Covey, J. (2018). Risky behavior via social media: The role of reasoned and social reactive pathways. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 183–191. Scholar
  14. Caron, J., & Brennaman, K. (2014). Co-evolution of emerging technology, learning theory, and instructional design. Theories of Educational Technology, 9, 185. Scholar
  15. Carr, D. (2013, July 31). Universities create their own social networks for students – InformationWeek. InformationWeek. Retrieved from
  16. Chen, P. (2011). From CMS to SNS: Educational networking for urban teachers. Retrieved from
  17. Chisholm, J. F. (2006). Cyberspace violence against girls and adolescent females. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087, 74–89. Scholar
  18. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 3–8. Scholar
  19. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982. Scholar
  20. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 60. Scholar
  21. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 9. Scholar
  22. de-Marcos, L., Garcia-Lopez, E., & Garcia-Cabot, A. (2016). On the effectiveness of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing educational gaming, gamification & social networking. Computers & Education, 95, 99–113. Scholar
  23. Edmodo. (2019). Connect with students and parents in your paperless classroom | Edmodo. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from
  24. Elgaaied-Gambier, L., Monnot, E., & Reniou, F. (2018). Using descriptive norm appeals effectively to promote green behavior. Journal of Business Research, 82, 179. Retrieved from Scholar
  25. Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 153–160. Scholar
  26. George, D. R., & Dellasega, C. (2011). Use of social media in graduate-level medical humanities education: Two pilot studies from Penn State College of Medicine. Medical Teacher, 33(8), e429–e434. Scholar
  27. Gerstenfeld, P. B., Grant, D. R., & Chiang, C.-P. (2003). Hate online: A content analysis of extremist internet sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 29–44. Scholar
  28. Gregory, M. S.-J., & Lodge, J. M. (2015). Academic workload: The silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education, 36(2), 210–230. Scholar
  29. Gui, M., & Argentin, G. (2011). Digital skills of internet natives: Different forms of digital literacy in a random sample of northern Italian high school students. New Media & Society, 13(6), 963–980. Scholar
  30. Guraya, S. (2016). The usage of social networking sites by medical students for educational purposes: A meta-analysis and systematic review. North American Journal of Medical Sciences, 8(7), 268. Scholar
  31. Habibi, A., Mukinin, A., Riyanto, Y., Prasohjo, L. D., Sulistiyo, U., Sofwan, M., et al. (2018). Building an online community: Student teachers’ perceptions on the advantages of using Social Networking Services in a teacher education program. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 46–61. Retrieved from Scholar
  32. Hamid, S., Waycott, J., Kurnia, S., & Chang, S. (2015). Understanding students’ perceptions of the benefits of online social networking use for teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 1–9. Scholar
  33. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4).
  34. Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183–198. Scholar
  35. Holcomb, L. B., Brady, K. P., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The emergence of educational networking: can non-commercial, education-based social networking sites really address the privacy and safety concerns of educators? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 475–481.Google Scholar
  36. Hoofnagle, C. J., King, J., Li, S., & Turow, J. (2010). How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies? Social Science Research Network, 4(19), 10. Scholar
  37. HootSuite. (2019). Digital in 2019 – global report. Retrieved from
  38. Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 17–30. Scholar
  39. Hultell, D., Melin, B., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2013). Getting personal with teacher burnout: A longitudinal study on the development of burnout using a person-based approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 75–86. Scholar
  40. Hung, H.-T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 703–714. Scholar
  41. Huxham, M. (2005). Learning in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 17–31. Scholar
  42. Information Age. (2018). Online privacy concerns in a post-Cambridge Analytica scandal era. Information Age. Retrieved from
  43. Kanter, J. (2018, April 17). Facebook trust levels collapse after Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Business Insider. Retrieved from
  44. Ken Nee, C. (2014). The effect of educational networking on students’ performance in biology. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 3(1), 21–41. Scholar
  45. Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245. Scholar
  46. Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310. Scholar
  47. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Chapter 1: Legitimate peripheral participataion. In Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Scholar
  48. Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & Waterhouse, T. (2011). The changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 232–226. Scholar
  49. Lim, J., & Richardson, J. C. (2016). Exploring the effects of students’ social networking experience on social presence and perceptions of using SNSs for educational purposes. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 31–39. Scholar
  50. livelingua. (2019). Twiducate – social networking & media for schools :: Education 2.0. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from
  51. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696. Scholar
  52. Marett, K., McNab, A. L., & Harris, R. B. (2011). Social networking websites and posting personal information: An evaluation of protection motivation theory. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(3), 170. Retrieved from Scholar
  53. Masic, I., Sivic, S., & Pandza, H. (2012). Social networks in medical education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Materia Socio Medica, 24(3), 162. Scholar
  54. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453. Scholar
  55. Micheli, M. (2016). Social networking sites and low-income teenagers: Between opportunity and inequality. Information, Communication & Society, 19(5), 565–581. Scholar
  56. Minocha, S. (2009). Role of social software tools in education: A literature review. Education + Training, 51(5/6), 353–369. Scholar
  57. Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying☆. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222–1228. Scholar
  58. Mohamed, N., & Ahmad, I. H. (2012). Information privacy concerns, antecedents and privacy measure use in social networking sites: Evidence from Malaysia. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2366–2375. Scholar
  59. Mott, J. (2010). Envisioning the post-LMS Era: The Open Learning Network. EDUCAUSE Quarterly.Google Scholar
  60. Neier, S., & Zayer, L. T. (2015). Students’ perceptions and experiences of social media in higher education. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 133–143. Scholar
  61. NING. (2019). Create an education website. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from
  62. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance: Reconciling a media sensation with data. First Monday, 14(5).
  64. Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2117–2127. Scholar
  65. Peacock, S., & DePlacido, C. (2018). Supporting staff transitions into online learning: A networking approach. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6(2), 67–75. Scholar
  66. Piaget, J. (1953). The origins of intelligence in children. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 467. Scholar
  67. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  68. Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114. Scholar
  69. Rovai, A. P. (2002a). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16. Retrieved August 29, 2019 from Scholar
  70. Rovai, A. P. (2002b). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 319. Scholar
  71. Sadowski, C., Pediaditis, M., & Townsend, R. (2017). University students’ perceptions of social networking sites (SNSs) in their educational experiences at a regional Australian university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 77–90. Retrieved from Scholar
  72. Safargaliev, E. R., & Vinogradov, V. L. (2015). Educational networking as key factor of specialist training in universities. International Education Studies, 8(10), 200. Retrieved from Scholar
  73. Salmerón, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Rouet, J.-F. (2016). Multiple viewpoints increase students’ attention to source features in social question and answer forum messages. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(10), 2404–2419. Scholar
  74. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174. Scholar
  75. Small, H., Kasianovitz, K., Blanford, R., & Celaya, I. (2012). What your tweets tell us about you: Identity, ownership and privacy of Twitter data. International Journal of Digital Curation, 7(1), 174–197. Scholar
  76. Smart Education Networks by Design. (2014). Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  77. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 49(4), 376–385. Scholar
  78. Sobaih, A. E. E., Moustafa, M. A., Ghandforoush, P., & Khan, M. (2016). To use or not to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 296–305. Scholar
  79. Thaiposri, P., & Wannapiroon, P. (2015). Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills through teaching and learning by inquiry-based learning activities using social network and cloud computing☆. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2137–2144. Scholar
  80. Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S. S., & Tsai, M.-J. (2001). Developing an Internet Attitude Scale for high school students. Computers & Education, 37(1), 41–51. Scholar
  81. Väisänen, S., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., & Soini, T. (2018). Student teachers’ proactive strategies for avoiding study-related burnout during teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 301–317. Scholar
  82. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. Scholar
  83. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. We Are Social. (2018). Digital in 2018. Retrieved from
  85. Welsher, A., Rojas, D., Khan, Z., VanderBeek, L., Kapralos, B., & Grierson, L. E. M. (2017). The application of observational practice and educational networking in simulation-based and distributed medical education contexts. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 13(1), 3–10. Scholar
  86. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker. Retrieved from
  87. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level new edition: Why equality is better for everyone. Penguin Sociology.Google Scholar
  88. Wright, M. F. (2018). Cyberbullying: Prevalence, characteristics, and consequences. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Analyzing human behavior in cyberspace (p. 333). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  89. Yuen, S. C., & Yuen, P. (2008). Social networks in education. In E-learn: World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (Vol. 2008, pp. 1408–1412). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Retrieved from
  90. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northumbria UniversityNewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations