Research Article

Social Media as a Teaching Tool in Primary Education: Possibilities and Limitations

Filippos Evangelou
University of Ioannina, Greece
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejedu.2025.6.6.1016

Read Counter
242

Downloads
33

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2025-10-05
Published 2025-11-01

Read counter = 242 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

The aim of this research is to investigate the views and attitudes of active teachers in the Greek primary schools on the possibilities and limitations regarding the use of social media (SM) as teaching tools. The sample of this study consisted of 25 active teachers in primary schools. “Purposive Sampling” was used to select the sample. The research tool for data collection was an anonymous questionnaire, in written form, with two open-ended questions. “Thematic Analysis” was chosen for data analysis and processing. The main extracts that emerged from the research are as follows: i) the possibilities of SM as recorded by the participating teachers were, direct communication and enhancement of collaboration, attractive and interactive environment, etc., (ii) the limitations were privacy and data security issues, lack of concentration by students in the learning and teaching process, excessive engagement and overexposure to digital screens, etc.

Keywords: Possibilities and limitations primary education social media teaching tools

Introduction

Apid growth in the field of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), with particular emphasis in recent years on the spread of the internet and the prevalence of social media (SM) (Anderson, 2020; Goodman & Ord, 2024; Greenhow & Galvin, 2020; Greenhow & Lewin, 2016; Güney, 2023; Loureiroet al., 2024; Williset al., 2025), has led to a change in the way students engage and interact in their modern social environment (Buhori & Nyaisa, 2024; Kapooret al., 2018; López, 2023; Purnama & Asdlori, 2023). In other words, SM, such as blogs, wikis, Facebook, Instagram, have a wide appeal integrated into the everyday experience of students, which disrupts the field of education either as an additional channel of communication between stakeholders or as a teaching tools both inside and outside the school (Güney, 2023; López, 2023; Neumannet al., 2022; Purnama & Asdlori, 2023; Rasheedet al., 2020; Simintoet al., 2024; Wang & Zhu, 2024; Williset al., 2025).

SM is a set of online applications or platforms, based on the second generation of the Internet (Web 2.0) that allow users to participate in a variety of activities, such as sharing information, communicating, interacting and collaborating with others online (Hwanget al., 2008; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Koliopoulou, 2015; Kotsidis, 2019; Purnama & Asdlori, 2023). Due to their extensive use and constant spread, SM are classified into various categories (Kotsidis, 2019). Based on their usefulness in the educational Web 2.0, an indicative categorization can be (Bates, 2019; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kotsidis, 2019; Papadimitriou, 2022):

• Blogs, that allow students to post on the web.

• Collaborative projects-Wikis, such as Wikipedia. These are ‘open’ collaborative publications that enable users to contribute to the creation of a body of information.

• Content communities or multimedia files, such as Youtube, Podcasts and e-portfolios. They allow end-users to access, store, download and share recordings, photos and videos.

• Social networking sites, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, X., etc. These are platforms that connect people with their friends or others with similar interests where they can study and interact with each other.

• Virtual social worlds, such as second life. This enables real-time connections and communication with virtual websites and people.

• Mobile learning, such as mobile phones and micro-applications. Mobile learning enables users to access information in different formats – such as audio, text andvideo-regardless of time and space.

• Multi-player games, such as Lord of the Rings Online. These enable users to compete or collaborate with each other (or with bots), usually in real time.

In recent years, the wide acceptance of SM has sparked discussions on its role in education (Greenhow & Galvin, 2020; Owen, 2023; Sajonia, 2024; Purnama & Asdlori, 2023) and particulary on its pedagogical use as a teaching tools (Azmanet al., 2021; Dennenet al., 2020; Greenhow & Askari, 2017; Jackson, 2022; López, 2023; Rasheedet al., 2020; Roundtree, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020). The use of SM has increased in classrooms, resulting-in some cases-teachers choosing to integrate them in their teaching which results in positive learning outcomes (López, 2023; Maher, 2023). However, a concern remains, in the research and educational community, regarding the frequency and use SM as a teaching tool in education, especially in the primary education (Greenhow & Askari, 2017; Güney, 2023). Nevertheless, through the available literature reviews, researchers have pointed out the possibilities of SM for students and, on the other hand point out the limitations that arise from their use (Alenezi & Brinthaupt, 2022; Bates, 2019; Ghaniet al., 2022; Greenhow & Galvin, 2020; Güney, 2023; Owen, 2023; Smit, 2023).

It is notable to mention though that there are several studies on the use of SM, especially in the Secondary and Higher Education (Alenezi & Brinthaupt, 2022; Aydoğmuşet al., 2023; Hew, 2011; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2016; Koliopoulou, 2015; Roundtree, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020). However, a research deficit can be identified (Greenhow & Galvin, 2020; Jackson, 2022; Sajonia, 2024; López, 2023; Solomon, 2021) in exploring the use of SM in the primary education-which is a crucial stage of education for the adoption of social roles, behaviours and the acquisition of values by students-which also includes the attitudes and views of teachers in primary education regarding the possibilities and limitations of SM as teaching tools in the teaching and learning process (Aydoğmuşet al., 2023; Dennenet al., 2020; Greenhow & Galvin, 2020; Ninget al., 2024; Jackson, 2022; López, 2023). For this reason, the present research explores the attitudes and views of active primary education teachers-postgraduate students at the Hellenic Open University (HOU)-on the possibilities and limitations of SM and their use as teaching tools in primary education.

Literature Review: Possibilities and Limitations of Social Media

The literature review possibilities and limitations arising from the use of SM as teaching tools in the teaching and learning process. In particular, from numerous studies, the possibilities arising from the use of SM as teaching tools in the classroom are the following:

• offering opportunities to students, teachers and parents to communicate, collaborate and share information, so that learning acquires the elements of “openness” (Sajonia, 2024; López, 2023; Roundtree, 2021; Smit, 2023)

• enhances student to student and student to teacher interaction and cooperation (Erarslan, 2019; López, 2023; Purnama & Asdlori, 2023; Solomon, 2021)

• contributes to the creation of learning communities (Grácioet al., 2024; Simintoet al., 2024; Solomon, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020)

• enables students from different locations and with different socio-cultural backgrounds to learn and collaborate without time and physical constraints (Güney, 2023; Roundtree, 2021; Smit, 2023)

• peaks students’ interest, enthusiasm and motivation to actively participate in the teaching and learning process (Güney, 2023; Kumar & Nanda, 2022; López, 2023; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020)

• contributes to the development of skills such as written language andvisual literacy (Bates, 2019; Erarslan, 2019; Escamilla-Fajardoet al., 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020), cultivating emerging digital literacy skills such as online reading, writing and multimodal notions,and achieving skills through a range of digital tools such as mobile phones and tablets, (Neumannet al., 2022; Smit, 2023)

• offering the opportunity to present the subjects and teaching content in an attractive and interactive way (Hayeset al., 2020; Jackson, 2022; Smit, 2023)

• providing access to a wealth of information, collections of educational videos (e.g., YouTube) and training materials (Aydoğmuşet al., 2023; Erarslan, 2019; Güney, 2023)

• providing the teachers the possibility to create educational content, that they can post and share, as activities for students (Jackson, 2022; Roundtree, 2021)

• learning and offering courses that can open up to the world, adding a variety of resources and broader perspectives on learning. This can be done, for example, using blogs and wikis (Bates, 2019; López, 2023)

• can also be a virtual space for students to explore and learn, enabling them to create digital networks and social relationships with others either locally or globally (Neumannet al., 2022)

At the same time, apart from the possibilities of SM, the limitations (Alshammariet al., 2015; Apostolidou, 2022; Sajonia, 2024) that arise from the use of SM as teaching tools in the classroom are the following:

• distraction and reduced focus, resulting in reduced student performance during the learning and teaching process in the classroom (Güney, 2023; Pattier, 2021; Petrovicet al., 2014; Qinet al., 2022; Roundtree, 2021)

• high security risk of leaking of pupils’ personal information (Apostolidou, 2022; Escamilla-Fajardoet al., 2021; Güney, 2023)

• students wasting a lot of time on applications that are not necessary related to the teaching material and processes (Alshammariet al., 2015; Güney, 2023)

• the likelihood of students indulging in inappropriate or low-quality materials (Bates, 2019; Greenhow & Askari, 2017; Güney, 2023)

• the effort to monitor checking and filtering the content for age-appropriateness, quality and pedagogical and didactical value (Bates, 2019; Güney, 2023)

• the possibility of cyberbullying and other harmful online behaviours (Abaido, 2020; Akrim & Sulasmi, 2020; Cretu & Morandau, 2022; Güney, 2023; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020)

• the negative impact on students mental health, such as increased levels of anxiety, depression and others (Güney, 2023; Rodríguez-Torricoet al., 2023; Tzifopoulos, 2021)

• the widespread and rapid dissemination of false or misleading information, which can spread quickly and cause confusion and harm (Bentzet al., 2021; Goodman & Ord, 2024; Güney, 2023; Hadjerrouit, 2012)

• the reluctance of teachers to use SM because they are concerned by their negative impact on students-such as addiction, distraction, etc. -, the lack of accountability of their effectiveness and the time required to adopt them (Güney, 2023; López, 2023; Loureiroet al., 2024; Rodríguez-Torricoet al., 2023; Roundtree, 2021)

• the low level of adaptation and understanding by the teachers regarding the use of SM as teaching tools (Escamilla-Fajardoet al., 2021; Grácioet al., 2024; López, 2023; Tzifopoulos, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020) and their anxiety coming from a lack of confidence and technophobia (Huang, 2017)

• hammering sociality, social skills and interpersonal communication among students (Escamilla-Fajardoet al., 2021; Pattier, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020)

• limited technological resources (such as old computers in school laboratories, difficulty accessing the internet, etc.) and older versions of software (Pattier, 2021; Tzifopoulos, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020)

• SM is not accessible to all students because it requires some infrastructure, such as a device and an internet connection (Bentzet al., 2021; Güney, 2023; Roundtree, 2021)

• the limited relevance of some SM to pedagogical and teaching Curriculum, which may hinder their integration into the formal educational framework (Sajonia, 2024)

The above possibilities and limitations of the use of SM constitute useful information for educators within the primary education system.

Research Methodology

Research Aim

The research aim is to investigate the attitudes and views of educators in primary schools-who are also postgraduate students at HOU-regarding the possibility of using SM as teaching tools in primary school classrooms.

Research Questions

The research questions of this study are as followed:

Research question 1: What are the possibilities of using SM as a teaching tools for primary school students?

Research question 2: What are the limitations of using SM as teaching tools for primary school students?

Sample of the Research

This study was completed during the spring semester, in June 2024, by Greek primary school teachers who were also enrolled in a master’s program at the HOU. The sample consisted of 25 individuals (20 women and 5 men), selected using the purposive sampling method (Creswell, 2014; Mertens, 1998). The researcher focused on a specific group of HOU students in which he/she acted as a professor-counselor, given that their frequent participation in academic discussions and teaching practices in primary schools had already been documented.

Tool for Research and Data Analysis

Given the open-ended aim of the study, a qualitative approach was used for the research methodology (Creswell, 2014). Data collection was carried out through an anonymous questionnaire, which was specifically designed in the form of a written assignment and included two main open-ended questions to explore the participants’ views and attitudes on the survey topics (Evangelou, 2023).

More specifically, the exact formulation of the written assignment is as follows:

“Considering your role as a primary school educator, we invite you to base your answers on your professional experience and use of SM as teaching tools in order to answer the following two questions

a) Briefly describe what you consider to be the potential uses of SM in teaching a class of primary school class.

b) Briefly describe what you consider to be the limitations of using SM in teaching a class of primary school students.

Data collection was conducted through the modern asynchronous e-`learning platform of the HOU. The data gathering was collected from the written assignments of the sample teachers, which-for the needs of this research-were considered as an open-ended structured interview type questionnaire.

Prior to the commencement of this research a consent form containing information about the purpose of the research was sent to all sample teachers. In addition, this form also provided information regarding the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants and their responses to create an initial climate of confidentiality (Creswell, 2014).

“Thematic analysis” was chosen as the primary method for analyzing the information because it lends itself to a systematic description of the content when processing written and spoken human communication (Clarkeet al., 2015). Based on the steps of this methodology, an extensive and thorough interpretation of all the research data and an investigation of the meanings, concepts and patterns relevant to the keywords under study were carried out. Once an initial image regarding the data was created, a list of initial ideas that were created before categorizing and coding was recorded. The contents of the written assignments were then sorted into appropriate categories so that they could be systematically described. In other words, the coding of the data was carried out and keywords were assigned to the data based on the two research questions. Each participant (Educator/teacher) was assigned a code-from E1 to E25-adhering to this code throughout the research, where E = Educator (Clarkeet al., 2015; Evangelou, 2023).

The main limitations of this research are the small sample size and the characteristics of the participating educators. Consequently, the results are indicative rather than generalizable.

Results

Teachers’responses to the two open-ended questions were coded using a thematic analysis approach in order to form two categories. These categories were derived from the grouping of similar opinions of educators and were relevant to the two research questions.

Overall, the categories that emerged through thematic analysis, in combination with the research questions, were as follows:

• the possibilities for using SM in teaching primary school students in the classroom

• the limitations of using SM in teaching primary school students in the classroom

The first category (1) records ten (10) possibilities arising from the teachers’ responses regarding the use of SM in the teaching and learning of primary school students, which are presented below:

I. Direct communication and strengthening of cooperation between teacher-students, students-students and teacher–parents.

II. It facilitates the creation of learning communities, networks and digital teams.

III. Provides an attractive and interactive learning environment.

IV. Provides opportunities for sharing and exchanging material, as well as for co-creation of content/multimedia material.

V. Assists in offering easy access to rich multimedia content at any time and place.

VI. Cultivates digital literacy, digital skills.

VII. Favors the development of autonomous/independent learning.

VIII. Provides spatio-temporal flexibility.

IX. Favors openness in learning.

X. Facilitates communication with students from different social, cultural and learning backgrounds, inclusive teaching.

The second category (2) records ten (10) limitations arising from the teachers’ responses regarding the use of SM in the teaching and learning of primary school students, which are presented below:

I. Privacy and personal data security issues, such as deception of users by fake profiles, risk of “viruses”, digital identity theft.

II. Students’ inability to concentrate on the learning and teaching processes due to “distractions” of their attention to other “attractive” digital applications.

III. Over-engagement and overexposure to screens and digital tools, addiction, loss of time.

IV. Limited personal contact, loneliness and isolation due to lack of physical interaction.

V. Creation of the conditions for the development of cyber bullying behaviors.

VI. Increase of advertising and misinformation.

VII. Lack of educational content and the access of inappropriate content for primary school pupils.

VIII. Difficulty of monitoring students’ progress and learning outcomes with reliable and qualitative assessment techniques.

IX. Restrictions from the family regarding the use of the computer and media when doing homework.

X. Lack of competence with ICT and skills by both teachers and students.

Discussion

From the responses of the research subjects to the two main open questions-as presented in Categories 1 and 2 of the Results section-several interesting facts emerged about the possibilities and limitations regarding the use of SM as teaching tools in teaching and learning for primary school students.

In particular, a very high frequency of teachers (Category 1 of the Results section) stated that the primary possibility of using SM is the direct communication and enhancement of collaboration between those involved in the educational process, which is also evident in numerous studies (Bates, 2019; Buhori & Nyaisa, 2024; Ghaniet al., 2022; Güney, 2023; Roundtree, 2021; Smit, 2023). In these studies it was reported that SM provides opportunities for students, teachers and parents to communicate, collaborate and share information and educational materials. Moreover, a considerable proportion of teachers have indicated that SM facilitates the development of learning communities, a potential recognized in various studies (Solomon, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020). An equal proportion of participants noted that it contributed to the creation of an engaging and interactive learning environment, as similarly reported in related research (Aydoğmuşet al., 2023; Alshammariet al., 2015; Hayeset al., 2020; Jackson, 2022; Smit, 2023).

More than half of the teachers indicated the possibility of providing opportunities for sharing and exchanging materials and for the co-creation of multimedia content. In this context, relevant research reports that SM is used by teachers to post and share additional educational materials and create educational content (Jackson, 2022; Roundtree, 2021). Less than half of the participants stated that SM also provides opportunities for easy access to rich multimedia content and that they evolve students digital skills. These are possibilities identified in similar research where it is reported that SM provides access to a wealth of information and educational material (Aydoğmuşet al., 2023; Erarslan, 2019; Güney, 2023) and that they contribute to the cultivation of emerging digital literacy skills (Bates, 2019; Escamilla-Fajardoet al., 2021; Neumannet al., 2022; Smit, 2023).

Around one third of the participants said that SM favors the development of autonomous learning and provides spatio-temporal flexibility. These possibilities have been identified in other researches (Güney, 2023; Roundtree, 2021; Smit, 2023) which researchers found that SM enables learners from different locations to learn and collaborate without time and place constraints. Furthermore, one fifth of the respondents’ state that SM enhances openness in learning, a possibility also identified in related research (Bates, 2019; López, 2023). Finally, a fifth of the respondents mentioned that they fostered communication with students from different social, cultural and learning backgrounds. This is an interesting finding that has not been reported related studies.

Regarding the limitations (Category 2 of the Results section), a very high frequency of teachers stated that the primary limitation to the use of SM is issues related to students privacy protection and personal information leakage. This limitation has been identified in similar studies (Escamilla-Fajardoet al., 2021; Güney, 2023). A high frequency of survey participants stated that the use of SM caused students to concentrate on the learning and teaching process, a limitation that is also found in other studies (Escamilla-Fajardoet al., 2021; Güney, 2023; Pattier, 2021; Qinet al., 2022; Roundtree, 2021). More than half of the teachers stated that SM caused addiction and wasted time on activities that were not related to teaching and learning. This has also been reported in other studies (Alshammariet al., 2015; Güney, 2023; Rodríguez-Torricoet al., 2023).

Around half of the teachers felt that SM caused loneliness, isolation and the development of cyber bullying behaviors. These limitations have been identified in similar studies, where the data shows that the use of SM reduces the development of sociability (Escamilla-Fajardoet al., 2021; Pattier, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020) and increases the likelihood of cyber bullying (Abaido, 2020; Akrim & Sulasmi, 2020; Güney, 2023; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020). In addition, about half of the teachers stated that SM provides a multitude of information, advertisements and false information (Bentzet al., 2021; Goodman & Ord, 2024; Güney, 2023), as well a lack of rich educational material and, sometimes, even inappropriate or low-quality content (Bates, 2019; Greenhow & Askari, 2017; Güney, 2023).

More than a fifth of the survey participants stated that it was not feasible to monitor students’ progress and learning outcomes using reliable and qualitative assessment techniques. Similar reports are identified in recent studies (Bates, 2019; Güney, 2023). Finally, a relatively low percentage of teachers cite issues related to ICT as limitations, such as the lack of teacher and student familiarity with the tools (López, 2023; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020).

Conclusion

Both from the findings of the present research and the literature review, it is clear that the use of SM by students and teachers and their integration into the daily practice of the modern classroom is an intuitive and original research issue (Sajonia, 2024; Güney, 2023; López, 2023). The present study yields useful findings that can help teachers to reflect, self-improve, and enhance the quality of teaching and learning processes through the use of attractive teaching tools for students such as SM. More specifically, this study highlights the possibilities and limitations of using SM in the teaching of primary school students. In this context, it is worth pointing out that the use of SM in education is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of both its possibilities and limitations (Ghaniet al., 2022; Güney, 2023; Loureiroet al., 2024; Sajonia, 2024; Solomon, 2021).

Teaching and learning based on SM redefine the pedagogical and teaching roles of teachers. It’s necessary the teachers to be flexible, adaptive, and able to reflect and revise traditional teaching practices. To effectively integrate SM into the teaching process, it’s necessary to design purposeful and interactive environments that inspire students and actively engage them in the learning process (Bates, 2019; Kartal & Başarmak, 2022; Roundtree, 2021; Solomon, 2021; Van Den Beemtet al., 2020; Wang & Zhu, 2024).

At the same time, the modern teacher on one hand has to encourage students to make use of SM as a teaching tool and on the other hand, inform them to use it in a responsible and safe way (Güney, 2023; Loureiroet al., 2024). In this context, both learning and teaching becomes more accessible and the involvement and participation of students in the teaching and learning process areenriched. The use of SM in the teaching process allows for a more dynamic and interactive approach to teaching and student interaction, transforming traditional classrooms into vibrant learning communities (Simintoet al., 2024).

In conclusion, due to the intuitive and intriguing issue of utilizing Smas a teaching tool, further research should focus on the parameters that contribute to the success or failure of SM in teaching, as well as the impacts of SM on students’ learning (Güney, 2023).

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abaido, G. M. (2020). Cyberbullying on social media platforms among university students in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1669059.
     Google Scholar
  2. Akrim, A., & Sulasmi, E. (2020). Student perception of cyberbullying in social media. Talent Development & Excellence, 12(1), 322–333.
     Google Scholar
  3. Alenezi, W., & Brinthaupt, T. M. (2022). The use of social media as a tool for learning: Perspectives of students in the Faculty of Education at Kuwait University. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11476.
     Google Scholar
  4. Alshammari, S., Ali, H. M. B., & Rosli, M. S. (2015). The effectiveness of using social network sites as learning tool for students. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 11, 1220–1226. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.11.2228.
     Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, K. E. (2020). Getting acquainted with social networks and apps: It is time to talk about TikTok. Library Hi Tech News, 37(4), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn-01-2020-0001.
     Google Scholar
  6. Apostolidou, I. (2022). Social media as a ‘vehicle’ for the creation of digital stories: Benefits, limitations and teaching suggestions through the views of primary education teachers. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. School of Humanities Graduate Programme of Studies: Creative Writing. Patras: HOU [in Greek].
     Google Scholar
  7. Aydoğmuş, M., Tut, E., & Karadağ, Y. (2023). Teachers’ experiences regarding the use of social media for educational purpose. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 10(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2023.10.1.855.
     Google Scholar
  8. Azman, A. N., Rezal, N. S. A., Zulkeifli, N. Y., Mat, N. A. S., Saari, I. S., & Hamid, A. S. A. (2021). Acceptance of TikTok on the youth towards education development. Borneo International Journal EISSN, 4(3), 19–25. http://majmuah.com/journal/index.php/bij/article/view/98.
     Google Scholar
  9. Bates, T. (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age-Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning. 2nd ed. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/.
     Google Scholar
  10. Bentz, N., Chase, E., & DeLoach, P. (2021). Social media debate position 4: Social media and information services. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 25(1–2), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2021.1937770.
     Google Scholar
  11. Buhori, J. A., & Nyaisa, F. N. (2024). Exploring the role of social media in transforming learning to children: A case of selected private pre-primary schools in Tabora–Tanzania. East African Journal of Education Studies, 7(2), 181– 193. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.7.2.1901.
     Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. In J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 222–248), London: Sage.
     Google Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage.
     Google Scholar
  14. Cretu, D. M., & Morandau, F. (2022). Bullying and cyberbullying: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of research in education. Educational Review, 76(2), 371–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2034749.
     Google Scholar
  15. Dennen, V. P., Choi, H., & Word, K. (2020). Social media, teenagers, and the school context: A scoping review of research in education and related fields. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1635–1658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09796-z.
     Google Scholar
  16. Erarslan, A. (2019). Instagram as an education platform for EFL learners. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 18(3), 54–69. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej1223776.
     Google Scholar
  17. Escamilla-Fajardo, P., Alguacil, M., & López-Carril, S. (2021). Incorporating TikTok in higher education: Pedagogical perspectives from a corporal expression sport sciences course. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 28, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100302.
     Google Scholar
  18. Evangelou, F. (2023). Video as an educational tool for teaching and learning for primary school students: A research approach by Greek teachers. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(1), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.575.
     Google Scholar
  19. Ghani, N. A., Talib, C. A., & Suratin, M. N. M. (2022). How relevant social media as educational tools: Systematic review. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(8), 2796–2817.
     Google Scholar
  20. Goodman, R., & Ord, J. (2024). Learning to identify fake news and digital misinformation: Lessons for educators. Educational Review, 77(1), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2357117.
     Google Scholar
  21. Greenhow, C., & Askari, E. (2017). Learning and teaching with social network sites: A decade of research in K-12 related education. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 623–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9446-9.
     Google Scholar
  22. Greenhow, C., & Galvin, S. (2020). Teaching with social media: Evidence-based strategies for making remote higher education less remote. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-04-2020-0138.
     Google Scholar
  23. Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954.
     Google Scholar
  24. Grácio, J., Dorotea, N., & Rosário Rodrigues, M. (2024). A community of practice of primary school teachers–2nd year of implementation. Educational Media International, 61(1–2), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2024.2357961.
     Google Scholar
  25. Güney, K. (2023). Considering the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing social media to enhance learning and engagement in K-12 education. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 8(2), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2023.13.
     Google Scholar
  26. Hadjerrouit, S. (2012). Investigating technical and pedagogical usability issues of collaborative learning with wikis. Informatics in Education, 11(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2012.03.
     Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, C., Stott, K., Lamb, K. J., & Hurst, G. A. (2020). “Making every second count”: utilizing TikTok and systems thinking to facilitate scientific public engagement and contextualization of chemistry at home. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3858–3866. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00511.
     Google Scholar
  28. Hew, K. F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 662–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020.
     Google Scholar
  29. Huang, H. (2017). The promise and dilemma of the mediated parent-teacher relationship in the age of social networking sites. Frontiers of Education in China, 12(4), 468–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-017-0034-1.
     Google Scholar
  30. Hwang, G. J., Yin, P. Y., Wang, T. T., Tseng, J. C. R., & Gwo-Haur Hwang, G. H. (2008). An enhanced genetic approach to optimizing auto-reply accuracy of an e-learning system. Computers & Education, 51(1), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.014.
     Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, B. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of using social media for classroom instruction in secondary schools. Theses and Dissertations. 5439. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/5439.
     Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, A., & 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.bushor.2009.09.003.
     Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008.
     Google Scholar
  34. Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Nerur, S. (2018). Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(3), 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y.
     Google Scholar
  35. Kartal, B., & Başarmak, U. (2022). Preservice computer science teachers’ beliefs, motivational orientations, and teaching practices. Educational Studies, 50(6), 1236–1259. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2069461.
     Google Scholar
  36. Koliopoulou, K. (2015). The use of social media in primary education. In A. Lionarakis, V. Ioakeimidou, E. Manousou, M. Niari, T. Hartophalika, S. Papadimitriou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Open and Distance Education: Innovation and Research. (Vol. 1, Part A, pp. 201-212). Athens: Hellenic Network for Open & Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.12681/icodl.89.
     Google Scholar
  37. Kotsidis, K. (2019). The importance of “social media” and their role in the process of teacher training [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. School of Education. Department of Primary Education. Rethymno: University of Crete. [in Greek].
     Google Scholar
  38. Kumar, V., & Nanda, P. (2022). Social media as a learning tool: A perspective on formal and informal learning. International Journal of Education Reform, 3(33), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879221094303.
     Google Scholar
  39. Loureiro, M. J., Loureiro, A., & Laanpere, M. (2024). Technological advancement and challenges in education. Educational Media International, 61(1–2), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2024.2358662.
     Google Scholar
  40. López, D. R. (2023). Campus administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of social media usage in North Texas Suburban K–6 elementary schools: a narrative inquiry study (Doctoral dissertation, Texas AM University-Commerce).
     Google Scholar
  41. Maher, D. (2023). Collaborative learning in schools with social media: A social constructivist view. In Handbook of Research on Facilitating Collaborative Learning through Digital Content and Learning Technologies (pp. 44–61). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5709-2.ch003.
     Google Scholar
  42. Mertens, D. (1998). Research Methods in Education and Psychology. Integrating Diversity Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage.
     Google Scholar
  43. Neumann, M. M., Park, E., Soong, H., Nichols, S., & Selim, N. (2022). Exploring the social media networks of primary school children. Education 3–13, 52(8), 1252–1266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2144404.
     Google Scholar
  44. Ning, P., DeWitt, D., Chin, H.-L., Li, Y., & Liu, G. (2024). Chinese primary school teachers’ perceptions of social media-based microlearning for improving students’ English-speaking abilities. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 23, 9. https://doi.org/10.28945/5282.
     Google Scholar
  45. Owen, D. (2023). Cell phone use in American civics and history classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 41(4), 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2291684.
     Google Scholar
  46. Papadimitriou, S. (2022). Social media in distance education. In S. Papadimitriou, V. Ioakeimidou, A. Karatrandou (Eds.), Thematic Module RTD62: Digital media in education and communication. Patras: HOU. [in Greek].
     Google Scholar
  47. Pattier, D. (2021). Teachers and YouTube: The use of video as an educational resource. Ricerche Di Pedagogia E Didattica. Journal of Theories and Research in Education, 16(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1970-2221/11584.
     Google Scholar
  48. Petrovic, N., Jeremic, V., Cirovic, M., Radojicic, Z., & Milenkovic, N. (2014). Facebook versus moodle in practice. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.896581.
     Google Scholar
  49. Purnama, Y., & Asdlori, A. (2023). The Role of social media in students’ social perception and interaction: Implications for learning and education. Technology and Society Perspectives (TACIT), 1(2), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.61100/tacit.v1i2.50.
     Google Scholar
  50. Qin, Y., Omar, B., & Musetti, A. (2022). The addiction behavior of short-form video app TikTok: The information quality and system quality perspective. Frontries in Psychologhy, 13, 932805. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.932805.
     Google Scholar
  51. Rasheed, M. I., Malik, M. J., Pitafi, A. H., Iqbal, J., Anser, M. K., & Abbas, M. (2020). Usage of social media, student engagement, and creativity: The role of knowledge sharing behavior and cyberbullying. Computers & Education, 159, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104002.
     Google Scholar
  52. Rodríguez-Torrico, P., San-Martín, S., & Jiménez, N. (2023). Smartphones, the new addiction: Causes and consequences for elementary and high school students according to teachers and experts. Computers in the Schools, 40(2), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2168146.
     Google Scholar
  53. Roundtree, N. A. (2021). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of using social media in teaching [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Walden University Scholar Works.
     Google Scholar
  54. Sajonia, I. K. (2024). #EduWOW: TikTok app as an educational creative platform. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(4), 8134–8142. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i4.2330.
     Google Scholar
  55. Siminto, S., Imelda, I., Setyaningsih, R., Cahyono, D., & Rahmat, A. (2024). Strategies for teacher excellence in the 21st century education era: Integration of technology, curriculum, and multidisciplinary teaching in elementary schools. International Journal of Graduate of Islamic Education (IJGIE), 5(1), 1– 13. https://doi.org/10.37567/ijgie.v5i1.2635.
     Google Scholar
  56. Smit, M. (2023). Social media in schools–a comparative legal and educational perspective. Recovering Education: using the Experiences and Learning Acquired to Build New and Better Education Systems BCES Conference Books. vol. 21. Sofia: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society.
     Google Scholar
  57. Solomon, S. (2021). Incorporating social media into the classroom: a case study on how TikTok can be immersed into classroom Pedagogy [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Dominican University of California. https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2021.edu.02.
     Google Scholar
  58. Tzifopoulos, Μ. (2021). Teachers talk about their experiences in using Digital Interactive Technologies in teaching: the “iceberg” of external and internal barriers. Pedagogical Review Journal, 71, 107–124. [In Greek].
     Google Scholar
  59. Van Den Beemt, A., Thurlings, M., & Willems, M. (2020). Towards an understanding of social media use in the classroom: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2019.1695657.
     Google Scholar
  60. Wang, C., & Zhu, M. (2024). Trends and patterns in K-12 computer science education: Data analysis from twitter. Educational Media International, 62(1), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2024.2434978.
     Google Scholar
  61. Willis, J., Nicksic, K., Zientek, C., & Song, D. (2025). An analysis of school districts’ social media content patterns related to technology and their school performance. Educational Media International, 62(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2025.2490908.
     Google Scholar