“…These figures include high levels of SoMe activity among undergraduate students for educational as well as social purposes (Ali, 2016;Guraya, 2016;Knight-McCord et al, 2016;Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010;Tess, 2013) and such usage parallels the availability of remote SoMe access achieved through uptake in smart devices (Buchholz, Perry, Weiss, & Cooley, 2016;Evrim, 2014;Gökçearslan, Mumcu, Haşlaman, & Çevik, 2016;Ozdalga, Ozdalga, & Ahuja, 2012;Ponce, Méndez, & Peñalvo, 2014). In the early to mid2000s, SoMe and Web 2.0 arose as new, exciting and innovative technologies (Boyd & Ellison, 2007) that instructors began to incorporate into educational activities (Booth & Hultén, 2003;Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007) and the increasing interest in SoMe during this period is reflected in the volume of educational literature on this topic (Asiri & Househ, 2016;Aydin, 2012;Kakushi & Evora, 2016;Lafferty & Manca, 2015;McAndrew & Johnston, 2012;Pander, Pinilla, Dimitriadis, & Fischer, 2014;& Cochran, 2012), blurring of the staff-student boundary (Mazer et al, 2007); unprofessional usage (Kitsis et al, 2016); and impacts on lecturer credibility (Hutchens & Hayes, 2014). Barriers can also exist at the institutional level in terms of a culture in HE that has been described as resistant to the uptake of new technologies (Bonzo & Parchoma, 2010;Roblyer et al, 2010;Selwyn, 2007).…”