The Influence of Social Media on Youth Political Participation: Exploring Engagement, Activism, and Voter Behavior in the Digital Age
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65761/jssp.2024.v1.i1.3Keywords:
Social Media, Youth Political Participation, Political Engagement, Activism, Voter Behavior, Misinformation, Digital Age, Echo Chambers, Media LiteracyAbstract
Background: Social media platforms have exponentially transformed political participation patterns in youth such as engagement, activism and voter’s behavior.
Objective: The focus of this study is to understand to what extent and in what ways social media influences youth political participation in terms of forming political views, promoting activism and influencing voter behavior in the digital era.
Methods: A quantitative survey was administered to 18 to 30 year old youth from a variety of urban areas, alongside qualitative in depth interviews.
Results: Results indicate that social media is a significant tool for political engagement, as 68% of the respondents participate in political discussion and 55% of them say social media influences their voting decisions. Also, we see youth increasingly engage in online political activism: 52 percent join political groups while 44 percent join online petitions. Challenges such as misinformation and echo chambers were identified and many participants noted that political content online was not reliable.
Conclusion: Findings reveal both the capacity for social media to foster youth political empowerment and the danger of misinformation. Study demands for media literacy programs to be strengthened and for the need of critical engagement other than being a conduit for purposeful propagation of democracy.
References
1. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2023). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive learning environments, 31(2), 863-875.
2. Tilak, J. B., & Kumar, A. G. (2022). Policy changes in global higher education: What lessons do we learn from the COVID-19 pandemic?. Higher education policy, 35(3), 610.
3. Yang, L. P., & Xin, T. (2022). Changing educational assessments in the post‐COVID‐19 era: From assessment of learning (AoL) to assessment as learning (AaL). Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 41(1), 54-60.
4. Sato, S. N., Condes Moreno, E., Rubio-Zarapuz, A., Dalamitros, A. A., Yañez-Sepulveda, R., Tornero-Aguilera, J. F., & Clemente-Suárez, V. J. (2023). Navigating the new normal: Adapting online and distance learning in the post-pandemic era. Education Sciences, 14(1), 19.
5. Svihus, C. L. (2024). Online teaching in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 3175-3193.
6. Stojan, J., Haas, M., Thammasitboon, S., Lander, L., Evans, S., Pawlik, C., ... & Daniel, M. (2022). Online learning developments in undergraduate medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 69. Medical Teacher, 44(2), 109-129.
7. Tilak, J. B., & Kumar, A. G. (2022). Policy changes in global higher education: What lessons do we learn from the COVID-19 pandemic?. Higher education policy, 35(3), 610.
8. Jarvis, A., & Mishra, P. K. (2024). Leadership for learning: Lessons from the great lockdown. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 27(2), 316-331.
9. Matsieli, M., & Mutula, S. (2024). COVID-19 and digital transformation in higher Education Institutions: Towards inclusive and equitable access to quality education. Education Sciences, 14(8), 819.
10. Tulaskar, R., & Turunen, M. (2022). What students want? Experiences, challenges, and engagement during Emergency Remote Learning amidst COVID-19 crisis. Education and information technologies, 27(1), 551-587.
11. Bergdahl, N. (2022). Engagement and disengagement in online learning. Computers & Education, 188, 104561.
12. Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2022, December). Facial analytics or virtual avatars: competencies and design considerations for student-teacher interaction in AI-powered online education for effective classroom engagement. In International Conference on Communication, Networks and Computing (pp. 252-265). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
13. Lasekan, O. A., Pachava, V., Godoy Pena, M. T., Golla, S. K., & Raje, M. S. (2024). Investigating factors influencing students’ engagement in sustainable online education. Sustainability, 16(2), 689.
14. Tandiono, R. (2024). Gamifying online learning: An evaluation of Kahoot’s effectiveness in promoting student engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 1-18.
15. Eduljee, N. B., Murphy, L., Emigh-Guy, M., & Croteau, K. (2024). Student perceptions about HyFlex/Hybrid delivery of courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. College Teaching, 72(4), 346-357.
16. Chen, J., Hughes, S., & Ranade, N. (2023). Reimagining student-centered learning: Accessible and inclusive syllabus design during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers and Composition, 67, 102751.
17. Golden, A. R., Srisarajivakul, E. N., Hasselle, A. J., Pfund, R. A., & Knox, J. (2023). What was a gap is now a chasm: Remote schooling, the digital divide, and educational inequities resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Opinion in Psychology, 52, 101632.
18. Mathrani, A., Umer, R., Sarvesh, T., & Adhikari, J. (2023). Rural–urban, gender, and digital divides during the COVID-19 lockdown: a multi-layered study. Societies, 13(5), 122.
19. Robertson, S., Nguyen, T., & Salehi, N. (2022). Not another school resource map: Meeting underserved families' information needs requires trusting relationships and personalized care. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), 1-23.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Social Science Perspectives
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
