Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While how to engage students in online settings is a popular topic of study, largely left out are the ways in which virtual learning environments (VLEs) have implications for identity performance (and subsequently learning quality). This case study pairs a walkthrough analysis of Zoom with an open-ended survey (n = 250, M = 21.5) to investigate how VLE affordances impact student identifications. Findings indicate that students prefer Zoom because it is “user-friendly,” forgoing wordy options and instead presenting a more “appified” user interface. Students were concerned about their classmates and professors seeing their physical backgrounds, particularly those who reported family incomes below $50,000. Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) who identify as women feared being judged based on physical appearance. Overall, Zoom seems to discourage identity performance norms that are common via popular social media apps, and thus, students rarely perceive any possible identity affordances. Instead, Zoom feels different, and users are led to perceive turning on cameras, showing their live faces, and revealing their physical backgrounds as uncomfortable and not connected to their course-related needs.

Keywords

affordances identity virtual learning environments walkthrough analysis Zoom

It is no surprise that universities’ pandemic-induced move to virtual learning environments (VLEs) provoked charged discussions of best practices including the “great camera debate” (Reed, 2020). While how to engage students online became a popular topic of study, largely left out are the ways in which the VLEs themselves have implications for student identity maintenance and, consequently, learning quality. It is no secret that digital environments have a large impact on how young adults not only view themselves but others as well. However, while VLEs create digital social environments, little research has yet to explore VLEs’ impact on identity.

The following university case study pairs a walkthrough analysis of a popular VLE—Zoom—with undergraduate responses (n = 250) to an open-ended survey to investigate how VLE affordances impact student identifications. Overall, students found Zoom to be “user-friendly” because it is designed to look like popular social media apps, yet ironically, they were not comfortable being visible. Many students were concerned about their classmates and professors seeing their physical backgrounds, particularly those who reported having family incomes below $50,000. Subsequently, they rarely turn on their cameras. Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) who identify as women feared being judged based on their physical appearance and also rarely choose to turn on their cameras.

As one of the first studies to explore VLE affordances and their impact on identities, findings suggest that already marginalized groups feel the pains that came with the shift to online learning more acutely. Because digital spaces are performative, as well as subjective reflections (Shaffer, 2021), it is important to understand how the design choices, tools, and functionalities have implications for identities. Applying an affordance lens reveals how the end-user interface (EUI) design encourages and discourages certain actions. In addition, considering potential affective affordances further fleshes out why some performances online feel more fitting on an app like Instagram than on Zoom. Concluding remarks include suggestions for universities to better align student needs with technology choices as well as for professors to provide training for identity personalization and to find ways to invite students to participate that do not include mandatory cameras.

Virtual Learning Environments

Early social media like MySpace were exalted for inviting young adults to create bedroom-like personalized spaces (Hodkinson, 2017). Writing about MySpace in 2008, danah boyd explained how teens created profiles that were “an explosion of animated chaos that resembles a stereotypical teenager’s bedroom” (p. 123) as a way of expressing themselves to peers. The act of crafting a space that represented who the teen was, and that allowed them to play with and “try on” different identities, contributed to the utopian views of the early internet (Turkle, 1997, 2011).

Indeed, numerous social media studies focus on young adults’ identities online (e.g., boyd, 2008; Davis, 2012; Gorea, 2021; Hodkinson, 2017). Media used for education, on the other hand, have been deemed a separate category. Young adults often experience a rift between “home media” and “school media,” finding it difficult to think of a social medium as useful for learning and a learning tool as useful for socializing (Hobbs & Moore, 2013). Furthermore, learning management sites like Blackboard and Canvas are not often considered social media even though they do include profile creation and networking tools.

Suddenly, in early 2020, young adults across the United States were asked to blend their notions of home and school media. Across the United States and the world, university students and professors relied on VLEs to provide digital simulations of the classroom, including virtual representations of lectures, group work, and student participation during the 2020–2021 school year. Ironically, VLEs literally place professors and classmates into students’ rooms. While some students continued to live in dorms, many students logged in from their family homes, often seated in brightly painted or vibrantly decorated childhood bedrooms.

Taking classes virtually was not new for many students. A 2016 survey found that about 32% of US college students took at least one virtual course. Students taking virtual classes worry about staying focused and lack of social interactions (Brown, 2020). Primarily, however, these virtual courses were not synchronous; US universities often employed learning platforms like Canvas and Blackboard to create modules and recorded lectures that students could then view on their own (Stefanile, 2020).

In an effort to recreate the in-person classroom as much as possible, including synchronicity, many US universities relied on Zoom when COVID-19 forced classes to no longer meet in person. Because learning is most effective when it is embodied, enactive, extended, and embedded, this was a clear choice compared to moving all classes to the asynchronous Blackboard or Canvas model (Foster & Shah, 2016, p. 1). In addition, social presence is positively correlated with learning satisfaction, motivation, and engagement (Andel et al., 2020; Stefanile, 2020). A previous study, for example, found that social presence between students, not just between professor and students, could be reached within asynchronous environments just by adding live chat and reaction emoji to pre-recorded lectures (Andel et al., 2020).

Recent studies (Andel et al., 2020; Minhas et al., 2021) have explored logistical strengths and weaknesses of synchronous class time via Zoom, noting time reduction, versatility across modalities, waiting rooms, breakout rooms, and annotation tools. Social presence is clearly increased through live lectures and chat. But it can also be induced through students creating profiles and direct messaging within the VLE. Small group activities are of course beneficial, but some types of courses, such as large lectures, do not often have this method as an option (Andel et al., 2020). While VLEs like Zoom provide tools that integrate social interaction within the virtual classroom (Almarzooq et al., 2020), this does not mean that identity exploration and performance happen quickly or without effort.

Identity Online and Affordances

Generally, identity is defined as an ongoing process that requires constant maintenance (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000; DeFina & Georgakopoulou, 2008, 2012; Schrag, 1997). The oft-cited work of Goffman (1959) outlines identity as a performance wherein people are like actors and their stages are the different contexts in which they find themselves. Goffman argues that every performance is part of a larger identity management process that ensures people maintain the impressions they want for different audiences, guided by cultural norms and expectations.

Goffman’s work on identity performance is quite popular in the social media field. Multiple scholars have used Goffman to explain the identity “performances” taking place through spaces like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Hogan (2010), however, provides an updated version of Goffman that is much more amenable to the digital nature of user performances. He argues that we should no longer consider digital performances as such but as exhibitions. Much of the confusion surrounding issues like digital privacy are situated in users’ general misunderstandings about the “basic ontological structure of data, its curation, and exhibition” (p. 384).

Performances happen in real time and with no third party necessary to deliver the content. Yet, online, users rely on third parties (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, etc.) to broadcast their performances. In other words, the act of taking a selfie or writing a tweet is the performance. But the moment the content is submitted to a platform, put through algorithmic processes, and entrusted to the interfaces’ graphical user interface (GUI), the user’s performance becomes exhibited, necessarily altered by the choices and goals of the chosen platform (Hogan, 2010). Indeed, as many studies focusing on social network spaces and identity have shown, the design of the app, and the ways in which particular tools and functionalities are privileged, play a large and important role in how users perform and perceive the self.

To holistically understand the impact that VLEs have for student identification, it is important to investigate the tools, functionalities, and subsequent affordances. Originally coined to represent the unique relationship that animals have with their natural environments (Gibson, 1979), the term affordances, when speaking of digital spaces, illustrates how users are in constant negotiation with the tools and functionalities presented to them (Bucher & Helmond, 2017; Nagy & Neff, 2015).

Affordances are not specific tools or functionalities, but instead represent relationships. Affordances are situated at the intersection of user perceptions and designer choices and are represented through all that is possible, and not possible, via created options and buttons. They are not the opposites of constraints but the perceptions of how different artifacts present opportunities and challenges (Antonenko et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2022). Affordances highlight the ways in which “ethics, values, and interests are built into technological objects and the ways these objects take shape through interactions with humans” (Davis, 2020, p. 6).

Davis (2020) proposes six verbs to better operationalize how affordances exist within digital artifacts—request, demand, encourage, discourage, refuse, and allow. For instance, Instagram may encourage users to link their account with their Facebook account, but the platform demands that users allow access to their phone’s camera, otherwise the app cannot be opened. Of course, depending on who the user is, how different tools and functionalities afford can vary widely.

As van Dijck (2013) explains, digital spaces are not neutral platforms. Indeed, each user’s abilities and backgrounds are crucial pieces—if a tool cannot be recognized or used, no interaction can occur (Antonenko et al., 2017). Meanings are constructed when a user’s aims are combined with the created software, setting limits on what is possible when this interaction occurs (Hutchby, 2001; Postigo & O’Donnell, 2017). “When a programmer decides which gesture to render, [they are] deciding not what to communicate, but what possible messages to allow” (Kolko, 1999, p. 180). In other words, design choices have an impact on how identities are shared and shaped (Duguay, 2016). For instance, previous studies have found that social media spaces privilege certain identities over others, often marginalizing groups. When Facebook, as one example, refuses space in bios to define race and ethnicity, users are impacted differently depending on who they are and their perceived need for this type of identification (Cirucci, 2017).

In this vein, Fuchs (2016) argues for studying “affective affordances.” Moving beyond a solely functional online model, affective affordances take into consideration how tools and functionalities are linked to socio-cultural and identification norms. For instance, a tree may be seen as climbable (a functional affordance for some), but certain situations can also appear important, worthwhile, attractive, impossible, or repulsive (p. 196). Thus, using Zoom is not just about being able to turn on a microphone or share a screen. How users feel as they perceive and make choices about their usage are also important.

While digital affordances within social network spaces have been widely studied, these same critical analyses of space for identification have not been applied to VLEs. Most VLE studies that draw from affordance theory focus on “goal-oriented” and functional aspects and do not investigate identity or social facets (Vidolov, 2022, p. 4). Studies like Antonenko et al. (2017), for instance, are valuable in their attempt to push for an alignment of user needs and affordances, but there is no consideration for identification needs. However, using Zoom cultivates a very specific embodied experience. Just as entering a physical classroom introduces specific norms and learned patterns, the Zoom infrastructure is not a neutral player (Zhang, 2020). Against this backdrop, this study explores how students experience Zoom and suggests ways to offer more inclusive learning environments online.

Method

First, a walkthrough analysis was conducted on Zoom. Because EUI design shapes users and provides a “script” for user actions, conducting a walkthrough analysis helps to understand epistemologies and practices, “teasing out data flows, design affordances, and platform mechanisms” (Dieter et al., 2019, p. 5). The walkthrough method allows the researcher to engage “directly with an app’s interface to examine its technological mechanisms and embedded culture references to understand how it guides users and shapes their experiences” (Light et al., 2018, p. 882). In sum, I systematically cataloged and analyzed Zoom’s environment, expected uses, and embedded cultural values. For this study, five main categories were considered: EUI arrangement (button and menu placement), functionalities (groups that enable action), content and tone (order of menus and available identity categories), symbolic (how the app looks and feels), and mission (company and employee information) (Light et al., 2018). Davis’ (2020) operationalizations were also used to more granularly define Zoom’s constraints and opportunities for action.

Next, an institutional review board (IRB)-approved, open-ended Qualtrics survey was advertised through a university’s student listserv. Only undergraduate students, taking at least one class virtually during the 2020–2021 school year, were invited to participate. Names were not collected, and any submission containing identifying information that is included in this article was edited not only to retain the essence of the response but also to ensure that readers could not identify the participant. The survey focused on topics including VLE preference, camera habits, “camera-readiness,” background choices, and personalization tools used. The 250 (M = 21.5) students who completed the survey were each issued a $10 Amazon gift card.

Responses to the survey were analyzed using the constant comparative method wherein I read through participants’ responses multiple times, coding similar submissions and integrating demographic identifications with the hopes of generating hypotheses about a “general phenomenon” (Glaser, 1965, p. 438). Specifically, I looked for general themes across the sample, including mentions of affective affordances, related to cameras, being “camera-ready,” using chat and emojis, using in-app identity tools like virtual backgrounds and “touch up,” and changing display names. I then explored how different identifications impacted these findings, comparing across age, race, family income, and gender.

Findings

Many findings emerged that highlighted differences in how students perceived Zoom and thus interacted with and through it. The following themes—User Friendly, Location Appearance, and Physical Appearance—flesh out these ideas and reveal how findings from the walkthrough analysis and the survey intersect.

User Friendly

Before revealing that the survey was focused on Zoom, I asked students to note which VLE they preferred and why. Although most professors were employing Zoom for course meetings, some courses instead used WebEx and BigBlueButton. The majority of participants noted that Zoom is their favorite VLE (75%). While VLEs offer similar features, Zoom’s EUI, both in organization and design, feels like a traditional social media app. Even Zoom’s tagline has nothing to do with sharing information or hosting meetings—“we deliver happiness” (Zoom, 2022). Thus, it is not surprising that most participants explained they prefer Zoom because it is “user-friendly”:

P74: I prefer zoom. I think zoom is the most user-friendly platform.

P51: I find Zoom to be the most user-friendly.

P98: I think overall I prefer Zoom because of its more user-friendly and easy to navigate UI.

P221: I prefer Zoom because I feel that it is more user-friendly and has more options for students.

The term “user-friendly” originally referred to WYSIWYG, or what you see is what you get, software like VisiCalc and WordStar that were the first programs to hide source code and only show the end product (Linzmayer, 2004). As software were increasingly designed to hide backend commands and source code, everyday users were much more likely to buy and adopt the programs. This also means, however, that users become increasingly more removed and less knowledgeable about the actual mechanisms behind the tech they rely on daily.

This appification of desktop programs includes using larger buttons and forgoing traditional window dropdown menus. Zoom’s main EUI not only allows for cleaner design but also hides options. Once signed in to both the desktop and mobile app, users see four main buttons—New Meeting, Join, Schedule, and Share Screen. These buttons are reminiscent of Instagram’s squircle icon and are brightly colored. In the desktop app, users can click a small, gray gear icon and move to a settings window. Smaller, colorful squircles are still used to denote 13 sections, but the interface begins to look less like a social media app and more like a traditional settings window with lines of black text. Thus, the main screen encourages users to begin or join a meeting while discouraging viewing and altering deeper settings.

Most students are likely accessing their courses via an instructor-provided link. Thus, the above main interface is rarely viewed. Instead, students are taken straight to their Zoom classroom. Here, the main, centered imagery is the participants in the room, setup in a Brady-Bunch-style tiled arrangement. Users may see live video, profile pictures, or black boxes with display names in white. The focus here is clearly on the social nature of the course, attempting to parallel how social media users may view their friends’ or followers’ profile photos. Perhaps also akin to sitting in a meeting around a circular table with views of everyone’s face, the app differs from student views in a traditional classroom setting.

Previous research has found that social media encourage users to upload a profile picture that visibly shows their face. For instance, Facebook’s default image acts as a guide, displaying a shadow bust of a person. This platform-norm was shown to transfer to user expectations—users did not feel comfortable friending profiles without profile pictures of the user’s face, even when they knew the profile they clicked on was the intended new friend (Cirucci, 2017). It is clear from my walkthrough findings that Zoom promotes a similar culture. Toggling the camera on and off is one of the few options visible, and the large black box when a camera is turned off presents an awkward void as a representation of a student. Even more, instructors often have the option of making all students’ default setting when logging in one that includes cameras on.

On the contrary, unlike popular social media, Zoom does not encourage users to complete their profiles—there are no prompts or obvious EUI cues to upload a profile picture, alter a display name, or change emoji skin tones. These actions are actually discouraged by the EUI design. The overall usage encouraged seems, at first, to parallel the norms within apps like Facebook and Instagram, yet identity performance and management are discouraged.

While initial Zoom EUI choices lead students to prefer Zoom because it resembles popular social media with which they are comfortable, as highlighted through the consistent use of the term “user-friendly,” what students seem to mean is that they see a space that, at first, looks familiar, relying on few settings, large icons, and forward-facing, “selfie” cameras. Yet, the clear lack of perceived identity affordances means students are never invited to define the space for themselves, in a way that best supports their individual identity needs. It important to remember that affordances are contextual; affordances are based on what users need and can perceive. Thus, when needs change, how students ultimately feel about the space also changes (Antonenko et al., 2017; Fuchs, 2016).

Not surprisingly, few participants had ever heard of, let alone employed, the many identity management functions Zoom offers—adding a profile picture, using appearance “touch up,” or switching to a virtual background. Even though customizing a social media profile is often the first step when opening a new account, I found this rarely happens within Zoom. Again, this is likely due to the fact that student needs have changed. Not only does the EUI not encourage this type of identification, as discussed above, but identity personalizations are not required when walking into a classroom, and professors rarely make identification customizations a part of virtual courses. Students instead worry about lectures, coursework, and whatever other requirements their professors introduce.

Location Appearance

Even though most participants do not use virtual backgrounds, many noted that they feel self-conscious about their classmates and professors seeing their physical location. Some explained they worry about a mess or distractions in the background. But others, often participants whose family incomes are below $50,000, noted they fear others will judge their home.

P13: I definitely feel self-conscious because I feel that a lot of people are judging me I see people in their own homes and they are talking about how they are in their personal office or they are outside near their pool or outside on their porch and patio and I do not have that luxury.

P86: Yes. I don’t like them seeing where I am. I live in a very small bedroom compared to other students’ backgrounds. Sometimes I don’t want them to see my room.

P234: Yeah I do because I have anxiety and I’m scared of what people will judge or think of my surroundings.

While college often acts as a somewhat neutral playing field for many students, making visible their homes and family lives removes that layer of security. Indeed, other studies have found that some students even resort to taking class from a closet to ensure that their classmates and professors will not see or hear their home lives (Reich et al., 2020).

The most often perceived affordances are triggered by EUI cues—buttons, links, pop-ups, and son on (Wu et al., 2022). However, the option to add a virtual background is hidden behind a small, gray arrow next to the video toggle while in a meeting. In addition, Zoom virtual backgrounds only work on newer devices and operating systems; if a student is using an older laptop or phone, they will not be able to activate this feature. It is also perhaps important to consider the implications of using a virtual background. For some, it may imply that they are ashamed of their background, thus negating the purpose in the first place.

A few participants also cited privacy concerns, noting that their bedrooms and homes are supposed to be private places that professors and classmates should not be privy to, contrary to any theoretical link between social media and bedrooms:

P102: I don’t like that my professors and peers can see my bed as my room is supposed to be a private place where I can relax.

P152: I get nervous that people will know where I live. I would really prefer to keep that private.

P209: I often feel self-conscious about people seeing my physical location because it feels a bit like my privacy is being invaded.

Here, we see how digital spaces are perceived differently depending on potential affective affordances. Students reveal what many would consider “private” information via their TikTok or Instagram accounts, but those are created in apps that encourage editing within an already carefully curated digital identity (Gibbs et al., 2013). Conversely, Zoom meetings are live, and the only encouraged identity performance is a view of the student’s face and whatever can be seen behind them. Clearly, students feeling like their privacy is invaded is much more likely.

One exception is students who live in dorms. Multiple participants, across all demographics, noted that they have no problem turning on their cameras because they assume a dorm room is neutral territory:

P41: [My] background is just a . . . dorm and maybe students have the same housing setting as me.

P42: I don’t [feel self-conscious] because the background is just a Rowan dorm and maybe students have the same housing setting as me.

P227: No because I am in a dorm room.

P110: If I’m taking the call in my dorm, I’ll be fine. But if I am taking the call in my house I will definitely feel self-conscious about it.

It is not surprising that dorms are a neutralizing factor. All dorms are generally the same, and stereotypical media representations provide expectations for messy or garishly decorated dorm rooms. Just as boyd (2008) discussed early social media acting as glorified bedrooms for teens and young adults to show off who they were and wanted to be, dorms are likely the closest physical manifestation of the current college-aged self. Even though Zoom does not directly encourage this specific background, students are indirectly provided the space to include a performance of self that helps define who they are within the Zoom classroom. These students were also more likely to turn on their cameras in class, and they also were far less likely to experience Wi-Fi issues that interrupted their learning experience.

Of course, universities will be happy upon learning this result seeing that one large issue during the COVID-19 pandemic was that schools were losing money because so few students were living on campus. I do not report this finding to imply that all students can afford to live in dorms. However, it does highlight the importance of providing students as much equal space to construct identity as possible and speaks to the need for more support for students who may not be able to afford to live on campus.

Physical Appearance

Multiple students explained that they do not turn on their cameras because they are self-conscious about their appearance. But, this was especially true of BIPOC who identify as women who noted that they are concerned with their physical appearance over Zoom, feeling like people are always staring at them during virtual class. These women also included more elaborate “camera ready” procedures that they completed before logging on, even if they rarely turn on their cameras.

P3: I get a bit self-conscious about my appearance. Especially for the 8 ams because I wake up and I do my morning routine of brushing my hair and teeth etc. but I still personally think I look very unattractive. This is mostly because of my dark circles they are genetic.

P209: I have a lot of deep body image issues.

P243: Sometimes I do feel uncomfortable . . . it’s just not my style to show my face.

P19: I keep my camera on when it’s required, but I tend to keep it off if it’s not required because I get anxious when I know that people can see me.

These fears are clearly tied to the ways in which society polices and misrepresents BIPOC (particularly those who identify as women) bodies. These trends are seen more generally in not only the explicit policing and incarcerating of BIPOC people, but also in the intentional creation of structures that control resources and opportunities. “The bodies of Black women and girls are sexualized, and it is their sexuality that is policed, through abuse, through the criminalizing of pregnancy, and via archaic approaches to the treatment of pregnant inmates” (Hattery & Smith, 2021, p. 227). More specifically, in online spaces, Google image searches have auto-tagged Black faces as “apes” and “animals,” Google Maps brought users to the White House when Obama was president when users searched the “N” word, and a simple Google search of “Black girls” used to lead to a top result of HotBlackPussy (Noble, 2018).

Interestingly, BIPOC women also reported using other communication tools less, including embedded chat and emoji reactions, perhaps signaling that once a student perceives one potential affordance as uncomfortable, they are likely to perceive other options in a similar light. Although attempting to look and function like popular apps, the way Zoom is used varies greatly from these social network apps. Because identity options are not encouraged by the EUI, the types of identity performance and empowerment that happen via traditional social media spaces (Barker & Rodriguez, 2019) are largely absent from VLEs. In social media spaces, marginalized groups, such as BIPOC women, can find space to safely perform the identities they wish to share (Jones, 2019). Zoom, however, is not designed, and thus not often used, for this purpose.

Discussion

Popular social media apps like Instagram and TikTok place users front and center, allowing them to broadcast their lives as widely as they wish. Yet, these spaces are also centered around varying identities, encouraging users to create profiles, share their stories, and connect with empowering networks. Zoom borrows some surface EUI features and functionalities from popular social media apps, but it instead discourages identity creation and performance while still encouraging students to be blindly social and visible even when they have not been given the adequate space to create who they will socially and visibly be in the course. Because students use their metacognitive experiences to “feel” what they think they already know about a space (Oyserman & Dawson, 2021), it is likely that they bring their social media expectations to VLE spaces. This, in turn, is confusing for students because affectively, the encouraged affordances do not line up with their assumptions or with most instructor requirements.

When thinking about aligning student needs with what a platform offers, it is useful to also think about identity needs and not just course needs. In the case of virtual backgrounds and privacy, the personal, identity needs of the students drive their perceptions of affordances, specifically affective affordances. These seem to take precedence over the needs of the course itself. Thus, even if a professor explains that having cameras on leads to a better learning environment, it does not feel right to the student, and therefore they will not truly perceive it as an available affordance.

Perhaps ironically, the participants in this study largely preferred Zoom because of its “user-friendliness.” Yet, having conducted a walkthrough analysis of Zoom, this finding is not surprising. Zoom’s main interface relies on four buttons before a user enters a meeting. Once in a Zoom room, a handful of buttons are provided that include options like emoji reactions, turning the mic and camera off and on, and share screen (which is usually default set to block students from being able to do so). Extended options are available, but they require users to click through multiple windows, search for choices, and visit Zoom’s main website. Previous studies have also found that it is rare for users to move beyond main user interfaces to browse and read sections like advanced settings and Terms of Service (Obar & Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2020).

Popular social media with which most students are familiar encourage profile creation and constant identity maintenance. boyd (2008) found this in her early studies of sites like MySpace, and the sentiment is still quite salient today. Apps like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok include multiple functionalities that most users perceive as identity tools. In addition, these spaces have specific cultures that lead users to perceive affective affordances that deem the space appropriate for broadcasting identity and being visible. These possibilities for identity action are not encouraged, and thus not often perceived, via Zoom.

These differences in perceived affordances and affective affordances are felt even more acutely by students who identify with traditionally marginalized groups. Because Zoom’s EUI is, at first glance, designed to look like a simple social media app, students lean toward these normalized spaces, but this does not mean they benefit from them. Instead, Zoom privileges those who are comfortable with their physical appearance and physical location, discouraging identity performances that could allow marginalized students to instead create the identities they would like to highlight in the virtual classroom.

Because perceived learning quality is correlated with social presence and embodied experiences, it is important that students find ways to become at least as comfortable with VLEs as they are during in-person classes. Helping students understand how to control their Zoom identities may begin to alleviate these issues. Tools such as background blurring and video “touch-up,” as well as participation tools that are not cameras, including reaction emojis and live chat, can begin to introduce the feelings of identity control.

Professors and universities alike should offer training sessions not only for VLE functionality but also for identity maintenance, guiding students through largely hidden personalization options. VLEs should work less to mimic social media apps and more to imitate physical learning spaces, providing inclusive experiences that encourage diverse learners and identities. Finally, professors should not force students to turn on cameras or provide narrow paths to participating. Instead, professors should include identity maintenance as part and parcel of the virtual course, aligning their use of VLEs with not only course requirements but also their students’ identification needs. Even though VLEs like Zoom discourage identity performance, this does not mean that professors cannot alter that norm, adapting their courses to encourage students to perceive available affordances in ways that support their identity needs.

Limitations and Future Recommendations

This article presents but one case study. Although it is not widely generalizable across the United States, it provides a snapshot of US undergraduate students’ experiences with Zoom at one university. As one of the first studies to specifically focus on VLE’s affordances and the implications for identity performance and maintenance, it works to set a baseline for future work on viewing VLEs as interactive platforms that require the same considerations related to identification that we expect from social media apps. Future studies should include more universities and varied locations across the United States and globe. Studies should also compare experiences across universities as well as pre-COVID, COVID, and post-COVID virtual learning.

This study found that VLEs like Zoom are appified, working to resemble social media spaces like Instagram. Thus, future research should compare student usage norms within social media to better assess of how their social media performances and skills may predict VLE experiences and learning quality. Because social presence plays such an important role in both identity performance and learning quality, future research should also incorporate more studies related to presence. For example, Lombard et al. (2000) found that screen size plays a significant role in the enjoyment experienced while viewing television. This finding could be especially relevant considering that some students may be forced to attend virtual class via a mobile phone while other students may have access to a laptop or even a large monitor.

Conclusion

This study provided a case study of one university’s experiences with Zoom. A walkthrough analysis of the desktop and mobile app was paired with an open-ended survey (n = 250) that focused on identity personalization tools and functionalities. Findings indicated that Zoom is the students’ preferred VLE because it is viewed as “user-friendly.” This is not surprising considering the app’s design choices that mimic popular social media apps like Instagram and TikTok. However, the empowerment that these social media apps bring (largely through the perceived affordances) is lacking within the Zoom experience. Users feel comfortable because the interface seems familiar. But this is a false sense of comfort for most students. Instead, they are wary to turn on their cameras and thus often experience a less enjoyable, immersed, and effective learning experience.

As with other digital spaces, these challenging experiences are felt more acutely by marginalized communities. Students who reported lower family incomes were less likely to turn on their cameras and much more likely to report feeling anxious about their classmates and professors seeing their homes. BIPOC women reported feeling uncomfortable with their physical appearance, fearing turning on their cameras because they felt they were being watched and judged. These are trends that we see offline and within social media apps as well. However, other digital spaces, like Instagram and TikTok, encourage identity performance.

As one of the first studies to focus on affordances, identity, and VLEs, the findings herein highlight the need for professors and universities to recognize the importance of aligning related needs to VLE choice and use. Not only should instructors point out available VLE affordances that support their course goals, as other scholars have argued, they should also incorporate available identity tools into their course requirements, allowing space for their students to create the identities they wish to broadcast during virtual meetings. Although at first glance students seem comfortable using Zoom because of its appified, button-centric EUI design, this study has found that the space ultimately feels different than widely used social media like Instagram and TikTok because Zoom discourages identity creation. Thus, when instructors only focus on functional, surface-level affordances and ignore hidden and affective affordances, many students are left feeling disconnected and unmotivated.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Rowan University through a Ric Edelman College of Communication and Creative Arts STORI Grant.

ORCID iD

Angela M. Cirucci

Author Biography

Angela M. Cirucci (PhD, Temple University) is an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Rowan University. Her research interests include the symbolic meaning of data infrastructures, the intersection of institutional practice and user knowledge, and user experience.

References

Almarzooq

Z. I.

Lopes

Kochar

(2020). Virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A disruptive technology in graduate medical education. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 75(20), 2635–2638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.015

Andel

S. A.

de Vreede

Spector

P. E.

Padmanabhan

Singh

V. K.

De Vreede

G.-J.

(2020). Do social features help in video-centric online learning platforms? A social presence perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 113, 106505.

Antonenko

P. D.

Dawson

Sahay

(2017). A framework for aligning needs, abilities and affordances to inform design and practice of educational technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 916–927.

Barker

Rodriguez

N. S.

(2019). This is who I am: The selfie as a personal and social identity marker. International Journal of Communication, 13(24). https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/9723

boyd

(2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In Buckingham

(Ed.), John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning: Youth, identity, and digital media. MIT Press. https://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

Brown

C. J.

(2020, April 8). Barnes & Noble Education survey reveals college student preparedness split: Technically ready for online learning, but emotionally unsure. Business Wire. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200408005156/en/

Brubaker

Cooper

(2000). Beyond “identity.” Theory and Society, 29, 1–47.

Bucher

Helmond

(2017). The affordances of social media platforms. In Burgess

Poell

Marwick

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 223–253). SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066.n14

Cirucci

A. M.

(2017). Normative interfaces: Affordances, gender, and race in Facebook. Social Media + Society, 3(2), 1–10.

10.

Davis

J. L.

(2020). How artifacts afford: The power and politics of everyday things. MIT Press.

11.

Davis

(2012). Tensions of identity in a networked era: Young people’s perspectives on the risks and rewards of online self-expression. New Media & Society, 14(4), 634–651.

12.

DeFina

Georgakopoulou

(2008). Analysing narratives as practices. Qualitative Research, 8(3), 379–387.

13.

DeFina

Georgakopoulou

(2012). Analyzing narrative. Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

14.

Dieter

Gerlitz

Helmond

Tkacz

van Der Vlist

F. N.

Weltevrede

(2019). Multi-situated app studies: Methods and propositions. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1–15.

15.

Duguay

(2016). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18(6), 891–907.

16.

Foster

Shah

(2016). Knew me and new me: Facilitating student identity exploration and learning through game integration. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 8(3), 39–58.

17.

Fuchs

(2016). Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. Phenomenology and Mind, 11, 194–209. https://doi.org/10.13128/Phe_Mi-20119

18.

Gibbs

J. L.

Rozaidi

N. A.

Eisenberg

(2013). Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 102–120.

19.

Gibson

J. J.

(1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.

20.

Glaser

B. G.

(1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.

21.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.

22.

Gorea

(2021). Becoming your “authentic” self: How social media influences youth’s visual transitions. Social Media + Society, 7(3), 1–12.

23.

Hattery

A. J.

Smith

(2021). Policing black bodies: How black lives are surveilled and how to work for change. Rowman & Littlefield.

24.

Hobbs

Moore

D. C.

(2013). Discovering media literacy: Teaching digital media and popular culture in elementary school. Corwin Press.

25.

Hodkinson

(2017). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity, and privacy on social network sites. New Media & Society, 19(2), 272–288.

26.

Hogan

(2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 377–386.

27.

Hutchby

(2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.

28.

Jones

(2019). Reclaiming our space: How Black feminists are changing the world from the tweets to the streets. Beacon Press.

29.

Kolko

B. E.

(1999). Representing bodies in virtual space: The rhetoric of avatar design. The Information Society, 15(3), 177–186.

30.

Light

Burgess

Duguay

(2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900.

31.

Linzmayer

O. W.

(2004). Apple confidential 2.0: The definitive history of the world’s most colorful company. No Starch Press.

32.

Lombard

Reich

R. D.

Grabe

M. E.

Bracken

C. C.

Ditton

T. B.

(2000). Presence and television. The role of screen size. Human Communication Research, 26(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00750.x

33.

Minhas

Hussain

Ghani

Sajid

Pakistan

(2021). Exploring students online learning: A study of Zoom application. Gazi University Journal of Science, 34(2), 171–178.

34.

Nagy

Neff

(2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–9.

35.

Noble

S. U.

(2018). Algorithms of oppression. New York University Press.

36.

Obar

J. A.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

(2020). The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society, 23(1), 128–147.

37.

Oyserman

Dawson

(2021). Successful learning environments support and harness students’ identity-based motivation: A primer. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(3), 508–522.

38.

Postigo

O’Donnell

(2017). Networked ICTs as a sociotechnical architecture beyond closure. In Felt

Fouche

Miller

C. A.

Smith-Doerr

(Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed., pp. 583–607). MIT Press.

39.

Reed

(2020, May 13). Should showing faces be mandatory? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/should-showing-faces-be-mandatory

40.

Reich

Buttimer

C. J.

Coleman

Colwell

R. D.

Faruqi

Larke

L. R.

(2020). What’s lost, what’s left, what’s next: Lessons learned from the lived experiences of teachers during the 2020 novel coronavirus pandemic. MIT Teaching Systems Lab. https://edarxiv.org/8exp9

41.

Schrag

C. O.

(1997). The self after postmodernity. Yale University Press.

42.

Shaffer

D. W.

(2021). Operationalizing identity: Studying changing selves in experimental learning environments: A commentary to the special issue. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(3), 560–567.

43.

Stefanile

(2020). The transition from classroom to Zoom and how it has changed education. Journal of Social Science Research, 16, 33–40.

44.

Turkle

(1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. Simon & Schuster.

45.

Turkle

(2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

46.

van Dijck

. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press.

47.

Vidolov

(2022). Uncovering the affective affordances of videoconference technologies. Information Technology & People, 35, 1782–1803. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ITP-04-2021-0329/full/html

48.

Sun

Sundar

S. S.

(2022). What do you get from turning on your video? Effects of videoconferencing affordances on remote class experience during COVID-19 (arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.04017). https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.04017

49.

Zhang

(2020, November). When at home: A phenomenological study of Zoom class experience [Conference session]. Technology and the future of the home conference, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, United States.

50.

Zoom. (2022). About Zoom. https://explore.zoom.us/en/about/