Perception and Usage among Undergraduates in the Context ...

Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 1

Facebook Groups: Perception and Usage among Undergraduates in the Context of

Learning Completed Research Paper

Yvonne Hong University of Auckland,

Private Bag 92019, Auckland,

New Zealand. [email protected]

Lesley Gardner University of Auckland,

Private Bag 92019, Auckland,

New Zealand. [email protected]

Abstract

This study presents and evaluates the educational potentials and benefits that Social Network Services (SNSs) offer to students in the higher education context. Based on Social Learning Theory, we explored students’ perception and learning activities in Facebook Groups (i.e. Facebook Learning Groups), and the learning and affective benefits that SNSs offer to students. We further explored the influence of four attributes (i.e. self-efficacy, trust, privacy and presence of teaching members) in moderating individuals’ perception and learning activities on SNSs. Results from a survey accompanied by data collected from a Facebook Learning Group demonstrate the usefulness of these learning groups. Findings also indicate that trust and presence of teaching members do play influential roles in affecting students’ perception and usage of Facebook Learning Groups.

Keywords: Peer learning, Social Network Services, learning outcomes, Facebook

Introduction

There have been numerous changes in learning methods, in accordance with ever-evolving technologies. Students are given the opportunity to carry out their learning activities in various contexts. The interest of this research lies on the high adoption rate of Social Network Services (SNSs) that were initially designed for social purposes though evolved to accommodate peer learning activities as well. This is especially relevant now as technology are highly accessible to students, with the addition of feasible interactive functionalities, allowing them to connect, interact and discuss regardless of time and geography. These activities facilitated by SNSs, like Facebook, are deemed important for students as they create a supportive environment allowing individuals to carry out learning activities, which in turn potentially result in beneficial learning and affective outcomes.

This research essentially focused on exploring the benefits that Facebook Groups offer to university undergraduates, the depth of learning taking place in these groups, and the impact of the 4 identified moderators (i.e. self-efficacy, trust, privacy, and presence of teaching members) have on students’ perception of the usefulness of these groups and the actual usage of Facebook Learning Groups. The three research questions posed are as follows: (1) Do Facebook Learning Groups benefit students in their learning?; (2) Are these Facebook Groups mainly utilized as academic discussion groups rather than for

IS Curriculum and Education

2 Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014

social activities?; (3) Do identified moderators have significant influences on students’ perception of these groups and their actual usage of these learning groups?

Previous research findings indicated that these SNSs do benefit students to a certain degree, some focusing on students’ learning performance and GPAs (Hsu and Yen 2012; Pasek and Hargittai 2009) while others focused on students’ emotional/affective outcomes (Antoniou and Lepouras 2012; Grosseck et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2011; Selwyn 2009; Steinfield et al. 2008). There are, however, some conflicting findings where researchers indicated that while SNSs do have the potential to be utilized as learning tools, the distractions caused by SNSs outweigh the learning benefits (Haytko and Parker 2012; Hew 2011; Junco 2012; Madge et al. 2009; Magro et al. 2013).

Furthermore, the influences of the identified moderators have on students’ perception and usage of Facebook Groups is of interest. Past research stated that students with inadequate self-efficacy would most likely not participate in online discussions (Lampe et al. 2011; Straub 2009) while others who are concern about their privacy would restrict their interactions online (Govani and Pashley 2005). Trust is also viewed to be important in influencing the quality of information sharing and continual interactions. Nevertheless, presence and interactions with teaching members are viewed to be essentially important in supporting students’ learning progress though their presence on SNS received some conflicting results. Some students insisted on keeping their study and social life separate (Gray et al. 2010; Jabr 2008) while others preferred not to contact instructors through SNSs (Haytko and Parker 2012; Kumpikaite et al. 2011; Zeng et al. 2011).

Social Learning Theory (SLT) forms the foundation for this research. According to Bandura and McClelland (1977), SLT can be defined as learning that takes place in a social or informal context and it proposes that individuals learn from each other (Park et al. 2013). Individuals are stated to often self-initiate their learning to achieve desirable outcomes (Yu et al. 2010a). Social learning theorists further stated that individuals self-regulate and process information actively and are continually immersed in observing and interpreting the social world (Park et al. 2013; Yaros 2011). This means individuals, to a certain extent, value the importance of learning and are motivated to achieve desirable outcomes. If individuals perceive SNSs to be useful for learning purposes they would be actively involved in regulating their learning activities online (Luo et al. 2011). This is evident in SNSs where individuals participate in by not only observing the activities or posts in Facebook Groups, but also reproducing necessary behaviours demonstrating knowledge transfers, assurance or acknowledgement, resulting in learning taking place (Yaros 2011). Through these interactions and knowledge sharing activities, students benefit in both their cognitive learning outcomes and affective learning outcomes.

The paper proceeds as follows: First, we provide a literature review. We then present our research model and propose hypotheses. We then detail our research method, followed by results and implications. We conclude the paper with limitations and future directions for this research.

Theoretical development and hypotheses

Peer learning and Social Network Services

According to Topping (2005), peer learning is defined as the acquirement of information, knowledge and skills through active participation, collaboration and support among classmates or individuals of equal status. This indicates the involvement of individuals of similar social groupings coming together and helping one another to learn, thereby learning themselves.

Peer learning can be categorized into formal and informal learning. Formal learning is defined as learning that takes place in an institutional or structured manner, for example, learning that takes place in classrooms, tutorials, and in lectures (Dabbagh and Kitsantas 2012). Informal learning on the other hand, is defined as learning taking place outside of the classroom context. Informal learning may occur by chance, as this form of learning is not considered a highly conscious activity unlike learning that takes place in formal settings (Lockyer and Patterson 2008). It is stated to rest primarily in the hands of the learners and occur through asking for help, communicating with others, observations, listening to others, reflecting on daily occurrences or motivated by general interests (Lee et al. 2011; Selwyn 2007; Vivian 2011).

Facebook Groups: Perception and Usage among Undergraduates


From an educational perspective, this practice managed to yield positive results in both academic and non-academic instances (Kuh 2009). Students who undertook this practice showed to have performed better in their studies (Ashwin 2003). This is supported by McInnerney and Roberts (2004) who stated that, when individuals collaborate or discuss with one another, they often have to justify their ideas or approach to one another. This often leads to a deeper understanding of the shared information. Additionally, students would gradually feel more confident in their ability in grasping concepts (McInnerney and Roberts 2004).

Students indicated that they found Social Network Services (SNSs) to be preferable to both socialize and facilitate peer learning. Approximately 95 percent of undergraduates reported having a Facebook account, which 71 percent of them utilized for information sourcing purposes, with the inclusion of 54 percent stating that they also utilize these SNSs tools for learning purposes (Kumpikaite et al. 2011). Students, who reported favouring SNSs over Learning Management Systems (LMSs) for peer learning activities, stated that they perceived SNSs to offer a relatively more natural learning environment compared to LMSs. LMSs are perceived to be formal, overly structured and rigid; hence having been utilized mainly as an information transmission tool (Grosseck et al. 2011).

Past research that explored the educational potentials of SNSs, found SNSs to be potentially beneficial in facilitating learning activities online. Other findings were however conflicting at times, with some researchers concluding SNSs as more of a distraction and an addictive tool (Gray et al. 2010; Madge et al. 2009). Furthermore, other researchers focused on SNSs in a generic manner, focusing mostly on the social processes on Facebook and showed limited interests in educational outcomes. This research is interested in looking at the outcomes in a balanced manner, focusing on learning and affective outcomes.

The SNS of interest for this research is Facebook and its main feature of interest is the Facebook Group. Facebook Group is a feature that Facebook users can use to gather individuals who share similar interest in the same space. This space allows them to communicate, interact, share information, discuss and so on (Lampe et al. 2011). Activities on Facebook Groups are content-driven, allowing members to post and comment on the Group wall, set events, attach documents, photos and videos to share, and create question polls. Facebook Groups functionalities closely complement learning pedagogies and accelerated the adoption of Facebook Groups for learning purposes (Mazman and Usluel 2010). Currently these groups are more commonly utilized as a complementary outlet for discussions, in addition to the formal Learning Management Systems (LMS) provided by learning institutions. This is supported by University of Auckland students, with 88 percent reported to have utilised Facebook Groups for study purposes.

Social Learning Theory and Research Model

Social Learning Theory (SLT) serves as the foundation for this study to investigate the benefits and depth of learning on SNSs. Learning, according to SLT, is a social process. This concept is built on the notion that participation in a community consists of both social and learning activities (Henri and Pudelko 2003). SLT is also stated to incorporate learning concepts such as observational learning, modelling, imitation and vicarious reinforcements (Burke et al. 2009; Ormrod 2012). These concepts are seen in typical Facebook Group activities, where individuals self-regulate their learning process by observing peers postings on the group wall, followed by imitating their behaviours (i.e. posting or commenting). This reproduction of behaviours demonstrates knowledge transfer which in turn enables learning (Catford 2011; Yaros 2011). Previous studies on peer learning activities on SNSs suggest that engagement online and reproduction of behaviours would lead individuals to achieve desirable learning and affective outcomes. Accordingly, we propose a research model on peer learning in the online social networking context: Facebook, as shown in Figure 1.



Figure 1. Research Model

This study adopted Mazman and Usluel (2010)’s and Yu et al. (2010b)’s models as baseline models. According to Mazman and Usluel (2010), one of the main reasons for the high adoption rate of Facebook for learning is explained by students’ perception of usefulness. Students perceive these groups to be useful hence motivate them to engage in these learning groups. Students engagement in these groups is then shown to have direct impacts on their learning and affective outcomes (Yu et al. 2010b). Learning outcomes, known as academic outcomes, include, for instance, increased ability to critically analyse course materials, increased perceived knowledge, and accomplishing better grades or results (Park et al. 2013; Yu et al. 2010a). Affective outcomes, on the other hand, include students’ emotive feelings as a result from participating in these learning groups. Examples of affective outcomes are increased satisfaction with study life, increased confidence in interacting with peers (Lampe et al. 2011), and increased motivation to do better in one’s studies (Valenzuela et al. 2009). We also argue that the identified factors, such as, trust, teaching members’ presence on SNSs, self-efficacy and privacy, moderate individuals’ perception of usefulness, and decision to use and engage in these learning groups.

Perceived Usefulness and Usage of Facebook Learning Groups

According to Bandura (1977), most individuals often self-initiate and are actively involved in regulating their learning activities, to give themselves a head-start towards achieving desirable outcomes (Luo et al. 2011; Yu et al. 2010b). This relates to individuals’ regulating their learning activities online due to perceptions of usefulness of SNSs (Park et al. 2013). Mazman and Usluel (2010) also stated that if individuals believe that the system will help improve their learning, then they are more likely to accept and participate in the system (Grosseck et al. 2011; Yaros 2011). Thus, we hypothesize that:

H1: Perceived usefulness positively influence students’ decision to join and engage in these Facebook Learning Groups

The activities that take place in these groups consist of communications, discussions and some form of study collaboration. These activities are content-driven; where users post on the group walls, comment on existing posts, share files, use the event function to generate quizzes and so on (Kalpidou et al. 2011; Mazman and Usluel 2010; Vivian 2011). These interactions can be categorized into three main categories: academic (Burke et al. 2009), practical or administrative (Bosch 2009), and social (Boyd and Ellison 2007; Madge et al. 2009). Online interactions are seen to be beneficial for students, both cognitively and



affectively. According to Ellison et al. (2007), academic discussions would increase students’ understanding of a particular subject thereby increasing perceived knowledge of that subject. These interactions would also improve their ability to critically analyse course materials (Park et al. 2013) and their ability to accomplish tasks or assignments in a timely manner, resulting in improvement of course grades (Yu et al. 2010b). Furthermore, online interactions also provide a sense of supportive environment. The social interactions help students to seek comfort from one another hence, over time, build a sense of belonging. These interactions are stated to help increase individual’s self-esteem, satisfaction with their university life (Dabner 2012; Deng and Tavares 2013; Wang et al. 2012), motivation to participate in discussions and course satisfaction (Paechter and Maier 2010; Topping 2005). Thus, we hypothesize that:

H2: Usage/engagement in these Facebook Learning Groups will improve students’ learning outcomes

H3: Usage/engagement in these Facebook Learning Groups will improve students’ affective outcomes

Identified Factors that may Moderate Students’ Perception and Participation in Facebook Learning Groups

Students’ perception and engagement in Facebook Learning Groups were stated to be moderated by a number of factors, for instance, self-efficacy, trust, privacy, and teaching members’ presence. Teaching members’ presence is of particular interest as previous researchers pointed out that students in general indicated some level of resistance towards having teaching members’ being part of their “social circle” online. Ho et al. (2011) also stated that the identified moderators may play critical roles in influencing individuals willingness to seek and share information online. Accordingly, these 4 moderators are explored and hypothesized to influence students’ perception of the usefulness of SNSs, and students’ actual usage and engagement in these online learning groups.

Self-Efficacy refers to an individual’s belief of their own capabilities in organizing and executing courses of action to achieve a particular task (Lampe et al. 2011; Shen et al. 2013; Yu et al. 2010a). With regards to an individual’s self-efficacy and actual usage of Facebook, self-efficacy relates to an individual’s action in adopting Facebook and interacting with others through Facebook. According to Ho et al. (2011), self-efficacy is crucial in depicting an individual’s willingness to participate in discussions and sharing knowledge with others. Others, in this instance, may be people that the individual may not know well in the first place. This situation typically happens among first year students in university. Furthermore, Straub (2009) mentioned that there are other concerns displayed by individuals where they did not feel in total control of technology-related tasks (e.g. posting on groups, utilizing other functionalities provided by Facebook Groups, and adjusting privacy settings on Facebook). If individuals have high self-efficacy, they will most probably participate in discussions compared to those with lower self-efficacy. Thus, we hypothesize that:

H4: Self-efficacy will significantly influence students’ decision whether or not to engage in Facebook Learning Groups

Trust is defined as the level of control that individuals are willing to let go of in order to rely upon another individual (Chang et al. 2011). Trust, in this case, is divided into two components; firstly, individuals’ initial judgement towards the usefulness of these groups and secondly, individuals’ trust towards their peers participating in the learning group discussions. The initial trust that individuals have before joining the groups is the perception that the group will be useful in helping individuals in their studies and that the information shared in the group will be credible (Shin 2010). Secondly, the trust that individuals have in regards to the support that course-mates offer and the perception that course-mates will be understanding if constructive criticisms are made. Individuals may most probably trust that their peers are there to help one another by answering their wall posts (Park et al. 2010). Additionally, individuals will most likely accept if their peers were to correct their mistakes by providing them with constructive criticisms. Accordingly, we hypothesize that:

H5: Trust significantly influenced students’ perception of usefulness of these Facebook Learning Groups

H6: Trust will influence students’ decision to engage in these Facebook Learning Groups



Privacy, in regards to Facebook, can be defined as the rights that individuals have in deciding when, how, and at what level of information about oneself may be released publicly (Wang et al. 2012). Privacy also associates with individuals’ feelings. Feelings, for instance the fear of accidental leakage of sensitive or personal information, will deter individuals from participating in these groups. On the other hand, it was stated not to be an issue among current undergraduates, as they are stated to be more accepting towards new technology thereby more adaptable to learning, and utilizing these new tools (Black 2010) and functionalities, such as the privacy functions that Facebook offers to maintain their privacy (Muñoz and Towner 2011). Accordingly, we hypothesize that:

H7: Privacy will influence students’ decision to engage in these Facebook Learning Groups

Presence of teaching members refers to the availability of teaching members in the Facebook Learning Groups. Teaching members’ availability not only suggests their presence but also their contributions in the learning groups. Contributions include posting notifications, answering students’ queries or commenting on the thread of discussions taking place (Selwyn 2009). Presence of teaching members affects two components: students’ perception of usefulness of the learning groups and students’ feelings towards the presence of their instructors. According to Antoniou and Lepouras (2012), students feel more supported when teaching members are present as they are able to get timely feedback from them, hence encouraging them in their studies (Muñoz and Towner 2011) and may result in better course outcomes. The presence of teaching members’ in Facebook hence increases the students’ perception of usefulness of these learning groups.

On the other hand, there is a conflicting perception on having teaching members permanently in these learning groups. Students’ feel that though teaching members will be useful in giving them easy access for help and feedback, the presence of teaching members in these groups is not favoured. Students were stated to feel uncomfortable as they feel like they are being watched hence have to be cautious with their actions (Gray et al. 2010). This however may be alleviated if teaching members disclose some personal information about themselves (Lampe et al. 2011), giving students the opportunity to see the “human side” of their instructors (Madge et al. 2009). We hypothesize that:

H8: Presence of teaching members increases students’ perception of usefulness of these Facebook Learning Groups

H9: Presence of teaching members decreases students’ willingness to use/engage in these Facebook Learning Groups

Research Method

We adopted two types of research methods for our research questions: an online survey to test our proposed framework, and a secondary data collection of posts and comments from a chosen Facebook Learning Group. The target group of interest is undergraduates who are currently enrolled in the University of Auckland, with experience in participating in Facebook Groups that were set up for learning purposes.

Primary Data: Online Survey

An anonymous online survey was used as the primary data collection method. The survey, consisting of statements, was designed to encourage participants to evaluate their perception and usage of Facebook Groups for learning purposes. The survey consists of 54 questions (Appendix A), divided in to 5 categories: demographic information, perceived usefulness, usage/engagement of Facebook Learning Groups, learning and affective outcomes, and moderators. A 5-point Likert scale accompanied these statements, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The survey was distributed to students through a senior course coordinator, and through the primary researcher, by posting the survey link on Facebook.

This anonymous survey was conducted on a secured survey website: Survey Monkey, from the 24th of June to 5th of August 2013. The online survey received 258 responses. Out of the total responses, 31 responded “No” to having experience of being part of a Facebook Group that was set up for learning purposes. The survey was completed by 60 percent females and 40 percent males, 85 percent of respondents were in age groups 16 to 22 years, and 89 percent of survey participants had a Commerce



background. Furthermore, 90 percent reported spending an average of 1 to 3 hours on Facebook daily. With regards to participations in Facebook Learning Groups, 63.44 percent survey participants stated that most groups joined are learning groups. Frequencies of participation in these groups were reported to vary, with a majority of 30.8 percent posted at least 1 to 3 times a week. A sum of 11 percent stated to have posted at least 4 to 7 times per week.

Secondary Data: Facebook Group’s Posts

Additionally, to discover the depth of learning activities and to further support the credibility of findings from the survey data, secondary data collection took place as well. Secondary data consists of wall posts and comments extracted from a Facebook group that was set-up by undergraduates from a particular course for informal learning purposes. The group chosen for secondary data collection is a publicly available Facebook Group: INFOSYS 110 Business Computing – Official Page. The main reasons for choosing this group are as follows: (1) it is one of the most actively used groups, (2) a publicly open group allowing for ease of data collection without the need for consent, (3) a group that was set-up in an informal manner, representing the current nature of use by University of Auckland students.

The data collection took place from the 4th of March 2013 to the 20th of September 2013. A total of 5146 posts and comments were collected within the specified duration. To manage group’s contributors’ and members’ confidentiality and anonymity, unique or identifying information regarding participants was removed from the findings. Members’ names were also replaced using pseudonyms.

Results

The analysis of the survey data was performed on WarpPLS 3.0, using the Partial Least Squares method with bootstrap re-sampling procedure. The sample of posts and comments from the Facebook Group was analysed using Leximancer to conduct a content analysis to retrieve themes from the sample data.

Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted and the items of measurement that were examined for the measurement model are as follows: individual item reliability (i.e. indicators), internal consistency, and discriminant validity. Individual item reliability testing took place to ensure that all indicators of the model have some reliable amount of explanatory power in explaining the corresponding latent constructs, with a recommended loading value of 0.7 (Hair et al. 2010). Trust and Teaching Members’ Presence were split into (a) and (b) in order to load the corresponding variables accordingly on WarpPLS 3.0, to test the relationship between Trust and Perceived Usefulness, Trust and Usage of Learning Groups, Teaching Member’s Presence and Perceived Usefulness, and Teaching Members’ Presence and Usage of Learning Groups. A total of 9 low loading value items were eliminated from the model. This is followed by internal consistency, measuring the reliability of inter-correlation value among the items of a particular construct, with a recommended Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.6 (Malhotra et al. 2012). One of the construct as shown in Table 1 did not meet the recommended value. Composite reliability was referred instead as an alternative reliability measure and TMPa is shown to adhere to the composite reliability cut-off point of 0.7. Lastly, discriminant validty testing took place to discover the degree of differences between consructs, represented by the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The AVE values below exceeded the recommended cut-off point of 0.5, indicating that a particular construct shared more variance with its own measurement compared to other constructs in the model (Hair et al. 2010; Kock 2012).



Table 1. Assessment of Constructs’ Consistency and Validity

Constructs Composite Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

Perceived Usefulness (PU) 0.909 0.867 0.715

Usage of Learning Groups (ULG) 0.89 0.852 0.576

Learning Outcomes 0.924 0.904 0.634

Affective Outcomes 0.879 0.816 0.644

Self-Efficacy 0.907 0.871 0.663

Privacy 0.878 0.792 0.707

Trust a (Ta) 1 1 1

Trust b (Tb) 0.908 0.798 0.832

Teaching Members’ Presence a (TMPa) 0.781 0.439 0.641

Teaching Members’ Presence b (TMPb) 0.838 0.613 0.721

Discriminant validity was also tested by comparing each construct’s AVE square roots’ value to the correlation of the respective construct and other constructs. Table 2 below shows all values of the main diagonal loading higher on their respective constructs than on others, supporting the discriminant validity criteria (Hair et al. 2010; Kock 2012).

Table 2. Square Root of AVE

PU ULG LO AO SE P Ta Tb TMPa TMPb

PU 0.845

ULG 0.68 0.759

LO 0.703 0.755 0.796

AO 0.608 0.709 0.782 0.803

SE 0.386 0.408 0.453 0.466 0.814

P -0.006 0.081 0.07 0.051 -0.021 0.841

Ta 0.528 0.516 0.493 0.476 0.324 0.056 1

Tb 0.544 0.575 0.567 0.548 0.449 0.02 0.622 0.912

TMPa 0.167 0.263 0.173 0.26 0.229 -0.036 0.078 0.242 0.8

TMPb -0.061 -0.14 -0.115 -0.063 -0.005 -0.154 -0.107 0.011 0.557 0.849

Structural Model Assessment

The R-squared coefficient results shown in Figure 2 indicate that the model moderately estimates approximately 33 percent of the total variability explained on Perceived Usefulness, 55 percent on Usage of Learning groups, 57 percent on Learning Outcomes, and 52 percent on Affective Outcomes. The structural model below also indicates strong evidence that perception of usefulness of Facebook Learning Groups led to students’ participation in these groups, as hypothesized in H1 (β= 0.489). Facebook is also stated to provide students with an outlet to socialize and for learning purposes. Usage of the Facebook



Learning Groups, in turn, results in both positive learning and affective outcomes, with Hypothesis 2 (β = 0.757) and 3 (β = 0.72) very strongly supported respectively.

Figure 2. Results of Structural Model

Another research’s interest focused on the identified key moderators (i.e. trust, teaching members’ presence, self-efficacy, and privacy) that may play important roles in affecting students’ perception of usefulness of these learning groups and their decision on participating in learning groups. Firstly, students perceived to have adequate level of self-efficacy to participate in and interact with friends or strangers in the learning groups. The result did not support Hypothesis 4 (β = 0.08). Secondly, from Hypothesis 5 (β = 0.519) result, individuals indicated to very strongly trust that the information provided by the learning groups will be correct, hence perceive these learning groups as useful. Students also very strongly trust that their peers will be helpful in answering their questions and will be understanding if constructive comments were made, supporting Hypothesis 6 (β = 0.27).

Thirdly, students surveyed stated that they were not concerned about exposing their personal information or did not feel the need to increase their privacy setting, hence result did not support Hypothesis 7 (β = 0.056). Fourthly, with regards to presence of teaching members’ in groups, students very strongly agreed to have felt more confident that posts and comments are correct, supporting Hypothesis 8 (β = 0.203). In addition, teaching members’ presences were also proposed to negatively influence on students’ decisions to participate in Facebook Learning Groups. Results from this research indicated that students strongly disagreed with Hypothesis 9 (β = -0.095). Students’ surveyed indicated that they strongly favoured having teaching members present and participating in these informal Facebook Learning Groups. A summary of all hypotheses tested is presented in Table 3.



Table 3. A Summary of the Hypotheses Testing

H1 Perceived usefulness positively influence students’ decision in joining and engaging in these Facebook Learning Groups

Supported

H2 Usage/engagement in these Facebook Learning Groups will improve students’ learning outcomes

Supported

H3 Usage/engagement in these Facebook Learning Groups will improve students’ affective outcomes

Supported

H4 Self-efficacy will significantly influence students’ decision whether or not to engage in Facebook Learning Groups

Not Supported

H5 Trust significantly influenced students’ perception of usefulness of these Facebook Learning Groups

Supported

H6 Trust will influence students’ decision to engage in these Facebook Learning Groups

Supported

H7 Privacy will influence students’ decision to engage in these Facebook Learning Groups

Not Supported

H8 Presence of teaching members increases students’ perception of usefulness of these Facebook Learning Groups

Supported

H9 Presence of teaching members decreases students’ willingness to use/engage in these Facebook Learning Groups

Negatively Supported

Concept Map Model

A concept map of the qualitative Facebook Group posts was developed using Leximancer. From this analysis, a total of 11 themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis. Starting from the most important and the most discussed themes shown in Figure 3, are listed as follows: System, Exam and Test Discussions, Thought, Assessment and Issues, Question, Andrew, Video, Cost, Cheat Sheet, Code, and Don’t. 70 percent of the themes focused on academic discussions (i.e. System, Exam & Test Discussions, Thoughts, Cost, Question, Cheat Sheet, Code & Level, Video), while the remaining 30 percent consists of administrative or technical enquires (i.e. Andrew, Assessments & Issues, Don’t).

The nature of questions in regards to the academic themes are questions directed to peers asking for feedback on whether they are on the right track in their understanding of a particular topic, asking for help when they were unable to answer assessment-related questions, comparing notes with one another, or offering their thoughts and opinions regarding the questions or postings made by peers. From our observations of the posts and comments collected from the chosen Facebook Group, the depth of contributions made by peers were done in a thoughtful and searching manner. Peers not only offered a “yes” or “no” answer but were rather detailed in their responses. Responses extended from a “yes” or “no” to an explanation and were sometimes supported by referencing a particular source (e.g. coursebook, textbook, and website). Some students went in further detail in specifying, for instance, the particular page where answers could be retrieved from, and website or video links to additional information found online.



Figure 3: Key Themes from the INFOSYS 110 Facebook Group

The administrative or technical themes consist of general administrative issues, such as, frequently asked questions (FAQs), guidance for retrieving course materials, and clarifications on course assessments guidelines and due dates. In addition, technical or computer issues that students faced in the INFOSYS 110 course. Computer issues consist of technical glitches that students encountered when viewing lecture or tutorial recordings, and system crashes while attempting their practical assessments online.

The “Andrew” theme is presented in both the wider academic and administrative themes. “Andrew” refers to the course coordinator and lecturer of the course, appeared approximately 77 percent of the time as students tagged him to their posts and comments to get help, answers or feedback in a timely manner. From the content analysis, though social conversations or banters did take place in the chosen Facebook Group, the themes that emerged indicate that the topics of discussions in the INFOSYS 110 Business Computing – Official Page group were mainly study- and course-related.

Implications

Overall, this study has made both theoretical and empirical contributions. There have been increasingly a number of researches, which focused on the potentials that Social Network Services (SNSs) offer to students in facilitating their learning activities online, resulting however in either conflicting or general findings. This study, taking relevant past literatures into consideration, adopted the Social Learning Theory as the chosen theory by applying the principles of this theory to the foundation of this research’s aims. This research aimed to discover students’ perception and usage of Facebook Groups for their learning and whether these SNSs will benefit them in their learning and affective outcomes. Research also considered the 4 most relevant moderators’ (i.e. self-efficacy, trust, privacy, and presence of teaching members) roles in affecting students’ perception and their usage of SNSs.

Students who participated in the survey strongly agreed that they perceived these Facebook Learning Groups to be beneficial and useful for their learning progress. This perception of usefulness led students



to participate in these groups. This is evident by the 64 percent of survey participants who stated that most groups joined on Facebook are for learning purposes, with a majority posting at least 1 to 3 times per week.

Secondly, the findings from this research helped contribute evidence relevant to the undergraduates in New Zealand. The data analysis results from this research concurred with some of the previous findings (Hsu and Yen 2012), indicating that SNSs do facilitate learning activities in a beneficial manner which results in positive learning and affective outcomes. For the learning outcomes, students stated that usage of these groups led to positive outcomes: improvement in grades, increase of study productivity, shorter time needed to accomplish tasks (Yu et al. 2010b), perceived an increase in knowledge of the course (Ellison et al. 2007), were more able to critically analyse course materials (Park et al. 2013), and the use of learning groups helped improve their overall understanding of the course materials (Yu et al. 2010b). With regards to affective outcomes, students stated that they felt more satisfied with their study progress (Deng and Tavares 2013; Wang et al. 2012), were more motivated to do better in their studies (Goodband et al. 2012), and felt less frustrated with their studies because questions posted on the Facebook Learning Groups were being answered thoughtfully and in a timely manner (Wang et al. 2012).

Evidence from the secondary data analysis further indicates that the reason for positive learning and affective outcomes mentioned above can be explained by the positive, constructive and quality nature of discussions observed in the posts and comments collected from the chosen Facebook Group. The speedy feedback that students received ranges from a few minutes to at most one hour after query post. Furthermore, feedback was done in a thoughtful and searching manner, hence reducing frustration and increased their understanding or knowledge on the course. Though social interactions took place, the majority of posts and comments observed from the open Facebook Group showed that SNSs are not so much of a disruptive tool but rather provided a feasible collaborative and supportive learning environment. These research findings hence did not support some of the previous researchers findings, for instance, Madge et al. (2009)’s, Hew (2011)’s, and Haytko and Parker (2012)’s research.

Thirdly, with regards to the 4 identified moderators for this research, self-efficacy and privacy did not concern the survey participants, ages from 16 to 22 years. Trust, on the other hand, was viewed to be a significant factor in influencing their perception of usefulness and their actual usage of these learning groups. Participants indicated to have initial expectations of level of trust in the quality of information provided by other members (Park et al, 2010, Shin 2010) and their expectations were fulfilled. Their learning progresses were also supported, by stating that peers were helpful in sharing information and/or correcting their mistakes. This relates to the notion that individuals who joined and participated in the group have similar interests hence will be supportive and discussions will be taken place in a cohesive manner as individuals are working towards similar aims (Shin 2010).

On the other hand, contrary to previous research findings (Gray et al. 2010; Haytko and Parker 2012; Kumpikaite et al. 2011; Madge et al. 2009; Zeng et al. 2011), survey participants strongly opposed previous negative views on teaching members’ presence on Social Network Services, such as Facebook. The findings from this research rather strongly support the benefits of having teaching members included in the learning groups. Students stated that they appreciated the regular contact and support from teaching members on the learning groups as these interactions are crucial to their success in learning. This is supported by the secondary data, one theme in particular. “Andrew”, referring to the course coordinator and lecturer, came up around 77 percent of the time. Students tend to “tag” him to their posts in order to get feedback or help in a timely manner.

As students are becoming more comfortable interacting with teaching members online, there are also other implications that should be considered. Presence of teaching members in this case only focused on teaching members joining a Facebook Group rather than befriending students on social media. Issues on befriending students on Facebook had some mixed reactions from students and instructors. Both parties stated that they preferred to maintain their relationship at a professional level by avoiding befriending one another on social media and any interactions on social media were preferably kept academically (Teclehaimanot and Hickman 2011). Both parties would prefer to use the Fan Page or Group options on Facebook to interact without having to befriend one another. This is viewed more favourably as both parties will be able to maintain some control and privacy over their personal information whereas befriending would allow both parties full access to their Facebook profiles (Helvie-Mason 2011).



Secondly, there are also potential legal and liability issues that need addressing with regards to the nature of Facebook as primarily a social networking tool rather than an academic tool. Unlike the US, New Zealand currently does not have an established law surrounding potential litigation problems arising from misconducts online though some actions have been taken place, proposing a bill surrounding the cyberbullying issue: Harmful Digital Communications Bill (New Zealand Parliament 2014). There are however some liability issues that should be addressed. Issues surrounding misinterpretation or inaccurate information sharing in Facebook Groups may lead to potential misguidance among peers (Selwyn 2007), resulting in detrimental course grade outcomes. In addition, with the presence of teaching members on these groups may mislead students to think that instructors were somehow responsible in moderating the discussions in groups to make sure that content discussed were appropriate and accurate in accordance to the course materials. This in turn may result in students bringing forward their complaints to the institution. Institutions may have difficulties handling these due to lack of guidelines or policies surrounding such issues and proper online behaviours (Teclehaimanot and Hickman 2011). Institutions, like the University of Auckland, are increasingly aware of these implications and have taken steps in facilitating conversation to construct a proper set of guidelines. Manca and Ranieri (2013) proposed that both institutions and students should collaborate to construct a more informed model of faculty development, new visions of pedagogy and a set of shared views of responsibility for learning experiences as digital practices evolves.

Limitations and Future Research

There are a few limitations to this study that suggest the need for future research. First, since the survey invitations were mainly distributed through the Information Systems and Operations Management (ISOM) course coordinator, most of the survey participants were either enrolled in a Commerce degree or majoring in ISOM. Second, the survey was not optimally designed. More indicators should have been constructed to better measure trust and teaching members’ presence constructs, and survey items’ order should be randomized to reduce bias (Straub et al. 2004; Xia and Lee 2003). Third, this study only focused on four identified moderators. There may be other influential moderators that affect students’ behaviour and usage of SNSs for learning purposes, for instance, age and individuals’ cultural background. Fourth, the content analysis heavily depended on Leximancer in retrieving themes automatically. If themes were manually coded on NVivo for instance, there may be a higher possibility of retrieving additional themes, as software like Leximancer only have the ability to extract meaning from text to a certain degree; not having a holistic or the human language ability to understand some meaning of texts. Fifth, even though this thesis focused on individuals’ participation in Facebook Groups for learning purposes, this research did not enquire on the functionalities that students deemed useful in facilitating their learning. Sixth, this research only focused on students’ willingness to participate in the learning groups. There is a need to also research from the instructors’ and faculty’s point of views on adopting social media as an alternative communicative and learning outlet with students. Helvie-Mason (2011) stated that there is still a lack of research about educators’ concerns for their personal privacy on SNSs and their decision struggles in utilising social media for educational purposes. Lastly, the need to focus on instructors’ perception towards possibilities of introducing social media usage during class times, students’ behaviour towards the changes, and how students can appropriately use these tools for learning.

Conclusion

The high adoption rates of Social Network Services (SNSs) that were initially designed for social purposes has evolved to accommodate peer learning activities as well. The interest of our study, focusing on students’ perception and the learning outcomes of university students’ engagement in SNSs, demonstrates the importance, support and benefits that SNSs offer in allowing students to self-regulate their learning progress online by collaborating and sharing information with their peers. The results from the survey indicate that social learning activities on SNSs, like Facebook Groups, do benefit students in both their psychological well-being and academic performances. Additionally, this study also showed that trust plays an important role in influencing students’ perception and their usage of Facebook Groups for their learning. These learning and affective benefits are also shown to be reinforced by the presence of teaching staffs on SNSs, contrary to previous findings. This is evident in the content analysis where the “Andrew” theme recurred 77 percent, indicating that students favoured interacting with teaching members on



Facebook Groups. The findings overall implies the usefulness of SNSs as a complement to the formal learning facilities and the opportunities that teaching instructors have in supporting students in their learning progress both online and offline.

References

Antoniou, A., and Lepouras, G. 2012. "Using Facebook as Complementary Teaching Tool: A Case Study," in: Intersocial Workshop on Online Social Networks: Challenges and Perspectives (IWOSN).

Ashwin, P. 2003. "Peer Support: Relations between the Context, Process and Outcomes for the Students Who Are Supported," Instructional Science (31:3), pp. 159-173.

Bandura, A. 1977. "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change," Psychological Review (84:2), pp. 191-215.

Bandura, A., and McClelland, D.C. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall. Black, A. 2010. "Gen Y: Who They Are and How They Learn," Educational Horizons (88:2), pp. 92-101. Bosch, T.E. 2009. "Using Online Social Networking for Teaching and Learning: Facebook Use at the

University of Cape Town," Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research (35:2), pp. 185-200.

Boyd, D.M., and Ellison, N.B. 2007. "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship," Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication (13:1), pp. 210-230.

Burke, M., Marlow, C., and Lento, T. 2009. "Feed Me: Motivating Newcomer Contribution in Social Network Sites," Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 945-954.

Catford, J. 2011. "The New Social Learning: Connect Better for Better Health," Health Promotion International (26:2), pp. 133-135.

Chang, H.H., Chuang, S.-S., and Chao, S.H. 2011. "Determinants of Cultural Adaptation, Communication Quality, and Trust in Virtual Teams' Performance," Total Quality Management (22:3), pp. 305-329.

Dabbagh, N., and Kitsantas, A. 2012. "Personal Learning Environments, Social Media, and Self-Regulated Learning: A Natural Formula for Connecting Formal and Informal Learning," The Internet and Higher Education (15:1), pp. 3-8.

Dabner, N. 2012. "‘Breaking Ground’ in the Use of Social Media: A Case Study of a University Earthquake Response to Inform Educational Design with Facebook," The Internet and Higher Education (15:1), pp. 69-78.

Deng, L., and Tavares, N.J. 2013. "From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring Students’ Motivation and Experiences in Online Communities," Computers & Education (68), pp. 167-176.

Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. 2007. "The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites," Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication (12:4), pp. 1143-1168.

Goodband, J.H., Solomon, Y., Samuels, P.C., Lawson, D., and Bhakta, R. 2012. "Limits and Potentials of Social Networking in Academia: Case Study of the Evolution of a Mathematics Facebook Community," Learning, Media and Technology (37:3), pp. 236-252.

Govani, T., and Pashley, H. 2005. "Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications When Using Facebook," unpublished paper presented at the “Privacy Poster Fair” at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Library and Information Science (9).

Gray, K., Annabell, L., and Kennedy, G. 2010. "Medical Students' Use of Facebook to Support Learning: Insights from Four Case Studies," Medical teacher (32:12), pp. 971-976.

Grosseck, G., Bran, R., and Tiru, L. 2011. "Dear Teacher, What Should I Write on My Wall? A Case Study on Academic Uses of Facebook," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences (15), pp. 1425-1430.

Hair, J.F., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, R. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Haytko, D.L., and Parker, R.S. 2012. "Social Networking Tools in a University Setting: A Students Perspective," Journal of Instructional Pedagogies (9), pp. 1-9.

Helvie-Mason, L. 2011. "Facebook,“Friending,” and Faculty–Student Communication," Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education (3), pp. 61-87.

Henri, F., and Pudelko, B. 2003. "Understanding and Analysing Activity and Learning in Virtual Communities," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (19:4), pp. 474-487.



Hew, K.F. 2011. "Students’ and Teachers’ Use of Facebook," Computers in Human Behavior (27:2), pp. 662-676.

Ho, S.-C., Ting, P.-H., Bau, D.-Y., and Wei, C.-C. 2011. "Knowledge-Sharing Intention in a Virtual Community: A Study of Participants in the Chinese Wikipedia," Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking (14:9), pp. 541-545.

Hsu, P., and Yen, Y.-H. 2012. "Facebook as a Teaching Enhancement Tool to Facilitate College Student Learning: A Case Study," Latest Advances in Educational Technologies, Educational Technologies Series (1), pp. 42-47.

Jabr, F. 2008. "The New Rules of Social Networking," Psychology Today (41:6), p. 15. Junco, R. 2012. "Too Much Face and Not Enough Books: The Relationship between Multiple Indices of

Facebook Use and Academic Performance," Computers in Human Behavior (28:1), pp. 187-198. Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., and Morris, J. 2011. "The Relationship between Facebook and the Well-Being of

Undergraduate College Students," CyberPsychology, behavior, and social networking (14:4), pp. 183-189.

Kock, N. 2012. "Warppls 3.0 User Manual." from http://www.scriptwarp.com/warppls/#User_Manual Kuh, G.D. 2009. "What Student Affairs Professionals Need to Know About Student Engagement," Journal

of College Student Development (50:6), pp. 683-706. Kumpikaite, V., Duoba, K., and Taraskevicius, A. 2011. "Will Such Information Technology as Facebook

Become Regular Mean for Study Process?," 2011 3rd International Conference on Advanced Management Science (19), pp. 36-40.

Lampe, C., Wohn, D.Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N.B., and Wash, R. 2011. "Student Use of Facebook for Organizing Collaborative Classroom Activities," International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (6:3), pp. 329-347.

Lee, S.J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., and Lopez, S. 2011. "Examining the Relationship among Student Perception of Support, Course Satisfaction, and Learning Outcomes in Online Learning," The Internet and Higher Education (14:3), pp. 158-163.

Lockyer, L., and Patterson, J. 2008. "Integrating Social Networking Technologies in Education: A Case Study of a Formal Learning Environment," in: Advanced Learning Technologies, 2008. ICALT'08. Eighth IEEE International Conference, Santander, Spain, pp. 529-533.

Luo, M.M., Chea, S., and Chen, J.-S. 2011. "Web-Based Information Service Adoption: A Comparison of the Motivational Model and the Uses and Gratifications Theory," Decision Support Systems (51:1), pp. 21-30.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., and Hooley, T. 2009. "Facebook, Social Integration and Informal Learning at University:‘It Is More for Socialising and Talking to Friends About Work Than for Actually Doing Work’," Learning, Media and Technology (34:2), pp. 141-155.

Magro, M.J., Sharp, J.H., Ryan, K., and Ryan, S.D. 2013. "Investigating Ways to Use Facebook at the University Level: A Delphi Study," Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology (10), pp. 295-311.

Malhotra, N.K., Birks, D., and Wills, P. 2012. Marketing Research: An Applied Approach (4th E.D.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Manca, S., and Ranieri, M. 2013. "Is It a Tool Suitable for Learning? A Critical Review of the Literature on Facebook as a Technology-Enhanced Learning Environment," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (29:6), pp. 487-504.

Mazman, S.G., and Usluel, Y.K. 2010. "Modeling Educational Usage of Facebook," Computers & Education (55:2), pp. 444-453.

McInnerney, J.M., and Roberts, T.S. 2004. "Collaborative or Cooperative Learning," in: Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice, T.S. Roberts (ed.). Hershey PA: Information Science Pub. c2004, pp. 203-214.

Muñoz, C.L., and Towner, T. 2011. "Back to the “Wall”: How to Use Facebook in the College Classroom," First Monday (16:12).

New Zealand Parliament. 2014. "Harmful Digital Communications Bill (168-2)." Retrieved from http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/documents/reports/50DBSCH_SCR6221_1/harmful-digital-communications-bill-168-2

Ormrod, J. 2012. Human Learning (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson. Paechter, M., and Maier, B. 2010. "Online or Face-to-Face? Students' Experiences and Preferences in E-

Learning," The Internet and Higher Education (13:4), pp. 292-297.



Park, J., Konana, P., Gu, B., Leung, M., and Chung, A. 2010. "An Investigation of Information Sharing and Seeking Behaviors in Virtual Communities.," in Proceedings of 31st International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2010. Paper 242, R. Sabherwal and M.Sumner (eds.), St. Louis, Missouri, USA, pp. 1-17.

Park, S.Y., Cha, S.B., Lim, K., and Jung, S.H. 2013. "The Relationship between University Student Learning Outcomes and Participation in Social Network Services, Social Acceptance and Attitude Towards School Life," British Journal of Educational Technology (45:1), pp. 97-111.

Pasek, J., and Hargittai, E. 2009. "Facebook and Academic Performance: Reconciling a Media Sensation with Data.," First Monday (14:5).

Selwyn, N. 2007. "Screw Blackboard... Do It on Facebook!’: An Investigation of Students’ Educational Use of Facebook," in: Poke 1.0 - Facebook social research symposium. University of London: pp. 1-23.

Selwyn, N. 2009. "Faceworking: Exploring Students' Education‐Related Use of Facebook," Learning, Media and Technology (34:2), pp. 157-174.

Shen, D., Cho, M.-H., Tsai, C.-L., and Marra, R. 2013. "Unpacking Online Learning Experiences: Online Learning Self-Efficacy and Learning Satisfaction," The Internet and Higher Education (19), pp. 10-17.

Shin, D.-H. 2010. "The Effects of Trust, Security and Privacy in Social Networking: A Security-Based Approach to Understand the Pattern of Adoption," Interacting with Computers (22:5), pp. 428-438.

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B., and Lampe, C. 2008. "Social Capital, Self-Esteem, and Use of Online Social Network Sites: A Longitudinal Analysis," Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (29:6), pp. 434-445.

Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., and Gefen, D. 2004. "Validation Guidelines for Is Positivist Research," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (13), pp. 380-427.

Straub, E.T. 2009. "Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal Learning," Review of Educational Research (79:2), pp. 625-649.

Teclehaimanot, B., and Hickman, T. 2011. "Student-Teacher Interaction on Facebook: What Students Find Appropriate," TechTrends (55:3), pp. 19-30.

Topping, K.J. 2005. "Trends in Peer Learning," Educational psychology (25:6), pp. 631-645. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., and Kee, K.F. 2009. "Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook

Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation1," Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication (14:4), pp. 875-901.

Vivian, R. 2011. "University Students’ Informal Learning Practices Using Facebook: Help or Hindrance?," Communications in Computer and Information Science (177), pp. 254-267.

Wang, Q., Woo, H.L., Quek, C.L., Yang, Y., and Liu, M. 2012. "Using the Facebook Group as a Learning Management System: An Exploratory Study," British Journal of Educational Technology (43:3), pp. 428-438.

Xia, W., and Lee, G. 2003. "Complexity of Information Systems Development Projects: Conceptualization and Measurement Development," Journal of Management Information Systems (22:1), pp. 45-83.

Yaros, R.A. 2011. "Social Media in Education: Effects of Personalization and Interactivity on Engagement and Collaboration," in Social Media: Usage and Impact, H.S. Noor Al-Deen and J.A. Hendricks (eds.). Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books c2012, pp. 57-74.

Yu, A.Y., Tian, S.W., Vogel, D., and Kwok, R.C.-W. 2010a. "Can Learning Be Virtually Boosted? An Investigation of Online Social Networking Impacts," Computers & Education (55:4), pp. 1494-1503.

Yu, A.Y., Tian, S.W., Vogel, D., and Kwok, R.C.-W. 2010b. "Embedded Social Learning in Online Social Networking. ," in Proceedings of 31st International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2010. Paper 100, R. Sabherwal and M.Sumner (eds.), St. Louis, Missouri, USA, pp. 1-16.

Zeng, L., Hall, H., and Pitts, M.J. 2011. "Cultivating a Community of Learners: The Potential Challenges of Social Media in Higher Education," in Social Media: Usage and Impact, H.S. Noor Al-Deen and J.A. Hendricks (eds.). Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books c2012, pp. 111 - 128.



Appendix

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire

Demographic Information

1. I am: Male/Female

2. My age group: 16 to 18 19 to 22 23 to 25 26 and above

3. I am majoring in _________

4. I have joined Facebook for _____ of years

Frequency of Facebook Usage

1. On average, how many times a day to you check your Facebook account?

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 or more

2. On average, how much time do you spend each day on Facebook?

Less than 1 hour 1 to 3 hours More than 3 hours

3. How many Facebook Groups are you part of? ________

4. Are they mostly groups set up for learning? Yes/No

5. Participation in Facebook Groups for Learning: I tend to post/comment

1 to 3 times/week 4 to 7 times/week >7 times/week Very rarely/Never

Table 4: List of Survey Statements

Likert Scale of 1 to 5 (1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: neutral; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree) PU1 I feel that doing well in my studies is important 1 2 3 4 5 PU2 I think Facebook Learning Groups can be useful in my courses 1 2 3 4 5

PU3 I think that by joining Facebook Learning Groups, I will get information I need quickly

1 2 3 4 5

PU4 I feel that by joining Facebook Learning Groups, I will be supported in my learning

1 2 3 4 5

PU5 I feel that by joining Facebook Learning Groups, my understanding/learning of that paper will improve

1 2 3 4 5

ULG1 I use Facebook Groups to clarify study materials 1 2 3 4 5

ULG2 I use Facebook Groups to get guidance for assignments, missed lecture content

1 2 3 4 5

ULG3 I use Facebook Groups to get clearer explanations on course topics 1 2 3 4 5 ULG4 I use Facebook Groups to retrieve relevant materials that are useful to course 1 2 3 4 5

ULG5 I use Facebook Groups to retrieve admin information (e.g. due dates, notifications, general FAQ)

1 2 3 4 5

ULG6 I use Facebook Groups to retrieve procedural information (e.g. marks now available on....)

1 2 3 4 5

ULG7 I usually ask questions to clarify i.e. my answers, due dates, what I should do to complete course-related tasks/activities

1 2 3 4 5

ULG8 I usually ask questions when I am confused with the course content (did not fully understand with what was being covered in lectures or tutorials)

1 2 3 4 5

ULG9 I usually ask questions when I am not able to link the various concepts taught in the course in a holistic manner

1 2 3 4 5

ULG10 I tend to post course-related content queries (i.e. topics covered, assignments, tests, or exams)

1 2 3 4 5



ULG11 I tend to post admin-related queries (notifications, procedural information, due dates, general admin queries)

1 2 3 4 5

ULG12 I tend to post how I feel towards assignments, tests, topics 1 2 3 4 5

ULG13 I tend to post/comment more frequently during period nearing to due dates (of assignments/tests/exams)

1 2 3 4 5

LO1 Using Facebook learning group has improved my grades 1 2 3 4 5 LO2 Using Facebook learning group increases my productivity 1 2 3 4 5 LO3 I feel that less time is needed to comprehend study materials 1 2 3 4 5

LO4 Using Facebook learning group enables me to accomplish tasks (i.e. assignments) more quickly

1 2 3 4 5

LO5 I perceive that I have an increase knowledge of that course 1 2 3 4 5 LO6 I am more able to critically analyse course materials 1 2 3 4 5

LO7 The use of Facebook Learning Groups improves my understanding of course materials

1 2 3 4 5

AO1 By participating in Facebook Groups, I feel more satisfied with my study progress

1 2 3 4 5

AO2 By participating in Facebook Groups, I feel more confident in interacting with strangers as a result of participating in Facebook Learning Groups

1 2 3 4 5

AO3 By participating in Facebook Groups, I feel more motivated to do better in my studies

1 2 3 4 5

AO4 By participating in Facebook Groups, I feel less frustrated with my studies because questions asked in Facebook Learning Groups are being answered in a quick manner

1 2 3 4 5

SE1 I feel confident and competent to decide where and how to find the information I need

1 2 3 4 5

SE2 I feel confident and competent to post questions on Facebook groups 1 2 3 4 5 SE3 I feel confident and competent to comment on posts 1 2 3 4 5

SE4 I feel confident and competent to interact with others even though I might not know them in the first place

1 2 3 4 5

SE5 I feel confident and competent to follow and learn along with an online discussion created by others

1 2 3 4 5

SE6 I feel confident and competent to adjust the privacy setting on my Facebook account to prevent others from viewing parts of my profile

1 2 3 4 5

T1 I trust that the information provided in the group is correct 1 2 3 4 5 T2 I trust that my course mates will help in answering my queries 1 2 3 4 5

T3 I trust that my course mates will be understanding if constructive criticisms are made in regards to their posts

1 2 3 4 5

P1 I am concerned that my personal information might be exposed as a result from participating in these groups

1 2 3 4 5

P2 I would create a separate account in Facebook for use in my courses 1 2 3 4 5

P3 I feel the need to change the privacy settings of my account to keep my account private

1 2 3 4 5

TMP1 I find lecturers/teaching members on Facebook Learning Groups discourages me from participating

1 2 3 4 5

TMP2 I feel more confident that posts are correct when lecturers/teaching members are participating in/part of Facebook Learning Groups

1 2 3 4 5

TMP3 I like having lecturers/teaching members participating/commenting in the Facebook Learning Groups

1 2 3 4 5

TMP4 Regular contact and support from teaching members on Facebook Learning Groups is important to my success in learning

1 2 3 4 5

Perception and Usage among Undergraduates in the Context ...

Documents

Transcript of Perception and Usage among Undergraduates in the Context ...