FUH SHARON RESEARCH PROJECT

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the entire content of this project work was carried out to completion

by my humble self Fuh Sharon Bih, Mat No. 0000161/UCT/SE/CCE/06, for the award of

a Bachelors Degree (BSc) in the department of Journalism and Mass Communication of

the Faculty of Social and Management Sciences of the University of Buea.

Fuh Sharon Bih ____________ ____________ (Candidate) SIGN DATE

Dr Che Tita ____________ ____________ (Supervisor) SIGN DATE

i

DEDICATION

This piece of work is dedicated to the Almighty God for giving me wisdom and showing

me the way out of it. I equally dedicate it to my beloved mother Mrs. Labah Florence for

her tremendous and relentless support to the realization of my studies and this project.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research project will not carried out without the support of my supervisor Dr Che

Tita, who gave me the topic and followed up closely to make sure I did not go out of

ii

track. I also want to laud the efforts of my elder brother Fuh Anold for his continuous

support. I cannot neglect the God sent William Esapebong who fitted into my shoes when

I thought things were getting too tough for me especially at the final stages of my project.

I equally appreciate the efforts of my entire family members, and friends who followed

me up at each step of the way to make sure this study was accomplished. For those

whose names have not been mentioned here, be rest assured that I appreciate your

enormous support from day one of my entry in UB till these last days. God Bless You.

ABSTRACT

Communication between students and teachers has always been an important aspect of

academia. Many aspects of student-teacher interaction have been researched, but little

academic research has focused on student-teacher interaction occurring within social

networking sites. The ability to understand and interpret student-teacher interaction is a

primary concern for educators, and the increased use of social networking sites has

recently complicated student-teacher interaction.

iii

The purpose of this study was to begin research based on students’ perceptions of

student-teacher interaction on the social networking site Facebook. Specifically, the study

focused on whether interaction on Facebook between students and teachers could

increase the social dimension of the student-teacher relationship. The study focused on

understanding the role a teacher’s sex and age plays in student-teacher interaction on

Facebook. Additionally, the research examined student perceptions regarding whether

students or teachers should initiate interaction on Facebook. Finally, the study allowed

students to share their ideas regarding what types of information teachers should and

should not share with students through Facebook. Although few significant results were

found, the results indicated that students were open to a small increase in student-teacher

interaction on Facebook, but that such interaction should remain mostly task oriented.

Discussion of the results and suggestions for future research are also provided.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number

Certification i

Dedication ii

Aknowledgement iii

Abstract iv

Table of Contents v-vii

CHAPTER 0NE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introduction / Overview 1 -2

1.2 Background Of The Study 3-5

iv

1.3 Statement Of The Problem 5-6

1.4 Research Questions 6

1.5 Hypothesis 7

1.6 Objectives 7

1.7 Significance Of The Study 8

1.8 Scope Of The Study 8

1.9 Organization Of The Study 8

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT

LITERATURE/INFORMATION

9

2.1 Overview 9

2.2 Past Studies 10

2.3 Theoretical Framework 15

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY, INSTRUMENTS,

PROCEDURE

18

3.1 Introduction 18

3.2 Research Design 18

3.3 Population Of The Study 19

3.4 Sampling 20

3.5 Instrumentation 20

3.6 Pre-Test 20

3.7 Data Collection 21

3.8 Data Analysis 21

3.9 Data Presentation 21

3.10 Documentation 22

3.11 Definition Of Concepts 22

3.12 Validity And Reliability 22

3.13 Description Of Statistical Procedure 23

3.13.1 Descriptive Statistics 23

3..13.2 Inferential Statistics 23

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION 24

4.1 Introduction 24

v

4.2 Population And Sampling 24

4.3 Data Coding 25

4.4 Data Analysis (Based On The Descriptive Statistics) 30

4.4.1 Data Analysis Based On Respondents Answers 30-42

4.5 Inferential Data Analysis 43

4.5.1 Inferential Data Analysis Based On Set Of Questions 43-46

4.5.2 Inferential Data Analysis Based On Set Of Respondents 46-49

4.5.3 Inferential Data Analysis Based On Research Questions 49-56

4.5.4 Inferential Data Analysis Based On Dcategory Of Respondents 57-62

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, PROBLEMS

ENCOUNTERED, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

63

5.1 Discussion of Results (Justification of Hypothesis) 63

5.2 Limitations 68

5.3 Problems Encountered 70

5.4 Conclusion 70

5.5 Recommendations 71

Questionnaire 73

References 76

vi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction/Overview

Communication between students and teachers has always been an important aspect of

academia. Many aspects of student-teacher interaction have been researched, but little

academic research has focused on student-teacher interaction occurring within social

networking sites. The ability to understand and interpret student-teacher interaction is a

primary concern for educators, and the increased use of social networking sites has

recently complicated student teacher interaction. While student-teacher interaction is

unique in that the relationship has defined conditions on which it is based (within an

vii

academic institution and predetermined power dynamics), there are aspects of the

interaction that coincide with most interpersonal relationships. By increasing the social

dimension of the relationship, teachers may also be able to help students increase the task

dimension of the relationship (i.e. learning). Social networking sites provide students and

teachers with another avenue to create a social connection that otherwise may have been

absent from the student-teacher relationship. The creation of this social aspect of the

student-teacher relationship may, in turn, be able to increase the task aspect of the

relationship and allow for greater student motivation (Cartledge & Milburn, 1978; Ryan

& Patrick, 2001; Wentzel, 1999). Because student and teacher scripts are currently being

negotiated concerning interaction on Facebook, research must be done to identify and

examine emerging patterns and how students perceive these emerging script

characteristics. There is little doubt that social networking has become an important topic

within the communication field (Rubel, 2007) and one of the most utilized aspects on the

Internet (NielsonWire, 2010). This exponential growth, along with the constant creation

and reshaping of norms, has led scholars to ponder the perceptions that individuals hold

toward communication on social networking sites (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, 2007;

Mazer, Murphy, Simonds, 2007; Mitchell & Watstein, 2007; Patton, 2007; Pempek,

Yermolayeva, Calvert, 2008; O’Malley, 2010). There are a number of prominent social

networking sites, such as MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, Friendster, and Facebook.

Facebook, which began solely for the use of individuals in academia, provides an optimal

base for student-teacher interaction because of the site’s increased popularity among

college students.

Over time, some norms have been created and maintained between peers on social

networking sites and these norms have helped individuals follow and understand some

viii

basic guidelines while communicating. Consequently, some of the issues surrounding

communication on social networking sites has already been questioned and researched.

However, one aspect that has been overlooked is interaction between students and

teachers on social networking sites. With the increase in non-students using social

networking sites—almost 51 percent of adults have a profile on at least one social

networking site—the chances of students and teachers to interact on social networking

sites has also increased (O’Malley, 2010). This area deserves consideration because the

increase of teachers participating in social networking has brought forth areas of

frustration concerning interaction between students and teachers (Glater, 2006; Lipka,

2007).

1.2 Background Of The Study

Facebook is a Social Networking Site used as a linked collection of Web pages that

allow members to communicate with one another. It was launched in February 2004,

owned and operated by Facebook Incorporated. Google scholar on the other hand defines

Facebook as a social networking website intended to connect friends, family, and

business associates. It is the largest of the networking sites, with the runner up being

MySpace. As of September 2012; Facebook has over one billion users with more than

half of them using it on a mobile device. It began as a college networking website and has

expanded to include anyone and everyone.

This outstanding website was founded by Mark Zuckerberg with his college roommates

and fellow Harvard University students; Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin

Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. At that time, it was available only to schools, universities,

ix

organizations and companies but as years go by, its usage increases geometrically. It

became open to the public in 2006 with over 70% of the users living outside the United

States and half of these users are non university students.

Facebook users create a profile page that shows their friends and network information

about themselves. This profile typically includes: information, status, photos, notes,

groups and the Wall. It is equally used to share opinions, put up adverts and

communication messages for companies in and out of crises.

Facebook offers a range of privacy options to its members. A member can make

all his communications visible to everyone, he can block specific connections or he can

keep all his communications private. Members can choose whether or not to be

searchable, decide which parts of their profile are public, decide what not to put in their

newsfeed and determine exactly who can see their posts. For those members who wish to

use Facebook to communicate privately, there is a message feature, which closely

resembles email.

In May 2007, Facebook opened up its developers' platform to allow third-party

developers to build applications and widgets that, once approved, could be distributed

through the Facebook community. In May 2008, Facebook engineers announced

Facebook Connect, a cross-site initiative that allows users to publish interactions on

third-party partner sites in their Facebook newsfeed.

It has a speedy growth with professors and students being at the spotlight. Definitely, the

communication flow is between professors and their students who have a higher SES to

afford and use Facebook.

x

As long as the usability increases, student-teacher interaction steps up considering the

fact that communication with students is one reason for professors to register to

Facebook. (Hewitt & Forte, 2007).

Stutzman (2006) reported that 90% of the undergraduate students in his study indicated

that they use Facebook. Fogel and Nehmad(2009) also reported that more than ¾ (78.6%)

of their participants in their research done at a four-year undergraduate college had

created a Facebook profile.

Therefore, while there may be other online environments and tools to promote social

learning, it makes sense to utilize Facebook as higher education tool because students are

already engaging in this online environment. In the same light, the department of

Journalism and Mass Communication of the University of Buea has a Facebook account

dubbed ASJUB.com. It is a group created to bring lecturers and students on a platform to

share opinions and ideas. Most of the lecturers pose as mediators to regulate and gate

keep information on this page. In the same way, some announcements and assignments

are put up by lecturers on this page. These strengthens and also strains the relationship

between teachers and students as some exchange messages with their teachers or write

offensive messages on The Wall hence violating one of the laws of journalism which is

gate keeping.

Apart from using this account, lecturers as well as students explore each others’ personal

profile either to poke, exchange messages, comment on each others’ Wall or

photos .Margaret Hartmann(2009) reported that some educators use Facebook to

communicate with students about school work and engage those who do not find it

comfortable speaking up in class.

xi

If schools want to keep all online relationships appropriate, they have to teach students

and teachers how to do that, rather than trying to ignore that technology is becoming

more and more integrated into our lives. Someday students are going to be emailing

college professors and getting friend requests from co-workers. They should learn

beforehand that they need to master the "reply all" button, watch the text speak in emails

to bosses, and not post Facebook updates about their Ferris antics when they've called in

sick. As for teachers, it seems like half of the incidents in the past year could have been

avoided if someone explained how privacy settings work, or just impressed upon them

that nothing they post is ever really totally private. No teacher wants their students to get

a hold of photos of them playing in college, but with new technologies available, many of

us need help figuring out how to keep the professional and the personal separate online.

1.3 Statement Of The Problem

Facebook, a popular social networking site, provides educators with new possibilities for

reaching their students. It is one of the most used social media in the world wherein

people get to make friends and exchange messages. As these technologies are new, there

is not a total understanding of how these technologies could best be used in education.

Students as well as teachers constitute the majority of Facebook users within and out of

the academic milieu. It provides opportunities for teachers and students to interact in new

ways but the guideline and expectations for behaviour have not been clearly defined. As

there are a number of unresolved issues related to integrating Facebook into education,

this study will therefore provide a better understanding of what students find appropriate

as far as student –teacher interaction on Facebook is concerned. As long as Facebook

xii

remains a platform for interaction to many, the question is that is it justifiable for students

to exchange messages with their teachers, poke on their wall or comment on their photos?

1.4 Research Questions

The research seeks to understand what students find appropriate in student- teacher

interaction on Facebook. Thus, the following research questions can be used to

breakdown the idea.

Does students’ knowledge of Facebook have an impact on student-teacher

interaction?

Which interactive behaviors are most appropriate between students and

teachers?

What interactive behaviors of teachers are most welcoming to students?

1.5 Hypotheses

H0. The use of Facebook as an interactive medium between teachers and students

ameliorates their relationship in the academic milieu.

H1. The use of Facebook as an interactive medium between teachers and students does

not ameliorate their relationship in the academic milieu.

Test of Hypothesis: Chi Square goodness-of-fit test will be used to validate either of the

hypotheses, because the test involves nominal data such as yes, no, no idea, or agree,

disagree, neither agree nor disagree.

Distribution; Chi Square goodness-of-fit distribution will be used to guide the test.

1.6 Objectives

xiii

This research has four main goals to exploit and come out with tangible factors to debunk

the research problem. They are as follows:

The study will enable us understand if Facebook is an appropriate medium for

teachers and students to interact?

Our minds will equally be opened to understanding the effects of student- teacher

interaction on Facebook on students’ intellectual upbringing

We will understand if students can differentiate good from bad interactions with

their teachers on Facebook.

Furthermore, we will assess the impact of Facebook on student-teacher

relationship?

1.7 Significance Of The Study

In as much as this study has its goals to accomplish, the implications are diverse. On a

theoretical framework, this research is a Public Relations study aimed at understanding

how students and teachers use a social media platform to create an image for themselves.

At the end, the following aspects will be realized:

This piece of work will serve as groundwork for further research by scholars.

It will help change peoples’ perception of interaction between teachers and

students on Facebook.

From the study, students and teachers may restructure their interaction on

Facebook.

The study will help people understand how Facebook can strengthen Public

Relations.

xiv

1.8 Scope Of Study

In the quest to understand what students find appropriate in student- teacher interaction

on Facebook, the study will be limited to the University of Buea. Also, out of all the

social media in the internet, Facebook is the sphere of influence because most of the

students in this University community are most exposed to Facebook than any other

social media. Most, if not all of the students interact with their teachers on Facebook and

can identify what is appropriate in student-teacher interaction on Facebook.

1.9 Organization Of The Study

This study is divided into five chapters comprising of chapter one which is the General

Introduction, chapter two is Literature Review, chapter three, Methodology, chapter four

will be Data Analysis and Interpretation. The last but not the least chapter will be chapter

five which is the conclusion and recommendations for this study.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

2.1 Overview

Emerging technologies, especially those referred to as Web 2.0 technologies, change the

way people access, interact with, create and share data and information (Ajjan &

Hartshorne; 2008, Dearstyne; 2007; Maloney; 2007, Robbie & Zeeng;2008). This change

is taking place due to the emergence of such online technologies as weblogs (blogs),

xv

wikis, and social networking sites (SNS) as well as new mobile hardware capabilities for

accessing these online technologies. These emerging technologies have the potential to

significantly impact education.

An example of a web 2.0 technology with the potential to positively impact education are

social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube. These

technologies allow users to create personal profiles for themselves as well as connect,

network, and interact with family, friends, and others with similar interests. Cardon

(2009) provides numbers that illustrate just how prevalent the use of SNS has become,

reporting that nine SNS boast over 50,000,000 registered users. Topping the list is

Facebook with over 2 billion registered users, followed by Windows Live Spaces with

120,000,000. The numbers continue to grow with Facebook recently advertising over

200,000,000 potential registered users.

SNS promote social interaction between individuals, potentially supporting active

learning, social learning, and student knowledge construction within a student-centered,

constructivist environment. (Ferdig, 2007) According to Vygotsky’s theory, known as

socio-cultural perspective, cognitive growth is influenced by society and culture and not

performed in isolation (Driscoll, 2005; Omrod, 2004). Omrod argues that knowledge

construction may occur as an independent activity of the individual or when individuals

work together (known as social construction). Clark and Peterson (1985) claim teachers

and their beliefs may play a major role in education reform since teachers’ beliefs lead to

actions and these actions impact students. Since their beliefs may impact their actions,

teachers’ beliefs play a critical role in restructuring science education.

xvi

The largest number of Facebook users was cited previously, and among higher education

Students its use appears to be even more widespread. (Ellison, 2008; Milshtein, 2007)

2.2 Past Studies

According to Margaret Hartmann (2009), in the past years people have proven that they

have a truly undeniable urge to say and do stupid things on Facebook, and that includes

plenty of teachers. Educators have been disciplined, let go, or even arrested for things

they posted online, even when they had little to do with their students. Now schools

across the country are trying to combat the problem by issuing new guidelines that ban

teachers from private communications with kids through social networking sites. The

intention is to protect both teachers and students, but the new rules may be punishing

those who use the technology effectively rather than just a handful of idiots and sleaze

balls that shouldn't be in a classroom.

In understanding student-teacher interaction on Facebook and what students

find appropriate, a lot of research findings have been written in text for further research.

As Facebook gains fertile grounds in the academic milieu worth understanding is what

other people perceive of this particular issue. Before proceeding to understand what

students find appropriate in student- teacher interaction on Facebook, it is extremely

necessary to know what appropriate student – teacher interaction is.

A recent research carried out by Brehane Teclehaimanot and Torey Hickman, Facebook

provides opportunities for teachers and student to interact in new ways, but the guidelines

and expectations for behaviour have clearly been defined. Hewitt and Forte (2006)

reports that many students did not want to have a social relationship with their professors,

xvii

but preferred to keep it professional. Brehane and Torey further asserted that the

popularity of Facebook among college students might have its roots in the founding of

the network as a site designed for college students. At its inception in 2004, Facebook

required all users to register using an email address ending in .edu. While faculty and

staff might also receive .edu.email address, they did not join Facebook in large numbers

because they were yet to get acquainted to the system. On one hand, there appeared to be

a large number of students who did not find Facebook as an appropriate medium for

student-teacher interaction. These were especially female students. On the other hand,

there was the potential for improved student attitude towards their teacher which could

translate a more positive educational experience. In order to effectively utilise Facebook

as a tool to create social learning opportunities, teachers must understand how to interact

with their students in a way that promotes the improved positive perception of the teacher

and classroom environment while not engaging in behaviours that might harm these

perceptions.

Social media has allowed students and teachers to interact in new ways that some

say helps extend education beyond the classroom, but a new Missouri law views the

situation differently. Governor Jay Nixon (D) signed Missouri Senate Bill 54 into law on

July 14th. The law, which is also known as the Amy Hestir Student Prevention Act,

aims to protect students from sexual harassment. It has become known as the “Facebook

Law” in recent weeks due to a portion of the bill that forbids teachers and students from

communicating through social networks and other websites that allow private one-on-one

contact. The two sentences in questions (from the 35 page long bill) read as follows:

xviii

- No teacher shall establish, maintain or use a work-related Internet site unless such

site is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical

custodian or legal guardian.

- No teacher shall establish, maintain or use a no work-related Internet site which

allows exclusive access with a current or former student.

This roughly means that teachers and students cannot be friends on Facebook, follow

each other on Twitter or connect through any other form of social media that would allow

them to communicate privately.

Teachers are still allowed to create public Facebook Pages, which anyone can

view and “Like” without becoming friends with the creator of the page.

Educators, coaches, band directors and others who might interact with students

can use these pages to disseminate information without violating the law because

such pages can be viewed by the wider public.

Despite the ability to create these pages, the law has sparked controversy among

educators who say it diminishes their ability to reach students outside the classroom and

limits learning opportunities in many other ways. Social media is not the only

communication method affected. Students can also no longer instant- message their

teachers, and email is subject to review by parents and administrators.

Cheri Simonds, a professor of Communications at Illinois State University, has studied

communication between students and teachers. "This concept of teacher immediacy

(approachability, availability and warmth) has been widely studied," Simonds told

xix

the Huffington Post. "Facebook is an avenue for establishing immediacy with students on

their level." He concluded

State Senator Jane Cunningham (R - West County), one of the sponsors of the

Missouri senate bill, said lawmakers are merely trying to make student-teacher

communication safer for all involved by keeping it open.

"We are by no means trying to stop communication, just make it appropriate and make it

available to those who should be seeing it." "Exclusive communication is a pathway into

the sexual misconduct.” Cunningham affirmed.

Still, educators and researchers like Simonds worry that the law will have unintended side

effects. Teachers may begin to shy away from all out-of-class communication with their

students for fear that it could be deemed illegal. As a result, students will lose the

educational benefits that come with being in touch with their instructors, especially

because social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter are such popular platforms for

distributing information and engaging with others. It is also apparent that although

university students make up a large proportion of the SNS user population, other

demographic groups are becoming increasingly active in these cyber-communities. In

addition to Facebook and Myspace, posting tweets on Twitter have become extremely

popular. Tweets are short text based posts that are used for the rapid dissemination of

real-time information. Although this medium has been used to communicate important

information in volatile social-political situations (e.g., political demonstration as a result

of the most recent election in Iran), many Tweets contain relatively mundane status

xx

updates or information about the Tweeter. Regardless of the purpose, the contents of the

tweet can now be accessed when conducting a standard online Google search.

In line with the Mussori Bill, many argue that the bill assumes the worst of

teachers and unfairly calls student-teacher communication into question. It presumes that

any teacher and student who interact outside of the typical classroom setting may be

involved in misconduct. Supporters of the bill say there are numerous methods for

publicly communicating online that teachers and students can pursue. Blogs, Facebook

Fan Pages and message boards can serve the purposes of educators while eliminating the

possibility of private, inappropriate contact.

The New York Times reported a similar article in response to various incidents.

School boards in at least 12 states across the country updated their social media policies

during the first semester. Some told teachers they could not post photos of themselves

using alcohol and drugs, and others said there should be absolutely no fraternization with

students online.

Schools were particularly sensitive to the issue since in several recent cases of

teachers abusing students, it was revealed that the inappropriate relationship started out

with hundreds of text and Facebook messages before becoming physical. This greatly

distorts the purpose for which Facebook was intended.

Missouri school districts must independently implement a policy that conforms to the

new law. Before then, however, the law may come under fire from groups like the

ACLU or others who believe it goes too far in limiting speech. Others question how

anyone could hope to police such a law and point out that those who engage in a

xxi

questionable relationship are still likely to do so in other private means, which parents

and administrators cannot easily detect . Whether anyone will challenge the law in court

and how exactly it will be implemented remains to be seen.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

In order to fully ascertain this study various mass communication theories are necessary.

These theories were propounded by communication scholars who sought to understand

the effects of the media on its audience. Facebook being a social media is not left out.

The idea of this study being how appropriate students find student teacher interaction can

be simplified by the following communication theories.

Knowledge Gap Hypothesis (Philip J. Tichenor et al,1970)

Specifically, the hypothesis predicts that ; as the infusion of mass media

information into a social system increases, higher socio- economic status segments tend

to acquire this information faster than lower socio-economic status population. This

therefore creates the gap in knowledge between the two which tends to increase rather

than decrease. According to this theory, we will be finding out how student-teacher

interaction on Facebook is perceived by some students over the others.

- Agenda Setting Theory (Max McCombs and Donald Shaw,1968)

These two communication scholars came out with findings on how the mass

media determines what its audience should think or worry about. They later on

discovered that it is not only the media that sets the agenda but the audience as

well as policies set agendas for the media. In this study we will be able to find out

xxii

how Facebook determines what students and teachers should think or worry

about.

- Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989)

This is an information system theory that models how users come to accept and

use a technology. The model suggests that when users are presented with a new

technology, a number of factors influence their decision about how and when they

will use it. We will therefore be finding out how teachers and students have

accepted and use Facebook. In the same way, we will understand the factors that

determine student- teacher interaction on Facebook.

- Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) (Blumler and Elihu Katz)

It is an approach to understanding why and how people actively seek out specific

media to satisfy specific needs. UGT is an audience-centered approach to

understanding mass communication. Divergent from other media effect theories

who question “what media do to people, UGT focuses on what people do with

media. The driving question of UGT is: Why do people use media and what do

they use them for? In this study we will be finding out why students and teachers

use Facebook for interaction.

xxiii

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY, INSTRUMENTS, PROCEDURE

3.1 Introduction

This chapter will clearly describe the methods, instruments, and procedures that will be

adopted or used by the researcher in carrying out the study. They include:

- Research Design

- Population of Study

- Sampling Technique

- Instrumentation

- Pre-Test

- Collection of data

- Data Analysis

xxiv

- Data Presentation

- Documentation

- Definition of Concepts

- Validity and reliability

- Description of statistical procedure

3.2 Research Design

Research design is the blueprint for fulfilling objectives and answering questions. There

are various types of research method amongst which include content analysis, survey and

experimental design and for this study we will use the survey research method. This will

require the researcher to design and administer questionnaires face to face with

respondents. Then, we will assess what students definitely find appropriate when students

and teachers interact on Facebook and by so doing proposals may be advanced in order

for them to improve or adjust their mode of interaction on this medium.

The structure of the research is depicted in the table below.

Activity March April May June

Topic collection XXXXXXX

Proposal Development XXXXXXXXX

Administration of

Questionnaires

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Collection of

Questionnaires

XXXXXXXX

xxv

Data Analysis and

Presentation

XXXXXXXX

Write-up and

Submitting of Final

copy

XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX

Table 3.1 Shows the research design

3.3 Population Of Study

The population under study will be students of the University of Buea. The reason for

choosing them is that they understand and use Facebook on a day to day basis. They can

equally determine what is appropriate in student-teacher interaction of Facebook due to

their level of education. Another reason why the study is limited just to this University is

because the cost of transportation to administer questionnaires in other Universities will

be too high for me to foot.

3.4 Sampling

The sampling technique is purposive stratified random sampling. Of all the students

involved in the study, not only those in departments operating a Facebook account will be

expected to participate but those who use or know Facebook will be indispensable to the

study. This is because with their exposure to this site, they are versed with the system and

can determine what is appropriate for students to discuss with their teachers on Facebook.

In the same way, the level of students under study are University students so it would be

unheard of to use secondary or high school students because very few of them interact

with their teachers on Facebook.

xxvi

3.5 Instrumentation

The research will be carried out in the University of Buea and the instruments to be used

for data collection will be questionnaires as well as the collection of primary data from

the field. These questionnaires will be designed by the researcher with the help of the

supervisor. The items of the questionnaires will be open and close ended questions. The

use of interviews and an observation checklist will be used as the secondary source

through which information will be gotten.

3.6 Pre-Test

The questionnaires were pre-tested with some students prior to proper administration in

order to do all necessary corrections. This was also done to make sure if the variables

were correctly presented and answered the research questions. Ten questionnaires were

given out to be pre-tested and fortunately no questions were changed.

3.7 Data Collection

For the collection of data, a literature review of past and present journals and books as

well as other write-ups will be consulted. Other data collection tools that will be used will

be questionnaires, Interviews and observation checklist.

3.8 Data Analysis

Data for this research will be collected basically from two sources that is the primary and

secondary sources. Data from the primary source will be questionnaires that will be

distributed, interviews, and personal observations. While the secondary will be data

xxvii

collected from the books, and other material related to the topic. It will be analyzed using

both descriptive and inferential statistics.

3.9 Data Presentation

Data that will be collected from the field will be coded and presented in charts including;

pie charts, bar charts, and frequency tables as well as any other method that is used in

presentation of data.

3.10 Documentation

After a proper analysis and presentation of data and collection from the field, the research

will -be documented as a confirmation that the data that was collected was gotten from

the right sources and that no form of corruption was done by the researcher. The

documentation will be very essential because it will help the general public to benefit

from the research work.

3.11 Definition Of Concepts

Facebook: It is a social networking site where people interact, exchange messages and

share ideas.

Social networking sites (SNS): These are technologies that allow user to create personal

profiles for themselves as well as connect, network, and interact with family, friends, and

others with similar interests.

Interaction: this is a mode of communication where there is a flow of information.

The following questions will answer specific research questions:

xxviii

Which interactive behaviours are most appropriate between students and

teachers.

Do students who do not want interaction on Facebook differ from other

students in how appropriate they find student-teacher interaction on

Facebook?

At the end of this research, clarifications will be given on what students find appropriate

in student teacher interaction on Facebook based on their responses on the questionnaires.

3.12 Validity And Reliability

The research will be valid and reliable as data will be collected from direct sources, with

the use of questionnaires and interviews that will be administered in the field.

3.13 Description Of Statistical Procedure

Questionnaire administered to respondents provided us with a sample of 20 answers

categorized into two groups of respondents: Bachelors Degree students and Masters

Degree Students with an equal percentage. The option of answers given to respondents

was also classified into three groups. According to their degree of importance as follows:

- First class answers (Yes, Agree)

- Second class answers (No, Disagree)

- Third class answers (No idea, not sure or neither agree or disagree)

Therefore according to the data collected the test statistics requires the Goodness of fit

and the chi square distribution X2 to compare an observed set of frequencies to expected

set of frequencies.

(fo – fe) 2

xxix

X2 = ∑ [ ] fe

3.13.1 Descriptive Statistics

A descriptive statistical method is used to analyze data collected from the field. This is

because the study seeks to investigate, identify and to recommend the use of security best

practices in commercial communication companies in Cameroon.

After administering the questionnaires, descriptive statistics is applied for better

understanding of the data coding. This classifies the answers into three groups of

importance.

3.13.2 Inferential Statistics

A sample population of 100 students of the University of Buea will serve as respondents

for the questionnaires.

CHAPTER FOURDATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter analyses, presents and interprets the data that is collected from field. The

analysis is to justify the fact that a systems approach to network security can guarantee

security for a commercially viable company.

4.2 Population And Sampling

From the research topic “What students find appropriate in student –teacher

interaction on Facebook” data was gotten only from a cross section of Bachelor and

xxx

Masters Degree students. This is simply due to the there is a high probability that the

potential for improved student attitude towards their teachers, could translate a more

positive educational experience. In order to effectively utilise Facebook as a tool to create

social learning opportunities, teachers and students must understand how to interact with

each other in a way that promotes the improved positive perception of the teachers and

classroom environment while not engaging in behaviours that might harm these

perceptions. The research therefore targeted the both Bachelors and Masters Degree

students of the University of Buea.

A total of 100 questionnaires were distributed; each having 20 questions to be answered.

Just two groups of respondents as earlier mentioned, answered the questionnaires. This

limited us to two categories as follows:

Category 1 = Bachelor’s Degree Students

Category 2 = Masters Degree Students

For convenience sake it should be noted that Category 1 and 2 will be coded as B and M

respectively.

4.3 Data Coding

Data coding involves assigning numbers or symbols to answer and response so as to

group them into classes. The data collected was coded as follows:

For the population:

Bachelors Degree Students

Masters Degree Student

For the responses:

xxxi

Yes or Agree

No or Disagree

No Idea, Not Sure, or Neither agree or disagree

Table 4.1: Composite table (summary of field findings)

CATEGORY B

QUESTIONS B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20

RQ1

1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

2 Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N

3 Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y

4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

5 Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y

6 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N


RQ2

8 N N N N N N N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N Y

9 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

10 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

11 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

xxxii

12 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

13 Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

14 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

RQ3

15 NI Y N NI N N NI Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI


17 Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

18 Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

19 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y

20 N N N N N N N N N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y

R

E

S

Y 17 12 10 17 13 10 17 19 14 20 10 10 20 19 11 20 13 19 17 15

N 2 8 10 2 7 10 2 1 6 0 10 10 0 1 9 0 7 1 2 4

NI 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

CATEGORY B CONTINUED

QUESTIONS B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 B29 B30 B31 B32 B33 B34 B35 B36 B37 B38 B39 B40

RQ1


2 Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N N N Y Y Y N Y N Y

3 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

4 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y

5 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N

6 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


RQ2

8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y

9 Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y


11 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

12 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI NI Y Y Y Y N Y N

13 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI NI Y Y Y Y Y N Y

xxxiii

14 Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y NI NI Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

RQ3

15 Y Y Y Y NI NI NI NI N N Y NI NI Y Y Y Y Y N Y

16 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI NI Y Y Y Y Y NI Y

17 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI NI Y Y Y Y Y N Y

18 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y NI Y N N N Y N Y

19 Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N N NI Y Y Y Y Y N Y

20 Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N Y N Y

R

E

S

Y 17 20 20 20 16 14 15 16 12 14 14 12 9 20 17 16 15 17 7 17

N 3 0 0 0 3 5 4 3 8 6 6 2 4 0 3 4 5 3 12 3

NI 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

CATEGORY B CONTINUED CATEGORY M

QUESTIONS B41 B42 B43 B44 B45 B46 B47 B48 B49 B50 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10

RQ1


2 N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

3 N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


5 N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N


7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

RQ2

8 N N N Y N N N N Y Y N N Y N N Y N N N N

9 N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y

10 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y


12 Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N NI Y N N Y N


xxxiv

14 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y

RQ3

15 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y

16 NI Y Y NI Y NI NI NI NI NI NI NI Y Y NI NI Y Y NI NI

17 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y

18 N Y Y N Y N Y N N Y NI NI Y Y NI NI Y NI NI NI

19 N Y Y N Y N Y N N Y NI NI Y Y NI NI Y NI NI NI

20 N Y Y N Y N Y N N N NI NI Y Y NI NI Y NI NI Y

R

E

S

Y 7 13 17 14 17 7 16 13 16 18 14 14 20 17 6 15 17 14 14 14

N 12 7 3 5 3 12 3 6 3 1 2 2 0 3 2 1 3 3 2 3

NI 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 0 12 4 0 3 4 3

CATEGORY M CONTINUED RESPONSES

QUESTIONS M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24 M25 M26 M27 M28 M29 M20 Y N NI

RQ1

1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 80 0 0

2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 60 20 0

3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 69 11 0

4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 71 9 0

5 N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 48 32 0



RQ2

8 N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 42 38 0


10 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y NI NI Y Y Y Y NI Y 79 0 1

11 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI NI Y Y Y Y Y Y 67 9 4

12 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y NI Y 58 17 5

13 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 61 14 5

14 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y NI Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 65 11 4

15 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y NI Y Y NI N Y Y Y Y Y Y 55 11 14

16 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y NI Y Y NI N Y Y Y Y Y Y 59 3 18

xxxv

RQ3

17 Y Y Y Y Y NI NI Y Y NI Y Y NI N Y Y Y Y Y Y 65 8 7

18 Y Y Y NI Y NI NI Y Y N Y NI NI N Y Y Y Y NI Y 49 17 14

19 Y Y Y NI Y NI NI Y Y NI Y NI NI NI Y Y Y Y NI Y 48 16 16

20 N Y Y NI Y NI NI Y Y NI Y NI NI N Y Y Y Y NI Y 31 36 13

R

E

S

Y 17 20 20 15 20 11 10 20 20 8 20 17 7 10 20 20 20 20 15 20 1224 --- ---

N 3 0 0 2 0 5 6 0 0 7 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 274 ---

NI 0 0 0 3 0 4 4 0 0 5 0 3 10 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 --- --- 102

Figure 4.1 Mother Pie Chart showing Summary of Field Findings.

4.4 Data Analysis(Based On The Descriptive Statistics)

4.4.1 Data Analysis based on Respondents Answers

Q1 Do you know about Facebook?

Table 4.2; Summary of respondents’ answers to question one

Answer Yes No No Idea

xxxvi

Number 80 0 0

Figure 4.2 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question one

From the pie chart above we see that all eighty respondents think know about facebook

Q2 Do you frequently visit facebook?

\Table 4.3; Summary of respondents’ answers to question two


Number 60 20 0

Figure 4.3 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question two

From the pie chart above we see that sixty of the eighty respondents agree that they

frequently visit facebook.

Q3 Do you usually spend a huge amount of time on Facebook?

xxxvii

Table 4.4; Summary of respondents’ answers to question three


Number 69 11 0

Figure 4.4 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question three

From the pie chart above we see that sixty-nine respondents agree that they spend huge

amounts of time on Facebook.

Q4 Would you agree that Facebook has helped you increase your level of interaction

has helped in your education?

Table 4.5; Summary of respondents’ answers to question four


Number 71 9 0

Figure 4.5 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question four

xxxviii

From the pie chart above we see that seventy-one of the eighty one respondents agree that

Facebook has helped increase their level of interaction and their education.

Q5 Would you fancy interacting with lecturers on Facebook?

Table 4.6; Summary of respondents’ answers to question five

Answer Good Bad Average

Number 48 32 0

Figure 4.6 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question five

From the pie chart above we see that sixty of the eighty respondents fancy interacting

with lectures on Facebook.

Q6 Would you agree that interacting with lecturers on Facebook has improved on your

grades?

Table 4.7; Summary of respondents’ answers to question six

Answer Good Bad Average

Number 70 10 0

xxxix

Figure 4.7 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question six

From the pie chart above we see that seventy of the eighty respondents agree that

interacting with lecturers on Facebook has improved on their grades.

Q7 Would you agree that Facebook as a social media is satisfactory?

Table 4.8; Summary of respondents’ answers to question seven


Number 79 1 0

Figure 4.8 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question seven

From the pie chart above we see that seventy-nine of the eighty respondents agree that

Facebook is a satisfactory social medium.

Q8 Is it appropriate to poke your teacher on Facebook?

xl

Table 4.9; Summary of respondents’ answers to question eight


Number 42 38 0

Figure 4.9 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question eight

From the pie chart above we see that forty-two of the eighty respondents agree that it is

appropriate to poke their teachers on Facebook

Q9 Is it appropriate for you to send messages to your teacher on Facebook?

Table 4.10; Summary of respondents’ answers to question nine


Number 68 11 9

Figure 4.10 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question nine

xli

From the pie chart above we see that sixty-eight of the eighty respondents agree that it is

appropriate to send their teachers messages on Facebook.

Q10 Is it appropriate for you to view your teacher’s profile?

Table 4.11; Summary of respondents’ answers to question ten


Number 79 1 0

Figure 4.11 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question ten

From the pie chart above we see that seventy-nine of the eighty respondents agreed that it

is appropriate to view their teacher’s profile.

Q11 Is it appropriate for you to comment on your teacher’s wall or picture?

Table 4.12; Summary of respondents’ answers to question eleven


Number 67 9 4

xlii

Figure 4.11 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question eleven

From the pie chart above we see that sixty-five of the eighty respondents agree that it is

appropriate to comment of their teachers’ wall and pictures.

Q12 Is it appropriate to send your teacher a friend request and chat with them?

Table 4.13; Summary of respondents’ answers to question twelve


Number 58 17 5

Figure 4.11 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question twelve

From the pie chart above we see that fifty-eight of the eighty respondents agreed that it’s

okay to send friend requests to their teachers as well as chat with them.

Q13 Is it appropriate to read your teacher’s personal information and comment on

his/her posts?

xliii

Table 4.14; Summary of respondents’ answers to question thirteen


Number 61 14 5

Figure 4.14 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question thirteen

From the pie chart above we see that sixty-one of the eighty respondents agreed that it

was okay to read their teachers personal information as well as comment on posts.

Q14 Is it appropriate to join your teachers groups as well as watch their video?

Table 4.15; Summary of respondents’ answers to question fourteen


Number 65 11 4

Figure 4.15 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question fourteen

From the pie chart above we see that sixty-five of the eighty respondents agreed that it is

okay to join their teachers groups as well as watch their videos.

xliv

Q15 Is it appropriate for your teacher to poke you?

Table 4.16; Summary of respondents’ answers to question fifteen


Number 55 11 14

Figure 4.16 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question fifteen

From the pie chart above we see that fifty-five of the eighty respondents agreed that it is

okay for their teachers to poke them.

Q16 Is it appropriate for your teacher to send you messages?

Table 4.17; Summary of respondents’ answers to question sixteen


Number 59 3 18

xlv

Figure 4.17 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question sixteen

From the pie chart above we see that fifty-none of the eighty respondents agreed that it

was okay for their teacher to send them messages.

Q17 Is it appropriate for your teacher to view your pictures?

Table 4.18; Summary of respondents’ answers to question seventeen


Number 65 8 7

Figure 4.18 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question seventeen

From the pie chart above we see that sixty-five of the eighty respondents agreed that it

was okay for their teachers to view their pictures.

xlvi

Q18 Is it appropriate for your teachers to comment on your posts and pictures?

Table 4.19; Summary of respondents’ answers to question eleven


Number 49 17 14

Figure 4.19 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question eighteen

From the pie chart above we see that forty-nine of the eighty respondents’ agreed that it

was okay for their teachers to comment on their posts and pictures.

Q19 Is it appropriate for you teachers to send you friend requests and chat with you?

Table 4.20; Summary of respondents’ answers to question nineteen


Number 48 16 16

xlvii

Figure 4.20 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question nineteen

From the pie chart above we see that forty-eight of the eighty respondents agreed that it

was okay for their teachers to send them friend requests and chat with them.

Q20 Is it appropriate for your teacher to read you personal information and join your

groups?

Table 4.21; Summary of respondents’ answers to question twenty


Number 31 36 13

Figure 4.21 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents’ answers to question twenty

xlviii

From the pie chart above we see that only thirty-one of all eighty respondents think it is

appropriate for their teachers to view their personal information and join their groups.

4.5 Inferential Data Analysis(Based On The Descriptive Statistics)

4.5.1 Inferential Data Analysis Based on Set of Questions

Step 1: State the hypothesis

H0: The use of Facebook as an interactive medium between teachers and students


H1: The use of Facebook as an interactive medium between teachers and students does


Step 2: Choose the Statistical test and give the reason for your choice:

The one-sample (Chi Square) is used to compare the observed distribution to a

hypothesized distribution. The is used because the responses are classified into nominal

categories and there are sufficient observations.

Step 3: Choose the significance level and give the reason for your choice:

Let α = 0.05.

The reason is that we are dealing with a simple social survey and the data is nominal and

also accounts for error margin.

Step 4: Calculations:

xlix

Table 4.40 Calculation of mother chi square table for set of questions (Extrapolated from the

composite table)

Questions fo fe fo- fe (fo- fe)2/ fe

R

Q

1

Q1 80 61.2 18.8 5.78

Q2 60 61.2 -1.2 0.02

Q3 69 61.2 7.8 0.99

Q4 71 61.2 9.8 1.57

Q5 48 61.2 -13.2 2.85

Q6 70 61.2 8.8 1.27

Q7 79 61.2 17.8 5.18

R

Q

2

Q8 42 61.2 -19.2 6.02

Q9 68 61.2 6.8 0.76

Q10 79 61.2 17.8 5.18

Q11 67 61.2 5.8 0.55

Q12 58 61.2 -3.2 0.17

Q13 61 61.2 -0.2 0.00

Q14 65 61.2 3.8 0.24

R

Q

3

Q15 55 61.2 -6.2 0.63

Q16 59 61.2 -2.2 0.08

Q17 65 61.2 3.8 0.24

Q18 49 61.2 -12.2 2.43

Q19 48 61.2 -13.2 2.85

l

Q20 31 61.2 -30.2 14.90

Total 229 0.0 51.29

=

=Chi Square

fo= observed frequency

fe= expected frequency

The table above has individual Chi Square values for each question such that the

cumulative or the sum total gives the calculated value

= 51.29

The degree of freedom (d.f.) is calculated from 20 columns designating the individual

questions and two rows designating the observed and the expected frequencies

d.f. = (c-1)(r-1)

= (20-1)(2-1)=19

Step 5: The critical value:

From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. =19 and α = 0.05

Using these 2 parameters we find out from the table above that the critical value is =

30.14

Step 6: Interpret

We observe that this critical value (30.14) is less than the calculated Chi Square value

(51.29), so we reject the null hypothesis. In other words, the calculated value is in the

zone of rejection as indicated by the following diagram;

li

Zone of Acceptance

]

Figure 4.41: One-tailed test α = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on set of questions

The calculated value 51.29, is greater than the critical value of 30.14 and is in the zone of

rejection, therefore we reject the null hypothesis.

4.5.2 Inferential Data Analysis Based on Set of Respondents











Let α = 0.05.

lii

Calculated Value=51.29

Critical Value=30.14

α = 0.05

Zone of Rejection


also accounts for error margins.


Table 4.41 Extrapolated from the composite table

CATEGORY B

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20

fo 17 12 10 17 13 10 17 19 14 20 10 10 20 19 11 20 13 19 17 15

fe 15.3

15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3

fo- fe 1.7 -3.3 -5.3 1.7 -2.3 -5.3 1.7 3.7 -1.3 4.7 -5.3 -5.3 4.7 3.7 -4.3 4.7 -2.3 3.7 1.7 -0.3

(fo- fe)2/ fe 0.9 0.7 1.8 0.9 0.3 1.8 0.9 0.9 0.1 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.0



17 20 20 20 16 14 15 16 12 14 14 12 9 20 17 16 15 17 7 17

15.

3

15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3

1.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 0.7 -1.3 -0.3 0.7 -3.3 -1.3

-1.3 -3.3 -6.3 4.7 1.7 0.7 -0.3 1.7 -8.3

1.7

0.9 1.4 1.4 1,4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.7 2.6 1.4 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.9 4.5 0.9

CATEGORY B CONTINUED CATEGORY M

B41 B42 B43 B44 B45 B46 B47 B48 B49 B40 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10

liii

7 13 17 14 17 7 16 13 16 18 14 14 20 17 6 15 17 14 14 14

15.3

15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3

-8.3

-2.3 1.7 -1.3 1.7 -8.3 0.7 -2.3 0.7 1.7 -1.3 -1.3 4.7 1.7 -9.3 -0.3 1.7 -1.3 -1.3

-1.3

4.5 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.9 4.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

CATEGORY M CONTINUED

M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M244M25 M26 M27 M28 M29 M30 TOTAL

17 20 20 15 20 11 10 20 20 8 20 17 7 10 20 20 20 20 15 20 1224

15.3

15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3

15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3

15.3 15.3

1.7 4.7 4.7 -0.3 4.7 -4.3 -5.3 4.7 4.7 -7.3

4.7 1.7 -8.3 -5.3

4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 -0.3

4.7 0.0

0.9 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.4 3.5 1.4 0.9 4.5 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 89.89

=Chi Square





= 89.89

The degree of freedom d.f. is calculated from 16 columns designating the individual


d.f. = (c-1)(r-1)

= (80-1)(2-1)= 79


From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. = 79 and α = 0.05


101.9

Step 6: Interpret liv

We observe that this calculated value (89.89) is less than the critical value (101.9), so we

accept the null hypothesis. In other words, the calculated value is in the zone of

acceptance as indicated by the following diagram.

Figure 4.42: One-tailed test α = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on set of respondents

4.5.3 Inferential Data Analysis Based on Research Questions

4.5.3.1 Inferential data analysis based on research question one







lv

Calculated Value=32.2


α = 0.05

Zone of Rejection

Zone of Acceptance





Let α = 0.05.




Table 4.43; Extrapolated from the composite table

=

=Chi Square





lvi

fo fe fo- fe (fo- fe)2/ fe

RQ1

Q1 80 68.1 11.9 5.78

Q2 60 68.1 -8.1 0.02

Q3 69 68.1 0.9 0.99

Q4 71 68.1 2.9 1.57

Q5 48 68.1 -20.1 2.85

Q6 70 68.1 1.9 1.27

Q7 79 68.1 10.9 5.18

477 0.00 17.66

= 17.66



d.f. =(c-1) (r-1)

= (2-1) (7-1) = 6




12.59

Step 6: Interpret



zone of rejection as indicated by the following diagram.

lvii

Zone of Acceptance

Zone of Rejection

α = 0.05

Critical Value=

Calculated Value= 17.66

Figure 4.41: One-tailed test α = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on research question one

4.5.3.2 Inferential data analysis based on research question two











Let α = 0.05.


also accounts for error margin




RQ2

Q8 42 62.8 -20.8 6.89

Q9 68 62.8 5.2 0.43

Q10 79 62.8 16.2 4.17

Q11 67 62.8 4.2 0.28

lviii

Q12 58 62.8 -4.8 0.37

Q13 61 62.8 -1.8 0.05

Q14 65 62.8 2.2 0.07

440 0 12.26

=

=Chi Square





= 12.26



d.f. =(c-1)(r-1)

= (2-1)(7-1)= 6


From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. =5 and α = 0.05


12.59

Step 6: Interpret

lix

We observe that this critical value (12.59) is more than the calculated Chi Square value

(12.26), so we accept the null hypothesis. In other words, the calculated value is in the

zone of acceptance as indicated by the following diagram.

Figure 4.44: One-tailed test α = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on research question two

4.5.3.3 Inferential data analysis based on Research Question Three






lx

Zone of Acceptance

Zone of Rejection

α = 0.05

Critical Value=







Let α = 0.05.






RQ3

Q15 55 51.2 3.8 0.28

Q16 59 51.2 7.8 1.18

Q17 65 51.2 13.8 3.71

Q18 49 51.2 -2.2 0.80

Q19 48 51.2 -3.2 2.85

Q20 31 51.2 -20.2 7.96

307 0.0 15.65

=

=Chi Square



The table table above has individual Chi Square values for each question such that the


lxi

= 15.65

The degree of freedom d.f. is calculated from columns designating the individual


d.f. =(c-1)(r-1)

=(2-1)(6-1)= 5




11.07

Step 6: Interpret



zone of rejection as indicated by the following diagram:

lxii

Figure 4.45: One-tailed test α = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on research question three

4.5.4 Inferential Data Analysis Based on Category of Respondents

4.5.4.1 Inferential Data Analysis Based on Category B Respondents







lxiii

Zone of Acceptance

Zone of Rejection

α = 0.05







Let α = 0.05.



Step 4: Calculation


CATEGORY B


fo 17 12 10 17 13 10 17 19 14 20 10 10 20 19 11 20 13 19 17 15

fe 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

fo- fe 2 -3 -5 2 -2 -5 2 4 -1 5 -5 -5 5 4 -4 5 -2 4 3 0

(fo- fe)2/ fe 0.3 0.6 1.7 0.3 0.3 1.7 0.3 1.1 0.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.7 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.0



17 20 20 20 16 14 15 16 12 14 14 12 9 20 17 16 15 17 7 17

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 152 5 5 5 1 -1. 0 1 -3 -1 -1 -3 -6 5 2 1 0 2 -8 20.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.6 2.4 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 4.2 0.3

lxiv


B41 B42 B43 B44 B45 B46 B47 B48 B49 B40 TOTAL

7 13 17 14 17 7 16 13 16 18 74915 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15-8 -2 2 -1 2 -8 1 -2 1 3 0.04.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 4.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 46

=

=Chi Square





= 46



d.f. = (c-1)(r-1)

= (2-1)(50-1)= 49




55.76

Step 6: Interpret

We observe that this critical value (55.76) is more than the calculated Chi Square value

(46), so we accept the null hypothesis. In other words, the calculated value is in the zone

of acceptance as indicated by the following diagram.

lxv

Figure 4.46; One-tailed test α = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on Category B respondents

4.5.4.2 Inferential Data Analysis Based on Category Respondents











Let α = 0.05. lxvi

Zone of Acceptance

Zone of Rejection

α = 0.05


Calculated Value= 46





CATEGORY M

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10

14 14 20 17 6 15 17 14 14 14

15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8-1.8 -1.8 4.2 1.2 -9.2 -0.8 1.2 -1.8 -1.8 -1.80.2 0.2 1.2 0.9 5.6 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2

CATEGORY M CONTINUED

M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M244M25 M26 M27 M28 M29 M30 TOTAL

17 20 20 15 20 11 10 20 20 8 20 17 7 10 20 20 20 20 15 20 475

15.8

15.8

15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8

15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8

15.8

15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8

15.8 15.8

1.2 4.2 4.2 -0.8 4.2 -4.8 -5.8 4.2 4.2 -7.8

4.2 1.2 -8.8 -5.8

4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 -0.2

4.2 0.0

0.9 1.2 1.4 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.2 3.9 1.2 0.9 4.9 2.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 1.2 39.5

=

=Chi Square





= 39.5

lxvii



d.f. = (c-1)(r-1)

= (2-1)(30-1)= 29




43.77

Step 6: Interpret

We observe that this critical value (43.77) far greater than the calculated Chi Square

value (39.5), so we accept the null hypothesis. In other words, the calculated value is in

the zone of acceptance as indicated by the following diagram:

Figure 4.46: One-tailed test α = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on Category M respondent

lxviii

Zone of Acceptance

Zone of Rejection

α = 0.05


Critical Value=

CHAPTER FIVEDISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED,

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Discussion Of Results (Justification Of Hypothesis)

The goal of this research is to begin to understand the perceptions students have toward

interaction with their teachers on the social networking site, Facebook. With increased

integration of teachers into the realm of Facebook, norms are still being created and

modified concerning interaction with students (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, 2007; Mazer,

Murphy, Simonds, 2007; Mitchell & Watstein, 2007; Patton, 2007; Pempek,

Yermolayeva, Calvert, 2008; O’Malley, 2010). These norms must be identified and

mediated by and between both students and teachers. As little research has been done

surrounding student perceptions of student-teacher interaction on Facebook, this study

looked to identify four major areas of importance surrounding student-teacher interaction

lxix

on Facebook. First, this research examined student perceptions toward the use of

facebook as an interactive medium with their teachers. Second, this study examined

which interactions are most appropriate to students. Third, the study analyzed what

interactions students find most convenient with their teachers. The varying results and

corresponding implications of the current study warrant further in-depth discussion. Data

analysis in the current study found significant results in two areas.





From the hypotheses, restated for convenience here, we observe that a total number of

options for or against or indifference to it is 1600. Of the 1600 options 1224 were in

agreement (yes) given a percentage of 77% to the fact of the HO which states that the use

of Facebook as an interactive medium between teachers and students ameliorates their

relationship in the academic milieu. However, 274 of the responses disagreed (no) giving

17% and the remaining 102 of 1600 responses were indifferent (no idea) leaving us with

6%. Apart from generally discussing, we are equally going to see those elements that lent

validity and reliability to our result.

lxx

Figure 6.1: Mother Pie Chart showing Summary of Field Findings.

From chapter four we calculated inferential data analysis based on (1) set of questions

and also based on (2) the set respondents.

1. Based on the set of respondents the critical value (30.14) is less than the

calculated Chi Square value (51.29) thereby giving us reason to reject the null

hypothesis. It should be noted here that although there are a number of social

networking sites available for research (Friendster, LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter)

Facebook is the one that began as a tool for those in academia. When first

launched, only individuals with educational institution emails (i.e., .edu) were

able to join the site. The criterion for membership has changed and individuals no

longer need an educational email address. Facebook still maintains a vast appeal

to college students (Lupsa, 2006). Eillison et al. (2007) found that 94 percent of

their sampled college students had a Facebook account. Being the largest and

most influential social networking site (Gross, 2009), Facebook is the logical

choice for such research concerning students and teachers. The new privacy

restrictions have also made Facebook the logical choice because individuals can

now control who has access to each part of their profile (Richmond, 2009;

lxxi

Richmond, 2010). Previous academic research concerning Facebook and student-

teacher relationships has focused on privacy and self-disclosure (boyd, 2008;

Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds, 2007). Mazer et al. (2007) tested whether teacher

self-disclosure (on Facebook) would have an impact on student motivation,

affective learning, and classroom climate. Mazer et al. created three different

Facebook profiles with different levels of disclosure available for the same

teacher. They concluded that higher levels of disclosure might have led to “higher

levels of anticipated motivation and affective learning and lead to a more

comfortable classroom climate” (Mazer et al., 2007, p. 12). This research showed

that students who interacted with their teacher were able to build a social

connection and “may feel more comfortable communicating in the classroom”

and such interaction “may have a positive influence on important learning

outcomes” (Mazer et al., 2007, p. 13).

2. From the set of research questions we realize that all three research questions

agree or accept the null hypothesis, which strongly confirms the reason for us to

say without compromise that the information gathered from all research questions

is reliable.

Respondent’s Category

Based on Bachelor’s Degree Students’ Responses, we observe that the

critical value (55.46) is more than the calculated Chi Square value (46), which is

relatively close to the point of symmetry or total agreement. This category of

lxxii

respondents has simply proven that they are highly reliable and seemingly know

what benefits there are if and when they interact with their teachers on Facebook.

Based on Masters Students’ Respondents, We observe that this critical

value 43.77 is greater than the calculated Chi Square value 39.5, which falls

within the zone of acceptance, so we accept the null hypothesis.

From the above observations, we see that both categories of respondents accept

the null hypothesis. However it is obvious that out of class communication with

teachers is necessary to students’ behaviors in class. Interaction allows a student

and teacher a means to gather information from each other without having to rely

solely on face-to-face communication. Interaction on social networks like

Facebook, allows users to gather small bits of information without going in-depth

in the type of information they are trying to find. This occurs for one of two

reasons. First, either the student or the teacher can limit the amount of information

they want to share with the other party. Second, students and teachers determine

the amount of information they want to actively find about the other party. Social

networking allows for this difference in traditional out of class communication.

Baxter (1988) found that interpersonal relationships have dialectical tensions and

how individuals deal with these tensions depends on the other person and the type

of relationship. Because student-teacher relationships are interpersonal in nature

(Frymier & Houser, 2000) we would expect dialectical tensions to be found

within these relationships. Social networking can help manage these tensions,

especially the need for openness and closedness, as well as autonomy-

connectedness, because students and teachers now have another route to gather

lxxiii

information from each other that also allows the individual to choose how much

they want to participate. Specific classroom tensions have also been researched

and student-teacher interaction on social networking can also help manage these

tensions. Prentice and Kramer (2006) argue that three dialectical tensions are

found within a classroom setting pertaining to students. The three tensions are:

student’s desire to participate and their desire to remain silent; student’s desire for

predictable and novel classroom activities; and a student’s management of

personal time and class time (Prentice & Kramer, 2006).

5.2 Limitations

Although the research provides a start to analyzing students’ perceptions of student-

teacher interaction on Facebook, there were some limitations to the current study that

need to be discussed.

One limitation to the study is that the questionnaire could have been more

effective in collecting a sample of responses for the difference between student

perceptions concerning teacher age. To properly analyze the hypothesis (students

will be more inclined to interact with a teacher of similar age, rather than a

teacher from a different age group) the participant sample needs a wider range of

ages. The first limitation to the analysis of research question two was found in the

operation of the questions. The participants were given directions to answer the

following two questions as to how they would perceive the initiation of

interaction between students and teachers on Facebook: a teacher initiating

interaction by sending a student a friend request and a student initiating

interaction by sending a teacher a friend request. Because all participants were

lxxiv

asked to answer the same questions it was difficult to separate how the

participants compared the two different actors initiating interaction. The

responses for these two questions were compiled into a single set of responses

and a dummy variable was created in order to separate the two sets of data and

allow for a comparison of participant responses. Although the sample size was

doubled, the magnitude of the effect was small.

The second limitation to the analysis of research question two was found in the

measurement created to measure “appropriateness”. The measure was created by

using synonyms of the word “appropriate” and then designing a 7-point semantic

differential. Although this measure does begin to attain the basic concept of

“appropriateness,” the created scale may in fact be measuring a different, more

elaborate, concept. The current study finds similarities with the concept of

“liking.” The research of Rubin (1970, 1973) describes liking as an

undifferentiated positive regard. Similarities between the current research

measure and the concept of liking can be found through the use of the terms

“good,” “satisfying,” and valuable but they do not represent a strong operational

measure. Rubin’s measure of liking (1970), however, would not have been a

viable scale for the current study as the liking measure asks about a specific

individual teacher and the current research was looking at a general abstract of

the teacher. An analysis of Westmyer, DiCioccio and Rubin’s (1998) study on

the appropriateness and effectiveness on communication channels, and the

measure used, could offer a more transparent explanation to student perceptions

of student-teacher interaction on Facebook. The questionnaire created by

Westmyer et al. (1998) contained items measuring the appropriateness and

lxxv

effectiveness of different communication channels used for different types of

communication. Future research could not only utilize this measure to gauge

student perceptions of who should initiate interaction on Facebook, but also to

measure student perceptions on what type of information should be shared on

Facebook. The analysis of information sharing through different communication

channels could be very effective in advancing an understanding of student-

teacher interaction on Facebook. Another measure that may have been

appropriate is McCroskey and McCain’s (1974) interpersonal attraction scale.

The use of McCroskey and McCain’s (1974) interpersonal attraction scale may

have allowed for a stronger measurement of student perceptions of interaction

initiation, at least through the dimensions of social and task attraction. However,

the interpersonal attraction scale also has a physical attraction dimension that is

not consistent with the scope of the current research.

5.3 Problems Encountered

It will be absurd to conclude without enumerating the obstacles faced in the course of this study.

The problems encountered were not enormous and were easily overcome. They problems

encountered and the measures put in place to overcome them were as follows;

1. Many students were reluctant to fill the questionnaires and attributed this to their busy

schedules but I made them to understand that the questions were clear and concise and

did not require respondents to write too much. This however motivated people to answer.

2. At the point of data analysis, getting a specific test for hypothesis patterning to the

research question was quite difficult but after concerting my supervisor the Chi Square

test was approved for me to use in analyzing my data.

lxxvi

3. Still at the point of data analysis, I was not quite versed with the use of a composite table

but as time went on and all necessary explanations were given, I was satisfied.

5.4 Conclusion

Facebook has become a 50 billion dollar company (Ortutay, 2011) and its influence on

academia should only increase. Facebook’s popularity among students shows fertile

ground for teachers to try and utilize this social networking site to help stimulate

students’ education. The current study was able to identify that students were open to a

small increase in student-teacher interaction on Facebook, but that such interaction

should remain mostly task oriented. Any

social interaction between students and teachers on Facebook should be limited to the

peripheral level of personal information (Altman and Taylor, 1973). The current research

has found that students would tend to use Facebook interaction with teachers as a form of

“virtual office hours” rather than a tool to foster increased social interaction. The current

study, specifically, shed light on whether students or teachers should initiate such

interaction and began to identify themes as to what information teachers should and

should not share with students through Facebook. Also, the current study found

significance in the perceptions some students hold toward interaction with teachers of

differing sex and age.

This study points to some directions to help navigate future research. There can be

multiple reasons for the creation of certain student perceptions of student-teacher

interaction on Facebook and the current research only begins to scratch the surface.

lxxvii

Teachers need to understand student perceptions of Facebook interaction to further utilize

Facebook as a tool to help increase student education.

5.5 Recommendations

Although some topics for future research have been previously noted, there are areas

worth expanding upon.

First, as the current research focused on students in a traditional four year college,

future research could expand into the realm of community and technical colleges. This

expansion would help research include more non-traditional college student participants.

Expanding the sampling frame to include non-traditional students would allow for greater

generalizability of student perceptions toward interaction on Facebook between teachers

of similar or different ages, as well as provide expanded information toward interaction

with male or female teachers. Non-traditional students may be more open to interaction

with teachers on Facebook as oftentimes there are other circumstances (i.e., jobs, family)

that may diminish their ability to develop significant out-of-class communication with a

teacher.

Second, future research should be expanded to include new areas of analysis.

Future research should look to include student perceptions on when students feel it would

be more beneficial to interact with a teacher on Facebook. The current study assumes that

interaction will take place while the student is currently enrolled in the teacher’s class.

However, a student may feel that a teacher’s out-of-class availability, as well as in-class

interaction, meets their expectation of student-teacher interaction while currently enrolled

in the class. When the class has concluded, and the student no longer has consistent

interaction with the teacher, the student may then feel that Facebook would be a viable

lxxviii

option to maintain interaction with the teacher. Also, future studies should increase the

amount of qualitative research done on student-teacher interaction on Facebook to help

understand student perceptions. Future qualitative research on the topic could help

increase understanding of whether students view Facebook interaction with teachers

positively or negatively, explore student opinions of how teachers could effectively

interact with students on Facebook, and identify how this interaction should take place

between the student and the teacher.

QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a 400 level student of the department of Journalism and Mass Communication

carrying out a study on; What students find appropriate in student–teacher

interaction on Facebook. The information you provide will be strictly confidential and

used for academic purposes only. I count on your sincere responses to make this study a

success. Place a tick (√) in the boxes that correspond to your choice. Thanks for your

cooperation.

Part One: Demographics

NAME (optional)………………………………………………………………………………….

SEX Male Female

Department…………………………………………………………………………………

Part Two: Research Questions

lxxix

Research Question One: Does students’ knowledge of Facebook have an impact on student-teacher interaction?

(1) Do you know about Facebook? Yes No No Idea

(2) Do you freauently visit Facebook? Yes No No Idea

(3) Do you usually spend a huge amount of time on Facebook? Yes No No Idea

(4) Would you agree that Facebook has helped you increased your level of interaction and has helped in your education? Agree Disagree Neutral

(5) Would you fancy interacting with your lecturers on Facebook? Yes No No Idea

(6) Would you agree that interacting with your lecturers on Facebook has improved on your grades? Yes No No Idea

(7) Would you agree that Facebook as a social media is satisfactory? Agree Disagree Neutral

Research Question Two : Which interactive behaviors are most appropriate between students and teachers?

Question No:

Is it appropriate for you to...?

Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree

8 Poke my teacher

9 Send messages to your teacher

10 View teacher’s profile

11 Comment on your teacher’s wall or picture

12 Send teacher a friend request/chat with your teacher

lxxx

13 Read your teacher’s personal information as well as comment on posts

14 Join your teacher’s groups and watch videos

Research Question Three: What interactive behaviors of teachers are most welcoming to students?

Question No: Is it appropriate for your teacher to...?

Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree

15 Poke you

16 Send you messages

17 View your picture

18 Comment on your wall posts or pictures

19 Send you a friend request and chat with you

20 Read your personal information and join your groups?

Thank you for your contribution

lxxxi

REFERENCES

What students find appropriate in student-teacher interaction on Facebook.By

Berhane Teclehaimanot and Torey Hickman; May/June 2010.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I:

Teacher and student perceptions. Communication Education, 32, p. 175-184.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on

“facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on

student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate.

Communication Education, 56, p. 1-17.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy. R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher

self-disclosure via facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and

TechnoChristofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information

disclosure and control on

lxxxii

facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes?

CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, p. 341-345.

Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-

teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development.

Educational Psychologist, 38, p. 201-234.

Dobransky, N. D., & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher-student

relationships through out of class communication. Communication Quarterly,

52 (3), p. 211-223logy, 34, p. 175-183

McCarthy, C. (2010, April 30). Facebook’s impending fight with D.C. CNet

News. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20003717-

36.html

McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of

interpersonal attraction. Communication Monographs, 41, p. 261-266.

Maloney, E. 2007. What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of

Higher Education.

Margarett Hartmann. (2009) What is appropriate student- teacher interaction?

Reasons Why Educators Need To Embrace Internet Technologies.

A face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In

Proceedings of ACM CSCW06 Conference on Computer-Supported

Cooperative Work (pp. 167-170). New York, NY:

2008 Conference on Computer Sup-ported Cooperative Work(pp. 721-730).

New York, NY: ACM Press.

Teacher Education. (2008). Profes-sional standards for the accreditation of

teacher preparation institutions. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/

lxxxiii

http://www.ncate.org/

(Davis, 1989)The Technology Acceptance Model, version 1.

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (or UTAUT,

Venkatesh et al. 2003).

Donner, M. B. (2009). Myspace, your space, facebook and blogs: Self-

disclosure on the Internet.TheCalifornia Psychologist, 28.

Kolbert, J. B., Morgan, B., & Brendel, J. M. (2002). Faculty and student

perceptions of dual relationships within counselor education: A qualitative

analysis.Counselor Education and Supervision, 41,193–206.

McNaughton, D., & Rawling, P. (2006). Deontology. In D. Copp (Ed.),The

Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 424–458). New York, New York:

Oxford University Press.

lxxxiv

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_acceptance_model#CITEREFVenkateshMorrisDavisDavis2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTAUT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Theory_of_Acceptance_and_Use_of_Technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_acceptance_model#CITEREFDavis1989

Documents

FUH SHARON RESEARCH PROJECT