Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 41–61 | Cite as

Remodeling the educational usage of Facebook in smart-mobile age

  • H. K. Salinda PremadasaEmail author
  • R. M. Kapila Tharanga Rathnayaka
  • A. Waruni Thiranagama
  • Chaminda Niroshan Walpita
Article

Abstract

Overwhelming popularity of Facebook as a social network site (SNS), especially among students, has shown growing interests of using it as a tool for education in and out of the classroom. However, despite concerted efforts from educationists, Facebook has hitherto unincorporated as a promising pedagogical tool. Influencing factors for such a use has already modeled structurally and validated, yet, the “increasing smart mobile usage to access Facebook” and its interactivity received insufficient attention in those models. Hence, our aim was to extend the existing structural model for two factors, namely mobility and interactivity. The structural equation modeling was applied to identify factors including mobility and its interactivity that may stimulate students to adopt Facebook for educational purposes. Online survey data were gathered from a sample of 510 undergraduate students using a structured and adapted questionnaire. Results of the present study revealed that in the extended model educational usage of Facebook was significantly related to its purpose and less significant to its adoption. Mobility was a significant factor in predicting the adoption in the extended model, even more than the social influence, while interactivity is significantly affecting the educational usage of Facebook. The extended model reconfirms the purpose of using Facebook is mainly for social relations. Similarly, community identification is the most significant factor for Facebook adoption and mobility seems to be further improving it. In conclusion, incorporating mobility and interactivity into the already existing model can better explain the pedagogical use of Facebook in the smart mobile age.

Keywords

Facebook Higher education Social media Educational tools 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alhazmi, A. K., & Rahman, A. A. (2013). Facebook in higher education: Students' use and perceptions. Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences, 5(15), 32–41.Google Scholar
  2. Bahner, D. P., Adkins, E., Patel, N., Donley, C., Nagel, R., & Kman, N. E. (2012). How we use social media to supplement a novel curriculum in medical education. Medical Teacher, 34(6), 439–444.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668245.Google Scholar
  3. Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2011). Social network sites usage habits of undergraduate students: Case study of Facebook. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 943-947), Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.174.
  4. Bicen, H., & Uzunboylu, H. (2013). The use of social networking sites in education: A case study of Facebook. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19(5), 658–671.  https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-019-05-0658.Google Scholar
  5. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models (Vol. 154). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Cavus, N., & Uzunboylu, H. (2009). Improving critical thinking skills in mobile learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 434–438.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.078.Google Scholar
  7. Chu, S. K., & Du, H. S. (2013). Social networking tools for academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45(1), 64–75.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000611434361.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 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), 69–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.001.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.Google Scholar
  11. DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44(3), 837–845.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2531595.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng, L., & Tavares, N. J. (2013). From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring students' motivation and experiences in online communities. Computers & Education, 68, 167–176.Google Scholar
  13. Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004.Google Scholar
  14. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873–892.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389.Google Scholar
  15. Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012). A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 58–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.003.Google Scholar
  16. Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2014). Teacher-Student Relationship in the Facebook Era. The Evolution of the Internet in the Business Sector: Web 1.0 to Web 3.0 (pp. 145–147). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, R. J. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis. In John Wiley & Sons ltd.Google Scholar
  18. Gabarre, S., Gabarre, C., Din, R., Shah, P. M., & Karim, A. A. (2013). Using mobile Facebook as an LMS: Exploring impeding factors. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies, 13(3), 99–115.Google Scholar
  19. Gebauer, J. (2008). User requirements of mobile technology: A summary of research results. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 7(1,2), 101–119.Google Scholar
  20. Gliem, J. A., & Rosemary, G. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, (pp. 82-88).Google Scholar
  21. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249689.Google Scholar
  22. Grosseck, G., Bran, R., & 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, 1425–1430.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.306.Google Scholar
  23. Irwin, C., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1221–1232.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.798.Google Scholar
  24. Junco, R. (2012a). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004.Google Scholar
  25. Junco, R. (2012b). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 187–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026.Google Scholar
  26. Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003.Google Scholar
  27. Karpinski, A. C., & Duberstein, A. (2009). A description of Facebook use and academic performance among undergraduate and graduate students. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Calif: San Diego.Google Scholar
  28. Kent, M. (2013). Changing the conversation: Facebook as a venue for online class discussion in higher education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 546–565.Google Scholar
  29. Kim, J. Y. (2016). Digital Dividents overview-world development report. Washington: World Bank Group.Google Scholar
  30. Kim, S., & Garrison, G. (2009). Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(3), 323–333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-008-9073-8.Google Scholar
  31. Kwon, H. S. (2000 January). A test of the technology acceptance model: The case of cellular telephone adoption. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 7–15). Hawaii : IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2000.926607
  32. Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 329–347.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9115-y.Google Scholar
  33. Lawrence, I., & Lin, K. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(1), 255–268.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2532051.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Lim, T. (2010). The use of Facebook for online discussions among distance learners. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(4), 72–81.Google Scholar
  35. Lu, J., Yu, C. S., Liu, C., & Yao, J. E. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206–222.  https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240310478222.Google Scholar
  36. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008.Google Scholar
  37. Meishar-Tal, H., Kurtz, G., & Pieterse, E. (2012). Facebook groups as LMS: A case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 33–48.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1294.Google Scholar
  38. Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011.Google Scholar
  39. Mulaik, S. A., Larry, J. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430–445.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430.Google Scholar
  40. Naidu, S. (2005). Learning & teaching with technology: Principles and practices. In Psychology press.Google Scholar
  41. Nowak, M., & Spiller, G. (2017, June 27). Two billion people coming together on Facebook. Retrieved from Facebook newsroom: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/two-billion-people-coming-together-on-facebook/
  42. Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1142–1149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.006.Google Scholar
  43. Ozdamli, F., & Cavus, N. (2011 Jan). Basic elements and characteristics of mobile learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 937-942). Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.173.
  44. Perry, D. (2003). Handheld computers in schools. ICT Research: Becta.Google Scholar
  45. Ractham, P., & Firpo, D. (2011). Using social networking technology to enhance learning in higher education: A case study using Facebook. International Conference on IEEE In System Sciences (HICSS), (pp. 1–10). Hawai.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.479.
  46. Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002.Google Scholar
  47. Roth, A. (2009). Following Plato’s advice: Pedagogy and technology for the Facebook generation. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 59(1), 125–128.Google Scholar
  48. Sáncheza, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students' perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.012.Google Scholar
  49. Sarapin, S. H., & Morris, P. L. (2015). Faculty and Facebook friending: Instructor–student online social communication from the professor's perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.001.Google Scholar
  50. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students' education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923622.Google Scholar
  51. Seppälä, P., & Alamäki, H. (2003). Mobile learning in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 330–335.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00034.x.Google Scholar
  52. Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers & Education, 34(3), 177–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00044-5.Google Scholar
  53. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005, October). Towards a theory of mobile learning. In Proceedings of mLearn (Vol. 1, pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  54. Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3(1), 10–18.Google Scholar
  55. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125–143.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249443.Google Scholar
  57. Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. In John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  58. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.Google Scholar
  59. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.Google Scholar
  60. Yousuf, M. I. (2007). Using experts’ opinions through Delphi technique. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(4), 1–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Computer StudiesSabaragamuwa University of Sri LankaBelihuloyaSri Lanka
  2. 2.Department of Physical Science, Faculty of Applied SciencesSabaragamuwa University of Sri LankaBelihuloyaSri Lanka
  3. 3.Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management StudiesSabaragamuwa University of Sri LankaBelihuloyaSri Lanka
  4. 4.Department of Livestock Production, Faculty of Agricultural SciencesSabaragamuwa University of Sri LankaBelihuloyaSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations