FACEBOOK’UN ÖĞRENME/ÖĞRETME ARACI OLARAK KULLANILMASININ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ DAVRANIŞSAL NİYET VE PERFORMANSLARINA ETKİSİ

Abstract

Çalışmada öğretmen adaylarının Facebook’u öğrenme/öğretme aracı olarak kullandıklarında, kullanım niyetlerini etkileyecek faktörlerin neler olabileceğine odaklanılmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda Facebook’un öğretmen adaylarına sağladığı avantajlar, fırsatlar, kullanım kolaylığı ve alışkanlıklar ile çevresel faktörlerden kaynaklanan sosyal etkiyle beraber performans beklentisinin kullanım niyetlerini nasıl etkilediği belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının Facebook’un öğrenme/öğretme aracı olarak kullanımına yönelik görüşleri, Sosyal Ağ Sitelerinin (SAS)üniversitelerde öğretme ve öğrenme sürecinde en etkili biçimde nasıl kullanılabileceğine dair fikir vermektedir. Çalışmanın katılımcıları, Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören ve Facebook hesabına sahip olan 258 öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Analizler, kısmi en küçük kareler yapısal eşitlik (Partial Least Squares-PLS-SEM) modellemesi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Facebook’un diğer SAS’a göre sahip olduğu avantajlar, fırsatlar, kullanım kolaylığı ve kullanım alışkanlıkları, ile sosyal etkinin, öğretmen adaylarınınbu platformu öğrenme/öğretme aracı olarak kullanma niyetleri üzerinde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Facebook’un öğrenme/öğretmede sağladığı avantaj ile alışkanlık arasında β=0,205 seviyesinde, avantaj performans beklentisi β=0,228 ve avantaj sosyal etki β=0,167 arasında ilişki bulunmuştur. Facebook’un öğrenme/öğretmede sağladığı kolaylık ile sosyal etki arasında β=0,158 seviyesinde, alışkanlıkların ise davranışsal niyet üzerinde β=0,485 seviyesinde güçlü bir etkiye sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Facebook’un öğrenme/öğretmedesağladığı fırsatların ise performansa etkisi β=0,376 seviyesinde, fırsatın sosyal etkiye β=0,156 ve sosyal etkinin davranışsal niyete β=0,193 seviyesinde etkisi olduğu görülmektedir.    

Keywords

• Sosyal ağ siteleri
• Facebook
• PLS-SEM
• yapısal eşitlik modellemesi

THE EFFECT OF USING FACEBOOK AS A LEARNING / TEACHING TOOL ON THE BEHAVIORAL INTENTION and PERFORMANCE OF TEACHER CANDIDATES

Abstract

In this study, it has been investigated how the use of Facebook as a learning / teaching tool for teacher candidates affects their behavioral intention and performance perceptions. In the study, the advantages, opportunities, convenience, habits and social impacts of Facebook on learning/teaching have been taken into consideration. Students' views on their behavioral intentions are sufficient to help faculties examine the attitudes of Social Network Sites (SNS) on teaching and learning. The participants of the study, consists of 258 teacher candidates studying at a state university in Turkey and have Facebook account. As a result of the analysis of the data; a significant relation was found between the advantage-habit, advantage-performance and advantage-social effect of Facebook in learning / teaching. Among the convenience-social impact of Facebook in learning / teaching, the use of Facebook has also been found to have a strong impact on behavioral intent. However, it has been observed that the opportunities provided by education in education have an effect on performance, social impact and social effect as well as behavioral intention.

Keywords

• Social networking sites
• Facebook
• PLS-SEM
• structural equation modeling

References

1. Ainin, S., Naqshbandi, M. M., Moghavvemi, S., & Jaafar, N. I. (2015). Facebook usage, socialization and academic performance. Computers & Education, 83, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.018
2. Alarcón-del-Amo, M. D. C., Lorenzo-Romero, C., & Gómez-Borja, M. Á. (2011). Classifying and profiling social networking site users: A latent segmentation approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 547-553. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0346
3. Al-rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Musa, M. A. (2014). Social media through collaborative learning in Malaysian higher education. Asian Social Science, 10(8), 210-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n8p210
4. Arney, L. (2015). Go blended! A handbook for blending technology in schools. JohnWiley & Sons.
5. Aydin, S. (2012). A review of research on Facebook as an educational environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 1093–1106.
6. Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2006). Reflections on pedagogy: Reframing practice to foster informal learning with social software. http://matchsz.inf.elte.hu/TT/docs/Anne20Bartlett-Bragg.pdf.
7. Blattner, G., & Lomicka, L. (2012). Facebook-ing and the social generation: A new era of language learning. Alsic. Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d'Information et de Communication, 15(1).
8. Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. (2010). MySpace and Facebook: Identifying dimensions of uses and gratifications for friend networking sites. Individual Differences Research, 8(1), 27-33.

9. Boyd, S. (2003). Are you ready for social software? Darwin Magazine, 5. http://www.darwinmag.com/read/050103/social.html
10. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, andscholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
11. Bugeja, M. J. (2006). Facing the facebook. The chronicle of higher education, 52(21), C1-1–4. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Facing-The-Facebook/46904.
12. Buyukozturk, S., Cakmak, E. K., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S. & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel arastırma yontemleri. Pegem A Yayıncılık.
13. Buzzetto-More, N. A. (2012). Social networking in undergraduate education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 7, 63- 90. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/37931137/IJIKMv7p063-090Buzzetto611.pdf
14. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samplesusing partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–342).
16. Cloete, S., de Villiers, C., & Roodt, S. (2009, June). Facebook as an academic tool for ICT lecturers. In Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the Southern African Computer Lecturers' Association (pp. 16-22). https://doi.org/10.1145/1562741.1562743
17. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02310555.pdf
18. Cuesta, M., Eklund, M., Rydin, I., & Witt, A.-K. (2016). Using Facebook as a co-learning community in higher education. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064952.
19. Çoklar, A. N. (2012). Evaluations of students on Facebook as an educational environment. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(2), 42–53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537812.pdf
20. Dahlstrom, E., de Boor, T., Grunwald, P., & Vockley, M. (2011). ECAR national study of undergraduate students and information technology. Educause. https://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/ERS1103W.pdf.
21. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
22. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of informationtechnology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339. https://www.jstor.org/stable/249008
23. Demir, M. (2018). Developing a scale for using Facebook as a learning tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1457-1477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9616-8
24. Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2001). Index factorion with formative indicators: An alternativeto scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18845
25. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
26. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
27. Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 691-711). Springer.
28. Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442-458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130
29. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modelingin international marketing. New Challenges to International Marketing Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
30. Herse, P., & Lee, A. (2005). Optometry and WebCT: A student survey of the value ofweb-based learning environments in optometric education. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 88(1), 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2005.tb06663.x
31. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2
32. Irwin, C., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students' perceptions of usingFacebook as an interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journalof Educational Technology, 28(7), 1221-1232. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.798
33. Kabilan, M., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education,13(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17716-8_5
34. Kim, S., & Yoo, S.J. (2016), “Age and gender differences in social networking: Effects on South Korean students in higher education”. In T. Issa, P. Isaias & P. Kommers, (Eds.), Social Networking and Education, Lecture Notes in Social Networks. Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-17716-8_5
35. Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1237-1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024 Kwon, O., & Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Computers in Human Behavior,26(2), 254-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.011
36. Lam, L. (2012). An innovative research on the usage of Facebook in the higher education context of HongKong. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning,10(4), 377–386. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ986646.pdf
37. Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS quarterly, 31(4).705-737.
38. Lockyer, L., & Patterson, J. (2008). Integrating social networking technologies in education: A case study of a formal learning environment. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 529–533). IEEE
39. Lu, H., & Lin, K. (2014). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152-1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009
40. Lu, J., Yao, J. E., & Yu, C. S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless internet services via mobile technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.07.003
41. Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review ofthe literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 487-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12007
42. Martınez-Torresa, M. R., ToralMarın, S. L., Barrero Garcıa, F., Gallardo Vazquez, S., Arias Oliva, M., & Torres, T. (2008). A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practicaland laboratory teaching, according to the European higher education area. Behaviour &Information Technology, 27(6), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290600958965
43. Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370600751039
44. Mao, J. (2014). Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high schoolstudents' technology affordances and perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002
45. 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(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601009710
46. Mazman, S.G., & Usluel, Y.K., (2010). Modeling educational use of Facebook. Computers & Education,55(2), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008
47. McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Glenson, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00246
48. Moghavvemi, S., Salleh, N. A. M., Sulaiman, A., & Abessi, M. (2015). Effect of external factors on intention–behaviour gap. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(12), 1171-1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1055801
49. Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-kane, H. (2011). Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today’s higher education faculty use social media. Pearson Learning Solutions and Babson Survey Research Group. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535130
50. Mullen, R. & Wedwick, L. (2017), “Avoiding the digital abyss: getting started in the classroom withYouTube, digital stories, and blogs”. The Clearing House, 82(2), 66-69. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.82.2.66-69
51. Niculovic´, M., Zˇivkovic´, D., Manasijevic´, D., & Štrbac, N. (2014). Study of pathological Internet use, behavior and attitudes among students population at Technical Faculty Bor, University of Belgrade. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.020
52. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
53. Ooi, C. Y., & Loh, K. Y. (2010). Using online web 2.0 tools to promote innovativelearning. In Q. Y. Wang, & S. C. Kong (Eds.), Workshop Proceedings of the 14th Global Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 72-76). National Institute of Education.
54. Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54
55. Pollara, P., & Zhu, J. (2011). Social networking and education: Using Facebook as an edusocial space. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (pp. 3330-3338). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
56. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
57. Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses andgratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169- 174. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0056
58. Rambe, P. (2012). Activity theory and technology mediated interaction: Cognitivescaffolding using question-based consultation on Facebook. Australasian Journalof Educational Technology, 28(8), 1333-1361. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.775
59. Roblyer, M.D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J.V. (2010). Findings on Facebookin higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptionsof social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 134-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002
60. Sanchez, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students perceptions of Facebook foracademic purposes. Computers & Education,70(1), 138-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.012
61. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students' educational-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923622
62. Sharma, S. K., Joshi, A., &Sharma, H. (2016). A multi-analytical approach to predict the Facebook usage in higher education. Computers in Human Behaviour, 55, 340-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.020
63. Shen, D., Laffey, J., Lin, Y., &Huang, X. (2006). Social influence for perceived usefulness and ease-of-use of course delivery systems. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 270-282. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/50657875/5.3.4.pdf?
64. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43 (6), 51 –54. https://www.ammanu.edu.jo/EN/Content/HEC/6.pdf
65. Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003
66. Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., &Laura, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005
67. Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: technology use patterns andapproaches to learning. Computers & Education,65(1), 12-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022
68. Valova, I. (2015). Facebook or learning mangement system. International Conference on e-Learning,15, 237.
69. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94. https://learntechlib.org/primary/p/6310/
70. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. I. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of informationtechnology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1),157-178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41410412
71. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540
72. Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01195.x
73. Wang, R., Scown, P., Urguhart, C., & Hardman, J. (2014). Tapping the educational potential of Facebook: Guidelines for use in higher education. Education and Information Technologies,19(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9206-z
74. Wang, C., Liu, W., Tseng, M., & Tsai, H. (2010). “A study of Taiwanese college teachers’ acceptance of distance learning.” International Journal of Organizational Innovation 3(2), 243–260.
75. Wold, H. O. (1985). Partial least squares. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (12[6], pp. 581–591). New York, NY: Wiley.
76. Wu, Y. L., Tao, Y. H., & Yang, P. C. (2008). The use of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to confer the behavioral model of 3G mobile telecommunication users. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 11(5), 919-949. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720510.2008.10701351
77. Zhong, B., Hardin, M., & Sun, T. (2017). Less effortful thinking leads to more social networking? The associations between the use of social network sites and personality traits. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1265-1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.01.008
78. Ziegler, S. G. (2007). The (mis) education of Generation M. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880601141302