Analysis And Improvement Of Prospective Teachers’ Educational Facebook Use and Development A Model For Educational Purposes

Year 2020, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 50 - 71, 01.09.2020

Onur İşbulan Mübin Kıyıcı

https://doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2020.02.005

Abstract

Within the scope of this research, prospective teachers’ opinions on Facebook use for educational purposes was examined, and a modeling study was conducted in accordance with these views. In this study in which mixed method research patterns were used as research model, opinions were taken from 462 prospective teachers with a view to develop Acceptance of Facebook Use for Educational Purposes Scale and Acceptance of Facebook Use for Educational Purposes Model; scale development and model development studies were completed. With Facebook Use for Educational Purposes Activity in accordance with the developed model, level of acceptance of Facebook use for educational purposes among prospective teachers was analyzed. Pilot application of Facebook use for educational purposes activities was carried out with 76 students, and its application was carried out with 67 students; at the end of application, interviews were made with 17 students through semi-structured interview form. At the end of the study, Acceptance of Facebook Use for Educational Purposes Model was created based on Technology Acceptance Model 2, and through the educational purpose Facebook activity, a significant increase was achieved in prospective teachers’ level of acceptance to Facebook use for educational purposes.

Keywords

Social Network, Technology Acceptance Model, Facebook, Facebook Use for Educational Purposes

References

• Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human
• Behavior, 26(6), 1289-1295. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018
• Bailey, D. (1987). Methods of Social Research. New York: The Free Press.
• Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship. Journal of Computer
• Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Bryman, A., and Cramer, D. (1999). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 8 for Windows. Taylor and Francis e-Library, Routledge.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö., Demirel, F., & Özkahveci, Ö. (2004). Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri
• Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, (2), 207-239. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri.
• Ankara: Pegem Yayınları. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programmings. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocatiates, Publishers.
• Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. NJ
• Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Chin, W. W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In G. A.
• Marcoulides, Modern Methods for Business Research (pp. 236-295). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Creswell, J. (2013). Research Design , Fourth Edition. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. CA
• SAGE Publications, Inc. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. CA:Sage: Thousands Oaks.
• Davis, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Unpublished dissertation thesis).
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.
• Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Franklin, T., & van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Franklin Consulting.
• Guion, L., Diehl, D., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the Validity of Qualitative Studies. Youth and Community Sciences.
• Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language.
• Chicago: Scientific Software International/Erlbaum. Kalafat, Ö., & Göktaş, Y. (2011). Sosyal Ağların Yükseköğretimde Kullanımı: Gümüşhane Üniversitesi
• Facebook Örneği. 5. Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitmi Sempozyumu. Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi. Kim, W., Jeong, O., & Lee, S. (2010). On Social Web Sites. Information Systems, 35(2), 215-236. doi:10.1016/j.is.2009.08.003
• Kwon, O., & Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 254-263. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.011
• Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social Networking Web sites and Teens: An Overview. Washington: Pew
• Internet and American Life Project Report. Lockyer, L., & Patterson, J. (2008). Integrating Social Networking Technologies in Education: A Case Study of a Formal Learning Environment. 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.
• Dubai: University of Wollongong. McDonald, R. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
• Meishar-Tal, H., Kurtz, G., & Pieterse, E. (2012). Facebook Groups as LMS: A Case Study. The International
• Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 33-48. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Munoz, C., & Towner, T. (2009). Opening Facebook: How to Use Facebook in the College Classroom. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference. Charleston, South Carolina.
• Özgen, F., & Turan, A. (2009). Türkiye'de E-Beyanname Sisteminin benimsenmesi: Geliştirilmiş Teknoloji
• Kabul Modeli İle Ampirik Bir Çalışma. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(1), 134-147. Öztürk, M., & Akgün, Ö. (2013). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Paylaşım Siteleriyle İlgili Görüşlerinin
• Demografik Özellikleri Açısından İncelenmesi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 1-14. Pişkin, M., & Öner, U. (1999). Görüşme İlkeleri ve Teknikleri. Ankara: Siyasal Yayıncılık.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 74.
• Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş, Temel İlkeler ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
• Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3
• Venkatesh, V., & Davis , D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
• Wang, Q., Woo, H., Quek, C., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Technology, 428-438.
• Wang, S., Moon, S., Kwon, K., Evans, C., & Stefanone, M. (2010). Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(2), 226-234. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.001
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yu, Y., Stella, T., Doug, V., & Kwok, C. (2012). Can learning be virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1494-1503. doi: 10.1504/IJNVO.2011.039999
• Yuen, S., & Yuen, P. (2008). Web 2.0 in education. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Chesapeake: AACE.