What students find appropriate in student teacher interaction of facebook

1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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 teachers 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 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 iv

5. 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 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 v

6. CHAPTER ONE vi

7. 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 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 vii

8. 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; OMalley, 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 sites 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 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 sitesalmost 51 percent of adults have a profile on at least one social networking sitethe chances of students and teachers to interact on social networking sites has also increased (OMalley, 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 viii

9. 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, 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 ix

10. 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. 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 (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 x

11. 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. 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 xi

12. 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 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. xii

13. 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 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 xiii

14. 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. 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. xiv

15. 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), 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. xv

16. 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 Vygotskys 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. 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. xvi

17. 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, 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 xvii

18. 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: - 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. xviii

19. 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 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 xix

20. 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 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 xx

21. 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 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) xxi

22. 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 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) xxii

23. 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

24. 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 - 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 xxiv

25. 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 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. xxv

26. 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. 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. xxvi

27. 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 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. xxvii

28. 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: 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 xxviii

29. 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 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 FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION xxix

30. 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 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 = Bachelors Degree Students Category 2 = Masters Degree Students xxx

31. 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: Yes or Agree No or Disagree No Idea, Not Sure, or Neither agree or disagree Table 4.1: Composite table (summary of field findings) xxxi

32. xxxii 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 7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 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 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 16 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 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

33. xxxiii 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 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 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 7 Y 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 10 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 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 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

34. xxxiv 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 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 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 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y 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 6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 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 11 N N Y Y Y N 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 13 N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NI Y Y Y Y Y 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

35. xxxv 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 6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 70 10 0 7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 79 1 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 9 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 68 11 1 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 RQ3 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 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

36. 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 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? xxxvi

37. Table 4.3; Summary of respondents answers to question two Answer Yes No No Idea 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? Table 4.4; Summary of respondents answers to question three Answer Yes No No Idea 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. xxxvii

38. 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 Answer Yes No No Idea Number 71 9 0 Figure 4.5 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents answers to question four 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 xxxviii

39. 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 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 Answer Yes No No Idea Number 79 1 0 xxxix

40. 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? Table 4.9; Summary of respondents answers to question eight Answer Yes No No Idea 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? xl

41. Table 4.10; Summary of respondents answers to question nine Answer Yes No No Idea Number 68 11 9 Figure 4.10 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents answers to question nine 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 teachers profile? Table 4.11; Summary of respondents answers to question ten Answer Yes No No Idea Number 79 1 0 Figure 4.11 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents answers to question ten xli

42. From the pie chart above we see that seventy-nine of the eighty respondents agreed that it is appropriate to view their teachers profile. Q11 Is it appropriate for you to comment on your teachers wall or picture? Table 4.12; Summary of respondents answers to question eleven Answer Yes No No Idea Number 67 9 4 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 Answer Yes No No Idea Number 58 17 5 xlii

43. 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 its okay to send friend requests to their teachers as well as chat with them. Q13 Is it appropriate to read your teachers personal information and comment on his/her posts? Table 4.14; Summary of respondents answers to question thirteen Answer Yes No No Idea 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 Answer Yes No No Idea Number 65 11 4 xliii

44. 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. Q15 Is it appropriate for your teacher to poke you? Table 4.16; Summary of respondents answers to question fifteen Answer Yes No No Idea 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? xliv

45. Table 4.17; Summary of respondents answers to question sixteen Answer Yes No No Idea Number 59 3 18 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 Answer Yes No No Idea Number 65 8 7 xlv

46. 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. Q18 Is it appropriate for your teachers to comment on your posts and pictures? Table 4.19; Summary of respondents answers to question eleven Answer Yes No No Idea 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 Answer Yes No No Idea Number 48 16 16 xlvi 61% 21% 18% YES NO NO IDEA

47. 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 Answer Yes No No Idea Number 31 36 13 Figure 4.21 Pie Chart representing summary of respondents answers to question twenty xlvii

48. 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 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. Step 2: Choose the Statistical test and give the reason for your choice: The one-sample 2 (Chi Square) is used to compare the observed distribution to a hypothesized distribution. The 2 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 = 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: xlviii

49. 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 Q20 31 61.2 -30.2 14.90 Total 229 0.0 51.29 xlix

50. 2 = f ff e eo k i )( 2 1 = 2 =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 2 = 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 = 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; l Zone of Acceptance

51. ] Figure 4.41: One-tailed test = 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 Step 1: State the hypothesis 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. Step 2: Choose the Statistical test and give the reason for your choice: The one-sample 2 (Chi Square) is used to compare the observed distribution to a hypothesized distribution. The 2 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 = 0.05. li Calculated Value=51.29Critical Value=30.14 = 0.05 Zone of Rejection

52. The reason is that we are dealing with a simple social survey and the data is nominal and also accounts for error margins. Step 4: Calculations: Table 4.41 Extrapolated from the composite table lii 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 CATEGORY B CONTINUED B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 B29 B30 B31 B32 B33 B34 B35 B36 B37 B38 B39 B40 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

53. 2 =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 2 = 89.89 The degree of freedom d.f. is calculated from 16 columns designating the individual questions and two rows designating the observed and the expected frequencies d.f. = (c-1)(r-1) = (80-1)(2-1)= 79 Step 5: The critical value: From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. = 79 and = 0.05 Using these 2 parameters we find out from the table above that the critical value is = 101.9 Step 6: Interpret liii 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 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

54. 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 = 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 Step 1: State the hypothesis 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. Step 2: Choose the Statistical test and give the reason for your choice: liv Calculated Value=32.2 Critical Value=25.00 = 0.05 Zone of Rejection Zone of Acceptance

55. The one-sample 2 (Chi Square) is used to compare the observed distribution to a hypothesized distribution. The 2 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 = 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: Table 4.43; Extrapolated from the composite table 2 = f ff e eo k i )( 2 1 = lv fo fe fo- fe (fo- fe)2 / fe R Q 1 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

56. 2 =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 2 = 17.66 The degree of freedom d.f. is calculated from 5 columns designating the individual questions and two rows designating the observed and the expected frequencies d.f. =(c-1) (r-1) = (2-1) (7-1) = 6 Step 5: The critical value: From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. = 4 and = 0.05 Using these 2 parameters we find out from the table above that the critical value is = 12.59 Step 6: Interpret We observe that this critical value (12.59) is less than the calculated Chi Square value (17.66), so we reject the null hypothesis. In other words, the calculated value is in the zone of rejection as indicated by the following diagram. lvi

57. Figure 4.41: One-tailed test = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on research question one 4.5.3.2 Inferential data analysis based on research question two Step 1: State the hypothesis 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. Step 2: Choose the Statistical test and give the reason for your choice: The one-sample 2 (Chi Square) is used to compare the observed distribution to a hypothesized distribution. The 2 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 = 0.05. lvii Zone of Acceptance Zone of Rejection = 0.05 Critical Value= 12.59 Calculated Value= 17.66

58. 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: Table 4.44; Extrapolated from the composite table fo fe fo- fe (fo- fe)2 / fe 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 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 2 = f ff e eo k i )( 2 1 = 2 =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 2 = 12.26 The degree of freedom d.f. is calculated from 6 columns designating the individual questions and two rows designating the observed and the expected frequencies d.f. =(c-1)(r-1) = (2-1)(7-1)= 6 Step 5: The critical value: lviii

59. From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. =5 and = 0.05 Using these 2 parameters we find out from the table above that the critical value is = 12.59 Step 6: Interpret 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 = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on research question two 4.5.3.3 Inferential data analysis based on Research Question Three Step 1: State the hypothesis lix Zone of Acceptance Zone of Rejection = 0.05 Critical Value= 12.59Calculated Value= 12.26

60. 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. Step 2: Choose the Statistical test and give the reason for your choice: The one-sample 2 (Chi Square) is used to compare the observed distribution to a hypothesized distribution. The 2 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 = 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: Table 4.45; Extrapolated from the composite table fo fe fo- fe (fo- fe)2 / fe 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 2 = f ff e eo k i )( 2 1 = 2 =Chi Square fo= observed frequency lx

61. fe= expected frequency The table table above has individual Chi Square values for each question such that the cumulative or the sum total gives the calculated value 2 = 15.65 The degree of freedom d.f. is calculated from columns designating the individual questions and two rows designating the observed and the expected frequencies d.f. =(c-1)(r-1) =(2-1)(6-1)= 5 Step 5: The critical value: From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. = 5 and = 0.05 Using these 2 parameters we find out from the table above that the critical value is = 11.07 Step 6: Interpret We observe that this critical value (11.07) is less than the calculated Chi Square value (15.65), so we reject the null hypothesis. In other words, the calculated value is in the zone of rejection as indicated by the following diagram: lxi

62. Figure 4.45: One-tailed test = 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 Step 1: State the hypothesis 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. Step 2: Choose the Statistical test and give the reason for your choice: lxii Zone of Acceptance Zone of Rejection = 0.05 Calculated Value= 15.56Critical Value=11.07

63. The one-sample 2 (Chi Square) is used to compare the observed distribution to a hypothesized distribution. The 2 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 = 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: Calculation Table 4.46; Extrapolated from the composite table lxiii 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 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 0.0CATEGORY B CONTINUED B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 B29 B30 B31 B32 B33 B34 B35 B36 B37 B38 B39 B40 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 15 2 5 5 5 1 -1. 0 1 -3 -1 -1 -3 -6 5 2 1 0 2 -8 2 0.3 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 CATEGORY B CONTINUED B41 B42 B43 B44 B45 B46 B47 B48 B49 B40 TOTAL 7 13 17 14 17 7 16 13 16 18 749 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 -8 -2 2 -1 2 -8 1 -2 1 3 0.0 4.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 4.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 46

64. 2 = f ff e eo k i )( 2 1 = 2 =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 2 = 46 The degree of freedom d.f. is calculated from 6 columns designating the individual questions and two rows designating the observed and the expected frequencies d.f. = (c-1)(r-1) = (2-1)(50-1)= 49 Step 5: The critical value: From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. = 49 and = 0.05 Using these 2 parameters we find out from the table above that the critical value is = 55.76 Step 6: Interpret lxiv

65. 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. Figure 4.46; One-tailed test = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on Category B respondents 4.5.4.2 Inferential Data Analysis Based on Category Respondents Step 1: State the hypothesis 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. Step 2: Choose the Statistical test and give the reason for your choice: lxv Zone of Acceptance Zone of Rejection = 0.05 Critical Value=55.76Calculated Value= 46

66. The one-sample 2 (Chi Square) is used to compare the observed distribution to a hypothesized distribution. The 2 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 = 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: Table 4.46; Extrapolated from the composite table 2 = f ff e eo k i )( 2 1 = 2 =Chi Square lxvi 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 -1.8 0.2 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

67. 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 2 = 39.5 The degree of freedom d.f. is calculated from 10 columns designating the individual questions and two rows designating the observed and the expected frequencies d.f. = (c-1)(r-1) = (2-1)(30-1)= 29 Step 5: The critical value: From the Chi Square table we can get the critical value from a d.f. = 29 and = 0.05 Using these 2 parameters we find out from the table above that the critical value is = 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: lxvii

68. Figure 4.46: One-tailed test = 0.05 for the inferential data analysis based on Category M respondent CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS lxviii Zone of Acceptance Zone of Rejection = 0.05 Calculated Value= 39.5 Critical Value= 43.77

69. 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; OMalley, 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 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. 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. lxix

70. 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. 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 lxx

71. 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; 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). lxxi

72. 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. Respondents Category Based on Bachelors 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 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 lxxii

73. 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 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: students desire to participate and their desire to remain silent; students desire for predictable and novel classroom activities; and a students 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. lxxiii

74. 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 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 lxxiv

75. 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. Rubins 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 Rubins (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 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 McCains (1974) interpersonal attraction scale. The use of McCroskey and McCains (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. lxxv

76. 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. 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. Facebooks 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 lxxvi

77. 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. 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) lxxvii

78. 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 teachers class. However, a student may feel that a teachers 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 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 effectiv

What students find appropriate in student teacher interaction of facebook

Social Media

studentteacher relationship

student perceptions

aspects of student

research project

faculty of social

social dimension

teachers sex

future research