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
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
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