Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 378e385

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Why do faculty members use or not use social networking sites for
education?
€ kçe Akçayır
Go
Gazi University, Faculty of Gazi Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Social networking sites (SNS) are a popular Internet-based technology that enable users to communicate
Received 8 December 2016 and interact with each other. SNS have attracted a great deal of scholarly attention and have been used as
Received in revised form an educational tool in recent years. However, there has been little research examining motivations and
3 February 2017
obstacles to teaching with SNS in higher education. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate
Accepted 9 February 2017
why faculty members in higher education prefer to use or not to use SNS for educational purposes. To
Available online 10 February 2017
this end, faculty members' current SNS usage, their purposes for using SNS, and the opinions of faculty
members about their uses of SNS for education were investigated. A mixed method approach was uti-
Keywords:
Social networking sites
lized to collect data from a total of 658 faculty members from eight different state universities in Turkey.
Higher education The findings show that nearly half of the faculty members who possessed an SNS account reported that
Faculty member they use SNS for educational purposes. Their greatest motivating factor to use SNS is that SNS provide a
means for fast and effective communication. The main factor which impeded SNS usage by faculty
members is their concerns about privacy.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction students' positive attitudes toward their courses (Mazer, Murphy, &
Simonds, 2007). University students tend to favor the use of SNS in
Social networking sites (SNS) boast a large population of users their educational courses (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, &
and are considered to be a very popular Internet-based technology Witty, 2010), and thus they have positive perceptions of their
(Manca & Ranieri, 2013). When SNS first appeared, they were only educational benefits (Lim & Richardson, 2016).
viewed as tools for socializing (Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, Although SNS offer several advantages in educational environ-
2009). But over time, their use has become popular in many ments, the literature also shows that faculty do not always consider
different fields, such as law (Lakhani, 2013), business (Li, Liu, & Li, SNS to be suitable for educational purposes (Akçayır & Akçayır,
2014), and tourism (Luo & Zhong, 2015). In the 21st century, they 2016). One of the main factors which inhibit the use of SNS in ed-
are now also used in the field of education (S anchez, Cortijo, & ucation is faculty members' unwillingness to use them in their
Javed, 2014; Weisgerber & Butler, 2010). In fact, the increasing courses (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Greenhow & Askari, 2015). In
popularity of SNS in recent years has motivated many educators to order to understand the role of SNS in higher education and faculty
use them in their courses (Hamid, Waycott, Kurnia, & Chang, 2015). members' attitudes about the value of using SNS for teaching
As a result, SNS have become a subject of increasing interest in purposes, faculty members' motivations and inhibitions (Manca &
higher education research (Manca & Ranieri, 2016b), and their uses Ranieri, 2016a; Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013; Veletsianos & Kim-
for teaching have steadily grown (Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013). mons, 2012) must be investigated. Therefore, in this study a large
Several studies have reported on the positive contributions of sample of faculty members' actual uses of SNS for teaching in
SNS for teaching and learning in higher education (Munoz & higher education are examined, and their motivations and in-
Towner, 2009). These include the improvement of student- hibitions regarding SNS use in their courses are identified and
teacher interactions (Aydin, 2014); enhancing learner motivation discussed.
(Chen, Hwang, Wu, Huang, & Hsueh, 2011); and enhancing
2. Literature review

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. Though the present generation of students is highly eager to use

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.028
0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Akçayır / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 378e385 379

technology in education (McKinney, Dyck, & Luber, 2009; Waghid, Manca & Ranieri, 2013). Only a few studies, in countries such as the
Waghid, & Waghid, 2016) and university students generally favor USA (Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013) and Italy (Manca & Ranieri,
the use of SNS to support classroom work (Roblyer et al., 2010), 2016a,b), have focused on faculty members' uses of SNS for
many faculty members are reluctant to use SNS in their courses educational purposes.
(Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Crook, 2012). According to Manca and In a systematic review study on the uses of SNS for education
Ranieri (2016b), even if faculty members have access to informa- conducted by Akçayır and Akçayır (2016), the authors reported that
tion technologies both at home and on campus, they mainly use in more than half of the existing studies on the topic (67.61%), the
these technologies for personal purposes and not in their courses. study groups consisted of university students; faculty members
Similarly, Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) found that while faculty were included in only a small number of studies (13.37%). The same
members said that some Web 2.0 technologies, such as SNS, could review concluded that most of the research in the field focuses on
improve students' learning, very few actually used these technol- learner outcomes (e.g., performance outcomes, engagement,
ogies in the classroom or planned to do so. A similar finding re- effectiveness) and instructional approaches (e.g., collaborative
ported by Veletsianos and Kimmons (2012) was that even if faculty learning, informal learning). However, in a few studies, the use or
use SNS for professional purposes, they may resist or reject their non-use of SNS by faculty members was investigated.
use in classrooms. The few studies conducted with the participation of faculty
The research literature reports some potential factors that could members mostly examined the experiences of the faculty members
influence SNS adoptions for teaching. Complex factors are involved, while using SNS (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2013), and the re-
beyond the potential pedagogical benefits of using SNS (Veletsianos lationships between the demographics of the faculty members and
& Kimmons, 2012). Motivations for utilizing SNS include: to share their SNS usage (Manca & Ranieri, 2016b). These studies also were
content material with students easily, to experiment with new mostly conducted in developed countries, such as the USA (Moran
tools (Manca & Ranieri, 2016a), and to use SNS as a communication et al., 2012). This investigation of the opinions of faculty members
tool (Sobaih, Moustafa, Ghandforoush, & Khan, 2016). Furthermore, who chose to use or not to use SNS provides useful insights about
faculty members' prior experiences with SNS or other technologies the current status of this educational technology. In addition,
may play an important role (Scott, 2013). According to Manca and because the participating faculty members in this study live and
Ranieri (2016b), prior experience with e-learning or blended work within a developing country, this study can make a further
learning is highly associated with faculty choices to use SNS in their important contribution to the literature. To direct the study, the
courses. Esteve Del Valle, Gruzd, Haythornthwaite, Paulin, and following research questions (RQ) were employed:
Gilbert (2017) found that high percentages of faculty members
RQ1. How are the faculty members using SNS?
who are interested in SNS show positive intentions to use SNS as
learning tools. Additionally, Cao, Ajjan, and Hong (2013) found that RQ2. What are the faculty members' purposes for using SNS?
perceived usefulness, external pressure, and technology compati-
RQ3. What are the faculty members' opinions about using SNS for
bility directly motivate faculty members to use SNS for education.
education?
However, they also found that perceived risks negatively impacted
the use of SNS in courses. According to Rogers-Estable (2014), RQ4. What are the faculty members' motivations to use SNS in
extrinsic factors (e.g., time, training, support), instead of intrinsic their courses?
factors (e.g., beliefs, motivation, confidence) are the main inhibitors
RQ5. What factors inhibit SNS use by faculty members in their
in faculty decisions to use SNS in classrooms. Sobaih et al. (2016)
courses?
additionally reported barriers such as privacy and loss of control,
and lack of institutional support for faculty members to use SNS in
higher education. These factors also deserve further exploration.
4. Method
Demographic variables such as age, gender, seniority, and sci-
entific discipline also influence faculty members' decisions to use of
A concurrent mixed method approach, which collects both
SNS for education (Manca & Ranieri, 2016b; Scott, 2013). Most
qualitative and quantitative data at the same time, was selected for
research studies report that faculty age is an important factor
this study. This method was chosen to provide a stronger under-
(Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2012; Turvey, 2012). Younger
standing of the phenomenon within its context (Creswell, 2013).
scholars tend to use SNS for personal, professional (Greenhow &
Gleason, 2014; Manca & Ranieri, 2016b), and teaching purposes
(Moran et al., 2012) more than their older colleagues. According to 4.1. The data collection tools and participants
Moran et al. (2012), faculty members in the Humanities and Arts,
Professional and Applied Sciences, and the Social Sciences display An online survey developed by Roblyer et al. (2010) was used as
higher rates of SNS usage compared to faculty members in the a data collection instrument. The original survey included nine
Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and Computer Science. Moran et al. items which focused on whether or not faculty members had a
(2012) also stated that faculty members in the Natural Sciences, Facebook account, and if so, how much and for what purposes they
Mathematics, and Computer Science lack relevant content to use it. The survey also focused on whether or not the participants
discuss via SNS. Hence, content and resource availability via SNS would agree to use it in the future as a classroom support tool. As
may influence faculty members' decisions to use SNS for educa- the original survey only focused only on Facebook, which is
tional purposes. considered to be an SNS, the term “Facebook” was replaced
throughout the current survey by the term “SNS”. Moreover, two
3. Purpose of the study additional items were added to this survey: “motivations to use SNS
for teaching” (it is an effective and fast tool of communication, it
In studies of SNS used for education, some researchers have facilitates document sharing, it saves time, it increases interaction
focused on students' SNS usage, perceptions, and opinions (Cain, and collaboration among students, and other [open-ended]) and
Scott, & Akers, 2009; Herguner, 2011; Karvounidis, Chimos, “factors that inhibit the use of SNS for teaching” (students' have
Bersimis, & Douligeris, 2014), while others have focused on the access to my personal account, the use of SNS does not result in any
advantages offered by SNS for learning (Greenhow & Askari, 2015; educational benefits, they are time-consuming, I lack experience in
380 G. Akçayır / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 378e385

the use of SNS, and other [open-ended]). 4.2. Data analysis

The online survey contains items that elicit the faculty members'
background information, their purposes for using SNS, their opin- Descriptive statistical analyses were performed on the quanti-
ions about the use of SNS in education, and then (according to the tative data using IBM SPSS 21 software. Frequency, percentage,
faculty members' current use or non-use of SNS in their courses) mean, and standard deviation were calculated, to support or
questions about their reasons for either using or not using SNS for counter the qualitative data.
educational purposes. As an example, if a faculty member selects The qualitative data (open-ended “other” category) collected
the option “not using SNS in my courses,” then the survey subse- from the survey were analyzed with the qualitative content anal-
quently asks for reasons for not using them. Alternatively, if a fac- ysis method. An analytical three-stage process established by
ulty member selects the option “using SNS in my courses,” then the Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995) was employed for this purpose.
survey asks for reasons for using them. A link to the survey was sent First, all the data were coded, and themes were identified. Then, the
to a total of 5538 faculty members' e-mail addresses. The survey codes were rearranged according to the themes. While reporting
included participants from eight different state universities in the findings, frequencies were used, and in this way, the collected
Turkey. The universities selected were chosen for their geographic qualitative data were expressed with numbers, to make the results
regional diversity. The diversity of their foundation dates was also more comprehensible and objective (Cheng & Tsai, 2014; Dündar &
considered (from 1926 to 2007). The selected universities share Akçayır, 2014).
some similarities, such as that they are all state universities. Google According to Patton (2002), reliability and validity in qualitative
Docs was used to deliver the survey, along with an information studies are very important because they determine the soundness,
note. Six hundred and eighty-five faculty members (11.88%) trustworthiness, and credibility of any qualitative research. To
returned completed surveys. The survey participation time was ensure the reliability of the coding process, 45 surveys were
open for four months. The background information of these re- selected randomly; these were then analyzed separately by the
spondents is provided in Table 1. This in-depth information pro- researcher and an external coder, who is a faculty member and
vides the demographics of the participants, in case future familiar with the content. As is typical in the literature, Cohen's
researchers may want to conduct a similar study. kappa was selected to check the inter-coder reliability (Lacy & Riffe,
As may be seen in Table 1, the participants in this study were 1996). In the resulting calculation, the Kappa for inter-coder reli-
faculty members in Turkey. According to the Turkish Council of ability was 0.82. Viera and Garrett (2005) maintain that any value
Higher Education (2017), overall their university faculty are between 0.81 and 0.99 represents an almost perfect agreement.
38.98% female and 61.01% male. This ratio is very similar to the
participants' gender ratio in this study (40.73% female and 59.27%
5. Results
male). According to Table 1, a similar ratio also exists concerning
represented academic faculty titles: in Turkey, 15.04% of the faculty
5.1. RQ1: how are the faculty members using SNS?
are professors, and 10.41% are associate professors (Council of
Higher Education, 2017).
In order to collect information about the SNS usage of all the
participants, their self-provided information about their uses of
SNS was analyzed with the descriptive statistics method (see
Table 2).
Table 1 The results of the analysis show that the percentage possessing
Background information of the survey respondents. a SNS account was high (78.57%). However, though a high majority
Variable Subgroups Frequency Percent of the faculty members were SNS users, nearly half of the SNS users
(47.97%) reported that they did not use SNS for educational
Gender Female 268 40.73
Male 390 59.27 purposes.
Total 658 100.00
Age 20e30 108 16.41
30e40 253 38.45 5.2. RQ2: what are the faculty members' purposes for using SNS?
40e50 172 26.14
50e60 93 14.13 Several of the participating faculty members used SNS for more
Over the age of 60 32 4.86 than one purpose (personal, professional, and teaching). However,
Total 658 100.00
they used SNS mainly for personal purposes, for example, to keep in
Academic title Research assistant 147 22.34
Lecturer/Instructor 104 15.81 touch with friends (82.21%) or to post something about their per-
Assistant professor 188 28.57 sonal life (34.43%), and only secondarily for teaching purposes, such
Associate professor 117 17.78 as to keep in touch with students (39.26%) or to communicate with
Professor 102 15.50
students about their courses (29.79%) (see Table 3).
Total 658 100.00
Years of experience 1-5 years 187 28.42
In the open-ended “other” category, 52 faculty members also
5-10 years 116 17.63
10-15 years 118 17.93
15-20 years 91 13.83 Table 2
More than 20 years 146 22.19 The faculty members' uses of SNS.
Total 658 100.00
Frequency Percent
University Amasya University 30 4.56
Artvin Çoruh University 34 5.17 Account owner of any SNS
Erciyes University 39 5.93 Yes 517 78.57
Gazi University 256 38.91 No 141 21.43
Hacettepe University 82 12.46 Total 658 100
Kırıkkale University 50 7.60 Educational use of SNS by the account owner, using any SNS
Nevşehir University 46 6.99 Yes 269 52.03
Sakarya University 121 18.39 No 248 47.97
Total 658 100.00 Total 517 100
 G. Akçayır / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 378e385 381

Table 3 Table 5
The faculty members' purposes for using SNS.a The faculty members' opinions about using SNS for education.a

Purpose Frequency Percent Perspectives on SNS in education Frequency Percent

To keep in touch with friends 425 82.21 It would be convenient 336 64.99
To keep in touch with my students 203 39.26 I would welcome the opportunity to connect with students 268 51.84
To post something (e.g., pictures, news, videos) about my 178 34.43 on SNS
life My privacy would be invaded 128 24.76
To do career networking 164 31.72 SNS are for personal/social uses, not for education 105 20.31
To communicate with my students about our courses (e.g., 154 29.79 a
This question was directed to 517 participants who were the owners of any SNS.
sharing content materials, collecting class projects)
To connect with people with whom I have lost touch 118 22.82
a
This question was directed to 517 participants who were the owners of any SNS. Table 6
The faculty members' opinions on the use of SNS for education (in the open-ended
“other” category).a

Themes Frequency Percent Example quotations

reported purposes for SNS use that were not in the list of survey
choices (see Table 4). The content analysis revealed seven main They are suitable for 42 8.12 “If they do not compromise
announcements and [our] private lives, they can
purposes (themes) for their use of SNS. The most frequently cited
course-related sharing, if be used for educational
purpose within the category of “other” is following the daily news students are kept far away purposes”
(6.96%). Thus, though the faculty members used SNS for many from personal sharing.
different purposes, the percentage of their use for educational I do not find them necessary 19 3.68 “Use of SNS is unnecessary in
purposes was not very high (0.39%). Only two faculty members formal education”
Students may treat us as if we 10 1.93 “Students might start to
reported that they used SNS to share their course materials. Some
are their friends behave more
responses were: “In general, I use SNS to contact someone who prefers unconventionally. This is
using them; that is, I use them because of some kind of obligation”; “I disturbing”
use them to pursue new developments in my field”; “I use them to When used properly, they 7 1.35 “As with other technologies,
follow daily news. Unfortunately, TV channels can be biased while can be useful it could be useful if used
properly”
presenting news”; and “I use them to make announcements to my They can be used instead of 2 0.39 “SNS can be used as a means
students, and to share readings and course materials.” sending e-mail of sending e-mail”
a
This question was directed to 517 participants who were the owners of any SNS.

5.3. RQ3: what are the faculty members' opinions about using SNS
for education?
faculty member stated that, “They [SNS] are more suitable for an-
nouncements and informing students about the activities, rather than
Although most of the faculty members stated that SNS are
for instructional purposes” e which highlights that he considered
suitable for use in educational environments (64.99%) and that they
SNS to be a communication tool in the educational environment.
provide a useful way to contact students (51.84%), some replied that
Another theme which emerged from the open answers of the
SNS usage may disturb their private lives (24.76%) and that SNS are
faculty is related to the lack of a need to use SNS in their classes
not tools which are suitable for education (20.31%) (see Table 5).
(3.68%). The following comment is a good example: “In our normal
The content analysis conducted on the data obtained for the
educational process, we have enough face-to-face contact with our
category of “others” indicates that the faculty members generally
students; therefore, there is no need for virtual interaction.”
regarded the use of SNS for educational purposes positively, apart
A few of the faculty members' answers indicate that SNS are not
from the aspect of sharing personal information (see Table 6). Two
useful for education, and that students might begin to behave un-
faculty member expressed their opinions about using SNS in their
conventionally while using SNS (1.93%). This assumption clearly
classes. One said, “They might be positively used for education, as long
disturbed the faculty members. Related responses included the
as [students] are kept away from [our] private lives”; and the other
following: “Formal business should not be conducted over SNS!”;
“Students might, over time, treat us as if we were their friends”; and
“They [the SNS] might take the place of e-mail e but that is all, no
Table 4 other benefits of use.”
The faculty members' purposes for using SNS (in the open-ended “other” category).a

Themes Frequency Percent Example quotations 5.4. RQ4: what are the faculty members' motivations to use SNS in
their courses?
To obtain news 36 6.96 “To pursue the news that I
cannot be informed about by
following the press” Many factors motivated these faculty members to use SNS for
To enjoy entertainment 7 1.35 “I use them for music, education. The most prominent factor is that SNS offer a fast and
(playing games, listening to games, etc.” effective means of communication (89.96%). In addition, document
music, watching videos,
etc.)
sharing via SNS was reported to be time-saving (66.17%). Another
To follow developments in my 5 0.97 “I use them to pursue the motivation to use SNS in teaching is that classroom-related
field developments in my field” collaborative activities can be easily organized (41.64%) (see
To follow groups (relating to 5 0.97 “To follow artistic activities Table 7).
history, museums, art, etc.) in Facebook”
Other factors stated under the category of “other” (N ¼ 41) can
To share course materials 2 0.39 “To share course materials
with students with students” be grouped into two themes: provides the opportunity to
To pass the time 2 0.39 “I use them to fill in time” communicate through mobile devices anywhere and anytime, and
For personal development 1 0.19 “For my personal SNS are popular among students. Twenty-three faculty members
development” placed the highest emphasis on the fact that SNS can be used with
a
This question was directed to 517 participants who were the owners of any SNS. mobile devices and thus offer a very fast means of communication
382 G. Akçayır / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 378e385

Table 7 students, and the student then shares this announcement on Facebook
The faculty members' motivations to use SNS for education.a with friends”; and “It is difficult to give up old habits.”
Motivations Frequency Percent During the content analysis, themes which were similar to the
To provide a method of fast and effective communication 242 89.96
survey items emerged (e.g., the use of SNS is time-consuming). But
To share documents 201 74.72 other inhibiting factors also emerged from the open-ended ques-
Because it is time-saving 178 66.17 tions, such as concerns about the potential harmful effects of SNS
To increase interaction with students 164 60.97 on students. Some of the related responses were: “I think using SNS
To facilitate collaborative classroom activities among 112 41.64
may curb students' research ability development”; and “they [stu-
students
dents] may copy and paste form another's assignment instead of
a
This question was directed to 269 participants who used SNS for educational
investigating on their own.” Some of the participants (4.44%) stated
purposes.
that SNS are not a serious setting for education. An example of a
statement pertaining to this theme is, “Sharing on the webpage of
Table 8 the university or sending e-mail is more serious in my opinion.”
Factors which inhibit SNS use by faculty members in their courses.a

Barriers Frequency Percent 6. Discussion

Student can access my personal account 93 37.50
SNS are not useful for education 90 36.29 Below, results are presented in two sections, relating to the two
SNS are time-consuming 39 15.73
main goals of this study. The first section discusses motivations of
Lack of experience in the use of SNS 19 7.66
the faculty to use SNS for education. The second section discusses
a
This question was directed to 248 participants who did not use SNS for factors which inhibit their use of SNS.
educational purposes.

6.1. Motivations to use SNS in courses

(8.55%). Eighteen faculty members emphasized that SNS are pop-
ular among students and thus motivate them (6.69%). One of the The factor which most highly motivated the faculty members to
faculty members expressed a reason for using SNS as follows: “As use SNS in educational environments is that they are a platform for
students have SNS connections via their mobile phones, my an- fast and effective communication (89.96%) and for convenient
nouncements quickly reach them. When compared to my own blog or documents sharing (74.72%). From the faculty members' open-
the webpage of the university, an announcement made on Twitter ended answers, it is also clear that they considered SNS to be
spreads more quickly.” Another faculty member said: “I see that my attractive because SNS make it possible to contact students any-
use of Facebook, which is very popular among students, motivates where and anytime via mobile devices (8.55%). According to these
them in my courses. I would like to use a technology that motivates findings, the use of SNS in courses is focused on sharing pre-
students.” existing resources. SNS possess features which allow their users
to create and share creative contents (in addition to other appli-
5.5. RQ5: what factors inhibit SNS use by faculty members in their cations) (Hargittai & Walejko, 2008) and offer students the ability
courses? to collaborate while creating resources (Barr, 2014; Boulos,
Maramba, & Wheeler, 2006; Chen et al., 2005). However, many
The most important factors which inhibited the faculty mem- faculty members do not use them as tools to develop their own
bers are their privacy concerns (37.50%) and an attitude that SNS educational applications, original photographs, films or videos.
are not suitable in academic settings (36.29%) (see Table 8). Apart None of the faculty members stated that they had developed their
from these, the faculty members also stated that the use of SNS own materials using SNS or that they drew on SNS for a different
might consume extra time (15.73%). Some participants stated that educational usage. Similarly, Manca and Ranieri (2016a) deter-
they did not use SNS in their courses because of their own lack of mined that SNS use for education means to circulate information
technological competency (7.66%). about the course or to support communication, and that the main
A total of 155 comments were collected from the open-ended trend is to share rather than to creatively produce content. Ac-
answers in the “other” category for this question (see Table 9). cording to Veletsianos and Kimmons (2013), this is because faculty
According to these comments, the faculty members do not use SNS members view SNS as a communication tool rather than as a tool to
in their classes for such reasons as not feeling a need to use them serve other educational aims. This argument is supported by the
and not wishing to give up their traditional teaching methods. findings of the current study, which indicate that the participating
Examples of their statements are: “We are already very close during faculty viewed SNS primarily as a communication tool. Their main
lessons. There is no need for SNS”; “I have not yet felt the need to use motivation to use SNS in their courses was to communicate quickly
them”; “when I need to make any announcement, I tell one of my and effectively with students (89.96%). For this purpose, the use of

Table 9
Factors which inhibit SNS use by faculty members in their courses (in the open-ended “other” category).a

Themes Frequency Percent Example quotations

No need to use them 53 21.37 “I do not feel the need to use SNS”
Difficult to give up old habits 32 12.90 “I think that the traditional methods I use are good enough”
Time-consuming 29 11.69 “Use of SNS for education is time-consuming for me”
Students become accustomed to getting prepared 23 9.27 “Students utilize prepared information without checking its accuracy”
information
Not a serious setting for instruction 11 4.44 “I do not find virtual environments serious for a formal education process”
Makes students asocial individuals 6 2.42 “Though there is the word “social” in its name, I think that they make students asocial”
Virtual environments are unsuitable for education 1 0.40 “I do not find virtual environments suitable for education”
a
This question was directed to 248 participants who did not use SNS for educational purposes.
 G. Akçayır / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 378e385 383

SNS can save time. I concur with Cao et al. (2013), who stated that a (e.g., a professional Twitter account), and they can use those ac-
current need exists to develop holistic models and informative counts purely for educational purposes. Thus, with some provided
guidelines for the use of SNS in courses. If this is not done, then information and guidelines, faculty members can be assured that
document sharing and communication will continue to be the there is not much to worry about concerning their privacy. If this
faculty members' main purposes for using SNS. They will not be step is taken, one of the most inhibiting factors can be eliminated.
oriented towards other usages. In that case, the negative attitudes The attitude of the faculty members that SNS are not useful for
indicated by some of the participants (20.31%) in the current study education (36.29%) casts a shadow on the use of SNS. While many
will be reinforced: they may perceive no strong need to use SNS for researchers have reported in the literature that SNS provide many
education. benefits when used in educational settings (e.g., enhancing per-
Other factors which motivated the faculty members to use SNS formance outcomes and student motivation, and raising their level
for education are to improve interaction with students (60.97%) and of engagement) (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2016), the faculty members'
to enhance collaboration among students (41.64%). Aydin (2014) responses to the open-ended questions show that some of them did
argued that SNS can increase teacher-student interaction. Howev- not feel the need to use SNS and did not view them as useful
er, Aydin (2014) also noted that when teachers engage in in- educational tools (21.37%). The reason for this attitude might be
teractions with their students via SNS, the students are prone to that they do not exactly know what to do with SNS in their courses,
adopt passive behaviors (e.g., view the teacher's profile, read the and so, they simply do not use them and do not try to understand
teacher's basic info, view the teacher's posts) rather than active whether SNS can be useful technologies for education. As Davis
behaviors (e.g., sending messages to the teacher, chatting with the (1989) suggested, perceived usefulness is an important factor
teacher, commenting on the teacher's posts). As a result, Aydin which affects the adoption and use of any technology.
(2014) concluded that the faculty members should increase not The findings of this study also reveal some conflicts between
only their interactions via SNS but also their face-to-face in- motivations and inhibitions. For example, though some faculty
teractions with their students. Therefore, it can be argued that members (66.17%) reported that the use of SNS saves time, others
faculty members' use of SNS should not be for undefined (or solely said that they are time-consuming (15.73%) and thus not so useful
online) increased interaction with students. The faculty members in courses. It is possible that those who said SNS might result in a
in the current study also stated that they used SNS because they waste of their time may be reporting this due to their own poor
increase collaboration among students. The literature supports this technology competency (Cao et al., 2013). Another possible expla-
result (Lampe, Wohn, Vitak, Ellison, & Wash, 2011) by providing nation is the attitude that the benefits to be gained from the use of
evidence that SNS offer opportunities for university students to SNS are not worth the required time that must be spent on them. As
collaboratively conduct classroom-related activities (e.g., arranging time is a relative concept, while one faculty member might think
study groups, learning about the course process). The current study that spending an hour on the use of SNS is too much, another might
indicates that some faculty members (41.64%) were aware of this think that spending even five or six hours is not that much.
potential, and that it motivated them to use SNS for educational Another important inhibiting factor is the faculty members'
purposes. reluctance to change their traditional roles (12.90%). Changing a
Another factor which motivated the faculty members to use SNS traditional role is seen as one of the hardest factors to overcome
is their popularity among students (6.69%). Called “digital natives”, when promoting the use of technology in education (Ertmer, 1999).
today's young people are eager to use technology actively in every Thus, it can be argued that resistance to change is may be the most
field, particularly for communicating with each other. From the “difficult to change” inhibiting factor found in this study.
comments of the faculty members, it is clear that their students are One of the surprising inhibiting factors is faculty members'
eager to use technology. When SNS are integrated into their cour- desire to protect students from potential harmful effects of SNS
ses, the students feel more interested in and motivated for the (e.g., students developing poor study habits by using prepared in-
courses. However, the question arises as to whether or not student formation instead of conducting their own research, or SNS trans-
preferences justify the use of SNS in courses; i.e., will that usage forming students into asocial individuals). As the open answers
help faculty and students to achieve educational outcomes? indicate, some faculty members thought that if students use SNS, it
might inhibit their research ability (9.27%). Existing research
6.2. Factors which inhibit the use of SNS in courses partially confirms these concerns. Students sometimes do tend to
prepare their assignments by copy-and-pasting from materials on
One of the main inhibiting factors found in the current study is the Internet. Thus, they may exhibit unethical behaviors (e.g.,
the faculty members' privacy concerns (37.50%). This finding also plagiarism, falsification), which would reduce the quality of their
can be seen in other studies in the literature (Dwyer, Hiltz, & education (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017). Likewise, a few faculty
Passerini, 2007). There is a general consensus concerning the members (2.42%) also thought that if they use SNS for education,
importance of privacy and security settings on SNS (Sumuer, Esfer, the students may become asocial individuals. However, it is
& Yildirim, 2014). A potential explanation for these privacy con- commonly known that most within the current generation of stu-
cerns is the high education level of the participants. Better- dents already use SNS in their everyday lives and spend a signifi-
educated people tend to have greater concerns about their pri- cant amount of time on SNS (Reed, 2012). Finally, the faculty
vacy (Moran et al., 2012). Given that the participants in the current opinion (4.44%) that SNS are not serious settings for education also
study all possess a high level of education, it seems natural for them hinders their use of SNS. E-mail or professional web pages are
to have concerns about technology, especially when they are not viewed as more “serious” than SNS. Likewise, university students
very competent in its use. Another possible explanation for privacy perceive e-mail to be a more “appropriate” means to communicate
concerns being a top inhibiting factor is the complex security set- with a faculty member (Chu & Meulemans, 2008).
tings typically found in SNS (SiegelþGale, 2012). Some faculty
members might not know how to deal with this complexity, or they 7. Conclusion
might not want to waste their time investigating and adjusting
these settings. We should remember, however, that many SNS have This study examines a large sample of faculty members' actual
very sophisticated privacy policies and safeguards. Moreover, fac- uses of SNS for teaching in higher education, and identifies their
ulty members can open SNS accounts solely for professional uses motivations and inhibitions regarding SNS use in their courses. To
384 G. Akçayır / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 378e385

collect the data, an online survey was sent to faculty members at rate was relatively low. However, this study sample included 658
universities located within different geographical regions in Turkey. faculty members, representing a 95% confidence level and a 3.81%
The findings indicate that most of the faculty members were SNS margin of error e which is an acceptable margin of error according
users who stated that using SNS for education could be convenient. to Bartlett, Kotrlik, and Higgins (2001). Manca and Ranieri (2016a)
My examination of the faculty members' motivations reveals that also suggest that difficulties may arise concerning online surveys,
they perceived SNS as primarily a communication tool rather than such as failed delivery of the emailed survey due to spam filtering,
as a tool to create course content and materials. Overall, it can be and the tendency of many faculty not to regularly check their
argued that the participating faculty members probably did not institutional email because they prefer to use their personal ac-
know many methods to gainfully use SNS in their courses. But if counts. Online surveys additionally draw an average response rate
more of them knew some productive methods, they might view that is 11% lower than traditional instruments (Fan & Yan, 2010).
SNS as a useful tool for education in contrast to their current Finally, the participants' lack of familiarity with, or negative atti-
opinions. In short, most of the faculty members were probably not tudes concerning the topic may affect their willingness to complete
very competent at using SNS for education. This situation is likely the survey.
not only the case in Turkey but also in other countries, such as Italy
(Manca & Ranieri, 2016b), the UK (Brown, 2012), and the USA Acknowledgements
(Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013). Therefore, further research is neces-
sary to develop holistic models and to provide guidance for the This paper was a part of the author's Master's thesis, written
competent use of SNS in educational environments. under the supervision of Dr. Mehmet Akif Ocak at Gazi University.
Concerning inhibiting factors, the privacy concern was the main
reason that faculty members were unwilling to use SNS in educa-
References
tion. Privacy concerns can be alleviated simply by opening a private
(closed) group (Sobaih et al., 2016) or by opening two SNS accounts Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0
e one for personal use, and the other for professional use (to technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education,
interact with students). Likewise, the other inhibiting factors are 11(2), 71e80.
Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2016). Research trends in social network sites' educa-
not insurmountable and should not prevent the use of SNS. How- tional use: A review of publications in all SSCI journals to 2015. Review of Ed-
ever, while some concerns, such as protecting students from ucation, 4(3), 293e319.
potentially harmful effects and the perceived uselessness of SNS, Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Internet use for educational purposes: University
students' attitudes and opinions about copyrights. Educational Technology
can be overcome easily by training faculty members further e both
Theory and Practice, 7(1), 105e121.
pedagogically and in the use of this technology, other factors (e.g., Aydin, S. (2014). Foreign language learners' interactions with their teachers on
resistance to change, not seeing SNS as a serious setting for edu- Facebook. System, 42, 155e163.
cation) are more difficult to overcome because they are more per- Barr, M. (2014). Learning through collaboration: Video game wikis. International
Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 2(2), 119e133.
sonal, more deeply ingrained, and require institutions to Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Deter-
extensively deploy new pedagogical approaches. mining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology,
In scientific studies focused on the uses of SNS for education, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43e50.
Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A
little importance is typically attached to the development of guides new generation of web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and
for educators to use SNS competently in educational environments education. BMC Medical Education, 6(1), 1e8.
(Akçayır & Akçayır, 2016). Future studies could helpfully aim to Brown, S. A. (2012). Seeing web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions. The
Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50e57.
provide more information to educators about how to effectively use Cain, J., Scott, D. R., & Akers, P. (2009). Pharmacy students' Facebook activity and
SNS for education, as well as how to avoid privacy risks. This might opinions regarding accountability and e-professionalism. American Journal of
encourage a larger number of faculty members to employ SNS to Pharmaceutical Education, 73(6), 1e6.
Cao, Y., Ajjan, H., & Hong, P. (2013). Using social media applications for educational
reach desired educational outcomes.
outcomes in college teaching: A structural equation analysis. British Journal of
Finally, it should be noted that there are no institutional Educational Technology, 44(4), 581e593.
guidelines that either encourage or restrict the use of SNS in higher Chen, H. L., Cannon, D., Gabrio, J., Leifer, L., Toye, G., & Bailey, T. (2005). Using wikis
and weblogs to support reflective learning in an introductory engineering
education in Turkey. Students and faculty members are able to use
design course. In J. S. Gero, & U. Lindemann (Eds.), Human behaviour in
SNS and to become online “friends,” and can freely follow and/or Design'05 (pp. 95e105). Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and
contact each other through SNS. Therefore, unlike other studies Cognition.
(e.g., Helleve, Almås, & Bjørkelo, 2013), in this study institutional Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Children and parents' reading of an augmented
reality picture book: Analyses of behavioral patterns and cognitive attainment.
guidelines were found to be neither a motivation nor an inhibiting Computers & Education, 72, 302e312.
factor in the use of SNS. Chen, H. R., Hwang, J. P., Wu, T. T., Huang, Y. M., & Hsueh, H. T. (2011). Assessment of
implementing a digital game-based learning system over Facebook. In Paper
presented at the 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Tech-
8. Limitations nologies, Athens, GA, USA.
Chu, M., & Meulemans, Y. N. (2008). The problems and potential of Myspace and
In this study, several steps were taken to broaden the reliability Facebook usage in academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1),
69e85.
and validity of the findings. For example, the participants were Council of Higher Education. (2017). Higher education information management
selected from eight universities; valid and reliable measures were system. Retrieved January 14, 2017, from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/.
applied; and inter-coder reliability was checked for the qualitative Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
data analysis process in order to strengthen the reliability and Crook, C. (2012). The ‘digital native’ in context: Tensions associated with importing
validity. However, the study has some limitations that must be Web 2.0 practices into the school setting. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1),
considered. First, the data were obtained from participants who all 63e80.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
resided and worked in a single country. Due to specific cultural,
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319e340.
socio-political, and technological - infra-structure influences, the Dündar, H., & Akçayır, M. (2014). Implementing tablet PCs in schools: Students'
profile of these participants may not be representative of university attitudes and opinions. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 40e46.
faculty members in general. This could affect the generalizability of Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social
networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In Paper presented at
the results. Another limitation is that, though 5538 faculty mem- the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, CO, USA.
bers were initially invited to participate in the survey, the response Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
 G. Akçayır / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 378e385 385

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. academic practices. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 63e74.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Stra- Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I'll see you on “Facebook”: The
tegies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Devel- effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation,
opment, 47(4), 47e61. affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1),
Esteve Del Valle, M., Gruzd, A., Haythornthwaite, C., Paulin, D., & Gilbert, S. (2017). 1e17.
Social media in educational practice: Faculty present and future use of social McKinney, D., Dyck, J. L., & Luber, E. S. (2009). iTunes University and the classroom:
media in teaching. In Paper presented at the 50th Hawaii International Conference Can podcasts replace professors? Computers & Education, 52(3), 617e623.
on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA. Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2012). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and Facebook:
Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A How today's higher education faculty use social media. Boston, MA: Pearson
systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132e139. Learning Solutions.
Greenhow, C., & Askari, E. (2015). Learning and teaching with social network sites: Munoz, C., & Towner, T. (2009). Opening Facebook: How to use Facebook in the
A decade of research in K-12 related education. Education and Information college classroom. In R. W. I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen, & D. Willis (Eds.),
Technologies, 1e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9446-9. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Interna-
Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly tional Conference 2009 (pp. 2623e2627). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
45(3), 392e402. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Hamid, S., Waycott, J., Kurnia, S., & Chang, S. (2015). Understanding students' per- SAGE.
ceptions of the benefits of online social networking use for teaching and Reed, A. (2012). Facebook: The multimedia element. In Paper presented at the Society
learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 1e9. for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012,
Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and Austin, Texas, USA.
sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 239e256. Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on
Helleve, I., Almås, A. G., & Bjørkelo, B. (2013). Social networking sites in education e Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses
Governmental recommendations and actual use. Nordic Journal of Digital Lit- and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education,
eracy, 8(4), 191e207. 13(3), 134e140.
Herguner, G. (2011). Opinions of students in physical education and sports teaching Rogers-Estable, M. (2014). Web 2.0 use in higher education. European Journal of
on the use of social network sites. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Tech- Open, Distance and E-Learning, 17(2), 130e142.
nology-TOJET, 10(2), 174e183. S
anchez, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students' perceptions of Facebook for
Karvounidis, T., Chimos, K., Bersimis, S., & Douligeris, C. (2014). Evaluating Web 2.0 academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138e149.
technologies in higher education using students' perceptions and performance. Scott, K. M. (2013). Does a university teacher need to change e-learning beliefs and
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(6), 577e596. practices when using a social networking site? A longitudinal case study. British
Lacy, S., & Riffe, D. (1996). Sampling error and selecting intercoder reliability Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 571e580.
samples for nominal content categories. Journalism & Mass Communication Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2013). Social media for teaching and learning. Boston,
Quarterly, 73(4), 963e973. MA: Pearson Learning Systems.
Lakhani, A. (2013). Social networking sites and the legal profession: Balancing SiegelþGale. (2012). Survey finds Facebook and Google Privacy policies even more
benefits with navigating minefields. Computer Law & Security Review, 29(2), confusing than credit card bills and government notices. Retrieved April 10, 2016,
164e174. from http://www.siegelgale.com.
Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Sobaih, A. E. E., Moustafa, M. A., Ghandforoush, P., & Khan, M. (2016). To use or not
Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. International Journal to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries. Computers in
of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 329e347. Human Behavior, 58, 296e305.
Li, G., Liu, H., & Li, G. (2014). Payment willingness for VIP subscription in social Sumuer, E., Esfer, S., & Yildirim, S. (2014). Teachers' Facebook use: Their use habits,
networking sites. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 2179e2184. intensity, self-disclosure, privacy settings, and activities on Facebook. Educa-
Lim, J., & Richardson, J. C. (2016). Exploring the effects of students' social tional Studies, 40(5), 537e553.
networking experience on social presence and perceptions of using SNS for Turvey, K. (2012). Questioning the character and significance of convergence be-
educational purposes. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 31e39. tween social network and professional practices in teacher education. British
Luo, Q., & Zhong, D. (2015). Using social network analysis to explain communication Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 739e753.
characteristics of travel-related electronic word-of-mouth on social networking Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship:
sites. Tourism Management, 46, 274e282. Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766e774.
informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members' lived expe-
about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), riences in online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43e50.
141e155. Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding inter observer agreement: The
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360e363.
the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Waghid, Y., Waghid, F., & Waghid, Z. (2016). Educational technology and pedagogic
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 487e504. encounters. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016a). Facebook and the others. Potentials and obstacles Weisgerber, C., & Butler, S. (2010). Editor's introduction: Special issue on commu-
of social media for teaching in higher education. Computers & Education, 95, nication pedagogy in the age of social media. Electronic Journal of Communi-
216e230. cation, 20(1e2), 1.
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016b). “Yes for sharing, no for teaching!”: Social media in