Paper Menu >>
Journal Menu >>
![]() Creat ive Educati on 2012. Vol.3, Supplement, 15-19 Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ ce) DOI:10.4236/ce.2012.38b004 Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 15 How Facebook Connects Students’ Group Work Collaboration: A Relationship between Personal Face book Usage and Group En-gagement Pr aweenya Suwannatt hachote, Pornsook Tantrar ungroj Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Email: praweenya.s@chula.ac.th Received 20 1 2 This study examined the relationship between the personal value of social networking technology, the frequency of Facebook use, the frequency of Facebook activities, and group engagement. The samples were 2 05 p re-s ervice t eacher s who par ticip ated in t he six-week onli ne group pr oject. Quest ionnair es wer e collected after the pre-service teachers submitted the project. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis to identify relations among variables. The results showed that 98% of pre-service teachers expanded their network by adding group members to their Facebook friends during the pr oject ass ignment. T he study f ound no rela tionshi p bet ween persona l purp osive values of soci al net- worki ng t echnol og y an d group en g agem ent. Al thou gh 5 8 .4 % of t he stude nt s us ed Fa ceb ook man y times a day, the frequency of usage was largely related to personal interests rather than being relevant to group communication and engagement with the project assignment. However, there were significant but slight correlations between the Facebook activity “view others’ status to update social events” and group en- gagement; between “private messages” and group engagement; between “set up and share events” and group engagement; between “commenting” and group engagement; and between “clicking like” and group engagement. Therefore, educators should integrate their instructional strategy with the virtual learning envir onment to promote st udents’ group engagement via soc ial networking sites. Key words: Socia l Networking Sites (SN Ss); Facebook; Group Enga gement Introduction The most popular among the online social networking sites (SNSs) catering to a bro ad range of un dergraduate users i s “fa- ceboo k.com”. This website clai ms to have hun dreds of millions of registered users. Research undertaken by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) showed that of the 90.4% of students in their sample population who interacted with so- cial networking websites daily, 96.6% indicated that they used Facebook (Smith & Caruso, 2010). Currently, Thailand with over ten million Facebook users is ranked 16th in the world in terms of users by country recorded by Facebook Statistics by country (March 1, 2012). Online collaboration tools facilitate students’ group work such as discussion board forum, and chat room. Formal learn- ing management systems (LMS) such as Blackboard, Moodle, and Author are used for large classes to provide students with access to course syllabi, course documents, and course re- sources. In addition, each LMS provides a variety of synchron- ous and asynchronous communication tools. However, various kinds of SNSs such as Twitter, Facebook, and Delicious have become alternative platforms for academic use. Facebook is another informal system that fits with student modes of social interaction, and hence students have adapted it as a communi- cation tool, as a channel to reach their friends, and as a colla- borative learning tool. Kuh (2009) emphasized two major aspects of student en- gagement: 1) in-class (or acad emic) engagemen t, an d 2) out-of- class engagement in edu cationally relevant activi ties. There are various factors related to engagement including investment in the academic experience at a college, involvement in co-cur- ricular activities, and interacti on with teacher s and p eers (Junco , 2012). In the engagement, students use physical and psycho- logical energy, both of which are important to student success. Students who spend time and effort in in-class and out-of-class engagements are more likely to attain their desired academic outcome. The higher the level of student engagement in aca- demic work, the greater his/her level of knowledge acquisition and cognitive growth (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Although student engagement has been researched in face-to-face envi- ronments, only the limited research undertaken by Junco (2012) and Junco, Heiberger, and Loken (2010) focused on the relation- ship between student engagement and social networking use. Students use SNSs as a way to both formally and informally communicat e academi cally top ics (Greenh ow & Rob elia, 2009 ). Other research also showed that students used Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities involving both online-only e.g. using Facebook as a medium for sharing notes, and online-to-offline, using the site to arrange a study group (Lampe et al., 2011). Since recent statistics have shown that today’s college students use Facebook at high rates, it would be useful to measure their success in terms of usage, interaction, and user or group engagement. The latter term was defined in this study as online interaction with peers on Facebook involv- ing group assignment activities. The relationship between Facebook usage and group en- gagement has been limited by the measurements of engagement that focused on student engagement individually rather than ![]() P. SUWANNATTHACHOTE, P. TANTRARUNGROJ Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 16 group engagement. For example, Junco (2012) focused on the relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. The study of Cheung, Chiu, and Lee (2011) used personal value as the key factor. They examined the relative impact of social influence, social p resen ce, and the five key valu es fro m the u ses an d grati- fication paradigm on We-Intention on use of online social net- works. Although the study did not mention group engagement directly during the classroom activities, some factors involving group activity and social engagement were found. The results showed that social presence had the strongest impact on We- Intention to use Facebook, and that group norms also had a significant influence on We-Intention to use Facebook. This study focuses on pre-service teachers’ use of Facebook as a collaborative tool in a course in Educational Technology and Information (2726207 ED TECH INFO). This course uti- lized a LMS and an asynchronous online discussion board for students to communicate within their groups when working on their practice assignments. In addition, students were free to us e other communication tools subject to group agreement, such as SNSs, instant messaging, and e-mail. This study evaluates the relationship between the personal value of social networking technology, the frequency of Facebook use, the frequency of Facebo ok activities, and group engagement. The research qu es- tions us e d were as fo llows: Question 1: Is there a relationship between the personal pur- posive value of social networking technology and group en- gagement? Question 2: Is there a relationship between the frequency of Facebo ok use and gro up engagement ? Question 3: Is there a relationship between the frequency of Facebo ok activities and group engagement? Methodology Research Settings This study examined the Facebook behavior of pre-service teachers who participated in online group work in 2726207 ED TECH INFO at the Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn Uni- versity, Thailand during the second semester of the 2011 aca- demic year. This course provided pre-service teachers with knowledge and skills in the use of instructional media, informa- tion technology, and computer applications for students in schools. Part icipants were required to attend classroom lectur es, to undertake hands-on and computer lab practice, and to com- plete three group projects with their team members. One of the three final class projects involved 6 weeks of online project- based learning. For the online group project, pre-service teach- ers were randomly assigned to work in small groups with 4-5 members. A total of 5 5 small groups were created. Blackboard’s group pages were set up to provide a working space and set of communication tools that only members of the group could access. The following collaborative tools were available for students to use when participating in real-time lessons and discussions. A chat room was available for students to engage in real-time chats with group members. A file ex- change facility was accessi ble by partici pants to post and sh are files and pertinent documents. An email facility was also pro- vided for students to send email messages to all or selected group members. A discussion board was available for each group to conduct private discussions, with individual forums available only to those students that were part of the group. Students were required to provide a log of their communica- tive interactions with peers on each group discussion board. However, st udents were free to use o ther communication tools, for example, SNSs, instant messaging, and e-mail, subject to group agreement. Six weeks after the project was assigned, students were required to complete questionnaires. Research Participants A total of 205 pre-service teachers agreed to participate in the study. Analysis of the demographic data for the sophomore participants revealed that 70.2% were female and 29.8 % were male. Although their ages ranged from 19 to 22 years old, the majority, 71.1%, were 20 years old. The students were under- taking a variet y of majors, with th e three most common majors being secondary education (29.3%), primary education (17.6%), and early childhood education (10.2%). Other students were majorin g in art s educatio n, music edu cation, physical edu cation , non-formal education, and educational psychology. Instruments and Data A nalyses The questionnaire which was used in this research was de- signed with closed questions. The questions were formulated based on Facebook behavior reported in education research articles (Lampe et al., 2011; Junco, 2012, Suwannatthachote, 2012). The questionnaire was divided into four main parts: 1) student demographics, 2) purposive use of social networking, 3) Facebo ok u sage for collaborative group work with 9 items from the Likert scal e, and 4) personal Faceboo k usage with 1 5 items from the Likert scale. Pre-service teachers responded to the survey after submitting their project assignment. Descript ive statistics wer e conducted t o determine the demo- graphic characteristics of the participants and to analyze their use of Facebook. The data were analyzed using correlation analysis to identify relationships among variables that could help answer the research questions. Findings Group Online Communication Tools Dur ing Project Work During the six-week project assignment, students were as- signed to work in small groups of 4-5 students using the Blackboard course website. The Blackboard discussion board was the primary area of contact and was also where students worked collaboratively to design the storyboard for the learning object. During the first and second weeks of the six-week project period the students worked individually. From the fourth to the sixth week, the students were required to post, comment, and communicate with their peers on the group dis- cussion board. However, students were free to use other com- munication tools as described previously. The results showed that students used Facebook, the Blackboard LMS group dis- cussion board, and Windows Live Messenger (MSN) to com- municate among their assigned group members (47.3%, 35.1%, and 18.0% respectivel y). Th e results also revealed how popu lar Facebook was among pre-service teachers. All participan ts had a Facebook account before their enrollment in this course, and during the project work they used their own preference com- munication tool, Facebook, to communicate among group members more than the required communication tool, the ![]() P. SUWANNATTHACHOTE, P. TANTRARUNGROJ Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 17 Blackboard LMS group discussion board. Researchers found the media attribute of Facebook is rich of communication tools in just one site such as “wall” status posts, online chat, Face- Group (small group social networks of small group), and in- cluding alternative privacy settings. Qualitative data from the grou p discussion bo ard revealed how relu ctant studen ts were to use the discussion board. Most groups asked members to opt out and use the prefer r ed alternative communication tools instead, especially Faceboo k. All stud ents used Faceboo k for th e collaborative work in the group project. The results showed that 98% expanded their network by adding group members to their Facebook friends, 57.6% set up FaceGroup as an additional communication tool besides the required class communication tool, 69.8% sent per- sonal messages via Facebook to contact group members, and 81.0% used Facebook Chat for real time communication with group members from different majors. Group Engag e ment The data from Table 1 shows Facebook activities related to group engagement. The most three common activities were “con- tact oth er with a question related to grou p assignment” (M ean = 4. 23, S. D. = 0.75), “come to a group consensus” (Mean = 4.17, S.D. = 0.82), and “receive information from group members” (Mean = 4.14, S.D. = 0.71). Persona l Online Communi catio n Behavior Participants used different SNSs for private communication. The results showed that the top three SNSs were Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus (100%, 38.0%, and 20.5% respec- tively). The data indicated that all the students had Facebook accounts which they used regularly. The three highest ranking reasons for their preference of for using Facebook were to communicate among friends, associates, and family members, to be broug ht up t o date on social e ve nts a nd news among gr oups , and to conform with their friends (67.8%, 26.8%, 21.0% re- spectively). Frequency of Facebook Activities Pre-service t eachers par ticip ated in a variet y of Facebo ok ac- tivities. Among the top three activities were clicking ‘Like’ on others’ messages, updating their status, viewing photos, and using Facebook chat (35.8%, 35.0%, and 33.8% respectively). Further details are shown in Figure 1. Tabl e 1. Facebook activities on group engagement. Ite ms Me an S .D. Receive information from group member s 4.14 .71 Share group project information (content, format, screen design technique for Learning Object Storyboard) 3.72 .87 Discuss group assignment 4.05 .84 Inquire about details of project assignmen t 4.11 .75 Schedule for group meet ings 3.71 .92 Share ideas and opinions 3.77 .93 Share knowledge and te chnical computer tips 3.39 .98 Contact others with a ques tion related to grou p assignment 4.23 .75 Come to a group consensus 4.1 7 .82 ![]() P. SUWANNATTHACHOTE, P. TANTRARUNGROJ Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 18 Figure 1. Frequency of Facebook activities. Research Question 1 To determine the answer to the first research question, Pear- son correlation was used to examine the relationship between the personal purposive value of social networking technology and group engagement. The results showed that the relationship was not significantly related. However, the results did show that there were significant relationships among personal purpo- sive value variables. Low correlations was found between “communication among friends, associates, and family mem- bers (communication)” and other values; a relationship was found between “communication” and “find new friends” (Pearson’s r = .199, p < 0.01), between “communication” and “update status” (Pearson’s r = .273, p < 0.01), between “com- munication” and “share information” (Pearson’s r = 0.252, p < 0.01), and between “communication” and “view oth ers’ status” (Pearson’s r = .208, p < 0.01), and a significant but negligible correlation between “find new friends” and “update status” (Pearson’s r = .20 0, p < 0.01). Research Question 2 The second research question sought to determine if there was a relationship between frequency of Facebook use (log on) and group engagement. The results revealed that the relation- ship was not significant. Most of the students spent a significant amount of time on Facebook on a daily basis. Figure 2 shows Facebook usage. Although 58.4% of the students used Face- book many times a day, the frequency of usage was largely related to personal interest rather than being relevant to group communicat ion and engagement with the project assignment. Research Question 3 There were significant but low correlations between the Fa- cebook activity “view others’ status to update social events” and group engagement (Pearson’s r = 0.274, p < 0.01) , between “private messa ges” an d group engage ment (P earson ’s r = 0.232, p < 0.01), between “set up and share events” and group en- gagement (Pearson’s r = 0.218, p < 0.01), between “commen t- ing” and group engagement (Pearson’s r = 0.211, p < 0.01), and between “clicking like” and group engagement (Pearson’s r = 0.194, p < 0.01). Discussion Educators are introducing Facebook into the classroom for educational purposes such as promoting communication among students, increasing student collaboration, facilitating or ar- ranging groups or meetings, and contacting another student with a question related to class. This research investigated stu- dents’ usage of Facebook during the assigned group project. Pre-service t eachers used F acebook in a po sitive way related to group engagement. The results showed a high percentage of Facebo ok use for collaborative work in the group project such as adding group members to their social network, using real time chat via Faceb ook, an d sending person al messages to co n- tact group members (98%, 81.0%, and 69.8% respectively). This result is consistent with the study of Lampe et al., (2011) in that their study found students’ usage of Facebook promoted the o r ganization of collaborative classroom activities. This study found no relationship between the personal pur- posive value of social networking technology and group en- gagement. The purposive values of using Facebook found in this study were related to individual student engagement rather than group interaction and discussion which required students’ active involvement. Purposive value factors such as updating social events and news among groups, communicating among friends, associates, and family members, and expressing self- experien ce and feelings with texts and pictu res focused on self- attentiveness rather than contributing to group efforts. Astin (1984, cited in Junco, 2012) added that some students are more engaged than others and individual students are engaged in different activities at different levels. There was no relationship between the frequency of Face- book use (log on) and group engagement. The data from the study of Junco (2012) showed that time spent on Facebook was negatively predictive of student engagement while Junco and Cotton (2010) found that students who spent more time chatting onl in e had more academic impairment . ![]() P. SUWANNATTHACHOTE, P. TANTRARUNGROJ Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 19 Figure 2. Frequency of Facebook log on. This study found that some Facebook activities, such as “vie w oth ers’ status to up date social events”, “pr ivate messages”, “set up and share events”, “commenting” and “clicking like”, had significant but slight relationships with group engagement. Therefore, educators who introduce Facebook into their class- room activities should be aware of the activities above so they can encourage more academic learning engagement. Students will communicate with friends for both academic and social discussions on Facebook. A study by Lampe et al. (2011) indi- cated that students perceived motivation for communicating with others when using Facebook and were likely to use Face- book for discussion of class assignments. Further study should focus more on an instructional strategy to promote group engagement using Facebook. Educators need to put more effort into encouraging students to use Facebook for more academic purposes such as contacting others with a question relating to group assignments, sharing information on group projects, inquiring into details of project assignments, and discussing and sharing ideas and opinions. REFERENCES Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308 Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P.Y., & Lee, M. K.O. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use facebook? Computers in Human Be- havior. 27, 1337 -1343 . Facebook statistics by country, Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.socia lbakers.com/facebook-statistics Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new litera- cies: Social network sites as sociallearning resources. Journal of Computer-Medi at e d Communicati o n, 14 , 1130–1161. Junco, R. (2012 ). The relati onshi p between fr equency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Com- puters & Education. 58 ( 1) , 1 62–171. Jun co, R., Hei berger, G. , & Loken, E. (2010) . The ef fect of Twit ter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer As- sisted Learning .27 ( 2), 119-132. Kuh, G.D. (2009) What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development 50, 683–706. Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B. & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom ac- tivities. Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 6, 329-347. Pascarella E.T. & Terenzini P.T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass, San Fran cisco, CA. Facebook Statistics by Country. (March, 2012). Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics. Smith, S.D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). Research study. ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, Vol. 6. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Retrieved February 29, 2012, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1006/rs/ers1006w.pdf Suwannatthachote, P. (2012). Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Aware- ness on Usin g Social Net working Sit es: Are t hey rea d y for di gita l ci- tizenship?. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecom- munications 2012 (pp. 2594-2600). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Re- trieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/41128. |