A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOCIAL NETWORK USAGE AND ADOPTION AMONG TURKISH PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS
Aylin TUTGUN ÜNAL
Maltepe
Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi
Bilgisayar
ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü
İstanbul,
Türkiye
aylintutgun@maltepe.edu.tr
Osman KÖROĞLU
Fatih
Üniversitesi, İstanbul Meslek Yüksekokulu
Halkla İlişkiler ve Tanıtım Bölümü
İstanbul, Türkiye
okoroglu @fatih.edu.tr
ABSTRACT
In
this research, "prospective teachers' of state and foundation universities
levels of adoption of social networks, and social network usage purposes are analyzed.
Research was conducted with 453 prospective teachers' studying at the Faculties
of Education in Marmara University and Maltepe University in Istanbul. For data
collection, "Intended Use of Social Networking Sites Scale" and
"The Social Network Adoption Scale" were used. In addition, we
developed a "Personal Information Form" to determine prospective
teachers' demographic characteristics and patterns of use of social networks.
For this study, comparative and relational analysis techniques were used and the
results have been obtained. Some of these results are as follows: (a)
Prospective teachers' duration of use of social networks varies according to
the type of foundation or state university; (b) Prospective teachers studying
in both types of university, do not prefer social networks for discovery and
recognition of themselves and their peers; (c) Prospective teachers' rates of
educational use of social networks is quite high; (d) Prospective teachers'
adoption levels of social networks is high. The obtained results were discussed
with the emphasis on prospective teachers. At the end of the study, some
recommendations are given on teacher candidates and use of social networks in
education.
Key Words: Social network, adoption, prospective teachers,
comparative study
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays,
with the rapid development of information and communication technologies,
individuals' social communication / interaction patterns have changed. Widespread
use of technologies such as the internet and mobile phones make life easier and
serve several purposes such as social networking and communication, education,
research, and obtaining new information. In Turkey, the ownership of
technologies serving these purposes by individuals is relatively high. According
to the "ICT Usage Survey" conducted by Turkey Statistical Institute,
ownership of the computer and internet access of institutions was 88.7% and
85.4% in January 2007; these rates were increased to 90.6% and 89.2%, respectively
in January 2008. In 2010, ownership of internet access increased to 90.9%. In
the same study, as of 2011, the rate of mobile phone ownership in households
reached 90.5% and urban-rural values were found close to each other (92.8%
and 85%), which shows the prevalence of mobile phone ownership in the country (Turkey
Statistical Institute, 2011). In particular, many studies carried out with
young people determined the wide use of these environments (Deniz, 2001, 2007; Tutgun and Deniz, 2010).
The Internet has become a preferred media for social interaction, communication
and access to information, and increasingly finds a place in the lives of young
people (Gemmill and Peterson, 2006; Wang, Moon et al., 2010; Tutgun, Deniz and
Moon, 2011).
With widespread use of technological
tools, social communication media are being developed and their use is
increasing rapidly. According to Karal and Kokoç (2010), with the development
of Web 2.0 technologies based on social interaction, cooperation, and sharing,
Internet platforms started to be used differently today, and social networking
sites are one of those platforms.
Turkey, with 32 million active users on Facebook ranks
7th worldwide (Socialbakers, 2013). 37% of Facebook users in Turkey consist of
young people between the ages of 18-24, including university students
(Socialbakers, 2013). Facebook is the social networking site of university
students, the most popular and commonly used platform (Kabilan, Ahmad and
Abidin, 2010; Lampe, Ellison and Steinfield, 2006). The use of microblogging
site Twitter is also common. Reasons to use Twitter include being a part of the
network, learning millions of people's ideas, feelings, interests, tweeting as
a way of taking a note of what is going on in one’s personal life, sharing
thoughts, readings, information and being in touch with people (Fitton, Gruen and
Poston, 2010).
Technology literacy, from pedagogical point of view,
can be beneficial to practice in this subject (Georgina and Hosford, 2009) However,
in terms of novice teachers, supportive institutional policies and mentoring
are also important about digital technologies (Starkey, 2010). Even if
everything is the same, it may not be possible to provide the desired education
outcomes in a standardized way because of individual differences, subjective
opinions about the effects of technology and in terms of experience (Kim et
al., 2013). In the pedagogical use of ICT, there are some issues open to
development such as infrastructure problems, errors in the conceptual approach
to technology, users' unsatisfactory usage experiences and high expectations (Martinovic
and Zhang, 2012).
In the literature, there are various
definitions of social networks and networking. Online social networking is a
set of activities used by a group of people through social technologies (Hamid,
Chang and Kurnia, 2009). Lenhart and Madden (2007) define social networks as any online location
that the user can create his/her profile and establish personal network with
other users. According to Preeti (2009), the concept of social networking is
the formation of a community over the internet, to facilitate sharing their
thoughts and interacting with each other in accordance with a common goal.
The intended use of social networks may
vary. Social networks provide users with facilities such as: Promoting
themselves in online environment and continuing to communicate with other users
(Ellison, Steinfield ve Lampe, 2007), sharing the content they created (Kim,
Jeong ve Lee, 2010) and discovering new friendships (Wang, Moon ve diğ, 2010). The
use of social networks for educational purposes is discussed extensively (Gülbahar,
Kalelioğlu ve Mardan, 2010; Ekici and Kıyıcı, 2012; Keleş and Demirel, 2011;
Odabaşı ve Günüç et al., 2012; Özmen, Aküzüm et al., 2011; Tiryakioğlu and
Erzurum, 2011).
Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) indicate
that social networking sites can be used to improve co-operation and solidarity
in higher education. Grant (Mazman, 2009 from Grant, 2008) points out that
usage of social networks in educational environments provides a more effective
communication between students and teachers, so that instructors know their
students much better. Ferdig (2007) indicated that social networking
applications are closely related to many pedagogical points in constructivist
approach and claimed that these applications support pedagogical approaches
like active learning, social learning and communities of practice and learning.
In the research of Stanciu, Mihai and Aleca (2012), researchers examined the
effect of social networks in the process of higher education in Romania, and the
results indicated that social networking sites can be used for educational
purposes and a model for learning processes in higher education with the use of
Facebook is proposed. On the other hand, according to Schmucki and Meel (2010),
Twitter and other social networks can be used in institutional structures such
as schools for providing continuous communication and participation in
decision-making processes for corporate employees and students, especially in
the determination of common corporate policies. In addition, according to Ploderer,
Howerd and Thomas (2010) with Özmen, Aküzüm et al. (2011), teachers can share
resources and experiences with their colleagues from the same institution or
different institutions by establishing professional learning communities of
common interests and purposes.
Although, social networking sites
are popular and regularly accessed by students, these sites have not yet been considered
as a tool for teaching and learning processes (Stanciu, Mihai ve Aleca, 2012). However,
Usluel and Mazman (2009), found out that there is lack of attention on studies
about the factors behind rapid adoption of social networks and revealing the
cause of the active usage. In this regard, in the literature there are not any
studies comparing students from state and foundation universities.
Students, teachers and school
administrators create the vast majority of users of social networks. Therefore,
the use of social networking sites for educational purposes and studies is
necessary to adapt to the changing information technologies (Özmen, Aküzüm et
al., 2011).
In
our study on the students of the Faculty of Education, in other words prospective
teachers, the determination of their usage purposes, adoption levels and point
of views of social networks are important. When studies on the educational use
of social networking sites analyzed, lack of studies conducted with prospective
teachers is noteworthy. If prospective teachers, benefit from social networking
sites for educational purposes in their professional lives, it may be effective
for the guidance of students to useful activities. Before using these
environments for educational purposes, teachers' adoption and purpose of usage
must be determined. Thus, future studies can be done, and if there is any
necessity, measures can be taken. Because of this, “A Comparative Study of
Social Network Usage and Adoption Among Turkish Prospective Teachers” was determined
as our research topic.
The
Purpose of the Study
The aim of our study is to analyze
prospective teachers in terms of intended uses of social network sites and the
level of adoption of social networks. For this purpose, answers were sought for
the following problems:
1. What
are the demographic characteristics and usage patterns of social networking
sites of prospective teachers in state and foundation universities?
2. What
are the purposes of usage of social networking sites by prospective teachers in
state and foundation universities?
3. What
are the adoption levels of social networks of prospective teachers in state and
foundation universities?
4. Is
there a differentiation in prospective teachers' levels of adoption of social
networking sites and sub levels (utility, ease of use, social influence,
facilitating factors, and community identity), according to their demographic
characteristics (gender, university type, department, etc.) and usage patterns
of social networks (the amount of daily use, social networking profiles, etc.)?
5.
Is there a relationship between purposes
of usage of social networking sites and levels of adoption of prospective
teachers in state and foundation universities?
METHOD
Research Model
In this study,
conclusions were reached by the quantitative analysis of the data obtained with
"Intended Use of Social Networking Sites Scale", "Social
Networks Adoption Scale" and "Personal Information Form". Therefore,
according to Karasar (1994), this study is the “general scanning model” within
the scanning models.
Participants
Research participants were 453 students from Maltepe
University (Foundation University) and Marmara University (State University)
Faculty of Education, in 2012-2013 academic year.
Table
1: Demographic
characteristics of the participants
Demographic
Characteristics f %
|
Gender
Male 163 36
Female 290 64
TOTAL 453 100
|
Department / Program
English Language Teaching 54 11,9
Primary School Mathematics
Teacher Training 73 16,1
CEIT
(Computer Education and Instructional Technologies) 92 20,3
Guidance and Psychological
Counseling 95 21,0
Teacher Training for the
Mentally Handicapped 41 9,1
Teacher Training for the Gifted 19 4,2
Social Studies Teacher Training 40 8,8
Teacher Training in Literature 39 8,6
TOTAL 453 100
|
University
Marmara
University 205 45,3
Maltepe
University 248 54,7
TOTAL 453 100
|
The
participants consists of 290 (64%) female and 163 (36%) male students. The students
who participated in the study were from eight different departments. 205
(45.3%) of the participants were state, 248 (54.7%) of them were foundation
university students.
Data
Collection Instruments
For data collection, Karal and Kokoç's
(2010) “Intended Use of Social Networking Sites Scale” and Usluel and Mazman's
(2009) “Social Networks Adoption Scale” were used. In order to determine demographic characteristics and social network
habits of the participants, also a “Personal Information Form” was developed by
the authors.
Intended Use of Social Networking Sites
Scale. The objective of the scale
is to determine college students' use of social networking sites, and it
consists of 14 items and 3 factors. These factors are "Social interaction
and communication purposes," "Identification and recognition
purposes" and "Educational use". The scale was prepared with
5-point Likert scale. Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient of the
scale is 0.83 and the test-retest reliability coefficient is 0.91. In this
study, the test-retest reliability coefficient is 0.76.
Social Networks Adoption Scale. This scale consists of 21 items and five factors (Usluel
and Mazman, 2009). The factors are, "benefit", "ease of
use", "social impact", "facilitating factors" and
"community identity". The scale are in 10-point Likert-type. The answers
refer to 1 = "totally disagree" and 10 = "totally agree". Scale’s
Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient was 0.90. In this study, it
is 0,88.
Personal Information Form. With this form, the following data were collected: Demographic
characteristics of the students (University type, gender, age, department,
class, etc.) and usage patterns of social networking (total Facebook/Twitter
account number, which social networks s/he is connected, since when s/he is
using social networks, daily usage amount etc.).
Process
Measuring tool
was applied to the participants in 2012-2013 academic year, in classes,
according to the principle of voluntariness. The participants filled the
questionnaire within 12 minutes.
Data
Analysis
The data was analyzed with SPSS 18
(PASW) statistical software with following techniques: frequency measurement,
independent sample t-test, analysis of variance, LSD analysis and correlation.
FINDINGS
First of all, participants'
demographic characteristics and usage patterns of social networking sites have
been analyzed.
Table
2: Computer ownership by university type
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Yes, I have
|
169 (82.4)
|
204 (82.3)
|
373 (82.3)
|
No, I don’t have
|
33 (16.1)
|
41 (16.5)
|
74 (16.3)
|
Missing value
|
3 (1.5)
|
3 (1.2)
|
6 (1.3)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
Table
2 shows that computer ownership percentages are high in the participant groups
from both universities.
Table
3: Ownership of internet access by university type
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Yes, I have
|
171 (83.4)
|
228 (91.9)
|
399 (88.1)
|
No, I don’t have
|
33 (16.1)
|
19 (7.7)
|
52 (11.5)
|
Missing value
|
1 (.5)
|
1 (.4)
|
2 (.4)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
Ownership of internet connection is
high in both university types. On the other hand, in state university, those
without the internet connection is greater.
Table
4: Having facebook account by university type
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Yes, I have
|
184 (89.8)
|
217 (87.5)
|
401 (88.5)
|
No, I don’t have
|
21 (10.2)
|
31 (12.5)
|
52 (11.5)
|
Missing value
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
Facebook account ownership rate is
high in both university types. On the other hand, the teachers were also
questioned on the number of their facebook accounts. According to the answers,
80.6% (n = 365) of the participants have only one account, and 6.4% (n = 29) of
the participants have two accounts. Very few of the respondents have 3 accounts
(1.3%, n = 6) or 5 accounts (.4%, n = 2).
Table
5: Twitter account by university type
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Yes, I have
|
106 (51.7)
|
146 (58.9)
|
252 (55.6)
|
No, I don’t have
|
98 (47.8)
|
101 (40.7)
|
199 (43.9)
|
Missing value
|
1 (.5)
|
1 (.4)
|
2 (.4)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 5, in both
university types, participants having Twitter account are above average. But, fewer
participants have a Twitter account than a Facebook account. In addition, 53.9%
of the participants who use Twitter have only one account.
On the other hand, account ownership
status in other social networks was also questioned. Accordingly, there are 179
participants (39.5%) who have accounts in other social networking sites, and
269 participants (59.4%) who do not have accounts in other social networking sites.
Other popular social networks are Youtube (20.8%), Foursquare (16.9%),
Instagram (17.4%), other (%38.2).
Table
6: Mobile internet connection by university type
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Yes, I have
|
147 (71.7)
|
197 (79.4)
|
344 (75.9)
|
No, I don’t have
|
50 (24.4)
|
42 (16.9)
|
92 (20.3)
|
Missing value
|
8 (3.9)
|
9 (3.6)
|
17 (3.8)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
Table 6 shows that mobile phone
usage with internet connection is fairly high. The rate is slightly higher in
the foundation university. In addition, the presence of social networking applications
in mobile devices was also investigated. Accordingly, 64.9% of participants
have social networking applications in their mobile devices. This ratio is
above average and remarkable. Prospective teachers are accessing social
networks from their mobile phones.
Table
7: Time spent on social network usage by university type
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Less than 1 hour
|
93 (45.4)
|
96 (38.7)
|
189 (41.7)
|
1-3 hours
|
74 (36.1)
|
102 (41.1)
|
176 (38.9)
|
3-5 hours
|
16 (7.8)
|
25 (10.1)
|
41 (9.1)
|
More than 5 hours
|
8 (3.9)
|
16 (6.5)
|
24 (5.3)
|
Missing value
|
14 (6.8)
|
9 (3.6)
|
23 (5.1)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According
to Table 7, the participants daily duration of connection to social networks
varies by the type of university. In state university, majority (45.4%) is less
than an hour connecting to the sites, and the second biggest group is 1-3 hours
(36.1%) connecting to the sites. Whereas, majority of participants from
foundation university is connecting 1-3 hours (41.1%), and participants
connecting less than an hour rank second (38.7%). This may be caused because of
participants from foundation university have more mobile internet connection
ownership.
On
the other hand, the participants were also asked since when they have been using
social networks. Accordingly, in both types of university, users of 3-5 years
are the majority (31.3%). Users for 1-3 years (27.6%) come in the second place,
and users for more than 5 years (26.5%) come in third place. As a result, more
than half (57.8%) of the participants are users of social networks for more
than 3 years. However, it is particularly noteworthy that 7.5% of the
participants use social networks for less than a year.
Another aim of the research was to
determine usage objective of social networking sites by prospective teachers in
state and foundation universities. For this purpose, three
sub-goals have been analyzed: Social interaction and communication,
identification and recognition, and education.
Analysis
of the questions about social networking sites' use of social interaction and
communication purposes:
Table
8: Opportunity to create his/her own unique space
(profile, personal page etc.)
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
20 (9.8)
|
17 (6.9)
|
37 (8.2)
|
Disagree
|
34 (16.6)
|
26 (10.5)
|
60 (13.2)
|
Moderately agree
|
67 (32.7)
|
103 (41.5)
|
170 (37.5)
|
Agree
|
56 (27.3)
|
77 (31.0)
|
133 (29.4)
|
Completely agree
|
14 (6.8)
|
19 (7.7)
|
33 (7.3)
|
Missing value
|
14 (6.8)
|
6 (2.4)
|
20 (4.4)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 8, more than half
of the participants from both university types are using social networking
sites for the opportunity
to create his/her own unique space. The sum of the
positive options in both university types are above average (State: %66.8; Foundation:
%79.5).
Table
9: Maintaining communication with existing friends
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
9 (4.4)
|
7 (2.8)
|
16 (3.5)
|
Disagree
|
6 (2.9)
|
7 (2.8)
|
13 (2.9)
|
Moderately agree
|
26 (12.7)
|
23 (9.3)
|
49 (10.8)
|
Agree
|
73 (35.6)
|
99 (39.9)
|
172 (38.0)
|
Completely agree
|
78 (38.0)
|
110 (44.4)
|
188 (41.5)
|
Missing value
|
13 (6.3)
|
2 (.8)
|
15 (3.3)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
The participants in both university
types agree about their usage in order to maintain communication with existing
friends almost completely. However, sum of the choosers of completely agree and
agree choices are above average (State:%73.6; Foundation: %84.3).
Table
10: Usage in order to examine the lives of friends and
people of interest
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
18 (8.8)
|
28 (11.3)
|
46 (10.2)
|
Disagree
|
44 (21.5)
|
44 (18.1)
|
89 (19.6)
|
Moderately agree
|
59 (28.8)
|
84 (33.9)
|
143 (31.6)
|
Agree
|
51 (24.9)
|
68 (27.4)
|
119 (26.3)
|
Completely agree
|
22 (11.2)
|
21 (8.5)
|
43 (10.3)
|
Missing value
|
11 (5.4)
|
2 (.8)
|
13 (2.9)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
The participants from both
university types moderately agree mostly on the usage in order to examine the
lives of friends and people of interest. However, sum of the choosers of
moderately agree, completely agree and agree choices are above average (State:
%64.9; Foundation: %68.8). On the other hand, in both university types, total
ratio of disagreed and completely disagreed participants are at a substantial
degree (State: %30.3; Foundation: %29.4).
Table
11: Usage for the purpose of recontacting old friends
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
8 (3.9)
|
15 (6.0)
|
23 (5.1)
|
Disagree
|
10 (4.9)
|
12 (4.8)
|
22 (4.9)
|
Moderately agree
|
40 (19.5)
|
56 (22.6)
|
96 (21.2)
|
Agree
|
80 (39.0)
|
99 (39.9)
|
179 (39.5)
|
Completely agree
|
54 (26.3)
|
64 (25.8)
|
118 (26.0)
|
Missing value
|
13 (6.3)
|
2 (.8)
|
15 (3.3)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 11, usage for the
purpose of recontacting old friends by the participants is quite high in both
university types. Accordingly, total percentage of choosers of moderately
agree, agree and completely agree choices are %84.8 in state university, %88.3
in foundation university.
Table
12: Usage to share thoughts with others
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
18 (8.8)
|
20 (8.1)
|
38 (8.4)
|
Disagree
|
29 (14.1)
|
36 (14.5)
|
65 (14.3)
|
Moderately agree
|
77 (37.6)
|
73 (29.4)
|
150 (33.1)
|
Agree
|
50 (24.4)
|
93 (37.5)
|
143 (31.6)
|
Completely agree
|
20 (9.8)
|
24 (9.7)
|
44 (9.7)
|
Missing value
|
11 (5.4)
|
2 (.8)
|
13 (2.9)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
When Table 12 analyzed, it is easily
seen that the usage to share thoughts with others,
most
of the state university participants moderately agree (%37.6), most of the foundation
university participants agree (%37.5). Sum of the choosers of moderately agree,
completely agree and agree choices in both university types are above average (State:
%71.8; Foundation: %76.6). On the other hand, in both university types, total
ratio of disagreed and completely disagreed participants are at a substantial level
(State: %22.9; Foundation: %22.6).
Table
13: Usage to participate in groups of interest
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
16 (7.8)
|
25 (10.1)
|
41 (9.1)
|
Disagree
|
28 (13.7)
|
43 (17.3)
|
71 (15.7)
|
Moderately agree
|
61 (29.8)
|
72 (29.0)
|
133 (29.4)
|
Agree
|
65 (31.7)
|
75 (30.2)
|
140 (30.9)
|
Completely agree
|
22 (10.7)
|
29 (11.7)
|
51 (11.3)
|
Missing value
|
13 (6.3)
|
4 (1.6)
|
17 (3.8)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 13, usage to
participate in groups of interest by the participants is quite high in both
university types. Accordingly, total percentage of the choosers of moderately
agree, completely agree and agree choices are %72.2 in state university, %70.9
in foundation university. On the other hand, the ratio of the choosers of
disagree and strongly disagree choices is %21.5 and %27.4 respectively.
Table
14: Usage to share favorite objects (video, pictures,
etc)
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
16 (7.8)
|
20 (8.1)
|
36 (7.9)
|
Disagree
|
21 (10.2)
|
28 (11.3)
|
49 (10.8)
|
Moderately agree
|
64 (31.2)
|
73 (29.4)
|
137 (30.2)
|
Agree
|
69 (33.7)
|
90 (36.3)
|
159 (35.1)
|
Completely agree
|
23 (11.2)
|
35 (14.7)
|
58 (13.6)
|
Missing value
|
12 (5.9)
|
2 (.8)
|
14 (3.1)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
Usage to share favorite objects
(video, pictures, etc) in both university types is high. Those who reported a
favorable opinion are %76.1 in state university, and %80.4 in foundation university.
Analysis of the
questions about social networking sites' use of identification and recognition:
Table 15: Usage to meet new people
and build new friendships
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
53 (25.9)
|
68 (27.4)
|
121 (26.7)
|
Disagree
|
60 (29.3)
|
81 (32.7)
|
141 (31.1)
|
Moderately agree
|
50 (24.4)
|
58 (23.4)
|
108 (23.8)
|
Agree
|
22 (10.7)
|
32 (12.9)
|
54 (11.9)
|
Completely agree
|
9 (4.4)
|
8 (3.2)
|
17 (3.8)
|
Missing value
|
11 (5.4)
|
1 (.4)
|
12 (2.6)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 15, favorable
opinion on usage to meet new people and build new friendships is low. In both
university types, disagree choice is in the first place (%29.3; %32.7), while strongly
disagree choice is in the second place (%25.9; %27.4).
Table
16: Usage for the purpose of recognition by other people
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
70 (34.1)
|
104 (41.9)
|
174 (38.4)
|
Disagree
|
76 (37.1)
|
83 (33.5)
|
159 (35.1)
|
Moderately agree
|
33 (16.1)
|
40 (16.1)
|
73 (16.1)
|
Agree
|
11 (5.4)
|
12 (4.8)
|
23 (5.1)
|
Completely agree
|
2 (1.0)
|
6 (2.4)
|
8 (1.8)
|
Missing value
|
13 (6.3)
|
3 (1.2)
|
16 (3.5)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 16, favorable
opinion on usage for the purpose of recognition by other people is quite low. In
both university types, ratio of choosers of strongly disagree and disagree
choices is above average (State: %71.2; Foundation: %75.4).
Table
17: Usage in order to meet people from different cultures
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
45 (22.0)
|
47 (19.0)
|
92 (20.3)
|
Disagree
|
61 (29.8)
|
88 (35.5)
|
149 (32.9)
|
Moderately agree
|
48 (23.4)
|
71 (28.6)
|
119 (26.3)
|
Agree
|
28 (13.7)
|
25 (10.1)
|
53 (11.7)
|
Completely agree
|
11 (5.4)
|
15 (6.0)
|
26 (5.7)
|
Missing value
|
12 (5.9)
|
2 (.8)
|
14 (3.1)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
When Table 17 analyzed, it is found
out that favorable opinion on usage in order to meet people from different
cultures is low. In both universities, the ratio of choosers of strongly
disagree and disagree choices is %51.8 and %54.5 respectively. However, rate of
"Moderately agree" choice is at a considerable level. Accordingly,
ratio of favorable opinions is close to the average (State:%42.5; Foundation:
%44.7).
Analysis of the questions about social
networking sites' use in education:
Table
18: Usage to do research on school projects/assignments
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
25 (12.2)
|
25 (10.1)
|
50 (11.0)
|
Disagree
|
34 (16.6)
|
42 (16.9)
|
76 (16.8)
|
Moderately agree
|
61 (29.8)
|
63 (25.4)
|
124 (27.4)
|
Agree
|
47 (22.9)
|
73 (29.4)
|
120 (26.5)
|
Completely agree
|
25 (12.2)
|
43 (17.3)
|
68 (15.0)
|
Missing value
|
13 (6.3)
|
2 (.8)
|
15 (3.3)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 18, majority of
participants reported positive opinions on usage to do research on school
projects/assignments. Favorable opinions are above average (State: %64.9; Foundation:
%72.1).
Table
19: Usage to examine educational groups and activities
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
12 (5.9)
|
18 (7.3)
|
30 (6.6)
|
Disagree
|
19 (9.3)
|
32 (12.9)
|
51 (11.3)
|
Moderately agree
|
55 (26.8)
|
72 (29.0)
|
127 (28.0)
|
Agree
|
76 (37.1)
|
87 (35.1)
|
163 (36.0)
|
Completely agree
|
30 (14.6)
|
36 (14.5)
|
66 (14.6)
|
Missing value
|
13 (6.3)
|
3 (1.2)
|
16 (3.5)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 19, favorable
opinion on usage to examine educational groups and activities is very high. In
both types of universities, the participants mostly agree on the favorable
usage (State: %37.1; Foundation: %35.1). The total ratio of favorable opinions is
%78.5 in state university, %78.6 in foundation university.
Table
20: Usage in order to meet up-to-date, different
information and ideas
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
10 (4.9)
|
10 (4.0)
|
20 (4.4)
|
Disagree
|
11 (5.4)
|
14 (5.6)
|
25 (5.5)
|
Moderately agree
|
49 (23.9)
|
46 (18.5)
|
95 (21.0)
|
Agree
|
74 (36.1)
|
103 (41.5)
|
177 (39.1)
|
Completely agree
|
49 (23.9)
|
72 (29.0)
|
121 (26.7)
|
Missing value
|
12 (5.9)
|
3 (1.2)
|
15 (3.3)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
When Table 20 analyzed, favorable
opinion on usage in order to meet up-to-date, different information and ideas is
quite high and the rate of positive opinions is above average (State: %83.9; Foundation:
%89)
Table
21: Usage in order to improve knowledge of a foreign
language
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
f (%)
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
40 (19.5)
|
30 (12.1)
|
70 (15.5)
|
Disagree
|
70 (34.1)
|
82 (33.1)
|
152 (33.6)
|
Moderately agree
|
52 (25.4)
|
72 (29.0)
|
124 (27.4)
|
Agree
|
24 (11.7)
|
41 (16.5)
|
65 (14.3)
|
Completely agree
|
7 (3.4)
|
22 (8.9)
|
29 (6.4)
|
Missing value
|
12 (5.9)
|
1 (.4)
|
13 (2.9)
|
TOTAL
|
205 (100)
|
248 (100)
|
453 (100)
|
According to Table 21, ratio of negative
opinion on usage in order to improve knowledge of a foreign language in both
university types is high. Total percentage of disagree and strongly disagree is
%53.6 in state, %45.2 in foundation. However, the total ratio of choosers of moderately
agree,
agree and completely agree choices is
at a substantial degree (State: %40.5; Foundation: %54.4). In foundation university,
usage in order to improve the knowledge of a foreign language is more common
than state university.
Another research
objective is to find out the level of adoption of social networks by prospective
teachers in state and foundation universities.
Table
22: Prospective teachers’ adoption levels of social
networks
State
|
Foundation
|
TOTAL
|
|||||||
N
|
Sd
|
N
|
Sd
|
N
|
Sd
|
||||
Benefit
|
205
|
24.50
|
7.65
|
248
|
24.08
|
8.16
|
453
|
24.27
|
7.93
|
Ease of use
|
205
|
32.44
|
7.03
|
248
|
32.23
|
9.52
|
453
|
32.33
|
8.48
|
Social impact
|
205
|
19.18
|
8.28
|
248
|
18.84
|
8.18
|
453
|
19.00
|
8.22
|
Facilitating factors
|
205
|
37.28
|
8.53
|
248
|
36.10
|
10.17
|
453
|
36.63
|
9.47
|
Community identification
|
205
|
23.16
|
8.96
|
248
|
20.88
|
9.42
|
453
|
21.91
|
9.28
|
Total adoption
|
205
|
136.58
|
27.64
|
248
|
132.15
|
28.82
|
453
|
134.16
|
28.35
|
When Table 22 analyzed, of participants
in both university types, levels of adoption and sub levels are similar. Accordingly,
the prospective teachers’ adoption of social networks is very high (
=134.16). When sub levels (benefit, ease of use,
social impact, facilitating factors, community identification) are examined, social
networks are adopted especially because of ease of use and facilitating factors.
Maximum score for both factors is 40. Accordingly, prospective teachers have a
high average of scores (
=32.33;
=36.63). Benefit (
=24.27) and community
identification (
=21.91) factors are above average. But social impact
factor is slightly higher than the average (
=19.00).
In another research objective,
differentiation of level of adoption of social networks by prospective teachers
and sub levels (benefit, ease of use, social impact, facilitating factors,
community identification) compared to demographic characteristics (Gender, university
type, department etc.) and usage patterns of social networks (amount of daily
use, social networking preferences etc.) is analyzed.
Table
23: Levels of adoption of social networks by gender
Sex
|
n
|
Mean
|
sd
|
df
|
t
|
p
|
|
Benefit
|
Male
|
163
|
43.70
|
7.99
|
332
|
.984
|
n.s
|
Female
|
290
|
37.72
|
7.90
|
||||
Ease of use
|
Male
|
163
|
31.93
|
9.97
|
266
|
.741
|
n.s.
|
Female
|
290
|
32.55
|
7.52
|
||||
Social impact
|
Male
|
163
|
18.72
|
8.02
|
346
|
.535
|
n.s.
|
Female
|
290
|
19.15
|
8.33
|
||||
Facilitating factors
|
Male
|
163
|
35.08
|
8.30
|
388
|
2.63
|
0.009
|
Female
|
290
|
37.50
|
9.97
|
||||
Community identification
|
Male
|
163
|
22.52
|
8.77
|
360
|
-1.041
|
n.s
|
Female
|
290
|
21.57
|
9.55
|
||||
Total adoption
|
Male
|
163
|
132.05
|
28.53
|
332
|
1.185
|
n.s
|
Female
|
290
|
135.34
|
28.23
|
According to Table 23, based on
analysis of variance and LSD tests conducted by gender, a difference was observed
at the level of facilitating factors (p<0.05). Accordingly, the female
participants adopt social networks more than males, due to the facilitating
factors.
Table
24: Levels of adoption of social networks based on having
mobile connection
Mobile
Connection
|
n
|
Mean
|
sd
|
df
|
t
|
p
|
|
Benefit
|
Yes, I have
|
344
|
24.68
|
7.82
|
139
|
2.005
|
0.046
|
No, I haven’t
|
92
|
22.83
|
8.12
|
||||
Ease of use
|
Yes, I have
|
344
|
33.04
|
8.49
|
146
|
3.158
|
0.002
|
No, I haven’t
|
92
|
29.91
|
8.25
|
||||
Social impact
|
Yes, I have
|
344
|
19.22
|
8.39
|
152
|
1.153
|
n.s.
|
No, I haven’t
|
92
|
18.10
|
7.79
|
||||
Facilitating factors
|
Yes, I have
|
344
|
37.44
|
9.69
|
160
|
3.165
|
0.002
|
No, I haven’t
|
92
|
33.93
|
8.46
|
||||
Community identification
|
Yes, I have
|
344
|
22.23
|
9.32
|
145
|
1.166
|
n.s
|
No, I haven’t
|
92
|
20.96
|
9.19
|
||||
Total adoption
|
Yes, I have
|
344
|
136.62
|
27.99
|
142
|
3.310
|
0.001
|
No, I haven’t
|
92
|
125.73
|
28.15
|
When Table 24 analyzed,
it is seen that many sub levels and total adoption level vary according to
having mobile connection (p<0.05). Accordingly, participants who have a
mobile connection adopt social networks because they are useful, easy to use
and have facilitating factors. When total adoption scores were examined, a significant
difference was found again (p<0.05). As a result, participants who have a
mobile connection adopt social networks more than those who do not.
On
the other hand, adoption levels of participants with fixed internet connection
was also investigated, and no significant difference was observed at the level
of adoption.
Table
25: Levels of adoption of social networks based on having
an account in any social network
Having
Account
|
n
|
Mean
|
sd
|
df
|
t
|
p
|
|
Benefit
|
Yes, I have
|
179
|
25.45
|
7.61
|
395
|
2.648
|
0.008
|
No, I haven’t
|
269
|
23.44
|
8.04
|
||||
Ease of use
|
Yes, I have
|
179
|
34.36
|
8.95
|
348
|
4.198
|
0.000
|
No, I haven’t
|
269
|
30.98
|
7.92
|
||||
Social impact
|
Yes, I have
|
179
|
19.57
|
8.40
|
371
|
1.330
|
n.s.
|
No, I haven’t
|
269
|
18.52
|
8.08
|
||||
Facilitating factors
|
Yes, I have
|
179
|
38.74
|
8.15
|
428
|
3.762
|
0.000
|
No, I haven’t
|
269
|
35.36
|
10.04
|
||||
Community identification
|
Yes, I have
|
179
|
23.12
|
9.31
|
378
|
2.326
|
0.020
|
No, I haven’t
|
269
|
21.04
|
9.19
|
||||
Total adoption
|
Yes, I have
|
179
|
141.27
|
2727.9
|
389
|
4.446
|
0.000
|
No, I haven’t
|
269
|
129.36
|
28.09
|
According to Table 25, participants
who have an account in any social networking site other than Facebook and
Twitter are adopting social networks more (p<0.01). Accordingly,
participants who have accounts in other social networks think about Facebook
that it is more beneficial, has more facilitating factors and provides more
community identification. Levels of adoption does not change regarding social impact
(p>0,05).
On the other hand, when adoption
levels examined based on having Facebook account, a significant difference was
found only at the level of ease of use (t=2.101; p<0.05). When adoption
levels of participants who have a Twitter account are analyzed, significant
differences were obtained only in ease of use (t=2.696; p<0.05), community identification
(t=2.168; p<0.05) and total adoption levels (t=2.304; p<0.05).
In addition, the participants'
adoption levels were investigated according to their communication with their
families through social networking sites. Accordingly, at the level of benefit
(t=2.174; p<0.05), community identification (t=3.806; p<0.01) and total adoption
(t=2.762; p<0.05) significant differences were obtained.
Participants' adoption levels were
also analyzed on how long they have been using social networking sites. Accordingly,
prospective teachers who have been using Facebook for more than 5 years, are
adopting social networks more for their benefit level, compared to those who
use social networks for less than 1 year (F=5.732; p=0.001). On the other hand,
according to the analysis made at the level of community identification, with
more Facebook usage years, adoption of social networks is also increasing
(F=5.553; p=0.001). When "Total Adoption" scores were examined, it is
understood that long time Facebook users adopt social networks more than those
of using Facebook for a shorter time (F=5.376; p<0.05).
Table 26: Levels of adoption of
social networks according to the duration of daily use
Daily
Use
|
n
|
Mean
|
sd
|
F
|
P
|
Difference
|
|
Benefit
|
Less than 1 hour
|
189
|
22.33
|
8.40
|
11.21
|
0.000
|
Less than 1 hour<1-3 hours;
Less than 1 hour<3-5 hours;
Less than 1 hour<More than 5 hours
|
1-3 hours
|
176
|
24.80
|
7.33
|
||||
3-5 hours
|
41
|
28.30
|
6.63
|
||||
More than 5 hours
|
24
|
29.32
|
7.73
|
||||
Ease of use
|
Less than 1 hour
|
189
|
31.45
|
9.88
|
3.07
|
0.017
|
Less than 1 hour<3-5 hours;
Less than 1 hour<More than 5 hours
|
1-3 hours
|
176
|
32.42
|
7.58
|
||||
3-5 hours
|
41
|
34.90
|
6.61
|
||||
More than 5 hours
|
24
|
35.54
|
6.70
|
||||
Social impact
|
Less than 1 hour
|
189
|
18.58
|
8.38
|
1.51
|
n.s.
|
-
|
1-3 hours
|
176
|
18.65
|
7.85
|
||||
3-5 hours
|
41
|
20.11
|
9.15
|
||||
More than 5 hours
|
24
|
21.99
|
10.31
|
||||
Facilitating factors
|
Less than 1 hour
|
189
|
35.24
|
9.13
|
3.19
|
0.024
|
Less than 1 hour<3-5 hours;
Less than 1 hour<More than 5 hours
|
1-3 hours
|
176
|
37.21
|
10.33
|
||||
3-5 hours
|
41
|
38.99
|
8.87
|
||||
More than 5 hours
|
24
|
39.72
|
8.75
|
||||
Community identification
|
Less than 1 hour
|
189
|
20.94
|
9.16
|
3.35
|
0.029
|
Less than 1 hour<More than 5 hours
|
1-3 hours
|
176
|
21.96
|
9.49
|
||||
3-5 hours
|
41
|
23.59
|
8.98
|
||||
More than 5 hours
|
24
|
26.54
|
11.44
|
||||
Total adoption
|
Less than 1 hour
|
189
|
128.55
|
30.05
|
8.53
|
0.000
|
Less than 1 hour<1-3 hours; Less than 1
hour<3-5 hours; Less than 1 hour<More than 5 hours; 1-3 hours<3-5
hours; 1-3 hours< More than 5 hours
|
1-3 hours
|
176
|
135.05
|
26.54
|
||||
3-5 hours
|
41
|
145.90
|
24.76
|
||||
More than 5 hours
|
24
|
153.14
|
30.54
|
According to Table 26, a high level
of significant difference was found at the level of benefit (F=11.21; p<0.01).
Prospective teachers using social networks for less than 1 hour per day, find
social networks less useful compared to those who use more hours (1-3, 3-5, and
more than 5 hours). When facilitating factors were analyzed, prospective
teachers using social networks 3 hours or more per day adopt more than those
who use social networks less than 1 hour per day, because of facilitating
factors. (F=3.19; p<0.05). According to the results of the analysis at the
level of Community identification, users of social networks over 5 hours per
day adopt social networks more, compared to those who use less than 1 hour
because of community identification (F=3.35; p<0.05). In the analysis of total
adoption, a high level of differentiation was obtained (F=8.53; p<0.01). As
a result, it can be said that with the increase in daily use of social
networking, the level of adoption also increases.
On the other hand, comparison
between both types of universities' education departments, differentiation was
found in the adoption of social networks at the level of benefit (p<0.05). Accordingly,
departments of CEIT (Computer Education and Instructional Technologies), Social
Studies Education and Guidance and Counselling adopt social networks more at
usefullness level compared to the English Language Teaching department. Other departments
do not differ (p>0,05).
In addition, levels of adoption by
participants according to the type of university they are attending,
differentiated only at community identification level. Accordingly, state
university teacher candidates compared to participants in foundation university
are adopting social networks more in creating community identification
(t=2.628; p<0.05). No difference was observed at the other levels of
adoption (p>0,05).
Finally, in the comparison between senior
and junior students, seniors were adopting social networks more compared to freshmen
and sophomores (F=3.086; p<0.05).
The
last research objective was, whether there is a relationship between usage aims
of social networking sites and levels of adoption of social networks by
participants from state and foundation universities.
Table
27: Relationship between usage of social networking sites
and level of adoption
Usage aims of social networks and level of adoption
|
n
|
r
|
P
|
State university
|
205
|
0.392
|
0.000
|
Foundation university
|
248
|
0.373
|
0.000
|
In
both university types, a positive and moderate level of relation was determined
between the usage aim of social networks and the level of adoption (State: r = 0,392,
p<0,001; Foundation: r=0.373, p<0,001). Accordingly, with the increase of
the level of adoption, usage aim of social networks is also increasing.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
In
this study, prospective teachers' intended uses of social networking sites and
adoption levels of social networks are analyzed and comparisons made between state
and foundation universities.
First of all, demographic
characteristics and usage patterns of social networking sites of prospective
teachers from state and foundation universities were determined. To this end,
personal computer ownership has been analyzed. In both university types,
prospective teachers were found to highly have their own computers (%82.3), but
the rate of the group without a personal computer is also noteworthy (16.3%). This
rate is close to each other in both university types. On the other hand, 91.9%
of prospective teachers in foundation university owns internet connection, while
it is %83.4 in state university. Of prospective teachers in state university
who do not own a personal computer, we may assume that they also do not have
internet connection. Whereas, 16.5% of the participants from foundation
university do not have personal computers and 7.7% do not have internet
connection. This can be explained with prospective teachers from foundation
university use their mobile phones for Internet access. Because when the
ownership of mobile connection status is questioned, prospective teachers from
foundation university were found to have more mobile internet access than
participants from the state university. According to the analysis, 24.4% of
participants from the state university do not have mobile internet access. In
foundation university, the ratio was 16.9%.
In 2010, according to Turkey
Statistical Institute "ICT Usage Survey", internet access ownership
is 90.9% in Turkey. 91.9% of foundation university participants having internet
connection is also consistent with this study. Several studies carried out with
young people (Deniz, 2001, 2007; Tutgun
and Deniz, 2010) have found out that they are using Internet widely even
though 83.4% of the prospective teachers from state university have internet
access. According to the results of our study, internet access ownership should
be considered in relation with the ownership of mobile connection. This
situation can be explained by socio-economic differences. On the other hand,
the results are supporting other studies that young people are accessing the
Internet via the computer and mobile widely (Gemmill and Peterson, 2006; Wang,
Moon et al., 2010; Tutgun, Deniz and Moon, 2011; Turkey Statistical Institute,
2011).
From the analysis of prospective
teachers' accounts in social networking sites, Facebook account rates for
participants from both universities are close to each other (State:%89.8; Foundation:
%87.5). Twitter account ownership rates of foundation university participants
are 58.9% and state university participants are 51.7%. 179 participants (39.5%)
have other social networking accounts, 269 participants (59.4%) do not. After
Facebook and Twitter, the other popular social networks are YouTube (20.8%),
Foursquare (16.9%), Instagram (17.4%), and others (%38.2). This result supports
the other research on Facebook usage
(Kabilan, Ahmad ve Abidin, 2010; Lampe, Ellison ve Steinfield, 2006). 64.9% of
participants have social network applications in their mobile devices. Thus,
prospective teachers are accessing social networks via mobile phones. Participants
from foundation university have more Twitter accounts than participants from
state university because they have more mobile access and social network
applications. Twitter is based on writing instant messages, so this result was
not surprising.
According to the results, daily
usage time of social networks varies by the type of participants' university. 45.4%
of state university participants are using social networks less than 1 hour and
36.1% of them are using 1-3 hours on a daily basis. On the contrary, 41.1% of
foundation university participants are using social networks 1-3 hours and
38.7% of them are using less than 1 hour in a day. This is may be due to high
levels of mobile connection ownership in foundation university. Foundation
university students who access social networks for a long period of time are
more than state university students (3-5 hours per day 10.1%, and more than 5
hours 6.5%). On this result, studies can be conducted about addiction and
pathological consequences.
How long the participants have been using
social networks were analyzed. Accordingly, more than half of the participants have
been using (57.8%) social networks for 3 years and over. This result is
indicative of the rising generation of young people started using the internet
earlier than other generations. Wright (2001) highlights the aforementioned
situation by calling them the "Net Generation".
Another research objective was, to
find out usage goals of social networking sites of prospective teachers in
state and foundation universities. For this objective, three factors were
analyzed: social interaction and communication purposes, identification and
recognition purposes and educational purposes. Each factor was measured by a
number of questions. Based on this, within the scope of social communication
and interaction purposes, these rates were quite high: To maintain
communication with existing friends (State: 73.6%; Foundation: 84.3%), to
communicate with old friends again (State: 84.8%; Foundation: 88.3%), share
favorite objects (video, pictures, etc). (State: 76.1%; Foundation: 80.4%),
participate in engaging groups (State: 72.2%; Foundation: 70.9%), to share
his/her thoughts with others (State: 71.8%; Foundation: 76.6%). On the other
hand, usage for creating a profile, a personal page, etc. is lower in state
university (State: 66.8%; Foundation: 79.5%). Usage rate “to examine the lives
of friends and others” is lower (State: 64.9%; Foundation: 68.8%).
Social networks provide users
opportunities such as promoting themselves online, communicating with other
users (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe, 2007), content sharing (Kim, Jeong and
Lee, 2010) and finding new friends (Wang, Moon, et al, 2010). According to our
findings, a high proportion of prospective teachers benefit from these
opportunities. Lenhart and Madden (2007) define social networks as online
places where users can create profiles and establish a personal network
connecting to other users. Social interaction and communication is in the
definition of social networks. Our research results revealed that usage of
social networks by prospective teachers serves this purpose.
The use of social networking sites
for identification and recognition is lower: To meet new people
and build new friendships (Do not agree: state 55.2% foundation 60.1%), to be
recognized by other people (Do not agree: state of 71.2%, foundation 75.4%). On
the other hand, "usage to meet people from different cultures"
percentage of agreeing prospective teachers in different degrees is close to
half of the total participants (State: 42.5%; Foundation: 44.7%).
According to the results, prospective
teachers do not much prefer using social networking sites for identification
and recognition. One purpose of social networks is to introduce oneself online.
Even so, participants preferred this purpose less. On the other hand, for
social interaction and communication, choices of "maintaining contact with
existing friends" and "getting in touch with old friends again"
rates are very high. Prospective teachers on social networks aim to communicate
with present and old friends rather than finding new ones.
Ratio of teachers who have a
positive opinion on the use of social networking for educational purposes is
quite high: To do research on school projects/assignments (State: 64.9%;
Foundation: 72.1%), to examine groups and activities for education (State: 78.5%;
Foundation: 78.6%), to meet different and up to date information and ideas
(State: 83.9%; Foundation: 89%). However, those who reported a positive opinion
on usage in order to improve the knowledge of foreign language vary in
different universities (State: 40.5%; Foundation: 54.4%). This item does
not very high participation rate, but the total percentage of positive
responses of different degrees was at a substantial level. On the other hand,
when the results are analyzed according to the type of university, foundation
university participation rates are higher. Foundation university teachers
having more internet access and mobile connectivity may be the reason for this.
To clarify the situation, in both types of universities, more research can be
made on prospective teachers' attitudes towards use of social networks for
educational purposes.
Emphasized topics in the literature
include: social networking sites can be used to improve cooperation and
collaboration in higher education (Ajjan and Hartshorne, 2008). Thanks to these
environments, teachers recognize students better (Mazman, 2009), social
networking applications are closely related to many pedagogical points in
constructivist approach and support some pedagogical approaches, such as active
learning, social learning, communities of practice and learning (Ferding,
2007). However, more detailed studies should be made about prospective
teachers' use of social networking for educational purposes. According to our
research, prospective teachers are using social networks for educational
purposes more than average. Participants' favorable opinion of over 80% on
usage in order to "encounter the up-to-date different information and
ideas" is particularly remarkable.
According
to our research, state and foundation universities' prospective teachers'
adoption levels of social networks are close to each other. Based on this,
participants adoption levels are very high (
=134.16). The questions determining the level of
adoption were about Facebook. When adoption is analyzed, Facebook adoption is
due to the ease of use and facilitating factors. Maximum score for each factor
is 40 and participants have higher scores (
=32.33;
=36.63). Other lower analysis levels are also highly
effective (utility, social impact, community identification).
Differentiation in adoption levels
of the prospective teachers according to demographic characteristics and social
network usage patterns were also studied. Female prospective teachers adopt
Facebook more than males because of the facilitating factors (t=2.63; p<0.05).
Other levels of adoption were not found to differ by gender.
To have a mobile connection
differentiates many sub levels and total adoption level (p<0.05). Prospective
teachers with mobile connection adopt Facebook because it is useful, easy to
use, and has facilitating factors, so they adopt Facebook more. Prospective
teachers' levels of adoption are differentiated with mobile connection but has
not differentiated with internet connection.
When adoption levels of participants
with accounts in social networks analyzed, a significant difference was found
at the level of ease of use in participants with Facebook accounts (t=2.101;
p<0.05). Significant differences were obtained with participants with
Twitter accounts in the levels of ease of use (t=2.696; p<0.05), community identification
(t=2.168; p<0.05) and total adoption (t=2.304; p<0.05). Adoption levels
of participants with an account in other social networks are highly
differentiated (p<0.01). Prospective teachers with an account in other
social networks are adopting Facebook because it is more useful, easy to use,
has facilitating factors and provides community identification.
Prospective teachers' adoption
levels according to their communication with the families over social
networking sites was also analyzed. According to the results, there are significant
differences in the levels of benefit (t=2.174; p<0.05), community identification
(t=3.806; p<0.01) and total adoption (t=2.762; p<0.05). Participants who
use social networks to communicate with their families, naturally find them
useful and adopt them more.
Prospective teachers' adoption
levels according to total usage time of social networking sites were also
analyzed. Facebook users for more than 5 years find it more useful and adopt it
more than users of less than 1 year (F=5.732; p=0.001). Based on their total
adoption scores, Facebook users for a long time are adopting social networks
more (F=5.376; p<0.05).
According to the duration of daily
use, the participants adoption levels are highly differentiated (F=8.53;
p<0.01). Participants who spend more time in social networks in a day, find
social networks more useful compared to participants who spend less time. In
addition, according to the results of the analysis at the level of community identification,
those who use social networks 5 hours or more per day compared to those who use
less than 1 hour, adopt social networks more (F=3.35; p<0.05). When all
levels were analyzed, it can be said that while daily use of social networking
increases, level of adoption also increases. This result was not surprising because
it is natural for adopters of social networks to allocate more time per day
than others. But it is noteworthy that there are participants adopting because
of Community identification and spending time on social networks over 5 hours
per day (n=24; Mean=26.54). It is important to identify these prospective
teachers with detailed research and to take necessary action.
On the other hand, when departments
are compared, CEIT (Computer Education and Instructional Technologies), Social
Science Education and Guidance and Counselling departments are adopting social
networks more on usefullness level than English Language Teaching department. Other
departments do not Show difference (p>0,05).
It is interesting to note that while some departments embrace social networks
by finding them useful, English Language Teaching department has the lowest
ratings. Another interesting result, depending on the type of participants'
university, adoption levels are differentiated only at the community
identification level. Accordingly, state university students adopt social
networks more to create community identification than foundation university
students (t=2.628; p<0.05). The reasons for these results can be determined
with detailed research in universities and departments.
Participants in senior classes are
adopting social networks more than freshmen and sophomore students (F=3.086;
p<0.05). It can be said that senior prospective students have their own
social environment and relationships, and carry on these relationships through social
networks, but first and second year students do not much have these environment
and relationships. Freshmen start with creating new environment and
relationships. At first, it can be seen natural that as a friendship and
communication environment, they embrace social networks less.
Finally, relationship between the
intended uses and levels of adoption of social networks of prospective teachers
in state and foundation universities was analyzed and positive and moderate
correlation was found (State: r
= 0,392,
p<0,001; Foundation: r=0.373, p<0,001). Accordingly, with the level of
adoption increasing, the intended use of social networks is also increasing. As
a result, prospective teachers who adopt social networking sites exhibit a more
positive attitude to use social networking sites for multiple purposes.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Today, social
networks are widely used for many purposes throughout the world. Academic
studies on social networks are also increasing. Educational communities are
discussing and exploring the use of social networks for educational purposes. It
would be useful to implement these studies in education faculties on
prospective teachers. In the literature, detailed analysis and studies
specifically on prospective teachers are not found. The secondary objective of
this study is the use of social networks in education. First, however, the
following situations must be determined: Purposes of prospective teachers' use
of social networks, usage characteristics of social networks, adoption level of
social networks, what the variables of differences in the levels of adoption,
relationship between the levels of adoption and the intended use. On the other
hand, in this study, an idea of perspectives was obtained from prospective
teachers on the use of social networks for educational purposes. Based on the
research findings, some recommendations can be made:
1. State
university prospective teachers' access facilities to the Internet out of the
office can be increased.
2. Prospective
teachers who spend much of their time in social networks can be determined, and
activities on time management can be started.
3. With
seminars on educational use of social networks, prospective teachers' awareness
can be raised.
4. For
different departments in state and foundation universities, usage of social
networking can be determined with studies made at regular intervals. Thus,
differences may be learned in a healthy manner and activities can be arranged
for different groups.
REFERENCES
Ajjan, H. & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating
faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests, Internet and Higher Education, 11,
71–80.
Deniz, L. (2001). Psikolojik danışma ve rehberlik
öğrencilerinin bilgisayar yaşantılarına yönelik bir izleme çalışması, Marmara
Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim
Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi,
13, 87-110.
Deniz, L. (2007). Prospective class teachers’ computer
experiences and computer attitudes. International Journal of Social Sciences,
2(2), 116-122.
Ekici, M. and Kıyıcı, M. (2012). Sosyal Ağların Eğitim
Bağlamında Kullanımı, Uşak Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (2012) 5/2, 156-167.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007).
The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college
students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1.
Ferdig, R. E. (2007). Editorial: Examining Social
Software in Teacher Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
15(1), 5-10.
Fitton, L., Gruen, M. ve Poston, L. (2010). Twitter for dummies. (2. ed.). Kanada:
Indianapolis, Wiley Publishing.
Gemmill, E., & Peterson, M. (2006). Technology Use
among College Students: Implications for Student Affairs Professionals. NASPA Journal, 43(2), 280-300.
Georgina A.D.
& Hosford C.C. (2009) Higher education faculty perceptions on technology
integration and training. Teaching and
Teacher Education 25, 690–696.
Grant, N. (2008). On the Usage of Social Networking
Software Technologies in Distance Learning Education. In Mazman, S.G. (2009).
Sosyal ağların benimsenme süreci ve eğitsel bağlamda kullanımı, Yüksek Lisans
Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Gülbahar, Y., Kalelioğlu, F. ve Madran, O. (2010).
Sosyal ağların eğitim amaçlı kullanımı. XV. "Türkiye'de İnternet"
Konferansı Bildirileri. orcun.madran.net/yayinlar/sosyal_aglarin_egitim_amacli_kullanimi.pdf
Accessed:27.12.2012.
Hamid, S., Chang, S. and Kurnia, S. Identifying the use of online social
networking in higher education. In Same places, different spaces, Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009, URL: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/hamid-poster.pdf
Erişim:20 Aralık 2012.
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad N. & Abidin, M. J. Z.
(2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions
of higher education?. The Internet and
Higher Education, 13, 4, 179 – 187.
Karal, H. ve Kokoç, M. (2010). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin
Sosyal Ağ Siteleri Kullanım Amaçlarını Belirlemeye Yönelik Bir Ölçek Geliştirme
Çalışması, Turkish
Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, Vol.1 No.3 (2010), 251-263.
Karasar,
N. (1994). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: 3A Araştırma Danışmanlık
Limited.
Keleş, E. and Demirel, P. (2011). Bir Sosyal Ağ Olarak
Facebook’un Formal Eğitimde Kullanımı, 5th
International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium, 22-24
September 2011, Fırat University, Elazığ- Turkey.
Kim, C., *Kim, M., *Lee, C., Spector, J. M., &
DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29,
76-85.
Kim, W., Jeong, O. R. & Lee, S. W. (2010). On
social Web sites. Information Systems,
35(2), 215-236.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N. & Steinfield, C. (2006). A
face (book) in the crowd: social searching vs. social browsing. Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Alberta, Canada
Martinovic, D. & Zhang, Z. (2012). Situating ICT
in the Teacher Education Program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling
expectations. Teachers and Teacher
Education, 28(3), 461-469.
Mazman, S. G. (2009). Sosyal ağların benimsenme süreci
ve Eğitsel Bağlamda Kullanımı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen
Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Odabaşı, H., Günüç et al. (2012). Eğitim İçin Yeni Bir
Ortam: Twitter, Anadolu Journal of
Educational Sciences International, January 2012, 2(1).
Özmen, F., Aküzüm, C. et al. (2011). Sosyal Ağ
Sitelerinin Eğitsel Ortamlardaki İşlevselliği, 6th International Advanced Technologies Symposium (IATS’11), 16-18
May 2011, Elazığ, Turkey.
Ploderer, B., Howard, S. ve Thomas, P. (2010).
Collaboration on social network sites: amateurs, professionals and celebrities.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19(5), 419–455.
Preeti, M. (2009). Use of social networking in a
linguistically and culturally rich India, The
International Information & Library Review, 41(3), 129-136.
Socialbakers (2013). “Turkey Facebook Statistics”,
socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/turkey, Accessed: 22.01.13
Schmucki, L. ve Meel, S., K.(2010). Social Networking in Education:
Practices, Policies, and Realitie. Aralık 25, 2012 tarihinde
http://www.mmseducation.com/register2010/ adresinden alınmıştır.
Stanciu, A., Mihai, F. ve Aleca, O. (2012). Social Networking As An
Alternative Environment For Education, Accounting
and Management Information Systems, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 56–75, 2012
Starkey, L. (2010). Supporting the digitally able beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (7)
1429-1438.
Tiryakioğlu, F. and Erzurum, F. (2011). Bir Eğitim
Aracı Olarak Ağların Kullanımı, 2nd
International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications
27-29 April, 2011 Antalya-Turkey.
Tutgun, A. & Deniz, L. (2010). Problematic
Internet Usage among Prospective Teachers. International
Educational Technology Conference] (IETC) 2010, Volume II, Page 1226,
Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
Tutgun, A, Deniz, L. & Moon, Man-Ki (2011). A
Comparative Study of Problematic Internet Use and Loneliness among Turkish and
Korean Prospective Teachers. TOJET (The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology), Vol: 10, issue:4.
Turkey
Statistical Institute (2011). Bilgi Toplumu İstatistikleri, dpt.gov.tr/DocObjects/View/12808/Bilgi_Toplumu_Istatistikleri_2011.pdf,
Accessed:12.01.2012.
Usluel, Y.K. ve
Mazman, S.G.(2009). Sosyal Ağların Benimsenmesi Ölçeği, Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 8 (15), 139-160
Wang, S. S., Moon, S., Kwon, K. H., Evans, C. A. &
Stefanone, M. A. (2010). Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating
friendship on facebook. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 26(2), 226-234.
Wright, C. (2001). Children and Technology: Issues,
Challenges and Opportunities. Childhood
Education, 78 (1), 37-41.
Tam Metin:
http://mije.mevlana.edu.tr/archieve/issue_3_4/3_mije_13_47_volume_3_issue_4_page_24_42_PDF.pdf
Cite:
·
Tutgun Ünal, A. & Köroğlu, O. (2013). A comparative study of social
network usage and adoption among Turkish prospective teachers, Mevlana International Journal
of Education (MIJE), 3(4), 24-42.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder