British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 41 No 6 2010 E146–E149

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01115.x

Colloquium

Facebook as a formal instructional environment _1115 146..149

Bahar Baran

Dr. Bahar Baran is Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies at
Dokuz Eylul University. Her research interests cover design, development and evaluation of social learning environ-
ments, e-learning and multimedia environments. Address for correspondence: Mrs. Bahar Baran, Dokuz Eylul
University, Buca Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Hasan Ali Yucel Build-
ing, Floor:3, Buca/Izmir Turkey. 35160. Email: bahar.baran@deu.edu.tr
Introduction
It is hypothesised that the use of social networking services such as Facebook will lead the
younger generation of learners to more readily embrace e-learning in formal education. Mazer,
Murphy and Simonds (2009) have found that students accessing the Facebook website of a
teacher with high self-disclosure reported higher levels of teacher credibility, but the research
findings on the educational potential of Facebook are limited and are mainly concerned with the
conditions of use and users’ characteristics. Studies by Selwyn (2009), Greenhow and Robelia
(2009), Selwyn and Grant (2009), and Usluel and Mazman (2009) lead to the conclusion sug-
gesting students generally accept Facebook as a social technology rather than a formal teaching
tool. Madge, Meek, Wellens and Hooley (2009) characterise Facebook as providing the ‘social
glue’ in helping students to settle into university life’, but while recognising its educational
potential, express caution about invading a social networking space that students clearly feel is
theirs. Bearing these points in mind, I decided to undertake a study with a small sample of
undergraduate students at Dokuz Eylul University in Turkey in order to gauge the extent to which
they appreciated the formal application of Facebook in their classes. It should be understood that,
as in most similar countries, e-learning is still largely under-exploited in Turkey, so the students
are unfamiliar with many of the tenets on which its adoption is based.
Method
The study was conducted during a 12-week undergraduate course entitled ‘Distance Education’
in the Fall Term of 2009. I created a group on Facebook, and made the students responsible for
building and discussing a library that included videos, links and pictures, advising them that they
would be graded on their Facebook-based activities.
There were 32 students in this group and the aim of the study was to find out what they thought
about the incorporation of Facebook in their coursework. The data were collected using a ques-
tionnaire and face-to-face interviews. The questionnaire consisted of three main parts compris-
ing 16 Likert-type items. MS Excel (Microsoft Office Excel 2003) was used for analysing the data
gathered from this questionnaire. The frequencies and percentages were calculated with the
‘countif ’ function of Excel. The interviews were used to confirm or enlarge on the responses to the
questionnaire items.
Results
Facebook usage before and after the course
Most of the students (n = 29; 90.6%) were signed up on Facebook before the course. During the
course, just over one-third of the students used Facebook almost every day (n = 11; 34.4%). After
the course, the students were using it more frequently (one or more times a day: n = 13; 40.63%).
One of the students commented:
© 2010 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2010 Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
 Colloquium E147

Facebook strengthened our communication with one another after the course. I began using it to ask my
friends about course assignments (or of course I would ask you) ... I sent messages or if you were online,
I could also instantly write to you using the chat tool.
Student–content dimension
A considerable number of the students stated that they would have preferred a face-to-face course
to a Facebook-based course (n = 14, 43.6%) and a high percentage of the students indicated that
they thought that Facebook should only be one element in the teaching and learning (n = 24;
75%). These responses indicated that majority of the students were neither intrinsically nor
positively inclined to information and communication technology-based study. However, their
responses showed that they believed that Facebook could be used for knowledge-sharing in formal
education contexts (n = 27; 84.4%) and that grading Facebook-based work was a reasonable
approach (n = 20; 62.5%). Most of the students believed that students could share school-related
knowledge on Facebook (n = 29; 90.7%) and many of them indicated that communicating with
their classmates helped to motivate them in their learning (n = 21; 65.7%). However, many of the
students were still largely undecided as to whether or not Facebook was of high value to teaching
(n = 23; %72), although many agreed that they would be willing to use Facebook on other
courses (n = 19; 59.4%).
While the students indicated that that they liked participating in Facebook activities, they
observed that nearly half of the class did not read all of the messages or examine all of the links.
Some of their comments on this matter are as follows:
I was especially interested in the different links others had sent, not all messages. These links showed me
there are so many resources for our field ... many were very beneficial for us.
Especially, Facebook chat is very problematic. It does not send all messages. Of course, some
Facebook tools can be used in education, but not at all. Facebook groups are very beneficial for bringing
people who share a common interest together.
I was bothered by Facebook activities. They should have been voluntary. Especially, grading from it was very
stressful. But, if you didn’t grade us, some of my friends would not send anything.
Student–teacher dimension
All of the students believed it was quite appropriate for a teacher to use Facebook (n = 32; 100%)
and for teachers and students to socialise by this means (n = 29; 90.6%). Some negative opinions
were expressed about teachers sharing personal information and pictures on Facebook (n = 7;
21.9%), but most of the students looked upon this favourably (n = 17; 53.1%). The findings
revealed that the majority of the students felt that Facebook had helped them maintain contact
with their teacher (n = 29; 90.6%) and that they were excited when the teacher commented on
their postings (n = 20; 62.5%). By the end of the term, the teacher’s Facebook profile showed that
half of the students (n = 16) had added him to their profile. However, Turkey rates quite highly on
Hofstede Dimensions of Power Distance—the extent to which the less powerful members of
organisations, institutions, families and other social groups accept and expect power to be dis-
tributed unequally—therefore, not surprisingly, not all of the students felt this way. As one of the
students said:
Teachers should be unapproachable and formal. They should not share their special pictures in Facebook.
This informal sharing may damage authority and discipline.
Student–student dimension
The students believed that Facebook was valuable for keeping them in contact with their friends
(n = 24; 81.3%) and over half of them felt that Facebook helped them get to know their class-
mates better (n = 18; 56.3%). One student concluded:
First, I learned about the different sides of my classmates. I followed their pictures and comments. Now I
know their families and old friends. In a class, you usually do not know any of your classmates so well.
© 2010 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2010 Becta.
E148 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 41 No 6 2010

Discussion
The findings of this small-scale study can be distilled into the following points:
• Not all students are ready to embrace the use of social networking tools such as Facebook in
formal teaching, learning and assessment.
• The student–student dimension may be more important than the student–content and
student–teacher dimensions.
• As Madge, Meek, Wellens and Hooley (2009) suggest, it is important to be aware of the tensions
that may arise between the formal and the informal uses of social networking tools in educa-
tion. Mandating their use with the use of grades will not necessarily encourage students to
embrace these tools in formal education. Baran and Cagiltay (2010) observe that the number
of students’ messages, extent of their reading each others’ messages and the frequency of their
examining links in depth, etc. are directly related to the students’ intrinsic motivations, so
students need to be so motivated that they voluntarily involve themselves in the educational
applications of these services.
• The students tend to use this tool very informally and so not all of the messages, videos, pictures
and links will be picked up by all of the students. Therefore, if messages, links and resources are
essential to the learning outcomes, the instructional design and online discussion strategies
must be so planned and managed as to encourage and support student–student, student–
content and student–teacher interaction.
• In cultures and contexts that uphold traditional social and educational values, as in Turkish
higher education, because of their longstanding experience with conventional education, stu-
dents and teachers will expect certain patterns of behaviour in the classroom and the students
will still wish to experience the knowledge, experience and authority of the teacher, whether
face-to-face or online. Therefore, if the aim of using tools such as Facebook was to contribute to
altering the patterns of teaching and learning, time and attention need to be given to defining
and encouraging the new, different roles of the learners and teachers and the kinds of com-
munications and collaborations expected.
• The students may tend to be more interested in the social than the teaching dimensions of tools
such as Facebook. The technology undoubtedly helped to emphasise my availability and that of
the other students and helped us feel that we were part of a group and were sharing the same
learning environment. This higher degree of social presence may well be one of the greatest
contributions of such tools. However, because of the informal basis of Facebook, the students
may not necessarily perceive this as a formally planned element of the teaching and learning.

Conclusions
This study was undertaken with a very small sample and can only be seen as ‘work in progress’.
It is also important to note that this study was conducted in a particular cultural setting. Conse-
quently, the findings cannot be generalised, but they may serve to alert fellow practitioners to
some of the issues involved in using Facebook in formal teaching and learning and suggest
further investigations into the possibilities and limitations of Facebook and the approaches
required to ensure its appropriate use.

References
Baran, B. & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The motivators and barriers in the development of online communities of
practice. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 79–96.
Greenhow, C. & Robelia, E. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks.
Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, 119–140.
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J. & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at
University: it is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work.
Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, 141–155.
© 2010 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2010 Becta.
 Colloquium E149

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E. & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on
teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, 175–183.
Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and
Technology, 34, 2, 157–174.
Selwyn, N. & Grant, L. (2009). Researching the realities of social software use—an introduction. Learning,
Media and Technology, 34, 2, 79–86.
Usluel, Y. K. & Mazman, S. G. (2009). Adoption of Web 2.0 tools in distance education. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 1, 818–823.

© 2010 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2010 Becta.