Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a scale for using Facebook as a learning tool

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the development of an instrument to explore the views of student teachers in Turkey towards using Facebook as a tool for teaching and learning. A five-point Likert-type scale was developed for a sample of 687 student teachers from various fields in Adiyaman, Mustafa Kemal, and Inonu Universities. The sample included 445 participants in the first application and 242 participants in the second. A literature review, students’ comments, and relevant Facebook research results were considered in order to establish the items for the scale. A comparative analysis of previous studies and instruments yielded an original 33-item pool, and experts’ judgments were consulted to confirm the content validity of the scale. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine the factor structure of the scale, revealing 17 items that could be grouped under three general factors. A Cronbach’s coefficient (α) was employed to determine the internal consistency coefficients for the whole scale and its subscales. Results indicate that this learning scale (FLTS) is a valid and reliable instrument to investigate the use of Facebook as a learning tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aesaert, K., van Braak, J., & van Nijlen, R. V. (2015). Primary school pupils’ ICT competences: Extensive model and scale development. Computers & Education, 81, 326–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aijan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akyazi, E., & Unal, A. T. (2013). Purpose, adoption and level of loneliness relation and the use of social networks: A study on undergraduate communication students. Global Media Journal: Turkish Edition, 3(6), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anam, A. (2016). Medical students’ use of Facebook for educational purposes. Perspectives on Medical Education, 5(3), 163–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2009). Social networking. In S. Mishra (Ed.), Stride handbook 8—e-learning (pp. 96–101). New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National. Retrieved November 25, 2016, from http://webserver.ignou.ac.in/institute/STRIDE_Hb8_webCD/Chapter%2016.

  • Aydin, S. (2012). A review of research on Facebook as an educational environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 1093–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2006). Reflections on pedagogy: Reframing practice to foster informal learning with social software. Retrieved September 15 from http://www.dreamsdu.dk/uploads/files/Anne%20Bartlett.

  • Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the language classroom: Promises and possibilities. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(1), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blattner, G. & Lomicka, L. (2012). Facebook-ing and the social generation: A new era of language learning. Alsic, 15 (1). Retreived from http://alsic.revues.org/2413.

  • Bosch, T. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the University of Cape Town. Communication, 35(2), 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, G., Ferster, B., & Kjellstrom, W. (2012). Inventing the flipped classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40(1), 10–11. Retrieved on December 23, 2016 from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-leading.

  • Buzzetto-More, N. A. (2012). Social networking in undergraduate education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 7, 63–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. K., Chen, G. D., & Hsu, C. K. (2011). Providing adequate interactions in online discussion forums using few teaching assistants. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 193–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. K., Chen, G. D., & Li, L. Y. (2008). Constructing a community of practice to improve coursework activity. Computers & Education. 50(1), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P.-Y., & Lee, M. K. O. (2010). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1337–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çoklar, A. N. (2012). Evaluations of students on Facebook as an educational environment. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(2), 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological (5th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, S. (2007). Places to go: Facebook. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duntenman, G. H. (1989). Principal component analysis. Iowa: Sage Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. (2010). Facebook use by undergraduates: An educational tool? Facebook in Education. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-ineducation/facebook-use-byundergraduates-an-educational-tool/487460320569.

  • 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), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.10836101.2007.00367.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergenç, A. (2011). Web 2.0 ve sanal sosyallesme: Facebook ornegi, Maltepe Universitesi, Sos. Bil. Ens., Halkla Iliskiler ve Tanitim Anabilim Dali, Pazarlama Iletisimi Programi, Master Thesis, İstanbul.

  • Estus, E. L. (2010). Using Facebook within a geriatric pharmacotherapy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahim, M., & Mehrgan, K. (2012). Second language acquisition: A sociocognitive perspective. Advances in Digital Multimedia (ADMM), 1(3), 159–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fewkes, A. M., & McCabe, M. (2012). Facebook: Learning tool or distraction? Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(3), 92–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodeman, D., & Monroe, M. (2009). The impact of Facebook on our students. Teacher Librarian, 36(5), 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. B., Gibson, D. J., Robertson, P. A., Pohlmann, J. T., & Fralish, J. S. (1995). Parallel analysis: A method for determining significant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science, 6(1), 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulford, C., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandomi, N., & Knight, E. (2010). Participatory media for education driving student-centered learning. Retrieved February 17, 2015 from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/15056/gandomi.pdf?sequence=2.

  • Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging technologies mobile-computing trends: Lighter, faster, smarter. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haverback, H. (2009). Facebook: Uncharted territory in a reading education classroom. Reading Today, 27, 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you facebooked Astin lately? Using technology to increase student involvement. New Directions for Student Services, 124, 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. In Poster presented at the ACM special interest group on computer-supported cooperative work, Banff.

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H.-T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 703–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ismail, S. (2010). International students’ acceptance on using social networking site to support learning activities. International Journal for the Advancement of Science & Arts, 1, 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. L. (2011). Research methods and statistics: A critical approach (4th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. (2010). Taming the chaos. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(3), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabilan, M., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13, 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitsis, S. (2008). The Facebook generation: Homework as social networking. English Journal, 98(2), 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, T. C. T., Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Chen, N. S. (2012). Effects of applying STR for group learning activities on learning performance in a synchronous cyber classroom. Computers & Education, 58(1), 600–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, L. (2012). An innovative research on the usage of Facebook in the higher education context of Hong Kong. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(4), 377–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaRue, E. M. (2012). Using Facebook as course management software: A case study. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 7(17), 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2014). Developing and validating of a perceived ICT literacy scale for junior secondary school students: Pedagogical and educational contributions. Computers & Education, 78, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledesma, R. D., & Mora, P. V. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview. Pew internet and American life project. Retrived from. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/198/report_display.asp.

  • Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., & Pitts, J. P. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student faculty interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockyer, L., & Patterson, J. (2008). Integrating social networking technologies in education: A case study of a formal learning environment. In P. Diaz, I. A. Kinshuk, & E. Mora (Eds.), IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 529–533). Los Alamitos, California: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social interaction and informal learning at university: It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 487–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370600751039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). ‘I’ll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 729–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In Paper presented at proceedings of Ascilite Singapore 2007, Singapore.

  • Mejias, U. (2005). Nomad’s guide to learning and social software. Retrieved from http://knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition07/download/la_mejias.pdf.

  • Mills, N. A. (2009). Facebook and the use of social networking tools to enhance language learner motivation and engagement. In Paper presented at the Northeast Association for Language Learning Technology (NEALLT) Conference, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

  • Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2012). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and Facebook: How today’s higher education faculty use social media, 2012 (Babson Survey Research Group). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K. E., & Waller, R. (2007). Social networking goes abroad. International Educator, 16(3), 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGrow Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ophus, J. D., & Abbitt, J. T. (2009). Exploring the potential perceptions of social networking systems in university courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 639–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pai, A., Stenerson, J., & Gaines, M. (2013). Enhancing student learning through web 2.0 and social networking technology. Retrieved from https://www.nyu.edu/frn/publications/reinventing.liberal.education/Pai.Stenerson.Gaine.html.

  • Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. New York: The MacGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ractham, P., & Firpo, D. (2011). Using social networking technology to enhance learning in higher education: A case study using Facebook. The 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. Report of Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, JRC European Commission.

  • Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year olds. Menlo Park: Kaiser Family Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 134–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (1997). Students’ attitudes toward computers: Validation of a computer attitude scale for 16–19 education. Computers & Education, 28(1), 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2007). Screw blackboard. Do it on Facebook! An investigation of students’ educational use of Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/513958/Facebookseminar-paperSelwyn.

  • Shih, R. C. (2013). Effect of using Facebook to assist english for business communication course instruction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swisher, L., Beckstead, J., & Bebeau, M. (2004). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis using a professional role orientation inventory as an example. Physical Therapy, 84(9), 784–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truong, M. (2013). Mobile app learning lounge. In J. E. Groccia & L. Crus (Eds.), From: To improve the academy (pp. 301–315). San Francisco: POD/Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzunboylu, H., & Tuncay, N. (2010). Divergence of digital world of teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 186–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanDoorn, G., & Eklund, A. A. (2013). Face to Facebook: Social media and the learning and teaching potential of symmetrical, synchronous communication. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(1), Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/6.

  • Violino, B. (2009). The buzz on campus. Community College Journal, 79(6), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vural, Z. B. A., & Bat, M. (2010). Social media as a new communication environment: A research on ege university faculty of communication. Journal of Yasar University, 20(5), 3348–3382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2013). What higher educational professionals need to know about today’s students: Online social networks. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 180–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R., Scown, P., Urguhart, C., & Hardman, J. (2014). Tapping the educational potential of Facebook: Guidelines for use in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal for Educational Technology, 39(6), 987–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, C., & Sisson, M. (2006). Ethics, accuracy and assumption: The use of Facebook by students and employers. In: Paper presented at the Southwestern Ohio Council or Higher Education Special Topics Forum, Dayton.

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded by any institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education University of Pittsburgh, Collaborative for Evaluation and Assessment Capacity, 4139 WWPH 230 S. Bouquet St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Mehmet Demir

Authors
  1. Mehmet Demir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Demir.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare that he have no conflict of interest in the development of this research. This research is the culmination of research that conducted as a member of Education faculty. He received no payments for this research, nor do he has any investments in any of the social media network companies mentioned in this study.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Facebook Learning Tool Scale-FLTS

Personal information:

  1. 1.

    Gender: Boy ( ) Girl ( )

  2. 2.

    Field: Class Teaching ( ) Social Science ( ) Science ( ) Mathematics ( ) Turkish ( ) Preschool ( )

 

Strongly agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1

Using Facebook in learning environment improves interpersonal communication skills

5

4

3

2

1

2

Using Facebook in learning environment reduces the efficiency of lessons

5

4

3

2

1

3

Using Facebook in learning environment provides students broad materials

5

4

3

2

1

4

Using Facebook in learning environment does not increase students’ participation in the lesson

5

4

3

2

1

5

Using Facebook in learning environment improves students’ confidence

5

4

3

2

1

6

Using Facebook in learning environment does not make learning enjoyable

5

4

3

2

1

7

Using Facebook in education does not enable a student to improve themselves

5

4

3

2

1

8

Using Facebook in learning environment increases students’ awareness of the lesson

5

4

3

2

1

9

Using Facebook in education process does not increase student’s knowledge

5

4

3

2

1

10

Using Facebook in learning process motivates students to view the lesson positively

5

4

3

2

1

11

Using Facebook in learning process does not allow for multiple modes of communications

5

4

3

2

1

12

Using Facebook in the learning does not provide students ability to notice their shortcomings

5

4

3

2

1

13

Using Facebook in learning environment allows students to gain a different viewpoint

5

4

3

2

1

14

Using Facebook in learning environment take too much time

5

4

3

2

1

15

Using Facebook lowers the productivity

5

4

3

2

1

16

Facebook prevents teachers and students to follow current issues related to education

5

4

3

2

1

17

Facebook provides a variety of materials resources

5

4

3

2

1

18

Facebook enables students to repeat the lesson content as they want

5

4

3

2

1

19

Facebook allows students to design audio-visual learning environment

5

4

3

2

1

20

Distractions on Facebook affect the learning adversely

5

4

3

2

1

21

Facebook serves as a platform where assignments are discussed

5

4

3

2

1

22

Facebook allows instant feedback concerning the course’s activities

5

4

3

2

1

23

Facebook does not support collaborative learning

5

4

3

2

1

24

Facebook provides students opportunities to review their work

5

4

3

2

1

25

Facebook facilitate access to relevant supporting documents for a lesson

5

4

3

2

1

26

Facebook increases teacher’s workload in the class

5

4

3

2

1

27

Facebook provides opportunities for learning outside of the classroom

5

4

3

2

1

28

Using Facebook in learning process is unnecessary

5

4

3

2

1

  1. The items were translated for an international audience. The final items are written in bold in and shown in the table

Appendix 2

Survey items

Related literature

1

Using Facebook in learning environment improves interpersonal communication skills

Godwin-Jones (2008), Hewitt and Forte (2006); Mazer et al. (2007), Uzunboylu and Tuncay (2010)

2

Using Facebook in learning environment reduces the efficiency of lessons

Çoklar (2012)

3

Using Facebook in learning environment provides students broad materials

Lam (2012), Mazman and Usluel (2010), Bosch (2009); Aydin (2012)

4

Using Facebook in learning environment does not increase students’ participation in the lesson

Heiberger and Harper (2008)

5

Using Facebook in learning environment improves students’ confidence

Kabilan et al. (2010)

6

Using Facebook in learning environment does not make learning enjoyable

Bull et al. (2012), Kabilan et al. (2010), Mills (2009)

7

Using Facebook in education does not enable a student to improve themselves

Mills (2009), Blattner and Fiori (2009)

8

Using Facebook in learning environment increases students’ awareness of the lesson

Bull et al. (2012)

9

Using Facebook in education process does not increase student’s knowledge

Cheung et al. (2010), Kabilan et al. (2010)

10

Using Facebook in learning process motivates students to view the lesson positively

Hewitt and Forte (2006), Mazer et al. (2007), Blattner and Fiori (2009), Uzunboylu and Tuncay (2010)

11

Using Facebook in learning process does not allow for multiple modes of communications

Kabilan et al. (2010)

12

Using Facebook in the learning does not provide students ability to notice their shortcomings

Pempek et al. (2009)

13

Using Facebook in learning environment allows students to gain a different viewpoint

Kitsis (2008)

14

Using Facebook in learning environment take too much time

Wang (2013), Blattner and Fiori (2009), Mazer et al. (2007)

15

Using Facebook lowers the productivity

Çoklar (2012)

16

Facebook prevents teachers and students to follow current issues related to education

Chang et al. (2011)

17

Facebook provides a variety of materials resources

Lam (2012), Mazman and Usluel (2010), Bosch (2009), Aydin (2012)

18

Facebook enables students to repeat the lesson content as they want

Hung and Yuen (2010), Ophus and Abbitt (2009)

19

Facebook allows students to design audio-visual learning environment

Lam (2012), Mazman and Usluel (2010), Bosch (2009), Aydin (2012)

20

Distractions on Facebook affect the learning adversely

Çoklar (2012), Johnson (2010)

21

Facebook serves as a platform where assignments are discussed

Haverback (2009), Mazman and Usluel (2010)

22

Facebook allows instant feedback concerning the course’s activities

Wheeler et al. (2008), Wang (2013)

23

Facebook does not support collaborative learning

Aijan and Hartshorne (2008), Lockyer and Patterson (2008), Cheung et al. (2010)

24

Facebook provides students opportunities to review their work

Chang et al. (2008)

25

Facebook facilitate access to relevant supporting documents for a lesson

Roblyer et al. (2010)

26

Facebook increases teacher’s workload in the class

VanDoorn and Eklund (2013)

27

Facebook provides opportunities for learning outside of the classroom

Li and Pitts (2009), Ractham and Firpo (2011), Wang (2013)

28

Using Facebook in learning process is unnecessary

Kabilan et al. (2010)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demir, M. Developing a scale for using Facebook as a learning tool. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 1457–1477 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9616-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9616-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation