You are here:

Examining Teachers’ Personal and Professional Use of Facebook: Recommendations for teacher education programming
ARTICLE

, University of New Mexico, United States ; , Arizona State University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 20, Number 1, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Members of the Net Generation are increasingly using social networking sites to interact with individuals both on and off campus. In this study, we employed a quantitative approach with an exploration of descriptive data to examine Facebook site features pre-service educators use and how those features are utilized in personal and professional ways. Quantitative results indicate that interaction on Facebook is reciprocal. That is, the number of posts made to a wall was significantly related to the number of updates made by the profile owner. In addition, over 50% of profiles included pictures depicting heavy alcohol/binge drinking, 17% contained at least one sexually explicit photo, and 10% included pictures and names of K-12 students from practicum/internship assignments. Descriptive data indicated limited use of Facebook in professional ways. However, where professional interactions were noted, profile owners utilized peers for instructional ideas and ongoing classroom support. Recommendations for future research are described.

Citation

Steinbrecher, T. & Hart, J. (2012). Examining Teachers’ Personal and Professional Use of Facebook: Recommendations for teacher education programming. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 71-88. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 20, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Anderson, B. (2004). Dimensions of learning and support in an online community. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 19(2), 183-190.
  2. Assaf, L. C. (2005). Staying connected: student teachers’ perceptions of computer-mediated discussions. The Teacher Educator, 40(4), 221-237.
  3. Behrstock-sherratt, E., & Coggshall, J.G. (2010). Realizing the promise of Generation Y. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 28-34.
  4. Coopersmith, J., & Gruber, K.J. (2009). Characteristics of public, private, and Bureau ofIndian elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the2007-2008 Schools and Staffing Survey (nces
  5. Dutt-Doner, K. M. & Powers, S. M. (2000). The use of electronic communication to develop alternative avenues for classroom discussion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 153-172.
  6. Eilon, B. & Kliachko, S. (2004). The contribution of a substance-oriented forum to the study of human biology in science teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 5-24.
  7. Fahy, P. J. (2003). Indicators of support in online interaction [electronic Version]. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from
  8. Frank, A. M. (2004). Integrating computer mediated communication into a pedagogical education course: increasing opportunity for reflection. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(2), 81-89.
  9. Fung, Y. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: interaction patterns and limiting Factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135-149.
  10. Gabriel, M. A. (2004). Learning together: exploring group interactions online. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 54-72.
  11. Gilbert, P. K. & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.
  12. Hew, K. F. & Cheung, W. S. (2003a). Evaluating the participation and quality of
  13. Hew, K. F. & Cheung, W. S. (2003b). Evaluating the participation and quality of
  14. Horvath, S. (2008). Area teachers post questionable content on Facebook [electronic Version]. South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved 10-20-08, from
  15. Ikpeze, C. (2007). Small group collaboration in peer-led electronic discourse: an analysis of group dynamics and interactions involving preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 383-407.
  16. Jeong, A. (2006). Gender interaction patterns and gender participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 195-210.
  17. Killian, J. & Willhite, G. L. (2003). Electronic discourse in preservice teacher
  18. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to androgogy (2nd ed.). New York: cambridge books.
  19. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood cliffs, nJ: Prentice hall.
  20. National institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism. (2010). Underage drinking research initiative. Retrieved 2-15-2010 from http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/aboutniaaa/niaaasponsoredPrograms/underage.htm.
  21. National school boards association. (2007). Creating & Connecting: research
  22. Orrill, C. H. (2002). Supporting online pbl: Design considerations for supporting
  23. Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C.-F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119-140.
  24. Read, B. (2007). A Myspace photo costs a student a teaching certificate [electronic Version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 10-20-08 from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/a-Myspace-Photo-costs-a-stu/2994/.
  25. Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model
  26. Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: a case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33-48.
  27. Rovai, A. P. & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community:
  28. Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New Directions for Student Services(48).
  29. Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32(6), 475-502.
  30. Shapira, I. (2008). When young teachers go wild on the web [electronic Version].
  31. Sing, C. C. & Khine, M. S. (2006). An analysis of interaction and participation patterns in online community. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 250261.
  32. Sullivan, B. (2010). Teachers, students and Facebook: a Toxic mix [electronic Version]. MSNBC: The Redtape Chronicles. Retrieved 12-9-2010, from http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/10/the-headlines-conjure-up-every-parentsnightmare-teachers-fired-for-flirting-on-facebook-with-students-the-new-
  33. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: university of chicago Press.
  34. Thomas, W. R. & Macgregor, S. K. (2005). Online project-based learning: how collaborative strategies and problem solving processes impact performance.
  35. Vonderwell, S. & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 213.
  36. Wickstrom, C. D. (2003). A “Funny” Thing happened on the way to the forum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(5), 414-423.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Professionality, Preservice Teachers, and Twitter

    Miguel Gomez, Murray State University, United States; Wayne Journell, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, United States

    Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 25, No. 4 (October 2017) pp. 377–412

  2. Educators’ Professional Uses of Pinterest

    Jeffrey Carpenter, Ashley Abrams & Margaret Dunphy, Elon University, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (Mar 21, 2016) pp. 1925–1930

  3. Teachers’ professional development in online social networking sites

    Stefania Manca, Institute for Educational Technology, National Research Council of Italy, Italy; Maria Ranieri, Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, Italy

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2014 (Jun 23, 2014) pp. 2229–2234

  4. Preservice Teachers' Social Networking Use, Concerns, and Educational Possibilities: Trends from 2008-2012

    Joan Hughes, Yujung Ko, Mihyun Lim & Sa Liu, Learning Technologies Program, College of Education, University of Texas at Austin, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (Mar 17, 2014) pp. 1256–1261

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.