This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 09:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

Teachers’ Facebook use: their usehabits, intensity, self-disclosure,privacy settings, and activities onFacebookEvren Sumuera, Sezin Esferb & Soner Yildirimb

a Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education andInstructional Technology, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkeyb Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Middle EastTechnical University, Ankara, TurkeyPublished online: 30 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Evren Sumuer, Sezin Esfer & Soner Yildirim (2014) Teachers’ Facebook use:their use habits, intensity, self-disclosure, privacy settings, and activities on Facebook, EducationalStudies, 40:5, 537-553, DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2014.952713

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.952713

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Teachers’ Facebook use: their use habits, intensity, self-disclosure,privacy settings, and activities on Facebook

Evren Sumuera*, Sezin Esferb and Soner Yildirimb

aFaculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology,Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey; bComputer Education and Instructional Technology,Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

(Received 14 February 2014; final version received 4 August 2014)

This study investigated K12 teachers’ Facebook usage habits, intensity, self-dis-closure, privacy settings and activities. A multi-method design was employed bycollecting quantitative data from 616 teachers with a Facebook account using anonline questionnaire and qualitative data from 32 teachers using online open-ended questions. The results of the study showed that Facebook seems to be partof teachers’ daily routines. Moreover, they revealed that teachers were less likelyto share sensitive and potentially stigmatising personal information on Facebook.Teachers were also found to set most of their Facebook privacy settings as“Friends” by taking intimacy, unwanted contacts and potential threats into con-sideration. Furthermore, the findings indicated that teachers felt themselves lesscomfortable when parents and students viewed their Facebook profiles. In addi-tion to social engagement, teachers pointed out several ways in which Facebookwas used to support educational and professional development practices.Implications, limitations and directions to further studies are discussed.

Keywords: K12 teachers; social network site; Facebook; multi-method design;Turkey

Introduction

In recent years, social network sites (SNSs) have become one of the most popular gen-res of Web 2.0 technologies. These sites contain web-based services that make it possi-ble for individuals to create a profile page, to establish a connection to other users andto interact with them (Boyd and Ellison 2008). They are typically used to support threemain functions: informal social interaction (e.g. Facebook, MySpace), non-social inter-personal communication (e.g. LinkedIn, Ryze) and finding resources through interper-sonal communication (e.g. Flickr, YouTube, LiveJournal) (Thelwall and Stuart 2010).As of March 2014, having 1.28 billion monthly active users worldwide (Facebook2014), Facebook is one of the largest and most prominent SNSs on the web.

SNSs in general, and Facebook in particular, have attracted a great deal ofattention from a number of researchers in several fields. Several studies have beenconducted on identity presentation (Zhao, Grasmuck, and Martin 2008), privacyissues (Debatin et al. 2009; Waters and Ackerman 2011), addiction (Çam andİşbulan 2012) and marketing (Hansson, Wrangmo, and Søilen 2013). With respect

*Corresponding author. Email: evren.sumuer@kocaeli.edu.tr

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Educational Studies, 2014Vol. 40, No. 5, 537–553, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.952713

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

to educational settings, the majority of the studies focus on the use of Facebook bystudents in higher education (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007; Kirschner andKarpinski 2010; Lewis, Kaufman, and Christakis 2008; Sheldon 2008). Moreover,there are a few studies examining the effects of Facebook use by faculties (Mazer,Murphy, and Simonds 2007, 2009). In addition, some researchers have addressededucational potentials of Facebook (Heiberger and Harper 2008; Selwyn 2009;Wang et al. 2012). However, little is known about how and why K12 teachers useFacebook. Especially in Turkey, there has not been much research on the use ofFacebook for educational purposes (Aydin 2012).

Background of the study

Facebook has become one of the most popular SNSs of the online environment(Anderson et al. 2012). The report, Social Media Update 2013, indicated that 71%of online adults use Facebook and 63% of them check it at least daily (Duggan andSmith 2014). Similarly, Facebook is the most popular and frequently used SNSamong teachers (MMS Education 2012). Like other people, teachers may make useof Facebook for relationship maintenance, relationship initiation, passing time, vir-tual community, social investigation, entertainment, coolness, events and compan-ionship (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007; Joinson 2008; Pempek, Yermolayeva,and Calvert 2009; Sheldon 2008). In general, teachers find SNSs valuable mostlyfor connecting with family and friends, sharing information and resources, and con-necting with professional colleagues (MMS Education 2012). However, according touses and gratification theory by Elihu Katz, there is a difference in gratificationswhich people seek from using media (Sparks 2012).

The use of Facebook encourages teachers to self-disclose some information ontheir profiles to interact with other users. Self-disclosure behaviour plays a reciprocalrole in promoting trust in online communication, which leads to relationship build-ing (Henderson and Gilding 2005). On Facebook, people are very likely to disclosepersonal information such as their birthday, e-mail address, hometown, facial pic-tures, relationship status and education (Christofides, Muise, and Desmarais 2009;Pitkänen and Tuunainen 2012; Taraszow et al. 2010). However, by disclosing con-tent or personal information to others on Facebook (i.e. friends, acquaintances andstrangers), people make themselves vulnerable to privacy and security attacks, whichcan lead to identity thefts, unwanted advances, stalking, harassment, damaging gos-sip or rumour, use of personal data by a third party, hacking and stigmatisation(Debatin et al. 2009; Nosko, Wood, and Molema 2010; Taraszow et al. 2010). Con-sidering the potential privacy and security risks associated with information disclo-sure on Facebook, teachers should adjust privacy settings to control visibility oftheir profile, others’ ability to contact them and access of third parties to their per-sonal information.

What teachers disclose on Facebook is also available to their colleagues, admin-istrators, students and parents. Therefore, the use of Facebook could blur the bound-ary between teachers’ personal and professional roles (Carter, Foulger, and Ewbank2008; Hutchens and Hayes 2014), thereby influencing their professions. Forinstance, teachers’ disclosure on Facebook may have an impact on students’ percep-tions of their credibility (Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds 2009). Moreover, inadvertentdisclosure of personal information (e.g. drunken photos, judgements made) maycause teachers to face some disciplinary action, which jeopardises their professions

538 E. Sumuer et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

(Belch 2012; Carter, Foulger, and Ewbank 2008; Foulger et al. 2009; Heussner andFahmy 2010). Also, teachers’ inappropriate Facebook use could make them a badrole model for students and be questioned by parents (Rego 2009). Furthermore,teacher–student communication on Facebook gives rise to teachers’ concerns aboutprivacy, authority and leisure time (Asterhan et al. 2013). In these respects, teachersare likely to have several concerns about the use of Facebook, which could leadthem to have some discomfort about it.

Despite a rise in concerns about the use of Facebook, people disclose a lot ofpersonal information and are not aware of its visibility on Facebook (Acquisti andGross 2006; Christofides, Muise, and Desmarais 2009; Pitkänen and Tuunainen2012; Tufekci 2008). Perceived benefits could outweigh risks associated with Face-book (Debatin et al. 2009). Thus, it is important to address teachers’ self-disclosureand privacy settings as well as their personal Facebook use.

Although Facebook is primarily a social space, teachers can utilise it to facilitateteaching and learning process. The affordances of SNSs offer potentially rich oppor-tunities that enhance teaching and learning in and outside of classrooms (Callaghanand Bower 2012; Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes 2009). Additionally, a large num-ber of school-aged children use social network services (Livingstone, Ólafsson, andStaksrud 2013; Weeden, Cooke, and McVey 2013). More recently, it was reportedby Turkish Statistical Institute (2013), 53.5% of children aged 06–15 used Internetfor joining social networks. Therefore, it is possible for teachers to embrace thepotential benefits of Facebook for educational purposes. Teachers can use Facebookto create a space for revision resources, support revision and homework, organise asports team, share knowledge among students, set homework tasks, communicatewith parents, present group project work, inspire in life skills subjects, enable stu-dents to speak to exchange partners overseas, make friends, set events and collabo-rate with colleagues (Fordham and Goddard 2013). The study carried out byAsterhan et al. (2013) revealed that teachers mostly communicated with students onFacebook for logistic and organisational management of classroom communication,being available for help and improving their relationship with and knowledge oftheir students. Moreover, in another study, secondary school teachers were stated touse Facebook occasionally to give test and assignment reminders outside of assignedclass time (Fewkes and McCabe 2012). In addition, Wang et al. (2012) noted thatFacebook could afford the basic functions of an LMS; including making announce-ments, sharing resources, conducting online discussions and organising weeklyactivities. Facebook offers several benefits to teaching and learning, includingincrease in learners’ self-efficacy, motivation and self-esteem, positive changes inperceptions and attitudes, decrease in anxiety and improvement in language learningskills (Aydin 2012). However, Facebook is not used much for formal learning/teach-ing purposes, but informal pedagogical purposes (Asterhan et al. 2013; Madge et al.2009). Nonetheless, informal learning in participatory technologies such as Face-book can foster student engagement in formal learning settings, crossing boundariesbetween informal and formal learning (Bull et al. 2008; Greenhow, Robelia, andHughes 2009). In conclusion, as Facebook has several opportunities for teachingand learning, teachers are likely to benefit from Facebook in or around the class-room.

Facebook also provides teachers with a great opportunity to engage in informalprofessional development. In general, SNSs can create online professional communi-ties where teachers can share information, resources, ideas and practices with each

Educational Studies 539

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

other (edWeb.net et al. 2010; Zhang 2009). Teachers are likely to use SNSs foropportunities such as professional development and peer-to-peer collaboration(MMS Education 2012). Facebook, in particular, has the potential to serve as aneffective means to promote and support teacher professional development (Phillips,Baird, and Fogg 2011). The features of Facebook allows teachers to send privateand public messages, post questions and comments, share resources, practices anddiscourse artefacts, and stay in contact with peers, which meet most of the require-ments of an effective online professional development environment (Rutherford2010; Staudt, Clair, and Martinez 2013). On Facebook, teachers can engage in pro-fessional development in several ways, such as joining professional groups, addingindividual educators as “Friends”, creating a group for teachers, watching feeds fromother teachers and sharing useful links and messages related to education (Rego2009). A number of studies have highlighted the potential of Facebook features tofoster informal teacher professional development (Ranieri, Manca, and Fini 2012;Rutherford 2010; Staudt, Clair, and Martinez 2013). Consequently, it is worthwhileto consider Facebook as a tool for teachers’ professional development.

The purpose of the study

Unquestionably, schools are the reflection of the real world. With this motivation,the Ministry of National Education in Turkey has launched a new project called“FATIH”, which is the acronym for “Movement to Increase Opportunities and Tech-nology” in Turkish. This project aimed to furnish 42,000 schools and 570,000 class-rooms with smart boards and related information and communication technologies(ICT) to enable equal opportunities in education and efficient ICT use in learning–teaching process (Turkish Ministry of Education 2012). Additionally, the projectaimed to equip teachers and students of those schools with a tablet computer. As aresult of this huge investment in ICT in schools, teachers and students will have bet-ter access to online resources and SNSs evidently will ameliorate teaching and learn-ing process in schools- and professional development as well. Thus, it is importantto understand how Turkish K12 teachers already use Facebook as a SNS. This studyfocuses on K12 teachers’ Facebook use. Specifically, it was conducted to investigateK12 teachers’ Facebook usage habits, intensity, self-disclosure, privacy settings, andpersonal, educational and professional Facebook activities. It also highlighted factorsthat may influence teachers’ Facebook usage. Considering that there are a limitednumber of studies on the use of Facebook by K12 teachers, especially in Turkey,this study provides insight to understand how K12 teachers use Facebook in theirpersonal and professional life. The findings from this study may help to understandhow to facilitate teachers’ capacity to use Facebook – enabled practices to promoteteaching and learning process and professional development. Furthermore, it mayshed light on future directions for research on teachers’ Facebook use.

Method

This study adopted a multi-method design, in which both quantitative and qualitativedata were collected to investigate teachers’ Facebook usage. This approach provideda broader and more complete perspective than could be achieved from a singularmethod. The qualitative findings were mainly used to assist in explaining, interpret-ing and supplementing the quantitative results.

540 E. Sumuer et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Participants

In this study, quantitative data were obtained from public and private elementary,middle and high school teachers deployed in 77 out of the 81 provinces of Turkey.They were recruited through a number of different methods, including posting theonline questionnaire link to Facebook groups’ timelines or open online teacher for-ums, sending Facebook messages or e-mails inviting teachers to complete the ques-tionnaire and getting teachers to forward the link to their colleagues. A total numberof 707 responses were received. However, the participants of the quantitative phasewho reported having an active Facebook account, in which their profiles onFacebook can be readily accessed, consisted of 616 teachers, or 87.1% of therespondents.

In the quantitative phase of the study, the participants were predominantly female(420 females, 196 males) and ranged in age from 21 to 60 (M = 31.85, SD = 6.39).The majority of the participants (78.7%) hold a bachelor’s degree from the Facultyof Education. Of the participants, 375 (60.9%) were elementary school teachers, 164(26.6%) middle school teachers and 77 (12.5%) high school teachers. About half ofthe participants (47.9%) were classroom teachers. The overwhelming majority of theparticipants (94.5%) were employed in public schools. Their teaching experiencesranged from 1 to 41 years (M = 8.95, SD = 6.33). Most of the participants (77.1%)reported using computers more than 1 h per day. Similarly, about three out of fourof the participants (75.2%) reported using the internet more than 1 h in a day. Inaddition to Facebook, the teachers had an account on other SNSs, such as Twitter(52.6%), Google+ (42.7%), Instagram (20.9%), LinkedIn (8.8%), Yahoo! Pulse(6.0%), Blogger (5.7%) and Myspace (4.7%).

In the qualitative phase of the study, a convenience sample of 32 teachers (24females, 8 males) was invited to participate in a follow-up study. These teacherswere recruited through personal acquaintance. More than half of them (n = 19) wereelementary school teachers.

Instruments

Facebook use questionnaire

A self-report, online questionnaire was utilised to obtain quantitative evidence aboutteachers’ Facebook habits, intensity, self-disclosure, privacy settings and activities.The “Facebook Use Questionnaire (FUQ)” was developed with the help of previousstudies about the use of Facebook (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007; Pempek,Yermolayeva, and Calvert 2009; Ranieri, Manca, and Fini 2012; Ross et al. 2009).In the FUQ, first, teachers were asked whether or not they had a Facebook account.If they did not, they were asked the reason for not using Facebook (e.g. “do nothave time”, “not interested”, “deactivated Facebook account”) and then proceededto the last part of the questionnaire. If they did have an active Facebook account,they continued to the second part. Second; teachers were invited to provide informa-tion about their use of Facebook. Third; teachers were asked about informationwhich they disclosed on their Facebook profiles. Fourth; the questionnaire includedquestions related to teachers’ privacy concerns and settings. Fifth; teachers wereasked about the frequency of their use of basic activities on Facebook and educa-tional and professional development activities for which they used Facebook. Sixth;a series of Likert-scale attitudinal questions were adopted form Ellison, Steinfield,

Educational Studies 541

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and Lampe (2007) to measure the degree of teachers’ emotional connectedness toFacebook and the degree of integration of Facebook into their daily lives. Lastly, thequestionnaire involved questions associated with demographic and backgroundinformation. Depending on the nature of the questions, there were several responsealternatives, including multiple choice, multiple answer, four Likert-type scale (e.g.“never, rarely, sometimes, often”), yes/no and short answers. Before administeringthe questionnaire, it was revised based on comments from two experts in the field ofinstructional technology.

Follow-up Questionnaire

The qualitative data were collected using the “Follow-up Questionnaire”. It con-sisted of 10 open-ended questions about the following issues:

� completeness and accuracy of information in Facebook profiles,� decisions on privacy settings,� discomfort due to visibility of Facebook profiles to students, parents, adminis-trators and colleagues,

� the personal, educational and professional use of Facebook and� the penetration of Facebook into everyday life.

In addition, the “Follow-up Questionnaire” included closed-ended, or selective,questions, which require participants to choose the most appropriate answer from aset of predetermined responses. The open-ended questions were used to explore rea-sons for responses given to these questions. In the questionnaire, the five open-ended questions related to information on Facebook profile and discomfort due tovisibility of Facebook profile were accompanied by the closed-ended questions.

Data collection and analysis

The questionnaires were created using Google Form, a Google Drive tool, and theirlinks were sent to teachers via Facebook messages and groups, open online teacherforums and invitations forwarded to other teachers. Teachers were also remindedperiodically regarding participation in the study. In the FUQ, the questions in eachsection were presented in a single page, whereas, in the “Follow-up Questionnaire”,the open-ended questions were presented page by page. The participants completedthe questionnaires anonymously. The FUQ was administered prior to the “Follow-upQuestionnaire”.

The data from FUQ were coded and analysed using PASW Statistics 18. Descrip-tive statistics – frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations – were com-puted to present teachers’ habits, self-disclosure, privacy settings and activities.Facebook intensity were measured with two self-reported assessments of Facebookbehaviour (i.e. the number of Facebook “friends” and the amount of time spent onFacebook) and a series of attitudinal questions (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007).

The responses to “Follow-up Questionnaire” were analysed using the constantcomparative method of qualitative analysis (Glaser and Strauss 2006). Two research-ers coded the responses individually and independently, and then grouped theemerged codes into the categories, or themes. All discrepant codes or categorieswere resolved through discussion until the agreement between the researchers was

542 E. Sumuer et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

achieved. The major categories and related codes were presented in a narrative form.In order to improve the trustworthiness of the qualitative results, the researchersasked a teacher to confirm their interpretations of the results (i.e. member checking).

Findings

Teachers’ Facebook use habits and intensity

Of the respondents (n = 707), 12.9% did not have a Facebook account due to,mostly, disinterest (62.6%), deactivated Facebook account (18.7%) and lack of time(15.4%). On the other hand, 71.9% of the participants reported to have a Facebookaccount for more than 3 years. Only a small portion (3.7%) of the teachers were onFacebook for less than one year. More than half (55.7%) of the teachers claimed tocheck their accounts more than once a day, while 25.0% claimed to check them oncea day, 13.6% more than once a week and 5.7% once weekly at most. In terms ofaverage time spent on Facebook in a day, 35.2% of the teachers reported between10 and 30 min; 20.8% between 31 and 60 min; 20.6% between 1 and 2 h; and10.7% less than 10 min. Regarding devices used to connect Facebook, the maindevice was the computer (92.0%), followed by the mobile phone (53.2%) and thetablet computer (8.6%). In order to communicate with others on Facebook, morethan half (58.3%) of the teachers reported to prefer timeline while 29.4% preferredprivate messages and 12.3% preferred the chat feature. Teachers had an average of311.30 friends (SD = 345.54) on Facebook friend list.

Table 1 depicts the descriptive statistics of the Facebook intensity of the teachers.The results showed that in general, teachers were unlikely to have a high intensityof use. Although they had a large number of Facebook friends, they do not tend tohave much emotional connection to it, use Facebook mostly as part of their dailyactivities, or spend much time on it. However, teachers agreed more that Facebookwas part of their everyday activity and had become part of their daily routine.

The qualitative data indicated that the majority of teachers perceived Facebookas part of their everyday activities. Firstly, many teachers (n = 8) noted that usingFacebook became a habitual behaviour for them. They underlined that they usedFacebook whenever possible. For instance, one teacher wrote that “I use Facebookalmost every day. Mostly, whenever I connect to the internet, I check my Facebookaccount first”. Similarly, another teacher commented that “… whenever I connect to

Table 1. Summary of descriptive statistics for the Facebook intensity scale.

Individual items and scale Mean S.D.

Facebook IntensityTotal number of Facebook friends 0 = 10 or less, 1 = 11–50, 2 = 51–100,3 = 101–150, 4 = 151–200, 5 = 201–250, 6 = 251–300, 7 = 301 – 400,8 = more than 400

5.04 2.18

Total number of minutes approximately spent on Facebook per day 0 = lessthan 10, 1 = 10–30, 2 = 31–60, 3 = 1–2 h, 4 = 2–3 h, 5 = more than 3 h

1.94 1.32

Facebook is part of my everyday activity 3.14 1.16I am proud to tell people I am on Facebook 2.36 1.08Facebook has become part of my daily routine 2.95 1.17I feel out of touch when I have not logged onto Facebook for a while 2.57 1.21I feel I am part of the Facebook community 2.70 1.16I would be sorry if Facebook shut down 2.85 1.31

Educational Studies 543

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

the internet for any purpose, I spend five minutes checking Facebook …”. Secondly,some teachers (n = 4) thought of Facebook as a convenient method of communica-tion in their life. Lastly, a few teachers (n = 3) claimed that using Facebook hadbecome a necessity in their life. They stated that they felt the absence of Facebookwhen they did not use it for a while.

Teachers’ information disclosure on Facebook

The quantitative results indicated that the teachers disclosed a large amount of infor-mation on their Facebook profiles. Table 2 presents the percentages of informationwhich the teachers disclosed on Facebook. Almost all (96.3%) of the participantshad real names on their profiles, and the vast majority (91.6%) included informationabout their education. Participants were also likely to share information such as cur-rent city (86.7%), gender (86.4%), profile picture (as real picture; 86.4%), work(86.0%), hometown (79.9%) and date of birth (72.7%). However, they were far lesslikely to disclose personal information such as religious views (33.3%), interested in(22.6%), political views (16.7%), mobile phones (14.4%), address (11.4%) andscreen names (7.5%).

In the qualitative phase of the study, teachers were asked what reasons they havenot to share some information on their Facebook profiles. The responses mainlyemphasised on general concerns related to security and privacy. Firstly, almost halfof the teachers (n = 15) took security risks into account. Many teachers stated thatsome information was not disclosed on Facebook to prevent others from misuse of

Table 2. Personal information on teachers’ Facebook profiles.

Information n %

Name (real name) 593 96.3Education 564 91.6Current city 534 86.7Gender 532 86.4Profile picture (real picture) 532 86.4Work 530 86.0Hometown 492 79.9Data of birth 448 72.7Relationship status 394 64.0Family 317 51.5Music 313 50.8Films 313 50.8Books 305 49.5About me 303 49.2Email 296 48.1Relationship with 290 47.1Language 274 44.5TV shows 263 42.7Favourite quotations 253 41.1Religious views 205 33.3Interested in 139 22.6Political views 103 16.7Mobile phones 89 14.4Address 70 11.4Screen names 46 7.5

544 E. Sumuer et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

shared personal information. One teacher clearly wrote that “… I do not want todisclose [my personal information] with the intent to prevent others from viewingand misusing it …”. Moreover, some teachers did not reveal some information ontheir Facebook profiles to protect it from unwanted contacts on Facebook. In addi-tion, several teachers found Facebook insecure to share some specific personal infor-mation. Secondly, when disclosing information on Facebook, a number of teachers(n = 12) took potential threats to privacy into consideration. Most of them did notdisclose certain information on Facebook to keep personal information private. Forinstance, one teacher stated that “… I do not want to share personal, private infor-mation such as e-mail and phone number on this platform which everyone hasaccess to and view it in …”.

Teachers’ privacy settings on Facebook

While a vast majority (88.0%) of the participants considered the adjustment of theirFacebook privacy settings to be important, 8.8% considered that not to be important.Regarding profile visibility, the quantitative results indicated that most (79.1%) ofthe teachers restricted the visibility of their posts to “Friends”, while 10.6% kepttheir posts visible to everyone. Moreover, more than half (58.4%) of the teachersallowed only “Friends” to view others’ posts on their timelines. Of the participants,11.2% limited the visibility of others’ posts to only themselves. Furthermore, most(66.6%) of the participants restricted the visibility of posts they had been tagged intheir timelines to “Friends”. However, 10.2% let everyone to see their tagged posts.With regard to posts on timeline, the results presented that a majority (77.9%) of theteachers allowed “Friends” to post on their Facebook timelines, while 17.7% limitedto only themselves. However, 4.4% does not know who can post on their timelines.In terms of profile searchability, the results showed that 47.4% of the teachers leteveryone on Facebook to find their profile with the use of their name, while 27.9%of the participants limited this setting to “Friends”. Of the participants, 14.4%claimed to restrict the profile searchability to “Friends of friends”. Moreover, abouthalf (49.4%) of the participants let only “Friends” to look up them with their e-mailaddress or the phone number on Facebook.

In the qualitative phase of the study, teachers were asked how they adjusted theirprivacy settings on Facebook. Firstly, slightly less than half of the teachers (n = 14)put emphasis on the degree of closeness with individuals. Most of them noted thatintimacy played an important role in their level of privacy protection. One teacherwrote that “I do not make any restriction [on privacy settings] for those who I meetfrequently and for which I do not see any harm to know something about me …”.Secondly, a quarter of teachers (n = 8) underlined unwanted audience accessing theirFacebook profiles. The teachers reported that they used privacy settings to preventunknown or unwanted people from accessing to and making a post on their Face-book pages. Thirdly, some teachers (n = 5) highlighted potential threats associatedwith privacy. For instance, one teacher stated that “My students or their parents mayknow my political or religious view, and therefore they may have misjudgementsabout me, causing harm in my profession …”.

In the quantitative phase of the study, the participants also rated their perceiveddiscomfort which they felt when students, parents, administrators and colleaguesviewed their profiles (Table 3). The findings indicated that teachers felt themselvesmore uncomfortable when parents (37.7%) and students (37.0%) viewed their

Educational Studies 545

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

profiles, as compared to administrators (25.8%) and colleagues (6.3%). The qualita-tive responses revealed that there were two important issues that had impact onteachers’ discomfort level related to students and parents: privacy and professionalconcerns. Many teachers did not want students and parents to have informationabout their private life. In addition, most of the teachers concerned about negativeeffects of Facebook on their relationships with students. Also, plenty of the teachershad concerns about parents’ judgements about their Facebook posts. On the otherhand, most of the teachers stated that they felt colleagues and administrators closerto themselves and thus they did not have any concern for them on Facebook. How-ever, some teachers concerned about administrators’ judgements about their Face-book posts and a blurred boundary with them. Also, a few teachers stated someconcerns about the possibility that administrators may know their private life.

Teachers’ activities on Facebook

This study also investigated teachers’ personal, educational and professional use ofFacebook. Table 4 presents personal Facebook activities and the extent of their useby the teachers. The results indicated that the vast majority (more than 95.0%) ofthe teachers most often used Facebook for sending or receiving messages, communi-cating with friends, looking at or posting photos and following or posting timelineposts. On the other hand, they used Facebook less frequently for entertainment(61.7%) and getting contact information (56.8%). Moreover, many teachers claimed

Table 3. Discomfort the teachers felt when others viewed their profiles.

Audience

Discomfort

Not feeling Neutral Feeling

n % n % n %

Students 305 49.5 83 13.5 228 37.0Parents 284 46.1 100 16.2 232 37.7Administrators 341 55.4 116 18.8 159 25.8Colleagues 508 82.5 69 11.2 39 6.3

Table 4. Personal Facebook activities and the extent of their use by the teachers.

Activity

Frequency

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

n % n % n % n %

Communication 258 41.9 239 38.8 103 16.7 16 2.6Photos 189 30.7 288 46.7 122 19.8 17 2.8Entertainment 118 19.2 120 19.5 142 23.0 236 38.3Events 35 5.7 156 25.3 264 42.9 161 26.1Groups 85 13.8 171 27.7 240 39.0 120 19.5Messages 179 29.1 298 48.4 127 20.6 12 1.9Timeline posts 191 31.0 272 44.2 134 21.7 19 3.1Chat 117 19.0 256 41.6 187 30.3 56 9.1Getting to know people better 97 15.7 231 37.5 205 33.3 83 13.5Contact information 39 6.3 122 19.8 189 30.7 266 43.2Editing profile 71 11.5 235 38.2 265 43.0 45 7.3

546 E. Sumuer et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

to never use Facebook for getting contact information (43.2%), entertainment(38.3%), finding or planning events (26.1%) and creating or joining into groups(19.5%).

The qualitative data also indicated that the teachers used Facebook for severalpersonal purposes. First, most of them (n = 18) reported using it for following cur-rent news and news about friends. For instance, one teacher stated that “… I logonto [Facebook] to find out about important days (e.g. birthday, pregnancy, mar-riage, delivery) of friends with whom I have no regular contact and have news abouttheir positive or negative events (because everything was shared on Facebook) …”.Second, a number of teachers (n = 13) stated using Facebook for making or follow-ing timeline posts. They noted that they could share feelings and opinions with oth-ers through Facebook. Third, many teachers (n = 10) emphasised on the use ofFacebook for communication with friends. Last, a quarter of teachers (n = 8)reported using Facebook for entertainment, especially for games on Facebook.

Table 5 shows the ways in which the teachers used Facebook to support teachingand learning activities. The results indicated that most of the teachers used Facebookfor sharing information (61.9%) and resources (48.7%), while a small portion usedFacebook for being directed to other sites or applications (11.9%) and getting dis-cussions (11.4%). Similar to quantitative findings, qualitative data analysis showedthat many teachers (n = 7) used Facebook for sharing materials, activities, informa-tion, student activities and announcements. Moreover, a few teachers (n = 3) statedthat they could communicate with students on Facebook. One teacher stated that “…It is an important factor [to use Facebook] that [my students] have Facebookaccounts and they look at it more than their books …”. In addition, only two teach-ers reported using Facebook groups for educational purposes.

Table 6 presents the activities for which the teachers used Facebook to engage ininformal professional development. In terms of professional development, the quan-titative results showed that most of the participants used Facebook to obtain up-to-date information (65.1%) and exchange information with others (62.0%). Moreover,about half of them reported to use Facebook with the aims to have informationabout events (51.9%) and share ideas and projects (45.6%). Similarly, the qualitativedata indicated that the teachers used Facebook for access to resources (n = 5), fol-lowing posts (n = 4), exchange information (n = 3) and access to information(n = 3). Moreover, some teachers (n = 5) put emphasis on the use of Facebookgroups for professional development. Also, a few teachers (n = 4) stated that theycould be informed about colleagues’ practices via Facebook.

Table 5. Teachers’ educational activities on Facebook.

Educational activity n %

Sharing information 381 61.9Sharing resources 300 48.7Announcements 247 40.1Communication with students 176 28.6Forming groups 123 20.0Getting cooperation 107 17.4Applications 106 17.2Being directed to other sites/applications 73 11.9Getting discussions 70 11.4

Educational Studies 547

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Discussion

This study investigated teachers’ Facebook use habits, intensity, self-disclosure, pri-vacy settings and activities. Firstly, it showed that although the teachers did not tendto have a high intensity of Facebook use, they were more likely to integrate Face-book into their daily routine because it was a SNS which they had a long time mem-bership with, use frequently in a day, spent a considerable amount of time on, hadcontact with a large number of friends through and had a regular access to via com-puters and mobile phones. This result is corroborated with the qualitative findings,which underlined the use of Facebook as part of everyday activities. Given the pene-tration rate of Facebook in Turkey, 51.5% in 2014, which is informed by “Al-lin1Social”, a web based service providing social media statistics by country, thisfinding is not a surprising fact. In addition, it is in the line with the report of MMSEducation (2012), which indicates that Facebook is one of the most frequently usedSNSs by teachers. Because Facebook appears to be a prevalent and frequently usedtechnology among teachers, the policies should be aligned to take the advantages ofaffordances of Facebook rather than forbidding or restricting access to it.

Based on disclosure categories offered by Nosko, Wood, and Molema (2010),secondly, this study indicated that the teachers mostly disclosed personal identityinformation about themselves on their Facebook profiles, such as name, education,current city, gender, hometown and date of birth, whereas they were less likely toshare sensitive and potentially stigmatising personal information, such as e-mail,religious views, political views, TV shows, favourite quotations and screen names.Contrary to earlier studies which have shown no relation between people’s privacyconcerns or risks and their behaviour regarding information disclosure on Facebook(Acquisti and Gross 2006; Christofides, Muise, and Desmarais 2009; Pitkänen andTuunainen 2012; Tufekci 2008), the qualitative findings suggested that the teachershid some personal information on Facebook because of their general privacy andsecurity concerns. People with less awareness of the consequences of disclose tendto share personal information on Facebook (Christofides, Mulse, and Desmarais2012). However, since teacher self-disclosures via Facebook have a positiveinfluence on student outcomes (Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds 2007) and teachercredibility (Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds 2009), keeping some information privatemay hinder teachers in getting the benefits of Facebook for teaching and learning.Therefore, it is especially important for teachers to know how to regulate informa-tion disclosure on Facebook. Personal anecdotal stories about risks associated withonline disclosure can be useful to get teachers to change the way in which theyshare personal information on Facebook (Nosko et al. 2012).

Table 6. Teachers’ professional development activities on Facebook.

Professional developmental activity n %

Obtaining up-to-date information 401 65.1Exchanging information 382 62.0Being informed about events 320 51.9Sharing ideas and projects 281 45.6Having access to resources 253 41.1Announcements 212 34.4Sharing own initiatives 174 28.2

548 E. Sumuer et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Thirdly, this study showed that there was a general consensus on the importanceof privacy settings on Facebook. It also indicated that the teachers adjusted most oftheir Facebook privacy settings as “Friends”, and they took intimacy, unwantedaudiences and potential privacy threats into consideration when adjusting the set-tings on Facebook. However, the term “Friends” used on Facebook is not synonymswith “Friend” used in daily language. It refers to “anyone from an intimate friend toa casual acquaintance or a complete stranger of whom only their online identity isknown” (Debatin et al. 2009, 87). Accordingly, restricting the visibility of Facebookto only “Friends” may not be adequate strategy for privacy settings, and it does notrepresent teachers’ considerations in the adjustment of privacy settings. In addition,teachers’ Facebook friend list may involve students, parents, administrators andother staffs in addition to other strong and weak connections. Therefore, as sug-gested by earlier studies (Belch 2012; Carter, Foulger, and Ewbank 2008; Foulgeret al. 2009; Heussner and Fahmy 2010), it is important for teachers to use Facebookwithout risking their professional status because of public nature of online behav-iours on Facebook which may be cause for unintended consequences (e.g. suspen-sion or dismissal) for their teaching profession. Teachers especially should avoidquestionable postings on Facebook to maintain their professional image as a teacher(Rego 2009). Moreover, this study showed that most of the teachers allowed“Friends” to make a post on their timelines. Teachers should control “Friends” postson their timelines to minimise risks associated with their privacy and teaching pro-fession because there have been some instances in which others’ posts on Facebookhave caused a range of disciplinary actions to be taken for teachers (Belch 2012).Before teachers suffer from negative consequences of disclosing personal informa-tion on Facebook, teacher preparation coursework, professional development pro-grammes or guidelines should be offered to inform them what and how to discloseinformation on Facebook in a responsible way.

Moreover, this study indicated that the teachers felt mostly uncomfortable whenstudents viewed their Facebook profiles due to concerns and risks related to privacyand teaching profession. This finding is similar to previous studies that have shownteachers’ concerns about blurring boundaries related to privacy and teaching profes-sion risen by teacher–student Facebook communication (Asterhan et al. 2013). Inaddition, the current study revealed that the teachers had some worries when parentsand administrators viewed their Facebook profiles. In order to deal with such con-cerns, teachers can set up a not listing profile, a profile strictly for classroom or pro-fessional use (i.e. professional Facebook account), or a general profile with filteringcontent (Rego 2009). In this way, they could allow only intended individuals toview all content in their personal profiles. However, regardless of the type of profilewhich teachers have, they should be professional when interacting and communicat-ing with others on Facebook, including students, parents, administers and col-leagues.

Lastly, this study found that the teachers mostly used Facebook primarily forsocial engagement, entertainment and information. In addition, the findings indicatedthat many teachers utilised Facebook for educational and professional developmentpurposes in several ways. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the teachers did notintegrate Facebook into teaching and learning excessively, particularly for communi-cation with students, Facebook groups, applications and discussions. Facebook haspotential to enhance teaching and learning process and support teachers’ profes-sional development. Especially, in Turkey, with the FATIH project, it appears to be

Educational Studies 549

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

important to embrace the potential benefits that Facebook offers for education andprofessional development because of its pervasiveness among teachers and students.However, regardless its affordances, what makes a tool valuable for people is theway that they use it. Accordingly, teachers play a critical role in the effective use ofSNSs in educational settings (Callaghan and Bower 2012). Therefore, this studyadvocates that rather than blocking or restricting the use of Facebook in schools,teachers should be encouraged and promoted to use this tool in an effective andresponsible way. In this respect, in-service training programmes are important toinform teachers how to make educational and professional use of Facebook in aneffective and secure way. Also, pre-service teachers should be prepared with Web2.0 tools. In addition, local and central governmental policies on the use of SNSsshould be provided to guide teachers about the use of Facebook. Moreover, authori-ties should be encouraged to utilise Facebook to support formal professional devel-opment practices.

Limitations of this study include the fact that the participants of the study con-tained only teachers who were invited to participate in the study through Facebookgroups, online teacher forums, e-mail or Facebook messages, which limits the gener-alisability of the findings. Moreover, data may not represent teachers’ actual use ofFacebook because data in the study were self-reported. This subjective measurementcould be influenced by the extent of the participants’ honesty. In addition, the mostof the participants of the study were classroom teachers, and thus their educationaluse of Facebook could be limited because the ages of their students were below theminimum age requirement to open an account on Facebook. Lastly, the findingsmay not well represent teachers in other contexts in which policies pertaining toFacebook use in schools are strict.

Further studies should examine teachers’ Facebook use in different contexts andsample. In addition, a further study should be conducted to examine teachers’ Face-book use by investigating their behaviours on their Facebook profiles. Profile captureand analysis could enable researchers to obtain direct behavioural measures. Teachers’professional accounts also allow researchers to get valuable data about their Facebookuse for educational and professional development purposes. Moreover, how guide-lines, workshops and personal stories have influence on teachers’ self-disclosure andprivacy settings on Facebook could be investigated in further studies.

Notes on contributorsEvren Sumuer received his PhD from the Department of Computer Education and Instruc-tional Technology at Middle East Technical University, Turkey in 2012. He is currently a fac-ulty member in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology atKocaeli University, Turkey. His research focuses on pre and in-service teachers’ technologytraining, use of ICT in education, technology adoption, electronic performance support sys-tems, educational use of SNSs, social network analysis, and instructional design. He is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: evren.sumuer@kocaeli.edu.tr

Sezin Esfer is a research assistant and PhD student at the Middle East Technical University(METU). Her research interests include human computer interaction, computer aided lan-guage learning, social media and social network analysis in education.

Soner Yildirim is currently a professor in the Department of Computer Education and Instruc-tional Technology at Middle East Technical University, Turkey. He graduated with the PhDdegree from Instructional Technology at the University of Southern California in 1997. His

550 E. Sumuer et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

research interest includes teachers’ technology training and integration, electronic perfor-mance support systems, learning objects, and the use of digital story telling in preschooleducation.

ReferencesAcquisti, Alessandro, and Ralph Gross. 2006. “Imagined Communities: Awareness, Informa-

tion Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook.” In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, editedby George Danezis and Philippe Golle, 36–58. Heidelberg: Springer.

Allin1Social. 2014. “Facebook Statistics Worldwide.” Accessed June 1. http://www.allin1social.com/facebook/country_stats/

Anderson, Beth, Patrick Fagan, Tom Woodnutt, and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. 2012.“Facebook Psychology: Popular Questions Answered by Research.” Psychology of Popu-lar Media Culture 1 (1): 23–37.

Asterhan, Christa, Hananel Rosenberg, Baruch Schwarz, and Lidor Solomon. 2013. “Second-ary School Teacher–Student Communication in Facebook: Potential and Pitfalls.” InProceedings of the Chais Conference on Instructional Technology Research 2013:Learning in the Technological Era, edited by Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden,N. Geri, Y. Kalman, and Y. Yair, 1–5. Raanana: The Open University of Israel.

Aydin, Selami. 2012. “A Review of Research on Facebook as an Educational Environment.”Education Technology Research and Development 60 (6): 1093–1106.

Belch, Harry Ess. 2012. “Teachers Beware! The Dark Side of Social Networking.” Learning& Leading with Technology 39 (4): 15–19.

Bernadette, Rego. 2009. A Teacher’s Guide to Using Facebook. http://www.cortlandunitedteachers.org/images/stories/16957158.pdf.

Boyd, Danah M., and Nicole B. Ellison. 2008. “Social Network Sites: Definition, History,and Scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (1): 210–230.

Bull, Glen, Ann Thompson, Mike Searson, Joe Garofalo, John Park, Carl Young, and JohnLee. 2008. “Connecting Informal and Formal Learning: Experiences in the Age of Partic-ipatory Media.” Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 8 (2): 100–107.

Callaghan, Noelene, and Matt Bower. 2012. “Learning through Social Networking Sites –The Critical Role of the Teacher.” Educational Media International 49 (1): 1–17.

Çam, Emre, and Onur İşbulan. 2012. “A New Addiction for Teacher Candidates: Social Net-works.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 11 (3): 14–19.

Carter, Heather L., Teresa S. Foulger, and Ann Dutton Ewbank. 2008. “Have You GoogledYour Teacher Lately? Teachers’ Use of Social Networking Sites.” The Phi Delta Kappan89 (9): 681–685.

Christofides, Emily, Amy Muise, and Serge Desmarais. 2009. “Information Disclosure andControl on Facebook: Are They Two Sides of the Same Coin or Two Different Pro-cesses?” Cyberpsychology & Behavior 12 (3): 341–345.

Christofides, Emily, Amy Muise, and Serge Desmarais. 2012. “Hey Mom, What’s on YourFacebook? Comparing Facebook Disclosure and Privacy in Adolescents and Adults.”Social Psychological and Personality Science 3 (1): 48–54.

Debatin, Bernhard, Jennette P. Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn, and Brittany N. Hughes. 2009.“Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (1): 83–108.

Duggan, Maeve, and Aeron Smith. 2014. Social Media Update 2013. Pew Research Center.http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-Media-Update.aspx.

edWeb.net, IESD, MMS Education, and MCH Strategic Data. 2010. School Principals andSocial Networking in Education: Practices, Policies, and Realities in 2010. Princeton,NJ: edWeb.net. http://www.edweb.net/fimages/op/PrincipalsandSocialNetworkingReport.pdf.

Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. 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.

Facebook. 2014. “Company Info | Facebook Newsroom.” Accessed June 1. http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/

Educational Studies 551

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Fewkes, Aaron M., and Mike McCabe. 2012. “Facebook” Journal of Digital Learning inTeacher Education 28 (3): 92–98.

Fordham, Ian, and Ty Goddard. 2013. Facebook Guide for Educators: A Tool for Teachingand Learning. London: The Education Foundation. http://www.ednfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/Facebookguideforeducators.pdf.

Foulger, Teresa S., Ann Dutton Ewbank, Adam Kay, Sharon Osborn Popp, and Heather LynnCarter. 2009. “Moral Spaces in MySpace.” Journal of Research on Technology in Educa-tion 42 (1): 1–28.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 2006. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strate-gies for Qualitative Research. Piscataway, NJ: A Division of Transaction Publishers.

Greenhow, Christine, Beth Robelia, and Joan E. Hughes. 2009. “Learning, Teaching, andScholarship in a Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path should WeTake Now?” Educational Researcher 38: 246–259.

Hansson, Linnea, Anton Wrangmo, and Klaus Solberg Søilen. 2013. “Optimal Ways forCompanies to Use Facebook as a Marketing Channel.” Journal of Information, Commu-nication and Ethics in Society 11 (2): 112–126.

Heiberger, Greg, and Ruth Harper. 2008. “Have You Facebooked Astin Lately? Using Tech-nology to Increase Student Involvement.” New Directions for Student Services 2008(124): 19–35.

Henderson, Smantha, and Michael Gilding. 2005. “‘I’ve Never Clicked This Much with Any-one in My Life’: Trust and Hyperpersonal Communication in Online Friendships.” NewMedia Society 6 (4): 487–506.

Hutchens, Jason S., and Timothy Hayes. 2014. “In Your Facebook: Examining FacebookUsage as Misbehavior on Perceived Teacher Credibility.” Education and InformationTechnologies 19 (1): 5–20.

Joinson, Adam N. 2008. “Looking at, Looking up or Keeping up with People? Motives andUse of Facebook.” In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, 1027–1036.

Ki Mae, Heussner, and Dalia Fahmy. 2013. “Teacher Loses Job After Commenting about Stu-dents, Parents on Facebook. 2010.” Accessed December 19. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-firing-teacher-loses-job-commenting-students-parents/story?id=11437248

Kirschner, Paul A., and Aryn C. Karpinski. 2010. “Facebook® and Academic Performance.”Computers in Human Behavior 26 (6): 1237–1245.

Lewis, Kevin, Jason Kaufman, and Nicholas Christakis. 2008. “The Taste for Privacy: AnAnalysis of College Student Privacy Settings in an Online Social Network.” Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication 14 (1): 79–100.

Linda Fogg, Phillips, E. Derek Baird, and B. J. Fogg. 2011. Facebook for Educators.Accessed December 10, 2013. https://www.facebook.com/safety/attachment/Facebook%20for%20Educators.pdf

Livingstone, Sonia, Kjartan Ólafsson, and Elisabeth Staksrud. 2013. ‘Risky Social Network-ing Practices among ‘Underage’ Users: Lessons for Evidence-based Policy.’ Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication 18 (3): 303–320.

Madge, Clare, Julia Meek, Jane Wellens, and Tristram Hooley. 2009. “Facebook, Social Inte-gration and Informal Learning at University: ‘It is More for Socialising and Talking toFriends about Work than for Actually Doing Work’.” Learning, Media and Technology34 (2): 141–155.

Mazer, Joseph P., Richard E. Murphy, and Cheri J. Simonds. 2007. ‘I’ll See You on‘Facebook’: The Effects of Computer-mediated Teacher Self-disclosure on StudentMotivation, Affective Learning, and Classroom Climate.” Communication Education 56(1): 1–17.

Mazer, Joseph P., Richard E. Murphy, and Cheri J. Simonds. 2009. “The Effects of TeacherSelf-disclosure via Facebook on Teacher Credibility.” Learning, Media and Technology34 (2): 175–183.

Mike, Thelwall, and David Stuart. 2010. “Social Network Sites: An Exploration of Featuresand Diversity.” In Social Computing and Virtual Communities, edited by PanayiotisZaphiris and Chee Siang Ang, 263–282. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.

552 E. Sumuer et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4

MMS Education. 2012. 2012 Survey of K-12 Educators on Social Networking, Online Com-munities, and Web 2.0 Tools. http://www.edweb.net/fimages/op/reports/Educators-and-Social-Media-2012-web.pdf.

Nosko, Amanda, Eileen Wood, Miranda Kenney, Karin Archer, Domenica De Pasquale, SeijaMolema, and Lucia Zivcakova. 2012. “Examining Priming and Gender as a Means toReduce Risk in a Social Networking Context: Can Stories Change Disclosure and PrivacySetting Use When Personal Profiles are Constructed?” Computers in Human Behavior 28(6): 2067–2074.

Nosko, Amanda, Eileen Wood, and Seija Molema. 2010. “All about Me: Disclosure inOnline Social Networking Profiles: The Case of FACEBOOK.” Computers in HumanBehavior 26 (3): 406–418.

Pempek, Tiffany A., Yevdokiya A. Yermolayeva, and Sandra L. Calvert. 2009. “College Stu-dents’ Social Networking Experiences on Facebook.” Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology 30 (3): 227–238.

Pitkänen, Olli, and Kristiina Virpi Tuunainen. 2012. “Disclosing Personal Data Socially – AnEmpirical Study on Facebook Users’ Privacy Awareness.” Journal of Information Privacy& Security 8 (1): 3–29.

Ranieri, Maria, Stefania Manca, and Antonio Fini. 2012. “Why (and How) do TeachersEngage in Social Networks? An Exploratory Study of Professional Use of Facebook andIts Implications for Lifelong Learning.” British Journal of Educational Technology 43(5): 754–769.

Ross, Craig, Emily S. Orr, Mia Sisic, Jaime M. Arseneault, Marry G. Simmering, and R. Orr.2009. “Personality and Motivations Associated with Facebook Use.” Computers inHuman Behavior 25 (2): 578–586.

Rutherford, Camille. 2010. “Facebook as a Source of Informal Teacher Professional Develop-ment.” In Education 16 (1): 60–74.

Selwyn, Neil. 2009. “Faceworking: Exploring Students’ Education-related Use of Facebook.”Learning, Media and Technology 34 (2): 157–174.

Sheldon, Pavica. 2008. “Student Favorite: Facebook and Motives for Its Use.” SouthwesternMass Communication Journal 23 (2): 39–53.

Sparks, Glenn. 2012. “Uses and Gratification of Elihu Katz.” In A First Look at Communica-tion Theory, edited by Emory A. Griffin, 357–365. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Staudt, Denise, Norman S. T. Clair, and Elda E. Martinez. 2013. “Using Facebook to SupportNovice Teachers.” The New Educator 9 (2): 152–163.

Taraszow, Tatjana, Elena Aristodemou, Georgina Shitta, Yiannis Laouris, and Aysu Arsoy.2010. “Disclosure of Personal and Contact Information by Young People in Social Net-working Sites: An Analysis Using Facebook™ Profiles as an Example.” InternationalJournal of Media and Cultural Politics 6 (1): 81–101.

Tufekci, Zeynep. 2008. “Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation inOnline Social Network Sites.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28 (1): 20–36.

Turkish Ministry of Education. 2012. Fatih Project. Accessed June 10, 2014. http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/tr/english.php.

Turkish Statistical Institute. 2013. Use of Information and Communication Technology andMedia By Children Aged 06–15, 2013. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=15866.

Wang, Qiyun, Huay Lit Woo, Choon Lang Quek, Yuqin Yang, and Mei Liu. 2012. “Usingthe Facebook Group as a Learning Management System: An Exploratory Study.” BritishJournal of Educational Technology 43 (3): 428–438.

Waters, Susan, and James Ackerman. 2011. “Exploring Privacy Management on Facebook:Motivations and Perceived Consequences of Voluntary Disclosure.” Journal of Com-puter-Mediated Communication 17 (1): 101–115.

Weeden, Shalynn, Bethany Cooke, and Michael McVey. 2013. “Underage Children andSocial Networking.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 45 (3): 249–262.

Zhang, Jianwei. 2009. “Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Toward a CreativeSocial Web for Learners and Teachers.” Educational Researcher 38 (4): 274–279.

Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin. 2008. “Identity Construction on Face-book: Digital Empowerment in Anchored Relationships.” Computers in Human Behavior24 (5): 1816–1836.

Educational Studies 553

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:25

08

Oct

ober

201

4