September 2009 Index
Home Page

Editor’s Note: Facebook has won favor as a source of personal information and a way to network with friends and to build or renew friendships. It is principally a social network, but it does interface with professional end educational opportunities. Does this mean it could influence jobs, performance ratings, and course grades? Read on…

To Friend or Not to Friend:
Academic Interaction on Facebook  

Jesse P. Mendez, John Curry, Mwarumba Mwavita,
Kathleen Kennedy, Kathryn Weinland, Katie Bainbridge

Keywords: Facebook, faculty, student, academic performance, privacy, Online Social Network (OSNW)


The popularity of Online Social-Networking Websites (OSNW) such as and has grown considerably throughout recent years (Gosling, Gaddis & Vazire, 2007). The use of Internet-based mediums such as blogs, personal websites, and virtual communities by college students has continued to increase in recent years and have impacted how these students communicate with each other in both online and offline contexts (Pempek, Yermolayeva and Calvert, 2009). Recent high school graduates grew up in the digital age and have been labeled “digital natives” because of the ease with which they operate in these virtual worlds and formats (Prensky, 2001). 

Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are accessible to most internet users and anyone with an email address.  Users can provide information through creating a ‘profile’ with the intent of communication with others, meeting new friends and connecting with old friends.  In addition to connecting to friends, dating use, career searches, feedback and blogging, users post self-descriptive information.

Facebook is merely four years old, but already boasts of “More than 68 million active users” and “An average of 250,000 new registrations per day since Jan. 2007”, ( website, 2008). We chose Facebook due to its organizational structure. Website users designate themselves with a university affiliation along with other personal information such as gender, musical tastes, courses taken, education background, etc. Facebook users can also post picture albums that can be shared with other users who are considered ‘friends’.

Facebook in Academia

This study examines Facebook usage and how students use it to engage within the academic realm, including student perceptions of faculty as friends. As OSNWs continue to thrive in today’s environment, faculty are increasingly implementing them in the classroom. Some feel this is an invasion of the students’ privacy, and have labeled this as a ”creepy treehouse“ practice (Abel, 2005; Stein, 2008). On the other hand, others feel that it is an intelligent use of current technologies in the classroom. Since the classroom community has substantial impact on the overall collegiate experience, more needs to be learned about this virtual community that serves as an undercurrent communication channel that binds students and faculty. Coupled with student usage of Facebook (i.e. hours spent, number of friends, number of groups subscribed to, etc.), is there any relationship between faculty interaction and academic benchmarks such as cumulative GPA?

Literature Review

The popularity of OSNWs such as MySpace and Facebook has grown considerably in recent years (Gosling, Gaddis & Vazire, 2007). However, any social environment involves personal disclosure, leading to issues of privacy (Acquisti and Gross, 2005; Gemmill and Peterson, 2006; Gross, Acquisti & Heinz, 2005; Kolek & Saunders, 2008; Patil & Kosba, 2005; Tufekci, 2009). As the Pennsylvania State example illustrates, privacy issues persist on OSNWs. Patil and Kobsa (2005) studied the use of privacy controls within awareness systems, and establish that the use of privacy controls in technology is dependent on the knowledge of security features, and the technology itself.  Users of MySpace were presented security concerns and chose not to enable more privacy settings.

But what do people disclose on OSNWs? Gross, Acquisti and Heinz (2005) examined 4,540 Facebook users for the type and amount of information disclosed and found that an overwhelming majority of profiles provide full access, associating the person with their first and last name, picture, birthday, and hometown.  More than half provided their current residence.  The majority of users provide fully identifiable information although the sites do not require disclosure.  The study concluded that few users change the privacy settings and most users seem willing to provide personal information to the public.  Kolek and Saunders (2008) also found that a great number of students in their quantitative study disclosed substantial information on their account profiles such as contact information, academic schedules and personal pictures of alcohol consumption. Given the low-privacy settings, high personal disclosure, and  college-age, the participants show very little concern over privacy issues in OSNWs (Acquisti and Gross, 2005; Gemmill and Peterson, 2006; Gross, Acquisti & Heinz, 2005; Kolek & Saunders, 2008; Patil & Kosba, 2005; Tufekci, 2009).

Gemmill and Peterson (2006) surveyed student’s technology use behavior and habits.  Information was gathered regarding the use of email, instant message services, internet for academic and leisure, cell phone use and land-line phone use.  The study found that college students obtain social support via cell phones and instant messaging and the use of technology is likely to increase with the advent of social networking technology.  The study concluded that technology use surveyed was highest among freshman and lowest in seniors and, in order to avoid academic side effects, users need to address the role of technology within their academic progress.

The world of OSNWs also may have ramifications on the student-teacher relationship both in and outside the classroom, given that OSNWs provides a virtual realm in addition to the pre-existing physical one (Li & Pitts, 2009). Previous research provides some insight into non-academic social exchanges between college teachers and students, finding that academic performance increases with informal interactions (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005).

The amount of time that undergraduate students invest in OSNWs varies, but studies conclude that Facebook is fully integrated in the lives of most undergraduate students. Pempek, Yermolayeva and Calvert (2009) found that undergraduate students invest approximately 30 minutes daily (27.93 on weekdays, 28.44 minutes on weekend days) on Facebook, adding this task to their daily routine. 

And the time that is invested may not be devoted to academic enhancement. In other words, medians like Facebook and other OSNWs are used more for socializing rather than academic usage (Madge, Meek, Wellens & Hooley, 2009). Madge, et al. (2009) surveyed British undergraduates and found that undergraduates were uneasy with academic utilitization of OSNWs.

There were several activities that the majority of students did not use Facebook for, such as checking out the profile of a member of university staff (68% said they had never done this). Facebook is therefore currently used by students for communicating with other students, not with university staff…Moreover, when respondents were asked if there were any ways they thought Facebook could be utilised to enhance teaching and learning at the University, 43% responded negatively, explaining that Facebook was a SNS [Social Network Sites], not a tool for academic work (p. 149).

So what are the academic costs of spending a substantial amount of time on OSNWs? To date, research on the academic implementation of Facebook or other OSNWs has been limited. 

With the seeming ubiquity of Facebook and other OSNWs, researchers are beginning to note the viability of their use in the academic arena. An article in Educause (2006) suggested, “Any technology that is able to captivate so many students for so much time not only carries implications for how those students view the world but also offers an opportunity for educators to understand the elements of social networking that students find so compelling and to incorporate those elements into teaching and learning.” Along the same lines, Cloete, de Villiers, and Roodt (2009) found that most faculty members have not implemented an OSNW as an academic tool, but at the same time, most felt like one could be applied as a tool for academic learning.

One of the biggest concerns in implementing Facebook into the classroom is student privacy. Many of the studies about taking the faculty/student relationship online have focused on this specific student concern (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Hewitt & Forte, 2006; Mack, Behler, Roberts, & Rimland, 2007). Some students are worried that faculty might form opinions about them based on their online accounts (Abel, 2005). However, students, when presented with the option, did find a beneficial reason to use Facebook with faculty. Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds (2007) found that if faculty members have Facebook accounts, students are likely to base decisions on whether or not to take a class from someone can be affected by the amount of information disclosed online by the faculty member.

Another area potentially affected by implementing faculty Facebook usage in the classroom is faculty/student communication.  Sturgeon and Walker (2009) found that students seem to be more willing to communicate with their instructors if they already knew them through Facebook.  Hewitt and Forte (2006) similarly found that students liked the potential to get to know their professors better, and that Facebook interaction had a positive impact on how they perceived their professors.  Additionally, Haspels (2008) found that faculty Facebook usage also had a positive effect on the face-to-face faculty/student relationship.

But most importantly, does a faculty/student relationship in Facebook have an effect on student performance? Studies have found differing results. Yang and Tang (2003) found that those networks which “consist of relations through which individuals share resources such as information, assistance, and guidance” (p. 96) are “positively related to student performance” (p. 93) both in face to face and online settings.  Sturgeon and Walker (2009) found what they termed an “indirect connection between faculty use of Facebook and academic performance” (p. 11). Their findings postulate that because of an increase in faculty/student familiarity, students feel more comfortable and therefore, are able to learn better. However, a preliminary study by Karpinski and Duberstein (2009) showed that students who self-reported spending more time on Facebook had lower GPAs than those who spent less time there.


We constructed a survey instrument to ascertain the behavior, attitudes about and Facebook usage as a mechanism to develop a sense of community. Regarding the voyeuristic nature of Facebook, we also included questions over account disclosure and privacy concerns. Our 45-question instrument covered a variety of issues such as privacy issues, faculty interaction on Facebook and social interaction tendencies (see Appendix A). In addition, a series of questions are included to assess demographics of the students, which also serve as independent variables.

We hypothesize that students with professors or instructors have a higher self-reported GPA than those who have none listed as friends. In other words, our hypothesis is:

µ not_friend - µprof-friend > 0

In addition to using descriptive statistics, we analyzed the collected data using T-tests to examine whether any differential between those students who had faculty as a Facebook friend and those who did not was statistically significant. In addition to collecting demographic information (i.e., age, gender, ethnic background, selected major, classification, etc.) and selected questions about Facebook usage and privacy issues, we asked the respondents how many faculty members they friended on Facebook. We coded those who had one or more faculty members as Facebook friends as “1” and those who had none as “0”.

The institution used in this study is a research university in the central US that serves a student population over 20,000 at its flagship campus.  The campus houses approximately 5,900 students: 4,400 of which reside in single student housing and the remaining 1,400 students live in family housing. Our sample is drawn from Facebook users residing in on-campus single student housing. A screening question regarding if the student has a Facebook account was used to screen out all students who do not have a Facebook account.  These students were told to skip to the end of the survey and not answer any further questions.

Since this study examines online behavior and interaction, we used Microsoft SharePoint to disseminate the survey to residential life students on December 2008. Data collection continued for three weeks. In light of the recommendations of Dillman (2007), we contacted the participants three times throughout the data collection process. The first contact will occurred at the invitation to participate in the study, and reminder emails were disseminated a week apart afterwards. There were no incentives given to participate in the study. We received a 13 percent response rate to our online survey that was disseminated in the Fall of 2008 to 5,013 residential life students.

Descriptive Statistics

Of the respondents, 49 percent self-reported themselves as freshman, 22 percent as sophomores, 15 percent were juniors, 9 percent as seniors and 8 percent were graduate students. Females  constituted the majority of the respondents, 64 percent while 36 percent were males. When looking at ethic backgrounds, 77 percent of the participants were White, 7 percent were American Indians, 6 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent were Asian and 4 percent was were of African American descent.

In regards to community, first, we found that 72 percent of the respondents were active in some student organization while 28 percent reported no affiliation. Of the respondents, 86 students belonged to a Greek organization while 485 students did not. Within the organization community, students are using Facebook groups as a viable means of communication. Forty-two percent of respondents use Facebook groups to contact organization members, 41 percent by email while 11 percent use phone. The popularity of email among respondents also aligns with recent findings (Boase, et al., 2006, Boase & Wellman & Gulia, 2006; Haythornwaite, 2001; Stern & Dillman, 2006), but Facebook is at the very least on par with e-mail as a communication option among students

As for social community participation, a sizeable majority of survey respondents, 84.4 percent, reported to have more than 100 Facebook friends while 66.4 percent disclosed that they have more than 200 Facebook friends. Clearly, Facebook is an avenue for social community development. At the same time, Facebook usage is not merely social. It is also being used to support an academic community.

Thirty percent of respondents reported having a faculty member as a friend on Facebook. We also asked about the effect of Facebook on professor selection. While 56 percent of respondents reported that they would be more apt to take a professor if they liked his/her profile, 53 percent reported that they would be more apt not to take a professor if they disliked his/her profile. Within the academic community, 88 percent of respondents used email as a primary means to contact their instructor and 12 percent use office hours as a secondary method. This is not surprising when considering email communication increases as one’s social ties increase and email’s asynchronous and convenient nature (Boase, et al., 2006). For the professor, his/her own social ties increase according to the number of students in a given class. When asked about the secondary method of contacting their instructor or professor, 78 percent of respondents preferred office hours, 14 percent listed email, 6 percent voicemail and 2 percent listed Facebook as a means of communication.

The survey instrument also inquired about issues of privacy and disclosure that painted a very interesting picture on Facebook usage. When asked whether their Facebook profile was private, 74 percent of respondents disclosed that their profiles were private while 26 admitted that their profile was open. In addition, 70 percent reported that they post no residence information on their Facebook profile while 22 percent list their residence halls and 9 percent post both their residence hall information and room number. Respondents were less restrictive on access to their photos. Surprisingly, 55 percent of respondents disclosed that they make their photos available to their entire network while 45 percent did not. However, most of the respondents have taken action to restrict access to their profiles. When asked whether they have blocked anyone (i.e., blocked their profile access to a particular person or people) on Facebook, 47 percent responded affirmatively while 53 percent have not. Sixty percent of survey respondents reported that they have limited access to certain individuals to their profile (i.e., allowed general access, but limited access to photos, information, etc.) while 40 percent have not.  And lastly and most disturbing, a large percentage of respondents (47 percent) have befriended people on their Facebook profile whom they do not know.


When analyzing the data, we found that those students who had professors as Facebook friends had a higher self-reported GPA than those who did not. Those with professor or instructors as friends had a GPA of 3.42 as compared to those who did not with a GPA of 3.33.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics



Mean Cumulative GPA

Standard Deviation


Not Friend





as Friend





Although outside of the purview of this study, we additionally tested a number of variables to see whether there was a correlation with their online activities (i.e., number of self-reported hours spent on Facebook, number of self-reported Facebook friends and number of self-reported Facebook groups joined) and their self-reported GPA. However, after conducting T-tests, none of the relationships had any statistical significance. However, when testing our hypothesis, we found that the difference of self-reported GPA between those students who had befriended an instructor (GPA = 3.42) compared to those who did not (GPA = 3.33) was statistically significant at the .05 level.

Table 2
T-test analysis for cumulative GPA
between Two groups of students









Therefore, our analysis reveals that those students who have befriended one or more faculty members are more likely to have a higher self-reported GPA than those who have no faculty members listed as friends on Facebook. In the next section of our paper, we will discuss the significances of this finding and the results of our descriptive statistics.


The discussion of our results is organized into three different sections that paint a rich picture of Facebook student usage, disclosure, privacy and faculty/staff interaction. First, we discuss the descriptive findings that involve privacy issues on Facebook, analyzing some key issues.  Second, the findings involving faculty interaction are also discussed through descriptive statistics and the ANOVA model of our student. Lastly, we provide policy implications and a conclusion at the end of this paper.

Facebook Usage and Privacy

Two observations stand out after examining the survey results, both having a relationship with Facebook usage and privacy concerns. First, in terms of privacy, there remain a large percentage of students who maintain their profile open to the public to be 26 percent. Although some studies have lamented over the reasons for this disclosure needs, other studies have concluded that students simply do little to protect their own disclosures in OSNWs (Acquisti and Gross, 2005; Gemmill and Peterson, 2006; Gross, Acquisti & Heinz, 2005; Kolek & Saunders, 2008; Patil & Kosba, 2005; Tufekci, 2009).

However, the survey results may deviate from the literature. Selywn (2009) found that Facebook serves as a supplement to pre-existing relationships and student typically do not use it to make friends whom they may not have met in person. However, the results of our survey are mixed. Nearly half of those surveyed conceded that they have Facebook friends whom they have never met which conflicts with Selywn article and raises serious safety concerns. However, they generally do not use Facebook to make personal connections on a college campus before enrolling. When asked whether those surveyed sought Facebook friends at the university before they arrived on campus, only 34 percent admitted so. One explanation could be that students may accumulate unmeet Facebook friends through other friends, but not purposely pre-establish a social network on campus prior to arriving.

Faculty/student interaction

With an OSNW that relies on college populations as consumers, it is not surprising that there is faculty and student interaction on Facebook. The connection between faculty and student interaction appears to have positive benefits. First, students could benefit from the interaction that comes with communication on Facebook. Research has shown that general interaction between faculty and students increases academic performance (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2008; Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Kuh, 2001). While most of the literature examines general faculty and student interaction (Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006; Kuh, 2001), there is some evidence that suggests even informal student interaction provides students with some positive benefit whether it be higher student satisfaction (Kuh & Hu, 2001) or higher educational aspirations or even academic performance (Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Perhaps the same can be said about interaction on OSNWs. Second and more cynically, professors and instructors may be more apt to befriend the academically talented or students who perform better in their class as oppose to students who do poorly in class. On the other hand, higher performing students may feel more comfortable with befriending a faculty member than low-performing students. To further investigate these OSNW interactions, future research can examine who extends friend invitations and why faculty befriend some students and not others.


However, our findings do not suggest that faculty and staff should use Facebook as a mechanism for enhancing academic performance or student satisfaction. The literature and the descriptive statistics from this survey recommend otherwise. First, when contacting their instructors or professors, students opt to communicate through email, then office hours. Facebook and voice mail are distant thirds and fourths. In addition, only a minority of 30 percent has a professor or instructor listed as a friend. The literature aligns with this finding and suggests that students see OSNWs more for socializing rather than for academic usage (Connell 2009; Madge, Meek, Wellens & Hooley, 2009). In examining whether Facebook would be proper median for outreach, Connell (2009) found that a good number of students were not in favor of being friended by faculty, possibly seeing it as an intrusion into the student realm.

Some participants (63 or 17.2 percent) were very open to the idea and said that they would be proactive and invite the library to be their friends if they know about the account. The majority of respondents (211 or 57.5 percent) said that they would not be proactive about it, but if the library friended them, they would accept the friend invitation. Another group of 92 students (25.1 percent) said that they would not add the library as a friend. (p. 31).

This study only illustrates that a relationship does exist between self-reported GPA and Facebook friend status with a student. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that faculty should use their Facebook account for improved academic performance. Such a proactive approach would likely be met by disappointing results by encroaching on perceived social space. Instead, if faculty were inclined to open their Facebook account to students, promoting its availability as a median of communication – that may be a wiser choice than sending invitations to enroll. When examining library outreach efforts through Facebook, Connell (2009) warned:

Therefore, perhaps indiscriminate friending is not a good idea. It is important not to annoy students but rather let them come to the library on their own terms
(p. 34).

In all, we must be cognizant that Facebook is in fact the realm of the digital native, and students may view any unilateral outreach by faculty or staff as encroachment on their turf and instigate a ‘creepy treehouse’ effect.


Student usage of OSNWs is prolific and information from the literature, as well as anecdotal evidence, shows that this trend will most certainly continue. Students will continue to utilize web-based social networking as an online communication forum, but mostly for informal, social interaction with other students. Those few students who have professors or instructors as friends have been found to have higher self-reported GPAs compared to those who don’t. Although this relationship was found, much more can be learned about OSNWs, college life and the faculty-student relationship. By conducting this study, the authors sought to shed more light in how OSNWs interconnect with the academic realm.


“7 things you should know about Facebook.” Educause (September 2006).  Available:

Abel, M. (2005, Dec.) Find me on Facebook . . . as long as you are not a faculty member or administrator. Esource for College Transitions, 3 (3), pp. 1-12.

Acquisti, A. & Gross, R. (2005). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, (Ed.) P. Golle & G. Danezis, 36-58. Cambridge: Robinson College.

Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B. & Rainie, L. (2006). The strength of internet ties: The internet and email aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Boase & Wellman (2006). Personal relationships: On and off the internet”. In D. Perlman & A.L. Vangeglisti (Eds.), Handbook of Personal Relations.(pp. 709-723). Cambridge University Press.

Carini, R., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. (2006, February 1). Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ735970) Retrieved September 7, 2009, from ERIC database.

Cloete, S., de Villiers, C., & Roodt, S. (2009, June). Facebook as an academic tool for ICT lecturers. Research presented at the annual meeting of  SACLA.  Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Connell, R. S. (2009). Academic Libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and Student Outreach: A Survey of Student Opinion. Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 25-36.

Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. Wiley Press, New York, NY.

Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefit of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-mediated communication, 12(4), article 1. (2008). “Press Room”, Retrieved March 15, 2008 from

Gemmill, E., & Peterson, M. (2006). Technology use among college students: Implications for Student Affairs Professionals. NASPA Journal, 43, no. 2, 280-300.

Gosling, S. D. Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (2007, March 26-28). Personality impressions based on Facebook profiles. Presented at the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media Conference, Boulder, CO.

Gross, R., Acquisti, A., & Heinz, H. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, 71-80.

Haspels, M. (2008). Will you be my Facebook friend? Research presented at the 4th annual GRASP Symposium, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS.

Haythornwaite, C. (2001). The internet in everyday life. American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (3), 363-382.  

Hewitt, A. & Forte, A. (2006, Nov.) Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Poster presented at the annual meeting of Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Banff, Alberta, Canada

Karpinski, A.C., & Duberstein, A. (2009, April). A description of Facebook use and academic performance among undergraduate and graduate students. Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Kolek, E.A. & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: An empirical examination of undergraduate Facebook profiles. NASPA Journal, 45 (1).

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National      Survey of Student Engagement. Change 33(3): 10--17, 66.

Kuh, G., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. (2008, September 1). Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ809571) Retrieved September 7, 2009, from ERIC database.

Kuh, G. D., &Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 309 - 332.

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(1), 175-185.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J. & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It ismore for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141-155.

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), pp. 1-17.

Mazer, J.P., Murphy, R.E. & Simonds, C.J. (2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 175-183.

Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50, 545–595.

Parcarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005) How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Patil, A., & Kbosa, A. (2005). Designing with privacy in mind. Proceedings of the CHI-2005 Workshop on Awareness Systems: Known Results, Theory, Concepts and Future Challenges.

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

Prensky, M. (2001, October 5). Digital natives, digital immigrants, On the Horizon, 9(5).

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology. 34(2), 157-174.

Stein, J. (2008, May 1). Why do teachers build creepy treehouses? Flexknowlogy. Available: Retreived: October 6, 2009.

Stern M. J. & Dillman, D. (2006, December). Community participation, social ties, and use of the internet. City and Community, 5(4), 409-424.

Sturgeon, C.M. & Walker, C. (2009, March). Faculty on Facebook: Confirm or deny? Research presented at the 14th Annual Instructional Technology Conference, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN.

Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 28(1), 20-36.

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999). Net-Surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as communities.  In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village. (pp. 331-367). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Yang, H.L., & Tang, J.H. (2003). Effects of social network on students’ performance: a web-based forum study in Taiwan. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 7(3),
pp. 93-107.

About the authors:

Jesse P. Mendez is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at Oklahoma State University. His research interests include higher education policy, law and history.


John Curry is an Assistant Professor of Educational Technology at Oklahoma State University. His research interests include the integration of Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom.


Mwarumba Mwavita is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Research, Evaluation, Measurement, and Statisitcs at Oklahoma State University.


Kathryn Weinland is a Ph.D. student in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies with an emphasis in Higher Education at Oklahoma State University.


Kathleen Kennedy is a Ph.D. student in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies with an emphasis in Higher Education at Oklahoma State University.


Katie Bainbridge completed her master's in educational leadership studies at Oklahoma State University in 2008 and currently serves as a cognitive skills trainer and admissions essay review reader.


Appendix A

1.        Do you live on campus?

a.        Yes

b.        No

2.        Estimate your family income:

a.        $20,000 or less

b.        $20,001 to $50,000

c.        $50,001 to $100,000

d.        $100,001 or more

3.        What types of financial aid do you receive? (pick all that apply):

a.        Stafford

b.        Pell

c.        OHLAP

d.        Private loans

e.        Other state grant

f.         Etc. 

4.        What best describes your ethnic/racial background?

a.        American Indian or Alaska Native

b.        Asian

c.        Black or African American

d.        Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

e.        White

f.         Hispanic or Latino

5.        Which of the following online social network websites do you use the most?

a.        Facebook

b.        MySpace

c.        Friendster

d.        Ball of Dirt

e.        Other

6.        What is your gender?

a.        Male

b.        Femal e

7.        What is your cumulative GPA in college on a 4.0 scale? ____

8.        Are you a member of Greek organization?

a.        Yes

b.        No

9.        Do you live in Greek housing?

a.        Yes

b.        No 

10.     Are you a member of a non-Greek student organization?

a.        Yes

b.        No

11.     What is your age?

a.        17-18

b.        19-20

c.        21-25

d.        26 or older

12.     What best describes your major?

a.        Education

b.        Humanities

c.        Engineering

d.        Social science

e.        Health/medical

f.         Other

13.     What is your classification?

a.        Freshman

b.        Sophomore

c.        Junior

d.        Senior

e.        Graduate student

14.     What best describes your political orientation

a.        Very conservative

b.        Conservative

c.        Moderate

d.        Liberal

e.        Very Liberal

f.         Apathetic

15.     What is your primary method of contacting your instructor or professor?

a.        By email

b.        By voicemail

c.        By Facebook

d.        By office hours

16.     What is your secondary method of contacting your instructor or professor?

a.        By email

b.        By voicemail

c.        By Facebook

d.        By office hours

17.     How do you communicate with members of student organization to which you belong?

a.        By email

b.        By Facebook groups

c.        By phone

d.        By flyer

e.        By Other means 

18.     If you have a Facebook account, how many friends have you added on Facebook?  ______

19.     What is your primary method of contacting your resident assistant?

a.        By email

b.        By voicemail

c.        By Facebook

d.        By office hours

e.        By instant messaging

f.         By text messaging

20.     What is your secondary method of contacting your resident assistant?

a.        By email

b.        By voicemail

c.        By Facebook

d.        By office hours

e.        By instant messaging

f.         By text messaging 

Please answer the following questions if you have a Facebook account

21.     What residence information do you post on Facebook?

a.        I post no information

b.        Residence hall

c.        Residence hall and room number

22.     Do you make your photos public to everyone in your network?

a.        Yes

b.        No


23.     How many professors or instructors do you have listed as a friend? ______

24.     Do you have your resident assistant, community facilitator or community mentor listed as a friend?

a.        Yes

b.        No

25.     Which of these do you feel comfortable posting on Facebook (if you have open access to your pictures)?

a.        Pictures of yourself

b.        Pictures of parties

c.        Pictures of family

d.        Pictures of friends

e.        Pictures of vacation

f.         No open access

26.     Is your Facebook profile private?

a.        Yes

b.        No 

27.     Have you created a group?

a.        Yes

b.        No 

28.     How many Facebook groups are you a member of? _______

29.     Mark as many as apply: how active are you in these groups on Facebook?

a.        Read messages only

b.        Read and post messages

c.        Look at pictures

d.        Post pictures

e.        An administrator of a group

30.     Is your mini-feed public or private?

a.        Private

b.        Public

31.     Have you blocked anybody?

a.        Yes

b.        No

32.     Have you limited anybody’s access of your profile on Facebook?

a.        Yes

b.        No

33.     How much do you agree with the following statement: Students would be more academically engaged if their professors were on Facebook?

a.        Strongly agree

b.        Somewhat agree

c.        Somewhat disagree

d.        Strongly disagree

34.     How many times do you log into Facebook per week on average? _____

35.     How many hours do you spend on Facebook per week? ______ 

36.     What best describes your motivation for participating on Facebook (check all that apply):

a.        Making and maintaining college friendships

b.        Maintaining high school friendships

c.        Dating

d.        Random

37.     Do you have people listed as friends that you don’t know?

a.        Yes

b.        No 

38.     Would you be more apt to take a professor if you saw their Facebook profile?

a.        Yes

b.        No

39.     Would you be more apt not to take a professor if you disliked their Facebook profile?

a.        Yes

b.        No 

40.     Would you be more apt to take a professor if you liked their Facebook profile?

a.        Yes

b.        No

41.     Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: It is appropriate for a staff member to use Facebook to check on the well-being of a student.

a.        Strongly agree

b.        Somewhat agree

c.        Somewhat disagree

d.        Strongly disagree

42.     Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: It is appropriate for a staff member to use Facebook for university policy reinforcement.

a.        Strongly agree

b.        Somewhat agree

c.        Somewhat disagree

d.        Strongly disagree

43.     Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I feel connected to campus through Facebook.

a.        Strongly agree

b.        Somewhat agree

c.        Somewhat disagree

d.        Strongly disagree

44.     Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I feel that there is a genuine campus community on Facebook.

a.        Strongly agree

b.        Somewhat agree

c.        Somewhat disagree

d.        Strongly disagree

45.     Did you seek Facebook friends at the university before you arrived on campus as a student?

a.        Yes

b.        No


go top
September 2009 Index
Home Page