Facul ty social networking interactions: using social domain

Faculty

using social domain theory to assess student views

ABSTRACT

As educators consider using social networking sites, like Facebook, for educational

innovations, they must be aware of possible vulnerabilities associated with the blurring of soci

and professional boundaries. This research uses social domain theory to examine how students

rate the appropriateness of various faculty postings, behaviors, and responses o

used for educational purposes. Results were consistent with expectations described by social

domain theory. Principal Component Analysis found scenarios inter

components, with the extracted compo

choice, and moral domains. Students generally found faculty Facebook postings related to

conventional issues more appropriate than postings related to personal choice and

The introduction of a privacy setting

Older students and females were more likely to find some conventional postings and personal

choice intrusions by faculty more inappropriate than younger students and males. Furthermore,

students who disagreed that faculty should be more accessible on Facebook were more likely to

find conventional and personal choice scenarios inappropriate, suggesting they would prefer a firm

boundary between faculty use of Facebook and their own social use

Keywords: Social Networking, Higher Education, Social Domain Theory

Journal of Instructional Pedagogies

Faculty social networking, Page

ty social networking interactions:


Patricia L. Nemetz

Eastern Washington University


must be aware of possible vulnerabilities associated with the blurring of soci

. This research uses social domain theory to examine how students

rate the appropriateness of various faculty postings, behaviors, and responses o


Principal Component Analysis found scenarios inter-correlated within three major

components, with the extracted components showing face validity for conventional, personal


conventional issues more appropriate than postings related to personal choice and

y setting was also an important consideration for some scenarios.



udents who disagreed that faculty should be more accessible on Facebook were more likely to


boundary between faculty use of Facebook and their own social use of Facebook.

Keywords: Social Networking, Higher Education, Social Domain Theory


Faculty social networking, Page 1



must be aware of possible vulnerabilities associated with the blurring of social

. This research uses social domain theory to examine how students

rate the appropriateness of various faculty postings, behaviors, and responses on Facebook when


correlated within three major

conventional, personal


conventional issues more appropriate than postings related to personal choice and moral issues.

an important consideration for some scenarios.



udents who disagreed that faculty should be more accessible on Facebook were more likely to


of Facebook.

INTRODUCTION

An explosion in the use of

social and moral transformation and creating the need for

guidelines of acceptable online academic behavior

Manafy, 2010). Current popular social networking services include Facebook, MySpace, Instant

Messaging, and Twitter, among others.

networking platforms for educational innovations, they must weigh the benefits of such

innovations against the potential vulnerabilitie

for educational innovation through their use of

an alternative to more passive learning (

Despite the promise, the use of

problems if university faculty fail to understand the many

transcend classroom walls, muddy the boundaries between university and non

jurisdictions, and lead to lack of clarity about

and responsibility (Fougler, et al.

violations of acceptable behavior if the blurring of boundaries creates uncertainties

appropriateness (Jordan, 2009).

with online social networking is Turiel’s (1983; 2002) social domain theor

foundation for describing and distinguishing moral and

issues. It has been used extensively in studies of student views of teachers’ authority and its

jurisdictional limitations (Smetana & Asqu

exploratory research, therefore, is to use

faculty online social networking interactions

regarding the “if” and “how” of integrating social networking in the classroom.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on the use of social networking includes studies showing both benefits and

pitfalls. Several studies indicate that students use social networking sites to maintain or strengthen

their offline social networks (Agarwal & Mital, 2009; boyd & Ellison,

Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2006; Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009; Raacke & Bonds

Raacke, 2008; Smith & Caruso, 2010

Center for Applied Research (ECAR)

and personal purposes, such as sta

other work (Smith and Caruso, 2010

shows highly intimate online communications

admissions, the use of sexual and

2008).

Use of social networking s

purposes, with less than 10% of students in the ECAR study reporting

communicate with instructors about coursework.

greater use of social networking sites

Witty, 2010; Smith and Caruso, 2010)

educational purposes (Charnigo & Barnett

Hewitt & Forte, 2006). Critics cit



An explosion in the use of online social networking suggests that student life

transformation and creating the need for objective analysis in order to develop

academic behavior (Fougler, Ewbank, Kay, Popp, & Carter, 2009;

Current popular social networking services include Facebook, MySpace, Instant

g others. As professors consider the option of using online social


tial vulnerabilities. Social networking platforms hold great promise

tion through their use of online interactions among college students

an alternative to more passive learning (Fabos, 2008; Twu, 2009).

he use of online social networking platforms can be a minefield of

ail to understand the many ways that social networking activities

transcend classroom walls, muddy the boundaries between university and non-university

jurisdictions, and lead to lack of clarity about what constitutes legitimate professional authority

ler, et al., 2009). Both students and faculty are vulnerable to mistakes and

violations of acceptable behavior if the blurring of boundaries creates uncertainties

(Jordan, 2009). One theory that may help in the exploration of issues involved

with online social networking is Turiel’s (1983; 2002) social domain theory, which provides a

for describing and distinguishing moral and nonmoral domains in complex social

It has been used extensively in studies of student views of teachers’ authority and its

jurisdictional limitations (Smetana & Asquith, 1994; Smetana & Bitz, 1996). The purpose of this

research, therefore, is to use social domain theory to ascertain students’

faculty online social networking interactions so that it’s findings might inform educators’ decisions

integrating social networking in the classroom.


studies indicate that students use social networking sites to maintain or strengthen

Agarwal & Mital, 2009; boyd & Ellison, 2007; Connell, 2009;

Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2006; Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009; Raacke & Bonds

Raacke, 2008; Smith & Caruso, 2010). Large and ongoing surveys commissioned by the Educause

Research (ECAR) found students use social networking sites mostly f

taying in touch with friends and sharing photos, mu

2010). Research based on content analysis of students’ postings

te online communications, with topics such as family issues, risk

admissions, the use of sexual and profane language, and candid discussions (Williams & Merten,

of social networking sites for educational purposes is more limited than

10% of students in the ECAR study reporting using the sites to

with instructors about coursework. Some students report they would like to see

of social networking sites in their courses (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, &

Smith and Caruso, 2010), while sizeable minorities react negatively to using it for

Charnigo & Barnett-Ellis, 2007 ; Chu & Meulemans, 2008; Connell, 2009;

Critics cite several concerns, ranging from security issues to the misuse of



student life is undergoing

in order to develop

p, & Carter, 2009;

Current popular social networking services include Facebook, MySpace, Instant

As professors consider the option of using online social


ocial networking platforms hold great promise

among college students, creating

can be a minefield of

social networking activities

university

what constitutes legitimate professional authority

Both students and faculty are vulnerable to mistakes and

violations of acceptable behavior if the blurring of boundaries creates uncertainties about

in the exploration of issues involved

y, which provides a

complex social

It has been used extensively in studies of student views of teachers’ authority and its

The purpose of this

social domain theory to ascertain students’ views of

might inform educators’ decisions


studies indicate that students use social networking sites to maintain or strengthen

Connell, 2009;

Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2006; Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009; Raacke & Bonds-

commissioned by the Educause

social networking sites mostly for social

and sharing photos, music, videos, or

). Research based on content analysis of students’ postings

issues, risk-behavior

candid discussions (Williams & Merten,

s more limited than use for social

using the sites to

they would like to see

l, Webb, Herman, &

, while sizeable minorities react negatively to using it for

Ellis, 2007 ; Chu & Meulemans, 2008; Connell, 2009;

from security issues to the misuse of

information as it crosses the porous online boundary between public and private life (Brandenburg,

2008; Connell, 2009). One in eight college women report having been stalked, so the possib

that social networking might facilitate cyberstalking by miscreant faculty or fellow students is one

concern (Kirkland, 2010). High-

or unintended consequences may also hinder studen

beyond their intimate social circles. Past campus incidents include athletic suspensions or

dismissals for inappropriate verbal and photographic postings (Armour, 2006; Brooks, 2007;

Drew, 2010), academic suspensions for postings of inappropriate photographs of selves, other

students, or dignitaries (Gruss, 2007; Iyengar, 2006), and loss of prospective jobs for posting

risqué online persona (Finder, 2006).

Attempts to train future K

views among faculty-in-training about appropriate boundaries.

based on Turiel’s (1983) social domain theor

about what constitutes legitimate teacher conduct and authority on social networking sites (Fougler,

et al., 2009). Concerns about student

the K-12 level to regulate or ban teachers from using online socia

(Affleck, 2010; Bowean & Mack; 2010; Garrow, 2010; Kieffer, 2010). Reports of university faculty

gaffes or misuse are fewer, but universities

when representing the university (EWU Board of Trustees,

RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Social domain theory (Nucci, 2001; Smetana, 1995, 2002, Turiel, 1983, 1998)

used to demonstrate that individuals have differen

interactions lead to the development of different domains of social knowledge. S

people think about moral matters, conventional matters, and personal matters

(Davidson, Turiel & Black, 1983; Nucci, 1981; Smetana, 1988; Smetana, 2006).

acts that pertain to others’ rights or welfare

university setting, a moral issue might involve the decision

Conventional issues refer to the arbitrary

alterable and context-dependent (such as social roles, institutional organization, and matters of

social efficiency) (Nucci, 1996; Willard, 1997)

universities for a student to find a seat and remain in that seat during the entire class period.

Furthermore, professors may prohibit late arrival to the classroom in order to facilitate

uninterrupted and heightened attention on the subject matter in a lecture. The expectations here

are context-dependent in that students give legitimacy to these issues in a

may not be willing to respond to similar norms in a different setting

Personal issues have consequences only to the actor and are thus viewed as beyond societ

regulation and moral concern (such as

regarding personal appearance, friends, and hob

be the choice for a student to wear a beard, long hair, shorts, and sandals to class.

Some issues involve domain overlap; these issues raise moral concerns as well as

about social conventions or personal choice, and are known as multifaceted issues (Nucci, 1989).

A multifaceted issue in a university setting might involve rules against setting off fire alarms in

dormitories. Here, there is a moral issue of using emergency resources to respond

those resources might be needed for a legitimate emergency elsewhere, as well as the



the porous online boundary between public and private life (Brandenburg,

). One in eight college women report having been stalked, so the possib


-profile college-campus incidents that result in disciplinary action

or unintended consequences may also hinder students from granting access to their online profiles



uspensions for postings of inappropriate photographs of selves, other


risqué online persona (Finder, 2006).

K-12 faculty about violations of safety and privacy found divergent

ng about appropriate boundaries. One study that used case studies

based on Turiel’s (1983) social domain theory as a training device indicates a lack of clarity

itutes legitimate teacher conduct and authority on social networking sites (Fougler,

Concerns about student-teacher online relationships have led several school districts at

12 level to regulate or ban teachers from using online social networks for educational purposes

Bowean & Mack; 2010; Garrow, 2010; Kieffer, 2010). Reports of university faculty

universities have issued guidelines on the use of social networking

iversity (EWU Board of Trustees, 2010).

Social domain theory (Nucci, 2001; Smetana, 1995, 2002, Turiel, 1983, 1998)

that individuals have different types of social interactions and that these varied

elopment of different domains of social knowledge. S

think about moral matters, conventional matters, and personal matters in

& Black, 1983; Nucci, 1981; Smetana, 1988; Smetana, 2006).

acts that pertain to others’ rights or welfare (such as notions of harm, fairness, and rights)

university setting, a moral issue might involve the decision of whether to cheat or not

issues refer to the arbitrary and agreed-upon uniformities in social behavior that are

(such as social roles, institutional organization, and matters of

Willard, 1997). For example, it may be a norm at most

find a seat and remain in that seat during the entire class period.


d and heightened attention on the subject matter in a lecture. The expectations here

dependent in that students give legitimacy to these issues in a classroom

may not be willing to respond to similar norms in a different setting, such as at a football game

issues have consequences only to the actor and are thus viewed as beyond societ

regulation and moral concern (such as control over the body, and preferences and choices

pearance, friends, and hobbies) (Nucci, 1996, 2001). A personal issue might


Some issues involve domain overlap; these issues raise moral concerns as well as

r personal choice, and are known as multifaceted issues (Nucci, 1989).


dormitories. Here, there is a moral issue of using emergency resources to respond

those resources might be needed for a legitimate emergency elsewhere, as well as the



the porous online boundary between public and private life (Brandenburg,

). One in eight college women report having been stalked, so the possibility


campus incidents that result in disciplinary action

ts from granting access to their online profiles



uspensions for postings of inappropriate photographs of selves, other


ons of safety and privacy found divergent

that used case studies

lack of clarity exists

itutes legitimate teacher conduct and authority on social networking sites (Fougler,

teacher online relationships have led several school districts at

l networks for educational purposes

Bowean & Mack; 2010; Garrow, 2010; Kieffer, 2010). Reports of university faculty

the use of social networking

Social domain theory (Nucci, 2001; Smetana, 1995, 2002, Turiel, 1983, 1998) has been

teractions and that these varied

elopment of different domains of social knowledge. Specifically,

in different ways

& Black, 1983; Nucci, 1981; Smetana, 1988; Smetana, 2006). Moral issues are

(such as notions of harm, fairness, and rights). In a

or not on a test.

upon uniformities in social behavior that are

(such as social roles, institutional organization, and matters of

r example, it may be a norm at most

find a seat and remain in that seat during the entire class period.


d and heightened attention on the subject matter in a lecture. The expectations here

classroom setting, but

such as at a football game.

issues have consequences only to the actor and are thus viewed as beyond societal

and choices

A personal issue might


Some issues involve domain overlap; these issues raise moral concerns as well as concerns

r personal choice, and are known as multifaceted issues (Nucci, 1989).


dormitories. Here, there is a moral issue of using emergency resources to respond to a prank when

those resources might be needed for a legitimate emergency elsewhere, as well as the conventional

issue of disrupting student residents who need to respond by leaving the dormitory.

subset domain involves issues that are cons

decisions about safety, health, and comfort. Examples in this category are decision

smoking, alcohol, and unsafe driving (Smetana and Asquith, 1994

prudential issues might be considered overlapping in moral, conventional, and personal domains

and their domain evaluation is somewhat age

Both the age of students and t

relevant when understanding studen

related changes and the ways in which people reason about moral and nonmoral concerns and

found patterns of development and understanding consistent with limitations on both authority and

jurisdiction as students age (Nucci, 2001).

related authority, especially that of the scope and limits of parent and teacher authority (Laupa,

1991; Laupa, 1995; Laupa & Turiel, 1993; Smetana & Asquith, 1994; Smetana & Bitz, 1996;

Smetana, Campione-Barr, and Daddis,

2002). These studies, involving children and adolescents, indicate that as students age, they are

more likely to judge teachers’ legitimate authority as limited to the boundaries of the school

context. For example, among high

personal/prudential decisions tha

unless the use occurs within the confines of the school (Smetana & B

more mature ages of college students, as well as the increased independence

domicile, such issues are even more likely to be viewed as personal/prudential decisions outside

the bounds of university authoritie

view university authority as extremely limited to mostly conventional issues and

issues that involve university matters.

The uncertainties created by

proper role of faculty on social networking sites

far as to state that “privacy is no longer a social norm” (Mark Zuckerberg, in Manafy, 2010), thus

blurring any reasonable expectation of privacy in many settings.

are currently used by students primarily for social purposes, and that those social interactions

include content that might be considered risqué or inappropriate in formal se

might find themselves exposed to information about students normally kept outside official

university boundaries. Conversely, faculty may find themselves exposing information that the

university expects them to keep private.

member, the posting itself may be a violation of policy, and in addition, may impact educational

effectiveness by creating a response bias in students familiar with the preferences of faculty. Even

if privacy and group settings are used to create some boundary between social and educational use,

profile information is far more accessible online than in other contexts.

In summary, a multitude of uncertainties, ambiguities, and contingencies must be

considered when examining how students

when using social networking platforms for educational purposes.

relationships about such assessments is difficult for purposes of this re

domain theory typically uses scenarios and in

2001), several expectations about college

exploratory research. It is not unreasonable to exp

narrow scope of online activities

sites for educational purposes. In particular, those activities related to conventional matters of



issue of disrupting student residents who need to respond by leaving the dormitory.

involves issues that are considered prudential, or prudentially advisable

decisions about safety, health, and comfort. Examples in this category are decision

ving (Smetana and Asquith, 1994). Evaluations of these

might be considered overlapping in moral, conventional, and personal domains

and their domain evaluation is somewhat age-dependent (Smetana & Asquith, 1994)

Both the age of students and the jurisdictional boundaries of the authorities involved

when understanding student judgments of social domains. Research has examined



jurisdiction as students age (Nucci, 2001). Numerous studies have assessed reasoning about role



Barr, and Daddis, C., 2004; Smetana and Chuang, 2001; Smetana & Daddis,

These studies, involving children and adolescents, indicate that as students age, they are


among high-schoolers, issues such as drug and alcohol use

that are outside of school jurisdiction (Nucci, Guerra, & Lee, 1991),

unless the use occurs within the confines of the school (Smetana & Bitz, 1996). Considering the

more mature ages of college students, as well as the increased independence from the parental


ounds of university authorities. It is a reasonable expectation that college students would

authority as extremely limited to mostly conventional issues and

issues that involve university matters.

The uncertainties created by the blurring of online boundaries create ambiguities about the

proper role of faculty on social networking sites (Jordan, 2009). Technology leaders have


nable expectation of privacy in many settings. Given that social networking sites


include content that might be considered risqué or inappropriate in formal settings, educators



university expects them to keep private. If such information is posted in the profile of the faculty



cy and group settings are used to create some boundary between social and educational use,

profile information is far more accessible online than in other contexts.


hen examining how students assess faculty behaviors, requests, posts, and responses

when using social networking platforms for educational purposes. While hypothesizing exacting

relationships about such assessments is difficult for purposes of this research because social

domain theory typically uses scenarios and in-depth interviews for its methodologies (Nucci,

2001), several expectations about college-student views might be suggested to guide this

It is not unreasonable to expect that college students would view

narrow scope of online activities as legitimate concerns of faculty when using social networking

In particular, those activities related to conventional matters of



issue of disrupting student residents who need to respond by leaving the dormitory. One additional

or prudentially advisable, and include

decisions about safety, health, and comfort. Examples in this category are decisions about

). Evaluations of these

might be considered overlapping in moral, conventional, and personal domains,

dependent (Smetana & Asquith, 1994).

he jurisdictional boundaries of the authorities involved are

Research has examined age-



reasoning about role-



C., 2004; Smetana and Chuang, 2001; Smetana & Daddis,

These studies, involving children and adolescents, indicate that as students age, they are


issues such as drug and alcohol use are viewed as

outside of school jurisdiction (Nucci, Guerra, & Lee, 1991),

itz, 1996). Considering the

from the parental


llege students would

authority as extremely limited to mostly conventional issues and a few moral

ambiguities about the

Technology leaders have gone so


Given that social networking sites


ttings, educators



ormation is posted in the profile of the faculty



cy and group settings are used to create some boundary between social and educational use,


assess faculty behaviors, requests, posts, and responses

While hypothesizing exacting

search because social

depth interviews for its methodologies (Nucci,

student views might be suggested to guide this

ect that college students would view a fairly

as legitimate concerns of faculty when using social networking

In particular, those activities related to conventional matters of

organization and educational proficiency

moral issues (other than those related to education itself) and personal issues would be viewed as

beyond faculty purview most of the time, particularly if they are handled i

concerns about privacy. Furthermore, there may be enough unce

prefer to place their own boundary on their social networking

networking sites for educational purposes altog

are viewed differently due to different life experiences, so age and gender may play a role in the

assessments.

METHODS

Sample

A survey that included several social

and brief scenarios was created, and t

discussions led to several corrections

feedback. The final survey was uploaded to an online survey service and administered to two

undergraduate business classes at a medium

States. The classes were chosen based on their relatively large size and experience using a

“blended” learning platform.

The convenience sample included 110 stude

52% male. Respondents reported an average age of

GPA averaged 3.3, which is representative

students must have a 2.75 GPA to be accepted into the program

are listed in Table 1 in the Appendix

Measures

The questionnaire had three main parts. First,

guaranteed anonymity and conveyed the voluntary

subjects were asked their opinion about the usage of Facebook

they were presented with 9 brief scenarios that described fictional behaviors of faculty while using

Facebook for educational purposes. They were asked to rate the behaviors using a seven

Likert-type rating scale, with “Extremely Inappropriate” anchoring a score of “1” and “C

Appropriate” anchoring a score of 7. They were asked to rate each scenario in two different

conditions – if the behavior occurred when Facebook was open to all contacts on their accounts,

and if the behavior occurred when Facebook was open only

members of an online class. After rating the scenarios, the respondents were again asked their

opinion of faculty using Facebook

estimated GPA, and international

Appendix.

Analysis

No a priori hypotheses were presented for analysis, however,

principal components analysis was used to f

With social domain theory as the research foundation, it was expected that issues would be



and educational proficiency would be viewed with the most legitimacy, while most


purview most of the time, particularly if they are handled in a manner that neglects

Furthermore, there may be enough uncertainties that some students

prefer to place their own boundary on their social networking by avoiding the use of social

sites for educational purposes altogether. In addition, there may be a few issues that


several social-networking-usage questions, demographic questions,

created, and then discussed in-depth with several students.

corrections, so that the final scenarios were generated based on student

uploaded to an online survey service and administered to two

undergraduate business classes at a medium-sized state university in the northwestern United


The convenience sample included 110 students. The gender reported was 48% female and

male. Respondents reported an average age of 27, with an age range from 20 to 47.

, which is representative of typical class GPA averages for the

students must have a 2.75 GPA to be accepted into the program. Summary statistics for respondents

in the Appendix.

had three main parts. First, respondents read a short introduction that

conveyed the voluntary nature of completing the survey.

subjects were asked their opinion about the usage of Facebook for educational purposes. Next,

rief scenarios that described fictional behaviors of faculty while using

Facebook for educational purposes. They were asked to rate the behaviors using a seven

type rating scale, with “Extremely Inappropriate” anchoring a score of “1” and “C


if the behavior occurred when Facebook was open to all contacts on their accounts,

and if the behavior occurred when Facebook was open only to those listed in a “group” set up for


faculty using Facebook. Third, the survey inquired about the subject’s age, gender,

national-student status. The scenarios are listed in Table 2

hypotheses were presented for analysis, however, the statistical technique of

principal components analysis was used to find social domain commonality within the scenarios.

as the research foundation, it was expected that issues would be



would be viewed with the most legitimacy, while most


n a manner that neglects

rtainties that some students

the use of social

may be a few issues that


usage questions, demographic questions,

depth with several students. These

based on student

uploaded to an online survey service and administered to two

sized state university in the northwestern United


nts. The gender reported was 48% female and

from 20 to 47. Reported

ical class GPA averages for the program, given that

Summary statistics for respondents

ction that

nature of completing the survey. Second,

for educational purposes. Next,

rief scenarios that described fictional behaviors of faculty while using

Facebook for educational purposes. They were asked to rate the behaviors using a seven- point

type rating scale, with “Extremely Inappropriate” anchoring a score of “1” and “Completely


if the behavior occurred when Facebook was open to all contacts on their accounts,

to those listed in a “group” set up for


, the survey inquired about the subject’s age, gender,

The scenarios are listed in Table 2 in the

the statistical technique of

within the scenarios.

as the research foundation, it was expected that issues would be

understood on the basis of fit with specific social domains. Through a process of reasoning based

on certain criteria (rule contingency, rule

act severity), researchers have determined that people make a conceptual distinction among

conventional, moral, and personal issues (Nucci, 2001). Based on these distinctions, scenarios can

be evaluated for common patterns of conceptualization that match the domains.

commonality within scenarios elicits responses

the same social domain. A technique that is used to analyze

represent one or more common domains is principal components analysis (PCA) (Henriqu

2010). PCA is used to find optimal ways of combining respons

order to explain a maximal amount

varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization)

the scenarios grouped into specific social domains.

In addition to principal components analysis,

determine if student assessment of faculty behaviors within specific domains correlated with

gender, age, and opinions of using Facebook for educational purposes.

RESULTS

Summary statistics for student resp

Appendix for two conditions: when a student’s Facebook interactions are open to all the student’s

contacts, and when the interactions are open only to a class in a Facebook group

For the open-to-all-contacts condition, students rated the appropriateness of the scenarios in

the following order, from least appropriate to most appropriate: lip ring comment, drinking

violation comment, professor reports reputation of other professors, party information reque

racism assignment, Jesus statement, assignment change announcement, test preference poll,

excellent students comment. The least variation in response occurred for the “lip ring comment”

(sd=1.277), and the most variation occurred for the “professor re

professors” comment (sd =2.405). The order changes for the open

the “Jesus statement” moves from being the 6

condition to the 4th

least appropriate sc

became more appropriate when students answered in the open

open-to-all condition. This result suggests that when a moderate privacy barrier is created,

students recognize it as a minor remedy for generally inappropriate online interactions. In both

conditions, all scenarios, except the three dealing with class information, are rated on the

“inappropriate” end of the scale.

The results for the principal components

The table lists the correlations of the ratings for each scenario with the components extracted. The

principal components (PCs) were named for the items most strongly correlated with them (s

underlined in the table). The first principal component represents the conventional domain with

high correlations for the ratings of the

(r=0.782), “excellent students comment

activities can be considered typical organizational or motivational strategies of faculty

second PC, named the personal choice domain, is associated with activities that normally involve

personal choice by students, but the sce

choice. Its highest correlations are with ratings for the following scenarios:

request” (r=0.744), “professor reports the reputation of other professors




on certain criteria (rule contingency, rule alterability, rule generalizability, act generalizability, and



evaluated for common patterns of conceptualization that match the domains.

commonality within scenarios elicits responses that result in a combination of those scenarios into

the same social domain. A technique that is used to analyze groups of correlated responses that

represent one or more common domains is principal components analysis (PCA) (Henriqu

ptimal ways of combining responses into a small number of subsets in

order to explain a maximal amount of variance (Suhr, 2005). Principal components analysis

varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization), therefore, was the technique used to determine how

the scenarios grouped into specific social domains.

In addition to principal components analysis, several correlations and t-tests were used to

if student assessment of faculty behaviors within specific domains correlated with

gender, age, and opinions of using Facebook for educational purposes.

Summary statistics for student responses to the scenarios are shown in Table 3

for two conditions: when a student’s Facebook interactions are open to all the student’s

contacts, and when the interactions are open only to a class in a Facebook group.

tacts condition, students rated the appropriateness of the scenarios in


violation comment, professor reports reputation of other professors, party information reque



(sd=1.277), and the most variation occurred for the “professor reports reputation of other

professors” comment (sd =2.405). The order changes for the open-only-to-class condition, where

the “Jesus statement” moves from being the 6th

least appropriate scenario in the open

least appropriate scenario. Except for the “Jesus statement”, all scenarios

became more appropriate when students answered in the open-to-class-only condition than in the

all condition. This result suggests that when a moderate privacy barrier is created,

ecognize it as a minor remedy for generally inappropriate online interactions. In both


The results for the principal components analysis are shown in Table 4 in the Appendix


principal components (PCs) were named for the items most strongly correlated with them (s

n the table). The first principal component represents the conventional domain with

ratings of the following scenarios: “assignment change announcement

excellent students comment” (r=0.799), and “test preference poll” (r=0.906)

activities can be considered typical organizational or motivational strategies of faculty


personal choice by students, but the scenarios describe some type of faculty intrusion into that

Its highest correlations are with ratings for the following scenarios: “party information

professor reports the reputation of other professors” (r=0.823), and




alterability, rule generalizability, act generalizability, and



evaluated for common patterns of conceptualization that match the domains. In essence, some

that result in a combination of those scenarios into

groups of correlated responses that

represent one or more common domains is principal components analysis (PCA) (Henriques,

es into a small number of subsets in

Principal components analysis (with

used to determine how

tests were used to

if student assessment of faculty behaviors within specific domains correlated with

onses to the scenarios are shown in Table 3 in the

for two conditions: when a student’s Facebook interactions are open to all the student’s

.

tacts condition, students rated the appropriateness of the scenarios in


violation comment, professor reports reputation of other professors, party information request,



ports reputation of other

class condition, where

least appropriate scenario in the open-to-all

enario. Except for the “Jesus statement”, all scenarios

only condition than in the

all condition. This result suggests that when a moderate privacy barrier is created,

ecognize it as a minor remedy for generally inappropriate online interactions. In both


in the Appendix.


principal components (PCs) were named for the items most strongly correlated with them (shown

n the table). The first principal component represents the conventional domain with

assignment change announcement”

(r=0.906). These

activities can be considered typical organizational or motivational strategies of faculty. The


some type of faculty intrusion into that

party information

(r=0.823), and “lip ring

comment” (r=0.742). The third PC is named for the moral domain and shows the strongest

correlations with ratings for scenarios about

“exposing one’s religion as a professor

have a correlation above 0.5 with any domain, suggesting it might be a multifaceted issue

evaluated by students as belonging in the conventional and personal domains. The

distribution of correlation coefficients

the three domains also suggests it may be evaluated by students as belonging to conventional,

personal, and moral domains. Interestingly, the “racism assignment” has a mean on the

“inappropriate” end of the scale (m=2.74), even in the condition where interactions are exposed to

class members only (m=3.93).

To determine if the naming of the principal component domains had face validity, a brief

survey was administered to 10 additional students s

this survey, written explanations of conventional, personal, and moral domains were given to the

students. The 9 scenarios for this research were then listed, and students were asked to indicate if

they thought the scenario involved “mostly conventional”, “mostly personal”, or “mostly moral”

issues. If they thought it involved several domains without one dominating, they were asked to list

which domains were relevant to that scenario.

assessments of the scenarios, and those assessments were nearly the same as the numerical results

using PCA. Students also agreed that the “racism assignment” and “drinking violation” scenarios

were multi-faceted issues, with “racism assi

personal domains, and “drinking violation” scenario belonging to all three domains. The only

disagreement occurred with the “Jesus statement”. Three students thou

while 7 students thought it was a m

the moral domain were concerned that such a statement might violate freedom of religion rights

and were concerned that if they saw that another student “liked” the comme

obligated to “like” the comment as well, or risk falling out of favor with the professor. The three

students who thought it was a personal issue indicated that they believed the professor had a right

to express their religion, which th

Of some interest are the average means for the scenario ratings that correlate most highly

with each PC domain. For the three scenario ratings that most highly correlate with the

conventional PC domain, the average of the m

scale), while the averages of the means for the personal choice PC domain and moral PC domain

are 2.117 and 2.349, respectively (falling on the inappropriate end of the scale). In general,

results suggest that faculty interactions that involve behaviors that fall within the conventional

domain are viewed as more appropriate than those that fall in the personal choice and moral

domains. These findings are in alignment with previous literature (Laup

Laupa & Turiel, 1993; Smetana & Asquith, 1994; Smetana & Bitz, 1996;

Barr, and Daddis, C., 2004; Smetana and Chuang, 2001; Smetana & Daddis, 2002

the expectation of social domain theory that forms

The remaining statistical analyses were completed by using principal components scores,

as suggested by Suhr (2005). To determine if age and grade point average

appropriateness ratings of scenarios, Pearson cor

each PC score. Results are shown in Table 5

“age” with the “personal choice PC”, and it is negative

ratings of the appropriateness of interference with “personal choice” decreases, a result also in

alignment with previous research (



(r=0.742). The third PC is named for the moral domain and shows the strongest

correlations with ratings for scenarios about “reporting drinking violations” (r=-0.566) and

professor” (r=0.813). The “racism assignment” scenario does not


evaluated by students as belonging in the conventional and personal domains. The

distribution of correlation coefficients for the ratings of the “drinking violation” scenario

also suggests it may be evaluated by students as belonging to conventional,

Interestingly, the “racism assignment” has a mean on the

d of the scale (m=2.74), even in the condition where interactions are exposed to


survey was administered to 10 additional students subsequent to administering the first survey. In



ught the scenario involved “mostly conventional”, “mostly personal”, or “mostly moral”

If they thought it involved several domains without one dominating, they were asked to list

which domains were relevant to that scenario. Students were nearly unanimous in the



faceted issues, with “racism assignment” scenario belonging to the conventional and


disagreement occurred with the “Jesus statement”. Three students thought it was a personal issue

ents thought it was a moral issue. Discussion indicated that the 7 students who chose


and were concerned that if they saw that another student “liked” the comment, they might feel



to express their religion, which they viewed as a personal choice.

some interest are the average means for the scenario ratings that correlate most highly


conventional PC domain, the average of the means is 5.416 (falling on the appropriate end of the


2.117 and 2.349, respectively (falling on the inappropriate end of the scale). In general,

faculty interactions that involve behaviors that fall within the conventional


domains. These findings are in alignment with previous literature (Laupa, 1991; Laupa, 1995;

Laupa & Turiel, 1993; Smetana & Asquith, 1994; Smetana & Bitz, 1996; Smetana, Campione

Barr, and Daddis, C., 2004; Smetana and Chuang, 2001; Smetana & Daddis, 2002

the expectation of social domain theory that forms the research foundation.


as suggested by Suhr (2005). To determine if age and grade point average have any effect on

appropriateness ratings of scenarios, Pearson correlations were computed for “age

. Results are shown in Table 5 in the Appendix. The only significant correlation is

ce PC”, and it is negative (r=-0.217; p<0.01). As age increases,

appropriateness of interference with “personal choice” decreases, a result also in

alignment with previous research (Nucci, Guerra, & Lee, 1991; Smetana & Bitz, 1996).



(r=0.742). The third PC is named for the moral domain and shows the strongest

0.566) and

” scenario does not


evaluated by students as belonging in the conventional and personal domains. The relatively even

ratings of the “drinking violation” scenario in each of

also suggests it may be evaluated by students as belonging to conventional,

Interestingly, the “racism assignment” has a mean on the

d of the scale (m=2.74), even in the condition where interactions are exposed to


ubsequent to administering the first survey. In



ught the scenario involved “mostly conventional”, “mostly personal”, or “mostly moral”

If they thought it involved several domains without one dominating, they were asked to list

animous in their



gnment” scenario belonging to the conventional and


ght it was a personal issue,

iscussion indicated that the 7 students who chose


nt, they might feel



some interest are the average means for the scenario ratings that correlate most highly


eans is 5.416 (falling on the appropriate end of the


2.117 and 2.349, respectively (falling on the inappropriate end of the scale). In general, these

faculty interactions that involve behaviors that fall within the conventional


a, 1991; Laupa, 1995;

Smetana, Campione-

Barr, and Daddis, C., 2004; Smetana and Chuang, 2001; Smetana & Daddis, 2002), as well as with


have any effect on

age” and “GPA” for

The only significant correlation is

. As age increases,

appropriateness of interference with “personal choice” decreases, a result also in

Nucci, Guerra, & Lee, 1991; Smetana & Bitz, 1996). One

additional correlation was computed to determine if student agreement that faculty

accessible on Facebook related to their ratings of scenario appropriateness in each domain.

Results suggest that the less students agreed that faculty should be accessible on Facebook, the

more likely they were to rate scenarios in the c

as inappropriate (r=0.346, p<0.01; r=0.412, p<0.01, respectively)

To determine if gender had an effect on appropriateness ratings, t

each PC, then on the ratings for each scenario.

Appendix, respectively. Results are significant for the Conventional PC Score and Personal

Choice PC Score. The t-test results for each scenario rating show significant differences between

men and women for the following scenarios:

professor reports reputation of other professors, test preference poll, and lip ring comment. For all

these scenarios, women rated the scenarios as significantly more inappropriate than

In summary, results were consistent with expectations described by social domain theory

and previous research. Principal Component Analysis found scenarios inter

three major components, with the extracted components showing face va

personal choice, and moral domains. Students generally found faculty Facebook postings related

to conventional issues more appropriate than postings related to personal choice and moral issues.

Privacy concerns are somewhat more

important consideration for some scenarios, such as the “racism assignment.” Older students and

females were more likely to find some conventional postings and personal choice intrusions by

faculty more inappropriate than younger students and males. Furthermore, students who disagreed

that faculty should be more accessible on Facebook were more likely to find conventional and

personal choice scenarios inappropriate, suggesting they would prefer a fir

faculty use of Facebook and their own social use of Facebook.

DISCUSSION

As social networking technology evolves, and its functionality increases, faculty are left

with the decision to embrace a technology that seems increasingly rel

it in favor of a more educationally

associated with social networking sites

purposes. The hesitations, concerns, and mistakes of such expansion, however, must also be be

considered as the blurring boundary created by the digital realm transforms cultural, social, and

professional expectations. This research was driven by such concerns and sought some

through the use of social domain theory as an analytical tool for exploring student assessments of

faculty postings, responses, and behaviors when using Facebook for educational purposes.

Results suggest that social domain theory does offer so

Through principal components analysis and the use of 9 fictional scenarios rated for

appropriateness by students, the research found high inter

belonging to conventional, person

validity found strong indications that the designations for the extracted components

agreement with student designations for the

Furthermore, as suggested by social domain theory,

involvement in conventional issues were found to be higher than those for personal choice and

moral issues, which were found to be highly inappropriate. Faculty involvement in convent

issues tended to be designated as



additional correlation was computed to determine if student agreement that faculty


students agreed that faculty should be accessible on Facebook, the

more likely they were to rate scenarios in the conventional domains and personal choice domains

appropriate (r=0.346, p<0.01; r=0.412, p<0.01, respectively).

gender had an effect on appropriateness ratings, t-tests were performed on

each PC, then on the ratings for each scenario. Results are shown in Tables 6 and 7

Results are significant for the Conventional PC Score and Personal

test results for each scenario rating show significant differences between

e following scenarios: racism assignment, drinking violation comment,


these scenarios, women rated the scenarios as significantly more inappropriate than


and previous research. Principal Component Analysis found scenarios inter-correlated within

three major components, with the extracted components showing face validity with conventional,



Privacy concerns are somewhat more complex, with the introduction of a privacy setting an



ore inappropriate than younger students and males. Furthermore, students who disagreed


personal choice scenarios inappropriate, suggesting they would prefer a firm boundary between

faculty use of Facebook and their own social use of Facebook.


with the decision to embrace a technology that seems increasingly relevant to students, or to avoid

educationally-dedicated platform. For students, the familiarity and ease of use

associated with social networking sites may justify expanding the use of such sites for educational

ions, concerns, and mistakes of such expansion, however, must also be be


professional expectations. This research was driven by such concerns and sought some



Results suggest that social domain theory does offer some limited, but clarifying


appropriateness by students, the research found high inter-correlations among issues designated as

belonging to conventional, personal choice, and moral domains. A subsequent test for face

validity found strong indications that the designations for the extracted components

designations for the domains relevant to issues in the scenarios.

suggested by social domain theory, appropriateness ratings for faculty


moral issues, which were found to be highly inappropriate. Faculty involvement in convent

designated as even more appropriate when the use of Facebook included a



additional correlation was computed to determine if student agreement that faculty should be more


students agreed that faculty should be accessible on Facebook, the

onventional domains and personal choice domains

tests were performed on

Results are shown in Tables 6 and 7 in the

Results are significant for the Conventional PC Score and Personal

test results for each scenario rating show significant differences between

racism assignment, drinking violation comment,


these scenarios, women rated the scenarios as significantly more inappropriate than men.


correlated within

lidity with conventional,



complex, with the introduction of a privacy setting an



ore inappropriate than younger students and males. Furthermore, students who disagreed


m boundary between


evant to students, or to avoid

platform. For students, the familiarity and ease of use

may justify expanding the use of such sites for educational

ions, concerns, and mistakes of such expansion, however, must also be be


professional expectations. This research was driven by such concerns and sought some guidance



clarifying, guidance.


correlations among issues designated as

al choice, and moral domains. A subsequent test for face

validity found strong indications that the designations for the extracted components were in

issues in the scenarios.

appropriateness ratings for faculty


moral issues, which were found to be highly inappropriate. Faculty involvement in conventional

even more appropriate when the use of Facebook included a

privacy barrier in the form of a group setting allowing only class members to see postings.

students and females were more discriminating about appropri

and males. Such findings are all in alignment with expectations posited by social domain theory

and previous research (Laupa, 1991; Laupa, 1995; Laupa & Turiel, 1993; Smetana & Asquith,

1994; Smetana & Bitz, 1996; Smetana

Chuang, 2001; Smetana & Daddis, 2002).

be more accessible through Facebook were more likely to find conventional and personal choice

scenarios more inappropriate, suggesting that they wished to be free of a faculty presence on

Facebook, regardless of the faculty’s purpose.

Perhaps of more interest are findings related to the scenarios that did not fit as neatly into

designated domains. The “racism

which faculty might easily venture

of requiring such an assignment in a classroom setting. In

that scenario revealed their reluctance to post their

plain view of all their contacts and in plain view of just their classmates.

scenario, several students acknowledged they were stymie

conventional aspect of a required assignment as important to their success in class, while also

believing their views of the topic and willingness to disc

choice, hence the inappropriateness rating.

The complexity of their assessments was also evident in the “drinking violation” and “Jesus

statement” scenarios. Several students were sympathetic to the conventional and moral issues

present in the “drinking violation” scenario and a

spot” if they were required by their position to report illegal activities if they saw them. On the

other hand, the scenario was seen as a personal choice outside the jurisdiction of university

personnel. These students believed faculty sho

to the authorities as inappropriate. For the scenario involving a professor posting their religious

beliefs, nuanced thinking was also evident. For those students who vie

a personal issue, they were influenced mostly by the public nature of most profile postings. They

believed the professor had a right to religious expression, particularly when open to the broader

public. When in the setting opened only to the class, they saw t

domains because it did not fit the professional boundary expected once a professor enters the

educational realm.

As a whole, this research adds to the growing body of literature that

use online sites for educational purposes with care. Simple, direct, and unaltered migration of in

class activities into an online format may not be wise

combined with blurred boundaries, may

conducting open or closed online discussions. Discussion closed to outsiders, and aligned with

equally closed personal boundaries, may be the “safest” route to transitioning to an online format

involving social networking platforms. Such a sterile approach might be unappealing to those who

see the benefits of learning in an easygoing, collaborative environment. For those who venture

into this broader setting to achieve innovative and exciting educational

advised. End-of-class assessments of appropriateness of various assignments, discussions, and

online behaviors would assist faculty in honing their online skills and “personalities” so that

vulnerabilities are minimized. Over

boundaries of educational integration may render a clearer picture of what constitutes appropriate

activity, but in these embryonic stages, continued assessment is advised.



privacy barrier in the form of a group setting allowing only class members to see postings.

students and females were more discriminating about appropriate behavior than younger students

Such findings are all in alignment with expectations posited by social domain theory


Smetana, Campione-Barr, and Daddis, C., 2004; Smetana and

Chuang, 2001; Smetana & Daddis, 2002). In addition, students who disagreed that faculty should


inappropriate, suggesting that they wished to be free of a faculty presence on

Facebook, regardless of the faculty’s purpose.


The “racism assignment” scenario might be representative of a situation into

easily venture, unaware of potential controversy, and blinded by the normalcy

of requiring such an assignment in a classroom setting. In-depth discussions with students a

that scenario revealed their reluctance to post their opinions about controversial topics

plain view of all their contacts and in plain view of just their classmates. In assessing this

scenario, several students acknowledged they were stymied by the fact that they saw the


believing their views of the topic and willingness to discuss them in front of others were

priateness rating.


Several students were sympathetic to the conventional and moral issues

present in the “drinking violation” scenario and acknowledged that faculty would be in a “tight


as seen as a personal choice outside the jurisdiction of university

believed faculty should “use their better judgment,” and viewed reports


beliefs, nuanced thinking was also evident. For those students who viewed the scenario mostly as


a right to religious expression, particularly when open to the broader

ned only to the class, they saw the posting as involving other

because it did not fit the professional boundary expected once a professor enters the

As a whole, this research adds to the growing body of literature that suggests fa

sites for educational purposes with care. Simple, direct, and unaltered migration of in

into an online format may not be wise. The lack of social and nonverbal clues,

combined with blurred boundaries, may be a challenge for faculty and students alike when



social networking platforms. Such a sterile approach might be unappealing to those who


into this broader setting to achieve innovative and exciting educational outcomes, caution is still

class assessments of appropriateness of various assignments, discussions, and


vulnerabilities are minimized. Over time, social transformations associated with the blurred


activity, but in these embryonic stages, continued assessment is advised.



privacy barrier in the form of a group setting allowing only class members to see postings. Older

than younger students

Such findings are all in alignment with expectations posited by social domain theory


Barr, and Daddis, C., 2004; Smetana and

In addition, students who disagreed that faculty should


inappropriate, suggesting that they wished to be free of a faculty presence on


assignment” scenario might be representative of a situation into

, unaware of potential controversy, and blinded by the normalcy

depth discussions with students about

about controversial topics, both in

In assessing this

d by the fact that they saw the


uss them in front of others were a personal


Several students were sympathetic to the conventional and moral issues

cknowledged that faculty would be in a “tight


as seen as a personal choice outside the jurisdiction of university

and viewed reports


wed the scenario mostly as


a right to religious expression, particularly when open to the broader

he posting as involving other

because it did not fit the professional boundary expected once a professor enters the

suggests faculty must

sites for educational purposes with care. Simple, direct, and unaltered migration of in-

. The lack of social and nonverbal clues,

be a challenge for faculty and students alike when



social networking platforms. Such a sterile approach might be unappealing to those who


outcomes, caution is still

class assessments of appropriateness of various assignments, discussions, and


time, social transformations associated with the blurred


This research includes methodological innovations

use of principal components analysis allowed for the c

the survey technique. This methodology wa

the use of objective statistical analysis. The collection of additional data from a smaller sample to

test for face validity also allowed for a richer discussion of conceptualization about social domains.

The combination of techniques provided a

use of either method alone, in isolation. Analysis of scenario data often involves in

discussions with smaller numbers of respondents, along with arduous content analysis. The

methodology for this research is a possible alternative for other scenario studies. That said, future

research on the same topic would benefit from using a wider range of scenarios, along with the in

depth discussions and content analysis.

faculty responses with student responses would highlight potential vulnerabilities of online

education by finding where differences between faculty and students exist. What faculty view as

appropriate may diverge significantly f

Studies with larger and more varied samples would also lead to more generalizable conclusions.

This research study was limited to mostly students enrolled in business disciplines with a narrow

experience in online education; students in other disciplines and with more online experience may

think differently. Further study is warranted with broader samples.

ongoing end-of-class assessment would offer an additional means of l

nuanced concerns of appropriate faculty online behavior.

In conclusion, the use of new technologies for education opens great possibilities for

adapting to diverse learning populations. The possibilities and diversity of resp

also offer the potential for missteps and mishaps along the way. Ongoing experimentation is ever

important, but it also begs the question of how to proceed in ways that best benefit our students,

our faculties, and our constituents interes

the educational outcomes, the social domain must not be neglected, as truly educated citizens must

understand how to function as members of society as well as

REFERENCES

Affleck, J. (2010). Online and out of line

Agarwal, S., & Mital, M. (2009). An exploratory study of Indian university students' use of social

networking sites: Implications for the workplace.

110.

Armour, N. (2006). Athletes learn to regret overexposure on Web.

May 30, 1B.

Bowean, L. and Mack, K.

Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.:Aug 10,

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social

of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13

Brandenburg, C. (2008) The newest way to screen job applicants: A social networker's nightmare.

Federal Communications Law Journal

Brooks, B. G. (2007). CU Internet postings led to dismissals: [FINAL Edition].

Denver, CO: Jan 21, 2007, 14SPORTS.



ethodological innovations, as well as several limitations. First, the

f principal components analysis allowed for the collection of large amounts of data through

y technique. This methodology was an efficient method for data collection and



The combination of techniques provided a firmer foundation on which to rest conclusions than the

use of either method alone, in isolation. Analysis of scenario data often involves in


this research is a possible alternative for other scenario studies. That said, future

research on the same topic would benefit from using a wider range of scenarios, along with the in

depth discussions and content analysis. In addition to such methodologies, methods that compare



appropriate may diverge significantly from what students view as appropriate, and



ence in online education; students in other disciplines and with more online experience may

think differently. Further study is warranted with broader samples. Last, data collected from

class assessment would offer an additional means of learning how to deal with the

nuanced concerns of appropriate faculty online behavior.


adapting to diverse learning populations. The possibilities and diversity of responses, however,



our faculties, and our constituents interested in favorable educational outcomes. In understanding


understand how to function as members of society as well as how to be readers of great books.

nline and out of line. Townsville Bulletin. Townsville, Md.: Dec 25,


networking sites: Implications for the workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 72

etes learn to regret overexposure on Web. Journal – Gazette

.(2010). Can your teacher be your 'friend' online?

Chicago, Ill.:Aug 10, p. 1.1

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.


Federal Communications Law Journal, 60(3).

Brooks, B. G. (2007). CU Internet postings led to dismissals: [FINAL Edition]. Rocky Mountain News.

Denver, CO: Jan 21, 2007, 14SPORTS.



as well as several limitations. First, the

ollection of large amounts of data through

for data collection and involved



firmer foundation on which to rest conclusions than the

use of either method alone, in isolation. Analysis of scenario data often involves in-depth


this research is a possible alternative for other scenario studies. That said, future

research on the same topic would benefit from using a wider range of scenarios, along with the in-

gies, methods that compare



rom what students view as appropriate, and vice versa.



ence in online education; students in other disciplines and with more online experience may

Last, data collected from

earning how to deal with the


onses, however,



ted in favorable educational outcomes. In understanding


readers of great books.

Townsville, Md.: Dec 25, p. 83.


Business Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 105-

Gazette. Ft. Wayne, IN:

Can your teacher be your 'friend' online?

network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal


Rocky Mountain News.

Cain, J. (2008). Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education.

Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72

http://www.pubmedcentral.nich.gov/articlerender.fci?artid=2254235.

Charnigo, L., & Barnett-Ellis, P. (2007). Checking out facebook.com: The impact of a digital trend on

academic libraries. Information Technology and Libra

Chu, M., & Meulemans, Y. N. (2008). The problems and potential of MySpace and Facebook usage in

academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13

Connell, R. S. (2009) Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace,

of student opinion. Libraries and the Academy, 9(1),

Davidson, P., Turiel, E., & Black, A. (1983). The effect of stimulus familiarity on the use of

criteria and justifications in children's social reasoning.

Psychology, 1(1), 49-65.

Drew, J. (2010). BYU football notes: Coach allows social networking sites, but urges caution.

Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, UT: Nov 10.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The b

capital and college students' use of online social network sites.

Mediated Communication

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html.

EWU Board of Trustees (2010). Social M

University, Nov.

Fabos, B. (2008). The price of information: Critical literacy, education, and today's internet. In J. Coiro,

M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D. J. Leu (Eds.),

870). New York: Erlbaum.

Finder, A. (2006). When a risque online persona undermines a chance for a job.

Edition (East Coast)). New York, NY: Jun 11, 2006, 1.1.

Fougler, T., Ewbank, A., Kay, A., Osborn Popp, S., & Carter, H. L. (2009). Moral spaces in

MySpace: Preservice teachers' perspectives about ethical issues in social networking.

Journal of Research on Technology.

Garrow, H. B. (2010) Board proposes online restrictions from teachers to students.

Tribune Business News.

Gruss, M. (2007). For most of us, unflattering photos are our cross to bear.

VA: Oct 17, E1.

Henrique, J. B. (2010) Factor analysis versus principal components analysis (PCA).

Page, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty

relationships on the Facebook.

Alberta, Canada.

Iyengar, K. (2006). Fact facts. Tulsa World.

Jordan, B. (2009). Blurring boundaries: The "real" and the "virtual" in hybrid spaces.

Organization, 68(2), 181-

Kieffer, C. (2011) State releases educators' ethics code.

Washington:Jan 23.

Kirkland, C. J. (2010). Stalkers pose a real threat.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book)

browsing. In Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer

Work, ACM Press (pp. 167



Cain, J. (2008). Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education.

cal Education, 72(1), Article 10.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nich.gov/articlerender.fci?artid=2254235.

Ellis, P. (2007). Checking out facebook.com: The impact of a digital trend on

Information Technology and Libraries, 26(1), 23-34.


Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 69-85.

Connell, R. S. (2009) Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach: A survey

Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 25-36.


criteria and justifications in children's social reasoning. British Journal of Developmental

Drew, J. (2010). BYU football notes: Coach allows social networking sites, but urges caution.

Salt Lake City, UT: Nov 10.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social

capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer

Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1.

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html.

EWU Board of Trustees (2010). Social Media (Draft). EWU Policy 203-04. Eastern Washington


M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new liter

870). New York: Erlbaum.

Finder, A. (2006). When a risque online persona undermines a chance for a job.

Edition (East Coast)). New York, NY: Jun 11, 2006, 1.1.

gler, T., Ewbank, A., Kay, A., Osborn Popp, S., & Carter, H. L. (2009). Moral spaces in


Journal of Research on Technology.

Board proposes online restrictions from teachers to students.

Washington:Dec 27.

Gruss, M. (2007). For most of us, unflattering photos are our cross to bear. Virginian

Henrique, J. B. (2010) Factor analysis versus principal components analysis (PCA).

, University of Wisconsin, Madison. http://psych.wisc.edu/henriques/pca.html


relationships on the Facebook. Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference,

Tulsa World. Tulsa, OK: Jun 2, D1.

Jordan, B. (2009). Blurring boundaries: The "real" and the "virtual" in hybrid spaces.

-193.

releases educators' ethics code. McClatchy - Tribune Busines

Kirkland, C. J. (2010). Stalkers pose a real threat. Hartford Courant. Hartford, CT:

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social

Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Supported Cooperative

ACM Press (pp. 167-170). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1180901.



Cain, J. (2008). Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education. American

Ellis, P. (2007). Checking out facebook.com: The impact of a digital trend on

34.


and student outreach: A survey


Journal of Developmental

Drew, J. (2010). BYU football notes: Coach allows social networking sites, but urges caution. The

enefits of Facebook "friends:" Social

Journal of Computer-

. Eastern Washington


Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 839-

Finder, A. (2006). When a risque online persona undermines a chance for a job. New York Times (Late

gler, T., Ewbank, A., Kay, A., Osborn Popp, S., & Carter, H. L. (2009). Moral spaces in


Board proposes online restrictions from teachers to students. McClatchy -

Virginian – Pilot. Norfolk,

Henrique, J. B. (2010) Factor analysis versus principal components analysis (PCA). The Statistics

http://psych.wisc.edu/henriques/pca.html.


k Conference, Banff,

Jordan, B. (2009). Blurring boundaries: The "real" and the "virtual" in hybrid spaces. Human

Tribune Business News.

Hartford, CT: Apr 11, 2010, C1.

in the crowd: Social searching vs. social

Supported Cooperative

170). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1180901.

Laupa, M. (1991). Children's reasoning about three authority attributes: Adult status, knowledge, and

social position. Developmental Psychology

Laupa, M. (1 995). Children's reasoning about authority in home and school contexts.

Development, 4(1), 1-16.

Laupa, M., &Turiel, E. (1993). Children's concepts of authority and social contexts.

Educational Psychology, 85(1), 191

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook,

learning at university: 'it is mor

actually doing work.'. Learning, Media and Technology, 34

Manafy, M. (2010). Social web etiquette.

Nucci, L. (1981). Conceptions of personal issues: A domain d

concepts. Child Development

Nucci, L. (1989). Challenging conventional wisdom about morality: The domain approach to

values education. In L. Nucci (Ed.),

203). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

Nucci, L. P. (1996). Morality and p

Values and Knowledge. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum

Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the Moral Domain

Nucci, L., Guerra, N., and Lee, J. (1991) Adolescent Judgments of the Personal, Prudential,

Normative Aspects of Drug Usage.

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). Myspace an

theory to exploring friend

Roblyer, M.D, McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., Witty, J. V. (2010).

higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social

networking sites. Internet and Higher Education, 13

Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental

Development, 59(2), 321-

Smetana, J. G.(1995). Morality in Context: Abstractions,

Vasta (ed.), Annals of Child Development

Smetana, J. G. (2002). Culture, Autonomy, and Personal Jurisdiction in Adolescent

Relationships. In H. W. Reese and R. Kail (eds.),

Behavior (Vol. 29). Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.

Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognit

moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.),

Development (pp. 119-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Smetana, J. G, & Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority

and personal autonomy. Child Development

Smetana, J. G, & Bitz, B. (1996). Adolescents' conceptions of teachers' authority and their

relations to rule violations in school.

Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., and Daddis, C. “Longitudinal Development of Family

Decision-Making: Defining Healthy Behavioral Autonomy for Middle Class African

American Adolescents.” Child Development,

Smetana, J. G., and Chuang, S. “Middle

Parenting in the Transition to Adolescence.”

11(2), 177–198.




Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 321-329.

Laupa, M. (1 995). Children's reasoning about authority in home and school contexts.

Laupa, M., &Turiel, E. (1993). Children's concepts of authority and social contexts.

, 85(1), 191-197.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal

learning at university: 'it is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for

Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141-155.

Manafy, M. (2010). Social web etiquette. EContent, 33(3), 5.

Nucci, L. (1981). Conceptions of personal issues: A domain distinct from moral or societal

Child Development, 52(1), 1 14-121.


values education. In L. Nucci (Ed.), Moral development and character education

03). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

y and personal freedom. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, and T. Brown

Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Education in the Moral Domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nucci, L., Guerra, N., and Lee, J. (1991) Adolescent Judgments of the Personal, Prudential,

Normative Aspects of Drug Usage. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 841

Raacke, J. (2008). Myspace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications

theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11

M.D, McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in


Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134-140.

Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental

-335.

Morality in Context: Abstractions, Ambiguities, and Applications.

Annals of Child Development (Vol. 10). London: Jessica Kingsley

Culture, Autonomy, and Personal Jurisdiction in Adolescent

In H. W. Reese and R. Kail (eds.), Advances in Child Development and

(Vol. 29). Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.

cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children's

moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of Moral

153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority

Child Development, 65(4), 1147-1162.

Bitz, B. (1996). Adolescents' conceptions of teachers' authority and their

relations to rule violations in school. Child Development, 67(5), 1153-1172.

Barr, N., and Daddis, C. “Longitudinal Development of Family

Defining Healthy Behavioral Autonomy for Middle Class African

Child Development, 2004, 75(5), 1–17.

Smetana, J. G., and Chuang, S. “Middle-Class African American Parents’ Conceptions of

Parenting in the Transition to Adolescence.” Journal of Research on Adolescence,




Laupa, M. (1 995). Children's reasoning about authority in home and school contexts. Social

Laupa, M., &Turiel, E. (1993). Children's concepts of authority and social contexts. Journal of

social integration and informal

e for socializing and talking to friends about work than for

155.

istinct from moral or societal


Moral development and character education (pp. 183-

reedom. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, and T. Brown(eds.),

Cambridge University Press.

Nucci, L., Guerra, N., and Lee, J. (1991) Adolescent Judgments of the Personal, Prudential,and

27(5), 841-848.

d Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications

Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169-174.

Findings on Facebook in


Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority. Child

Ambiguities, and Applications. In R.

(Vol. 10). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Culture, Autonomy, and Personal Jurisdiction in Adolescent-Parent

Advances in Child Development and

ive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children's

Handbook of Moral

153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority

Bitz, B. (1996). Adolescents' conceptions of teachers' authority and their

1172.

Barr, N., and Daddis, C. “Longitudinal Development of Family

Defining Healthy Behavioral Autonomy for Middle Class African

Class African American Parents’ Conceptions of

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2001,

Smetana, J. G., and Daddis, C. “Domain

Parental Monitoring: The Role of Parenting Beliefs and Practices.”

2002, 73(2), 563–580.

Smith, S. D. & Caruso, J. B. (2010)

technology, 2010 (vol.10 )

Suhr, D. D. (2005). Principal Component Analysis vs. Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Proceedings, Philadelphia, PA.

Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention

MA: Cambridge University Press.

Turiel, E.(1998). Moral Development.

In N. Eisenberg (ed.), Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (5th ed.). New

York: Wiley.

Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social develo

Cambridge University Press.

Twu, H. (2009). Effective wiki strategies to support high

Washington, 53(5), 16-21.

Williams, A., & Merten, M. (2008). A review of online social networking profiles by adolescents:

Implications for future research and intervention.

Young, J. R. (2009, February 9). How not to lose face on Facebook, for professors.

Higher Education, 55(22), A. 1.



Smetana, J. G., and Daddis, C. “Domain-Specific Antecedents of Psychological Control and

Parental Monitoring: The Role of Parenting Beliefs and Practices.” Child Development,

Smith, S. D. & Caruso, J. B. (2010) The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information

technology, 2010 (vol.10 ). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

Principal Component Analysis vs. Exploratory Factor Analysis.

, Philadelphia, PA. http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi30/203

The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention

MA: Cambridge University Press.

(1998). Moral Development. In W. Damon (ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology


culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict

niversity Press.

Twu, H. (2009). Effective wiki strategies to support high-context culture learners.

21.


future research and intervention. Adolescence, 43(170), 253

Young, J. R. (2009, February 9). How not to lose face on Facebook, for professors.

(22), A. 1.



Specific Antecedents of Psychological Control and

Child Development,

The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information

Principal Component Analysis vs. Exploratory Factor Analysis. SUGI 30

www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi30/203-30.pdf.

The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge,

ndbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3.


pment, context, and conflict. New York:

context culture learners. TechTrends:


(170), 253-274.

Young, J. R. (2009, February 9). How not to lose face on Facebook, for professors. The Chronicle of

APPENDIX

Summary Statistics and Frequencies for

Age

Reported GPA

Facebook Scenarios Depicting Fictional Faculty Behaviors*

1. After a reading an article on affirmative action, your

thoughts on racism.

2. Your professor announces on the Wall that (s)he made a mistake in the assignment, and

problem number 12, not number 13, is due on Monday.

3. Your professor takes a poll to determine if more students pref

on Wednesday.

4. Your professor posts a wall message that says congratulations on being excellent

students and finishing a difficult class

5. You post a message that says “End of quarter

comments on your Facebook, “I could use a break from all the grading. Where’s the

action?”

6. You posted that your family and friends are coming to take you out for your 21

birthday party next month. Your professor sees your Facebook profile picture, which

shows you obviously drinking alcohol and being pretty tipsy. Your professor

comments that you should be reported to the dean of students for underage

disciplinary action.

7. You and several students have a thread of discussion going about what classes to take

next quarter and who to take them from. Your professor jumps in and tells you who

has a bad reputation as a professor.

8. Your professor posts a comment that your lip ring looks unprofessional.

9. Your professor posts the affirmation, “Jesus Christ is my Lord and

option for you to “like” or “comment”

*Likert-scale ratings: 1=Extremely Inappropriate 7=Completely Appropriate

Scenarios were rated in conditions of 1. Openness to all contacts; and; 2. Openness to only class contacts



Table 1

Summary Statistics and Frequencies for Respondent Sample

N Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

108 20 47 26.94

108 2.7 4.0 3.34

Table 2


After a reading an article on affirmative action, your professor requires you to post your

Your professor announces on the Wall that (s)he made a mistake in the assignment, and

problem number 12, not number 13, is due on Monday.

Your professor takes a poll to determine if more students prefer the test on Tuesday or

Your professor posts a wall message that says congratulations on being excellent

students and finishing a difficult class

You post a message that says “End of quarter – time to party! Your professor

r Facebook, “I could use a break from all the grading. Where’s the

You posted that your family and friends are coming to take you out for your 21


iously drinking alcohol and being pretty tipsy. Your professor

comments that you should be reported to the dean of students for underage

You and several students have a thread of discussion going about what classes to take

xt quarter and who to take them from. Your professor jumps in and tells you who

has a bad reputation as a professor.

Your professor posts a comment that your lip ring looks unprofessional.

Your professor posts the affirmation, “Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior,” with the

option for you to “like” or “comment”

scale ratings: 1=Extremely Inappropriate 7=Completely Appropriate


Table 3



Std. Dev.

7.102

0.381


professor requires you to post your

Your professor announces on the Wall that (s)he made a mistake in the assignment, and

er the test on Tuesday or

Your professor posts a wall message that says congratulations on being excellent

time to party! Your professor

r Facebook, “I could use a break from all the grading. Where’s the

You posted that your family and friends are coming to take you out for your 21st


iously drinking alcohol and being pretty tipsy. Your professor

comments that you should be reported to the dean of students for underage-drinking

You and several students have a thread of discussion going about what classes to take

xt quarter and who to take them from. Your professor jumps in and tells you who

Savior,” with the


Means and Standard Deviations for Student Ratings of Each Facebook Scenario*

Scenario

Racism Assignment

Assignment Change Announcement

Drinking Violation Comment

Party Information Request

Excellent Students Comment

Prof Reports Reputation of Other

Profs

Test Preference Poll

Lip Ring Comment

Jesus Personal Savior Statement

* 1=Extremely Inappropriate; 7=Completely Appropriate

Rotated Component* Matrix for Facebook Scenarios

Scenario

Racism Assignment




Excellent Students Comment

Prof Reports Reputation of Other Profs

Test Preference Poll

Lip Ring Comment


*Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.




Open to All Open to Class

Min Max Mean St. Mean


Prof Reports Reputation of Other

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

6

7

2.74

4.09

1.94

2.56

4.78

2.09

4.67

1.70

2.78

1.896

2.245

1.835

1.940

2.405

1.754

2.162

1.277

2.159

3.93

4.83

1.98

2.69

5.39

2.13

5.20

1.94

2.63

7=Completely Appropriate

Table 4

Rotated Component* Matrix for Facebook Scenarios

Dominant Component Domain

Conv Pers




Students Comment

Prof Reports Reputation of Other Profs


.487

.782

.408

.202

.799

.128

.906

.024

.323

.429

.158

.436

.744

.192

.823

-.023

.742

.208

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.




Open to Class

St. Dev

3.93

4.83

1.98

2.69

5.39

2.13

5.20

1.94

2.63

2.278

2.299

1.798

2.143

2.216

1.686

2.086

1.503

2.199

Dominant Component Domain

Moral

-.179

.122

-.566

-.023

-.053

.285

.204

-.069

.813

Pearson Correlations for Age and GPA with Principal Component Scores

Conventional PC

Personal Choice PC

Moral PC

**p0.01; *p<0.05

T-Test Results for Gender Differences of Each Principal Component Score

Gender

Conv PC Score Female

Male

Pers PC Score Female

Male

Moral PC Score Female

Male

*p<0.05



Table 5


Age GPA More Faculty Access

-0.132

-0.217*

-0.050

-0.044

-0.021

0.049

0.346**

0.412**

-0.120

Table 6

Test Results for Gender Differences of Each Principal Component Score

Gender N Mean Std. Dev.

Female 50 14.181 6.668 4.820*

Male 56 15.823 5.576

Female 50 7.669 3.456 3.766*

Male 56 9.815 4.800

Female 50 2.621 2.504 0.244

Male 56 1.966 2.342




More Faculty Access

0.346**

0.412**

0.120

Test Results for Gender Differences of Each Principal Component Score

F

4.820*

3.766*

0.244

T-Test Results for Gender Differences of Each Facebook Scenario Rating

Gender

Racism Assignment Female

Male

Assignment Change Female

Male

Drinking Violation Female

Male

Prof to Party Request Female

Male

Excellent Student

Comment

Female

Male

Prof Reports Reputation

of Other Profs

Female

Male

Test Preference Poll Female

Male

Lip Ring Comment Female

Male

Jesus Comment Female

Male

*p<0.05; **p<0.01



Table 7

Test Results for Gender Differences of Each Facebook Scenario Rating

Gender

N Mean

Std.

Dev.

Female 52 2.27 1.573

56 3.18 2.072

Female 50 4.28 2.365

56 3.93 2.139

Female 50 1.64 1.367

56 2.21 2.147

Female 52 2.42 1.923

56 2.68 1.964

Female 52 4.35 2.520

56 5.18 2.241

Female 52 1.73 1.206

56 2.43 2.096

Female 52 4.42 2.396

56 4.89 1.913

Female 52 1.42 .893

56 1.96 1.513

Female 52 3.00 2.187

56 2.57 2.131



Test Results for Gender Differences of Each Facebook Scenario Rating

F

10.732**

1.627

9.785**

0.000

3.520

8.795**

6.044*

11.398**

0.561

Date post:	04-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Facul ty social networking interactions: using social domain

Documents