Vol. 14(6), pp.

190-199, 23 March, 2019

DOI: 10.5897/ERR2018.3654
Article Number: EFE448060395
ISSN: 1990-3839
Copyright ©2019
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article Educational Research and Reviews
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

Full Length Research Paper

The use of social networks among university students

Can Meşe1* and Gökçe Sancak Aydın2
1
Department of Primary Education, Faculty of Education, Bozok University, Turkey.
2
Department of Primary Education, Faculty of Education, Yozgat Bozok University, Turkey.
Received 9 November, 2018; Accepted 3 January, 2019

The changes that are experienced in technology are influencing various fields as well as educational
environments. From this point of view, it is seen that the tools used in educational environments as well
as those used by students are diversified depending on the change in technology. Based on the
characteristics of learners in the twenty-first century, it is observed that current technology takes part
in students’ daily lives. As one of these technologies which use the possibilities of Web 2.0, social
networks have been widely used by young generations in various forms in recent years. In general,
these environments can be said to be a matter of preference as it offers opportunities such as sharing
content, having fun, communicating, creating community, and learning. It is important to understand
students' social networking usage purposes and the reasons that may affect them. It is thought that this
study will contribute to the educators in terms of learning environments by determining the usage
purposes of social networking. In this research, it is aimed to understand the variables that determine
the purpose of using social network in undergraduate students’ using social network. The cross-
sectional survey design which is among the quantitative research methods has been employed.
According to this pattern, data were collected according to the appropriate sampling method. In this
process, 549 undergraduate students from various faculties of a public university were identified as
study groups. In this study, it is aimed to examine the variables that determine the purpose of using
social networking networks of undergraduate students who use social networks. For this purpose, data
were collected by means of the personal information form created by the researchers and by the Social
Awareness Networks Usage Objectives Scale developed. The results of the research show that there is
a difference in favor of women in initiating communication in favor of men and that those who use
social networks for a long time share more content and WhatsApp and Instagram are the most widely
used social networks. Based on these findings, discussions and recommendations were presented.

Key words: Social networks, purpose of social network usage, university students.

INTRODUCTION

The changes in technology affect educational, economic, and social. Today, it is seen that the tools
environments as well as various fields such as social, used in educational environments and the tools used by

*Corresponding author. E-mail: canmese@gmail.com. Tel: +90 354 242 10 25 / 7801.

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
 Meşe and Aydın 191

students gain diversity depending on the change in individuals in various ways depending on the use of
technology. Based on the twenty-first century learner social networks. For instance, the use of social networks
characteristics, it can be said that current technologies such as Facebook, appears to have an impact on the
have an important place in students' daily life and psychological well-being (autonomy, purpose in life etc.)
depending on their life. In this respect, in the period of of individuals (Kross et al., 2013; Valkenburg et al., 2006;
Web 1.0, users were reviewing static content in passive Verduyn et al., 2015). When the negative effects of social
position; with Web 2.0, they moved from this passive networks on learning environment in learning-teaching
structure to an active state. After this period, users have processes are examined; social networks can be
had an active role in creating content on web content, effective in terms of the distraction of the learner
commenting, chatting, uploading, sharing, recommending, (Hettiarachchi, 2014) or the display of cyberloafing
and linking (Musser, 2007). Therefore, it can be said that behaviors (Hassan et al., 2015). In particular, academic
the content is started to be created by users in the web success decreases due to the fact that learners using
environment. This situation has enabled users to reflect online learning environments cannot devote enough time
their ego, like opinion, thought and feeling, to web to learning in such situations. Therefore, learners may
environments. Various applications such as micro blogs, postpone the academic work in online and spend more
blogs, social networks have emerged for this. Social time in social networks for various purposes such as
networks, which are among these applications, are an entertainment and communication (Hettiarachchi, 2014).
environment created to meet the interaction needs of Social networks, which have the characteristics that
people. This environment allows individuals to interact enable individuals active in both social and personal
with other individuals without time and space limits areas, are used extensively by the generation Y. The
(Greenhow et al., 2009). Social networks such as reason for the use of social networks among university
Facebook and Twitter are widely used by people students is a matter of curiosity. Researches indicate that
(Alwagait et al., 2015). For example, a social network, social networking networks are being used by various
such as Facebook, has approximately 2.27 billion active age groups, but one of the most used groups is university
users worldwide as of September, 2018, according to students (Miller and Melton, 2015). For this reason, it is
reports of Facebook (Facebook, 2018). Therefore, the considered as important to explore the purpose of using
reason for bringing together so many people has social networking and the reasons that may affect these
attracted different scholars to explore this topic. Social goals. In the extant literature, the use of social networking
networks can be defined as systems that allow networks of individuals has diversified as research,
individuals to create a public or semi-publicly accessible collaboration, communication initiation, communication,
profile within a limited system, clearly showing the list of maintaining communication, content sharing, and
links that other users share, and which can display their entertainment (Lenhart et al., 2007).
own contact lists and what is done by others in the According to a report published by a digital marketing
system (Boyd and Ellison, 2008). In a study done by agency "Digital in 2017 Global Overview", more than half
Cheung et al. (2011), it was found that one of the reasons of the world use at least one smartphone, and Turkey is
why participants opted for Facebook in social networks is reported to have 48 million social network users (We Are
social folly. Also, it has been seen to be used for instant Social Hootsuite, 2017). With respect to this report, the
communication and connection with other people. most widely used social networks in Turkey are YouTube,
According to the study conducted by Pempek et al. (2009) Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. According to Miller
with 92 undergraduate students, social interaction is and Melton (2015), university students use social
reported as one of leading reasons. Therefore, networks, Facebook and Twitter environments more than
individuals tend to use current technologies such as once every day. Such widespread use of social networks
social networks for various reasons (Mason, 2006). has brought to mind the importance of the use of these
Social sharing environments offer users the opportunity environments in educational platforms. Social sharing
to communicate with instant messaging, sharing content networks may provide contributions to the education
based on visual and audio contents (Tonta, 2009). In environment such as improving communication, providing
addition, online social networks have a positive impact on an opportunity to meet such environments, and
students' learning outcomes, social acceptance and eliminating communication problems related to the
adaptation to university culture (Yu et al., 2010). contributions of activities carried out on the social
Furthermore, considering the educational environments, networking site (Özmen and Atici, 2014). However, it is
student-student, student-teacher and student-content seen that such social networks are perceived and used
interaction can be provided through social networks. In more for social purposes rather than educational
other words, it can be used to provide the types of purposes (Roblyer et al., 2010). Therefore, it is important
interaction specified by Moore (1989). to determine which social networks and social network
In spite of such superior characteristics of social usage purposes are used by students to make
networks, in some respects, it affects the lives of educational content interesting. Although the studies in
192 Educ. Res. Rev.

the various context on the use of social networks have science education and% 9.3 (n = 51), studying mathematics
been conducted (Diker and Uçar, 2016; Gülcan et al., education. 79.4% of the participants were females (n = 436) and
20.4% were males (n = 113).
2015; Hamid et al., 2013; Lin and Lu, 2011; Ünalan et al.,
2017), there is a need to examine the different context in
terms of different region, current time, sample diversity, Measurement tools
and data collection tools for a particular case.
According to the study conducted by Alkan and In this study, the aims of using social networks of university
Bardakci (2017) with secondary school students, the students were examined. For this purpose, the personal information
students' use of online social networks for learning form developed by the researchers and the Social Sharing
purposes are gathered under the categories of social Networks Usage Questionnaire, a 26-item scale, developed by
interaction, following the shares, interacting with Usluel et al. (2014) were used. The personal information form
consists of 12 items with 3 open ended and 9 closed ends. It
materials, collaboration, doing homework, and getting includes demographic information such as age, gender, and social
support. Depending on this situation, it is necessary to network usage such as how many accounts they have, which social
increase the researches for the purpose of using the media platform they prefer to use.
social networks of the participants by taking into The Social Sharing Network Usage Objectives Scale was
consideration various age, areas of learning, time, and developed to measure the purposes of using social networking
networks as the name suggests. The items in the scale are 7-point
area of living. Therefore, within the scope of the research,
Likert type and the answers can be varied between “Strongly
the aim of current study is to examine the use of social Agree” (7) and “Strongly disagree” (1). The maximum score
networks of the participants in terms of gender, social obtained from this scale is 182, while the minimum score is 26. The
networking experience and social network environment. scale has seven subdimensions such as research, collaboration,
The research findings are expected to contribute to the initiate communication, communicating, maintaining communication,
application of online education environments to the content sharing, and entertainment. The Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficient of the scale was reported as 0.92 (Usluel et al., 2014).
undergraduate students by using social networks. Thus, The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the sub-dimensions of
educational measures can be taken, or arrangements the scale is between 0.67 and 0.87 (Usluel et al., 2014).
can be made considering the purpose of using social
networks in online education environments. In addition, it
is thought that it will contribute to the educators by Data collection process and data analyses
determining the intended use of social networks in
learning environments. Besides this, the study may guide In order to avoid missing data, the data were collected by an
instructional designers by providing information on the electronic form created by Google Forms. The link of form was
social network preferences and usage purposes of users. shared with students who were studying in various departments
and volunteers to participate in the study were asked to fill in this
Social network promotes attractive functions to students form. The distribution of the obtained data and extreme values were
in terms of self-presentation and enhancing examined. For this reason, 6 data, which are an extreme value,
communication. For this reason, some educators have have been removed from the data set. Histogram, Q Q Plot, Boxplot
highlighted the positive capacity of social networking and Normal Probability Plot graphs and skewness (in the range of -
considering the easy networking options with students. 1, +2), kurtosis (in the -1, +1 range) and z score (in the -3, +3
range) values were examined. In accordance with these
For instance, social networking sites can be used with the
assumptions, descriptive analysis, t-test, One-Way Variance
intent of taking feedback of peers or providing Analysis (ANOVA) were used in the analysis of the data.
collaborative learning setting in social networking In order to determine the effect size of the findings that are
platforms (Selwyn, 2009). significant from the comparison tests, Cohen d coefficient for t test
and eta square (η2) for ANOVA were used. Cohen d coefficient was
reported as 0.2 to 0.5 small, 0.5 to 0.8 medium and 0.8 and above
MATERIALS AND METHODS large effect size (Cohen, 1988). The coefficient η2 has been
interpreted as 0.01 to 0.06 small, 0.06 - 0.14 medium and 0.14 or
In this study, cross-sectional scanning model which is one of the more large effect size (Cohen, 1988; Richardson, 2011).
quantitative research methods is used. This model is considered as
a method that allows the collection of data in a given period to
explain a situation from the sample group (Fraenkel et al., 2012). FINDINGS

In this section, the data obtained with the data collection

Working group tool were analyzed and the findings were included. The
descriptive findings of the data obtained in the study are
The undergraduate students of various faculties of a state university presented in Table 1. When Table 1 is examined, it is
were identified as study group. Considering the time and cost,
seen that the lowest (1) and the highest (7) for each sub-
appropriate sampling method was used in this study. 549
undergraduate students participated in the study. 35.3% of the factor of the measuring instrument are taken. When the
participants (n = 194) were pre-school education, 22% (n = 121), of average scores of the sub-scales of The Usage Purposes
theology, 17.3% (n = 95), of classroom education, 16% (n = 88), of Scale of Social Networks are examined, it is observed
 Meşe and Aydın 193

Table 1. Descriptive findings on the sub-factors of the purpose of use of social networks.

Variable n Min Max ss Skewness Kurtosis

F1- Research 549 1.00 7.00 4.93 1.41 -0.34 -0.58
F2- collaboration 549 1.00 7.00 4.47 1.38 -0.05 -0.76
F3- initiate communication 549 1.00 7.00 2.92 1.50 0.68 -0.26
F4- communicating 549 1.00 7.00 5.52 1.57 -1.05 0.38
F5- maintaining communication 549 1.00 7.00 4.71 1.49 -0.32 -0.55
F6- Sharing content 549 1.00 7.00 3.81 1.50 0.28 -0.70
F7- Entertainment 549 1.00 7.00 4.32 1.59 -0.10 -0.73

Table 2. The independent sample t-test findings of the sub-factors of the purpose of use of social networks by gender.

Variable Gender n ss t sd p Cohen’s d

Female 436 4.95 1.39 0.81 547 0.416 -
F1- Research
Male 113 4.83 1.52

Female 436 4.48 1.35 0.12 547 0.906 -

F2- Collaboration
Male 113 4.46 1.48

Female 436 2.82 1.49 -2.97 547 0.003 0.25

F3- Initiate communication
Male 113 3.29 1.53

Female 436 5.59 1.54 2.04 547 0.041 0.46

F4- Communicating
Male 113 5.26 1.65

Female 436 4.76 1.50 1.65 547 0.100 -

F5- Maintaining communication
Male 113 4.50 1.42

Female 436 3.82 1.50 0.22 547 0.825 -

F6- Sharing content
Male 113 3.78 1.51

Female 436 4.32 1.62 -0.07 547 0.946 -

F7- Entertainment
Male 113 4.33 1.47

that the participants use social networks to communicate participants use social networks to communicate with the
with the most intense and at least to initiate most intense and at least to initiate communication.
communication. Within the framework of the general Within the framework of the general purpose of the study,
purpose of the study, the purpose of using social the purpose of using social networks was examined in
networks was examined in terms of gender. In Table 2, terms of gender. In Table 2, the t test findings of the sub-
the t test findings of the sub-factors of the Purpose of Use factors of the Purpose of Use of Social Networks Scale
of Social Networks Scale for independent groups in terms for independent groups in terms of gender are included.
of gender are included. When Table 2 is examined, there is no significant
When Table 1 is examined, it is seen that the lowest 1 difference between men and women in research (F1),
and the highest 7 for each sub-factor of the measuring collaboration (F2), maintaining communication (F5),
instrument are taken. When the average scores of the content sharing (F6), and entertainment (F7). However,
sub-scales of The Usage Purposes Scale of Social there is a significant gender difference in terms of
Networks are examined, it is observed that the initiating communication (F3) and communicating (F4) (p
194 Educ. Res. Rev.

Table 3. Social networking environment most commonly used by participants.

Variable f %
Facebook 13 2.4
Twitter 22 4.0
Instagram 233 42.4
WhatsApp 247 45.0
YouTube 27 4.9
Diğer 7 1.3
Toplam 549 100.0

Table 4. Descriptive findings of the social network environment most commonly used by the participants.

F2- F3- initiate F4-

F1- Research
Variable Cooperation communication communicating
n sd n sd n sd n sd
Facebook 13 4.49 1.70 13 4.41 1.65 13 2.92 1.38 13 3.81 1.96
Twitter 22 5.33 1.31 22 4.72 1.44 22 3.17 1.44 22 5.48 1.29
Instagram 233 4.89 1.30 233 4.48 1.35 233 3.04 1.47 233 5.57 1.59
WhatsApp 247 4.97 1.49 247 4.50 1.38 247 2.79 1.48 247 5.70 1.45
YouTube 27 4.81 1.51 27 3.99 1.42 27 2.70 1.82 27 4.44 1.65
Diğer 7 4.71 1.84 7 4.48 1.20 7 3.48 2.57 7 5.21 1.35
Toplam 549 4.93 1.41 549 4.47 1.38 549 2.92 1.50 549 5.52 1.57

F5- maintaining communication F6- Sharing content F7-Entertainment

Variable
n sd n sd n sd
Facebook 13 4.35 1.68 13 3.35 1.10 13 3.00 1.58
Twitter 22 5.07 1.38 22 3.92 1.41 22 5.14 1.59
Instagram 233 4.82 1.44 233 4.06 1.42 233 4.69 1.47
WhatsApp 247 4.67 1.49 247 3.60 1.55 247 4.05 1.56
YouTube 27 3.94 1.55 27 3.64 1.68 27 3.89 1.76
Diğer 7 4.96 1.92 7 4.20 2.09 7 3.33 1.85
Toplam 549 4.71 1.49 549 3.81 1.50 549 4.32 1.59

<.05). It is seen that males use social networks more for according to Cohen’s d effect size. In addition, Table 3
initiating communication whereas women do not use presents the most commonly used social networking
social networks for this reason significantly. In both platforms.
cases, this difference seems to have a low effect level When Table 3 is examined, it is seen that the
according to Cohen’s d effect size. In addition, Table 3 participants have widely used WhatsApp and Instagram.
presents the most commonly used social networking One-Way ANOVA (One-Way ANOVA) was used to
platforms. When Table 2 is examined, there is no determine whether these used accounts affect the social
significant difference between men and women in networks usage purposes. The descriptive findings of this
research (F1), collaboration (F2), maintaining communi- analysis are presented in Table 4. When the descriptive
cation (F5), content sharing (F6), and entertainment (F7). findings of the sub-factors of social networking purposes
However, there is a significant gender difference in terms are examined in Table 4, it can be seen that the sub-
of initiating communication (F3) and communicating (F4) factors differ according to the different account types.
(p <.05). It is seen that males use social networks more This difference was examined by One Way Analysis of
for initiating communication whereas women do not use Variance (One-Way ANOVA) and the findings are
social networks for this reason significantly. In both presented in Table 5.
cases, this difference seems to have a low effect level When Table 5 is examined, it was found that there was
 Meşe and Aydın 195

Table 5. One-Way ANOVA Findings of the Sub-Factors of Social Network Use Purpose Scale According to the Social Network
Environment Used.

Sources of Sum of Mean The direction of

Variable df F p η2
variance squares square difference
Between Groups 7,757 5 1.551 0.775 0.568
F1- Research Within Groups 1087,203 543 2.002
Total 1094,960 548

Between Groups 7,979 5 1.596 0.838 0.523

F2- Collaboration Within Groups 1033,980 543 1.904
Total 1041,959 548

Between Groups 12,242 5 2.448 1.082 0.369

F3- Initiate
Within Groups 1228,840 543 2.263
communication
Total 1241,082 548

Between Groups 78,725 5 15.745 6.734 <.001 .058 Instagram > Facebook
F4- Communicating Within Groups 1269,693 543 2.338 WhatsApp > Facebook
Total 1348,418 548 Instagram > YouTube

Between Groups 24,215 5 4.843 2.220 0.051

F5- Maintaining
Within Groups 1184,613 543 2.182
communication
Total 1208,828 548

Between Groups 29,485 5 5.897 2.648 0.022 .024

F6- Sharing content Within Groups 1209,276 543 2.227 Instagram > WhatsApp
Total 1238,761 548

Between Groups 99,896 5 19.979 8.426 <.001 .072 Instagram > Facebook
F7- Entertainment Within Groups 1287,502 543 2.371 Twitter > Facebook
Total 1387,399 548 Instagram > WhatsApp

no significant difference between research (F1), entertainment than Facebook. Besides, it is seen that the
collaboration (F2), initiate communication (F3) and Instagram environment is used more for entertainment
maintaining communication (F5) in terms of social than WhatsApp. The significant difference between the
network platforms. However, there is a significant two groups was examined with eta square value and a
difference in terms of communication (F4), content moderate effect size was found. In addition to these
sharing (F6), and entertainment (F7). According to the findings, the purpose of the study was examined in terms
Post-Hoc test, the Scheffe test showed that participants of the experience (usage period) of using social
preferred Instagram and WhatsApp environments networks. Table 6 presents descriptive findings of the use
significantly more than Facebook. Besides, it is seen that of social networks in terms of the experiences of the
Instagram environment is used more for communication participants in the social network environment. When
purposes than YouTube environment. According to the Table 6 is examined, the differences between the
Post-Hoc test, the Scheffe test shows that in terms of participants' experience of using social networks in terms
content sharing, the Instagram environment is more of usage purposes were examined with One-Way
preferred than WhatsApp. The level of difference in terms ANOVA. The findings of this test are presented in Table
of this situation is examined by eta square and it can be 7. When Table 7 is examined, among the use of social
said that there is a low effect size. When the social networks, only the content-sharing (F6) sub-factor
networks used for entertainment purposes are examined, showed significant differences in terms of experience in
it is seen that Instagram and Twitter are used more for social networks. According to the Tukey test, it is seen
196 Educ. Res. Rev.

Table 6. Descriptive findings of the use of social networks in terms of the experiences of the participants in social networking
environments.

F3- Initiate F4-

F1- Research F2- Collaboration
Variable Communication Communicating
n sd n sd n sd n sd
Since 6 months 46 5.04 1.37 46 4.39 1.44 46 2.62 1.51 46 5.35 1.71
Since 1 year 42 4.93 1.55 42 4.38 1.30 42 2.51 1.34 42 5.52 1.69
Since 2 years 129 4.87 1.41 129 4.47 1.29 129 2.89 1.39 129 5.53 1.34
Since 3 years 101 4.73 1.45 101 4.36 1.36 101 2.88 1.55 101 5.30 1.64
5 years and more 231 5.03 1.38 231 4.56 1.44 231 3.09 1.56 231 5.66 1.60
Total 549 4.93 1.41 549 4.47 1.38 549 2.92 1.50 549 5.52 1.57

F5- Maintaining F7-

F6- Sharing content
Variable Communication Entertainment
n sd n sd n sd
Since 6 months 46 4.68 1.49 46 3.30 1.38 46 4.32 1.71
Since 1 year 42 4.57 1.51 42 3.45 1.43 42 4.26 1.62
Since 2 years 129 4.79 1.37 129 3.64 1.50 129 4.34 1.55
Since 3 years 101 4.59 1.64 101 3.88 1.55 101 3.98 1.52
5 years and more 231 4.75 1.48 231 4.05 1.48 231 4.47 1.61
Total 549 4.71 1.49 549 3.81 1.50 549 4.32 1.59

Table 7. One-way ANOVA analysis of the sub-factors of social network usage purpose scale by social network environment.

Sources of Sum of Mean The direction of

Variable df F p η2
variance squares square difference
Between Groups 7.583 4 1.90 0.95 0.436
F1- Research Within Groups 1087.376 544 2.00
Total 1094.960 548

Between Groups 3.602 4 0.90 0.47 0.756

F2- Collaboration Within Groups 1038.357 544 1.91
Total 1041.959 548

Between Groups 18.409 4 4.60 2.05 0.086

F3- Initiate
Within Groups 1222.674 544 2.25
Communication
Total 1241.082 548

Between Groups 10.780 4 2.70 1.10 0.358

F4-
Within Groups 1337.638 544 2.46
Communicating
Total 1348.418 548

Between Groups 3.447 4 0.86 0.39 0.817

F5- Maintaining
Within Groups 1205.380 544 2.22
Communication
Total 1208.828 548

5 years and more>

Between Groups 34.511 4 8.63 3.90 0.004 0.028
F6- Sharing Since 6 months
content Within Groups 1204.249 544 2.21
Total 1238.761 548

Between Groups 17.173 4 4.29 1.70 0.148

F7- Entertainment Within Groups 1370.226 544 2.52
Total 1387.399 548
 Meşe and Aydın 197

that those who have 5 years and more experience among From this point of view, it is thought that it will be
the participants have significantly used social networks to beneficial to conduct future studies on Instagram and
share more content than those who have been using it for WhatsApp environments preferred by the participants. It
6 months. In order to determine the effect size related to can be said that these environments are a matter of
this situation, the eta square value was examined and preference among participants due to reasons such as
observed that a low-level effect size. providing instant communication and interaction, creating
a more intimate environment. Based on this finding,
social networks can be used to provide the learner-
DISCUSSION learning and teaching-learning communication and
interaction (Moore, 1989). Similarly, in a study by Alkan
The aim of this study is to examine the purposes of using and Bardakci (2017), it was stated that students
social networks in terms of various variables. In this contributed to social learning through social interaction
section, the findings of the study were discussed in light with other students and teachers in social networks.
of the literature. It has been found that men prefer more Therefore, Instagram and WhatsApp environments can
than women to social networks in order to initiate be preferred for this interaction in educational
communication. On the other hand, it was observed that environments.
women prefer social networking networks more than men In a study conducted by Hu et al. (2014), it was seen
for communication. Consistent with the findings about that individuals share their visions about their friends,
gender difference in social networking usage purposes, food and drinks, small technology tools, written visuals,
Mazman and Usluel (2011) point out that women use pets, activities, their selfies and fashion in Instagram
social networks to maintain their existing friendship, while environment. In other words, it is possible to say that the
men use it to build new relationships. Gender variable content shared in Instagram environment has more visual
should not be ignored in studies to be done for social density, so users prefer visual elements when sharing
networks. It can also be suggested that gender can be a content. The potential of Instagram should not be ignored
control variable in further research on social sharing while developing systems such as Edooware, Spectrum
networks. (Balakrishnan et al., 2015), Moodle and Sakai. Based on
It can be said that participants who use social networks the findings obtained in this study, it can be suggested to
for a longer period tend to use it for sharing content. use Instagram or similar visual content intensive
Consistent with this finding, Tsai et al. (2017) found that platforms within the framework of Social Media
users with a high level of experience are more likely to Acceptance Model in studies to be made for content
share more photos and comment as well as having more sharing. The findings of the current study can help to
friends on Facebook. Similarly, in the study conducted by provide some functional arrangements in educational
Moore and McElroy (2012), the Facebook experience settings. For instance, the peer interaction can be
was associated with spending time, using frequency, provided on Instagram in educational settings. Also, the
sharing contents and photos with true friends. Therefore, findings of this study showed that for both gender,
it can be said that participants with more experience in communication is a usage purpose/ for social networking.
social networks are mostly used to share content. In Considering this, in in-class and extracurricular activities,
future studies it may be suggested that using experience for social interaction and peer feedback, social
should be considered as a control variable. networking can be utilized.
In this study, participants reported they use mostly
WhatsApp and Instagram (88% of respondents). This
finding is consistent with the findings of Yesil and Fidan LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
(2017). According to Yesil and Fidan (2017), individuals
in the generation Y prefer more WhatsApp environment This research has many strengths and some limitations.
than individuals in generation X. However, according to Within the framework of these limitations, some
the study of Sendurur et al. (2015), the most widely used suggestions are presented for future research. Since the
social networking sites are Facebook and Google+. data obtained in this study are conducted with
Therefore, it can be thought that the social network undergraduate students studying in different departments
environment used among undergraduate students may of a public university in Central Anatolia, it may be
differ in different environments at different times, because suggested to reach larger sample sizes in the future as
Facebook is a widely used social network (Lenhart et al., well as samples from different regions and provinces.
2010). The studies on social networks generally focused The research was carried out according to the cross-
on Facebook (Bicen and Cavus, 2011; Ellison et al., sectional survey model among the quantitative research
2007; Mazman and Usluel, 2011; Sternberg et al., 2018). designs. However, it would be useful to provide a
However, in this study, it was seen that the participants comprehensive framework on the subject by conducting
mostly used Instagram and WhatsApp environments. research on different quantitative data collection tools
198 Educ. Res. Rev.

and qualitative data collection methods. In this study, it is Greenhow C, Robelia B, Hughes JE (2009). Learning, Teaching, and
Scholarship in a Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research:
not investigated why different social networking What Path Should We Take Now? Educational Researcher
environments are used. In the study, psychological 38(4):246-259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671.
factors such as personality types of the participants were Hamid NA, Ishak MS, Ismail SA, Yazam SSNM (2013). Social media
not investigated because it is out of the scope of the usage among university students in Malaysia. In Social Media and
the New Academic Environment: Pedagogical Challenges pp. 244-
study. In future studies, it is thought that the relationship
255. IGI Global.
between social networks and psychological variables Hassan HM, Reza DM, Farkhad MA-A (2015). An Experimental Study
such as personality types, self-confidence, loneliness and of Influential Elements on Cyberloafing from General Deterrence
shyness should be discussed comprehensively. Theory Perspective Case Study: Tehran Subway Organization.
International Business Research 8(3):1-98.
Considering the findings of the current study, it can be https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n3p91
suggested that for collaborative learning, social Hettiarachchi HAH (2014). Impact of Social Networking on Academic
networking sites especially Instagram and WhattsApp Engagement and Performance : A Literature Review, (July).
can be a good option to support communication. Hu Y, Manikonda L, Kambhampati S (2014). What we Instagram : a first
analysis of Instagram photo content and user types. Proceedings of
the Eight International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media pp. 595-598.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS Kross E, Verduyn P, Demiralp E, Park J, Lee DS, Lin N, Ybarra O
(2013). Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in
The author has not declared any conflict of interests. Young Adults. PLoS ONE 8(8):1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841
Lenhart A, Madden M, Macgill AR, Manager P (2007). Teens and Social
Footnote: This study has been presented as an oral
th Media. Most 19:1-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-010-0701-9
presentation in 6 International Instructional Technologies Lenhart A, Purcell K, Smith A, Zickuhr K (2010). Social Media & Mobile
and Teacher Education Symposium, Edirne, Turkey Internet Use among Teens and Young Adults. Millennials. Pew
internet & American life project.
Lin KY, Lu HP (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An
REFERENCES empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation
theory. Computers in human behavior, 27(3):1152-1161.
Alkan MF, Bardakci S (2017). High School Students’ Learning Activities Mason R (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education.
Through Social Networks: A Qualitative Inquiry, Kastamonu Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2):121-133.
Education Journal 25(3):1221-1238. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370600751039
Alwagait E, Shahzad B, Alim S (2015). Impact of social media usage on Mazman SG, Usluel YK (2011). Gender differences in using social
students academic performance in Saudi Arabia. Computers in networks. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET
Human Behavior 51:1092-1097. 10(2):133-139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.028 Miller R, Melton J (2015). College students and risk-taking behaviour on
Balakrishnan V, Liew TK, Pourgholaminejad S (2015). Fun learning with Twitter versus Facebook. Behaviour and Information Technology
Edooware - A social media enabled tool. Computers and Education 34(7):678-684.
80:39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.008. Moore K, McElroy JC (2012). The influence of personality on Facebook
Bicen H, Cavus N (2011). Social network sites usage habits of usage, wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior
undergraduate students: Case study of Facebook. Procedia-Social 28(1):267-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.009
and Behavioral Sciences 28:943-947. Moore MG (1989). Editorial: Three Types of Interaction. American
Boyd DM, Ellison NB (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, Journal of Distance Education 3(2):1-7.
and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659.
13(1):210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x Musser J, O'Reilly T, The O'Reilly Radar Team (2006). Web 2.0
Cheung CMK, Chiu P-Y, Lee MKO (2011). Online social networks: Why principles and best practices. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/11/web-20-principles-and-best-pra.html
27(4):1337-1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028 Özmen B, Atici B (2014). Learners’ views regarding the use of social
Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences networking sites in distance learning. International Review of
(2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Research in Open and Distance Learning 15(4):21-42.
Diker Z, Uçar M (2016). A study on the reasons of social network use by Pempek TA, Yermolayeva YA, Calvert SL (2009). College students’
the university students: the case of the Safranbolu Vocational School. social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied
Journal of Research in Education and Teaching 1(5):376-386. Developmental Psychology 30(3):227-238.
Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C (2007). The benefits of Facebook https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010
“friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social Richardson JTE (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as
network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication measures of effect size in educational research. Educational
12(4):1143-1168. Research Review 6(2):135-147.
Facebook (2018). Stats. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001
https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ on 12 December 2018. Roblyer MD, McDaniel M, Webb M, Herman J, Vince WJ, (2010).
Farkas MG (2007). Social software in libraries: building collaboration, Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college
communication, and community online. Information Today, Inc: faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites.
Medford, New Jersey. Internet and Higher Education 13(3):134-140.
Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH (2012). How to design and evaluate Selwyn N (2009). Faceworking: exploring students’ education-related
research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill. use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology 34(2):157-174
Gülcan Z, Vurgun S, Gurdin B, Akpinar GM (2015). Vocational high Sendurur P, Sendurur E, Yilmaz R (2015). Examination of the social
school students and social networks: comparison of Nazilli, Atça and network sites usage patterns of pre-service teachers. Computers in
Kuyucak vocational high schools. Electronic Journal of Vocational Human Behavior 51(PA):188-194.
Colleges. 4. UMYOS Special Issue pp. 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.052
 Meşe and Aydın 199

Sternberg N, Luria R, Sheppes G (2018). For whom is social-network Verduyn P, Lee DS, Park J, Shablack H, Orvell A, Bayer J, Kross E
usage associated with anxiety? The moderating role of neural (2015). Passive facebook usage undermines affective well-being:
working-memory filtering of Facebook information. Cognitive, Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental
Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience pp. 1-14. Psychology: General 144(2):480-488.
Tonta Y (2009). Dijital Yerliler, Sosyal Ağlar ve Kütüphanelerin Geleceği https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057.
* Digital Natives, Social Networks and the Future of Libraries. Türk Yeşil Y, Fidan F (2017). Türkiye’de Y Kuşağının E-İletişim Kullanımı:
Kütüphaneciliği 23(4):742-768. Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. Balkan ve Yakın Doğu
Tsai TH, Chang HT, Chang YC, Chang YS (2017). Personality Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 3(01):100-109.
disclosure on social network sites: An empirical examination of Yu AY, Tian SW, Vogel D, Chi-Wai KR (2010). Can learning be virtually
differences in Facebook usage behavior, profile contents and privacy boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts.
settings. Computers in Human Behavior 76(2017):469-482. Computers and Education 55(4):1494-1503.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.015.
Usluel YK, Demir Ö, Cinar M (2014). Sosyal Ağların Kullanım Amaçları
Ölçeği. Eğitim Teknolojileri Araştırma Dergisi 5(2):1-18.
Ünalan D, Baştürk M, İkinci SS, Aydın A (2017). Meslek Yüksekokulu
Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Ağ Sitesi Kullanım Alışkanlıklarının Kişilik
Özellikleri İle İlişkisi. Ankara Sağlık Hizmetleri Dergisi 16(2):21-32.
Valkenburg PM, Peter J, Schouten AP (2006). Friend Networking Sites
Nd Their Relationship To Adolesnts Well Being Nd Social Self
Esteem. CyberPsychology and Behavior 9(5):584-590.