"I miss my students": Characterizing teachers seeking connection with their students via social networking sites

Arnon Hershkovitz
Tel-Aviv University, Israel
arnonhe@tauex.tau.ac.il

Alona Forkosh-Baruch
Levinsky College of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
alonabar@levinsky.ac.il

Rebecca Ang
National Institute of Education, Singapore
rebecca.ang@nie.edu.sg

Abstract: Teacher-student relationships are vital for well-being and academic development within schools, as well as for teachers’ professional development. As these relationships might be facilitated via social media, regulations restricting teacher-student communication via social networking sites (SNS) may have far-reaching impact. This paper characterizes differences between teachers who are connected or interested in connecting with their students via Facebook, and those who are not interested in such a connection. Findings suggest that differences between the two groups include age, years of teaching experience and years of Facebook experience. In addition, differences were found in attitudes towards Facebook usage in teaching, as well as towards banning policy of SNS in education. Also, an interesting result was found regarding the degree of intimacy between teachers and their students in both groups. This study may assist policymakers when setting up regulations regarding teacher-student communication via social networking sites.

Introduction

Teacher-student relationships are a fundamental factor in the cognitive, social and emotional development of students; furthermore, it may influence the learning as well as the social environment in class and in school altogether (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Davis, 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Notwithstanding, teachers’ roles are ever-changing in the information era, as a result of blurring, even breakdown, of time and space boundaries (MacFarlane, 2001; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Education requires adjustments to these changes in learning and teaching, in the shattering of boundaries, as well as in providing new meaning to emerging educational paradigms. As a result, teachers may change their role from "a sage on the stage" to "a guide on the side", that is, from a formalized, well-established format of traditional teaching and learning to a contemporary educational paradigm focusing on connecting to students, mentoring and assisting them (Abbott, 2005; Wong et al., 2006). These changes might facilitate teacher-student collaboration, cooperation, and connection in ways unfamiliar to traditional education. 
One of the most salient examples of the need to address unfamiliar educational scenarios as a result of teachers' changing roles is the availability of teacher-student communication via social networking sites (SNS) (Forkosh-Baruch & Hershkovitz, 2013). SNS-based communication plays major roles in this change, extending the scope and settings in which teachers and students communicate. This may affect, in turn, mutual perceptions and beliefs (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2009), thereby changing student-teacher relationships, and may be followed by an even greater change in traditional hierarchical structures in schools.
 SNS enable their users to construct a public or semi-public profile and to build a personal inner network of connections (Boyd & Ellison, 2011); hence, they have become the most popular websites on the Internet and have been adopted by teenagers as well as adults worldwide. For example, Facebook (the most popular social networking site and the second most popular site on the Internet) has almost 900 million monthly active users and over 700 million daily active users; YouTube.com (a video sharing website) has more than 1 billion unique users visiting the site each month, and more than 100 hours of video are uploaded to it every minute. Our interest concentrates on the reciprocal relations between teacher-student communication on SNS and teacher-student relationships.
Student-teacher SNS-based relationship has not been thoroughly studied yet. This leads policymakers to be often influenced by reports on the mass media, mostly affected by problematic, sensational situations that do occur from time to time. In defining a policy regarding complex systems such as SNS, regulators often choose the easiest way by decide to ban the usage of these sites in educational context. Such a restrictive approach was first adopted by the Israeli Ministry of Education in December 2011 (where the reported study was conducted), banning teacher-student communication via SNS altogether. Lately (in April 2013), the Ministry has softened its standpoint on this issue, stating that SNS, specifically Facebook (which is the most-widely used SNS in Israel) is allowed in educational context, but under well-defined restrictions (teacher and students will interact only in closed groups, using a professional profile which does not include any personal information). These instructions, although they contradict Facebook's terms and conditions of usage ("You will not create more than one personal account"), indicate confusion among policymakers, as a result of lack of sufficient evidence-based research focusing on this issue.
In a pioneer study conducted by the authors, we have shown that teacher-student relationships using Facebook – though not free of complications – take place following teachers' consent and for the benefit of teachers and students as one. An open question remains from previous research regarding the characteristics of the teachers who are interested in connecting with their students via Facebook. This is the focus of the current study, in which we examine the differences between teachers who are interested in connecting with their students via Facebook and those who are not interested in such a connection. We are especially interested in the characteristics of these teachers, their attitudes towards using Facebook in teaching, and their relationship with their students.

The Study

The current study focuses on the differences between teachers who express interest in connecting with their students via Facebook, and those who do not show any such interest. We assume that these two types of teachers differ in their characteristics as well as in their relationship with their students; this is in addition to their general attitudes towards using Facebook.

Research Questions
1.	What are the differences between characteristics of teachers who are interested in connecting with their students on Facebook (whether connected de facto or not), and those who are not interested in such a connection?
2.	What are the differences in teacher-student relationship (as reported by teachers) between teachers who are interested in connecting with their students on Facebook (whether connected de facto or not), and those who are not interested in such a connection?

Process
Methodology included a well-planned widespread procedure. During May till July 2013, we virally distributed a hyperlink of an online research questionnaire via social networking sites (mostly Facebook and Twitter), as well as via professional and personal mailing lists (the former includes, for example, mailing lists of centers for domain-specific teacher training). Our target population was teachers in lower and higher secondary schools. The questionnaire was built using Google Forms (see Instruments, below).

Research Variables
•	Teacher characteristics: age, gender, marital status, years of teaching experience, years of Facebook usage, numbers of friends on Facebook
•	Attitudes towards Facebook usage for education; specifically, teachers’ response to the following two questions: "Do you think Facebook can be used for educational purposes?" [Yes/No], "There are countries/authorities prohibiting any teacher-student connection via Facebook. What is your standpoint on this policy?" [a 1-5 Likert scale (completely disagree, tend to disagree, does not have an opinion, tend to agree, completely agree)
•	The teacher's role: the participant may be the home teacher or a professional teacher of the class referred to in the study
•	Student-class relationship, as measured by teachers’ responses to the Teachers-Class Relationship Inventory (TCRI) 

Instruments
We used a newly-developed version of the Teacher-Student Relationship Inventory (TSRI), originally developed to measure teacher-student relationships, as reported by teachers, using 14 items graded on a 5-point Likert scale (completely disagree, tend to disagree, sometimes disagree and sometimes agree, tend to agree, completely agree) (Ang, 2005). . For the purpose of this study, the questionnaire was translated to Hebrew, and was adapted to measure teacher-class relationship, that is, the questionnaire was filled by a teacher about a whole class. For example, the item "I enjoy having this student in my class" was translated to: "I enjoy teaching this class." (The full adapted questionnaire appears in the Findings section, in Table 3.) We will refer to this new version as TCRI (Teacher-Class Relationship Inventory).
The TCRI was implemented as part of an online survey, using Google Forms. Within this form, teachers were asked about their current use of, and their connections with students, via Facebook. Following their answers, they were guided to choose a class according to their replies on TCRI. Overall, there were four groups of teachers, which differed according to the class they referred to in the questionnaire:
1.	Teachers who have an active Facebook account and are connected to their current students (connected teachers) were requested to fill in the questionnaire regarding a class they are currently teaching, which they are connected to its students on Facebook;
2.	Teachers who have an active Facebook account, are not connected to their current students, but are interested in such a connection (teachers interested in being connected) were requested to fill in the questionnaire regarding a class they are currently teaching, which they would like to be connected to its students on Facebook;
3.	Teachers who have an active Facebook account, are not connected to their current students, and are not interested in such a connection (teachers not interested in being connected) were requested to fill in the questionnaire regarding an arbitrary class;
4.	Teachers who do not have an active Facebook account were also requested to fill in the questionnaire regarding an arbitrary class.

Population
Altogether, 180 teachers participated in our online survey (N=180), of them 138 female (78%) and 42 male (22%); participants were from all over the country. 

Findings

Definition of the Two Groups of Teachers in the Study
The classification of the participants (N=180) into 4 groups of teachers was conducted according to their connection (or lack of connection) with their students on Facebook, as presented in Table 1. We refer to the groups connected teachers and teachers interested in being connected together as the group of teachers interested in connecting with their students (whether they are connected de facto or not). This group includes 109 teachers. The opposing group is the group of teachers not interested in being connected with their current students. In all the analyses reported herewith, we omitted the fourth group of teachers, those who do not have an active account on Facebook. Hence, from here onwards, the number of participants is reduced by 20 (N=160), of them 109 teachers interested in connecting with their students (68%) and 51 teachers not interested in connecting with their students (32%).

Group	N	%	
All participants in the survey	
Connected teachers	35	19%	
teachers interested in being connected	74	41%	
teachers not interested in being connected	51	28%	
teachers not on Facebook	20	11%	
Total	180	100%	
Included in the study: Only teachers with active Facebook account	
teachers interested in connecting with their students (whether they are connected de facto or not)	109	68%	
teachers not interested in being connected with their students	51	32%	
Total	160	100%	

Table 1: classification of research population according to connection with their current students on Facebook.

Comparison of the characteristics of the Two Groups of Teachers 
Using t-test, we compared means of the quantitative variables – age, years of teaching, years on Facebook, and number of friends on Facebook – between the two groups. Results show that on average, teachers interested in connecting with their students are significantly younger than the teachers who are not interested in being connected with their students (44.8 and 49.6 respectively). Teachers interested in connecting with their students are also significantly with less years of experience than teachers who were not interested in being connected with their students (17 years as opposed to 21.6 years). See Table 2 for full test results.
In addition, findings show that on average, teachers that are interested in connecting with their students have significantly longer Facebook-usage experience than their colleagues who are not interested in being connected with their students (4 years and 3.3 years respectively). This significant difference is not a result of the average age difference between the two groups; examining Peasron’s correlation between age and years of Facebook usage, we did not find a significant statistical correlation between these two variables (r=‑0.145; p=0.08).
The distribution of the nominal variables was compared using a 2 test. Of the five nominal variables, only in two cases the distribution was found statistically significant between the two groups of participants (see also Figure 1): support of the banning of teacher-student connections via Facebook, and attitude towards using Facebook for teaching.

Figure 1: comparison of distribution of nominal variables, according to interest of teachers to be connected with their students on Facebook.

Among the teachers who stated they were interested in connecting with their students, 94% (102 of 109) asserted that Facebook can be used for teaching, as opposed to only 62% (31 out of 51) among teachers who stated they were not interested in being connected with their students:, 2(1)=26.6, p<0.01.  As for teachers' attitude towards the banning regulation, 87% (95 of 109) of the teachers that are interested in connecting with their students disagree or tend to disagree with this policy, as opposed to only 35% (18 out of 55) among teachers who were not interested in connecting with their students, 2(4)=51.1, p<0.01. Interestingly, only 3% of all teachers responded that they did not have an opinion about the banning policy. Table 2 sums the quantitative variables examined.

Variable	Interested teachers (N=109)	Uninterested teachers (N=51)	t(df=158)	
Age	44.8 (11.0)	49.6 (9.6)	2.6**	
Years of teaching	17.0 (10.9)	21.6 (10.1)	2.5*	
Years of Facebook usage	4.0 (1.8)	3.3 (1.5)	-2.3*	
No. of friends on Facebook	273.5 (391.40)	179.4 (362.9)	-1.4	
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01
Table 2: Average and SD (in brackets) for quantitative variables, according to the interest (or lack of interest) of teachers to connect with their students on Facebook (N=160).

As for the other three nominal variables, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups of participants: gender, 2(1)=1.3, p=0.26; marital status,  2(3)=3.3, p=0.35; and whether the teacher is a the class's home teachers or not, 2(1)=0.59, p=0.44.

Teacher-Student relationship according to interest in connecting with students via Facebook
Since the TCRI is an adapted version of TSRI, we validated it using factor analysis, aiming to identify groups of items and their compatibility with the groups of items found in Ang's original inventory (Ang, 2005). Originally, TSRI’s items were clustered into three categories: Satisfaction, Instrumental Help, and Conflict. Findings from our factor analysis had produced findings which were slightly different from those found by Ang, although the basic categories were similar. As a result, we decided to treat each of the items in the inventory as an independent variable. In addition, we examined in depth the causes for these differences, which we will report separately. Hence, we compared the average ratings of each of the 14 items using t-test; results are shown in Table 3.

Item No.	Item	Average (SD) among teachers interested in being connected 
) N=109)	Average (SD) among teachers not interested in being connected (N=51)	t(df=158)	p-value	
1	I enjoy teaching this class	4.6 (0.7)	4.6 (0.7)	-0.06	0.95	
2	If students from this class have a problem at home, they are likely to ask for my help	3.9 (1.0)	4.0 (1.0)	0.33	0.74	
3	I would describe my overall relationship with this class as generally positive	4.6 (0.8)	4.8 (0.6)	1.51a	0.13	
4	This class frustrates me more than most other classes I teach	1.5 (0.9)	1.6 (0.9)	0.24	0.81	
5	If I miss a lesson with this class, I will miss them	3.7 (1.0)	3.4 (1.1)	-2.08*	0.04	
6	Students from this class share with me things about their personal life	3.9 (1.1)	3.9 (1.1)	0.01	0.99	
7	I cannot wait for this year to be over so that I will not need to teach this class anymore	1.6 (1.2)	1.4 (0.9)	-1.17 a	0.20	
8	If I miss a lesson with this class, I feel relieved	1.5 (0.9)	1.4 (0.8)	-0.65	0.52	
9	If students from this class need help, they are likely to ask me for help	4.0 (0.9)	4.2 (0.9)	1.14	0.26	
10	Students in this class turn to me for a listening ear or for sympathy	3.9 (1.0)	4.0 (0.9)	0.80	0.43	
11	If I don't teach this class, I will be able to enjoy my teaching more	1.3 (0.7)	1.2 (0.4)	-1.16 a	0.18	
12	This class depends on me for advice or help	2.8 (1.1)	2.8 (1.1)	-0.29	0.78	
13	I am happy with my relationship with this class	4.4 (0.8)	4.5 (0.7)	1.02	0.31	
14	I like this class	4.5 (0.8)	4.7 (0.6)	1.51 a	0.09	

* p<0.05, a Levine test for comparison of variances was statistically significant
Table 3: Averages and SD (in brackets) for TSRI items, according to classification of teachers who are or are not interested in connecting with their students via Facebook.
As seen from the data, only one item significantly discriminates between the two groups; it is item 5, stating "If I miss a lesson with this class, I miss the students." Among teachers that are interested in connecting with their students, the average for this item was 3.7, as opposed to an average of 3.4 for the group of teachers who stated they were not interested in connecting with their students (t(158)=-2.08, p<0.05).

Conclusions

Teacher-student relationships are the basis for students' well-being, and as a result – to better learning (Ang, 2005; Hamre & Pianta, 2006). However, communication between teachers and students via social networking sites (SNS), which are popular platforms for communication among teenagers, is still controversial. With lack of sufficient evidence–based research, policymakers tend to prohibit or profoundly limit this communication. Our pioneer exploration of this field offered a unique point of view on teacher-student relationships in SNS. According to our findings, teacher-student relationships accompany both sides within the classroom and beyond, including in SNS. However, not all students are interested in connecting with their teachers via SNS, and not all teachers are interested in this connection either. All in all, interaction in class between teachers and students necessarily takes on similar patterns in online media (Koomen, Verschueren, van Schooten, Jak & Pianta, 2012).
The study described in this paper examined the characteristics differentiating teachers that are connected or interested to be connected to their students via SNS (specifically Facebook) and those who are not interested in such a connection. Teachers who are interested in such a connection compose approximately two thirds of the teachers participating in this study. Our study portrays a prototype of these teachers: younger, with less years of experience in the education system, and more years of experience in using Facebook in comparison to their colleagues who express lack of interest in connecting with their students on Facebook. Two important components are added to the profile of the former compared to the latter: a more positive attitude to Facebook usage in education, and a more negative attitude towards a restrictive policy with regards to using Facebook to communicate with students.
This profile of teachers seeking connection with their students via SNS reflects the need to connect to the students' world as well as a need to stretch traditional boundaries between the two, as part of the teachers' educational and professional beliefs (Aultman, Williams-Johnson & Schutz, 2009; O'Connor, 2008; Uito, 2012). Hence, prohibiting teacher-student communication in SNS does not have impact on teachers who do not tend to connect with their students beyond the necessities, and who tend to develop a more distant and formal relationship with them. However, more importantly, students of teachers who lead a more informal relationship with them may be truly harmed by the banning these connections via SNS.
The one item of TCRI that differentiated teachers who are interested in connecting with their students via SNS from those who are not interested, is the item mentioning what seems to be the strongest affect throughout TCRI, that is, when a teacher is missing her or his students (the other affective states mentioned are ‘enjoys’ in items 1 and 11, ‘frustrating’ in item 4, and ‘content’ in item 13). The word in Hebrew for missing someone has a meaning that includes yearning, which might have had a strong impact when addressing it in the questionnaire. A teacher missing her or his students when not in class might find an easy solution to connect with them, that is, via SNS. The yearning for students and missing them between interactions reflects high levels of intimacy (e.g. Sheer & Fung, 2007).
This sense of deep closeness assists in establishing teacher-student relationship within school and beyond, and often in establishing the teachers' status in the eyes of his students and in their own eyes. The emotional aspect of the teacher's role is entwined in the professional aspect, as demonstrated in the following quote of a first-year teacher, which was quoted saying: "I know [I am becoming a better teacher], because I love my job […] I miss my students when I have to miss class." (Bullough, Young, Hall, Draper, & Smith, 2008). This finding was reached by analyzing TCRI’s individual items. Currently, we are continuing our research, examining the students' attitudes towards relationship with their teachers on SNS, using a similar methodology.
There is great importance in awareness to the challenges posed by technology at large and social media in particular to the education milieu. However, teachers need some space in deciding about ways of utilizing SNS with regards to interaction with their students. This is parallel to deciding about the degree of desired closeness and intimacy in "real life", within school and beyond, as shown in this study. The results of the study emphasize the need for further research in this area, aimed to assist policymakers in decision-making regarding the usage and utilization of SNS in educational settings. All in all, SNS may support teachers’ professional development, as well as students’ academic, social and emotional advancement, in allegiance with a more pluralistic worldwide educational approach.

References

Abbott, L. (2005). The nature of authentic professional development during curriculum-based telecomputing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 379-398.
Ang, R.P. (2005). Development and validation of the Teacher–Student Relationship Inventory using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 55–73.
Aultman, L.P., Williams-Johnson, M.R., & Schutz, P.A. (2009). Boundary dilemmas in teacher-student relationships: Struggling with "the line". Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 636-646.
Birch, S.H. & Ladd, G.W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher–child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 934-946.
Boyd, D.M. & Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Bullough, R.V., Young, J.R., Hall, K.M., Draper, R.J., & Smith, L.K. (2008). Cognitive complexity, the first year of teaching, and mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1846-1858.
Davis, H.A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234.
Forkosh-Baruch, A. & Hershkovitz, A. (2013). Teachers: To be, or not to be (your students’ Facebook-friends)? The 24th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE2013; March 25-29, New Orleans, LA).
Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638.
Hamre, B.K. & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children's needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 59–71). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
MacFarlane, A.G.J. (2001). Information, knowledge and technology, in van der Molen H.J. (Ed). Virtual University? Educational Environments of the Future. London: Portland Press.
O'Connor, K.E. (2008). "You choose to care": Teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 117-126. 
Koomen, H.M. Y., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S. & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Validating the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Testing factor structure and measurement invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 215–234.
Sabol, T.J. & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 213-231.
Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 97-118.
Sheer, V.C. & Fung, T.K. (2007). Can email communication enhance professor-student relationship and student evaluation of professor?: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(3), 289-306.
Uito, M. (2012). ‘Behind every profession is a person’: Students’ written memories of their own teacher-student relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 293-301.

Wong, A.F.L., Quck, C.L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W.C., Peer, J. & Williams, M.D. (2006). Singapore students' and teachers' perceptions of computer-supported project work classroom learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 449-479.