Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.4
,
No
.1
, Mar
c
h20
15
, pp
.
3
0
~
37
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
30
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
The Effectiveness of Faceb
ook Group Discussions on
Writing Performance: A Study
in Matriculation College
Ng S
a
u Pin
g
,
Mahendr
an
Maniam
Department o
f
Education (T
ESL)
, Sult
an Idr
i
s Ed
ucat
ion Unive
r
sit
y
, Ma
la
ysi
a
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received
Ja
n 23, 2015
Rev
i
sed
Feb
20
, 20
15
Accepted
Feb 26, 2015
Matricu
l
at
ion
a
pre-ter
tiar
y
prog
ram
o
ffered
b
y
Ministr
y
of
Edu
cation for
students who have completed
their
‘S
iji
lP
el
ajar
an M
a
la
ys
i
a
’s
’ (S
P
M
)
exam
inat
ions successfull
y
.
Thes
e exce
llen
t
stude
nts will be requi
red to sit for
the Mala
ysi
a
n Universit
y
Engl
ish Test
(MUET) before pursuing their studies
in local co
lleg
e
s and universities. MU
ET comprises all th
e fo
ur languag
e
skills of l
i
sten
i
ng, speak
ing,
re
ading
and writ
i
ng. However
,
m
a
tricul
ation
students are st
ill
unable
to perfor
m
well in MUET exam
ina
tion e
s
pecia
l
l
y
t
h
e
writing component. R
e
search
er
aimed to see whether Facebook group
discussions can be used as a m
e
dium
to im
prove writing skills
of students.
The main
purpo
se of th
is stud
y
is to look
at th
e effectiv
eness of
Facebook
group discussion in writing p
e
rfo
rm
ance and
coll
ege studen
t
s’ percept
i
on of
using Facebook
discussion. T
h
is stud
y
t
e
ste
d
the eff
ect o
f
Facebook
discussions b
y
comparing 2 gr
oups of learn
e
r
s
(a contro
l gr
oup and an
experimental g
r
o
up) on writing tasks. The
scor
es
of Pre and
Post test for bo
th
groups will be com
p
ared aft
e
r tr
eatm
ent m
e
thod of Facebook group
discussion on the experim
e
n
t
al
group.
Learners’
attit
udes towar
d
s the usage
of Facebook group discussion and aspects
of Facebook that help
students to
express their opi
nion. Discussions of th
e findings will inc
l
ude sug
g
estions on
whether Facebo
ok discussions can be us
ed to improve
writing
p
e
rformance.
Keyword:
A
s
p
e
cts of
Faceb
ook
Facebook
Gr
ou
p di
sc
ussi
on
Matricu
l
atio
n
co
lleg
e
Writing
p
e
rforman
ce
Copyright ©
201
5 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Ng Sa
u Pi
ng,
Depa
rt
m
e
nt
of
Education (
TES
L)
,
Min
i
stry o
f
Edu
catio
n Malaysia,
Malaysia.
Em
a
il: n
g
s
aup
i
n
g37
@g
m
a
il.c
o
m
1.
INTRODUCTION
In
gl
o
b
al
i
zat
i
on era
,
t
ech
nol
o
g
y
bri
n
gs l
o
t
s
of e
ffect
s in
edu
catio
n. A
so
ci
al n
e
twork
i
ng
serv
ice is an
onl
i
n
e
pl
at
fo
r
m
or
m
e
di
um
use
d
t
o
est
a
bl
i
s
h soci
al
net
w
or
ks o
r
soci
al
r
e
l
a
t
i
ons am
ong
i
ndi
vi
d
u
al
s w
ho s
h
ar
e
in
terests and
activ
ities. Mo
st so
cial n
e
two
r
k
i
ng
serv
ices allo
w
u
s
ers to
sh
are th
ei
r op
in
i
o
n
s
, in
t
e
rests,
activ
ities an
d
ev
en
ts with
i
n
th
eir in
d
i
v
i
du
al n
e
two
r
k
s
.
Th
erefore, this stu
d
y
will
lo
ok
at th
e effect o
f
Facebook group discussi
on on
writing
perform
a
nce and be
nefits
of
Face
book disc
ussion.
Mo
st o
f
t
h
e stud
en
ts are lack
i
n
g
i
n
in
teraction
strateg
i
es.
In o
r
d
e
r to
p
l
ay an
activ
e ro
le in it stu
d
e
n
t
s
m
u
st know when to
use a
p
propriate
interaction strate
gies. T
h
ere a
r
e
m
a
ny ways or m
e
thods
teachers
ca
n
apply in teaching a
n
d learni
ng proce
sses i
n
order to improve stud
e
n
ts’ writing skill. In gl
obalization era,
t
echn
o
l
o
gy
bri
ngs l
o
t
s
o
f
ef
f
ect
s i
n
educat
i
o
n
.
A soci
al
n
e
t
w
o
r
ki
ng ser
v
i
ce i
s
an onl
i
n
e pl
at
form
or m
e
di
um
use
d
to establi
s
h s
o
cial
networks
or s
o
cial
relati
ons
am
ong i
ndi
viduals
who
sha
r
e i
n
terests a
n
d activities.
Mo
st so
cial n
e
twork
i
n
g
serv
i
ces allo
w
u
s
ers to
sh
are
t
h
eir
o
p
i
n
i
on
s, in
t
e
rests, activ
ities and
ev
en
ts
with
in
their individua
l
networks. There
f
or
e, t
h
is
study
will look at the e
ffect
of Facebook group disc
ussion on
writing
p
e
rforman
ce and
b
e
nefits of Faceboo
k d
i
scu
ssi
o
n
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Th
e Effectiven
ess
o
f
Fa
cebo
ok
Gro
u
p
Discussio
n
s
on
Writin
g
Performan
c
e:
A S
t
ud
y
i
n
....
(Ng
S
a
u
Ping)
31
Th
is ch
ap
ter beg
i
n
s
with
a brief d
e
scrip
tion
o
f
is
su
es rel
a
ted
to
MUET in
Malaysia. I
n
add
itio
n
to
th
at, th
is ch
apter will also
b
r
iefly
d
e
scri
be typ
e
s of
in
t
e
ractio
n strateg
i
es in
Matricu
l
atio
n
syllab
u
s
and
M
U
ET. T
h
i
s
i
s
fol
l
o
we
d by
t
h
e st
at
em
ent
of
pr
o
b
l
e
m
whi
c
h i
s
t
h
e m
a
i
n
concer
n
of t
h
i
s
st
udy
.
The
p
u
r
p
ose
of
the study,
rese
arch questions
and
hypo
t
h
esi
s
are t
h
en
e
xpl
ai
ned.
F
u
rt
her
m
ore det
a
i
l
s
o
n
si
gni
fi
ca
nce
of
t
h
i
s
st
udy
a
r
e al
s
o
expl
ai
ne
d.
Fi
n
a
l
l
y
, t
h
i
s
cha
p
t
e
r c
oncl
udes
w
i
t
h
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
ons
of
t
h
e st
udy
.
1.
1. Soci
ocul
t
u
ral
T
h
e
o
r
y
Socioc
ultural theory indicate
that
t
h
e pers
o
n
and t
h
e
wo
rl
d
need t
o
be
connected, s
o
learners a
r
e not
in
d
e
p
e
nd
en
t and
th
eir learn
i
ng
is no
t so
m
e
t
h
ing
th
at
g
o
e
s
with
in
t
h
em
sel
v
es
o
n
l
y bu
t al
so
in
t
h
e
world h
e
o
r
she i
n
hi
bi
t
[1]
.
In
ot
he
r w
o
r
d
s, st
ude
nt
s l
earn
not
i
n
i
s
ol
a
t
i
on b
u
t
i
n
t
e
ra
ct
i
ng wi
t
h
ot
h
e
rs ar
ou
n
d
t
h
e
m
. So
teachers s
h
oul
d
offer m
o
re c
h
ance
s to lea
r
n collaborativel
y and i
n
teractively. Pi [2
] sta
t
ed that CMC
makes it
pos
sible to write co
mm
unicatively a
nd col
l
aboratively so that learne
r
can de
vel
o
p c
r
i
t
i
cal
t
h
i
nki
n
g
and
literacy sk
ills th
rou
g
h
u
s
i
n
g lan
g
u
a
g
e
i
n
a real con
t
ex
t.
In add
itio
n,
Donato
an
d Mccormick
stated
that th
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t of langu
ag
e learn
i
ng
strateg
i
es were
with
in
so
cio
c
u
ltu
ral t
h
eo
ry
[3
]. They fo
und
th
at learn
e
rs’
p
a
rticip
ation
in
th
e co
mm
u
n
ity ch
aracteri
zed
th
e ab
ilit
y to
d
e
v
e
l
o
p, reflect up
on
an
d
refi
n
e
th
eir o
w
n
l
a
ng
uage
st
rat
e
gi
es.
Recently, rese
arch
has
bee
n
increasin
gly inspire
d
by soci
al pers
pectiv
es
on learning.
In
particular,
num
erous studies on online learni
ng are ins
p
ire
d
by constr
uctivist and s
o
cial learning theories [4]. Since the
19
9
0
s,
co
nst
r
u
c
t
i
v
i
s
m
has m
a
de a
st
r
o
n
g
i
n
fl
uence
o
n
e
ducat
i
o
n,
part
i
c
ul
arl
y
i
n
t
h
e
fi
el
d
of
i
n
st
r
u
ct
i
onal
t
echn
o
l
o
gy
[5]
.
Uzu
n
boy
l
u
, C
a
vus a
nd E
r
cag [6]
assert
ed that social constructiv
ist
th
eo
ry assu
m
e
s th
at
st
ude
nt
s act
and re
fl
ect
wi
t
h
i
n
an e
nvi
r
o
nm
ent
,
and t
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
en f
o
l
l
o
we
d by
refl
e
c
t
i
ng, abst
ract
i
n
g
,
an
d
in
creasing
experien
tial kn
owl
e
d
g
e
.
On
t
h
e
ot
he
r
h
a
nd
,
Vy
g
o
t
s
ky
foc
u
se
d m
o
re
on
t
h
e e
ffect
s
of
soci
al
i
n
t
e
ra
ct
i
on, l
a
ng
ua
ge
, an
d c
u
l
t
u
r
e
on l
e
a
r
ni
ng
.
Wo
o & R
e
e
v
e
s
[4]
al
so
st
at
ed t
h
at
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e princi
ples of the c
onst
r
uct
i
vist learning t
h
eory,
meaningful int
e
ractions i
n
a lear
ni
n
g
en
vi
ro
nm
ent
are desi
gne
d t
o
en
hance m
eani
n
g, i
n
cl
u
d
i
ng s
h
ari
n
g
v
a
ri
o
u
s
p
e
rsp
e
ctiv
es and
experien
ces i
n
commu
n
ities
o
f
p
r
actice. Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
lly,
Birch
an
d
Vo
lkov
[7]
an
d
W
i
l
s
o
n
&
St
ac
ey
[8]
poi
nt
ed
out
t
h
at
t
h
e
soc
i
al
const
r
uct
i
v
i
s
t
para
di
gm
fo
cuses
o
n
l
ear
ne
r-ce
n
t
r
e
d
l
ear
ni
ng
i
n
whic
h learne
rs can share thei
r knowle
dge, skills, expe
riences, and
perspectiv
es with each othe
r. Stude
n
ts are
enco
u
r
age
d
t
o
part
i
c
i
p
at
e i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e di
al
og
ue
wi
t
h
ot
her st
u
d
e
nt
s an
d i
n
st
r
u
ct
ors a
nd t
o
c
o
l
l
a
borat
e
wi
t
h
ot
he
rs
in
activ
ities in
o
r
d
e
r t
o
con
s
tru
c
t kn
owledg
e an
d
d
i
scov
er
p
r
i
n
cip
l
es fo
r t
h
em
selv
es Kearsley [9
].
W
a
ng
[1
0
]
al
so re
p
o
rt
s t
h
a
t
web
-
ba
sed
l
earni
ng
has
bee
n
s
u
p
p
o
rt
e
d
by learni
ng t
h
eori
es that em
phas
i
se the creation of an
envi
ronm
ent where
learne
rs c
a
n access
and
share
knowle
d
ge
a
n
d res
o
urc
e
s with one a
n
othe
r.
In this s
e
nse
,
web
-
based
,
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
gy
-e
n
h
an
ced l
ear
ni
n
g
se
em
s t
o
be a
b
l
e
t
o
st
i
m
ul
at
e and s
u
p
p
o
rt
t
h
e l
earni
ng
p
r
oce
s
s an
d
enha
nce l
e
a
r
ni
ng
o
u
t
c
om
es [
11]
.
Thus, when students
were given opportuni
ties to use Faceb
ook group discussion to discuss on
to
p
i
cs, learn
e
rs are expo
sed to
lan
g
u
a
g
e
t
h
at is m
o
d
i
fied
to th
eir ind
i
v
i
du
al lev
e
l an
d m
u
ltip
le step
s
o
f
scaffo
ld
i
n
g
are co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ted
throug
hou
t th
e d
i
scu
ssion
.
At
this stag
e, co
m
p
eten
t learn
e
rs
will assist th
eir g
r
o
up
me
m
b
ers in
th
e d
i
scu
ssion
. Fin
a
lly, after b
e
in
g
en
cou
r
ag
ed
, learn
e
rs wou
l
d
b
e
ab
le to
in
itiate d
i
scu
ssion
wit
h
t
h
e hel
p
of
ot
h
e
rs.
1.2. The Influence of
F
a
ceb
ook
Gr
ou
p Discussion
s
in Students’ Writi
n
g
Lan
gua
ge l
ear
ni
n
g
ha
s g
r
ow
n bey
o
n
d
t
h
e
bo
u
nda
ri
es o
f
t
h
e f
o
u
r
wal
l
s
of t
h
e cl
assr
o
o
m
;
i
n
fact
,
m
o
st
l
a
ngua
ge
l
earni
n
g
occ
u
rs
out
si
de an
d i
n
f
o
rm
al
l
y
.
In
fo
rm
al
l
earn
i
ng, t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
m
e
di
um
l
i
k
e IC
T
th
er
efor
e, is a sig
n
i
f
i
can
t
alter
n
ativ
e en
v
i
r
onmen
t f
o
r
languag
e
pr
actice and
u
s
e an
d
thu
s
, sh
ou
ld
n
o
t
be tak
e
n
lightly. Inform
al learni
ng experiences
are seen
as th
e lin
k
o
r
th
e bridg
e
between social
media and aca
dem
i
c
co
n
t
en
t. So
it o
f
fers m
o
re o
p
p
o
rtun
ities fo
r
stu
d
e
n
t
s to
b
e
h
i
gh
ly en
g
a
g
e
d
with
edu
catio
n
a
l con
t
en
t in fo
rm
al
learning settings. Educators
are too
rigi
d a
nd
na
rrow-m
i
nde
d in t
h
e id
ea that learning cannot take
place
out
si
de
of
a cl
assro
o
m
.
Fo
r c
e
rt
ai
n, l
e
a
r
ni
ng
shal
l
al
way
s
r
e
qui
re a
f
o
rm
al
set
t
i
ng i
n
whi
c
h t
h
e
di
ssem
i
nat
i
o
n
of
k
n
o
wl
e
dge
can occu
r.
Ho
we
ver
,
t
h
e l
earni
ng
pr
oces
ses t
h
at
g
o
on
out
si
de o
f
t
h
e
cl
assro
o
m
t
h
ro
ug
h t
h
e
use
o
f
t
echn
o
l
o
gy
,
neg
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
eani
ng,
c
ons
t
r
uct
i
o
n
of
k
n
o
wl
e
dge
, s
o
ci
a
l
an
d i
n
t
e
r-
per
s
on
al
i
n
t
e
ract
i
ons
a
n
d
f
o
rm
at
i
on
o
f
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
ps -
are equal
l
y
as im
port
a
nt
. Sel
w
y
n
val
i
d
at
es t
h
at
co
m
put
er an
d ot
he
r aspect
s
of In
f
o
rm
at
i
on an
d
Co
mm
u
n
i
catio
n
Techn
o
l
o
g
i
es (ICTs) allow
ch
ild
ren
and
youn
g
p
e
ople a w
i
d
e
v
a
ri
ety o
f
acti
v
ities and
expe
riences t
h
at can support learni
ng, yet
m
a
ny of the
s
e transactions
do
not take
place in tradit
ional
educational
se
ttings
[12].
In fact, m
a
ny of the
s
e m
a
y not
be c
o
nsidered
‘educationa
l’ according t
o
our
co
nv
en
tio
n
a
l
un
d
e
rstand
ing
of th
at term
.
Mo
st o
f
th
e Matricu
l
atio
n
stud
en
ts in
Malaysia
fear of writing beca
use of gramm
a
r
mista
k
es. Melor
(2012) carried
out a research
on
us
ing Facebook groups in
teaching ESL writing [13]
. He stated Facebook
gr
o
up
di
scussi
on
hel
p
e
d
som
e
of t
h
e s
h
y
st
ude
nt
s t
o
com
m
uni
cat
e wi
t
hout
fea
r
i
n
g o
r
m
a
ki
ng m
i
st
ak
es i
n
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:2252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 1
,
Mar
c
h
2
015
:
30
–
37
32
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
t
h
e class. H
e
also
said
Facebook
g
r
ou
p
d
i
scussio
n
fo
ru
m
o
f
f
e
r saf
e
env
i
ronmen
t to
co
mmu
n
i
cate
th
eir m
e
ssag
e
s wh
ile m
a
in
tai
n
ing
a con
v
e
rsatio
n
a
l fo
rm
at
. Learners
can
also inc
r
ease t
h
eir
flue
ncy through
writing
th
eir co
mmen
t
, b
ecause g
r
ou
p
d
i
scussio
n
allows le
arn
e
rs th
e
op
tio
n
t
o
d
i
scu
ss
on
e top
i
c step
-by-step
,
so t
h
at their langua
ge a
n
d knowle
dge
of t
h
e
topic im
prove
s
accordi
ngly.
Ot
he
r ad
vant
a
g
e o
f
Faceb
o
ok
gr
o
up
di
sc
ussi
o
n
i
s
w
h
e
r
e i
t
woul
d i
n
crease t
h
e m
o
t
i
v
at
i
on
of
l
a
ng
uage
use
r
s. I
n
crease
d
m
o
ti
vat
i
on
wo
ul
d
defi
ni
t
e
l
y
l
ead t
o
a s
u
cc
essful
l
ear
ni
n
g
envi
ro
nm
ent
whi
c
h
co
n
t
ribu
tes to lang
u
a
g
e
proficien
c
y.
In sen
d
i
n
g
an
d
receiv
in
g co
mme
n
t
th
e stud
en
ts will b
e
in th
e
real
cont
e
x
t
.
Warnock [14]
stated that t
h
e fi
rst reason to
teach
writing online
is that the e
nvironment can
be
p
u
rely tex
t
u
a
l. Stu
d
e
n
t
s are i
n
a rich, gu
id
ed
learn
i
n
g
environ
m
en
t in
wh
ich
th
ey ex
press th
em
selv
es to
a
v
a
ried
aud
i
ence with
th
ei
r written
words. Th
e electron
i
c co
mm
u
n
i
catio
n
to
o
l
s allow stud
en
ts t
o
write
to
th
e
teacher and to each other in ways
that will open
up teaching and
learni
ng
opport
unities for everyone
involve
d
. Besi
des,
writing teachers
ha
ve a uni
que
oppo
rt
unity beca
use
writing-ce
nt
re
d online c
o
urses allow
i
n
st
ruct
ors a
n
d st
ude
nt
s t
o
i
n
t
e
ract
i
n
way
s
bey
o
n
d
cont
e
n
t
del
i
v
er
y
.
They
al
l
o
w st
udent
s t
o
bui
l
d
a
co
mm
u
n
ity
th
ro
ugh
electron
i
c
m
ean
s. For stu
d
e
n
t
s wh
ose
o
p
tion
s
are limited
,
th
ese electron
i
c co
mmu
n
ities
can
bui
l
d
t
h
e
s
o
ci
al
an
d
pr
of
e
ssi
onal
c
o
nnect
i
ons
t
h
at
c
onst
i
t
u
t
e
som
e
of
ed
ucat
i
o
n
’
s
real
val
u
e
[
14]
.
M
o
re
ove
r, M
e
l
o
r
[1
5]
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
out
t
h
at
soci
al
i
n
t
e
ract
i
on t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
gi
es
have
great
bene
fi
t
s
fo
r l
i
f
el
o
n
g
ed
u
cation
env
i
ron
m
en
ts. Th
e so
cial in
teractio
n
can
h
e
lp
enh
a
n
c
i
n
g
th
e skills su
ch
as th
e ab
ility
to
search
, to
evaluate, to interact
m
ean
ingfully with tool
s, and
so on.
Education activities can
usua
lly
take place in the
classroom
which teacher a
n
d students
will
face to face, but now, it can be
carried
out through the social
net
w
or
k t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
gi
es i
n
cl
udi
ng
di
sc
ussi
on
a
n
d
assessm
ent
.
According to
Kam
a
rulKabil
an,
Norlida
Ahm
a
d and Zai
nol
Abi
d
in
[16],
using Facebook
a
ffects
learner m
o
tivation and stre
ngthens st
ude
nts’ social
networki
ng practices.
What is m
o
re, according to
Munoz
and T
o
wne
r
[17], Facebook a
l
so increas
es the level of
web-base
d interaction am
ong
both teacher-student and
stude
nt-st
ude
nt
. Face
book a
s
s
i
sts the teache
r
s to c
o
nnect
with t
h
eir st
udents
outsi
de
of the class
r
oom
and
di
scuss
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e assi
gnm
ent
s
, cl
assr
o
o
m
event
s
a
n
d
use
f
ul
l
i
nks
.
Kabilan
et al. conducted a
researc
h
inves
tigati
ng i
f
Fac
e
bo
o
k
can
be
a usef
ul
a
n
d
m
eani
n
g
f
u
l
l
earni
n
g
e
n
vi
r
onm
ent
t
h
at
c
o
ul
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
o
r
enha
nce l
a
n
g
u
a
ge l
ear
ni
n
g
i
n
En
gl
i
s
h.
T
h
ei
r
fi
n
d
i
n
gs
sh
o
w
t
h
at
,
in
term
s
o
f
affectiv
e facto
r
s, stu
d
e
n
t
s’ co
nfid
en
ce
, m
o
tiv
at
io
n
and
attitu
des i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
sig
n
i
fican
tly. Stu
d
e
n
t
s
claim
that using Face
book
has
booste
d t
h
eir c
o
nfi
d
en
c
e
as
well as
made them
more
da
ring t
o
use
t
h
e
lan
g
u
a
g
e
esp
e
cially in
ter
m
s of writin
g.
1.
3. Ai
med
o
f
Stud
y
Sela
m
i
[18] st
ated that s
o
cia
l
network
disc
ussions
provide cont
ext
whe
r
e teache
r
s tal
k
less
and
learners talk m
o
re. It also
makes learning m
o
re
stude
nt-ce
n
tere
d. Facebook gr
oup discussion makes it
pos
si
bl
e
fo
r st
ude
nt
s t
o
e
nga
ge i
n
l
ear
ni
n
g
and
b
r
ai
nst
o
r
m
i
ng t
h
ei
r
sch
e
m
a
t
a
befo
re t
h
ey
w
r
i
t
e
i
n
cl
ass.
A
state
m
en
t fro
m
Bab
yboo
m
e
rc
aretak
er [19
]
w
r
itten
t
h
at Faceb
ook
is t
h
e
m
o
st w
i
d
e
ly u
s
ed
in
tern
et applicatio
n
and se
n
d
er ca
n
edi
t
or re
ph
ras
e
sent
ences m
a
ny
t
i
m
e
s be
fo
re actu
a
lly sen
d
in
g
it. Th
is stud
y is th
erefo
r
e
ai
m
s
to
fi
n
d
ou
t
w
h
eth
e
r
Facebook
g
r
ou
p d
i
scu
s
sio
n
s
can af
fect stu
d
e
n
t
s’ writin
g
p
e
rform
a
n
ce, t
o
i
d
en
tify th
eir
p
e
rcep
tion
on th
e app
r
o
a
ch o
f
Facebo
ok d
i
scu
ssi
o
n
s
an
d
co
lleg
e
st
ud
en
ts’ attitu
d
e
s to
ward
t
h
e
u
s
e of
Facebook disc
ussions.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
Th
e resp
ond
ents o
f
th
is stu
dy co
m
p
rise o
f
m
a
tr
i
c
ul
at
i
on st
udent
s f
r
o
m
one o
f
t
h
e M
a
t
r
i
c
ul
at
i
o
n
Co
lleg
e
in Penin
s
u
l
ar Malaysia. Th
ere are
fifth
t
een
st
ud
ents in
ex
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
al gr
oup
labelled
as
A
3
T14
and
fi
ft
ht
een st
ude
nt
s i
n
co
nt
r
o
l
gr
ou
p l
a
bel
l
e
d as A
3
T
1
2
.
Al
l
of t
h
em
are al
so act
i
v
e
i
n
soci
al
net
w
o
r
k
s
,
especially Facebook. T
h
ey spen
t
nearly 2 hours daily to s
o
cialize onlin
e
.
The m
e
thod
use
d
to collect data in
t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
i
s
de
scri
be
d
bel
o
w.
2.
1. I
n
f
o
rm
al
Meeti
n
g
An i
n
fo
rm
al
meet
i
ng i
s
hel
d
bef
o
re t
h
e Fac
e
bo
o
k
di
scu
ssi
on sessi
on
s fo
r
t
h
e experi
m
e
nt
al
grou
p.
It
is between the
researc
h
er a
n
d the s
ubj
ects o
f
th
e stud
y. Th
e
p
a
rticip
an
ts are b
r
iefed
on th
e co
n
c
ep
ts b
e
h
i
nd
Facebook
disc
ussion a
n
d what is expect
e
d
of t
h
em
throughout the
pe
riod. Th
e
stude
n
ts
are also informed that
to
p
i
cs
po
sted
wou
l
d b
e
sim
i
l
a
r to MUET ex
tend
ed writin
g
q
u
e
stio
n. Cri
t
eria o
f
Faceboo
k d
i
scu
ssi
o
n
are also
i
n
f
o
rm
ed. B
e
si
des t
h
ey
are g
i
ven f
r
ee
dom
to ex
pre
ss i
d
ea
s, o
p
i
n
i
o
ns a
n
d feel
i
n
gs i
n
t
h
ei
r di
sc
ussi
on
. They
are also
to
ld
that th
e ex
p
e
rimen
t
p
e
ri
o
d
would
g
o
o
n
for three week
s. Finally, th
ey will
b
e
in
fo
rm
ed
to en
jo
y
th
e
d
i
scu
ssi
o
n
as
th
eir writin
g
wo
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
g
r
ad
ed
o
r
m
a
rked
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Th
e Effectiven
ess
o
f
Fa
cebo
ok
Gro
u
p
Discussio
n
s
on
Writin
g
Performan
c
e:
A S
t
ud
y
i
n
....
(Ng
S
a
u
Ping)
33
2.
2. Face
bo
ok
Di
scussi
o
n
s
The
pa
rt
i
c
i
p
an
t
s
’ em
ai
l
addr
esses a
r
e
req
u
i
red t
o
be a
d
ded
i
n
t
h
e
Fa
cebo
o
k
gr
o
u
p
di
scussi
o
n
.
Researche
r
wil
l
create a priva
t
e
g
r
oup
in
Faceb
ook
wh
ich
ti
tled
“Thi
n
king Out L
o
ud”
. Participants are
aske
d
to
rep
l
y th
e to
p
i
c th
at will b
e
po
sted
week
ly b
y
th
e research
er. Stud
en
ts can
write th
eir op
in
ion
in
th
e
discussi
ons. T
h
ese discussions
a
r
e not graded. Total of
t
h
ree
topi
cs
are
posted for three
weeks.
2.3.
Pre te
st
and P
o
st Test
Research
er
w
ill select randomly o
n
o
n
e
ex
ten
d
e
d wr
itin
g
p
a
ssed
year questio
n
(Y
ear 20
11-
2
013
) as
pre
t
e
st
an
d
p
o
s
t
t
e
st
t
o
bot
h
expe
ri
m
e
nt
al
and
co
nt
r
o
l
gr
o
u
p
.
T
h
e
w
r
i
t
i
ng sc
ore
s
of
t
h
e
p
r
e-t
e
st
a
n
d
p
o
st
-t
est
s
will b
e
co
m
p
ared
u
s
i
n
g
a
t
-test (p
aired
samp
le t-test an
d
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
sam
p
le
t-test) to
d
e
term
in
e if th
ere are
any
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
di
f
f
ere
n
ce i
n
t
h
e
num
ber
part
i
c
i
p
ant
s
i
n
t
h
e
cont
rol
a
n
d e
x
peri
m
e
nt
al
gr
o
u
p
.
2.
4. Sur
vey
Par
ticip
an
ts in ex
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
al
g
r
o
u
p
co
m
p
l
e
ted
a sur
v
ey
af
ter
th
r
e
e w
eeks of
Faceb
ook
group
di
scussi
o
n
s,
w
h
i
c
h i
n
cl
ude e
i
ght
o
p
e
n
-e
n
d
e
d i
t
e
m
s
wi
t
h
a 4-l
e
vel
Li
k
e
rt
Scal
e of
‘
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
Di
sagree
’,
‘
D
isag
r
e
e’
,
‘Ag
r
ee’
an
d Stron
g
l
y
A
g
r
ee’ th
at r
e
lated to
stu
d
e
n
t
s
p
e
r
c
ep
tio
n and
op
inio
n
abo
u
t
Faceb
ook
gr
o
up
di
sc
ussi
on
. T
h
e
quest
i
o
n
n
ai
re i
s
di
vi
ded
i
n
t
o
t
w
o
s
ect
i
ons,
(sect
i
o
n A
)
Asp
ect w
h
ich
f
o
und
in
Writin
g
Process
and (
Sectio
n
B) Attitu
d
e
s toward
s th
e
u
s
e
o
f
Faceb
ook
Gro
up.
2.
5. Proce
dur
e
f
o
r Da
ta
A
n
al
ysi
s
The
dat
a
anal
y
s
es fr
om
t
h
e pre
an
d
po
st
t
e
st
scores
ar
e co
nd
uct
e
d
u
s
i
ng
SPS
S v
e
r
s
i
on
1
6
a
n
d
descri
ptive ana
l
yses are used
for the
survey. The m
ean scores from
the pr
e and
post
t
e
st
by
t
h
e ex
peri
m
e
nt
al
and c
o
nt
rol
ar
e
com
p
ared t
o
s
ee any
di
ffe
re
n
ces bet
w
ee
n b
o
t
h
gr
ou
ps
. Th
e out
per
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
p
i
s
i
d
en
t
i
f
i
e
d.
Th
e writin
g
sco
r
es
of
t
h
e pre-test
and
po
st-tests will b
e
co
m
p
ared
u
s
i
n
g a
t
-test
(ind
epen
d
e
n
t
sam
p
le t-test
an
d
p
a
ired
sam
p
le
t-test) to
d
e
term
in
e if th
ere are
an
y si
g
n
i
fican
t d
i
fferen
ce on
writing
p
e
rform
a
n
ce in
th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r p
a
rticip
an
ts in
th
e co
n
t
ro
l and
exp
e
rim
e
n
t
al g
r
ou
p. Fin
a
lly, th
e co
lleg
e
stud
en
ts’ attitu
d
e
s are
d
e
scr
i
b
e
d b
a
sed
o
n
th
e
f
i
nd
ing
s
o
f
qu
estionnair
e surv
ey fr
om
th
e exp
e
r
i
men
t
al gr
oup
.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
In
th
is section
,
it is ex
p
l
ain
e
d
th
e resu
l
t
s o
f
research an
d
at th
e sam
e
ti
me
is
g
i
v
e
n
the
com
p
rehe
nsi
v
e
di
scus
si
o
n
. R
e
sul
t
s
can
be
pr
esent
e
d i
n
fi
gu
res,
gra
p
hs, t
a
b
l
es and
ot
hers t
h
at
m
a
ke t
h
e r
eade
r
un
de
rst
a
n
d
eas
i
l
y
. The
di
scus
si
on
can
be
m
a
de i
n
se
veral
s
u
b
-
c
h
apt
e
r
s
.
3.
1.
D
o
Face
b
o
o
k
gro
up di
scussi
ons
a
ffe
ct
col
l
e
ge stu
d
e
n
ts’
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
p
erform
a
nce
s
?
Th
e resu
lts o
f
p
a
ired
sam
p
les
t-test fo
r bo
th g
r
o
u
p
s
are
p
r
esen
ted
in
Tab
l
e 1
with
15
p
a
rticip
an
ts i
n
cont
rol
g
r
o
u
p
(
A
3
T
1
2
) a
nd e
x
peri
m
e
nt
al
gro
up
(A
3T
14
). T
h
e p val
u
e i
s
0.
00
(p<
0
.
0
5). T
hus
, n
u
l
l
hy
p
o
t
h
esi
s
two
(H
0
2
)
is rej
ected
. Th
ere i
s
sign
ifican
t effect of F
aceboo
k group
d
i
scussio
n
s
on
co
lleg
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s’ writin
g
perform
a
nces.
From
Table
1,
the res
u
lt indicates that th
ere
are
significa
n
t diffe
re
n
ces
between the m
ean score
of
pre
-
t
e
st
an
d
po
st
-t
est
i
n
e
x
peri
m
e
nt
al
and
con
v
e
n
t
i
o
nal
m
e
t
hod.
The
m
ean sco
r
e f
r
o
m
pre an
d
p
o
st
t
e
st
i
n
cont
rol
g
r
ou
p i
s
29
.4
0 (
S
D =
3.
00
) an
d 3
2
.
6
7 (S
D = 4.
1
2
)
wi
t
h
a m
ean di
ffe
rence
3.
27
.
The di
ffe
rence
i
n
pre
an
d po
st test
f
o
r
co
n
t
ro
l
g
r
ou
p is sign
if
ican
ce w
ith
(p
=
0
.
001
).
Tabl
e
1.
Pai
r
e
d
Sam
p
l
e
T-t
e
st
In
C
o
nt
r
o
l
G
r
o
u
p
an
d
Treat
m
e
nt
G
r
ou
p
M
e
thod M
ean
(
S
D)
t(
df)
p-
value
Before
interventi
on After
intervention
Contr
o
l Gr
oup (
n
= 15)
E
xper
i
m
e
ntal Gr
o
up (
n
= 15)
29.
40 (
3
.
00)
32.
67 (
4
.
12)
32.
67 (
4
.
12)
39.
67 (
3
.
06)
-
4
.
42 (
14)
-
10.
84 (
14)
0.
001
<0.
001
On t
h
e ot
he
r h
a
nd
, t
h
e m
ean score
fr
om
pre and
p
o
st
t
e
st
i
n
expe
ri
m
e
nt
al
gr
o
up i
s
3
2
.
6
7 (SD =
4.
12
)
and
3
9
.
6
7 (
S
D
= 3.
0
6
)
wi
t
h
a m
ean di
ffere
nce
7.
00
. T
h
e
di
ffe
re
nce i
n
p
r
e an
d
p
o
st
t
e
st
fo
r e
xpe
ri
m
e
nt
al
gr
o
up i
s
si
g
n
i
f
i
cance wi
t
h
(
p
< 0.0
0
1
)
.
B
o
t
h
gr
ou
ps p
e
rforman
ce i
m
p
r
o
v
ed
sign
ifican
tl
y b
u
t
th
e resu
lts in
th
e
Tab
l
e
4
.
1
sh
ows th
at th
e exp
e
ri
m
e
n
t
al g
r
oup
i
n
cr
eased
h
i
gh
er
an
d p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
e
tter
th
an
t
h
e con
t
ro
l gr
oup.
R
e
ferri
ng t
o
T
a
bl
e 2, i
n
depe
nde
nt
sam
p
l
e
t
-test (two
tailed
)
was in
t
r
oduced t
o
e
x
am
ine whethe
r
t
h
ere
were a
n
y
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
f
f
ere
n
ce f
o
r
b
o
t
h
g
r
ou
ps. B
a
se
d o
n
t
h
e
res
u
l
t
s
sh
ow
n f
r
o
m
the t
a
bl
e a
b
o
v
e,
i
t
i
s
rep
o
rt
e
d
t
h
at
t
h
e p
r
e t
e
st
m
e
an sco
r
e i
s
2
9
.
40
fo
r co
nt
r
o
l
gr
o
up a
nd
32
.6
7 f
o
r e
xpe
ri
m
e
nt
al
gr
ou
p. T
h
e
m
ean
score
di
ffe
re
nc
e i
s
3.27 a
n
d si
gni
fi
cant
di
f
f
er
ence i
s
p = 0.
0
1
9
.
B
e
si
des t
h
at
, post
t
e
st
m
e
an sco
r
e f
o
r co
nt
r
o
l
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:2252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 1
,
Mar
c
h
2
015
:
30
–
37
34
gr
o
up i
s
32
.6
7
and e
x
peri
m
e
nt
al
gro
u
p
i
s
3
9
.
67
res
p
ect
i
v
el
y
.
The m
ean sco
r
e di
f
f
ere
n
ce i
s
7.
0 an
d si
g
n
i
f
i
cant
di
ffe
re
nce i
s
p
<
0.
00
1.
Tabl
e
2.
In
de
p
e
nde
nt
Sam
p
l
e
T-t
e
st
B
e
t
w
ee
n C
ont
r
o
l
a
n
d
Treat
m
e
nt
Gro
ups
Test
Mean (S
D)
t(
df)
p-
value
Contr
o
l
E
xper
i
m
e
ntal
Pre
Post
29.
40 (
3
.
00)
32.
67 (
4
.
12)
32.
67 (
4
.
12)
39.
67 (
3
.
06)
-
2
.
49 (
28)
-
5
.
28 (
28)
0.
019
<0.
001
Howev
e
r, from
th
e resu
lts, i
t
is sh
own
th
at
th
e pre
t
e
st
w
oul
d af
fect
pos
t
t
e
st
perf
orm
a
nce. T
h
e
fi
rs
t
issue
highlight
ed
here is t
h
at
the pre test sc
ore
be
twe
e
n c
ont
rol a
n
d trea
tm
ent has significant differe
n
ce and
seco
ndl
y
,
pre
t
e
st
sco
r
e c
o
r
r
el
at
es m
oderat
e
l
y
wi
t
h
po
st
t
e
st
sco
r
e
(r=
0.
45
,
p=0
.
0
1
3
)
,
as
T
a
bl
e 3
.
Tabl
e 3.C
o
rrel
a
t
i
on bet
w
ee
n Pre
Te
st
an
d P
o
st
Test
Correlation
r
p-
value
0.
45
p = 0.
13
Th
ese issu
es can
b
e
so
lv
ed
by co
n
t
ro
lling
t
h
e
p
r
e te
st p
e
rform
a
n
ce b
y
usin
g
an
alysis
of co
v
a
rian
ce
(A
NC
O
V
A
).
ANC
OV
A
has
been
use
d
t
o
t
e
st
for
di
f
f
ere
n
ces i
n
m
eans am
ong t
h
e g
r
o
u
p
s w
h
e
n
s
o
m
e
of t
h
e
vari
at
i
o
n i
n
t
h
e res
p
o
n
si
bl
e v
a
ri
abl
e
ca
n
be
expl
ai
ne
d
by a
covariate. Covaria
n
ce
is a
measure
of how m
u
c
h
t
w
o
va
ri
abl
e
s c
h
an
ge t
oget
h
er
an
d t
h
e
st
re
ngt
h
of
t
h
e
rel
a
t
i
o
nshi
p
bet
w
ee
n
t
h
em
.
In t
h
e a
n
al
y
s
i
s
of
co
vari
a
n
ce,
t
h
e di
ffe
rence
s
o
f
m
ean scor
e fo
r c
ont
rol
a
n
d
ex
peri
m
e
nt
al
gr
ou
p a
r
e
sig
n
i
f
i
can
t
(p
< 0
.
0
0
1
)
. In
the sa
m
e
an
alysi
s
, it is r
e
p
o
r
t
ed
th
at th
e v
a
l
u
e o
f
ad
ju
sted
R sq
u
a
r
e
w
a
s
0
.
491.
This val
u
e prove
s that the
Faceboo
k group discussion treat
m
e
nt m
e
thod
had
c
o
nt
ributed m
e
rely 49.1%
di
ffe
re
nces i
n
wri
t
i
ng pe
rf
o
r
m
a
nce i
n
t
h
e post
t
e
st
bet
w
een t
h
e c
ont
rol
g
r
o
u
p
and
experi
m
e
nt
al
gro
u
p
.
M
eanw
h
i
l
e
, a
not
her
5
0
.
9
%
of t
h
e
di
ffe
r
e
nces c
oul
d b
e
cont
ri
b
u
t
e
d
by
any
ot
her
fact
or
s o
u
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
researc
h
er’s re
search
area
.
3.
2.
Wh
a
t
asp
ects
of
Face
bo
ok
gr
oup
di
sc
ussi
ons
hel
p
c
o
l
l
e
ge s
t
ude
nt
s t
o
e
x
press
th
ei
r opi
n
i
o
ns
?
Accord
ing
to
Tab
l
e 4, item
s
1
to
3
i
n
th
is sectio
n
investigate certain as
pects of t
h
e
writ
ing
process
,
in
clu
d
i
n
g
t
h
e o
r
g
a
n
i
satio
n
o
f
id
eas, vo
cab
u
lary b
u
ild
ing
an
d
sp
ellin
g. Th
e m
ean
sco
r
e fo
r
Item
1
was 3
.
5
3
(SD
= 0
.
52
) an
d
m
a
j
o
rity o
f
th
e p
a
rticip
an
ts
stro
ng
l
y
ag
ree
wi
t
h
a
pe
rcent
a
ge
o
f
53
.3%
f
o
un
d t
h
at
brai
nst
o
rm
i
ng on
Face
bo
o
k
g
r
o
u
p
has
hel
p
e
d
t
h
em
t
o
or
ga
ni
se t
h
ei
r
o
p
i
n
i
ons
wel
l
be
f
o
r
e
t
h
e act
ual
wr
i
t
i
ng i
n
class while another
46.7%
who a
g
ree
d
t
o
it.
Tabl
e 4. As
pec
t
s
of
Face
bo
o
k
Gr
ou
p Di
sc
uss
s
i
o
n
No
ite
m
State
m
ent
L
i
ker
t
Scale, Frequency
(
%
)
Total Mean
(S
D)
Mode
1 2
3
4
1
Br
ainstorm
ing on FB gr
oup helps
or
ganize
m
y
thoughts befor
e
the actual
writing.
0 0
7(
46.
7)
8(
53.
3)
15(
100)
3.
53(
0.
52)
4
2
I
lear
n new vocabular
y fr
o
m
r
eading the
co
m
m
ents of others on the FB gr
oup.
0 3(
20)
9(
60)
3(
20)
15(
100)
3.
00(
0.
66)
3
3
The spell-check f
e
ature helps
m
e
red
u
ce
sp
ellin
g
erro
rs.
0 0
10(
66.
7)
5(
33.
3)
15(
100)
3.
33(
0.
49)
3
4
I
d
eas or
opinions p
o
sted by
m
y
peer
s
on
FB group help
m
e
in getting a better
idea before writing.
0 0
6(
40)
9(
60)
15(
100)
3.
60(
0.
50)
4
5
I find it easier to
c
o
m
p
lete
m
y
essays
after
par
ticipating in FB gr
oup
discussion.
0 1(
6.
7)
7(
46.
7)
7(
46.
7)
15(
100)
3.
40(
0.
62)
3
Next
, t
h
e m
e
an sco
r
e fo
r It
e
m
2 was 3.0
0
(SD = 0
.
6
6
)
and m
a
jori
t
y
of
t
h
e resp
on
de
n
t
s onl
y
agree
that they learnt new voc
abul
ary fro
m
reading their
peers
’
comments with
a p
e
r
cen
tage o
f
60
% ou
t o
f
15
part
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
. T
h
ere
we
re
3 r
e
sp
on
de
nt
s wi
t
h
a
perce
n
t
a
g
e
of
2
0
%
w
h
o
di
sag
r
eed
t
h
at
t
h
ey
l
earnt
ne
w
voca
b
ul
ary
a
n
d
an
ot
he
r
20%
o
f
t
h
e
res
p
on
de
nt
s c
hose
n
o
n
l
y
t
o
ag
ree
wi
t
h
t
h
e st
at
em
ent
respect
i
v
el
y
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Th
e Effectiven
ess
o
f
Fa
cebo
ok
Gro
u
p
Discussio
n
s
on
Writin
g
Performan
c
e:
A S
t
ud
y
i
n
....
(Ng
S
a
u
Ping)
35
Th
e m
ean
score f
o
r
qu
estio
n
ite
m
3
w
a
s
3
.
3
3
(
S
D
= 0.49)
w
ith a
p
e
r
c
en
tag
e
of
66
.7%, wh
er
e
1
5
resp
o
nde
nt
s ag
reed t
h
at
t
h
e spel
l
check feat
ure di
d hel
p
i
n
reduci
ng s
p
el
l
i
ng er
ro
r, w
h
i
l
e
on t
h
e ot
he
r ha
n
d
,
th
ere
were on
l
y
5
respon
d
e
n
t
s with a
p
e
rcentag
e
of
33
.3
%
who
st
rong
ly ag
reed
t
h
at it h
e
lp
ed
a lo
t.
The ne
xt two
ite
m
s
(Q4 –
Q5) explored
if Faceb
ook group provides
stude
nts with the content
k
nowledg
e for
writing
task
s.
Qu
esti
o
n
item
4
repo
rted
th
at
th
e m
ean
score was
3
.
60
(SD =
0
.
5
0
). Th
ere were
9 res
p
on
de
nt
s (
6
0
%
)
wh
o st
r
o
ngl
y
ag
ree t
h
at
i
d
eas w
h
i
c
h
w
e
re p
o
st
ed
by
p
eers we
re
hel
p
f
u
l
t
o
p
r
od
uce
b
e
t
t
e
r
i
d
ea
be
f
o
re
w
r
i
t
i
ng
w
h
i
l
e
a
n
ot
he
r 40%
o
f
6 part
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
resp
o
nde
d o
n
l
y
agree
.
No
ne of
t
h
e pa
rt
i
c
i
p
ant
s
ha
d
cho
s
en
di
sa
gre
e
d or
st
r
o
n
g
l
y
di
sag
r
eed
.
Quest
i
on i
t
e
m
5 re
p
o
rt
e
d
m
e
an sc
ore
was
3.
40
(S
D =
0.
6
2
)
an
d o
n
l
y
1
res
p
o
n
d
ent
(6
.7
%
)
di
sa
gre
e
d
with
th
e statemen
t th
ink
i
ng
t
h
at it was no
t easy to
co
m
p
lete th
e essay ev
en
after
p
a
rticip
at
in
g
i
n
th
e
Faceb
ook
group discussi
on. While
the other
46.7% of re
spondents res
p
onde
d
agree and
strongly agree
each
resp
ectiv
ely.
Based
on
th
e
resu
lts, th
ere
was on
ly on
e part
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
w
h
o di
sa
gree
d a
n
d t
h
i
s
m
a
y be due t
o
shyness
or i
n
ac
tiveness i
n
th
e Facebook group discussi
on.
B
a
sed o
n
t
h
e
r
e
sul
t
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
, t
h
e as
pect
fr
om
l
earni
ng
of
new
v
o
cab
ul
a
r
y
am
ong ot
he
rs was
n
o
t
popular am
ong participa
n
ts as
the researc
h
e
r
assum
e
d
that accounting students
were
i
n
the lower
profi
c
iency
lev
e
l in
th
eir
vo
cabu
l
ary an
d
also
sp
elling
.
Th
e
research
er h
a
d on
ce
g
i
v
e
n
acco
u
n
ting
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
d
i
ctatio
n
,
and
a m
a
j
o
rity of
account st
ude
nts m
a
de a
huge am
ount of
mistakes in spelling as they
were
ba
rely a
b
le t
o
com
p
rehe
nd the m
eani
ng o
f
c
e
rt
ai
n
wo
rd
s.
Bu
t, on
e th
ing fo
r su
re, th
eir writin
g
p
e
rforman
ce sh
ows i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
term
o
f
th
eir in
terest an
d
whe
n
t
h
ey
rea
d
t
h
ei
r pee
r
s
’
com
m
e
nt
s. I
d
e
a
s p
o
st
ed
by
p
eers
have
hel
p
ed
ot
he
r wea
k
er l
ear
ners
t
o
obt
ai
n
id
eas an
d
th
ey
foun
d
it easier to
write an
essay o
n
th
e sam
e
to
p
i
c in
class. Ov
erall, m
o
stl
y
all
th
e p
a
rticip
an
t
s
in the expe
rimental group ha
ve gaine
d
som
e
benefits through this F
acebook group disc
ussion and it is
prove
n
th
at d
i
fferen
t i
n
d
i
v
i
du
al own
d
i
fferen
t
ab
ility, Thu
s
, th
ey
defin
itely fou
nd d
i
fferen
t asp
e
cts wh
ich
su
ited
th
em
in
learn
i
ng
Eng
lish
esp
ecially in
th
e
writin
g p
e
rfo
r
m
a
n
ce.
In
c
oncl
u
sion, Facebook gr
oup disc
ussions
provide am
ple
opport
unities for stude
n
ts to
practice and
i
m
p
r
ov
e th
eir
writing
sk
ills. Stu
d
i
es sh
ow th
at stu
d
e
n
t
s feel o
b
lig
ed
to
respo
n
d
to
th
eir p
eers' co
mme
n
t
s or
opi
ni
o
n
s p
o
st
e
d
, t
h
us are a
c
t
i
v
el
y
"Post
i
ng" a
nd "C
o
m
m
e
nt
i
ng" on
t
h
e appl
i
cat
i
o
n
.
They
t
a
ke
every
o
ppo
rt
u
n
ity to
p
r
actice th
eir writin
g
sk
ills. Stu
d
e
n
t
s also
d
i
sco
v
e
r n
e
w sen
t
en
ce or writing
stru
ct
ures b
y
read
i
n
g
th
e commen
t
s an
d
p
o
sts fro
m
th
eir p
eers. Th
ese sho
w
th
at
writin
g sk
ills are v
e
ry m
u
ch
e
m
p
h
a
sised
i
n
Facebook group participation
and
thus has a
high po
tential of enha
ncing a
n
d im
provi
ng stude
n
ts' writing
sk
ills.
3.
3.
Wh
a
t
are
the
col
l
e
ge
st
udent
s’
a
tti
t
u
des towar
d
th
e use
of F
a
ceb
ook discu
ssions?
Th
ere are three ite
m
s
in
th
e
q
u
e
stio
nn
aire th
at an
sw
e
r
e
d
t
h
e t
h
ird re
search
question.
All these three
que
stion item
s
6 to 8 reflect
ed college students’ a
ttitude
towards the
use of Facebook
group
discussion.
B
a
sed o
n
Ta
bl
e 5, t
h
e m
o
st
cho
s
en
4 scal
e l
e
vel
were m
ode
4 an
d m
ode 3
whi
c
h we
re st
ro
n
g
l
y
agr
ee an
d
ag
ree. Th
e resu
lts co
llected
fro
m
th
e su
rv
ey
sh
ows po
sitive atti
tu
d
e
s amo
n
g
p
a
rticip
an
t
s
who
were inv
o
l
v
e
d
in
th
e Facebook
g
r
ou
p
d
i
scu
s
sio
n
s
.
Th
ese r
e
su
lts
h
a
d
r
e
j
ected
n
u
ll h
ypo
thesis
on
e (
H
0
1)
.
Tab
l
e 5
.
Stud
en
ts’ Attitu
d
e
s
to
ward
Facebo
ok
d
i
scu
ssi
on
s
No
ite
m
State
m
ent
L
i
ker
t
Scale, Frequency
(
%
)
Total
Mean
(SD)
M
ode
1 2
3
4
6
I
feel co
m
f
or
table
posting
m
y
ideas o
r
opinio
n
s on FB gr
oup.
0 2(
13.
3)
5(
33.
3)
8(
53.
3)
15(
100)
3.
40(
0.
74)
4
7
I
feel encour
aged
by
m
y
fr
iends “liking”
m
y
ideas
or co
mments.
0 0
4(
26.
7)
11(
73.
3)
15(
100)
3.
73(
0.
46)
4
8
I
pr
efer
discussing issues or
topics on FB
gr
oup instead o
f
in
a classr
oo
m
session.
0 0
9(
60)
6(
40)
15(
100)
3.
40(
0.
50)
3
The q
u
est
i
o
n i
t
e
m
6 from
Tabl
e 4.5 re
po
rt
ed
t
h
at
t
h
e
m
ean
score
was 3.40 (SD = 0.74).
There
were
8 resp
o
nde
nt
s whi
c
h was 5
3
.
3
% w
h
o
ch
ose st
ro
ngl
y
a
g
ree
whi
l
e
a
not
her
33
.3
% of 5 res
p
o
n
d
ent
s
ch
os
e
ag
ree
of the statem
e
n
t that t
h
ey fel
t
com
f
ortable
posti
ng
ideas
or opi
nions on Facebook group. The
r
e were
only 2
p
a
rticip
an
ts
who
felt un
co
m
f
ortab
l
e to po
st t
h
eir i
d
eas
o
r
op
in
ion
s
.
Quest
i
on i
t
e
m
7 re
po
rt
ed m
ean sco
r
e
of
3.
73
(SD =
0.
4
6
).
There
we
re 1
1
resp
o
nde
nt
s o
u
t
of 1
5
wh
o
st
ro
ngl
y
ag
ree feel
i
ng e
n
co
u
r
aged
by
fri
e
n
d
s
wh
o ha
ve cl
i
c
ked “l
i
k
e” t
o
t
h
ei
r com
m
ents and a
not
her
26
.7
%
of re
sp
o
nde
nt
s
wh
o ag
reed
w
i
t
h
t
h
e st
at
em
ent
.
R
e
sp
on
de
nt
s fel
t
m
o
re con
f
i
d
e
n
t
whe
n
t
h
ei
r i
d
eas or
opi
ni
o
n
s
were
appreciat
ed
by ot
hers
.
Last
l
y
, quest
i
o
n i
t
e
m
8 rep
o
r
t
ed wi
t
h
a m
e
an sco
r
e
of
3.
40
(S
D = 0
.
5
0
)
an
d t
h
e
perc
ent
a
ge
w
h
o
chose agree
was highe
r
with
the pe
r
cent
a
ge of 6
0
%
c
o
m
p
ared
t
o
40%
o
f
wh
o
c
h
ose
st
r
o
ngl
y
di
sag
r
ee. No
ne
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:2252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 1
,
Mar
c
h
2
015
:
30
–
37
36
of the
pa
rticipants showe
d
negativ
e attitude towa
rds t
h
e
F
acebook group
discussion a
s
0%
re
sult
for scal
e
l
e
vel
di
sa
gree
and
st
r
o
n
g
l
y
di
sagree
.
According to the resea
r
ch, the results ha
ve
success
f
u
lly re
jected
null hy
pothes
is a
nd thi
s
shows that
p
o
s
itiv
e attitudes were g
a
i
n
ed
fro
m
all th
e respon
den
t
s t
o
ward
s th
e t
r
eat
m
en
t
m
e
th
o
d
o
f
u
s
i
n
g
Faceb
ook
g
r
ou
p
d
i
scu
ssi
o
n
to
im
p
r
o
v
e
writing
p
e
rforman
ce o
u
t
sid
e
th
e classroo
m
.
Th
e research
er h
a
d
o
n
e
exp
e
rien
ce
in
th
e
ear
ly p
r
o
cess o
f
t
h
is
resear
ch, o
n
t
h
e
secon
d
w
e
ek
o
f
b
r
ai
n
s
tor
m
i
n
g
Facebook
discu
ssion
o
u
t
si
d
e
th
e
classroom
.
Students cam
e back in class sha
r
ing their f
eel
i
ngs a
n
d fee
dba
cks o
n
w
h
at
t
h
ey
had com
m
ent
e
d i
n
th
e
Faceb
ook
g
r
ou
p
d
i
scu
ssi
o
n
.
Th
ere was a
ch
an
g
e
in
th
eir attitu
d
e
in
writin
g
an
d ev
en sp
eak
i
ng
in En
g
lish
.
High
er lev
e
l of en
cou
r
ag
em
e
n
t and
m
o
tiv
atio
n
was
g
a
in
ed
as the re
searc
h
er acte
d
as t
h
e instructor who also
gui
ded a
nd c
o
m
m
e
nt
ed i
n
t
h
ei
r di
scussi
on
and
by
prai
si
n
g
t
h
em
for gi
v
i
ng g
o
od
poi
nt
s, m
a
t
u
re t
h
i
n
k
i
ng o
r
click
e
d
“lik
e” t
o
th
eir co
mm
e
n
ts. Th
is h
a
s broug
h
t
a
p
o
sitiv
e ou
tco
m
e an
d
fun
c
tio
n
e
d
as an
immen
s
e su
ppo
rt
to
th
em
in
learn
i
ng
Eng
lish.
Th
at was
wh
y th
e resu
lt
i
n
q
u
est
i
o
n i
t
e
m
7 had a
hi
g
h
pe
rcent
a
ge o
f
sc
ore i
n
strongly a
g
ree
and agree.
Ov
erall, m
a
j
o
rity o
f
all th
e p
a
rticip
ants prefe
rre
d to disc
uss
any curre
n
t issues or topics in the social
n
e
two
r
k
su
ch
as Faceb
ook
group
rat
h
er t
h
an
in th
e cl
assro
o
m
.
Wh
en their con
f
i
d
en
ce
lev
e
l is low, they will
n
o
t
ab
le to
sh
are th
eir
op
in
ion
in
class and
th
ey are
u
n
a
b
l
e to
g
i
v
e
m
a
tu
re id
eas. Th
ey were also
lack
ing
in
kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e o
n
t
h
e t
opi
c gi
ve
n d
u
e t
o
l
ack
of rea
d
i
ng E
n
gl
i
s
h m
a
t
e
ri
al
s and
had
very
l
east
appr
oac
h
t
o
t
h
e
l
a
ng
uage
co
nt
e
x
t
.
Face
bo
o
k
g
r
o
u
p
di
sc
ussi
o
n
ha
d
pr
o
v
en
as o
n
e o
f
t
h
e
m
e
t
hod t
o
enc
o
u
r
a
g
e b
r
ai
nst
o
rm
i
n
g
an
d im
p
r
o
v
e
co
lleg
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s’ writin
g p
e
rform
a
n
ce.
In c
o
nclusion,
Facebook
group disc
ussion
provi
des a s
p
ace
whe
r
e ideas a
r
e poste
d in
vie
w
of all, to
b
e
op
en
to
criticis
m as well as p
r
aise.
Hig
h
e
r ord
e
r thin
k
i
ng
sk
ills are pu
t in
to
p
l
ay in
o
r
g
a
nisin
g
,
sy
nt
hesi
si
n
g
a
nd a
n
al
y
s
i
ng t
h
ese i
d
eas
bot
h by
o
n
esel
f a
nd
peer
s i
n
co
nst
r
uct
i
ng
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e. T
h
i
s
m
a
kes u
p
for m
eaningful
learning
whe
n
the m
e
m
b
ers of t
h
e group
are able to
ge
ne
rate idea
s that are sha
r
ed
by, and
b
u
ilt up
on
th
rou
g
h
th
e response an
d
feedb
a
ck
g
i
v
e
n
b
y
p
e
ers. A
st
u
d
e
n
t
may also
g
a
in
co
nfid
en
ce in
w
r
iting
th
ro
ugh
th
e
f
a
ct th
at h
i
s
o
r
h
e
r
i
d
eas ar
e
su
ppo
r
t
ed
an
d ag
r
e
ed
up
on
b
y
p
e
er
s, m
a
d
e
kn
own
thr
oug
h th
e
feedbac
k
recei
ved i
n
the
group.
While sha
r
ing
view
s
,
exc
h
anging m
e
ssages a
nd c
o
mments on FB,
stude
nts
certainly devel
op a confidence in wr
iting in English as a
by-product of
their online socialisation. Facebook
gr
o
up
di
scu
ssi
on
ha
d p
r
ove
n
as o
n
e o
f
t
h
e m
e
t
h
o
d
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
age
,
b
r
ai
nst
o
r
m
i
ng an
d i
m
prove c
o
l
l
e
ge st
u
d
ent
s
’
writing
p
e
rforman
ce.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
This study foc
u
se
d on the c
o
llege stude
nts’ percep
ti
on of
Facebook group disc
ussion and effect of
Facebook disc
ussion on thei
r writing
pe
rform
a
nces. The obj
ective of th
is study is to find
out c
o
llege
stu
d
e
n
t
s’ attitud
e
tow
a
rd
th
e
u
s
e of Facebo
ok
group
d
i
scu
s
sio
n
s
and
also
to
id
en
tify th
e
asp
ects of Faceb
ook
gr
o
u
p
di
sc
ussi
ons
t
h
at
hel
p
ed
col
l
e
ge
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
x
pres
s
their opini
o
ns.
In a
d
dition t
o
t
h
at area
, t
h
e
re
search
also attem
p
ts
to investiga
t
e whet
her
Facebook
gr
oup
discussi
ons affect c
o
llege stude
n
t’s
writing
per
f
o
r
m
a
nce.
Th
e fi
n
d
i
n
g
s fro
m
th
e stu
d
y
sh
ow
ed
th
at th
ere are
p
o
sitiv
e attitu
d
e
s o
f
co
l
l
eg
e stud
en
ts
on
Faceb
ook
gr
o
up
di
scus
si
ons
. O
n
t
h
e
aspect
s o
f
Fa
cebo
o
k
g
r
ou
p
discussi
ons,
all the eight areas stated i
n
the
q
u
e
stio
nn
aire g
o
t
po
sitiv
e
feed
b
a
ck
fro
m
th
e
resp
ond
en
ts
.
In
con
t
rary, there is sign
ifican
t effect of Facebook
g
r
ou
p d
i
scu
ssi
o
n
on
st
ud
en
ts’ writing
p
e
rfo
rman
ces.
The fi
n
d
i
n
gs o
f
t
h
i
s
st
udy
i
n
d
i
cat
ed t
h
at
t
h
e
expe
ri
m
e
nt
al
g
r
o
u
p
di
d o
u
t
p
e
r
f
o
rm
t
h
e cont
r
o
l
gr
ou
p i
n
the
Facebook group discussi
ons, the st
ude
nts’ attitude towards t
h
e us
age of
Facebook grou
p discussion
were
p
o
s
itiv
e. So
cial n
e
two
r
k
i
ng
site is fast rep
l
acin
g
t
r
ad
ition
a
l
m
o
d
e
s
of commu
n
i
catio
n
su
ch as letters,
fax
e
s,
em
ai
l
s
and eve
n
t
e
l
e
ph
o
n
e ca
l
l
s
. Today
s
o
ci
al
net
w
o
r
k i
s
use
d
t
o
a
dve
rt
i
s
e, v
o
t
e
, sal
e
s
pr
om
ot
i
on,
pl
at
form
for latest n
e
ws, as well as to
i
n
teract so
cially.
Fu
rt
h
e
rm
o
r
e,
Kab
ilan et al (2
010
)
h
a
v
e
also
written
sim
i
l
a
r id
eas
on
the ch
alleng
es
of th
e
on
lin
e
envi
ro
nm
ent
f
o
r
t
h
e l
e
a
r
ni
ng
o
f
E
ngl
i
s
h
[16]
. S
o
m
e
of t
h
e
negat
i
v
e
i
m
pact
s m
e
nt
i
oned
are
ove
rs
pen
d
i
n
g
o
r
wasting of tim
e, prom
oting negative attitude
s am
ong st
ude
nts, a
nd la
st but not least, affecting students
’
devel
opm
ent
d
e
st
ruct
i
v
el
y
.
I
n
i
n
ci
de
nt
al
l
earni
ng
, t
h
e
foc
u
s of
st
u
d
ent
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be
o
n
t
h
e l
ear
ni
n
g
pr
oces
s
instead of the s
o
cial proce
ss
on
th
e Facebo
ok site. Th
erefore, it is v
e
ry
im
port
a
nt
t
o
d
r
aw
st
ude
nt
s’ a
w
ar
eness
and attention on the
as
pects of
learning on Facebook
so
tha
t
learners will
be clear
of thei
r learning
goal
and
will b
e
work
ing
toward
s it.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
Lantol
f JP., Tho
r
ne ST.,“
S
ocioc
u
ltural
theor
y
an
d sec
ond langu
a
g
e le
arning”
, (\2
006. Retr
iev
e
d
Decem
ber 28,20
10
from http://langu
age.la.psu.edu
/~thor
ne/Lantolf
.Thorne.vanp
a
tten.2007.pdf.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Th
e Effectiven
ess
o
f
Fa
cebo
ok
Gro
u
p
Discussio
n
s
on
Writin
g
Performan
c
e:
A S
t
ud
y
i
n
....
(Ng
S
a
u
Ping)
37
[2]
Pi HY.,“Interact
ive writ
ing vi
a
em
ail: A
case st
ud
y
of
three elem
entar
y
school
stude
nts”, Unpublished m
a
ster’s
thesis,
Nation
a
l Taip
ei Teacher
s College, Taip
ei, ROC,
2002.
[3]
Donato R.,Mcco
rmick D.,“A so
ciocultur
a
l perspectiv
e on
langu
ag
e learning
stra
te
gies: th
e ro
le
of
m
e
diation
”
,
The
Modern Language Journal
, vol/issue: 7
8
(iv), 1994.
Retriev
e
d o
n
October 2
3
, 2009 from
http://www.jstor
.
org/pss/328584.
[4]
Hrastinski S.,“
A theor
y
of
onlin
e
lea
r
ning
as onli
n
e par
tic
ipat
ion”
,
Computers &
E
ducation
, vol/issue: 52(1)
, pp. 78
-
82, 2009
. http://dx.doi.org
/
10.10
16/j.compedu.20
08.06.009
[5]
W
oo Y
., Reev
e
s
TC.,“
M
eaning
f
ul int
e
ra
ction
in web-based lear
ning: A social
construc
t
i
vist in
terpre
tat
i
on”
,
The
Internet and Hig
h
er Educa
tion
,
v
o
l/issue: 1
0
(1), p
p
. 15-25
, 2007
.
http:/
/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ihedu
c
.2006.10
.005.
[6]
Uzunbo
y
l
u H., Cavus N.,Ercag
E.,“
Using mob
ile learning to incr
ease env
i
ron
m
ental awaren
ess”,
Computers &
Education
,
vo
l/issue: 52(2), pp.
381-389, 2009
.h
ttp://
dx.doi.org/1
0.1016/j.comped
u.2008.09
.008.
[7]
KernR.,W
ars
h
au
erM
.,“
Network-
bas
e
d langu
age
tea
c
hing:
con
cepts
and
prac
t
i
ce
”, Univ
ers
i
t
y
of Cam
b
ridge
:
Cambridge Univ
ersity
Press, 200
0.
[8]
Wilson G., Stacey
E.,“Online
in
teraction
impacts on l
earn
i
ng:
Teach
ing th
e teac
hers to teach online”,
Australasian
Journal of Education
a
l Technology
, vol/issue: 20(1), pp. 33-48, 200
4.
http://www.
ascilite.
o
rg.au/
ajet/ajet20/wilson.
h
tml.
[9]
Kearsley
G
.,“Th
e Th
eor
y
In
to Pr
act
ice Dat
a
base”, 2011
. ht
tp:/
/tip
.ps
y
cholog
y
.
org.
[10]
W
a
ng Q., W
oo
HL., Quek CL.,
Yang Y., Liu M.,“
Using
Facebo
ok Group as Learning Manage
m
e
nt Sy
st
em
: An
explorator
y
stud
y
”
,
British Journ
a
l of
Educa
tiona
l Stud
y,
vol/issue: 43(3), 2012.
[11]
Lee L.,“Enhan
c
ing learners’
co
m
m
uni
cation skills through
s
y
n
c
hronous el
ectr
onic in
ter
act
ion
and t
a
sk-based
instruction
”
,
Foreign Language
Annals
, vo
l. 35,
pp. 16-24
, 2002
.
[12]
Selw
y
n
N.
,“
W
e
b 2.0 Appli
c
ations as Alte
rnativ
e
Enviro
nm
ents For Inform
al Learn
i
ng- A Critic
a
l
Review”,
OCEDKERIS Internat
ionalexp
ert meeting on ICT
and educational p
e
rforman
ce,Cheju Island, South
Korea: Org
a
nization for
Economic Co
Operation
and Developmen
t, 2007
.
[13]
Melor MY., Ha
di S.,“
The eff
e
ctiv
eness of Facebook
groups on Teach
ing an
d Im
proving Writing: Stud
ents’
percep
tions”,
Jou
r
nal of
Educatio
n and Informatio
n Technolog
ies,
vol/issue:
1(6), p
p
. 87-96
, 2012
.
Melor MY.,Had
i S., Ch
en C.
,“
Integra
ting Soci
a
l
Networ
king Tools into ESL
Writing
Classro
o
m: Strengths and
We
a
kne
sse
s”
,
En
glish Language
Teaching,
vo
l/iss
u
e: 5(8)
, 2012
. h
ttp:/
/dx.doi
.org/1
0.5539/elt.v5n8p
42.
[14]
Warnock S.,“Teaching writing o
n
line: How and
wh
y
”
,Urban
a: Nation
a
l Council
of Teachers of
English (NCTE)
,
2009.
[15]
Me
lor MY.
,
“
Ma
lay
s
ia
n ESL te
ac
he
rs’
use of ICT in their classr
ooms:
expectations and realities
”
,
RE
CA
LL: The
Journal of EUROCALL
, vol/issue: 9(1)
, pp
. 79-9
5
, 2007
.
[16]
Kam
a
rul KM., Norlida A., Zain
ol AMJ
.,“Facebook: An online environm
ent for
learning of Eng
lish in institutio
ns
of higher
ed
ucation
?
”,
The Internet
and
Higher
Education,
vol/issue: 13(4), pp
.
179-187, 2010
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ihedu
c
.2010.07
.003.
[17]
Munoz C., Tow
n
er T.,“
Opening Facebook:
How to use Facebook in the coll
e
g
e classroom
”, I
n
I. Gibson et al.
(Eds
.),
Proceedings of Society for Info
rmation Technology
&
Teacher
Edu
c
ation Internati
ona
lConferen
ce.
pp
.
2623-2627, 200
9. Chesap
eak
e,
VA: AACE.
[18]
Selami A.,“The use of the internet in ESL
learning pr
oblems, advantages and
disa
dvantages”, 2007. Retrieved
Januar
y
24
, 201
1 from http://www.
hltmag.co.uk/jan07/sart02
.htm.
[19]
Bab
y
boom
er
car
etak
er,“
Advanta
g
es of facebo
ok com
m
unicat
ion”, 2007
. R
e
tri
e
ved Jul
y
25, 2010 fro
m
http://www.bab
yboomercaretaker
.com
/senior-d
ating/communication/Adva
ntag
es-Of-Facebook-Co
mmunication.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.