�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #5: Coverage error – when not all members of the population have a known, non-zero chance of being included in the sample and when those excluded are different from those who are included on measures of interest Sampling error –transfer students vs non-transfer students; leads to re-defining the population; lack of random sampling -> decreases generalizability
• #6: Non-response error solutions – forced responses or offering an option “prefer not to answer”
• #12: Online social networks have become a part of everyday life to the majority of college students (Texas A&M University Student Life Studies, 2009; Kord and Wolf-Wendel, 2009; Texas A&M University Student Life Studies, 2011). Online social networks such as Facebook offer users a medium to stay connected to individuals and groups around the clock. As Facebook approaches a decade of social connectivity and as popularity continues to grow with later generations of students, higher education needs to have a better understanding of online social networks. While online social media is seen in headlines, little research has been conducted on the impact of online social networks on student’s academic and social interaction in higher education. It is not clear whether social media is a help or a hindrance to college students and higher education (Teclehaimanot and Hickman, 2011; Munoz & Strotmeyer, 2010; Eberhardt, 2006). In addition, the dearth of literature that is available neglects student perspectives (Martinez Aleman and Wartman, 2009). Although college students are using this media to stay connected with peers, few students interact (Kolek & Saunders, 2008) or feel comfortable (Teclehaimanot, et. al, 2011) interacting with campus faculty and staff. Kord & Wolf-Wendel (2009) found that as students spend more time with online social networks the less students perceived faculty were concerned about student development and teaching and were less likely to positively perceive growth in their academic and intellectual development. These findings are of particular concern because these variables have been associated with student persistence (Tinto, 1993; Pacarella & Terenzini, 1980; Pacarella & Terenzini, 1998). Since this study provides perspectives of freshman on campus, it is not clear if online social networking has the same impact on sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Future studies should examine the relationship between online social networking and undergraduate perceptions of academic and social integration to see if perceptions of academic interactions differ across student classification. Such a study would provide information on whether or not online social networking is a help or hindrance to student’s academic and social integration on campus. Another concern is student awareness of privacy in online social networks (Koleck, et. al, 2008; Eberhardt, 2006; Ebderhardt, 2005). Koleck, et. al (2008) found only 11% of student profiles had restricted access so that researchers could not view the student’s profile, while women were more likely than men to disclose personal information. Further studies should investigate whether or not universities are seeing an increase in student Facebook usage as well as explore student’s perspectives on disclosing information on Facebook. As new features are added to social media site, student usage of these features and their impact on student identities and privacy also need to be investigated.
• #13: Objective: Attendees will discuss their own campus research questions regarding social media.
• #14: Objective: Attendees will determine poor items given a sample survey and pilot study data. Objective: Attendees will propose suggested revisions to poor items.
• #19: Facebook jargon should be clear to respondents Mini-feed – not clear on which feature this choice is referring to. “ Check-in” – application called “Places” Actions vs. features Posting on other people’s walls – could be changed to Wall-to-Wall feature Searching for people – search tool bar