The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the students’ utilization of Moodle and Facebook as course management system (CMS) in face-to-face course. The research question guided the study was: “How do students compare course Facebook page and Moodle in face-to-face (F2F) course?”

A CMS can basically be defined as a software program, containing a series of web-based tools to support a number of teaching, learning and course management procedures. Over the past eight years, CMS systems, considered critical software for both colleges and universities, have developed quickly (Cole & Foster, 2008). The CMSs, being utilized in education in different forms, are evolving. A CMS can be used as a supplement to the traditional classroom curriculum, i.e., as an electronic repository of course materials (Vovides et al, 2007). Nowadays, one of the most commonly used CMS is Moodle (modular object oriented developmental learning environment), a free learning management system enabling the creation of powerful, flexible and engaging online courses and experiences (Romera et al, 2008).

Most used features of CMS are publishing syllabus, sending e-mails and providing soft copy of lecture notes or readings while the communicative and interactive features and tools of CMS are mostly unused (Kvavik et al. 2004; Morgan, 2003; Yueh & Hsu, 2008). Brady, Holcomb and Smith (2010) stated that CMS such as Moodle and Blackboard tend to be much focused and lack the personal contact and networking capacity that SNSs offers. Moreover, they emphasized that in contrast CMSs that are class centered, SNSs are user centered and have the potential to increase student engagement by encouraging personal interactions.

Additionally, researchers have suggested SNSs can be an effective environment for teaching and learning as an alternate to the traditional CMSs such as Moodle by promoting students' motivation, engagement, and interaction (Albayrak & Yildirim, 2015). This study results might be helpful to understand whether the reason is that CMSs are different software which students did not use in their daily lives by using Facebook which students use as daily.

This study is important to the field of instructional design because it explored how the utilization of SNS may be beneficial to increase collaboration, communication, and interaction in F2F courses. Moreover, instructional designers will see an example of how SNSs can be utilized in F2F courses. The results of this study are also crucial for both instructional designers and practitioners to make clear the expectations of students from a CMS. The results of this study might demonstrate instructional designers and practitioners might recognize students’ comparison of Moodle and Facebook as CMS.

Considering the limited number of research studies related to utilization of SNSs as CMS to solve the problems of CMSs, new studies should be carried out to investigate how SNSs can be used in teaching and learning processes. This study shows that many students felt they benefited from utilization of Facebook as a CMS and they preferred to use Facebook instead of Moodle as a CMS.

This study is an action research with mixed design methodology, in which both quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed and combined into the research methodology of a single study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). In this study, convenience sampling was used. 42 freshmen students enrolled in the study. Discrete Mathematics and Introduction to Programming courses were selected for the study. The study was conducted in a private university in Ankara, Turkey. Among 42 students, 12 students were selected through maximum variation sampling for interview. Quantitative data collection instruments are Demographic Information and Involvement questionnaire, and course Facebook logs. Demographic Information has 24 items. Demographic Information part was adopted from Kord (2008) & Kültür (2009). Facebook acceptance part was adopted from Teo (2010). The involvement questionnaire used to determine the participants’ involvement to both SNSs, course Facebook involvement and Moodle involvement. It was adopted from Kord (2008) & Astins (1999). It has total 22 questions. Qualitative data were collected by interviews and discussion post on course Facebook pages. Interview schedule was checked for clarity and context-specificity by help from experts. There are 29 major questions with their subquestions in the interview schedule.

It can be concluded that course Facebook page creates an environment where both students and instructor could easily communicate. Moreover, it is important that according to the results of interviews, course Facebook page is defined nonthreatening and friendly environment. Certainly, this situation creates more supportive environment for out of classroom activities where students and instructors could communicate freely. On the contrary time consuming belief about Facebook, all interviewee believe that course Facebook page reduces waste of time to find valuable and useful resources related to course. Moreover, majority of the interviewees claimed that using course Facebook page decreases waste of time to find important and useful resources with the help of shared videos and documents. This result points out that students believed the value of course Facebook page. The results of study showed that students prefer to use Facebook as CMS and the reasons of favor course-Facebook-page than Moodle as • They have a tendency to be followers rather than to actively participate on Moodle. • They are more active on course Facebook page than on Moodle. • They felt more flexible on course Facebook page than on Moodle. • Communication is easier on course Facebook page than on Moodle. • Course Facebook page is more user friendly than Moodle. • Discussions were more interactive on course Facebook page than those on Moodle. The results of this study show that Moodle does not meet the needs of both students as CMSs. The reasons listed above matched with the students’ expectations from a CMS and their preferences of Facebook as CMS. This is important since some of the above reasons, such as increase interactivity, communication and active participation of students, were also aims of using CMSs. Moreover, the aim of the researcher is to find a CMS which is widely accepted and effectively used by students.

Albayrak, D., & Yildirim, Z. (2015). Using social networking sites for teaching and learning students' involvement in and acceptance of Facebook as a course management system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 155–179. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel (Originally published July 1984), Vol: 40, No: 5, pp. 518-529. Cole J. & Foster H. (2008) Using Moodle: Teaching with Popular Open Source Course Management System. O’Reilly Media Inc. 2nd Edition. Kord I. J (2008). Understanding The Facebook Generation: A Study of the Relationship Between Online Social Networking and Academic and Social Integration and Intentions To Reenroll. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas. Kültür C. (2009). Factors Affecting Faculty Intention to Use Course Management Systems In a Private University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Turkey. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Kvavik R. B, Caruso J. B. & Morgan G. (2004). ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control. Research Study from the EDUCASE Center for Applied Research, Vol: 5. Teo, T. (2010) Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior, Interactive Learning Environments, Volume 1 Vovides Y., Sanchez-Alonso S., Mitropoulou V., Nickmand G. (2007) The Use of e-learning Course Management Systems to Support Learning Strategies and Improve Self-regulated Learning. Educational Research Review 2, pp. 64-74.