Computers & Education: Mosharrof Hosen, Samuel Ogbeibu, Beena Giridharan, Tat-Huei Cham, Weng Marc Lim, Justin Paul

Computers & Education 172 (2021) 104262
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Individual motivation and social media influence on student

knowledge sharing and learning performance: Evidence from an
emerging economy
Mosharrof Hosen a, *, Samuel Ogbeibu b, Beena Giridharan c, Tat-Huei Cham d,
Weng Marc Lim e, f, Justin Paul g
a
Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Jalan Universiti, Bandar Barat, 31900, Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Business, Curtin University Malaysia, CDT 250, 98009, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia
c
Office of the Pro Vice Chancellor, Curtin University Malaysia, CDT 250, 98009, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia
d
Graduate Business School, UCSI University, UCSI Heights, 1, Jalan Puncak Menara Gading, Taman Connaught, 56000, Cheras, Wilayah
Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e
School of Business, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Jalan Simpang Tiga, 93350, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
f
Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, 3122, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
g
Business Administration Department, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Social media has become a useful tool for learning and teaching due to its functions for knowledge
Social media sharing, such as documents exchange, virtual communication, and knowledge formation. Higher
Individual motivation education institutions (HEIs) that recognise the value of social media and the importance of in
Knowledge sharing
dividual motivation have sought to encourage its use to bolster learning performance. Using
Learning performance
social cognitive theory and connectivism theory, we developed a model that theorises the in
Malaysia
fluence of social media and individual motivation (reputation and altruism) on knowledge
sharing and learning performance among students in higher education. To test the model, we
employed covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB SEM) on survey data that was
collected using questionnaires from 407 students enrolled in the top 10 private universities in
West Malaysia. Congruently, we established the utility of the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio
(which was traditionally confined to variance-based or partial least squares SEM) as a discrimi
nant validity measure for CB SEM. As a result, our study empirically evidences that social media
functions (documents exchange, virtual communication, and knowledge formation) and indi
vidual motivation (reputation) are core factors that HEIs can leverage to encourage knowledge
sharing and improve learning performance among tertiary students. The paper concludes with a
discussion of its implications, limitations, and future research directions.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jonycox74@gmail.com (M. Hosen), samuel.ogbeibu@curtin.edu.my, ogbeibu.s@hotmail.com (S. Ogbeibu), beena@curtin.edu.
my (B. Giridharan), jaysoncham@gmail.com (T.-H. Cham), lim@wengmarc.com, marclim@swin.edu.au, wlim@swinburne.edu.my (W.M. Lim),
justin.paul@upr.edu (J. Paul).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104262
Received 16 June 2020; Received in revised form 5 June 2021; Accepted 8 June 2021
Available online 12 June 2021
0360-1315/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Hosen et al. Computers & Education 172 (2021) 104262
1. Introduction
Web-based technologies bring—and continue to bring—interactive and unique facilities for the net generation (Blaj-Ward & Winter
2019), which consists of individuals (digital natives) who grew up with such technologies that they often use for virtual communi
cation and self-development without prior expertise or knowledge (Hortigüela-Alcalá, Sánchez-Santamaría, Perez-Pueyo, & Abella-
García, 2019). Among the web-based technologies that are prevalent today, social media is most popular and widely studied, especially
in developed countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Bigman, Smith, Williamson,
Planey, & Smith, 2019; Connolly, Willis, & Lloyd, 2019; Mauroner, 2016; Yu, Foroudi, & Gupta, 2019). Though social media research
in developing countries exist, its insights are often limited to a single or a specific set of social media (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Lau,
2017; Ma & Chan, 2014; Moorthy et al., 2019), thereby enhancing our understanding of context (e.g., social media sites such as
Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter) rather than concept (e.g., social media functions such as documents exchange, virtual
communication, and knowledge formation).
Of particular interest in this study is social media use among higher education students in Malaysia, which is a developing country
where social media use is omnipresent, though its study in higher education, especially among private higher education institutions
(HEIs), remains in an infancy stage (Moorthy et al., 2019). Recent studies reveal that social media such as Facebook, Instagram,
LinkedIn, and Twitter are highly popular among students in Malaysia, who perceive social media as a source of e-learning (Al-Rahmi
et al., 2015, 2018; Bukhari et al., 2020; Manickam, Selvam, & Ahrumugam, 2020). According to the 2019 Digital Malaysia report,1 25
million people in Malaysia are actively using social media, representing 78% of the total population, who spend an average of eigth
hours per day on the internet and three hours per day on social media. Malaysia is also among the top developing countries in
Southeast Asia and occupies the fourth position globally for countries with high levels of social media users (New Straits Times, 2019).
Given that social media enables users, including students, to share ideas and interact with others (Al-Rahmi & Zeki, 2017; Mahdi,
2019), the site essentially facilitates knowledge sharing, which can enhance interpersonal skills, reinforce learning, improve
self-confidence, bolster academic performance, increase tolerance of constructive criticism, improve leadership quality, and yield
enormous satisfaction among students, as evidenced in existing studies, including those conducted and reported in Malaysia
(Balakrishnan & Gan, 2016; Mahdi, 2019).
Social media has advanced and evolved over the years. Through its functions, social media has gradually metamorphosed from a
social communication digital hub into a commercial, educational, and social regulatory entity (Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016). Indeed, social
media functions provide unique options for interactivity such as liking, commenting, polling, and sharing content that students can
benefit from. Eid and Al-Jabri’s (2016) study, which investigated Saudi students’ knowledge and learning performance through
different categories of social media, revealed that social media is able to foster students’ learning performance, and that such insights
can be enriched by incorporating individual motivational factors. Although prior studies on individual motivational factors exist, they
do not focus on social media influences. Chang and Chuang’s (2011) investigation of individual motivation influence in virtual
communities revealed a significant relationship between motivation factors and knowledge sharing. Likewise, Hsu and Lin (2008)
showed that individuals are altruistic and more interested in sharing knowledge to gain and enhance reputation. These studies remain
congruent in recent times, as evidenced by Hoseini, Saghafi, and Aghayi (2019), who reported that altruism and reputation remain key
drivers of knowledge sharing on social media. The authors reiterate that knowledge sharing will not occur if an individual’s intrinsic
motivation (altruism) is absent. Though many other factors such as self-status, social image, respect, positive feedback, and popularity
exist, they are often considered as driving factors of reputation. Indeed, many students want to enhance their reputation, which en
courages them to share knowledge in a virtual community (Hoseini et al., 2019; Ma & Chan, 2014; Zhang, Liu, Deng, & Chen, 2017).
The recent work of Choi, Ramirez, Gregg, Scott, and Lee (2020) corroborates existing findings in this area, wherein altruism and
reputation are individual motivation factors that significantly impact students’ knowledge sharing. The authors explained that social
media is a voluntary service site, and that students engage in it to share knowledge in tandem with self-willingness and reputation
advancement. Similarly, Shahzad et al. (2020) revealed that intrinsic motivation has a positive moderating role between technological,
environmental, and cloud computing adoption. Yet, despite the myriad benefits that students can obtain from using social media, the
question of how social media functions and individual motivation factors, influence knowledge sharing and learning performance
when they are taken collectively—rather than individually, as seen in the existing literature—remains underexplored (Anderson &
Dron, 2017; Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016).
Most HEIs have adopted learning management systems to bolster students’ learning performance (Anderson & Dron, 2017;
Balakrishnan & Gan, 2016). At the same time, students are becoming more eager to leverage social media for solving problems,
facilitating discussions, and completing assignments (Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016), which are consequences of social media functions,
reflecting easy accessibility, affordability, and speedy interaction (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Lim, Lim, & Phang, 2019). Thus, social media
has become a tool that can supplement learning management systems for fostering virtual classroom experiences, wherein students
across the globe can join in simultaneously to learn and share their ideas (Tess, 2013). Balakrishnan and Gan (2016) added that the
original intention of most students’ use of social media is for learning purposes, which corroborates the earlier work of Patel, Darji, and
1
https://www.statista.com/statistics/883712/malaysia-social-media-penetration/.
2
Mujapara (2013), which suggests that the intention of most students who use social media is to acquire information and increase their
learning. Interestingly, Hennessy, Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Border (2016) found that Twitter, as a social media tool, can also help
students initiate smooth communication by reducing the anxiety that influenced participation. Indeed, prior research indicated that
students are often delighted or highly satisfied with social interactions associated with learning through social media (Tur, Marín, &
Carpenter, 2017; Yang & Tang, 2003). Importantly, social media represents an opportunity to curate a highly engaging learning
experience for students that can lead to improved learning performance (Thoms & Eryilmaz, 2014).
Many researchers have indicated that social media such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, are new sites for education that can
reinforce student learning albeit without systematic and logical judgment (Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernández-Ortega, & Sese, 2013; Tur
et al., 2017). In the context of higher education, students are more inclined to use social media to increase their knowledge sharing
behaviours and improve their learning performance, as compared to other conventional learning approaches because of the site’s easy
and convenient functions (Al-Rahmi & Zeki, 2017). In addition, Blasco-Arcas et al. (2013) highlighted that with the advent of social
media, a high level of interactivity between peers and teachers can avail and strengthen the student knowledge sharing and learning
performance. Nevertheless, the findings from existing research are still inconclusive, as Aalbers, McNally, Heeren, de Wit, and Fried
(2019) and Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) argued that students who use Facebook have lower grade point average (GPA) compared to
non-Facebook users, wherein the authors attributed this outcome to students spending more time weekly on social media rather than
studying.
Similarly, many researchers have investigated social media in the educational context and measured the use of its distinct factors by
using diverse instruments and models and have integrated theories for capturing new research frameworks (Lee, Krilavi, Zhang, Wan,
& Man, 2012; Lin & Lu, 2011). However, many studies have produced inconclusive results due to the lack of coherence of findings
encompassing the social media phenomenon (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Lau, 2017; Yang & Tang, 2003). Moreover, conflicting
debates provided to undergird social media mainly via its sites and their probable influences on knowledge sharing and learning
performance among students have contributed to the plausible inherent fracture arising from distinct philosophical views (Kirschner &
Karpinski, 2010; Lau, 2017). Consequently, in this paper, we endeavour to offer a congruence by examining social media through the
lens of its functions rather than its sites to contribute more meaningfully to the literature. Moreover, we endeavour to advance prior
literature on diverse juxtapositions of social media, knowledge sharing, and learning performance by investigating reputation and
altruism as individual motivations that influence knowledge sharing and learning performance among students, which supplements
the understanding of social media functions, and thus provide a holistic encapsulation of both social media and its users in a single
study. Finally, we endeavour to shed additional light on social media for education in a context that would reasonably resonate with
that in developed and developing countries, wherein Malaysia is selected as a suitable case due to its evolution into one of the most
prominent educational hubs in Asia. Equally, Malaysia has similarities with established and aspiring educational hubs in developed
and developing countries, respectively.
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1. Theoretical underpinning
Social cognitive theory (SCT) was developed by Bandura (1986) by incorporating a modified version of social learning theory. The
SCT consists of individual factors, environmental factors, and corresponding actual behaviours. Individual factors determine the
ability of a person to perform a definite behaviour in a social networking system. Individual factors examine the self-efficacy level that
can help boost a person’s altruism to share knowledge in a virtual community. Environmental factors refer to how the environment acts
to influence individual self-efficacy and to ensure a successful behaviour. This is also considered when the fundamental concern is to
provide more suitable technological support (Bandura & Bandura, 2016). SCT has been extensively examined in the information
systems literature for authenticating individual behaviour that primarily focuses on media influences, learning performance,
communication, and social interaction (Lau, 2017). Zhou et al. (2020) applied SCT to investigate the virtual community’s knowledge
sharing behaviour through YouTube and revealed that individuals’ attributes such as self-efficacy and outcome expectations accelerate
knowledge sharing intention. Self-efficacy denotes a person’s capability to perform a certain job, whereas outcome expectation defines
the leading consequences of that execution (Bandura & Bandura, 2016).
Consistent with the debate of extant literature underpinned by the SCT, an individuals’ decision to participate in knowledge sharing
may be aroused by diverse yet distinct expectations to achieve a specific outcome (Alexander, Cao, & Alfonso, 2021; Bolkan, Pedersen,
Stormes, & Manke, 2021). Studies opine that a common outcome expectation of individuals is often associated with achieving or
boosting their personal reputation (Alam, Khusro, Ullah, & Karim, 2017; Moghavvemi, Sharabati, Paramanathan, & Rahin, 2017).
Gaining a personal reputation through altruism is one of the stimuli to use social media to learn, as it can bring reciprocal benefits from
the perspective of SCT (Choi et al., 2020). Consequently, reputation may be perceived as a factor that motivates students to engage in
knowledge sharing (Zhou et al., 2020). Moreover, while engaging in knowledge sharing via social media sites, prior research espouses
that individuals may also exhibit altruistic behaviours that mirror selfless considerations or benevolence towards the well-being of
3
others (Hoseini et al., 2019). Congruent with the assumptions of the SCT, altruistic behaviours typified via knowledge sharing can aid
to provoke reinforcement of knowledge shared or obtained, thus leading to increased learning within the defined social media site
(Dahdal, 2020). Therefore, guided by the SCT assumptions, reputation and altruism can be seen as probable factors that are not just
associated with outcome expectation and reinforcement, but also the learning performance of an individual engaging in knowledge
sharing (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Alexander, Cao, & Alfonso, 2021).
Apart from SCT, connectivism theory has been widely employed in research associated with digitalisation concepts (Corbett &
Spinello, 2020; Duan, Xie, Hawk, Yu, & Wang, 2019), including the world wide web (WWW), online discussion groups, social media
sites, and wikis, which can improve learner capability to cultivate knowledge and increase knowledge sharing (Downes, 2020). Eid and
Al-Jabri (2016). Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, and Azad (2013) applied the connectivism theory to identify social media functions, whereas
Hsu and Lin (2008) did the same to investigate what motivated people to participate in blog activities. Consistent with the work of Hsu
and Lin (2008) on technology acceptance, knowledge sharing, and social influence, we developed our research model to mirror the
assumptions of the SCT and the connectivism theory in relating to knowledge sharing and learning performance emerging from social
media and individual motivations. Specifically, knowledge sharing is the acquisition and exchange of valuable information that helps
to enhance understanding of a particular subject matter. Knowledge sharing often occurs when information is exchanged directly or
indirectly (such as the use of technologies) between people (Naeem & Khan, 2019). Goldie (2016) argued that the teaching and
learning of students can be enhanced by the technologies reinforced by connectivism. According to Yeh, Huang, and Yeh (2011), the
learning community can contribute towards knowledge sharing while individuals participate in online group discussions. Moreover, in
the organisational context, Lou, Fang, Lim, and Peng (2013) espoused that employees mostly share knowledge to achieve
self-satisfaction or establish a good position that can increase the respect they get from others. Thus, reputation can help increase the
drive to share knowledge in a virtual community (Chang & Chuang, 2011).
Consistent with extant debates, the connectivism theory relay assumptions that deepen understanding of learning and how it may
be further engendered in today’s digitalised world (Cleary, 2021; Peled, Pundak, & Weiser-Biton, 2020). The connectivism theory
espouses how the internet is being leveraged by individuals to learn and exchange information across the globe, and prior research
have established that a common online site is social media (Chu, 2020). With the help of internet technologies, social media has
become an important learning tool. Studies contend that this is largely attributed to individuals’ need to exchange documents and
engage in virtual communication and knowledge formation (Glassner & Back, 2020). The works of Naeem and Khan (2019) and Eid
and Al-Jabri (2016) further relate that documents exchange, virtual communication, and knowledge formation mirror social media’s
unique methods of fostering learning across the globe. Congruent with the assumptions of connectivism theory, the exchange of
documents, virtual communication, and knowledge formation have been accentuated by extant research to be positively associated
with increased learning and knowledge sharing (Mpungose & Khoza, 2020; Nobre, 2020).
Similarly, based on the above theoretical discussion, the perception of knowledge sharing and learning performance rely on a
learning community, active participation, social interaction, understanding, negotiation, and observation (Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016).
However, in the context of social media, these functions are defined as documents exchange, knowledge formation, and communi
cation that can influence students’ knowledge sharing and learning performance. Thus, social media can assist users in enhancing
effective communication (Abbas, Aman, Nurunnabi, & Bano, 2019). This is plausible via recently developed social media sites (e.g.,
Instagram, Facebook, Instagram, ResearchGate, Telegram, Twitter, WhatsApp, YouTube) that create opportunities for increased
knowledge sharing. Moreover, most social media sites provide several services that reflect communication, documents exchange, and
knowledge formation (Majchrzak et al., 2013). Hence, we endeavour to investigate whether these services can accelerate students’
knowledge sharing and learning performance. Although much have been done over the years to deepen insights into the social
cognitive and connectivism theories, more research must be done to advance and better align the collective assumptions to recent
growing social media actors and self-motivators influencing student knowledge sharing and learning performance. Therefore, we
endeavour to advance prior understanding and contribute to theory by investigating how reputation and altruism (individual moti
vations factors), documents exchange, virtual communication, and knowledge formation (social media functions) influence student
knowledge sharing and learning performance.
2.2. Influence of documents exchange on knowledge sharing and learning performance
Consistent with recent technological advancements, several tertiary level students commonly use social media sites, such as
Facebook, Dropbox, ResearchGate, Telegram, and WhatsApp, to exchange important documents, including project tasks, assignments,
class notes, voice recordings, and suggestions to peers (Ahmed, Ahmad, Ahmad, & Zakaria, 2019; Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016). It is argued
that documents exchange is linked to the central idea encapsulating the distinct academic learning-related activities initiated between
students via social media sites (Majchrzak et al., 2013). Consistent with online activities and learning performance, Ozlati (2012) noted
a positive correlation between documents exchange and organisational management system improvement. The author argued that the
4
speed of documents exchange is increased during the execution of online media activities, which could promote individual efficiency.
However, Elaimi and Persaud (2014) found a negative relationship between technological implementation and knowledge sharing
behaviour towards documents exchange in Saudi firms. The authors explained that most users waste a lot of their valuable time while
using technology. Similarly, previous research relating to peer-to-peer documents exchange has been carried out from ethical and legal
perspectives (Moore & McMullan, 2004). Several extant works on the effect of documents exchange have also been executed within
organisational contexts, thus contributing to the growing sparseness of research into educational contexts (Ozlati, 2012). Notably, Eid
and Al-Jabri (2016) found that documents exchange positively influences students’ knowledge sharing but demonstrates an insig
nificant influence on learning performance. However, Al-Rahmi et al. (2018) argued that a significant relationship exists between
social media and learning performance. The inconclusive evidence in extant research indicates that empirical re-examination of
conflicting findings is necessary. Leading towards the mainstream findings of prior research, we postulate that documents exchange
has a positive influence on knowledge sharing and learning performance.
H1. Documents exchange as a social media function is positively associated with knowledge sharing.
H2. Documents exchange as a social media function is positively associated with learning performance.
2.3. Influence of virtual communication on knowledge sharing and learning performance
Virtual communication could be defined as an online process of leveraging sounds, symbols, or words to engender a conversation
and transfer ideologies between two or more individuals (Balaji & Chakrabarti, 2010). According to Majchrzak et al. (2013), virtual
communication occurs when any study-related idea or personal opinion towards issues is uttered, responded to, or debated using social
media sites. A study conducted by Hershey, Hammond, & Wiriyapinit (2005) posits that virtual communication fostered a positive
learning experience in an MBA online distance learning course. On the other hand, Balaji & Chakrabarti (2020) concluded that online
discussion sites positively influence students’ interactions and catalyse the learning process. Ma and Yuen (2011) also argued that a
positive relationship exists between virtual communication and knowledge sharing. The work of Dahdal (2020) highlights a need to
consistently investigate the association between virtual communication and knowledge sharing, considering the differing impact of
constant changes influencing human behaviours. Congruent with the debates of extant research, we believe that virtual communi
cation positively influences knowledge sharing and learning performance.
H3. Virtual communication has a positive relationship with knowledge sharing.
H4. Virtual communication has a positive relationship with learning performance.
2.4. Influence of knowledge formation on knowledge sharing and learning performance
While knowledge formation can be done through content creation, various contents are constantly being created and shared
through social media sites (Jadin, Gnambs, & Batinic, 2013; Lu, Hao, & Jing, 2016). Knowledge formation can also be evidenced as
students’ attempt at answering questions on ResearchGate, Quora, or post summaries of learning outcomes to Twitter, Facebook, or
WhatsApp groups. Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) opined that knowledge formation mirrors the creation of content that may be in the
form of writing down or recording personal experiences, assignment issues, presentation slides, formation and development of an idea
into a video, and uploading such content into any social media site for the benefit of others. Bebensee, Helms, and Spruit (2011)
investigated the impact of knowledge formation through technology-based social media, including blogs and wikis. The result revealed
that individuals in the utility industry could create more knowledge formation through blogs instead of wikis. Additionally, Barker
(2015) argued that virtual communities often use social media to help individuals form knowledge more efficiently. Extant research
posits that individuals of a group who engage in forming knowledge through social media are more likely to enhance knowledge
sharing and overall performance of their groups or online learning networks (Barker, 2015; Bebensee et al., 2011). Carter & Nugent
(2011) found that personal learning networks could be based on various social media sites geared toward knowledge formation.
However, Jadin et al. (2013) argued that personal attributes of trend-setting could be determined by the level of knowledge sharing in
the context of using Wikipedia but not much effect on pro-social value. Congruent with the disparate juxtapositions of previous
research, we theorise that knowledge formation is positively associated with knowledge sharing and student performance.
H5. Knowledge formation has a positive relationship with knowledge sharing.
H6. Knowledge formation has a positive relationship with learning performance.
2.5. Influence of reputation on knowledge sharing and learning performance
Knowledge is an intellectual property that is often obtained from information exchange or experience, and thus, the sharing of
knowledge via virtual sites could be more challenging when no reward is given (Hoseini et al., 2019). In the work of Moghavvemi et al.
(2017) on the factors that support students’ knowledge sharing and learning performance through social media, Facebook was notably
the most popular means of sharing students’ ideas, and often students expected rewards for sharing. Sharing knowledge in a virtual
community cannot be forced but rather inspired. Knowledge sharing can occur spontaneously when participants realize that their
sharing might be compensated with rewards such as increased reputation (Yan, Wang, Chen, & Zhang, 2016). Reputation, either
positive or negative, can be defined as an initial opinion and judgment of any person that comes as feedback to a particular task that
5
individuals try or continue to achieve (Yan et al., 2016). Sometimes participants’ knowledge sharing intention and reputation reduce
when shared content is unreliable, relays no significant impact, or when participants receive no reward from shared content. However,
an individual’s reputation may be increased due to a demonstration of expertise in ways that accord exceptional acknowledgment to
such individual or increase learning performance (Safa & Von Solms, 2016). This notion is supported by Yan et al.’s (2016) study,
which accentuated that online health care professionals’ reputation would increase alongside individuals’ knowledge sharing
behaviour and learning performance. Consequently, we hypothesise that reputation is positively associated with knowledge sharing
and learning performance.
H7. Reputation has a positive relationship with knowledge sharing.
H8. Reputation has a positive relationship with learning performance.
2.6. Influence of altruism on knowledge sharing and learning performance
Altruism can be denoted as a voluntary job to assist others without expecting any rewards, and in virtual communities, altruism
plays a vital role in advancing knowledge sharing with participants (Yan et al., 2016). Chang and Chuang (2011) mentioned that
altruism is an individual attribute that inspires individuals to willingly help others achieve a predetermined goal and increase their
learning performance. Ma and Chan (2014) investigated a survey of 299 high school students’ intention to share knowledge through
social media sites. The result indicated that self-enjoyment mostly influences students to share their class-related materials through
Facebook and Twitter. Similarly, Hung, Durcikova, Lai, and Lin (2011) found that intrinsic motivation enhances the mentality of
participants to share knowledge that can engender the achievement of predetermined goals. More recently, Akosile and Olatokun’s
(2019) study of 151 Nigerian tertiary students’ knowledge sharing and learning performance influencing factors, shows that individual
factors significantly influence knowledge sharing. Therefore, we postulate that altruism, an individual motivating factor, is positively
associated with knowledge sharing and learning performance.
H9. Altruism has a positive relationship with knowledge sharing.
H10. Altruism has a positive relationship with learning performance.
The research framework, which collectively mirrors our study’s current hypotheses, is shown in Fig. 1, whereas the definitions and
measurement sources of our constructs derived from the existing literature are presented in Table 1.
Fig. 1. Research framework.
6
M. Hosen et al.
Table 1
Construct definitions and measurement sources.
Construct Definition Items Source(s)
Documents Documents exchange is a process that allows for the sharing of aggregated information that is saved as a file and shared via social media sites in 9 Eid and Al-Jabri (2016)
exchange order to curate value for others.
Virtual Virtual communication is an online process and act of leveraging sounds, symbols, or words to engender a conversation and transfer of ideologies 9 Ma and Chan (2014) and Moore and
communication between two or more individuals. McMullan (2004)
Knowledge Knowledge formation is the creation of content that may be in the form of writing down or recording personal experiences, assignment issues, 9 Eid and Al-Jabri (2016)
formation presentation slides, and formation and development of any idea into a video and uploading such content into any social media site for the benefit
7
of others.
Reputation Reputation, in this study, is a driving perception of an individual to improve self-status or image by sharing important knowledge, information, 4 Chang and Chuang (2011)
and experience in a virtual community.
Altruism Altruism is a special self-satisfaction attribute of an individual that shows unconditional kindness towards others. 4 Chang and Chuang (2011) and Yu and
Chu (2007)
Knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing is a process of acquiring and exchanging individual ideas, information, skill, or experiences in a positive way to increase value 6 Hsu et al. (2007) and Chai et al. (2011)
of other individuals.
Learning Learning performance is the degree of knowledge and skills at which the individual can become effectively enhanced to achieve education-related 5 Al-Rahmi et al. (2018) and
performance goals through the use of social media sites. Blasco-Arcas et al. (2013)
Computers & Education 172 (2021) 104262

3. Methodology
3.1. Instrumentation
A survey was conducted using a questionnaire that consisted of (1) three social media functions (i.e., document exchange, virtual
communication, and knowledge formation) that were measured on a five-point scale where “1” indicates “never”, “2” indicates “once a
month”, “3” indicates “once a week”, “4” indicates “daily”, and “5” indicates “hourly”, (2) two individual motivational factors (i.e.,
reputation and altruism), knowledge sharing, and learning performance that were measured on a five-point Likert scale where “1”
indicates “strongly disagree” and “5” indicates “strongly agree”, and (3) socio-demographic questions such as gender, age, ethnicity,
program, cumulative grade point average (CGPA), and duration of internet usage on social media (see Appendix).2 Specifically, the
nine items each for document exchange and knowledge formation were adapted from Eid and Al-Jabri (2016), the nine items for
virtual communication were adapted from Ma and Chan (2014) and Moore and McMullan (2004), the four items each for reputation
and altruism were adapted from Chang and Chuang (2011) and Yu and Chu (2007), the six items for knowledge sharing were adapted
from Chai, Das, and Rao (2011) and Hsu, Ju, Yen, and Chang (2007), and the five items for learning performance were adapted from
Al-Rahmi et al. (2018) and Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernández-Ortega, and Javier-Sese (2013). The Cronbach’s alpha of these constructs
were between 0.88 and 0.96 and thus met the recommended minimum threshold of 0.70 (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & G Kuppelwieser,
2014), thereby indicating the presence of construct reliability in this study.
3.2. Data collection method and procedure
The top 10 private universities in West Malaysia based on student enrolment were selected for data collection. The chosen uni
versities consist of Multimedia University (MMU), Sunway University (SU), Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Taylor’s Uni
versity (TU), USCI University, Universiti Kuala Lumpur (UniKL), HELP University, Open University Malaysia, Monash University
Malaysia, and INTI University. The choice for focusing on West Malaysia is because the region has the highest concentration of the top
private universities in Malaysia (Hosen et al., 2020, 2021). The respondents selected are those who have active studentship in
foundation, undergraduate, and postgraduate programs. A non-probability sampling method approach was applied to collect the data
because all private universities do not disclose their student database, and genuine attempts to obtain such information were futile. A
snowball sampling method was applied as it was difficult to contact willing participants at large. Students of the respective universities
were approached and asked to fill up a copy of the questionnaire. The respondents who filled the questionnaires were requested to
recommend eligible respondents. The questionnaires were distributed face-to-face. In order to refine the questionnaire, a pre-test and a
pilot study of 50 respondents were carried out before a total of 510 (refined) questionnaires were distributed for the main study. Out of
510 questionnaires in the main study, 461 responses were received, indicating a response rate of more than 90 percent. The data from
the questionnaires were analysed, and 35 questionnaires were excluded due to erroneous entries by the respondents. The data from the
remaining questionnaires were checked for possible missing data and outliers, wherein 19 questionnaires were omitted due to the
aforementioned reasons. The final dataset came from 407 questionnaires and were useable for subsequent data analysis (Hair, Sarstedt,
Ringle, & Mena, 2012).
3.3. Common method bias or variance
To address concerns about common method bias or variance (CMB/CMV), we employed the procedural and statistical approaches
recommended by Cham, Cheng, Low, and Lim (2020). According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2012), CMB/CMV occurs
when self-reported questionnaires are used to collect data for any specific study, and most data are collected from a single source.
CMB/CMV is a concern because using data tainted with this issue can lead to false correlations and internal consistencies among the
studied constructs. As a procedural remedy, (1) measurement items were adopted from different sources, (2) a pre-test and a pilot study
were conducted with samples from targeted respondents, (3) a question randomisation option was used, and (4) two types of scales
were incorporated in the questionnaire to encourage objective thinking by respondents before responding to the questionnaire, and
thus, helped to engender psychological separation when respondents attempt to respond to the items in the questionnaire. As a sta
tistical remedy, the Harman’s single-factor test was executed. The Harman’s single-factor test result reveals that the variance expressed
by the first factor is 32.08%, which is far less than the maximum threshold of 50% (Hair et al., 2014). Additionally, congruent with the
recommendations of Malhotra, Kim, and Patil (2006), CMB/CMV is not a serious concern for our study because the initial hypothesized
model with the entire item indicators of the constructs modelled as a single factor was not statistically fit (RMSEA = 0.118, RMR =
0.089, AGFI = 0.527, CFI = 0.662, NFI = 0.439, GFI = 0.732). Moreover, the common latent factor (CLF) test was executed, wherein all
the items from models with or without CLF were compared to the standardised regression weights, whose differences were less than the
0.20 threshold (Archimi, Reynaud, Yasin, & Bhatti, 2018). As a whole, the statistical approach reaffirms the procedural approach to
2
Though the five-point scales measuring the independent and dependent constructs are ordinal in nature from a purist standpoint, this study
adopts a pragmatic standpoint as per disciplinary norms in social sciences and highlights the interval-like properties of these scales (e.g., more than
four ordered categories; used for multiple items measuring a single construct, which compensates for random understatement and overstatement in
responses), and thus, subjects the data measured using these scales to the normal (continuous) rather than binomial (categorical) theory class of
statistics (e.g., correlational and regression-based analysis).
8
establish that CMB/CMV is not a serious concern in this study.
3.4. Data analysis method and procedure
Covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB SEM) was conducted to statistically test the hypothesized model in Fig. 1. CB
SEM is a suitable data analysis technique for this study because of its ability to generate simultaneous inter-relationships among latent
constructs compared to first-generation techniques such as ordinary least squares (Alavifar, Karimimalayer, & Anuar, 2012; Awang,
2015). Analysis of moment structures (AMOS) is also applied to illustrate the hypothesized model in AMOS (v. 24) graphics for data
analysis. To establish and estimate the hypothesized model, a two-stage process is followed, wherein the measurement model
involving reliability and validity testing is ascertained before the structural model involving the nature of relationships between
different constructs is assessed (Hair et al., 2012).
4. Findings
4.1. Profile of respondents
The current study carried out a survey to investigate the influence of three different functions commonly used in social media sites
and two major motivational factors on knowledge sharing and learning performance among students in higher education using
Malaysia as a case. According to the 2019 Malaysian Qualifications Register report,3 Malaysia has a total of 50 public universities and
82 private universities that are legally registered. To foster the generalisation of our findings, we collected data from the top 10 private
universities based on student enrolment in West Malaysia, wherein foundation, undergraduate, and postgraduate students have been
included into our sample (see Table 2). Specially, the number of female respondents (50.6%) was slightly higher than the number of
male respondents (49.4%). In the context of social media sites, 46.19% of respondents whose ages were between 21 and 23 were the
highest users as compared to non-users. The majority of the Malaysian population, which is the Malays, were also strongly represented
in our study, wherein 45.95% of respondents were Malays, while the Chinese and the Indian respondents were 33.17% and 12.78%,
respectively. In terms of programs studied, 46.44% of respondents were studying in undergraduate programs, whereas 31.45% of
students were in foundation or diploma programs, with the rest of the 22.11% of students being enrolled in postgraduate programs.
Most respondents’ CGPA ranged from 3.1 to 3.5, and only 15.72% of students held CGPA below 2.5. Finally, 34.64% of respondents
spent between one to three hours on social media daily, while 30.96% of respondents spent more than six hours on social media daily.
Table 2
Socio-demographic profile of respondents.
Sociodemographic Characteristics N %
Gender Male 201 49.4

Female 206 50.6
Age 18–20 years 129 31.70
21–23 years 188 46.19
24–26 years 78 19.16
>26 years 12 2.95
Ethnicity Malay 187 45.95
Chinese 135 33.17
Indian 52 12.78
Others 33 8.10
Program Foundation/Diploma 128 31.45
Undergraduate 189 46.44
Postgraduate 90 22.11
CGPA 1.5–2.5 64 15.72
2.6–3.0 122 29.98
3.1–3.5 144 35.38
>3.5 77 18.92
Duration of internet usage on social media >6 hours 126 30.96
4–6 hours 108 26.54
1–3 hour(s) 141 34.64
<1 hour 32 7.86
Note(s): CGPA = cumulative grade point average.
3
http://www2.mqa.gov.my/mqr/.
9
Table 3
Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Construct Items FL AVE CA CR
Documents exchange DE1 .78 .61 .94 .93

DE2 .77
DE3 .73
DE4 .76
DE5 .82
DE6 .87
DE7 .75
DE8 .88
DE9 .66
Virtual communication VC1 .80 .57 .96 92
VC2 .75
VC3 .84
VC4 .72
VC5 .70
VC6 .77
VC7 .82
VC8 .70
VC9 .65
Knowledge formation KF1 .77 .63 .95 .94
KF2 .72
KF3 .82
KF4 .78
KF5 .74
KF6 .77
KF7 .87
KF8 .85
KF9 .83
Reputation RE1 .75 .58 .89 .85
RE2 .78
RE3 .80
RE4 .72
Altruism AL1 .70 .55 .88 .83
AL2 .72
AL3 .80
AL4 .75
Knowledge sharing KS1 .82 .65 .95 .92
KS2 .91
KS3 .75
KS4 .78
KS5 .72
KS6 .85
Learning performance LP1 .92 .68 .93 .91
LP2 .90
LP3 .79
LP4 .70
LP5 .80
Note(s): DE = documents exchange. VC = virtual communication. KF = knowledge formation. RE = reputation. AL = altruism. KS = knowledge
sharing. LP = learning performance. FL = factor loading. AVE = average variance extracted. CA = Cronbach’s alpha. CR = composite reliability.
Table 4
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) between study constructs.
Construct DE VC KF RE AL KS LP
DE
VC 0.026
KF 0.126 0.110
RE 0.121 0.099 0.136
AL 0.036 0.032 0.122 0.216
KS 0.142 0.130 0.012 0.253 0.122
LP 0.144 0.055 0.023 0.012 0.045 0.078
sharing. LP = learning performance.
10
4.2. Measurement model evaluation
Congruent with the recommendations of Hsu and Lin (2008) and Lim (2015), the measurement model was examined in terms of
construct reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), composite reliability is
used to measure construct reliability. The rule of thumb indicates that the value of composite reliability should be greater than 0.70
(Liu & Wang, 2016). The composite reliability of all constructs is between 0.83 and 0.94, which is above the 0.70 minimum threshold,
and the Cronbach’s Alpha is also above the same benchmark (Hair et al., 2014), and thus, indicating that composite reliability is
present in this study (see Table 3). Additionally, Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend that the value of average variance extracted
(AVE) should be above 0.50, and Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011) suggest that the factor loading of each item should be more than
0.60 in order to establish convergent validity. The AVEs of all constructs are between 0.55 and 0.68 and the factor loadings for all items
measuring constructs are between 0.65 and 0.92, and thus, indicating that convergent validity is present in this study (see Table 3).
According to Benitez, Henseler, Castillo, and Schuberth (2019), Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) recommendation for assessing
discriminant validity has not been free from criticisms. Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015) proposed a higher boundary criterion
known as the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation to assess the discriminant validity of variance-based estimators, which
we attempt to use in this study. Though we acknowledge that HTMT was originally established for variance-based or partial least
squares structural equation modelling (PLS SEM), we opine that HTMT is applicable in this study despite its usage of CB SEM on the
basis that the items measuring the factors need to be assessed in terms of its variance (or variability), as in the case of running a factor
analysis, which avails and runs in the same way regardless of whether CB or PLS SEM is applied to assess the structural model.
Moreover, HTMT has been proven to be capable of attaining greater specificity and sensitivity rates (97%–99%) as compared to cross
loadings (0.00%) and Fornell and Larcker’s criterion (20.82%) (Ab Hamid, Sami, & Sidek, 2017). Specifically, discriminant validity
can be assessed by comparing the HTMT values between two constructs, wherein the HTMT value between two factors should ideally
be below 0.85, but can go up to 0.90 if the constructs are conceptually similar (Benitez et al., 2019; Henseler et al., 2015; Ogbeibu,
Senadjki, & Gaskin, 2018). The HTMT ratio test results range from 0.012 to 0.253, which indicate that all constructs are independent of
each other, and thus, discriminant validity is present in this study (see Table 4).4
4.3. Structural model evaluation
To ascertain that the hypothesized relationships are not spurious, we assessed the goodness of fit of the structural model. According
to Hair et al. (2012), the goodness of fit of a model can be assessed in terms of its Chi-Square (χ2), Root Mean Square of Error
Approximation (RMSEA), Root Mean Square Residual (RMR), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI),
Normed Fit Index (NFI), and Relative Chi-Square (χ2/df). The goodness of fit indices in Table 5 indicates that all values of the indices
are within the acceptable range, and thus, the structural model is deemed to possess a good fit.
The path analysis and hypothesis testing results are reported in Fig. 2 and in Table 6. The results indicate that documents exchange,
virtual communication, and reputation have a positive influence on knowledge sharing, which indicate their utility in encouraging
knowledge sharing among students, and thus, H1, H3, and H7 are supported. Interestingly, reputation, which is an individual extrinsic
motivator, exerts the strongest positive influence on knowledge sharing among students, followed by virtual communication and
documents exchange, which suggest that students prefer to engage in knowledge sharing to enhance their reputation over the self-
satisfaction that can be obtain from communicating virtually and successfully exchanging documents with peers via social media
sites. While these findings are congruent with extant research in the mainstream literature (Al-Rahmi & Zeki, 2017; Al-Rahmi et al.,
2018; Hall, 2018; Hung et al., 2011), they also challenge prior juxtapositions that contend otherwise (Junco, 2012, 2015; Kirschner &
Karpinski, 2010; Rostaminezhad, Porshafei, & Ahamdi, 2019).
The results also indicate that documents exchange, knowledge formation, and reputation have a positive influence on student
learning performance, and thus, H2, H6, and H8 are supported. Interestingly, documents exchange exhibits the strongest positive
Table 5
Goodness of fit indices.
Measure Threshold Value
Chi-Square (χ2) p > 0.01 1504.537

Root Mean Square of Error Approximation (RMSEA) <0.08 0.030
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) <0.08 0.060
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) >0.90 0.950
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) >0.90 0.956
Normed Fit Index (NFI) >0.90 0.921
Relative Chi-Square (χ2/df) <3.00 2.58
4
For a practical guide on how to estimate HTMT using AMOS v.24, please see James Gaskin’s YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Fw3_fpdr5Cg.
11
Fig. 2. Path analysis results.
Table 6
Hypotheses testing results.
Hypothesis Estimate SE CR p Outcome
H1 DE → KS 0.326 0.072 4.527 0.000 Supported

H2 DE → LP 0.301 0.053 5.668 0.000 Supported
H3 VC → KS 0.147 0.066 2.239 0.025 Supported
H4 VC → LP 0.106 0.074 1.325 0.185 Not Supported
H5 KF → KS 0.092 0.080 1.150 0.250 Not Supported
H6 KF → LP 0.152 0.074 2.054 0.040 Supported
H7 RE → KS 0.325 0.042 7.721 0.000 Supported
H8 RE → LP 0.461 0.055 8.256 0.000 Supported
H9 AL → KS 0.097 0.082 1.182 0.237 Not Supported
H10 AL → LP 0.102 0.079 1.291 0.197 Not Supported
sharing. LP = learning performance. SE = standard error. CR = critical ratio. p = p-value.
influence on student learning performance, followed by knowledge formation and reputation, which suggest that students realize the
importance of engaging in documents exchange and knowledge formation, especially in ways that can enhance reputation, to improve
their learning performance. In that sense, our findings complement the debates of scholarly works that have espoused the positive
influence of documents exchange, knowledge formation, and reputation on student learning performance when social media is utilised
(Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Al-Rahmi & Zeki, 2017; Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016; Qi, 2019).
However, our initial conjectures of H4, H5, H9, and H10 are not significant, and thus, they are not supported by this study.
Following the recommendation of Aczel et al. (2018) and Lim, Teh, and Ahmed (2020) to avoid overlooking the plausible contributions
of non-significant results, our study challenges the juxtapositions of prior debates that have otherwise championed the understanding
that such factors exert a significant influence on knowledge sharing and student learning performance. Specifically, the results indicate
that virtual communication cannot lead to improvements in learning performance, and that knowledge formation does not necessarily
lead to knowledge sharing, which suggests that communication without knowledge substance (as in the case of document exchange
and knowledge formation) in social media sites may be more hedonic rather than utilitarian when it comes to learning performance,
whereas knowledge sharing needs to be ignited after knowledge is formed through social media. The results also indicate that altruism
does not significantly influence knowledge sharing, which stands in dissonance to the findings of extant research (Chang & Chuang,
2011; Ma & Chan, 2014). Our finding mirrors a plausible outcome given that many tertiary students have less or no voluntary urge to
share their knowledge without expecting any return (Chong, Teh, & Tan, 2014).
Additionally, living in a highly collectivist and high power distance society, the Malaysian populace, among whom our participants
were recruited, continues to demonstrate a culture that typifies a clan-oriented value system (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Ogbeibu,
Senadjki, Emelifeonwu, & Vohra, 2020). Such a value system can be observed in the exchanges, attributes, and figurehead (e.g., leader,
parent) influences that are commonly found in families (Ogbeibu et al., 2018). Thus, student decisions to demonstrate altruism or not
can be influenced by a group member who may be held in high regard by other group members. This is a common practice as students
are culturally inclined to have high regard for, and be submissive to, higher standings in their peer groups, families, or society
12
(Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Keeping this in mind, students can become more unwilling or disinterested in knowledge sharing through
social media sites due to a culturally-driven peer group influence. When expected behaviours of a group of students reflect little or no
need for knowledge sharing via social media sites despite plausible rewards, such expected behaviours often tend to become norms
(Al-Rahmi et al., 2018). Consequently, students become influenced to mainly exert group expected behaviours (Balakrishnan & Gan,
2016; Hsu et al., 2007). Therefore, the willingness or urge of students to exhibit altruism may be stifled, and the subsequent practice of
knowledge sharing hampered. This notion is congruent with the debates of extant research (Hung, Durcikova, Lai, & Lin, 2011),
including in recent times (Park & Gabbard, 2018), where altruism knowledge sharing behaviour are not significantly correlated. The
implications of our findings are discussed in the next section.
5. Implications
Given the rising uptick in global digitalisation and use of social media sites, this study mirrors a timely and relevant investigation
with substantive implications that could be useful for HEIs. The findings of this research provide several pertinent implications,
wherein our study advances conventional understanding associated with HEI students. Specifically, our investigation of social media
functions and individual motivational factors influencing student knowledge sharing and learning performance extends theoretical
insights that undergird core antecedents that HEIs should not overlook when initiating relevant policies for leveraging social media
sites in university learning environments. We demonstrate the distinct roles of core factors such as social media functions and indi
vidual motivators, which have been scarcely employed simultaneously in prior literature. We challenge the individual motivation
theoretical lens by exemplifying that reputation alone (excluding altruism) plays a significant role in engendering students’
knowledge-sharing behaviour and learning performance. We contribute to the connectivism theory by examining nine distinct types of
social media sites and conceptualised them to respectively reflect three disparate functions that are not commonly found in extant
research, thereby deepening the depth of substantive insights that extend beyond the conclusion of prior debates that were established
on mainly one or two types of social media sites. Thus, our conceptualisation of social media sites opens new avenues that should
provoke significant future research. Moreover, our findings show that altruism has no meaningful association with knowledge sharing
and learning performance among students in higher education. By providing such evidence, we contribute to the debate of prior
literature and establish that in our context, policymakers may be able to save resources, time, and efforts that could otherwise be
allocated to foster initiatives that undergird the impacts of altruism on student knowledge sharing and learning performance. Given the
student and university-centred context, initiatives that may have been established to foster increased altruism could be local or in
ternational conferences, workshops, role-playing-related activities, and others focused on bolstering altruism. Such initiatives could
also be pertinent toward the further engendering of knowledge sharing and student learning performance. Consequently, we argue that
in the Malaysian context, resources, time, and efforts may be otherwise allocated towards driving relative initiatives that actually do
positively engender knowledge sharing and learning performance, based on the positive and significant relationships found in the
context of our study.
By integrating the social cognitive and individual motivation theoretical underpinnings, we provide a novel conceptual framework
that contributes to the knowledge-sharing literature that supports the use of social media sites in HEIs. Our findings are also relevant to
help online communities better understand what social media functions and individual motivational factors could significantly in
crease students’ use of social media to advance their knowledge sharing and learning performance. Congruently, knowing that stu
dents find virtual communication relatively cheap and comparatively fast, policymakers can better understand how to improve upon
virtual communication systems that more adequately support social media sites. Virtual communication can also allow students to get
interconnected with several experts within their fields more quickly and thus increase their chances of obtaining new knowledge. Thus,
virtual communication can help boost students’ learning performance accordingly. We also offer contributions to the literature by
demonstrating that documents exchange and knowledge formation are positive drivers of knowledge sharing. Given the rise of con
stant changes in recent times, students are becoming more inclined to exchange their documents through social media sites. Therefore,
it is important to understand how social media functions and how individual motivational factors might influence their knowledge-
sharing behaviour and learning performance.
Indeed, social media use is on the rise amid today’s global digitalisation and technological advancements. As students often engage
and use social media for personal entertainment or information exchange purposes, policymakers and practitioners may consider
developing strategies around increased documents exchange that can foster social practices of sharing study-related materials through
various social media sites in order to engender students’ learning performance. This is due to the finding that documents exchange
positively influences students’ learning performance. Therefore, policymakers should give considerable attention to virtual commu
nication and documents exchange, given their respective positive influence on students’ learning performance. Academic policies
could be instituted and resources allocated to guide and enable students to become more willing to exchange documents and engage in
knowledge formation initiatives and virtual communication tasks via social media. In addition, more constructive feedback could be
given to students by peers or relevant experts who engage, discuss, and exchange their ideas and opinions through social media groups.
This could help inspire more knowledge formation in and among students and enhance their knowledge sharing and learning per
formance. Given the above implications, established and aspiring educational hubs in developed and developing economies that
resonate with the Malaysian HEI landscape can consider strengthening their virtual communication, reputation, and documents ex
change systems, as they can positively contribute toward increasing students’ learning performance. Likewise, attention should be
given to ensuring policies are instituted to foster documents exchange, reputation, and knowledge formation, considering their
respective positive influences on students’ knowledge sharing. Furthermore, given our unique context, other cultures and societies
should exercise caution when implementing policies associated with the individual motivational factor of altruistic nature, as it may
13
not necessarily influence students’ knowledge sharing and learning performance significantly.
It is worth noting that our investigation also encapsulates nine different social media sites to help us garner original and more
meaningful information on students’ knowledge sharing and learning performance. Considering the rising debates on the need to
achieve constructs’ discriminant validity, our study also demonstrates the use of a higher boundary criterion known as the Heterotrait-
Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation proposed by Henseler et al. (2015) to determine the discriminant validity with respect to the
variance-based estimators. We note that the HTMT criterion has mostly been used when employing PLS SEM, and thus, its use is
scarcely found in extant research that has employed CB SEM to analyse their empirical data. We, therefore, exemplify the use of a more
consistent and higher boundary criterion compared to the more traditionally-used Fornell and Larcker approach that has been criti
cised in prior research for its underpowered estimates. We, therefore, recommend the use of the HTMT discriminant validity measure
when initiating discriminant validity assessment using the covariant-based SEM technique.
6. Conclusion
Our study sheds more light and deepens insights into contemporary debates engendering the contention about social media sites
usage by students. We provide evidence that helps address, support, and challenge prior discourse by leveraging two individual
motivational factors and three core antecedents that qualify as functions of nine different social media sites to investigate their
respective influences on student knowledge sharing and learning performance. The findings indicate that HEI students use social media
to gain an increased reputation, share knowledge formed, and exchange documents to enhance their learning performance. Our
findings are also supported by the debates of prior research that have employed similar distinct categories to investigate the concept of
social media (Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016). Past researchers, however, overlooked the plausible roles of individual motivational factors such
as reputation and altruism in their investigation. On the other hand, our findings show contradictory evidence with the result of Lau
(2017), who found that social media usage has a negative impact on students’ learning performance among 384 Hong Kong university
students. The author espoused that multitasking, less attentiveness, less commitment, and high distraction are core reasons for the
reduction of students’ CGPA in light of social media use. Though students initially intend to share and gather knowledge while using
social media, they are frequently distracted via entertainment, advertisement, and other offerings provided by social media sites.
Likewise, Abbas et al. (2019) explored the negative consequences of social media usage of 831 students from Pakistan. The authors
argued that frequent disruptions and waste of valuable time are the maiden culprits of the adverse influence of social media on stu
dents’ academic performance. Moreover, we exemplify that documents exchange, virtual communication, and knowledge formation
are essential for students to share knowledge in today’s digitalised world. Likewise, our results also suggest that individual motiva
tional factors such as reputation have a stronger positive influence on knowledge sharing than altruism, which shows no significant
influence in our study. Our result is consistent with extant research (Chang & Chuang, 2011) that has examined reputation as a form of
extrinsic reward and that relate that students share knowledge through social media to benefit from that sharing (Hung, Lai, & Chang,
2011), and thus, stands in dissonance with the debate of Zhang et al. (2017) who opposed this view.
6.1. Limitations and future research directions
Regardless of our study’s substantive contributions, it is not without limitations. Our study includes only private universities in
West Malaysia, and thus, the findings received from this study do not necessarily reflect the behaviour of other public universities in
Malaysia or private universities in East Malaysia. That is to say, though our findings offer meaningful implications that public uni
versities may also consider, we cannot directly infer that our findings are fundamental to both private and public universities in
Malaysia. Therefore, while our findings may be useful to both private and public universities, they relay much-targeted importance in
their implications to private universities, particular in metropolitan cities in West Malaysia. Hence, future research should consider
exploring the aims and objectives of this study with data obtained from both private and public universities. Future research can also
consider investigating student knowledge-sharing behaviour and learning performance in public universities to encourage a
comparative analysis. The would be helpful as our study has not investigated the link between student knowledge sharing and learning
performance. Given a higher student population of public universities in Malaysia, we would expect probable differences in student
knowledge sharing and learning performance, as available financial resources (via constant government funding) in public universities
that support the procurement of advanced internet technologies utilised to drive social media functions are usually larger compared to
that of private universities. Hence, it is likely that in public universities, social media functions and individual motivations may have
different significant influences on the way students engage in knowledge sharing and also on their learning performance. By inves
tigating public universities, deeper insights can be obtained to foster future comparative assessments of how social media functions
(documents exchange, virtual communication, and knowledge formation) act to drive students’ knowledge sharing and learning
performance. This may foster congruence in extant debates that have examined a relatively similar study and advance contemporary
insights into whether reputation and altruism have a positive but insignificant influence on students’ knowledge sharing and learning
performance in public universities. Evidently, in our study, we find that in private universities in West Malaysia, altruism is not
significantly associated with students’ knowledge sharing and learning performance. A distinct outcome may very likely ensue should
similar research be initiated within the public universities, or even private universities in East Malaysia, where the landscape is
developing at a catch-up phase as compared to West Malaysia (Lim, Badiozaman, & Voon, 2020). However, these arguments should be
subjected to further empirical examination by future research in order to more clearly ascertain how students’ knowledge sharing and
learning performance may be impacted accordingly. Another important drawback would be sample composition and data collection
method. This study’s data has been collected from students who were within the younger age group. Nevertheless, several young
14
individuals in this study are students who comprise the net generation. Thus, they would generally use more internet compared to the
aging populace. On this note, it would be informative for future research to investigate the net generation and the aging populace’s use
of social media sites from a student diversity perspective (Lim, 2020). This would provoke a more comparative examination, resulting
in new insights that can be useful to policymakers and practitioners. In addition, our study used a cross-sectional data collection
technique and focused on a single country-based data source. Therefore, we suggest that future research can be done to mirror
cross-cultural empirical evidence and that attempts at conditional and longitudinal investigations be made (Lim, 2021). This would
allow for a more progressive view of behavioural changes over time and in response to digitalisation across universities in different
countries. Finally, social media use in education is likely to proliferate exponentially because of the accelerated progress in technology
adoption and the immediate shift to online learning worldwide in response to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. In that sense,
we foresee a rise in studies in this area, and thus, we urge prospective scholars to be prepared to undertake a stocktake of the field in the
near future in order to chart its trajectory in the long run. Systematic literature reviews are an established form of research suitable for
this endeavour, and thus, future research can consider established review protocols and types to develop rich retrospectives and future
agendas (Paul, Lim, O’Cass, Hao, & Bresciani, 2021) on social media use in education.
Credit author statement
Mosharrof Hosen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing - Original Draft Preparation Samuel Ogbeibu: Concep
tualization, Methodology, Software, Writing - Original Draft Preparation Beena Giridharan: Supervision, Reviewing and Editing Tat-
Huei Cham: Software, Validation. Weng Marc Lim: Methodology, Writing - Reviewing and Editing Justin Paul: Writing - Reviewing
and Editing.
Appendix. Questionnaire items and sources
Constructs Items Source(s)
Documents DE1. How often do you use Facebook to do documents exchange? Eid and Al-Jabri (2016)
exchange DE2. How often do you use Twitter to do documents exchange?
DE3. How often do you use LinkedIn to do documents exchange?
DE4. How often do you use Dropbox to do documents exchange?
DE5. How often do you use Wikis to do documents exchange?
DE6. How often do you use Instagram to do documents exchange?
DE7. How often do you use YouTube to do documents exchange?
DE8. How often do you use WhatsApp to do documents exchange?
DE9. How often do you use Telegram to do documents exchange?
Virtual VC1. How frequently do you use Facebook to do virtual communication? Ma and Chan (2014)
communication VC2. How frequently do you use Twitter to do virtual communication? Moore and McMullan
VC3. How frequently do you use LinkedIn to do virtual communication? (2004)
VC4. How frequently do you use Dropbox to do virtual communication?
VC5. How frequently do you use Wikis to do virtual communication?
VC6. How frequently do you use Instagram to do virtual communication?
VC7. How frequently do you use YouTube to do virtual communication?
VC8. How frequently do you use WhatsApp to do virtual communication?
VC9. How frequently do you use Telegram to do virtual communication?
Knowledge KF1. How repeatedly do you use Facebook to do knowledge formation? Eid and Al-Jabri (2016)
formation KF2. How repeatedly do you use Twitter to do knowledge formation?
KF3. How repeatedly do you use LinkedIn to do knowledge formation?
KF4. How repeatedly do you use Dropbox to do knowledge formation?
KF5. How repeatedly do you use Wikis to do knowledge formation?
KF6. How repeatedly do you use Instagram to do knowledge formation?
KF7. How repeatedly do you use YouTube to do knowledge formation?
KF8. How repeatedly do you use WhatsApp to do knowledge formation?
KF9. How repeatedly do you use Telegram to do knowledge formation?
Reputation RE1. I believe the participants of social media would give me sufficient respect if I can contribute towards Chang and Chuang
knowledge formation, documents exchange and virtual communication. (2011)
RE2. I expect the virtual community would help me to improve my status.
RE3. I think that my reputation would increase in university if I actively get involved in social media.
RE4. I can earn some feedback or rewards through participation in social media.
Altruism AL1. I am willing to help other participants on social media. Chang and Chuang
AL2. I like to help other participants on social media. (2011)
AL3. I feel glad to support to other participants to solve problems in social media. Yu and Chu (2007)
AL4. I think helping others in social media is a part of my achievement.
Knowledge sharing KS1. I often visit social network to get the required knowledge and information. Chai et al. (2011)
KS2. I often provide my feedback/comment to others through social media. Hsu et al. (2007)
KS3. I share my earned knowledge and experience via social media.
KS4. I always make a response by providing information when any request comes from others.
KS5. I always update my social media.
(continued on next page)
15
(continued )
Constructs Items Source(s)
KS6. I think social network sites is very convenient to share and earn new knowledge.
Learning LP1. The social network sites improve the learning system. Al-Rahmi et al. (2018)
performance LP2. The social network sites upgrade my knowledge. Blasco-Arcas et al.
LP3. The social network sites save my learning time. (2013)
LP4. The social network sites improve my understanding.
LP5. The social network sites help me to exchange knowledge formally and informally.
References
Aalbers, G., McNally, R. J., Heeren, A., de Wit, S., & Fried, E. I. (2019). Social media and depression symptoms: A network perspective. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 148(8), 1454–1462. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000528
Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. M. (2017). Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. Journal of Physics, 890
(1), Article 012163. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163
Abbas, J., Aman, J., Nurunnabi, M., & Bano, S. (2019). The impact of social media on learning behavior for sustainable education: Evidence of students from selected
universities in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(6), 1683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061683
Aczel, B., Palfi, B., Szollosi, A., Kovacs, M., Szaszi, B., Szecsi, P., et al. (2018). Quantifying support for the null hypothesis in psychology: An empirical investigation.
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918773742, 251524591877374.
Ahmed, Y. A., Ahmad, M. N., Ahmad, N., & Zakaria, N. H. (2019). Social media for knowledge-sharing: A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 37,
72–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.015
Akosile, A., & Olatokun, W. (2019). Factors influencing knowledge sharing among academics in Bowen University, Nigeria. Journal of Librarianship and Information
Science, 52(2), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618820926
Alexander, D. S., Cao, C., & Alfonso, M. L. (2021). Examining whether the social cognitive theory concepts predict childhood obesity prevention outcome expectations.
The International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 41(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X20915383
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Marin, V. I., & Tur, G. (2018). A model of factors affecting learning performance through the use of social media in
Malaysian higher education. Computers & Education, 121, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.010
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., Yusof, L. M., & Musa, M. A. (2015). Using social media as a tool for improving academic performance through collaborative learning
in Malaysian higher education. Review of European Studies, 7(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v7n3p265
Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Zeki, A. M. (2017). A model of using social media for collaborative learning to enhance learners’ performance on learning. Journal of King Saud
University-Computer and Information Sciences, 29(4), 526–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.09.002
Alam, A., Khusro, S., Ullah, I., & Karim, M. S. (2017). Confluence of social network, social question and answering community, and user reputation model for
information seeking and experts generation. Journal of Information Science, 43(2), 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516637322
Alavifar, A., Karimimalayer, M., & Anuar, M. K. (2012). Structural equation modeling vs multiple regression. Engineering Science and Technology: International Journal,
2(2), 326–329.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2017). Integrating learning management and social networking systems. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 5–19. https://www.
learntechlib.org/p/183180/.
Archimi, C. S., Reynaud, E., Yasin, H. M., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2018). How perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee cynicism: The mediating role of
organizational trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 907–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3882-6
Awang, Z. (2015). SEM made simple: A gentle approach to learning structural equation modeling. MPWS Rich Publication.
Balaji, M. S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from “media richness theory” perspective. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 1–22.
Balakrishnan, V., & Gan, C. L. (2016). Students’ learning styles and their effects on the use of social media technology for learning. Telematics and Informatics, 33(3),
808–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.12.004
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A., & Bandura, A. (2016). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303
Barker, R. (2015). Management of knowledge creation and sharing to create virtual knowledge-sharing communities: A tracking study. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 19(2), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0229
Bebensee, T., Helms, R., & Spruit, M. (2011). Exploring Web 2.0 applications as a mean of bolstering up knowledge management. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(1), 1–9.
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2019). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and
explanatory IS research. Information & Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003
Bigman, C. A., Smith, M. A., Williamson, L. D., Planey, A. M., & Smith, S. M. (2019). Selective sharing on social media: Examining the effects of disparate racial impact
frames on intentions to retransmit news stories among US college students. New Media & Society, 21, 2691–2709. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819856574,
11-12.
Blaj-Ward, L., & Winter, K. (2019). Engaging students as digital citizens. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(5), 879–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07294360.2019.1607829
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in
learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019
Bolkan, S., Pedersen, W. C., Stormes, K. N., & Manke, B. (2021). Predicting 4-year graduation: Using social cognitive career theory to model the impact of prescriptive
advising, unit load, and students’ self-efficacy. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 22(4), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1521025118783485
Bukhari, S., Hamid, S., Ravana, S. D., Kurnia, S., Chang, S., Norman, A. A., et al. (2020). The use of Facebook by international students for information-seeking in
Malaysia: A social network analysis. Libri - International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 70(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2019-0033
Carter, T., & Nugent, J. (2011). Personal learning networks: implications for self-directedlearning in the digital age. In V. Wang (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Information
Communication Technologies and Adult Education Integration (pp. 226–240).
Chai, S., Das, S., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Factors affecting bloggers’ knowledge sharing: An investigation across gender. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3),
309–342. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280309
Cham, T. H., Cheng, B. L., Low, M. P., & Cheok, J. B. C. (2020). Brand image as the competitive edge for hospitals in medical tourism. European Business Review.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2019-0269
Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information &
Management, 48(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.11.001
Choi, J. H., Ramirez, R., Gregg, D. G., Scott, J. E., & Lee, K. H. (2020). Influencing knowledge sharing on social media: A gender perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of
Information Systems, 30(3), 513–531. https://www.earticle.net/Article/A381427.
16
Chong, C. W., Teh, P. L., & Tan, B. C. (2014). Knowledge sharing among Malaysian universities’ students: Do personality traits, class room and technological factors
matter? Educational Studies, 40(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2013.825577
Chu, S. K. W. (2020). Learning theories and social media. In Social media tools in experiential internship learning (pp. 47–57). Singapore: Springer.
Cleary, Y. (2021). Fostering communities of inquiry and connectivism in online technical communication programs and courses. Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication, 51(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281620977138
Connolly, T., Willis, J., & Lloyd, M. (2019). Evaluating teacher and learner readiness to use Facebook in an Australian vocational setting. Studies in Continuing
Education, 41(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1461619
Corbett, F., & Spinello, E. (2020). Connectivism and leadership: Harnessing a learning theory for the digital age to redefine leadership in the twenty-first century.
Heliyon, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03250, 1-9.
Dahdal, S. (2020). Using the WhatsApp social media application for active learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047239520928307
Downes, S. (2020). Recent work in connectivism. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2019-0014
Duan, J., Xie, K., Hawk, N. A., Yu, S., & Wang, M. (2019). Exploring a Personal Social Knowledge Network (PSKN) to aid the observation of connectivist interaction for
high-and low-performing learners in connectivist massive open online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 199–217. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjet.12687
Eid, M. I., & Al-Jabri, I. M. (2016). Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: The case of university students. Computers & Education, 99, 14–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.007
Elaimi, K., & Persaud, A. (2014). The impact of organizational factors and Web 2.0 technologies on knowledge sharing in Saudi Arabian firms. The Journal of Human
Resource and Adult Learning, 10(2), 30–40.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Glassner, A., & Back, S. (2020). Connectivism: Networks, knowledge, and learning. In Exploring heutagogy in higher education (pp. 39–47). Singapore: Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4144-5_3.
Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064–1069. https://doi.org/10.3109/
0142159X.2016.1173661
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/
MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F. J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) an emerging tool in business
research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
Hall, J. A. (2018). When is social media use social interaction? Defining mediated social interaction. New Media & Society, 20(1), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444816660782
Hennessy, C. M., Kirkpatrick, E., Smith, C. F., & Border, S. (2016). Social media and anatomy education: Using Twitter to enhance the student learning experience in
anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(6), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1610
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hershey, P. A., Hammond, M., & Wiriyapinit, M. (2005). Learning through online discussion: A case of triangulation in research. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 21(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1321
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Culture and personality revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52–88. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1069397103259443
Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., Sánchez-Santamaría, J., Perez-Pueyo, Á., & Abella-García, V. (2019). Social networks to promote motivation and learning in higher education
from the students’ perspective. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 56(4), 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1579665
Hoseini, M., Saghafi, F., & Aghayi, E. (2019). A multidimensional model of knowledge sharing behavior in mobile social networks. Kybernetes, 48(5), 906–929.
https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-2017-0249
Hosen, M., Chong, Y. L., & Lau, L. S. (2020). Sharing knowledge through publishing research work in indexed journals: A vision of Malaysian private universities. Asia
Pacific Social Science Review, 20(4), 44–62.
Hosen, M., Chong, Y. L., & Lau, L. S. (2021). The role of salient beliefs influence on Malaysian academics’ intention to publish in indexed journals. Malaysian Journal of
Library & Information Science, 26(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol26no1.4
Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and
outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003
Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information &
Management, 45(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.11.001
Hung, S. Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. M., & Lin, W. M. (2011). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(6), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.02.004
Hung, S. Y., Lai, H. M., & Chang, W. W. (2011). Knowledge-sharing motivations affecting R&D employees’ acceptance of electronic knowledge repository. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 30(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.545146
Jadin, T., Gnambs, T., & Batinic, B. (2013). Personality traits and knowledge sharing in online communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 210–216. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.007
Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026
Junco, R. (2015). Student class standing, Facebook use, and academic performance. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 36, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.appdev.2014.11.001
Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2010.03.024
Lau, W. W. (2017). Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the academic performance of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 68,
286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.043
Lee, C., Krilavi, T., Zhang, N., Wan, K., & Man, L. (2012). Using web 2.0 tools to enhance learning in higher education: A case study in technological education. In
Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists (Vol. 2, pp. 1153–1156). https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/33877.
Lim, W. M. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of e-shopping: An integrated model. Internet Research, 25(2), 184–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-11-2013-
0247
Lim, W. M. (2020). A typology of student diversity and an inclusive student learning support system: Insights for higher education. Educational Practice and Theory, 42
(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/42.1.06
Lim, W. M. (2021). Conditional recipes for predicting impacts and prescribing solutions for externalities: The case of COVID-19 and tourism. Tourism Recreation
Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1881708
Lim, W. M., Badiozaman, I. F., & Voon, M. L. (2020). Barriers to workforce re-entry among single mothers: Insights from urban areas in Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of
International Women’s Studies, 21(6), 430–452. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol21/iss6/28.
Lim, W. M., Lim, A. L., & Phang, C. S. C. (2019). Toward a conceptual framework for social media adoption by non-urban communities for non-profit activities:
Insights from an integration of grand theories of technology acceptance. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1835
17
Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009
Liu, S., & Wang, L. (2016). Influence of managerial control on performance in medical information system projects: The moderating role of organizational
environment and team risks. International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.10.003
Lou, J., Fang, Y., Lim, K. H., & Peng, J. Z. (2013). Contributing high quantity and quality knowledge to online Q & A communities. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22750
Lu, J., Hao, Q., & Jing, M. (2016). Consuming, sharing, and creating content: How young students use new social media in and outside school. Computers in Human
Behavior, 64, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.019
Ma, W. W., & Chan, A. (2014). Knowledge sharing and social media: Altruism, perceived online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship
commitment. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.015
Mahdi, M. (2019). Undergraduate students’ perceptions toward social media usage and academic performance: A study from Saudi arabia. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(3), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i03.9340
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013). The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12030
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research.
Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597
Manickam, Y., Selvam, N. D., & Ahrumugam, P. (2020). A study on the impact of collaborative learning on academic performance using Facebook in higher education.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society, 2(1), 15–23.
Mauroner, O. (2016). Social media for the purpose of knowledge creation and creativity management – A study of knowledge workers in Germany. International
Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 13(2–3), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLIC.2016.075694
Ma, W. W., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Understanding online knowledge sharing: An interpersonal relationship perspective. Computers & Education, 56(1), 210–219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.004
Moghavvemi, S., Sharabati, M., Paramanathan, T., & Rahin, N. M. (2017). The impact of perceived enjoyment, perceived reciprocal benefits and knowledge power on
students’ knowledge sharing through Facebook. International Journal of Management in Education, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.11.002
Moore, R., & McMullan, E. C. (2004). Perceptions of peer-to-peer file sharing among university students. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 11(1), 1–19.
Moorthy, K., T’ing, L. C., Wei, K. M., Mei, P. T. Z., Yee, C. Y., Wern, K. L. J., et al. (2019). Is Facebook useful for learning? A study in private universities in Malaysia.
Computers & Education, 130, 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.002
Mpungose, C. B., & Khoza, S. B. (2020). Postgraduate students’ experiences on the use of moodle and Canvas learning management system. Technology, Knowledge And
Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09475-1
Naeem, M., & Khan, M. (2019). Do social networking applications support the antecedents of knowledge sharing practices? VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, 49(4), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-12-2018-0133
New Straits Times. (2019). Malaysia ranks top 5 globally in mobile social media penetration, highest in region. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/
bots/2019/01/456119/malaysia-ranks-top-5-globally-mobile-social-media-penetration-highest.
Nobre, A. (2020). The pedagogy that makes the students act collaboratively and open educational practices. In Personalization and collaboration in adaptive E-learning
(pp. 34–54). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1492-4.ch002.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Ogbeibu, S., Senadjki, A., Emelifeonwu, J., & Vohra, P. S. (2020). Inspiring creativity in diverse organizational cultures: An expatriate integrity dilemma. FIIB Business
Review, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714519891668
Ogbeibu, S., Senadjki, A., & Gaskin, J. (2018). The moderating effect of benevolence on the impact of organisational culture on employee creativity. Journal of Business
Research, 90, 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.032
Ozlati, S. (2012). Motivation, trust, leadership, and technology: Predicators of knowledgesharing behaviour in the workplace. Claremont Graduate University. https://doi.
org/10.5642/cguetd/56
Park, J., & Gabbard, J. L. (2018). Factors that affect scientists’ knowledge sharing behavior in health and life sciences research communities: Differences between
explicit and implicit knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.017
Patel, A. S., Darji, H., & Mujapara, J. A. (2013). A survey on role of intelligent community and social networking to enhance learning process of students and
professionals. International Journal of Computer Application, 69(4), 14–17.
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International
Journal of Consumer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695
Peled, Y., Pundak, D., & Weiser-Biton, R. (2020). From a passive information consumer to a critically thinking learner. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(1),
73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1699853
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Qi, C. (2019). Social media usage of students, role of tie strength, and perceived task performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(2), 385–416. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0735633117751604
Rostaminezhad, M. A., Porshafei, H., & Ahamdi, A. A. (2019). Can effective study approaches mediate the negative effect of social networking on academic
performance? Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9770-y
Safa, N. S., & Von Solms, R. (2016). An information security knowledge sharing model in organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 442–451. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.037
Shahzad, F., Xiu, G., Khan, I., Shahbaz, M., Riaz, M. U., & Abbas, A. (2020). The moderating role of intrinsic motivation in cloud computing adoption in online
education in a developing country: A structural equation model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09611-2
Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – a literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, A60–A68. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.032
Thoms, B., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). How media choice affects learner interactions in distance learning classes. Computers & Education, 75, 112–126. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.002
Tur, G., Marín, V. I., & Carpenter, J. (2017). Using Twitter in higher education in Spain and the USA. Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal, 25(51), 19–27.
Yang, H. L., & Tang, J. H. (2003). Effects of social network on students’ performance: A web-based forum study in Taiwan. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
7(3), 93–107.
Yan, Z., Wang, T., Chen, Y., & Zhang, H. (2016). Knowledge sharing in online health communities: A social exchange theory perspective. Information & Management,
53(5), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.02.001
Yeh, Y. C., Huang, L. Y., & Yeh, Y. L. (2011). Knowledge management in blended learning: Effects on professional development in creativity instruction. Computers &
Education, 56(1), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.011
Yu, C. P., & Chu, T. H. (2007). Exploring knowledge contribution from an OCB perspective. Information & Management, 44(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2007.03.002
Yu, Q., Foroudi, P., & Gupta, S. (2019). Far apart yet close by: Social media and acculturation among international students in the UK. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 145, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.026
Zhang, X., Liu, S., Deng, Z., & Chen, X. (2017). Knowledge sharing motivations in online health communities: A comparative study of health professionals and normal
users. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.028
Zhou, Q., Lee, C. S., Sin, S. C. J., Lin, S., Hu, H., & Ismail, M. F. F. B. (2020). Understanding the use of YouTube as a learning resource: A social cognitive perspective.
Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2019-0290
18

Computers & Education: Mosharrof Hosen, Samuel Ogbeibu, Beena Giridharan, Tat-Huei Cham, Weng Marc Lim, Justin Paul

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Education: Mosharrof Hosen, Samuel Ogbeibu, Beena Giridharan, Tat-Huei Cham, Weng Marc Lim, Justin Paul

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Education 172 (2021) 104262

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

Individual motivation and social media influence on student

2. Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1. Theoretical underpinning

2.2. Influence of documents exchange on knowledge sharing and learning performance

2.3. Influence of virtual communication on knowledge sharing and learning performance

2.4. Influence of knowledge formation on knowledge sharing and learning performance

2.5. Influence of reputation on knowledge sharing and learning performance

2.6. Influence of altruism on knowledge sharing and learning performance

Fig. 1. Research framework.

Computers & Education 172 (2021) 104262

3.2. Data collection method and procedure

3.3. Common method bias or variance

establish that CMB/CMV is not a serious concern in this study.

3.4. Data analysis method and procedure

4.1. Profile of respondents

Gender Male 201 49.4

Note(s): CGPA = cumulative grade point average.

Documents exchange DE1 .78 .61 .94 .93

4.2. Measurement model evaluation

4.3. Structural model evaluation

Chi-Square (χ2) p > 0.01 1504.537

Fig. 2. Path analysis results.

H1 DE → KS 0.326 0.072 4.527 0.000 Supported

6.1. Limitations and future research directions

Credit author statement

Appendix. Questionnaire items and sources

Constructs Items Source(s)

You might also like