The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm
JWL
30,6
394
Received 9 November 2017
Revised 1 April 2018
Accepted 8 May 2018
Journal of Workplace Learning
Vol. 30 No. 6, 2018
pp. 394-414
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1366-5626
DOI 10.1108/JWL-11-2017-0101
Social learning constructs and
employee learning performance
in informal Web-based learning
environments
HyunKyung Lee
Education Advancement Center, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,
Seoul, Republic of Korea, and
MyungGeun Lee
Department of Education, College of Education Sciences, Yonsei University, Seoul,
Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between social learning constructs
and perceived learning performance in corporate informal Web-based learning environments. The study aims
at providing significant implications for corporate educators who have worked on designing social learning
environments in the workplace.
Design/methodology/approach – To identify the casual relationship of the proposed research model,
data collected from 523 South Koreans who were corporate employees and social media users were analyzed
using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The results indicate that self-motivation, learning community and social media usage were
significantly related to perceived learning performance. In addition, social media usage mediated the
relationship between the other social learning constructs and the learning performance.
Originality/value – Given that corporate personnel typically gain job-related knowledge and skills
through social learning, corporate educators need to provide learners with social learning environments that
are conducive to self-motivation and learning community. Social media, when used as a learning tool, might
not sufficiently improve learning performance without the help of other social learning constructs. Findings
shed light on which social learning constructs are essential to effective social learning environment design in
the workplace.
Keywords Informal learning, Social learning, Employee learning performance
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Given corporate employees as adult learners learn not only by themselves as
individuals but also with others through collaborative interaction, both individual and
collective learning in organizational learning process are important for organizational
goals (Lehesvirta, 2004). Moreover, individual and social learning process in the
workplace being related to the work context and organizational situation (Collin, 2009),
it is necessary to consider that organizational dimensions such as learning climate can
affect individual factors such as willingness to develop oneself and workplace identity
(Collin, 2009; Cortini, 2016). In this context, corporate education has shifted from a more
traditional lecture-oriented approach to multifaceted, informal learner-centered formats
over the past decade. Because most corporate employees gain job-related knowledge
informally as they work (Bednall and Sanders, 2016; Cross, 2007; Janssens et al., 2016; Social learning
Rijn et al., 2013; Watkins and Marsick, 1990), many corporations have begun to meet the constructs
needs of learners by promoting interaction with colleagues. As this change has
occurred, corporate educators have adopted the principles of social learning, especially
as it is referred to as collaborative learning that happens through interactions with
others in informal learning environments and applies to Web-based learning
environments that make use of Web 2.0 technologies such as Facebook, Twitter and 395
YouTube (Bingham and Conner, 2010; Sharma and Bhatnagar, 2016).
As interest in social learning has grown, scholars have begun to study the
implementation of social learning and the use of social media in the workplace (Breunig,
2016; LeNoue et al., 2011; Leonardi et al., 2013; Yap and Robben, 2010). Although various
studies have described the growing interest in social learning, they have not applied a
theoretical framework to investigate factors that increase learning performance. In addition,
although some studies have presented the effects of social media usage on learning (Cao
et al., 2013; Thomas and Akdere, 2013), levels of learning satisfaction and learning
persistence in informal Web-based learning environments suggest that social media usage
alone is not sufficient to increase learning performance. Other social learning constructs
other than social media might:

directly affect learning performance; and

encourage learners to use social media.

For example, adult learners’ personal characteristics, including self-directedness,

motivation, self-efficacy and willingness, are often identified as critical constructs in
increasing learning performance in addition to external characteristics such as social
interaction, collaboration and community activities (Hill et al., 2009; Sthapornnanon et al.,
2009). Moreover, because social media usage might mediate the relationship between other
social learning constructs and learning performance, corporate educators should consider
which social learning constructs most improve learning performance and how those
constructs relate to learning performance.
Previous studies have focused on the relationship between learning performance and
social learning constructs such as motivation, self-efficacy, social interaction and
community (Hill et al., 2009; Hong et al., 2016; Kuo et al., 2014; Sthapornnanon et al., 2009).
Some studies have investigated the full effect of interaction or community on learning
performance (Anderson and Harris, 1997; Bray et al., 2008). Other studies have investigated
the partial effects of psychological constructs, such as motivation and self-efficacy, on
learning performance (Silver et al., 1995; Tannenbaum et al., 1991). However, these studies
have focused on the simple direct relationship between each construct and learning
performance, without considering how various social learning constructs might interact to
promote learning performance.
To examine the overall structural relationship between social learning constructs and
learning performance requires a more comprehensive approach. Accordingly, the current
study:

examined the relationship between social learning constructs and learning
performance; and

analyzed the mediating effect of social media usage on the relationships among
social learning constructs and the learning performance of corporate employees in
informal Web-based learning environments.
JWL Theoretical background
30,6 Due to development of Web technologies, social learning now occurs most commonly
when those technologies are used for collaborative purposes. One of the most influential
Web 2.0 platforms is social media because it allows interaction unconstrained by
geographical and temporal separation. This flexibility creates more collaborative
learning opportunities. According to Bingham and Conner (2010), “the new social
396 learning” specifies the use of social media to interact in the workplace, in communities,
and online.
As organizations have taken a greater interest in social learning, scholars have
investigated workplace learning environments, identifying three primary issues:
(1) the importance of social learning in the workplace;
(2) the use of social learning technologies and social-networking tools in the
workplace; and
(3) implementation and challenges of social learning in the workplace.

First, there are studies that show the importance of social learning for effective teaching and
learning (DiMicco et al., 2008; Moon and Lee, 2009; Yap and Robben, 2010). This line of
study has emphasized that learning through social networking can affect employees’
organizational commitment and job satisfaction. For example, according to Moon and Lee
(2009), it is necessary for employees to engage in social networking activities to acquire
critical information in rapidly changing business environments. This result implies that
most companies need to consider social learning as an important learning intervention and
thus should encourage learners to share their knowledge and experiences with other
colleagues at work.
Second, there are studies focused on how social learning tools, such as blogs and wikis,
are used in corporate environments (Hasan and Pfaff, 2006; Jackson et al., 2007). According
to these studies, employees use these tools for sharing new corporate information rather
than for social connections. For example, Microsoft has created office-based technology such
as SharePoint, and IBM has provided blogs, wikis and social bookmarking for use in
orientations, classes and meetings (Levy and Yupangco, 2008). By making these tools
available, technology companies can examine how social networking tools might be used
more effectively in corporate settings.
Third, there are studies of the implementation and challenges of social learning in the
workplace. For example, according to Lee and Bonk (2010), the most important reason for
using social learning in the workplace was to share knowledge and experiences among
colleagues. On the other hand, another result of this study showed that generation gaps and
age differences impede the implementation of social learning in multi-generational corporate
contexts. The n-generation, born between January 1977 and December 1997 and being the
majority of young workers, has particularly been exposed to computer and digital media
(Tapscott, 2009). Thus, the use of social media is natural and critical to the n-generation’s
learning and working in the workplace. As there are both young and old generations in
corporations, the lack of technological support for the older users can create another
challenge in the implementation of social learning. Levy and Yupangco (2008) also
emphasized not only the application of social learning in the workplace but also the many
challenges to consider when implementing social learning. That is, it presented some best
practices and practical challenges when adopting social learning in the workplace, such as
productivity and efficiency, firewall and security, intellectual property, confidentiality,
policies and participation.
 Because social media platforms have facilitated social interaction on the Web, social Social learning
media usage has likely resulted in social learning, whether intentionally or unintentionally. constructs
Despite this potential, however, social media might not directly improve social learning but
only provide technological support for interaction in Web-based learning environments. To
capitalize on opportunities made possible by social media, educators should not consider
these tools in isolation; rather, the psychological and social constructs of learners are likely
to interact with social media usage to improve learning performance.
Scholars have explored the relationship between various social learning constructs and 397
learning performance. For instance, personal characteristics such as motivation and self-
efficacy have often been identified as critical to learning performance (Baldwin and Ford,
1988; Mathieu et al., 1992). Some researchers have shown that motivation increased
knowledge/skill acquisition and transfer in an organizational training context (Baldwin
et al., 1991; Colquitt et al., 2000). According to other studies, self-efficacy led to skill
development and academic achievement (Lim and Chan, 2003; Zimmerman et al., 1992).
Studies specific to corporate education have explored the relationship between self-efficacy
and performance, training outcomes, learning and motivation (Bhanthumnavin, 2003;
Ellstrom, 2001; Hertenstein, 2001). Furthermore, studies have found a positive relationship
between motivation and self-efficacy (Colquitt et al., 2000; Garcia and Pintrich, 1991; Gibson,
2004; Schunk, 1990). People with high self-efficacy in a task made greater effort, had higher
motivation and persisted longer than those with low self-efficacy (Schunk, 1990). In
particular, a strong positive relationship was found between self-efficacy and intrinsic
motivation in learners (Garcia and Pintrich, 1991; Gibson, 2004). This finding implies that
people with high self-efficacy tend to have higher intrinsic motivation.
Because environment and the way people interpret their environment often affect
behavior, environmental social learning constructs are also worth exploring. Studies have
shown that interaction and learning communities improved instructional outcomes and
learning satisfaction (Anderson and Harris, 1997; Bray et al., 2008). Interaction is especially
important to learning satisfaction within Web-based learning environments (Bray et al.,
2008). In addition, the presence of a learning community not only predicted learning
performance but also strongly related to interaction, which promoted information sharing,
problem solving and social exchange (Anderson and Harris, 1997; McDonald and Gibson,
1998; Palloff and Pratt, 1999). Being voluntary, participation in a learning community
related to the motivation to share knowledge with other members (Wasko and Faraj, 2000).
Social media usage might also predict better learning performance because learning
through social media is highly self-motivated and autonomous (Dabbagh and Kitsantas,
2012; Jue et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2016). Social networks in computer-supported collaborative
learning settings influence learning performance because collaborative learning requires
communication, social interaction and coordination among learners who might not share the
same physical space (Cho et al., 2007). In this way, social media usage might affect task
performance and help learners share learning achievements and participate in collective
knowledge generation (Choi, 2011; Dabbagh and Kitsantas, 2012). Furthermore, social media
usage might mediate the relationship between the other social learning constructs (e.g.
motivation, self-efficacy, interaction and learning communities) and learning performance.
In other words, social media platforms provide a learning medium through which learners
can interact with learning materials (Hillman et al., 1994).
Based on findings from previous studies about the relationships among social learning
constructs and learning performance, as well as among social learning constructs
themselves, in informal Web-based learning environments, the following research model
(Figure 1) and hypotheses were proposed:
 30,6

398
JWL

Figure 1.
Hypothesized
research model
Individual Motivation
Social Learning
Constructs
Learning
performance

Self-efficacy

Social media
Interaction
usage

Environmental
Social Learning
Constructs Learning
community

Informal Web-based Learning Environments

 H1. Social learning constructs (i.e. motivation, self-efficacy, interaction, learning Social learning
community and social media usage) will directly affect learning performance of constructs
corporate employees in informal Web-based learning environments.
H2. Social media usage will mediate the relationships between the other four social
learning constructs (i.e. motivation, self-efficacy, interaction and learning
community) and learning performance of corporate employees in informal Web-
based learning environments. 399

Methods
Participants
The target population of this study consisted of employees at private organizations in South
Korea who had used social media in informal Web-based learning environments. This study
adopted a proportionate stratified sampling, which is the method of selecting the number of
the sample in strata in proportion to the number of the population. Following this method,
the sample was extracted randomly by considering the balance of gender and age ratio of
active contributors in the workforce based on Statistics Korea (KOSTAT). An online survey
questionnaire then was distributed via e-mail to 5,023 employees; however, participants
having not used social media were excluded from the analysis. Participation was voluntary,
and 884 responses were returned. Out of that total, 361 contained incomplete data; therefore,
the valid sample size was 523, of which 306 were male (59 per cent) and 217 female (41 per
cent). Ages ranged from 20 to 59. The proportion of participants in each age range was
mostly balanced, the greatest number being in their 40s (n = 152; 29 per cent), followed by
30s (n = 149; 28 per cent), 50s (n = 133; 25 per cent) and 20s (n = 89; 17 per cent) (Table I).

Measures and data analysis

The survey questionnaire “Informal Web-based Social Learning Scale” (IWSLS) was used to
measure six constructs (i.e. latent variables): learning community, interaction, social media
usage, motivation, self-efficacy and learning performance. In this study, learning
performance is measured by the learners’ perceived satisfaction and persistence on learning.
This is because the study focuses on the effects of social learning constructs in informal
Web-based learning environments, not in formal classroom training programs, and in this
circumstance, a learner’s perceived learning satisfaction and persistence are more
appropriate indicators for learning performance rather than learning achievement. Learning
satisfaction, in more detail, is defined as “the degree to which a learner perceives positive
associations with social learning one has experienced”, and learning persistence is defined
as “the degree to which a learner continues to engage in social learning”. Given perception of
learning can be the most important predictor of learning transfer because learners can
apply learning content only if they have learned it (Velada and Caetano, 2007), the perceived
learning performance in the study can be a significant predictor of learning transfer on the
job. The initial version of IWSLS was pilot-tested with 30 employees working in two
different banking industries in South Korea, and the final version of IWSLS was constructed
by deleting or modifying some original survey items based on participant responses in the
initial survey. Cronbach’s alpha values for each variable of the final IWSLS ranged from
0.63 to 0.88, showing a high level of reliability (Table II).
The hypothesized research model, along with proposed hypotheses, was tested using
structural equation modeling. The data collected from the survey questionnaire were
analyzed using SPSS 21.0 (descriptive statistical analysis) and AMOS 21.0 (structural
equation modeling).
JWL Male (N = 306) Female (N = 217) Total (N = 523)
30,6 Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

Age
20-29 42 (14) 47 (22) 89 (17)
30-39 93 (30) 56 (26) 149 (28)
40-49 91 (30) 61 (28) 152 (29)
400 50-59 80 (26) 53 (24) 133 (25)
Years of employment
Less than 1 1 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0)
1-4 146 (48) 122 (56) 268 (51)
5-9 69 (23) 44 (20) 113 (22)
10-14 38 (12) 20 (9) 58 (11)
More than 15 52 (17) 30 (14) 82 (16)
Years of work experience
1-4 33 (11) 37 (17) 70 (13)
5-9 65 (21) 46 (21) 111 (21)
10-14 50 (16) 49 (23) 99 (19)
More than 15 158 (52) 85 (39) 243 (46)
Job position
Staff 45 (15) 87 (40) 132 (25)
Assistant manager 44 (14) 36 (17) 80 (15)
Manager 65 (21) 38 (18) 103 (20)
Deputy General Manager 35 (11) 19 (9) 54 (10)
General Manager 60 (20) 24 (11) 84 (16)
Chief 53 (17) 11 (5) 64 (12)
Others 4 (1) 2 (1) 6 (1)
Job function
Marketing/sales 61 (20) 45 (21) 106 (20)
IT/internet 51 (17) 13 (6) 64 (12)
Production management 25 (8) 22 (10) 47 (9)
Business management 75 (25) 79 (36) 154 (29)
Table I. Technology/engineering 69 (23) 15 (7) 84 (16)
Participant Education/research/ consulting 25 (8) 41 (19) 66 (13)
demographics Others 0 (0) 2 (1) 2 (0)

Results
Direct effects of social learning constructs on perceived learning performance
To identify whether the data met the multivariate normality assumption, the means,
standard deviations and skewness and kurtosis of the measured variables were
analyzed. Correlations were also examined to check the strength of the relationships
among the measured variables of all latent constructs (i.e. learning community,
interaction, social media usage, motivation, self-efficacy and learning performance)
(Table III).
As shown in Table III, the means of the measured variables ranged from 3.19 to 3.85, and
the standard deviations ranged from 0.51 to 0.72. The absolute values of the skewness
ranged from 0.025 to 0.457, while those of the kurtosis ranged from 0.004 to 0.523. These
results confirm that the data met the normality assumption of structural equation modeling.
In addition, the measured variables of all of the social learning constructs had significant
positive correlations at the alpha level of 0.01.
Latent Measured No. of Reliability
Social learning
variables variables Descriptions items coefficients References constructs
Learning Participation The degree to which one 5 0.69 Bock et al.
community (PT) will be willing to (2005)
participate in
communities voluntarily
and actively 401
Knowledge The degree to which one 5 0.88
sharing believes that one will
activities (KSA) engage in a knowledge
act
Interaction Peer-peer The degree to which one 4 0.80 Sthapornnanon
interaction prefers to interact with et al. (2009)
(PPI) peers for one’s
intellectual growth
Novice-expert The degree to which one 4 0.83
interaction (NEI) prefers to interact with
experts for one’s
intellectual growth
Social media Purposes when The degree of one’s 4 0.63 Bock et al.
usage using social purpose when using (2005)
media (PUSM) social media
Preferences when The degree of one’s 4 0.80
using social preference when using
media (PRSM) social media
Motivation Intrinsic The perception of one’s 6 0.82 Vallerand and
motivation tendency to learn Bissonnette
(IM) through personal interest (1992)
and satisfaction
Extrinsic The perception of one’s 6 0.78
motivation (EM) tendency to learn
through external force or
reward
Self-efficacy Learning self- The perception of one’s 4 0.80 Guglielmino
efficacy (LSE) belief about one’s (1977)
successful behavior to
achieve certain purposes
for learning
Computer The perception of one’s 5 0.87
self-efficacy belief about one’s
(CSE) successful behavior to
achieve certain purposes
for using a computer
Learning Learning The degree to which a 4 0.80 Shin and Chan
performance satisfaction (LS) learner perceives positive (2004)
associations with social
Table II.
learning one has
experienced Informal Web-based
Learning The degree to which a 3 0.81 social learning scale
persistence (LP) learner continues to (IWSLS) items and
engage in social learning reliability coefficients
 30,6

402
JWL

variables
Table III.

for measured
Descriptive statistics
Measured
variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

PT 1 –
KSA 2 0.470** –
PPI 3 0.480** 0.383** –
NEI 4 0.435** 0.380** 0.631** –
PUSM 5 0.574** 0.298** 0.585** 0.526** –
PRSM 6 0.492** 0.405** 0.402** 0.418** 0.562** –
IM 7 0.499** 0.272** 0.535** 0.504** 0.620** 0.484** –
EM 8 0.354** 0.137** 0.413** 0.392** 0.543** 0.387** 0.589** –
LSE 9 0.609** 0.424** 0.506** 0.429** 0.544** 0.566** 0.537** 0.397** –
CSE 10 0.531** 0.475** 0.498** 0.485** 0.519** 0.577** 0.539** 0.374** 0.680** –
LS 11 0.525** 0.297** 0.531** 0.449** 0.679** 0.514** 0.670** 0.561** 0.571** 0.589** –
LP 12 0.480** 0.344** 0.511** 0.491** 0.624** 0.504** 0.582** 0.536** 0.553** 0.594** 0.755** –
Mean 3.57 3.19 3.45 3.45 3.70 3.48 3.62 3.85 3.48 3.43 3.75 3.78
SD 0.53 0.72 0.59 0.65 0.52 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.51 0.57 0.55 0.58
Skewness 0.310 0.457 0.324 0.274 0.198 0.026 0.097 0.025 0.54 0.086 0.035 0.036
Kurtosis 0.122 0.123 0.523 0.262 0.261 0.079 0.107 0.418 0.138 0.004 0.080 0.124

Note: **p < 0.01

The two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was used to analyze Social learning
the structural model. The first step was to verify the adequacy of the measurement model, constructs
and the second step was to test the structural model. To test the measurement model, the
items for each measured variable were adjusted using an item-parceling method. Given that
the scales of this study contained 54 items and these items were represented by 12 parcels,
each parcel consisted of three to six items.
Fit indices of the measurement model and factor loadings between the measured
variables and latent constructs were examined to check the goodness and validity of the 403
model based on item parceling. The current study selected four criterion indices – the
chi-square ( x 2) value, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) – because they are not sensitive to
sample size and were appropriate for the complexity of the model. Based on the
goodness of fit indices of the measurement model ( x 2 = 168.731, df = 39, TLI = 0.939,
CFI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.080), the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the
measured variables were estimated. First, factor loadings were used to verify
convergent validity. All of the factor loadings ranged from 0.59 to 0.90, indicating that
the measured variables had a reasonable level of convergent validity to assess the
latent variables (Table IV).
Second, the correlation coefficients among the latent variables ranged from 0.66 to 0.89,
indicating that each latent variable was distinct from the others. Because all of the variables
in the measurement model were adequate to estimate the structural model, the hypothesized
structural model was examined. The fit indices of the structural model provided a good fit to
the data (Table V).
Based on the fit of the structural model, the statistical significance of all path coefficients
in the original structural model was examined (Table VI).
As shown in Table VI, only two path coefficients (i.e. learning community ! social
media usage [t = 3.111, p = 0.002] and social media usage ! learning performance [t = 2.023,
p = 0.043]) were statistically significant. Therefore, the non-significant paths were removed
from the model one at a time (i.e. “model trimming”), starting with the path with the lowest t-
values among those with t-values less than 61:96, until all of the remaining path coefficients
become statistically significant. The hypothesized structural model underwent four rounds
of trimming. After each round, the goodness of fit indices of the structural model were

Unstandardized Standardized
Variables (B) (b ) S.E. t p

Motivation ! Intrinsic motivation 1.186 0.823 0.071 16.707 ***

! Extrinsic motivation 1.000 0.683 – – –
Self-efficacy ! Learning self-efficacy 1.083 0.837 0.065 16.570 ***
! Computer self-efficacy 1.000 0.704 – – –
Learning ! Participation 0.979 0.794 0.078 12.490 ***
community ! Knowledge sharing activities 1.000 0.592 – – –
Interaction ! Peer–peer interaction 0.975 0.825 0.058 16.702 ***
! Novice–expert interaction 1.000 0.765 – – –
Social media ! Purposes when using social media 0.904 0.830 0.045 20.301 ***
usage ! Preferences when using social media 1.000 0.819 – – –
Learning ! Learning satisfaction 1.002 0.897 0.041 24.452 ***
Table IV.
performance ! Learning persistence 1.000 0.841 – – – Factor loading
estimates in the
Note: *** p < 0.001 measurement model
JWL measured. The four eliminated paths were interaction ! social media usage, motivation !
30,6 social media usage, interaction ! learning performance and self-efficacy ! learning
performance. After removing the last one, the goodness-of-fit indices of the last modified
model were compared to those of the original and the other three modified models
(Table VII).
Table VII shows the chi-square value gradually increased, suggesting that goodness of
404 fit after each modification worsened. However, the other fit indices after each modification
did not worsen but only increased negligibly. Because the difference in goodness of fit
between each modified model and the original model was small, the fit indices of the fourth
modified model ( x 2 = 170.493, df = 43, TLI = 0.945, CFI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.075) still
exhibited a good fit compared to the original despite parsimony. To identify the statistical
difference between the original model and the modified models, a chi-square difference
statistic (Dx2) was used. As shown in Table VIII, the difference in the chi-square value
between the original model and the fourth modified model was 1.762, and no significant
difference between the original model and the fourth modified model emerged (Dx2 = 1.762,
Ddf = 4, p = 0.779 > 0.05). In other words, the goodness of the fit indices of the fourth
modified model were not significantly worsened as parsimony of the model improved.

Table V.
Goodness-of-fit Fit measures x2 df TLI CFI RMSEA (90% confidence interval)
measures for
Values 168.731 (p = 0.000) 39 0.939 0.964 0.080 (0.068  0.092)
hypothesized Recommended value >0.90 >0.90 <0.080
structural model

Path Unstandardized (B) Standardized ( b ) S.E. t p

Motivation ! Social media usage 0.118 0.100 0.407 0.290 0.772

! Learning performance 0.918 0.676 0.512 1.794 0.073
Self-efficacy ! Social media usage 0.225 0.239 0.196 1.150 0.250
! Learning performance 0.312 0.286 0.253 1.234 0.217
Learning community ! Social media usage 0.654 0.657 0.210 3.111* 0.002
! Learning performance 0.327 0.285 0.289 1.130 0.258
Table VI. Interaction ! Social media usage 0.019 0.022 0.084 0.226 0.821
! Learning performance 0.084 0.085 0.091 0.924 0.355
Path coefficients of
Social media usage ! Learning performance 0.374 0.324 0.185 2.023* 0.043
hypothesized
structural model Note: *p < 0.05

x2 df TLI CFI RMSEA (LO 90-HI 90)

Modified Structural Model 4 170.493 (p = 0.000) 43 0.945 0.964 0.075 (0.064-0.087)

Table VII.
Modified Structural Model 3 169.888 (p = 0.000) 42 0.944 0.964 0.076 (0.065-0.089)
Fit statistics Modified Structural Model 2 168.858 (p = 0.000) 41 0.943 0.964 0.077 (0.065-0.090)
comparison between Modified Structural Model 1 168.777 (p = 0.000) 40 0.941 0.964 0.079 (0.067-0.091)
original and modified Original Structural Model 168.731 (p = 0.000) 39 0.939 0.964 0.080 (0.068-0.092)
structural models Recommended value >0.90 >0.90 <0.080
Based on the results of model trimming, the path coefficients of the fourth modified model Social learning
were all statistically significant (Table IX). constructs
Although all path coefficients of the fourth modified model were statistically significant,
the standardized path coefficient between motivation and learning performance exceeded
1.0 ( b = 1.055). Considering the correlation coefficient (0.90) between motivation and self-
efficacy in the fourth structural model, multicollinearity was presumed to exist between the
two variables. To solve this problem, the two variables were integrated into a new variable
(i.e. self-motivation), based on the strong relationship between motivation and self-efficacy, 405
and the proposed statistical model was modified. The modified model still had good fit with
the data ( x 2 = 207.524, df = 46, TLI = 0.935, CFI = 0.955, RMSEA = 0.082), despite the fact
that the goodness of fit indices were slightly lower than the original and the four modified
models. Based on the fit of the modified model, all path coefficients in the model were
statistically significant except for the path from learning community to learning
performance (Table X).
As a result of this analysis, all path coefficients in the final statistical model and the
relationship between the social learning constructs and learning performance were
identified and presented in Figure 2.

Model df CMIN p

Modified structural model 4 4 1.762 0.779 Table VIII.

Modified structural model 3 3 1.157 0.763 Chi-square difference
Modified structural model 2 2 0.128 0.938
Modified structural model 1 1 0.047 0.829
statistics of modified
structural models
Notes: CMIN (minimum discrepancy) refers to a chi-square. To identify the statistical difference between compared to original
the original model and the modified models, a chi-square difference statistic (Dx2 Þ was used model

Path Unstandardized (B) Standardized ( b ) S.E. t p

Motivation ! Learning performance 1.436 1.055 0.192 7.481*** 0.000

Self-efficacy ! Social media usage 0.264 0.280 0.069 3.800*** 0.000
Learning community ! Social media usage 0.699 0.701 0.087 8.041*** 0.000 Table IX.
! Learning performance 0.651 0.567 0.201  3.241** 0.001
Path coefficients of
Social media usage ! Learning performance 0.456 0.396 0.168 2.710** 0.007
modified structural
Notes: **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 Model 4

Path Unstandardized (B) Standardized ( b ) S.E. t p

Self-motivation ! Social media usage 0.425 0.351 0.121 3.521*** 0.000

! Learning performance 1.180 0.848 0.131 8.994*** 0.000
Learning community ! Social media usage 0.607 0.605 0.111 5.458*** 0.000 Table X.
! Learning performance 0.298 0.259 0.164 1.814 0.070
Path coefficients of
Social media usage ! Learning performance 0.377 0.328 0.163 2.316* 0.021
modified statistical
Notes: *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001 model
 30,6

406
JWL

Figure 2.

coefficients in the
Standardized path

final statistical model

0.67
Intrinsic
e1 movaon
e11 e12
0.44
0.82
Extrinsic 0.66 0.80 0.71
e2
movaon
Learning Learning
Self-movaon sasfacon persistence
0.62 0.79
Learning 0.85***
e3 self-efficacy 0.66 0.89 0.84
①
0.43
0.35*** 0.79 0.86
Computer
e4 self-efficacy 0.81 Learning
② d2
performance
0.68
Peer
e5 interacon 0.83 – 0.26
0.33*
Interacon
0.58 0.69
④
0.76 Purposes when
e6 Novice-expert
using social e9
interacon media
0.74 0.83
Social media
usage 0.67
0.64
0.61*** Preferences
③ 0.82 when using e10
e7
ㄷ Parcipaon social media
0.80
1 d1
ㄷ Learning
1 0.35 community
0.59
Knowledge
e8 sharing acvity

Notes: → Significant influence; non-significant influence; non-significant influence (deleted in model trimming)
Mediating effects of social media usage Social learning
Because social media usage seemed to play a special role in the final structural model constructs
(Figure 2), the mediating effects of this construct were tested using bootstrapping. Table XI
displays the overall path estimates of the direct, indirect and total effects among the social
learning constructs and learning performance.
As seen in Table XI, the mediating effects of social media usage were statistically
significant on self-motivation and learning performance ( b = 0.115, p = 0.009) and on
learning community and learning performance ( b = 0.198, p = 0.009). The direct effect of 407
self-motivation on learning performance was statistically significant; therefore, social media
usage had a partial mediating effect on the relationship between self-motivation and
learning performance. However, the direct effect of learning community on learning
performance was not statistically significant, suggesting that social media usage had a full
mediating effect on the relationship between learning community and learning performance.

Discussion and conclusion

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between social learning
constructs and perceived learning performance and to analyze the mediating effects of social
media usage for corporate employees in informal Web-based learning environments. A
comprehensive review of the literature led to development of a research model that included
the relationships among five social learning constructs (i.e. motivation, self-efficacy,
interaction, learning community and social media usage) and the learning performance. The
results indicate that three social learning constructs (i.e. self-motivation, learning
community and social media usage) were crucial to perceived learning performance.
The first construct, self-motivation, which is a combination of self-efficacy and
motivation, was revealed to have an indirect and direct effect on perceived learning
performance. The direct effect is consistent with the findings of Mathieu et al. (1992), which
investigated the positive relationship not only between motivation and learning
performance but also between self-efficacy and learning performance. This finding implies
that people with high self-motivation may improve their learning performance more than
people with low self-motivation when they experience social learning. The indirect effect via
social media usage is consistent with the findings of LeNoue et al. (2011). Corporate
employees with high motivation and self-efficacy were more likely to learn better with social
media usage than without, suggesting that social media usage might help corporate
employees generate significant synergy effects on learning performance.
The second construct, learning community, affected perceived learning performance not
directly but indirectly via social media usage, confirming the findings from Anderson and
Harris (1997): the presence of a learning community was crucial to learning performance. It

Unstandardized Standardized
estimate (B) estimate ( b )
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Path effect effect Total effect effect Total

Self-motivation ! Social media usage 0.425* – 0.425* 0.351* – 0.351*

! Learning performance 1.180** 0.160** 1.340** 0.848** 0.115** 0.963** Table XI.
Learning community ! Social media usage 0.607** – 0.607** 0.605** – 0.605** Direct, indirect and
! Learning performance 0.298 0.228** 0.070 0.259 0.198** 0.061
total effects of path
Social media usage ! Learning performance 0.377* – 0.377* 0.328* – 0.328*
estimates in the final
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 model
JWL is probable that a learning community itself does not have any significant meaning and is
30,6 rather meaningful when learners use social media in learning communities. According to
Omar et al. (2016), a positive relationship exists between social media usage and knowledge
sharing, one of the measurement variables of the learning community construct. This
finding suggests that social media usage can improve the learning performance only when
people participate in learning communities and share their knowledge and skills.
408 The third construct, social media usage, affected perceived learning performance
directly. This result is consistent with previous research on the effectiveness of social media
in the workplace (Bingham and Conner, 2010; DiMicco et al., 2008; Hasan and Pfaff, 2006;
Jackson et al., 2007; Jue et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2008; Moon and Lee, 2009; Yap and Robben,
2010). However, it is inconsistent with research suggesting that media usage per se does not
affect learning directly (Clark, 1994; Levie and Dickie, 1973). This inconsistency might be
attributed to the differences between social media and traditional media. In other words,
traditional media include one-way communication methods that are limited by spatial and
temporal constraints, while social media attract voluntary participation from learners and
allow them to communicate with others to solve practical problems.
Unlike the assumptions of the hypothetical research model presented in this study, the
finding that interaction was not significant on any path suggests that neither peer-to-peer
interaction nor novice-to-expert interaction affected perceived learning performance. This
finding is inconsistent with Tynjälä (2008), which found that interaction between novices
and experts was crucial to workplace learning. Most participants in the current study were
over 40 years old, had more than 10 years of work experience (54 per cent) and held
managerial positions. As a result, they might have felt that experts above their own
knowledge level were unavailable to them. If more of the participants had been younger, had
fewer than 10 years of work experiences or held lower staff position, interaction might have
had a stronger impact on learning performance.
Social media usage had particularly two different mediating effects. The first was a
partial mediating effect on the relationship between self-motivation and perceived learning
performance. This finding implies that social media usage might be crucial to improving the
learning performance when learners have high self-motivation and that learners who use
social media to learn need to be self-motivated. According to Wang et al. (2009), there exist
some significant gender and age differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. That is,
age differences may moderate the effects of effort expectancy and social influence on mobile
learning use intention, and gender differences, the effects of social influence and self-
management of learning on mobile learning use intention. It is, thus, necessary to
investigate further in terms of the role of gender and age in social media usage for social
learning. Second, social media usage had a full mediating effect on the relationship between
learning community and perceived learning performance. This finding confirms what
Gunawardena et al. (2009) found: social media contributed to building an online community
by enabling instant communication among users to improve learning performance.
Accordingly, the presence of a learning community should be considered when
incorporating social media into social learning environment design.
In conclusion, the current study clarified what social learning constructs are significant
for corporate employees’ perceived learning performance in informal Web-based learning
environments and, moreover, the direct and indirect effects of the social learning constructs
on the learning performance were specified. The findings recommend that learning
managers and instructional designers focus on self-motivation, learning community and
social media usage in combination to build successful social learning environments in a
corporate setting.
Implications for practice Social learning
A critical issue for any organization is to help their employees learn effectively and constructs
efficiently, for employees need to develop and enhance their knowledge and skills to cope
with rapidly changing economic conditions. Corporate employees are typically adult
learners who learn independently, collaborate with others and pursue job-oriented learning.
However, traditional corporate education programs cannot meet all of their learning needs.
After acquiring new knowledge and skills, employees want to sustain them. Such efforts
require much more comprehensive solutions than traditional education programs can 409
provide. At present, employees expect to work in social learning environments in which they
can learn by themselves or through collaboration with peers based on the needs of their job.
Social learning environments provide collaborative, immediate and relevant methods for
gaining job-related knowledge and skills (Meister and Willyerd, 2010).
Although many organizations have recognized the importance of social learning, they
continue to use traditional formal education formats, such as lecturer-centered classroom
training and individual online learning, because designing social learning environments that
are suited for their circumstances is a daunting prospect. Fortunately, a new approach of
work–play relationship called “gamification” has been rising for solving organizational
issues effectively through games (Ferreira et al., 2017). When making an effort to provide
their employees with work-social learning to solve practical problems in the workplace,
corporate educators must therefore first identify the best instructional approaches, viable
social learning constructs and learning environments that facilitate social learning.
First, it is important to note that any instructional approaches regarding informal Web-
based learning environments should include self-motivation not only for learning but also
pertaining to the use of a computer, with both appearing to be important for learning
performance. This is because user ability and accessibility regarding the use of a computer
are critical in informal Web-based learning environments. According to the technology
acceptance model, which attempts to explain the relations between user attitudes,
satisfaction and behavioral intention to use and system usage (Davis et al., 1989), perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use determine attitudes toward using the system and
computer self-efficacy is one of the important constructs.
Another implication for practice is that it is critical to make community activities
successful so as to improve learning performance. The mere existence of knowledge and
content on the Web cannot guarantee the success of community activities, for which instant
participation and knowledge sharing appear to be most important. An online community by
enabling more communication among users can support the effective building of a
participatory community among learners. Along with this, in particular, social media is an
effective method with which to solve immediate problems of learners easily and quickly
(Gunawardena et al., 2009).
Finally, it is obvious that social media works as an effective method for learners to
participate voluntarily and share knowledge and skills among themselves to solve practical
problems. In other words, social media usage can enhance access to the information needed
to do work easily and increase the quality of work. It is, therefore, important that any
informal Web-based learning environments using social media need to be integrated into
work processes contextually and experientially on a “just-in-time” basis (Kreitzberg and
Kreitzberg, 2010). Moreover, social media is particularly important for the younger
generation because this generation has been exposed to computers and digital media
throughout their lives. Given the younger generation constitutes the majority of workers at
present, learning coupled with social media will be more effective than traditional learning.
In addition, to better identify social media usage intentions of the younger generation in the
JWL workplace, perceived usefulness, cognitive absorption, perceived ease of use, perceived
30,6 behavioral control and subjective norm in the technology acceptance model (Roca et al.,
2006) can be used as meaningful indicators.

Limitations and future research

410 The current study has two important limitations. First, the results regarding learning
performance should be interpreted cautiously because it was measured using self-reported
perceptions. According to the overconfidence effect in psychology, people have a tendency
to be optimistic about their own abilities and overestimate their own performance to forecast
outcomes after learning, and their predictions, therefore, might have exceeded their actual
performance. Another limitation is that social media usage might have been influenced by
the characteristics of the participants’ respective organizations (e.g. internet security policies
and organizational culture). Some companies might have provided employees with more
opportunities to use social media at work, while other companies might not have done so.
Some companies also might have already implemented social learning using social media in
their workplace. That is, organizational characteristics might have influenced the data
reported by participants.
In this study, three constructs, learning community, social media usage and self-
motivation, are confirmed to have a statistically significant causal relationship with learning
performance in informal Web-based learning environments. Based on the results verified in
this study, further research is recommended on the development of specific action plans and
strategies for the three constructs to be used in designing social learning environments in
the workplace. Moreover, researchers should investigate the relationship between social
learning constructs and other constructs of learning performance, such as learning impact
and learning transfer. Future studies could extend the current one by including not only
social learning constructs but also environmental constructs related to corporate culture and
individual constructs such as learners’ learning styles, characteristics and background. In
particular, it is necessary to investigate further in terms of the role of gender and age in
social media usage for social learning. In this way, organizational approaches might be
compared to instructional approaches within the same model, allowing identification of
more viable constructs with which to design more effective social learning environments in
corporate settings.

References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Anderson, S.E. and Harris, J.B. (1997), “Factors associated with amount of use and benefits obtained by
users of a statewide educational telecomputing network”, Educational Technology Research and
Development, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 19-50.
Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, J.K. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 63-105.
Baldwin, T.T., Magjuka, R.J. and Loher, B.T. (1991), “The perils of participation: effects of choice of
trainee motivation and learning”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Bednall, T.C. and Sanders, K. (2016), “Do opportunities for formal learning stimulate follow-up
participation in informal learning? A three-wave study”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 56
No. 5, pp. 803-820.
Bhanthumnavin, D. (2003), “Perceived social support from supervisor and group members’ Social learning
psychological and situational characteristics as predictors of subordinate performance in Thai
work units”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 79-97.
constructs
Bingham, T. and Conner, M. (2010), The New Social Learning: A Guide to Transforming Organizations
through Social Media, ASTD & Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social psychological forces, and
organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111. 411
Bray, E., Aoki, K. and Dlugosh, L. (2008), “Predictors of learning satisfaction in Japanese online
distance learners”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 1-24.
Breunig, K.J. (2016), “Limitless learning: assessing social media use for global workplace learning”, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 249-270.
Cao, Y., Ajjan, H. and Hong, P. (2013), “Using social media applications for educational outcomes in
college teaching: a structural equation analysis”, British Journal of Educational Technology,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 581-593.
Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B. and Ingraffea, A. (2007), “Social networks, communication styles, and
learning performance in a CSCL community”, Computers & Education, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 309-329.
Choi, H. (2011), “A study on the influence of social network on learning performance: knowledge
diffusion model based on computer simulation approach”, Journal of Social Science, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 75-94.
Clark, R.E. (1994), “Media will never influence learning”, Educational Technology Research and
Development, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 21-29.
Collin, K. (2009), “Work-related identity in individual and social learning at work”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23-35.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), “Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a
meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5,
pp. 678-707.
Cortini, M. (2016), “Workplace identity as a mediator in the relationship between learning
climate and job satisfaction during apprenticeship”, Journal of Workplace Learning,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 54-65.
Cross, J. (2007), Informal Learning: Rediscovering the Natural Pathways That Inspire Innovation and
Performance, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.
Dabbagh, N. and Kitsantas, A. (2012), “Personal learning environments, social media, and self-
regulated learning: a natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning”, The Internet
and Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-8.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1002.
DiMicco, J., Millen, D.R., Geyer, W., Dugan, C., Brownholtz, B. and Muller, M. (2008),
“Motivations for social networking at work”, in proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference
on computer supported cooperative work, Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, pp. 711-720.
Ellstrom, P.E. (2001), “Integrating learning and work problems and prospects”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 421-435.
Ferreira, A.T., Araújo, A.M., Fernandes, S. and Miguel, I.C. (2017), “Gamification in the workplace: A
systematic literature review”, World CIST 2017, Recent Advances in Information Systems and
Technologies, Volume 3 (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing Book 571), Springer
International Publishing, New York, pp. 283-292.
JWL Garcia, T. and Pintrich, P.R. (1991), “Student motivation and self-regulated learning: A LISREL model”
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 3-7
30,6 April, Chicago, IL, available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED333006.pdf (accessed 17
October 2017).
Gibson, S.K. (2004), “Social learning (cognitive) theory and implications for human resource
development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 193-210.
Guglielmino, L.M. (1977), “Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale”, Unpublished PhD
412 Thesis, University of Georgia, Atlanta, GA.
Gunawardena, C.N., Hermans, M.B. and Richmond, C. (2009), “A theoretical framework for building
online communities of practice with social networking tools”, Educational Media International,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Hasan, H. and Pfaff, C.C. (2006), “The Wiki: an environment to revolutionize employees’ interaction
with corporate knowledge”, in Proceedings of the 18th Australia Conference on Computer-
Human Interaction: Design, activities, artefacts, and environments, Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, pp. 377-380.
Hertenstein, E.J. (2001), “Goal orientation and practice condition as predictors of training results”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 403-419.
Hill, J.R., Song, L. and West, R.E. (2009), “Social learning theory and web-based learning environments:
a review of research and discussion of implications”, The American Journal of Distance
Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 88-103.
Hillman, D.C., Willis, D.J. and Gunawardena, C.N. (1994), “Learner interface interaction in distance
education: an extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners”, The American
Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 30-42.
Hong, J.C., Hwang, M.Y., Szeto, E., Tsai, C.R., Kuo, Y.C. and Hsu, W.Y. (2016), “Internet cognitive failure
relevant to self-efficacy, learning interest, and satisfaction with social media learning”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 55, pp. 214-222.
Jackson, A., Yates, J. and Orlikowski, W. (2007), “Corporate blogging: Building community through
persistent digital talk”, in proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp. 1530-1605.
Janssens, L., Smet, K., Onghena, P. and Kyndt, E. (2016), “The relationship between learning conditions
in the workplace and informal learning outcomes: a study among police inspectors”,
International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 92-112.
Jue, A.L., Marr, J.A. and Kassotakis, M.E. (2010), Social Media at Work: How Networking Tools Propel
Organizational Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kim, S.T., Lee, C.K. and Hwang, T. (2008), “Investigating the influence of employee blogging on IT
workers’ organizational citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Information Technology
and Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 178-189. Vol.
Kreitzberg, A.P. and Kreitzberg, C.B. (2010), “E-learning goes social”, ELearning, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 22-24.
Kuo, Y.C., Walker, A.E., Schroder, K.E. and Belland, B.R. (2014), “Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and
self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses”, The
Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Lee, H. and Bonk, C. (2010), “Implementation, challenges, and future plans of social learning in the
workplace” in proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010, AACE, Chesapeake, VA, pp. 2581-2587.
Lehesvirta, T. (2004), “Learning processes in a work organization: from individual to collective and/or
vice versa?”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 92-100.
LeNoue, M., Hall, T. and Eighmy, M.A. (2011), “Adult education and social media revolution”, Adult
Learning, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 4-12.
Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C. (2013), “Enterprise social media: definition, history, and Social learning
prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
constructs
Levie, W.H. and Dickie, K.E. (1973), “The analysis and application of media”, in Travers, R.M.W. (Ed.),
Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 858-882.
Levy, S. and Yupangco, J. (2008), “Overcoming the challenges of social learning in the workplace”,
available at: www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/85/overcoming-the-challenges-of-social-
learning-in-the-workplace (accessed 30 October 2017). 413
Lim, G.S. and Chan, A. (2003), “Individual and situational correlates of motivation for skills upgrading:
an empirical study”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-242.
McDonald, J. and Gibson, C.C. (1998), “Interpersonal dynamics and group development in computer
conferencing”, American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Salas, E. (1992), “Influences of individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness”, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 828-847.
Meister, J.C. and Willyerd, K. (2010), The 2020 Workplace: How Innovative Companies Attract, Develop,
and Keep Tomorrow’s Employees Today, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY.
Moon, S. and Lee, Y. (2009), “The impacts of social network activities on company employees’
organizational commitment and job satisfaction”, Journal of Korea Human Resource
Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 55-67.
Omar, M.K., Dahalan, N.A. and Yusoff, Y.H.M. (2016), “Social media usage, perceived team-efficacy and
knowledge sharing behavior among employees of an oil and gas organization in Malaysia”,
Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 37, pp. 309-316.
Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (1999), Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for
the Online Classroom, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rijn, M.B.V., Yangm, H. and Sanders, K. (2013), “Understanding employees’ informal workplace
learning: the joint influence of career motivation and self-construal”, Career Development
International, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 610-628.
Roca, J.C., Chiu, C.-M. and Martínez, F.J. (2006), “Understanding e-learning continuance intention: an
extension of the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 683-696.
Schunk, D.H. (1990), “Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning”, Educational
Psychologist, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 71-86.
Sharma, A. and Bhatnagar, J. (2016), “Enterprise social media at work: web-based solutions for
employee engagement”, Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 24 No. 7,
pp. 16-19.
Shin, N.M. and Chan, J. (2004), “Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance education”,
British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 275-288.
Silver, W.S., Mitchell, T.R. and Gist, M.E. (1995), “Responses to successful and unsuccessful
performance: the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between
performance and attributions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 286-299.
Sthapornnanon, N., Sakulbumrungsil, R., Theeraroungchaisri, A. and Watcharadamrongkun, S. (2009),
“Instructional design and assessment: social constructivist learning environment in an online
professional practice course”, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 73 No. 1,
p. 18.
Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1991), “Meeting trainees’
expectations: the influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-
efficacy, and motivation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 759-769.
JWL Tapscott, D. (2009), Grown up Digital: How the Net Generation Is Changing Your World, McGraw-Hill,
NY.
30,6
Thomas, K.J. and Akdere, M. (2013), “Social media as collaborative media in workplace learning”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 329-344.
Tynjälä, P. (2008), “Perspectives into learning at the workplace”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 130-154.
414 Vallerand, R.J. and Bissonnette, R.J. (1992), “Intrinsic, extrinsic, and motivational styles as predictors of
behavior: a prospective study”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 599-620.
Velada, R. and Caetano, A. (2007), “Training transfer: the mediating role of perception of learning”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 283-296.
Wang, Y.S., Wu, M.C. and Wang, H.Y. (2009), “Investigating the determinants and age and gender
differences in the acceptance of mobile learning”, British Journal of Educational Technology,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 92-118.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2000), “It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in
electronic communities of practice”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9 Nos 2/3,
pp. 155-173. No
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1990), Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Yang, J.C., Quadir, B., Chen, N.-S. and Miao, Q. (2016), “Effects of online presence on learning
performance in a blog-based online course”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 30,
pp. 11-20.
Yap, R. and Robben, J. (2010), “A model for leveraging social learning technologies in corporate
environments”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010,
Lancaster University, Lancaster, PA, pp. 463-470.
Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1992), “Self-motivation for academic attainment:
the role of self-efficacy beliefs and goal-setting”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 663-676.

Corresponding author
MyungGeun Lee can be contacted at: mglwin@yonsei.ac.kr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com