See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343664646

Social media use and its effect on university student’s learning and academic
performance in the UAE

Article  in  Journal of Research on Technology in Education · August 2020

DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2020.1801538

CITATIONS READS

12 4,077

2 authors, including:

Guangming Cao
Ajman University
54 PUBLICATIONS   1,829 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marketing analytics View project

Store segmentation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Guangming Cao on 14 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Social Media Use and Its Effect on University Student’s Learning
and Academic Performance in the UAE

Abstract: While there is evidence to indicate that social media use (SMU) has various effects on
student learning and academic performance, relevant studies are still scarce while the findings
are notably inconsistent. This study seeks to answer one key question: what are the mechanisms
through which SMU affects student learning and academic performance? Drawing on the
principles of connectivism, a research model is developed and empirically tested based on the
analysis of 256 responses. The finding indicates an indirect relationship between SMU and
student academic performance, intervened by student collaborative learning, student-instructor
interaction, and academic distraction. This finding provides empirical evidence to support the
principles of connectivism; and helps extend the scope of research on SMU and its effect on
student learning and academic performance.

Keywords: Social media use, mediation, collaborative learning, student-instructor interaction,

connectivism, academic distraction, academic performance

1. Introduction

Social media refers to “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological

and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-

generated content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p.61). Social media, including Facebook, Twitter,

Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, etc., has become an integral part of university student life (e.g.

Blasco-Arcas et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2019; Stathopoulou et al., 2019). While research shows

that almost all university students use social media (Junco, 2012) and the majority of them are

“digital natives” (Stathopoulou et al., 2019, p.421), it is estimated that about 70% of university

students in the UAE use social media for five hours or more every day (Tesorero, 2019). This

has given inspiration for this research to understand the consequences of social media use (SMU)

on student learning and academic performance (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2013).

A number of studies have examined whether SMU, that is the average number of hours

students spent on social media, affects students’ perceived academic performance and/or grade

point averages (GPAs); however, the findings are notably inconsistent and inconclusive (e.g. Al-
Yafi et al., 2018; Baturay & Toker, 2017; Busalim et al., 2019; Doleck & Lajoie, 2018). Some

studies suggested that SMU is negatively related to student academic performance and/or overall

GPAs (e.g. Giunchiglia et al., 2018; Junco, 2012; Lau, 2017). Some other studies, on the

contrary, showed that social media could be used as an educational tool to increase student

engagement (e.g. Moorthy et al., 2019), improve communication, promote a positive learning

attitude, encourage learning (Kabilan et al., 2010), and is positively associated with student

academic performance (e.g. Ainin et al., 2015; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Lambić, 2016). Yet some

other studies found no relationship between SMU and student academic performance (e.g.

Alwagait et al., 2015; Rashid & Asghar, 2016). Despite recent interest in understanding the

phenomenon surrounding SMU, student learning, and academic performance, research on this

topic is still at an early stage. Furthermore, extant research tends to investigate the direct effect of

SMU on student learning and academic performance, few have examined the mediating

mechanisms through which SMU affects student learning and academic performance. In order to

develop our understanding of SMU’s effect on student learning and academic performance, more

empirical research is needed, as observed by a number of researchers (e.g. Al-Rahmi et al., 2018;

Al-Yafi et al., 2018; Alwagait et al., 2015; Busalim et al., 2019; Junco, 2012; Lau, 2017; Rueda

et al., 2017).

Addressing this gap, this study seeks to answer one key research question: what are the

mechanisms through which SMU affects student learning and academic performance?

Specifically, the primary objective of this study is to conceptualize and empirically examine the

complex mediating relationships among SMU, collaborative learning among students, student-

instructor interactions, academic distraction, and student academic performance. Drawing on the

principles of connectivism (Bell, 2011; Corbett & Spinello, 2020; Kop & Hill, 2008) that
emphasizes that digital technologies may enable people to learn and share information through

connecting to and feeding information into a learning community, this research postulates that

SMU is likely to affect student collaborative learning and student-instructor interaction, thereby

influencing student academic performance.

As a result, this article contributes new work on an under-researched phenomenon. By

identifying key mediating factors that help explain how SMU influences student learning

activities and academic performance, this research contributes to the principles of connectivism

and advances our understanding of the relationships among SMU, student learning, and

academic performance. Potentially, this could help both students and educators to develop

strategies to better manage how social media should be used in universities thereby improving

student learning and academic performance.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section presents the article’s

overview of prior studies and its proposed hypotheses. Then, the research method is discussed,

followed by the data analysis and presentation of results. Finally, the articles’ contributions,

implications, limitations and directions for future research are provided.

2. Research Hypotheses

The following section draws on the principles of connectivism to develop testable

hypotheses as represented in Figure 1. The hypotheses to be developed postulate the

relationships between SMU and collaborative learning (H1), SMU and student-instructor

interaction (H2), and SMU and academic distraction (H3); the links between collaborative

learning and academic performance (H4), student-instructor interaction and academic

performance (H5), academic distraction and academic performance (H6); and the mediated

relationship between SMU and academic performance (H7a, b, c).

 Collaborative
Learning
(CL) H4
H1

Social Student- Academic

H2 Instructor H5
Media Use Performance
(SMU) Interaction (AP)
(SII)
H7
H3 H6
Academic
Distraction
(AD)

Figure 1. Research Model

2.1. Principles of connectivism

The concept of connectivism was first introduced by Siemens (2005) as an alternate learning

theory for the digital age, though a few scholars argued that connectivism may not merit as a

learning theory (Bell, 2011; Kop & Hill, 2008). Regardless, connectivism is becoming a more

accepted ideology (Paton et al., 2018) that “describes the nexus between human learning and the

ubiquitous access to knowledge enabled by the current technological environment” (Corbett &

Spinello, 2020, p.1). Its key principles include: learning and knowledge rest in diversity of

opinions; learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources; learning

may reside in non-human appliances; nurturing and maintaining connections are needed to

facilitate continual learning; and currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all

connectivist learning activities (Siemens, 2005).

These key principles of connectivism tend to conceptualize the process of learning through

technology, such as Web 2.0 technologies, as a social process that connects students, instructors
and information (Coetzee et al., 2018; Loizzo & Ertmer, 2016). Underpinned by connectivism,

this research understands that SMU can help connect information sources and disseminate

diversity of opinions through student collaborative learning and student-instructor interaction,

thereby supporting continual learning and developing up-to-date knowledge. As a result, students

connected through social media are able to “share and find new information, …modify their

beliefs on the basis of new learning, …share these realizations and find new information once

more” (Kop & Hill, 2008, p3). Thus, this research focuses on that “learning …is located within

technology” (Bell, 2011, p.102), seeking to explain learning may occurs when students are

interconnected through social media as this digital platform allows them to learn by taking

initiative to extend their understanding of issues and concepts from participating in meaningful

and stimulating discussions. Drawing on connectivism, the links between SMU and student

learning and performance will be further explicated below.

2.2. Linking SMU to collaborative learning and academic performance

According to Alavi et al. (1995), collaborative learning refers to “interpersonal processes by

which a small group of students work together cooperatively to complete a problem-solving task

designed to promote learning” (p. 295). Students engaging in collaborative learning may include

for example conversing, debating, analyzing, interpreting, and information-sharing, which can be

a fertile context for learning and discovery (Barron, 2003). Collaborative learning is underpinned

by the assumption that students can gain useful information through collaboration with other

students (Jonassen et al., 1995).

Although collaborative learning supported by social media has become an emerging hot

topic since 2010 (Zhang et al., 2015), studies that examined SMU and collaborative learning in

higher education are still scarce (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018) and there is limited research with
regards to the effectiveness of social media to enhance communication among students and to

contribute to the learning activities and outcomes (Top, 2012). Yet, some studies have

investigated this research phenomenon surrounding SMU and collaborative learning among

university students (e.g. Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Chou & Min, 2009; Molinillo et al., 2018; Top,

2012; Zhang et al., 2015). For example, Al-Rahmi et al. (2018) showed that SMU is significantly

and positively related to both student collaborative learning and perceived academic

performance; but the study provided little logical argument explaining why the variables are

related in the proposed fashion. In the context of SMU, Molinillo et al. (2018) suggested that

student-student interaction (collaborative learning) mediated by social web tools has a positive

effect on students’ perceived active learning, while Top (2012) showed that perceived

collaborative learning is positively related to perceived learning. Chou and Min (2009) showed

that there is a positive relationship between information sharing during collaborative learning

and perceived learning achievement measured by “both the acquisition of declarative knowledge

and the capability of performing critical thinking” (p.423); however, none of these studies

included SMU and academic performance as key variables.

Thus, this study draws on the key principles of connectivism to fill this gap by

conceptualizing and empirically examining the relationships among SMU, collaborative

learning, and academic performance. Evidence in the literature suggests that SMU enhances

collaborative learning among students (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018) as SMU could provide students

opportunities to collaborate, discuss content with classmates, and create new meaning and

understanding. Arnold and Paulus (2010) for example showed SMU may provide “students the

chance to publicly post and read each other's work, modeling approaches to the assignments and

opportunities to provide feedback” (p.195). This is consistent with the view that ICT provides
new ways to transmit and manage knowledge in higher education (Mora et al., 2020) and

enhances learning processes (Kreijns et al., 2003), which is reinforced by the increasingly tighter

connection between ICT such as mobile technology and collaborative learning activities (Fu &

Hwang, 2018). Thus, it is likely that the more time students spend on SMU, the more time they

may spend on collaborative leaning.

Collaborative learning supported by social media could then generate a feeling of belonging

to the group (Kwon et al., 2014; Molinillo et al., 2018), motivate students to learn, encourage

them to effectively exchange views and knowledge (Al-Samarraie & Saeed, 2018), “develop

critical thinking skills through the processes of evaluating, assessing, supporting, or opposing

different viewpoints” (So & Brush, 2008, p.320), and improve the active processing of course

material and higher-order learning (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2013), thereby being more active in their

learning (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Al-Samarraie & Saeed, 2018). This is possible as students can

explain problems and solutions effectively when they use a similar language (Blasco-Arcas et

al., 2013; Nicol & Boyle, 2003); become more active in their learning process; and explore

deeper into the subject matter to create new associations with previous knowledge (Draper et al.,

2002). As a result, collaborative learning plays a key role in student learning performance (e.g.

Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Chou & Min, 2009; Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016; Karpinski et al., 2013;

McCarthy, 2010). Essentially, collaborative learning through SMU, which is seen to be

compatible with connectivism (Bell, 2011; Kop & Hill, 2008; Siemens, 2005), demonstrates that

student learning could reside in SMU (non-human appliances) (Siemens, 2005) or the “nexus”

between student learning and access to knowledge enabled by SMU, the “technological

environment” (Corbett & Spinello, 2020, p.1). Thus, collaborative learning through SMU is a
manifestation of “learning as a process of making connections among ideas and resources made

available…with other interested learners” (Kuznetcova et al., 2019, p.29).

The relationship between SMU and student academic performance has been examined by a

number of studies (e.g. Ainin et al., 2015; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Datu et al., 2018; Giunchiglia

et al., 2018; Junco, 2012; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Lambić, 2016; Lau, 2017; Turel &

Qahri-Saremi, 2016). While three studies (Ainin et al., 2015; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Lambić,

2016) suggested a positive impact of SMU on student academic performance, the majority of

prior studies demonstrated a negative association. For example, Datu et al. (2018) and Junco

(2012) showed empirically the negative relationship between SMU and engagement among

students; Junco (2012) and Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) demonstrated that students spent

time on social media have less time on their studies, resulting in lower grades; and Giunchiglia et

al. (2018) confirmed that SMU negatively affects student academic performance. Drawing on

connectivism and prior research, this paper posits that when students spend more time on SMU,

they are likely to spend more time on collaborative learning, which will lead to better academic

performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses can be developed:

H1: SMU is positively linked to collaborative learning.

H4: Collaborative learning is positively linked to academic performance.

2.3. Linking SMU to student-instructor interaction and student academic performance

Similarly, the principles of connectivism emphasizing learning and sharing information

through connecting to and feeding information into a learning community (Bell, 2011; Coetzee et

al., 2018; Kop & Hill, 2008; Kuznetcova et al., 2019; Siemens, 2005) and the view that ICT,

SMU in this study, is seen to provide new ways to transmit and manage knowledge thereby

enhancing learning processes are equally applicable to facilitating student-instructor interactions

in the higher educational institutions (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018). Student–instructor interactions

have long been recognized as critical to the learning process in many studies (e.g. An et al.,

2009; Blasco-Arcas et al., 2013; Moore, 1989, 2002) as they create a learning environment that

encourages students to commit themselves to the course and perform at a stronger academic level

(Jaggars & Xu, 2016). This is possible as such interactions are believed to offer emotional,

organizational and educational support to ensure the continuity of the learning process (McGill et

al., 2014). Students valuing such interactions are highly likely to learn more actively (Blasco-

Arcas et al., 2013). Evidence in the literature suggests that students perceive that social media

such as Facebook is suitable to be used in their interaction with their teachers (Baran, 2010).

Through such interaction, students highly rate instructors’ timely response to questions and

instructors’ timely feedback on assignments or projects (Martin et al., 2018). Conversely, a lack

of such interaction and feedback from instructors is most often cited as the reason for students

withdrawing from their courses (Ertmer et al., 2007).

On the other hand, student–instructor interactions based on SMU may allow instructors to

reach out to their students (Mazer et al., 2007) for easy networking and communication or to use

such interactions as a learning management system (Irwin et al., 2012; Manca & Ranieri, 2013).

As a result, student–instructor interactions based on SMU can be seen as a manifestation of

connectivism that emphasizes that learning is located within SMU (technology) (Bell, 2011). In

particular, SMU is seen to enable information sources are connected and diversity of opinions

are disseminated, thus, continual learning can be supported (Siemens, 2005).

Hence, student-instructor interactions become a significant predictor of student satisfaction

(Kuo et al., 2014) and engagement (Ma et al., 2015; Molinillo et al., 2018). Furthermore,

evidence in the literature suggests that students’ success in learning is affected by student-
instructor interactions (Molinillo et al., 2018). For example, comparing with self-paced IT-

enabled learning tools, instructor–student interactive learning tools outperform the former in

terms of satisfaction and learning outcome (Hsieh & Cho, 2011). Therefore, this study proposes

that:

H2: SMU is positively related to student-instructor interaction.

H5: Student-instructor interaction is positively associated with academic performance.

2.4. Linking SMU to academic distraction and student academic performance

Academic distraction refers to student’s ability to perform academic tasks such as reading,

writing, and attention for completing academic tasks with accuracy and precision is affected by

some factors (Feng et al., 2019). In this study, academic distraction refers specifically to

student’s ability to perform academic tasks being affected by the imbalanced time and attention

to using social media for social activities.

The concerns about academic distraction resulted from excessive SMU and its impact on

students’ academic learning and performance are increasing (e.g. Baturay & Toker, 2017;

Busalim et al., 2019; Doleck & Lajoie, 2018; Feng et al., 2019; Lambić, 2016; Nayak, 2018).

For example, Lambić (2016) argued that SMU can easily produce a countereffect with the

students as it can distract them by diverting their attention from the academic to the numerous

social activities, as evidenced by recent studies (Błachnio & Przepiorka, 2019; Brailovskaia et

al., 2018). Additionally, Busalim et al. (2019) showed that frequency of Facebook use is a

positive predictor of Facebook addiction, which has significant negative effect on students’

academic performance; and similarly, Feng et al. (2019) confirmed that students with a high-

frequency usage of Facebook per day tend to be more distracted in academic tasks and have

lower GPA. Regardless, recent studies have suggested that this area of research is still
insufficient and more empirical research on addictive behavior and its effect on student academic

performance is needed (e.g. Baturay & Toker, 2017; Busalim et al., 2019; Doleck & Lajoie,

2018).

This study, drawing on prior research, similarly postulates that students’ SMU will likely to

prevent them from focusing on their academic tasks: the more they use social media, the more

likely academic distraction increases, and the decline of their academic performance will also

increase. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H3: SMU is positively related to academic distraction.

H6: Academic distraction is negatively associated with academic performance.

2.5. Linking SMU to student academic performance indirectly

While prior studies demonstrated that SMU is related to academic performance either

negatively (e.g. Giunchiglia et al., 2018; Junco, 2012; Lau, 2017) or positively (e.g. Ainin et al.,

2015; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Lambić, 2016); few studies have investigated if this relationship

might be an indirect one. Based on the above discussions and hypotheses, it seems plausible that

SMU and student academic performance may be linked indirectly rather than directly. Thus, this

paper proposes that:

H7: SMU is indirectly linked to academic performance through collaborative learning

(H7a), student-instructor interaction (H7b), and academic distraction (H7c).

Figure 1 summarizes the study’s proposed research model. Primarily, SMU is conjectured to

affect academic performance indirectly, and to have a positive effect on collaborative learning

and student-instructor interaction, which in turn have a positive impact on student academic

performance; and a positive effect on academic distraction, which has a negative impact on

academic performance.
3. Research Methodology

3.1. Measures

In order to test the proposed hypotheses, the constructs were measured using items

developed by prior studies (Table 1).

Table 1.
Constructs and Indicators of the Study
Construct Indicator Reference
Social media Daily social media use in hours? (Feng et
use (SMU) • Less than 2 al., 2019;
• 2-3 Lambić,
• 3-4 2016)
• 4-5
• More than 5
Collaborative Using social media to (Blasco-
learning (CL) • CL1-Facilitate interaction with peers Arcas et
• CL2-Give me the opportunity to discuss with peers al., 2013)
• CL3-Facilitate dialog with peers
• CL4-Allow the exchange of information with peers
Student- Using social media to (Blasco-
instructor • SII1-Facilitate interaction with the instructor Arcas et
interaction • SII2-Give me the opportunity to discuss with the instructor al., 2013)
(SII) • SII3-Facilitate dialog with the instructor
• SII4-Allow the exchange of information with the instructor
Academic • AD1-Did you skip any registered class during the last (Feng et
distraction semester? al., 2019)
(AD) • AD2-Can you finish your assignments on time and
efficiently?
• AD3-Do you perform multitasking when you are studying?
• AD4-Do you get distracted when you are studying?
Academic • AP1-I am confident in my academic and learning abilities (Chang et
performance • AP2-I do well academically at the university al., 2019)
(AP) • AP3-I learn new concepts quickly
• AP4-I am confident in my ability to success at the university

Social media use (SMU), including Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, and Instagram,

was measured in terms of the average number of hours students spent on social media per day,

which was adapted from prior studies (Feng et al., 2019; Lambić, 2016). Collaborative learning
and student-instructor interaction were each measured by four items adopted from Blasco-Arcas

et al. (2013). Academic distraction was measured by four items adopted from Feng et al. (2019).

Previous studies measured academic performance in different ways. Some studies used the actual

cumulative GPAs obtained from the university registration office (Junco, 2012). Other studies

used self-reported GPAs from the participating students (e.g. Al-Yafi et al., 2018; Kirschner &

Karpinski, 2010). Yet, some studies used students perceived academic performance (e.g. Ainin et

al., 2015; Busalim et al., 2019; Nayak, 2018). This study measured academic performance using

perceived academic performance from the participating students, adopted from Chang et al.

(2019).

Additionally, this study followed prior studies (e.g. Junco, 2012; Lau, 2017; Rueda et al.,

2017; Whelan et al., 2020) in controlling for age, gender and marital status. All control variables

were categorical in this research and measured by the use of dummy variables.

3.2. Sample and data collection

After measure development, a questionnaire survey was developed and then pilot-tested to

ensure that the respondents understood the questions and there were no problems with the

wording or measurements. This resulted in minor formatting and presentation modifications.

The survey was distributed online to undergraduate students across six universities in the

UAE, including Ajman University, University of Fujairah, University of Science and

Technology Fujairah, University of Sharjah, American University of Sharjah, and Middlesex

University, using a convenience sampling approach. The survey items were measured using a 5-

point Likert scale. Within two weeks, 287 responses were received and 256 were usable, which

was seen to meet the requirement of building an adequate model. In order to detect a minimum

R2 value of 0.10 in any of the constructs at a significance level of 1%, the minimum sample size
required is 158 when the maximum number of arrows pointing at a construct in the structural

model is two (Hair et al., 2014). Since 256 usable responses were received, this minimum

sample size requirement was thus met. Data collected were analyzed with IBM SPSS statistics

26, and SmartPLS Structural Equation Modeling.

3.3. Respondents

Table 2 summarizes the respondents’ profiles in terms of their age, gender, marital status,

and types of social media used.

Table 2.
Respondent profiles (n=256)
Profile Item Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Male 134 52.3
Female 122 47.7
Age 18-24 233 91.02
25-30 13 5.07
>31 10 3.91
Marital status Single 203 79.3
Married 53 20.7
Social Media Used Facebook 51 19.92
WhatsApp 26 10.15
Snapchat 74 28.91
YouTube 31 12.11
Instagram 74 28.91

3.4.Evaluation of the research model

The reflective measurement model was evaluated and validated by considering the internal

consistency (composite reliability), indictor reliability, convergent validity and discriminant

validity (Hair et al., 2014). The evaluation results are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4. Table

3 indicates that all constructs are consistent since all of them meet the recommended threshold

value for acceptable reliability, that is, the scores of composite reliability and Cronbach's α

should be large than 0.70. Indicator reliability is satisfactory since all factor loadings are above

0.7 and each indicator’s variance is above 0.50. Convergent validity is satisfactory since the
average variance extracted (AVE) value for each construct in Table 3 is no less than the

recommended threshold value of 0.50. Discriminant validity is also satisfactory based on that

the square root of AVE value for each construct is greater than the correlation of the construct

with any other construct summarized in Table 4 and that each indicator loads highest on the

construct it is associated with.

Table 3.
Convergent Validity and Internal Consistency Reliability
Indicator Composite Cronbach's
Construct Indicator Loading Reliability Reliability α AVE
CL1 0.89 0.79
CL CL2 0.85 0.72 0.93 0.91 0.78
CL3 0.87 0.76
CL4 0.93 0.86
AD1 0.91 0.83
AD AD2 0.91 0.83
0.95 0.94 0.86
AD3 0.95 0.90
AD4 0.95 0.90
AP1 0.91 0.83
AP2 0.93 0.86
AP 0.82 0.93 0.82
AP3 0.86 0.74
AP4 0.93 0.86
SII1 0.96 0.92
SII2 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.86
SII
SII3 0.91 0.83
SII4 0.91 0.83

Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations & AVE
Construct Mean S.D. CL AD AP SII SMU
CL 1.96 0.46 0.88
AD 2.58 0.99 -.61** 0.93
AP 1.91 0.61 .61** -.64** 0.91
SII 2.18 0.69 .63** -.64** .65** 0.93
SMU 3.00 2.01 -.65** -.54** -.66** -.55** 1
**-significant correlations at the p < .01 level (2-tailed)

3.5 Hypotheses testing

The hypotheses were assessed using SmartPLS while bootstrapping was used to assess the

significance of the hypothesized paths and the amount of variance in the dependent variables
attributed to the explanatory variables (Hair et al., 2014). More specifically, the bootstrapping in

question was a nonparametric procedure using 5,000 samples that were created with observations

randomly drawn with replacement from the original set of data, thereby estimating the accuracy

of properties such as the amount of variance. The model’s predictive power was evaluated by the

R2 values (amount of variance attributed to the latent variables), which indicate that the full model

explains 73% of the variance in academic performance (AP), 62% in academic distraction (AD),

57% in student-instructor interaction (SII), and 52% in collaborative learning (CL). According to

Wetzels et al. (2009), these effect sizes are large.

The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 2. To understand whether academic

performance was affected by other variables, this study controlled for student age, gender and

marital status by the use of dummies. None of the control variables had a statistically significant

effect on academic performance.

CL
R2=0.56 0.22***
-0.74***

-0.76*** SII 0.47*** AP

SMU 2
R =0.57 R2=0.73

0.84*** -0.42***
AD
R2=0.62

Figure 2. Hypothesis Test Results

Table 5 shows the standardized path coefficient and p-value of each hypothesized path. H1

suggests that social media use (SMU) is positively related to CL. This hypothesis is rejected as

SMU’s effect on CL is -0.74 (p<0.000); it is significant but however negative. H2 proposes that
SMU is positive related to SII, which is also rejected as SMU’s effect on SII was significant and

negative, -0.76 (p<0.000).

H3 assumes that SMU is positively related to AD, which is supported since SMU’s effect on

AD is 0.84 (p<0.000). H4 and H5 suggest that CL and SII are positively related to AP, which are

supported as CL and SII’s effects on AP are 0.22 (p<0.000) and 0.47 (p<0.000) respectively. H6

proposed that AD is negatively related to AP, which is supported as AD’s effect on AP is -0.42

(p<0.000).

Table 5.
Summary Results of Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis Hypothesized Path Direct or indirect effect Empirical evidence
H1 SMU -> CL -0.74*** (direct) No
***
H2 SMU -> SII -0.76 (direct) No
H3 SMU -> AD 0.84***(direct) Yes
H4 SMU -> AP -0.32***(direct) Yes
H5 CL -> AP 0.22**(direct) Yes
H6 SII -> AP 0.47***(direct) Yes
*
H7a SMU -> CL -> AP -0.16 (indirect) Yes
H7b SMU -> SII -> AP -0.35***(indirect) Yes
***
H7c SMU -> AD -> AP -0.36 (indirect) Yes
**-significant correlations at the p < .01 level (2-tailed)

H7 posits that SMU has an indirect effect on academic performance (AP) through CL, SII,

and AD. To verify H7, the mediating roles of CL, SII, and AD on the relationship between SMU

and AP are analyzed based on a nonparametric procedure (bootstrapping using 5,000 samples)

(Hair et al., 2014). The analysis indicates that SMU’s indirect effect on AP through CL is -0.16

(p < .05), through SII is -0.35 (p < .001), and through AD is -0.36 (p < .001); thus, H7 is

supported.

4. Discussion and Implications

4.1. Discussion
 SMU has become an integral part of university student life and may significantly influence

student learning and academic performance. However, evidence in the literature suggests that

research on this topic is still scarce and findings from prior studies are notably inconsistent and

inconclusive; thus, more research is needed (e.g. Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Al-Yafi et al., 2018;

Busalim et al., 2019). This study drew on the principles of connectivism and previous studies

and examined: the effect of SMU on collaborative learning (H1), student-instructor interaction

(H2), academic distraction (H3); academic performance being affected by collaborative learning

(H4), student-instructor interaction (H5), and academic distraction (H6) respectively; and the

indirect effect of SMU on academic performance through collaborative learning (H7a), student-

instructor interaction (H7b), and academic distraction (H7c).

With regards to the prediction that SMU has a positive effect on collaborative learning, the

study’s finding suggests that SMU significantly and negatively affects collaborative learning (β

= -0.74 at p<0.001); thus, H1 is rejected. This appears to be unexpected but believable as this

study measured SMU generally. As a result, the finding could mean that social media may have

been used mainly for social than academic purpose; thus, the more time students spend on SMU,

the less time they can spend on collaborative learning. This finding also appears to be in contrast

with the finding from Al-Rahmi et al. (2018). Al-Rahmi et al. (2018) confirmed SMU is

positively related to collaborative learning, which was measured by adopting four of the eight

items from So and Brush (2008). However, it is unclear if the finding from the present study

could be meaningfully compared with that from Al-Rahmi et al. (2018) for two reasons. First,

Al-Rahmi et al. (2018) did not report which four of the eight items were adopted from So and

Brush (2008) to measure their collaborative learning, which may be different from the concept

measured in this study using the four items from Blasco-Arcas et al. (2013). Second, the
respondents in this study were undergradute students while those in Al-Rahmi et al. (2018) were

PhD (54.6%) and research master (14.5%) and taught master (28.9%) students. Arguably,

undergraduate students and PhD/master students are likely to be different in terms of maturity,

commitment to their study, and self-control regarding balancing their social and academic life

since prior research suggests that student work experience and age play a significant role in their

usage of social networks (Benson & Filippaios, 2015).

On the hypothesis suggesting SMU’s positive effect on student-instructor interaction, this

study’s finding indicates that SMU is significantly and negatively related to student-instructor

interaction (β =-0.76 at p<0.05); thus, H2 is rejected. This finding is again unexpected but could

be explained as discussed above: similarly, the more time students spend on SMU for social

purpose, the less time they could spend on student-instructor interaction. While a number of prior

studies (e.g. An et al., 2009; Blasco-Arcas et al., 2013; Moore, 1989, 2002) covered student-

instructor interaction from different angles, none of them investigated the link between SMU and

student-instructor interaction. Thus, this study provides new empirical evidence in an effort to

advance our understanding of this under-researched phenomenon.

With respect to the assumption that SMU is positively related to academic distraction, the

finding has confirmed this relationship (β =0.84 at p<0.01), which is consistent with the findings

from prior studies (Błachnio & Przepiorka, 2019; Brailovskaia et al., 2018; Busalim et al., 2019).

Thus, H3 is supported. This finding provides new empirical evidence in the context of UAE

universities to support the positive relationship between SMU and academic distraction.

As expected, the findings from this study confirm that both collaborative learning and

student-instructor interaction are each positively associated with academic performance while

academic distraction is negatively related to academic performance; thus, H4, H5 and H6 are
supported. The findings provide new empirical evidence in the UAE context in support of prior

studies of relationships between collaborative leaning and academic performance (e.g. Al-Rahmi

et al., 2018; Chou & Min, 2009; Karpinski et al., 2013), between student-instructor interaction

and academic performance (e.g. Blasco-Arcas et al., 2013; Molinillo et al., 2018), or the link

between academic distraction and academic performance.

In regard to the impact of SMU on academic performance, which is under-researched (e.g.

Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Al-Yafi et al., 2018; Alwagait et al., 2015; Busalim et al., 2019), this

study’s finding shows that SMU is significantly and negatively related to student academic

performance indirectly; thus, H7 is confirmed. Unlike prior studies suggesting that the link

between SMU and academic performance is direct and negative (e.g. Datu et al., 2018;

Giunchiglia et al., 2018; Junco, 2012; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010), direct and positive (e.g.

Ainin et al., 2015; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Lambić, 2016), or non-existent (e.g. Alwagait et al.,

2015; Rashid & Asghar, 2016), this study explicates the ways in which SMU may affect

academic performance indirectly, which has so far been largely unexplored. Thus, this study’s

findings provide conceptual and empirical evidences to suggest that the relationship between

SMU and academic performance might be more complex than what has been suggested by prior

studies. Thus, more research is required to further examine the indirect relationship identified in

this paper thereby developing a better understanding of the link between SMU and student

academic performance.

4.2. Contribution and implication

This study offers several contributions that help extend our understanding of the complex

relationships surrounding SMU, student learning and academic performance.

 Firstly, although connectivism was not empirically tested directly in this study, it seems to

have provided a valuable perspective for understanding and explaining the phenomenon

surrounding SMU, student learning and academic performance, as it emphasizes that learning is

located within digital technologies, thereby enabling students to learn and share information

through connecting to and feeding information into a learning community (Bell, 2011; Kop &

Hill, 2008; Siemens, 2005). This points to the yet unexplored opportunities to use connectivism

to understand other research topics involving learning that is enabled by digital technologies.

Secondly, this study has provided new empirical evidence and insights into understanding the

relationships among SMU and student learning and academic performance, which is under-

researched (e.g. Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Al-Yafi et al., 2018; Busalim et al., 2019; Lau, 2017).

Thirdly, this research may help extend our understanding of the research phenomenon by

developing a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of the relationships among SMU,

collaborative learning, student-instructor interaction, academic distraction, and academic

performance. While the research phenomenon has been examined by a number of prior studies,

many of them focused on the direct relationships between for example collaborative learning and

academic performance without considering SMU (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2013), the direct

relationship between SMU (Facebook) and academic performance (Ainin et al., 2015), or SMU

and academic distraction and academic performance (Busalim et al., 2019). This study, on the

contrary, has examined the research phenomenon using a fuller nomological network or a system

of related constructs to understand the links from SMU to student learning and academic

performance, considering SMU’s positive and negative effects at the same time. In particular,

this study adds to the literature by examining the mediating mechanisms through which SMU
affects academic performance, which may extend the scope of existing research and suggest new

relationships to be further examined.

Fourthly, this study suggests that SMU has a negative effect on collaborative learning and

student-instructor interaction; this could be seen to contribute new relationships to the literature.

While some previous studies reported SMU’s positive effect on collaborative learning (e.g. Al-

Rahmi et al., 2018), no research has examined the link between SMU and student-instructor

interaction, to the best knowledge of the authors. Therefore, this study could extend our

understanding of SMU’s effect on student learning and suggest that more research is needed to

further examine these relationships.

The study also has some practical implications. Firstly, although previous study showed that

social media can be used for academic purpose (e.g. Moorthy et al., 2019), the findings of this

study imply that the excessive SMU for non-educational purpose could have detrimental effect

on student academic learning and performance. This suggests that universities should raise the

awareness of the negative effect of SMU and academic distraction on student academic learning

and performance.

Secondly, consistent with prior studies suggesting that collaborative learning and student-

instructor interaction each have positive effect on student academic performance, this study

indicates that universities wishing to greatly improve student learning experience and academic

performance should develop strategies for imbedding collaborative learning and student-

instructor interaction into teaching practice or using them as a complementary and innovative

learning-teaching method in higher educational institutions (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018).

4.3.Research limitations and future research

 This study has several limitations, some of which could provide avenues for future research.

Firstly, the present study focuses on understanding the relationships among SMU, student

learning and academic performance. However, it neither focuses on a specific type of social

media nor differentiates between SMU for academic and non-academic purposes. Additional

work could examine specific type of social media used for academic and non-academic purposes

and the effects on student learning and academic performance, thereby developing more nuanced

understanding.

Secondly, non-probability sample is used in this study, which does limit the generalizability

of the study’s findings. Hence future research could consider using probability sampling to

improve research generalizability.

Thirdly, the current research results are based on and limited to UAE university

undergraduate students. It would be worthwhile to extend this work to university students in

other countries.

Finally, this research is quantitative and based on survey data to examine relationships

between the study concepts. Future research could be based on qualitative data to develop richer

and deeper understanding of how and why SMU may affect student learning and academic

performance.

4.4. Conclusion

Drawing on connectivism and prior research, this study has articulated and tested a mediation

research model for understanding the complex relationships among SMU, collaborative learning,

student-instructor interaction, and academic performance. Essentially, the current study suggests

that SMU has a detrimental indirect effect on academic performance intervened by collaborative

learning, student-instructor interaction, and academic distraction. The findings from this study
could be used to develop strategies for better managing SMU in universities thereby improving

student learning and academic performance.

References

Ainin, S., Naqshbandi, M. M., Moghavvemi, S., & Jaafar, N. I. (2015). Facebook usage, socialization and
academic performance. Computers & Education, 83, 64-73.
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.
Al-Samarraie, H., & Saeed, N. (2018). A systematic review of cloud computing tools for collaborative
learning: Opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning environment. Computers &
Education, 124, 77-91.
Al-Yafi, K., El-Masri, M., & Tsai, R. (2018). The effects of using social network sites on academic
performance: the case of Qatar. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(3), 446-462.
Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C., & Valacich, J. S. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business education: An
exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 293-312.
Alwagait, E., Shahzad, B., & Alim, S. (2015). Impact of social media usage on students academic
performance in Saudi Arabia. Computers in human behavior, 51, 1092-1097.
An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’
interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 749-760.
Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating,
lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 188-196.
Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(6), E146-E149.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(3), 307-359.
Baturay, M. H., & Toker, S. (2017). Self-esteem shapes the impact of GPA and general health on
Facebook addiction: A mediation analysis. Social Science Computer Review, 35(5), 555-575.
Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-
enabled learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3),
98-118.
Benson, V., & Filippaios, F. (2015). Collaborative competencies in professional social networking: Are
students short changed by curriculum in business education? Computers in human behavior, 51,
1331-1339.
Błachnio, A., & Przepiorka, A. (2019). Be aware! If you start using Facebook problematically you will
feel lonely: Phubbing, loneliness, self-esteem, and Facebook intrusion. A cross-sectional study.
Social Science Computer Review, 37(2), 270-278.
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.
Brailovskaia, J., Schillack, H., & Margraf, J. (2018). Facebook Addiction Disorder in Germany.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(7), 450-456.
Busalim, A. H., Masrom, M., & Zakaria, W. N. B. W. (2019). The impact of Facebook addiction and self-
esteem on students’ academic performance: a multi-group analysis. Computers & Education, 142,
103651.
Chang, C.-T., Tu, C.-S., & Hajiyev, J. (2019). Integrating academic type of social media activity with
perceived academic performance: A role of task-related and non-task-related compulsive Internet
use. Computers & Education, 139, 157-172.
Chou, S.-W., & Min, H.-T. (2009). The impact of media on collaborative learning in virtual settings: The
perspective of social construction. Computers & Education, 52(2), 417-431.
Coetzee, S. A., Schmulian, A., & Coetzee, R. (2018). Web conferencing-based tutorials: student
perceptions thereof and the effect on academic performance in accounting education. Accounting
Education, 27(5), 531-546.
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), e03250.
Datu, J. A. D., Yang, W., Valdez, J. P. M., & Chu, S. K. W. (2018). Is facebook involvement associated
with academic engagement among Filipino university students? A cross-sectional study.
Computers & Education, 125, 246-253.
Doleck, T., & Lajoie, S. (2018). Social networking and academic performance: A review. Education and
Information Technologies, 23(1), 435-465.
Draper, S. W., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1).
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.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., . . . Mong, C.
(2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory
study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412-433.
Feng, S., Wong, Y. K., Wong, L. Y., & Hossain, L. (2019). The Internet and Facebook Usage on
Academic Distraction of College Students. Computers & Education, 134, 41-49.
Fu, Q.-K., & Hwang, G.-J. (2018). Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A
systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Computers & Education, 119, 129-
143.
Giunchiglia, F., Zeni, M., Gobbi, E., Bignotti, E., & Bison, I. (2018). Mobile social media usage and
academic performance. Computers in human behavior, 82, 177-185.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage.
Hsieh, P.-A. J., & Cho, V. (2011). Comparing e-Learning tools’ success: The case of instructor–student
interactive vs. self-paced tools. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2025-2038.
Irwin, C., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students' perceptions of using Facebook as an
interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
28(7).
Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance?
Computers & Education, 95, 270-284.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and
computer‐mediated communication in distance education. American journal of distance
education, 9(2), 7-26.
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(1), 187-198.
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of
English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Karpinski, A. C., Kirschner, P. A., Ozer, I., Mellott, J. A., & Ochwo, P. (2013). An exploration of social
networking site use, multitasking, and academic performance among United States and European
university students. Computers in human behavior, 29(3), 1182-1192.
Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in
human behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3).
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in
computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in
human behavior, 19(3), 335-353.
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & 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, 20, 35-50.
Kuznetcova, I., Glassman, M., & Lin, T.-J. (2019). Multi-user virtual environments as a pathway to
distributed social networks in the classroom. Computers & Education, 130, 26-39.
Kwon, K., Liu, Y.-H., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions
observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor
collaborators. Computers & Education, 78, 185-200.
Lambić, D. (2016). Correlation between Facebook use for educational purposes and academic
performance of students. Computers in human behavior, 61, 313-320.
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.
Loizzo, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). MOOCocracy: the learning culture of massive open online courses.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1013-1032.
Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an
online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The
Internet and Higher Education, 24, 26-34.
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on F
acebook as a technology‐enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 29(6), 487-504.
Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that
enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The
Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52-65.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I'll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of
computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and
classroom climate. Communication education, 56(1), 1-17.
McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first
year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6).
McGill, T. J., Klobas, J. E., & Renzi, S. (2014). Critical success factors for the continuation of e-learning
initiatives. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 24-36.
Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018). Exploring the
impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on active collaborative
learning in a social web-based environment. Computers & Education, 123, 41-52.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. In: Taylor & Francis.
Moore, M. G. (2002). Editorial, what does research say about the learners using computer-mediated
communication in distance learning? The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 61-64.
Moorthy, K., T'ing, L. C., Wei, K. M., Mei, P. T. Z., Yee, C. Y., Wern, K. L. J., & Xin, Y. M. (2019). Is
facebook useful for learning? A study in private universities in Malaysia. Computers &
Education, 130, 94-104.
Mora, H., Signes-Pont, M. T., Fuster-Guilló, A., & Pertegal-Felices, M. L. (2020). A collaborative
working model for enhancing the learning process of science & engineering students. Computers
in human behavior, 103, 140-150.
Nayak, J. K. (2018). Relationship among smartphone usage, addiction, academic performance and the
moderating role of gender: A study of higher education students in India. Computers &
Education, 123, 164-173.
Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A
comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in higher education,
28(4), 457-473.
 Paton, R. M., Fluck, A. E., & Scanlan, J. D. (2018). Engagement and retention in VET MOOCs and
online courses: A systematic review of literature from 2013 to 2017. Computers & Education,
125, 191-201.
Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and
academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in human behavior, 63, 604-612.
Rueda, L., Benitez, J., & Braojos, J. (2017). From traditional education technologies to student
satisfaction in Management education: A theory of the role of social media applications.
Information & Management, 54(8), 1059-1071.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from
https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf
So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and
satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers &
Education, 51(1), 318-336.
Stathopoulou, A., Siamagka, N.-T., & Christodoulides, G. (2019). A multi-stakeholder view of social
media as a supporting tool in higher education: An educator-student perspective. European
Management Journal, 37, 421-431.
Tesorero, A. (2019). 7 out of 10 students use social media for 5 hrs or more: Study. Retrieved
from https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/dubai/7-out-of-10-students-use-social-media-
for-5-hrs-or-more-study
Top, E. (2012). Blogging as a social medium in undergraduate courses: Sense of community best
predictor of perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 24-28.
Turel, O., & Qahri-Saremi, H. (2016). Problematic use of social networking sites: antecedents and
consequence from a dual-system theory perspective. Journal of management information systems,
33(4), 1087-1116.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing
hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177-
195.
Whelan, E., Islam, A. N., & Brooks, S. (2020). Applying the SOBC paradigm to explain how social
media overload affects academic performance. Computers & Education, 143, 103692.
Zhang, X., Wang, W., de Pablos, P. O., Tang, J., & Yan, X. (2015). Mapping development of social
media research through different disciplines: Collaborative learning in management and computer
science. Computers in human behavior, 51, 1142-1153.

View publication stats