782817

research-article2018
ALH0010.1177/1469787418782817Active Learning in Higher EducationBarton et al.

Article

Active Learning in Higher Education

2021, Vol. 22(1) 11­–22
The effects of social media usage on © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
attention, motivation, and academic sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1469787418782817
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418782817
performance journals.sagepub.com/home/alh

Bianca A Barton
Valdosta State University, USA

Katharine S Adams
Valdosta State University, USA

Blaine L Browne
Valdosta State University, USA

Meagan C Arrastia-Chisholm
Valdosta State University, USA

Abstract
Accessing social media is common and although concerns have been raised regarding the impact of social
media on academic success, research in this area is sparse and inconsistent. Survey responses were collected
from 659 undergraduate and graduate students to determine the relationship between social media usage and
overall academic performance, as well as explore if this relationship is moderated by attention (regulation of
time/study environment) and motivation (effort regulation). Both predictors, social media usage and attention,
significantly predicted academic performance. Likewise, when motivation was considered as a predictor, it
significantly predicted academic performance above and beyond social media usage. No moderation was
found between the three variables. Implications of these relationships are discussed.

Keywords
academic performance, attention, motivation, social media, university students

Social media use

For many young adults, accessing social media has become a normal part of their daily lives (Park
and Lee, 2014). As of 2015, 90% of young adults regularly used social media sites such as Facebook,

Corresponding author:
Katharine S Adams, Department of Psychology, Counseling, and Family Therapy at Valdosta State University, Valdosta,
GA 31698, USA.
Email: ksadams@valdosta.edu
12 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(1)

Instagram, and Twitter (Perrin, 2015). Researchers estimate that university students spend about
8–10 hours per day browsing, liking posts, and posting on social media sites (Wood, 2015). Social
media and its impact on academic success have received increased research attention in part due to
the pervasive use of social media among students.
When surveyed, a majority of students reported that because they were raised with technology,
they could simultaneously focus their attention on multiple tasks (e.g. Facebook and university
work) without any negative academic consequences (Henderson et al., 2016; Karpinski et al.,
2012; Kirschner and Karpinski, 2010; Mehmood and Taswir, 2013). However, research indicates
that individuals are actually task switching (switching between tasks) as opposed to multitasking
(performing and executing two or more cognitive activities at one time; Karpinski et al., 2012;
Ophir et al., 2009). Furthermore, task switching is associated with improper learning of informa-
tion and poor performance on tasks (Karpinski et al., 2012). Most studies on social media usage,
the ability to multitask, and students’ subsequent grades found a negative correlation between
social media usage and academic performance (Camilia et al., 2013; Jacobsen and Forste, 2011;
Karpinski et al., 2012; Mehmood and Taswir, 2013; Park and Lee, 2014; Stollak et al., 2011), but
other studies found no correlation (Martin, n.d.; Stollak et al., 2011).
Yet other literature suggests electronic media usage is beneficial and does not have a negative
impact on academic success (Kirkorian et al., 2008). Results indicate improvements in student
learning potential with increased availability and accessibility of electronic media (Kirkorian et al.,
2008). Yet, this research has mainly been conducted with children in the early stages of develop-
ment (i.e. elementary school students), and is sparse in comparison to the literature concluding that
electronic media has negative consequences on academic success.
While there is disagreement about the implications of electronic media use, there is agree-
ment that students must possess the study skills and learning strategies needed to attain academic
success. The strategic behaviors and attitudes associated with academic success are often referred
to as self-regulated learning. According to Zimmerman (1989), self-regulated learning is the
degree to which students are “metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active in their
own learning process,” such that these students plan ahead, put forth effort and persist in their
work, and employ the necessary skills to effectively acquire knowledge, respectively (p. 22).
Thus far, there has been little research conducted to determine if self-regulating strategies may
influence or help regulate student social media use. Of the research, some studies found that
skills needed to achieve academic success were not related to social media usage (Martin, n.d.;
Stollak et al., 2011), but other studies elicited differing results (Mehmood and Taswir, 2013;
Remón et al., 2017; Thompson, 2017). Two self-regulating strategies shown in the research to be
important to academic success are attention and motivation (De Bruijn-Smolders et al., 2016;
Schunk and Usher, 2018).

Attention
Being able to attend to and concentrate on the assignment at hand is an important aspect of aca-
demic success (Anastopoulos and King, 2015; Fleming and McMahon, 2012). The inability to
sustain attention can hinder academic functioning as it leads to impaired learning of necessary
knowledge and skills, difficulty organizing, and poor time management (Anastopoulos and King,
2015; Fleming and McMahon, 2012). Attention is defined as it relates to regulating time and study
environment. Regulating time and study environment is characterized by an individual’s ability to
attend to the academic task at hand, not paying attention to other distractions during the task, and
eliminating distractions. It includes students’ ability to effectively manage their time and the sur-
rounding environment to reach their academic goals (Kwon et al., 2018; Richardson et al., 2012).
Barton et al. 13

Research in this area found a significant correlation between high social media use and attention
problems (Karpinski et al., 2012). High multimedia users had more difficulty filtering out unwanted
distractions, such as notifications, when they were engaged in productive tasks (Ophir et al., 2009).
The ease of access to these “technologies” impacted students’ ability to adequately sustain their
attention and process the information at a deeper level, as evidenced by participants’ grade point
average (GPA; Junco, 2012; Junco and Cotten, 2012). Research suggests that having an environ-
ment conducive to studying without excessive use of social media sites is needed (McCardle et al.,
2017; Nasrullah and Saqib Khan, 2015; Ophir et al., 2009). Students who were able to effectively
manage their time and create an environment that was conducive to learning and did not allow for
distractions, had higher GPAs than students who did not (Kitsantas et al., 2008).
As implicated in the research, managing your study time in an environment with limited to no
distractions affects overall academic performance. In addition, given the increasing popularity and
accessibility of social media sites, students are likely to utilize social media while completing aca-
demic work. Therefore, students may be less likely to sustain their attention on the task at hand due
to the distractions caused by social media.

Motivation
Motivation is important for academic success and can be affected by social media usage. Motivation
involves students’ abilities to set goals for academic tasks, and their effort to complete the task
even when it does not interest them (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Zusho, 2017). Motivation leads
to increased effort, initiation, and continuance in productive activities, such as school work
(Nguyen and Ikeda, 2015; Ormrod, 2008). Motivation is defined as it relates to effort regulation.
Effort regulation is characterized by an individual’s ability to persist during difficult tasks, putting
forth the effort needed to complete the task, and not engaging in a more favorable task (Richardson
et al., 2012). Effort regulation also considers how people self-manage their motivation to elicit
positive outcomes when academically challenged. Effort regulation is the strongest predictor of
academic performance because it requires action. Other strategies such as management of time and
study environment require action, however, a conducive environment is not beneficial unless the
person puts forth the effort to regulate their environment and then completes the task.
Studies examining the effects of social media usage on student academic performance, demon-
strated student difficulties with effort regulation (Camilia et al., 2013; Stollak et al., 2011; Wang et al.,
2011). For example, Karpinski et al. (2012) studied how often students used social media sites in
general, while completing work, and instead of completing work. In this case, effort regulation
included the ability to complete work even when there was a more desirable task such as social
media, or the individual was uninterested in the work. The results showed that most students spent
time meant for studying, on social media because it was available and more favorable than the work
they were to complete. This suggests that social media impacts the students’ ability and motivation to
control their effort in completing tasks, which then may impact their overall academic performance.

Academic performance as measured by GPA

Unlike the variables of regulation of time and study environment (attention) and effort regulation
(motivation), there have been studies conducted on the impact social media usage has on academic
performance, specifically cumulative GPA. Several studies investigating the impact of social
media on academic performance were conducted (Apuke and Iyendo, 2017; Peter, 2015; Waqas
et al., 2016). In one study, the students were given surveys that inquired about their daily social
media usage, whether they used social media sites while completing university work, which sites
14 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(1)

they used more often, and their GPA (Peter, 2015). The results indicated that students spent a large
amount of time in their day on social media, and used social media while working on classroom
assignments. The results also indicated that high-frequency social media usage is correlated with
lower overall academic performance. However, results also suggested that when social media is
used for academic purposes, there was not a negative correlation between social media usage and
academic performance. Students in other studies seldom reported using social media for academic
purposes (Apuke and Iyendo, 2017; Waqas et al., 2016).
These findings were consistent with another study (Abdulahi et al., 2014) in which students
were asked similar questions about their social media usage and their overall academic perfor-
mance. The results indicated that a majority of the students reported spending much of their time
using social media sites (i.e. checking or posting on social media). Furthermore, students spent
time on social media while or instead of engaging in academic assignments and academic perfor-
mance was negatively affected.
Students who frequently engage in social media may not see the impact of their use on overall
academic performance, or the relationships between key strategies and skills important for aca-
demic success and social media use. Engaging with social media implies that students are not
removing the distractions from their environment to allow them to focus their attention (regulation
of time and study environment). Also, choosing a more favorable task such as social media may
mean they are not persisting in the primary, study-related task when it becomes difficult or they are
not motivated (effort regulation).
Research suggests relationships between these variables; however, there has not been research
conducted that explicitly examines the juncture between social media usage, regulation of time and
study environment, effort regulation, and academic performance. The study described here
addresses these gaps. The purpose of this study was to first explore the predictive relationship
between social media usage and academic performance. Second, the purpose was to determine
whether regulation of time and study environment (attention) and effort regulation moderate the
relationship between social media usage and academic performance.

Method
Participants
There were 717 undergraduate and graduate students, but due to incomplete survey responses, only 659
participants were included in the analyses (18.1% freshman, 16.7% sophomores, 22.5% juniors, 23.1%
seniors, and 19.0% graduate students). Students from a Southeastern, public university completed the
survey from mid-January to mid-March of 2017. The sample included 514 females (78%) and 143
males (22%) of which 355 were Caucasian (53.9%); 253 African American (38.4%); 35 Latinos (5.3%);
11 Asian American (1.7%); and 5 Native American (0.8%). The participant ages ranged from 18 to 69
years, with a mean age of 24 years. Also, 78.6% of participants were traditional students (aged 18–35)
and 20.9% were non-traditional students (35 and above). On average, participants reported that 56.59%
of their social media use was for entertainment purposes, 37.49% of use was to chat with friends/follow-
ers, and 31.92% of use was for academic purposes. Finally, of the 659 participants, 67 (10.2%) reported
being diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Measures
Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. The Motivational Strategies for Learning Ques-
tionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1991) is a questionnaire comprising 81 questions. Each question
assesses the learning strategies and motivation used by college students. Each participant rated
Barton et al. 15

how accurate the statements were on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from not at all true of me
to very true of me (e.g. “I usually study in a place when I can concentrate on my coursework”).
Only the effort regulation and regulating time and study environment scales were used, which
totaled 12 questions (5 of which are reversed scored). The effort regulation scale had four ques-
tions, while the time and study environment scale had eight questions. On the effort regulation
scale, the minimum score was 4 and the maximum score was 28. On the time and study environ-
ment scale, the minimum score was 8 and the maximum score 56. According to Pintrich et al.
(1991), the average alpha coefficient (internal consistency) for the MSLQ ranged from 0.52 to 0.93
(effort regulation was 0.69 and time and study environment was 0.76). Overall, the MSLQ demon-
strated acceptable reliability and validity (Pintrich et al., 1991). The alpha coefficient for the effort
regulation and time and study environment subscales were 0.69 and 0.80, respectively.

Media and Technology Usage and Attitude Scale. The Media and Technology Usage and Attitude
Scale (MTUAS; Rosen et al., 2013) is a questionnaire comprising 60 questions that measures tech-
nology and media usage as well as attitudes toward technology. Each question assesses 1 of 11
usage subscales measured by the questionnaire, and the subscales can be used together or sepa-
rately. Only the general social media usage scale was used, which consisted of nine questions (e.g.
“How often do you do each of the following activities on social media sites … Check your social
media page(s)”]. The minimum possible score was 9, and the maximum possible score that can be
achieved was 90. Each participant rated how accurate the statements were on a 10-point frequency
scale ranging from never to all the time. According to Rosen et al. (2013), the average alpha coef-
ficient (internal consistency) for the MTUAS ranged from 0.61 to 0.97. The alpha coefficient for
the general social media usage scale was 0.97. Overall, the MTUAS demonstrated good reliability
and validity (Rosen et al., 2013); the alpha coefficient for the general social media scale was 0.90.

Demographic profile
A demographic questionnaire that consisted of 15 questions was used to determine the participants’
class year, major, age, race/ethnicity, GPA, study habits, and diagnosis of ADHD (e.g. “What is
your major/or “college” that you are associated with? (Select all that apply)).” This survey also
asked questions regarding the nature of their social media usage (academic or recreational).

Procedure
This study was IRB approved, and undergraduate and graduate students from a public university in
the Southeastern region of the United States were recruited through convenience sampling. The par-
ticipants were solicited through the university’s psychology and law departments as well as the uni-
versity’s student announcements. If extra credit was offered by an instructor, an alternative opportunity
for extra credit was also provided to students. The confidentiality and privacy of the participants were
ensured as no identifying information (i.e. name, student I.D. number, etc.) was solicited. The survey
was completed via Qualtrics, an online survey tool, and took the participants about 5–10 minutes to
complete. The survey questions were distributed in a counterbalanced manner, which included rand-
omization of blocks and items within blocks, so as to control for order effects.

Analyses
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between social media usage (MTUAS)
and academic performance (GPA), and if this relationship was moderated by regulation of time/
study environment (attention) and/or effort regulation (motivation). Before analyzing any data, we
16 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(1)

examined the data for outliers and removed them from the data set. Due to the extent of missing
data, a list-wise deletion was used in data analysis, meaning that if the participant left out any
information needed for the analysis, the participants’ data were removed. Also, we computed the
subscales and descriptive statistics (see Table 1).

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation scores for the predictor variable (MTUAS), moderators (effort and
attention), and outcome variable (GPA) for overall sample.

Variable Mean Standard deviation

GPA 3.22 0.61
MTUAS 53.82 15.99
Effort regulation 20.51 4.71
Time and environment regulation (attention) 39.52 8.63

GPA: grade point average; MTUAS: Media and Technology Usage and Attitude Scale.

Next, we wanted to better understand how time and study environment (attention) and effort
regulation (motivation) affected the relationship between social media and GPA. To find out, we
conducted two moderated multiple regression analyses with social media usage as the predictor
and GPA as the outcome. To make sure this analysis was appropriate for the data, we checked the
basic assumptions of linear regression. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as the average
variation inflation factor (VIF) for models one and two was 1.03 and 1.05, respectively, meaning
our predictors are not highly correlated.
The first model tested for the interaction effect of regulation of time and study environment
(attention) and social media usage. This model enabled us to examine whether the relationship
between social media usage and GPA was similar for those with high and low scores for attention.
After centering social media usage and regulation of time/study environment and computing the
social media usage-by-regulation of time/study environment interaction term (Aiken and West,
1991), the two predictors were entered into a regression model without the interaction term, and
then the two predictors and interaction were entered into a simultaneous regression model.
The second model tested for similar possible interactions with the other moderator, effort regu-
lation (motivation). Running the second model enabled us to test whether the relationship between
social media usage and GPA was similar for those with strong or weak effort regulation. After
centering social media usage and effort regulation and computing the social media usage-by-effort
regulation interaction term (Aiken and West, 1991), the two predictors were entered into a regres-
sion model without the interaction term, and then the two predictors and interaction were entered
into a simultaneous regression model.

Results
There was a significant, negative relationship between social media usage and GPA. Students with
lower levels of social media usage were associated with higher reported GPAs. In addition, there
was a significant, positive relationship between attention and reported GPA. However, the interac-
tion was not significant. This suggests that although social media usage and attention are related to
GPA, attention does not affect the relationship between social media usage and GPA significantly
(and vice versa). On average, the more a student reported using social media, the lower was their
GPA regardless of their reported control of time and study environment (attention). Likewise, stu-
dents with poor attention were more likely to report lower GPA regardless of social media use. See
Table 2 for model statistics.
Barton et al. 17

Table 2. Summary of moderated multiple regression analysis for variables predicting GPA (N = 616).

B SE t p
Constant 3.22 0.02 136.24 0.000
Attention 0.020 0.003 7.48 0.000
MTUAS −0.004 0.001 −2.50 0.012
MTUAS X attention 0.0001 0.0002 0.42 0.670

GPA: grade point average; MTUAS: Media and Technology Usage and Attitude Scale.

The second model considered the role of effort regulation in the relationship between social
media usage and GPA. The findings differed from the first model that considered attention in one
important way. When taking effort regulation into consideration, the relationship between social
media usage and GPA was no longer significant. Greater effort regulation, however, was associated
with higher reported GPAs. In other words, students who scored higher in effort regulation were
more likely to have higher GPAs. See Table 3 for model statistics.

Table 3. Summary of moderated multiple regression analysis for variables predicting GPA (N = 627).

B SE T p
Constant 3.22 0.02 139.46 0.000
Effort 0.048 0.005 9.80 0.000
MTUAS −0.002 0.001 −1.52 0.127
MTUAS X effort 0.000 0.000 0.02 0.980

GPA: grade point average; MTUAS: Media and Technology Usage and Attitude Scale.

Discussion
The overall model of social media usage and attention in prediction of GPA was significant. Both
predictors significantly contributed to the prediction of GPA, but there was no interaction between
social media usage and attention. Likewise, the model that included social media usage and moti-
vation in prediction of GPA was significant. In this model, only motivation was significant and
there was no interaction between social media usage and motivation.

Social media usage

Research investigating the relationship between social media use and academic performance
yielded mixed results. Many studies reported that greater electronic media use and accessibility led
to a decrease in academic achievement (Jacobsen and Forste, 2011; Karpinski et al., 2012; Kirschner
and Karpinski, 2010). However, other research reported no correlation between social media usage
and academic performance (Martin, n.d.; Stollak et al., 2011). Therefore, one purpose of this study
was to clarify research results in determining whether there was a relationship between social
media usage and academic success.
Similar to other research, the results within the study described here are mixed. Social media
usage was a significant predictor of GPA in one model, which like other research suggested, as
social media use increased, GPA decreased (Jacobsen and Forste, 2011; Karpinski et al., 2012;
Mehmood and Taswir, 2013; Stollak et al., 2011). However, social media usage was not a significant
18 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(1)

predictor of GPA in the second model, which coincides with the research suggesting no relationship
between these variables exist (Martin, n.d.; Stollak et al., 2011). Mixed findings may be due in part
to the variance accounted for by the combination of predictor variables included in each model.
Attention and motivation were included because they have been proven to be strong predictors of
GPA, and the literature suggested that frequent engagement in social media could be related to these
key strategies and skills (Kirschner and Karpinski, 2010; Onoda, 2014; Richardson et al., 2012;
Schunk and Usher, 2018; Zimmerman, 1989, 1990).

Attention
Research suggests that regulation of attention is important for academic success (Fleming and
McMahon, 2012; Karpinski et al., 2012), but little research has been conducted to determine the
relationship between social media usage and attention. The research suggested that social media
usage impacts one’s attention and causes a decline in GPA (Camilia et al., 2013; Mehmood and
Taswir, 2013; Thompson, 2017).
The findings reported here supported the literature (Plant et al., 2005) indicating that a student’s
ability to regulate their time/study environment is instrumental in academic success as attention
was found to be a significant predictor of GPA. Effective learning requires the capacity to focus
and sustain attention to the task at hand. However, unlike other research, our study did not find a
significant interaction between social media usage and attention in the prediction of GPA (Karpinski
et al., 2012; Stollak et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2011). This suggests that the predictive power of atten-
tion (regulation of time/study environment) for GPA is separate and distinct from that of social
media usage.

Motivation
Motivation is the ability to put forth effort to initiate and complete a task even when the task does
not interest the individual (Nguyen and Ikeda, 2015; Ormrod, 2008; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990).
Volition involves translating the motivation into action using learning strategies such as effort
regulation to achieve academic goals (Onoda, 2014; Richardson et al., 2012). Research indicated
the active strategy of effort regulation (motivation) was the strongest predictor of GPA (Pintrich
and De Groot, 1990; Richardson et al., 2012); however, no research exists to suggest a relationship
between effort regulation (or overall motivation) and social media use.
The findings described in this study support research, as motivation was a significant predictor
of GPA. However, there was no interaction between social media usage and motivation in the pre-
diction of GPA. This suggests that the predictive power of motivation (effort regulation) for GPA
is separate and distinct from that of social media usage.
Based on the results, students should focus on strengthening attention and motivational strate-
gies to increase GPA, as these appear to be consistently stronger predictors of GPA compared to
social media usage. Research examining the importance of attentional and motivational strategies
concludes these strategies are needed for academic success (Kirschner and Karpinski, 2010;
Onoda, 2014; Richardson et al., 2012; Zimmerman, 1989, 1990). Learning strategies such as
regulation of time/study environment and effort regulation are vital to academic success as evi-
denced by their predictive power of GPA (in this study and various others). These findings align
with self-regulated learning theory and social cognitive theory, as these theories state the degree
to which students are behaviorally and motivationally active in their learning process, and con-
tributes to their academic performance (Kirschner and Karpinski, 2010; via Zimmerman, 1989).
Armed with this information, students and parents, professors, and academic success centers
Barton et al. 19

should strive to incorporate new ways of building these strategies into their curriculum to help
their students.
As these students enter college/university, it may be beneficial to identify academically at-risk
students who are weak in their attentional and motivational skills and remediate their study skills
and learning strategies through tutoring, workshops, or coursework. Remediation may stress the
importance of a regular study schedule so as to not make the student feel overwhelmed and help
develop external (and later intrinsic) motivators the students can implement when their work is not
of interest to them. In doing so, professors and centers which support students are providing stu-
dents that struggle with self-regulated learning with study skills and learning strategies to succeed
academically.
The influence of social media usage on academic success remains largely unknown as evi-
denced by the mixed results of this study and research. Therefore, students should be mindful of
the potential impact high social media use could have on their overall academic success and learn-
ing skills. Educators should also be mindful of the impact social media can have on students when
incorporating it into their curriculum. Until further research is conducted or a consensus is achieved,
prudent use of social media is suggested.
As with all research, there were limitations. First, a correlational study was conducted to test the
interaction hypotheses between variables of interest. Significant interactions were not found and
are less likely to occur in nonexperimental research when considering sample size, variation differ-
ences, and/or measurement error (Aiken and West, 1991). Future researchers may wish to investi-
gate potential interactions between social media usage and learning strategies using an experimental
design, so as to avoid the limitations of nonexperimental studies. Second, there may be limitations
pertaining to the research sample. The sample consisted of students from the Southeastern region
of the United States. Also, the sample was disproportionately Caucasian, African American, and
female with a majority of the students considered to be traditional students (18–35 years of age).
Therefore, due to the convenience sample and disproportionality, generalization to other areas of
the United States, other countries, smaller minority groups, males, and nontraditional students may
be limited. Third, the participants’ GPA was self-reported and accuracy of the self-report was not
verified.
In the study, the researcher gathered information to discern the percentage of time participants
used social media for entertainment (56.59% on average) compared with for academics (31.92%
on average). However, the distinction between academic and nonacademic social media use was
not specifically made on the social media usage measure (MTUAS); therefore, the participants in
this study may have reported the use of social media for both purposes on the scale. As in research
(Jacobsen and Forste, 2011), this study examined “general” social media use, but future research-
ers may wish to include questions that parcel out whether social media use reported on the MTUAS
was used to complete academic work, used instead of completing academic work, or used after
academic work was completed.
Future research may include question(s) to determine whether social media is used for academic
or recreational purposes. By including these questions in the survey or as part of an experimental
study (if applicable), the researcher would be able to better determine which type of social media
use may negatively impact GPA. Future studies may also determine if incorporating social media
into academic curriculums at the elementary, secondary, or post-secondary levels may actually
serve to enhance attention and motivation among students due to the popularity and relevance of
social media (Cavanagh et al., 2016; Dame, 2013; Public Broadcasting Service, 2012).
In summary, due to the mixed results of this study and previous research, students, educators,
and parents should be cognizant of the potential negative effects high social media usage may have
on students’ academic performance. Given the lack of consensus, focused attention should remain
20 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(1)

on strengthening attentional and motivational strategies to facilitate academic success. Effort regu-
lation and regulation of time/study environment are proven predictors of GPA. Researchers should
continue to examine the relationships between these variables as social media usage is steadily
increasing and is a major part of students’ everyday lives.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Abdulahi A, Samadi B and Gharleghi B (2014) A study on negative effects of social networking sites such
as Facebook among Asia Pacific university scholars in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and
Social Science 5(10): 133–45.
Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park,
CA: SAGE.
Anastopoulos AD and King KA (2015) A cognitive-behavior therapy and mentoring program for college
students with ADHD. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 22(2): 141–51.
Apuke OD and Iyendo TO (2017) Two sides of a coin: Revisiting the influence of social networking sites
among students’ in higher educational settings. Global Media Journal: Pakistan Edition 10(2): 1–32.
Camilia ON, Ibrahim SD and Dalhatu BL (2013) The effect of social networking sites usage on the studies of
Nigerian students. The International Journal of Engineering and Science 2(7): 39–46.
Cavanagh AJ, Aragón OR, Chen X, et al. (2016) Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course.
CBE Life Sciences Education 15(4): ar76.
Dame J (2013) More professors using social media to teach. USA Today, 2 November. Available at: https://
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/02/social-media-teaching-tool/3377929/
De Bruijn-Smolders M, Timmers CF, Gawke JCL, et al. (2016) Effective self-regulatory processes in higher
education: Research findings and future directions. A systematic review. Studies in Higher Education
41(1–2): 139–58.
Fleming A and McMahon R (2012) Developmental context and treatment principles for ADHD among col-
lege students. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 15(4): 303–29.
Henderson M, Finger G and Selwyn N (2016) What’s used and what’s useful? Exploring digital technology
use(s) amongst taught postgraduate students. Active Learning in Higher Education 17(3): 235–47.
Jacobsen WC and Forste R (2011) The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media
use among university students. Cyberpsychology 14(5): 275–80.
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): 187–98.
Junco R and Cotten SR (2012) No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance.
Computers and Education 59(2): 505–14.
Karpinski AC, Kirschner PA, Ozer I, et al. (2012) An exploration of social networking site use, multitasking,
and academic performance among United States and European university students. Computers in Human
Behavior 29(3): 1182–92.
Kirkorian HL, Wartella EA and Anderson DR (2008) Media and young children’s learning. The Future of
Children 18(1): 39–61.
Kirschner PA and Karpinski AC (2010) Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior 26(6): 1237–45.
Kitsantas A, Winsler A and Huie F (2008) Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic success during
college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics 20(1): 42–68.
Barton et al. 21

Kwon SJ, Kim Y and Kwak Y (2018) Difficulties faced by university students with self-reported symptoms
of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A qualitative study. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and
Mental Health 12(1): 12.
McCardle L, Webster EA, Haffey A, et al. (2017) Examining students’ self-set goals for self-regulated learn-
ing: Goal priorities and patterns. Studies in Higher Education 42(11): 2153–69.
Martin C (n.d.) Social networking usage and grades among college students. Available at: www.unh.edu/
delete/news/docs/UNHsocialmedia.pdf
Mehmood S and Taswir T (2013) The effects of social networking sites on the academic performance of
students in college of applied sciences, Nizwa, Oman. International Journal of Arts and Commerce 2(1):
111–25.
Nasrullah S and Saqib Khan M (2015) The impact of time management on the students’ academic achieve-
ments. Journal of Literature, Languages, and Linguistics 11(1): 66–71.
Nguyen LP and Ikeda M (2015) The effects of ePortfolio-based learning model on student self-regulated
learning. Active Learning in Higher Education 16(3): 197–209.
Onoda S (2014) Examining the relationships between self-efficacy, effort regulation strategy use, and English
vocabulary skills. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 5(4): 357–71.
Ophir E, Nass C and Wagner AD (2009) Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(37): 15583–7.
Ormrod JE (2008) Educational Psychology: Developing Learners, 6th edn. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Park N and Lee S (2014) College students’ motivations for Facebook use and psychological outcomes.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58(4): 601–20.
Perrin A (2015) Social Media Usage: 2005–2015. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/
social-networking-usage-2005-2015/
Peter O (2015) Social media and academic performance of students in University of Lagos. Master’s Thesis,
University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Pintrich PR and De Groot EV (1990) Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom aca-
demic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(1): 33–40.
Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, Garcia T, et al. (1991) The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED).
Plant EA, Ericsson KA, Hill L, et al. (2005) Why study time does not predict grade point average across col-
lege students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemporary Educational
Psychology 30(1): 96–116.
Public Broadcasting Service (2012) The Role of Parents: Supporting Your Learner. Available at: http://www.
pbs.org/parents/education/going-to-school/supporting-your-learner/role-of-parents/
Remón J, Sebastián V, Romero E, et al. (2017) Effect of using smartphones as clickers and tablets as digital
whiteboards on students’ engagement and learning. Active Learning in Higher Education 18(2): 173–87.
Richardson M, Abraham C and Bond R (2012) Psychological correlates of university students’ academic
performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138(2): 353–87.
Rosen LD, Whaling K, Carrier LM, et al. (2013) The Media and Technology Usage And Attitude Scale
(MTUAS): An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2501–11.
Schunk DH and Usher EL (2018) A social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-regulation. In: Greene JA
and Schunk DH (eds) Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, 2nd edn. New York:
Routledge, pp. 19–35.
Stollak MJ, Vandenber A, Burklund A, et al. (2011) Getting social: The impact of social networking usage on
grades among college students. Proceedings of ASBBS 18(1): 859–65.
Thompson P (2017) Communication technology use and study skills. Active Learning in Higher Education
18(3): 257–70.
Wang Q, Chen W and Liang Y (2011) The Effects of Social Media on College Students. Available at: http://
scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/mba_student/5/
Waqas A, Afzal M, Zaman F, et al. (2016) The impact of social networking sites’ usage on the academic
performance of university students of Lahore, Pakistan. International Journal of Social Sciences and
Management 3(4): 267–76.
22 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(1)

Wood J (2015) College students in study spend 8 to 10 hours daily on cell phone. Psych Central. Available at:
http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/08/31/new-study-finds-cell-phone-addiction-increasingly-realistic-
possibility/74312.html
Zimmerman BJ (1989) A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology 81(3): 329–39.
Zimmerman BJ (1990) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational
Psychologist 25(1): 3–17.
Zusho A (2017) Toward an integrated model of student learning in the college classroom. Educational
Psychology Review 29(2): 301–24.

Author biographies
Bianca A Barton was a graduate student in the Department of Psychology, Counseling, and Family Therapy
at Valdosta State University. Her research interests include differing variables that impact attention and self-
regulating skills needed for academic achievement as well as social media usage on university students.
Address: Department of Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy, Valdosta State University, Valdosta,
GA 31698, USA. [email: babarton@valdosta.edu]
Katharine S Adams is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, Counseling, and Family
Therapy at Valdosta State University, United States. Her research interests include the social-emotional
adjustment and academic success of both high- and low-achieving students, as well as the social stigma asso-
ciated with disability. Address: Department of Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy, Valdosta State
University, Valdosta, GA 31698, USA. [email: ksadams@valdosta.edu]
Blaine L Browne is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, Counseling, and Family Therapy
at Valdosta State University. His research is in cognitive neuroscience and technology usage. Address:
Department of Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698,
USA. [email: blbrowne@valdosta.edu]
Meagan C Arrastia-Chisholm, Assistant Professor of educational psychology, teaches in the Department of
Psychology, Counseling, and Family Therapy at Valdosta State University, United States. Her research
explores diverse learners across the life-course, learning processes, and effective teaching strategies. Address:
Department of Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698,
USA. [email: mcarrastia@valdosta.edu]