Article

Journal of Educational Computing

Usage of Social Media Research

2019, Vol. 57(1) 246–279
! The Author(s) 2018
Tools for Collaborative Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Learning: The Effect on DOI: 10.1177/0735633117748415
journals.sagepub.com/home/jec
Learning Success With
the Moderating Role
of Cyberbullying

Binesh Sarwar1, Salman Zulfiqar1, Saira Aziz2,

and Khurram Ejaz Chandia1

Abstract
The adoption level of emerging web technologies is rapidly growing in educational
settings. Given the widespread popularity of social media, it has become essential to
understand and adopt social media sites to develop future educational plans as well
as deploy current course material on new technologies. This article addresses
the issue of perception and usage of social media from the perspective of student
collaborative learning and learner performance by incorporating the Technology
Acceptance Model and Constructivism Theory about collaborative learning. By ana-
lyzing the results using a Structure Equation Modeling technique, this study found
that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoyment all have a
significant positive relationship with social media usage. The results indicate that
social media serves as a dynamic tool to expedite the development of learning
environments by encouraging cooperation and communication among students
which reinforce their learning behavior and performance. However, it was found
that a negative relationship exists between perceived enjoyment and collaborative
learning. Cyberbullying as a moderator was found to be a dampening factor in the
positive relationship between collaborative learning and learner performance.

1
School of Public Affairs, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China
2
School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China
Corresponding Author:
Binesh Sarwar, School of Public Affairs, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui,
China.
Email: binesh@mail.ustc.edu.cn
Sarwar et al. 247

Keywords
social media usage, collaborative learning, learner performance, cyberbullying,
structural equation modeling

Introduction
In the last few years, the rapid growth in the emerging mobile technologies has
resulted in a new category of social media which offers an efficient mechanism
for communication, collaboration, and building connections among its users
(Ruleman, 2012). This fast development of information technologies makes it
necessary to boost the assimilation of social media into current academic appli-
cations and other related expansions. Social media consists of a variety of web-
based tools which enable their users to distribute and share new ideas, thoughts,
and information in a more interactive and virtual environment (Esam &
Hashim, 2016; Joosten, 2012). There are a number of terms associated with
social media such as ‘‘social networking communications, social networking
sites, social networking tools, blogs, and Web 2.0’’; all are terms which are
used interchangeably in the literature to describe the multifaceted Internet envir-
onment in the last few years (Al-Aufi & Crystal, 2015, p. 225; Kaplan &
Haenlein, 2010, p. 60).
Students in this digital age are now more greatly exposed to various develop-
ing technologies (Lim, Agostinho, Harper, & Chicharo, 2014), because the cyber
world of new technology provides them with unique opportunities for cross-
cultural interactions, learning, and self-exploration (Blais, Craig, Pepler, &
Connolly, 2008; Yu, Tian, Vogel, & Kwok, 2010). As Tapscott (2008) stated,
in education research, the net generations are now converging on a learner-
focused pedagogy model based on collaboration rather than traditional tea-
cher-focused pedagogical approaches. Social networking sites providing
modern Internet resources have played a key role in part of this transformation
process by providing users with unique ways to access, socialize, communicate,
and cocreate with each other. These web-based tools serve as a critical mechan-
ism for communication and collaboration among students (Al-Khalifa &
Garcia, 2013) and thus also promote the feedback process as a significant part
of collaborative learning (Ricoy & Feliz, 2016).
Collaborative learning is an activity that involves a process wherein a group
of students cooperates with each other to solve some problem-solving task in an
interactive environment (Alavi, Wheeler, & Valacich, 1995). It is based on the
model that knowledge is created within a population where participants actively
collaborate by sharing experiences in a shared setting. The process of construc-
tion of meaning, learning, and knowledge development requires active engage-
ment with the objects and individuals in a social context. In this regard, social
248 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

media and new technology are being reflected as effective mediators of collab-
orative learning, through providing educational support to the students regard-
ing developing creative thinking, sharing materials, and expertise in a virtual
network (Schrader, 2015). Maloney (2007) also concluded that the conversa-
tional and collaborative qualities of social networking sites enhance the overall
learning process of students by encouraging their interpersonal skills including
social compliance, cooperation, and development of progressive relationships as
necessary components of learning (Gehlbach, 2010).
A variety of some other studies have also been reported on the usage of social
media to positively support student education and their learning process (Ainin,
Naqshbandi, Moghavvemi, & Jaafar, 2015; Al-Rahmi & Zeki, 2016; Junco,
Heiberger, & Loken, 2011; Tarantino, McDonough, & Hua, 2013). Social
media’s easy accessibility, direct interface, and other convenient capabilities
have provided it with a highly deserved place in the current landscape of science
and technology (Benson, Saridakis, & Tennakoon, 2015). Besides this, previous
studies call for more research to examine how social media is perceived and
accepted by students for education and learning purposes (Shittu, Madarsha
Basha, & Ahmad, 2011; Raaij & Schepers, 2008), as many issues are still
unexamined. There is a need for more useful collaborative learning which can
ensure smooth communication among learners and better utilization of social
media tools (Eikenberry, 2012; Wolf, 2012).
The continuous development of user interfaces and applications of social
media platforms also pose some significant challenges for researchers who aim
to grasp the motivations for using any specific platform (Weller, 2016). Learning
is a social interaction process (Vygotsky, 1978). Although most online inter-
actions and connectivity are reflected as positive, there is a negative concern:
the exposure to cyberbullying (Tokunaga, 2010). Cyberbullying is an aggressive
act carried out by an individual or a group using electronic means to harass or
threaten others through emails, mobile messages, social networks, or web pages.
Bullying is not a new concept; it has always existed although formal research on
it started only a few years ago. Statistics provide the information that cybercrime
offenses through social media are on the rise (Office for National Statistics, 2013)
and also occur in universities (Walker, Sockman, & Koehn, 2011). The research-
ers agree that there are risk factors involved in youngsters’ learning activities and
academic performance because of cyberbullying (Brown & Taylor, 2008;
Elizabeth, 2010; Gasser, Maclay, & Palfrey, 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006),
as they spend more time online today as compared with earlier years (Shariff &
Johnny, 2007). But in this regard, no study has been conducted yet of the
moderating effect of cyberbullying on the relationship between collaborative
learning and learner performance.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold: (a) First, it presents a frame-
work to consider the perception and usage of social media sites in the perspective
of student collaborative learning and performance through incorporating the
Sarwar et al. 249

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; 1989) and Constructivism Theory of

collaborative learning (Bruner, 1960). (b) By keeping in mind the darker aspects
of using online technology, the other objective is to explore the effect of cyber-
bullying as a moderator between collaborative learning and learner perform-
ance. The study specifically contributes to the body of knowledge by exploring
this moderating effect of cyberbullying on the relationship between collaborative
learning and learner performance. By keeping in mind all these facts, this study
can open up new opportunities to integrate social media into progressive edu-
cation and to utilize the exciting benefits of collaborative learning tools.
Currently, several social networking sites are supporting a wide range of inter-
ests and practices but this study considers Facebook, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and
WeChat because they are the most popular social networking tools used by the
selected sample of university students.

Literature Review
Social Media Usage
The widespread popularity of social media sites indicates its degree of success
because of its acceptance and adoption in the personal, social, and professional
lives of people (Rauniar, Rawski, Yang, & Johnson, 2014). Review of the lit-
erature shows that several studies have shed light in this scenario from multiple
perspectives (Junco et al., 2011; Vollum, 2014; Yu et al., 2010). Researchers
describe social media tools as the technologies which are used to facilitate
social interactions, make possible collaborations, and enable negotiations
across multiple people (Bryer, 2011). Social media has created potential to pro-
mote personal learning environment as an educational approach to boost self-
regulated learning (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). Recently, some studies have
also been conducted on the use of social media tools and its effectiveness in edu-
cational settings (Alwagait, Shahzad, & Alim, 2015; Grosseck & Holotescu,
2011; Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007; Sánch, Cortijo, & Javed, 2014).
These studies indicate that social media tools share most of the features of
magnificent educational technologies regarding peer-feedback, student mentor-
ing, and matching the social context of learning (AL-Rahmi & Othman, 2013;
Rowlands, Nicholas, Russell, Canty, & Watkinson, 2011).
In the same vein, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) illustrate social media as ‘‘a
group of internet-based software that builds on the conceptual and technical
grounds of Web, facilitates the formation and exchange of user-generated sub-
jects’’ (p. 61). It is mainly a communication mechanism that allows billions of
the users to communicate and collaborate with each other all over the world
(Williams, 2012). The actual purpose or usage of each social media site depends
on its underlying content. Therefore, social media is also a subject of importance
due to its multiple uses including information seeking, entertainment, building
250 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

social relations, the utility of ease, and learning (Whiting & Williams, 2013).
According to Lai and Kritsonis (2006), employing computer technology in learn-
ing can be useful to facilitate a self-determining and collaborative learning envir-
onment. These emerging technologies have introduced new trends in education
which are more open, resourceful, and put greater emphasis on ultimate student
learning (Owen, Grant, Sayers, & Facer, 2006).
Cluett and Skene (2007) stated in their study that social media software is
beneficial to encourage creative thinking, mutual work, and self-paced learning
among students. These skills can, in turn, stimulate deep learning approaches.
Similarly, Sánchez et al. (2014) applied structural equation model developed by
Mazman and Usluel (2010) to identify the factors that motivate the university
students to use social networking sites for educational purpose. They specifically
targeted Facebook as most commonly used social website in Spain. The model
considered both technological and social dimensions of social networking sites
including three primary variables of adoption, purpose, and educational use.
Social influence was found as a significant factor in the adoption of
Facebook. And then adoption was found to have a significant positive impact
on the educational use of social sites regarding communication, collaboration,
and resource sharing, respectively. The ultimate finding is that educational use of
these sites directly depends on its purpose of usage and indirectly on its
adoption.
The impact of social media on academic patterns of informal scholarly com-
munication in the disciplines of humanities and social sciences was further
investigated by Al-Aufi and Crystal (2015). Results revealed that perceived use-
fulness of social media tools has a significant positive impact on the patterns of
informal learned communication. Hsu and Ching (2012) held that the generation
of web-based applications contributes much to expand the chances of pervasive
collaborative learning. Another related study was accompanied in Malaysia to
examine the relationship between socialization, level of usage intensity, and
student’s performance among university students (Ainin et al., 2015). The
authors found that social acceptance mainly affects high social media usage
but acculturation does not. A positive impact was also observed on student’s
academic performance regarding enhanced communication, access to online
resource persons, classroom discussion, and creativeness due to social media
usage.
Besides this, it is also a matter of concern that social media can be perceived
either as a great opportunity that can be extended into multiple facets or even as
a potential threat with rapidly increasing its usage and accessibility (Stoughton,
Thompson, & Meade, 2015). That is why certain authors still feel a restraint on
the grounds of social media usefulness and its efficacy in the academic world
(Tess, 2013). At the same time, some other issues of using social media tools in
the perspective of user privacy and user identity, hacking into servers, cyberbul-
lying, technology snags, and network structure have also been investigated in
Sarwar et al. 251

multiple studies by Fogel and Nehmad (2009), Song and Kim (2006), and
Delpratoa, Akyeampongb, and Dunneb (2017).

Technology Acceptance Model

In 1985, Fred Davis proposed ‘‘Technology Acceptance Model’’ at the MIT
Sloan School of Management to theorize the usage behavior of computer tech-
nology. He proposed in his theory that system usage is a response that can be
anticipated by user’s stimulus, which, in turn, is directly influenced by external
stimulus based on the competencies and structures of actual system (Chuttur,
2009). The TAM was adopted from another popular theory called theory of
reasoned action (TRA) from the field of social psychology explaining individual’s
behavior through his or her intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). By relying on
the prior work of TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), Davis (1989) broke down the
TRA’s attitude construct into two major concepts: perceived usefulness (PU)
and perceived ease of use (PEU) as the major determinants of new technology
acceptance and usage behavior. According to him, perceived usefulness refers to
the individual’s likelihoods that using a specific technology would enhance his or
her job performance, while perceived ease of use has to do with the extent that a
user expects that using technology would be free of effort. In addition to these
variables, few studies also found some additional external factors such as per-
ceived enjoyment as a robust construct associated with the other core constructs
of TAM in amplifying the intention to use technology (Bruner & Kumar, 2005;
Chesney, 2006). Over time, TAM evolved into a leading model to explain and
predict a system usage and also revised in many studies to fit a particular per-
spective of technology being studied (Lee, Kozar, & Larsen, 2003; Legris,
Ingham, & Collerette, 2003; Venkatesh, Morris, & Davis, 2003). The reason
why TAM is heavily used by researchers is because it tends to determine the
prospects of any computer technology regarding acceptance or rejection. The
insertion of social stimulus processes in predicting the usage behavior and adop-
tion of new technology was found to be a significant addition in its revised
versions (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). This article also attempts to address the
use of computer technology regarding social media for student learning.

Constructivism Theory
‘‘Constructivism’’ as a philosophy has a long history. There are different aspects
of the constructivist theory discussed in the literature regarding personal con-
structivism (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969), sociocultural constructivism (Vygotsky,
1978), the theory of pedagogy (Brooks & Brooks, 1993), or theory of science.
The theory of constructivism is mostly attributed to the Bruner’s (1966) descrip-
tion of discovery learning and the developmental perspectives of Piaget and
Inhelder (1969) about ‘‘constructivist’’ who articulated certain mechanisms by
252 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

which learners adopt knowledge. Constructivism as a paradigm states that learn-

ing is an active and contextual process of constructing new understandings using
their current knowledge in the kind of social interactions (Cooper, 1993; Roth,
2000). The main assumptions of Bruner’s theory encompass that people actively
create their descriptions of the objective reality, based on their personal experi-
ences and assumptions. The new information is connected to their previous
knowledge. Therefore, mental depictions are subjective (Hoover, 1996). The
process of knowing is also affected by other people in the kind of social inter-
vention and consequently assisted by community and culture (Vygotsky, 1978).
When individuals assimilate, they combine the new experience and knowledge
into their existing framework to learn new things. Learners actively build their
specific expertise by linking new ideas to the current concepts by activities or
group discussions. According to Vygotsky (1978), cognitive growth happens first
on the social level and then occurs within the individual. Roots of individual
knowledge are found in their interactions with their surroundings and other
people. Therefore, collaborative learning is endorsed by providing opportunities
for sharing of multiple views and meaningful negotiations among group mem-
bers (Bhattacharjee, 2015). In the constructivist classrooms, students are pro-
jected to work primarily in groups to create an interactive learning environment.
With rapidly evolving new media and technological tools, social media under-
mines well the traditional educational approaches by breaking down classroom
walls and constructing new knowledge hubs (Rambe, 2012). The authors also
used constructivism theory for this study as it provides a right combination with
the technological affordances offered by social media.

Research Model and Hypothesis

The TAM (Davis, 1989) as the widely accepted theory on actual usage behavior
or adoption of new technology in combination with Constructivism Theory
(Bruner, 1966) is the primary consideration to derive our model over here.
The TAM is an information system theory based on learner’s motivation for
technology acceptance and its application to achieve information literacy skills
in an effective way (Durodolu, 2016). An ample of literature on the surroundings
of consumer attitude toward the acceptance and usage of a particular technology
has been derived from the TAM model. Thus, there is much support to justify
the hypothesis relating to the elected constructs in the study. Furthermore,
Constructivist theorists argue that ‘‘learning is a continuous and lifelong pro-
cess, resulting from acting in situations’’ (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989,
p. 33). Learning is determined through the assimilation of learner’s previous
knowledge, social setting, and the problem to be solved (Tam, 2000, p. 52).
Therefore, from the constructivist perspective, learning is mutually constructed
through working and collaborating with others. Likewise, based on the
Constructivist Theory, collaboration is considered integrally social, and the
Sarwar et al. 253

role of peer relationship is regarded as a critical component of educational suc-

cess (Golub, 1988). So, based on the earlier arguments, both theories are com-
bined in the study. By keeping in mind the darker side of using new technology,
it has examined that the act of online bullying becomes more influential with
unrestricted and easy access to electronic communication, no physical inter-
action, and rapid technological advancement (Carter, 2013). Figure 1 illustrates
the research model adapted from previous studies (Davis, 1989) and (Al-Rahmi
& Zeki, 2016) to measure the effect on learning success with moderating role of
cyberbullying.

Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use

The TAM is mainly based on the premises that ‘‘perceived usefulness’’ and
‘‘perceived ease of use’’ are real motivational factors to accept and use the
new technology. Perceived Usefulness is defined as ‘‘the degree to which a
person considers that using a particular system would enhance his/her work
performance’’ (Davis, 1989, p. 320). It represents the valuable results derived
from the attributes of technology being used (Rauniar et al., 2014). While per-
ceived ease of use is defined as ‘‘the extent to which a person considers that using
a specific system would be free of any physical and mental effort’’ (Davis, 1989,
p.320). Other studies also explore that use of IT tools heavily depend on its ease
of use and perceived utility (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Social networking sites are considered as significant tools of education and
learning for people especially for students (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Sánch et al.,
2014), as they feel comfortable to use with it (Al-Mashaqbeh, 2015). Academic

Perceived
Usefulness
Social
Media Use

Learner
Perceived
performance
Ease of Use

Collaborave
Learning

Perceived
Enjoyment Cyberbullying

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

254 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

performance and learning of students was also measured by some other

researchers regarding improved communication skills and creativity because of
the usefulness and level of ease the social media tools possess (Bruce & Neville,
1979; Kabilan, Ahmad, & Abidin, 2010).
These two terminologies regulate the intention to use a system, where such
objective plays the role of mediator actually to use a system. Most of the studies
revealed a positive relationship between perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use toward the behavioral intention of e-learning (Davis, 1989; Elkaseh,
Wong, & Fung, 2016; Mathieson, 1991). But this relationship was rejected as
reported in a study by Chau and Hu (2002). So, the relationship remains contra-
dictory between these two items. Previous studies also explain that both factors
are considered to be closely linked in the case of Internet usage or social websites
as users perceive surfing on the Internet (depending on their intention to use) is
not only smooth and effortless but also valuable (Mandilasa, Karasavvogloua,
Nikolaidisa, & Tsourgiannisa, 2013). Based on the earlier discussion, we suggest
following hypothesis for this study:

H1: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived usefulness and

social media use.
H2: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived usefulness and
collaborative learning.
H3: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived ease of use and
social media use.
H4: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived ease of use and
collaborative learning.

Perceived Enjoyment
The growing trend of using social media is also strongly influenced by perceived
enjoyment as a stimulating factor (Al-Rahmi & Zeki, 2016; Rauniar et al., 2014;
Ruleman, 2012). It is defined as ‘‘the degree to which the activity of using tech-
nology is supposed to be enjoyable in its own way apart from any likely per-
formance concerns’’ (Davis, Baozzi, & Warshaw, 1992). Social media users are
likely to find a service more interesting if they enjoy it more in the kind of
experiential setting (Rauniar et al., 2014). Using social media sites like
Facebook, Twitter, and WeChat are considered to be having fun and enjoyment
by posting different pictures or videos. By providing exciting posts, it can bring
entertainment, pleasure, and amusements for users (Gan & Wang, 2015).
Previous studies revealed that children who work together in small groups
experienced greater enjoyment (Scott, Mandryk, & Inkpen, 2003).
Korgaonkar and Wolin (1999) also discussed a related factor of social media
usage called escapism, defined as enjoyable and pleasurable. User’s approach
Sarwar et al. 255

and intention to use social media were also determined by the perceived level of
enjoyment that they experienced (Curran & Lennon, 2011; Moon & Kim, 2001).
In fact, the degree of interactivity that a website offers is the major contributing
factor of its usage as people enjoy and learn more in such interactive and col-
laborative environment (Childers, Peck, Carr, & Carson, 2001; Rauniar et al.,
2014). According to Moon and Kim (2001), those who enjoy a web system
positively perceive their interactions with the system and consequently show
high intention toward its usage to improve their collaborative learning (Sánch
et al., 2014). However, perceived enjoyment as an external factor is not com-
monly found in previous readings using TAM in the context of student learning
in comparison with other external factors.
In the light of earlier discussion, this study proposes following hypothesis
to test:

H5: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived enjoyment and

social media use.
H6: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived enjoyment and
collaborative learning.

Collaborative Learning
Collaborative learning is an activity that involves a process where a group of
students collaborates with each other to achieve some problem-solving task in a
more interactive environment (Alavi et al., 1995). Collaborative learning with
the assistance of social media encourages learning and knowledge sharing
among the students (Al-rahmi, Othman, & Yusuf, 2015) because social media
tools can highly support such collaborative activities. As Wasko and Faraj
(2005) state that an active engagement with social media tools and the estab-
lishment of virtual relationships enable its users toward a diversified set of infor-
mation from multiple sources. Consequently, students are expected to make
more use of these tools to accomplish their tasks as it is proven to improve
the process of communication and interaction between groups (Hidayanto &
Setyady, 2014). Using social media tools enable its users to conduct social inter-
actions, to create interpersonal relationships with peers, and to guide the indi-
viduals to cope with an unfamiliar social environment (Dholakia, 2004; Zhou,
Li, & Liu, 2010). These social tools are being used as a mean to interact and to
communicate between faculty and students within an academic community
(Mazer et al., 2007). Consequently, this increase in communication may enhance
student’s collective performance, classroom discussions, and integration with
their fellows and peers (Ross et al., 2009). Faculty can share their teaching
material on these portals to increase online access by students anytime and
free of cost. By sharing useful notes, resources, and comments on social
256 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

networking sites, an overall learning environment is promoted (Ainin et al.,

2015). Lin, Peng, Kim, Kim, and LaRose (2011) conducted their study in the
USA and discovered the fact that usage of social sites increases the student’s
ability to participate culturally and socially in the new ambiance. Emerging web
technologies have much potential to create and promote attractive learning
environments. Moreover, today’s learners are flexible enough to experience dif-
ferent techniques in multiple aspects with the intention of enhancing their learn-
ing capabilities (Saeed, Yang, & Sinnappan, 2009). Considering the earlier
discussion, following hypothesis is proposed:

H7: There is a significant positive relationship between social media use and col-
laborative learning.

Learner Performance
Using the social media sites enable individuals to express themselves, create
associations, look for information, and to interact with each other. Several
studies have found a positive relationship between usage of social networking
sites and individual performance in terms of better grades (Junco et al., 2011),
higher student motivation (Ainin et al., 2015), and increased engagement
(Alwagait et al., 2015; Sánch et al, 2014). Some other studies conducted by
Junco et al. (2011) in the USA and by Ketari and Khanum (2013) in Saudi
Arabia tried to examine the people’s thoughts about students’ engagement,
learning, and the effects of using social media tools (especially Facebook and
Twitter) on their academic performance. It is considered as an essential tool in
the development process of students as learning is more influenced by partici-
pation in a community (Vygotsky, 1978). Because, in this process, student
engagement represents the time and determination they devote in the integrative
and educational activities, which in turn is linked with positive learning out-
comes and individual student development (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006;
Tarantino et al., 2013). A study conducted by Al-rahmi et al. (2015) also con-
firms the significant relationship between collaborative learning and perform-
ance of students. The researchers found that students’ productivity was
dependent on their interactions through social media, their satisfaction, and
engagement which contributed to their collaborative learning experience
(Al-rahmi et al., 2015). Some researchers (Kalpidou, Costin, & Morris, 2011)
discussed the use of social media in a way that students can collaboratively learn
by creating online alumni to keep up with the current issues. Learners need to
develop skills for knowledge sharing and to learn with others both through face
to face and online interactions. In this way, students can learn from teaching
communities by working collaboratively to build more knowledge (Kabilan
et al., 2010). Therefore, social media supports collaborative learning, which in
Sarwar et al. 257

turn helps to strengthen the creative learning process of learners (Shoshani &
Rose Braun, 2007).
So, the following hypotheses are being proposed to test:

H8: There is a significant positive relationship between social media use and learner
performance.
H9: There is a significant positive relationship between collaborative learning and
learner performance.

Cyberbullying
Current literature extensively covers the successful usage of social media tools as
an influential source of information, communication, and collaborative learning
in academic settings. Besides all merits discussed earlier, these tools also have
some adverse issues regarding extended ‘‘bullying’’ in the empire of the cyber
world. Cyberbullying in literature is described as the use of the Internet or other
communication means to abuse, insult, or to threaten others repeatedly or over
time who are weaker and unable to defend themselves (Ahmed, Hussain,
Ahmed, Ahmed, & Tabassum, 2012; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Olweus, 1993).
Bullies tend to regularly engage in taunting, teasing, harassing, and intimidating
behavior by using instant messaging, emails, and social networking sites
(Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). It also includes hacking into servers, posting per-
sonal information about others, online harassment (Juvonen & Gross, 2008), or
some aggressive, intentional actions carried by a group or individual toward
their peers or adults using electronic communication devices (Smith et al., 2008).
The adverse effects of cyberbullying on student learning and performance are
well documented in the literature (Brown & Taylor, 2008; Delpratoa et al., 2017;
Lacey & Cornell, 2013; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Previous studies reveal that
victims of online bullying feel destructive, helpless, and powerless (Raskauskas
& Stoltz, 2007) and in some cases tend to be more annoyed and get involved in
delinquent behavior (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Prior research findings indicate
that students who are cyberbullied have the low educational achievement
(Ponzo, 2013) and feel to be less concentrated on their studies (Beran & Li,
2005). Researchers (Benson et al., 2015) argue that the panorama of victimiza-
tion is one of the major concerns in the use of social networking sites for teach-
ing and collaborative learning in higher education institutions. Few studies also
pointed out the fears or problems of privacy and account protection associated
with the usage of social networking tools in academic settings (Gruzd, Staves, &
Wilk, 2012). It was suggested by Ophus and Abbitt (2009) that ‘‘it is likely that
students’ acceptance rate of social networking system would be higher for edu-
cation and learn when they perceive that their privacy is not threatened’’
(p. 646). Student learning and performance is affected upon receiving unwanted
258 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

messages, pictures, or e-mails (Faryadi, 2011). Another study also addressed the
concerns universities are facing regarding usage of social media for collaborative
learning and teaching endorsed by HE institutions (Benson et al., 2015).
Researchers found victimization or cyberbullying as one of the primary concern
in this regard. Their findings show that students are open to the academic use of
social networking tools and for collaborative learning but online bullying creates
hurdles in this process.
Therefore, this study tries to investigate the presence of cyberbullying as
a moderator between the relationship of collaborative learning and learner per-
formance. The study suggests following hypothesis to test:

H10: Cyberbullying as a moderator influence the relationship between collabora-

tive learning and learner performance.

Research Methods and Data Collection

This study employs structural equation modeling approach to develop and
verify the research model and to illustrate the relationship among seven con-
structs (Figure 1). The survey was created in SurveyMonkey and sent to the
potential participants through campus e-mail system and WeChat. The study
took place at a university and technology center of China. Therefore, students of
multiple discipline studies over there belonged to Pakistan, China, and
Bangladesh and were targeted under convenience sampling technique. Second,
the number of students belonging to these specified countries are high in the
university; also considered as highly populated and classified as countries of
‘‘medium human development’’ (Chakravarty, 2017). In addition, the young
adult Internet population and technology use or adoption is significantly on
rising in these emerging or developing countries.1 According to a survey
report, overall 93% of young adults aged 18 to 29 and one quarter of all
adults aged 18 and older use Internet and social networking sites (Lenhart,
Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010).
The participants were not offered any incentive to avoid biases. The final
sample (after removing incomplete questionnaires) consists of 360 full-time stu-
dents enrolled in the undergraduate- and graduate-level disciplines. The demo-
graphic characteristics of respondents are summarized in Table 1. The survey
involved 26 items disseminated over chosen constructs adapted from formerly
validated instruments. The researchers made few changes in the language of the
questions to reflect the measurements of these constructs for social media users.
The items for perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoy-
ment were adapted from prior studies, who have already established their reli-
ability and validity (Davis, 1989; Rauniar et al., 2014; Sánch et al., 2014).
Similarly, the items for social media use were adapted from Hidayanto and
Sarwar et al. 259

Table 1. Descriptive Information of the Sample.

Measures Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 202 56.11
Female 158 43.88
Age
20 or under 78 21.67
21–30 192 53.33
31 and above 90 25
Educational level
PhD 25 6.94
Master 179 49.72
Bachelor 156 43.33
Usage of social media per week
Less than 5 hours/week 18 5
About 10 hours/week 39 10.83
About 15 hours/week 105 29.16
More than 15 hours/week 198 55

Setyady (2014) and Brady, Holcomb, and Smith (2010), while the items for
collaborative learning were adapted from McMillan and Hwang (2002). The
items for learner performance was adapted from Hidayanto and Setyady
(2014) and Ainin et al. (2015), who adapted the scale based on previous studies
(Gress, Fior, Hadwin, & Winne, 2010). Finally, the measurement items for
cyberbullying were based on the studies of Lacey and Cornell (2013) and
Beran and Li (2005). A 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree was employed to measure the responses, and specific changes were
made in sentence structure of questions according to the current study. A brief
overview was also provided to respondents about the study purpose at the start
of the questionnaire to develop their initial understanding. The respondents were
also made sure that the data collection would be only used for an academic
purpose that’s why they were not asked to mention their names and contact
information.

Data Analysis and Results

Based on the theoretical framework and hypothesis proposed earlier, structural
equation modeling technique along with Analysis of Moment Structures
(AMOS) version 24 was used for establishing the model and data analysis.
The fundamental principle behind using structure equation modeling involves
260 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

the use of some observed variables to measure one unobserved variable.

A two-step approach was used to analyze the data in this regard. In the first
step, the measurement model was verified to confirm the validity and reliability
of constructs. Then, in the second phase, the structural model was assessed by
employing hypothesis testing. Hierarchical regression in SPSS 21 was used to
measure the moderating effect of cyberbullying.

Model Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis was performed using SPSS to examine the values of
factor loadings higher than 0.5. The results of exploratory factor analysis indi-
cate that indices are according to benchmark values which validate the proposed
model; the values are between .728 and .898. The result did not report the
issue of cross-loadings, except three items. These items were excluded from
the constructs. Cross loadings are shown in Table 2.
Method of Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used for measurement model
test that consists of both validity and reliability test. Initial item purification was
done by using factor analysis. All factors loadings were found to be higher than
0.7 that are acceptable to run structural equation modeling technique. Second,
principal component analysis was implied to analyze all the items. In the reli-
ability test, Cronbach’s alpha value was found to be higher than .7, indicating
the good reliability of scale (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair, Black, Basin, &
Anderson, 2010). Results are shown in Table 3. Test of convergent validity was
implied using average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability meas-
ures (Table 3). All composite reliability scores of our variables were found to be
above 0.7 showing that all items of proposed constructs were sufficiently repre-
sentative of their main constructs and reliable (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1998; Wu, 2010). AVE values exceeding 0.5 indicates good convergent
validity for the questionnaire (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). AVE measures are also
used to describe discriminant validity that is verified when a measure does not
correlate highly with another measure from which it must differ. Table 4 shows
that AVE square root value is higher than correlation among all constructs,
which indicates good convergent validity.

Measurement and Structural Model Evaluation

Next, AMOS version 24 was employed to evaluate the goodness of fit of struc-
tural and measurement model and also to examine the significance level of
hypothesis paths. A variety of indices consists of the degree of freedom (df ),
Comparative Fit Index, Normed Fit Index, Incremental Fit Index, Parsimonious
Normed Fit Index, Parsimonious Comparative Fit Index, and Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation were used to test the overall fitness in this
regard. These fit indices are usually used to signify multiple categories of
Sarwar et al. 261

Table 2. Loading and Cross Loadings.

Constructs Items PEU PE SM LP CL PU CB

Perceived ease of use PEU1 .898 .036 .010 .184 .038 .020 .068
PEU4 .886 .011 .110 .148 .084 .037 .154
PEU3 .865 .072 .128 .139 .003 .075 .193
PEU2 .860 .072 .140 .134 .166 .042 .166
Perceived enjoyment PE2 .042 .824 .050 .031 .002 .055 .032
PE4 .043 .803 .016 .005 .025 .013 .115
PE3 .002 .775 .073 .046 .042 .103 .048
PE1 .092 .758 .153 .025 .001 .073 .075
Social media use SM1 .098 .132 .858 .147 .128 .183 .098
SM3 .133 .143 .823 .061 .145 .201 .138
SM2 .140 .078 .803 .272 .164 .112 .162
Learner performance LP1 .202 .069 .182 .804 .083 .127 .046
LP3 .178 .003 .114 .798 .136 .160 .187
LP2 .205 .004 .139 .763 .243 .102 .088
Collaborative learning CL2 .043 .011 .200 .081 .827 .101 .078
CL1 .086 .041 .271 .113 .769 .140 .215
CL3 .113 .013 .036 .248 .726 .067 .156
Perceived usefulness PU1 .069 .062 .185 .140 .028 .849 .061
PU3 .065 .090 .112 .038 .248 .787 .075
PU2 .007 .011 .137 .182 .033 .761 .196
Cyberbullying CB1 .192 .027 .122 .070 .038 .147 .820
CB2 .196 .054 .100 .187 .167 .145 .772
CB3 .158 .105 .157 .067 .300 .058 .728
Note. Items in boldface show the loadings of measurement items on their specified constructs.

model fit measures as shown in Table 5 along with their level of acceptance fit. In
Table 5, there is evidence to put forward that all measurements have a good fit as
per recommended values or criterions (Wu, 2010). The model finds good fitness
in the light of previous recommended or accepted values (Bentler, 1992; Elkaseh
et al., 2016; Hair et al., 1998; Miles & Shevlin, 2007; Quintana & Maxwell, 1999);
therefore, it is concluded that measurement and structural model are acceptable.

Hypothesis Testing and Effects

After signifying the validity of measurement model, proposed hypotheses were
tested. Figure 2 indicates the path analysis by using AMOS 24. The results
indicate that perceived usefulness ( ¼ 0.353, t ¼ 7.615, p < .001), perceived
262 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

Table 3. Results of Factor Analysis.

Factor Cronbach’s Average variance Composite

Constructs Indicators loadings alpha extracted (AVE) reliability (CR)

Perceived usefulness PU1 .849 .789 0.567 0.796

PU2 .761
PU3 .787
Perceived enjoyment PE1 .758 .804 0.512 0.808
PE2 .824
PE3 .775
PE4 .803
Perceived ease of use PEU1 .898 .932 0.777 0.933
PEU2 .860
PEU3 .865
PEU4 .886
Social media use SM1 .858 .885 0.722 0.886
SM2 .803
SM3 .823
Cyberbullying CB1 .820 .794 0.564 0.795
CB2 .772
CB3 .728
Collaborative learning CL1 .769 .778 0.554 0.784
CL2 .827
CL3 .726
Learner performance LP1 .804 .823 0.612 0.825
LP2 .763
LP3 .798

ease of use ( ¼ 0.236, t ¼ 5.096, p < .001), and perceived enjoyment ( ¼ 0.169,
t ¼ 3.697, p < .001) all have a significant positive relationship with social media
usage. These findings support H1, H3, and H5, respectively. For collaborative
learning, it was found a significant positive relationship with perceived useful-
ness ( ¼ 0.171, t ¼ 3.315, p < .001) which supports H2. As for the Hypothesis 4,
the relationship between perceived ease of use and collaborative learning
appeared to be positive, but it has a nonsignificant value with influence coeffi-
cient of 0.132. For the sixth hypothesis, there is a negative relationship found
between perceived enjoyment and collaborative learning with  ¼ 0.024 and
t ¼ .507 as shown in Figure 2. As for Hypothesis 7, a significant and positive
relationship was found between use of social media and collaborative learning
with  ¼ 0.305, t ¼ 5.611, p < .001. Hypothesis 8 suggested a significant positive
Sarwar et al. 263

Table 4. Composite Reliability, Average Variance Extracted, and Correlation.

Construct Mean (SD) PU PEU PE SM LP CL CB

PU 4.30 (1.38) 0.753

PEU 4.91 (1.40) 0.202 0.881
PE 4.10 (1.48) 0.144 0.089 0.716
SM 4.79 (1.43) 0.483 0.338 0.269 0.850
LP 4.42 (1.34) 0.425 0.487 0.002 0.482 0.782
CL 4.59 (1.24) 0.379 0.283 0.105 0.514 0.488 0.744
CB 4.36 (1.12) 0.403 0.483 0.138 0.456 0.459 0.547 0.751
Note. PU ¼ perceived usefulness; PEU ¼ perceived ease of use; PE ¼ perceived enjoyment; SM ¼ social
media; LP ¼ learner performance; CL ¼ collaborative Learning; CB ¼ cyberbullying. Crosswise elements
are the square root of the variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are the correlations among con-
structs. Correlation is significant at .01.

Table 5. Fit Indices for the Measurement and Structural Model.

Results

Measurements Indices Criterion Measurement model Structural model

Absolute fit AGFI >0.8 0.882 .935

measures GFI >0.9 0.911 .974
RMSEA <0.08 0.052 .059
Incremental fit NFI >0.9 0.908 .907
measures CFI >0.9 0.952 .944
IFI >0.9 0.953 .947
CMIN/DF <3.00 1.978 2.238
Note. AGFI ¼ adjusted goodness-of-fit index; GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean square
error of approximation; NFI ¼ normed fit index; CFI ¼ comparative fit index.

relationship between social media use and learner performance and was also
supported with  ¼ 0.252, t ¼ 5.009, p < .001. Results indicate that all proposed
hypothesis was supported except H4 and H6.

Moderating Effect of Cyberbullying

It was next investigated that how cyberbullying as a moderator factor influences
the relationship between collaborative learning and learner performance
through using hierarchical regression in SPSS 21. Hierarchical regression is
one of the valuable tools for analyzing interaction effects because it allows
264 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

Perceived .353***

Usefulnes Social
.252***
.171*** Media Use
.258
.236*** Learner
performance
Perceived .305*** .304** .242
.132
Ease of Use

.169*** Collaborave
-.099***
Learning
Perceived .212
Enjoyment -.024

Cyberbullying

Figure 2. Structural Equation Modeling with Moderation Results. Note. **p < .01.
***p < .001.

Table 6. Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Constructs Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Collaborative learning .308*** .302*** .304***

Cyberbullying .544*** .547***
Collaborative learning  Cyberbullying .099***
F 37.42 114.169 71.717
R2 .092 .387 .441
***p < .001.

researchers to enter the variable order by their pivotal significance (Cohen &
Cohen, 1983). Table 6 shows the values of unstandardized regression coefficients
regarding the interaction effect of independent variable as collaborative learning
and moderator as cyberbullying. For this, the independent variable is one whose
relationship with dependent variable is being moderated. And the moderator is
the other independent variable doing the moderating effect. Finally, interaction
is the product variable. Collaborative learning and learner performance are
found to be positively related to each other with  ¼ 0.304, p < .001, which
supports Hypothesis 9 as shown in Table 6. Figure 3 indicates that cyberbullying
dampens the positive relationship between collaborative learning and learner
performance. This result also supports our Hypothesis 10.
Sarwar et al. 265

5
4.5
Learner Performance

4
3.5 Moderator
3 Low Cyberbullying
2.5 High Cyberbullying
2
1.5
1
Low Collaboration High Collaboration

Figure 3. Moderating effect of cyberbullying on the relationship between collaborative

learning and learner performance.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study contributes to the existing literature through incorporating the TAM
framework in combination with Constructivism Theory to enhance the under-
standing of social media usage regarding student learning. Social media together
with the Internet is a world phenomenon which has changed the way in which
people communicate, interact, socialize, and collaborate. Collaboration through
social media supports more of a constructivist approach toward learning,
whereby students and educators can work together for mutual contribution
(Stevens, 2009). Students were found to be better motivated to learn and
make more creative accomplishments through using emerging technologies
(GreGory, GreGory, & Eddy, 2014; Selwyn, 2007). These platforms assist
them to share and exchange useful information in a community. Moreover,
the positive use of social media brings about collaborative learning, high syn-
chronization, and amplified learner performance among participants. As com-
pared with traditional learning methods, learning platforms based on social
media place the control of learning into the hands of the learners themselves
(Raut & Patil, 2016). Also, online environments provide access to multiple
resources, learning tools, and communication facilities for learners
(Karunanayaka, 2008).
Our findings indicate that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
perceived enjoyment have a significant positive relationship with social media
usage. These results show that social media has gained popularity among people
because of its convenience and worldwide usage. Students also enjoy social
media and use it for community building, resource sharing, and collaborative
work. Similarly, there was found a significant positive relationship between
perceived usefulness and collaborative learning; social media usage and
266 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

collaborative learning; social media usage and learner performance; and collab-
orative learning and learner performance. Prior studies also concluded that
perceived usefulness was a significant factor toward the adoption of a virtual
learning environment (King & He, 2006). The results of this study indicate that
the social media or social networking site serves as a dynamic tool to facilitate
the development of learning environments by encouraging collaboration and
articulation among students. Using communication media enables the students
to enhance healthy class discussions, student engagement, and peer integration.
These results are consistent with the study of Greenhow and Robelia (2009) that
found that social networks are easy to access and navigate and are also useful for
interactive learning. The findings are also in line with other previous studies
conducted about social media tools and their functional effectiveness (Ainin
et al., 2015; Liu, Liu, Chen, Lin, & Chen, 2011; Tarantino et al., 2013).
Nelson Laird and Kuh (2005) and Al-rahmi et al. (2015) also reported that
the use of social media in academics promotes higher contribution and partici-
pation in active student collaboration. In turn, these interactions relating to a
virtual community further reinforce desirable learning outcomes and student
performance.
However, despite the positive effect found among the participants, the rela-
tionship between perceived ease of use and collaborative learning is not statis-
tically significant. Although this finding is not consistent with the finding of
Al-Rahmi and Zeki (2016), another study conducted in Taiwan also found no
significant relationship between perceived ease of use and learning attitude of
users, probably because the students are proficient at using the related informa-
tion technology (Liao, Huang, Chen, & Huang, 2015). Therefore, perceived ease
of use does not affect learning attitude directly; it may have an indirect effect
through perceived usefulness or another external factor. Other possible reasons
could be the different perception of users about multiple social networking tools
and each tool’s level of ease of use. Moreover, social media has become unre-
strained because of its easy accessibility and functionality through various
devices (Munkaila & Iddrisu, 2015). Students can access it anytime and any-
where in the world. Consequently, the students’ consideration of social media as
a leisure activity might turn into fascination and become a trend in their every-
day life and the goal of collaborative learning is not truly fulfilled. Researchers
also find that many students rely on the likely accessibility and use of social
media to find answers to their queries without focusing on learning and retaining
knowledge from their peers (Raut & Patil, 2016).
Similarly, students’ consideration of these applications only as a source of
entertainment or enjoyment can interrupt the actual learning outcomes. This
study has found a negative relationship between perceived enjoyment and col-
laborative learning using social media. This finding corresponds with a previous
study which states that when more students use social networks at any one time,
some of them get distracted and use it for entertainment purpose rather than
Sarwar et al. 267

educational learning (Bosch, 2009, p. 192). Likewise, using multiple technologies

at the same time and also addiction to social networking sites lead to negative
outcomes (LaRose, Kim, & Peng, 2010) in terms of poor academic performance
(Paul & Gelish, 2011; Ruleman, 2012), lack of attention, and inhibited concen-
tration on actual learning (Gorghiu, Pribeanu, & Vincentas, 2016). A few exist-
ing studies also give evidence that social networking tools or sites are sometimes
considered as a leisure activity, and too much time is spent on these sites merely
enjoying and posting useless comments or browsing pages (Ruleman, 2012;
Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008) which can eventually negatively affect
student behavior and performance (Junco, 2012; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010;
Rouis, 2011). In addition, it has been reported by researchers that extensive
use of social networking sites diverts students’ attention and concentra-
tion toward time-wasting activities which may have bad impact on their posi-
tive learning outcomes (Kuppuswamy & Narayan, 2010; Tariq, Mehboob,
Khan, & Ullah, 2012) and lower their interest in studies (Sánch et al., 2014).
Further, this study has also identified the effect of cyberbullying (as a mod-
erator) which dampens the positive relationship between collaborative learning
and learner performance (Figure 3). This result is also consistent with the study
of Fasae and Adegbilero-Iwari (2016) that receiving unwanted messages or pic-
tures or other forms of harassment creates a major negative impact on students’
output. It may be that ‘‘distraction’’ is the real reason that cyberbullying or
online bullying cause lack of concentration on actual learning and performance,
and that effective learning is inhibited (Ponzo, 2013; Kim, Jeong, Kim, & So,
2011; Ali, Iskandar, Al-Amin, & Langove, 2016). This distraction from their
work reduces the students’ motivation to attend school and causes low grades
(Beran & Li, 2007). Previous literature also supports the hypothesis that cyber-
bullying or online bullying impairs concentration on learning (Schwartz &
Gorman, 2003) and even causes psychological disorders related to loss of self-
confidence, depression, and indisposition to participate in group activities (Kim
et al., 2011). Some researchers revealed that excessive use of social media by
students leads to cyberbullying and addiction, which ultimately reduce learning
performance (Dike, Eke, & Babarinde, 2013; Faryadi, 2011). Besides the fact
that social media is an excellent educational tool is the reality that there can be
some darker aspects of its usage (Irwin, Ball, Desbrow, & Leveritt, 2012). The
online behavior of inquiring students is essential to enhance their learning
experience so there is a need to produce useful guidelines for proper communi-
cation through social media to protect the students against online bullying and
harassment (Varnhagen & Husband, 2011). Students need to learn about the
dangers to avoid being victimized by the dark side of the online world (Kim
et al., 2011). In this regard, implementation of antibullying interventions can
improve the institute’s capacity to carry out its educational duties by improving
the students’ ability to focus on learning.
268 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

Overall, this study concludes that social media and Internet-based tools have
been developed enormously in today’s’ digital world and they are now widely
accepted by all generations. These tools are substantial and very beneficial for
students in terms of learning, collaboration, and information sharing. Social
networks have become of vital importance due to the increasing emphasis on
cohesive working and collaborative learning concepts around the globe. Besides
this, the findings of the current study also specify that perceived enjoyment and
ease of use are key positive factors when using social media for learning; they
should be used as motivation and with deliberate intent. The analysis further
revealed that these tools also expose the students to content and interactions
which are laced with violence and aggression because of cyberbullying. Online
bullying, receiving unwanted or threating messages or pictures, other sources of
distraction, and addiction to the use of social media—all of these divert student
attention from the desired learning outcomes. In the world of information tech-
nology, understanding user behavior is crucial for technology acceptance or
adaptation, as well as being a thought-provoking issue.

Future Implications and Limitations

The educationist can use social media tools in academic progressions with an
aim to promote student learning and to actively engage the students in a col-
laborative learning community. Teachers can develop high creativity among
students by encouraging them to explore content material in more innovative
ways (Lamb & Johnson, 2010). Universities can play a significant role by explor-
ing further opportunities to integrate social media into teaching and learning
process. Furthermore, there is also need to recognize the potential for learning
interruptions, cyber victimization, and overstimulation related to some sorts of
social media (Chen & Bryer, 2012). There is a need for policymakers to employ
effective antibullying programs to prevent or at least diminish bullying because it
may seriously harm the victims and adversely influence their educational attain-
ment (Ponzo, 2013).
Finally, this study has certain limitations. First, this research is purely
quantitative; the data for this study were collected through survey question-
naires. Second, for this study, only four social networking sites, Facebook,
WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and WeChat, were considered for data collection
from university business graduate and undergraduate students belonging to
Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh. Future research could be conducted with
other social media tools or blogs, different types of students, and different geo-
graphic locations. The current study also recommends that future studies incorp-
orate other factors affecting Internet interaction, such as bandwidth or content
blocking, to measure their impact on student collaborative learning and
performance.
Sarwar et al. 269

Appendix
A brief overview of study
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of using social media tools
on student collaborative learning and performance with moderating role of
cyberbullying. Social media or SNS are the web-based technologies which pro-
vide unique ways to access, socialize, communicate, and collaborate with each
other via virtual communities and social networks. By collaborative learning, we
mean a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to gain some-
thing together. It is based on the model that knowledge can be created within a
population where members actively interact by sharing experiences in a more
interactive environment.
Please provide your honest response as per the scale.
Please indicate the social networking site, which you mostly use:

(a) Facebook (b) WhatsApp (c) LinkedIn (d) WeChat (e) other——
Items for Survey Scales:
Perceived Usefulness (Rauniar, Rawski, Yang, & Johnson, 2014; Sánchez,
Cortijo, & Javed, 2014; Davis, 1989)
PU1 Using social media/SNS increase my productivity in my coursework.
PU2 Social media/SNS is used to communicate with more people in short
period.
PU3 Using social media enables me to improve my learning performance.
Perceived Ease of Use (Rauniar, Rawski, Yang, & Johnson, 2014; Sánchez,
Cortijo, & Javed, 2014; Davis, 1989)
PEU1 my interaction with social media/SNS is clear and understandable.
PEU2 Social media is flexible to interact with it.
PEU3 It is easy to become skillful at using social media.
PEU4 I do not have any problem learning about social media sites’ features.
Perceived Enjoyment (Rauniar, Rawski, Yang, & Johnson, 2014; Sánchez,
Cortijo, & Javed, 2014; Davis, 1989)
PE1 It is interesting to use social networking sites.
PE2 I feel excited while exploring more information by using social media/SNS.
PE3 Features and applications of social networking sites are a source of
thrilling for me.
PE4 When interacting with social media, I did not realize time had elapsed.
Social Media Use (Hidayanto & Setyady, 2014; Brady, Holcomb, & Smith,
2010)
SM1 I use social media for academic purposes to discuss and share my ideas
with my peers.
SM2 I use social media to communicate and collaborate with my peers/col-
leagues in my course.
SM3 I use social media to complete my academic tasks.
270 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

Collaborative Learning (McMillan & Hwang, 2002)

CL1 I was able to develop my learning abilities through peer collaboration.
CL2 I was able to develop new knowledge and skills from other members of
social media.
CL3 I was able to develop more comprehensive understandings of the topics
through group discussion.
Learner Performance (Hidayanto & Setyady, 2014; Ainin, Naqshbandi,
Sedigheh, & Ismawati, 2015) and (Gress, Fior, Hadwin, & Winne, 2010)
LP1 I feel competent in completing my academic tasks.
LP2 I have learned how to do my task compilation efficiently.
LP3 I have performed academically as well as I expected I would.
Cyberbullying (Lacey & Cornell, 2013; Beran & Li, 2005)
Cyberbullying is described as the use of the Internet, social networking sites, or
other communication means to abuse, insult, embarrass, or to threaten others repeat-
edly or over time who are weaker and unable to defend themselves. But it is not
bullying or harassment when the teasing is done in a friendly or playful way.
I had encountered trouble to concentrate on my study related tasks because:
CB1 I have been teased or bothered online because of unwanted messages/
pictures.
CB2 I felt insulted or ridiculed because of comments or emails through online
forums.
CB3 I was excluded in the online forum by blocking my comments or remov-
ing them.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

Note
1. See http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-
continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/; https://www.statista.com/statistics/277
586/number-of-social-network-users-in-china/

References
Ahmed, M., Hussain, D. I., Ahmed, M., Ahmed, S., & Tabassum, R. D. (2012). Impact
of bullying on the performance of the students at primary level in Sindh. Journal of
Education and Practice, 3(3), 17–24.
Ainin, S., Naqshbandi, M. M., Sedigheh, M., & Noor Ismawati, J. (2015). Facebook
usage, socialization, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 83, 64–73.
Sarwar et al. 271

Al-Aufi, A., & Crystal, F. (2015). Impact of social networking tools on scholarly com-
munication: A cross-institutional study. The Electronic Library, 33(2), 224–241.
Alavi, M., Wheeler, C. B., & Valacich, S. J. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business
education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS
Quarterly, 19(3), 293–312.
Ali, M., Iskandar, R. A., Nuri Al-Amin, M., & Langove, N. (2016). Strengthening the
academic usage of social media: An exploratory study. Journal of King Saud
University—Computer and Information Sciences, 29, 553–561.
Al-Khalifa, H., & Garcia, R. (2013). The state of social media in Saudi Arabia’s higher edu-
cation. International Journal of Technology and Educational Marketing(IJTEM), 3, 65–76.
Al-Mashaqbeh, I. (2015). Facebook applications to promote academic engagement:
Student’s attitudes towards the use of Facebook as a learning tool. International
Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, Computer Science, 11, 60–66.
AL-Rahmi, W. M., & Othman, M. S. (2013). Evaluating student’s satisfaction of using
social media through collaborative learning in higher education. International Journal
of Advances in Engineering & Technology, 6(4), 1541–1551.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Zeki, A. M. (2016). A model of using social media for collaborative
learning to enhance learners’ performance on learning. Journal of King Saud
University—Computer and Information Sciences, 29, 526–535.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015). Social media for collaborative
learning and engagement: Adoption framework in higher education institutions in
Malaysia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6, S1.
Alwagait, E., Shahzad, B., & Alim, S. (2015). Impact of social media usage on students aca-
demic performance in Saudi Arabia. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(2015), 1092–1097.
Benson, V., Saridakis, G., & Tennakoon, H. (2015). Purpose of social networking use and
victimisation: Are there any differences between university students and those not in
HE? Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 867–872.
Bentler, P. (1992). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP
Statistical Software.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old
behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 265–277.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying.
Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 15–33.
Bhattacharjee, J. (2015, July). Constructivist approach to learning—An effective
approach to teaching learning. International Research Journal of Interdisciplinary &
Multidisciplinary Studies (IRJIMS), I(VI), 65–74.
Blais, J., Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Connolly, J. (2008). Online: The importance of Internet
activity choices to the salient relationship. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 49–58.
Bosch, T. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use
at the University of Cape Town. South African Journal of Communication Theory and
Research, 35(2), 185–200.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative social net-
working sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the e-learning benefits of
ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151–170.
272 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learn-
ing. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Brown, S., & Taylor, K. (2008). Bullying, education, and earnings: Evidence from the
national child development study. Economics of Educational Review, 27, 387–401.
Bruce, H. C., & Neville, P. (1979). Evaluation in education. Oxford, England: Pengamon.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Bruner, I., & Kumar, A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet
devices. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 553–558.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryer, T., & Zavattaro, S. (2011). Social media and public administration: Theoretical dimen-
sions and introduction to symposium. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 327–340.
Carini, R., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning:
Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. doi:10.1007/s11162-
005-8150-9
Carter, M. A. (2013). Protecting oneself from cyberbullying on social media sites—A study of
undergraduate students. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1229–1235.
Chakravarty, M. (2017, 19 October). India, Pakistan and Bangladesh 70 years after the
British left. Retrieved from http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/cHhfx1lncIvpu7F3
FrFY1N/India-Pakistan-and-Bangladesh-70-years-after-the-British-le.html
Chau, P., & Hu, P. (2002). Investigating healthcare professionals’decisions to accept
telemedicine technology: An empirical test of competing theories. Information
Management, 39, 297–311.
Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media
in formal and informal learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 13(1), 87–104.
Chesney, T. (2006). An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems. Human
Technology, 2(2), 225–235.
Childers, T. L., Peck, J., Carr, C. L., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motiv-
ations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 511–535.
Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, develop-
ments, and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37). Retrieved
from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-37
Cluett, L., & Skene, J. (2007). A new(er) dimension to online learning communities: Using
web tools to engage students. Student Engagement: Teaching and Learning Forum, The
University of Western Australia. Retrieved from https://otl.curtin.edu.au/professional_
development/conferences/tlf/tlf2007/refereed/cluett.html
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, P. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cogni-
tivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12–19.
Curran, J. M., & Lennon, R. (2011). Participating in the conversation: Exploring
usage of social media networking sites. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 15,
21–38.
Sarwar et al. 273

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and
self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learn-
ing. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Baozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14),
1111–1132.
Delpratoa, M., Akyeampongb, K., & Dunneb, M. (2017). The impact of bullying on
students’ learning in Latin America: A matching approach for 15 countries.
International Journal of Educational Development, 52, 37–57.
Dholakia, U. M. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in the net-
work- and small-group based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 21, 241–263.
Dike, V., Nneka Eke, H., & Babarinde, E. (2013). Social media and reading among
secondary students in Enugu State, Nigeria. Mousaion, 31(1), 61.
Durodolu, O. (2016). Technology Acceptance Model as a predictor of using information
system to acquire information literacy skills. Library Philosophy and Practice
(e-journal). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1450
Eikenberry, A. M. (2012). Social networking, learning, and civic engagement: New rela-
tionships between professors and students, public administrators, and citizens. Journal
of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 449–466.
Elizabeth, B. J. (2010). The prevalence of cyber bullying victimization and its relationship to
academic, social, and emotional adjustment among college students (ProQuest LLC,
PhD Dissertation). University of Northern Colorado, CO, USA.
Elkaseh, A. M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2016, March). Perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in libyan higher education: A struc-
tural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 6(3), 192–199.
Esam, N. M., & Hashim, N. (2016). The impact of social media use on academic per-
formance among UITM Puncak Perdana Students. Research Hub, 2(2), 16–23.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Faryadi, D. Q. (2011, December). Cyberbullying and academic performance.
International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, 1(1), 23–30.
Fasae, J. K., & Adegbilero-Iwari, I. (2016). Use of social media by science students in
public universities in Southwest Nigeria. The Electronic Library, 34(2), 213–222.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk-taking, trust,
and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 53–160.
Gan, C., & Wang, W. (2015). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of
microblog and WeChat. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 17(4),
351–363.
Gasser, U., Maclay, M. C., & Palfrey, J. (2010). Working towards a deeper understanding
of digital safety for children and young people in developing nations. Harvard Public
274 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

Law Working Paper, 10–36. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

228275670
Gehlbach, H. (2010). The social side of school: Why teachers need social psychology.
Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 349–362.
Golub, J. (1988). Focus on collaborative learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teacher of English.
Gorghiu, G., Pribeanu, C., & Vincentas, L. (2016). On the Facebook dependence and its
negative effects on university students’ work: A multi-group analysis. Problems of
Education in the 21st Century, 73, 62–74.
Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social network
sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4),
1130–1161.
GreGory, P., GreGory, K., & Eddy, E. (2014). The instructional network: Using
Facebook to enhance undergraduate mathematics instruction. Journal of Computers
in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(1), 5–26.
Gress, C., Fior, M., Hadwin, A., & Winne, P. (2010). Measurement and assessment in
computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5),
806–814.
Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2011). Academic research in 140 characters or less. Anywhere,
anytime—Education on demand (Vol. II, pp. 84–94). Paper presented at 7th international
scientific conference elearning and software for education, Bucharest, April 28–29, 2011.
Retrieved from http://adlunap.ro/eLSE_publications/ papers/2011/1590_1
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of
social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28(6), 2340–2350.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, L., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hidayanto, A. N., & Setyady, S. T. (2014). Impact of collaborative tools utilization on
group performance in university students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 13(2), 88–98.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School
violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6, 89–112.
Hoover, W. (1996). The practice implications of constructivism. SEDL Letter, 9(3), 1–2.
Hsu, Y., & Ching, Y. (2012). Mobile microblogging: Using Twitter and mobile devices in
an online course to promote learning in authentic contexts. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 211–227.
Irwin, C., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using
Facebook as an interactive learning resource at the university. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 28(7), 1221–1232.
Joosten, T. (2012). Social media for educators: Strategies and best practices. Hoboken, NJ:
Jossey-Bass.
Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between mul-
tiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28, 187–198.
Sarwar et al. 275

Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student
engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. The Journal of School Health, 78, 496–505.
Kabilan, M. K., Norlida, A., & Abidin, M. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for
learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education,
13(4), 179–187.
Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and
the well-being of undergraduate college students. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14(4), 183–189.
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and oppor-
tunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
Karunanayaka, S. (2008). Designing an online learning community among teacher edu-
cators. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 3(2), 71–82.
Ketari, L. M., & Khanum, M. A. (2013). Impact of facebook usage on academic grades:
A case study. Journal of Computing, 5, 44–48.
Kim, W., Jeong, O.-R., Kim, C., & So, J. (2011). The dark side of the Internet: Attacks,
costs, and responses. Information Systems, 36, 675–705.
King, W., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model.
Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755.
Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1237–1245.
Korgaonkar, P., & Wolin, L. (1999). A multivariate analysis of web uses. Journal of
Advertising Research, 39(1), 53–68.
Kuppuswamy, S., & Narayan, P. (2010). The impact of social networking websites on the
education of youth. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social
Networking, 2(1), 67–79.
Lacey, A., & Cornell, D. (2013). The impact of teasing and bullying on schoolwide aca-
demic performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29, 262–283.
Lai, C.-C., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer
technology in second language acquisition. Doctral Forum National Journal for
Publishing and Mentoring Doctral Student Research, 3(1), 1–6.
Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2010). Bring back the joy: Creative teaching, learning, and
librarianship. Teacher Librarian, 38(2), 61–66.
LaRose, R., Kim, J., & Peng, W. (2010). Social networking: Addictive, compulsive, prob-
lematic, or just another media habit? New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K., & Larsen, K. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present,
and future. Communications of the AIS, 12(50), 752–780.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technol-
ogy? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and
Management, 40(3), 1–14.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010, 3 February). Social media and
young adults. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/02/03/social-media-
and-young-adults/
Liao, Y.-W., Huang, Y.-M., Chen, H.-C., & Huang, S.-H. (2015). Exploring the ante-
cedents of collaborative learning performance over social networking sites in a ubi-
quitous learning context. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 313–323.
276 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

Lim, J. S., Agostinho, S., Harper, B., & Chicharo, J. (2014). The engagement of social media
technologies by undergraduate informatics students for academic purpose in Malaysia.
Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 12(3), 177–194.
Lin, J., Peng, W., Kim, M., Kim, S., & LaRose, R. (2011). Social networking and adjust-
ments among international students. New Media & Society, 14(3), 421–440.
Liu, C. C., Liu, K. P., Chen, W. H., Lin, C. P., & Chen, G. D. (2011). Collaborative
storytelling experiences in social media: Influence of peer-assistance mechanisms.
Computers & Education, 57, 1544–1556.
Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53(18), B26.
Mandilas, A., Karasavvoglou, A., Nikolaidis, M., & Tsourgiannis (2013). Predicting
consumer’s perceptions in on-line shopping. Procedia Technology, 8, 435–444.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance
model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3),
173–191.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R., & Simonds, C. (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.
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. (2010). Modeling educational use of Facebook. Computers
& Education, 55(2), 444–453.
McMillan, S., & Hwang, J. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of
the role of direction and communication, user control and time in shaping perceptions
of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality
and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869–874.
Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context.
Information & Management, 38(4), 217–230.
Munkaila, A., & Iddrisu, A. (2015). The impact of social network sites on the academic
performance of students in the Polytechnics of Ghana. International Journal of
Economics, Commerce and Management, 3(11), 1021–1035.
Nelson Laird, T., & Kuh, G. (2005). Student experiences with information technology
and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher
Education, 46, 211–233. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-1600-y
Office for National Statistics. (2013). Internet access—households and individuals.
Retrieved from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_322713.pdf
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Ophus, J., & Abbitt, J. (2009). Exploring the potential perceptions of social networking
systems in university courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5,
639–648.
Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., & Facer, K. (2006). Social software and learning.
Futurelab, 44, 36. Retrieved from http:// scholar.google.com/scholar?hl¼en&btnG¼
Search&q¼intitle: Social+software+and+learning#1
Patchin, W. J., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard a preliminary
look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169.
Paul, M., & Gelish, L. (2011). College students’ texting habit and their academic per-
formance. Proceedings of the Academy of Educational leadership, 16, 67–72.
Sarwar et al. 277

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Ponzo, M. (2013). Does bullying reduce educational achievement? An evaluation using
matching estimators. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35, 1057–1078.
Quintana, S., & Maxwell, S. (1999). Implications of recent developments in structural
equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27(4),
485–527.
Raaij, E., & Schepers, J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment
in China. Computers and Education, 50(3), 838–852.
Rambe, P. (2012). Constructive disruptions for effective collaborative learning:
Navigating the affordances of social media for meaningful engagement. The
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 132–146.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564–575.
Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model
(TAM) and social media usage: An empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 27(1), 6–30.
Raut, V., & Patil, P. (2016). Use of social media in education: Positive and negative
impact on the students. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in
Computing and Communication, 4(1), 281–285.
Ricoy, M.-C., & Feliz, T. (2016). Twitter as a learning community in higher education.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 237–248.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M., & Orr, R. (2009).
Personality & motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 25(2), 578–586.
Roth, W. (2000). ‘‘Authentic school science: Intellectual traditions,’’ Learning & Knowledge
(pp. 6–20). London, England: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Rouis, S. L.-S. (2011). Impact of Facebook usage on students’ academic achievement:
Role of self-regulation and trust. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, 9(3), 961–994.
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media
use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195.
Ruleman, A. B. (2012). Social media at the university: A demographic comparison. New
Library World, 113(7/8), 316–332.
Saeed, N., Yang, Y., & Sinnappan, S. (2009). Emerging web technologies in higher edu-
cation: A case of incorporating blogs, podcasts and social bookmarks in a web pro-
gramming course based on students’ learning styles and technology preferences.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 98–109.
Sánch, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook for
academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138–149.
Schrader, D. E. (2015). New directions for teaching and learning, no.144. Wiley Online
Library. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/tl.20160
Schwartz, D., & Gorman, A. (2003). Community violence exposure and children’s aca-
demic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 163–173.
Scott, S., Mandryk, R., & Inkpen, K. (2003). Understanding children’s collaborative
interactions in shared environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2),
220–228.
278 Journal of Educational Computing Research 57(1)

Selwyn, N. (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning-a
critical review. Paper presented for CERI-KERIS international expert meeting on ICT
and educational performance, Cheju Island, South Korea, 16–17.
Shariff, S., & Johnny, L. (2007). Cyber-libel and cyber bullying: Can schools protect
student reputations and free expression in virtual environments? McGill Journal of
Education, 16, 307–342.
Shittu, A., Madarsha Basha, K., & Ahmad, T. (2011). Investigating students’ attitude and
intention to use Social software in higher institution of learning in Malaysia. Retrieved
from http://eli.elc.edu.sa/2011/sites/default/files/slides/
Shoshani, Y., & Rose Braun, H. (2007). The use of the Internet environment for enhan-
cing creativity. Educational Media International, 44(1), 17–32.
Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Song, J., & Kim, Y. J. (2006). Social influence process in the acceptance of a virtual
community service. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(3), 241–252.
Stevens, V. (2009). Modeling social media in groups, communities, and networks. Tesl-Ej,
13(3), 1–16.
Stoughton, J., Thompson, L., & Meade, A. (2015). Examining applicant reactions to the
use of social networking websites in pre-employment screening. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 30(1), 73–88.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent rela-
tionships. Future Children, 18(1), 119–146.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for
transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50–60.
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tarantino, K., McDonough, J., & Hua, M. (2013). Effects of student engagement with
social media on student learning: A review of literature. Retrieved from http://studen-
taffairs.com/ejournal/Summer
Tariq, W., Mehboob, M., Khan, M., & Ullah, F. (2012). The impact of social media and
social networks on education and students of Pakistan. International Journal of
Computer Science Issues, 9, 407–411.
Tess, P. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)—A
literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 60–68.
Tokunaga, R. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyber bullying, victimization. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(3),
277–287.
Varnhagen, C., & Husband, A. (2011). Retrieved from http://ctl.ualberta.ca/sites/default/
files/files/Social Media- Use and Usefulness at the University of Alberta-Report of
TLAT Subcommittee on Social Media.pdf
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, G., & Davis, B. (2003). User acceptance information technology:
Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Vollum, M. J. (2014). The potential for social media use in K-12 physical and health
education. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 560–564.
Sarwar et al. 279

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Gauvain, M. &

Cole, M. (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 34–40). New York, NY:
Scientific American Books.
Walker, C., Sockman, B., & Koehn, S. (2011). An exploratory study of cyberbullying
with undergraduate university students. TechTrends, 55, 31–38.
Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and know-
ledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.
Weller, K. (2016). Trying to understand social media users and usage. Online Information
Review, 40(2), 256–264.
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifica-
tions approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4),
362–369.
Williams, D. C. (2012). The use of social media: An exploratory study of uses among
digital natives. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 127–126.
Wolf, M. M. (2012). Using social media for collaboration about industry news in higher
education. Princeton, NJ: American Association of Wine Economists 2012 AAWE.
Wu, M. (2010). Structural equation model-use and application of AMOS. Chongqing,
China: Chongqing University Press.
Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogel, D., & Kwok, R. C.-W. (2010). Can learning be virtually
boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts. Computers &
Education, 5(4), 1494–1503.
Zhou, H., Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2010). The effect of flow experience on mobile SNS users’
loyalty. Industrial Management & Data System, 110(6), 930–946.

Author Biographies
Binesh Sarwar is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Science and
Technology of China, School of Public Affairs. Her research interests include
social media and public administration, online student engagement and collab-
orative learning, social capital, and entrepreneurial learning.

Salman Zulfiqar is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Science and

Technology of China, School of Public Affairs. His research interests include
entrepreneurial intention and learning, online social capital and trust, and social
networking policy.

Saira Aziz is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Science and

Technology of China, School of Management. Her research interests include
retailing and consumer behavior issues in retailing management.

Khurram Ejaz Chandia is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Science

and Technology of China, School of Public Affairs. His research interests
include Economic Policy and Management.