| Literature DB >> 35899006 |
Shuai Liu1, Ghulam Hussain Khan Zaigham2, Rao Muhammad Rashid3, Ahmad Bilal4.
Abstract
Social media has always been described as the channel through which knowledge is transmitted between communities, students, and learners. This social media has been utilized by university students in a way to encourage collaborative learning and social interaction. This study explores the use of social media in the process of collaborative learning among university students in China using a survey method, a total of 583 students from different universities were surveyed in this study. Through this investigation, different factors enhancing collaborative learning among university students in the context of using social media are going to be examined. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and hierarchical regression were used to analyze the suggested hypothesis. Results show that perceived benefit, active learning, and interaction with students are significantly related to social media collaboration. However, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness have an insignificant effect on social media collaborative learning. Additionally, students' academic self-efficacy significantly moderates the relationship between social media collaboration and learning performance. The implication and limitations of the study are also discussed in the last section.Entities:
Keywords: academic self-efficacy; collaborative learning; learning performance (LP); perceived ease of use; social media
Year: 2022 PMID: 35899006 PMCID: PMC9309218 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.903919
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Survey questionnaire.
| Constructs and measurement | Scale |
| Likert 1–5 | |
| 1–5 Scale | |
| 1–5 Scale | |
| 1–5 Scale | |
| Likert 1–5 Scale | |
| Likert 1–5 Scale | |
| Likert 1–5 Scale | |
| Likert 1–5 Scale | |
Demographic information of the samples.
|
| Percentage | |
|
| ||
| Male | 224 | 38.40 |
| Female | 360 | 61.60 |
|
| ||
| 21–30 years old | 279 | 47.80 |
| 31–40 years old | 264 | 45.20 |
| 41–50 years old | 41 | 7.00 |
|
| ||
| Bachelors/Undergraduate | 97 | 16.60 |
| Masters/Graduate | 328 | 56.20 |
| Doctoral degree | 159 | 27.20 |
Means, standard deviation, and correlations.
| Variable |
| SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 1. Perceived benefit | 3.93 | 0.78 |
| ||||||||||
| 2. Active learning | 4.01 | 0.36 | −0.05 |
| |||||||||
| 3. Perceived ease of use | 3.98 | 0.60 | −0.04 | 0.46 |
| ||||||||
| 4. Perceived usefulness | 2.95 | 0.64 | −0.11 | 0.38 | 0.14 |
| |||||||
| 5. Interaction with students | 3.29 | 0.78 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 0.28 | 0.38 |
| ||||||
| 6. Social media collaborative | 361 | 0.99 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.34 | 0.01 | 0.17 |
| |||||
| 7. Academy self-efficacy | 368 | 0.81 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 0.62 |
| ||||
| 8. Learning performance | 3.62 | 0.74 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.46 | 0.39 |
| |||
| 9. Education level |
|
| 0.03 | 0.03 | −0.06 | −0.05 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
| ||
| 10. Age |
|
| 0.05 | −0.10 | −0.04 | 0.08 | 0.02 | −0.11 | −0.08 | −0.17 | −0.21 |
| |
| 11. Gender |
|
| 0.01 | −0.07 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.04 | −0.09 | −0.06 | −0.10 | 0.01 | 0.07 |
|
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.001. M, mean; SD, standard deviation. The diagonal elements are the square root of the AVE. Boldface numbers are the squirt of the AVE.
Comparison measure model and structural model.
| Absolute fit measures | Incremental fit measures | Parsimonious fit measures | ||||||
| Model | SRMR | RMSEA | NFI | PNFI | CFI | IFI | TLI | |
| MM | 4.53 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.88 | 0.76 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.89 |
| SEM | 1.86 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
| Variable name | Items | Loadings | CA | CR | AVE |
| Perceived benefit | PB1 | 0.852 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.74 |
| PB2 | 0.871 | ||||
| PB3 | 0.837 | ||||
| PB4 | 0.832 | ||||
| PB5 | 0.899 | ||||
| PB6 | 0.841 | ||||
| PB7 | 0.891 | ||||
| Active learning | AL1 | 0.833 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.66 |
| AL2 | 0.864 | ||||
| AL3 | 0.844 | ||||
| AL4 | 0.773 | ||||
| AL5 | 0.740 | ||||
| Perceived ease of use | PEOU1 | 0.690 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.57 |
| PEOU2 | 0.699 | ||||
| PEOU3 | 0.714 | ||||
| PEOU4 | 0.838 | ||||
| PEOU5 | 0.834 | ||||
| Perceived usefulness | PUF1 | 0.757 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.64 |
| PUF2 | 0.809 | ||||
| PUF3 | 0.830 | ||||
| PUF4 | 0.826 | ||||
| PUF5 | 0.821 | ||||
| PUF6 | 0.757 | ||||
| Interaction with students | IS1 | 0.787 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.72 |
| IS2 | 0.788 | ||||
| IS3 | 0.766 | ||||
| IS4 | 0.874 | ||||
| IS5 | 0.839 | ||||
| Social media collaborative | SM1 | 0.913 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.66 |
| SM2 | 0.808 | ||||
| SM3 | 0.932 | ||||
| SM4 | 0.770 | ||||
| SM5 | 0.749 | ||||
| SM6 | 0.723 | ||||
| Academy self-efficacy | ASEF1 | 0.814 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.67 |
| ASEF2 | 0.846 | ||||
| ASEF3 | 0.898 | ||||
| ASEF4 | 0.778 | ||||
| ASEF5 | 0.755 | ||||
| ASEF6 | 0.829 | ||||
| Learning performance | LP1 | 0.860 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.66 |
| LP2 | 0.804 | ||||
| LP3 | 0.812 | ||||
| LP4 | 0.898 | ||||
| LP5 | 0.763 | ||||
| LP6 | 0.678 | ||||
| LP7 | 0.860 |
Items, no of items used in constructs; Loadings, Factor Loading; CA, Cronbach’s alpha; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
FIGURE 1Structural model. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001. ns, non-significant.
Results of hierarchical regression.
| Regression analysis | ||||
|
| ||||
| Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
| Gender | −0.09 | −0.05 | −0.05 | −0.04 |
| Age | 0.16 | 0.10 | −0.10 | −0.12 |
| Education | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.02 |
|
| ||||
| Social media collaborative | 0.44 | 0.34 | 0.34 | |
|
| ||||
| Academy self-efficacy | 0.16 | 0.25 | ||
|
| ||||
| Social media collaborative × Academy self-efficacy | 0.18 | |||
|
| 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.0.24 | 0.27 |
| Adjusted | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.024 | 0.26 |
| Changed | 0.03 | 0.19 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| F Change | 7.89 | 146.0 | 12.08 | 20.05 |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.
FIGURE 2Moderating effect of academic self-efficacy with the relationship of social media learning collaborative and learning performance. SMCL, social media learning collaborative; ASELF, Academic Self-efficacy.