Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of King Saud University –

Computer and Information Sciences
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Integrating social media as cooperative learning tool in higher education

classrooms: An empirical study
Mostafa Hamadi ⇑, Jamal El-Den, Sami Azam, Narumon Sriratanaviriyakul (‘‘(Cherry)”)
Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Dr, Casuarina, NT 0810, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recently, Social Media (SM)’s adoption as educational instruments in Higher Education (HE) has been
Received 30 August 2020 gaining popularity among researchers and practitioners. Nonetheless it has been adopted to support var-
Revised 10 December 2020 ious learning approaches such as Cooperative Learning (CL). Despite the growing research in this field,
Accepted 13 December 2020
few studies have proposed a comprehensive SM integration framework as well as empirical studies to
Available online 6 January 2021
evaluate its effectiveness. This paper examines how SM is being used as a pedagogical tool in HE and
identifies major factors that drives SM’s inclusion in HE classrooms. In addition, the paper investigates
Keywords:
the effectiveness of a previously proposed integration framework which was developed to promote CL
Social media
Higher education
using a popular SM platform, LinkedIn. A survey was administered to collect data from students in differ-
Cooperative learning ent subjects at a university in Australia. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was adopted for data anal-
Integration framework ysis using IBM’s SPSS26 and AMOS26. One of the notable results of this study is the significant positive
LinkedIn relation found between the use of the adopted integration framework and CL, SM challenges’ mitigation,
students’ intention to use SM and their learning process. The findings of this study have important impli-
cations for practice and pave the way for future empirical studies.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction It is important to understand how SM is being used in educa-

Currently, there is a growing number of researches that address
the influence of Social Media (SM) on universities (Greenhow et al.,
2020; Manca, 2020; Pimmer and Rambe, 2018). The opportunities
offered by SM in education are not limited to boosting interactions
between students and instructors but also extend to support
evidence-based learning such as Cooperative Learning (CL)
(Zheng et al., 2015). Despite the growing use of SM platforms such
as Facebook, LinkedIn, etc., in Higher Education (HE) as learning
tools, the adoption of SM as formal Teaching and Learning (T&L)
tools by educators remains quite limited and subject to myriads
of restrictions, as well as lacking standard integration models
and frameworks (Chawinga, 2017).
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mostafahamadi@outlook.com (M. Hamadi), jamal.el-den@cdu.
edu.au (J. El-Den), Sami.Azam@cdu.edu.au (S. Azam), Narumon.Sriratanaviriyakul@
cdu.edu.au (N. Sriratanaviriyakul).
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
tional settings in order to effectively integrate it in HE classrooms
(Al-Rahmi et al., 2018). Accordingly, examining current relevant
researches is necessary to synthesize the knowledge generated in
this field as well as to identify major factors that drives SM’s inclu-
sion in HE classrooms. Though, many studies such as (Aborujilah
et al., 2017; Neier and Zayer, 2015) have been limited to self-
reported isolated studies that examine the perceptions and views
of students on SM in education. Hence, recent researchers such
as (Rahman et al., 2020; Stathopoulou et al., 2019) suggested the
need for further experiment-based studies to investigate the vari-
ous factors that impact SM’s integration in HE. Hamadi et al.
(2020)’s research is among the very few studies which provide a
comprehensive SM integration framework in HE (Fig. 1). Nonethe-
less, empirical studies which examine SM’s adoption based on a
pre-developed integration framework such as Hamadi et al.
(2020)’s framework are very limited. This research examines the
adoption of SM in HE’s classrooms as CL tools following a pre-
developed integration framework (Fig. 1) using LinkedIn in a des-
ignated Information Technology course at an Australian university.
Accordingly, it examines five identified factors as follows: SM chal-
lenges, students’ intention to use SM, SM integration guide or ‘‘in-
structions” ((Hamadi et al.,2020)’s framework), students’ learning
process and cooperative learning.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2020.12.007
1319-1578/Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731

Fig. 1. The adopted SM integration framework (Hamadi et al., 2020).

Hamadi et al. (2020)’s framework shown in Fig. 1 is a novel fra-
mework which was developed in a recent study through an inte-
grative review of current available SM adoption models in HE
(Hamadi et al. 2020). The framework was developed to enhance
the students’ learning process through incorporating CL principles
in the form of SM activities. The adopted framework is explained
further in section 2.2.
The paper answers the following research questions:
in HE. Third, it builds on the findings of previous research by the
authors to validate the previously developed SM framework
(Fig. 1). Hence, the main contribution of this paper is ‘‘the proposed
hypothetical model” as shown in Fig. 2. In addition, this study con-
tributes to the current understanding of how SM is being used as
part of CL initiatives in HE. Accordingly, the paper sets out new
grounds for SM’s effective integration in HE.

(RQ1) How is SM being used as a pedagogical tool in HE? What

are the major factors that drives SM’s inclusion in HE
classrooms? Students’ Intention to
Use SM

(RQ2) Can the adopted integration framework ensure an effec-
tive implementation of a SM platform ‘‘LinkedIn” as a CL tool? H1
The Adopted SM Student’s Learning
Cooperative Learning
1.1. Contribution to research Integration Guide Process
H3 H4
H2
The authors were motivated to conduct this research based on
three major factors. First, to fulfil the gap in current literature by Mitigating SM
Challenges
examining the implementation of SM in HE’s classrooms following
a pre-developed integration framework. Second, to investigate (at
a granular level) five identified factors that drives SM’s adoption Fig. 2. The Research Model with Hypothesis.

3723
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al.
2. Literature review
2.1. SM’s use in education
Implementing SM as a learning tool in educational settings is
driven by the shift towards adopting learner-centred environments
within universities (Liburd and Christensen, 2013). This approach
is based on active learning where the instructor is a facilitator of
the learning process rather than the disseminator of knowledge,
where students interact and participate in the learning process
(Freeman et al., 2014). Since SM in education would intrinsically
promote active learning, researchers have applied respective theo-
ries as well as technology adoption theories as theoretical basis for
its integration in HE classrooms (in the literature, ‘‘classrooms”
often refers to ‘‘learning environments”). An extract of the major
theories currently used by some researchers to investigate SM’s
inclusion in HE, are outlined as follows, Uses and Gratifications
Theory (UGT) (Ahern et al., 2016; Gruzd et al., 2018), Connectivism
(Goldie, 2016; Ripiye et al., 2017), Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Alenazy et al., 2019) and
Constructivist-based theories such as Online Collaborative Learn-
ing theory (OCL) and CL (Ansari and Khan, 2020; Harasim, 2012).
There is a growing number of studies that examines SM’s adop-
tion in HE within various academic disciplines, such as literacy
education (Blattner and Fiori, 2009), medical (Pander et al.,
2014), marketing and social sciences disciplines (McCorkle and
McCorkle, 2012; Tuten and Marks, 2012). Recently, (Rehm et al.,
2019)’s extensive research provided an in-depth analysis of data
on more than eighty thousand articles which identified various
SM topic clusters within the educational sector. Nonetheless,
SM’s use in HE was predominantly associated with promoting
information sharing, enhancing interaction and engagement,
boosting collaboration and cooperation (Brown et al., 2016;
Greenhow and Burton, 2011; Gruzd et al., 2018). In medical educa-
tion, SM is used as part of student-centred learning approaches i.e.
flipped classrooms, cooperative and collaborative learning meth-
ods (Alenazy et al., 2019; Chugh and Ruhi, 2018; Dyson and
Casey, 2016). However, none of the mentioned researches pro-
posed nor validated a SM integration framework such as Fig. 1.
Sceptics of SM in education have identified major challenges or
‘‘resistance” to its inclusion in academic disciplines as follows:
- Personal privacy: In many research, such as (Alkis et al., 2017;
Au and Lam, 2015; Chugh and Ruhi, 2018), SM platforms ‘‘pri-
vacy” has been regarded as a critical concern not only for stu-
dents and instructors using SM for educational purposes but
also for its formal adoption by HE institutions (Chugh and
Ruhi, 2018). Given the high standards of privacy within HE set-
tings, the ubiquitous nature of SM can be a challenging feature
(Davis III et al., 2012).
- Ambiguity concerns: which refer to a blur in SM’s use among
education stakeholders (students and instructors). Rambe and
Ng’ambi (2014) found that students had major concerns regard-
ing the use of SM for educational purposes reporting a blur
between academic and personal space on SM (Rambe and
Ng’ambi, 2014). In 2012, Hrastinski and Aghaee’s study found
that the educational benefits to using SM were not apparent
to many of the interviewed students (Hrastinski and Aghaee,
2012). These studies, along with others such as (Smith, 2016),
highlighted the student’s ambiguity regarding the use of SM
as educational tools, especially in HE classrooms.
- Other researchers such as (Bahati, 2015; Harran and Olamijulo,
2014; Sobaih et al., 2016) identified ‘‘technical concerns” i.e.
internet access, accessibility on various devices (mobile), data
limitations issues and other related technical issues as critical
3724
Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731
barriers to SM’s inclusion in HE classrooms, especially in devel-
oping countries. However, since this research addresses the
issue of implementing SM in a HE classroom within an Aus-
tralian university, the adopted framework (Fig. 1) did not
emphasize on mitigating this challenge as it considered its
impact to be minor.
- In addition, several researchers such as (Junco and Cotten,
2012; Paul et al., 2012; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2016) reported
that education stakeholders are concerned about the workload
when SM is used in HE classrooms. To mitigate this challenge,
researchers such as (Zheng et al., 2015) suggested that educa-
tors should follow well-designed instructions (a guide) to
ensure the success of SM’s integration in HE. Accordingly, this
research acknowledges the significance of this finding, hence,
it adopts a SM integration guide (section 2.2) which was devel-
oped to provide education stakeholder with clear instructions
to follow in order to alleviate this challenge.
In addition to the above described challenges or ‘‘barriers” to
SM in education, a growing number of researches suggested that
students’ intention to use SM is key factor leading to its adoption
as it impacts the success of the SM adoption process
(Balakrishnan, 2017; Ifinedo, 2017; Odewumi et al., 2018). Thus,
educators should understand that promoting and improving stu-
dents’ intention to use SM is key to its effective integration in HE
classrooms. Current researchers such as (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018;
Alenazy et al., 2019; Dumpit and Fernandez, 2017) focused on
investigating the students’ intentions to use SM as a major factor
for its adoption in HE.
SM’s inclusion in HE’s classrooms is driven by aims to enhance
the students’ learning process, especially by promoting specific
pedagogical approaches such as CL. Many current researches indi-
cate a connection between SM’s integration in education and stu-
dents’ learning process (Gan et al., 2015; Tartari, 2015). To
understand and evaluate the impact of the integration process on
the students’ learning process, educators can resort to various
approaches such as seeking constructive feedback and reflections
from students throughout the process, or at the conclusion of the
integration process. Recent research on the students’ learning pro-
cess suggested different tools, methods and approaches to assess
and evaluate this process, most notable is Biggs et al. (2001)’s
revised two-factor study process questionnaire.
Accordingly, this paper identifies five major factors which drive
SM’s integration in HE classrooms. These factors are integrating SM
based on an appropriate pedagogy approach, addressing SM’s chal-
lenges in education, using instructions (an integration guide) to
steer the integration process, students’ intention to use SM for edu-
cational purposes and students’ learning process.
2.2. The proposed integration framework
The adopted integration framework (Fig. 1) was developed
previously by Hamadi et al. (2020) with the aim to enhance the
students’ learning process through incorporating CL principles in
the form of SM activities (Hamadi et al., 2020). The framework
(Fig. 1) is the outcome of an in-depth integrative review followed
by a thematic review. It includes six themes as major components
which address different aspects of the integration process:
Establishing strong pedagogical basis for the integration process
(LEVEL 1), Mitigating major challenges associated with SM in
education (LEVEL 2 & LEVEL 3), Developing clear measures and
guidance (instructions) for students, Developing Incentives to
encourage students’ participation in the activities and Control
and monitoring of activities (LEVEL 4), and finally, Evaluating the
integration process (LEVEL 5).
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al.
A pedagogical approach should be supported by the built-in fea-
tures and characteristics of the selected SM platform. As a logical
consequence, a SM platform is to be selected based on its attributes
(features, options, characteristics, etc.) which best support the
adopted pedagogical approach. LinkedIn was selected because of
its popularity among CDU’s students who are highly familiar with
its functionalities and features. In addition, staff at CDU use Linke-
dIn in various ways and are highly familiar with it. In addition,
many researchers found that LinkedIn increased student’s collabo-
ration and engagements which are core objectives of CL (Cooper
and Naatus, 2014; Gerard, 2012; Lofgren et al., 2015). Nonetheless,
its built-in functions can facilitate the mitigation process of the
identified SM challenges, as per level 3 in Fig. 1.
2.3. Cooperative learning
The adopted integration framework (Fig. 1) was developed to
support CL through the use of specific SM activities. There are over-
whelming literary evidences that supports the adoption of CL
approaches as effective pedagogical practices to enhance students
learning (Slavin, 2014). For instance, developing practical methods
(i.e. SM activities) based on research-validated theory such as CL,
would promise positive outcomes in the intended learning envi-
ronment (Slavin, 2014). Nonetheless, it is important to establish
a clear distinction between CL and collaborative learning, as the
two terms cannot be used interchangeably (Moallem, 2001).
Johnson et al. (1994) defines CL as the ‘‘instructional use of
small students’ groups for them to work together and maximise
their individual as well the group’s overall learning” (Johnson
et al., 1994). Thus, CL is based fundamentally on the concept that
developing interpersonal skills is as important as learning itself
(Scager et al., 2016). Kagan and Kagan (1998) summarizes the prin-
ciples of CL in the acronym PIES which stands for Positive interde-
pendence, Individual accountability, Equal participation and
Simultaneous interaction (Kagan and Kagan, 1998). The SM activi-
ties adopted in the research’s framework (Fig. 1) were designed
specifically to address CL principles and are adopted from (Smith
and Waller, 1997).
Despite sharing similar goals, as both cooperative and collabo-
rative learning are founded on the constructivist model of learning
(Moallem, 2001), there are several fundamental differences
between the two. (Doyle et al., 2015) outlines the major differences
between cooperative and collaborative learning approaches as fol-
lows (three fundamental differences listed):
- Task completion: team members in collaborative learning
attempt to complete tasks together (rather than following
‘‘the equal participation principle” in CL).
- Group members’ roles: assigned roles in CL, while shifting roles
in collaborative learning.
- Problems to be solved: closed in CL, whereas in collaborative
learning they are open-ended.
3. Research methodology and data collection
3.1. Course design and implementation
This research adopted LinkedIn at specific Master’s level sub-
jects at an Australian university, Charles Darwin University
(CDU), first, to investigate the framework’s effectiveness in sup-
porting students’ learning process. Second, to provide students
with an alternative to face-to-face collaboration mediums during
COVID-19 pandemic. During the first week of semester 1, 2020,
all university classes moved into full online delivery mode due to
changed regulations and restrictions caused by the pandemic (i.e.
social distancing).
3725
Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731
3.2. The SM integration guide
In this study, a student-friendly version of the developed SM
integration guide was distributed to the students at the start of
semester 1. Students were asked to create personal profiles (if
not yet created) on LinkedIn and join private groups (unlisted
groups) that were specifically created for the subjects’ assign-
ments’ collaboration. The guide encouraged students to participate
in activities that promote CL on the groups. Students used Linke-
dIn’s various features and options to communicate, interact, collab-
orate and share ideas and information about assignments with
their peers and to optionally communicate with their instructors
who also joined the groups.
3.3. Participants
151 students in Information Systems, Data Science and Soft-
ware Engineering degrees participated in the experiment and they
were asked to follow the SM guide. There were 53 groups of 2-to-3
students in total. In the last week of the semester, participants vol-
unteered to complete an online anonymous survey.
3.4. The survey
The research used a survey design, in which uncontrolled data
was collected using a standardized instrument (Fowler, 2013) to
measure the outcomes of the experiment, especially the effective-
ness of the framework. The survey was adapted from existing
instruments that have measured similar or the same constructs
(Biggs et al., 2001; Gerard, 2012; Lorenzo-Romero and Gomez-
Borja, 2012; McCorkle and McCorkle, 2012; Tsay and Brady,
2010). This approach was chosen because it helps ensure that the
items have been validated in similar contexts (Fowler, 2013).
The survey was developed based on Likert-scale questions and
was open during the last week of the semester. It included 20 ques-
tions using five options Likert scale (Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neutral, Agree and Strongly Agree). The scales and sources of items
within the survey are shown in Table 1. These items were used to
explicitly address each construct included in the research model.
(Note: SI: Students’ intention to use SM, LP: students’ Learning Pro-
cess, GE: SM integration guide, CL: Cooperative Learning, SMC:
Social Media Challenges).
4. The research model
The framework’s SM activities (Fig. 1) were transformed into a
SM integration guide (as described in 3.2). Since this research
focuses on validating the effectiveness of the adopted SM integra-
tion framework, ‘‘the adopted SM integration guide” was a major
construct in the model (Fig. 2). In addition, CL is included as a con-
struct since it is the pedagogical basis of the adopted framework.
Other constructs were also included, namely Mitigating SM chal-
lenges, Students’ intention to use SM and Students’ Learning Pro-
cess. The meaning and definition of each term (variable) is as
follows:
‘‘The Adopted SM Integration Guide” is an independent variable
that represents the transformed version (guide) of the adopted
integration framework in this experiment (also referred to as
instructions) (as described earlier in section 3.2). The ‘‘Students’
Intention to Use SM” is a dependent variable that represents the
intentions of students to use LinkedIn for learning purposes (as dis-
cussed in section 2.1). ‘‘Mitigating SM Challenges” is a dependant
variable that represents the impact of measures prescribed in the
adopted integration framework as shown in Level 3 of Fig. 1 (sec-
tion 2.2). ‘‘Student’s Learning Process” is a dependant variable
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731

Table 1 in this experiment. Accordingly, this research examines the rela-

Summary of survey items and sources for research instrument. tionship between the students’ intention to use LinkedIn in educa-
Code Variable Source tion and the adopted SM integration guide (Fig. 2) to assess and
SI1 I will recommend the use of this site to (Lorenzo-Romero and validate the effectiveness of the adopted integration framework,
others Gomez-Borja, 2012) as well as to find out whether such literary’ positive effects can
SI2 I would be happy to continue using (Lorenzo-Romero and be verified in this empirical study. Hence, the following hypothesis
LinkedIn on future assignments. Gomez-Borja, 2012) was developed, Hypothesis 1 (H1): The SM integration Guide has a
SI3 Overall, I had a positive experience using N/A
LinkedIn for developing group assignments.
positive correlation to students’ intention to use LinkedIn in
LP1 The use of LinkedIn to complete my (Biggs et al., 2001) education.
assignments complemented my aim to pass Current studies such as (Alkis et al., 2017; Au and Lam, 2015;
the course while doping as little work as Chugh and Ruhi, 2018a, 2018b; Rambe and Ng’ambi, 2014;
possible.
Hrastinski and Aghaee, 2012) suggest that common SM challenges
LP2 Using LinkedIn in my unit is aligned with (Biggs et al., 2001)
my belief that studying academic topics can , namely privacy and ambiguity concerns are major barriers to its
at times be as exciting as a good novel or acceptance as an educational tool. Hence, the success of SM’s inte-
movie? gration in HE depends on implementing appropriate measures to
LP3 While using LinkedIn in my unit, I restricted (Biggs et al., 2001) mitigate and moderate these challenges (Zheng et al., 2015). The
my study to what is specifically set as I
use of well-developed instructions (guidelines to use SM) which
think it is unnecessary to do anything extra.
GE1 The LinkedIn user guide insured a high level (Gerard, 2012) address common SM challenges can ensure a successful integration
of academic language professionalism process (De Wever et al., 2015; Menzies et al., 2017; Zheng et al.,
during group assignments’ development. 2015). Other researches such as (Anderson, 2019) emphasized
GE2 In general, Social Media’s use as part of (McCorkle and
the importance of mitigating SM’s challenges to promote and
learning must only be permitted if guided McCorkle, 2012)
by the instructors? encourage its use for learning in HE. The adopted SM integration
GE3 The guide provided clear instruction on (McCorkle and guide addresses two privacy and ambiguity concerns and promotes
how to start discussions, interact, work McCorkle, 2012) SM practices and activities to address these challenges throughout
collaboratively and manage time effectively the implementation process as shown in Fig. 1, level 3. To assess
while using linked in.
the effectiveness and competence of the adopted guide in mitigat-
CL1 In my opinion, LinkedIn helped me (Tsay and Brady,
accomplish the group’s goals and provide 2010) ing the identified challenges, hence ensuring a successful imple-
constructive feedback to my team mentation of SM, Hypothesis 2 (H2) was developed: ‘‘The SM
members. integration Guide has a positive correlation to mitigating relevant
CL2 In my opinion, I find LinkedIn very effective (Tsay and Brady,
SM challenges”.
in ensuring members in my team are held 2010)
accountable for completing their share of
As described earlier, SM’s inclusion in HE’s classrooms is driven
the group work. by aims to enhance the students’ learning process, especially by
CL 3 Using LinkedIn raised my cooperation level, (Tsay and Brady, promoting specific pedagogical approaches such as CL in this
helped me learn from other members and 2010) study. Current researches such as (Gan et al., 2015; Rasiah, 2014;
contribute ideas to the group.
Tartari, 2015) indicate a connection between SM’s integration in
SMC1 LinkedIn privacy features insured high level (Gerard, 2012)
of personal and group privacy. education and students’ learning process. Hence, the success of
SMC2 The LinkedIn user guide answered my (Gerard, 2012) SM’s adoption in education can be weighed based on its impact
privacy concerns regarding using SM as an on the students’ learning process. In this experiment, the adopted
educational tool.
integration framework (Fig. 1) was developed based on an integra-
SMC The LinkedIn user guide provided by the N/A
3 lecturer was very clear and included all
tive review of six current studies which found significant influence
necessary instructions to use LinkedIn for by the use of SM platforms in classrooms on students’ learning pro-
group assignments? cess Chookaew, 2015; Menzies et al., 2017). The adopted integra-
tion framework aims to enhance the students’ learning process
by implementing specific measures as shown in level 5 of the
framework (Fig. 1). In order to assess the competence of the
which reflects how students’ approach their learning (as discussed adopted guide, the following Hypothesis 3 (H3) was developed:
in section 2.1). ‘‘Cooperative Learning” is a dependant variable ‘‘The guided SM integration process has a positive correlation to
which is associated with the fulfilment of key CL characteristics the Students’ learning process”.
(as discussed in section 2.3). Table 1 provides a list of items for Current researches such as (Slavin, 2014) suggest that devel-
each variable used in this study. In what follows, a description of oping practical methods (i.e. SM activities) based on research-
the underlying hypothesis is presented. validated theory such as CL, would promise positive outcomes
Four hypotheses as shows in Fig. 2 were developed to assess the in the intended learning environment. Researches such as
effectiveness of the integration framework as well as to find out (Bagarukayo, 2018; Chookaew, 2015; Menzies et al., 2017)
whether the reported literary’ positive effects can be verified in found SM’s use in HE classrooms to positively impact CL in
this empirical study: HE by addressing its key characteristics which include interde-
The literature suggests that students’ intention to use SM is pendence and individual accountability. The adopted SM inte-
major factor that plays an important role in the success of SM’s gration framework was developed to promote CL by
integration process (Balakrishnan, 2017; Ifinedo, 2017; addressing it key principles through promoting specific SM
Kanthawongs et al., 2013; Odewumi et al., 2018). Current research- activities adopted from (Smith and Waller, 1997). Nevertheless,
ers such as (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Alenazy et al., 2019; Dumpit and the SM integration guide is anticipated to directly impact the
Fernandez, 2017) suggested that students’ intention to use SM student learning process. Given that the students’ learning pro-
should be examined as a major factor leading to its adoption in cess should be examined for its impact on CL (which is the out-
learning. Given that the adopted integration framework (Fig. 1) come), the following hypothesis was developed, Hypothesis 4
was developed to ensure a successful adoption of SM in learning, (H4): ‘‘The student learning process has a positive correlation
it is important to examine the impact it has on students’ intentions to the CL pedagogy”.

3726
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al.
5. Data analysis and results
5.1. Measurement model analysis
This research adopted a Structural Equation Model (SEM) for
data analysis using SPSS Statistics and Amos 26. To ensure the
model’s validity, legitimacy and dependability, first, a Common
Method Bias (Harman’s test) and an Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) were employed and results accepted. Next, the Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrated an accepted model fit (see
Fig. 3). The results of the analysis showed the overall goodness of
fit using the following fit indices (v2, df, v2/df, RMR, IFI, TLI, CFI
and RMSEA) as shown in Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha and Composite
Reliability (CR) were used to measure the internal consistency reli-
ability as seen in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the values of both,
Cronbach’s Alpha and CR were above the threshold of 0.7, thus, the
reliability is confirmed. In addition, Table 3 shows factor loadings
and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) which were used for the
measurement of convergent validity. The results showed that both
measures are accepted (values of factor loadings were all above 0.5
and the values of AVE were all above of 0.5) (Hair et al., 1998).
Nonetheless, convergent validity alone is not enough to estab-
lish the construct validity, thereby, discriminant validity was
Fig. 3. The Research’s Measurement Model.
3727
Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731
tested using Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) which is regarded
as a significant measure for testing the discriminant validity
(Henseler et al., 2015). Table 4 indicates that the HTMT ratio has
been confirmed, given that all values conform with the thresholds
(0.850 for strict and 0.900 for liberal discriminant validity) thus,
the discriminant validity has also been established. Accordingly,
the measurement model is confirmed, and this lead to proceed
with the assessment of the structural model. Note: CL: Cooperative
Learning, GE: SM integration guide, SI: Students’ intention to use
SM, SMC: Social Media Challenges, LP students’ Learning Process.
5.2. Structural model and results of Hypothesis testing
Fig. 4 shows the results of the research model using Amos 26. It
shows the hypotheses estimates which are used to examine the
relations between the model’s constructs. The results support the
adopted integration framework as the relations between its’ con-
struct (Integration_Guide) and all other constructs were found to
be positive and significant (see Table 5). Table 5 illustrates stan-
dard errors for the structural model. Note: (***<0.001).
The relation between the use of the adopted SM integration
guide and the students’ intention to use SM was found to be
positive and significant with (b = 0.818, p < 0.001). This finding
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731

Table 2
Fitness of Measurement Model.

Model v2 df v2/d RMR IFI TLI CFI RMSEA

Base 52.762 41 1.287 0.28 0.99 0.984 0.990 0.048

Table 3
Measurement Model Results.

Constructs Items Factor Loading Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE

CL CL1 0.889 0.897 0.827 0.668
CL2 0.744
CL3 0.813
GE GE1 0.865 0.911 0.885 0.758
GE2 0.905
GE3 0.842
SI SI1 0.887 0.0882 0.872 0.788
SI2 0.889
SMC SMC1 0.648 0.732 0.826 0.606
SMC2 0.891
LP LP1 0.824 0.777 0.8133 0.645
LP2 0.782

Table 4
HTMT Analysis.

GE SI CL LP SMC
GE
SI 0.821
CL 0.850 0.775
LP 0.889 0.770 0.763
SMC 0.764 0.765 0.724 0.846

Fig. 4. Results of The Proposed Model (hypotheses estimate).

Table 5
Hypotheses Testing Results.

H Independent Relationship Dependent Path Estimate SE C.R P Result

H1 GE ? SI 0.867 0.818 0.083 9.816 *** Supported
H2 GE ? SMC 0.813 0.616 0.066 9.332 *** Supported
H3 GE ? LP 1.035 0.782 0.081 9.609 *** Supported
H4 LP ? CL 0.914 1.075 0.136 7.886 *** Supported

supports H1 proposing a significant relationship between SM The relation between the adopted SM integration guide and the
integration Guide and students’ intention to use LinkedIn in mitigation of relevant SM challenges was found to be positive and
education. significant with (b = 0.616, p < 0.001). This finding supports H2

3728
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al.
proposing a significant relationship between the adopted SM inte-
gration guide and the mitigation of relevant SM challenges.
The relation between the adopted SM integration guide and stu-
dents’ learning process was found to be positive and significant
with (b = 0.782, p < 0.001). This finding supports H3 proposing a
significant relationship between the adopted SM integration guide
and students’ learning process.
The relation between the students’ learning process and CL ped-
agogy was found to be positive and significant with (b = 1.075,
p < 0.001). This finding supports H4 proposing a significant rela-
tionship between the students’ learning process and CL pedagogy.
In addition, Fig. 2 shows an indirect effect of GE on CL which is
(fully) mediated by variable LP. The indirect relations between GE
and CL was found to be positive and significant with (b = 0.841)
which is between bounds of 0.705–1.04.
5.3. Discussion of results
H10 s result shows that the adopted integration framework was
successful in impacting students’ intention to use SM in learning.
Although researches such as (Zheng et al., 2015) emphasised the
importance of providing students with a predeveloped guide (in-
structions) to ensure the success of the integration framework,
the current literature lacks empirical studies that examines the
relationship between a predeveloped SM integration framework
and the students’ intention to use SM. Hence, this paper adds a
new finding into the body of knowledge by identifying a significant
relation between the use of a SM integration guide and students’
intention to use SM. Accordingly, the adopted guide in this exper-
iment (Fig. 1) proved to be effective at influencing students’ inten-
tion to use SM which is a key factor for a successful SM integration
in HE classrooms as identified by many researches such as
(Balakrishnan, 2017; Ifinedo, 2017).
H20 s result indicates that the adopted guide was effective in
mitigating the specified SM challenges (Fig. 1). Similar results, such
as, (Sobaih et al., 2016) recommended that faculty should imple-
ment appropriate measures to to mitigate SM challenges. In addi-
tion, (Au and Lam, 2015; Bahati, 2015)’s findings suggest that
addressing SM’s challenges in education would promote its accep-
tance as an educational tool. Furthermore, (Au and Lam, 2015) sug-
gested that appropriate planning of SM’s integration in education
might mitigate its barriers. This result adds a new finding into
the body of knowledge by providing empirical evidence which
shows that well-developed instructions (the adopted guide) can
be effective in mitigating the identified common challenges which
were identified by many researches such as (Alkis et al., 2017;
Chugh and Ruhi, 2018; Rambe and Ng’ambi, 2014; Hrastinski and
Aghaee, 2012) as common barriers to its adoption in learning .
Slavin (2014) suggested that developing practical methods (i.e.
SM activities) based on research-validated theory such as CL, can
promise positive outcomes in the intended learning environment.
Other studies such as (Gan et al., 2015) suggested that SM’s use
in HE impacts students’ leanring process. However, the literature
lacks studies that exmaine the impact of SM’s adoption follwing
a predeveloped guide on students’ learning process. H30 s result
provides empirical evidence that shows the effectiveness of using
a predeveloped integration framework to enhance student’s learn-
ing. This result also proves the importance of using instructions (a
guide) when adopting SM in learning to enhance students’ learning
process.
H40 s result indicates that the student’s learning process
impacted CL in the examined classrooms. Accordingly, the adopted
framework which includes specific SM activities that were adopted
from (Smith and Waller, 1997) was able to achieve Cl in the desig-
nated classrooms. In addition, this result provides empirical evi-
dence that support the use of a predeveloped SM integration
3729
Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731
framework to achieve CL. Hence, this result is in line with previous
findings, namely (Chookaew, 2015; De Wever et al., 2015; Menzies
et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2015) who stated that SM can achieve CL
in HE classrooms if implemented in accordance with well-designed
instructions (such as guides).
6. Implications
This research examined the relationship between five identified
constructs on the adoption of SM in HE as follows: CL, The SM inte-
gration guide, Mitigating SM challenges, Students’ intention to use
SM and Students’ learning process. The four hypothesises related
to the use of the adopted integration framework (as in Fig. 1)
and its impact on major factors for SM’s use in HE (see Fig. 2) were
all supported by the analysis of empirical results (Table 5).
Nonetheless, the results of this study were consistent with findings
by (Gan et al., 2015; Rasiah, 2014; Tartari, 2015) suggesting that
SM’s inclusion in HE classrooms contributed positively to students’
learning process. In addition, empirical results were consistent
with several studies such as (Chookaew, 2015; De Wever et al.,
2015; Menzies et al., 2017) which suggested that SM can be effec-
tive in achieving CL within HE classrooms.
The findings of this study stress on the importance of adopting a
comprehensive integration framework to implement SM in HE
classrooms. Accordingly, the followings highlight major practical
and theoretical contribution of this research.

The integration framework (Fig. 1) which proved to have direct
impact on major factors that influences SM’s use in HE (Fig. 2),
can effectively steer and guide the integration process.

The adopted conceptual integration framework (Fig. 1) supports
the use of SM as a CL tool, ensures the mitigation of the identi-
fied major SM challenges (Fig. 1), and impacts students’ inten-
tion to use SM and enhances their learning process. Hence,
this paper proposes a new factor to be considered when exam-
ining SM’s adoption in HE, namely ‘‘Instructions”.

The validation and establishment of a novel framework for inte-
grating SM as CL in HE classrooms (Fig. 1).
7. Limitations
Notwithstanding the merits of this study, some limitations
must be acknowledged. First, the experiment was conducted on
IT courses, hence, survey data were gathered solely from IT stu-
dents which does not provide a comprehensive presentation of
all student population at the mentioned university. The experi-
ment was held within three different classes, to ensure the partic-
ipation of a diversified student group (including, domestic,
international, units of different level (first year and second year
units), external and internet students). Secondly, LinkedIn was
selected specifically for this study. Though, LinkedIn share many
similar built-in features and characteristics with other popular
SM platforms, thus, lessons learned from this study may be appli-
cable on experiments using various SM platforms such as Face-
book, twitter, and wikis. Lastly, the research model focussed on
the relation between the adopted integration framework and four
major factors for SM’s use education. The risk of this limitation was
overcome by discussing the findings of other similar studies which
examined other factors that influences SM’s integration in HE.
Hence, the links between this study and previous relevant studies
were adequately established in the literature review as well as in
the discussion section of this research.
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al.
8. Conclusion and future studies
The pedagogical arguments for SM’s use in HE have its roots in
existing theoretical research. This paper examined current major
research in this field of study to develop an adequate understand-
ing of how SM is being used as a pedagogical by identifying major
factors affecting its inclusion in HE classrooms. Based on an exten-
sive literature review, the paper identified five major factors which
drive SM’s integration in HE classrooms: integrating SM based on
an appropriate pedagogy approach, addressing SM’s Challenges in
education, students’ intention to use SM for educational purposes,
use of instructions and students’ learning process. In addition, the
paper assessed the effectiveness of the adopted SM integration
guide and examined its impact on students’ learning process. The
framework proved to have direct and indirect impact on the iden-
tified factors. Accordingly, it should be employed by instructors to
facilitate SM’s integration in HE’s classroom, ultimately to scaffold
student’s learning process.
Further empirical studies will be conducted based on the
adopted integration framework in different HE settings, namely
in courses other than IT, in order to share best practices and teach-
ing tips on incorporating SM such as LinkedIn into diverse HE
courses. In addition, other SM platforms will be the focus of the
authors’ future similar experiments. Such studies would be very
useful to assess the effectiveness of the adopted framework under
various conditions, thus, establishing it as a comprehensive inte-
gration framework. Future study will also address the relation
between the adopted integration framework and factors other than
those identified in this research, especially the ubiquity of the SM
platform, learning attributes (i.e. deep learning) and other learning
approaches (i.e. project-based, problem-based, etc..).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Aborujilah, A., Nassr, R., Saadat, M.N., Abdullah, M., 2017. Lecturers’ perception on
social media networks uses in education. In: Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and
Communication, pp. 1–6.
Ahern, L., Feller, J., Nagle, T., 2016. Social media as a support for learning in
universities: an empirical study of Facebook Groups. Journal of Decision
Systems 25, 35–49.
Al-Rahmi, W.M., Alias, N., Othman, M.S., Marin, V.I., Tur, G., 2018. A model of factors
affecting learning performance through the use of social media in Malaysian
higher education. Comput. Educ. 121, 59–72.
Alenazy, W.M., Al-Rahmi, W.M., Khan, M.S., 2019. Validation of TAM model on
social media use for collaborative learning to enhance collaborative authoring.
IEEE Access 7, 71550–71562.
Alkis, Y., Kadirhan, Z., Sat, M., 2017. Development and validation of social anxiety
scale for social media users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 72, 296–303.
Anderson, T., 2019. Challenges and Opportunities for Use of Social Media in Higher
Education. Journal of Learning for Development 6, 6–19.
Ansari, J.A.N., Khan, N.A., 2020. Exploring the role of social media in collaborative
learning the new domain of learning. Smart Learning Environments 7, 1–16.
Au, M., Lam, J. 2015. Social media education: Barriers and critical issues. Technology
in Education. Transforming educational practices with technology. Springer.
Bahati, B., 2015. Extending student discussions beyond lecture room walls via
Facebook. Journal of Education and Practice 6, 160–171.
Balakrishnan, V., 2017. Key determinants for intention to use social media for
learning in higher education institutions. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 16, 289–301.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., Leung, D.Y., 2001. The revised two-factor study process
questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71, 133–149.
Blattner, G., Fiori, M., 2009. Facebook in the language classroom: Promises and
possibilities. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning 6, 17–28.
Brown, M.G., Wohn, D.Y., Ellison, N., 2016. Without a map: College access and the
online practices of youth from low-income communities. Comput. Educ. 92,
104–116.
3730
Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731
Chawinga, W.D., 2017. Taking social media to a university classroom: teaching and
learning using Twitter and blogs. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education 14, 3.
Chookaew, S. 2015. Using Social Media-based Cooperative Learning to Enhance Pre-
Service Teachers’ Computer Multimedia Instruction Performance.
Chugh, R., Ruhi, U., 2018. Social media in higher education: A literature review of
Facebook. Education and Information Technologies 23, 605–616.
Cooper, B., Naatus, M.K., 2014. LinkedIn as a learning tool in business education.
American Journal of Business Education (AJBE) 7, 299–306.
Davis III, C. H., Deil-Amen, R., Rios-Aguilar, C., Gonzalez Canche, M. S. 2012. Social
Media in Higher Education: A literature review and research directions.
De Wever, B., Hämäläinen, R., Voet, M., Gielen, M., 2015. A wiki task for first-year
university students: The effect of scripting students’ collaboration. The Internet
and Higher Education 25, 37–44.
Doyle, C., Sammon, D., Neville, K., 2015. Building an evaluation framework for social
media-enabled collaborative learning environments (SMECLEs). Journal of
Decision Systems 24, 298–317.
Dumpit, D.Z., Fernandez, C.J., 2017. Analysis of the use of social media in Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) using the Technology Acceptance Model.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 14, 5.
Dyson, B., Casey, A., 2016. Cooperative learning in physical education and physical
activity: A practical introduction. Routledge.
Fowler JR, F. J. 2013. Survey research methods, Sage publications.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., Mcdonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H.,
Wenderoth, M.P., 2014. Active learning increases student performance in
science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 8410–
8415.
Gan, B., Menkhoff, T., Smith, R., 2015. Enhancing students’ learning process through
interactive digital media: New opportunities for collaborative learning. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 51, 652–663.
Gerard, J.G., 2012. Linking in with LinkedInÒ: Three exercises that enhance
professional social networking and career building. Journal of Management
Education 36, 866–897.
Goldie, J.G.S., 2016. Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age?.
Med. Teach. 38, 1064–1069.
Greenhow, C., Burton, L., 2011. Help from my ‘‘friends”: Social capital in the social
network sites of low-income students. Journal of Educational Computing
Research 45, 223–245.
Greenhow, C., Galvin, S., Brandon, D., Askari, E., 2020. A decade of research on K-12
teaching and teacher learning with social media: Insights on the state-of-the-
field. Teachers College Record 122.
Gruzd, A., Haythornthwaite, C., Paulin, D., Gilbert, S., Del Valle, M.E., 2018. Uses and
gratifications factors for social media use in teaching: Instructors’ perspectives.
New Media & Society 20, 475–494.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. 1998. Multivariate
data analysis, Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harasim, L. 2012. Introduction to learning theory and technology, Chapter 1.
Learning Theory and Online Technologies.
Hamadi, M., El-Den, J., Azam, S., Sriratanaviriyakul, N., 2020. A Novel Framework for
Integrating Social Media as Cooperative Learning Tool in Higher Education’s
Classrooms. in press. In press.
Harran, M., Olamijulo, C., 2014. Social media communication spaces to develop
literacies in a higher education language classroom context. South African
Journal of Higher Education 28, 410–435.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135.
Hrastinski, S., Aghaee, N.M., 2012. How are campus students using social media to
support their studies? An explorative interview study. Education and
Information Technologies 17, 451–464.
Ifinedo, P., 2017. Examining students’ intention to continue using blogs for learning:
Perspectives from technology acceptance, motivational, and social-cognitive
frameworks. Comput. Hum. Behav. 72, 189–199.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E. J., Holubec, E. J. 1994. The new circles of
learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school, ASCD.
Junco, R., Cotten, S.R., 2012. No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and
academic performance. Comput. Educ. 59, 505–514.
Kagan, S. , Kagan, M. 1998. Staff development and the structural approach to
cooperative learning. Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues
and approaches, 103-121.
Kanthawongs, P., Kanthawongs, P. , Chitcharoena, C. Applying the technology
acceptance model in a study of the factors affecting intention to use Facebook in
education of the Thai University Students. Proceedings of the 7th International
Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics. Retrieved July, 2013.
2013.
Liburd, J.J., Christensen, I.-M.F., 2013. Using web 2.0 in higher tourism education.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12, 99–108.
Lofgren, E.A., Shultz, A.M., Porr, C.S., 2015. Social Media and Equine Science: The
Effect of LinkedIn on In-Class Engagement of Equine Higher Education Students
1. NACTA J. 59, 208.
Lorenzo-Romero, C., Gomez-Borja, M.-A., 2012. Analysis of acceptance of
social networking sites. African Journal of Business Management 6, 8609–
8619.
Manca, S., 2020. Snapping, pinning, liking or texting: Investigating social media in
higher education beyond Facebook. The Internet and Higher Education 44,
100707.
M. Hamadi, J. El-Den, S. Azam et al.
Mccorkle, D.E., Mccorkle, Y.L., 2012. Using LinkedIn in the marketing classroom:
Exploratory insights and recommendations for teaching social media/
networking. Marketing education review 22, 157–166.
Menzies, R., Petrie, K., Zarb, M., 2017. A case study of Facebook use: Outlining a
multi-layer strategy for higher education. Education and information
technologies 22, 39–53.
Moallem, M., 2001. Applying constructivist and objectivist learning theories in the
design of a web-based course: Implications for practice. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society 4, 113–125.
Neier, S., Zayer, L.T., 2015. Students’ perceptions and experiences of social media in
higher education. Journal of Marketing Education 37, 133–143.
Odewumi, M.O., Yusuf, M.O., Oputa, G.O., 2018. UTAUT Model: Intention to
Use Social Media for Learning Interactive Effect of Postgraduate Gender
in South-West Nigeria. International Journal of Education and
Development using Information and Communication Technology 14,
239–251.
Pander, T., Pinilla, S., Dimitriadis, K., Fischer, M.R., 2014. The use of Facebook in
medical education–A literature review. GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische
Ausbildung 31.
Paul, J.A., Baker, H.M., Cochran, J.D., 2012. Effect of online social
networking on student academic performance. Comput. Hum. Behav.
28, 2117–2127.
Pimmer, C. , Rambe, P. 2018. The Inherent Tensions of ‘‘Instant Education”: A Critical
Review of Mobile Instant Messaging. International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 19.
Rahman, S., Ramakrishnan, T., Ngamassi, L., 2020. Impact of social media use on
student satisfaction in Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly 74, 304–
319.
Rambe, P., Ng’ambi, D., 2014. Learning with and from Facebook: Uncovering power
asymmetries in educational interactions. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology 30.
Rasiah, R.R.V., 2014. Transformative higher education teaching and learning: Using
social media in a team-based learning environment. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences 123, 369–379.
3731
Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 3722–3731
Rehm, M., Manca, S., Brandon, C., Greenhow, C., 2019. Beyond disciplinary
boundaries: Mapping educational science in the discourse on social media.
Teachers College Record 121, 14.
Ripiye, P.-R., Bacon, L., Mackinnon, L. , Walker, S. The use of social media in MOOCs:
A review of literature. ECSM 2017 4th European Conference on Social Media,
2017. Academic Conferences and publishing limited, 381.
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T. , Alemán, A. M. M. 2016. Social Media in Higher Education:
ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 42, Number 5, John Wiley & Sons.
Scager, K., Boonstra, J., Peeters, T., Vulperhorst, J., Wiegant, F., 2016. Collaborative
learning in higher education: Evoking positive interdependence. CBE—Life
Sciences. Education 15, ar69.
Slavin, R.E., 2014. Cooperative Learning and Academic Achievement: Why Does
Groupwork Work?.[Aprendizaje cooperativo y rendimiento académico:¿ por
qué funciona el trabajo en grupo?]. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology
30, 785–791.
Smith, E.E., 2016. ‘‘A real double-edged sword:” Undergraduate perceptions of social
media in their learning. Comput. Educ. 103, 44–58.
Smith, K.A., Waller, A.A., 1997. Cooperative learning for new college teachers. New
paradigms for college teaching, 185–209.
Sobaih, A.E.E., Moustafa, M.A., Ghandforoush, P., Khan, M., 2016. To use or not to
use? Social media in higher education in developing countries. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 58, 296–305.
Stathopoulou, A., Siamagka, N.-T., Christodoulides, G., 2019. A multi-stakeholder
view of social media as a supporting tool in higher education: An educator–
student perspective. European Management Journal 37, 421–431.
Tartari, E. 2015. The use of social media for academic purposes in student’learning
process. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 4, 393-393.
Tsay, M., Brady, M., 2010. A case study of cooperative learning and communication
pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference?. J. Scholarship Teaching
Learn., 78–89
Tuten, T., Marks, M., 2012. The adoption of social media as educational technology
among marketing educators. Marketing Education Review 22, 201–214.
Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Warschauer, M., 2015. Wikis and collaborative learning in
higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 24, 357–374.