The Role of Social Media for Collaborative Learning to Improve Academic Performance of Students and Researchers
Al-Rahmi, Othman, and Yusuf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
193
collaborative learning is supported indicating the impact of social media on the engagement
between research group members and the supervisor.
The findings in Table 5 also shows that satisfaction of students and researchers
positively and
significantly related with their academic performance (β = 0.367, p < 0.001). Hence, hypothesis
H12 that proposed a significant relationship between satisfaction of students and researchers and
their academic performance is supported. This indicates that discussions with
group member or
supervisors through social media’s collaborative learning improve the academic performance of
students and researchers. The findings in Table 5 also confirmed that collaborative learning
positively and significantly related with students and researchers’ engagement (β = 0.330, p <
0.001) indicating that hypothesis H7 that proposed a significant
relationship between
collaborative learning and engagement to improve academic performance of
students and
researchers when using social media is supported. Next, hypothesis eight was
also supported in
its proposition that collaborative learning positively and significantly related with satisfaction of
students and researchers (β = 0.315, p < 0.001). This shows that exchange of information with
group members increases the knowledge sharing capabilities and facilitates
discussion among
research group members and peers. The findings also showed that engagement positively and
significantly related with satisfaction of students and researchers (β = 0.287, p < 0.001). Hence,
hypothesis H10 was supported as it proposed a significant relationship between engagement and
satisfaction of students and researchers. This reveals the students and researchers’
satisfaction
when engaging with their group members and supervisors or lecturers.
.35
GM
.56
SU
.31
IU
CL
EN
RS
AP
.15
.14
.25
e1
1
.18
e2
1
.19
e3
1
.18
e4
1
.19
.17
.31
.17
.19
.38
.21
.27
.29
.24
.14
.40
.33
Figure 2. Results of the proposed framework