SOCIAL MEDIA EFFECTS ON THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

The American University in Cairo

Graduate School of Education

THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF

NILE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of International & Comparative Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Educational Leadership

By Gina Mowafy

Under the supervision of Dr. Gihan Osman

Spring 2018
 Abstract

The Internet and in particular social media applications such as Facebook, YouTube and
many others, are obviously “overtaking the world” and could be regarded as “a global
consumer phenomenon” (Camilia, Ibrahim, & Dalhatu, 2013) . Social media usage is
one of the most common activities among children, adolescents, and emerging adults
nowadays. It offers today’s youth a portal for entertainment and communication and it is
becoming one of the main platforms for accessing information and news. This aggressive
adoption of social media among the younger generation could be attributed to their up to
date knowledge of and comfort with the latest technology and the convenient
accessibility to these social networking tools (Vorderer, 2016). This study aims to shed
the light on the social media effects on the academic performance of university students
in Egypt and aims to clarify to different stakeholders the relationship between the social
media usage and academic performance and to harness full potential of social media. This
study examines the role of social media in students’ academic endeavors and ultimately
their academic performance through their reported perceptions and reflections. It also
examines factors that might influence the nature of this relationship, and its tentative
impact on the academic performance of Nile University undergraduate students. An
explanatory sequential mixed method approach is employed in order to get both
quantitative and qualitative data, the responses of 442 Nile university undergraduate
student were collected and were scored, coded and inserted into SPSS, and were analyzed
using multiple statistical descriptive and inferential statistical tests based on the research
question and the nature of the data to be analyzed using frequency tables, crosstabs,
Anovas, post hocs and t-tests. The findings of the study explains the perception of Nile
university students of social media effects on their academic performance, and to what
extend do they use social media for academic related purposes, and it explores the effect
of the different academic majors, academic statues and gender on the social media usage
perception and usage. Significant differences in the behavior of students from different
academic majors and different academic status in perceiving and using social media
emerged which might require further investigation.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Gihan Osman, her
door was always open and welcoming whenever I need a question, she steered me in the
right direction, supported me psychologically and the most of all, she pushed me to my
limits. I would like also to thank my readers, Dr. Malak Zalouk and Dr. Maha Bali,
whom had helped me in gaining insights. I am really grateful and indebted to their very
valuable and helpful comments on my thesis.

I must acknowledge my genuine gratitude to my mother Nancy Ghaleb, and my

sister Fatema Mowafy, who provided me with continuous support and encouragement in
both getting my master’s degree and also completing it, and providing me with unfailing
help throughout my research and writing process and also my years of study. They
always lifted me up through my ups and downs and this accomplishment would not have
been possible or completed without them; thank you for guiding me in the right direction.

Finally, I would also like to thank my husband Ehab Hassan who supported me
emotionally and pushed me to purse my dream. I dedicate this work to my daughter Lana
Ehab and my brother Yassin Mowafy, so that they learn that persistence is the key of
success.

3
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 9

Background and Significance 9

Statement of the Problem 11

Purpose of the Study 11

Research Questions 13

Chapter 2 14

Literature Review 14

The Concept of Social Media 14

Influence of Social Media on Students’ Academic Performance 17

Gender Usage of Social Media 22

Social Media Usage in Egypt 23

Theoretical Framework 25

Chapter 3 29

Research Design 29

The Context 29

Population of the Study 30

Sampling 31

Participants 31

4
 Research Instrument 34

Pilot Study 35

Reliability and Validity of the Instrument 36

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures 36

Results 39

Discussion 71

Conclusion and Recommendations 73

References 76

Appendices 86

Appendix 1 86

Appendix 2 90

Appendix 3 91

Appendix 4 92

Appendix 5 117

5
List of Tables

Table 2. 1 Forms of social media adapted from Grahl (2012) as cited in Alwagait

(2015) 15

Table 3. 1 Nile University Undergraduate Students 30

Table 3. 2 Gender 31

Table 3. 3 Academic Status 32

Table 3. 4 Major 32

Table 3. 5 Focus group participants’ demographics 33

Table 3. 6 Responses on the students’ usage of social media for academic related

purposes 39

Table 3. 7 Responses on the impact of social media on the students’ academic

engagement and performance 43

Table 3. 8 GPA Categorization 47

Table 3. 9 Social Media Hours Categorization 47

Table 3. 10 Number of Hours on Social Media Categorization 48

Table 3. 11 Means and standard deviations of the GPA, number of study hours and

number of hours on social media. 48

Table 3. 12 Correlation between GPA, number of study hours and number of hours on

social media 49

Table 3. 13 Chi-Square Test for Gender and engagement in academically related social

media activities 52

6
Table 3. 14 Chi-Square Test for Academic status and engagement in academically

related social media activities 53

Table 3. 15 Chi-Square Test 55

Table 3. 16 Chi-Square Tests 56

Table 3. 17 Chi-Square Tests 58

Table 3. 18 Chi-Square Tests 59

Table 3. 19 Multiple Comparison table for 10 statements: 60

7
List of Figures

Figure 1 Coding System of the Students 38

Figure 2 Gender and engagement in academically related social media activities 51

Figure 3 Academic status and engagement in academically related social media

activities 53

Figure 4 Frequency distribution of the academic major variable 55

Figure 5 Frequency distribution of the academic major variable 56

Figure 6 Frequency distribution of the academic major variable 57

Figure 7 Frequency distribution of the academic major variable 59

Figure 8 The first research questions themes and subthemes 63

8
 Chapter 1

Background and Significance

Advances in Internet technologies have spurred on compelling changes in how we

interact, communicate, learn, and build knowledge. For much of the connected world, it
permeates nearly every aspect of our existence from shopping and banking, to
communication and education among many other pursuits (Tariq, Mehboob, Khan, &
Ullah, 2012). In general worldwide Internet users have increased rapidly between 2005
and 2014 (Freund & Weinhold, 2002). In 2015, there were 6.5 billion Internet users
around the world and in 2014 they became 7.2 billion (Singh, 2017). The Internet and in
particular social media applications such as Facebook, YouTube and many others, are
obviously “overtaking the world” and could be regarded as “a global consumer
phenomenon” (Camilia, Ibrahim, & Dalhatu, 2013). According to Grossman (2010) if
Facebook were a country it would be the third largest country after China and India and
twice as big as the United States of America. According to Facebook statistics “more
than 30 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo
albums) are shared each month” and “People on Facebook install 20 million applications
everyday” (2011,PARA.2&4). On YouTube every minute, 10 hours of content are
uploaded to the video sharing platform.

It is not surprising that social media usage is one of the most common activities
among children, adolescents, and emerging adults nowadays. It offers today’s youth a
portal for entertainment and communication and it is becoming one of the main platforms
for accessing information and news. The social media usage of American adults aged 18–
29 years who represent the higher percentage of university students rose from 12 percent
in 2005 to 90 percent in 2015 (Perrin, 2018). Also in Egypt, the rate of social media users
is increasing, El Gazzar (2013) mentioned that social media users specifically those who
are using Facebook have exceeded seven million which is (9.76%) of the population,
(40%) of these are between 18-24 years old. Saied, ElSabagh and El-Afandy, (2016)
reported that this percentage has increased to 54.6% in 2015; more than 80 percent of
them are young people specifically university students.

9
 This aggressive adoption of social media among the younger generation, according to
Vorderer (2016) could be attributed to their up to date knowledge of and comfort with the
latest technology and the convenient accessibility to these social networking tools. For
instance, they can access social media from their cell phones any time any place. This
encourages them to use social media not only for receiving and retrieving information,
but also for being online and connecting with others, and from being from being
consumers and participants to “prosumers” which means that they consume and produce
media on the social media platform (as cited in Obar & Wildman, 2015)

The social media craze has also hit university and post-secondary institutions,
which cannot remain impartial to these rapidly changing technologies (Dumpit &
Fernandez, 2017). Putting into consideration how social media became embedded within
the young generation lifestyle, college student affairs professionals found a way to use
social media as a method of communication between the college administration and the
students (Junco, 2012). Furthermore, most of the universities nowadays have an official
page or group on one of the social media networks where students, professors and staff
can share resources and interact (Selwyn, 2009). DeAndrea, Ellison, LaRose, Steinfield
and Fiore (2012) mentioned that many universities have even established their own social
media networks in order to help new students to socialize and connect with the faculty
members, staff, and alumni and to establish a sense of connection with the institution.
Using social media networks in such a way helps in facilitating the process of knowing
more about campus facilities, activities and events especially for the freshman students,
and ultimately adjusting to university life.

Researchers found various effects of social media use on college students’

experiences Junco (2014). Some of the mentioned effects are: enhanced self-esteem
(Gonzales & Hancock, 2011; Mehdizadeh, 2010; Tazghini & Siedlecki, 2013) as well as
the development of identity and peer relationships (Pempek, Yermolayeva & Calvert,
2009), relationship building and maintenance (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007; 2011;
Ellison, Vitak, Gray & Lampe, 2014; Manago, Taylor & Greenfield, 2012; Valenzuela,
Park & Kee, 2009), higher life satisfaction, social trust, civic engagement, and political
participation (Valenzuela, Park & Kee, 2009) student engagement (Heiberger & Harper,

10
2008; HERI, 2007; Junco, 2012; Junco, Elavasky & Heiberger, 2012; Loken, 2011), as
well as perceptions of social and academic integration (Selwyn, 2009; Yu, Tian, Vogel &
Kwok, 2010), perceptions of social support (DeAndrea, Ellison, Larose, Steinfield &
Fiore, 2011; Manago, Taylor & Greenfield, 2012).

The impact of social media on learning and teaching is increasingly considered and
debated among higher education scholars, administrators, and stakeholders. Lynn, Healy,
Kilroy, Hunt, Werff, Venkatagiri and Morrison (2015) considered social media as one of
the game-changers in the realm of learning and instruction. Selwyn (2012) discussed the
implications of social media for new types of learners, learning and higher education
provision. McLoughlin & Lee (2010) stated that using social media networks in the
educational process could help educators to apply the inquiry-based approach and
encourage the collaboration between the instructor and the students, thereby encourage
engagement. Also important is the potential of these technologies for encouraging
independent self-directed learning as well as encouraging students’ as active producers of
knowledge (Dumpit & Fernandez, 2017), which once again is commonly regarded as a
positive affordance for media.

Although a very large community exists online, including on social media, that
focuses on education, this might not be the case for university students (Tariq et al.,
2012); even though the majority of students are active users on social media networks,
yet 70 percent of them do not use social media for academic purposes (Jones, Blackey,
Fitzgibbon, & Chew, 2010). Tariq et al. (2012) are some of the researchers that
emphasize that the affordances of technologies might have severe negative consequences
on “social networks addicts.” They, for example, fear that “social networks grab the total
attention and concentration of the students and divert them towards non educational,
unethical, and inappropriate actions such as useless chatting, time killing by random
searching “(p. 409).

Statement of the Problem

Bennett, Maton and Kervin (2008) are an example of educators that suggested
that using media technology can help students enhance their academic performance. Yet,
many educators and parents are worried that their children and students are spending too

11
much time using social media networks. Some institutions and instructors ban the use of
social media in classrooms believing that it negatively impacts students’ attention,
engagement, and accordingly their GPA.

Rambe (2012) indicated that “the essentialist view that new technological innovations
(especially Social Media) disrupt higher education delivery ride on educators’ risk averse
attitudes toward full scale adoption of unproven technologies. However, this
unsubstantiated logic forecloses possibilities for embracing the constructive dimensions
of disruptions, and grasping the tremendous academic potential of emerging
technologies.” (p.132). The results of previous research is not conclusive, with some
studies suggesting a negative impact for social media, and others suggesting promising
opportunities for engagement. Over generalizations regarding the impact of social media
are obviously not justified. More needs to be discovered about the variables that influence
this relationship and about strategies that help students, faculty, and higher education
institutions harness the full potential of these pervasive technologies. The study aims to
uncover some of these factors. Culture and context also play an important role in the
adoption and usage of innovation. The study fills yet another gap by shedding the light on
the social media effects on the academic performance of university students within the
Egyptian context.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to examine the role of social media in students’
academic endeavors and ultimately their academic performance through their reported
perceptions and reflections. It also seeks to examine factors that might influence the
nature of this relationship, and its tentative impact on the academic performance of Nile
University undergraduate students. The results of this study are expected to be of benefit
to stakeholders at Nile University and beyond. It is expected that the results will provide
a deeper understanding of the phenomenon at hand, especially within the Egyptian local
context. It will also help the university administrators and faculty members recognize the
extent to which university students’ use social media and in what ways it might impact
their academic engagement and performance, and accordingly make more informed
decisions with regard to the usage of social media for academic purposes.

12
 Research Questions
In order to find out the relationship between the extended usage of social media
among college students and their academic performance, this study will answer the
following questions:

1. To what extent do undergraduate students at Nile University use social media for
academic-related purposes?
2. How do students perceive the impact of social media on their academic engagement
and performance?

3. What is the relationship between academic performance and use of social media?

A. Number of hours (social media)

B. Number of study hours

C. GPA

4. What is the relationship between each of the three variables, gender, academic status,
and academic major and: 1) use of social media, and 2) perception of the impact of social
media on academic engagement.

13
 Chapter 2
Literature Review
In this study four main themes will be addressed through analysis and research that
will help in understanding the effect of social media usage among college students on
their academic performance followed by the theoretical framework. The four main
themes that were are: the concept of social media, influence of Social Media on Students’
Academic Performance, gender usage of social media and social media usage in Egypt.

1) The Concept of Social Media

Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) defined social media as “Internet based applications
that allow the creation and exchange of content which is user generated” (p.61). They
stated that social media was first known in1979, when Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis
from Duke University created the Usenet, a worldwide discussion system that
allowed Internet users to post public messages; and also when Bruce and Susan
Abelson founded “Open Diary” in 1998.Open Diary was an early social networking
site in which members of a certain community shared their daily diary online and the
word “blog” was first used at the same time. Before the second stage of development
of the Internet, “Web 2.0,” in the late 1990’s, users browsed only for the aim of
getting information through reading from various resources and watching videos
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) users at this
time were considered consumers not participants. It was mentioned in Ritzer and
Jurgenson (2010) study (as cited in Obar & Wildman, 2015) afterwards, Web 2.0,
representing the second stage of the Internet development namely “User Generated
Content (UGC)”, Internet users were transformed from being consumers and
participants to “prosumers” which means that they consume and produce media (as
cited in Obar & Wildman, 2015). These new affordances are what made the
applications and dynamic interaction of social networking possible. Some of the
common features that qualify a tool to be considered a social networking site are:
enabling users to communicate with each other in an easy way and allowing users to
exchange information, pictures and messages (Dijck, 2011). There are many forms of
social media, presented in the table below, which allow users to interact with other
media users of their choice.

14
Table 2.1

Forms of social media adapted from Grahl (2012) as cited in Alwagait (2015)

Forms of social media Description

Services in which users set up a profile in

order to establish a connection with friends
or other users, who have similar
backgrounds or interests. The profile

Social networking sites (SNS) contains a users’ personal information.

SNS provide various ways for users to
interact with one another. Examples of
SNS include Facebook and LinkedIn

Services which allow users to save, search

and organize links to various Internet
resources and websites. Some services will
allow the tagging of links in order for them
Bookmarking sites
to be shared easily as well as being
searched for. Examples of bookmarking
sites are Diigo and Delicious

Services which combine SNS and blogging

but the messages exchanged are limited in
terms of size. Users have to subscribe to
Micro blogging sites
the services. Examples of micro blogging
sites include Twitter.

Media sharing sites Services which allow users to upload and

15
 share media such as videos and photos as
well as allowing users to comment and tag
media. Examples of media sharing services
include YouTube and Flickr

Services that allow other users to vote on

news articles and links to external articles,
which are posted by users. The news
articles that get the most votes are
Social news sites
displayed more prominently on the site.
Examples of social news sites include
Digg and Reddit

Blogs are like online diaries of thoughts,

which give other users the opportunity to
post comments on the blog postings.
Blogs and forums Forums allow registered users to have
conversations with other users by post
messages. Examples of blogging sites
include WordPress and Blogger

While social media networks collect a lot of personal data about the users, they also
afford the privacy of the users. For example, the visibility of the online profiles
depends on the social media network website privacy terms and conditions. Boyd and
Ellison (2007) mentioned that LinkedIn controls what the user can display and see
according to the user’s subscription and paid fees. On the contrary, Facebook users’
profiles are available to all other users in the same network, unless a profile owner
decides to change the privacy options. Moreover, private messaging, comments and

16
 friends features differ from one social media network website to another depending
on the feature and user base (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).

With all the features social media are providing, they have facilitated the lives of
millions of people. Although they are easily accessible and despite the tremendous
opportunities they offer, social media can have their drawbacks. Issues of privacy,
detachment from reality and being the target of advertisers are some of the main
concerns. However, they are creating a new communication landscape that is yet to
be discovered and used.

2) Influence of Social Media on Students’ Academic Performance

Using social media to enhance the learning process can take a number of forms, target
various skills, and utilize different tools. University educators propose that social media
can have a positive influence on interaction, engagement, knowledge building, and sense
of community (Rovai, 2001). However there is also research that shows that these same
tools can distract learners from their studies, and encourage procrastination and
superficial thinking. The following section will present some of the studies that addressed
the relationship between social media and academic performance and learning. This
review presents a snapshot mainly on studies dealing with the most popular social
networking tools such as Facebook, rather than a comprehensive review of all forms of
social media.

Studies generally imply that social media is mainly used by college students to
socialize rather than for academic pursuits. Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) found out
that college students around the age of 20 with accounts on Myspace or Facebook use
these systems “to keep in touch with old friends” (96.0%), “to keep in touch with my
present friends (91.1%), “to post/look at pictures” (57.4%), “to make new friends”
(56.4%), and “to locate old friends” (54.5%). But only 10.9 percent stated that they used
it “for academic purposes”, and only 12.9 percent listed their courses on their profiles.
Similarly, Michikyan, Subrahmanyam, and Dennis (2015) used a mixed-method
approach to investigate the relationship between online academic disclosure (namely
status updates about their academic experiences) and academic performance for 261
students with an average age of 22 years. Thematic analysis of their posts indicated that

17
14% of their contributions to Facebook were academic in nature. On the other hand, the
majority of students in Camilia, Sajoh, and Dalhtu (2013) used social media for academic
purposes.

Several studies suggest that the time spent on social media takes away from the time
available for studying. Alwagait, Shahzad, and Alim (2015) investigated to role of social
media on academic performance of 108 Saudi students. Survey data revealed that Twitter
was the most popular social network followed by Facebook. The average number of
hours spent by students on social media was 25.3 hours. Sixty percent of the respondents
acknowledged that excessive use of social media negatively impacted their performance,
and indicated that 10 hours per week of use would ensure that their academic
performance is not negatively impacted. SimilarlyKrischner and Karpinski (2010) noted
that some students do not have control on their social media while engaged in academic
activities, and that they spend more time on these networks than they do studying or
sleeping. They point out that empirical research suggests the negative impact of multi-
tasking, or attempting to simultaneously process different sources of information, on
performance. They underscore that this leads to increased study time and an increased
number of mistakes on assignments. Junco (2013) examines the relationship between
Facebook activity, time taken for class preparation and overall GPA for 1839 students.
Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that time spent on Facebook was
significantly negatively correlated with overall GPA, but only weakly related to time
spent on class preparation. Moreover, using Facebook to search for information was a
positive predictor of GPA while time spent on socializing was a negative predictor.

Some studies delve deeper into the phenomenon of spending too much time on social
media and almost portray it as a coping mechanism. Student in Krischner and Karpinski
(2010) for example, did not believe that it impacted their academic performance
negatively. Those who did report a negative influence explained social media as a
strategy for guiltless procrastination. The path analysis conducted by (Michikyan,
Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2015), mentioned earlier, for example, determined that
academic performance was a predictor of Facebook use rather than the opposite. Students
with low GPA are more active on Facebook than students with high GPA; one of the

18
reasons of this is the fact that students, who are facing academic or social problems turn
to Facebook as a way of distraction from the difficulties that they are facing. Similarly,
Fogel, and Nutter-Upham (2011)’s study about the self-reported executive functioning
associated with academic procrastination by distributing a thirty minutes questionnaire on
212 university students, showed that there is a relationship between social media use,
procrastination and poor academic performance, between 30 to 60 percent of college
students stated that they use social media to procrastinate on their academic duties and
socialize or surf the internet.

Very few studies have investigated variables that might impact how, when, and to
what extent students used social media. Krischner and Karpinski (2010) conducted an
exploratory survey study to examine if and how 102 undergraduate and 117 graduate
students in public US University used Facebook, and how this usage related to hours of
studying and GPA. The survey they used also elicited information about students’ own
perceptions on Facebook use. Facebook users reported lower GPA and fewer hours
studying. Users and nonusers did not however differ in terms of the amount of time they
spent on the Internet, but their studying strategies differed. These results held regardless
of student status (whether they were an undergraduate or graduate) or their major
(humanities, social sciences, medical, STEM or business). The study also suggested that
personality and hours spent working are related to Facebook use.

Boogart (2016) conducted a study in four universities to investigate the impact of

Facebook on campus life at four higher education institutions, analyzing the responses of
3134 students. He found significant relationships between time spent on Facebook, and
several demographic variables. Females spent significantly more time on Facebook.
Students with a GPA of 2.99 or less reported being longer on Facebook than those with a
higher GPA. Also, students who are in their first and second years of undergraduate study
spend more time using Facebook than those in their third year – the majority of the third
year students (almost 70%) spent less than 30 minutes on day using it.

Julia, Langa & Miquel (2015) underscored the importance of social and relational
factors in for educational attainment within higher education. They examined the impact
of the connectedness afforded by social media tools on the performance of students

19
within desperate disciplines of study – creative and non-creative – at the bachelor’s level,
76 students participated from the business administration and management discipline
which is considered as non-creative and 78 students participated from the industrial
design engineering discipline which is considered as creative. The results of their study
suggested that close social ties within the network of their discipline helped students
within the non-creative discipline perform better. The same was not true for the creative
discipline in which the relationship between social ties and performance was inversely
proportional.

A few studies suggested a more positive potential for social media, but also the
variation of how students interacted and perceived these tools. Camilia, Sajoh, & Dalhtu
(2013) investigated this relationship in the Nigerian context. The responses of 536
students to a survey revealed that 97% of students used social media networks. Facebook
was the most popular social network site, followed by “2go” and YouTube. The majority
of students (91%) spent less than 4 hours a day on social networks. A quarter of the
students reported that they believed that social media impacted their academic
performance positively, 32% indicated that it impacted it negatively; the rest though it
had no effect. About 75% of the students reported that they used it for academic
assignments.

Wodzicki, Schawmmlein and Moskluik (2012) pointed out the potential of social media
to develop students’ self-directed learning skills because they give students a platform to
explore subjects and gather information through accessing existing data on the web or
interacting with like-minded students to constructively exchange ideas and build
knowledge through informal and formal activities. Wodzicki et al (2012) however note
that little is known about how these informal learning opportunities are harnessed and
about the characteristics of the students who engage in these activities. To examine these
relationships, they conducted three studies to investigate academic knowledge exchange
via StudiVZ, an equivalent to Facebook on 774 users of StudiVZ students. The sample
consisted of 498 women and 276 men between 19 and 29 years, which is a typical age
range for German students. Analysis revealed that one fifth of students employed this
social media tool to build knowledge. However, the majority, especially freshman, used it

20
for social purposes such as networking and getting oriented to the university
environment. The researchers concluded that knowledge exchange and social functions
for using social networks should be regarded as intertwined rather than mutually
exclusive.

Rambe (2012) employed an ethnographic approach to examine the impact of

social media on meaningful learning and pedagogical strategies. To do that they
examined the Facebook postings of students and instructors enrolled in an Information
Systems course within the South African context. The results of the study showed that
165 participants posted 154 wall posts, 121discussion board posts, and 139 posts to the
administrator‘s inbox over two semesters. Rambe concluded that Facebook constituted a
collaborative “safe” “third space” that facilitated student expression, the development of
learning communities, and encouraged knowledge construction. On the other hand,
Rambe suggested that postings fell short of manifesting deeper levels of conceptual
engagement and learning.

Junco, Heiberger, & Loken (2011) examined the impact of twitter on university
students’ engagement and GPA. Using an experimental design, students from a first year
pre-health seminar were assigned to an experimental group (N=70) in which Twitter was
used for a variety of academic activities and a control group (N=55). The analysis of
engagement and GPA via an ANOVA test showed that students in the experimental
group were significantly more engaged and had a higher GPA. Analysis of Twitter
postings also reflected that high level of engagement on behalf of students and faculty.
They concluded that social media has no negative impact on student academic
performance if they learned to allocate their time effectively.

A number of the above studies suggest a negative relationship between social

media use and student academic performance. However, several of the above studies
imply that it is not the time you spend on social media or the Internet that could be related
to a low GPA (e.g., Junco, 2011; Krischner & Karpinski, 2010), but there might be some
underlying factors such as the activities that you engage in during that time and how you
manage your studying time, etc. (e.g., Junco et al., 2011). A number of the above studies

21
also show that the effect might differ according to the students’ academic statues and the
academic discipline (e.g Boogart, 2016; Julia, Langa & Miquel, 2015).

3) Gender Usage of Social Media

Males and Females use social media at similar rates (Pew research center, 2017).
However, according to Lim, Heinrichs and Lim, (2017) females perceive social media
differently than males. Social media corporations found out that interest and curiosity are
the main factors that affect the social media usage of females, whereas variety of contents
is the main factor that affects the social media usage of males. There are also several
researches mentioned that there are gender differences in the social media usage. For
example one of the conducted studies to analyze this phenomenon showed that females
listen to less music on social media sharing platforms than males (Putzke, Fischbach,
Schoder & Gloor, 2014). On the other hand, in 2007 a research from Pew research center
showed that 70 percent of female teenagers use social media and that only 54 out of the
70 are active members and post photos on different social media platforms, as compared
with males with 54 people, only 40 out of the 54 are active members (Ularo, 2014).

Another study by Zheng, Yuan, Chang & Wu (2016) showed that females use to put
seductive profile pictures more than males because they believe that the attractiveness of
the profile picture influences the number of online followers or friends they have. This
study also showed that females gave emphasis to emotional expression while using social
media. On the contrary, males enjoy showing that they are having fun while using social
media. A study by Chan, Cheung, Na Shi & Lee (2015) showed that the majority of
females use social media for socializing and connecting with their family members,
whereas males are more focused on task- oriented actions and gaming.

It was also mentioned by (Correa, Hinsley &Zungia, 2010) that the personality traits
affecting the social media usage of males and females differ. For example, males who are
emotionally stable tend to use social media less than the males who are not emotionally
stable. However, emotional stability does not have any effect on the social media usage
of the females. It was also mentioned that females who are open to experience tend to use
social media more than the females who are introverts. However, openness to experience
and extraversion do not have any effect on the social media usage of males.

22
 Gender usage is also altered when it comes to the social media multitasking
phenomenon. Research showed that females tend to use multiple social media platforms
at the same time while doing other things. Studies showed that 50.5 percent used to talk
face to face with other people and 56.2 percent use to talk on the phone while using social
media (Ularo, 2014). Researches mentioned that females are better at multitasking than
males. For example, Offer and Schneider (2011) reported that mothers spend 10 more
hours a week multitasking compared with fathers” as cited in (Mantyla, 2013, para.1)

Studies that focus on the role of gender with reference to academic activities and
performance are rare.

4) Social Media Usage in Egypt

The Arab Republic of Egypt is in Northeast Africa. Egypt has over 90 million
inhabitants, making it the highest populated country in the Arab world and the third
populous African country after Nigeria and Ethiopia. Two thirds of Egypt’s population is
below 29 years and it has a low rank in the gender inequality index; Egypt ranks 131 out
of 155 countries (“About Egypt”, 2018)

The Egyptian higher education system has rapidly expanded in the past decades
due to the enormous increase in the population. This expansion has led to overcrowded
universities; public universities can reach 400 students in one section, which also led to a
poor quality of education. Furthermore, Egypt is suffering from a shortage of well-
qualified trainers, teachers and professors due to the lack of training and low wages.
Besides, Egypt’s gender inequality in literacy is to be considered high among the other
countries; 65 percent literacy for women versus 82 percent of men (“Gender Equality and
Women's Empowerment”, 2017). Consequently, this literacy rate means that the social
media usage in Egypt may not be the same among males and females. Yet, again this
might not be relevant to the higher education context under examination here.

Internet users in Egypt are increasing rapidly reaching about 54.6 percent of the
population in 2015, more than 80 percent of them are young people specifically
university students (Saied, ElSabagh & El-Afandy, 2016). According to a study held by
Saied, ElSabagh and El-Afandy (2016), which included 484 Egyptian and 277 Malaysian

23
higher education students, and investigated Internet and Facebook addiction among youth
of both countries, mobile phones are the most frequently used device to access social
media.

A higher percentage of Egyptian students reported feeling lethargic, spent less

time with their friends and spent more time using social media during their study time.
Moreover, the most commonly reported effects from using social media among the
Egyptian and Malaysian students were: headache, eye irritation, disturbance of sleep
patterns, increase in body weight and decrease of physical exercise (Saied, ElSabagh &
El-Afandy, 2016). It was also mentioned by El-Khouly (2015) that in Egypt people
access Facebook in one day more than the cumulative readership of every newspaper in a
week and that 18 percent spends more than eight hours on social media, which affects
their academic performance. These results would support those researchers and educators
that work against the substantial adverse effects of social media (Tariq et al, 2012).

Social media though might have great potential for higher education within Egypt.
As a result of the big number of students attending Egyptian universities and that the
existing high student-teacher ratio, the use of technology in the Egyptian higher
education is considered a means of refining the reliability and efficiency in the
presentation and delivery of knowledge and the use of information and communication
technology aptitudes for enhancing the quality of higher education in Egypt (Eraqi,
Abou-Alam, Belal & Fahmi, 2011). It was also mentioned by Sobaih,
Moustafa,Ghandforoush & Khan, (2016) that higher education students may use social
media in academic purposes due to the lack of communication technology and poor
infrastructure of the public academic institutions, which make the use of social media
have a great potential to be utilized as a communication platform. However, after
questioning a sample of the academic staff in public universities, it turned out that faculty
members use social media frequently but for non-academic purposes and that they do not
prefer communicating with their students through social media channels to protect their
privacy. It was also mentioned by (El-Khouly,2015) that in Egypt people access
Facebook in one day more than the cumulative readership of every newspaper in a week
and that 18 percent spend more than eight hours on social media, which affects their

24
academic performance. This excess of social media networks use in Egypt reached a very
high level during Egypt’s 2011 revolution.

The potential for social media emerged clearly during Egypt’s 2011 revolution
(Frost, 2016). Egypt’s level of Internet usage reached 30 percent during that momentous
historic moment.At that time Egypt had nearly four million Facebook users, which made
the transferability of information and discussions between the protesters easy. The
number of tweets from Egypt and the world wide increased from 2,300 to 230,000 tweets
per day the week before Mubarak’s resignation and the videos showing protests went
viral (Safranek, 2012). However, it was mentioned in some studies that only 14 percent
of the tweets were from inside Egypt and the rest of the tweets were from another
countries (Aday,Farrell, Freelon, Lynch, Sides& Dewar, 2013; Brym, Godbout,
Hoffbauer, Menard & Zhang, 2014.).

The majority of Egyptian users of social media during the 2011 revolution were
young, well-educated and lacking politics awareness (Howard & Hussain, 2011; Howard
& Parks, 2012). Social media had a political impact in more than one country in the past
couple of years. Safranek (2012) stated that social media played a major role in the
Philippines, Maldova, Iran, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Libya and Egypt.

As a result of the increased number of social media networks users in Egypt

during the revolution, the majority of the Egyptian youth generation became heavy users
of such networks (Frost, 2016). Consequently, studying the effect of social media on their
academic performance is essential. Because according the media dependency theory, the
more people use social media the more social media will affect their lives (Ball-Rokeach,
1985).

5) Theoretical Framework
According to the literature review sections, the research is anchored on two theories:
The Uses and Gratification theory and the Connectivism theory.

As was previously mentioned, social media offers today’s youth a portal for
entertainment and communication and it is becoming one of the main platforms for
accessing information and news. This study aims to explore the undergraduate students’

25
perception of using social media on their academic performance and relate it to their
actual academic performance, the results will reveal whether they have control over their
social media consumption or not. Uses and gratification approach identifies the needs and
motives behind online media usage. According to Olise & Makka, (2013) the theory was
developed by Elihu Katz in the early 1970’s Uses and gratification theory suggests that
social media users have power over their media consumption and assume an active role in
interpreting and integrating media into their own lives and that they are responsible for
choosing media to meet their desires and needs to achieve gratification (Olise & Makka,
2013). Uses and gratification of the social media approach focuses on why and how
people use social media to satisfy their needs (Larose, Mastro, & Eastin, 2001).

This study aims to explore to what extent do undergraduate students using social
media in academic related purposes and whether it affects them positively or negatively.
Connectivism learning approach emphasizes the role of social media context in how
learning occurs and explains how Internet technologies have created new opportunities
for people to learn and share information across the World Wide Web and among
themselves (Siemens, 2005). The theory was developed by Stephen Downes and George
Siemens (Transue, 2013). Connectivism theory suggests that students are encouraged to
seek out information on their own online and express what they find and that learning
may reside in non-human appliances. Connectivism suggests that the use of technology to
help individuals to be connected with knowledge and information ought to improve the
learning process not vice versa (Evans, 2014).

Summary

To summarize, several studies suggest that social media is mostly used to socialize –
to connect with old friends and seek new relationships. Academic activities constitute a
smaller time of students’ time on social media (e.g., Michikyan et al., 2015; Raacke &
Bonds-Raacke, 2008). However, other studies indicated that students spend substantial
time employing social media for academic purposes (e.g., Camilia et al., 2013).

Many studies suggest that students spend too much time on social networking
apps, and that this simply comes at the expense of time dedicated to focusing on
academics (e.g., Alwagait et al., 2015; Krischner & Karpinski, 2010). Krischner and

26
Karpinski (2010), however, found that it was not how much time students spent on the
Internet; it was rather the nature of the activity that differentiated between high achievers
and lower achievers. Junco’s (2013) study also underscored the importance of “how”
students spent their time rather than “how much.”

Some studies tried to explore some of the reasons that lead to the negative impact
of social media, especially on academic achievement. One of the more researched causes
is the multi-tasking phenomenon and the affordance of the social media that distract
students from their studies (e.g., Krischner and Karpinski, 2010). Whereas many of the
studies suggest that it is this ubiquitous connectivity to friends and the world beyond
academics that are the reason for distraction, other studies suggests that social media is a
venue for students to vent about their negative feelings (e.g., Fogel & Nutter-Upham,
2011; Michikyan et al, 2015) and an excuse to procrastinate about completing tasks that
they dislike.

Other research attempted at finding variables that might be related to social media
and academic achievement. Some of the variables explored were time spend on social
media, gender, status, and discipline. Gender and time spent on Facebook, and academic
status emerged as significant variables in Boogart (2016). Julia et al. (2015) suggest that
the influence of social media might dramatically vary by the discipline students are
pursuing. As manifested from the section on gender and social media above, the
variations in how males and females use the tools imply that there might also be
differences in how students use it for educational purposes.

Putting Blogging and Wikis aside, the literature implies that social media mostly
had a negative impact on students’ academic performance. Some exceptions to that are
studies that imply that the influence of social media might vary from one student to the
other (e.g., Camilia et al., 2013; Wodzicki et al, 2012). Other studies suggested that we
might need to determine what kind of performance we are referring to and that the results
might vary by how we measure impact (e.g., Rambe, 2012; Junko et al., 2011). The high
level of adoption of social media by young Egyptians on a daily basis, and as tool for
awareness raising. Knowledge creation and mobilization during the 2011 revolution
portrays it a tremendous power as a catalyst for change that requires further deliberation

27
and examination, rather than uninformed rejection. According to both theories mentioned
above students obviously can be the masters of their usage, and the connectivity social
media afford have great potential for different forms of learning.

28
 Chapter 3
Research Methods
1) Research Design
The research employed a mixed methods “Explanatory Sequential Design” to
collect both quantitative and qualitative data. According to Creswell (2012), “a mixed
methods research design is a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and mixing both
quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study or a series of studies to understand
a research problem” (p. 535). Moreover, according to Creswell (2012), “The rationale for
this approach is that the quantitative data and results provide a general picture of the
research problem; more analysis, specifically through qualitative data collection, is
needed to refine, extend, or explain the general picture.” (p.543). Following the
explanatory sequential design quantitative and qualitative data were collected
sequentially, using an adopted survey, as well as three focus groups for 15 students from
the research sample. Both data sets were analyzed separately and the qualitative findings
helped in explaining and elaborating on the quantitative results. “This design also
captures the best of both quantitative and qualitative data—to obtain quantitative results
from a population in the first phase, and then refine or elaborate these findings through an
in-depth qualitative exploration in the second phase” ”(Creswell, 2012, p.543).
2) The Context
The research focuses on the undergraduate students of Nile University in Cairo. Nile
University (NU) is a research institution of learning committed to excellence in education
and research. It was officially inaugurated in January 2007 as a national (Ahleya), non-
governmental and non-profit university. Nile University’s aim is to be one of the leaders
in technology and business education in Egypt and the Middle East/North Africa
(MENA) region. Its business and technology-based programs and research centers are
designed to address critical areas of vital importance to the economic growth and
prosperity of the people of Egypt and the region and to engage in cutting edge applied
research (What is Nile University, 2017).
Nile University offers a variety of diplomas, Masters and PhD programs as well
as a strategic set of undergraduate programs in selected areas, Nile University’s focus is

29
 mainly on the science majors. It also offers executive education and professional
development programs. (What is Nile University, 2017).

3) Population of the Study

The population in this research is all the registered undergraduate students in Nile
University. The total population includes 884 registered undergraduate students
majored in Computer Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electronics and
Communication Engineering, Computer Engineering, Industrial Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering and Business Administration). The numbers and
percentages of all registered undergraduate students was obtained through the
Student Affairs Office, classified by major and gender, outlined in Table 3.1
below. The aim for obtaining this information was to evaluate the
representativeness of the sample of students participating in the study of Nile
University’s undergraduate population.

Table 3.1

Nile University Undergraduate Students

Major # of Students Males Females

Computer Engineering 124 80.6% 19.4%
Civil Engineering 53 77.4% 22.6%
Computer Science 51 94.1% 5.8%
Electronics and Communication
Engineering 77 68.8% 31.2%
Industrial Engineering 81 70.4% 29.6%
Mechanical Engineering 224 88.8% 11.2%
Business Administration 274 56.9% 43.1%
Total 884 73.9% 26.1%

30
 4) Sampling
For the quantitative component of this study, and in order to get a representative
sample covering different characteristics such as: gender, academic status, and
major, the purposeful sampling technique was applied. The researcher chose the
English language classes because such classes include a huge number of students
with different academic statuses and majors. The researcher distributed the survey
during the English language classes after getting the English department consent.
The English department in Nile University offers 5 levels of English proficiency
courses, which range from the elementary to the advanced levels. Passing all five
levels is required for the undergraduate students to be able to graduate. It was
expected that students enrolled in these classes would be representative of the
population. To gather the qualitative data for this study, the researcher sent an
email to 15 students from the students who completed the survey asking them to
attend the focus group. The researcher chose 5 students from those who
mentioned that the social media use has affected their academic performance
positively and 5 from those who mentioned that the social media use has affected
their academic performance negatively, and five from those who mentioned that
the social media use have no effect on their academic performance. Participation
in this study was voluntary for all data collection methods.

5) Participants
The Participants in this study were 424 undergraduate students. Two participants
failed to respond to all items so their data was not included in the analysis, thus
the valid responses were 422. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 23. After
comparing the demographics of the sample with the demographics of the
population, the researcher revealed that the sample is representative in terms of
gender and academic major. The demographics of participants are outlined in the
below 3 tables.

Table 3.2

Gender

31
 Frequency Percent

Female 134 31.8%

Male 288 68.2%

Total 422 100%

Table 3. 3

Academic Status

Frequency Percent

Freshman 142 33.6%

Sophomore 157 37.2%

Junior 67 15.9%

Senior 56 13.3%

Total 422 100%

Table 3. 4

Major

Frequency Percent

Computer Engineering 44 10.6%

Civil Engineering 24 5.5%

Computer Science 22 5.3%

Electronics and 46 10.9%

communication Engineering

32
Industrial Engineering 51 12.1%

Mechanical Engineering 88 20.8%

Business Administration 147 34.8%

Total 422 100

For the qualitative research method, a total of fifteen students attended the focus groups,
an email was sent to the students who answered a specific question about the social
media effect on their academic performance from the survey inviting them to attend the
focus groups. The researcher chose five from each of the 3 groups: those who responded
that social media had a positive influence on their performance, and those who responded
that social media had a negative influence, and those who are undecided about whether it
had a positive or negative impact on their performance. Table 3.5 outlines their
demographics each student have a code, the coding system is explained in the data
collection section.

Table 3.5

Focus group participants’ demographics

Student Status Major Gender Student Code

Negative 1 Senior Business Female G2,S1

Negative 2 Senior Engineering Male G2,S2

Negative 3 Freshman Engineering Male G2,S3

Negative 4 Junior Business Male G2,S4

Negative 5 Junior Engineering Female G2,S5

Neutral 1 Senior Engineering Male G3,S1

33
Neutral 2 Junior Business Male G3,S2

Neutral 3 Senior Engineering Female G3,S3

Neutral 4 Freshman Engineering Male G3,S4

Neutral 5 Junior Business Female G3,S4

Positive 1 Freshman Business Male G1,S1

Positive 2 Senior Business Male G1,S2

Positive 3 Junior Engineering Female G1,S3

Positive 4 Sophomore Engineering Male G1,S4

Positive 5 Senior Engineering Female G1,S5

6) Research Instrument
The quantitative instrument for this study is a survey. Ohaja (2003) defines a
survey as the study of the characteristics of a sample through questioning, which
enables the researcher to make generalizations concerning the population of
his/her study. This design is considered appropriate because it enables the
researcher to establish the range and distribution of some social characteristics,
and to discover how these characteristics may be related to certain behavior
patterns or attitudes (Zurmuehlin, 1981).
The researcher adapts Peter Osharive’s (2015) Social Media and Academic
Performance of Students Questionnaire (SMAAPOS) (Appendix 1).The
researcher checked the reliability of the research instrument which was
determined by Peter Osharive (2015) using a split half test using the odd and even
numbered items to form the two halves. The two halves were administered to a
sample of students from a university not selected for the main study. The Pearson
Correlation Coefficient was used to determine the reliability of the instrument. A
co-efficient value of 0.65 indicated that the research instrument was reliable

34
 (Osharive,2015) The researcher chose this survey because it was the only
available survey that is addressing the same population (undergraduate students),
moreover, it was also made to test the relationship between the social media
networks usage and the student’s academic performance. In light of those two
reasons, the researcher thought that using this instrument will give adequate
answers to the research questions. However, this tool was used in Nigeria. Thus,
the researcher added and edited some questions to make sure that the
questionnaire would fit in the Egyptian context.
The questionnaire is divided into two sections (A and B). Section A
consists of 7 questions and elicits demographic information. Section B consists of
22 likert-scale questions that elicited information about the students use of social
media: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neutral (N), Disagree (D) and Strongly
Disagree (SD) (Osharive, 2015) and one open-ended question at the end of the
questionnaire asking them if they have any further comments on the impact of
social media on your academics.
As for the qualitative research instrument, the researcher employed focus groups.
As per Creswell (2012), “Focus groups can be used to collect shared
understanding from several individuals as well as to get views from specific
people” (p.384) . The researcher selected 10 questions (Appendix 5) from the
survey and rephrased them in order to better understand and interpret some
answers in more depth. The questions varied slightly as that the focus group
solicited the input of students who report that social media had a positive
influence on their performance, a negative influence, and those who didn’t
mentioned that social media has no impact on their performance.
7) Pilot Study
The survey was tested on 50 students from a representative sample of potential
participants. The pilot was conducted for the intentions of timing the length of the
survey per participant, to check the feasibility of conducting the survey on
campus, and to test the clarity of the items of the survey. The pilot study showed
that the items of the survey were clear and did not cause any confusion, the
response and completion rate of the pilot survey was 100% – all the 50

35
 participants responded and completed the survey. There were no logistical
problems at all in conducting the pilot study. Data collected from the pilot study
was not included in the results.

8) Reliability and Validity of the Instrument

The reliability and validity of the research instrument was determined. The
Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to determine the reliability of the
instrument. A co-efficient value of 0.68 indicated that the research instrument was
relatively reliable. According to (Taber, 2017) the range of a reasonable reliability
is between 0.67 and 0.87.

9) Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

9.1. Approvals.
The researcher has taken the below approvals before collecting data:
a) Institutional review board (IRB) (Appendix2)
b) Central Agency for Public Mobilization and statistics (CAPMAS)
(Appendix3)

9.2. Data Collection Procedures.

For the quantitative data collection, the researcher has created the questionnaire in
Google Forms and used it to collect data. Data collection took place on Nile
University campus during the English classes. The questionnaire link was sent to
the class attendees through MOODLE – the official course management system
used at the university; students were familiar with it. The researcher solicited the
input of students in 28 different English classes from all levels. At the beginning
of each class the researcher would introduce the survey, and assure the students
that this survey is anonymous. As for the qualitative data collection, after
obtaining the IRB approval to do this follow up, an email was sent to the
participants inviting them to attend the focus group sessions on Nile University
campus.

36
9.3. Data Analysis.
The collected quantitative data were scored, coded and inserted into SPSS, and
were analyzed using multiple statistical descriptive and inferential statistical tests
based on the research question and the nature of the data. to be analyzed using
frequency tables, crosstabs, Anovas, post hocs and t-tests.
Eighty students responded to the open-ended question of the survey soliciting
additional comments on the topic of social media with reference to their
performance. Based on the initial reading of students’ contributions the responses
were classified into two categories: informative results category (62.5%) and
uninformative results category (37.5%). The uninformative results category
consisted of thank you notes, as for the informative results category, it consisted
of different point of views about social media use. The researcher read the
answers thoroughly in attempt to formulate any themes, however there were no
themes due to the short and different answers.
As for the qualitative data, the researcher has adopted the “bottom
up” approach in analyzing the data. According to Creswell (2012) “This analysis
initially consists of developing a general sense of the data, and then coding
description and themes about the central phenomenon” (p.237). Therefore, focus
groups discussions were audio-recorded then transcribed. After data transcription,
the researcher started to highlight influential quotes that are relevant to the
research questions objectives which led to themes formulation that are related to
the research questions. Students who attended the focus groups were given codes
based on the focus group number and the number of participants in each group,
for example ( G1,S1) (See Figure 1)

37
Figure 1 Coding System of the Students

38
 Chapter 4

Results
In this section, the results will be addressed through answering the four research
questions using the quantitative method first, followed by the findings and discussion of
the qualitative method.

Quantitative Results

Question 1

1. To what extent academic-related purposes do undergraduate students

at Nile University use social media?

Ten statements sought to investigate to what extent undergraduate students

were engaged in activities commonly associated with social media. Table 3.6 below
depicts the extent to which students engaged in these activities.

Table 3.6

Responses on the students’ usage of social media for academic related purposes

39
Statement Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

I engage in academic 13.50% 19% 37.40% 17.10% 13%

discussions on social 57 80 158 72 55
media platforms

I make use of WhatsApp 49.30% 23.20% 11.10% 8.80% 7.60%

or alternatives to share 208 98 47 37 32
information with my
classmates

I follow the latest 28.70% 23.20% 27% 13.50% 7.60%

developments in my field 121 98 114 57 32
through social media

I solely rely on 9% 14.50% 25.60% 24.60% 26.30%

information gotten from 38 61 108 104 111
social media to do my
assignments without
consulting other sources

Engaging in academic 8.10% 10.20% 38.40% 22.70% 20.60%

forums on social media 34 43 162 96 87
confuses me

Sometimes I use social 27.30% 20.90% 25.80% 11.80% 14.20%

media to understand what 115 88 109 50 60
I have been taught in class

Social media is 12.60% 18% 35.50% 19.40% 14.50%

encouraged by professors 53 76 150 82 61
as part of class
assignments

40
We have a social media 52.10% 22% 13.70% 4.70% 7.30%
group for some of my 220 93 58 20 31
courses

I have to use social media

extensively because most
of my course 21.10% 24.40% 30.60% 15.20% 8.80%
assignments/projects are in 89 103 129 64 37
the forms of blogs/online
presentations

I communicate with the 16.80% 19.90% 25.80% 17.50% 19.90%

professor through social 71 84 109 74 84
media

Table 3.6 shows that the majority of the participants have chosen the categories
“agree to strongly agree” for two statements. For instance, the percentage of “I make
use of WhatsApp or alternatives to share information with my classmates” is (72.5%),
“We have a social media group for some of my courses” is (74.1%). About 16% of
students disagreed or strongly disagreed with the first statement and 12% with the
second, whereas the rest were neutral. The qualitative results implies that the majority
of the students use social media networks as a communication platform due to the
various number of available features and benefits. For example, they can reach each
other easily and quickly via WhatsApp groups whether by texting, voice notes or video
calls.

Almost half of the students agreed to strongly agreed with the following
statements: “I follow the latest developments in my field through social media”
(51.9%);”Sometimes I use social media to understand what I have been taught in class”
(48.2%); and “I have to use social media extensively because most of my course
assignments/projects are in the forms of blogs/online presentations” (45.5%). For the
first statement, almost 25% disagreed and the rest were neutral. The same trend was

41
noticed for the second statement. For the third statement, disagreement was slightly
lower, and those who chose the “neutral” choice reached 30 percent. The results of the
last statement slightly conflict with those of another statement, “Social media is
encouraged by professors as part of class assignments”, to which only about 30% of
students agreed or strongly agreed. About 25 percent disagreed and the rest were
neutral. The latter results mirrored those of the statement “I engage in academic
discussions on social media platforms” to which 32.5% agreed or strongly agreed.
About 20% of students disagreed to this latter statement, and about 37% were neutral.
Also with reference to academic forums via social media, only 18.3% of students
reported that “Engaging in academic forums on social media confuses me”. Over 43%
disagreed with that statement and about 39% were neutral. These results are mostly
good, partially bad. In the qualitative results students talked about the lack of
credibility or the internet yet mentioned that it often opens links that are lead you to
interesting ideas even if they are not credible. Also it might be based on the results that
students in some subject rely more on data from the internet especially if they are using
social media as a data collection instrument such as in marketing. The qualitative
results also show that business students are more likely to opt for social media for
academic reference whereas engineering do not find social media interesting as a
source of knowledge

On the contrary, table 3.6 shows that the minority of participants selected the
categories “agree to strongly agree” on five statements, such as “I engage in academic
discussions on social media platforms” amounted (32.5%), ”I solely rely on
information gotten from social media to do my assignments without consulting other
sources” is (23.5%), ”Engaging in academic forums on social media confuses me” is
(18.3%), “Social media is encouraged by professors as part of class assignments” is
(30.6%) and ”I communicate with the professor through social media” counts
(36.7%).

It was also noted that the table demonstrates that a large number of participants
picked out the categories “disagree to strongly disagree” for two statements: “I solely
rely on information gotten from social media to do my assignments without consulting

42
other sources” (50.9%). Only about 25% agreed with this statement, and the rest of the
students opted for the neutral choice.

Moreover, according to the last open question asking them if they want to leave
a comment about social media, some students have mentioned that using social media
for academic related purposes is easier for them. A senior engineering student gave an
example of using social media for academic purposes as follows:

I think it is good if you make the most use of it in a proper way. In my

last university we used to make a group for each subject and ask the
doctor to share the slides information and any notes with us, having the
ability of discussing these posts as students and sharing and
commenting brings us more together. It is also very important when
you are posting important things for events or opportunities
Whereas a junior business student explained” I think if each course in the
university has a group on Facebook this will help us as a student’s so much to be aware
of everything happens in this course”.

Question 2

2. How do students perceive the impact of social media on their academic

engagement and performance?

Eleven statements sought to investigate how the undergraduate students of Nile

University perceive the impact of social media on their academic performance. Table
3.7 below depicts how they perceive the effect of social media on their academic
performance.

Table 3.7

Responses on the impact of social media on the students’ academic engagement and
performance

43
Statement Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

The time I spend online 15.20% 21.80% 34.10% 19.20% 9.70%

on social networks takes 64 92 144 81 41
away from my time
studying

Online social networks 13.50% 23.20% 32.50% 21.60% 9.20%

distract me from my 57 98 137 91 39
studies

The hours I spend online 32.70% 22.50% 21.10% 11.80% 11.80%

on social media are more 138 95 89 50 50
than the hours I spend
reading university stated
content

My unlimited access to 10% 13.70% 21.10% 23.50% 31.80%

social media through my 42 58 89 99 134
cell phone distracts me in
class

Social media have 11.40% 15.20% 42.20% 22.30% 9%

impacted my GPA 48 64 178 94 38
positively

Social media have 7.60% 17.80% 27.30% 26.30% 21.10%

impacted my GPA 32 75 115 111 89
negatively

The usage of social 16.80% 19.40% 36.50% 18.70% 8.50%

media for class related 71 82 154 79 36
research has helped

44
improve my grades

Social media has 12.30% 10% 17.80% 22.30% 37.70%

negatively impacted my 52 42 75 94 159
writing skills

I will not perform well in 14.20% 13.50% 28.90% 19.20% 24.20%

my academics even if I 60 57 122 81 102
stop using social media

Social media has 28% 24.40% 26.30% 10% 11.40%

improved my 118 103 111 42 48
communication skills

Once I interrupt my 27% 23.20% 27.70% 13.50% 8.50%

study time with social 114 98 117 57 36
media, I lose
concentration

A high proportion from the participants in Table 3.7 selected the categories
“disagree” and “strongly disagree”. For instance, the percentage of “Social media have
impacted my GPA negatively” is (47.4%), “Social media have impacted my GPA
positively” is 26.6%. For the first statement, 25.4% agreed and 27.3% were neutral. As
for the second statement, 26.6% agreed and 42.2% were neutral. It was noticed that a
high percentage of students disagreed about the negative impact of social media on
their academic performance and a low percentage of students disagreed about the
positive impact of social media on their academic performance. However, a high
percentage of students were neutral about the second statement and a low percentage of
students were neutral about the first statement. The qualitative results show different

45
opinions from those who are not academically affected by social media and those who
are affected positively and negatively.

Almost half of the students disagreed or strongly disagreed with the following
statements: “I will not perform well in my academics even if I stop using social media”
(43%), “My unlimited access to social media through my cell phone distracts me in
class” (55.3%). For the first statement, 27.7% agreed and the rest were neutral. The
same trend was noticed for the second statement.

On the other hand, table 3.7 shows that almost half of the students were within
the categories “agree” to “strongly agree” for instance, the percentage of “The hours I
spend online on social media are more than the hours I spend reading university stated
content” is (55.2%), “Once I interrupt my study time with social media, I lose
concentration” is (50.2%); and “Social media has improved my communication skills”
(52.4%). For the first statement, 23% disagreed and the rest were neutral. The same
trend was noticed for the second statement. For the third statement, disagreement was
slightly lower, and those who chose the “neutral” choice reached almost 22%.

It was also noted that table 3.7 demonstrates that a small number of students
picked out the categories “agree to strongly agree” to three statements with reference to
social media negative effects: 30% of students reported that “The time I spend online
on social networks takes away from my time studying”, 36.7% reported that “Online
social networks distract me from my studies”; and 22.3% reported that “Social media
has negatively impacted my writing skill”. For the first two statements, almost 30%
disagreed and the rest where neutral. For the third statement, disagreement was higher,
it reached (59.9%) and the rest were neutral.

Question 3

What is the relationship between academic effort, academic performance and use
of social media?

A. Number of hours (social media)

B. Number of hours spent studying

C. GPA

46
For the purpose of this question the numbers of hours of study per week were used to
determine academic effort, GPA was used as an indicator of academic performance, and
number of hours students reported spending on social media per day were used as a
measure of “use of social media”.
The below three tables show the categorization of the three variables: GPA, number of
study hours per week and number of hours on social media per day.
Table 3.8

GPA Categorization

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Valid <2.5 108 25.6 26.7 26.7

2.6-3 88 20.9 21.7 48.4

3.1-3.5 107 25.4 26.4 74.8

3.6-4 102 24.2 25.2 100

Total 405 96 100

Missing System 17 4.0

Total 422 100

Table 3.9

Social Media Hours Categorization

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Valid <=4.00 160 37.9 38 38

4.01-8.00 146 34.6 34.7 72.7

8.01+ 115 27.3 27.3 100

Total 421 99.8 100

Missing System 1 .2

47
 Total 422 100

Table 3.10

Number of Hours on Social Media Categorization

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Valid <=8.00 142 33.6 33.6 33.6

8.01-14.00 154 36.5 36.5 70.1

14.01+ 126 29.9 29.9 100

Total 422 100 100

Furthermore, table 3.11 below shows a descriptive statistics of the three variables GPA,
number of study hours per week and number of hours on social media per day.

Table 3.11

Means and standard deviations of the GPA, number of study hours and number of hours
on social media.

N Mean Std.
Deviation

What is your current GPA? Please use the traditional U.S. 418 3.029 0.662
numerical format (Examples: 3.0, 3.4, 2.5)

How many hours do you spend studying per week? 422 11.698 8.798
(Examples: 10, 15, 11.5. Numerical answer only)

How many hours do you spend on social media daily? 421 6.711 5.154
(Examples: 10, 15, 11.5. Numerical answer only)

48
Measures of central tendency were computed to summarize the data for the three
variables. The following are the results of this analysis for the three variables; (GPA)
N=418, M=3.02, SD=0.66, (Hours spend studying per week) N=422, M=11.69, SD=8.79,
(Hours spent on social media per day) N=421, M=6.711, SD=5.154.”. The above data
demonstrates that the average hours spent on social media is more than the average hours
spend studying; given that the hours spent on social media is by day and the hours spent
studying is by week it is not expected to influence the statistical analysis.
Correlation analyses in the below table was used to examine if there is a significant
relationship between the three variables GPA, number of study hours and number of
hours on social media.

Table 3.12

Correlation between GPA, number of study hours and number of hours on social media

What is your How many How many

current GPA? hours do you hours do you
Please use the spend studying spend on social
traditional U.S. per week? media daily?
numerical format (Examples: 10, (Examples: 10,
(Examples: 3.0, 15, 11.5. 15, 11.5.
3.4, 2.5) Numerical Numerical
answer only) answer only)
What is your current
GPA? Please use the
traditional U.S. Pearson 1 0.113* -0.155**
numerical format Correlatio
(Examples: 3.0, 3.4, n
2.5)
Sig. 0.021 0.002
N 418 418 417

49
How many hours do
you spend studying Pearson 0.113* 1 -0.005
per week? Correlatio
(Examples: 10, 15, n
11.5. Numerical
answer only)
Sig. 0.021 0.912
N 418 422 421
How many hours do
you spend on social Pearson -0.155** -0.005 1
media daily? Correlatio
(Examples: 10, 15, n
11.5. Numerical
answer only)
Sig. 0.002 0.912
N 417 421 421
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Results indicated that there is a significant, though weak, positive relationship between
GPA and hours of study, r = .113, n= 418, p =.021; and a significant, though weak,
negative correlation between number of hours spent on social media and GPA, r = -.155,
n=417, p=.002. The results suggest that an increase in the number of hours studying is
associated with a higher GPA, which an increase in the number of hours spent on social
media is associated with a lower GPA. However, there is no significant relationship
between number of hours on social media and number of hours studying.

Question 4

50
Is there a relationship between gender, academic status, and academic major and:
1) use of social media, and 2) perception of the impact of social media on academic
engagement?

In order to answer this question, the researcher has divided the answer under three themes
and examined each theme with three variables: gender, academic status, and academic
major. The three themes are: Engagement in academically related social media activities,
Perception of the impact of social media on academic engagement, and how much time
they spend on social media. Due to large amount of data collected, only significant results
will be presented below whereas the rest of the results are in the appendices.

1) Engagement in Academically Related Social Media Activities:

a) Gender.
A cross tabulation sought to investigate the frequency distribution of the gender variable,
followed by a chi square test to indicate if there is any significant relationship between
engagement in academically related social media activities and gender.

Sometimes I use social media to understand what I

have been taught in class %
100
10.4 16.1
90
80 13.4
11.1
70
60 29.1 24.3
50
40 13.4
24.3
30
20
33.6
10 24.3
0
Female Male

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 2 Gender and engagement in academically related social media activities

51
The above figure shows that 48.6% males are within the categories agree to strongly
agree about using social media to understand what they have took in class. Similarly,
47% of the females are also within the categories agree to strongly agree about the same
statement. Overall, the results suggest that both males and females have the same attitude
about using social media to understand what they were taught in class. However, the
extreme choices are more prominent. Females strongly agree at a higher percentage that
they use social media to learn in class, which male more strongly disagree that they do
not use it to understand.

Table 3.13

Chi-Square Test for Gender and engagement in academically related social media
activities

Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 11.267a 4 .024

Likelihood Ratio 11.683 4 .020

N of Valid Cases 422

*0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.88.

The results of the chi square analysis explains the significant association between
females and males in using social media to understand what was taught in class, X2(1, N
= 422) = 11.267, p = .024.

b) Academic status:
A cross tabulation sought to investigate the frequency distribution of the academic status
variable, followed by a chi square test to indicate if there is any significance between
engagement in academically related social media activities and academic status.

52
 We have a social media group for some of my courses
%
100
90 22.58
29.03 30
80 36.21
43.65
6.45
70
12.9 15
60 22.58
17.24
50 13.18
27.96 8.62 25
40 10.9
30
48.38
20 37.93
32.27 30.12 30
10
0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Freshman Junior Senior Sophomore

Figure 3 Academic status and engagement in academically related social media activities

The above figure shows that (72.68%) sophomore are within the categories agree to
strongly agree of having a social media group for some of their courses. the same trend
was noticed with the freshmen. For the juniors and seniors, they have reported lower
percentages. However, the extreme choices are more prominent. Sophomores strongly
agree at higher percentages that they have social media group for some of their courses,
which freshman more strongly disagree that they do not have such groups. The
qualitative results show that freshman students don’t use social media in academically
related purposes compared to the other academic status due to their unknowingness of
how things will go in the university, then they get caught up with the trend.

Table 3.14

Chi-Square Test for Academic status and engagement in academically related social
media activities

Asymptotic
Value df
Significance

53
 (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 26.707a 12 .009

Likelihood Ratio 25.945 12 .011

N of Valid Cases 422

*4 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.65.

The results of the chi square analysis revealed a significant association between academic
status and having a social media group for some of the courses, X2(1, N = 422) = 26.707,
p = .009. Sophomores, juniors and seniors tend to use social media for academic related
purposes more than the freshman students.

c) Major:
A cross tabulation sought to investigate the frequency distribution of the academic major
variable with the survey statements, followed by a chi square test to indicate if there is
any significance between engagement in academically related social media activities and
academic status.

I solely rely on information gotten from social media to

do my assignments without consulting other sources %
100
90 20.94 17.39 23.91 25
25.49
80 44.44 47.62
70 21.73
22.9 19.57
60 31.37 29.53
50
27 30.43 20
40 23.81 34.78
17.65 27.27
30 17.77
20 16.89 19.05 11.76
30.43 4.44 15.22
10 13.65
12.16 13.33 9.52 6.52 13.72
0 0 0 4.55

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

54
 Figure 4 Frequency distribution of the academic major variable

Figure 4 shows that the majority of the students who chose disagree to strongly disagree
for solely relying on social media in doing their assignments are from the engineering
majors. For instance, the percentage of computer engineering students who disagreed is
(71.43%) and only 17.77% agreed and the rest were neutral. The same trend was noticed
for all engineering majors except civil engineering. The percentage of civil engineering
students who disagreed with the statement is lower than the rest of the engineering
majors. On the other hand, the percentage of business administration and civil
engineering students who opted agree to strongly agree is almost the same and higher
than the rest of the majors. The qualitative results spectacle that business students are
more likely to opt for social media for academic reference whereas engineering do not
find social media interesting as a source of knowledge.

Table 3.15

Chi-Square Test

Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 37.803a 24 .036
Likelihood Ratio 40.621 24 .018
Linear-by-Linear 3.331 1 .068
Association
N of Valid Cases 422
The results of the chi square analysis revealed a significant association between major
and relying solely on social media for solving the assignment, X2(1, N = 422) = 37.803, p
= .036. Students who are majored in Business administration and civil engineering tend
to agree on relying on solely relying on information gotten from social media to do their
assignments without consulting other sources more than the students who are majored in
different fields.

55
 The usage of social media for class related research has
helped improve my grades %
100 5.4 1.96
8.69 13.33 8.69 11.36
90 14.18 23.8 19.6
80 17.39
26.08 22.22 21.59
70
23.8 33.33
60 39.18 13.04
50 41.3
35.22
40 42.22
33.33 15.68
30 19.59 39.13
20 23.91 18.18
15.55 9.52 29.41
10 21.62
13.04 9.52 8.69 13.63
0 6.66

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 5 Frequency distribution of the academic major variable

Figure 5 shows that computer science major have the smallest number of students 19%
who picked agree to strongly agree that the use of social media for class related research
has helped them in improving their grades. On the contrary, Civil engineering students
have the largest number of participants (52.14%) who agree to strongly agree to the same
statement.

Table 3.16

Chi-Square Tests

Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 39.793a 24 .023

56
Likelihood Ratio 39.763 24 .023
Linear-by-Linear 2.376 1 .123
Association
N of Valid Cases 422

The results of the chi square analysis revealed a significant association between majors
and the improvement of grades due to social media use, X2(1, N = 422) = 39.793, p =
.023. The table shows that the civil engineering major students followed by the business
administration major students perceive that the use of social media for class related
research helped has helped them in improving their grades more than the other majors.

I have Social Media Groups for Some of my Courses %

100 0 4.76 1.96 3.4
12.16 8.69 6.66 0 10.86 1.96 5.68
90 4.34 4.44 9.52 7.84
6.08 2.17 10.22
80 17.77 15.21 13.72
70 18.24 34.78 20.45
42.85 19.56
60 22.22
50 21.62
40 74.5
30 60.22
52.17 48.88 52.17
20 41.89 42.85
10
0

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 6 Frequency distribution of the academic major variable

57
Figure 6 shows that more than 50% of all the majors selected agree to strongly agree for
having a social media groups for some of the courses. However, the extreme choices are
more prominent. Industrial engineering students strongly agree at a higher percentage
than the other majors. Qualitative results indicate that almost all the students have a
social media group for at least one of their courses. The qualitative results also
demonstrate that this high percentage doesn’t mean that all students prefer having a social
media group for their courses. However, sometimes they are forced to join to keep up
with the course updates, given that as mentioned before more than half the students use
social media platforms in discussing course related content.

Table 3.17

Chi-Square Tests

Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 38.892 24 .028
Likelihood Ratio 41.569 24 .014
Linear-by-Linear 15.103 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 422

The results of the chi square analysis revealed a significant association between majors
and having a social media group for some of the university courses, X2(1, N = 422) =
38.892, p = .028. The results show that industrial engineering students tend to have a
social media groups for their courses more than all the other majors.

58
 I have to use social media extensively because most of my
course assignments/projects are in the forms of
blogs/online presentations %
100 8.1 8.69 6.52 3.92 7.95
90 9.52 9.8
13.04 20 17.39 11.36
80 16.89
15.55 28.57 25.49
70 21.73
60 31.08 28.26 35.22
50 19.04 23.52
40 37.77
18.91 39.13 30.43
30 33.33 30.68
20 13.33 37.25
10 25 17.39 17.39 14.77
13.33 9.52
0

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 7 Frequency distribution of the academic major variable

Figure 7 shows that civil and industrial engineering have a larger number of participants
who agreed to strongly agree that they have to use social media extensively because most
of their courses are in the forms of blogs/online presentations more than the rest of the
majors. Qualitative results show that some of the course assignments require them to use
word press management system.

Table 3.18

Chi-Square Tests

Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 37.535a 24 .039
Likelihood Ratio 35.601 24 .060
Linear-by-Linear .817 1 .366
Association

59
N of Valid Cases 422

The results of the chi square analysis revealed a significant association between majors
and having to use social media extensively because their courses are in a form of online
blogs, X2(1, N = 422) = 37.535, p = .039. For instance, civil engineering students reported
the highest percentage of the students who agreed on the statement.

2) Perception of the Impact of Social Media on Academic Engagement:

To examine whether students’ perception of the impact of social media differed among
students’ based on gender, academic status or academic major: the researcher averaged
the results of 10 statements: (q30, q23, q21, q20, q13, q12, 11, 10) and two of the ten
items were reversed: q 16, and q29.

a) Gender:
An independent samples t-test was run to determine if there were differences in the
perception of the impact of social media on academic engagement between males and
females. The results indicated that there is no significance t (420) = -.066, p=.947
between gender and the perception of the impact of social media on academic
engagement.

b) Academic Status:

Analysis of variance was conducted to determine if there was a relation between the
perception of the impact of social media on academic engagement and the students’
academic status. The results indicated that there is a significant difference between the
four different groups at the p<.05 level for the three conditions [F (3,418) = 3.91,
p=.009]. Post hoc analysis indicated that there is a difference between juniors and
sophomores SRA (p =.005). The results shows that juniors perceive positive impact of
social media on their academic engagement more than the sophomores do as outlined in
the below multiple comparisons table.

Table 3.19

Multiple Comparison table for 10 statements:

60
(q30, q23, q21, q20, q13, q12, 11, 10) and two of the ten items were reversed: q 16, and
q29.

Mean Diff. Std. Error Significance

Junior Freshman -.20706 .08799 .088

Senior -.27716 .10749 .050

Sophomore -.28716* .08663 .005

⃰The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Academic Major:

Analysis of variance was conducted to determine if there was a relation between the
perception of the impact of social media on academic engagement and the students’
academic major. The results indicated that there is no significant relationship between the
two variables [F (6,415) = 1.279, p=.266].

3) How much time they spend on social media:

To examine whether the time in which students spend on social media differed among
students based on gender, academic status and academic major. The researcher have used
the question about the time in which students spend on social media per day as the
dependent variable and the gender, academic status and academic major as the three
independent variables.

a) Gender
An independent samples t-test was run to determine if there were differences in the
perception of the impact of social media on academic engagement between males and
females. The results indicated that there is no significance in the scores between females
(M=12.09, SD=8.14) and males (M=11.51, SD=9.09); t (420) =.625, p=.575 in the
perception of the impact of social media on academic engagement.

b) Academic Status:
Analysis of variance was conducted to determine if there were differences in the time in
which the students spend on social media per day and the students’ academic major. The

61
results indicated that there is no significant relationship between the two variables [F
(3,417) =.408, p=.704]. The analysis of variance also shows that the mean average of
time spent on social media daily by all the students is 10.88 hours a day.

c) Academic Major:
Analysis of variance was conducted to determine if there were differences in the time
they which the students spend on social media and the students’ academic major. The
results indicated that there is significant relationship between the two variables at the
p<.05 level for the three conditions [F (6,414) = 2.26, p=.037]. A multiple comparison
(Appendix 4) was conducted to determine which majors exactly differed in the amount of
hours spent on social media and the comparison showed that there is a statistically
significant difference between business administration and computer engineering students
(p=.037). Business administration students spend more time on social media than the
computer engineering students.

Qualitative Results

The results show the different as well as the similar perspectives of Nile
University students regarding how they perceive the social media effect on their
academic performance, which will further explain the relationship between their social
media usage and their academic performance. Results will also show to what extent the
undergraduate students of Nile University are using social media in academic related
purposes. Also, to what extent is the use and perception of social media differs between
gender, academic statues and academic majors. Findings are displayed for each research
question and the different themes under it.

Question 1: The Use of Social Media in Academic Related Purposes

The first research question attempts to understand the reasons of social media use in
academic related purposes in light of two themes and each theme has subthemes as
outlines in figure 8 below.

62
 Advantges of social
Disadvantges of
media use in
Social meda use in
academic realted
academic purposes
purposes

Fun and
Distraction
Creative

Invasion of
User Friendly
Privacy

Helps in
Lack of
connecting
Credibilty
class mates

It makes it easy
to discuss class
content with
class mates

Figure 8 the first research questions themes and subthemes

The first theme discussion findings are aligned with the quantitative results, which show
that more than (70%) of the students use social media to share information with their
colleagues. The students’ responses reinforced that communication is one of the most
advantages of using social media in academic related purposes due to its user-friendliness
compared to the formal communication channels that they are not comfortable with.
Some of the student’s statements about using social media as a communication platform
were: “Throughout the university years I have learned that having a group on Facebook
or WhatsApp is the best and easiest way for discussing any course content with my
colleagues” (G2, S1) and “I prefer using WhatsApp and Facebook because my classmates
can reach me at any time, you know nowadays we all have smart phones with internet”
(G1, S1). However, it was noticed from the discussions that using social media as a mean
of communication doesn’t necessarily mean that the students prefer it, some students
mentioned that they use social media in academic related purposes due to the difficulty of

63
using Moodle; the university formal channel of communication. Some of these statements
were: “The university formal channels of communication is down most of the time, and
it’s not user friendly at all it takes forever to initiate a chat with my classmates” (G1, S3)
and “I have complained a lot about MOODLE (university channel) In addition, I don’t
feel comfortable with the interface of the university formal channels” (G1, S5).

In the quantitative results, more than half of the students reported that they use social
media to follow the latest developments in their field through social media. It was
interpreted from the discussions that students preferred using social media networks such
as YouTube and WordPress in following the latest developments in their field due to its
ingeniousness as was mentioned by (G3, S2) “it’s more fun and creative to use YouTube
and Facebook rather than using the formal dull channel of communication Moodle”

As for the second theme, which discusses the disadvantages of social media use in
academic related purposes. The discussions with the three groups show that students
might use social media as a data collection instrument but they don’t depend on it due to
its lack of credibility. The latter results mirrored the quantitative results, when only 9% of
the students agreed that they can solely rely on information gotten from social media.
Some of the interesting statements were: “I agree that social media networks are not
credible but when I search for a topic it opens a lot of other links for me” (G1, S5) and:

The main disadvantage that I see in using social media networks for related
academic purposes is the lack of control of the content, sometimes I find very
interesting data that I would like to use in my assignments but I don’t because I
don’t know who said it and when and why, I feel that it’s not credible specially
that anyone can post anything. (G3, S5)

The discussions demonstrate that social media use in academic related purposes distract
some of the students. This opinion echoes the 18.30% who agreed that engaging in
academic forums on social media confuses them, as was mentioned by (G2, S3) “I don’t
feel at ease because I concentrate more when using hard copies of my studying material”.
The discussion also demonstrates that a few numbers of students consider using social
number in academic related purposes an invasion of their privacy, which emulates the

64
37.40% who disagreed on using social media to communicate with their professors. It
was stated by (G2, S5):

I feel uncomfortable in dealing with the professor or the TA from my social

network profile; there are a lot of information about me that I would like to keep
away from my professors and classmates. Social media should be for socializing
and having fun only (G2, S5).
Most of the students who were involved in the discussions had a similar opinions about
the advantages and disadvantages of social media use in academic related purposes,
where they all agree that social media is the most convenient communication platform to
be used among students, however a few have reported that it is not preferable for them to
use this platform in academic related purposes.

Question 2: Perception of Social Media Effects on the Academic Performance

Research question 2 attempts to understand how students perceive the effects of social
media use on their academic performance. The three themes related to this question are:
positive effects of social media on the academic performance, negative effects of social
media on the academic performance and no effects of social media on the academic
performance. The findings of this question demonstrated that each student perceive social
media effects according to his/her use which aligns with the uses and gratification
approach that the behavior of the social media consumers differs from one to one in
interpreting and integrating social media into their lives.

During the discussion of the positive effects of social media on the academic
performance, the students revealed that they believe that their use of social media have a
positive effects on their academic performance in a direct and indirect ways. For instance,
it facilitates communication with their teacher assistants, it keeps them aware of any new
course announcements, and sometimes they find internship opportunities through social
media networks. As was mentioned by (G1, S3):

I use to check the Facebook/WhatsApp group for any updates and announcements
we even have the TAs of the courses on the group which is awesome. Also one of
the most important social media channels is LinkedIn. It's really awesome and
there students are able to enhance their career by reading great success stories and
finding internships to enrich their hands on experiences (G1, S3)

65
Focus group has helped in clarifying the contradictory extreme responses of the
quantitative results. For instance, the (60%) who disagreed that social media has
negatively impacted their GPA and the (52%) who agreed that social media has improved
their grade responses were explained in the above statement.

The discussion of the negative effects of social media on the academic

performance with the students revealed a lot of similar answers. For instance, the whole
group reported that distraction and social media addiction are the two main reasons for
the negative effects. Interestingly, these results explain the 50.2% who agreed that they
lose concentration when they are interrupted by social media during studying. Some of
the very expressive statements were:

Unfortunately I am addicted to social media, I have Facebook, WhatsApp,

Instagram and YouTube on my cell phone and I can’t stop myself from checking
the updates every couple of minutes. Therefore, using social media networks in
any academic related purposes will end up by me distracted from whatever I’m
doing by checking the updates (G2, S1).
Every time I use social media especially Facebook to check the course group I get
dragged to read my friends status and sometimes I engage in long conversations
with my school friends and family members and out of a sudden I find myself
wasted a couple of hours in nothing. I know that a lot of courses use social media
for educational purposes; on the other hand distractions are all over the place.
Starting from simple chats to new song hits and episodes of my favorite series that
I watched 3 times before. I believe that less hours on the phone (engaged in social
media) Equals too many advantages in life (G2, S3).

Social media networks have impacted my writing skills and communication skills
negatively, whenever I use social media to communicate with my colleagues or to
post something I use to write using the franco-arab language because this is the
most common used language on social media networks, even the TAs use it.
Additionally, social media networks takes away from my studying time to the
extent that I use to open the social networks apps (Facebook) during the class
time, even if the class is interesting and the professor is good it’s just so tempting
and as a young adult sitting in a class in University, I feel the urge to check my
social media apps like Instagram every 10 minutes (G2, S2).
There are also few students who admit that social media have both effects on their
academic performance, as was mentioned by (G2, S4):

66
 What can I say! Social media is a double edge weapon, I can’t deny its
importance in my life; it helps me in socializing and connecting with my friends
especially with my school friends and family members who travelled abroad.
Social media also keeps me posted with the recent updates of everything going
around us. But unfortunately it waste a lot of time, I remember that one day I
stayed flipping between different social media networks for a whole day. So it
definitely takes away from my studying time, mainly YouTube, it has negative
impact on the way and time I dedicate for studying (G2, S4).
Lastly, the discussion of the no effects of social media on the academic performance with
the students revealed that some students believe that social media doesn’t have any
negative nor positive effects on their academic performance, which mirrors the high
proportion of students who picked neutral in most of the survey questions. It was
interpreted from the students discussion that they were not affected by social media
because they are aware of its disadvantages and because they know how to set priorities
and control their time. Some of expressive statements were:

Social media as in (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram....etc.) doesn't affect me that

much, I only use it for some purposes only. I open the social media apps that I
have on my phone whenever I want to connect with my friends and I sometimes
use it to search for something interesting for me, therefore, social media for me is
a tool which means that I can use it whenever I want to. I am the one who is in
control of social media not vice versa. I never felt the urge of checking my social
media apps continuously; it really saddens me to see that most of the people don't
know how to use social media in a good way (G3, S1).
Social media networks has nothing to do with academic performance that is why
it’s called SOCIAL media network, I guess that using such networks while
studying cause distraction, that’s why we should be cautious and aware of the
consequences of wasting our time. However, at the end it depends on the person,
if one has the will to study he'll find a way (G3, S2).

Social Media helps me to relax from the stress caused by academics, but it
doesn’t affect me in any way! In my opinion, there is no relationship between
social media networks and studying, it is as if you are comparing the English
courses with the science courses. I have my own priorities and I know when I can
use social media to have some fun and when to study to get better grades. At the
end of the day everyone does what he/she wants (G3, S5).
After discussing the themes with three different groups, it was noticed that each group
perceive social media effects on their academic performance according to their social
media usage behavior. For instance, those who perceive social media effects positively

67
use it effectively, and those who perceive social media effects negatively use it
extensively, and those who are not affected by social media, use it wisely.

Question 3: The relationship between study hours and social media hours spent by
students and its effect on their academic performance

Research question 3 attempts to understand if there is a relationship between the number

of hours spent studying and the number of hours spent on social media, and the academic
performance of the students. Thus, there is one theme and three subthemes for this
question. The theme is “The hours spent on social media” and the three sub themes are:
positive relationship between the theme and the academic performance, negative
relationship between the theme and the academic performance, and neutral relationship
between the theme and the academic performance.

Looking further into the three subthemes. Some students mentioned that the hours they
spend on social media affects their academic performance in a good way “Whenever I
attend a course I find myself dragged to join a WhatsApp group for the course, followed
by a Facebook group for the same course and honestly speaking such groups benefit me a
lot because we all share valuable information on it” (G1, S4). On the contrary, some
students mentioned that the hours they spent on social media affects their academic
performance in a negative way “ Social media takes away from my studying time, mainly
YouTube, it has negative impact on the way and time I dedicate for studying” (G2, S4).
However, some students mentioned that the hours that they spend on social media don’t
have any effects on their academic performance, because they know how to organize
their time and set their priorities “It really saddens me to see that most of the people don’t
know how to use social media in a good way” (G3, S1). “There is no relationship
between social media networks and studying” (G3, S5). Looking at the three different
point of views, there is no consistency in any of the three opinions. Hence, it seems that
there is no actual relationship between the spent hours on social media and academic
performance if the student know how to set his priorities and manage his time in an
effective way, which emulates the 34.10% who picked out the category neutral in the
survey for the statement “The time I spend online on social networks takes away from my
time studying”.

68
Question 4: The use and perception of social media According to different Academic
Statues, Academic Majors and Gender

Research question 4 attempts to understand the relationship between the students use and
perception of social media use in academic related purposes and the different academic
statues, academic majors and gender of the students. The three themes related to this
question are: Students’ experience throughout their academic stages, students’ academic
majors and social media use in academic related purposes, and gender differences in
using social media in academic related purposes.

Looking further into the first theme, which is the students’ experience throughout their
academic stages. The discussions show that there are differences in the social media use
in academic related purposes for the same student throughout his/her academic stages, as
was mentioned by a senior student (G3, S1):

I was literally addicted to social media and playing online games till my second
semester when my GPA reached 1.98 and I was placed on probation. So I tried
hardly to focus on my studies and I found out that when I stopped spending a lot
of time on social media it really differed with me. By the way I am not saying that
I have increased my studying time but not spending so much time on social media
made me have more time for relaxation and practicing my hobbies. Therefore, as
a senior, yes my attitude towards using social media networks have changed
throughout the university years (G3, S1).
Moreover, discussions also show that freshman students don’t use social media in
academically related purposes extensively, however they use it more in socializing with
their friends. These results mirror the quantitative section results about having a high
percentage of freshman students who disagree of having a social media group for some of
their classes.

As for the second theme, which is students’ academic majors and social media use in
academic related purposes. The discussions show that social media use in academic
related purposes differed from a major to major. Engineering students vary greatly in
answers on how long they spend on social media from: not know how long, to declaring a
set number of hours that does not exceed 3, to saying that it’s only when it is
academically needed. It was also interpreted from the discussions that engineering

69
students can’t use social media in academic related purposes due to the nature of their
field of study. Some of the engineering students’ expressive statements were:

For me I definitely use the internet in order to explore new information about my
courses. But when it comes to social media, I only use it as a way of
communication between me and my colleagues to discuss course related
assignments. I can’t for example use Facebook to get information about heat
transfer or thermodynamics course. I believe when it comes to academic related
matters, social media is only a mean of communication (G1, S4).

As engineering students I can’t by any mean use social media networks in any
academic related purposes. We use the Egyptian knowledge bank and google
scholar websites for academic related purposes the most. However, sometimes I
find an interesting links on Facebook about an academic related topic to my
studies (G1, S5)

I hear my friends from the business major talking about their assignments; I get
the impression that in some of the assignments they can depend on social media.
For example, one of my friends used Facebook to do an assignment about the
social media marketing techniques. I only use it to discuss course material with
my classmates and the teaching assistants (G1, S3).
On the contrary, unlike engineering students business administration students stated that
they use social media for academic related purposes. Some of the business major
students’ statements were:

It’s easier for me to use social media in academic related purposes because most
of my course work is about conducting surveys (which I can easily do it via social
media networks). Also, I use social media a lot in the courses that are related to
mass communication, supply chain and marketing courses. I think that the nature
of my major allows me to utilize social media. However, I think that engineering
students work in labs and the nature of their major is more practical than ours
(G1, S1).
All students in the focus groups said that they use social media mostly for socialization,
and less for academic purposes. However, the above statements show that there was a
difference between businesses and engineering in how useful they regarded social media
and how often they used it for academic purposes. On the other hand, Regardless of
major, all regard social media as much easier to communicate since they are on it all the
time. Also, the engineering students described Moodle as technically clunky, inefficient,

70
and not seamlessly integrated into their activities. Several students from both majors
talked about the importance of regulating their usage of social media.

As for the third and last theme, which is gender differences in using social media in
academic related purposes. Both males and females reported they prefer using social
media channels than the formal channels because social media channels is more
accessible, user friendly and open part of their daily life. There is variation among the
females usage of social media, most of them use it for activities around campus and to
know more about colleagues. As for the males,

There was a more deliberate shift to using it better for academic purposes and using it
less for socializing.

Discussion

This study investigated the effect of social media usage on Nile university
undergraduate students, the primary objective of this study was to examine if there is a
relationship between social media usage and students’ major, academic status and gender,
and to what extent are the students using social media in an academic related purposes
and how are they perceiving the effect of their social media usage on their academic
performance.

Surprisingly, in this study the majority of the participants indicated using social
media in academic related purposes such as: sharing information with classmates and
having social media groups for some of the courses and following the latest
developments in their field through social media. However, Alwagait (2015), Wodzicki,
Schawmmlein & Moskluik (2012) and Raacke & Bonds-Raacke (2008) have shown that
students were hardly interested in using social media networks for study related
knowledge. The difference may be explained by the fact that the latest one of the
mentioned studies was three years ago and according to Vorderer (2016) the use of social
media is rapidly increasing especially among the younger generation, or what was
mentioned by Sobaih, Moustafa,Ghandforoush & Khan (2016) that higher education
students may use social media in academic purposes due to the lack of communication
technology and poor infrastructure of most of the Egyptian academic institutions, or

71
because the mean of the participants GPA in this study is 3.02 out of 4.00 which may
show that they are generally good students and according to ( Michikyan,
Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2015) Students with low GPA are more active on Facebook.
Yet, as was shown in the results the majority of the participants use social media in
academic related purposes but they don’t solely rely on it which might show that the
students are aware that social media is not a credible pool of information or the
assignments are challenging enough. Moreover, the focus groups discussions show that
the field of study plays an important role in this issue. For instance, engineering students
find it difficult to use social Media in any academic related purposes. On the contrary,
business students especially those who are majored in mass communication and
marketing find using social media useful to their studies.

The present study also shows that multitasking doesn’t affect the students’
academic performance and that for instance accessing social media networks using their
cellphones inside a classroom or while studying doesn’t distract them. However,
according to other studies Lau (2017) and Janssen, & Brumby (2010) have shown that
media multitasking behavior is a predictor of a poor academic performance and that it
affects the students’ concentration specially during studying. The difference may be
explained by the fact that the majority of students in the current study use social media
for academic related purposes, consequently, it doesn’t distract them from studying.
However, it is helping them.

Consistent with previous research (Tariq, Mehboob, Asf, & Khan, 2012; Boogart,
2016; Michikyan, Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2015; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010) which
had proposed a negative impact of social media usage on the students’ academic
performance. In the present study, the results indicated that there is a negative correlation
between the time spent on social media and the students’ academic performance. On the
other hand, the present study indicated that there is a positive correlation between study
hours and academic performance and negative correlation between the time spent on
social media and the time spent studying, consequently, the more students use social
media the less they study and the lower their GPA gets. What is worrying is that more
than half the population stated that the time they spend on social media is more than the

72
time they spend studying and that they lose concentration once their study is interrupted
by social media.

Ularo (2014) have empirically demonstrated that females are more interested in
using social media than males. However, the present study obtained a different result, it
shows that there is no difference between males and females in using social media but
further it reveals that females use social media in academic related purposes more than
males. Furthermore, the present study results demonstrated a relationship between the
students’ academic status and the use of social media in academic related purposes,
consistent with other research (Pempek, Yermolayeva & Calvert, 2009) freshmen are the
least category from the students’ academic status in using social media in academically
related purposes. However, they use social media for socializing more than the
sophomores, juniors and seniors. Moreover, the present study shows that there is a
difference between different majors in the social media use in academic related purposes,
engineering students use social media for academic purposes more than business
administration students.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study aims to shed the light on the social media effects on the academic
performance of university students in Egypt and aims to clarify to different stakeholders
the relationship between the social media usage and academic performance and to
harness full potential of social media. Interestingly, this study shows that there are three
different students opinion of the social media effect on their academic performance,
according to the survey analysis and the focus group discussions; the students are divided
into three groups. The first group believes that social media have a positive effects on
their academic performance, the second group believes that social media have a negative
effect on their academic performance, and the third group believes that social media does
not have any effects on their academic performance. As per the focus group discussions,
each group has discussed how do they perceive this effect and why do they think that this
effect take place. For instance, the positive effects group mentioned that using social
media as a way of communication in discussing course related contents have a positive
effect on their academic performance, the negative effects group mentioned that their

73
addiction to social media takes away from their studying time which have a negative
effects on their academic performance, and the no effects group mentioned that social
media have nothing to do with their academic performance and as long as they know how
to control their time nothing will affect their academic performance. The discussion and
the results show that the relationship between the social media use and the academic
performance depends on the students’ usage of social media. This explains the negative
correlation between the students’ academic GPA and the time they spend on social
media, which can be addressed by increasing the students’ awareness about the social
media addiction effects. Furthermore, the results of the present study show that the
majority of the participants use social media for academic related purposes as a mean of
communication, they use it connect with their colleagues in order to discuss class related
contents. Higher education institutions in Egypt may utilize this fact in creating a semi-
formal social media networks to be monitored by teacher assistants to better assist the
students and to insure the credibility of the exchanged information between students.
Also, faculty might consider harnessing on this engagement with social media, and think
of ways to creatively engage students with class content. Social media awareness for
students is needed to address the social media addiction issue. Significant differences in
the behavior of students from different academic majors and different academic status in
perceiving and using social media emerged which might require further investigation.
Also, using social media as a communication platform in discussing course related
content falls with the development of communities of learners which is seemingly on
high demand, this area might require further investigation.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations in this study that should be further addressed in the
future. First, the survey was too long for the students to an extent that some students
didn’t complete it out of boredom. Second, the survey was conducted during the English
classes which made it difficult for students to use their cellphones in filling the survey
due to internet network issues, future researchers should conduct the survey in a
computer lab. Third, the number of female participants was quite low in the focus groups.

74
Fourth, the survey needs to be further refined and validated to accurately capture the
conceptual dimensions of the phenomenon under study. Fifth, asking for the time spent
on social media is general because the answers didn’t specify if the app is just open,
whether they are socializing, or doing academically related study. Sixth, the neutral
option in the survey in some way encouraged the students to choose it to avoid the effort
of thinking and deciding.

75
 References

About Egypt. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.eg.undp.org/content/egypt/en/home/

countryinfo.html

Aday, S., Farrell, H., Freelon, D., Lynch, M., Sides, J., & Dewar, M. (2013). Watching
from afar: Media consumption patterns around the Arab spring. American
Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 899-919.

Alwagait, E., Shahzad, B., & Alim, S. (2015). Impact of social media usage on students
academic performance in Saudi Arabia. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1092-
1097.

Ball-Rokeach, S. (1985). The origins of individual media-system dependency: A

sociological framework. Communication Research. 12(4), 485–510.

Baumgartner, S., Weeda, W., Heijden, L., & Huizinga, M. (2014). The relationship
between media multitasking and executive function in early adolescents. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1120-1144.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical
review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.

Bluic, A., Ellis, R., Goodyear, B. & Piggott, L. (2010). Learning through face-to-face and
online discussions: Associations between students' conceptions, approaches and
academic performance in political science. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(3), 512-524.

Boogart,V (2006). Uncovering the social impacts of Facebook on a college campus.

Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Kansas State University.

Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics
in teenage social life. MacArthur foundation series on digital learning–Youth,
identity, and digital media volume, 119-142.

Boyed, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

76
Brym, R., Godbout, M., Hoffbauer, A., Menard, G., & Zhang, T. H. (2014). Social media
in the 2011 Egyptian uprising. The British Journal of Sociology, 65(2), 266-292.

Calderwood, C., Ackerman, P. L., & Conklin, E. M. (2014). What else do college
students “do” while studying? An investigation of multitasking. Computers &
Education, 75, 19-29.

Calderwood, C., Green, J., Joy-Ghaba, J., & Moloney, J. (2016). Forecasting errors in
student media multitasking during homework completion. Computers and
Education, 94, 37-48.

Camilia, O., Sajoh, I., & Dalhatu, B. (2013). The Effect of social networking sites usage
on the studies of Nigerian students. The International Journal of Engineering and
Science (IJES), 2(7), 2319-1805.

Chan, T., Cheung, C., Na Shi, N., & Lee, M. (2015). Gender differences in satisfaction
with Facebook users. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(1), 182-206.

Correa, T., Hinsley, A., & de Zúñiga, H. (2010). Who interacts on the web?: The
intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(2), 247-253.

Cristofoletti, T. (2007). Gender equality and women's empowerment. Retrieved from

https://www.usaid.gov/egypt/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment

Dumpit, D., & Fernandez, C. (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(1)10.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0045-2

DeAndrea, D., Ellison, N., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C., & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social
media: On the use of social media for improving students' adjustment to college. The
Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15-23.

Dijck, J. (2011). 'You'as in'YouTube': Defining user agency in social media platforms. In
Z. Vukanovic, & P. Faustino (Eds.), Managing media economy, media content and
technology in the age of digital convergence (pp. 291-317) Media XXI.

77
Eraqi,M., Abou-Alam,W., Belal,M., & Fahmi,T. (2011). Attitudes of undergraduate
students toward e-Learning in tourism: The case of Egypt. Journal of Teaching in
Travel & Tourism. 11(4), 325-348

El-Khouly, M. M. (2015). Study on the use and impact of online social networking in
Egypt. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence. 7(1).1-4.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton.

Evans, C. (2014). Twitter for teaching: Can social media be used to enhance the process
of learning?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 902-915.

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook “Friends:”
Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.

Fogel, J., & Nutter-Upham, K. (2011). Academic procrastination in college students: The
role of self-reported executive functioning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 33(3), 344-357.

Frost, C. (2016). The revolution might be tweeted but the founding will not be: Arendt
and Innis on time, authority, and appearance. Canadian Journal of Communication,
41(2), 271-286.

Freund, C., & Weinhold, D. (2002). The Internet and international trade in services.
American Economic Review, 92(2), 236-240.

Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional

imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67-91.

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online
social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 119–140

Grossman, L. (2010). Person of the year: Mark Zuckerberg. Time Magazine, 39(4), 709-
736

Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects
of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14(1-2), 79-83.

78
Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using
technology to increase student involvement. New directions for student services,
(124), 19-35.

Howard, P. & Hussain, M. (2o11). The role of digital media. Journal of Democracy,
22(3), 35-48.

Junco, R., & Madden, M. (2014). Engaging students through social media: Evidence
based practices for use in student affairs (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-
Bass.

Jones,N., Blackey,H., Fitzgibbon,K. & Chew,E. (2010) Get out of MySpace! Computers
& Education, 54 (3), 776-782

Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting twitter to the test: Assessing
outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 44(2), 273-287.

Janssen,C. & Brumby,D. ( 2010). Strategic adaptation to performance objectives in a

dual-task setting. Cognitive Science a Multidisciplinary Journal, 34(8), 1548-1560.

Julia, D., Langa, M., & Miquel, J. (2016). The influence of relationship networks on
academic performance in higher education: A comparative study between students of
a creative and a non-creative discipline. Higher Education, 71(3), 307–322.

Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between
multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in human
behavior, 28(1), 187-198.

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in

Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-
171.

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.

Kirschner, P. & Karpinski, A. (2010) Facebook and academic performance. Computers in

Human Behavior, 26, 1237-1245.

79
Kim, Y., & Khang, H. (2014). Revisiting civic voluntarism predictors of college students’
political participation in the context of social media. Computers in Human Behavior,
36, 114-121.

Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Kane, C. 2. (2014). What’s different about social media networks? A framework and
research agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 275.

Lau, W. (2017). Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the
academic performance of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 68,
286-291. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.043

Lee, C. S. (2012). Exploring emotional expressions on YouTube through the lens of

media system dependency theory. New Media & Society, 14(3), 457-475.

Lim, J., Heinriches, J., & Lim, K. (2017). Gender and hedonic usage motive differences
in social media site usage behavior. Journal of Global Marketing, 30(3), 161-173.

Lei, J. & Zhao, Y. (2005). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal
study. Computers & Education, 49, 284-296.

Lynn, T., Healy, P., Kilroy, S., Hunt, G., van der Werff, L., Venkatagiri, S., & Morrison,
J. (2015). Towards a general research framework for social media research using big
data. In Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2015 IEEE International
(p. 1-8). IEEE.

Larose, R., Mastro, D., & Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding internet usage: A social-
cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review,
19(4), 395-413.

Marsh, J., Brookes, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., Roberts, S. & Wright, K. (2005). Digital
beginnings: Young children's use of popular culture, media and new technologies,
Literacy Research Centre, University of Sheffield.

80
Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2015). Facebook use and academic
performance among college students: A mixed-methods study with a multi-ethnic
sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 265-272.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and
informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about
work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 141–155.

Mantylam, T. (2013). Gender differences in multitasking reflect spatial ability.

Association of Psychological Science, 24(4).

Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The
anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and
well-being. Developmental psychology, 48(2), 369.

Moreno, M., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., Deirmyer, C., & Christakis, D. (2012). Internet use
and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience sampling approach.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1097-1102.

McLoughlin,C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2010) Personalised and self regulated learning in the
web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software
Australasian. Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (1) , 28-43.

Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook.

Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 13(4), 357-364.

Most famous social networks Worldwide as of January 2018, ranked by number of active
users(inmillions).(2018,January).Retrievedfrom
:https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-
number-of-users/

Noor Al-Deen, H. S., & Hendricks, J. A. (2011). Social media: Usage and impact.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Pempek,T., Yermolayeva,Y.,& Calvert,S. (2009). College students' social networking

experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3),
227-238

81
Perrin, A. (2018). Social Media Usage: 2005-2015. Pew Research Center: Internet,
Science & Tech. Retrieved 14 March 2018, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/

Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for
classrooms.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rambe, P. (2012). Constructive disruptions for effective collaborative learning:

Navigating the affordances of social media for meaningful engagement. Electronic

Journal of E-Learning 10(1), 132-146.

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and
gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology &
behavior, 11(2), 169-174.

O’Neill, M. A., & Palmer, A. (2004). Importance-performance analysis: a useful tool for
directing continuous quality improvement in higher education. Quality assurance in
education, 12(1), 39-52.

Ohaja, E.U. (2003) Mass communication research and project report writing. Lagos:

John Letterman Ltd.

Osharive, P. (2015). Social Media and Academic Performance of Students. Research

Project submitted to Department of Educational Administration, (100302125).

Obar, J., & Wildman, S. (October, 2015). Telecommunications policy. Elsevier, 39(9),
745-750. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.07.014

O'Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children,
adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800-804.

Olise, F., & Makka, E. (2013). Uses and gratification of the internet among mass
communication students in delta state university, Abraka, Nigeria. International
Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 9(4), 70-80.

82
Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
The influence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate sample.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 337-340.

Putzke, J., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D., & Gloor, P. A. (2014). Cross-cultural gender
differences in the adoption and usage of social media platforms – an exploratory
study of last.FM. Computer Networks, 75, 519-530.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook.

Learning, Media, and Technology, 34(2), 157-174.

Singh, S. (2017). Importance and challenges of social media text. International Journal
of Advanced Research in Computer Science, 8(3), 831-834.

Saied,S., ElSabagh, H., & El-Afandy,A. (2016) Internet and Facebook addiction among
Egyptian and Malaysian medical students: A comparative study, Tanta University,
Egypt. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, 3(5).

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of
educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1) 65-73.

Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and
offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal
of applied developmental psychology, 29(6), 420-433.

Safranek, R. (2012). The emerging role of social media in political and regime change.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.databank.com.lb/docs/The%20Emerging%20Role%20of
%20Social%20Media%20in%20Political%20and%20Regime%20Change%20-
2012.pdf

Selwyn, N. (2012). Social media in higher education. The Europa world of learning, 1-
10.

Yang,S., Allenby,G. (2003). Modeling interdependent consumer preferences. Journal of

Marketing Research, 40 (3), 282-294.

83
Social media fact sheet. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-
sheet/social-media/

Tazghini, S., & Siedlecki, K. L. (2013). A mixed method approach to examining

Facebook use and its relationship to self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(3), 827-832.

Top, E. (2012). Blogging as a social medium in undergraduate courses: Sense of

community best predictor of perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education,
15(1), 24-28.

Transue, B. (2013). Connectivism and information literacy: Moving from learning theory
to pedagogical practice. Public Services Quarterly, 9(3), 185-195.

Tess, P. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A
literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60-A68.

Tariq, W., Mehboob, M., Asf, M., & Khan, Y. (2012). The Impact of social media and
social networks on education and students of Pakistan. International Journal of
Computer Science 9,407-411.

Ularo, V. (2014). Gender differences in online media usage. Journal of Research in

Gender Studies, 4(1), 961-966.

Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It's
complicated: Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election.
CyberPsychology, behavior, and social networking, 14(3), 107-114.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network
site?: Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation.
Journal of computer-mediated communication, 14(4), 875-901.

Vorderer, P. (2016). Permanently online - permanently connected: Explorations into

university students' use of social media and mobile smart devices. Computers in
Human Behavior, 63, 694-703. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.085

Wodzicki, K., Schawmmlein, E., & Moskluik, J. (2012). “Actually, I wanted to learn”:
Study-related knowledge exchange on social networking sites. The Internet and
Higher Education, 15(1), 9-14.

84
Williams, J. & Jacobs, J. (2004) Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the
higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20 (2).
232-247

What is Nile University? (2017). Retrieved from http://nu.edu.eg/index.php/who-we-are/

Welch, B. K., & Bonnan-White, J. (2012). Twittering to increase student engagement in

the University classroom. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International
Journal, 4, 325-345.

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, 55(4), 1494-1503.

Yang, C.-C., & Brown, B. B. (2016). Online self-presentation on Facebook and self-
development during the college transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45,
402–416.

Zurmuehlin, M. (1981). Descriptive survey. Working Papers in Art Education., 1(1), 54-
63.

Zheng, W., Yuan, C., Chang, W., & Wu, Y. (2016). Profile pictures on social media:

Gender and regional differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 891-898.

85
 Appendices
Appendix 1
Social Media and Academic Performance of Students Questionnaire (SMAAPOS)

A student Survey conducted by Peter Osharive (Osharive, 2015)

Section A: General Information

Dear respondents,

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of social media on the academic life
and performance of students at Nile University.

Please read carefully and tick the appropriate choice for each statement. Make sure to
pick ONLY one answer.

All information gathered shall be used purely for research purposes and shall be treated
with confidentiality.

1)Gender □ Male □ Female

2)Year □Freshman □Sophomore □Junior □Senior

□Business
3)Program Administration □Computer Science □Mechanical Engineering
□Electronics &
Communication
□Civil Engineering Engineering □Industrial Engineering

4) What is your current GPA? Please use the traditional U.S. numerical format
(Examples: 3.0, 3.4, 2.5)

----------

5) Which forms of social media do you use the most?

86
 □Facebook □WhatsApp □Instagram □Snapchat □If other, please
specify: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

6) How many hours do you spend studying per week? (Examples: 10, 15, 11.5.
Numerical answer only)

-------------------------------

7) How many hours do you spend on social media daily? (Examples: 10, 15, 11.5.
Numerical answer only)

-----------------------------

Section B: Likert Scale

Instructions: Instructions: Please read each statement carefully and choose the most
appropriate answer.

Strongly Strongl
Statement: Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagre
1)The time I spend online on social networks
takes away from my time studying
2)Online social networks distract me from my
studies
3)The hours I spend online on social media are
more than the hours I spend reading
4)My unlimited access to Facebook through my
cell phone has affected my academic performance
negatively.

5)I engage in academic discussions on social

media platforms

6)I make use of WhatsApp to share information

with my classmates

87
7)Social media have impacted my GPA positively

8)I follow the latest developments in my field

through social media.
9)I solely rely on information gotten from social
media to do my assignments without consulting
other sources

10)The usage of social media for research has

helped improve my grades
11)Social media has negatively impacted my
writing skills.
12)Engaging in academic forums on social media
confuses me
13)Sometimes I use social media to understand
what I have been taught in class
14)Social media have impacted my GPA
negatively
15)I will not perform well in my academics even
if I stop using social media
16)Social media is encouraged by professors as
part of class assignments.
17)We have a social media group for some of my
courses.
18)I use social media for making new friends and
socializing more than I use it for academic
purposes
19)I have to use social media extensively because
most of my course assignments/projects are in the
forms of blogs/online presentations

20)Social media has improved my communication

88
skills.

21)Once I interrupt my study time with social

media, I lose concentration
22)I communicate with the professor through
social media.
23) If you have any further comments on the impact of social media on your academics,
please share it below.

89
Appendix 2

90
Appendix 3

91
 Appendix 4

Multiple Comparisons

How many hours do you spend on social media daily? (Examples: 10, 15, 11.5. Numerical

answer only)

LSD

95% Confidence

Interval
Mean

Dependent (J) q5new 3) Difference Std. Lower Upper

Variable (I) q5new 3) Major Major (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

q18 9)I solely rely 1 Business 2 Civil -.024- .281 .931 -.58- .53

on information Administration Engineering

gotten from social

3 Computer -.541-* .214 .012 -.96- -.12-
media to do my
Engineering
assignments
4 Computer -.859-* .293 .004 -1.43- -.28-
without consulting
Science
other sources

5 Electronics and -.155- .212 .465 -.57- .26

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial -.195- .204 .340 -.60- .21

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.332- .169 .050 -.66- .00

Engineering

2 Civil 1 Business .024 .281 .931 -.53- .58

Engineering Administration

92
 3 Computer -.517- .322 .109 -1.15- .12

Engineering

4 Computer -.834-* .379 .028 -1.58- -.09-

Science

5 Electronics and -.130- .321 .684 -.76- .50

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial -.171- .315 .589 -.79- .45

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.307- .294 .296 -.89- .27

Engineering

3 Computer 1 Business .541* .214 .012 .12 .96

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .517 .322 .109 -.12- 1.15

Engineering

4 Computer -.317- .332 .339 -.97- .33

Science

5 Electronics and .386 .263 .143 -.13- .90

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .346 .257 .178 -.16- .85

Engineering

7 Mechanical .210 .230 .363 -.24- .66

Engineering

*
4 Computer 1 Business .859 .293 .004 .28 1.43

Science Administration

93
 2 Civil .834* .379 .028 .09 1.58

Engineering

3 Computer .317 .332 .339 -.33- .97

Engineering

5 Electronics and .704* .331 .034 .05 1.35

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .664* .325 .042 .02 1.30

Engineering

7 Mechanical .527 .305 .085 -.07- 1.13

Engineering

5 Electronics and 1 Business .155 .212 .465 -.26- .57

Communication Administration

Engineering
2 Civil .130 .321 .684 -.50- .76

Engineering

3 Computer -.386- .263 .143 -.90- .13

Engineering

4 Computer -.704-* .331 .034 -1.35- -.05-

Science

6 Industrial -.040- .255 .875 -.54- .46

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.177- .228 .439 -.63- .27

Engineering

6 Industrial 1 Business .195 .204 .340 -.21- .60

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .171 .315 .589 -.45- .79

94
 Engineering

3 Computer -.346- .257 .178 -.85- .16

Engineering

4 Computer -.664-* .325 .042 -1.30- -.02-

Science

5 Electronics and .040 .255 .875 -.46- .54

Communication

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.137- .221 .536 -.57- .30

Engineering

7 Mechanical 1 Business .332 .169 .050 .00 .66

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .307 .294 .296 -.27- .89

Engineering

3 Computer -.210- .230 .363 -.66- .24

Engineering

4 Computer -.527- .305 .085 -1.13- .07

Science

5 Electronics and .177 .228 .439 -.27- .63

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .137 .221 .536 -.30- .57

Engineering

q19 10)The usage 1 Business 2 Civil -.161- .257 .532 -.67- .35

of social media for Administration Engineering

class related
3 Computer -.578-* .196 .003 -.96- -.19-

95
research has Engineering

helped improve
4 Computer -.807-* .268 .003 -1.33- -.28-
my grades
Science

5 Electronics and -.313- .194 .107 -.69- .07

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .131 .187 .481 -.24- .50

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.367-* .155 .018 -.67- -.06-

Engineering

2 Civil 1 Business .161 .257 .532 -.35- .67

Engineering Administration

3 Computer -.417- .294 .157 -1.00- .16

Engineering

4 Computer -.646- .347 .063 -1.33- .04

Science

5 Electronics and -.152- .293 .604 -.73- .42

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .292 .289 .311 -.27- .86

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.206- .269 .444 -.73- .32

Engineering

3 Computer 1 Business .578* .196 .003 .19 .96

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .417 .294 .157 -.16- 1.00

96
 Engineering

4 Computer -.229- .304 .452 -.83- .37

Science

5 Electronics and .265 .241 .271 -.21- .74

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .710* .235 .003 .25 1.17

Engineering

7 Mechanical .211 .211 .316 -.20- .63

Engineering

4 Computer 1 Business .807* .268 .003 .28 1.33

Science Administration

2 Civil .646 .347 .063 -.04- 1.33

Engineering

3 Computer .229 .304 .452 -.37- .83

Engineering

5 Electronics and .494 .303 .103 -.10- 1.09

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .938* .298 .002 .35 1.52

Engineering

7 Mechanical .440 .279 .116 -.11- .99

Engineering

5 Electronics and 1 Business .313 .194 .107 -.07- .69

Communication Administration

Engineering
2 Civil .152 .293 .604 -.42- .73

97
 Engineering

3 Computer -.265- .241 .271 -.74- .21

Engineering

4 Computer -.494- .303 .103 -1.09- .10

Science

6 Industrial .445 .234 .058 -.01- .90

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.054- .209 .797 -.46- .36

Engineering

6 Industrial 1 Business -.131- .187 .481 -.50- .24

Engineering Administration

2 Civil -.292- .289 .311 -.86- .27

Engineering

3 Computer -.710-* .235 .003 -1.17- -.25-

Engineering

4 Computer -.938-* .298 .002 -1.52- -.35-

Science

5 Electronics and -.445- .234 .058 -.90- .01

Communication

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.498-* .202 .014 -.90- -.10-

Engineering

7 Mechanical 1 Business .367* .155 .018 .06 .67

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .206 .269 .444 -.32- .73

Engineering

98
 3 Computer -.211- .211 .316 -.63- .20

Engineering

4 Computer -.440- .279 .116 -.99- .11

Science

5 Electronics and .054 .209 .797 -.36- .46

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .498* .202 .014 .10 .90

Engineering

q26 17)We have a 1 Business 2 Civil .554* .270 .041 .02 1.08

social media Administration Engineering

group for some of

3 Computer .272 .205 .185 -.13- .67
my courses
Engineering

4 Computer .440 .281 .117 -.11- .99

Science

5 Electronics and .250 .203 .219 -.15- .65

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .819* .195 .000 .43 1.20

Engineering

7 Mechanical .534* .162 .001 .22 .85

Engineering

2 Civil 1 Business -.554-* .270 .041 -1.08- -.02-

Engineering Administration

3 Computer -.282- .309 .361 -.89- .32

Engineering

99
 4 Computer -.114- .363 .754 -.83- .60

Science

5 Electronics and -.304- .307 .323 -.91- .30

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .264 .302 .383 -.33- .86

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.020- .282 .943 -.57- .53

Engineering

3 Computer 1 Business -.272- .205 .185 -.67- .13

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .282 .309 .361 -.32- .89

Engineering

4 Computer .168 .318 .597 -.46- .79

Science

5 Electronics and -.022- .252 .930 -.52- .47

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .546* .246 .027 .06 1.03

Engineering

7 Mechanical .262 .221 .236 -.17- .70

Engineering

4 Computer 1 Business -.440- .281 .117 -.99- .11

Science Administration

2 Civil .114 .363 .754 -.60- .83

Engineering

100
 3 Computer -.168- .318 .597 -.79- .46

Engineering

5 Electronics and -.190- .317 .548 -.81- .43

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .378 .312 .226 -.24- .99

Engineering

7 Mechanical .094 .292 .749 -.48- .67

Engineering

5 Electronics and 1 Business -.250- .203 .219 -.65- .15

Communication Administration

Engineering
2 Civil .304 .307 .323 -.30- .91

Engineering

3 Computer .022 .252 .930 -.47- .52

Engineering

4 Computer .190 .317 .548 -.43- .81

Science

6 Industrial .569* .245 .021 .09 1.05

Engineering

7 Mechanical .284 .219 .195 -.15- .71

Engineering

6 Industrial 1 Business -.819-* .195 .000 -1.20- -.43-

Engineering Administration

2 Civil -.264- .302 .383 -.86- .33

Engineering

3 Computer -.546-* .246 .027 -1.03- -.06-

101
 Engineering

4 Computer -.378- .312 .226 -.99- .24

Science

5 Electronics and -.569-* .245 .021 -1.05- -.09-

Communication

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.285- .212 .180 -.70- .13

Engineering

7 Mechanical 1 Business -.534-* .162 .001 -.85- -.22-

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .020 .282 .943 -.53- .57

Engineering

3 Computer -.262- .221 .236 -.70- .17

Engineering

4 Computer -.094- .292 .749 -.67- .48

Science

5 Electronics and -.284- .219 .195 -.71- .15

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .285 .212 .180 -.13- .70

Engineering

q28 19)I have to 1 Business 2 Civil .077 .269 .776 -.45- .61

use social media Administration Engineering

extensively
3 Computer -.514-* .204 .012 -.92- -.11-
because most of
Engineering
my course
4 Computer -.310- .280 .268 -.86- .24
assignments/proje

102
cts are in the Science

forms of
5 Electronics and -.010- .203 .960 -.41- .39
blogs/online
Communication
presentations
Engineering

6 Industrial .446* .195 .023 .06 .83

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.029- .162 .860 -.35- .29

Engineering

2 Civil 1 Business -.077- .269 .776 -.61- .45

Engineering Administration

3 Computer -.590- .308 .056 -1.20- .01

Engineering

4 Computer -.387- .362 .286 -1.10- .33

Science

5 Electronics and -.087- .307 .777 -.69- .52

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .369 .302 .222 -.22- .96

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.105- .281 .708 -.66- .45

Engineering

3 Computer 1 Business .514* .204 .012 .11 .92

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .590 .308 .056 -.01- 1.20

Engineering

4 Computer .203 .317 .522 -.42- .83

103
 Science

5 Electronics and .503* .252 .046 .01 1.00

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .959* .246 .000 .48 1.44

Engineering

7 Mechanical .485* .220 .028 .05 .92

Engineering

4 Computer 1 Business .310 .280 .268 -.24- .86

Science Administration

2 Civil .387 .362 .286 -.33- 1.10

Engineering

3 Computer -.203- .317 .522 -.83- .42

Engineering

5 Electronics and .300 .316 .343 -.32- .92

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .756* .311 .016 .14 1.37

Engineering

7 Mechanical .282 .292 .334 -.29- .86

Engineering

5 Electronics and 1 Business .010 .203 .960 -.39- .41

Communication Administration

Engineering
2 Civil .087 .307 .777 -.52- .69

Engineering

3 Computer -.503-* .252 .046 -1.00- -.01-

104
 Engineering

4 Computer -.300- .316 .343 -.92- .32

Science

6 Industrial .456 .244 .062 -.02- .94

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.018- .218 .933 -.45- .41

Engineering

6 Industrial 1 Business -.446-* .195 .023 -.83- -.06-

Engineering Administration

2 Civil -.369- .302 .222 -.96- .22

Engineering

3 Computer -.959-* .246 .000 -1.44- -.48-

Engineering

4 Computer -.756-* .311 .016 -1.37- -.14-

Science

5 Electronics and -.456- .244 .062 -.94- .02

Communication

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.474-* .211 .025 -.89- -.06-

Engineering

7 Mechanical 1 Business .029 .162 .860 -.29- .35

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .105 .281 .708 -.45- .66

Engineering

3 Computer -.485-* .220 .028 -.92- -.05-

Engineering

105
 4 Computer -.282- .292 .334 -.86- .29

Science

5 Electronics and .018 .218 .933 -.41- .45

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .474* .211 .025 .06 .89

Engineering

q29 20)Social 1 Business 2 Civil .026 .289 .930 -.54- .59

media has Administration Engineering

improved my
3 Computer -.542-* .220 .014 -.97- -.11-
communication
Engineering
skills.
4 Computer .547 .301 .070 -.04- 1.14

Science

5 Electronics and .134 .218 .538 -.29- .56

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .155 .210 .460 -.26- .57

Engineering

7 Mechanical .093 .174 .594 -.25- .43

Engineering

2 Civil 1 Business -.026- .289 .930 -.59- .54

Engineering Administration

3 Computer -.567- .331 .087 -1.22- .08

Engineering

4 Computer .522 .390 .181 -.24- 1.29

Science

106
 5 Electronics and .109 .330 .742 -.54- .76

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .130 .324 .690 -.51- .77

Engineering

7 Mechanical .067 .302 .824 -.53- .66

Engineering

3 Computer 1 Business .542* .220 .014 .11 .97

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .567 .331 .087 -.08- 1.22

Engineering

4 Computer 1.089* .341 .002 .42 1.76

Science

5 Electronics and .676* .271 .013 .14 1.21

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .697* .264 .009 .18 1.22

Engineering

7 Mechanical .634* .237 .008 .17 1.10

Engineering

4 Computer 1 Business -.547- .301 .070 -1.14- .04

Science Administration

2 Civil -.522- .390 .181 -1.29- .24

Engineering

*
3 Computer -1.089- .341 .002 -1.76- -.42-

Engineering

107
 5 Electronics and -.413- .340 .225 -1.08- .26

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial -.392- .335 .242 -1.05- .27

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.455- .313 .148 -1.07- .16

Engineering

5 Electronics and 1 Business -.134- .218 .538 -.56- .29

Communication Administration

Engineering
2 Civil -.109- .330 .742 -.76- .54

Engineering

3 Computer -.676-* .271 .013 -1.21- -.14-

Engineering

4 Computer .413 .340 .225 -.26- 1.08

Science

6 Industrial .021 .262 .937 -.49- .54

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.042- .235 .860 -.50- .42

Engineering

6 Industrial 1 Business -.155- .210 .460 -.57- .26

Engineering Administration

2 Civil -.130- .324 .690 -.77- .51

Engineering

3 Computer -.697-* .264 .009 -1.22- -.18-

Engineering

4 Computer .392 .335 .242 -.27- 1.05

108
 Science

5 Electronics and -.021- .262 .937 -.54- .49

Communication

Engineering

7 Mechanical -.062- .227 .784 -.51- .38

Engineering

7 Mechanical 1 Business -.093- .174 .594 -.43- .25

Engineering Administration

2 Civil -.067- .302 .824 -.66- .53

Engineering

3 Computer -.634-* .237 .008 -1.10- -.17-

Engineering

4 Computer .455 .313 .148 -.16- 1.07

Science

5 Electronics and .042 .235 .860 -.42- .50

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .062 .227 .784 -.38- .51

Engineering

q7 5) How many 1 Business 2 Civil -2.72312- 1.9496 .163 -6.5556- 1.1094

hours do you Administration Engineering 8

spend studying
3 Computer -1.63761- 1.4808 .269 -4.5484- 1.2732
per week?
Engineering 2
(Examples: 10,
4 Computer -1.11856- 2.0284 .582 -5.1059- 2.8687
15, 11.5.
Science 4
Numerical answer

only) 5 Electronics and -3.57095-* 1.4684 .015 -6.4574- -.6845-

109
 Communication 2

Engineering

6 Industrial -1.05134- 1.4124 .457 -3.8278- 1.7251

Engineering 4

7 Mechanical -4.19311-* 1.1709 .000 -6.4949- -1.8913-

Engineering 6

2 Civil 1 Business 2.72312 1.9496 .163 -1.1094- 6.5556

Engineering Administration 8

3 Computer 1.08551 2.2296 .627 -3.2974- 5.4684

Engineering 9

4 Computer 1.60455 2.6255 .541 -3.5564- 6.7655

Science 0

5 Electronics and -.84783- 2.2214 .703 -5.2146- 3.5189

Communication 7

Engineering

6 Industrial 1.67178 2.1848 .445 -2.6230- 5.9666

Engineering 7

7 Mechanical -1.46999- 2.0371 .471 -5.4743- 2.5344

Engineering 2

3 Computer 1 Business 1.63761 1.4808 .269 -1.2732- 4.5484

Engineering Administration 2

2 Civil -1.08551- 2.2296 .627 -5.4684- 3.2974

Engineering 9

4 Computer .51905 2.2988 .821 -3.9998- 5.0379

Science 8

5 Electronics and -1.93333- 1.8238 .290 -5.5185- 1.6519

110
 Communication 7

Engineering

6 Industrial .58627 1.7791 .742 -2.9109- 4.0835

Engineering 1

7 Mechanical -2.55549- 1.5941 .110 -5.6892- .5782

Engineering 8

4 Computer 1 Business 1.11856 2.0284 .582 -2.8687- 5.1059

Science Administration 4

2 Civil -1.60455- 2.6255 .541 -6.7655- 3.5564

Engineering 0

3 Computer -.51905- 2.2988 .821 -5.0379- 3.9998

Engineering 8

5 Electronics and -2.45238- 2.2909 .285 -6.9556- 2.0509

Communication 1

Engineering

6 Industrial .06723 2.2554 .976 -4.3663- 4.5007

Engineering 4

7 Mechanical -3.07454- 2.1126 .146 -7.2273- 1.0782

Engineering 2

5 Electronics and 1 Business 3.57095* 1.4684 .015 .6845 6.4574

Communication Administration 2

Engineering
2 Civil .84783 2.2214 .703 -3.5189- 5.2146

Engineering 7

3 Computer 1.93333 1.8238 .290 -1.6519- 5.5185

Engineering 7

4 Computer 2.45238 2.2909 .285 -2.0509- 6.9556

111
 Science 1

6 Industrial 2.51961 1.7688 .155 -.9573- 5.9966

Engineering 1

7 Mechanical -.62216- 1.5826 .694 -3.7332- 2.4889

Engineering 7

6 Industrial 1 Business 1.05134 1.4124 .457 -1.7251- 3.8278

Engineering Administration 4

2 Civil -1.67178- 2.1848 .445 -5.9666- 2.6230

Engineering 7

3 Computer -.58627- 1.7791 .742 -4.0835- 2.9109

Engineering 1

4 Computer -.06723- 2.2554 .976 -4.5007- 4.3663

Science 4

5 Electronics and -2.51961- 1.7688 .155 -5.9966- .9573

Communication 1

Engineering

7 Mechanical -3.14177-* 1.5308 .041 -6.1510- -.1325-

Engineering 8

7 Mechanical 1 Business 4.19311* 1.1709 .000 1.8913 6.4949

Engineering Administration 6

2 Civil 1.46999 2.0371 .471 -2.5344- 5.4743

Engineering 2

3 Computer 2.55549 1.5941 .110 -.5782- 5.6892

Engineering 8

4 Computer 3.07454 2.1126 .146 -1.0782- 7.2273

Science 2

112
 5 Electronics and .62216 1.5826 .694 -2.4889- 3.7332

Communication 7

Engineering

6 Industrial 3.14177* 1.5308 .041 .1325 6.1510

Engineering 8

q9 7) How many 1 Business 2 Civil .96653 1.1454 .399 -1.2851- 3.2181

hours do you Administration Engineering 3

spend on social
3 Computer 2.66537* .87027 .002 .9547 4.3761
media daily?
Engineering
(Examples: 10,
4 Computer 2.01156 1.1916 .092 -.3309- 4.3540
15, 11.5.
Science 7
Numerical answer

only) 5 Electronics and 1.53175 .86300 .077 -.1647- 3.2282

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial .11871 .83015 .886 -1.5131- 1.7505

Engineering

7 Mechanical 1.37439* .68850 .047 .0210 2.7278

Engineering

2 Civil 1 Business -.96653- 1.1454 .399 -3.2181- 1.2851

Engineering Administration 3

3 Computer 1.69884 1.3093 .195 -.8749- 4.2726

Engineering 4

4 Computer 1.04503 1.5417 .498 -1.9857- 4.0757

Science 8

5 Electronics and .56522 1.3045 .665 -1.9991- 3.1295

Communication 2

113
 Engineering

6 Industrial -.84783- 1.2830 .509 -3.3699- 1.6742

Engineering 3

7 Mechanical .40786 1.1962 .733 -1.9436- 2.7594

Engineering 6

3 Computer 1 Business -2.66537-* .87027 .002 -4.3761- -.9547-

Engineering Administration

2 Civil -1.69884- 1.3093 .195 -4.2726- .8749

Engineering 4

4 Computer -.65381- 1.3499 .628 -3.3075- 1.9998

Science 7

5 Electronics and -1.13362- 1.0710 .290 -3.2390- .9717

Communication 4

Engineering

6 Industrial -2.54667-* 1.0447 .015 -4.6003- -.4930-

Engineering 5

7 Mechanical -1.29098- .93615 .169 -3.1312- .5492

Engineering

4 Computer 1 Business -2.01156- 1.1916 .092 -4.3540- .3309

Science Administration 7

2 Civil -1.04503- 1.5417 .498 -4.0757- 1.9857

Engineering 8

3 Computer .65381 1.3499 .628 -1.9998- 3.3075

Engineering 7

5 Electronics and -.47981- 1.3452 .722 -3.1243- 2.1646

Communication 9

114
 Engineering

6 Industrial -1.89286- 1.3244 .154 -4.4964- .7107

Engineering 6

7 Mechanical -.63718- 1.2406 .608 -3.0758- 1.8015

Engineering 0

5 Electronics and 1 Business -1.53175- .86300 .077 -3.2282- .1647

Communication Administration

Engineering
2 Civil -.56522- 1.3045 .665 -3.1295- 1.9991

Engineering 2

3 Computer 1.13362 1.0710 .290 -.9717- 3.2390

Engineering 4

4 Computer .47981 1.3452 .722 -2.1646- 3.1243

Science 9

6 Industrial -1.41304- 1.0387 .174 -3.4548- .6287

Engineering 0

7 Mechanical -.15736- .92940 .866 -1.9843- 1.6696

Engineering

6 Industrial 1 Business -.11871- .83015 .886 -1.7505- 1.5131

Engineering Administration

2 Civil .84783 1.2830 .509 -1.6742- 3.3699

Engineering 3

3 Computer 2.54667* 1.0447 .015 .4930 4.6003

Engineering 5

4 Computer 1.89286 1.3244 .154 -.7107- 4.4964

Science 6

115
 5 Electronics and 1.41304 1.0387 .174 -.6287- 3.4548

Communication 0

Engineering

7 Mechanical 1.25568 .89898 .163 -.5115- 3.0228

Engineering

7 Mechanical 1 Business -1.37439-* .68850 .047 -2.7278- -.0210-

Engineering Administration

2 Civil -.40786- 1.1962 .733 -2.7594- 1.9436

Engineering 6

3 Computer 1.29098 .93615 .169 -.5492- 3.1312

Engineering

4 Computer .63718 1.2406 .608 -1.8015- 3.0758

Science 0

5 Electronics and .15736 .92940 .866 -1.6696- 1.9843

Communication

Engineering

6 Industrial -1.25568- .89898 .163 -3.0228- .5115

Engineering

116
 Appendix 5

Focus Group Questions

1. How many hours do you use social media in academic related purposes daily?

2. Why do you prefer using social media channels in communicating with your
classmates such as: Facebook and WhatsApp than using the university formal
channels of communication such as: Email and MOODLE?

3. What are the differences that you have noticed in your social media use in
academic related purposes throughout your academic stages?

4. Do you see that your major affects your social media use in academic related
purposes? Why?

5. Does social media affects your GPA? How?

6. How do using social media in academic related purposes affect your academic
performance negatively? Why?

7. Does social media benefits you academically in any way? If yes, How?

8. How do you feel about the professors who require the use of social media in some
of their assignments?

9. How can you manage using social media without distracting you from your
studies?

117
10. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of using social media on your
academic performance?

118