EFFECTIVE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

NETWORKS FOR COLLABORATIVE

LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Lakmali Chandani Herath Jayarathna

Bachelor of Commerce
Master of Business Administration (Information Systems)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Information Systems

Faculty of Science
Queensland University of Technology
2022
 Publication List

Jayarathna, L., Eden, R., Fielt, E., & Nili, A. (2020). Contextualizing the Effective
Use of Social Media Network for Collaborative Learning: An Affordance Perspective.
In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems
Jayarathna, L. H., Eden, R., Fielt, E., & Nili, A. (2020). The Effective Use of Social
Media Networks for Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. In International
Conference on Information Systems

i
 Abstract
Information systems can be used in different ways, and their impacts depend
on how users use them in specific contexts. Among the different ways systems can be
used, “[effective use] is the lynchpin through which an information system achieves
its potential” (Burton-Jones, Bremhorst et al. 2017, p. 153). However, a systematic
review of effective use literature undertaken as part of this research identified that
attempts to measure effective use have largely examined financial or enterprise
systems used in organizational settings. Yet in subsequent research in the field, the
necessity to contextualize effective use has been raised.
This research seeks to examine effective use in the context of social media
networks (SMN) use for collaborative learning in the higher education sector. SMN
are a key priority area in higher education for improving student-centred collaborative
learning. Despite this, how students can effectively use SMN for collaborative learning
has received limited attention with previous studies largely limited to user attitudes
toward the use of SMN for learning. Given that benefits obtained from information
systems (such as SMN) are dependent on how they are used but not on users’ attitudes,
understanding how students can effectively use SMN for collaborative learning is a
pertinent question. To contextualize effective use of SMN for collaborative learning
this research is predominantly based on the Burton-Jones & Volkoff’s (2017)
affordance actualization-based approach. Given the social nature of SMN and
collaborative learning, this study further investigates the role of social capital on
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. The research design of the study is a
case study employing mixed method research design which employs insights from
both qualitative interviews and quantitative survey data analysis.
Findings of the research benefit both theory and practice in several ways. In
terms of contributions to theory, this research: (i) contextualizes effective use in the
SMN context; (ii) identifies context specific enablers and consequences of effective
use; and (iii) compares the efficacy of context-aware and context-agnostic perspectives
of effective use. Employing a mixed-method research approach involving both
qualitative and quantitative analysis this research provides a methodological
contribution to the field by extending and improving Burton-Jones & Volkoff’s
affordance based approach to contextualize effective use. In terms of practice, this
research will facilitate higher education providers to identify relevant factors that

ii
enhance the achievement of better outcomes of collaborative learning. Overall, the
higher education sector will benefit from the research to strengthen their strategies in
investing in, designing and effectively adopting SMN for collaborative learning.

iii
 Keywords

Effective Use, Affordances, Actualization, Social Media Networks, Social Capital,

System Use, Collaborative Learning, Higher Education, Field Study, Mixed
Methods, Survey, Interviews, Structural Equation Modelling, Transparent
Interaction, Representation Fidelity, Informed Action, Collaboration,
Communication, Content Sharing, Self-Presentation, Structural Capital, Relational
Capital, Cognitive Capital, Social Goals, Psychological Goals, Academic Goals

iv
 Table of Contents

Publication List ......................................................................................................................... i

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii
Keywords ................................................................................................................................ iv
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................x
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. xii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Background .....................................................................................................2
1.2 Research Problem and Rationale ....................................................................................5
1.3 Research Questions.........................................................................................................6
1.4 Research Scope ...............................................................................................................9
1.4.1 Type of Systems .................................................................................................10
1.4.2 Type of User .......................................................................................................11
1.4.3 Nature of the Task ..............................................................................................11
1.5 Research Design ...........................................................................................................12
1.6 Research Contributions .................................................................................................13
1.7 Thesis Structure ............................................................................................................15
1.8 Chapter Summary .........................................................................................................16
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................... 19
2.1 Research Context Under Investigation .........................................................................19
2.1.1 An Overview of Higher Education Learning .....................................................19
2.1.2 Collaborative Learning .......................................................................................21
2.1.3 Social Media Networks ......................................................................................23
2.1.3.1 Social Media Networks for Learning in Higher Education .............................26
2.2 System Use ...................................................................................................................28
2.2.1 Context-Agnostic Effective Use .........................................................................29
2.2.2 Context-Aware Effective Use.............................................................................31
2.3 Systematic Literature Review of Effective Use ............................................................32
2.3.1 Definitions and Dimensions of Effective Use ....................................................33
2.3.2 Antecedents of Effective Use .............................................................................35
2.3.3 Consequences of Effective Use ..........................................................................36
2.3.4 Effective Use Context ........................................................................................36
2.3.5 Areas for Future Research ..................................................................................37
2.3.5.1 Future Research Areas for Effective Use Dimensions and
Operationalization ..............................................................................................37
2.3.5.2 Future Research Areas for Relationships of Effective Use..............................39
2.4 Chapter Summary .........................................................................................................41

v
Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development ................................................... 43
3.1 Affordance Theory Overview ...................................................................................... 45
3.1.1 Affordance Actualization ................................................................................... 46
3.1.2 Affordance Theory for Investigating Effective Use of SMN for
Collaborative Learning ...................................................................................... 47
3.1.2.1 Review of Social Media Affordance Studies .................................................. 48
3.1.3 Affordance Actualization and Goal Attainment ................................................ 49
3.2 Social Capital Theory and SMN use for Collaborative Learning ................................ 52
3.3 Conceptual Model for Context-Agnostic Effective use of SMN for Collaborative
Learning ................................................................................................................................. 56
3.4 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 59
Chapter 4: Research Methodology ................................................................... 61
4.1 Research Paradigm ....................................................................................................... 61
4.2 Research Design........................................................................................................... 64
4.2.1 Field Organization ............................................................................................. 65
4.3 Qualitative Methods: Interviews .................................................................................. 69
4.3.1 Quality of Interviews ......................................................................................... 71
4.3.2 Interview Data Analysis..................................................................................... 73
4.3.3 Reliability of Interview Data Analysis .............................................................. 74
4.4 Quantitative Methods: Survey...................................................................................... 77
4.4.1 Survey Data Collection ...................................................................................... 77
4.4.2 Survey Instrument Design ................................................................................. 77
4.4.2.1 Construct Definition ........................................................................................ 78
4.4.2.2 Construct Directionality and Dimensionality ................................................. 78
4.4.2.3 Measures Development ................................................................................... 81
4.4.2.4 Pretesting the Measurement Items .................................................................. 87
4.4.2.5 Measurement Model Specification .................................................................. 87
4.4.3 Pilot Study ......................................................................................................... 90
4.4.4 Validation .......................................................................................................... 91
4.4.5 Instrument Distribution ...................................................................................... 92
4.5 Quantitative Data Analysis Tools ................................................................................ 92
4.6 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................. 93
4.7 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 93
Chapter 5: Findings ........................................................................................... 95
5.1 Data Cleaning and Transformation .............................................................................. 96
5.2 Sample Demographics ................................................................................................. 97
5.3 Measurement Model analysis ....................................................................................... 98
5.3.1 Measurement Model Analysis: Perception of SMN Affordances for
Collaborative Learning ...................................................................................... 98
5.3.2 Measurement Model Analysis: Context-Aware Effective Use
(Actualization of SMN Affordances for Collaborative Learning) ................... 100
5.3.3 Measurement Model Analysis: Collaborative Learning Goal
Achievement .................................................................................................... 103
5.3.4 Measurement Model Analysis: Social Capital ................................................. 105
5.4 Structural Model Analysis: Context-Aware Effective Use of SMN For Collaborative
Learning ............................................................................................................................... 107

vi
5.5 Quantitative Exploratory Analyses .............................................................................112
5.5.1 Importance Performance Map (IPMA) Analysis: Context-Aware
Effective Use Model .........................................................................................113
5.5.2 Dimension Level Analysis: Perception of SMN Affordances and Context-
Aware Effective Use ........................................................................................114
5.5.3 Mediation Analysis: Context-Aware Effective Use Model ..............................115
5.5.4 Analysis of Context-Agnostic Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative
Learning............................................................................................................116
5.5.4.1 Measurement Model Analysis: Context-Agnostic Effective Use ..................117
5.5.4.2 Structural Model Analysis: Context-Agnostic Effective Use ........................118
5.5.5 Mediation Analysis: Context-Agnostic Effective Use Model ..........................120
5.5.6 Importance Performance Map Analysis (IPMA): Context-Agnostic
Effective Use Model .........................................................................................122
5.5.7 Efficacy of Context-Agnostic Effective Use: Comparing Context-Aware
and Context-Agnostic Effective Use ................................................................123
5.6 Qualitative Exploratory Analyses ...............................................................................124
5.7 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................126
Chapter 6: Discussion ...................................................................................... 127
6.1 Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative Learning in Higher Education ...................128
6.1.1 Context-Aware Effective Use based on Affordance Theory ............................128
6.1.1.1 Context-Aware Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative Learning ..............128
6.1.1.2 Effective Use Contextualization: Methodological Contribution ...................133
6.1.2 Context-Agnostic Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative Learning .............135
6.1.2.1 Dimensions of Context-Agnostic Effective Use for Collaborative
Learning............................................................................................................136
6.1.2.2 Insights of Context-Agnostic Effective Use of SMN in terms of the
nature of information systems ..........................................................................137
6.1.3 Examination of the Efficacy of Context-Agnostic and Context-Aware
Perspectives of Effective Use ...........................................................................139
6.1.3.1 Comparison between the Context-Aware and Context-Agnostic
Perspectives of Effective Use with Extent of Use ............................................139
6.1.3.2 Comparison of Context-Agnostic and Context-Aware Perspective of
Effective Use ....................................................................................................141
6.2 Antecedents of Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative Learning ............................142
6.2.1 Perception of SMN affordances .......................................................................142
6.2.2 Social Capital among the Group Members.......................................................144
6.2.3 Additional Antecedents from Qualitative Inductive Analysis ..........................147
6.3 Chapter Summary: Key Insights From The Discussion .............................................149
Chapter 7: Conclusion ..................................................................................... 151
7.1 Summary of Research Findings ..................................................................................152
7.2 Contributions ..............................................................................................................154
7.2.1 Theoretical Contributions .................................................................................154
7.2.2 Practical Contributions .....................................................................................156
7.3 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................157
References ............................................................................................................... 159
Appendices .............................................................................................................. 177

vii
 List of Figures

Figure 1 Research Scope ............................................................................................ 10

Figure 2 Research Design of the Study ...................................................................... 13
Figure 3 Research Contributions ................................................................................ 15
Figure 4 Affordance Actualization Model ................................................................. 47
Figure 5 An Example of Affordance Actualization Process in SMN use for
Collaborative Learning ................................................................................ 50
Figure 6 Conceptual Model of Context-Aware Effective Use of SMN for
Collaborative Learning ................................................................................ 55
Figure 7 Conceptual Model for Context-Agnostic Effective Use of SMN for
Collaborative Learning ................................................................................ 59
Figure 8 Research Design of the Study ...................................................................... 65
Figure 9 Qualitative Data Analysis Approach ........................................................... 70
Figure 10: Perception of SMN Affordances for Collaborative Learning
Measurement Model .................................................................................... 88
Figure 11: Context-Aware Effective Use (Actualization of SMN Affordances
for Collaborative Learning) Measurement Model ....................................... 88
Figure 12 Context-Agnostic Effective Use Measurement Model .............................. 89
Figure 13 Social Capital Measurement Model ........................................................... 89
Figure 14 Collaborative Learning Goals Measurement Model .................................. 90
Figure 15 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Perception of SMN
Affordances for Collaborative Learning .................................................... 100
Figure 16 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Context-Aware
Effective Use .............................................................................................. 102
Figure 17 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Collaborative
Learning Goal Achievement ...................................................................... 104
Figure 18 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Social Capital................ 106
Figure 19 Structural Model Evaluation Process in SmartPLS ................................. 108
Figure 20 Context-Aware Structural Model Analysis.............................................. 108
Figure 21 Interaction Term for Moderation of Social Capital ................................. 110
Figure 22 Importance Performance Matrix Analysis for Context-Aware
Effective Use Dimensions and Collaborative Learning Goals .................. 114
Figure 23 Analysis of Dimensions of Context-Aware Effective Use and
Collaborative Learning Goal Achievement ............................................... 115
Figure 24 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Context-Agnostic
Effective Use .............................................................................................. 118
Figure 25 Context-Agnostic Structural Model Analysis .......................................... 119

viii
Figure 26 Context-Agnostic Effective Use Structural Model in the Absence of
Social Capital ............................................................................................. 121
Figure 27 Importance Performance Matrix Analysis for Context-Agnostic
Effective Use Dimensions and Collaborative Learning Goals .................. 123
Figure 28 Analysis of the Efficacy of Context-Agnostic Effective Use .................. 123
Figure 29 Results of the Inductive Analysis of Interview Data ............................... 124
Figure 30 Methodological Viewpoint of Effective Use Contextualization ............. 135
Figure 31 Comparison of Extent of Use and Context-Aware Effective Use ........... 139
Figure 32 Comparison of Extent of Use and Context- Agnostic Effective Use ...... 140
Figure 33 Comparison of Context-Agnostic and Context-Aware Effective Use ..... 141

ix
 List of Tables

Table 1 Benefits/ Goals of Collaborative Learning* ................................................. 23

Table 2 Features and Characteristics of Social Media Networks ............................... 25
Table 3 Definitions of Effective Use Dimensions ..................................................... 30
Table 4 Types of Affordances of an Artifact ............................................................. 45
Table 5 SMN Affordances for Collaborative Learning ............................................. 49
Table 6 Collaborative Learning Goal Dimensions ..................................................... 52
Table 7 Social Capital Dimensions ............................................................................ 53
Table 8 Context-Agnostic Effective Use Dimensions ............................................... 56
Table 9 Data Collection Information ......................................................................... 69
Table 10: Role of the Qualitative Data Analysis in the study .................................... 71
Table 11 Interview Protocol ....................................................................................... 72
Table 12 Coding Structure ......................................................................................... 75
Table 13 Survey Data Collection Detail .................................................................... 77
Table 14 Characteristics of Constructs....................................................................... 78
Table 15 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Perception of SMN
Affordances for Collaborative Learning ...................................................... 82
Table 16 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Actualization of SMN
Affordances for Collaborative Learning ...................................................... 83
Table 17 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Context-Agnostic Effective
Use ............................................................................................................... 84
Table 18 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Social Capital ............................... 85
Table 19 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Collaborative Learning Goals ...... 85
Table 20 Global Items for Formative Constructs ....................................................... 86
Table 21 Demographic Items ..................................................................................... 87
Table 22 Data Analysis Tools Used ........................................................................... 93
Table 23 Percentage of Missing Data ........................................................................ 97
Table 24 Sample Descriptive Statistics* .................................................................... 97
Table 25 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Perception of SMN
Affordances for Collaborative Learning ...................................................... 98
Table 26 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Perception of
SMN Affordances for Collaborative Learning ............................................ 99
Table 27 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Context-Aware Effective Use... 101
Table 28 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Context-
Aware ......................................................................................................... 102

x
Table 29 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Collaborative Learning Goal
Achievement .............................................................................................. 103
Table 30 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of
Collaborative Learning Goal...................................................................... 104
Table 31 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Social Capital ........................... 105
Table 32 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Social
Capital ........................................................................................................ 106
Table 33 Effect Size of Exogeneous Constructs in the Context-Aware
Structural Model ........................................................................................ 109
Table 34 Predictive Relevance of the Structural
Model-
Context-Aware Effective Use .................................................................... 109
Table 35 q2 effect sizes – Context-Aware Effective Use Model ............................. 109
Table 36 Summary of Hypotheses Testing .............................................................. 111
Table 37 Objectives of the Quantitative Exploratory Analyses ............................... 112
Table 38 Results for Dimension Level Analysis: Perception of SMN
Affordances and Context-Aware Effective Use ........................................ 115
Table 39 Mediation Analysis Context-Aware Effective Use Model ....................... 116
Table 40 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Context-Agnostic Effective
Use ............................................................................................................. 117
Table 41 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Context-
Agnostic Effective Use .............................................................................. 117
Table 42 Effect Size of Exogeneous Constructs in the Context-Agnostic
Structural Model ........................................................................................ 119
Table 43 Predictive Relevance of the Structural Model – Context-Agnostic
Effective Use .............................................................................................. 119
Table 44 q2 effect sizes Context-Agnostic Effective Use Model ............................ 120
Table 45 Mediation Analysis Context-Agnostic Effective Use Model ................... 120
Table 46 Summary of Hypotheses Testing .............................................................. 121
Table 47 Interview Quotes for the Findings of Inductive Analysis of
Qualitative Data ......................................................................................... 125

xi
 List of Abbreviations

AA Affordance Actualization
AP Affordance Perception
CLG Collaborative Learning Goals
CL Collaboration
CM Communication
CS Content Sharing
EHR Electronic Health Records
IS Information Systems
SC Social Capital
SD Standard Deviation
SEM Structural Equation Modelling
SMN Social Media Networks
SP Self-Presentation
PLS Partial Least Squares

xii
 Acknowledgements

In the ongoing process of becoming a researcher, my PhD is a fruitful learning

journey with many experiences that have been both challenging and exciting. There
are many who have helped, guided, and encourage me along the way. I want to take a
moment to offer my gratitude to them.

To Bek, Dr. Rebekah Eden, my principal supervisor, I am grateful to you for

being the most supportive supervisor. Thank you very much for your constant support,
encouragement, and especially for the understanding which made this journey a
persuading, peaceful and enjoyable one. Your exceptional feedback and guidance were
a great source of motivation for me to stand again when I felt like giving up. Thank
you to Dr. Erwin Fielt, my mentoring supervisor. Your feedback was always an
inspiration. It helped me explore the breadth of knowledge which has greatly assisted
with improving my skills in research. To Dr. Alireza Nili, my associate supervisor,
thank you for your consistent feedback and support which has encouraged me
throughout my journey. Thank you so much all of you. You have been an amazing
supervisory team and I feel very privileged to have had you with me on my journey.

I gratefully acknowledge the scholars who have provided me with valuable

feedback on my research. Firstly, I would like to thank the scholarly panel in my final
seminar. I was honored to receive insightful feedback and recognition for the extensive
work of the research from Professor Andrew Burton-Jones and Dr. Andrew Gibson.
Secondly, I would like to extend my thanks to all scholars in the IS field who provided
me with exceptional feedback at various research platforms, including QUT doctorial
consortiums, International Conference on Information Systems, and Pacific Asia
Conference on Information Systems.

I am grateful for the financial support I received from University of Kelaniya,

Sri Lanka to carry out this PhD. I am also grateful to QUT for providing a tuition fee
sponsorship.

Furthermore, I like to express my gratitude to a few other individuals including

Associate Professor Wasana Bandara for making me the opportunity to meet my
supervisory team, Dr. Sue Nielson for the wonderful editing and proofreading service,
and research colleagues at QUT who were great friends during this journey. Thank

xiii
you to Jodie and Nana Lois who were friendly proof-readers of the thesis and a keen
audience to share the progress of the study; students who volunteered to participate in
the research and the teaching staff who supported me during the data collection of the
study.

Finally, thank you to my family, teachers, and friends. I am indebted to my

wonderful parents, Amma and Appachchi who sacrificed a lot just to see me shine,
and to my brothers who support me no matter what. To all my teachers for making me
who I am today. Lastly, the love of my life, my beautiful daughter Nethu, thank you
for being the most wonderful daughter in the world, for acknowledging all the
sacrifices, for giving me unconditional love, and for accepting all the hurdles I have
faced during this journey. I would not have been able to finish this without having you
with me. I dedicate this thesis to you.

xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction

Effective use is the type of use that users must perform to attain their goals for
using the system (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). The importance of effective use in
the information systems (IS) field is long recognized with arguably the most widely
accepted conceptualization being the theory of effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange,
2013). With this seminal theory, Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) propose that
effective use is relevant across all systems but highlight that an examination of
contexts is outside their scope of the study. Recognizing the importance of context,
some attempts have been made to contextualize effective use through identifying and
examining different underlying dimensions, typically by examining enterprise-wide
systems (e.g, Bonaretti & Piccoli, 2019; Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017). However, in
some instances, questionable dimensions have resulted . As such, further research is
needed to study effective use due to its importance in practice and the calls for
contextualized approaches (Hong et al., 2014). The effective use of Social Media
Networks (SMN) for collaborative learning is such a context that warrants further
investigation, as will be discussed in later sections of the chapter.

With the continual rise of online and hybrid modes of learning, collaborating
through SMN is becoming increasingly important (Becker et al., 2018). Adopting
SMN is also a key priority area in higher education for enhancing collaborative and
student centred learning (NMC Horizon Report, 2015, 2017). Nevertheless, students
are not realizing the benefits of these systems (i.e., SMN) and are struggling to unleash
the potential of SMN to support their learning (Krutka et al., 2017). Given that benefits
obtained from information systems (such as SMN) are dependent on how they are used
(Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017), it is necessary to understand how students can
effectively use SMN for collaborative learning. Rather than focusing on effective use,
most studies have examined users’ attitudes (e.g., intention, ease of use, usefulness)
toward the use of SMN for collaborative learning (e.g., Al-Rahmi et al., 2018). In the
broader IS literature, these perspectives (e.g., ease of use and usefulness) have been
identified as insufficient conditions for goal attainment (Burton-Jones & Grange,
2013). Research further highlights that higher education institutions might fail to

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
capture the benefits of SMN due to the lack of directions and regulations (Amin &
Rajadurai, 2018). Therefore, examining effective use of SMN is a pressing issue in the
higher education sector. As such, the predominant objective of this research is to
investigate and to contextualize the theory of effective use for the context of SMN use
for collaborative learning. This research therefore contributes to the theory of effective
use by providing contextualization of effective use of SMN for the collaborative
learning context. In doing so, the research provides further implications for the higher
education learning sector.

The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows; in section 1.1the research

background is discussed, followed by the motivation behind the research problem in
section 1.2. The research questions and objectives are described in section 1.3 and
research scope is justified in section 1.4. An overview of the research design is
provided in section 1.5 followed by the contributions of the research (section 1.6). An
outline of the thesis structure is also provided followed by the chapter summary.

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

There have been many attempts to define social network platforms and social
media (as discussed in chapter 2). In this thesis SMN are defined platforms “such that
users (1) have a unique user profile that is constructed by the user, by members of their
network, and by the platform; (2) access digital content through, and protect it from,
various search mechanisms provided by the platform; (3) can articulate a list of other
users with whom they share a relational connection; and (4) view and traverse their
connections and those made by others on the platform” (Kane et al., 2014, p. 279).
While SMN have been primarily designed as a communication tool for social
networking, these systems have been used in a broad range of application areas
including marketing (Tuten, 2020), emergency responses (Hughes & Palen, 2012),
disaster management (e.g., Houston et al., 2015) and learning (e.g., Mao, 2014).
Among these, the potential of SMN as a facilitating tool for learning has received
recent attention of many researchers (e.g., Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Alqahtani & Issa,
2018; Bozanta & Mardikyan, 2017; Kenyon et al., 2016; Lubua et al., 2017; Roth,
2016). This is attention has been further heightened by circumstances raised during the
Covid-19 pandemic, which fundamentally altered the learning and teaching delivery
methods at universities. With the shift of learning and teaching towards the hybrid and

2 Chapter 1: Introduction
online modes, the use of SMN has been received recent attention in the higher
education setting (Rasiah, 2014). Particularly, the use of SMN for teaching and
learning is trending and is considered as a key strategy for improving student-centred
learning in higher education (NMC Horizon Report, 2015, 2017). According to Selwyn
(2010), this prominence of SMN in learning is due to the need to cater to the continual
evolution and transformation of the higher education, including:
• the changing nature of students, with students becoming highly connected,
working collectively, and in a creative manner,
• the change in university learners’ relationship, with knowledge construction
and consumption, and
• the emergence of user-driven education in universities.

Systematic literature reviews show mixed results on the use of SMN for learning
in higher education, identifying positive and negative effects (e.g., Barrot, 2021;
Guckian et al., 2021). Whilst highlighting the use of SMN as a pedagogical choice in
universities, studies discuss the benefits of using SMN for learning. These benefits
include the potential to increase information sharing regardless of the time and location
barriers (Phillips & Shipps, 2012), enhance peer support for learning (Al-Rahmi &
Zeki, 2017), enhance student engagement (e.g., Junco et al., 2011; Sadaf et al., 2012),
and facilitate blended learning (McCarthy, 2010). On the other hand, studies also
discuss the negative effects of SMN use on students’ academic performances (e.g.,
Mingle & Adams, 2015). Negative effects of these systems have been discussed
around the core reasons of misuse and higher usage level. These include reduced study
time (Mingle & Adams, 2015), increased technostress (Brooks, 2015), and reduced
concentration on academic work (Bernard & Dzandza, 2018).

Moreover, these studies have not paid attention to the outcome variables relating
to collaborative learning. Considering SMN is proffered to increase goal attainment of
collaborative learning and is a key priority area in higher education, it is important to
further unpack the relationships around the effective use of SMN and the expected
outcome in higher education teaching and learning. In the IS literature, how systems
are used plays an important role for the goal attainment (Seddon, 1997). The body of
literature on SMN use in higher education examines only lean measures (e.g., extent
of use) and user attitudes toward SMN for learning. However, such notions of use are

Chapter 1: Introduction 3
insufficient for goal attainment; rather it is important to further understand the
effectiveness of the use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Yet how users use SMN for
collaborative learning goal attainment has received scant research attention. Extending
the investigations to understand how students can effectively leverage SMN to attain
collaborative learning goals is therefore important for the higher education sector.

Effective use is defined as “using the system in a way that helps attain the goals
of using the system” (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013, p. 633). Seminal
conceptualization of effective use is based on the representation theory perspectives
(Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). From this perspective, for effective use of a system,
the underlined representations that are built into the system are meant to provide
faithful representations of the system domain. Initial attempts to measure effective use
have been constrained to investigating enterprise wide systems (e.g., Eden, 2019;
Haake et al., 2018). Therefore, research is needed into understanding whether the
seminal conceptualization of effective use is relevant across different settings and
system types. Throughout this research, the term contextualizing refers to the
identification of appropriate dimensions relevant to effective use in a specific context
(see: Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017). Initial attempts at contextualizing effective use
have proven difficult in terms of identifying dimensions that faithfully reflect the
inherent meaning of the construct (Eden et al., 2020). This has prompted Burton-Jones
and Volkoff (2017) to develop an approach to facilitate contextualizing effective use,
which draws on affordance theory as opposed to representation theory. In their
approach, Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) suggest that to contextualize effective use
researchers need to understand the practices users engage in as they work with a system
to achieve their goals. Nevertheless, research on testing and examining the validity of
the affordance based approach (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017) is limited.

Considering SMN were not originally designed for learning purposes rather they
were designed for communication and social networking purposes (Boyd & Ellison,
2007), SMN might not provide a complete and accurate representation of collaborative
learning as assumed by the representation theory perspective (Burton-Jones & Grange,
2013). Systems should provide faithful representations is foundational to the theory of
effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013), as such it is important to contextualize
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning to understand how systems can be
effectively used for attaining the goals that the system is not intentionally designed for.

4 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RATIONALE

The review of literature conducted in this study (refer to section 2.3) identified
that there are no studies have investigated the effective use of SMN for learning.
Though the term effective use has been mentioned in passing in several SMN studies
(e.g., Al-Rahmi et al., 2018) they did not study use behaviour. Considering effective
use is a necessary and sufficient condition for benefit attainment (Burton-Jones &
Grange, 2013), so it is imperative that researchers investigate how students can
effectively use SMN and how the higher education sector can thereby fulfill its
overarching objective of enhancing collaborative learning goal attainment.

The IS field has long recognized the importance of effective use (Marcolin et al.,
2000) yet a robust conceptualization of effective use has been performed only in the
past decade. While purported to be applicable across system types and settings this
conceptualization is based on the representation theory perspectives (Wand & Weber,
1990) which describe the general nature of information systems. Yet, challenges
remain to understand how to conceptualize and operationalize effective use in different
contexts, identifying the context specific factors.

Based on representation theory perspectives, Burton-Jones & Grange’s (2013)

conceptualization of effective use provides a ‘context-agnostic’ perspective. This
study uses the term context-agnostic perspectives that recognize effective use
conceptualization based on the representation theory perspective that provides
dimensions applicable regardless of different systems and settings (Burton-Jones &
Grange, 2013). Attempts to measure effective use based on this representation theory
perspective have mostly examined enterprise wide systems, primarily health care
systems (Eden et al., 2019; Haake et al., 2018). Hence, some scholars have expressed
the need to contextualize effective use (e.g., Bonaretti & Piccoli, 2019; Grublješič &
Jaklič, 2014; Trieu et al., 2022), which requires an in-depth understanding of the nature
of the system, the user, and the task (per Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006). Yet,
contextualizing effective use has proven difficult and, at times, questionable
dimensions have resulted, which do not faithfully reflect the inherent meaning of the
construct (Eden et al., 2020). As such, Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) proposed an
approach for contextualizing effective use. Drawing on affordance theory, Burton-
Jones and Volkoff’s (2017) approach developed a “context-aware” perspective of

Chapter 1: Introduction 5
effective use. This study use the term ‘context-aware perspectives’ to recognize an
approach to contextualize effective use drawing on affordance theory perspectives
(Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017). Developing an approach to contextualize effective
use, Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017, p. 484) noted that their “study is a first step in
understanding effective use” and thus call for more research. Therefore, more research
is needed into contextualising effective use using affordance perspectives to identify
appropriate context-specific dimensions.

Understanding the effective use of SMN for learning requires a context-aware

approach. It is pertinent to understand how SMN affordances are perceived and
utilized to achieve learning goals particularly, as SMN are different in nature to the
general enterprise wide systems and were also not originally designed for learning
purposes (Ellison & Boyd, 2013). This is further relevant given that the educational
use of SMN is associated with more cognitive tasks for which examining rich measures
of effective use is encouraged (Wu et al., 2017). Therefore, understanding of what
SMN are in the context, what affordances that SMN offer to users’ learning purposes
and how the user behaves with SMN for attaining their learning goals are important.
The paucity of research works on contextualizing the effective use construct, growing
attention to using SMN for teaching and learning in higher education. and the lack of
understanding of SMN effective use for educational purposes, formed the motivation
for this study.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following key priority areas have been identified in proposing the research
questions of the study.

- Effective use is essential for information systems to achieve their potential. Despite
this, there is limited knowledge and understanding of effective use, particularly in
terms of contextualised knowledge.
- SMN use for learning in higher education as an emerging use context refers to a
more cognitive dimension due to the nature of learning tasks. However, effective
use of these systems is under researched and understanding effective use is
particularly important for cognitive use context in which richer measures of use are
important.

6 Chapter 1: Introduction
- Research on SMN use for learning in higher education has received much attention,
but has been limited to investigating users’ attitudes, intention and extent of use
rather than their actual behavior in using the system. However, these notions are
not sufficient conditions for goal. Moreover, SMN are not originally designed for
facilitating learning purposes as such understanding how the systems can
effectively be used for collaborative learning is important.

Addressing the aforementioned gaps and given the need to harness the potential
of SMN, the overarching objective of this research is to improve the attainment of
collaborative learning goal in higher education where SMN tools are adopted by the
students. Identifying the role of effective use, this research therefore explores effective
use and conceptualizes and extends the theory of effective use. To fulfill the
overarching research objective, the following research questions (RQ) have been
identified.

RQ1: How can ‘effective use’ of social media networks for collaborative learning be
contextualized?

When investigating effective use, it is imperative to understand the relevant

theoretical underpinnings. Clear scope, comprehensive and contextualized theory
make up a basic rationale for research investigating theory extensions and
contextualization (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017). As such, the key driver which
formulates this research question is the nature of SMN for collaborative learning. SMN
has not been designed specifically to support learning. Therefore, the system was not
designed to provide an information repository as a complete and accurate
representation of collaborative learning, as assumed by Burton-Jones and Grange’s
(2013) conceptualization of effective use from the representation theory perspective.
This suggests that when studying and measuring effective use, the researcher needs to
consider the nature of the system when determining the appropriate theoretical
perspective to employ. In order to do so, this study adapts and improves Burton-Jones
and Volkoff’s (2017) approach which is based on affordance theory perspectives with
the objective being to contextualize the dimensions of effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning.

Chapter 1: Introduction 7
RQ2: What are the influencing factors and outcomes of effective use of social media
networks for collaborative learning?

The second research question seeks to understand the broader nomological

network of effective use in the SMN context. As such, aim to understand the relevant
antecedents, consequences, and theoretical relationships in effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning. This research question consists of two objectives which seek to
empirically assess the antecedents and consequences of effective use.

Firstly, effective use of systems should focus on achieving the desired goals of
the use of the system. As such, answering the second research question, this study
identifies the importance of investigating the consequences of effective use of SMN
for collaborative learning as the first objective of this research question. This is further
relevant given the paucity of research for investigating whether the potential of SMN
for collaborative learning goal attainment has been perceived by the users.

The second objective is to investigate the antecedents of effective use of SMN

for collaborative learning. Considering this research draws on affordance perspectives
to conceptualize effective use (per Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017), the study looks
deeply into how affordances play a role in influencing the effective use of SMN. In
doing so, this research seeks to understand how user perceptions of affordances of
SMN influences on their effective use of the system for collaborative learning. This is
relevant considering the possible changes that users’ perceptions can make on the level
of awareness of the particular affordance and how they leverage these affordances for
expected goal attainment, which is effective use of the system.

Moreover, in terms of the influencing factors, it is further identified that social

capital among individuals in a collaborative environment also plays a pivotal role on
their use behaviour (Ali-Hassan et al., 2015). Scholars have shown that social capital
enhances collaborative learning in online environments (Chang et al., 2011) referring
to enhancing the quality of knowledge sharing and collective actions in collaborative
learning groups (Chang et al., 2011; Krackhardt et al., 2003). Social capital is also
important to overcoming the challenges of inconsistencies associated with shared
understanding between team members (Burt, 2000), which haves been found to have

8 Chapter 1: Introduction
detrimental impacts on effective use (Eden et al., 2018). Despite the importance of
social capital, this has not been examined in conjunction with effective use of systems.

As such, to understand the broader nomological network of effective use of SMN

for collaborative learning this research identifies that affordance of the system,
expected collaborative learning goals, and the social capital in the group environment,
are the key components which need to be addressed. As such, to address the RQ2, this
research adapts and improves Burton-Jones and Volkoff’s (2017) affordance based
approach for contextualizing effective use, extends the theory of effective use (Burton-
Jones & Grange, 2013), and employs social capital theory (Nahapiet and Ghoshal,
1998) to support the results surrounding the antecedents of effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning.

1.4 RESEARCH SCOPE

To answer the proposed research questions, this research investigates the

effective use of SMN tools by higher education students for performing collaborative
learning tasks. Beyond that, the overarching contribution of the research lies in the
broader information systems research field, extending the existing theoretical and
practical knowledge of effective use of information systems. Within this scope, this
research intends to investigate the influencing factors of student perception of the
attainment of collaborative learning goals which is facilitated by effective use of SMN
tools. In doing so, this research is scoped to the individual level analysis to capture the
individual variation across all the dimensions identified in the research model. As such,
examining the causality between the effective use of information systems (i.e., SMN)
and goal attainment (i.e., collaborative learning goal attainment) is not addressed in
the scope of this research. By investigating students’ perception of effective use of
SMN and collaborative learning, this research focuses on the use of SMN tools for
collaborative learning rather than other computer mediated technologies for
collaborative learning such as electronic mail, computer conferencing, and the internet
to deliver the learning material (Warschauer, 1997). Moreover, when investigating
collaborative learning in higher education this research addresses both blended and
online learning environments.

Chapter 1: Introduction 9
 The study will address several key areas of concerns: (i) type of system, (ii) type
of user, and (iii) nature of the task. These key areas are also the key elements of
information system use (i.e., system, user, and task) (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006).
This section discusses these elements in detail. Figure 1 illustrates these key areas
within the research scope.

Figure 1 Research Scope

1.4.1 Type of Systems

In their study, Burton-Jones and Straub (2006) define a system as an artifact that
provides representations of one or more task domains, and that systems provide
features that are designed to support functions in those task domain(s). As previously
described there are four main characteristics that define SMN (Kane et al., 2014).
These features highlight that the system should provide the user a unique user profile
and list of their connected users, access to digital content, and the ability to negotiate
the connections they made on the platform. Thus, these features drive the users to
create and maintain the relationships with the other users which will improve
collaboration and communication between individuals and teams. This more broadly
fits into the category of network IT as identified by McAfee (2006). This research into
effective use is limited to exploring SMN as a form of network IT provided that the
SMN meets the definition while it can be identified as more of a communication tool.

Moreover, in investigating effective use of SMN for collaborative learning, this

research identifies that the students are able to use a range of SMN for collaborative
tasks. Therefore, this study does not limit the exploration into any specific SMN but

10 Chapter 1: Introduction
will rather investigate what constitutes the effective use of SMN regardless of the type
of SMN. As such, the study aims to provide guidance for effective use of any SMN
for collaborative learning. To do so, following Kane et.al’s (2014) definition for SMN,
social media platforms that provide users an ability to create a profile (account), access
to search the content, build and maintain the relationships with other users have been
considered as SMN in this research. As such, general social media platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, WeChat, and other collaborative applications such as
SLACK, Zoom, Microsoft SharePoint have been investigated during the data
collection and analysis.

1.4.2 Type of User

An IS user is the next key element of system usage and refers to an individual
person who employs a system in a task (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006). For the use of
SMN in collaborative learning a user can be student or staff. This also could refer to
users from various educational settings including primary and secondary school
education and higher education. User interaction with adapting SMN for learning is
vastly different between the school and higher education setting primarily due to the
students’ age, the diversity of responsibilities and the learning tasks (Mao, 2014).
There are also dissimilarities between the student vs staff roles in learning in terms of
their level of engagement and the nature of tasks involved (Efendioğlu, 2018;
Karakostas & Demetriadis, 2011). Therefore, recognizing the vast differences in
characteristics, roles and responsibilities, tasks involved, and nature of interactions,
this research is limited to students in higher education. This is further justified because
improving student-centred learning is a key priority in higher education (NMC
Horizon Report, 2017).

1.4.3 Nature of the Task

Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction where individuals take responsibility

for their actions including learning and respecting group members’ actions, abilities
and contributions (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012). In all situations in collaborative learning,
learners come together as a group and accept the interrelated responsibilities and roles
toward achieving the defined learning goal (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012). As such, the
intended behaviour, roles and responsibilities of the students is different in
collaborative learning environment from that of individual study (Le et al., 2018).

Chapter 1: Introduction 11
 To summarize, exploring the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning,
this research is limited to investigating higher education students’ use of SMN for
performing collaborative learning tasks. In doing so, this research will investigate a
portfolio of SMNs that students use for their collaborative learning purposes.

1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN

This section provides a high-level research design that will be employed in the
study. More details of the research methodology and design are provided in Chapter
4.

This research seeks to examine the effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning, where the system was not originally designed for learning purposes.
Therefore, the study adopts the pragmatists’ ontological viewpoint of understanding
knowledge not in terms of what the object is but based on how it helps people to
achieve their purpose (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Based on the epistemological and
methodological viewpoint that fit with pragmatism stance (See section 4.1), this study
uses a mixed method approach. As such, to answer the identified research questions,
this research adopts quantitative methods of deductive reasoning and qualitative
methods of inductive reasoning (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Moving back and forth
between theory and data, this study further adopts abductive reasoning to answer the
research questions. This mixed method approach is supported by Edmondson and
McManus (2007) who stress that when the research objective pertains to intermediate
theory (such as theory of effective use); application of both qualitative and quantitative
data facilitate the empirical testing of the relationships to elaborate the research
findings. Accordingly, using qualitative data to elaborate the phenomenon (i.e.,
effective use) in the context (i.e., SMN use for collaborative learning) (RQ1) and
quantitative data to provide preliminary tests of the relationships (RQ2) this research

12 Chapter 1: Introduction
promotes both insights and rigor in research in examining intermediate theories
(Edmondson & McManus, 2007). The research plan is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Research Design of the Study

1.6 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

There are seven key contributions identified in this research, with important
implications for theory and practice. The following section summarizes the theoretical
contributions, followed by the practical contributions of the study.

In terms of the theoretical contributions, this research draws on a seminal

conceptualization of effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) and adapts and
improves Burton-Jones and Volkoff’s (2017) affordance theory based approach to
contextualize effective use in the context of SMN use for collaborative learning.
Proposing the theory of effective use Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) highlight that
further research needs to understand whether the seminal conceptualization is relevant
across different system types and settings. Developing the affordance theory based
approach, Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) also highlighted that more research is
needed into contextualising effective use using affordance perspectives to identify
appropriate context-specific dimensions. Addressing both these theoretical research

Chapter 1: Introduction 13
gaps, this research explores and extends the theory of effective use by investigating
contextualized approach of effective use relevant to SMN use for collaborative
learning context. In doing so, from a context-agnostic perspective this research will
investigate the efficacy of the theory of effective use in SMN use for the collaborative
learning context. From a context-aware perspective, this research extends Burton-
Jones & Volkoff’s (2017) qualitative approach for developing context-specific
effective use theories through employing a sequential mixed methods design to: 1)
formulate and evaluate the dimensions of effective use to explicitly consider user
behaviour for actualizing SMN affordances for collaborative learning, and 2) to
identify and assess context-relevant antecedent and consequences. As such this
research addresses a vital research need in IS field to investigate and identify relevant
approaches for contextualizing effective use across different settings (Burton-Jones &
Volkoff, 2017). This further contributes to the literature specifically in higher
education as the study investigates the user behaviour in SMN use for collaborative
learning which is preliminary under researched in existing literature.

Furthermore, pertaining to the developed research questions, this research

explores the nomological network of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.
Therefore, this research empirically examines the influencing factors, and outcomes
relevant to the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. Addressing the need
for further empirical examinations of effective use in different contexts, this research
extends the body of knowledge of effective use of systems in the IS discipline.

In practice, the findings of the study will benefit the higher education sector as
it examines the affordances of SMN relevant to collaborative learning. The
identification of the relevant affordances of SMN may ultimately translate to design
guidance as well as user guidance for successful implementation of SMN for
collaborative learning. Applying this guidance will ultimately benefit higher education
providers and their students in terms of (i) enhancing the returns on investment in
strategies in SMN, and (ii) enhancing the goal achievement by adopting SMN in
collaborative learning.

To summarize, this research will benefit theory and practice in numerous ways
( Figure 3): Theoretically, (i) this research will contextualize effective use in the SMN
context; (ii) context specific factors relating to the enablers and consequences of
effective use will be empirically examined (iii) it will contribute to understanding the

14 Chapter 1: Introduction
efficacy of the theory of effective use across different settings and system types; (iv)
the validity of contextualized approaches for effective use will be examined by
empirical analysis of the quantitative data; and in practice research findings will
facilitate higher education providers (v) identifying relevant factors to enhance the
achievement of better outcomes of collaborative learning, (vi) providing affordance
based design guidelines, and (vii) providing user guidance for students to effectively
use SMN for improved collaborative learning. Overall, the higher education sector will
benefit from the research to strengthen their strategies in investing in, designing and
effectively adopting SMN for collaborative learning.

Figure 3 Research Contributions

1.7 THESIS STRUCTURE

As illustrated in Figure 2, there are four main phases of the research design. and
these inform the development of the seven thesis chapters. Phase 1 of the research
design informs the development of the first three chapters of the thesis: Chapter 1:
Introduction, Chapter 2: Literature Review, Chapter 3: Theoretical Development.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology, Chapter 5: Research Findings, Chapter 6:
Discussion, and Chapter 7: Conclusion and Future Research.

Chapter 1 outlines the background and motivation of the research. Accordingly,

the research problem is defined and scoped in this chapter. Subsequently research
design, theoretical and practical contributions are discussed.

Chapter 2 of the thesis will review the literature pertaining to the effective use
of systems, and SMN use for collaborative learning in higher education, to identify
existing research knowledge. The gaps that are presented in the literature review
chapter will be used to further refine the research problem.

Chapter 1: Introduction 15
 Chapter 3 develops the structural model of effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning by conceptualizing effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning. This conceptualization will be informed by the theory of effective use,
affordance theory perspectives and social capital theory.

Chapter 4 discusses the methodological choices that will be used in the study. As such,
qualitative data collection and analytical tools, the quantitative methods including
survey design illustration, participants, and the field organization under investigation
will be described. This is followed by a discussion of the development of the
measurement models.

Chapter 5 details the validity and reliability assessment of the measurement models.
This is followed by the analysis of the structural model which informs the assessments
of the relationships identified in chapter 3.

Chapter 6 interprets and discusses the findings present in chapter 5. The interpretation
and discussion of the research findings will demonstrate how this research contributes
to the literature.

The thesis concludes with Chapter 7 by summarizing the outcomes and the limitations
and the future research directions of research.

1.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY

The key motivations for this research are threefold: (i) investigating how SMN
can effectively be used for collaborative learning is imperative since SMN adaptation
is a key priority in higher education but has not been harnessed with its true potential;
(ii) there is a limited research on investigating the applicability of the seminal
conceptualization of effective use across settings and system types; (iii) there is a call
for research on contextualizing effective use in different contexts. Thus, this research
seeks to answer following research questions:

RQ1: How can ‘effective use’ of social media networks for collaborative learning be
contextualized?

RQ2: What are the influencing factors and outcomes of effective use of social media
networks for collaborative learning?

16 Chapter 1: Introduction
 In answering these research questions, this research considers the
transformation of the landscape of higher education learning and the trend of adopting
SMN for learning. As such, to understand the effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning, this research explores a portfolio of SMN use by students in higher education
for performing collaborative learning tasks. Drawing upon the theory of effective use,
and affordance theory, this research contextualizes effective use of SMN relevant to
the affordance actualization model. This also informs the investigation of relevant
influencing factors and outcomes in the context, utilising both affordance theory and
social capital theory. As such, operationalization of the conceptual model is based on
the theory of effective use, affordance actualization model and social capital theory.

Therefore, this research will benefit both research and practice by: (i)
contextualizing effective use of SMN for collaborative learning; (ii) extending the
theory of effective use; (iii) investigating the efficacy of the theory of effective use and
the validity of contextualized approaches for investigating effective use in different
contexts; (iv) identifying context specific factors which influence effective use and
the expected outcomes; and (v) delivering guidance for higher education providers to
improve their investments in SMN in terms of understanding design and user best
practices.

Chapter 1: Introduction 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review

As highlighted in the introductory chapter, the overarching objective of this

study is to extend the theory of effective use of information systems to the context of
SMN use for collaborative learning. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is twofold. First,
to critically analyse the literature exploring SMN use for collaborative learning in
higher education, and secondly to systematically analysis the effective use literature.

To fulfill the first aim, section 2.1 of the literature review provides (i) a
background of higher education learning detailing the evolution of learning in the
higher education sector, (ii) an account of the nature of collaborative learning, (iii) a
high-level overview of SMN and a discussion on (iv) how SMN has been used for
collaborative learning in higher education. To address the second aim, section 2.2 of
the literature review provides (v) a background of system use literature, (vi) an
overview of two perspectives of effective use, and (vii) a systematic literature review
of effective use discussing how effective use has been studied in the IS literature. This
chapter will conclude by underlining the current gaps in the literature pertaining to
SMN use for collaborative learning in higher education and effective use of systems
in IS field.

2.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT UNDER INVESTIGATION

In investigating the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning, this research
is scoped to explore collaborative learning in higher education with the use of SMN.
As such, this section describes the background of higher education learning with
emphasis on collaborative learning concepts and provides a high level of SMN systems
and how SMN has been used for collaborative learning in higher education.

2.1.1 An Overview of Higher Education Learning

“Higher education globally shifts its practices to align with and exploit the
affordances of changing technologies” (Ng'ambi et al., 2016, p. 845). The higher
education sector is always shaping and being shaped by unfolding the significant
trends in the world (Brown et al., 2020). Identifying the challenges arising from social,
technological, economic, educational and political aspects of the macro environment

Chapter 2: Literature Review 19

is therefore a key activity in higher education policy decisions (Brown et al., 2020).
Recent trends and challenges facing the field are: (i) configuring learning spaces to
implement and enhance collaborative and student-centred learning, (ii) implementing
deeper learning approaches to engage students in critical thinking, problem-solving,
collaboration and self-directed learning, (iii) developing blended learning designs to
navigate digital environments (NMC Horizon Report, 2017). Employment of
emerging technologies and practices has been recognized as a key factor in addressing
these challenging areas (NMC Horizon Report, 2017).

Teaching and learning in higher education has been affected by technological

advancements resulting a higher emphasis on the use of digital technologies and media
for learning and teaching activities (Kirschner et al., 2002). Initially, these
technologies were based on the core concept of computer supported environment
(O'Malley, 2012). However, in line with growing interest in mobile technologies and
Web 2.0 tools, the adoption of social networking tools have become a trend in higher
education learning. (NMC Horizon Report, 2004). The higher education horizon report
of the New Media Consortium has recognized this growing value of social networking
sites for almost two decades. Since then, NMC annual reports have predicted different
aspects and trends associated with the growing use of social networks, social media.
and mobile technologies in higher education teaching and learning (NMC Horizon
Report, 2006, 2015).

Moreover, development and evolution in learning and teaching towards the

collaborative context has also been recognized as a key trend and strategy in higher
education. This is more due to recognition of the difficulty of attaining certain learning
goals in an individual context compared to in a collaborative learning context
(Kirschner et al., 2002). As such, the shift towards the collaborative learner activities
commenced some time ago in higher education (NMC Horizon Report, 2004).
Learning activities such as discussions in groups, working in teams and carrying out
practical activities all fall under the umbrella of collaborative learning and are valued
in the higher education as the means of enhancing student engagement (Baldwin,
2018). This is further relevant given the student centred learning strategies and active
learning pedagogy that have also begun to challenge traditional formats in higher
education classrooms (Vercellotti, 2018). Active learning refers to learning in which
seeking new information, organizing it in a way that is meaningful, and having the

20 Chapter 2: Literature Review

chance to explain it to others. In active learning, students are given consistent
opportunities to apply their learning which emphasise the scope of student-centred
learning strategies. Active learning in the classroom can take several forms;
collaborative, cooperative, problem-based, and cooperative learning (Prince, 2004).
These different forms of learning have been shown to lead improved grades for
students compared to the traditional lecture pedagogy (Foldnes, 2016). As such,
together with all other trends and key changes, many higher educational institutions
have begun to implement cooperative and/ or collaborative learning in their curricula
(Kirschner et al., 2002). Thus, exploring supportive learning spaces to enrich the
achievements and engagement of learners through such collaborative learning
environments has become an important area of research in higher education (Molinillo
et al., 2018).

2.1.2 Collaborative Learning

There are three key attributes of effective learning processes that are readily
identified by scholars; (i) active learning and construction of knowledge, (ii)
cooperation and team work in learning, and (iii) learning via problem solving (Alavi,
1994; Leow et al., 2016). Collaborative learning is one of the learning strategies that
encompasses these key attributes of effective learning and is promoted over traditional
learning, which involves passive, competitive and individualistic strategies. The work
of psychologists such as Johnson and Johnson (1989), Panitz (1999b) and Slavin
(1987) has evolved collaborative learning as a learning strategy. In collaborative
learning, students are working in groups of two or more, with a mutual effort of
understanding, making meanings or creating a product (Smith & MacGregor, 1992).
Collaborative learning is specifically based on the model that knowledge can be
created where members actively interact by sharing experiences (Johnson et al., 2000).
As such, the underlying premise of collaborative learning is based upon compromise
building through collaboration by group members. This is in contrast to competition
in which individuals best other group members. The learners are responsible for one
another's learning as well as their own in collaborative learning; thus, the success of
one learner helps other students to be successful (Gokhale, 1995).

Collaborative learning is based on several key concepts , including involvement

of social processes by small groups of students, interacting among peers being the most

Chapter 2: Literature Review 21

important factor in learning, students influencing one another when they learn
together, and active involvement in and participation in problem solving (Dillenbourg
et al., 2009; Zarzour & Sellami, 2017). Therefore, collaborative learning has been
advocated as the primary means of implementing key attributes of effective learning
(Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The significance of collaborative learning is further
highlighted in several learning philosophies as well in terms of its capability to
enhance overall student engagement and outcomes. For instance, studying from
multiple perspectives including collaborating with others is encouraged by the social
constructivism philosophy (Vygotsky, 1962) in order to achieve effective learning
outcomes. Social cognitive philosophy values the interactions and team efforts in
collaborative learning for an improved learning environment (Bandura, 1992, 2001).

Reporting on the effectiveness and benefits in practice, research has regularly

reported that teaching and learning can be greatly improved through collaborative
learning. For example, researchers found collaborative learning can promote students'
communication skills, problem solving capability and interpersonal relationships
(Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013). According to Slavin (2008), shared interactions in
collaborative works contribute more to effective learning when each student has
assigned responsibilities in a particular task. Prior research evidence that well-
functioning and effective groups of students in collaborative learning environments
engage in more constructive learning processes, possess more positive reactions to the
learning and contribute to better learning outcomes (Hiltz, 1995; Magogwe et al.,
2015; Nummenmaa & Nummenmaa, 2008a; Salomon & Globerson, 1989).

Therefore, effective collaborative learning environments result in greater student

learning benefits, including higher achievement, greater productivity, more supportive
student relationships, more effective learning communities, and improved
psychological health and social competence (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Panitz,
1999a). More specifically, expert psychologists in collaborative learning highlight
further achievements that can result from learning in collaboration rather than learning
individually (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Panitz, 1999b; Slavin, 1987). For example,
Panitz (1999b) described numerous benefits of collaborative and cooperative learning.
Following Johnson and Johnson (1989) and Panitz and Panitz (1998), Laal and Ghodsi
(2012) present these collaborative learning benefits reflecting three higher level
learning goals: (i) social goals which involve improving students social skills in

22 Chapter 2: Literature Review

working cooperatively instead competitively (e.g., developing a social support
system), (ii) psychosocial goals that involve improving students skills to explore issues
and understand each other’s differences (e.g., enhancing the interactions among
students) and (iii) academic goals which involve improving student skills to enhance
their academic achievements (e.g., increasing the involvement in group work) benefits
(refer to Table 1).

Table 1 Benefits/ Goals of Collaborative Learning*

Social Goals • Collaborative learning helps to develop a social support system for
learners.
• Collaborative learning leads to building diversity understanding
among students and staff.
• Collaborative learning establishes a positive atmosphere for
modelling and practicing cooperation.
• Collaborative learning develops learning communities.
Psychosocial • Student-centred instruction increases students' self-esteem.
Goals
• Collaborative learning reduces anxiety.
• Collaborative learning develops positive attitudes towards teachers.
Academic Goals • Collaborative learning promotes critical thinking skills.
• Collaborative learning involves students actively in the learning
process.
• Collaborative learning improves classroom results.
• Collaborative learning models appropriate student problem solving
techniques.
* Adapted from Laal and Ghodsi (2012)

2.1.3 Social Media Networks

There are several key terms that are used frequently and interchangeably in
social media research, including social network(s), online social networks, online
communities, virtual communities, and social media (Cao et al., 2015). The broad term
of social media has been applied to specific technologies such as wikis, blogs,
microblogs, social networking sites, and video sharing sites (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010). Despite various contrasting definitions of social media in the literature (Bosch,
2009; Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Cao et al., 2015; Selwyn, 2007), McLoughlin and Lee
(2010) highlight that most commonly the term social media refers to web-based
multimedia production and distribution tools incorporating text (blogs, wikis, Twitter),
audio (podcasting, Skype), photo (Flickr) and video capabilities (podcasting,
YouTube). Markos-Kujbus and Gati (2012) have classified these different social

Chapter 2: Literature Review 23

media platforms and social networking sites based on different theoretical bases (i.e.,
social presence, media richness, self-presentation, and self-disclosure) found in the
field of social media research. According to their classification, six different types of
social media have been identified in terms of the level of representation of different
theoretical bases including media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), and social
presence theory (Short et al., 1976). These include blogs, social networking sites (e.g.,
Facebook), virtual social worlds (e.g., second life), collaborative projects (e.g.,
Wikipedia), content communities (e.g., YouTube), and virtual game worlds (virtual
war craft) that have been presented as different types of social media and social
networking sites (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). However, identification of these
technologies and platforms under a common term has frequently changed. Given that
there are many different types of social media and these types have been used
interchangeably, studying the impact of these various types and identifying theoretical
implications for social media has been considered as challenging (Kane et al., 2014).

Studies by Boyd and Ellison (2007, p. 211) provide a widely applied definition
of social networking sites. In this view, ‘social networking sites’ refers to “web-based
services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a
bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection,
and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the
system”.

However, researchers then argued for adapting this original definition due to its
limited scope because of the continual evolution of these SMN systems. For example,
researchers discuss that the ‘boundedness’ of SMN has been diminished, since most
of the social networking platforms have now extended their functionality beyond the
borders of a website (Kane et al., 2014). For example, some applications allow users
to post content simultaneously to different social media platforms (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter, and Instagram). This is also relevant to the characteristics of social media
platforms (i.e., nature of the user profile, search ability and privacy, network ties, etc)
which have been recognized differently due to technological evolution of these
platforms.

As such, taking into account social media evolution, Boyd and Ellison (2007)
highlight possible amendments to the definition of social networking sites beyond the

24 Chapter 2: Literature Review

core features previously identified. Consequently, they suggest using the term ‘social
media networks’ (SMN) which combine characteristics of both social networking sites
and social media. Thus, SMN consist of four necessary features and are defined as
platforms “such that users (1) have a unique user profile that is constructed by the user,
by members of their network, and by the platform; (2) access digital content through,
and protect it from, various search mechanisms provided by the platform; (3) can
articulate a list of other users with whom they share a relational connection; and (4)
view and traverse their connections and those made by others on the platform” (Kane
et al., 2014) (Refer Table 2).
Table 2 Features and Characteristics of Social Media Networks
Feature Description & Characteristics
(1) Digital Profile The platform provides a unique user profile that is constructed by
the user, by members of their network, and by the platform.
(2) Search and Privacy Users can access digital content through and protect it from
various search mechanisms provided by the platform.
(3) Relational Tie The platform provides mechanisms for users to articulate a list of
other users with whom they share a connection.
(4) View and Traverse Users can view and traverse their connections and those made by
Network Connections others on the platform.
(Kane et al., 2014, p. 280) adapted from Boyd and Ellison (2007) and (Ellison & Boyd,
2013)

This definition (Kane et al., 2014) takes into account social media developments
including users’ behavioural changes, network structural changes, platform
technological and design changes, and the variety of social media uses. It also
highlights the four features shared by many social media technologies (digital profile,
relational ties, search and privacy and network transparency). Since it is the clearest
and most comprehensive definition identified by the literature review, this study draws
upon Kane, et al.’s (2014) social media networks definition. Accordingly, social media
platforms that provide users an ability to create a profile (account), access to search
content, build and maintain relationships with other users have been included as SMN
systems in this research. As such, general social media platforms that students use such
as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Wechat, as well as other collaborative tools such as
SLACK, Zoom, Microsoft SharePoint has also been investigated during the data
collection and analysis steps in the study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review 25

2.1.3.1 Social Media Networks for Learning in Higher Education

SMN is valued for educational activities, due to its capacity to offer different
applications and share diverse information, providing insights into users’ thoughts
(blogging) and preferences (social bookmarking) (Albrechtslund, 2008). Considering
the various positive views of SMN, scholars highlight the necessity of considering the
affordability and potential value of SMN platforms for learners in education
(McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). In terms of information and resource sharing, SMN allow
for knowledge building and also support educational activities (Demir, 2018; Roblyer
& Doering, 2006). SMN are also prominent in providing networking environments to
accomplish the learning goals in online platforms (Garcia et al., 2015). Moreover, it is
a notably reported fact that most students spend a great deal of time connected to social
networking sites (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Jenny et al., 2013). Hence, research discusses
that it using these platforms in educational and instructional contexts can be a powerful
tool (Demir, 2018; Ellison et al., 2011). Similarly, learning philosophies such as
connectivism (Siemens, 2014) have evolved addressing the view of learning as a
process of creating connections and articulating a network (Kop & Hill, 2008;
Siemens, 2004) in which SMN is well aligned.

Further, as a pedagogical choice, researchers have commented that SMN can be

used for educational purposes where it can claim the social-cultural and social
constructivism’s (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010; Vygotsky, 1962; Vygotsky, 1980) view
of learning. i.e., people learn via social interactions and ideas and experience-sharing.
This would be further applicable due to the nature of SMN for promoting active
participation, collaboration, networking and creating learning communities (Boyd &
Ellison, 2007; Ellison & Boyd, 2013; Jayarathna & Fernando, 2014; Kietzmann et al.,
2011). Thus, SMN as a facilitating tool for teaching and learning is a growing interest
of research as one aspect of investigating the impacts of these tools (Brown, 2012;
Junco et al., 2011; Voorn & Kommers, 2013).

According to Selwyn (2010), there are three interrelated concepts that motivate
the use of SMN in higher education: (1) the changing nature of highly connected,
collective and creative university students, (2) changes of university learners’
relationship with knowledge construction, consumption, and (3) formal education and
the emergence of ‘user-driven’ education in universities. Consequently, given the

26 Chapter 2: Literature Review

priority for enhancing learner-centred learning, improving active and collaborative
learning and integrating formal and informal learning, many higher education
instructors have paid attention to technology to mediate and enhance educational
practices (Tess, 2013). Due to their capability for catering to the emergent concerns
in learning particularly in higher education, SMN could dominate and has received
growing attention among the educational technologies in higher education (NMC
Horizon Report, 2015; Tess, 2013).

Both instructors and students in higher education are using and prefer to use
digital forms of communication such as blogs, social media, social networking tools
for their learning (Garcia et al., 2015). Similarly, studies have investigated users’
(teachers and students) awareness and intention to accept and use SMN as a facilitator
for education and different user behaviour in using SMN in personal and educational
contexts (eg. Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Sadaf et al., 2012) as well as the antecedents
for educational adoption of SMN by Higher Education (Alqahtani & Issa, 2018). While
the majority of these studies investigated the potential of SMN for educational
purposes and the possible reasons (e.g., users’ belief, ability, and readiness) to use
those as an educational tool (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018) some studies have investigated
the learners’ achievements in relationship to the educational use of SMN (Heiberger
& Harper, 2008; Junco et al., 2011). Accordingly, researchers have discussed the
capability of SMN for enhancing effective communication (Sharla et al., 2009),
enhancing students engagement (Junco et al., 2011; Sadaf et al., 2012) as well as their
negative impacts on students’ time management (Paul et al., 2012). Different
applications - Facebook, Twitter, Blogs etc. - have been investigated in terms of
identifying the impact of their use on students’ academic engagement in different
areas. For example, McCarthy (2010) suggested using Facebook as a facilitating tool
for blended learning that appreciates the interactive discussions between peers.
Moreover, Irwin et al. (2012) and Ophus and Abbitt (2009) reported several benefits
of the educational use of Facebook: increased interactions, posted lecture notes and
assessments, participation in class discussions and communications to other students.
When it comes to using SMN particularly for collaborative learning in HE, research
has reported identifying the potential of SMN and other Web 2.0 tools for facilitating
collaborative learning environments (Junco et al., 2011; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010;
Redecker et al., 2010). Consequently there is evidence of research investigating

Chapter 2: Literature Review 27

university students’ perception (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018), preference and skills in face
to face collaborative learning with the integration of SMN (Voorn & Kommers, 2013).
However, there is limited research investigating how users use SMN for collaborative
learning purposes, with the majority of research focussed on to investigating users’
attitudes toward the use of these platforms for learning purposes.

2.2 SYSTEM USE

Information systems can be used in different ways, and their impacts depend on
how users use them in specific contexts (Burton-Jones, Bremhorst, et al., 2017).
System use has been a principal concept in IS research and is the most widely studied
construct in the IS domain (Burton-Jones, Stein, et al., 2017; Córdoba et al., 2012).
System use has been investigated from different perspectives (Burton-Jones & Straub,
2006) including as an antecedent to deriving organizational and individual benefits
(Delone & McLean, 2003), for its influential role for decision making (Hou, 2012).
Initially, a plethora of different measures have been applied to determine actual IS use
behaviour, such as extent of use, frequency of use, and use or non-use. However, these
have been criticized by the scholars for being simple use measures in the context of
information systems (Weber et al., 2015).

A systematic conceptualization of system use was made by Burton-Jones and

Straub (2006) with the construct consisting of three components: IS, user, and task. IS
is a technological artifact that the user interacts with, the user is the individual who
employs the IS to complete a task, and the task is identified as “a goal-directed activity
performed by a user” (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006, p. 231). As such, resolving the
uncertainties surrounding the measures of system use, and addressing the absence of
an accepted definition, Burton-Jones and Straub (2006, p. 231) formulated a
comprehensive definition of IS use referring to “an individual user’s employment of
one or more features of a system to perform a task”. Accordingly, within the scope of
this study, an individual user may use SMN features that provide them affordances
supporting the performance of collaborative learning tasks. According to Seddon
(1997) effective use of systems, not system use alone is sufficient to ensure
organizational goals are achieved but the effective use of information systems (Burton-
Jones & Grange, 2013). As such, this research focus on the effective use of the SMN
systems.

28 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.2.1 Context-Agnostic Effective Use

“Effective use is the lynchpin through which an information system achieves its
potential” (Burton-Jones, Bremhorst, et al., 2017, p. 153). Consequently, research on
system use has moved to effective use by shifting the emphasis from “using the system
to perform a goal-directed activity” to “using it in a way that helps attain the relevant
goal” (Burton-Jones & Grange 2013, 633). The shift from studying use to effective use
of systems was predicted back in 2000 (Marcolin et al., 2000), but it was only in 2013
that Burton-Jones and Grange conceptualized the construct explicitly.

Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) conceptualized effective use and defined it as

“using a system in a way that helps attain the goals for using a system” (p. 633). They
further highlight that the nature and drivers of effective use relate to the components
of system use (system, user & task) (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006). Burton-Jones and
Grange (2013) extended representation theory (Wand & Weber, 1990) to develop a
conceptual model of effective use. As the representation theory asserts, the purpose of
a system is to faithfully represent a real-world domain, and any system consists of
three structures: deep, surface, and physical structure (Wand & Weber, 1990).

• Deep structure specifies system characteristics that represent stakeholder

perceptions of the meaning of the focal real-world phenomena (e.g., how data
objects and relevant rules are embedded in the program code)

• Surface structure represents system characteristics that allow users to engage

with the deep structure to facilitate the accessibility and the interaction with
representations (e.g., query interface and report generator)

• Physical structure refers to the machinery that supports the other structures (e.g.,
personal computers, key boards, and networks) (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013,
p.636; Burton-Jones, Recker et al., 2017, p.1309) .

Drawing upon this view, Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) conceptualized

effective use as a multidimensional construct consisting of three dimensions:
transparent interaction, representation fidelity, and informed action (Table 3). As such,
if a user can use the hardware (physical structure) to interact unimpededly with the
user interface (surface structure) and be able to determine the fallibility of the

Chapter 2: Literature Review 29

representations they leverage (deep structure) then the particular user is able to use the
system effectively (Eden, 2017).

Table 3 Definitions of Effective Use Dimensions

Effective Use
Definition * Link to System Use**
Dimension

“The extent to which a user acts on faithful

Informed
representations that he or she obtains from the
Action
system to improve his/her state in the domain”

“The extent to which a user is obtaining

Representation representations that faithfully reflect the domain
Fidelity that the system represents”

“The extent to which a user accesses the system’s

Transparent
representations unimpeded by its surface and
Interaction
physical structure”

*(Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013, p. 642)

** Underlined elements of system use reflect more emphasis on investigation.

The IS field has long recognized the importance of effective use, yet this robust
conceptualization (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) has been performed only recently
and is identified as the seminal conceptualization of effective use. Drawing on
representation theory perspectives, Burton-Jones & Grange’s (2013) conceptualization
provides effective use dimensions which are applicable across settings and system
types, thus providing a context-agnostic perspective. A systematic review of effective
use studies based on the seminal theory of effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange,
2013) has been conducted in this research which to provide insights into how effective
use has been studied in IS research.

30 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.2.2 Context-Aware Effective Use

Conceptualizing effective use, Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) propose ‘this

conceptualisation is relevant across all systems but highlight that an examination of
contexts is outside their scope. Challenges therefore remain to understand how to
conceptualize and operationalize effective use in different contexts. Contextualizing
effective use requires in depth understanding of the nature of the system use
components (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006). As such, initial attempts to contextualize
effective use have proven difficult and questionable dimensions have sometimes
resulted which do not reflect the inherent meaning of the effective use construct (Eden
et al., 2020). This resulted in Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) proposing an approach
to contextualize effective use. As opposed to representation theory perspectives,
Burton-Jones and Volkoff’s (2017) approach draw on affordance theory perspectives
and provides a context-aware perspective on effective use.

In contrast to the context-agnostic perspective (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013),

the context-aware perspective (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017) explains what effective
use involves in a particular context. As such, drawing on the affordance theory
perspective Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) emphasise the need to consider
affordances of the system, and how they are actualized to attain the goals of using the
system. In IS research, an affordance is identified as “the possibility for goal-oriented
actions afforded to specific user groups by technical objects” (Markus & Silver 2008,
p. 622). As per the affordance lens, an affordance is the perception of possible actions
the system provides and does not determine users’ actions; rather it defines possible
actions (Markus & Silver 2008). Perceiving affordance therefore is perceiving that the
possibility exists for the behaviour whereas affordance actualization is the behaviour
users perform to achieve their goals of system use.

In their proposed approach, Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) state that

researchers need to study how actions, interactions, and outcomes relate across a
network of affordances, to systematically build a picture of effective use of
information systems. The affordance network is the intended outcome or purpose, and
affordance actualization details the actions and interactions of system use. Moreover,
as the affordances are related to the outcome the users wish to attain from the system,
researchers can understand effective use by understanding the different goals the

Chapter 2: Literature Review 31

system is used to achieve and how the affordances link to goals (Burton-Jones &
Volkoff 2017). For instance, in developing the approach for contextualizing effective
use in the context of electronic health record (EHR) system use, Burton-Jones &
Volkoff (2017) identifies providing each patient with continuity care as the goal of the
EHR system use and coordinating care and making clinical decisions as an example of
the salient affordances under the network of affordances for attaining such goals. Thus,
the primary guidance of Burton-Jones and Volkoff’s (2017) approach is to understand
and identify salient affordances, context-specific goals, and the links between
affordances and goals. Related affordance theory lens concepts will be further
discussed in the later sections (section 3.1) of the thesis.

2.3 SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF EFFECTIVE USE

To understand the current state of research in terms of how the effective use
construct has been studied in IS research, a comprehensive review (Appendix A)
(Mays et al., 2001) of literature on the seminal works of effective use conceptualization
(Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) has been conducted. The review was conducted as a
theory based review (Paul & Criado, 2020) (refer to Appendix Figure A.1 for the
review methodology) in which the studies that have referred to Burton-Jones and
Grange’s (2013) theory of effective use have been analysed. As such, the review was
conducted as a forward citation search of Burton-Jones & Grange’s (2013) study based
on Google Scholar which included any papers that cite Burton-Jones & Grange’s
(2013) paper on the theory of effective use.

Theory based reviews focus on analysing the role of a specific theory in a subject
area, providing useful insights for the research community in the field (Paul & Criado,
2020). These reviews are undertaken to synthesize and advance the body of literature
that uses and empirically applies a given underlying theory. With the objective of
mapping key concepts underpinning the research area, in conducting the
comprehensive review, this section sought to provide insights into:

1. How has the theory of effective use been studied?

2. How can future research extend the field’s knowledge of the theory of effective
use?

32 Chapter 2: Literature Review

 Literature analysis sought to extract data related to several themes: nature of
effective use (i.e., seminal, and contextual conceptualizations of the construct),
dimensions of effective use (i.e., transparent interactions, representation fidelity, and
informed action), the use context investigation (system, user, and task), and
antecedents and consequences.

2.3.1 Definitions and Dimensions of Effective Use

The vast majority of research investigating effective use has applied Burton-
Jones and Grange’s (2013) definition of effective use (Choi & Tulu, 2017; Gnewuch
et al., 2016; Haake et al., 2015; Huber & Dibbern, 2014; Trieu, 2013; Weber et al.,
2015; Zou et al., 2014). As described in the previous section, effective use is based on
representation theory and is considered to be a multidimensional construct formed of
three dimensions: transparent interaction, representation fidelity and informed action.
Some scholars have used these dimensions directly in their studies (Choi & Tulu, 2017;
Jia et al., 2019; Li et al., 2017) while others have contextualized dimensions with either
a subset of dimensions (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2014; Sorgenfrei et al., 2014) or
completely different dimensions (Bonaretti & Piccoli, 2019; Torres & Sidorova,
2019).

The papers that have directly applied Burton-Jones and Grange’s (2013)
conceptualization have been both conceptual (Gnewuch et al., 2016; Haake et al.,
2015; Huber & Dibbern, 2014; Trieu, 2013; Zou et al., 2014) or empirical in nature
(Choi & Tulu, 2017; Haake et al., 2018; Jia et al., 2019; Marchand & Raymond, 2018;
Savoli & Barki, 2017; Tam et al., 2019). In quantitative empirical research, the extent
to which these dimensions are faithfully measured varies. Transparent interaction is
often assessed in terms of perceived ease of use (Haake et al., 2018; Marchand &
Raymond, 2018), which does not link to whether content is impeded by the hardware
and user interface (per Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). For representational fidelity,
information quality measures have been used without anchoring them in use behaviour
(per Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). For informed action, the measures largely
represent impacts from use (Gnewuch et al., 2016; Haake et al., 2018). This highlights
a need for additional guidance on how to operationalize and measure effective use.

When the effective use construct was conceptualized, considering that it is an

aggregate construct (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013), the hierarchical nature or the

Chapter 2: Literature Review 33

formative nature of the construct dimensions were identified. In terms of the
relationships between the dimensions, effective use is both (i) manifested as a second-
order formative construct, and (ii) consists of relationships between the first order
dimensions, whereby transparent interaction influences representational fidelity,
which influences informed action (Burton-Jones & Grange 2013). The vast majority
of papers have largely explored the hierarchical nature of the construct dimensions
(Marchand & Raymond, 2018; Savoli & Barki, 2017; Tam et al., 2019) while little
attention has been paid to exploring the formative nature of the construct. Eden et al.
(2020) has explored both the hierarchical and formative nature of the construct in
studying operational users’ use of enterprise systems in a tertiary education setting.

Several studies have recognized the importance of context in system use and
contextualize effective use and its dimensions to a specific use context (e.g., Grublješič
& Jaklič, 2014; Sorgenfrei et al., 2014). For instance, Grublješič and Jaklič (2014)
considered effective use to consist of intensity of use, extent of use and embeddedness
in the context of using business intelligence systems for decision making. Conversely,
Lauterbach et al. (2014) addressed the exploration and exploitation of knowledge as
dimensions of individuals’ adaptations towards effective use in the context of using
loan management systems for customer related decision making. In contrast, Bonaretti
and Piccoli (2019) identified situational awareness as an effective use dimension of
emergency management systems. Further, Torres and Sidorova (2019) conceptualized
effective use in the business intelligence for decision-making context to consist of
actionability (i.e. usability of information, rather than action on information) in
addition to transparent interaction and representational fidelity. However, the extent
these dimensions faithfully reflect the overarching definition of the effective use is
questionable.

While contextualization of effective use is necessary, scholars need to be

mindful when contextualizing the dimensions to ensure they reflect the underlying
meaning of the construct. For this reason, Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) presented
guidelines on how to contextualize effective use and applied them to the effective use
of health information systems, identifying the dimensions of accuracy, consistency,
and reflection-in-action.

34 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.3.2 Antecedents of Effective Use

The review of the literature identified five types of facilitators of effective use:
(1) organizational factors, (2) system characteristics, (3) user characteristics, (4) task
characteristics, and (5) behaviour. In terms of organizational factors, organizational
information culture (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2014; Trieu et al., 2018), data management
process, and organizational support (Sejahtera et al., 2018; Surbakti et al., 2019) have
been found to influence both the effective use of an information system and its
respective data.

The system characteristics which influence effective use include data quality and
system quality (Torres & Sidorova, 2019; Zou et al., 2014), information assurance and
management (Park et al., 2018), system capabilities (Marchand & Raymond, 2018;
Park et al., 2018), and data accuracy and system support (Sejahtera et al., 2018). In
terms of user related factors characteristics, the user’s personal innovativeness
(Grublješič & Jaklič, 2014), expertise (Torres & Sidorova, 2019), experience and
motivation (Marchand & Raymond, 2018; Otoo & Salam, 2018), self-learning (Jia et
al., 2019), deep structure knowledge (Lauterbach et al., 2014), human emotion
(Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017; Savoli & Barki, 2017), perception on benefits
(Sejahtera et al., 2018), user participation (Esposito, 2015), and user resistance
(Gewald & Gewald, 2017), have been investigated as enablers of effective use.

Task characteristics in terms of complexity of the tasks performed using the

system (Lauterbach et al., 2014), relevance of the task to the user’s expected purpose
(Kretzer et al., 2015), and task variety (Peng & Guo, 2019) have also been investigated
as influencing factors on effective use in qualitative studies.

In addition to these, user behaviours including adaptation and learning actions

(Gnewuch et al., 2016; Haake et al., 2015; Huber & Dibbern, 2014; Trieu, 2013; Yu
et al., 2019; Zou et al., 2014), system exploration (Liang et al., 2015), workarounds
(Li et al., 2017) enhanced use (Bagayogo et al., 2014), and innovative and routine use
(Qahri-Saremi et al., 2018) have been examined as antecedents to effective use. In
relating to the user behaviour as a facilitator of effective use, concerns has been raised
over whether individuals can continuously iterate between learning and adaptations in
chaotic environments (Bonaretti & Piccoli, 2018b).

Chapter 2: Literature Review 35

 Apart from the facilitators of effective use, few studies examined the inhibitors
of effective use, some of them are related to user behaviour while others address
system characteristics. User behaviour inconsistencies in use (Eden et al., 2018), and
tensions and frictions arising from use (Stein et al., 2014) have been studied as factors
hindering effective use. In terms of the system characteristics, identified inhibitors are
largely due to sources of ineffectiveness, including presence of misfits (Weeger et al.,
2013).

2.3.3 Consequences of Effective Use

Conceptual research drawing on the Burton-Jones and Grange’s (2013)

conceptualization largely proposed consequences surrounding performance
achievements. For example, optimizing supply chain, reducing operating costs,
improving customer service (Gnewuch et al., 2016), improving decision making
efficiency and effectiveness (Trieu, 2013; Trieu et al., 2018), enhancing service quality
(Otoo & Salam, 2018) and improving system performance (Zou et al., 2014).
Empirical findings evidence managerial and competitive benefits (Marchand &
Raymond, 2018), communication quality and productivity (Jia et al., 2019) and system
resilience (Park et al., 2018) as outcomes of effective use.

Studies that contextualized effective use also highlight several other positive
outcomes, including enhanced decision support, work integration and customer service
(Grublješič & Jaklič, 2014), improved work performance (Lauterbach et al., 2014),
increased job satisfaction (Park et al., 2015), and collaborative learning goal
achievement (Jayarathna et al., 2020). Moreover, studies discussing impediments of
effective use highlight the negative consequences resulting from ineffective use,
including insufficient system performance (Weeger et al., 2013), difficulty finding
information, and concerns surrounding patient outcomes (Eden et al., 2018).

2.3.4 Effective Use Context

For the effective use context, this review examined studies investigating the
systems, user groups, tasks, and the time constraint. As discussed above, context plays
an important role in effective use in terms of the dimensions, antecedents, and
consequences. 58 effective use papers were reviewed under the theory based review
of which half focused on effective use of enterprise systems (n=30, 60%), with a
significant number conducted in the healthcare industry, probably due to the adverse

36 Chapter 2: Literature Review

consequences of ineffective use. It is worthwhile noting that approximately 16% of
studies did not focus on a particular system. This is concerning given that the system
is a key component of use. In terms of users and tasks, most studies focused on internal,
individual users and their related tasks, including strategic, managerial, and
operational levels. Few studies examined external, individual users and their tasks. For
example, Huber and Dibbern (2014) considered all project participants to examine the
role of collaborative software tools for facilitating agility in project management.
Palese and Piccoli (2018) also focused on how external systems, which are beyond a
firm’s control need to be effectively used. Thus, as earlier explained, user groups and
the nature of tasks have been taken into considerations by several studies for
identifying antecedents of effective use.

2.3.5 Areas for Future Research

The findings of the review provide insights for avenues of future research on
different aspects including effective use dimensions and operationalization and further
understanding the relationships of effective use. This section provides detail
explanation for these future research potentials.

2.3.5.1 Future Research Areas for Effective Use Dimensions and

Operationalization

Most studies investigating effective use either directly apply or are consistent
with the underlying meaning of the overarching effective use definition (Burton-Jones
& Grange, 2013). While there is consistency in the definition of effective use, the
construct is multidimensional and therefore it is necessary to further reflect on its
underlying dimensions of transparent interaction, representational fidelity, and
informed action. With respect to the findings of dimensions of effective use, papers
drawing on Burton-Jones and Grange’s (2013) conceptualization largely investigate
one or more of the underlying dimensions without adapting the dimensions to the
context. However, the extent to which studies faithfully examine these dimensions
differs. System quality, information quality, and individual impact measures are often
inappropriately used to examine transparent interaction, representational fidelity, and
informed action respectively (e.g., Gnewuch et al., 2016; Haake et al., 2018). Yet,
Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) clearly delineate the effective use dimensions from
these constructs. The potential content validity issues surrounding the measurement of
effective use dimensions is expected, given they represent much needed first attempts

Chapter 2: Literature Review 37

at exploring how to measure such a complex and under-researched topic. However,
given that inappropriate measurement items can result in equivocal results (Dubin,
1978), to progress theory, guidance on measurements is paramount (as per Chin et al.,
1997). As such, more research needs to be performed into rigorously developing and
validating measurement items for effective use.

In terms of the relationships between the dimensions of effective use, two

approaches are possible. The first approach is to conceptualize effective use as “an
aggregate construct formed by its dimensions” (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013, p. 643).
This indicates effective use can be operationalized as a multidimensional formative
construct (Petter et al., 2007). In this approach, the dimensions of transparent
interaction, representational fidelity, and informed action combine to form the
overarching effective use construct. It is this multidimensional construct of effective
use that then has relationships with consequences, rather than a specific dimension
influencing an outcome. The second approach is to operationalize effective use, where
the dimensions are hierarchically related (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). In this
approach, effective use can be operationalized as three unidimensional constructs,
where transparent interaction influences representational fidelity, and representational
fidelity influences informed action (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Surprisingly, only
a very few studies have investigated the formative nature of effective use. Rather, most
studies have examined the hierarchical, variance-type relationship (Marchand &
Raymond, 2018; Savoli & Barki, 2017). Therefore, more research needs on
investigating the formative nature of effective use dimensions. Further, guidelines are
needed to provide clear insights into when it is best for a formative or hierarchical
operationalization of effective use.

While the implications of context should not be understated, scholars need to

ensure the contextualized dimensions faithfully reflect the inherent meaning of
effective use. Failure to rigorously contextualize effective use can result in
questionable dimensions and measurement impeding cumulative research. For
instance, in contextualizing effective use of business intelligence systems, Grublješič
and Jaklič (2014) examined the dimensions of intensity of use, extent of use, and
embeddedness of use. Yet, these differ in intent to the theory of effective use as they
are not goal focused and do not correspond to rich use measures. In addition, Torres
and Sidorova (2019) contextualized informed action as actionability, which represents

38 Chapter 2: Literature Review

whether the information provided is usable, yet they do not examine how users take
action. Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) developed an approach for contextualizing
effective use by drawing on affordance theory. Their approach proposes that
contextualizing effective use involves understanding the goals the system is used to
achieve and how the affordances of the system link to achieve those goals. Therefore,
it is highlighted that future research try and test this approach, and alternatively, to
rigorously develop other approaches that maintain the inherent meaning of effective
use. In doing so, scholars need to find the balance between conceptualizing and
contextualizing effective use without overgeneralizing.

Currently, the predominant focus of effective use is at the individual level of

analysis (e.g., Bonaretti & Piccoli, 2018a; Kretzer et al., 2015; Trieu, 2013). However,
use manifests at individual (i.e. a user uses system to complete a task), group (i.e.
aggregation of individual use behaviour), and organizational levels (i.e. intra and inter
organizational use) (Burton-Jones & Gallivan, 2007). Continual emphasis on the
individual level can “ultimately lead to an unnatural, incomplete and very disjointed
view” (Burton-Jones & Gallivan, 2007, p. 657). Research on the theory of effective
use should further focus on understanding the phenomenon at other levels of analysis
including the group and organizational, and multilevel perspectives. Multilevel
research can be challenging (e.g., balancing parsimony and usefulness). Zhang and
Gable (2017) provide guidance on how to overcome these challenges and detail a
framework that scholars can use to systematically develop multilevel effective use
theories.

2.3.5.2 Future Research Areas for Relationships of Effective Use

Reflecting on the relationships currently proposed in effective use literature a

wide array of effective use facilitators have emerged and attention paid to the inhibitors
of effective use. However, many of these relationships have either been proposed in
conceptual papers or informed but qualitative research, with limited quantitative
studies. Future research can explore effective use through leveraging different
methods and techniques, such as data science, design science and experimental
designs.

Given that effective use is the lynchpin through which systems achieve potential
(Burton-Jones, Bremhorst, et al., 2017), it is important to understand how effective use

Chapter 2: Literature Review 39

is related to other types of use behaviour including ‘enhanced use’ (Bagayogo et al.,
2014), ‘workarounds’ (Alter, 2014), and ‘adaptation’ (Bhattacherjee, 2001). In line
with initial assertions, it is possible that these behaviours could contribute to effective
use. Therefore, more research needs to be performed to identify how these different
types of use emerge, under which conditions are they relevant, and how are they related
to one another.

While most effective use studies have focused on antecedents for improving
effective use, the relationships investigated can be further advanced. The Burton-Jones
and Volkoff’s (2017) contextualization of effective use – which draws on affordance
theory (Strong, Volkoff, et al., 2014) provides a multilevel perspective and thus two
useful avenues for exploring antecedents. Firstly, how can the affordance theory-based
approach be used to contextualize effective use, providing insights into designing for
the effective use of an information system. This encourages future research to
investigate the interplay between design features, affordance theory, and effective use
in greater depth. To do so, researchers can employ different methodological avenues
such as design science (Baskerville et al., 2018; Gregor & Hevner, 2013), action
research (Mullarkey & Hevner, 2019) and experimentation methodologies (Kampling,
2016).

Secondly, a multilevel perspective of antecedents can be investigated with

intellectual capital (e.g., social capital) being a potentially useful lens (Johnson, 1999).
A multilevel perspective of effective use can involve actualizing individual level
affordances (e.g. inputting, and accessing affordances) to attain an immediate outcome
(e.g. appropriate decision making), which enables affordances at the group (e.g.
coordinating affordance) and organizational level (e.g. reporting affordance) to be
actualized into their respective immediate outcomes (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017).
Therefore, future research to understand how to improve these multiple levels of
effective use is necessary for practice, as it is important that these levels are attained
for different goals to be achieved.

Antecedents of effective use have received comparatively greater attention than

consequences. Limited research has attempted to integrate theories to identify the
consequences of effective use. Several theories can be identified with the potential to
aid in this effort, including information system success (referring to the link between

40 Chapter 2: Literature Review

effective use, individual impacts, organizational impacts, and user satisfaction)
(DeLone & McLean, 1992) and the business value of IT (to understand the
consequences in relation to business processes and organizational performance
impacts of IT) (Kohli & Grover, 2008). Therefore, further research to extend the
investigations around the relationships of effective use including longitudinal
investigations and studies to understand what moderates the relationship between
effective use and its consequences (Campbell & Roberts, 2019) are needed.

2.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

To summarize, this chapter reviewed the literature pertaining to the SMN use
for collaborative learning in higher education and the effective use of information
systems. As a part of the literature review, a theory-based review has been conducted
to review the literature focusing on the theory of effective use. The findings indicate
there are inconsistencies in how effective use is explored and while recognizing that
the context is critical, care needs to be taken in terms of labelling, model
incompleteness, measurement appropriateness, and level of analysis. Investigating
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning, this research predominantly addresses
the following future research need re the theory of effective use. This research
empirically examines the theory of effective use in the context of SMN use, and thus
contextualizes effective use drawing on the affordance theory perspectives. This
further informs the testing of appropriate methods (e.g., Burton-Jones & Volkoff,
2017) for effective use contextualization and the research need for rigorously
developing and validating measurement items for effective use. Moreover, taking the
context-agnostic effective use perspective, this research focuses on examining the
formative nature of the effective use dimensions which is another highlighted research
need, in terms of the operationalization of effective use.

In addressing these research gaps relating to the effective use of information

systems, this research further addresses the research gap in SMN use for collaborative
learning in higher education. To do so, this research investigates user behaviour in the
context of SMN use for collaborative learning, which has received limited research
attention.

Chapter 2: Literature Review 41

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

Use of Social Media Network (SMN) has been recognized as a key strategy for
improving collaborative learning in higher education (NMC Horizon Report, 2015,
2017). However, as the literature review revealed, students have not realized the true
potential of these systems in their learning environments to achieve the relevant
learning goals (Amin & Rajadurai, 2018; Krutka et al., 2017). Systems must be
effectively used to obtain the relevant goals of information systems (Burton-Jones &
Grange, 2013). Research on how SMN can be effectively used for collaborative
learning tasks is limited. To address this research gap, e two research questions have
been proposed for this study.

RQ1: How can ‘effective use’ of social media networks for collaborative
learning be contextualized? and

RQ2: What are the influencing factors and outcomes of effective use of social
media networks for collaborative learning?

Addressing these research questions, this chapter develops a conceptual model

for effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.

When conceptualizing effective use of SMN for collaborative learning, it is

important to understand the existing theoretical underpinnings for effective use of
information systems. (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013)seminal conceptualization of
effective use is based on the representation theory perspective (Wand & Weber, 1990)
which provides the context-agnostic perspective of effective use. This
conceptualization consists of dimensions applicable across settings and systems. From
a theoretical perspective the efficacy of the context-agnostic perspective of effective
use warrants further investigations in the SMN context, since SMN have not been
designed to provide an information repository that is a complete and accurate
representation of collaborative learning as assumed by the representation theory
perspective. As such, a context specific perspective would need to be able to identify
the affordances of SMN central to user goals in relation to collaborative learning. This

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 43

is further substantiated by scholars’ recognition of the importance of understanding
context specific factors in research (Johns, 2006).

Therefore, moving beyond the representation theory perspective, this research

identifies the pertinence of the approach of adapting affordance theory for studying
effective use (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017). Affordance theory is recognized as an
appropriate lens for examining effective use for various reasons, the most prominent
being the potential of the theory to enable researchers to examine effective use in terms
of the actions and interactions that constitute effective use and also the intended
outcomes (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017). Understanding and evaluating the
affordances of systems has been recognized as essential when studying the educational
use of SMN (Hemmi et al., 2009; Kirschner et al., 2004; Mao, 2014).

Besides, researchers have also recognized the important role of social capital
among individuals in their use of SMN for collaborating (Ali-Hassan et al., 2015).
Social capital has been identified as an influencer on collaboration (Johnson et al.,
2015; Swann & Kim, 2018) particularly to enhance collaborative learning in online
environments (Chang & Chuang, 2011). Specifically, social capital enhances the
quality of knowledge sharing and facilitates collective actions in collaborative learning
groups (Chang et al., 2011; Krackhardt et al., 2003). The importance of social capital
for overcoming the challenges of inconsistencies associated with shared understanding
between team members is also another relevant research finding (Burt, 2000). In
relation to the effective use of systems, inconsistencies in understanding have been
found to have detrimental impacts on effective use (Eden et al. 2018). Therefore,
understanding the role of social capital in the effective use of systems, specifically in
group work, is important. However, despite the importance of social capital, it has not
been examined in conjunction with effective use. Hence, in investigating SMN use for
collaborative learning, social capital is also recognized as providing important
theoretical aspects to be examined.

As such, within this scope, to develop the conceptual model for effective use of
SMN for collaborative learning, this research primarily draws on three theories:
affordance theory with an emphasis on affordance actualization (context-aware
effective use) (e.g., Strong, Volkoff, et al., 2014), the theory of effective use (context-
agnostic effective use) (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) and social capital theory

44 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). The aim of this chapter is to describe the theoretical
background of the context-aware perspective of effective use for proposing the
hypotheses and developing the conceptual model to contextualize the effective use of
SMN for collaborative learning. This is followed by a description of hypothesis
development and conceptual model development for context-agnostic effective use of
SMN for collaborative learning.

3.1 AFFORDANCE THEORY OVERVIEW

Originating in ecological psychology (Gibson, 1986) affordance theory speaks

to how animals perceive objects. According to Gibson (1986), animals perceive an
object in terms of the action potentials that it affords rather than its physical properties.
In his view, Gibson posits that the action possibilities offered by an object are always
relative to the user who is observing the object. In other words, affordance theory
expresses the view that a goal-directed actor perceives an object in the environment in
terms of how it can be used, which is what it ‘affords’ the actor in terms of actions
possibilities for meeting a goal (Volkoff & Strong, 2017). This is in contrast to the
view that affordances are a set of characteristics of features that are inherent to the
object and independent of the actor, as argued by other scholars (e.g., Turvey, 1992).
However, the view that identifies affordances as being relations between the objects
and the user, s as relational properties of animal-environment systems, has been
accepted by the scholars and applied in research (e.g., Chemero, 2003; Shuell, 1986).

As such, Gibson’s (1980) view of affordances has been long recognized and
applied in IS research. Moreover, a key principle associated with the affordance theory
is that affordances are viewed as arising from the user/ artefact relation, not just from
the artefact (Volkoff & Strong, 2017). Four types of affordances have also been
identified: sensory, physical, cognitive and functional (Table 4) depending on how
each enables different user behaviours in system use (Hartson, 2003).

Table 4 Types of Affordances of an Artifact

Affordance Description (Hartson, 2003)
Sensory Affordances Affordances that enable users to sense, such as see or feel.
Physical Affordances Affordances that enable users to physically do something.
Cognitive Affordances Affordances that enable users to think or know something.
Functional Affordances Affordances that enable users to accomplish a goal.

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 45

 In the context of IS research, Markus and Silver (2008, p. 622) define
affordances as “the possibility for goal-oriented actions afforded to specific user
groups by technical objects”. It is discussed that, to realize the action possibilities, the
functional affordances need to be perceived which is dependent on the relationship
between system and the user in the context in which the ISs are used (Leonardi, 2011).
As such, prior research suggested focusing on investigating the affordances of the
artefact as opposed to considering its technological features when examining how the
technology merge with a particular use context for unfolding its potential (Fayard &
Weeks, 2014; Leonardi, 2011; Volkoff & Strong, 2013). Since it allows researchers to
move beyond the features of technology, affordance is a powerful concept for IS
researchers to examine, understand, and explain user behaviour and technology use
(Piccoli, 2016) and also for developing theory (Majchrzak et al., 2012; Treem &
Leonardi, 2013).

3.1.1 Affordance Actualization

Affordances refer to action potentials rather than actual actions or outcomes, thus
they do not guarantee results (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017; Strong, Volkoff, et al.,
2014). While the possibilities for action are important, IS research identifies that the
actual actions taken and the outcomes of those actions are also important. This
prompted Strong, Volkoff, et al. (2014) to distinguise between the affordance itself
(the possibilites for goal-directed action), its actualization (the action actually taken),
and the outcomes of these actions. To transform action potentials into results,
affordances need to be actualized by the user. Strong, Johnson, et al. (2014) proposed
the affordance actualization lens to demonstrate the importance of theorizing both the
affordances and the actualization process. Affordance actualization is “the actions
taken by actors as they take advantage of one or more affordances through their use
of the technology to achieve immediate concrete outcomes in support of organizational
goals” (Strong, Johnson, et al., 2014, p. 70). Studying affordance actualization, Strong,
Volkoff, et al. (2014) discuss how in the affordance actualization process, users take
actions to achieve an immediate outcome which informs the overarching goal
attainment. As such, they proposed the affordance actualization model (Figure 4) to
demonstrate the importance of theorizing both affordances and the actualization
process. The affordance actualization model distinguishes the affordances as potentials
for actions and actualization as actions taken by individuals to realize those potentials

46 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

which as a result support achievement of the overarching goals. Strong, Volkoff, et
al.’s (2014) work further elaborates an immediate concrete outcome as a specific
expected outcome from actualization (e.g., coordination, standardization), that is
viewed as useful for realizing overarching goals.

Figure 4 Affordance Actualization Model

Adapted from : Strong, Volkoff, et al. (2014)

3.1.2 Affordance Theory for Investigating Effective Use of SMN for

Collaborative Learning

Social media adoption and use is one of the specific domains where the
affordance lens has been used productively (Volkoff & Strong, 2017). Although the
concept of affordances has been developed in a totally different knowledge domain
(ecological psychology), the concept and its principles were appreciated enough to be
applied for investigations in other disciplines as well. Affordance theory has received
much attention from IS researchers and has been used to study system use (e.g.,
Piccoli, 2016), changes in technology (e.g., Leonardi, 2013), and effective use (e.g.,
Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017). It has also been recognized as an important theoritical
base to study SMN in general (e.g., Vaast & Kaganer, 2013), and in education (e.g.,
Hemmi et al., 2009). As Hemmi et al. (2009) and Mao (2014) describe, understanding
and evaluating affordances of social media is an accepted norm among researchers for
effective adoption of these tools for educational purposes. Further, scholars discuss the
affordance approach as a sound base for examining collaborative learning environment
behaviour (Kirschner et al., 2004). Therefore, affordance theory serves as appropriate
lens for this study since it is particularly suited to exploring the roles of emerging
technologies, such as social media (Vaast & Kaganer, 2013).

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 47

 As described in the earlier section, in IS research affordances refers to “the
possibility for goal-oriented actions afforded to specific user groups by technical
objects” (Markus & Silver, 2008, p. 622). Applying this definition, this research
identifies that the goal is to achieve collaborative learning benefits (i.e., social,
psychological, academic) users are students who use SMN for group work. The
artifact or the technical object is the SMN.

3.1.2.1 Review of Social Media Affordance Studies

When applying affordance theory to examine user behaviours in SMN use for
collaborative learning, an inevitable context specific question is what are the SMN
affordances for collaborative learning settings . Addressing this question, a
comprehensive review of past studies on social media affordances has been performed
to identify SMN affordances for collaborative learning, (Appendix B). This provided
insights into understanding how affordance theory has been recognized in SMN
research and identifying an initial set of SMN affordances for collaborative learning.

The review was limited to articles published in the AIS basket of 8 journals in a
ten years period (2009-2019) (Refer to Figure Appendix B.1). Addressing the
relevance and quality as the inclusion criteria for the review, the stuides focusing on
the constructs of ‘affordance’, ‘social media’, and ‘social networking sites’ which are
related to the broader concept of ‘SMN affordances’ have been included in the review.
Papers examining social media affordances and including the mentioned constructs
were selected from a reading across the search results and the ones that did not
specifically discuss affordances or not in the contexts of social media or social
networking sites were excluded. Additionally, a backward citation search was
conducted based on the identified articles and this identified other relevant articles
published in the basket of 8 journals within the same time period. This resulted in 37
papers to be selected for abstract review, 36 for full text review and eight papers to be
includedin the final review (Appendix A Figure1.1).

The review identified eight studies that explicitly identify different affordances
for social media in different contexts (e.g., online communities knowledge sharing,
deliberation, communication, and socialization in organizations) (Appendix C).

48 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

 During the review process, findings were analysed to filter SMN affordances
that are more related to a collaborative learning. The characteristics of the
collaborative learning environments and nature of SMN affordances were compared
to each other to identify SMN affordances that are capable to cater for the requirements
of collaborative learning. These findings were subtantiated by the findings of
preliminary interviews conducted in the study, which resulted into identifying four
SMN affordances that are relvant to the collaborative learning environment (Table 5).

Table 5 SMN Affordances for Collaborative Learning

Affordance* Description
Collaboration Users perceive the system affords them the
potential to collaborate with each other to create
content in a social media setting.
Communication Users perceive the system affords them the
potential to directly communicate with each other
in a social media setting.
Content Sharing Users perceive the system affords them the
potential to share and distribute content to others
in a social media setting.
Self-presentation Users perceive the system affords them the
potential to reveal and present information related
to themselves in a social media setting.
* Definitions adapted from Karahanna et al. (2018) and Kietzmann et al. (2011)

3.1.3 Affordance Actualization and Goal Attainment

Discussion around affordance actualization brings attention to understanding user

behaviour in the actualization process. The process of transferring affordances into
goal-oriented actions starts when a user with an expected goal perceives the
affordances of the IT artifact. This enables the user to take actions to achieve
immediate outcomes for the overarching goals. The user’s perception of the
affordances is not a behaviour, rather it is the perception that the possibility exists to
perform the behaviour. However, this research identifies that it is essential for users to
perceive the related affordances in the context to achieve their expected goals.
Therefore, understanding both users’ perceptions of affordances and their goal
oriented actions within the actualization process has been recognized as important for
understanding how users attain their expected goals. Specifically, in the scope of this
research, within the actualization process users first perceive the SMN affordances that
can be used for collaborating, communicating, content sharing, and presenting the
information on themselves. Then they take related goal-oriented actions, engaging

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 49

with the actions related to the SMN affordances for collaborative learning (e.g., creates
content with group members in the SMN) (Figure 5). And finally, to attain the desired
collaborative learning goals, users need to actualize the SMN affordances for the goal
of collaborative learning. As such, drawing upon the affordance actualization process,
this study conceptualizes effective use of SMN for collaborative learning as the
actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning.

Figure 5 An Example of Affordance Actualization Process in SMN use for

Collaborative Learning

The value of perceiving affordances in the goal acheivement process through

affordance actualization has been addressed in the previous studies. For example,
Bernhard et al. (2013) and Lehrig et al. (2017) argue that perceiving an affordance
allows user to become aware and to have some understanding of the potential for a
particular action offered by the system to actualize for attaining their desired goal.
Volkoff and Strong (2017) have also discussed that perception of an affordance may
make the actualization more effective and meaningful. This is further relevant as it is
the perceived affordances that determine what actions the user performs and, to a
greater or lesser extent, how to complete those actions (Bower & Sturman, 2015).
Considering the possible change that users’ perception of affordances can make on the
level of awareness of the particular affordance and its actualization, this research
proposes the first hypothesis as follows.

H1: Users’ perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning is positively

associated with actualization of those affordances (effective use) for
collaborative learning tasks.

50 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

 Perceiving SMN affordances is necessary to actualize affordances but not
sufficient for attaining collaborative learning goals (per Stoffregen et al., 1999). Rather
affordance actualization is the process in which users take actions to achieve an
immediate concrete outcome which informs the overarching goal attainment (Strong,
Volkoff, et al., 2014). Moreover, actualization has been identified as the action itself
which is specific and focusing on the actual enactment of goal directed behaviours that
make up the action (Volkoff & Strong, 2017). This research applies affordance
actualization as the conceptualization of effective use. Effectiveness is typically
assessed by the goal attainment (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). As per Burton-Jones and
Grange (2013), the goal for effective use is the endpoint the system is used to attain,
where effective use is a necessary condition and sufficient condition of benefit
realisation. Therefore, from an outcome or goal oriented perspective, researchers can
understand effective use by understanding the different goals that the system is being
used to achieve. As such, when exploring effective use (i.e., affordance actualization),
it is imperative to understand the different goals which the system is used to attain, in
the given context.

In the broader perspective, SMN are utlized as a social learning resource,

facilitating students with the opportunity to peer support, increase creativity and obtain
support from teaching staff (Al-rahmi et al., 2014; Roblyer et al., 2010). In the higher
education sector SMNs are adopted to foster a collaborative learning environment for
students to improve their collaborative learning goals (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018;
Nummenmaa & Nummenmaa, 2008b). This refers to many learning goal perspectives
including enhancing student engagement (Junco et al., 2011), academic achievement
(Junco et al., 2011), and their performance in the overall learning environment.

Particularly relevant to the goals of collaborative learning, prior research has

identified that collaborative learning enables a productive learning process that contributes
to better learning outcomes (e.g., Hiltz, 1995; Nummenmaa & Nummenmaa, 2008b).
Researchers have discussed several expectations (e.g., problem-solving skills, and critical
thinking skills) of collaborative learning (Alavi, 1994) which address the key
characteristics of an effective collaborative learining environemnt. These key
characteristics include positive independence, individual accountability, promotive
interaction, frequent use of interpersonal and small-group skills, and group processing
(Johnson et al., 1994; Woods & Chen, 2010). This research identified a set of expected

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 51

goals of collaborative learning, based on the review of prior studies relevant to these
characterisitcs of effective collaborative learning. As such, for conceptualizing
collaborative learning goals, this study adopts the collaborative learning benefits listed
by Johnson and Johnson (1989) and Panitz (1999b). These address the social,
psychological, and academic perspectives of the benefits expected from collaborative
learning. Developing learning communities and a social support system, enhancing
student-centred instructions, enhancing critical thinking, and enhancing problem-solving
skills are some of the examples listed as benefits for collaborative learning. In the scope
of this research, collaborative learning goals have been identified as the outcomes of using
SMN systems to perform the collaborative learning tasks in a social media setting. Table
6 provides the definitions of the dimensions that have been applied for conceptualizing
collaborative learning goals in this research.

Table 6 Collaborative Learning Goal Dimensions

Dimension Description (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012)
Achievements relating to the user behaviours that help users working
Social Goals together and to identify their contributions to the group's success or
failure.
Psychological Achievements that enhance users’ satisfaction with the process of
Goals collaborative learning to actively engage in the process.
Achievements that enhance users’ active learning in the collaborative
Academic Goals learning process.

In summary, addressing the goal-oriented nature of the effective use of systems,

this research identifies that actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning
influences the achievement of the collaborative learning goals listed in Table 6. As such,
the hypothesis below is proposed re the conceptual model of context-aware perspective of
effective use.

H2: Actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning (effective use)

enhances the achievement of collaborative learning goals.

3.2 SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY AND SMN USE FOR COLLABORATIVE

LEARNING

Social capital is identified as an intangible asset produced by social relationships

as a result of social networking (Coleman, 1988). This research identifies that it is
inevitable to recognize the role of social capital in individual behaviour in the SMN
environment. SMN are particularly well suited for relationship maintenance (Tong &
Walther, 2011) and thus facilitate the generation of social capital from interactions

52 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

within the users’ network. As such, research attention has been paid to exploring the
relationship between users’ behaviour and their social capital, specifically when using
social media systems (Burke et al., 2013). In IS research, social capital has also been
addressed in terms of its influence on goal achievements in different perspectives (e.g.,
knowledge sharing, organizational and job performance, and individual performance
in team works) (Chiu et al., 2006; Cross & Cummings, 2004; Sparrowe et al., 2001;
Wu, 2013). Some of these studies focused on the influences of the social capital
dimensions (structural, relational, and cognitive) on individual information and
knowledge sharing behaviours (e.g., Cross & Cummings, 2004; Dirks, 1999; Mehra et
al., 2006) which are relevant in the context of using SMN for collaborative learning
tasks. As such, this research identifies the relevancy of social capital when
investigating the use of SMN for collaborative learning tasks.

Social capital theory has been used to explore the benefits users receive from
interpersonal and social relationships. Important and tangible benefits that individual
receive from social capital is a well addressed research area in many research domains.
Specifically, social capital has been referred to as a framework that has been used to
explore the benefits of interpersonal relationships and social networking (Ellison &
Vitak, 2015). Social capital has been identified as the “networks, norms, trust, and
mutual understanding that bind together the group members and enable them to act
together more effectively to pursue shared learning objectives” (Putnam, 1996, p. 3).
Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) framework is the most used and well established social
capital framework (Ali-Hassan et al., 2015) that conceptualizes social capital as
consisting of three dimensions: structural, relational and cognitive (Table 7).

Table 7 Social Capital Dimensions

Dimension Description (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998)
An individual’s social ties and the networks of relationships (i.e.,
Structural Capital
overall patterns of connections between people or units)
The kind of particular relationships people have, and the assets
Relational Capital created and leveraged through the relationships (e.g.,
trustworthiness, norms, sanctions, and identity)
The common understandings and the resources providing shared
Cognitive Capital representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning among
members

Social capital is generated through social interactions with others in a physical,

face-to-face setting or with users virtually via for example SMN as in the context of
this research (Scott et al., 2019). It has been found to influence user behaviour and

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 53

performance in collaborative learning environments (Coleman, 1988; Jung et al.,
2017). Moreover, Chang et al. (2011) and Widén-Wulff and Ginman (2004) identified
that the higher the social capital, the higher the supports that group members receive
to formulate a strong shared understanding, which increases their effectiveness in
pursuing shared objectives. A lack of shared understanding has been found to be
detrimental to effective use (Eden et al., 2018). As such, relating to the specific
dimensions of social capital this research further suggests that at high levels of social
capital, members will have strong network ties, personal relationships, and a common
understanding. Strong ties and the assets created through the relationships facilitate
knowledge sharing and access to resources by reducing the amount of time and
investment required to gather information (Geenhuizen, 2008; Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). As such, this research argues that the level of social capital among students in
the group facilitates them to form a mutual understanding.

On the other hand a lower level of social capital will create weak social ties, a
low level of personal relationships, and lack of a common understanding within the
group. For example, there have been several studies of the influence of weak ties and
lack of shared understanding on the performance of group work (e.g., Geenhuizen,
2008; Pil & Leana, 2009). Weak ties between group members have found to impede
knowledge sharing (Geenhuizen, 2008) and reduce individual performance within the
group (Pil & Leana, 2009). Lack of the shared meaning that is provided by cognitive
social capital among group members has also been found to hinder the opportunity to
exchange ideas and information within the group (Macke & Dilly, 2010).

Having identified both positive and negative impacts, this research proposes that
social capital among group members will help them have similar perceptions of
affordances and a similar understanding of common goals to achieve in their group
work. In other words, the level of social capital will influence students’ efforts to
perceive and actualize SMN affordances in a similar way. This is further substantiated
by the relevance of considering social forces that affect affordance actualization
(Volkoff & Strong, 2017). Specifically, scholars have proposed that social forces,
arising from the groups within which the user acts, affect how the affordances of the
system will be actualized (e.g., Volkoff & Strong, 2017). As such, it is hypothesised
that,

54 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

H3: The greater (lower) the strength of social capital among members in the group
the greater (lower) the relationship between the perception of SMN affordance
for collaborative learning and affordance actualization (effective use) of SMN
for collaborative learning.

As described in the previous sections, social capital has also been found to
directly impact on goal attainment (Chiu et al., 2006; Wu, 2013), which has received
a great attention from IS research (Chiu et al., 2006; Cross & Cummings, 2004;
Sparrowe et al., 2001; Wu, 2013). For example, social capital has been studied for its
influential role on students’ educational performances (e.g., Coleman, 1988; Sun,
1999), students’ satisfaction (e.g., Lu et al., 2013) and for its positive effects on
productivity (e.g., Papa, 1990). Past studies have further discussed that social capital
encourages the development of norms, generalized trust, identity, and cohesion, which
in turn can enhance group effectiveness in achieving collective goals (Coleman, 1988;
Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

Therefore, aside from the moderating effect of social capital this research also
recognizes its direct influence on collaborative learning goal attainment.

H4: Social capital among members in the group is positively associated with
achieving collaborative learning goals in higher education.

In summary, in proposing the conceptual model for context-aware effective use

of SMN for collaborative learning, this research hypothesizes that users’ perception of
SMN affordances for collaborative learning influences their actualization (i.e.,
effective use) which along with social capital, influences the perception of the
attainment of collaborative learning goals. Moreover, it also acknowledges that a
group’s social capital will influence their effort to perceive and actualize SMN
affordances for collaborative learning goals (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Conceptual Model of Context-Aware Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative Learning

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 55

3.3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR CONTEXT-AGNOSTIC EFFECTIVE
USE OF SMN FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

As discussed in chapter 2 (literature review), there are two approaches for

examining effective use; context-aware and context-agnostic perspectives. While the
predominant view of this research is context-aware, in this section I theorise the
context-agnostic perspective which will later be used in the data analysis to establish
the efficacy of the context-aware effective use. As such, in this section, the theory of
effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) will be used rather than the affordance
theory, as the guiding theory for context-agnostic effective use. In doing so, as an
overarching proposition this research acknowledges that perceiving affordances will
influence the effective use of SMN, which will influence the collaborative learning
goal attainment. Akin to the context-aware effective use conceptual model (Section
3.1) this research also uses social capital theory (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) to
theorise context-agnostic effective use for collaborative learning.

The sSeminal conceptualization of effective use (i.e., theory of effective use) by

(Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) which provides the context-agnostic perspective of
effective use is based on the representation theory perspective (Wand & Weber, 1990).
This conceptualization identifies the context-agnostic effective use as consisting of
three dimensions. (See Table 3, and Table 8).

Table 8 Context-Agnostic Effective Use Dimensions

Dimension Definition (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013)
The extent to which a user accesses the system’s
Transparent Interaction representations unimpeded by its surface and physical
structure.
The extent to which a user is obtaining representations that
Representation Fidelity
faithfully reflect the domain that the system represents.
The extent to which a user acts on faithful representations that
Informed Action he or she obtains from the system to improve his/her state in
the domain.

The theory of effective use posits that people can take actions to improve their
effective use, which results in performance improvments. The implications of the
theory have been investigated across multiple settings and proposed consequences of
context-agnostic effective use surrounding performance achievements (e.g., Stein et
al., 2014; Tennant et al., 2015). Specifically, scholars have discussed the importance
of context-agnostic effective use dimensions assisting users with easy and transparent

56 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

access for accurate system representations, which will help them to perform tasks that
lead to the attainment of a set of goals (e.g., Tam et al., 2019).

Proposing the theory of effective use, Burton-Jones and Grange (2013)

emphasise that the goal of effective use is the endpoint the system is used to attain.
Thus, similar to the context-aware perspective of effective use, when exploring
context-agnostic perspectives of effective use, it is important to understand the
different goals the system is used to attain, in the given context. As described in 2.1.3.1,
the higher education sector has adopted SMNs to foster effective collaborative learning
environments for students to improve their collaborative learning goals (Al-Rahmi et
al., 2018; Nummenmaa & Nummenmaa, 2008b). As such, addressing the goal oriented
nature of effective use it is hypothesised that,

H5: Context-agnostic effective use of SMN for collaborative learning enhances the
collaborative learning goals achievement.

In conceptualizing context-agnostic effective use, Burton-Jones and Grange

(2013) propose the compatability of affordance lens with representation theory. In their
discussion Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) explains how types of affordances (i.e.,
sensory, physical, cognitive, and functional) offered by the system relate to
representation theory and the dimensions of effective use. Each of these affordances
enables different user behaviours in the system use (Refer to Table 4). This research
identifies that SMN affordances for collaborative learning provide usage potentials for
any user who intends to and has the ability to, take advantage of SMN systems for
learning tasks. The functional affordances of the system are the types of affordances
which refer to the potential usage of a system that helps user in doing something
(Moussawi, 2018). As such, within the scope, this research focuses on functional
affordances of SMN for collaborative learning acknowledging that other types of
affordances are necessary to be perceived prior to functional affordances being
realized (Hartson, 2003).

In defining functional affordances, Markus and Silver (2008) note that the
funtional affordances are potentially necessary conditions for users to attain their goals
which, by definition, is the effective use of the system (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013).
This is substantiated by Marchand and Raymond (2017) who emphasise functional

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 57

affordances are the users’ capacity to take action in the pursuance of a goal. Chen et
al. (2016) have also discussed that the perception of functional affordances enables
users to engage in purposeful actions. As such, identifying the importance of functional
affordances and the users’ perception of these affordances for the achievment of users
espected goals, it is hypothesised that,

H6: Users’ perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning is positively

associated with context-agnostic effective use of SMN for collaborative learning tasks

Akin to context-aware effective use (i.e., social capital theory see section 3.2),
to theorize context-agnostic effective use in the context of SMN use for collaborative
learning, this research also intends to explore the influence of social capital on the
context-agnostic effective use. Scholars have identified that social capital dimensions
may influence user behaviour in system use. For example, Pan et al. (2017) discuss
that user’s identity as a member in a group (i.e., social identity and relational identity
which relates to the relational social capital) encourages the efficient use of systems
specifically in the social media context. According to Pan et al. (2017), individuals
who maintain high relational and social identities in their group assist better
communication and interactions with others in the social media context which
encourages efficient use of the system. Structural, relational and cognitive capital have
been further recognized for their influence on the antecedents of user behaviour of
knowledge management system use (He et al., 2009).

As such, this research proposes that the level of social capital will influence the
students’ effort on perceiving the SMN affordances for collaborative learning and
taking actions in the pursuance of a goal which is the effective use of SMN systems
for collaborative learning goals. This is further substantiated by Burton-Jones and
Grange (2013) who discuss that a team or social context that the user enagages with
enable them to share their understanding for leveraging representations and taking
informed action on them. As such, the moderating effect of social capital on the
relationship between perceiving SMN affordances and the context-agnostic effective
use has been recognized, and the following hypothesis is proposed.

H7: The greater (lower) the strength of social capital among members in the group
the greater (lower) the relationship between perception of SMN affordance for
collaborative learning and context-agnostic effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning.

58 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

 Moreover, similar to the context-aware model, the direct impact of social capital
has also been recognized in the context-agnostic effective use model. While
acknowledging that it concerns the same relationship between social capital and the
achievement of collaborative learning goals, the hypothesis is introduced as a separate
hypothesis to explore the relationship in the context-agnostic perspective of effective
use. As such, the final hypothesis is propsoed as follows.

H8: Social capital among members in the group is positively associated with
achieving collaborative learning goals in higher education.

In summary, this research hypothesises that users’ perception of SMN

affordances for collaborative learning influences context-agnostic perspectives of
effective use which in-turn enhances collaborative learning goal attainment (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Conceptual Model for Context-Agnostic Effective Use of SMN for

Collaborative Learning

3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter described the theoretical background in developing the conceptual

model for this research. In doing so, the chapter first explained how affordance theory,
the affordance actualization model, and social capital theory provide the relevant
theoretical foundations for developing the conceptual model for context-aware
effective use which is the predominant view of this research. This included defining
relevant SMN affordances for a collaborative learning setting, social capital
dimensions, and collaborative learning goal dimensions, and identifying the
relationships between these constructs to propose the relevant hypotheses.

Addressing the other approach to examining effective use, this chapter further
discussed the development of a conceptual model for a context-agnostic perspective
of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. In proposing the conceptual model

Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development 59

for context-agnostic effective use, this chapter was based on an overarching
proposition which is that perceiving affordances will influence the effective use of
SMN, which will influence the collaborative learning goal attainment. As such, the
relationships between perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning,
context-agnostic effective use, and the collaborative learning goal attainment have also
been dicussed in the chapter.

60 Chapter 3: Conceptual Model Development

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

Research methodology is the specific procedures involved in the research

process (Creswell, 2012). All research is to some extent influenced by the researcher’s
philosophical, epistemological, and methodological preferences (Guba & Lincoln,
1994). The overarching objective of this research is to contextualize the effective use
of systems in the context of SMN use for collaborative learning in higher education.
Addressing the overarching objective, this research will answer the following research
questions.

RQ1: How can ‘effective use’ of social media networks for collaborative
learning be contextualized?

RQ2: What are the influencing factors and outcomes of effective use of social
media networks for collaborative learning?

This chapter describes the research philosophy, research design, and the research
methodology selected to answer these research questions. As such, the research
paradigm, design, and methodologies employed in the study will be described
followed by the description for the field organization, interview data collection and
analysis, survey data collection, instrument development procedure and data analysis,
the pilot study, and the ethical considerations of the study.

4.1 RESEARCH PARADIGM

A research paradigm is the “basic belief system or world view that guides the
investigation” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 105) and provides an understanding of the
overall perspective from which the study is designed and carried out. Positivism and
interpretivism are the two most widely adopted research paradigms in the IS discipline
(Chen & Hirschheim, 2004) with the post-positivist research paradigm recently
gaining attraction (Kock et al., 2008). However, some other research paradigms have
also emerged recognizing that research inquiries cannot access reality solely by using
a single scientific method (Migiro & Magangi, 2011; Tashakkori, 2009). Pragmatism
is such a research paradigm along with mixed-method research methods,
acknowledging the value of using a variety of research methods to address specific

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 61

research questions (Migiro & Magangi, 2011; Tashakkori, 2009; Venkatesh et al.,
2013). This section describes how this study. as a mixed-method research inquiry (will
be described in section 4.3) is located within the pragmatic research paradigm.

From an epistemological viewpoint, the pragmatic paradigm argues that it is not

possible to access the ‘truth’ about the real world solely through applying a single
scientific method as promoted by the positivist paradigm, nor is it possible to
determine social reality as constructed via interpretivism (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).
Rather, pragmatists look for research approaches that allow for a combination of
methods that in conjunction explore participants’ experiences (Kivunja & Kuyini,
2017).

In terms of ontology, pragmatists believe that “there is no single reality and all
individuals have their own and unique interpretations of reality” (Kivunja & Kuyini,
2017, p. 35). This ontological viewpoint of pragmatists values both objective (as per
positivism) and subjective (as per interpretivism) knowledge (Cherryholmes, 1992).
From a methodological perspective, pragmatism incorporates the two extremes of
quantitative methods with deductive reasoning and qualitative methods with inductive
reasoning (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Thus, pragmatism is associated with abductive
reasoning that moves back and forth between deductive and inductive reasoning
(Kaushik & Walsh, 2019; Venkatesh et al., 2013). Adopting this stance, pragmatism
allows the selection of the research design and methodology that is most appropriate
to address the research question (Migiro & Magangi, 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2013).
As such, the pragmatic research takes a middle ground in relation to research design
and methodological approaches.

To address the overarching objective of the study and provide insights into the
research questions, this study acknowledges several assumptions of pragmatism.

As described in the introduction chapter, RQ1 was developed to explore the

relevant theoretical underpinnings for contextualizing effective use in the SMN
context. RQ2 aims to understand the broader nomological network of effective use in
the SMN context by understanding the relevant antecedents, consequences, and
theoretical relationships in effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.

62 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

 In addressing these research questions, this study adheres to a number of
assumptions bounded in pragmatism. Firstly, SMN are core to these research
questions. Such systems have been designed for purposes other than collaborative
learning (Ellison & Boyd, 2013).Therefore, an understanding of the context specific
factors (Johns, 2006) and the utility of SMN for learning purposes is involved in the
contextualization of the effective use of these systems. By examining the effective use
of SMN for collaborative learning, where SMN were not originally designed for
learning purposes, this study acknowledges the pragmatists’ ontological viewpoint of
understanding the knowledge not in terms of what the object is or what it is being used
for but in terms of how it would help people to achieve their purposes (Kaushik &
Walsh, 2019).

Further, the research questions were formulated with a focus on having a deeper
understanding of the SMN context relating to user behaviour in using SMN for
collaborative learning tasks, to address the limited knowledge of effective use in the
SMN context. Therefore, to answer the research questions, from a methodological
viewpoint, it is imperative to adopt both qualitative and quantitative methods (which I
will discuss in detail in the following sections). Moving back and forth between theory
and data, the research adopts abductive reasoning to address the specific objective of
RQ2: understanding antecedents, consequences, and theoretical relationships in the
effective use of SMN. A research methodology employing different research methods
and the abductive reasoning approach is aligned with the pragmatists’ view of the
appropriate choice of research methods to answer specific research questions. This
research further looks into the individual’s perceptions of their user behaviour in SMN
use for collaborative learning using the mixed research method approach As such, the
research is further aligned with a major underpinning of pragmatist epistemology
which values that the “knowledge is always based on experience, [and that] one’s
perceptions of the world are influenced by social experiences” (Kaushik & Walsh,
2019, p. 4).

In summary, this research is aligned with pragmatism in terms of epistemology:

not limited to a single scientific method for the investigation; ontology: valuing both
subjective (as per interpretivism) and objective knowledge (as per positivism); and
methodology: employing a mixed method research approach with abductive
reasoning.

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 63

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

Guided by a pragmatist lens, this study employed a mixed method research

approach. This mixed method approach aligns with field study research involving
intermediate theories, thus ensuring a methodological fit. Methodological fit is an
important consideration as it aims to ensure internal consistency amongst all phases of
the research (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). To ensure methodological fit, the
selection of the research design should be based on the current state of the theory
pertaining to the research topic (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). This research seeks
to examine and extend the theory of effective use in the context of SMN use for
collaborative learning in higher education. Currently, the theory of effective use is
considered as an intermediate theory because, while emerging studies provide
explanations for the effective use phenomena, further research is required to introduce
new concepts, to explore the established constructs, and also to propose relationships
for the established constructs of effective use (per Edmondson & McManus, 2007).

A field study research design embedded with both qualitative and quantitative
data provides a methodological fit and enables a rigorous exploration of an
intermediate theory including hypotheses testing through quantitative data analysis
and allows for openness to unforeseen insights through qualitative data analysis
(Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Field research is defined as “systematic studies that
rely on the collection of original data – qualitative and quantitative – in real
organizations” (Edmondson & McManus, 2007, p. 1155). There are seven key phases
within field research, namely: “(i) identifying the target area of interest; (ii) reviewing
the literature; (iii) formulating the research questions; (iv) designing the study; (v)
collecting and analysing the data; (vi) writing up the results; and (vii) submitting the
research findings” (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). This process continually scoped
and narrowed the research through iterative feedback (Figure 2) (Edmondson &
McManus, 2007), where phase 1 of the research design is conducted for exploratory
purposes and phase 2 and 3 are conducted for confirmatory purposes.

This research aims to investigate and extend the theory of effective use by
examining the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning in higher education.
Since knowledge of effective use in the SMN context is limited, a deeper
understanding of context-specific effective use is required to extend the theory of

64 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

effective use in the SMN context. Thus, this research investigates the effective use
phenomenon to validate a context-specific model for effective use in the SMN context.
As such, this research is in an ideal position to employ a mixed research method to
address its research questions. This is further substantiated by Edmondson and
McManus (2007) who stress that when the research objective pertains to intermediate
theory (such as the theory of effective use in this research), both qualitative and
quantitative data should be used to empirically test the relationships and elaborate on
research findings. Accordingly, the use of qualitative data to elaborate the
phenomenon (i.e., effective use) and quantitative data to provide preliminary tests of
relationships promote both insights and rigor in research in examining intermediate
theories (Edmondson & McManus, 2007).

As such, to provide more rigor in understanding the effective use phenomenon

and ensuring methodological fit (per Edmondson & McManus, 2007) in investigating
an intermediate theory, this research employs a mixed-method research design. In
doing so, the research concurrently employed both quantitative and qualitative
methods in a mixed research method within a sequential, multi-phased research design
(refer to Figure 8). A concurrent design was used in phase of the research in which
both quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analysed in parallel and provide
a complete understanding of the phenomenon based on merged findings of both
qualitative and quantitative analysis (Venkatesh et al., 2013). Accordingly,
quantitative data will be obtained from the distribution of the survey at the field
organization and qualitative data will be collected through interviews with student
respondents. The following sections describe the field organization, participants, and
the use of qualitative and quantitative methods of the field study to examine the theory
of effective use in the context of using SMN for collaborative learning.

Figure 8 Research Design of the Study

4.2.1 Field Organization

A series of criteria were used to select the field organization and specific cases for
analysis within that organization. In alignment with the study scope the selected field

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 65

organization must be a tertiary education provider, with hybrid-modes of learning
where students are actively encouraged to use collaborative learning tools. The higher
education setting selected for this study is a major university in Australia that has
50,000 students enrolled, of whom 80% are undergraduate students.

Several additional selection criteria have been applied within this university to
identify the appropriate units and participants; in terms of the collaborative learning
component, a group-based assignment required to be completed as a partial
requirement of the evaluation of a course unit. In the group assignment selected,
students were required to design an interface of a mobile application by the ninth week
of a thirteen-week semester. Students had to share the outcomes of each step with each
other in order to continue with the next step of the assignment. Therefore, intensive
collaboration and communication were required for the completion of the assignment.

The course units for investigation were identified based on the relevant selection
criteria in the field study; all units are information technology undergraduate units, in
which students were required to complete a collaborative group assignment as a part
of the evaluation of the course unit. To facilitate collaboration students in this unit
were encouraged to use social media platforms to perform the collaborative tasks.
However, it was not mandatory to use SMN, nor did the instructors participate in the
SMN. Data were collected at three different time periods largely from two different
units. However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, it is also included several additional units
in that time period to generate more responses.

Phase 1. investigated a first-year information technology (IT) unit in which a blended

learning context was represented where students attended the face-to-face classes and
used provided online materials for their learning purposes. Thus, to perform the group
assignment, students were able to meet either physically or online. Phase 1 served as
the pilot study relating to phase 1 of the research design of the study (Figure 2). As
such, data from phase 1 provided a deeper understanding of the focused context of the
study which is the use of SMN for collaborative learning. 158 students responded to
the survey and seven participants (Participant1 – Participant7) were interviewed in
phase 1 investigation.

66 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

Phase 2. The learning context in phase 2 is a mix of blended learning and pure online
learning which has taken place due to the Covid 19 situation. Compared to where in
the first few weeks of the semester (until week 4) where learning delivery was in a
blended learning environment, in rest of the nine weeks learning delivery shifted to a
purely online environment. As a result, these students performed their learning and
group assignment tasks both in the blended and online learning environment.

In addition to the first-year information technology (IT) unit, in Phase 2 the

study investigated another second-year business analysis unit with the same attributes
as the group assignment in the first-year unit. As such, students were required to
perform business analysis for a scenario of a real-world case organization as a group
assignment. Students had to break down the total workload as per the business
requirement analysis process and share the outcome of each step, in order to continue
with the next step. Since the completion and sharing of the outcome of each step was
highly interrelated within the process, the completion of this assignment also required
intensive collaboration and communication. Similar to the first-year IT unit, in this
second-year business analysis unit, the use of SMN for the group assignment was
highly recommended and encouraged but not mandatory nor did teaching staff
participate in the SMN. Analysis of Phase 2 data mainly facilitated the further
refinement of the proposed conceptual model. There were 146 participants for the
survey and 12 participants for the interviews in the data collection of Phase 2.

Phase 3. Phase 3 provides the main quantitative data collection in the research. As
such, this section provides detailed description of the phase 3 including participants,
collaborative tasks and the data collection methods applied. Similar to phase 1, phase
3 also represents a blended learning environment where students attend the physical
classroom and use the provided online material for their learning purposes. Data
analysis related to phase 3 served as the validation of the proposed model for the
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning in higher education. Thus, phase 3
comprises only the survey data collection and analysis with 160 participants
participation. Phase 3 was important to perform since it is reflective of a blended
learning environment which is the traditional learning mode in the field organization.
Phase 3 also aimed to minimise the effects of Covid related changes of the teaching
and learning delivery on the data set. Following paragraph describes the nature of the
collaborative learning task examined in phase 3 data collection.

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 67

 The selected course unit was a first year, first semester information technology
undergraduate unit with a high proportion of domestic students. 369 students are
enrolled in the unit with a predominantly male cohort. Akin to course units investigated
in phase 1 and 2, to facilitate collaboration in the selected course unit in this phase 3,
students are encouraged to use SMN to perform the collaborative tasks. However, it
was not mandatory for students to use SMN, nor do teaching staff participate in the
SMN. The group assignment was a design challenge which requires applying the
design thinking approach to develop a high-fidelity mobile interface. As such, students
were required to target a specific user group, identify, and define a problem in terms
of a gap in the user experience and develop an interactive application for a smartphone
or a smart device. This application could be a service, game, or a mash up of different
application types. To complete this assignment, students were required to work in
groups consisting of four to five people. The groups were formed in the second week
of the semester. Students were required to have weekly meetings with all team
members, present the active progress and deliver expected outcomes in each week. To
ensure students were progressively working on the assignment, tutors checked each
individual member’s contributions weekly, because successful completion of the
assignment required students to iteratively work through the design thinking steps. To
complete each next step of the assignment, students need to share the outcomes of
previous steps of the project with other group members. This required intensive
collaboration and communication to complete the assignment. At the end of the design
challenge each group was required to present their project deliverables through a
recorded video presentation.

To successfully complete the assignment, students were recommended to use

SLACK as a collaborative tool; however, as the interview insights revealed, (and as
later discussed in section 4.4.1), students used a portfolio of collaborative social media
tools to facilitate their collaboration and seldom used slack. Therefore, the data
collection was not limited to any specific SMN to allow investigation of how students
perceive the affordances of any SMN that they use for collaborative learning. This was
controlled for in the survey by asking respondents what types of SMN they use in
terms of general social media applications (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) and collaborative
social media applications (e.g., SLACK, Microsoft SharePoint). This collaborative
task that student was required to perform, which the study examined in phase 3, was

68 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

similar to the collaborative tasks investigated in other two phases of the research. Table
9 provides the distribution of the survey and the interview participation detail.

Table 9 Data Collection Information

Context Purpose Date Number of No of Survey
Interview Participants
Participants

Blended Refining a priori September 07 158

Phase 1 Learning model 2019

Phase 2 Blended Refining the May 12 146

and Online conceptual model 2020
Learning with refined
contextual measures

Phase 3 Blended Validating model for August - 160

Learning effective use of SMN 2020
for collaborative
learning

4.3 QUALITATIVE METHODS: INTERVIEWS

As research on effective use is still progressing and there is limited knowledge

pertaining to effective use in the SMN context, qualitative interviews were selected as
a method to help further explore and understand the phenomenon (Venkatesh et al.
2013). To explore the importance of the context (Johns, 2006) and to understand the
SMN affordances for collaborative learning, this research performed semi-structured
interviews (Whiting, 2008) with the students who engaged in the group assignment
and consented to participate in the study. As per Table 9 in total 19 interview
participants participated, seven in phase 1 and twelve in phase 2. As theoretical
saturation was reached both in phase 1 and phase 2, no new interviews were conducted
in phase 3 data collection of the study. Figure 9 illustrates the high-level phases of the
interview data collection process; each of the phases will be discussed in detail in the
later sections of this chapter.

As depicted in Figure 8, prior to conducting the interviews a priori model for

effective use of SMN for collaborative learning was developed, supported by a
comprehensive literature review. Qualitative data analysis helped to the development
of conceptual model which involved the identification of relevant constructs, their

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 69

definitions, and dimensions of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning which
then led to development of the initial coding structure (refer to Table 11) (Flick, 2013).

Figure 9 Qualitative Data Analysis Approach

In Phase 1, qualitative data collection commenced in which semi-structured

interviews were conducted by applying the interview protocol (Refer to Table11).
Semi-structured interviews inform a verbal interchange where the interviewer attempt
to elicit information from the participants by asking questions (Longhurst, 2003).

Together with a predeveloped interview protocol, semi-structured interviews

offer participants the opportunity to explore the facts and the issues they feel are
important. As such, in this study semi-structured interviews provided a guide for the
interview as well as the opportunity for the participants to elaborate more. The
interview protocol was designed using the insights from the literature review (chapter
2) to understand how students perceive and use SMN for collaborative learning. As
such, the interview protocol was developed to address key aspects: how students use
SMN systems (to understand how they perceive and actualize SMN affordances for
their group-based works), how they see that their social capital relates to their use of
the SMN for group works, and what their expectations were relating to their group
work (refer to Table 1). The interviews lasted for 30 to 45 minutes and were audio-
recorded, transcribed, and then uploaded to NVivo (version 12) software for analysis.

70 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

 Table 10: Role of the Qualitative Data Analysis in the study
Role Description
Developing the initial To scope the research a comprehensive literature review has
conceptual model been performed to form the initial conceptual model
Exploring antecedents Semi-structured interviews assisted to identify antecedents
of effective use. of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning (e.g.,
affordance perception, nature of the tasks, etc.)
Ensuring content Interview analysis in phase 1 of the data collection provided
validity insights into refining the conceptual model (e.g., group
management affordance has been identified as not relevant
to the context of the SMN use for collaborative learning)
Providing insights to Outcome of content validity facilitated by qualitative data
develop the measures analysis coupled with a comprehensive literature search
assisted with the development and refinement of measures
for the survey
Supporting Interview analysis in phase 2 of the data collection assisted
quantitative results as a triangulation method of survey results and resulted into
further refinement of the conceptual model.

4.3.1 Quality of Interviews

The transparency and the quality of the interview process needs to be maintained
since poorly designed and executed interview process will result in ambiguous and
disjointed findings (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). To ensure quality and transparency
of the interview process, the interviewer should have the required knowledge of the
field and the pertinent theories. As such, in this study prior to conducting interviews,
the researcher gained a deeper understanding of effective use, information systems and
the SMN used in learning through extensive reading of seminal research material.
Furthermore, the supervisory team collaborated with the researcher in the initial
interviews to ensure the researcher gained the required knowledge and experience for
the interview process. To improve the quality of the interviews, in collaboration with
the supervisory team, the researcher also developed as a pre-planning step a
comprehensive interview protocol (Table 11) to structure the interview process.
Additional research notes with both audio and transcribed written files have also been
maintained for effective capturing of ideas, reflections, and reference points for
identifying insights.

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 71

 Table 11 Interview Protocol
To provide understanding Underlying Theory
Question
of:
1. How do you communicate and collaborate with your group members? SMN affordances and Affordance Theory (Burton-
1.1 What tools do you use for communicating and collaborating? actualization of the Jones & Volkoff, 2017;
1.2 What are the top three tools/systems you use for group project collaboration? affordances Gibson, 1986)
1.3 Why are these tools/systems your top three choices?
2. How do you use each of your top three systems? Affordance actualization Affordance Theory in
2.1 What are the main features and functions of your top three systems that you use? affordance actualization
a. How do you use these features? perspectives (Burton-Jones &
b. Why do you use these features? Volkoff, 2017; Strong,
2.2 How do these systems help or hinder you to work as a group? Volkoff, et al., 2014)
3. Have you seen any specific ways the system has been used (either by you or your Effective use and Theory of effective use
group members) that have been beneficial to you and your group members? (i.e., antecedents of effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange,
what works well) of SMN for collaborative 2013)
4. Have you seen any specific ways the system has been used (either by you or your learning
group members) that have been detrimental to you and your group members? (i.e.,
what did not work well)
5. What hinders your use of the system?
6. What benefits do you see from using the system?
7. How did your team decide the roles and positions of the people in your group? Social capital among the Social capital theory (Nahapiet
7.1 How do these roles, responsibilities, and positions influence either you or your students & Ghoshal, 1998)
group members’ use of the system?
8. How would you describe the relationships between your group members?
8.1 How does the relationship between your group members influence either you or
your group members’ use of the system?
9. What is the goal that you and your group members aim to achieve in this group
work?
9.1 Is that goal shared equally among your group members?
9.2 How does the understanding of goals influence the use of the system for group
work?
10. What benefits do you see from using the system? Consequences of effective Theory of effective use
11. What are the goals of using the system? use of SMN for (Burton-Jones & Grange,
12. Do these systems help you to attain specific goals? collaborative learning 2013)

72 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

4.3.2 Interview Data Analysis

This research uses an abductive approach (Pierce, 1960 as in (Kennedy et al.,

2018) to allow for the possibility of using a pre-defined coding structure and also
documenting new codes that may emerge from the data. Coding and categorizing are
the most prominent methods for interview data analysis (Flick, 2018). The coding
process was performed through a series of steps including coding based on the coding
structure (Refer to Figure 9) open coding, constant comparison analysis, and
theoretical coding (per Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012). . The coding was carried out using
NVivo as a support tool for efficiency and robustness (Bandara et al., 2015).

As illustrated in Figure 9 analysis of the interview data commenced in phase 2

of the interview process which involved the level 1 coding (Saldaña, 2021). In this
step, a predeveloped coding structure which was derived from the literature review
was used to analyse the data set for theory-generated codes (Bazeley & Jackson, 2007).
This step also included the in-vivo coding where new codes were derived from the
data by analysing the participants’ verbatim quotes (Bazeley & Jackson, 2007;
Saldaña, 2021). The in-vivo coding helps to examine the possible dimensions or ranges
of categories relevant to the scope of the investigation (Bazeley & Jackson, 2007;
Saldaña, 2021). As explained in earlier sections in the chapter, the researcher applied
the abductive reasoning approach in this phase of the qualitative data analysis
employing both deductive and inductive coding methods (Kennedy et al., 2018).
Particularly, interview data were deductively coded for types of SMN affordances and
actualization, context-agnostic effective use dimensions, social capital dimensions,
and the types of collaborative learning goals. Further, inductive analysis coded
additional concepts related to each variable in the model (e.g., antecedents of
actualizing SMN affordances for collaborative learning). The outcomes of abductive
coding resulted in the refinement of the pre-defined coding structure.

The final phase (Phase 3) of the qualitative data analysis began with a constant
comparison analysis that identified the similarities of the coding and categorizing them
together by comparing the extracted codes to each other (Dye et al., 2000).
Categorizing the codes is a crucial element in qualitative data analysis that uncovers
the patterns, themes, and categories of the data which then generate significant and
meaningful data (Patton, 1990). As the next step (11th step) of the level 2 coding phase,

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 73

the data were then analysed for theoretical coding to identify how categories and codes
constructed from data might relate to each other as hypotheses or relationships to be
integrated into the theoretical background (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). Theoretical
coding in qualitative data analysis helps to uncover the possible relationships between
categories generated in the prior levels of the analysis which in result enhances the
coherence of the findings (Charmaz, 2006). Finally, interview data findings were
recorded for the interpretation purposes. Overall, qualitative data analysis informed
the refinement and extension of the conceptual model.

Table 12 shows the finalised coding structure developed during the qualitative
data analysis phase. This coding structure includes both the deductive and inductive
insights of the interview data analysis which identified several higher order constructs
including perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning, Context-Aware
Effective Use of SMN (Actualization of SMN Affordances for Collaborative
Learning), Context-Agnostic Effective Use, Collaborative Learning Goal
Achievement, Social Capital, and Antecedents of Effective Use. Although antecedents
of effective use have been inductively identified through interview analysis, they have
not been included in the survey instrument for parsimony.

4.3.3 Reliability of Interview Data Analysis

To ensure the quality and reliability of the interview data analysis a series of
measures were applied. To ensure a rigorous coding process a member of the
supervisory team participated as a second coder or reviewer and a sample of the data
was analysed to check the inter-coder reliability and to identify any requirements for
re-coding. Further, corroborations sessions were run to maintain the rigour throughout
the coding, analysis, and interpretation of the findings. As such, the development of a
coding structure for deductive analysis, checking, and coordination sessions for the
coded sample data, and re-coding where needed were performed with the supervisor's
participation in several iterations. Annotations and memos were used as a systematic
record of emerging ideas, concepts, and interpretations during the process of data
analysis (Bandara et al., 2015; Saldaña, 2021) to ensure maintenance of a rich and
complete record.

74 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

 Table 12 Coding Structure
Codes
Higher Order Construct Affordance Perception – Affordance Perception Affordance Affordance
Collaboration – Communication Perception – Perception –
Content Sharing Self-Presentation
Perception of SMN “We can” Collaborate Communication Sharing Profile (of someone)
Affordances for “We are able to”
Coordinate (activities) Interactions Upload Express identify
Collaborative Learning “System has Organize work together Chat Download (through the system)
[feature] that we
Create together (e.g., Messaging Send Getting know others
can” content) Meetings (e.g., attachments) Understand others
Work together (on one Sharing ideas Exchanging from the system*
document) Tag people (to other’s (e.g., media) Snapshot of another
Context-Aware Effective “We did” Work at the same time* messages) * person*
Use of SMN “We performed” Share at once (together) *
(Actualization of SMN “We used” Edit in the same platform*
Affordances for Edit the same part*
Collaborative Learning) Have a discussion*
Everyone contributes*
Bring everything together*

Context-Agnostic Effective Use Transparent Interaction Representation Fidelity Informed Action

System interface Correct content Improve the task
Ease of access Complete information Make decisions
Seamless access Clear idea/information Change decisions
Access Meaningful information/ Use the key parts of the content
Difficulty obtaining content content Leverage content
(due to system interface) Act on content
Physical characteristics of the
systems

Collaborative Learning Goal Achievement Social Goal Psychological Goals Academic Goals

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 75

 Enhanced interactions Positive attitudes Quality of the work
Increased cooperation (toward the group) Effectiveness of the work
Increased involvement Increased confidence (to Completion of the work
Social support work in the group) Productivity of the work
Pleasant learning Standard of the work
Reduced anxiety GPA
(having) fun interface in Good grade*
the group* Making works smoother*
Social Capital Structural Capital Relational Capital Cognitive Capital
Interactions Trust Mutual understanding
Frequent communication Positive feeling (toward Same goal
Known members (e.g., the group) Same direction (same page/ same ballpark)
personal level friends) * Belonging to the group *
Roles and Shared goal
responsibilities
Antecedents of Effective Use* Task Nature System Capabilities Ease of Use
Content nature* “We cannot” Easier to use*
Complicated tasks* System not faster* Easily understand the system*
Task simplicity* Simple system*
Minimalist system*
Convenient*
While the majority of the codes were deductively categorised, the terms are marked with an asterisk (*) were inductively identified during the interview
data analysis process.

76 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

4.4 QUANTITATIVE METHODS: SURVEY

The objective of this section is to detail the rigorous procedures that were utilized
throughout the survey data collection phase. In this section, there are four key topics
discussed: i) the participants for the survey distribution; ii) the survey design
procedure; iii) the procedure for survey instrument distribution; iv) and the data
analysis tools used (section 4.5).

4.4.1 Survey Data Collection

In each phase of the study, the survey was provided to the students in weeks 9 and 10
across a 13-week semester soon after the submission of their group assignment. This
was to ensure that the data collection week reflected the students’ collaboration with
their group members in their work for the completion of the group assignment. Table
13 provides the details for survey data collection. The survey captured the information
addressing the research scope. This included: (i) the type of collaboration in which the
students were involved (online vs offline), (ii) the portfolio of SMN is used, (iii)
perception and actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning
(collaboration, communication, content sharing, and self-presentation), (iv) effective
use of SMN from a representation theory perspective, (v) social capital among the
students and (vi) the attainment of collaborative learning goals.

Table 13 Survey Data Collection Detail

Phase Case Context Survey Number of Number of
Distribution Surveys Usable
Distributed Responses
Phase 1 Blended Learning Physical 192 154
Distribution
Phase 2 Blended and Online Online Survey 737 131
Learning
Phase 3 Blended Learning Physical 168 158
Distribution

4.4.2 Survey Instrument Design

Poorly designed survey instruments have the potential to result in incorrect findings.
Therefore, construct measurement validation is critical (MacKenzie et al., 2011;
Straub, 1989). MacKenzie et al. (2011) have developed a comprehensive scale
development guideline consisting of six phases to be applied in IS research. This
research adheres to MacKenzie et al’s (2011) guidelines for scale development to

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 77

minimize the potential for measurement error and validity issues. As such, the next six
sections will explain the scale development procedure used in this research, utilising
MacKenzie et al’s (2011) guidelines.

4.4.2.1 Construct Definition

The first phase of the construct development procedure is to comprehensively

define the focal construct (MacKenzie et al., 2011). As such, in this phase, a thorough
review of literature pertaining to the construct domain is required to identify the
construct’s unit of analysis (e.g., individual, task, system, organization), the actual
measures of the construct which is the construct’s indication as perception, attitude or
cognition (construct property), construct directionality and dimensionality (e.g.,
unidimensional, or multidimensional), and the nature of the construct (e.g., formative,
reflective). This section discusses how the comprehensive review of the literature
informs the characteristics of each construct.

Following MacKenzie et al (2011)’s guidelines, the property, entity, and the

directionality of the construct are identified in order to minimize the inconcsistency in
the interpretation of measurement model. The entity for each of the constructs
examined in the study is individual; however, the examined property is different from
each construct (refer to Table 14; for formal definitions see section the theory
development sections, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3).

Table 14 Characteristics of Constructs

Construct Property
Perception of SMN affordances An individual’s perception of how SMNs afford them
for collaborative learning to perform collaborative learning tasks.
Context-aware effective use An individual’s behaviour in effectively actualizing
(actualization of SMN affordances SMN affordances to perform collaborative learning
for collaborative learning) tasks.
Context-agnostic effective use An individual’s behaviour in effectively using SMN to
perform collaborative learning tasks.
Social capital An individual’s perception of the social capital
amongst their group members
Collaborative learning goals An individual’s perception of whether they achieve
collaborative learning outcomes using SMN.

4.4.2.2 Construct Directionality and Dimensionality

Directions of causality between a measurement item and the corresponding

latent construct is a central consideration when defining the constructs and

78 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

constructing measurement models (Petter et al., 2007). This causality between a
measurement item and the corresponding latent construct can take a reflective or
formative approach (Shin & Kim, 2011) depending on theoretical and practical
implications (Coltman et al., 2008). Reflectively defined measurement models
measure the same facet of the latent construct, thus changes in the latent construct
result in changes in the underlying measures (Polites et al., 2012). Therefore, the
direction of causality is from the construct to the measurement items (Jarvis et al.,
2003; MacKenzie et al., 2011; Petter et al., 2007). In contrast to reflective models, the
measures in formatively defined models examine different facets of the latent
construct, are not interchangeable and form the construct’s meaning (MacKenzie et
al., 2011). Therefore changes in one of the sub-dimensions are associated with a
change in the meaning of the focal construct (Jarvis et al., 2003; MacKenzie et al.,
2011). Thus, the direction is from the measurement item to the latent construct (Jarvis
et al., 2003; MacKenzie et al., 2011; Petter et al., 2007).

This is also an important consideration with regard to the dimensionality of the

construct (Petter et al., 2007). Constructs can either be unidimensional or
multidimensional in nature. In a unidimensional construct, all measurement items
measure the same aspect of the unobservable construct whereas, in contrast,
measurement items in a multidimensional construct capture multiple dimensions
(Petter et al., 2007). Multidimensional constructs facilitate opportunities to advance IS
research by enabling capture of complex concepts compared to simple concepts
(Polites et al., 2012). This research identifies five main complex constructs in
investigating effective use of SMN for collaborative learning: perception of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning, context-aware effective use (actualization of
SMN affordances), context-agnostic effective use, social capital, and collaborative
learning goal attainment. Each of these constructs comprise a different set of
dimensions that measure the different facets of each construct.

A comprehensive review of the literature identified several different SMN

affordances relevant to collaborative learning; thus, the perception of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning comprises a series of facets (i.e., SMN
affordances for collaborative learning) that are each measured by their own set of
items. Similar to the perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning,
context-aware effective use construct is also identified as comprising a different facet

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 79

in terms of actualized versions of SMN affordances for collaborative learning. Further,
Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) conceptualized context-agnostic effective use as
formed by three different dimensions; transparent interaction, representation fidelity,
and informed action. These dimensions measure the different facets of context-
agnostic effective use construct, and each is measured by its own set of reflectively
measured items.

In terms of social capital, Putnam (2000) has observed that social capital is not
a unidimensional concept, but it rather defined by integrating three different facets in
terms of three different dimensions: cognitive, relational, and structural. For
collaborative learning goals, Johnson and Johnson (1989) and Panitz and Panitz (1998)
discuss the benefits of collaborative learning that are expected in a collaborative
learning environment. Laal and Ghodsi (2012) categorize these benefits in terms of
social, psychological, academic, and assessment aspects. This research adapts these
collaborative learning benefits categories by Laal and Ghodsi (2012) as relevant to the
higher education collaborative learning context and also conceptualizes the construct
as a multidimensional construct which consists of the three dimensions of social,
psychological, and cognitive goals.

As such, all broader constructs identified in the research model are formed by
different dimensions. These dimensions are measured by their own set of reflectively
measured items. This results in broader constructs identified as second-order
multidimensional constructs. However, both first and second-order constructs can be
either reflective or formative in nature (Shin & Kim, 2011). There are four alternative
relationships which could result in a model that consists of second-order constructs;
(i) first-order reflective-second order reflective (ii) first-order reflective – second-order
formative (iii) first-order formative – second-order reflective and (iv) first-order
formative – second-order formative (Shin & Kim, 2011). Having formatively
measured second order constructs in which their dimensions are reflectively measured,
the structural model of the study is identified as a first order reflective – second order
formative structural model. As such, there are five multidimensional second order
formative constructs (i.e., perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning,
context-aware effective use, context agnostic effective use, social capital, and
collaborative learning goal achievement) in the model. There are seventeen first order
reflective constructs in the model. These are, perception of collaboration affordance,

80 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

perception of communication affordance, perception of content sharing affordance,
perception of self-presentation affordance, actualization of collaboration affordance,
actualization of communication affordance, actualization of content sharing
affordance, actualization of self-presentation affordance, transparent interaction,
representation fidelity, informed action, structural capital, relational capital, cognitive
capital, social goal, phycological goal, and academic goal.

4.4.2.3 Measures Development

The overall objective of the second phase of the scale development process is to
identify items that are representative of the construct domain that inform two steps;
item generation and assessing content validity (MacKenzie et al., 2011). Expert panels,
practitioner interviews, and focus groups are some of the methods used to generate
measurement items (MacKenzie et al., 2011), and where possible existing scales
should be adapted from past literature and contextualized if necessary (Froehle &
Roth, 2004). However, there are potential research biases and errors in using
instruments in existing scales. For example, instruments in existing scales may not
have been previously validated and altering a validated instrument to fit in a different
context could hinder the validity of the scale (Straub, 1989). Thus, the content validity1
of the items (Froehle & Roth, 2004) could be damaged which makes item pre-testing
a necessary step in the measurement development process. This section details the
generation and validation of measurement items. Excluding the demographics and the
extent of use items, all items in the instrument were measured using a seven-point
Likert Scale which ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Goodhue &
Thompson, 1995).

According to Froehle and Roth (2004), where possible measures were extracted
from previously validated instruments in the literature. When no scales were available,
measurement items were developed based on the understanding of the constructs in
the literature and the preliminary interview insights. Drawing upon affordance theory
insights (e.g., Hartson, 2003; Volkoff & Strong, 2017) and theory of effective use
perspectives (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013), it is hypothesized that perception of
SMN affordances for collaborative learning positively influences both context-aware

1“the degree to which elements of an assessment instrument are relevant to and representative of the targeted
construct for a particular assessment purpose”(Haynes et al., 1995, p. 238).

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 81

and context-agnostic effective use. Measures for dimensions of perception and
actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning (i.e., context-aware
effective use) (refer to Table 15 and Table 16) have been developed based on the
comprehensive definitions of SMN affordances provided by Karahanna et al. (2018)
and Kietzmann et al. (2011). These measures were then pre-tested in the pilot study,
with interviews and surveys to ensure the content validity and to ensure that the items
are fit in the research context.

Table 15 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Perception of SMN Affordances for

Collaborative Learning
Dimension Items*
Perception of Collaboration The system provides me with features to
Affordance (APCL) APCL1: create content (e.g., posts, messages,
documents) with group members
APCL2: engage with group members to produce
content (e.g., posts, messages, documents)
APCL3: help me and my group members’ progress
with our group work
Perception of Communication The system provides me with features to
Affordance (APCL) APCM1: communicate with my group members
APCM2: contact my group members
APCM3: have discussions with group members
APCM4: demonstrate my availability to
communicate (online/ offline) with group members
Perception of Content Sharing The system provides me with features
Affordance (APCS) APCS1: to distribute documents to group members
APCS2: to view or download documents
APCS3: to exchange documents with my group
members
Perception of Self-Presentation The system provides me with features to
Affordance (APSP) APSP1: update my profile/ account
APSP2: share my personal experiences with my
group members
APSP3: publish my personal information (e.g.,
images, weblinks, etc)
Perception of Group-Management The system provides my group with features to
Affordance** (APGM) APGM1: manage the group.
APGM2: maintain the group.
APGM3: remove added comments or posts by other
members.
* Items developed based on the comprehensive definitions of SMN affordances provided by
Karahanna et al. (2018) and Kietzmann et al. (2011)
** Group management affordance has been omitted in the subsequent analysis since the
interview data identified the construct as not relevant to the context by

82 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

 Table 16 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Actualization of SMN Affordances
for Collaborative Learning
Dimension Items*
Actualization of Collaboration When using the system, I use the system features
Affordance (AACL) to
AACL1: actively create content (e.g., posts,
messages, and documents) with group members
AACL2: engage with my group members to
produce documents
AACL3: engage with my group members to
complete tasks together
Actualization of Communication When using the system, I use the system features
Affordance (AACM) to AACM1: chat with my group members
AACM2: keep in contact with my group
members
AACM3: have discussions with my group
members
Actualization of Content Sharing When using the system,
Affordance (AACS) AACS1: I distribute documents to my group
members
AACS2: I download documents that have been
uploaded by either me or my team members
APCS3: I exchange documents with my group
members
Actualization of Self-Presentation When using the system,
Affordance (AASP) AASP1: I update my profile/ account
AASP2: I post my own experiences
AASP3: I post my personal information (e.g.,
images, weblinks, etc.)
Actualization of Group-Management When using the system,
Affordance (AAGM) AAGM1: our group change members’ roles, and
responsibilities when necessary.
AAGM2: our group add or remove group
members when necessary.
AAGM3: our group resolves conflicts by
moderating posts when necessary.
* Items developed based on the comprehensive definitions of SMN affordances provided by
Karahanna et al. (2018) and Kietzmann et al. (2011).

As per Burton-Jones & Grange’s (2013) conceptualization, context-agnostic

effective use consists of three dimensions: transparent interaction, representation
fidelity, and informed action. Measurement items for these dimensions are extracted
from the general assessments provided by Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) (Refer to
Table 17). For representational fidelity dimension, items were developed to measure
the fidelity of content when obtaining the data from the system and also when inputting
the data to the system.

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 83

 Table 17 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Context-Agnostic Effective Use

Dimension Items*
Informed Action (IA) When I obtain content (e.g., posts, messages, and documents)
from the system,
IA1: I look for the relevant pieces that I can act upon to improve
my group work.
IA2: I seek ways to leverage good pieces of information to
improve my group work.
IA3: I use key parts of it to enhance my group work
Representation Fidelity When working on my group work using the system,
(RF) RFO1: the content (e.g., posts, messages, documents) I obtain
from the system is complete.
RFO2: the content (e.g., posts, messages, documents) I obtain
from the system is correct.
RFO3: the content (e.g., posts, messages, documents) I obtain
from the system is meaningful.
RFI1: the content (e.g., posts, messages, documents) I input to
the system is complete.
RFI2: the content (e.g., posts, messages, documents) I input to
the system is correct.
RFI3: the content (e.g., posts, messages, documents) I input to
the system is meaningful.
Transparent Interaction When using the system,
(TI) TI1: I have seamless access to the content (e.g., posts,
messages, documents) I need to perform my group work.
TI2: I can easily enter and obtain the content (e.g., posts,
messages, documents) I need to work on my group work
without being impeded by the user interface or devices I use to
access the system.
TI3: I can interact seamlessly with the content (e.g., posts,
messages, documents) I need to complete my group work
without being constrained by the user interface or devices I use
to access the system.
* Measures were adapted from general assessments of effective use dimensions proposed
by Burton-Jones and Grange (2013)

In this research, Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) and Putnam’s (2000) discussion
of social capital has been adapted to identify the social capital as a multidimensional
construct consisting of three dimensions (i.e., cognitive, relational, and structural).
This research contextualized the validated scale used by Chiu et al. (2006) for social
capital to fit with the context of this research (refer to Table 18).

84 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

 Table 18 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Social Capital
Dimension Items*
Cognitive Capital Members in my group
SCC1: use common terms
SCC2: use understandable communication pattern during discussions
SCC3: use understandable communication in their posts
SCC4: share the vision of helping each other to complete tasks
SCC5: share the same goal of learning from each other
SCC6: share the same overarching goal for group tasks
Relational Capital SCR1: Members in my group are truthful in dealing with each other
SCR2: Members in my group behave in a consistent manner
SCR3: Members in my group will always keep the promises they
make to one another
SCR4: I feel a sense of belonging towards my group
SCR5: I have a strong positive feeling toward my group
SCR6: I am proud to be a member of my group
Structural Capital SCS1: I spent a lot of time interacting with my group members
SCS2: I know some members in my group on a personal level
SCS3: I have frequent communication with my group members
* Measures were adapted from Chiu et al. (2006)

In order to develop the measurement items for the dimensions of collaborative

learning goals, this research adopted the benefits of collaborative learning listed by
Johnson and Johnson (1989) and (Panitz & Panitz, 1998) as categorized in Laal and
Ghodsi (2012). These items were then pre-tested and contextualized to be appropriate
for this research topic and several initially identified measures were dropped from the
further data collection and analysis. Measurement items for the dimensions of
collaborative learning goals are presented in Table 19.

Table 19 Measurement Items for Dimensions of Collaborative Learning Goals

Dimension Items*
Social Goals CLS1: The system enhances my interactions with group members
CLS2: The system increases my cooperation with group members
CLS3: The system increases my involvement in group work.
CLS4: The system increases how socially supported I feel within
the group
Psychological Goals CLP1: The system facilitates me to have a more positive attitude
towards group members
CLP2: The system increases my confidence when working with
others in my group
CLP3: The system makes the learning experience with my group
more pleasant for me
CLP4: The system reduces my anxiety when working with others
in my group.
Academic Goals CLA1: The system improves the quality of group work
CLA2: The system increases the effectiveness of the group
CLA3: The system supports the completion of group work
CLA4: The system increases the productivity of the group
* Measures were developed adapting the collaborative learning benefits listed by Johnson
and Johnson (1989) and Panitz and Panitz (1998) as in Laal and Ghodsi (2012).

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 85

 It is fundamental to assess the convergent validity of formatively developed
measures (MacKenzie et al., 2011). To examine the convergent validity, a reflectively
measured global item for formative constructs is necessary (Hair et al., 2017).
Therefore, for each formative construct, a global measure (Table 20) was formulated
based on their definitions.

Table 20 Global Items for Formative Constructs

Construct Global Measure
Perception of SMN affordances for Overall, the system provides me with the features I
collaborative learning require to perform my group work.
Overall, the system provides me with features to
collaborate, communicate and share both
documents and information about myself with the
group.
Context-aware effective use Overall, I effectively use the system features (e.g.,
(Actualization of SMN affordances collaborating, communicating, content sharing and
for collaborative learning) presenting myself) to perform my group work.
Overall, I effectively use the features of the system
that allow me and my group members to achieve
the group objectives.
Context-agnostic effective use Overall, I effectively use the system and the
content within the system to perform my group
task.
Overall, I use the system without being hindered
by my device or its software to input and obtain
relevant and reliable information that I use to
perform my group tasks.
Social Capital Overall, my group members frequently
communicate, have a positive feeling towards each
other and have a common vision of what is
required to complete the group work.
Overall, my group members share a common goal
toward the group work and regularly interact with
each other in a consistent manner to achieve the
group tasks.
Collaborative learning goal Overall, the system improves my collaborative
attainment learning.
Overall, the system enhances the attainment of the
group’s academic goals and enables me to feel
socially supported and more confident in my
interactions with group members.

Consideration of control variables is a central element of the research design of

any empirical and quantitative studies (Nielsen & Raswant, 2018). Control variables
is deemed theoretically important but are not focal variables of the study. It is
important to include control variables to rule out threats to valid inferences in order to
determine the extent that focal independent variables behave as hypothesized (Nielsen
& Raswant, 2018; Sun, 2010). At the individual level, an individual’s age, gender, and

86 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

education level are regularly used as demographic controls in the IS discipline (Zahedi et
al., 2015). In this research, the variables that are controlled are an individual’s gender, age,
student type (i.e., domestic. or international), and experience with using SMN for
collaborative learning (Table 21).

Table 21 Demographic Items

Construct Item
Gender What is your gender?
Age What is your age?
Student Type Are you an international or domestic student?
Experience with using Have you used a social media application before starting this unit
SMN for collaborative for performing group related tasks?
learning If yes, how long have you been using social media applications
for group tasks?

4.4.2.4 Pretesting the Measurement Items

As described previously in the measurement model development sections, the

measures developed based on the comprehensive literature were then pre-tested in the
pilot study, with interviews and surveys to ensure the content validity and to ensure
that the items are fit in the research context. The purpose of the pre-test was to assess
the face validity of the instrument as a form of content validity. In assessing the face
validity, the instrument is assessed by expert judges who examine potential empirical,
theoretical, and practical issues associated with the survey instrument (Hair, 2010).
This research followed the recommendation that a minimum of three respondents from
an expert panel assess the face validity of an instrument (Rubio et al., 2003), so three
experienced academics familiar with the construct domain were consulted at each
stage of the survey development process. The appropriate recommendations by the
experts were addressed throughout the survey. This included rewording several
measurement items to improve understandability, adding and refining global items for
formatively developed constructs, deleting several items to improve the reflection and
understandability, and ensuring a consistent Likert scale was used.

4.4.2.5 Measurement Model Specification

The objective of the measurement model specification was to conceptualize and

empirically examine the latent constructs in the model. For constructs that are complex
it is imperative to correctly specify the measurement model to minimize the potential
of false positives and false negatives (Petter et al., 2007). As previously discussed in
section 4.42.2, all identified latent constructs in the research model are formative and

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 87

comprises a series of facets. As such, all second order constructs are identified as
aggregate multidimensional construct, whereby “each dimension contributes
separately to the meaning of the construct, but maybe differently weighted” (Polites
et al., 2012, p. 37). The finalized measurement models of each latent construct which
were refined after the pilot study is depicted and described below.

As described in the construct definition section 4.4.2.1 perception of SMN affordances

for collaborative learning is a second-order formative and first-order reflective
construct that comprises a series of different facets of SMN affordances. Similar to
this, actualized versions of the same SMN affordances form the context-aware
effective use construct, identifying the construct as a second-order formative and first-
order reflective construct. All formative dimensions of both constructs (i.e., first order
constructs) are measured reflectively; thus the measures are indicators of the construct
(Polites et al., 2012) (refer to Figure 10 and 11).

Figure 10: Perception of SMN Affordances for Collaborative Learning Measurement

Model

Figure 11: Context-Aware Effective Use (Actualization of SMN Affordances for

Collaborative Learning) Measurement Model

Based on the representation theory perspective, Burton-Jones and Grange (2013)

conceptualized effective use to consist of three dimensions; transparent interaction,

88 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

representation fidelity, and informed action, whereby each dimension contributes
separately to the meaning of the construct. Therefore, context-agnostic effective use is
also identified as an aggregate, multidimensional construct with three dimensions
which are reflectively measured by their items (Figure 12).

Figure 12 Context-Agnostic Effective Use Measurement Model

Social capital comprises three different dimensions; structural capital, relational

capital, and cognitive capital that measure three facets of the construct (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998). Each of these dimensions is reflectively measured by its own set of
items. As such, social capital is also identified as an aggregate multidimensional
construct which is second-order formative first-order reflective in nature (Figure 13).

Figure 13 Social Capital Measurement Model

Laal and Ghodsi (2012) categorized collaborative learning goals to identify

different facets of desired goals of collaborative learning. As such, these different
categories measure different aspects of collaborative learning goals and conceptualize
collaborative learning goals as an aggregate multidimensional construct. Since each

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 89

dimension is reflectively measured by its own set of items, the construct measurement
model is conceptualized as a second-order formative first-order reflective model
(Figure 14).

Figure 14 Collaborative Learning Goals Measurement Model

4.4.3 Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted after the formulation of the measurement model.
SMN is a novel context for which knowledge of effective use is limited. Therefore, an
extensive pilot study was conducted to understand the effective use concepts in this
specific context. As mentioned in section 4.2.1, investigations in phase 1 served as the
pilot study for the research. Case 1 was a first year, first semester information
technology undergraduate unit with a 369-student enrolment and a high proportion of
domestic students. The survey instrument was physically distributed in the tenth week
of the semester when students are required to finalize their group assignment. Due to
the physical distribution of the survey, only students who attended in the tenth week
received the survey. Since electronic student evaluation surveys being were conducted
throughout the semester, students faced electronic survey overloaded. Therefore,
physical distribution of the survey was necessary although it limited the respondents
pool (n=192). Overall, out of 192 distributed surveys, 164 surveys were returned which
is equivalent to a response rate of 85%. After missing value treatment, the usable
response rate was 85% (n=154) which meets the minimum sample size requirement
(n=130) for the PLS-based analysis (per Hair et al., 2017).

Group management affordance was included in the pilot study as a dimension

for both perception of SMN affordances and actualization of SMN affordances for

90 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

collaborative learning in user’s perception and actualization versions respectively.
However, the results from the pilot study showed anomalies in the expected factor
loadings of group management related constructs (i.e., perception and actualization).
Results indicated low factor loadings from group management affordance and its
actualization. While the review of the literature identified group management in the
initial set of SMN affordances for collaborative learning, insights from the pilot study
interview data also did not identify group management as relevant in the study context.
For instance, the following interview quotes highlights how students do not value the
SMN involvement for the group management purpose.

“Usually I try to do that (group management) in person because that way you
can actually see their body language. They actually understand. Yeah. I wrote a
message, they may see it, but they may not completely read it. So, you never know.”
(Participant 2)

Hence, the dimensions of group management affordance and group management

actualization were identified as not relevant to SMN use for collaborative learning.
Analysis was reperformed after removing these first-order constructs. The removal of
the constructs increased the factor loading for other items to create a more appropriate
factor structure. This yielded a nine-factor solution discriminating the items for
dimensions of affordance perception and affordance actualization from the items of
collaborative learning goals. Consequently, based on the study context and pilot study
data analysis, the dimensions for group management affordance and actualization were
removed from the subsequent investigation.

4.4.4 Validation

Following the guidelines of MacKenzie et al. (2011) the validity and reliability
assessments were performed to ensure the content validity of the instrument.
Accordingly, the following assessments were performed to assess the reliability and
validity of the reflectively measured constructs, (per Hair et al., 2017):

• Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha, and

Composite Reliability tests.

• Convergent validity was assessed by examining indicator reliability and

average variance extracted by the construct.

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 91

 • Discriminant validity was assessed by examining cross-loadings and Fornell-
Larker criterion analysis.

Formatively measured constructs were also evaluated based on the following

assessments for reliability and validity (Hair et al., 2017).

• Convergent validity was assessed by performing redundancy analysis

• Collinearity was assessed by examining variance inflation factors

• The relevance of the formative constructs was examined using outer weights.

4.4.5 Instrument Distribution

For phase 3, the data collection was predominately informed from the
quantitative data analysis presented in this study, and the survey instrument was
physically distributed to the students within the selected course unit. The physical
distribution method was selected as it has been regularly reported to have higher
response rates compared to electronically distributed surveys (Nulty, 2008). In
addition, this research had support from the university teaching staff which also
facilitates a high response rate. The survey was distributed at the beginning of
workshops in the selected course unit in the tenth week of a thirteen-week semester.
Respondents were provided with both the survey and, for anonymity, a sealed
cardboard box in which to place the completed surveys.

4.5 QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS

IBM SPSS (V.25) and SmartPLS (v.3) were used as the main data analytical
tools (Table 22). SmartPLS are known as the second generation data analysis
techniques providing algorithms to test the extent to which IS research meets
recognized standards for high quality statistical analysis (Gefen et al., 2000). This
highlights the capabilities of SmartPLS in various aspects: 1) it maps paths to many
dependent (latent or observed) variables in the same research model, 2) it analyses all
the paths simultaneously rather than one at a time, 3) it maps reflective and formative
observed variables, 4) it analyses all the paths, both measurement and structural model,
in one analysis, 5) it can deal with large and complex models, and 6) it focuses on the
prediction and/or identification of relationships between constructs (Gefen et al., 2000;
Hair Jr et al., 2021). The appropriateness of SmartPLS for the analysis of formative

92 Chapter 4: Research Methodology

measurement models is also substantiated by Polites et al. (2012) who evidenced that
84% of publications that examined a formative construct used SmartPLS.

Table 22 Data Analysis Tools Used

Tool Purpose Tasks Performed
IBM Cleaning and transferring the • Missing data analysis
SPSS data • Missing data imputation
• Descriptive statistics of the sample
SmartPLS Analysis of formative • Analysed the constructs of
measurement model and - Perception of SMN affordances for
structural model collaborative learning
- Actualization of SMN affordances for
collaborative learning (context-aware
effective use)
- Context-agnostic effective use
- Social capital
- Collaborative learning goal attainment
• Analysed the proposed hypotheses
between latent constructs.

4.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council ethical
guidelines, ethics approval is required for all human research. This research was a
negligible low-risk project, with the only foreseeable risk being discomfort to the
individual participants in terms of allocating time to participate in the interview and survey
during their normal day to day activities. This research was reviewed and approved by the
Queensland University of Technology’s Office of Research Ethics and Integrity (approval
number: 1900000627).

4.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

In summary, this chapter has highlighted the rigorous scale development techniques
that were utilized in the formulation of both the measurement model of latent constructs
and the survey instrument (Appendix D: Survey Instrument). In total, the survey consisted
of eighty-five Likert scale and nine demographical questions. Where possible the survey
instrument was adapted from prior literature and underwent pre-testing and pilot testing
phases. The survey was physically distributed to the undergraduate students who were
required to complete group-based assignments.

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 93

Chapter 5: Findings

The overarching objective of this research is to contextualize the effective use of

systems in the context of SMN use for collaborative learning in higher education.
Addressing the overarching objective, this research will answer the following research
questions.

RQ1: How can ‘effective use’ of social media network for collaborative learning
be contextualized?

RQ2: What are the influencing factors and outcomes of effective use of social
media networks for collaborative learning?

To answer these research questions two conceptual models were developed.

These conceptual models consist of the constructs of affordance perception, social
capital, collaborative learning goals, and effective use. Effective use is considered
from two perspectives: context-agnostic and context-aware. As per chapter 3, a series
of hypotheses were proposed between these constructs. The goal of this chapter is to
assess the significance of the proposed relationships between these constructs. The
assessment of hypotheses has been conducted using quantitative data and substantiated
by qualitative data. Both IBM SPSS (v.25) and Smart PLS (v.3) were used to clean,
transform, and analyse the quantitative dataset, and NVivo (v.12) was used for the
thematic analysis of qualitative data. Assessment of hypotheses mainly addresses the
assessment of structural models, in which the overarching hypotheses are evaluated.
This also addresses the data cleaning and transformation process and assessment of the
validity and reliability of the constructs in their measurement models. Another goal of
this chapter is to extend the quantitative and qualitative analysis to assess the
individual influences of endogenous constructs on their endogenous constructs and
also to identify potential relationships between them in addition to the hypothesized
relationships. This extended analysis also addresses the inductive analysis of
qualitative interview data.

In summary, the chapter discusses; (i) data cleaning and transformation; (ii)
sample demographics; (iii) measurement model assessments of the aforementioned

Chapter 5: Findings 95
constructs; (iv) structural model assessments of effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning from both context-aware and context-agnostic perspectives, and (v) extended
quantitative and qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis is based on the interview
data set obtained from Phase 1 and Phase 2 while the quantitative analysis refers to the
data set obtained from the Phase 3 investigation. The Case 3 data set informs the
validation of the proposed research model for effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning in higher education.

5.1 DATA CLEANING AND TRANSFORMATION

There were 339 students enrolled in the selected information technology

undergraduate unit (Phase 3) who were required to complete a group assignment. The
survey was physically distributed to the students who attended in the tenth week,
reaching 168 students out of the total enrolled students (n=339). Although the physical
survey distribution did not reach the whole cohort of the unit, it represents
approximately 50% of unit enrolment. Out of the 168 surveys distributed, 160 surveys
were returned, which corresponds to a 95% response rate. As per Baruch and Holtom
(2008) a 95% response rate is greater than the average response rate of 52.7% for
physically distributed surveys. Prior to analysing the measurement and structural
models, data was prepared by analysing missing data and determining the appropriate
imputation technique to apply.

Out of the 160 surveys returned, 106 (66.2%) were complete and the remaining
56 (35%) possessed missing data (48 of which, contained less than three instances of
missing data). There were two cases where respondents had not completed certain
questions, thus these possessed a relatively higher amount of missing data. The missing
data was examined across both variables and respondents. In terms of the Likert Scale
items for constructs (Q1-Q78), there were 92 (0.74%) instances of missing data and
for demographics (Q79-Q85), there were 74 (7.7%) instances of missing data. Overall,
across the entire sample there was only 1.18% of missing data. According to the
guidelines specified by Hair (2010), the cases with more than 10% missing data (n=2
with 57.1% and 17.9% missing data respectively) were removed from the data set.
This resulted in 158 useable cases. However, the dataset still contained missing
quantitative data. In terms of the Likert Scale responses, descriptive demographics,
and the overall dataset there was 0.28%, 3.9%, and 0.7% of missing data respectively

96 Chapter 5: Findings
(Table 23). Since the percentage of missing data is less than 10% any imputation
method can be applied (Hair, 2010), where in this instance, the EM (expected
maximization) imputation method was selected.

Table 23 Percentage of Missing Data

Original Data Set Cleaned Data Set
(n=160) (n=158)

Likert Scale Responses (Q1-Q78) 0.74% 0.28%

Demographics (Q78-Q85) 7.7% 3.9%
All Responses 1.18% 0.7%

5.2 SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS

Of the 158 useable responses, 79% were male and 15% were female and most
were domestic students (86.7%) (Table 24). Whilst there is a larger proportion of male
respondents in the sample, this is also indicative of the nature of first-year IT courses
in the university which has a largely male demographic and a large domestic student
cohort. The mean age reported was 22 although the reported mode is 18. This is likely
due to first-year student enrolment largely representing recent high school graduates
in Australia, which evidences the representativeness of the sample of the population.
Most students (86%) were familiar with using SMN for collaborative tasks before
using SMN for group work in the selected unit.

Table 24 Sample Descriptive Statistics*

N 158
Female 25; 15 %
Gender Male 125; 79 %
Other 8; 6%
Average 22
Age (years)
Mode 18
Domestic 137; 86.7%
Student Type
International 13; 8.2%
Yes 136; 86 %
Prior Experience on SMN Use for Collaborative Tasks
No 6; 3.8 %
General Social Media Applications Mean: 4.6
Extent of use** Collaborative Social Media
Mean: 5.26
Applications
*Due to missing demographic data, the counts do not equate to the total number of
responded cases
** ‘Extent of use’ used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all to an extremely great
extent.

Chapter 5: Findings 97
5.3 MEASUREMENT MODEL ANALYSIS

According to Hair et al. (2017), the evaluation of the reliability and validity of
the measurement model should occur prior to the examination of the structural model.
Both reflective measurement models and formative measurement model were assessed
according to the guidelines of Hair et al. (2017). As such, reflective constructs are
assessed for internal consistency reliability, indicator reliability, convergent validity,
and discriminant validity. Formative constructs are assessed for convergent validity,
collinearity, and for significance and relevance of indicators (Hair et al., 2017). Each
of the following assessments of measurement model analysis is substantiated with both
survey and interview data.

5.3.1 Measurement Model Analysis: Perception of SMN Affordances for

Collaborative Learning

Perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning was conceptualized as

a higher order construct which comprises four different affordances for collaborative
learning (i.e., collaboration, communication, content sharing, and self-presentation).
The interview quotes in Table 25 substantiated the dimensions for perception of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning.

Table 25 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Perception of SMN Affordances for
Collaborative Learning
Dimension Quote
Affordance Perception – “When all of us three are on the document, instead
Collaboration of working separately we're able to edit the
document without really disrupting each other's
work.” (Participant 10)
Affordance Perception – “The main one that I stick to it at the moment is
Communication messenger just because it does have basically
everything you need to be able to communicate,
for academic reasons” (Participant 2)
Affordance Perception – “We were able to share multimedia things like
Content Sharing photos and documents through Slack,…”
(Participant 11)
Affordance Perception – “I look at their profile to get to know them”
Self-Presentation (Participant 6)

98 Chapter 5: Findings
 Perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning is a formative
construct which consists of four reflectively measured first order constructs:
affordance perception - collaboration (APCL), affordance perception - communication
(APCM), affordance perception - content sharing (APCS) and affordance perception -
self-presentation (APSP). As such, perception of SMN affordances for collaborative
learning is a first order reflective - second order formative construct. Following the
guidelines specified by Hair et al. (2017), first order reflective constructs have been
assessed for indicator reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity. All items met the outer loading threshold (0.7) suggesting
satisfactory indicator reliability (Hair et al., 2017). All reflective model validations are
satisfactory for all indicators (refer to Table 26), i.e., internal consistency reliability
(composite reliability > 0.7), convergent validity (AVE > 0.5), and discriminant
validity (HTMT <0.85).

Table 26 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Perception of SMN

Affordances for Collaborative Learning
Indicator Internal Consistency Convergent Discriminant
Reliability Reliability Validity Validity

Outer Composite Cronbach’s AVE HTMT HTMT

Construct Indicators Loadings Reliability Alpha >0.5 <0.85 Confidence
>0.7 0.6-0.9 0.6-0.9 interval
does not
include 1

APCL1 0.797
APCL APCL2 0.848 0.837 0.711 0.631 Yes
APCL3 0.735
APCM1 0.822
APCM2 0.830
APCM 0.888 0.831 0.664 Yes
APCM3 0.844
APCM4 0.760
APCS1 0.890
APCS APCS2 0.909 0.934 0.894 0.826 Yes
APCS3 0.927
APSP1 0.863
APSP APSP2 0.871 0.885 0.806 0.720 Yes
APSP3 0.811

Chapter 5: Findings 99
 Subsequent to the analysis of the reflective dimensions, the formative model of
perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning constructs, is assessed for
convergent validity, collinearity, and for significance and relevance of indicators (Hair
et al., 2017) (Figure 15). Per Hair et al. (2017) collinearity assessment is satisfied with
a VIF value lower than 5 (APCL=1.163, APCM=1.360, APCS=1.257, APSP=1.390).
Outer weights of all four first-order formative constructs are significant (i.e.,
Affordance Perception - Collaboration β=0.302 p<0.05, Affordance Perception –
Communication β=0.445 p<0.05, Affordance Perception – Content Sharing β=0.386
p<0.05, and Affordance Perception – Self-Presentation β=0.255 p<0.05) suggesting
the satisfactory relative importance of formative constructs to the broader concept.

To assess the convergent validity, a redundancy analysis was performed to

examine the path weights between the second order formative construct (perception of
SMN affordances for collaborative learning) and its equivalent global measure (per
Hair et al., 2017). Path weights between the construct and its global item (0.387) did
not exhibit convergent validity (>.0.7). Considering that all dimensions (first order
constructs) were statistically significant in measuring the higher order construct this
may indicate issues with complex constructs being refined to a single item measure,
as opposed to indicating an issue with the measurement of underlying dimensions.

Figure 15 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Perception of SMN

Affordances for Collaborative Learning

5.3.2 Measurement Model Analysis: Context-Aware Effective Use

(Actualization of SMN Affordances for Collaborative Learning)

Similar to the perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning, context-

aware effective use (actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning) was
also identified as consisting of four dimensions (affordance actualization-
collaboration, affordance actualization – communication, affordance actualization-

100 Chapter 5: Findings

content sharing, and affordance actualization – self-presentation). These dimensions
reflect the actualized versions of the SMN affordances for collaborative learning.
Interview quotes in Table 27 substantiated the dimensions for context-aware effective
use (actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning).

Table 27 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Context-Aware Effective Use

Dimension Quote
Affordance Actualization “We actually collated all of the work for our assignment in
– Collaboration Google Docs” (Participant 11)
Affordance Actualization “We used it [Slack] to send messages to communicate about
– Communication what work needed to be done, what we were working on and
feedback.” (Participant 18)
Affordance Actualization “Once everyone's done their sections, they upload them to the
– Content Sharing Messenger group and then we compile them into a Google Doc”
(Participant 14)
Affordance Actualization “If I am working on a big project, and I'm not exactly familiar
– Self-Presentation with the group members. And I do know their name, I would in
a sense stalk them and see exactly what they're like and whether
I'd be keen on working with them.” (Participant 16)

Context-aware effective use is also identified as a first-order reflective – second-

order formative construct and is formed by actualized versions of four types of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning. As such, similar assessments for reflective
measures (i.e., indicator reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity) and formative measures (i.e., convergent validity, collinearity,
and indicator relevance and significance) were performed.

All the assessments for reflective measurement model validation were

satisfactory (per Hair et al., 2017) (refer to Table 28), i.e., internal consistency
reliability (composite reliability > 0.7), indicator reliability (outer loadings >0.7),
convergent validity (AVE > 0.5), and discriminant validity (HTMT <0.85).

For assessing the formative measurement model (Figure 16), collinearity

assessments were satisfied (VIF<5) (Hair et al., 2017) for all four constructs: i.e.,
AACL=1.508, AACM=1.471, AACS=1.541, and AASP=1.076. Indicator relevancy
assessment was also satisfied with significant outer weights. However, convergent
validity criteria were not satisfied since the path coefficient between context-aware

Chapter 5: Findings 101

effective use and its equivalent global item is not higher than 0.7 (0.584) (per Hair et
al., 2017).

Table 28 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Context-Aware

Effective Use
Indicator Internal Consistency Convergent Discriminant Validity
Reliability Reliability Validity

Outer Composite Cronbach’s AVE HTMT HTMT

Construct Indicators Loadings Reliability Alpha >0.5 <0.85 The
>0.7 0.6-0.9 0.6-0.9 confidence
interval
does not
include 1
AACL1 0.798

AACL AACL2 0.889 0.832 0.818 0.734 Yes

AACL3 0.849
AACM1 0.876
AACM AACM2 0.886 0.943 0.910 0.847 Yes
AACM3 0.940
AACS1 0.896
AACS AACS2 0.921 0.928 0.885 0.812 Yes
AACS3 0.943
AASP1 0.815
AASP AASP2 0.889 0.883 0.802 0.716 Yes
AASP3 0.864

Figure 16 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Context-Aware Effective Use

102 Chapter 5: Findings

5.3.3 Measurement Model Analysis: Collaborative Learning Goal Achievement

The study identified three different types of goals of the collaborative learning
environment (per Laal & Ghodsi, 2012). These are social goals (SG), psychological
goals (PG), and academic goals (AG). These measure different facets of collaborative
learning goals. Table 29 demonstrates how students perceive that SMN helps them to
achieve different types of collaborative learning goals. As such, these quotes
substantiate the literature-supported dimensions for collaborative learning goal
achievement.

Table 29 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Collaborative Learning Goal

Achievement
Dimension Quote
Social Goals “Sharing screens [in Zoom] is really helpful, especially since
we're virtual. Just making sure that everybody's on the right
track and just like looking at the section that you want to look
at was really helpful… it definitely achieved our goal of
having conversations and being able to talk to people
(Participant 9)
Psychological Goals “I also like the fact that it [Messenger] incorporates all of
those little emojis and you can throw a couple of funny memes
in there. It provides a fun interface as well as something that
you can collaborate on.” (Participant 11)
Academic Goals “Messenger just really assisted in making everything much
smoother and we had more time to actually work on the
assignment. (Participant 5)

Social, psychological, and academic goals measure the different facets of the
collaborative learning goal achievement and are reflectively measured by their own set
of measurement items. Collaborative learning goal achievement is also therefore
identified as a first-order reflective - second-order formative construct. As such,
similar guidelines specified by Hair et al. (2017) were applied to assess the reflective
and formative measurement models of collaborative learning goals.

When evaluating the reflective measurement model of the collaborative learning

goal, all the assessment criteria were met suggesting internal consistency reliability
(composite reliability >0.7), indicator reliability (outer loadings > 0.7), convergent
validity (AVE>0.5), and discriminant validity (HTMT < 0.85) were satisfied (refer to
Table 30).

Chapter 5: Findings 103

 Subsequent to the reflective measurement model evaluations, collaborative
learning goals have been evaluated for its formative measurement model. All
assessment criteria have been satisfied for the formative measurement model
suggesting a strong validity of the formative constructs (convergent validity = 0.785),
no collinearity issues with formative constructs (VIF<5: SG=2.888, PG=3.00, and
AG=2.886), and significant relevance of the formative construct to the second-order
construct (i.e., collaborative learning goal construct) (Figure 17).

Table 30 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Collaborative

Learning Goal
Internal
Indicator Convergent Discriminant
Consistency
Reliability Validity Validity
Reliability
HTMT
Indic Comp HT
Construct Cronb Confiden
ators Outer osite MT
ach’s AVE ce
Loadings Reliab <0.
Alpha >0.5 interval
>0.7 ility 85
0.6-0.9 does not
0.6-0.9
include 1
SG1 0.846
SG2 0.892 0.915 0.877 0.730 Yes
Social Goals
SG3 0.867
SG4 0.811
PG1 0.867
PG2 0.899
Psychologica
0.935 0.907 0.782 Yes
l Goals PG3 0.895
PG4 0.875
AG 1 0.882
AG 2 0.881
Academic
0.920 0.883 0.741 Yes
Goals AG 3 0.856
AG4 0.824

Figure 17 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Collaborative Learning

Goal Achievement

104 Chapter 5: Findings

5.3.4 Measurement Model Analysis: Social Capital

The direct effect of social capital on attaining collaborative learning goals and
the moderating effect on the relationship between perception of SMN affordances for
collaborative learning, and the context-aware effective use of SMN have both been
identified when developing the conceptual model of the study. Social capital is formed
by three dimensions: structural capital (SC), relational capital (RC) and cognitive
capital (CC) (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). These dimensions are also substantiated by
the interview quotes as presented in Table 31.

Table 31 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Social Capital

Dimension Quote
Structural Capital “There were two best friends in the group and then myself, I
knew one of the other people quite well…in terms of system
use, us three with the sort of mutual connection, we tended to
be a lot more comfortable initiating meetings, initiating
conversation than the fourth person.” (Participant 9)
Relational Capital “To be honest, I have been very much blessed with a really good
group for this particular assignment. The group that we had was
very [impressive] Everyone was very much of the impression
that we know what our requirements are, we know when our
due dates are” (Participant 11)
Cognitive Capital “If you do not have a common understanding, then you could
be moving in different directions. And particularly for group
assignments or even if it was not even a group assignment, like
the assignment, it keeps everyone within the same ballpark.”
(Participant 1)

These three dimensions measure different facets of social capital and are
reflectively measured by their own items. As such, social capital is also identified as a
first order reflective – second order formative construct and therefore was evaluated
for both reflective and formative measurement model assessments.

Assessment of the reflective measurement model of social capital (Table 32)

indicates a satisfactory result with all the reflective model assessment criteria: i.e.,
outer loadings (>0.7), internal consistency reliability (composite reliability >0.7),
convergent validity (AVE>0.5) and discriminant validity (HTMT <0.85).

With the formative measurement model assessments (Figure 18) all assessment
criteria were satisfied including a satisfied convergent validity indicating a closer

Chapter 5: Findings 105

correlation between the formative measures and its equivalent reflective measures for
social capital (β=0.6398) (Figure 4). No collinearity issues were reported as the VIF
values of all the constructs are lower than 5 (SC=1.242, RC=2.046, CC=2.154) and all
formative constructs are significantly relating to the broader
social capital construct.

Table 32 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Social Capital

Internal Consistency Convergen Discriminant Validity
Indicator
Reliability t Validity
Reliability
Construct Indicators Outer Comp. Cronb. AVE HTM HTMT
Loadings Relia. Alpha >0.5 T Confidence
>0.7 0.6-0.9 0.6-0.9 <0.85 interval does
not include 1
SC1 0.891
Structural SC2 0.747 0.885 0.817 0.721 Yes
Capital
SC3 0.900
RCT1 0.733
RCT2 0.776
RCT3 0.822
Relationa
0.922 0.904 0.664 Yes
l Capital RCI1 0.814
RCI2 0.880
RCI3 0.853
CCG 1 0.802
CCG 2 0.778 Yes
CCG 3 0.786 0.561
Cognitive
0.884 0.844
Capital CCL1 0.634
CCL2 0.741
CCL3 0.740

Figure 18 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Social Capital

106 Chapter 5: Findings

5.4 STRUCTURAL MODEL ANALYSIS: CONTEXT-AWARE
EFFECTIVE USE OF SMN FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

As described in the conceptual model development section (section 3.1), the

overarching goal of this study is to contextualize effective use in the context of using
SMN for collaborative learning in higher education. As such, the structural model of
context-aware effective use of SMN for collaborative learning describes the positive
influence of perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning on the
actualization of those affordances which in turn affects achieving collaborative
learning goals has been analysed.

The structural model of context-aware perspective of effective use

conceptualized as a higher-order model is first-order reflective and second-order
formative in nature. Since the structural model consists of formative higher-order
constructs, embedded in a two-stage approach analysis under mode B specifications
(Hair et al., 2017; Sarstedt et al., 2019) was performed. Mode B in the PLS-SEM
algorithm computes indicator weights by regressing each construct on its associated
indicators (Sarstedt et al., 2019). Producing the smallest parameter estimation bias,
measurements of mode B are generally preferable to reflective-formative type
hierarchical latent variable models (Becker et al., 2012).

Thus, the structural model was first analysed with all formative second-order
constructs and their respective first-order constructs to extract the latent value scores
of multidimensional constructs. In the second stage of the model analysis, first-order
constructs act as manifest variables to the second-order construct based on their latent
value scores. The embedded two-stage approach (Sarstedt et al., 2019) has been
accepted for analysing structural models with multidimensional higher-order
constructs showing better parameters from an exogenous construct to the higher-order
construct and from a higher-order construct to an endogenous construct (Becker et al.,
2012). As per the guidelines specified by Hair et al. (2017), a six-step process was
applied to evaluate the structural model in SmartPLS (Figure 19).

Chapter 5: Findings 107

 Figure 19 Structural Model Evaluation Process in SmartPLS

Subsequent to the two-stage process the structural model was first evaluated for
collinearity issues. All inner/outer VIF values are less than the threshold value of 5
(Hair et al., 2017; MacKenzie et al., 2011), thus collinearity among the constructs is
not a critical issue in the structural model. Results of the structural model analysis
depicted in Figure 20 demonstrated that all the structural model relationships are
significant and relevant at a 95% significant level. The structural model analysis is also
controlled for students’ age, gender, type of studentship (international or domestic),
and the level of extent of use of SMN. However, none of the control variables was
statistically significant for determining the effective use of SMN or achievement of
collaborative learning goals. Next, the assessment of R2 indicated that when
controlling the aforementioned control variables, perception of SMN affordances
explains 45.3% of context-aware effective use, and also context-aware effective use
and social capital together explain 43.8% of collaborative learning goal achievement.

Figure 20 Context-Aware Structural Model Analysis

108 Chapter 5: Findings

 Examination of the effect size f2 indicated larger effect sizes from exogenous
constructs on respective endogenous constructs (refer to Table 33).

Table 33 Effect Size of Exogeneous Constructs in the Context-Aware Structural

Model
Construct Effect size f2
Perception of SMN Affordances>Context-Aware Effective Use 0.559
Context-Aware Effective Use>Collaborative Learning Goals Achievement 0.362
Social Capital>Collaborative Learning Goals Achievement 0.426

Finally, the analysis of predictive relevance further evidence that the (Q2 > 0)
model has predictive relevance for the endogenous constructs (refer to Table 34).

Table 34 Predictive Relevance of the Structural

Model-
Context-Aware Effective Use
Endogenous Variable Predictive Relevance (Q2)
Context-Aware Effective Use 0.366
Collaborative Learning Goals 0.337

The final step of analysing the structural model (per Hair et al., 2017), was the
examination of q2 effect sizes. q2 value is calculated based on the Q2 value for the
inclusion and exclusion of an endogenous variable for an exogenous variable. The
assessment of effect size of social capital and context-aware effective use on
collaborative learning goal achievement shows that social capital has a medium effect
size on collaborative learning goal achievement and context-aware effective use has a
low effect size (Table 35).

Table 35 q2 effect sizes – Context-Aware Effective Use Model

Collaborative Learning Goal Achievement

Context-Aware Effective Use 0.046

Social Capital 0.271

Reflecting on the moderating effect of social capital on the relationship between

perception and actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning, a two-
stage moderation effect analysis was performed. The two-stage approach has been
proposed to run a moderation when the exogeneous construct (i.e., actualization of
SMN affordances for collaborative learning) and/or moderating variable (i.e., social
capital) are measured formatively (Chin et al., 2003; Hair et al., 2017). Accordingly,
in the first step the model was analysed including all the formative first order
constructs together with their indicators, to extract the latent value scores for the

Chapter 5: Findings 109

second order constructs. In the second step, the interaction term (SC * AP) for social
capital moderation has been defined and analysed based on the latent value scores
recorded from the first step of the two-stage analysis.

All assessments in the two-stage approach for social capital moderating effect
were satisfactory including no collinearity issues reported (VIF<5, i.e., AP=1.083, SC
= 1.053, interaction term = 1.033). The primary interest in the result of moderation
analysis was the significance of the interaction term. Since the interaction term’s (SC*
AP) effect on the endogenous construct (i.e., context-aware effective use) is significant
(β=0.145*), it is concluded that level of social capital among the group members has
a moderating effect on the relationship between perception of SMN affordances for
collaborative learning and context-aware effective use.

Figure 21 (interaction term: SC* AP) further substantiates the significant

moderation effect of social capital on the relationship between perception of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning and context-aware effective use. In the chart, for
a higher level of social capital (+1SD above the mean) the slope of the relationship
between affordance perception and context-aware effective use is steeper than the
slope for low levels of social capital (-1SD below the mean). This indicates that the
social capital moderates the relationship between perception of SMN affordances for
collaborative learning and the context-aware effective use (H3). Nevertheless, in
addition to the moderating effect of social capital, results further indicated a significant
direct effect of social capital on the actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative
learning (β=0.246, p<0.05) (Figure 21).

Figure 21 Interaction Term for Moderation of Social Capital

110 Chapter 5: Findings

 To summarize, the structural model analysis results supported all the defined
hypotheses in the model for context-aware effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning (P<0.005) (Table 36). This verifies that the perception of SMN affordances
for collaborative learning positively influences the context-aware effective use which
in turn results in achieving collaborative learning goals. Results further show the
significance of social capital on changing the relationship between perception of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning and context-aware effective use and also on
achieving the collaborative learning goals. Findings from the interview data analysis
(Table 36) further substantiate the significance of these relationships. Interview
participants mentioned the relevance of perceiving and actualizing the SMN
affordances for collaborative learning and their level of social capital among group
members, to achieve the expected learning goals in collaborative learning.

Table 36 Summary of Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis Results Status Substantiated Interview Quote

H1: Users’ perception of β:0.485, Accepted “It was really just the ability to share
SMN affordances for a document between colleagues and
collaborative learning is P < 0.05 having it up in the cloud (affordance
positively associated with perception), ready for us to access
actualization of those and obviously using the document
affordances (effective use) editor to work on a document
for collaborative learning together (affordance actualization).”
tasks. (Participant 10)

Hypothesis 2: Actualization β:0.214, Accepted “Over the Messenger,…we can then

of SMN affordances for set up all the stuff for the rest of the
collaborative learning P < 0.05 week, the meetings, you know, what
(effective use) enhances the we need to do, send each other's
achievement of collaborative documents.
learning goals.
Otherwise, we'd have to pass around
USBs. It just really assisted in
making everything much smoother
and we had more time to actually
work on the assignment.”
(Participant 5)

Hypothesis 3: The greater β:0.163, Accepted “My role is the team lead. So, it sort
(lower) the strength of social of directs the way in which I use
capital among members in P < 0.05 these features as opposed to other
the group the greater (lower) people. Like encouraging people to
the relationship between do particular parts and helping with
perception of SMN stuff.” (Participant 12)
affordance for collaborative
learning and affordance
actualization (effective use)

Chapter 5: Findings 111

 of SMN for collaborative
learning.

Hypothesis 4: Social β:0.537, Accepted “If you don't have a common

capital among members in understanding, then you could be
the group is positively P < 0.05 moving in different directions. And
associated with achieving particularly for group assignments or
collaborative learning goals even if it was not even a group
in higher education. assignment, like the [other]
assignments, it keeps everyone
within the same ballpark. So, if I've
missed read, say the criteria or
something like that, then it assists me
in getting back on track.” (Participant
2)

5.5 QUANTITATIVE EXPLORATORY ANALYSES

The overarching goal of this research is to contextualize effective use of SMN

for achieving collaborative learning goals in higher education. Subsequent to
addressing the overarching goal, the study further extended the analysis to fulfil
several other research objectives as outlined in Table 37.

Table 37 Objectives of the Quantitative Exploratory Analyses

Analysis Objective
1. Context-Aware Effective Use Model
• Importance Performance Map To examine the relative importance and the
(IPMA) Analysis for Context- performance of the dimensions of context-aware
Aware Effective Use (Affordance effective use (affordances actualization) on
Actualization) collaborative learning goal achievement.
• Dimension Level Analysis To examine if dimension-level relationships were
present between perception of SMN affordances
and context-aware effective use.
• Mediation Analysis To examine,
1) if affordance perception affected collaborative
learning goals directly in addition to, or instead of,
affecting goal attainment through the mediator of
context-aware effective use (affordance
actualization), and
2) whether the direct effect of social capital on the
attainment of collaborative learning goals is
explained by context-aware effective use
(affordance actualization).
2. Context-Agnostic Effective Use Model
• Analysis of context-agnostic To compare theoretical perspectives of effective
effective use of SMN for use (i.e., the perspectives of affordance
collaborative learning actualization and representation theory).

112 Chapter 5: Findings

 • Mediation Analysis To examine,
1) if affordance perception affected collaborative
learning goal attainment directly in addition to, or
instead of, affecting goal attainment through the
mediator of context-agnostic effective use
(effective use of SMN), and
2) whether the direct effect of social capital on
collaborative learning goal attainment is
explained by context-agnostic effective use.
• Importance Performance Map To examine the dimension level impact of SMN
(IPMA) Analysis affordance perception and of context-agnostic
effective use on context-agnostic effective use and
on collaborative learning goals, respectively.
3. Analysis for Efficacy of Context-Agnostic Effective Use: Comparison of
Context-Aware and Context-Agnostic Effective Use

5.5.1 Importance Performance Map (IPMA) Analysis: Context-Aware

Effective Use Model

The goal of IPMA analysis is to identify predecessors that have relatively high
importance for a target construct (Hair et al., 2017). IPMA analysis is based on a
construct’s total effect value (i.e., importance) and the average latent value score (i.e.,
performance). Results of IPMA analysis help to understand which aspect of the
exogenous construct may need improvements to change the endogenous construct. An
IPMA analysis was performed for the context-aware effective use model to examine
the important dimensions of context-aware effective use in achieving the collaborative
learning goals. i.e., identifying which affordance actualization needs to be improved
to achieve the expected collaborative learning goals.

The IPMA matrix depicted in Figure 22 illustrates that actualization of

communication affordance is relatively high in importance (and in performance as
well) for achieving collaborative learning goals. Actualization of content sharing, and
collaboration affordances also shows a significant importance in achieving
collaborative learning goals. All of these three affordance actualizations
(communication, collaboration, and content sharing) also illustrate a higher
performance level as well. Nevertheless, self-presentation affordance actualization is
the lowest importance construct for the achievement of collaborative learning goals
and is lowest in performance level as well.

Chapter 5: Findings 113

 Figure 22 Importance Performance Matrix Analysis for Context-Aware Effective Use
Dimensions and Collaborative Learning Goals

5.5.2 Dimension Level Analysis: Perception of SMN Affordances and Context-

Aware Effective Use

The purpose of dimension level analysis is to examine if there are any dimension
level relationships present between perception of SMN affordances and the context-
aware effective use. The analysis decomposes affordance perception and context-
aware effective use (SMN affordance actualization) into their dimensions (refer Table
38). Results indicate that communication affordance only influences the actualisation
of that affordance. Nonetheless, collaboration affordance influences actualizing the
communication and content sharing affordances in addition to actualizing the same
affordance (i.e., collaboration actualization). Similarly, self-presentation affordance
also influences the actualization of collaboration and communication affordances in
addition to actualizing self-presentation affordance.

Dimension level analysis was further extended to explore the potential

relationships between the dimension of affordance actualization and the collaborative
learning goal achievement. Initially results illustrated one significant relationship
between communication affordance actualization and the collaborative learning goal
achievement (Figure 23).

114 Chapter 5: Findings

 Table 38 Results for Dimension Level Analysis: Perception of SMN Affordances and Context-
Aware Effective Use
Construct AACL AACM AACS AASP
APCL β: 0.343*, p < 0.05 β: 0.0273*, p < 0.05 β: 0.231*, p < 0.05 β: 0.090, p > 0.05
APCM β: 0.100, p > 0.05 β: 0.326*, p < 0.05 β: 0.049, p > 0.05 β: -0.021, p > 0.05
APCS β: -0.014, p <0.05 β: 0.031, p > 0.05 β: 0.336*, p <0.05 β: 0.072, p > 0.05
APSP β: 0.156, p > 0.05 β: 0.015, p > 0.05 β: -0.018, p > 0.05 β: 0.372*, p < 0.05
CLG β: 0.117, p > 0.05 β: 0.214, p < 0.05 β: 0.152, p > 0.05 β: 0.082, p > 0.05
AP-Affordance Perception / AA-Affordance Actualization / CL-Collaboration / CM-Communication
CS-Content Sharing / SP-Self-Presentation / CLG – Collaborative Learning Goals
* Shaded cells present the significant results

Figure 23 Analysis of Dimensions of Context-Aware Effective Use and

Collaborative Learning Goal Achievement

Reflecting on the results of IPMA - the importance - performance map analysis,

it is acknowledged that both content sharing and collaboration affordance actualization
also play an important role contributing to the learning goal achievement. Therefore,
the structural model analysis was re-performed in the absence of the communication
affordance actualization dimension. In this step of the analysis, results indicated
significant relationships between actualization of collaboration and content sharing
affordances and collaborative learning goal achievement (collaboration β= 0.183,
p<0.05, content sharing β=0.230, p<0.05). However, the relationship between self-
presentation affordance actualization and the collaborative learning goal achievement
remained insignificant in the analysis (β=0.102, p>0.05). This suggests that parts of
the variance explained by communication affordance actualization might be explained
by the variations of content sharing and collaboration affordance actualizations.

5.5.3 Mediation Analysis: Context-Aware Effective Use Model

Results of mediation analysis (refer to Table 39) indicated significant direct

effects of both social capital and perception of SMN affordances on collaborative
learning goal achievement. However, as per the indirect effect analysis, only
perception of SMN affordances indicated a significant influence on learning goal

Chapter 5: Findings 115

achievement through the context-aware effective use (actualization of SMN
affordances). Nevertheless, results re-confirmed the direct effect of social capital on
attaining collaborative learning goals as previously depicted in the structural model
analysis section (5.4).

As per the guidelines specified by Hair et al. (2017), the model needs to
demonstrate a significant indirect effect to conclude a mediation effect. This can be
partial mediation (both direct and indirect effects are significant) or a full mediation
(only indirect effect is significant). It is concluded that context-aware effective use
partially mediates the relationship between perception of SMN affordances and
collaborative learning goal achievement. Calculation of the product of the direct and
indirect effect of perception of SMN affordances (0.594 * 0.277 = 0.165) further
concludes that this mediation effect is a complementary partial mediation.

Table 39 Mediation Analysis Context-Aware Effective Use Model

Direct Effect Indirect effect
Mediation
Relationship Path 95% CI Sig. Path 95% Sig. Effect
weight (p<0.05) weight CI (p<0.05)

0.594 [-.0.118, Yes 0.277 [0.143, Yes Partial Mediation

AP > CLG
0.314] 0.443] (Complementary)
0.483 [0.157, Yes 0.114 [0.008, No No Mediation
SC > CLG
0.707] 0.275] (Direct Only)
AP-Affordance Perception/ SC-Social Capital/ CLG – Collaborative Learning Goals

5.5.4 Analysis of Context-Agnostic Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative

Learning

In the exploratory analysis, the utility of the context-agnostic perspective of

effective use is examined. Context-agnostic effective use is derived from the theory
of effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) which is based on the representation
theory perspective (Wand & Weber, 1990). There are three dimensions for context-
agnostic effective use: transparent interaction (TI), representation fidelity (RF), and
informed action (IA). These dimensions measure three different facets of the context-
agnostic effective use. Interview quotes in the Table 40 substantiate the dimensions
for context-agnostic effective use.

116 Chapter 5: Findings

 Table 40 Interview Quotes for the Dimensions of Context-Agnostic Effective Use
Dimension Quote
Transparent Interaction “The Facebook one, you know all the information is there, but
it's easy to view and stuff. Also, it was much easier to connect.”
(Participant 5)
Representation Fidelity “We used the chat feature in Zoom to share links with each
other. We actually recorded our sessions as well so that we
could go back.” (Participant 11)
Informed Action “You can upload the files so people can view them themselves.
That way they can have a look at it, make their decisions or take
notes on what they think could be improved” (Participant 2)

5.5.4.1 Measurement Model Analysis: Context-Agnostic Effective Use

Three dimensions of context-agnostic effective use are reflectively measured by

their own set of items (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Therefore, context-agnostic
effective use is identified as a first order reflective – second order formative construct.
Hair et al’s (2017) guidelines for measurement model assessments have been
performed to assess both reflective and formative measurement models of context-
agnostic effective use. All the reflective measurement model assessments satisfied the
recommended threshold value suggesting the accepted evaluation of the model (refer
to Table 41). Evaluations of the formative measurement model (Figure 24) resulted in
satisfied collinearity values (VIF< 5), i.e., TI=1.493, RF=1.351, and IA=1.488,
suggesting no collinearity issues, and significant outer weights of all the constructs
suggesting satisfied indicator relevancy. However, convergent validity criteria were
not satisfied since the path coefficient between context-aware effective use and its
equivalent global item was not higher than 0.7 (0.471) (per Hair et al., 2017).

Table 41 Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model of Context-Agnostic

Effective Use
Indica Internal Consistency Convergent Discriminant
tor Reliability Validity Validity
Relia
Indicators
Construct

bility
Outer Composite Cronbach’s AVE HTMT HTMT
Loadi Reliability Alpha >0.5 <0.85 Confidence
ngs 0.6-0.9 0.6-0.9 interval
>0.7 does not
include 1
TI 1 0.861
TI TI 2 0.908 0.906 0.845 0.764 Yes
TI 3 0.851

Chapter 5: Findings 117

 RFO 1 0.753
RFO 2 0.834
RFO 3 0.746
RF 0.915 0.888 0.644 Yes
RFI 1 0.874
RFI 2 0.862
RFI 3 0.731
IA 1 0.875
IA IA 2 0.876 0.905 0.842 0.759 Yes
IA 3 0.863

Figure 24 Analysis of Formative Measurement Model of Context-Agnostic Effective

Use

5.5.4.2 Structural Model Analysis: Context-Agnostic Effective Use

The structural model of context-agnostic effective use is a higher-order model

which is first-order reflective and second-order formative in nature (refer to section
4.4.2.5). Since the structural model consists of formative higher-order constructs, an
embedded two-stage approach under mode B specifications was performed (as
discussed in section 5.4) (Hair et al., 2017). As per the structural model evaluation
process (Hair et al., 2017), the model was first evaluated for collinearity issues. All
inner VIF values are below the threshold of 5, thus collinearity among the constructs
is not a critical issue in the structural model (Hair et al., 2017; MacKenzie et al., 2011).

The structural model depicted in Context-Agnostic 25 illustrates significant

relationships between the perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning
and context-agnostic effective use (β=0.527, p<0.05) and between social capital and
collaborative learning goal achievement (β=0.587, p<0.05). This supports hypotheses
6 and 8. However, the results did not demonstrate significant outcomes for hypothesis
5 (i.e., the relationship between context-agnostic effective use and collaborative

118 Chapter 5: Findings

learning goal achievement) or for hypothesis 7 (i.e., moderating effect of social capital
on the relationship between perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning
and context-agnostic effective use). None of the control variables are significant in the
context-agnostic model. Assessment of R2 indicated 31.1% for context-agnostic
effective use and 40.8% for collaborative learning goal achievement.

Figure 25 Context-Agnostic Structural Model Analysis

According to the effect size f2 assessment, both perceptions of SMN affordances

and social capital represented a larger effect size on collaborative learning goals
achievement (refer to Table 42).

Table 42 Effect Size of Exogeneous Constructs in the Context-Agnostic Structural

Model
Exogenous Construct Effect size f2
Perception of SMN Affordances>Context-agnostic Effective Use 0.445
Context-agnostic Effective Use>Collaborative Learning Goal 0.053
Achievement
Social Capital>Collaborative Learning Goals Achievement 0.552

Finally, the analysis of predictive relevance further evidence that the (Q2 > 0)
model has predictive relevance for the endogenous constructs (refer to Table 43).

Table 43 Predictive Relevance of the Structural Model – Context-Agnostic Effective

Use
Endogenous Variable Predictive Relevance (Q2)
Context-Agnostic Effective Use 0.343
Collaborative Learning Goals 0.290

The final step in analysing the structural model (per Hair et al., 2017), was the
examination of q2 effect sizes. q2 value calculated based on the Q2 value for the
inclusion and exclusion of an endogenous variable for an exogenous variable. The
assessment of effect size of social capital and context-agnostic effective use on
collaborative learning goal achievement shows that social capital has a medium effect

Chapter 5: Findings 119

size on collaborative learning goal achievement, and context-agnostic effective use has
a low effect size (Table 44).

Table 44 q2 effect sizes Context-Agnostic Effective Use Model

Collaborative Learning Goal Achievement

Context-Agnostic Effective Use 0.046

Social Capital 0.271

5.5.5 Mediation Analysis: Context-Agnostic Effective Use Model

Since the results of context-agnostic structural model analysis only supported

hypotheses 6 and 8, the analysis was further extended to explore the insignificant
results for the relationship between context-agnostic effective use and collaborative
learning goal achievement. In doing so, the mediation effect of context-agnostic
effective use was assessed to understand the linear relationship between social capital,
context-agnostic effective use, and the collaborative learning goal achievement.
Mediation analysis (refer to Table 45) indicated that only the direct effect of social
capital on collaborative learning goals was significant and none of the indirect effects
of both variables were significant on collaborative learning goal achievement. Thus,
context-agnostic effective use does not mediate any of the relationships between the
perception of SMN affordances and social capital and the collaborative learning goal
attainment. However, similar to the context-aware effective use model, social capital
indicated a direct effect on the collaborative learning goal attainment.

Table 45 Mediation Analysis Context-Agnostic Effective Use Model

Direct Effect Indirect effect
Mediation
Relationship Path 95% CI Sig. Path 95% CI Sig.
Effect
weight (p<0.05) weight (p<0.05)

-0.003 [-.0.098, No 0.208 [-0.045, No No Mediation

AP > CLG
0.366] 0.262]
0.622 [0.363, Yes 0.390 [-0.002, No No Mediation
SC > CLG 0.731] 0.120] (Direct Effect
Only)

Results further indicated that neither is there a significant relationship between

social capital and the context-agnostic effective use. Therefore, the analysis was then
extended to test the relationship between context-agnostic effective use and
collaborative learning goal achievement in the absence of social capital identification
within the model. The structural model in Figure 26, shows the significant
relationships between context-agnostic effective use and collaborative learning goal
achievement (β=0.279, p<0.05) and between the perception of SMN affordances and

120 Chapter 5: Findings

 context-agnostic effective use (β=0.600, p<0.05) when the social capital was not
identified in the model. Results further supported all the other structural model
assessments for the model, i.e., zero collinearity issues (all inner and outer VIF values
are less than threshold value 5) and relevant effect size and predictive relevance in the
model with f2 and Q2 statistics.

Figure 26 Context-Agnostic Effective Use Structural Model in the Absence of Social

Capital

To summarize, context-agnostic structural model analysis supported hypotheses

6 and 8 when social capital was conceptualized in the model (Table 46). This verifies
the relevance of social capital for collaborative learning goals achievement and the
importance of perceiving SMN affordances for the effective use of SMN in a context-
agnostic perspective. In the extended analysis, results indicated that in the absence of
social capital, context-agnostic effective use was significantly related to the
collaborative learning goals achievement.

Table 46 Summary of Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis Results Status Substantiated Interview Quote

Hypothesis 5: Context- β:0.279, Accepted “Just when all three of us on the

Agnostic Effective use of assignment, and we're able to work
SMN systems enhances the P < 0.05 (in the on it without disrupting each other.
achievement of collaborative absence Yeah, that's pretty much it, when all
learning goals. of social of us three are on the document,
capital) instead of working separately and
we're able to edit the document and
without really disrupting each
other's work.” (Participant 10)

Hypothesis 6: Users’ β:0.479, Accepted “You can upload the files so people
perception of SMN can view them themselves. That
affordances for collaborative P < 0.05 way they can have a look at it, make
learning is positively their decisions or take notes on
associated with (context- what they think could be improved”
agnostic) effective use of (Participant 2)
SMN systems for
collaborative learning

Chapter 5: Findings 121

 Hypothesis 7: The greater β:-0.043, Rejected Contrary to the quantitative results,
(lower) the strength of social interview analyses revealed the
capital among members in P > 0.05 influence of social capital in
the group the greater (lower) students’ affordance perception and
the relationship between effective use of SMN (refer to
perception of SMN Table 36). However, in interviews
affordance for collaborative when describing the relationship
learning and (context- between effective use and social
agnostic) effective use of capital participants did so referring
SMN systems for to the broader effective use, rather
collaborative learning than specific dimensions present in
the context-agnostic model.

Hypothesis 8: Social β:0.626, Accepted “If you don't have a common

capital among members in understanding, then you could be
the group is positively P < 0.05 moving in different directions. And
associated with achieving particularly for group assignments
collaborative learning goals or even if it was not even a group
in higher education. assignment, like the [other]
assignments, it keeps everyone
within the same ballpark. So if I've
missed read, say the criteria or
something like that, then it assists
me in getting back on track.”
(Participant 2)

5.5.6 Importance Performance Map Analysis (IPMA): Context-Agnostic

Effective Use Model

IPMA analysis for the context-agnostic effective use model was performed to
examine the important dimensions of context-agnostic effective use (i.e., transparent
interaction, representation fidelity, and informed action) in achieving the collaborative
learning goals. IPMA Figure 27) shows that transparent interaction has the highest
relative importance in achieving collaborative learning goals compared to other
context-agnostic effective use dimensions. This is followed by representation fidelity
showing a higher importance level but not the informed action on achieving
collaborative learning goals.

122 Chapter 5: Findings

Figure 27 Importance Performance Matrix Analysis for Context-Agnostic Effective Use
Dimensions and Collaborative Learning Goals

5.5.7 Efficacy of Context-Agnostic Effective Use: Comparing Context-Aware

and Context-Agnostic Effective Use

Figure 28 Analysis of the Efficacy of Context-Agnostic Effective Use

To more robustly compare multiple perspectives of effective use, the context-

aware and context-agnostic perspectives of effective use have been combined into a
single model (Per Eden et al., 2019). The structural model assessment (Figure 28)
demonstrated a significant relationship between context-aware effective use and
collaborative learning goal attainment (β:0.386, p<0.000). However, the relationship
between context-agnostic effective use and collaborative learning goal attainment is
insignificant (β:0.056, p>0.05). Overall, 17.8% (R2=0.178) of collaborative learning
goal attainment was explained by both context-aware and context-agnostic effective
use. Blindfolding analysis (Q2) evidenced the predictive relevance (Q2>0 for
endogenous constructs) of the model (i.e., Attainment of Collaborative Learning Goal

Chapter 5: Findings 123

Q2=0.158, Context-Aware Effective Use Q2=0.314 and Context-Agnostic Effective Use Q2 =
0.297).

5.6 QUALITATIVE EXPLORATORY ANALYSES

This section reports the insights from the inductive analysis of qualitative
interview data, after the overarching goal of the data analysis. The model depicted in
Figure 29 shows the findings of the inductive analysis of interview data.

Figure 29 Results of the Inductive Analysis of Interview Data

Green coloured: proposed antecedents for effective use and collaborative learning goals constructs
Orange coloured: proposed new relationship between the existing constructs

In addition to the perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning,

inductive analysis of qualitative data identified that several additional factors could
have an influence on the effective use of SMN. These are the nature of the task, ease
of use of the system, and system capabilities. Individual motivation is also identified
as an influencing factor for collaborative learning goal achievement. Finally, inductive
analysis insights further highlighted that effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning can influence improving social capital among the group members. Table 47
further explains these with example quotes from the interview data.

124 Chapter 5: Findings

 Table 47 Interview Quotes for the Findings of Inductive Analysis of Qualitative Data
Construct Definition Relationship Quote
Task Nature Different types of content that are Task Nature > Effective Use “I'm also studying [different course unit]. So, the way social media
defined in the assignment of SMN is used in those sorts of assignments is vastly different. There is a
requirements. higher level of discussion and development and sharing with
e.g., Report generation. Presentation, images and video and a lot more visual content parts between the
System prototype design message platforms. As opposed to this one, where the social
platform is to collaborate in developing the report … It's quite
different.” (Participant 12)
System What facilities, features. and System capabilities > “But there were restrictions to me because only four people can
Capabilities limitations relevant to collaborative Effective Use of SMN have on a group video call. but it was okay cause only four members
(e.g., System learning are embedded in the system were there. But if it was like five it would be a hassle.” (Participant
Quality/ Fit design. 13)
for purpose)
Ease of Use The extent to which the user can learn Easiness > Effective Use of “I would say it's not really affecting the way we use the system, the
the use of the system in a minimum of SMN only thing that's sort of change is one of the members never used it
learning time. before. So, he's sort of learning on the go, which causes it's quite a
simple system, he's picked it up quite quickly.” (Participant 2)
“Facebook Messenger is number one. Everyone knows how to use
it. So, it's the easiest.” (Participant 7)
Social “Networks, norms, trust, and mutual Effective use of SMN > “Without the social media, you're relying on everyone's own
Capital understanding that bind together the Social Capital among the opinions, leading them in different directions. Whereby having the
group members and enable them to Group Members social media where you're able to keep everyone on, on the main,
act together more effectively to as the main track to finishing the project on time. If any issues come
pursue shared learning objectives” up, you communicate them early rather than finding out when it's
(Putnam, 1996, p. 3) too late.” (Participant 2)

Chapter 5: Findings 125

5.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter presented the results of the quantitative data analysis performed to
test the hypotheses developed together with the substantiated qualitative data analysis
results. For quantitative data analysis, structural equation modelling was performed
using SmartPLS, and for the qualitative data analysis, thematic analysis was conducted
using NVivo software. The quantitative data analysis was presented in the sequence of
data cleaning and transformation, measurement model analysis, structural model
analysis, and exploratory analyses. All the results of quantitative data analysis are
presented with the supportive interview data analysis results. The findings of the
inductive analysis of qualitative data have also been presented as a qualitative
exploratory analysis. During the stages of the data analysis presentation, the
hypotheses testing process has also been discussed in the chapter.

126 Chapter 5: Findings

Chapter 6: Discussion

The overarching objective of this research is to develop and validate a theoretical

model for effective use of SMN for collaborative learning in higher education, and as
such two research questions were identified: RQ1: How can ‘effective use’ be
contextualized for SMN in a collaborative learning context? RQ2: What are the
influencing factors and outcomes of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning? By
addressing these questions, this research explores the relevant theoretical underpinnings
for contextualizing effective use of SMN for collaborative learning context (RQ1), and to
understand the broader nomological network of effective use of SMN by
understanding the relevant antecedents and consequence of effective use (RQ2).

The literature review identified contextualizing effective use across different

systems and settings as a clear research gap. This highlights the need for validating the
efficacy of the seminal conceptualization of the construct, and for empirical
assessment of the relationships of effective use. Accordingly, effective use can be
conceptualized in two ways: i) based on affordance theory for context-aware effective
use and ii) based on the representation theory for context-agnostic effective use (as
outlined in the theory of effective use). A structural model for effective use of SMN
for collaborative learning was developed proposing hypotheses between affordance
perception, social capital, effective use (context-aware and context-agnostic
perspectives) and collaborative learning goal achievement. Both qualitative (semi-
structured interviews) and quantitative (survey) methods were used to refine and
validate the structural model. This chapter seeks to further discuss the research
findings.

In doing so, the chapter first discusses the contextualization of effective use (i.e.,
context-aware perspective). This addresses the methodological contribution,
dimensions, and the importance of the contextualization. Secondly, context-agnostic
effective use is discussed followed by the efficacy of context-agnostic and context-
aware perspectives of effective use. Next, antecedents of effective use are outlined and
discussed including the relevance of social capital in the context, followed by a
summary of the key insights from this discussion.

Chapter 6: Discussion 127

6.1 EFFECTIVE USE OF SMN FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN
HIGHER EDUCATION

This research investigated the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning in
higher education from two theoretical perspectives: context-aware (drawing on
affordance theory) and context-agnostic (drawing on representation theory). This
section discusses the insights of each theoretical perspective.

6.1.1 Context-Aware Effective Use based on Affordance Theory

In line with the overarching objective, this research contextualized the effective
use of SMN for collaborative learning drawing on affordance theory. As such,
following the affordance actualization perspective, effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning has been conceptualized as the actualization of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning. The contextualization of effective use enriches
the effective use literature in terms of: (i) identifying context specific dimensions, (ii)
extending the methodology for how to contextualize effective use, and (iii) evaluating
the efficacy of context-agnostic and context-aware perspectives of effective use. The
following sections discuss each of these insights in relating to the effective use
contextualization of the study.

6.1.1.1 Context-Aware Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative Learning

The study used a mixed method research approach including both qualitative
interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate the context-aware perspective of
effective use. Insights from a systematic review of SMN affordance literature and the
preliminary interviews identified the affordances relevant to the effective use of SMN
for collaborative learning. Drawing on an affordance actualization perspective (per
Strong, Volkoff, et al., 2014) a distinction is made between affordance perception and
actualization. From affordance actualization perspective, an actualized version of the
relevant SMN affordances for collaborative learning has been identified as the
effective use of SMN. This represents different facets of effective use providing five
initial dimensions of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. These are
actualization of: (i) collaboration affordance, (ii) communication affordance, (iii)
content sharing affordance, (iv) self-presentation affordance, and (v) group
management affordance. An a priori model for effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning was proposed based on these dimensions. The first four dimensions (i.e., SMN

128 Chapter 6: Discussion

affordances for collaborative learning) were found to be relevant to the data set for
collaborative learning. However, refinement and assessment of the a priori model
based on the interview insights and survey analysis identified that the fifth dimensions
- group management affordance actualization - is not salient for effective use in the
context of SMN use for collaborative learning in higher education. As such, this
dimension was omitted from further analysis.

Group management as an SMN affordance refers to users perceiving that the

system affords them with the possibility to form groups and administer and manage
those groups (Karahanna et al., 2018). Past literature has evidenced the group
management affordance as important for the collaborative learning environment
(Kirschner et al., 2002), providing groups of users with functional building blocks
(Kietzmann et al., 2011) and to define roles and responsibilities for the organizing of
work (Mesgari & Faraj, 2012). As such, based on the literature review findings, this
research initially identified that group management is a required affordance for
collaborative learning since managing groups has been recognized as important for
collaborative learning environment (per Kirschner et al., 2002). This affordance has
been primarily derived from the ‘groups’ functional building block which can be seen
in SMN platforms (per Kietzmann et al., 2011). Scholars discussed the potential of the
group management affordance (Kietzmann et al., 2011) to form communities and sub
communities in the platform and to change the content and define how the work should
be organized (e.g., Mesgari & Faraj, 2012). The influence of this affordance on user
interactions in SMN platforms has been further identified in terms of its ability to
facilitate filtering the content and restricting the access to content for specific users
and (e.g., Kietzmann et al., 2011) for organizing people into group works.

The findings of this study indicated that the group management affordance was
not relevant in the context of SMN use for collaborative learning. There could be a
number of possible reasons for this, including the hybrid versus online learning modes
investigated and the set of affordances observed relevant to different learning modes.
The relatively small size of the groups (4-5 members) may be further relevant to this
finding. This is further supported by the students who participated in the interviews.
Participants mentioned this in their interview responses highlighting that the nature of
the roles and responsibilities that they are required to perform for collaborative

Chapter 6: Discussion 129

learning did not encourage the group management affordances to be leveraged or find
them important (e.g., Participant 9).

“We formed groups in like the first few weeks of the class. So, it was all “set”
(Participant 9)

“Because it was before COVID, so we meet up, and then we end up in the same
tutorials, so we decide to form a group. We made a Messenger group so we can
communicate afterwards” (Participant 15)

This is further substantiated since the potential of group management

affordances such as content filtering, access to past contents, activities and discussions
(Karahanna et al., 2018) has not been a challenge or required in the investigated
collaborative learning setting where interactions over the content were only required
by the members within the group. As such, whilst recognizing the importance of group
management affordance for collaborative works in broader communities over SMN
platforms (e.g., Harindranath et al., 2015) and also in organizational settings (e.g.,
Kietzmann et al., 2011), this research recognizes that it is less important when the
group formation is pre organized and changes of group members are not required in
online collaborative learning environments.

Thus, this research conceptualizes effective use in the context of SMN use for
collaborative learning as the actualization of SMN affordances and as a
multidimensional construct consisting of four core dimensions: actualization of (i)
collaboration affordance, (ii) communication affordance, (iii) content sharing
affordance, and (iv) self-presentation. Multi-dimensional constructs are appropriate in
this context, because as per Wright et al. (2012), when examining complex constructs
it is important to develop the measurement model and operationalise the construct
understanding of all the critical aspects of the construct. This is further relevant when
such a construct is central to the core focus of the research and represents a part of the
relationships being investigated. Being central to the focus of the research and
representing a complex nature of phenomenon, in this study, context-aware effective
use has been operationalized as a multidimensional construct which consists of the
aforementioned four main dimensions. These remaining dimensions of the context-
aware perspective of effective use were all statistically significant and therefore

130 Chapter 6: Discussion

combine to form a multidimensional construct indicative of effective use. The
multidimensional perspective is further appropriate (per Wright et al., 2012) as
effective use is a complex construct (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013), and multifaced
with four dimensions.

This study further identified the relative importance of each of the context-aware
effective use dimensions. The dimension level analysis of affordance actualization
(IPMA analysis, section 5.5.1) indicated that actualization of communication
affordances is the most important dimension in achieving collaborative learning goals
followed by the actualization of content sharing, and collaboration affordances. Whilst
the actualization of these three affordances shows a high-performance level, the self-
presentation affordance actualization is at the lowest level in terms of both importance
and the performance aspects on the attainment of collaborative learning goals. In
conjunction with the findings that group management was not salient for collaborative
learning using SMN, it could be concluded that affordances that are more appropriate
for individuals to complete their task -oriented purposes are seen to be more salient to
this setting.

This is further substantiated by the analysis for relationships between each

dimension of affordance actualization and the collaborative learning goal attainment
(section 5.5.2) which indicates that communication affordance actualization is the only
significant dimension (β=0.211*) for collaborative learning goal attainment (R2 =
0.183) in terms of individual influence as a dimension of affordance actualization. This
is consistent with the past literature which highlights the utmost importance of
communication for online collaboration (Staubitz et al., 2015). Moreover, the
actualization of all the relevant affordances (i.e., communication, collaboration,
content sharing, and self-presentation) have been recognized as important for online
collaboration. This is further relevant since effective communication has been
recognized as an enabler for the other relevant affordances in collaborative
environments.

Communication as a vital element for collaborative learning specifically in an

online environment has been addressed in previous studies (Vonderwell & Turner,
2005). As mentioned above, scholars have discussed that the learning process
fundamentally takes place through communication with others (e.g., Hiltz &

Chapter 6: Discussion 131

Benbunan-Fich, 1997; Robinson et al., 2017). In addition to confirming these existing
literature insights, the findings are further substantiated by the nature of the
collaborative learning tasks that students have been engaged in, in the investigated
cases. Particularly within the collaborative learning tasks investigated in the study,
students need to update each other about each step in the task progress. This requires
intensive communication among the members compared to the sharing of content for
the collaborative work. As such, this research proposes that for an improved
collaborative learning environment, using SMN to enhance the communication
between group needs to be prioritized. This supports previous research findings on the
positive influence of social media in enhancing communication in collaborative
groups (e.g., Krancher et al., 2019; Thompson & Ku, 2006). This is further relevant
since SMN is becoming a popular tool among the students for communication in their
collaborative learning tasks (Lam, 2015) which has been observed in the student
demographics in the investigated sample.

Higher education providers can use the insights from this context-aware
approach and the dimensions provides from the approach. It is important to make sure
that these SMN affordances are readily available with whatever tools they use for
improving collaborative learning. Literature on SMN use for education highlights the
importance of understanding and evaluating system affordances for studying the
educational use of SMN by students (Hemmi et al., 2009; Kirschner et al., 2004; Mao,
2014). To do so, scholars further highlight that identifying the relevant affordances for
social media from both student and teacher perspectives (Xue & Churchill, 2020) is
most important to support learning and teaching (Kirschner et al., 2002).

As such, investigating SMN affordances for collaborative learning from

students’ perspectives, this research contributes to the broader higher education
literature proposing that collaboration, communication, content sharing and self-
presentation are the pivotal affordances that need to be identified when designing and
using SMN systems for collaborative learning. The results of the data analysis strongly
support that it is important to identify these affordances where communication is the
most important followed by collaboration, content sharing and then self-presentation.
Therefore, it is important higher education providers prioritise their strategies in
collaborative learning to support students in terms of identifying relevant SMN
affordances in collaborative learning environments. Moreover, previous studies

132 Chapter 6: Discussion

discuss how features of SMN enable the affordances that the application can offer
(Karahanna et al., 2018). As such, when creating and designing SMN to facilitate
collaborative learning in higher education it is also important to make available system
features that enable users to perceive these affordances when interacting with the
system. For example, Karahanna et al. (2018) suggests that chatting via personal
messages, sharing links over the platform, and creating and updating profiles are some
of the features that could be made available in SMN to enable the affordances relevant
to collaborative learning. As such, regarding the SMN features, future design science
research can further examine the results of this study to identify the guidelines for
developing effective SMN features to enable the core affordances identified here to
enhance the attainment of collaborative learning goals.

6.1.1.2 Effective Use Contextualization: Methodological Contribution

This research draws on both the seminal theory of effective use (Burton-Jones
& Grange, 2013) and adapt the affordance theory-based approach (Burton-Jones &
Volkoff, 2017) to investigate the effective use of systems. Examining the context
specific effective use in the context of SMN use for collaborative learning, this
research extends Burton-Jones & Volkoff’s (2017) affordance-based approach to
contextualize effective use. In their approach, Burton-Jones & Volkof (2017)
investigated the network of affordances and the affordance actualization process,
relying on dimensions grounded in qualitative data. This research extends their
approach by applying a mixed method research approach commencing with a
systematic review to identify relevant SMN affordances for a collaborative learning
environment, followed by conducting semi-structured interviews and a survey (Figure
2). As such the research extends the existing knowledge of the applicability of research
methods by providing insights into how to apply the mixed-method research design to
contextualize effective use.

In their study, Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) attempted to uncover the

analysis affordance network and affordance actualization using grounded methods. In
this study the first task was to identify the relevant SMN affordances for collaborative
learning. As such, this study in contrast to Burton-Jones and Volkoff (2017) first
systematically reviewed the SMN affordance literature to identify the relevant SMN
affordances for collaborative learning. The insights of the systematic literature review

Chapter 6: Discussion 133

were used to propose a priori model for effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning. The development of a priori model identified four main variables relevant to
the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. These are i) perception of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning, ii) effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning, iii) social capital, and iv) collaborative learning goal achievement.

Next, in a mixed method research approach the concurrent analysis of both semi
structured interviews and a survey analysis refined a priori model. This is further
contrast to Burton-Jones and Volkoff’s (2017) study in which interviews, focus
groups, shadowing, and document analysis were applied in a field research. Results of
the interview data in this study were important to explore the SMN affordances and
the user behaviour in actualizing those affordances for learning goal attainment.
Moreover, the survey analysis of this study evidenced the validation of proposed
conceptual model for effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. The refinement
of the priori model was achieved through several iterations by analysing extended
interviews and assessing quantitative survey data in three data collection rounds which
resulted in the validation of the contextualized model for effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning. This strengthen the analysis of the context being studied (i.e.,
SMN use for collaborative learning) which provided a robust recognition of context-
specific factors relevant to the effective use in the context. Further, use of survey
methods in a mixed-method research design enabled the test of validation of the
identified conceptual model of context-aware effective use. The validated model for
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning shows that the actualization of the
relevant SMN affordances can execute the effective use of SMN enabling users to
reach the desired collaborative learning goal attainment.

Moreover, linking to the Burton-Jones & Volkoff’s (2017) study, this study first
identified the nature of the SMN and its affordances, and students’ desired goals and
potential actions in a collaborative learning environment. Then the study investigated
the literature and through a data analysis process (both qualitative and quantitative) it
identified the dimensions of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. However,
this study has not mapped out the network of affordances and connections and
feedback loops among the outcomes (per Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017); in contrast
this study examined how the actualization of relevant SMN affordances would lead to
achieving the expected collaborative learning goals. The outcome of this study as such,

134 Chapter 6: Discussion

is a validated model for effective use of SMN for collaborative learning (refer to Figure
30).

Figure 30 Methodological Viewpoint of Effective Use Contextualization

In summary, by adapting and improving Burton-Jones & Volkoff’s (2017)

approach this research contributes to the broader effective use literature by providing
a rigorous approach to contextualize effective use particularly in the SMN context.
This will help future researchers to extend examinations of context specific effective
use, through developing this approach to contextualize effective use. Moreover,
empirical research that quantitatively assesses effective use is limited in IS research
(exceptions include Choi & Tulu 2017; Eden 2019; Jia et al. 2019), and to the best of
the author’s knowledge no studies have quantitatively assessed the affordance
actualization perspective (e.g., Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017). As such, by
recognizing the necessity of applying a mixed method research approach, this research
empirically validates and extends Burton-Jones & Volkoff’s (2017) affordance-based
approach for contextualizing effective use. In doing so, this research has demonstrated
that understanding how users perceive and actualize system affordances for attaining
desired goals is important to understand the context-aware effective use. This study
suggests to future researchers investigating effective use of certain systems in certain
contexts, to apply the context-aware approach used in the study.

6.1.2 Context-Agnostic Effective Use of SMN for Collaborative Learning

This section describes the context-agnostic perspective of effective use in

isolation of context-aware perspective of effective use. From the context-agnostic
perspective which is based on the representation theory, a user must be able to use the
hardware (physical structure) to interact unimpededly with the interface (surface
structure) and determine the fallibility of the representations they leverage (deep
structure) to make informed actions (Eden et al., 2018). Accordingly, an extended
analysis examined the standard dimensions of effective use provided by theory of

Chapter 6: Discussion 135

effective use to assess the relationships between context-agnostic effective use and
collaborative learning goal attainment. Both interview insights (Table 4, section 5.5.4)
and the quantitative measurement model analysis (see section 5.5.4.1) demonstrated
the relevance of the context-agnostic effective use dimensions (see Figure 24, section
5.5.4.1).

However, when investigated in the theorized nomological network, context-

agnostic effective use has an insignificant effect on the collaborative learning goal
attainment in the presence of social capital. As Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) note,
many factors can influence goal attainment apart from effective use and this research
identifies social capital as one such construct in this context. When proposing the a
priori model, this research recognized how social capital among the students
encourages the efficient use of systems (per Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013; Pan et al.,
2017). However, in the structural model it was hypothesised that social capital
moderates the relationship between user perception of SMN affordances for
collaborative learning and their effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.
Nonetheless, as per the survey analysis. this moderating relationship has not been
demonstrated as a valid relationship from the context-agnostic effective use
perspective. A potential reason for this may be the prominent role of social capital on
the attainment of learning benefit which affects the relationship between context
agnostic and collaborative learning goal achievement is to be insignificant.

6.1.2.1 Dimensions of Context-Agnostic Effective Use for Collaborative

Learning

To further examine the dimensions of context-agnostic effective use, an

extended quantitative analysis has been performed to understand the relative
importance of all these dimensions (i.e., transparent interaction, representation fidelity,
and informed action) on the collaborative learning goal attainment. The analysis
evidenced that both representation fidelity and transparent interaction are highly
important dimensions followed by the informed action dimensions (see section 5.5.6)
for achieving collaborative learning goals. Representation fidelity is the extent to
which a user is obtaining representations that faithfully reflect the domain that the
system represents (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Therefore, this research argues that
though the SMN are not primarily designed for learning purposes, when users share
and communicate accurate, correct, clear and meaningful information, appropriate

136 Chapter 6: Discussion

representations can form which impacts successful achievement of the desired goals.
Given, the users’ ability to share and communicate enabled by their actualizations of
related SMN affordances, the aforementioned argument opens up further research
ideas regarding investigating how context-aware and context-agnostic effective use
can be implemented or executed together over SMN to facilitate learning
environments.

Results further found that transparent interaction is also a highly important

dimension of context-agnostic effective use for attaining collaborative learning goals.
Transparent interaction demonstrates to what extent a user can access system
representations unimpeded by its surface and physical structure (Burton-Jones &
Grange, 2013). Students in the investigated population largely used their smart phones
which provide relatively simple interaction to access SMN. The participant sample of
the study were predominantly digital natives who have grown up with an extensive use
of social media for social interactions. Easiness and the efficiency of using mobile
phones for education in terms of information searching and engaging with others have
also been discussed in previous studies (Chipps et al., 2015; Gikas & Grant, 2013).
Particularly, users have recognized the availability of functions such a voice, text,
email, and other tools have made the mobile devices easy to use for the activities of
searching for information and engaging with peers. Therefore, it is observed that the
students’ higher use of smart phones to access SMN may have influenced transparent
interaction being the most important dimension for attaining collaborative learning
goals. This provides insights for higher education providers to recognize the design
features and the functions that cater to mobile interfaces when developing SMN
systems for facilitating collaborative learning.

6.1.2.2 Insights of Context-Agnostic Effective Use of SMN in terms of the nature

of information systems

Findings relating to the dimensions of context-agnostic effective use and the

learning goal attainment provide further important insights into the information
systems literature in terms of how the nature of different information systems relate to
the effective use of the system. According to the representation theory (Wand &
Weber, 1990) (on which the theory of effective use is based), information systems
consist of three structures: deep structure (specification of the domain offered by the
information system), surface structure (facilities allow users to access and interact

Chapter 6: Discussion 137

with the representations) and physical structure (machinery that support the other
structures). When proposing the theory of effective use, (Burton-Jones & Grange,
2013) assume that representations of a system are accessed through a system’s surface
and physical structures, and more faithful representations are desired, in which the
faithfulness is dependent on the underlying deep structure of the system.

Findings discussed in section 6.1.2.1 indicate that both representation fidelity

and transparent interaction are highly important dimensions of context-agnostic
effective use of SMN, followed by the informed action. This finding is further
substantiated by Burton-Jones, Bremhorst, et al. (2017) who evidenced that
representation fidelity and transparent interaction are the key dimensions of effective
use of social media tools in the context of disaster management. Representation fidelity
is defined in terms of what users obtain from the system when using it, which involves
the deep structure of the system (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Though the key idea
of the deep structure is that it conveys the meaning of the representation of the system
(Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013), compared to general information systems, SMN does
not provide an originally designed deep structure to facilitate the meanings of
collaborative learning. However, Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) further explain that
the relevant deep structure in any instance of use is that which the user leverages when
they use the system for given task. Given this, users are able to effectively use SMN
for facilitating collaborative learning task in so far as they leverage the SMN
capabilities to perform the required collaborative learning task, and so far as the
information they input into the system and take out from the system is correct,
meaningful, and accurate.

This is particularly relevant to the context of SMN which are not originally
designed for certain tasks that they are being used for. As such, the establishment of
the deep structure of the system to provide faithful representations seems not critical
in the SMN context where users are still able to access faithful representations if they
leverage the system capabilities with correct content. Therefore, relevant to the nature
of SMN, strong surface and physical structure facilitating the transparent interaction,
and the user’s ability to leverage the system to perform the given task establish the
benefit attainment through effective use despite the system not providing meaning of
a real-world domain through its deep structure.

138 Chapter 6: Discussion

6.1.3 Examination of the Efficacy of Context-Agnostic and Context-Aware
Perspectives of Effective Use

To examine the efficacy of both perspectives of effective use, two additional

exploratory analyses have been performed: (i) comparing each perspective (context-
agnostic and context-aware) of effective use with extent of use of SMN for
collaborative learning, and (ii) comparing context-agnostic effective use with context-
aware effective use of SMN for collaborative learning (see section 5.5.7). To facilitate
this, comparison of social capital was omitted from the analysis.

6.1.3.1 Comparison between the Context-Aware and Context-Agnostic

Perspectives of Effective Use with Extent of Use

The analysis for extent of use and the context-agnostic effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning indicates that context-agnostic-effective use is significant
influencer (β=0.430, p<0.05) for attaining collaborative learning goals whereas extent
of use is not a significant influencer to the goal attainment (β=-0.033, p>0.05) (Figure
32). However, it was indicated that the perception of SMN affordances for
collaborative learning is positively related with both extent of use and the context-
aware effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.

Figure 31 Comparison of Extent of Use and Context-Aware Effective Use

Similarly, the analysis for extent of use and context-aware effective use also
indicate that the extent of use is not a significant influencer (β=0.058, p>0.05) where
context-aware effective use is a positive influencer for goal attainment (β=0.267,
p<0.05) (Figure 33).

Chapter 6: Discussion 139

Figure 32 Comparison of Extent of Use and Context- Agnostic Effective Use

Comparing effective use with extent of use, data analysis revealed that effective
use is the use measure which enables goal attainment informing both the context-aware
and context-agnostic perspectives, which are valid conceptualizations in the context of
SMN use for collaborative learning. Both perspectives provide different insights into
the collaborative learning goal attainment. The context-aware perspective shows the
affordances that users need to perceive and actualize as such what affordances need to
be available when designing SMN systems for collaborative learning. On the other
hand, the context-agnostic perspective informs that users need to make sure how
faithful are the representations within the system and how to have an unimpeded access
to the system representations.

This shows that regardless of how much the system is being used, it should be
used effectively for the benefit attainment. This is substantiated by the previous
literature that discuss es that extent of use is a necessary but insufficient condition for
the benefit achievement (Seddon, 1997). This also informs the existing SMN for
learning literature which is largely limited to examining user attitudes and the extent
of use of SMN for learning (e.g., Alamri et al., 2020; Evans, 2014; Junco et al., 2013).
As illustrated in the analysis and the existing IS literature it is proposed that education
scholars need to pay attention to extending the research on effective use of SMN for
learning rather than only observing the extent of use of these systems. As such, this
research provides insights for higher education providers to focus on improving
students’ effective use of SMN for collaborative learning rather than how much or how
frequently they use SMN. More specifically, this will relate to instructors’ strategies
of observing student engagement in terms of their login attempts and so on, whereas
they need to observe how effectively the students use the system capabilities to
perform collaborative learning activities.

140 Chapter 6: Discussion

6.1.3.2 Comparison of Context-Agnostic and Context-Aware Perspective of
Effective Use

Addressing these insights of the statistical analysis, the analysis is further

extended to compare the context-agnostic perspective with the context-aware
perspective of effective use (Figure 34). Though the context-agnostic perspective of
effective use has been supported by the statistical analysis when in isolation, the
presence of context-aware effective use has made the relationships between context-
agnostic effective use and collaborative learning goal attainment insignificant (See
section 5.5.7). This contrasts with Eden et al. (2019) who found a context-agnostic
approach to measuring effective use was more efficacious than a context-driven
approach. One of the potential reasons for this contradiction would be how Eden et al.
(2019) operationalized the context-aware approach which is grounded in data rather
than being grounded in theory. It may be further related to the nature of the systems
investigated: Eden et al. (2019) explored electronic medical record systems, which are
designed to provide accurate and complete representations of a patient in line with the
representation theory perspective. Whereas in this study, the system under
investigation was SMN, which initially were designed primarily as communication
tools rather than as a dedicated tool to support collaborative learning. Therefore, the
fact that the system was not designed to provide an information repository that was a
complete and accurate representation of collaborative learning as assumed by the
representation theory perspective, might be a reason for this outcome. This suggests
that when studying and measuring effective use, we need to take into consideration the
nature of the system when determining the appropriate theoretical perspective to
employ. This substantiates calls to theorize the IT artifact when examining system use
(Burton-Jones and Straub 2006) and reinforces the need to deeply understand the
context in survey research (Johns 2006).

Figure 33 Comparison of Context-Agnostic and Context-Aware Effective Use

Chapter 6: Discussion 141

 Whilst the statistical data analysis provides the insights for the applicability of
both approaches, future research might need to further investigate the approaches for
improving effective use of SMN for collaborative learning with aspects of both the
affordance actualization perspective and the representation theory perspective.
Specifically, for an effective actualization of each of the relevant SMN affordances for
collaborative learning (collaboration, communication, content sharing and self-
presentation), it is important to maintain the transparent interaction, representation
fidelity and informed action within the systems. However, since this research has not
extended in depth investigations into this proposition, it is proposed as an important
avenue for future research.

The results of the data analysis also call for future research to examine the
efficacy of both perspectives of effective use with different systems in different
settings. This is because whether or not to contextualize effective use could be
dependent on the system types, in line with the contingency perspectives. For instance,
is the representation theory perspective of effective use more efficacious in traditional
organizational-wide systems, in which the fundamental data structure is designed to
represent a specific phenomenon? This will facilitate the identification of the boundary
conditions of the representation theory perspective of effective use. In a similar way
future research can explore the boundary conditions of an affordance theory
perspective of effective use.

6.2 ANTECEDENTS OF EFFECTIVE USE OF SMN FOR COLLABORATIVE

LEARNING

Investigating the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning from a

context-aware perspective, this research examined the nomological network of
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. This section discusses the research
findings about the antecedents of the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.

6.2.1 Perception of SMN affordances

Development of the conceptual model hypothesised that user perception of SMN

affordances for collaborative learning influences the effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning. Findings of the quantitative structural model analysis and the

142 Chapter 6: Discussion

qualitative data analysis showed that this is relevant to both context-aware and context-
agnostic perspectives.

In line with the quantitative analysis, the structural model analysis of context-
aware effective use (Section 5.4), showed a significant relationship between perception
of SMN affordances for collaborative learning and the actualization of those
affordances (β=0.496*). As such, the findings showed that it is important for users to
perceive the relevant SMN affordances for their effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning. This is further substantiated by the qualitative data analysis of the study,
where students highlight how the identification of SMN affordances was helpful for
them to initiate an action of collaborative learning (see Table 25, section 5.3.1). As
such, from a context-aware perspective, how users identify and perceive the relevant
SMN affordances (i.e., collaboration, communication, content sharing and self-
presentation) for collaborative learning is a positive influencer for enabling the
actualization of these affordances which is the effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning.

The value of perceiving relevant affordances in the goal attainment process

through affordance actualization has been addressed in previous studies. Specifically,
when users perceive the affordances this enables them to be aware of the system
potential which in turn helps for a more effective actualization of those relevant
affordances, as has been highlighted in previous studies (Bernhard et al., 2013; Lehrig
et al., 2017; Volkoff & Strong, 2017). Findings of this research also evidence the fact
that perceiving relevant affordances can lead to the actualization of those affordances
which in turn enhances the attainment of collaborative learning goal.

From a context-agnostic perspective, results of quantitative structural model

analysis (Section 5.5.4.2 and 5.5.5) showed a significant relationship between
perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning and context-agnostic
effective use (β=0.527*), of SMN for collaborative learning. This is a demonstration
of how users perceiving the relevant SMN affordances for collaborative learning can
positively influence how they understand and leverage the SMN representations for
facilitating collaborative learning to improve and attain the collaborative learning
goals (See Figure 25, section 5.5.4.2). Thus, understanding how users perceive
affordances in terms of the action possibilities the system provides is important in

Chapter 6: Discussion 143

improving the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning. This is substantiated
by Chen et al. (2016) who discuss that the perception of affordances enables users to
engage in purposeful actions.

Dimension level analysis (section 5.5.2) conducted as an exploratory analysis

found that users’ perception of collaboration affordance positively influences the
actualization of communication and content sharing affordance in addition to the
actualization of collaboration affordance. Dimension level analysis further found that
users’ perceptions that the system affords them with the ability to reveal their identity
(i.e., self-presentation) influences the actualization of collaboration affordance. This
supports prior literature which has recognized that self-presentation facilitates
collaboration amongst group members and assists them to maintain their relationships
and identify responsibilities in the group work (Mesgari & Faraj, 2012). Practically,
SMN that allows for sharing users’ personal information would be more effective for
collaborative learning in terms of enhancing communication and collaboration.

6.2.2 Social Capital among the Group Members

With the potential influence of generating social capital through social

interactions on user behaviour when using SMN for collaborative learning, this study
investigated the potential influence of social capital on the effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning. In doing so, this study investigated how students’ patterns of
connection with others, the type of relationship they have with others, and their shared
understanding in the collaborative learning environment influence the effective use of
SMN for collaborative learning. Specifically, this study identified the moderating
effect of social capital among the students on the relationship between perception of
SMN affordances for collaborative learning and the collaborative learning goal
attainment. The results of both quantitative and qualitative data analysis found that
students in this context represent the identified dimensions of social capital: structural
capital, relational capital and cognitive capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) (see
section 5.3.4).

As shown in Figure 18 and in Table 31 and 32 in chapter 5, all these dimensions

are significant as the facets of social capital. Accordingly, students show that their
patterns of connection, the type of the relationship with their peers in the group and
the shared understanding within the group can influence their user behaviour in SMN

144 Chapter 6: Discussion

use for collaborative learning. Analysis of the structural model of context-aware
effective use (Section 5.4) proved a significant moderating effect of social capital on
the relationship between perception of SMN use for collaborative learning and the
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning (affordance actualization) (β=0.150*).
This shows that generated social capital among the members in a group environment
affects how they perceive the SMN affordances for collaborative learning and
actualize these affordances for attaining collaborative learning goals.

Scholars have identified the influence of social forces on the affordance

actualization process which highlight the need to consider the effect of the presence of
other people on user behaviour when a group is using a same system (Bloomfield et
al., 2010; Volkoff & Strong, 2017). Reflecting on this, this research proposes that the
relationships users build, and the resources generated from the patterns and nature of
these relationships affect users to have similar understanding and/ or perceptions of
SMN affordances which in turn help them to actualize the affordances in a similar
way. Therefore, this research proposes that social capital dimensions are significant
possible influences on the effective use of systems specifically from an affordance
actualization perspective in a context of using SMN for collaborative learning.
However, future research may need to investigate the dimension level relationships
(i.e., structural, relational, and cognitive) with the affordance actualization process to
understand whether all aspects of the social capital are relevant to the affordance
actualization process.

Moreover, the direct influence of social capital among the students on the
collaborative learning goal attainment has also been examined in this research. The
statistical analysis (section 5.4 and section 5.5.4.2) showed that social capital among
the students is significantly related to the collaborative learning goal attainment
(β=0.529, p<0.05).

This is further subtantiated by the findings of the qualitative data analysis

(example below) in which students highlight how important it is to maintain a shared
understanding and other related social capital dimensions for the effective achievement
of collaborative learning goals.

Chapter 6: Discussion 145

 “If you don't have a common understanding, then you could be moving in
different directions. And particularly for group assignments or even if it was not even
a group assignment, like the [other] assignments, it keeps everyone within the same
ballpark. So if I've missed read, say the criteria or something like that, then it assists
me in getting back on track.” (Participant 2)

The impact of social capital on the goal attainment has been previously
recognized and has received a great deal of attention in IS research (Bhandar et al.,
2007; Lee et al., 2013). Particularily, social capital has been studied for its influential
role on students’ educational performances (e.g., Coleman, 1988; Sun, 1999),
students’ satisfaction (e.g., Lu et al., 2013) and for its positive effects on productivity
(e.g., Papa, 1990). Past studies have further discussed that social capital encourages
the development of norms, generalized trust, identity, and cohesion, which in turn can
enhance group effectiveness in achieving collective goals (Coleman, 1988; Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998). Statistical analysis in this study evidenced that the level of social
capital among the students in a collaborative group is highly important for their
achievement of the collaborative learning goals. Moreover, in line with the impact of
effective use on the goal attainment, Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) highlight that
many factors asides from effective use of systems, facilitate individuals to attain goals.
As such, this study also identified that individuals’ perceptions of social capital
amongst group members also influenced collaborative learning (i.e., H4 and H8
supported).

Statistical analysis further revealed structural capital is the least important social
capital dimension for learning goal attainment (section 5.3.4). This suggests having a
shared understanding (cognitive capital) and meaningful relationships (relational
capital) towards goal attainment is more important than the patterns of connections
(e.g., strong ties) students have in the group (structural capital). Strong ties and the
assets created through the relationships among the members in a group facilitate
knowledge sharing and access to resources by reducing the amount of time and
investment required to gather information (Geenhuizen, 2008; Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). On the other hand a lower level of social capital will create weak social ties,
low level of personal relationships and lack of a common understanding within the
group. For example, weak ties between group members have been found to impede
knowledge sharing (Geenhuizen, 2008) and reduce individual performance within the

146 Chapter 6: Discussion

group (Pil & Leana, 2009). Findings of the data analysis of this study also evidence
the positive influence of social capital among the students on their goal attainment in
collaborative learning environemnts. Therefore, it is important for higher education
providers to strengthen the strategies that enhance the interlationships among students
as such improves the level of social capital between them, and thus improving the
effectiveness of the collaborative learning environments.

6.2.3 Additional Antecedents from Qualitative Inductive Analysis

As described in section 5.6, this research conducted a qualitative exploratory

analysis of the qualitative interview data. Insights from this analysis identified three
additional antecedents of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning; task nature,
system capabilities, and ease of use (refer to Figure 29, chapter 5).

In terms of the task nature, students highlight those differences in the content
(e.g., report generation, presentation, system prototype design, etc) required in the
collaborative task can influence the way they use SMN for performing the
collaborative task. For example, students emphasise that the way they use SMN for a
collaborative work which requires an intense discussion and rich content sharing such
as prototype design is vastly different from work involving report generation
(Respondent 12). The influence of the nature of the task on the effective use of systems
has been discussed in previous studies. Specifically, scholars found that different
characteristics of the task and their level of complexity may influence the way users
use the system particularly because it requires users to have detailed knowledge of the
system to perform the specific task requirements (Lauterbach et al., 2014). As such,
investigating the influence of the nature of task on effective use is a potential future
research topic

Qualitative exploratory analysis further highlights that SMN capabilities in terms

of the features and limitations also influence the effective use of users for performing
collaborative learning tasks (Participant 13, refer to Table 47 in section 5.6). In the
system use literature, scholars have discussed that user behaviours are bounded by
artefact capabilities where functional attributes of the IS can determine what can and
cannot be done by users (Hartson, 2003; Wand & Weber, 1995). However, actors can
still perceive affordances in their interaction with system capabilities that have not
intentionally been designed for. The importance of capabilities for effective use has

Chapter 6: Discussion 147

been recognised in the literature (Marchand & Raymond, 2018) and is further
evidenced below:

“But there were restrictions to me because only four people can have on a group
video call. but it was okay cause only four members were there. But if it was like five
it would be a hassle.” (Participant 13)

Similar to system capabilities, insights from the qualitative data further inform
that ease of use of the system also plays a key role in the effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning. Some students have acknowledged that the amount of time they
have to spend to learn the system and how easy it is to learn and adapt the system will
affect the way they used it for performing required tasks. Specifically, participants
highlighted that when the SMN is simple to learn and when everyone knows how to
use it, it makes it easy for them to perform the required tasks in collaborative learning.

“I would say it's not really affecting the way we use the system, the only thing
that's sort of change is one of the members never used it before. So, he's sort of learning
on the go, which cause it's quite a simple system, he's picked it up quite quickly.”
(Participant 2)

Whilst the literature has not explicitly explained the relationship between ease
of use and the effective use of systems, it has been implied as a measure of system
quality (e.g., Eden, 2017). In addition, other researchers have used ease of use as a
measure of the transparent interaction dimension of effective use (e.g., Haake et al.,
2018; Marchand & Raymond, 2018). As such, together with the findings of this
research, future research may need to further explore the implications of ease of use
on the effective use of systems. This will include investigating the relationship
between ease of use and the effective use as an aggregate construct and as well as
between the individual dimensions of effective use both in context-agnostic and
context-aware perspectives.

To summarize, the findings of this research propose that the nature of the task,
system capabilities, which may include system quality aspects, and the ease of use of
the system would be possible influences on the effective use of the system which is
particularly relevant in the SMN context.

148 Chapter 6: Discussion

6.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY INSIGHTS FROM THE DISCUSSION

A number of key insights of the study have been discussed in this chapter.
Overall, this study extended the theory of effective use by examining a context-aware
approach, identifying relevant dimensions and measures for effective use and
additional antecedents, and validating an affordance actualization-based model for
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.

Firstly, the context-aware effective use approach based on the affordance theory
perspective (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017) (affordance actualization) has been
validated for contextualizing effective use, specifically for SMN in a collaborative
learning context. It is statistically evidenced that context-aware effective use is a
multidimensional construct consisting of collaboration affordance actualization,
communication affordance actualization, content sharing affordance actualization and
self-presentation affordance actualization. Context-aware effective use has been found
to explain 43% of collaborative learning goal attainment. I so doing, this study
represents one of the first studies to quantitatively assess effective use from a context-
aware perspective (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017).

Next, through an extended investigation of effective use drawing on

representation theory, this study further examined the efficacy of the seminal theory
of effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Research findings show that the
theory of effective use is also applicable for conceptualizing effective use in the
context of SMN use for collaborative learning although there were some limitations
surrounding the theorising of social capital. Findings further demonstrated that
representation fidelity is the most important dimension of context-agnostic effective
use in the collaborative learning goal attainment. As such this research proposes that
future research can extend the investigations to examine the possible factors that
influence the individual dimensions of context-agnostic effective use in attaining
collaborative learning goals, specifically in online and SMN use contexts. Moreover,
future research may also need to investigate how a context-agnostic perspective of
effective use (i.e., seminal theory of effective use) (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) can
be combined with a context-aware perspective of effective use (Burton-Jones &
Volkoff, 2017). This study also calls for research to examine the efficacy of both

Chapter 6: Discussion 149

perspectives of effective use (context-aware and context-agnostic) in different settings
with different systems.

Subsequent to the effective use contextualization, a number of preliminary

insights were also presented in terms of the nomological network of t effective use. As
such, research found that users’ perception of system (SMN) affordances is a
significant enabler for effective use both from the context-aware and the context-
agnostic perspective. From a context-aware perspective, the user’s perception of SMN
affordance was found to explain 45% of affordance actualization and from the context-
agnostic perspective, 31% of effective use. This opens important future research
avenues to further understand the role of affordances in the user’s ability to
unimpededly input and extract system representations and improve decision making.
In terms of the effective use facilitators, the study further found that social capital
among the users in a group environment can play an important role in the effective use
of the system.

Finally, the qualitative inductive analysis proposed that in addition to the user’s
perception of SMN for collaborative learning, the nature of the tasks, system
capabilities and the ease of use are possible enablers of effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning. The nature of the tasks and the system capabilities have been
discussed in the previous studies as the possible influences on effective use of systems
(e.g., Hartson, 2003; Lauterbach et al., 2014; Marchand & Raymond, 2018). However,
the ease of use has not been examined as an enabler to effective use but its implication
for effective use as an aspect of system quality has been recognized (e.g., Eden, 2017).
As such further research needs to examine the possible impact of these factors on the
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning and also to identify other additional
influencing factors. Particularly, research on affordance actualization can extend the
investigations to examine factors influencing effective actualization of SMN
affordances or system affordances across different contexts and the impact on the
benefit attainment. Learning and education research can extend further research to
understand how different learning tasks and other possible factors such as the nature
of the collaborative group (e.g., level of social capital) influence their effective use of
SMN or other collaborative systems for effective learning goal attainment.

150 Chapter 6: Discussion

Chapter 7: Conclusion

The introductory chapter highlighted the importance of the effective use in

attaining goals from information systems and that the education industry is struggling
to unleash the potential of SMN systems. The literature review presented in Chapter
2, identified that research on effective use is limited and largely limited to
organizational wide systems. This highlighted that further research is needed for the
investigation of context specific effective use across different systems and settings.
Recognizing this gap, this research aimed to contextualize effective use in the context
of SMN use for collaborative learning in higher education. As such, Chapter 3
proposed a conceptual model for effective use of SMN for collaborative learning by
drawing on affordance theory (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017), the theory of effective
use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013), and social capital theory (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). Specifically, the conceptual model identified relationships between user
perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning, effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning, social capital among the team members, and the collaborative
learning goal attainment.

A mixed method research approach was employed to investigate the conceptual

model developed in Chapter 3. As such, Chapter 4 explained the development of the
survey instrument and the identification of the interview protocol based on insights
from the preliminary literature review. Chapter 4 further explained the data collection
procedure used to investigate different learning modes (e.g., blended learning, and
online learning) in the collaborative learning in higher education. The results of the
qualitative and quantitative data analysis were presented in Chapter 5, and these are
further discussed in Chapter 6.

This chapter concludes the thesis by summarizing the findings pertaining to each
research question. The theoretical and practical contributions are then outlined,
followed by the limitations of the research and suggestions for future research
directions.

Chapter 7: Conclusion 151

7.1 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

Recognizing the limited knowledge on context specific effective use, this thesis
sought to contextualize effective use adapting and improving Burton-Jones &
Volkoff’s (2017) approach based on the affordance theory. As such, this research
intended to provide insights into two main research questions: (i) how can ‘effective
use’’ of social media networks for collaborative learning be contextualised? (ii) what
are the influencing factors and outcomes of effective use of social media networks for
collaborative learning?

In answering the first research question, this thesis examined two approaches to
conceptualize effective use: the context-aware perspective (Burton-Jones & Volkoff,
2017) and the context-agnostic perspective (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Context-
aware effective use is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of
four dimensions: actualization of collaboration affordance, actualization of
communication affordance, actualization of content sharing affordance and
actualization of self-presentation affordance. The conceptualization of the construct
was based on the affordance actualization perspectives which highlight that user need
to actualize relevant SMN affordances for goal attainment in collaborative learning.
As such, it is important for higher education students to leverage SMN affordances of
collaboration, communication, content sharing and self-presentation for achieving
their collaborative learning goals. e Context-agnostic effective use is conceptualized
as a multidimensional construct consisting of three dimensions as per the theory of
effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013): transparent interaction, representation
fidelity (both input and output) and informed action. As such, students need to leverage
the SMN representations for collaborative learning through an unimpeded access in
order to enhance their collaborative learning goals.

The purpose of the second research question was to examine the nomological
network of the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning, in terms of antecedents
and outcomes. Based on the theory of effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013),
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning was hypothesised to positively
influence the collaborative learning goal attainment. The results of the statistical
examination confirmed this hypothesis with 43.8% of the variance in context-aware
effective use explained by actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning

152 Chapter 7: Conclusion

together with the social capital among the students. Therefore, it was confirmed that
the context specific effective use of SMN for collaborative learning can be
contextualized as the actualization of SMN affordances for collaborative learning
which influence the collaborative learning goal attainment.

Moreover, adapting the context-aware perspective of effective use (Burton-

Jones & Volkoff, 2017) based on the affordance theory, user perception of SMN
affordances for collaborative learning was hypothesised to positively influence the
context specific effective use of SMN (affordance actualization) for collaborative
learning.

The thesis further hypothesised the role of social capital as an influence on the
effective use of SMN for collaborative learning as well. Results of the statistical
examination supported these hypotheses with 45.3% of the variance in context-aware
effective use explained by perception of SMN affordances for collaborative learning,
where the level of social capital among team members positively moderates the
relationship between user perception of affordances and the effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning. As such, the insights into the determinants of context-aware
effective use were provided. Statistical analysis further supported the hypothesis for
the direct effect of social capital on the collaborative learning goals attainment. As
such, this thesis empirically evidenced and extended the context-aware approach for
contextualizing effective use in the context of SMN use for collaborative learning. In
doing so, this thesis evidenced that perception of SMN affordances for collaborative
learning is an enabler together with the level of social capital among the team members
on effective use of SMN which enables collaborative learning goal attainment. Except
for the moderating effect of social capital, statistical analysis evidenced that user
perception of SMN affordances is a positive determinant of context-agnostic effective
use as well.

The qualitative data analysis conducted in this thesis further provides insight into
influencing factors and outcomes of effective use in the context of SMN use for
collaborative learning. As such, this research proposes that the nature of the task,
system capabilities and ease of use are potential influencing factors on effective use of
SMN for collaborative learning. Future research therefore needs to extend the
investigations into identifying the role of task nature, system capabilities and ease of

Chapter 7: Conclusion 153

use on the effective use of systems. In addition, based on the insights of the qualitative
data analysis, this research further proposes additional research areas, including (i) the
possible reverse relationship between effective use of SMN for collaborative learning
and social capital and (ii) the potential influence of individual user motivation on
collaborative learning goal attainment in addition to the effective use of SMN.

In summary, a total of 8 hypotheses were examined, of which seven were

supported, and one was rejected.

7.2 CONTRIBUTIONS

This thesis makes the following theoretical and practical constributions .

7.2.1 Theoretical Contributions

By contextualizing the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning, this

thesis contributes to the theory of effective use, the affordance actualization lens, and
learning in higher education. The theoretical contributions pertaining to effective use
are:

• The context-aware effective use of SMN use for collaborative learning was
conceptualized and operationalized as a multidimensional construct. In
doing so, user behaviour for actualizing the SMN affordances for
collaborative learning was explicitly considered. This informs the
identification of specific dimensions of context-aware effective use of SMN
for collaborative learning. (i.e., actualization of (i) collaboration affordance,
(ii) communication affordance, (iii) content sharing affordance, and (iv)
self-presentation affordance)

• Context specific factors relating to the enablers and consequences of

effective use have been examined, identifying user perception of relevant
affordances and social capital among the users as the facilitators of effective
use of SMN for collaborative learning. Qualitative insights were also
provided for possible antecedents of effective use in terms of the nature of
tasks, system capabilities and ease of use.

• The efficacy of the theory of effective use (context-agnostic effective use)

(Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) has been examined and shown that it is also

154 Chapter 7: Conclusion

 applicable to conceptualizing effective use of SMN for collaborative
learning. This informs research need for research on understanding the
efficacy of seminal theory of effective use across different settings and
systems, although the context-aware perspective provides more statistically
robust insights for conceptualizing effective use in the context SMN use for
collaborative learning.

• To contextualize effective use, this research adapts the dimensions of

effective use as per theory of effective use (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013)
and the measures for these dimensions (i.e., transparent interaction,
representation fidelity, and informed action) providing insights for effective
use in the context of SMN use for collaborative learning.

• Through adapting and improving Burton-Jones and Volkoff’s (2017)

approach this research contributes to the broader effective use literature by
providing a rigorous approach to contextualizing effective use, particularly
in the SMN context which will help future researchers to extend the
investigation of context specific effective use.

• To the best of the author’s knowledge this study was the first quantitative
examination of effective use from the affordance actualization perspective.
This addresses the current limitations of empirical research that
quantitatively assess effective use in IS research (exceptions include Choi
and Tulu 2017; Eden 2019; Jia et al. 2019).

• The identified user perception for relevant SMN affordances is a key

antecedent of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning from both the
affordance actualization perspective and the representation theory
perspectives.

In addition, several contributions were made to the affordance and learning literature
as follows:

• This thesis has demonstrated a methodological approach for how to

quantitatively assess the concept of affordance actualization to study
effective use, particularly in SMN contexts.

Chapter 7: Conclusion 155

 • The findings demonstrate the need to go beyond attitudes and extent of use
measures currently used in education literature for investigating SMN for
learning.

• Investigating user behaviour pertaining to the affordances was shown as

important when investigating the effective use of SMN systems. This is
further relevant to the collaborative learning perspectives as well,
particularly when investigating online collaboration through SMN systems.

• Perception of affordances was found to be important for the actualization of

the same affordances which result in enhancing the goal attainment. This
informs the literature that discusses how perceiving affordances make the
actualization more meaningful and effective (e.g., Bernhard et al., 2013;
Volkoff & Strong, 2017).

• The level of social capital among the users was found to be influential on
the affordance actualization process which enables users to better identify
the relevant affordances for a better actualization of those affordances.

• The findings showed that the research on SMN use for learning should focus
on user behaviour for effective use of the system instead of on the extent of
use of the systems.

7.2.2 Practical Contributions

The insights provided in this research are highly relevant to the higher education
sector.

• The context-aware approach developed in this study shows that higher education
providers need to consider what features afford users to attain the expected
collaborative learning goals. Therefore, higher education providers need to make
sure that the SMN features are readily available with tools which offer users the
affordances for collaborative learning (i.e., collaboration, communication, content
sharing and self-presentation). As such, there are two perspective that need to be
considered: (i) the SMN systems available must have the feature set that enables
students to perceive the aforementioned affordances, and (ii) students need to be

156 Chapter 7: Conclusion

 taught to identify that the systems afford the possibility to enable the actions they
require for collaborative learning tasks.

• Insights are provided for higher education providers to prioritise their strategies in
collaborative learning to support students in terms of identifying relevant SMN
affordances in collaborative learning environment. This informs the design and
creation of social media systems to facilitate collaborative learning in higher
education. It is also important to making available the system features that enable
these affordances (i.e., collaboration, communication, content sharing and self-
presentation). Another alternative way to address this is via the teaching staff’s
instructions through which they can help students to identify related affordances,
since perceiving the affordances is a requisite for actualizing those affordances to
perform the group-based tasks.

• Insights into context-agnostic effective use found that higher education providers
also need to prioritise their design strategies to enable unimpeded interaction to
SMN systems. For example, as evidenced in the research, it is important for higher
education providers to recognize the design features and the functions that strongly
cater to mobile interfaces when developing SMN systems for facilitating
collaborative learning, to facilitate effective interaction with the SMN systems.

• Findings from the data analysis on extent of use and effective use provide insights
for higher education providers to focus on improving students’ effective use of
SMN for collaborative learning, rather than how much or how frequently they use
SMN.

• It was evidenced that higher education providers need to strengthen the strategies
that enhance the intreactions among students for improving their level of social
capital which can result in enhancing the effectiveness of the collaborative learning
environment.

7.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study employed a field study research design embedded with both
qualitative and quantitative data, in a major university in Australia. The intended
population was well defined for the research design and the survey instrument was
provided only to the relevant respondents in the selected cases (course units) which

Chapter 7: Conclusion 157

were indicative of an undergraduate, blended, and online mode of learning. Whilst the
findings of the research provide insights for broader higher education sector, future
research should be conducted across different cohorts (post-graduate vs.
undergraduate), different units with different styles of assessment, and different
learning modes (hybrid vs. online).

In addition, within each case (i.e., course unit) data was collected and analysed
at an individual level at a single point in time, and therefore causality and multi-level
analysis implications cannot be demonstrated. This potentially limits the reflection of
some of the constructs investigated such as the level of social capital among the users.
As such, future research should collect longitudinal data and perform experimental
research to see how perceptions of affordances and their actualization change
overtime. This limitation also can be addressed by changing the research design
particularly around the data collection by extending the data collection into different
stages. For instance, distributing the survey at different times of the semester capturing
the different stages of the assignment progress would capture how the changes of level
of social capital among the students influence the effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning. Although there was substantial individual variation across all
the dimensions in this study as individual perceptions of each of the respective
constructs were captured, a multi-level analysis may reveal different insights. Thus,
future research is recommended to extend the investigation with the application of
multi-level analysis.

This research is scoped to investigate the use of SMN tools for collaborative
learning to understand students’ perception of collaborative learning goal attainment.
As such the investigation is limited to examine a single type of system (i.e., SMN), so
understanding the influences of other technologies on collaborative learning is out of
the scope in this research. Future research needs to extend the investigations of
effective use to explore the application of other types of technologies in collaborative
learning in higher education to compare the findings across different system settings,
for instance effective use of computer mediated collaborative learning.

The research is limited to students’ perceptions of learning goal attainment in

collaborative learning. However, past research has suggested that students have
difficulty in adequately perceiving learning goal attainment (Moos and Azevedo

158 Chapter 7: Conclusion

2008). Future research could extend the investigations by triangulating with other
sources of data, such as peer evaluations, assessor evaluations and assessment marks
to investigate the actual measures of learning outcomes. Notwithstanding, given the
importance of perceiving affordances on affordance actualization, future research
should seek to understand the antecedents of the perceptions of affordances for
collaborative learning.

Moreover, since examination of the antecedents of perception of the SMN

affordances was outside the research scope, future research should seek to understand
other antecedents that influence users’ perception of SMN affordances for
collaborative learning. In a collaborative learning context, social capital may prove
relevant (Jung et al. 2017). Additional research should be performed into identifying
what facilitates student’s perceiving affordances and what constrains them from
enacting affordances. Alternatively, Alternatively, qualitive researchers should
address the relationships between the different types of affordances actualization.
Considering that effective use can be influenced by the extent to which there is a fit
between the task and the system used (Eden et al., 2019; Goodhue & Thompson, 1995),
another plausible explanation could lie in the nature of the collaborative learning task
that students have to perform. More research is needed to test the relevance of
affordances and their actualization across different task types. This is further
substantiated by the insights from the qualitative data analysis which found the nature
of the task as a potential antecedent of effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.

Addressing the overarching objective of the study to contextualize effective use

of SMN for collaborative learning this research examined and extended the affordance
theory-based approach for effective use contextualization. In doing so, the research
further discussed the efficacy of both context-agnostic (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013)
and context-aware (Burton-Jones & Volkoff, 2017) perspectives of effective use in the
context of SMN use for collaborative learning. Whilst the statistical data analysis
provides insights into the applicability of both approaches, future research should
further investigate the approaches for improving effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning with both affordance actualization perspectives and the
representation theory perspectives aspects. Specifically, for an effective actualization
of each of the relevant SMN affordances for collaborative learning (collaboration,
communication, content sharing and self-presentation), it may be important to

Chapter 7: Conclusion 159

maintain the transparent interaction, representation fidelity, and informed action
within the systems.

The findings further call for future research to examine the efficacy of both
perspectives of effective use in different settings with different systems. For instance,
is the representation theory perspective of effective use more efficacious in traditional
organizational-wide systems, in which the fundamental data structure is designed to
represent a specific phenomenon? This will facilitate the identification of the boundary
conditions of the representation theory perspective of effective use. In a similar way
future research can explore the boundary conditions of the affordance theory
perspective.

Investigating the context specific factors for effective use of SMN for
collaborative learning, this research identified relevant SMN affordances that are
important for improving collaborative learning goal attainment. As such, this research
proposes that when creating and designing social media systems to facilitate
collaborative learning in higher education it is important to make available the system
features that enable these affordances to be perceived by users (i.e., collaboration,
communication, content sharing and self-presentation). Therefore, particularly with
regard to the SMN features, future design science research can further examine the
results of this study to identify the guidelines for developing SMN features to enable
the core affordances identified in the study for enhancing the attainment of
collaborative learning goals.

Further insights have been provided by the qualitative data analysis of the study
in terms of possible antecedents of the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning.
As such, the nature of the task, system capabilities and ease of use were found to be
influential on effective use particularly when using SMN to facilitate collaborative
learning. This research proposes that future research should examine the role of these
factors when investigating the adoption of SMN for learning purposes.

In summary, this research contextualized, conceptualized, operationalized, and

validated the effective use of SMN for collaborative learning which is increasingly
significant in higher education.

160 Chapter 7: Conclusion

References

Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating Faculty Decisions to Adopt Web 2.0
Technologies: Theory and Empirical Tests. The Internet and Higher Education,
11(2), 71-80.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Marin, V. I., & Tur, G. (2018). A Model
of Factors Affecting Learning Performance through the Use of Social Media in
Malaysian Higher Education. Computers & Education, 121, 59-72.
Al-rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Musa, M. A. (2014). The Improvement of
Students' Academic Performance by Using Social Media through Collaborative
Learning in Malaysian Higher Education. Asian Social Science, 10(8), 210.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Zeki, A. M. (2017). A Model of Using Social Media for
Collaborative Learning to Enhance Learners’ Performance on Learning. Journal of
King Saud University-Computer Information Sciences, 29(4), 526-535.
Alamri, M. M., Almaiah, M. A., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2020). Social Media
Applications Affecting Students’ Academic Performance: A Model Developed for
Sustainability in Higher Education. Sustainability, 12(16), 6471.
Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical
Evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 159-174.
Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance.
First Monday, 13(3).
Ali-Hassan, H., Nevo, D., & Wade, M. (2015). Linking dimensions of social media
use to job performance: The role of social capital. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 24(2), 65-89.
Alqahtani, S., & Issa, T. (2018). Barriers to the Adoption of Social Networking Sites
in Saudi Arabia's Higher Education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(10-
11), 1072-1082.
Alter, S. (2014). Theory of Workarounds. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 34, 1041-1066.
Amin, A., & Rajadurai, J. (2018). The Conflict between Social Media and Higher
Education Institutions. Global Business and Management Research, 10(3), 499-
510.
Bagayogo, F. F., Lapointe, L., & Bassellier, G. (2014). Enhanced use of IT: A new
Perspective on Post-Adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
15(7), 361.
Baldwin, L. (2018). Editorial. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 189-195.
Bandara, W., Furtmueller, E., Gorbacheva, E., Miskon, S., & Beekhuyzen, J. (2015).
Achieving Rigor in Literature Reviews: Insights from Qualitative Data Analysis
and Tool-Support. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
37(1), 8.
Bandura, A. (1992). Social Cognitive Theory of Social Referencing. In S. Feinman
(Ed.), Social Referencing and the Social Construction of Reality in Infancy (pp.
175-208). Springer.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

References 159
Barrot, J. S. (2021). Social Media as a Language Learning Environment: a Systematic
Review of the Literature (2008-2019). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-
29.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey Response Rate Levels and Trends in
Organizational Research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139-1160.
Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., & Rossi, M. (2018). Design
Science Research Contributions: Finding a Balance between Artifact and Theory.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(5), 3.
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2007). Qualitative Analysis with NVivo (Vol. 28). London,
UK: Sage Publications.
Becker, J.-M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. J. L. r. p. (2012). Hierarchical Latent Variable
Models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative type Models.
45(5-6), 359-394.
Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., &
Pomerantz, J. (2018).
Bernard, K. J., & Dzandza, P. E. (2018). Effect of Social Media on Academic
Performance of Students in Ghanaian Universities: A Case Study of University of
Ghana, Legon.
Bernhard, E., Recker, J. C., & Burton-Jones, A. (2013). Understanding the
Actualization of Affordances: A Study in the Process Modeling Context. In
International Conference on Information Systems.
Bhandar, M., Pan, S. L., & Tan, B. C. (2007). Towards Understanding the Roles of
Social Capital in Knowledge Integration: A Case Study of a Collaborative
Information Systems Project. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science Technology, 58(2), 263-274.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding Information Systems Continuance: an
Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351-370.
Bloomfield, B. P., Latham, Y., & Vurdubakis, T. (2010). Bodies, Technologies and
Action Possibilities: When is an Affordance? Sociology, 44(3), 415-433.
Bonaretti, D., & Piccoli, G. (2018a). Digital Volunteers for Emergency Management:
Lessons from the 2016 Central Italy Earthquake. In Americas Conference on
Information Systems.
Bonaretti, D., & Piccoli, G. (2018b). Effective Use of Information Systems for
Emergency Management: A Representation Theory Perspective. In International
Conference on Information Systems.
Bonaretti, D., & Piccoli, G. (2019). Unifying Emergency Management Research
Program IS: A Representation Theory Perspective Effective Use in Chaotic
Environments. Louisiana State University.
Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using Online Social Networking for Teaching and Learning:
Facebook Use at the University of Cape.
Bower, M., & Sturman, D. (2015). What are the Educational Sffordances of Wearable
Technologies? Computers & Education, 88, 343-353.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Bozanta, A., & Mardikyan, S. (2017). The Effects of Social Media Use on
Collaborative Learning: A Case of Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 18(1), 96-110.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative
Research Interviewing (Vol. 3): Sage.

160 References
Brooks, S. (2015). Does Personal Social Media Usage Affect Efficiency and Well-
being? Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 26-37.
Brown, M., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Brook, D. C., Grajek, S., Alexander, B., . . .
Engelbert, N. (2020). 2020 Educause Horizon Report Teaching and Learning
Edition.
Brown, S. A. (2012). Seeing Web 2.0 in context: A Study of Academic Perceptions.
The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50-57.
Burke, M., Adamic, L., & Marciniak, K. (2013). Families on Facebook. In
Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (V.7).
Burt, R. S. (2000). The Network Structure of Social Capital. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423.
Burton-Jones, A., Bremhorst, M., Liu, F., & Trieu, V. H. (2017). IT use: Notes from a
Journey from Use to Effective Use. In R. Galliers & M.-K. Stein (Eds.), The
Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems: Routledge.
Burton-Jones, A., & Gallivan, M. J. (2007). Toward a Deeper Understanding of
System Usage in Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(4),
657-679.
Burton-Jones, A., & Grange, C. (2013). From Use to Effective Use: a Representation
Theory Perspective. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 632-658.
Burton-Jones, A., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., & Weber, R. (2017). Assessing
Representation Theory with a Framework for Pursuing Success and Failure. MIS
Quarterly, 41(4), 1307-1333.
Burton-Jones, A., Stein, M.-K., & Mishra, A. (2017). MISQ Research Curation on IS
Use Research Curation Team. MIS Quarterly Research Curations, 1(1), 1-24.
Burton-Jones, A., & Straub, D. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing System Usage: An
Approach and Empirical Test. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 228-246.
Burton-Jones, A., & Volkoff, O. (2017). How Can We Develop Contextualized
Theories of Effective Use? A Demonstration in the Context of Community-Care
Electronic Health Records. Information Systems Research, 28(3), 468-489.
Campbell, D. E., & Roberts, N. (2019). Effective use of Analytic DSS and Job
Performance: Looking beyond Technology Acceptance. Journal of Organizational
Computing and Electronic Commerce, 29(2), 125-138.
Cao, J., Basoglu, K. A., Sheng, H., & Lowry, P. B. (2015). A Systematic Review of
Social Networks Research in Information Systems: Building a Foundation for
Exciting Future Research. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems Journal, 36, 727-758.
Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S.-S. (2011). Social Capital and Individual Motivations on
Knowledge Sharing: Participant Involvement as a Moderator. Information and
Management, 48(1), 9-18.
Chang, K., Wong, J., Li, Y., Lin, Y., & Chen, H. (2011). External Social Capital and
Information Systems Development Team Flexibility. Information and Software
Technology, 53(6), 592-600.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through
Qualitative Analysis: Sage.
Chemero, A. (2003). An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Ecological Psychology,
15(2), 181-195.
Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A Paradigmatic and Methodological Examination
of Information Systems Research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal,
14(3), 197-235.

References 161
Chen, Y. V., Qian, Z. C., & Lei, W. T. (2016). Designing a Situational Awareness
Information Display: Adopting an Affordance-based Framework to Amplify User
Experience in Environmental Interaction Design. In Informatics (V.3, p.6):
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism.
Educational researcher, 21(6), 13-17.
Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of Adaptive
Structuration: The Development of a Scale to Measure Faithfulness of
Appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8(4), 342-367.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A Partial Least Squares Latent
Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a
Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study.
Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217.
Chipps, J., Pimmer, C., Brysiewicz, P., Walters, F., Linxen, S., Ndebele, T., &
Gröhbiel, U. (2015). Using Mobile Phones and Social Media to Facilitate Education
and Support for Rural-Based Midwives in South Africa. Curationis, 38(2), 1-8.
Chiu, C., Hsu, M., & Wang, E. (2006). Understanding Knowledge in Virtual
Communities: An Integration of Social Capital and Social Cognitive Theories.
Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Choi, W., & Tulu, B. (2017). Effective Use of User Interface and User Experience in
an mHealth Application. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-S120.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus
Reflective Measurement Models: Two Applications of Formative Measurement.
Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250-1262.
Córdoba, J.-R., Pilkington, A., & Bernroider, E. W. (2012). Information Systems as a
Discipline in the Making: Comparing EJIS and MISQ between 1995 and 2008.
European Journal of Information Systems, 21(5), 479-495.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, Conducting, Evaluating.
Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and Network Correlates of Individual
Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Work. Academy of Management Journal,
47(6), 928-937.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media
Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest
for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of
Information Systems Success: a Ten-year Update. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Demir, M. (2018). Developing a Scale for Using Facebook as a Learning Tool.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1457-1477.
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The Evolution of Research on
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In Technology-Enhanced Learning
(pp. 3-19): Springer.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Work Group Performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building On: New York: Free Press.
Dye, J. F., Schatz, I. M., Rosenberg, B. A., & Coleman, S. T. (2000). Constant
Comparison Method: A Kaleidoscope of Data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2), 1-9.

162 References
Eden, R., Akhlaghpour, S., Spee, P., Staib, A., Sullivan, C., & Burton-Jones, A.
(2018). Unpacking the Complexity of Consistency: Insights from a Grounded
Theory Study of the Effective Use of Electronic Medical Records. In Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Eden, R., Burton-Jones, A., & Donovan, R. (2019). Testing the Links from Fit to
Effective Use to Impact: A Digital Hospital Case. In International Conference on
Information Systems.
Eden, R., Fielt, E., & Murphy, G. (2020). Advancing the Theory of Effective Use
through Operationalization. In European Conference on Information Systems.
Eden, R. G. (2017). The Conceptualization and Investigation of User Capital and its
Impact on Effective Use and Information Systems Success. Queensland University
of Technology.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological Fit in Management
Field Research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264.
Efendioğlu, A. (2018). Teachers’ use of Facebook and Teacher Quality: Developing a
‘Facebook Effect Scale on Teacher Quality (FESTQ)’from the Perspective of PCK,
TPACK, and Lifelong Learning Frameworks. Educational Technology Research
Development, 66(6), 1359-1385.
Ellison, N. B., & Boyd, D. M. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In The
Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection Strategies: Social
Capital Implications of Facebook-Enabled Communication Practices. New Media
& Society, 13(6), 873-892.
Ellison, N. B., & Vitak, J. (2015). Social Network Site Affordances and their
Relationship to Social Capital Processes. In The Handbook of the Psychology of
Communication Technology (Vol. 32, pp. 205-228).
Esposito, M. (2015). End User Participation in Information Systems Development:
Why does Collaboration Remain Elusive? In SAIS 2015 Proceedings (pp. 1-6).
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.
Fayard, A.-L., & Weeks, J. (2014). Affordances for practice. Information and
Organization, 24(4), 236-249.
Ferreri, S. P., & O’Connor, S. K. (2013). Redesign of a Large Lecture Course into a
Small-Group Learning Course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
77(1).
Flick, U. (2013). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis: Sage.
Flick, U. (2018). Designing Qualitative Research: Sage.
Foldnes, N. (2016). The Flipped Classroom and Cooperative Learning: Evidence from
a Randomised Experiment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 39-49.
Froehle, C. M., & Roth, A. V. (2004). New Measurement Scales for Evaluating
Perceptions of Technology-Mediated Customer Service Experience. Journal of
Operations Management, 22(1), 1-21.
Garcia, E., Elbeltagi, I., Brown, M., & Dungay, K. (2015). The Implications of a
Connectivist Learning Blog Model and the Changing Role of Teaching and
Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 877-894.
Geenhuizen, M. V. (2008). Knowledge Networks of Young Innovators in the Urban
Economy: Biotechnology as a Case Study. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 20(2), 161-183.

References 163
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling and
Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems, 4(1), 7.
Gewald, H., & Gewald, C. (2017). Physician’s Use of Mandatory Information
Systems: an Exploratory Research in German Hospitals. In Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3411-3420).
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hills-Dale.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile Computing Devices in Higher Education:
Student Perspectives on Learning with Cellphones, Smartphones & Social Media.
The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26.
Gnewuch, U., Haake, P., Mueller, B., & Maedche, A. (2016). The Effect of Learning
on the Effective Use of Enterprise Systems.
Gokhale, A. (Singer-songwriter). (1995). Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical
Thinking. ejournals JTE.(1).
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology Fit and Individual
Performance. MIS quarterly, 213-236.
Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. J. M. q. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science
research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355.
Grublješič, T., & Jaklič, J. (2014). Three Dimensions of Business Intelligence
Ssystems Use Behavior. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems,
10(3), 62-76.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.
Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(163-194), 105.
Guckian, J., Utukuri, M., Asif, A., Burton, O., Adeyoju, J., Oumeziane, A., . . . Rees,
E. L. (2021). Social Media in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Systematic
Review. Medical Education Online.
Haake, P., Mädche, A., Mueller, B., & Lauterbach, J. (2015). The Effect of User
Adaptation on the Effective Use of Enterprise Systems.
Haake, P., Schacht, S., Mueller, B., & Lauterbach, J. (2018). Toward an
Operationalization of Effective Use. In European Conference of Information
Systems.
Hair, J. F. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2 ed.). Sage.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S.
(2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R:
A Workbook. Springer.
Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social Media as a Catalyst for Online Deliberation?
Exploring the Affordances of Facebook and YouTube for Political Expression.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159-1168.
Harindranath, G., Bernroider, E., & Kamel, S. (2015). Social Media and Social
Transformation Movements: The Role of Affordances and Platforms.
Hartson, R. (2003). Cognitive, Physical, Sensory, and Functional Affordances in
Interaction Design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content Validity in Psychological
Assessment: A Functional Approach to Concepts and Methods. Psychological
Assessment, 7(3), 238.

164 References
He, W., Qiao, Q., & Wei, K.-K. (2009). Social Relationship and its Role in Knowledge
Management Systems Usage. Information Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 46(3), 175-180.
Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using
Technology to Increase Student Involvement. New Directions for Student Services,
2008(124), 19-35.
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The Appropriation and Repurposing of
Social Technologies in Higher Education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
25(1), 19-30.
Hiltz, S. R. (1995). Teaching in a Virtual Classroom. International Journal of
Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 185-198.
Hiltz, S. R., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (1997). Evaluating the Importance of Collaborative
Learning in ALN's. In Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change (V.1, pp. 432-
436): IEEE.
Hong, W., Chan, F. K., Thong, J. Y., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2014). A
Framework and Guidelines for Context-Specific Theorizing in Information
Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 25(1), 111-136.
Hou, C.-K. (2012). Examining the Effect of User Satisfaction on System Usage and
Individual Performance with Business Intelligence Systems: An Empirical Study
of Taiwan's Electronics Industry. International Journal of Information
Management, 32(6), 560-573.
Houston, J. B., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M. F., Park, E. H., Goldstein Hode, M.,
Halliwell, M. R., . . . McElderry, J. A. (2015). Social Media and Disasters: a
Functional Framework for Social Media Use in Disaster Planning, Response, and
Research. Disasters, 39(1), 1-22.
Huber, T., & Dibbern, J. (2014). How Collaboration Software Enables Globally
Distributed Software Development Teams to Become Agile - An Effective Use
Perspective. In A Collection of Studies at the Country, Sector and Firm Level.
Global Sourcing 2014. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (V.195,
pp. 49-63). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Hughes, A. L., & Palen, L. (2012). The Evolving Role of the Public Information
Officer: An Examination of Social Media in Emergency Management. Journal of
Homeland Security Emergency Management, 9(1).
Irwin, C., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students' Perceptions of Using
Facebook as an Interactive Learning Resource at University. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 28(7).
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A Critical Review of
Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and
Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199-218.
Jayarathna, L., Eden, R., Fielt, E., & Nili, A. (2020). Contextualizing the effective use
of social media network for collaborative learning: An affordance perspective. In
Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems.
Jayarathna, L. C. H., & Fernando, W. M. N. (2014). Relationship between Facebook
Usage and the Student Engagement of Sri Lankan Management Undergraduates.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology.
Jenny, W., Lin, C.-F. C., Yu, W.-C. W., & Wu, E. (2013). Meaningful Engagement in
Facebook Learning Environments: Merging Social and Academic Lives. Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 302-322.

References 165
Jia, L., Huang, L., Yan, Z., Hall, D., Song, J., & Paradice, D. (2019). The Importance
of Policy to Effective IM Use and Improved Performance. Information Technology
& People, 33(1), 181-197.
Johns, G. (2006). The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.
Johnson, B. J., Goerdel, H. T., Lovrich Jr, N. P., & Pierce, J. C. (2015). Social Capital
and Emergency Management planning: A Test of Community Context Effects on
Formal and Informal Collaboration. The American Review of Public
Administration, 45(4), 476-493.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and
Research: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative Learning
Methods: A Meta-Analysis. University of Minnesota.
Johnson, S. D., Suriya, C., Yoon, S. W., Berrett, J. V., & La Fleur, J. (1994). An
Overview of Cooperative Learning. In: Citeseer.
Johnson, W. H. (1999). An Integrative Taxonomy of Intellectual Capital: Measuring
the Stock and Flow of Intellectual Capital Components in the Firm. International
Journal of Technology Management, 18(5), 562-575.
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.
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.
Jung, K., Song, M., & Feiock, R. (2017). Isolated and Broken Bridges from
Interorganizational Networks: An Institutional Action Perspective. Urban Affairs
Review, 55(3), 950-975.
Kampling, H., Klesel, M., & Niehaves, B. (2016). On Experiments in Design Science
Research and Theory Development: A Literature Review. In Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., & Borgatti, S. (2014). What’s Different about
Social Media Networks? A Framework and Research Agenda. MIS Quarterly,
38(1), 275-304.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and
Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Karahanna, E., Xu, S., Xu, Y., & Zhang, N. (2018). The Needs–Affordances–Features
Perspective for the Use of Social Media. MIS Quarterly, 42(3), 737-756.
Karakostas, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2011). Adaptation Patterns as a Conceptual Tool
for Designing the Adaptive Operation of CSCL Systems. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 59(3), 327-349.
Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. (2019). Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and its
Iimplications for Social Work Research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255.
Kennedy, B. L., Thornberg, R., & Flick, U. (2018). Deduction, Induction, and
Abduction. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (pp. 49-64).
Kenyon, R., T., H., Alemán, M., M., A., Gin, K., Blakeley, B., . . . Knight, S. (2016).
Social Media in Higher Education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(5), 7-128.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social
Media? Get serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social
Media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241-251.
Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., Dillenbourg, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Can We
Support CCSL? Educational, Social and Technological Affordances for Learning.

166 References
 In Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 7-34). Open University of
the Netherlands.
Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2004). CSCL in Higher Education?
In What We Know about CSCL (pp. 3-30): Springer.
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research
Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education,
6(5), 26-41.
Kock, N., Gallivan, M. J., & DeLuca, D. (2008). Furthering Information
SystemsAction Research: a Post-Positivist Synthesis of Four Dialectics. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 9(2), 4.
Kohli, R., & Grover, V. (2008). Business Value of IT: An Essay on Expanding
Research Directions to Keep Up with the Times. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 9(1), 1.
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of
the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
9(3).
Krackhardt, D., Nohria, N., & Eccles, B. (2003). The Sstrength of Strong Ties: The
Importance of Philos in Organizations. In Networks and Organization (V.82, pp.
216-239).
Krancher, O., Dibbern, J., & Meyer, P. (2019). When Less is More: How Short-
message Feeds in Social Media Platforms Affect Collaborative Learning.
Kretzer, M., Nadj, M., & Mädche, A. (2015). The Effect of Recommender Systems on
Users’ Situation Awareness and Actions. In International Conference on
Information Systems.
Krutka, D., Nowell, S., & Whitlock, A. (2017). Towards a Social Media Pedagogy:
Successes and Shortcomings in Educative Uses of Twitter with Teacher Candidates.
Journal of Technology Teacher Education, 25(2), 215-240.
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of Collaborative Learning. Procedia-Social
Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486-490.
Lam, J. (2015). Collaborative Learning Using Social Media Tools in a Blended
Learning Course. In International Conference on Hybrid Learning and Continuing
Education (pp. 187-198): Springer.
Lauterbach, J., Kahrau, F., Mueller, B., & Maedche, A. (2014). What Makes “the
System” Tick?-Explaining Individuals’ Adaptation Behavior towards Effective Use
in Enterprise System Implementations. In International Conference on Information
Systems.
Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative Learning Practices: Teacher
and Student Perceived Obstacles to Effective Student Collaboration. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 48(1), 103-122.
Lee, H., Park, J., & Lee, J. (2013). Role of Leadership Competencies and Team Social
Capital in IT Services. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(4), 1-11.
Lehrig, T., Krancher, O., & Dibbern, J. (2017). How Users Perceive and Actualize
Affordances: An Exploratory Case Study of Collaboration Platforms. In
International Conference on Information systems.
Leidner, D. E., Gonzalez, E., & Koch, H. (2018). An Affordance Perspective of
Enterprise Social Media and Organizational Socialization. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 27(2), 117-138.

References 167
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies:
Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies. MIS
Quarterly, 35(1), 147-167.
Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances
of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Annals of the International
Communication Association, 36(1), 143-189.
Leow, F.-T., Neo, M., & Hew, S. H. (2016). Investigating the Key Attributes to
Enhance Students’ Learning Experience in 21st Century Class Environment.
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(4), pp244‑256.
Li, Y., Haake, P., & Mueller, B. (2017). Explaining the Influence of Workarounds on
Effective Use - The Case of a Supply Chain Management System. In European
Conference on Information Systems.
Liang, H., Peng, Z., Xue, Y., Guo, X., & Wang, N. (2015). Employees’ Exploration of
Complex Systems: An Integrative View. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 32(1), 322-357.
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. Key Methods in
Geography, 3(2), 143-156.
Lu, J., Yang, J., & Yu, C.-S. (2013). Is Social Capital Effective for Online Learning?
Information & Management 50(7), 507-522.
Lubua, E. W., Semlambo, A., & Pretorius, P. D. (2017). Factors Affecting the Use of
Social Media in the Learning Process. South African Journal of Information
Management, 19(1), 1-7.
Macke, J., & Dilly, E. K. (2010). Social Capital Dimensions in Collaborative
Networks: The Role of Linking Social Capital.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct
Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research:
Integrating New and Existing Techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293-334.
Magogwe, J. M., Ntereke, B., & Phetlhe, K. R. (2015). Facebook and Classroom
Group Work: A Trial Study Involving University of Botswana Advanced Oral
Presentation Students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1312-
1323.
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013). The Contradictory Influence
of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 38-55.
Majchrzak, A., Markus, M. L., & Wareham, J. (2012). ICT and Societal Challenges.
MISQ Special Issue Call for Papers.
Mao, J. (2014). Social Media for Learning: A Mixed Methods Study on High School
Students’ Technology Affordances and Perspectives. Computers in Human
Behavior, 33, 213-223.
Marchand, M., & Raymond, L. (2017). Characterizing, Explaining and Valuing the
Effective Use of an IT Artefact: A Field Study of Performance Management
Information Systems in SMEs.
Marchand, M., & Raymond, L. (2018). Performance Measurement and Management
Systems as IT Artefacts: Characterising, Contextualising and Valuing their
Effective Use in SMEs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 67(7), 1214-1233.
Marcolin, B. L., Compeau, D. R., Munro, M. C., & Huff, S. L. (2000). Assessing User
Competence: Conceptualization and Measurement. Information Systems Research,
11(1), 37-60.

168 References
Markos-Kujbus, E., & Gati, M. (2012). Social Media's New Role in Marketing
Communication and Its Opportunities in Online Strategy Building. In European
Communication Conference (pp. 24-27).
Markus, M. L., & Silver, M. S. (2008). A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects: A
New Look at DeSanctis and Poole's Concepts of Structural Features and Spirit.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10), 5.
Mays, N., Roberts, E., & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesising Research Evidence. Studying
the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods, 220.
McAfee, A. (2006). Mastering the Three Worlds of Information Technology. Harvard
Business Review, 84(11), 141.
McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended Learning Environments: Using Social Networking Sites
to Enhance the First Year Experience. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 26(6).
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social Software and Participatory Learning:
Pedagogical Choices with Technology Affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ACILITE.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (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).
Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006). The Social Network
Ties of Group Leaders: Implications for Group Performance and Leader
Reputation. Organization Science, 17(1), 64-79.
Mesgari, M., & Faraj, S. (2012). Technology Affordances: the Case of Wikipedia. In
Americas Conference on Information Systems.
Migiro, S., & Magangi, B. (2011). Mixed Methods: A Review of Literature and the
Future of the New Research Paradigm. African Journal of Business Management,
5(10), 3757-3764.
Mingle, J., & Adams, M. (2015). Social Media Network Participation and Academic
Performance in Senior High Schools in Ghana. Library Philosophy Practice, 1.
Molinillo, S., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Aguilar-Illescas, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018).
Social Media-Based Collaborative Learning: Exploring Antecedents of Attitude.
Internet and Higher Education, 38(1), 18-27.
Moussawi, S. (2018). User Experiences with Personal Intelligent Agents: A Sensory,
Physical, Functional and Cognitive Affordances View. Paper presented at
Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People
Research.
Mullarkey, M. T., & Hevner, A. R. (2019). An Elaborated Action Design Research
Process Model. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(1), 6-20.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the
Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Ng'ambi, D., Brown, C., Bozalek, V., Gachago, D., & Wood, D. (2016). Technology
Enhanced Teaching and Learning in South African Higher Education – A Review
of a 20 Year Journey. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 843-858.
Nielsen, B. B., & Raswant, A. (2018). The Selection, Use, and Reporting of Control
Variables in International Business Research: A Review and Recommendations.
Journal of World Business, 53(6), 958-968.
NMC Horizon Report. (2015). Higher Education Edition.
NMC Horizon Report. (2017). Higher Education Edition.
NMC Horizon Report. (2004). Higher Education Edition.

References 169
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The Adequacy of Response Rates to Online and Paper Surveys:
What Can be Done? Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301-314.
Nummenmaa, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008a). University students' emotions, interest
and activities in a web-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78(1), 163-178.
Nummenmaa, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008b). University Students' Emotions,
Interest and Activities in Web-Based Learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78(1), 163-178.
O'Malley, C. (2012). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 128):
Springer Science & Business Media.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2012). Qualitative Analysis
Techniques for The Review of the Literature. Qualitative Report, 17, 56.
Ophus, J. D., & Abbitt, J. T. (2009). Exploring the Potential Perceptions of Social
Networking Systems in University Courses. Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 5(4), 639-648.
Otoo, B. A., & Salam, A. F. (2018). Mediating Effect of Intelligent Voice Assistant
(IVA), User Experience and Effective Use on Service Quality and Service
Satisfaction and Loyalty. In International Conference on Information Systems.
Palese, B., & Piccoli, G. (2018). Effective Use of Systems beyond the Firm's Control:
The Case of Online Review Systems. In International Conference on Information
Systems.
Pan, Z., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Chau, P. Y. (2017). Who Do You Think You Are?
Common and Differential Effects of Social Self-Identity on Social Media Usage.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(1), 71-101.
Panitz, T. (1999a). The Motivational Benefits of Cooperative Learning. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning 78, 59-67.
Panitz, T. (1999b). The Motivational Benefits of Cooperative Learning. New
Directions for Teaching Learning, 78, 59-67.
Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1998). Encouraging the Use of Collaborative Learning in
Higher Education. University Teaching: International Perspectives, 161-201.
Papa, M. J. (1990). Communication Network Patterns and Employee Performance
with New Technology. Communication Research, 17(3), 344-368.
Park, I., Al-Ramahi, M., & Cho, J. (2015). The Effect of Perceived IS Support for
Creativity on Job Satisfaction: The Role of Effective IS use in Virtual Workplaces.
In International Conference on Information Systems.
Park, I., Cho, J., & Rao, H. (2018). An Examination of Resilience in Healthcare
Information Systems in the Context of Natural. Paper presented at Pre-ICIS
Workshop on Information Security and Privacy.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods: Sage.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The Art of Writing Literature Review: What do We
Know and What do We Need to Know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101-
717.
Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of Online Social Networking
on Student Academic Performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2117-
2127.
Peng, Z., & Guo, X. (2019). A Multilevel Investigation on Antecedents for Employees’
Exploration of Enterprise Systems. European Journal of Information Systems,
28(4), 439-456.
Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying Formative Constructs in
Information Systems Research. MIS quarterly, 623-656.

170 References
Phillips, B., & Shipps, B. (2012). Frequency of Usage: the Impact of Technology
Acceptance Factors versus Social Factors. International Journal of Virtual
Communities Social Networking, 4(2), 30-45.
Piccoli, G. (2016). Triggered Essential Reviewing: the Effect of Technology
Affordances on Service Experience Evaluations. European Journal of Information
Systems, 25(6), 477-492.
Pierce, C. S. (Singer-songwriter). (1960). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce,
Volumes I and II. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Pil, F. K., & Leana, C. (2009). Applying Organizational Research to Public School
Reform: The Effects of Teacher Human and Social Capital on Student Performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1101-1124.
Polites, G. L., Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. (2012). Conceptualizing Models Using
Multidimensional Constructs: a Review and Guidelines for Use. European Journal
of IS, 21(1), 22-48.
Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal
of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Putnam, R. D. (1996). The Srange Disappearance of Civic America. Policy: A Journal
of Public Policy and Ideas, 12(1), 3-15.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. In Culture
and Politics (pp. 223-234): Springer.
Qahri-Saremi, H., Mueller-Luckey, G., Robinson, R., Hadidi, R., & Sattovia, S.
(2018). Actualization of Electronic Health Records Affordances: An Empirical
Investigation of Users’ Personal and Behavioral Antecedents. In Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Rasiah, R. R. V. (2014). Transformative Higher Education Teaching and Learning:
Using Social Media in a Team-Based Learning Environment. Procedia-Social
Behavioral Sciences, 123, 369-379.
Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Learning 2.0-The impact of social
media on learning in Europe. Policy brief. JRC Scientific and Technical Report.
Robinson, H., Kilgore, W., & Warren, S. (2017). Care, Communication, Support: Core
for Designing Meaningful Online Collaborative Learning. Online Learning
Journal, 21(4).
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2006). Integrating Educational Technology into
Teaching (Vol. 2): Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. J. T. I. (2010).
Findings on Facebook in Higher Education: A Comparison of College Faculty and
Student Uses and Perceptions of Social Networking Sites. The Internet Higher
Education, 13(3), 134-140.
Roth, M. (2016). Superintendent Use of Twitter: Learning, leading and Leveraging
through Social Media. University of Pennsylvania.
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003).
Objectifying Cntent Validity: Conducting a Content Validity Study in Social Work
Research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94-104.
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring Pre-service Teachers'
Beliefs about Using Web 2.0 Technologies in K-12 Classroom. Computers &
Education, 59(3), 937-945.
Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers: Sage.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When Teams do not Function the Way They
Ought to. International journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89-99.

References 171
Sarstedt, M., Hair Jr, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How
to Specify, Estimate, and Validate Higher-Order Constructs in PLS-SEM.
Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197-211.
Savoli, A., & Barki, H. (2017). Effective Use of Patient-Centric Health Information
Systems: The Influence of Patient Emotions. Systèmes d'Information &
Management, 22(1), 71-96.
Scott, C., Ritter, N., Fowler, R., & Franks, A. (2019). Developing a Community of
Academic Writers: Using Social Media to Support Academic Accountability,
Motivation, and Productivity. Journal of Literacy Technology, 20(2), 61-96.
Seddon, P. B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean
model of IS success. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240-253.
Sejahtera, F., Wang, W., Indulska, M., & Sadiq, S. (2018). Enablers And Inhibitors Of
Effective Use Of Big Data: Insights From A Case Study.
Selwyn, N. (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal
learning-a critical review. In Paper for CERI-KERIS International Expert Meeting
on ICT and Educational Performance (V.16, pp. 17).
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond Learning: Notes Towards the Critical Study of
Educational Technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65-73.
Sharla, K., Elaine, G., Michael, C., Jane, D., & Steven, P. (2009). Merging Social
Networking Environments and Formal Learning Environments to Support and
Facilitate Interprofessional Instruction. Medical Education Online, 14(1).
Shin, B., & Kim, G. (2011). Investigating the Reliability of Second-Order Formative
Measurement in Information Systems Research. European Journal of Information
Systems, 20(5), 608-623.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of
Telecommunications, Wiley.
Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of Learning. Review of Educational
Research, 56(4), 411-436.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism. A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. In
eLearnSpace, 1-15.
Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.
Slavin, R. (1987). Cooperative Learning: Student Teams. ( 2 ed.): Washington, DC:
National Education Association.
Slavin, R. E. (2008). Cooperative Learning, Success for all, and Evidence-based
Reform in Education. Éducation et Didactique, 2(2), 149-157.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is Collaborative Learning. In Towards
the Virtual University: International Online Learning Perspectives (pp. 217-232):
Syracuse University.
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2002). Performance Concepts and Performance Theory.
Psychological Management of Individual Performance, 23(1), 3-25.
Sorgenfrei, C., Ebner, K., Smolnik, S., & Jennex, M. E. (2014). From Acceptance to
Outcome: Towards an Integrative Framework for Information Technology
Adoption. In European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-18).
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social Networks
and the Performance of Individuals and Groups. Academy of Management Journal,
44(2), 316-325.
Staubitz, T., Pfeiffer, T., Renz, J., Willems, C., & Meinel, C. (2015). Collaborative
Learning in a MOOC Environment. In Proceedings of the Annual International
Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (pp. 8237-8246).

172 References
Stein, M.-K., Lim, E., & Tan, C.-W. (2014). Tensions to Frictions? Exploring Sources
of Ineffectiveness in Multi-Level IT Use. In International Conference on
Information Systems.
Stoffregen, T., Gorday, K., Sheng, Y., & Flynn, S. (1999). Perceiving Affordances for
Another Person's Actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 120-136.
Straub, D. W. J. M. q. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. 147-169.
Strong, D., Volkoff, O., Johnson, S., Pelletier, L., Tulu, B., Bar-On, . . . Garber, L.
(2014). A Theory of Organization-EHR Affordance Actualization. Journal of the
AIS, 15(2), 54-85.
Strong, D. M., Johnson, S. A., Tulu, B., Trudel, J., Volkoff, O., Pelletier, L. R., . . .
Garber, L. (2014). A Theory of Organization-EHR Affordance Actualization.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(2), 53.
Sun, H. (2010). Sellers’ Trust and Continued Use of Online Marketplaces. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 11(4), 2.
Sun, Y. (1999). The Contextual Effects of Community Social Capital on Academic
Performance. Social Science Research, 28(4), 403-426.
Surbakti, F. P. S., Wang, W., Indulska, M., & Sadiq, S. (2019). Factors Influencing
Effective Use of Big Data: A Research Framework. Information & Management.
57(1), 103-146.
Swann, W. L., & Kim, S. Y. (2018). Practical Prescriptions for Governing Fragmented
Governments. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 273-292.
Tam, K. Y., Feng, Y. K., & Lai, M. C. (2019). Effective Use of Policing Systems: A
Two-Stage Study of the Shakedown Period of System Implementation. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management.
Tashakkori, A. (2009). Are we there yet? The State of the Mixed Methods Community.
Sage.
Tennant, V., Mills, A., & Chin, W. (2015). The Effect of Feedback on Change in Post-
Adoption Use of Information Systems. In International Conference on Information
Systems.
Tess, P. A. (2013). The Role of Social Media in Higher Education Classes (real and
virtual)–A Literature Review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60-A68.
Thompson, L., & Ku, H.-Y. (2006). A Case Study of Online Collaborative Learning.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 361.
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. J. T. (2014). Grounded Theory and Theoretical Coding
(Vol. 5).
Tim, Y., Pan, S. L., Bahri, S., & Fauzi, A. (2018). Digitally Enabled Affordances for
Community-DRiven Environmental Movement in Rural Malaysia. Information
Systems Journal, 28(1), 48-75.
Tong, S., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Relational Maintenance and CMC. Computer-
Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships, 53(9), 1689-1699.
Torres, R., & Sidorova, A. (2019). Reconceptualizing Information Quality as Effective
Use in the Context of Business Intelligence and Analytics. International Journal of
Information Management, 49, 316-329.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring
the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Annals of
the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143-189.
Trieu, T. (2013). Extending the Theory of Effective Use: The Impact of Enterprise
Architecture Maturity Stages on the Effective Use of Business Intelligence
Systems. In International Conference on Information Systems.

References 173
Trieu, V.-H., Burton-Jones, A., Green, P., & Cockcroft, S. (2022). Applying and
Extending the Theory of Effective Use in a Business Intelligence Context. MIS
Quarterly, 46(1), 645-678.
Trieu, V.-H. T., Cockcroft, S., & Perdana, A. (2018). Decision-Making Performance
in Big Data Era: The Role of Actual Business Intelligence Systems Use and
Affecting External Constraints. Decision-Making, 11, 29-2018.
Turvey, M. T. (1992). Affordances and Prospective Control: An Outline of the
Ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4(3), 173-187.
Tuten, T. L. (2020). Social Media Marketing: Sage.
Vaast, E., & Kaganer, E. (2013). Social Media Affordances and Governance in the
Workplace: An Examination of Organizational Policies. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 19(1), 78-101.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative
Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information
Systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54.
Vercellotti, M. L. (2018). Do Interactive Learning Spaces Increase Student
Achievement? A Comparison of Classroom Context. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 19(3), 197-210.
Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. (2017). Affordance Theory and How to Use it in IS
Research. In The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems (pp.
232-245): Routledge.
Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical Realism and Affordances: Theorizing
IT-associated Organizational Change Processes. Mis Quarterly, 37(3).
Vonderwell, S., & Turner, S. (2005). Active Learning and Preservice Teachers’
Experiences in an Online Course: A Case Study. Journal of Technology Teacher
Education, 13(1), 65-84.
Voorn, R. J., & Kommers, P. A. (2013). Social Media and Higher Education:
Introversion and Collaborative Learning from the Student’s Perspective.
International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments,
1(1), 59-73.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and word. In E. Hanfmann, Vakar, Gertrude (Ed.),
Thought and language.: Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
PRocesses: Harvard University Press.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1990). An Ontological Model of an Information System.
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11), 1282-1292.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the Deep Structure of Information Systems.
Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203-223.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer‐mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and
Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Weber, M., Gewald, H., & Weeger, A. (2015). Disruptions of the Tripartite Structure
of System Usage: Exploring Factors Influencing the Effective Usage of Information
Systems in German Hospitals. In Eurpean Conference on Information Systems.
Weeger, A., Neff, A., Gewald, H., & Haase, U. (2013). Exploring Determinants of
Effective Use: The Role of Misfits between a Hospital and Its Information System.
In Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Whiting, L. S. (2008). Semi-Structured Interviews: Guidance for Novice Researchers.
Nursing standard, 22(23).

174 References
Widén-Wulff, G., & Ginman, M. (2004). Explaining Lnowledge Sharing in
Organizations through the Dimensions of Social Capital. Journal of Information
Science, 30(5), 448-458.
Woods, D. M., & Chen, K.-C. (2010). Evaluation Techniques for Cooperative
Learning. International Journal of Management and Information Systems Journal,
14(1).
Wright, R., Campbell, D., Thatcher, J., & Roberts, N. (2012).Operationalizing
Multidimensional Constructs in Structural Equation Modeling: Recommendations
for IS Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 30(1),
23.
Wu, L. (2013). Social Network Effects on Productivity and Job Security: Evidence
from the Adoption of a Social Networking Tool. Information Systems Research,
24(1), 30-51.
Wu, Y., Choi, B., Guo, X., & Chang, K. T.-T. (2017). Understanding User Adaptation
toward a New IT System in Organizations: A Social Network Perspective. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, 18(11), 2
Xue, S., & Churchill, D. (2020). Educational Affordances of Mobile Social Media for
Language Teaching and Learning: a Chinese Teacher’s Perspective. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 1-30.
Yu, Y., Yan, X., Zhang, X., & Zhou, S. (2019). What They Gain Depends on What
They Do: An Exploratory Empirical Research on Effective Use of Mobile
Healthcare Applications. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Zahedi, F. M., Abbasi, A., & Chen, Y. (2015). Fake-website Detection Tools:
Identifying Elements that Promote Individuals’ Use and Enhance their
Performance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(6), 2.
Zarzour, H., & Sellami, M. (2017). A Linked Data-Based Collaborative Annotation
System for Increasing Learning Achievements. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 65(2), 381-397.
Zhang, M., & Gable, G. G. (2017). A Systematic Framework for Multilevel Theorizing
in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 28(2), 203-224.
Zou, P. X., Keating, B., Yang, R. J., Campbell, J., & Zhao, L. (2014). Achieving
Building Sustainability through the Application of Information Systems and
Stakeholder Alignment. In ICCREM 2014: Smart Construction and Management
in the Context of New Technology (pp. 113-125).

References 175
Appendices

Appendix A: Theory based Literature Review Process

To understand the current state of research in terms of how the effective use
construct has been studied in IS research, a comprehensive review of literature on the
seminal works of effective use conceptualization (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013) has
been conducted.

Figure Appendix A.1 Study Selection Process – Review of Effective Use

Studies

Appendices 177
Appendix B: Review of SMN Affordance Literature

To idenitify the SMN affordances for collaborative learning, a systematic review of

SMN affordances studies has been conducted. The review resulted in 37 papers to be
selected for abstract review, 36 for full text review and 8 papers to be included in the
final review. As shown in Figure A2.1, out of the selected papers on the review, one
reviewed prior studies for different social media affordances (Karahanna et al., 2018),
two identified affordances for social media in organizations (Leidner et al., 2018;
Treem & Leonardi, 2013), one for social media for knowledge sharing in organizations
(Majchrzak et al., 2013), three for social media in general (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013;
Kietzmann et al., 2011; Tim et al., 2018) and one for wikipedia (Mesgari & Faraj,
2012) that is deemed to be relevant in this study context.

Figure Appendix B.1 Study Selection Process - Review of SMN Affordances

178 Appendices
Appendix C: Identification of SMN Affordances

The review identified eight studies that explicitly identify different affordances for
social media in different contexts (e.g., online communities knowledge sharing,
deliberation, communication and socialization in organizations).

Table Appendix C.1 SMN Affordances

Study Context Social Media Affordances and Descriptions

Majchrzak et Social media and Meta-voicing - users can engage in the ongoing
al. (2013) online communal online knowledge conversation by reacting online
knowledge sharing to others’ presence, profiles, content, and
activities.
Triggered Attending - users can engage in the
online knowledge conversation by remaining
uninvolved in content production or the
conversation until a timely automated alert
informs the individual of a change to the specific
content of interest.
Network-informed associating - users can engage
in the online knowledge conversation informed by
relational and content ties
Generative role taking - users can engage in the
online knowledge conversation by enacting
patterned actions and taking on community-
sustaining roles in order to maintain a productive
dialogue among participants.
Treem and Social media use in Visibility - making behaviours, preferences,
Leonardi organization relationships, and knowledge are perceptible to
(2013) communication others without restrictions
Persistence - affording a robust way of
communicating, which is hard to destroy or
compromise, by preserving the original posts for
later reference
Editability - allowing contributors to refine posts
by crafting and re-crafting them
Association – allowing users to build connections
with other users and with the content shared on the
platform
Halpern and Social media and Identifiability - the level of identifiability versus
Gibbs (2013) deliberation anonymity of a user. Users can have a public space
on their profiles, where they share personal
information, post links, and share personal videos
or pictures openly.
Networked Information Access - users can have
greater information access to their social networks
by being automatically notified about content
updates and having immediate access to
information posted by their contacts
Leidner et al. Enterprise social Networking - ability to build relationships, interact
(2018) media and with peers, socialize and take a break
organizational Organizational Visibility - opportunities to
socialization participate in (platform) sponsored events, build

Appendices 179
 peer relationships, develop, and demonstrate
leadership skills, and interact with superiors
Information Gathering/Sharing - finding resource/
helping peers/ possibility to actualize the
affordance that helps them gain or share
information
Innovation – ability to broaden perspectives/
acquire new technology skills/acquire new insights
on new processes, products, and services for
management
Tim et al. social media in Information Democratization - availability and
(2018) pursuing ability to share relevant information to allow
environmental content publishing, commenting on and sharing
sustainability Emergent Organizing - ability to use the
coordination feature, capable of administrating
activities and groups on the platforms, allow
accessing past contents, contributions, activities,
and discussions
Mesgari and Affordances of Self-presentation - users can create and
Faraj (2012) Wikipedia demonstrate their personal image and identity.
Management - users can organize the community
and define how the job should be done.
Control - users can observe the changes, others’
behaviours, and their contributions.
Contribution - users can add, remove, and edit
every piece of information on the wiki.
Broadcasting - users can circulate content or
knowledge and share it with an appropriate
number of audiences.
Collaboration - users can cooperate and handle
interdependent activities in the Wikipedia
community.
Karahanna et Review and Self-presentation - affordance that enables users to
al. (2018) synthesizing social reveal and present information related to
media affordances themselves in a social media setting.
Content sharing - affordance that enables users to
share and distribute content unrelated to self to
others in a social media setting.
Interactivity - affordance that enables users to
move around and alter their virtual environment in
real time
Presence signalling - affordance that enables users
to either indicate their presence or know if other
users are accessible
Relationship formation - affordance that enables
users to form relationships with other users in a
social media setting
Group management - affordance that enables users
to form groups and online communities, and
administer and manage these
Browsing others’ content - affordance that enables
users to receive alerts that trigger their attention to
others’ content and view content provided by
others in a social media setting

180 Appendices
 Meta-voicing - affordance that enables users to
engage in the online conversation by reacting
online to others’ presence, profiles, content, and
activities and seeing how others react to their own
presence, profiles, content, and activities
Communication - affordance that enables users to
directly communicate with each other in a social
media setting
Collaboration - affordance that enables users to
collaborate with each other to create content in a
social media setting
Competition - affordance that enables users to
compete with each other, either individually or in
groups.
Sourcing - affordance that enables users to either
create a request for resources or funds or satisfy
another’s request for resources or funds.
Kietzmann et Identity - the extent to which users reveal
al. (2011) themselves
Presence - the extent to which users know if others
are available
Relationships - the extent to which users relate to
each other
Groups - the extent to which users are ordered or
form community
Reputation - the extent to which users know the
social standing of others and content
Sharing - the extent to which users exchange,
distribute and receive content
Conversation - the extent to which users
communicate with each other in social media
settings

Appendices 181
Appendix D Survey Instrument

182 Appendices
Appendices 183
184 Appendices
Appendices 185
186 Appendices
Appendices 187
188 Appendices
Appendices 189
190 Appendices
Appendices 191