female=713, (57.3%); nmale=532, (42.7%)] from various faculties who were instructed online via learning management systemsvolunteered to participate in the study. The findings of the path analysis of the structured model, which were assessed using the scales of cyberloafing, reasons of cyberloafing behavior levels, and levels of academic self-efficacy, were wellfit and validated. When the interactions of the factors of the verified model are examined, it is seen that Real-Time Updating is affected by Sharing and Gaming or Gambling, and Instructor-Induced Reasons affected by Motivation. Additionally, Motivation and Instructor-Induced Reasons are affected by Accessing Online Content; Learner Attitudes affected by Shopping, Sharing, and Real-Time Updating; and Real-Time Updating affected by Learner Attitudes, Motivation, Instructor-Induced Reasons, Sharing, and Gaming or Gambling factors. Furthermore, while Academic Self- Efficacy Factor is affected by Motivation and Gaming or Gambling factors, Real-Time Updating affects Learner Attitudes. The current study's findings reveal the reasons of the occurrence of cyberloafing behaviors in computer-based learning settings and the significance of academic self-efficacy.

">

Scrutinizing the Interactions between College Students' Cyberloafing Levels, Reasons of Cyberloafing, and Academic Self-Efficacy by Path Analysis

Ufuk Tugtekin*
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey.
Periodicity:April - June'2022
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.19.1.18817

Abstract

The development of web-based technologies and mobile devices, as well as their widespread usage, create favorable conditions for cyberloafing behaviors, raising the effects of cyberloafing in educational settings. The current study, which examined the behavioral levels and reasons of cyberloafing committed by college students in lectures, as well as its relationship and interaction with academic self-efficacy, aims to reveal latent and observed relationships between cyberloafing factors through path analysis using a quantitative method. A total of 1245 college students [nfemale=713, (57.3%); nmale=532, (42.7%)] from various faculties who were instructed online via learning management systemsvolunteered to participate in the study. The findings of the path analysis of the structured model, which were assessed using the scales of cyberloafing, reasons of cyberloafing behavior levels, and levels of academic self-efficacy, were wellfit and validated. When the interactions of the factors of the verified model are examined, it is seen that Real-Time Updating is affected by Sharing and Gaming or Gambling, and Instructor-Induced Reasons affected by Motivation. Additionally, Motivation and Instructor-Induced Reasons are affected by Accessing Online Content; Learner Attitudes affected by Shopping, Sharing, and Real-Time Updating; and Real-Time Updating affected by Learner Attitudes, Motivation, Instructor-Induced Reasons, Sharing, and Gaming or Gambling factors. Furthermore, while Academic Self- Efficacy Factor is affected by Motivation and Gaming or Gambling factors, Real-Time Updating affects Learner Attitudes. The current study's findings reveal the reasons of the occurrence of cyberloafing behaviors in computer-based learning settings and the significance of academic self-efficacy.

Keywords

Cyberloafing, Online Learning, Path Analysis, Reasons of Cyberloafing, Self-Efficacy.

How to Cite this Article?

Tugtekin, U. (2022). Scrutinizing the Interactions between College Students' Cyberloafing Levels, Reasons of Cyberloafing, and Academic Self-Efficacy by Path Analysis. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.19.1.18817

References

[3]. Askew, K., Buckner, J. E., Taing, M. U., Ilie, A., Bauer, J. A., & Coovert, M. D. (2014). Explaining cyberloafing: The role of the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 510-519.
[4]. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
[6]. Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130-136.
[7]. Baturay, M. H., & Toker, S. (2015). An investigation of the impact of demographics on cyberloafing from an educational setting angle. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 358-366.
[9]. Blau, G., Yang, Y., & Ward-Cook, K. (2006). Testing a measure of cyberloafing. Journal of Allied Health, 35(1), 9-17.
[11]. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Publications.
[12]. Brubaker, A. T. (2006). Faculty Perceptions of the Impact of Student Laptop Use in a Wireless Internet Environment on the Classroom Learning Environment and Teaching. (Unpublished Master Thesis, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina).
[13]. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[15]. Ergün, E., & Altun, A. (2012). The student's perspective of cyberloafing and its causes. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 2(1), 36-53.
[16]. Foster, A. L. (2008). Law Professors Rule Laptops out of Order in Class. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(40).
[18]. Genç, Z., & Tozkoparan, S. B. (2017). Reasons of cyberloafıng scale: A scale development study. Fırat University Journal of Social Sciences, 27(1), 53-61.
[19]. Gezgin, D. M., Arslantaş, T. K., & Şumuer, E. (2018). An investigation of the cyberloafing levels of vocational and technical high school students according to different variables. Ege Journal of Education, 19(2), 408-424.
[23]. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
[25]. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, J. (2013). Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context. Computers & Education, 62, 149-158.
[26]. Kalaycı, E. (2010). The investigation of relationship between cyberloafing and self-regulated learning strategies among undergraduate students. Unpublished Master Thesis). Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University.
[27]. King, B. J. (2007). Employee Use of the Internet and Acceptable Use Policies in the Academic Workplace: Controlling Abuse While Creating Culture (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Johnson City, USA: East Tennessee State University).
[28]. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The Guilford Press, New York.
[31]. Lauricella, S., & Kay, R. (2010). Assessing laptop use in higher education classrooms: The laptop effectiveness scale (LES). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 151-163.
[32]. Laxman, K., & Holt, C. (2017). Bring your own device or bring your own distraction. International Journal on ELearning, 16(3), 245-263.
[33]. Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. Springer publishing company, New York.
[37]. Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The İnternational Journal of İndustrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(5), 675-694.
[39]. Loo, C. W., & Choy, J. L. F. (2013). Sources of selfefficacy influencing academic performance of engineering students. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 86-92.
[41]. Luo, X., Xu, F., Zhang, J., Xiao, S., & Xue, B. (2022). Effects of Organizational Controls on Employees' Cyberloafing: The Moderating Effects of Trait Mindfulness. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 53(1), 61-79.
[42]. Mana, A., Saka, N., Dahan, O., Ben-Simon, A., & Margalit, M. (2022). Implicit theories, social support, and hope as serial mediators for predicting academic selfefficacy among higher education students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(2), 85-95.
[44]. Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination, participation, and per formance in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 243-252.
[45]. Mihelič, K. K., Lim, V. K. G., & Culiberg, B. (2022). Cyberloafing among Gen Z students: the role of norms, moral disengagement, multitasking self-efficacy, and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1-19.
[46]. Mrazek, M. D., Zedelius, C. M., Gross, M. E., Mrazek, A. J., Phillips, D. T., & Schooler, J. W. (2017). Mindfulness in education: Enhancing academic achievement and student well-being by reducing mind-wandering. In Mindfulness in Social Psychology,139-152.
[49]. Oravec, J. A. (2018). Cyberloafing and constructive recreation. In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, (pp. 4316-4325).
[50]. Polzer-Debruyne, A. M. (2008). Psychological and Workplace Attributes That Influence Personal Web Use (PWU) (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New Zealand: Massey University).
[52]. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204-221.
[54]. Stoddart, S. R. (2016). The Impact of Cyberloafing and Mindfulness on Employee Burnout. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Detroit, USA: Wayne State University).
[56]. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
[59]. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. Washington: American Psychological Association.
[61]. Travis, J., Kaszycki, A., Geden, M., & Bunde, J. (2020). Some stress is good stress: The challengehindrance framework, academic self-efficacy, and academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(8), 1632-1643.
[62]. Tugtekin, U., Barut Tugtekin, E., Kurt, A. A., & Demir, K. (2020). Associations between fear of missing out, problematic smartphone use, and social networking services fatigue among young adults. Social Media + Society, 6(4), 1-17.
[63]. Ugrin, J., Odom, M. & Pearson, J. (2008). Exploring the importance of mentoring for newscholars: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(3), 343–350.
[65]. Wu, J., Mei, W., Liu, L., & Ugrin, J. C. (2020). The bright and dark sides of social cyberloafing: Effects on employee mental health in China. Journal of Business Research, 112, 56-64.
[67]. Yaşar, S., & Yurdugül, H. (2013). The investigation of relation between cyberloafing activities and cyberloafing behaviors in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 600-604.
[68]. Yılmaz, M., Gürçay, D., & Ekici, G. (2007). Adaptation of the academic self-efficacy scale to Turkish. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(33), 253-259.
[69]. Yokoyama, S. (2019). Academic self-efficacy and academic performance in online learning: A mini review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2794.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.