This study investigates the in-class and out-of-class cyberloafing activities of students in China, and tests the relationship between those activities and academic performance. A sample of 1,050 undergraduate students at a large University in China reported their in-class (N = 548) and out-of-class (N = 502) cyberloafing activities, which were tested against the students' academic performance. The test results show a negative relationship between in-class cyberloafing and academic performance, but an inverted U-shaped relationship between out-of-class cyberloafing and academic performance. The results support our propositions that cyberloafing is a harmful distraction in the classroom, but can have positive effects when performed in moderation outside the classroom as a means of effort recovery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
China Internet Network Information Center. (2017) The 39th statistics report for Chinese internet development. Beijing, China: China Internet Network Information Center.
2.
YılmazFGK, YılmazR, ÖztürkHT, et al.Cyberloafing as a barrier to the successful integration of information and communication technologies into teaching and learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 45:290–298.
3.
TanejaA, FioreV, FischerB. Cyber-slacking in the classroom: potential for digital distraction in the new age. Computers and Education, 2015; 82:141–151.
4.
GerowJE, GalluchPS, ThatcherJB. To slack or not to slack: internet usage in the classroom. Jitta Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 2010; 11:5–24.
5.
LimVKG, TeoTSH, LooGL. How do I loaf here? Let me count the ways. Communications of the ACM, 2002; 45:66–70.
6.
AkbulutY, DönmezO, DursunÖÖ. Cyberloafing and social desirability bias among students and employees. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 72:87–95.
7.
AkbulutY, DursunÖÖ, DönmezO, et al.In search of a measure to investigate cyberloafing in educational settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 55:616–625.
8.
BaturayMH, TokerS. An investigation of the impact of demographics on cyberloafing from an educational setting angle. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 50:358–366.
9.
RavizzaSM, HambrickDZ, FennKM. Non-academic internet use in the classroom is negatively related to classroom learning regardless of intellectual ability. Computers and Education, 2014; 78:109–114.
10.
WentworthDK, MiddletonJH. Technology use and academic performance. Computers and Education, 2014; 78:306–311.
11.
RashidT, AsgharHM. Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 63:604–612.
12.
DoleckT, LajoieS. Social networking and academic performance: a review. Education and Information Technologies, 2017; 1–31.
13.
RavizzaSM, UitvlugtMG, FennKM. Logged in and zoned out: how laptop internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychological Science, 2017; 28:171–180.
14.
HeflinH, ShewmakerJ, NguyenJ. Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning. Computers and Education, 2017; 107:91–99.
15.
JacobsenWC, ForsteR. The wired generation: academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 2011; 14:275–280.
16.
MeijmanTF, MulderG. (1998) Psychological aspects of workload. In DrenthPJD, ThierryH, eds. Handbook of work and organizational psychology. Vol. 2. Work psychology. Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press, pp. 5–33.
17.
PiersonH. (1996) Learner culture and learner autonomy in the Hong Kong Chinese context. In PembertonR, LiE, OrW, eds. Taking control: autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 49–55.
18.
TangKCC. (1996) Collaborative learning: the latent dimension in Chinese students' learning. In WatkingsD, BiggsJ, eds. Chinese learner: cultural psychological and contextual influences. Hong Kong/Melbourne: Comparative Education Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research, pp. 183–204.
19.
WinterS. (1996) Peer tutoring and learning outcomes. In WatkingsD and BiggsJ, eds. Chinese learner: cultural psychological and contextual influences. Hong Kong/Melbourne: Comparative Education Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research, pp. 221–241.
20.
KemberD. Why do Chinese students out-perform those from the west? Do approaches to learning contribute to the explanation?. Cogent Education, 2016; 3:Article 1248187.
21.
HobfollSE. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 2001; 50:337–421.
22.
ReyesMR, BrackettMA, RiversSE, et al.Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2012; 104:700–712.
23.
CariniRM, KuhGD, KleinSP. Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 2006; 47:1–32.
24.
WoodE, ZivcakovaL, GentileP, et al.Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers and Education, 2012; 58:365–374.
25.
JuncoR. In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 2012; 28:2236–2243.
26.
SanaF, WestonT, CepedaNJ. Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers and Education, 2013; 62:24–31.
27.
HuJ, HagedornS. Chinese parents' hope for their only children: a transition program case study. Journal of College Admission, 2014; 223:34–42.
28.
TungML. The roots of the challenge: undergraduate Chinese students adjusting to American college life. International Journal of Higher Education, 2016; 5:121–130.
29.
ThakkarD. Social and cultural contexts of Chinese learners: teaching strategies for american educators. Multicultural Education, 2011; 19:51–54.
30.
ChenSH, ZhouQ, EisenbergN, et al.Parental expressivity and parenting styles in Chinese families: prospective and unique relations to children's psychological adjustment. Parenting Science and Practice, 2011; 11:288–307.
31.
CokerBLS. Workplace internet leisure browsing. Human Performance, 2013; 26:114–125.
32.
OberstU, WegmannE, StodtB, et al.Negative consequences from heavy social networking in adolescents: the mediating role of fear of missing out. Journal of Adolescence, 2017; 55:51–60.
33.
BrooksS. Does personal social media usage affect efficiency and well-being?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 46:26–37.
34.
LiJ, LeppA, BarkleyJE. Locus of control and cell phone use: implications for sleep quality, academic performance, and subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 52:450–457.
35.
CassadyJC. Self-reported GPA and SAT: a methodological note. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation. 2001; 7: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=12 (accessed on Feb.3, 2018).
36.
LeungL, LeePSN. Internet addiction symptoms, and internet activities on academic performance. Social Science Computer Review, 2012; 30:403–418.
37.
LimVKG, ChenDJQ. Cyberloafing at the workplace: gain or drain on work?. Behaviour and Information Technology, 2012; 31:343–353.
38.
McNicolML, ThorsteinssonEB. Internet addiction, psychological distress, and coping responses among adolescents and adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2017; 20:296–304.
