Cyberloafing in IT classrooms: exploring the role of the psycho-social environment in the classroom, attitude to computers and computing courses, motivation and learning strategies

  • Ramazan Yılmaz
  • Halil Yurdugül


The purpose of this study is to find out the level of cyberloafing behaviors of the students in information technologies (IT) classrooms; and to examine the relationship between cyberloafing behaviors and the psycho-social perceptions, attitudes and motivation for the courses and learning strategies. Correlational method was utilized; and structural equation modelling is applied to analyze the data. The study was carried out with the students who take Computing I course in the IT classroom. Data were collected from 607 university students by utilizing five self-report instruments: ‘demographic information form’, ‘cyberloafing activities scale’, ‘what is happening in this class? questionnaire’, ‘attitude to computers and computing courses questionnaire’ and ‘motivated strategies for learning questionnaire’. The results demonstrate that students’ cyberloafing behaviors are influenced by their psycho-social perceptions, attitudes and learning strategies. However, the results demonstrate that students’ cyberloafing behaviors aren’t influenced by their motivation for the courses. Further research studies and implications are presented and discussed.


Cyberloafing Psycho-social environment Attitudes Motivation Learning strategies Information technologies classrooms 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adler, R. F., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2013). Self-interruptions in discretionary multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1441–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghaz, A., & Sheikh, A. (2016). Cyberloafing and job burnout: An investigation in the knowledge-intensive sector. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akbulut, Y., Dönmez, O., & Dursun, Ö. Ö. (2017). Cyberloafing and social desirability bias among students and employees. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akbulut, Y., Dursun, Ö. Ö., Dönmez, O., & Şahin, Y. L. (2016). In search of a measure to investigate cyberloafing in educational settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 616–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Askew, K. (2012). The relationship between cyberloafing and task performance and an examination of the theory of planned behavior as a model of cyberloafing. Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Blanchard, A. L., & Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different forms of cyberloafing: The role of norms and external locus control. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1067–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brubaker, A. T. (2006). Faculty perceptions of the impact of student laptop use in a wireless ınternet environment on the classroom learning environment and teaching information and library science. Master Thesis, University of North Carolina, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Data analysis handbook for social sciences (9th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Publication.Google Scholar
  9. Büyüköztürk, S., Akgün, Ö. E., Özkahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), 207–239.Google Scholar
  10. Dursun, O. O., Donmez, O., & Akbulut, Y. (2018). Predictors of cyberloafing among preservice information technology teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(1), 22–41.Google Scholar
  11. Ergün, E., & Altun, A. (2012). The student’s perspective of cyberloafing and its causes. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 2(1), 36–53.Google Scholar
  12. Freimark, M. (2012). The role of organizational citizenship behavior and organizational justice on intention to cyberloaf through a general deterrence theory lens. Doctoral Dissertation. Southern Illinois University, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Gabrielle, D. M. (2003). The effects of technology-mediated instructional strategies on motivation, performance and self-directed learning. Doctoral Dissertation. Florida State University, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance issues and educational applications (pp. 127–154). New Jersey: Lawrece Erlbaum Associates, Publishers Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  15. Gardiner, W. L. (1989). Forecasting, planning, and the future of the information society. In P. Goumain (Ed.), High technology workplaces: Integrating technology, management, and design for productive work environments (pp. 27–39). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  16. Gökçearslan, Ş., Mumcu, F. K., Haşlaman, T., & Çevik, Y. D. (2016). Modelling smartphone addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and cyberloafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 639–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with reading (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Henle, C. A., & Blanchard, A. L. (2008). The interaction of work stressors and organizational sanctions on cyberloafing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(3), 383–400.Google Scholar
  19. Henle, C. A., Kohut, G., & Booth, R. (2009). Designing electronic use policies to enhance employee perceptions of fairness and to reduce cyberloafing: An empirical test of justice theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 902–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.Google Scholar
  21. Huma, Z. E., Hussain, S., Thurasamy, R., & Malik, M. I. (2017). Determinants of cyberloafing: A comparative study of a public and private sector organization. Internet Research, 27(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jandaghi, G., Alvani, S. M., Matin, H. Z., & Kozekanan, S. F. (2015). Cyberloafing management in organizations. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 8(3), 335–349.Google Scholar
  23. Kalaycı, E. (2010). The investigation of relationship between cyberloafing and self-regulated learning strategies among undergraduate students. Master Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  24. Karaoğlan Yılmaz, F. G., Yılmaz, R., Öztürk, H. T., Sezer, B., & Karademir, T. (2015). Cyberloafing as a barrier to the successful integration of information and communication technologies into teaching and learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kidwell, R. E. (2010). Loafing in the 21st century: Enhanced opportunities and remedies for it holding job effort in the new workplace. Business Horizons, 53(6), 543–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, K., Triana, M., Chung, K., & Oh, N. (2016). When do employees cyberloaf? An interactionist perspective examining personality, justice, and empowerment. Human Resource Management, 55(6), 1041–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kovačević, I., Minović, M., Milovanović, M., De Pablos, P. O., & Starčević, D. (2013). Motivational aspects of different learning contexts: “My mom won’t let me play this game…”. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lavoie, J. A. A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2001). Cyberslacking and the procrastination superhighway: A web-based survey of online procrastination, attitudes, and emotion. Social Science Computer Review, 19(4), 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liberman, B., Seidman, G., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Buffardi, L. E. (2011). Employee job attitudes and organizational characteristics as predictors of cyberloafing. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2192–2199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lim, V. K. G. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 675–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., Eikoff, J., Diermyer, C., & Christakis, D. A. (2012). Internet use and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience sampling approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1097–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newby, M., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). An instrument for assessing the learning environment of a computer laboratory. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(2), 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newby, M., & Fisher, D. (2000). A model of the relationship between university computer laboratory environment and student outcomes. Learning Environment Research, 3, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3(1), 248–292.Google Scholar
  37. Okan, Z. (2008). Computing laboratory classes as language learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 11(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ordóñez de Pablos, P., & Lytras, M. D. (2012). Knowledge management and drivers of innovation in services industries (pp. 1–349). IGI-Global: Hershey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning. Michigan: School of Education Building, The University of Michigan (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED338122).Google Scholar
  41. Pintrich, P. R., & Smith, D. A. F. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rahimnia, F., & Mazidi, A. R. K. (2015). Functions of control mechanisms in mitigating workplace loafing: Evidence from an Islamic society. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rumpagarorn, M. W. (2007). Student’s critical thinking skills, attitudes to ICT and perception of ICT classroom learning environments under the ICT schools pilot project in Thailand. Doctoral Dissertation, Thammasat University, Thailand.Google Scholar
  44. Sancar, R. D. (2014). Investigation of computer lab physical and psychosocial environments and students’ attitudes towards computer lab. Master Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  45. Sumer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri [Structural equation models]. Turkish Psychological Articles, 3(6), 49–74.Google Scholar
  46. Sheikh, A., Atashgah, M. S., & Adibzadegan, M. (2015). The antecedents of cyberloafing: A case study in an Iranian copper industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  48. Taneja, A., Fiore, V., & Fischer, B. (2015). Cyber-slacking in the classroom: Potential for digital distraction in the new age. Computers & Education, 82, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vitak, J., Crouse, J., & LaRose, R. (2011). Personal internet use at work: Understanding cyberslacking. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1751–1759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagner, D. T., Barnes, C. M., Lim, V. K. G., & Ferris, D. L. (2012). Lost sleep and cyberloafing: Evidence from the laboratory and a daylight saving time quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 1068–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Yaşar, S. (2013). The effects of students’ locus of control and attitudes towards computer laboratory on their cyberloafing behavior. Master Thesis. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zandvliet, D. B. (1999). The physical environment associated with classroom using new information technologies- cross- national study. Doctoral Dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Austraila.Google Scholar
  56. Zandvliet, D. B., & Straker, L. M. (2001). Physical and psychosocial aspects of the learning environment in information technology rich classrooms. Ergonomics, 44(9), 838–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Physical and psychosocial environments associated with networked classrooms. Learning Environments Reaserch, 8, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang, X., Gao, Y., Yan, X., de Pablos, P. O., Sun, Y., & Cao, X. (2014). From e-learning to social-learning: Mapping development of studies on social media-supported knowledge management. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 803–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang, H., Zhao, H., Liu, J., Xu, Y., & Lu, H. (2015). The dampening effect of employees’ future orientation on cyberloafing behaviors: The mediating role of self-control. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–10.Google Scholar
  61. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara , P. (2012). Reconsidering the boundaries of the cyberloafing activity: The case of a university. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(5), 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, P., Verano Tacoronte, D., & Ting Ding, J. M. (2006). Do current anti-cyberloafing disciplinary practices have a replica in research findings? a study of the effects of coercive strategies on workplace Internet misuse. Internet Research, 16(4), 450–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of EducationBartın UniversityBartınTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of EducationHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations