WeChat dual-group (mis-)use: a qualitative exploration of Chinese undergraduate students’ use of mobile social media applications and its pedagogical implications

Introduction Although WeChat is widely adopted in Chinese higher-education English-translation programmes, little is known about how students actually use its group-chat function for collaborative learning or what problems arise. This study explores the dual-group phenomenon—parallel instructor including inclusive and student-only WeChat groups, to uncover both the merits and the challenges of this informal digital ecology. Methods An interpretivist, qualitative design was employed. Twenty-eight undergraduates from a Chinese technology-focused public university were recruited through course announcements, email and flyers. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted, transcribed, translated and analysed inductively using thematic analysis. Results All participants reported maintaining two distinct WeChat groups per course: (1) an authoritative, instructor-inclusive channel for official notices and verified resources; and (2) an informal, student-only space for peer troubleshooting, social support and rapid resource sharing. Benefits included clear role differentiation, emotional safety for “naïve” questions, and accelerated knowledge co-construction. Downsides were information overload, off-topic chatter, fragmented communication, unequal participation dominated by vocal peers, and limited instructor oversight. Half of the informants observed instances of academic misconduct (e.g., sharing quiz screenshots or copying translations). Students also noted blurred professional boundaries, with some expecting 24/7 instructor availability. Discussion The dual-group arrangement constitutes a layered communication ecology that simultaneously enhances and undermines collaborative learning. While it balances authority with autonomy, its unregulated nature risks cognitive overload, inequity and integrity breaches. Examples of pedagogical recommendations include: (a) explicit norms for each group, (b) weekly pinned summaries to reduce noise, (c) peer moderators to ensure equitable voice, (d) assessment designs that deter cheating, and (e) co-created digital-communication codes to clarify collaboration–plagiarism boundaries. Institutionally, embedding digital professionalism into curriculum standards and establishing discipline-level hubs for digital-translation pedagogy can better achieve university learning goals.