Upload
lynn-norman
View
214
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
E-Learning via audio conferencing- is it as efficient as f2f learning?
Medium, method and learning:
•Medium will never influence learning (Clark, 1994)
• Media and instructional methods are inextricably interconnected
(Kozma, 1994)
Is that really so?!
From businesses e-communication to e-learning
1. Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Daft, Lengel & Treviño, 1987)
lean communication medium
From businesses e-communication to e-learning
2. Media Naturalness Hypothesis (Kock, 2005)
communication ambiguity, cognitive effort =>
“virtual” medium efficiency = natural medium efficiency
Learning satisfaction
Media Naturalness Hypothesis:more natural medium = more “exiting” communication
(physiological arousal )
Disinhibition effect of visual anonymity
visual anonymity => fear of criticism
=> participation, answering questions
Field and laboratory research combination
• Research purpose: to study student behavior and learning in audio conferencing vs. f2f
√ Field research focused on student behavior
• Laboratory research focused on learning
Laboratory research purposes
To compare offline and online learning in: 1. Achievement and learning perception2. Learning satisfaction3. Participation and answering teacher’s questions
Research hypothesizes:
• Achievement and learning perception: no differences
• Learning satisfaction: lower online
• Participation and answering questions: higher online
Media Naturalness
Visual Anonymity
Method
• 42 undergraduates randomly allocated to f2f vs. audio conferencing conditions
• Learning 20 minute interactive lessons from the same teacher in triads
• Achievement measured by pretest - posttest, learning perception and satisfaction by questionnaire, participation and answering by quantitative content analysis
Results: 1. Learning efficiency
As hypothesized, we found no significant differences in achievement and learning perception
2 .Learning satisfaction
5.34.2
4.73.8
54.3
5.34.3
5.34.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Students-tutor interaction enjoyment
Peers interaction enjoyment
General learning satisfaction
Interest
Concentration
"Pereferial" learning aspects' differences
Face-to-face Audio conferencing
3 .Participation and answering
4062
1321
142 179
6782
75
98
26
33
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Group answering
Each student's answering
Total lesson participation
Tutor's participation
Group students' participation
Each student's participation
Mean participation and answering questions
Face-to-face Audio conferencing
Findings summary
• Audio conferencing as effective as f2f learning• Lower learning satisfaction in audio conferencing
• Higher participation and answering questions in audio conferencing
Media Naturalness
Visual Anonymity
Two different learning aspects :
• Cognitive aspect: no significant difference
• Socio-emotional aspect: lower learning satisfaction online, higher participation and answering questions online
Theoretical contributions: • Media Richness Theory Media Naturalness Hypothesis
• Media per se may influence learning
Practical contributions: • Effective learning tool• Promoting participation and
answering questions
References:• Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.
Educational Technology Research and Development 42 (2), 21-29.• Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness:
A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In: B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
• Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., & Treviño, L.K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355-368.
• Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Toward a theory of media synchronicity. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
• Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48 (2), 117-130.
• Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 7-19.