10
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 55, NO. 2, JUNE 2012 175 Incorporating User Appropriation, Media Richness, and Collaborative Knowledge Sharing Into Blended E-Learning Training Tutorial —Feature by CRAIG BAEHR, MEMBER, IEEE Abstract—Problem: E-learning has become a standard in many organizations to train its workforce and build an information network that encourages collaborative knowledge sharing. As a result of technological and global factors, the complexity of delivering successful e-learning courses and products is an increasing challenge for subject matter experts and instructional designers. Online training courses have become blended learning environments, comprised of synchronous and asynchronous modes of delivery, multiple media forms, and global and localized audiences to meet the demands and flexibility it affords. Successful blended e-learning is more than simply mixing online and live instructional modes; it can also include a combination of multiple media types, technologies, and communication modes. E-learners have become multimodal learners, with the ability to adapt to multiple media forms, environment types, and tools. Key concepts: Understanding the complex interaction of technology use, collaborative knowledge sharing, and media can facilitate more effective communication exchanges between instructor, content, and learner. Some concepts that help describe the complexities of blended e-learning include technological appropriation, technological accommodation, media richness, media synchronicity and naturalness, blended e-learning, and collaborative knowledge sharing. Key lessons: Research trends suggest learners appropriate technology and media forms, and evaluate usefulness based on a range of factors, including richness, experience, perception, and recommendation. Blended learning environments add complexity by mixing spatial (distributed and colocated) and temporal (asynchronous and synchronous) components with increased levels of collaborative knowledge sharing. From these research trends, the following best practices for developing e-learning are recommended: (1) consider media richness factors and user preferences in media and tool selection; (2) encourage personalization to foster trust; (3) facilitate collaborative knowledge sharing both inside and outside the training setting; (4) balance roles as knowledge facilitator, coach, and information manager; and (5) invest additional time in both course and instructor preparation. Implications: Blended e-learning presents a number of challenges for subject matter experts and designers of instructional content. Subject matter experts must consult with instructional designers and consider the different media platforms, environments, and formats that optimize the best pairing of content with delivery mode and media type. Content experts and designers must collaborate on methods of effectively adapting course content to account for perceived richness, user experience, and task complexity. Instructors must also invest additional time in planning and accounting for user preferences and communication practices in online training. Index Terms—Blended e-learning, media richness, online training. INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, there has been tremendous growth in the use of virtual classrooms for workplace training and academic instruction. According to the 2011 American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) State of the Industry Report, nearly 70% of training is classroom based, including online and live settings, with a marked increase in mobile learning [1]. When taking an online course, participant interaction involves using multiple communication modes (audio, text, video), unique browser-based environments and Manuscript received February 01, 2012; accepted February 29, 2012. Date of publication April 25, 2012; date of current version May 18, 2012. The author is with the Department of English, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3091 USA (email: [email protected]). IEEE 10.1109/TPC.2012.2190346 tools, and other global factors, such as time and geographic distance. As a result, e-learning has become increasingly blended, mixing asynchronous and synchronous communication modes to meet the demands and flexibility online training affords. Synchronous learning is essentially live, such as learning in a chat room, where conversation is continuous, while asynchronous learning is punctuated by temporal breaks in the interaction, such as discussion posts in a threaded online discussion board. Yet, blended e-learning is more than simply mixing online and live instructional modes; it can also include a combination of two or more different media types, technologies, and communication modes. And e-learners have become multimodal learners, with the ability to adapt to multiple media forms, environment types, and tools. As a result, developing effective online training requires a complex understanding of how technology, media, and users interact. 0361-1434/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE

Incorporating User Appropriation, Media Richness, and Collaborative Knowledge Sharing Into Blended E-Learning Training Tutorial

  • Upload
    c

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 55, NO. 2, JUNE 2012 175

Incorporating User Appropriation, Media Richness,and Collaborative Knowledge Sharing IntoBlended E-Learning TrainingTutorial—Feature by

CRAIG BAEHR, MEMBER, IEEE

Abstract—Problem: E-learning has become a standard in many organizations to train its workforce and build aninformation network that encourages collaborative knowledge sharing. As a result of technological and global factors,the complexity of delivering successful e-learning courses and products is an increasing challenge for subject matterexperts and instructional designers. Online training courses have become blended learning environments, comprisedof synchronous and asynchronous modes of delivery, multiple media forms, and global and localized audiences tomeet the demands and flexibility it affords. Successful blended e-learning is more than simply mixing online and liveinstructional modes; it can also include a combination of multiple media types, technologies, and communicationmodes. E-learners have become multimodal learners, with the ability to adapt to multiple media forms, environmenttypes, and tools. Key concepts: Understanding the complex interaction of technology use, collaborative knowledgesharing, and media can facilitate more effective communication exchanges between instructor, content, and learner.Some concepts that help describe the complexities of blended e-learning include technological appropriation,technological accommodation, media richness, media synchronicity and naturalness, blended e-learning, andcollaborative knowledge sharing. Key lessons: Research trends suggest learners appropriate technology andmedia forms, and evaluate usefulness based on a range of factors, including richness, experience, perception, andrecommendation. Blended learning environments add complexity by mixing spatial (distributed and colocated) andtemporal (asynchronous and synchronous) components with increased levels of collaborative knowledge sharing.From these research trends, the following best practices for developing e-learning are recommended: (1) considermedia richness factors and user preferences in media and tool selection; (2) encourage personalization to foster trust;(3) facilitate collaborative knowledge sharing both inside and outside the training setting; (4) balance roles asknowledge facilitator, coach, and information manager; and (5) invest additional time in both course and instructorpreparation. Implications: Blended e-learning presents a number of challenges for subject matter experts anddesigners of instructional content. Subject matter experts must consult with instructional designers and consider thedifferent media platforms, environments, and formats that optimize the best pairing of content with delivery modeand media type. Content experts and designers must collaborate on methods of effectively adapting course content toaccount for perceived richness, user experience, and task complexity. Instructors must also invest additional time inplanning and accounting for user preferences and communication practices in online training.

Index Terms—Blended e-learning, media richness, online training.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, there has been tremendousgrowth in the use of virtual classrooms forworkplace training and academic instruction.According to the 2011 American Society for Training& Development (ASTD) State of the IndustryReport, nearly 70% of training is classroom based,including online and live settings, with a markedincrease in mobile learning [1]. When taking anonline course, participant interaction involvesusing multiple communication modes (audio, text,video), unique browser-based environments and

Manuscript received February 01, 2012; accepted February 29,2012. Date of publication April 25, 2012; date of current versionMay 18, 2012.The author is with the Department of English, TexasTech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3091 USA (email:[email protected]).

IEEE 10.1109/TPC.2012.2190346

tools, and other global factors, such as time andgeographic distance. As a result, e-learning hasbecome increasingly blended, mixing asynchronousand synchronous communication modes to meetthe demands and flexibility online training affords.Synchronous learning is essentially live, suchas learning in a chat room, where conversationis continuous, while asynchronous learning ispunctuated by temporal breaks in the interaction,such as discussion posts in a threaded onlinediscussion board. Yet, blended e-learning is morethan simply mixing online and live instructionalmodes; it can also include a combination oftwo or more different media types, technologies,and communication modes. And e-learners havebecome multimodal learners, with the ability toadapt to multiple media forms, environment types,and tools. As a result, developing effective onlinetraining requires a complex understanding of howtechnology, media, and users interact.

0361-1434/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE

176 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 55, NO. 2, JUNE 2012

Blended e-learning presents a number of designchallenges for the instructor and complexity for thelearner, due to the range of technological products,media forms, and increasingly global audience.These challenges are even more complex for subjectmatter experts who find themselves in the roleof trainer, with limited experience in classroominstructional methods, let alone in an online setting.The e-learning environment requires higher levels ofdigital literacy from the instructor and participant,such as the ability to switch between forms of mediaand work with a range of communication tools.From instructors, it also demands more preparationin course development, an increased managementrole in facilitating interaction and technicalsupport of online learning platforms, includinglearning-management systems. While instructorsmay select tools with specific intrinsic featuresand characteristics, they must also anticipateactual uses of these tools by training participants.Technology-mediated e-learning environmentsalso create a social learning context, in whichknowledge sharing and cooperative learning arean important part of the learning culture [2].As such, learners seek out more active roles inknowledge exchange in online training. Onlinelearners share similar characteristics with globalvirtual teams, being geographically dispersed,communicating electronically, and relying on socialforms of communication to foster trust [3]. Outsidethe e-learning environment, participants also usesocial media and other internet-based searchingtools to interact with course content, peers, andothers. Their actual use, or appropriation, ofthese tools may fit their learning needs, supportspecific training objectives, and serve as a sourceof supplemental learning and networking. Whendeveloping successful e-learning, it is important toconsider these factors from the perspective of theinstructor (in course planning and delivery) andlearner (to optimize learning strategies and skills)inside and outside the learning environment.

As the demand for e-learning increases, theimportance of incorporating successful methodsin developing online training products is clear.Anticipated trends suggest a continued balance, orblend, between instructor-led and technology-basedcourses, particularly in the increased use ofsocial and mobile learning [1]. As a result,e-learning must incorporate a blended approachin selecting communication modes, media types,and formats, which goes beyond finding a use forthe latest tool. In terms of organizational value,e-learning “frequently produces efficiency gains,

increases content reuse, and decreases overallcosts for learning delivery” [1]. While the valueof e-learning solutions in organizations has beenwell-established, the demands on instructorsto optimize the use of resources, tools, andinstructional methods will only increase over time.

This tutorial focuses on a central research question:what successful development strategies are highlysuccessful for blended e-learning solutions? Thistutorial draws from recent studies and researchfrom the past decade, including studies with globalperspectives. The research spans a wide rangeof topics, including virtual teaming, instructionalmodalities, collaborative social media, qualityassurance, media choice, and instructionalpreparation. Three common themes (technologyuse, collaborative knowledge sharing, mediarichness) present in the research sample havebeen addressed in various situational contexts,but they are often addressed as separate issues,independent of one another. In blended e-learning,understanding the complex interaction betweenthese is an important issue, not considered indepth. Another limitation in the research appearsto be the dichotomous paradigm of localized versusglobal training. Particularly in e-learning, theboundaries between the two have also becomeblended, in which, for example, localized trainingmay, in fact, have global factors, due to regionalcultural differences or use of socially mediated toolsand networked resources.

This tutorial synthesizes some best practicesin the development of successful blendede-learning, which specifically relates to theseresearch trends. First, it discusses key concepts,which include technological appropriation andaccommodation, media richness, and collaborativeknowledge-sharing practices relevant to e-learning.These concepts explore ways in which users interactwith technological products, acquire knowledge,and how their perceptions affect learning. Next,it discusses five key lessons from the research,which can be incorporated as part of a developmentstrategy for e-learning products. And, finally, itdiscusses some of the implications to practicewith regard to blended e-learning instructionaldevelopment.

KEY CONCEPTS

This section will introduce concepts from theliterature selection that relate to technology use,media richness, and knowledge sharing in onlinetraining research over the past decade. These areas

BAEHR: INCORPORATING USER APPROPRIATION, MEDIA RICHNESS, AND COLLABORATIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING 177

were selected since they represent trends andissues of importance, in particular, to e-learningdevelopment. The six major concepts discussed inthis section include technological appropriation,technological accommodation, media richness,media synchronicity and naturalness, blendede-learning, and collaborative knowledge sharing.

How Literature Was Selected The main goalof this study was to synthesize recent researchand best practices for the development of blendede-learning products. The literature search wasconducted using specific keywords and a daterange for four highly respected journals in technicalcommunication, which have featured articles oninstructional design topics. In addition, widelyaccepted classic references outside the date rangewere also selected. The keywords used to searchtitles and abstracts include the following: blendedlearning, online training, e-learning, technologytraining, media richness, and collaborativeknowledge sharing. To select recent researchstudies, the date range was limited to a tenyear period (2003–2012), and the four journalsselected were IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL

COMMUNICATION, Journal of Technical Writing andCommunication, Technical Communication, andTechnical Communication Quarterly. And, finally,criteria used to select individual articles from thegeneral keyword search included selections thatspecifically addressed corporate or global contexts,blended approaches, and social or collaborativemedia use.

Learners Engage in Technological AppropriationTechnology serves as the infrastructure thatfacilitates communication in online trainingsettings. The specific tools selected to facilitatelearning are equally important and are based on anumber of considerations, including bandwidth,cost, complexity, features, compatibility, and easeof use, to name just a few. Although specific toolselections serve different purposes, actual tooluse may vary in unpredictable and, sometimes,beneficial ways. Technological appropriation, withfoundations in social constructionist and newmedia theories, describes the actual uses of aparticular technological product which emergeas a user learns and integrates it into his or herlife, rather than the product’s intended uses [4].The gap between the developer’s intended usesand the user’s actual uses of any technologicalproduct extends to distance learning environments.For example, the multiuser dungeon (or domain),object-oriented (MOO) environment was initially atext-based virtual gaming world, which became a

tool, and has been used to create virtual classroomswhere students interact with their professorsand classmates. Even the weblog, initially a webjournal or log, has become a content-managementplatform used in place of full-scale websites forindividuals and organizations. Blogs, messageboards, and wikis are used widely in onlinetraining, and increasingly global workplaces,for knowledge exchange. While the technologymay shape the user’s actions to some degree,technological appropriation suggests the reverseis also true, and such user appropriation oftechnologies becomes part of the tool’s iterativedevelopment cycle. This appropriation can shapethe future iterations and applications of thoseproducts [5]. Learning-management systems, suchas Blackboard, have evolved features based partlyon user preferences. This appropriation trendhas penetrated the realm of social media, whichfacilitates socially constructed knowledge andexpanded user communities. These communitiessupport and contribute to the development of thetools which, in turn, encourage a global audienceto participate.

Learners Engage in TechnologicalAccommodation Part of how we come tounderstand how users appropriate technologies isthrough observation. Technological accommodationexamines the actual contexts of use and thepractices that emerge from use (and appropriation)of the particular technology, including thefar-reaching impacts on users [6]. The processesthat emerge from accommodation become partof the user’s mental model of how to use thetool, and can include formal (procedures) andinformal (work-around) behaviors. For example,instant messaging has become a platform forinstructional support, where an online presencesignals their availability, akin to seeing the virtualoffice door open. Instant messaging has expandedits functionality over the years, including the use ofaudio/videoconferencing capabilities for a limitednumber of users, such as small workgroups.The work-around behaviors that emerge fromthe process of technological accommodation,if successful, may be integrated into formalprocedures by other training participants andinstructors, as a best practice for future training.Observing and studying these behaviors closelymay also lead to more effective e-learning.

Media Richness Affects Learning PerformanceMedia use (and, in particular, mixed media use) hasbecome prevalent in online training, from its use inaudio/videoconferencing, podcasting, presenting,

178 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 55, NO. 2, JUNE 2012

procedural instruction, and tutorials. Many of theskills attributed to digital (and media) literacy,such as concept formation, symbolic recognition,meaning matching, and comparison/contrast,predated many digital media technologies usedin distance learning curricula today. Earlynotions of digital (and media) literacy focused onbasic accessibility, such as learning how to useperipherals, hierarchical file organization, andassociative pairing (such as icon to function).Today, digital learning is greatly impacted by thelearner’s digital literacy, which has expanded toinclude core skills, such as structured authoring,classification and relevance sorting, multitasking,higher-order problem solving, visual patternrecognition, and mixed-media use (multimodality),among others. E-learning has become interactivelearning, involving tasks that engage higher levelsof thinking, such as practice, discovery, simulation,and contextual inquiry [7]. As digital media formshave evolved, their capabilities and perceivedusefulness in training situations vary based onmany factors, such as purpose, functionality,bandwidth, task, and its richness or quality.

Media Richness Theory suggests that the moreambiguous the task, the more complex the mediumneeds to be for effective communication [8].Each communication medium (or tool) possessesintrinsic characteristics which comprises itsrichness; however, individual experience, perceivedusefulness, and ease of use also affect the richnessfactor [9]. And depending on whether a learnerpasses along his or her experiences with a given toolto others, through message boards, rating systems,or word of mouth, richness, to some extent, isinfluenced by socially constructed knowledge. Inother words, tools perceived to aid learners may, infact, influence other learners and their experienceswith those tools, positively or negatively. Richnessmay also vary depending on the task or context inwhich a particular tool is used [10]. For example,email may be a rich enough medium to answer asimple question, and be preferred based on a lowerlevel of complexity and ease of use. Conversely, themost sophisticated learning-management systemmay provide more complexity and media varietythan an instructor or student may ever need.

Robert and Dennis [11] argue that mediarichness and social presence are linked, andcan be measured in two dimensions: time(asynchronous or synchronous) and space(colocated and distributed). Synchronous formstend to offer high-to-moderate levels of richnessand asynchronous forms offer moderate-to-low

levels. Some examples of high levels includeface-to-face communications, interactive tours, andformal group meetings. Moderate levels includemessage boards, online chat, and audio and/orvideoconferencing. Low levels include email andmemoranda. Participant motivation level may alsobe an indicator of perceived media richness and afunction of social presence, particularly in the caseof formal training sessions, where learners attendin person or virtually.

Research has also shown a positive correlationbetween media richness and learning [10], [12].While media may possess their own intrinsicrichness value, learner perception also comprisesthe overall richness factor. Media richness isgenerally characterized by four factors: feedback,cues, language variety, and personal focus [12].Typically, media with a wider range of symbol setsand modalities are intrinsically higher in mediarichness. For procedural instructions, interactivevideo may have a higher intrinsic media richnessthan text-based instructions. However, the actuallearning performance may also vary depending onthe complexity and type of task performed, and notsolely on media richness [13].

Media Synchronicity and Media NaturalnessAffect the Learning Environment Mediasynchronicity builds on Media Richness Theoryand examines how media type and communicationprocess, when properly matched, assistsinformation processing, specifically, transmissionvelocity, symbol sets (unique communicationtypes, such as text, visuals, formatting), parallelchannels, reprocessability, and rehearsability[12]. Media Naturalness Theory suggests the lessa medium resembles face-to-face interaction,the more cognitive effort is required for effectivecommunication [8]. The presence of synchronouschannels of communication between learnersand the instructor, such as instant messaging oranother chat program, may improve the richnessfactor. Learners that can review (or reprocess)material from other sources, such as a chattranscript, training agenda, handout, or websitereference, may also experience higher levels ofrichness. And learners that have the ability torevise (or rehearse) messages before posting themon a message board or in a live text-based chat,experience a more media-rich learning experience.

Richness may also be affected by the level ofperceived naturalness of any given communicationmedium. However, cognitive effort can also be afunction of technological expertise, familiarity and

BAEHR: INCORPORATING USER APPROPRIATION, MEDIA RICHNESS, AND COLLABORATIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING 179

perception of the medium, information volume,and complexity of the task to be performed. Inaddition, a downside of some media forms is thatusers may adapt to the limitations of the toolused which may, in turn, compromise quality andnaturalness [8]. Using standardized templates,such as those found in presentation software,may limit the complexity and create consistency,but learners may perceive them as artificial orredundant in terms of effectiveness as a learningresource. As e-learning becomes a more media-richand complex experience, our understanding of theuser experience becomes even more essential whenchoosing the instructional tools and media forms.

Online Training Involves Blended E-LearningOnline training environments have becomeincreasingly blended in a variety of ways. Blendedlearning combines synchronous and asynchronousactivities, technologies, audiences (both local andglobal), and media types [7]. These environmentscombine instructor-facilitated activities withstudent-directed activities, which may overlap butnonetheless, achieve specific training goals andoutcomes [15]. This blending may involve morethan just the media forms used in the course, butcan also include a mix of online and face-to-facecomponents. For example, a blended course maycombine online and face-to-face participants inaddition to a wide range of media forms (audio,video) and learning activities (presentation, practiceexercises). While this may create technical,pedagogical, and logistical complexities for theinstructor, adopting a blended learning approachto online training can yield important collaborativeknowledge-sharing benefits.

Lee and Owens [15] identify a number of uniquefactors to distance and blended learning, includinglimited (or varied) expertise, global audience, formatvariety, and compressed training. Instructorsand participants bring a wide range of expertiseto the virtual classroom, in terms of their skills,experiences with specific tools, and aptitude forcommunicating in digital environments. Deliveryformats may vary widely because of the combinationof synchronous and asynchronous modes usedin online training. For example, synchronousmodes may include formal classroom meetings viaan online videoconference, while asynchronousmodes include email, discussion boards, andother web-based content. Working with a globalaudience may also present unique technologicaland resource challenges in training settings,in terms of compatibility, bandwidth, expertise,and time constraints. As a result, many global

training settings may incorporate the use of morestandardized, asynchronous learning activities.Another challenge involves compression of trainingtimelines and curricula to fit the limitations of time,audience, and venue. Often, a compressed schedulemay be required to accommodate the range ofgeographically diverse participants. This may alsotranslate to less synchronous activities in favor ofasynchronous tasks, which are a better fit for eachparticipant’s resource and time limitations.

Blended learning also consists of spatialcomponents (colocated and distributed spaces)and temporal components (asynchronous andsynchronous media), similar to the same waymedia richness is measured [11]. In terms of space,colocated training spaces might include virtualor physical classrooms, or learning-managementsystems (such as Blackboard). Distributed spacesmay include chat rooms, message boards, blogs,wikis, and course websites. In terms of the temporaldimension, asynchronous components couldinclude message boards, email, blogs, wikis, andlearning-management systems. The synchronouscomponents may include any live audio/visualfeeds or live chat sessions. Drawing the linebetween synchronous and asynchronous activitieshas become more difficult due to the versatility andmixed modalities found in some newer technologies.For example, Skype has live audio and videocapabilities, instant messaging, but also otherfeatures including the ability to leave messages forlater retrieval. These tools function more as hybridmodels, which are ideal for blended e-learningenvironments, by combining synchronous andasynchronous methods of communication.

Dayton and McShane Vaughn [16], in their reviewof principles of online course design, suggestmodels that emphasize interaction and activelearning between instructors, students, andcontent to better facilitate collaborative knowledgesharing. Student-to-instructor interaction isfacilitated through feedback, mentoring activities,course standards, and individual personas.Student-to-student exchange involves shareddiscussion and workspaces, which encouragecommunity building and individual persona. Thesemight include synchronous chat, as well as avariety of asynchronous message boards, blogs,wikis, and email. Student-to-content interactionfocuses on a variety of course content, in both pushand pull forms.

Learners Engage in Collaborative KnowledgeSharing Global workplaces, much like online

180 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 55, NO. 2, JUNE 2012

training programs, measure success in their theability to share knowledge, and learn from eachother, and knowledge transfer occurs throughelectronic communication tools [12]. Collaborativeknowledge sharing involves the use of electroniccommunication tools and networking practicesto pool knowledge and enhance learning withina community of users (or learners). Blendede-learning also involves the use of communicationtools for knowledge sharing and learning, includingsocial-mediated technologies (blogs, wikis,discussion boards), structured environments(learning-management systems, course websites),and multimodal presentation (Skype, MicrosoftOffice Communicator, MOO). These spacesencourage additional student-to-student andstudent-to-content interactions. They makeavailable the means for more exchanges outsidethe synchronous classroom environment, andperhaps outside course content boundaries. Forexample, students may be encouraged to networkwith a global community of learners throughoutside sources, such as blogs, discussion forums,and wikis. In addition to collaborative knowledgesharing, these tools also encourage practice andsecondary learning of technology which, in turn,can lead to improved levels of digital literacy. Muchresearch on using collaborative tools, includingthose for writing projects and training, underscorethe need to provide functions that directly supportthe roles, tasks, and activities required by thosefunctions [17]. While many learning-managementsystems may provide a range of functions, includingmessage boards, chat, document posting, real-timegrade books, and so forth, adapting these systemsfor a specific training course can be a challengefor instructors. While these systems have built-incollaborative tools, there are often limits to thelevel of customization for such products. As aresult, without specialized developer knowledge,instructors may seek better tools or methods tofacilitate collaboration and knowledge exchange.

Online training is often highly collaborative,in which participants socially construct andshare knowledge, while switching between arange of media forms as task and expertisepermit. At first glance, this type of collaborationpresents many challenges to participants andinstructors; however, it also affords one veryimportant advantage: knowledge activation.Online classrooms also function as networkedresources, drawing from the expertise of peoplein the same environment. In discussion-basedsynchronous training, engaging learners with

patterns of inquiry that ask them to analyze andapply concepts from their own experiences canactivate a source of knowledge, which can bean additional learning reference. These sharedexperiences create an increased social presence, byengaging the students in creating social knowledgethrough discussion. In a sense, shared spacesfacilitate create shared understanding [18]. Also,in electronic collaboration, personalization canalso help activate new sources of knowledgesharing, enabling more creative and innovativeproducts, including learning materials [18].Many online tools allow for personalization ofthe content (such as blog templates, formatting,textual styles, graphic theme) and persona (suchas avatar or visual representation of the learner).For example, Du and Wagner [19] suggest thatweblogs (or blogs) function as a social knowledgeconstruction and a cognitive learning tool,which encourages frequent interaction, feedback,knowledge sharing, and content creation. Theyidentify four traits that blogs possess, which areconducive to online training: personalized, webbased, automated, and community supported[19]. As information-exchange media, they createintertextual relationships between the primarycourse content, their own (as well as peer) content,and supplemental content through hyperlinking.Blogs allow peers to pool knowledge and benchmarktheir own work against other training participants,which may have a latent affect on motivationand overall work quality. They also serve animportant reflective purpose, allowing learners toreview (or reprocess) concepts from the courseand encourage higher-level thinking processes,such as application, synthesis, or evaluation. Blogshave the potential to enhance persona, by allowinglearners to create a personalized identity and spacein which they can share knowledge across localizedboundaries, with instructors, peers, and potentiallylarger audiences.

KEY LESSONS

This section will consider some of the practicallessons essential to developing successfulblended e-learning courses. These key lessonsdraw from the connections between what weknow about blended e-learning, theories oftechnology, media, and knowledge exchange inonline training. For example, the research trendssuggest users appropriate technology and mediaforms, and evaluate their usefulness based on arange of factors, including richness, experience,perception, and individual recommendation.

BAEHR: INCORPORATING USER APPROPRIATION, MEDIA RICHNESS, AND COLLABORATIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING 181

Blended learning environments add complexityby mixing both spatial (distributed and colocated)and temporal (asynchronous and synchronous)components. And, in addition, blended e-learninghas increased levels of collaborative knowledgesharing, which shift the traditional paradigms ofinstructional methodology, to include networksbeyond the localized training experience. Fromthese trends in the research, the following bestpractices for blended e-learning are recommended:

• Consider media richness factors and userpreferences in media and tool selection.

• Encourage personalization to foster trust.• Facilitate collaborative knowledge sharing both

inside and outside the training setting.• Balance roles as knowledge facilitator, coach,

and information manager.• Invest additional time in course and instructor

preparation.

(1) Consider Media Richness Factors and UserPreferences in Media and Tool Selection Whenassessing communication tools in advance of thecourse, make selections that build on existing userknowledge and expectation. Distribute an informal,short survey or questionnaire to determine userpreferences and expertise with media and tools.While each tool has its own specific intrinsiccharacteristics, the perception and expertise ofthe learner affects the tool’s success in creating asuccessful learning experience. Intrinsic richnessand expertise with a particular tool may affect alearner’s choice of tools and, in some cases, morerichness may not necessarily result in higherretention rates. For example, a learner with a higherlevel of expertise with one tool, such as email,may rely more on that tool to solve increasinglycomplex tasks [10], despite the fact that its intrinsicrichness may be considered lower than other tools,such as instant messenger or videoconference.

Consider using a range of media and tools toaddress the range of user preferences and learningstyles. While certain modality and task-typepairs facilitate higher learning rates, optimalpairs may differ depending on the learner, sinceeach possesses different skills, background, andexperiences. Offer a range or choice of tools intask performance, where appropriate, to enhancethe richness (and learning experience) since userexperience and perceived ease are contributingfactors to media richness. In a global trainingsetting, this may be particularly important due tolimitations in infrastructure, resources, and otherfactors. While not all research supports a strong

correlation between reprocessability and learning,in some settings, it may have some impact onknowledge transfer. Offer a range of media forms solearners can self-select the tool or channel that ismost conducive to the task at hand. For example,an online synchronous training session mightinclude the use of audio, video, and text all asmodes for communication, providing participantswith a choice of communication modes. In addition,Robert and Dennis [11] suggest each type of mediais different in terms of the level of motivation,social presence, and ability to process information,so providing mixed media, or the ability to switchbetween modes, may be an effective strategy inhelping learners engage with training content.

(2) Encourage Personalization to Foster TrustCoppola, Hiltz, and Rotter [3] suggest earlybehaviors that are predictors of success andfostering trust include social exchanges andset procedures, and later behaviors, includingestablished patterns for communication and atask-based focus in learning. Initially, in onlinetraining, the instructor and participants shouldexchange biographical information, experiences,goals, and expectations, all of which are examples ofhow personalization can foster trust, early on in thetraining. Initial sessions should establish rules andpatterns for communication, and make an extraeffort to connect socially with participants, enablinglater sessions to follow patterns and focus onlearning tasks and objectives. In the early phasesof course delivery, developing written procedures orrules that govern how communication will occuris also important, such as written agendas, orgoals and outcomes. These rules help to createa personalized setting, which fosters group trustand community standards. This is particularlyimportant in a global context, where participantsmay have different assumptions about onlinetraining settings and course protocols. After theinitial exchanges in a course, these rules will leadto established communication patterns, whichtypically emerge over time, which help guide theprogression of topics and activities in longer-termtraining, beyond a single session.

Encouraging personalized spaces also fostersa sense of community, creativity, and culturalexchange. Personalized spaces may also facilitateincreased media naturalness, by creating a humancontext for the training content. For example,course websites, which may include blogs, wikis,or discussion boards, also help foster a sense ofcommunity, provide course context, and develop theonline persona of the instructor and students [14].

182 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 55, NO. 2, JUNE 2012

Participation in individual blogs, wikis, websites,portfolios, or writing profiles or biographies helpslearners maintain their roles as both individualsas well as community members in an onlinecourse. Integrating other forms of social media intoe-learning can facilitate networking relationshipsbetween participants and larger global communitieswith similar interests.

(3) Facilitate Collaborative Knowledge SharingInside and Outside the Training SettingKnowledge transfer must be examined at themedia channel level as well as at the individuallevel, which includes the knowledge and skillsparticipants possess and how they are used inknowledge sharing and learning [12]. Collaborativeconstructivism emphasizes the importance ofshared learning through interaction [19]. Aspart of the training setting, engage students indiscussion-oriented problem solving, analysis,interactive tasks, and application of conceptsto relevant experiences from learners to fostersocial collaborative knowledge sharing. This oftenuntapped resource allows students to pool theircollective knowledge and experience on topicsof relevance. For example, sharing experienceswith different software tools, students can learnbest practices, features, performance tips, andchallenges from others. This also creates asupplemental learning resource that participantscan use to interact and network with others outsidethe training setting.

Learners actively seek and adopt new practices invirtual communication environments to improveknowledge retention and social presence. Thesepractices may be a result of their appropriation ofa specific communication tool and interaction withother training participants. As they appropriatenew tools, users form mental models, or structuralpatterns, which help them learn how to processinformation and perform successfully in highlycomplex environments [20]. As they engage in newactivities, a transfer effect can either positively ornegatively reinforce the new behavior which, inturn, affects their mental models and future actions[20]. This creation and refinement of mental models,a practice known as cognitive constructivism, alsoresults in knowledge acquisition [19]. For example,when users learn how to share a link to an externalwebsite within a synchronous chat environment,the success of this activity may encourage themto seek out similar actions in other learningenvironments with text chat, and teach the skillto others.

Research has also shown that asynchronousforms of social media, such as blogs, wikis, anddiscussion boards, can be effective modes ofcollaborative knowledge sharing, particularly inglobal online training settings. Walsh [21] foundthat although the perceived value of using wikis forcollaborative learning was high among instructorsand participants, problems were encounteredwith the technology, and with creating studentautonomy. Finding the optimum balance betweencomplexity and usefulness in selecting thesesocially mediated collaborative tools is becoming anincreasing critical success factor of e-learning.

(4) Balance Roles as Knowledge Facilitator,Coach, and Information Manager Instructorpreparation and persona function differently inonline training, specifically with the cognitive role(requiring increased cognitive complexity), affectiverole (requiring strengthened relationships andemotional display), and managerial role (requiringincreased detail, structure, monitoring, andrecordkeeping) [3], [22]. The cognitive role involvestesting and selecting the appropriate tools forcommunication and task performance, consideringspatial (location) and temporal (synchronicity)aspects. When making selections, instructorsshould factor in the expertise, limitations, andresources available. The affective role involvesmaintaining a persona to compensate (whenpossible) for limitations in the training environment.This role pertains to the instructor and participantand, for example, may include posting biographies,pictures, work samples, as well as being availableoutside the classroom in a variety of ways, throughemail, instant messenger, video call, and so forth. Inaddition to the traditional responsibilities (grading,recordkeeping, monitoring), the managerial roleinvolves maintaining the content and technicalresources, including the learning-managementsystem, transcripts, web-based content, and, insome cases, serving as supplemental technicalsupport. For example, to help manage thesefunctions, instructors can create an online resourcethat describes expectations, technical supportreferences, performance tips, and access points forsupplemental content. Understanding the complexfunctions and advance preparation for the rolesof participant and instructor in online training isessential in planning a successful course.

(5) Invest Additional Time in Course andInstructor Preparation With regard topreparation time for an online course, instructorsmay spend as much as 20% more time preparingonline courses than they do for the same

BAEHR: INCORPORATING USER APPROPRIATION, MEDIA RICHNESS, AND COLLABORATIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING 183

face-to-face class [22]. Preparing additionalmaterials in advance, such as supplementalexamples, reference links, written agendas, notes,or talking scripts, are often good practices. Inaddition, Worley and Tesdell [22] suggest theinstructor role is often expanded to includetechnology and support manager, requiringadditional knowledge of content-managementsystems, webpage design, and technical supportprocedures. The ability to evaluate and use awide range of tools has become an integral partof successful online training. This will likelyinvolve the need for additional research, training,self-study, and practice for the instructor andparticipant. For example, spend a few hourspracticing with the training tools, or taking anonline training course as a participant in orderto grasp some of the logistics of managing anonline course. Technical preparedness is oftena strong indicator of success in online trainingcourses. Course outcomes should also be alignedwith technology and media choices, and carefullyconsider participant demographics, expertise,cultural background, limitations, and preferences.For example, distributing skills assessments orsurveys and scheduling individual conferencesor plenary discussions, might be importantinformation gathering tools, which help instructorsplan successful online training courses.

IMPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE

Blended e-learning presents a number of challengesfor subject matter experts and designers ofinstructional content in the development ofsuccessful e-learning. The training environmentsincorporate a blend of synchronous andasynchronous modes of delivery, collaborativeknowledge sharing, temporal and spatial shifts,and multiple media types. Even localized training

incorporates a global context, through the useof social media and supplemental networking,which encourages participant interaction acrossborders. As a result, e-learners have becomefamiliar with a wider range of tools, media, anddelivery formats, and have adapted readily theirrole as multimodal learner. Technology has aninfluential role in curricular development, requiringinstructional designers to invest more time in theselection and testing of technological products (andenvironments) best suited for the specific tasks,activities, topics, knowledge sharing, and learningoutcomes of a particular course. Subject matterexperts must consult with instructional designersand consider the different media platforms,environments, and formats that optimize the bestpairing of content with delivery mode and mediatype. While much research has shown that mediarichness affects learning, it is also a functionof more than the intrinsic characteristics of aparticular media form. Factors, such as perceivedrichness, user expertise, usability, and taskcomplexity, all affect media richness and learnerperformance. Content experts and designers mustcollaborate on methods of effectively adaptingcourse content to account for these factors. Inaddition to technology accommodation, learnerssocially accommodate to the rules and patternsestablished early on in the learning environment.These patterns become part of the mental modelsof the online learning experience and are oftentransferred to other online training scenarios. Asa result, instructors must invest additional timein researching user preferences and planningguidelines for communication practices in onlinetraining. Understanding these unique challengesintroduced by blended e-learning environmentscan help create a more effective training andcommunication exchange between instructor,content, and participant.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Green and E. McGill, Amer. Soc. Train. Develop. (2011). The 2011 state of the industry: Increasedcommitment to workplace learning. [Online]. Available: http://www.astd.org/TD/Archives/2011/Nov/Free/Nov_11_Feature_State_of_the_Industry.htm

[2] Y. Hwang and D. Kim, “Understanding affective commitment, collectivist culture, and social influence inrelation to knowledge sharing in technology mediated learning,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 50, no. 3,pp. 232–248, Sep. 2007.

[3] N. Coppola, S. R. Hiltz, and N. Rotter, “Building trust in virtual teams,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 47,no. 2, pp. 95–104, Jun. 2004.

[4] R. Silverstone, Media and Morality: On the Rise of the Mediapolis. London, UK: M. E. Sharp, 2006.[5] M. McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.[6] C. Baehr and R. Schaller, Writing for the Internet: A Guide to Real Communication in Virtual Space. Santa

Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, 2010.[7] W. Horton, E-Learning by Design, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/Pfeiffer, 2012.

184 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 55, NO. 2, JUNE 2012

[8] N. Kock, “Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatusand its influence on our behavior towards e-communication,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun,, vol. 48, no. 2,pp. 117–130, Jun. 2005.

[9] M. Anandarajan, M. Zaman, Q. Dai, and B. Arinze, “Generation y adoption of instant messaging: Anexamination of the impact of social usefulness and media richness on use richness,” IEEE Trans. Prof.Commun., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 132–143, Jun. 2010.

[10] C. E. Timmerman and S. N. Madhavapeddi, “Perceptions of organizational media richness: Channel expansioneffects for electronic and traditional media across richness dimensions,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 51,no. 1, pp. 18–32, Mar. 2008.

[11] L. Robert and A. Dennis, “Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun.,vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 10–21, Mar. 2005.

[12] C. Scott and S. Sarker, “Examining the role of the communication channel interface and recipientcharacteristics on knowledge internalization: A pragmatic view,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 53, no. 2,pp. 116–131, Jun. 2010.

[13] C. Van Hooijdonk and E. Krahmer, “Information modalities for procedural instructions: The influence oftext, pictures, and film clips on learning and executing RSI exercises,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 51,no. 1, pp. 50–62, Mar. 2008.

[14] S. Codone, “Reducing the distance: A study of course websites as a means to create a total learning space intraditional courses,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 190–199, Sep. 2004.

[15] W. Lee and D. Owens, Multimedia-Based Instructional Design, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/Pfeiffer, 2004.[16] D. Dayton and M. McShane Vaughn, “Developing a quality assurance process to guide the design and

assessment of online courses,” Tech. Commun., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 475–489, 2007.[17] P. B. Lowry and J. F. Nunamaker, “Using internet-based, distributed collaborative writing tools to improve

coordination and group awareness in writing teams,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 277–297,Dec. 2003.

[18] S. Qureshi and P. Keen, “Activating knowledge through electronic collaboration: Vanquishing the knowledgeparadox,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 40–54, Mar. 2005.

[19] H. Du and C. Wagner, “Learning with weblogs: Enhancing cognitive and social knowledge construction,” IEEETrans. Prof. Commun., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1–16, Mar. 2007.

[20] M. Albers, “Design for effective support of user intentions in information-rich interactions,” J. Tech. WritingCommun., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 117–194, 2009.

[21] L. Walsh, “Constructive interference: Wikis and service learning in the technical communication classroom,”Tech. Commun. Quart., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 184–211, 2010.

[22] W. Worley and L. Tesdell, “Instructor time and effort in online and face-to-face teaching: Lessons learned,”IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 138–151, Jun. 2009.

Craig Baehr (M’02) is an associate professor of TechnicalCommunication and Rhetoric at Texas Tech University, Lubbock,TX. He is author of Web Development: A Visual-Spatial Approachand Writing for the Internet: A Guide to Real Communication inVirtual Space. Previously, he was a technical writer and trainerfor 10 years with the US Army Corps of Engineers.