Transcript Audio conferencing_f2f learning, Blau and Caspi, Chais 2008

Ina Blau and Avner Caspi
The Open University
E-Learning via audio conferencingis 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 perception
2. Learning satisfaction
3. Participation and answering teacher’s questions
Research hypothesizes:
•
•
Media
Naturalness
Achievement and learning perception:
no differences
Learning satisfaction: lower online
Visual Anonymity
•
Participation and answering questions:
higher online
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
"Pereferial" learning aspects' differences
5.3
4.4
Concentration
Interest
4.3
General learning satisfaction
4.3
Peers interaction enjoyment
5.3
5
4.7
3.8
5.3
4.2
Students-tutor interaction enjoyment
0
Face-to-face
1
2
3
Audio conferencing
4
5
6
3. Participation and
answering
Mean participation and answering questions
26
Each student's participation
33
75
98
Group students' participation
67
Tutor's participation
82
142
179
Total lesson participation
13
Each student's answering
21
40
62
Group answering
0
20
40
60
80
Face-to-face
100
120
140
160
Audio conferencing
180
Findings summary
Media
Naturalness
• Audio conferencing as effective as f2f learning
• Lower learning satisfaction in audio conferencing
Visual Anonymity
• Higher participation and answering questions in
audio conferencing
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 ecommunication 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.