Home

Communication Potential, Information Richness and Attitude: A Study of Computer Mediated Communication in the ALN Classroom

by Sloan-C

Abstract
Evaluation, in the technology-based classroom, is often based on looking at performance—student performance, instructor performance, and technology performance. An equally important dynamic to consider is communication potential–the ability of the system design and course environment to replicate face-to-face communication, support key instructional tasks and provide adequate interaction opportunities between instructor and students.

The present study utilized a 112-item survey of students in three communications classes using computer-mediated communication. Results indicated that communication potential, expressed as a function of information richness and system design factors, impacts student attitudes and preferences, as well as course satisfaction and outcome. Operationalizing communication potential within the context of the instructional setting might help us to understand how to compensate for the lack of face-to-face communication in various instructional media, as well as how to utilize system design factors to augment social interaction and improve course satisfaction and learning outcome.

I. INTRODUCTION

We have always had a fascination with the human face. Babies are known to fix on, and be able to remember their mother’s face from the earliest hours of birth; celebrities are known and celebrated for their facial features, which we paste on magazine covers and use to adorn billboards, t-shirts and the like; culturally, we have regarded face-to-face communication as extremely important, even critical, to the outcome of most human endeavors in such areas as business, personal relationships and education. Yet that most basic form of discourse is rapidly being supplanted by various forms of electronic, computer-based communication in many of the daily interactions of modern life–in the board room, in the work place and now in the classroom.

The traditional undergraduate university classroom, until recently one of the few places where face-to-face communication between instructor and student was seen as the desired norm, has been undergoing rapid transformation due to the impact of computer technology. Online computer networks, both proprietary and Internet-based, have begun to augment and supplant some of the unique interactions that take place in the classroom between instructor and student. Through their ability to electronically facilitate face-to-face communication, online computer interfaces provide virtual linkages over physical distance and time. Syllabi, lecture notes and other course materials are now routinely available online, even in courses taught entirely face-to-face; while many instructors in ALN courses make use of computer based instructional media tools such as lecturing bulletin boards, chat rooms, e-mail and computer conferencing to communicate in addition to, and beyond, the walls of the classroom.

As various forms of teaching with technology, from full-blown distance education using telecommunications and asynchronous, computer based learning to in-class use of computers and interactive technology become more common at the university level, questions related to the effectiveness and consequences of using a particular form of computer technology to facilitate instructional tasks in the mediated classroom become increasingly more important. Although technology-based courses are still most common in the business and computer science curriculums [1], these questions pose significant issues for all academic researchers, instructors and administrators involved in or contemplating conducting courses at a distance. Given the above, the purpose of this study is to begin to explore the information carrying potential of the various media used to conduct instructional tasks in ALN environments and to measure their effect on students’ attitudes and perceptions. The major goal of the study is to examine whether students’ perceptions of the media richness and information carrying potential of a course and its system design have an impact on course satisfaction and learning outcome. The study also seeks to begin to develop a typology of instructional media and system design/interface elements used in ALNs based on students’ (and in a future study, faculty’s) evaluations of perceived information richness and subsequent rankings of prefernce for various forms of instructional media according to a set of typical instructional tasks. Operationalizing communication potential within the context of the instructional setting might help us to understand how to compensate for the lack of face-to-face communication in various instructional media, as well as how to build system design models that augment social interaction and improve course satisfaction and learning outcome.

II. BACKGROUND

Information alone, minus context, synthesis and the associations that inform one’s developing perspective on the material under study, is obviously not quite the same as knowledge. In the traditional classroom, the instructor is perceived as having the role of providing context and synthesis of information. Online environments are advantaged in that they can support copious amounts of information, but delivery of data, even highly organized and searchable data, does not necessarily equate learning. In asynchronous learning networks (ALNs), the difficulties associated with achieving a successful learning outcome are complicated by the lack of social interaction. Students sometimes feel that the lack of synchronous interaction should be compensated for in some way, so that potential advantages are not offset by feelings of "missing out" by not having the instructor in the classroom. As a student in a graduate level seminar conducted via distance education put it,

Part of my discomfort with this kind of teaching/educational environment was the lack of social interaction. Lecture, class discussions (verbally) significantly increase my understanding of the material discussed. The lack of examples and instant feedback regarding questions and ideas was troublesome for me.

Instructors and designers working on ALN courses usually try to address such attitudes by using compensating mechanisms that attempt to enhance the mediated experience through incorporating graphics, audio and video, interactivity, simulations, and the like into the system design. These system design elements support the instructional tasks associated with the course, and, significantly, often facilitate other types of interaction, such as peer-to-peer communication, discussion and group work. Dede [2], found that this kind of collaborative interaction supports shared "mental models" of the instructional task at hand and can even foster social interactions through formation of virtual communities which provide a "telepresence" that compensates for lack of face-to face interaction and influences learning. Another student in the same graduate seminar commented:

I definitely think that the team aspect compensates for lack of social interaction. Even though our group members didn’t know each other at all at the beginning of class, I think we became pretty close throughout the past few weeks . . . We’d bounce ideas off of each other and use examples from our workplace to back up arguments and points.

The growing interest in distance education stems, in part, from a feeling that the educational needs of many prospective college students can’t always be met within the highly interpersonal, cost-intensive model of higher education [3]. However, although individual preference for face-to-face communication in social interactions is a significant factor in the live classroom, there may be times when mediated instruction may actually be more effective, particularly for adult learners whose limited free time and physical/georgraphical limitations may cause them to prefer an ALN learning model. Even for traditional age students, ALNs can provide advantages, such as in simulating a learning environment, being able to take interactive self quizzes that give students immediate feedback and let them pace their learning. Along these same lines, TV and video conferencing may seemingly provide the best (visually symbolic) representation of the human face, but cost and technological imperatives alone often preclude extensive use. And their communication potential may be limited when it comes to balancing synchronous vs. asynchronous channels of communication. Looked at in this way, there is reason to argue that students may actually prefer different levels of communication, depending on the instructional task. For example, while videoconferencing may be the closest approximation of face-to-face interaction, which is useful when assimilating lecture or demonstration material, that interaction must be in real time. The ability to time shift interaction, so that one can send and receive messages and stay in communication regardless of the time of day or physical location, may be perceived as a real advantage in group work and practice assignments. Based on the above, the present study has been designed to focus on student attitudes about how lack of face-to-face communication is compensated for in various instructional media to perform common instructional tasks. The study will also look at how system design factors augment social interaction and relate to student’s attitudes with respect to course satisfaction and learning outcome.

III. COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION IN THE UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM

Although asynchronous learning encompasses many technologies, the focus of this paper is in the area of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Provenzo defines CMC as "a form of asynchronous communication, which has the advantage of eliminating problems created by barriers of time and space, therefore allowing learners to participate in a system of instruction at a time and place most convenient for them" [4]. Currently, CMC technologies include computer conferencing, e-mail newsgroups, online chat, search/database utilities, multimedia and Web-based environments. For distance education purposes, compared to full duplex video/audio conferencing and proprietary CD-ROM based multimedia, CMC has the advantages of being relatively cost effective, and fairly easy to learn, as well as the potential of being more personal and customizable from the standpoint of faculty curriculum design and instructor-student interaction. In fact, Harasim differentiates CMC from other forms of distance education by categorizing it as a combination of distance education and a simulation of face-to-face instruction utilizing the CMC environment as a conversational metaphor [5].

The experience of CMC in an instructional setting is unique for both instructor and students in a variety of ways. First, CMC computer interfaces are based on send-and-receive email/groupware applications, which simulates a model of one-to-one communication. But CMC also differs from face-to-face interaction in that it is asynchronous in nature, allowing participants to log-on when they choose [6]. Since participants compose text-based messages to post online using one of several groupware software applications that organize categories of e-mail messages and responses according to discussion topic, users can choose to be more or less reflective in their communication. They also have the ability, in most systems, to access an archive of prior message material in the form of discussion threads. Many CMC system designs use graphics and icon-driven interfaces, and most include some mechanism for attaching files, such as creative work and assignments which instructors can comment on and return online.

Due to its wide ranging applications, from the college classroom to business and industry (in the form of distributed learning systems and computer based training), CMC has drawn researchers from a variety of perspectives, including organizational and small group behaviorists, learning theorists, rhetoricians and system designers [7]. Much of the learning and research on CMC has focused on group interactions and impacts of technology on learning outcomes and student performance [3],[8],[9],[10],[12]. The interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives are therefore diverse, yet essentially supportive of CMC as a viable and unique learning tool.

IV. INFORMATION RICHNESS, SYSTEM DESIGN AND CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

Information richness theory is a framework that has been adapted by researchers to examine criteria subjects use in a variety of contexts to make rational media choices. These criteria include attributes of media and message, evaluation of contextual determinants such as time and distance and consideration of the symbolic nature of media choice [13].

The concept of information richness refers to a medium’s tendency to convey "rich" or "lean" information. [14], cited in Daft & Lengel [15], proposed that communication media vary in their ability to carry information. Each medium differs in (1) feedback capability, (2) multiple cues utilized, (3) personal focus of source and (4) language variety [16]. Lengel [14] proposed ranking the various media in terms of richness. Lengel rated face-to-face discussion as the richest medium, followed by telephone, written personal letters and memos, written formal documents and numeric formal documents. Whereas face-to-face discussion facilitates immediate feedback, visual and audio cues, a personal source, and natural body language, numeric documents offer very slow (if any) feedback, limited visual cues, an impersonal source, and strictly numeric language.

Information richness has been defined as "the potential information carrying capacity of data, or simply the capacity of information to provide substantial new consensual understanding" [13]. D’Ambra and Rice [17] use the word "bandwidth," a term adapted from the technical concept for how much information a medium can transmit in a specific amount of time, to help clarify the concept of information richness: "bandwidth is the diversity of cues that a particular medium can transmit"(1987, p. 67). They add that richness also includes aspects of the appropriateness of media choice. Media richness, then, is the potential of a particular medium to convey rich information based on the four criteria cited above.

Most of the studies of information richness, also called media richness in the literature, have focused on business and industry settings. In the instructional setting, some studies have empirically measured how a course is designed with respect to its information carrying capacity and perceived richness. In one such study, a 1990 study of interactive TV-based course delivery systems, Hackman and Walker developed an eight factor scale that assessed the information carrying capacity of various elements of course "system design," which they correlated to perceived learning, as well as to course and instructor satisfaction rankings. The eight factors related to the clarity of transmission, participation, and information transfer. Items were: The instructor’s lectures were easy to hear; I felt satisfied with the amount of information I received; The instructor’s graphics were clear; I felt satisfied with the amount of contact I had with my instructor; It was easy to ask questions or make a comment during class; It was easy to hear comments and questions made by students during class; I felt rapport with other members of the class; and I felt isolated from the rest of class [18].

Results of their study indicated that students believed system design factors had a strong influence on learning. Seven of the eight factors they developed correlated with perceived learning effects. In addition, six of the eight factors correlated positively with students’ satisfaction with the mediated experience, the course and the instructor, suggesting that system design and appropriate use of information rich media does impact student attitude as to learning outcome and course satisfaction levels.

V. METHODOLOGY

The present study utilized a random sample of 54 students in three communications classes currently using CMC. The CMC software package utilized at the university offering the courses included an icon driven interface, e-mail messaging functions such as personal and team mailboxes, real time chat, and the ability to attach files and URLs. Respondents were administered an 112 item survey which included measures designed to evaluate student rankings of media richness and system design factors and how they relate to a set of common instructional tasks. In addition, questions were included to assess how these factors affected students’ perceptions of course satisfaction and learning outcome.

The survey began with a pretest asking participants to rank a selection of eight instructional media common to technologically facilitated communication courses based on the media richness scale developed by Daft [16]. The chosen media were as follows: face-to-face, textbook, e-mail computer conference, real time computer chat, Web site, video conferencing, pre-recorded video, and multimedia slide presentation.

After ranking the media according to the media richness measure, survey participants were shown a demonstration of each media type and read a short description of typical use in a classroom. Participants were then asked to read through a set of instructional tasks and rank them according to the media they would prefer to be used to carry out each task. The set of instructional tasks chosen for the study included: lecture by instructor; discussion of a course topic; instructor’s explanation of a course assignment; asking a question of the instructor; working with other students on a group project; completing and submitting a course assignment; taking an exam; and instructor’s use of an example to explain a concept.

After matching media richness and instructional task, subjects were asked to evaluate their course according to a scale adapted from Hackman and Walker’s study evaluating system design factors and to rate the impact of each factor on their learning and satisfaction with the CMC experience, the course and the instructor. Finally, a four-item scale used to measure computer selfefficacy, adapted for the specific task of acquiring information from the World Wide Web by Kelleher [19], was used to examine computer familiarity and self efficacy in relationship to participant’s responses. Perceived self-efficacy in working with computers is a variable that might be used to predict student satisfaction with learning outcomes, as well as how students match instructional tasks with information richness

VI. RESULTS

A comparison of means for the items in the media richness scale indicated that, as expected, participants ranked face-to-face communication highest in terms of media richness, on a scale of one to five, followed by video conferencing, real time chat and CMC. The difference in means was significant at the p<.0001 level, with a standardized item alpha of .7408 (N=32) (see Table 1).

Table 1. Media Richness Rankings for Selected Instructional Media Items

A comparison of overall mean ratings of media as ranked by participants according to instructional task provides support for the hypothesis that subjects in an instructional setting will choose media according to perceived richness (H1). On a scale ranking media from 1 for first choice to 8 for last choice, subjects’ selections corresponded to the four "richest" media as ranked in the pretest (see Table 2). Face-to-face was ranked first, with CMC ranking fourth, as in the overall richness rankings.

Interestingly, although face-to-face communication was ranked first for all instructional tasks, computer-based media fared well, with video conferencing and chat ranking high for all tasks. CMC was second or third choice for four tasks: asking a question of the instructor, working with students on a group project, instructor’s explanation of a course assignment, and taking an exam. This might indicate that the informal send and receive model of computer communication is conducive to the give-and take interaction of day-to-day instructional tasks, but not always "rich" enough to carry more formalized discourse such as lecture and class based discussion.

Table 2. Ranking of Media Choice by Instructional Task

The standardized item alpha for the scale was .8459.

The hypothesis that responses from subjects who ranked CMC as high in terms of media richness would be positively correlated with perceived learning and course satisfaction (H2) was tested by constructing, a "CMC richness" variable. A median split was used to re-code media ratings and test against the system design factors in the Hackman and Walker scale. Five of the eight variables proved to be significantly correlated at the .05 level (see Table 3).

Ranking CMC High in Media Richness

*five pt. scale, 1=never, 5=always
**seven pt. scale, 1=very negative, 7=very positive
Table 3. Correlation of System Design Factor Rating and Learning Effect for Subjects

System design factors also correlated to satisfaction ratings for media used, the course itself, the instructor and the amount of learning achieved in the course (see Table 4).

Ranking CMC High in Media Richness

*all significant at the <.05 level
Table 4. Correlation of System Design Factor Rating and Course Satisfaction for Subjects

Finally, computer self-efficacy, as expressed in terms of familiarity with online media, was tested for correlatation with student course satisfaction rankings (H3). A significant negative relationship was found for level of satisfaction with the instructor, with an average p value of .06. An implication of this finding might be that the lack of familiarity and confidence with computers and online computer communication will negatively impact student attitudes about other aspects of their course experience. In the case of CMC, since the student gets to "know" the instructor through the computer channel, feelings of transference may occur that cause some students to focus their feelings of frustration with the technology on the instructor.

VII. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Operationalization of the variables in the present study was somewhat constrained, due to sampling among only three classes—all communication focused. More work needs to be done on developing a set of instructional task variables that are standardized across a wide range of curricula and student response. This holds true for the experimental stimulus, as well, which was manipulated in this study based on showing examples, as opposed to experiencing the media under laboratory experimental conditions.

VIII. DISCUSSION

Within the scope of this study of CMC learning environments, communication potential and the "richness" of the communication experience did seem to have an effect on students’ attitudes and satisfaction with the course, the instructor, and their perceived learning outcome. Previous studies have shown that student learning outcomes and satisfaction in CMC environments are related to changes in the traditional instructor’s role from leader to that of facilitator and moderator (Feenberg, 1987; Krendl and Lieberman, 1988; Faigley; 1990). In these types of learning situations, it may be that students perceive that there is a good match between the media richness level of the technology supporting the dyadic communication relationship and the instructors’ role in emphasizing team work and small group interactions.

Graphical CMC interfaces designed to facilitate small group interactions and team projects have also been shown to facilitate a high level of student satisfaction and interaction. In a study of the use of the IdeaWeb© CMC application, Ahern & Repman (1994) found that students using the graphical interface produced more messages, spent approximately 25% more time per visit using the software and addressed significantly more messages to individuals, as opposed to the group as a whole than did students using a textual interface. As a corollary, Hiltz found that students who make the greatest use of the CMC software utilized in a course tend to have the most positive attitudes toward their experience (Hiltz, 1990). Results of the present study suggest that students who perceive CMC as information rich and adequate to the instructional task at hand may have more positive attitudes about the course and their learning, which may in turn cause them to make greater use of the software environment.

The implication of this research is that, in order to facilitate the social interaction of the classroom experience and the instructor’s interpersonal role as class leader, guide and sounding boarding in ALN courses, a learning model based on developing a good match between media richness level and specific instructional tasks might be more effective in enhancing students’ perceptions about the amount and level of the learning they receive.

Further, it raises the issue of how attitude formation and change might affect subsequent learning and course satisfaction outcomes. Further research along these lines might include looking at how student attitudes about online course technologies and ALNs are formed, and testing variables which might positively affect attitudes and perceptions in such a way as to improve learning and course satisfaction.

IX. CONCLUSION

Evaluation, in the technology-based classroom, is often based on looking at performance—student performance, instructor performance, and technology performance. An equally important dynamic to consider, perhaps, is communication potential – the ability of the system design and course environment to facilitate face-to-face communication, support key instructional tasks and provide adequate interaction opportunities among instructor and students.

From this perspective, successful ALNs are those that seek to provide compensating mechanisms that recreate the interpersonal role of the instructor with some of the same level of give and take – the informal one-to-one interaction and relationship between instructor and student that takes place in the live classroom -- yet retain the advantages of asynchronous communication. One of the ways to accomplish this may be through building models which use perceptions of information richness to match media and interface elements to instructional tasks.

In a way, construction of the communication experience, a given in the traditional classroom, may become, in the mediated classroom, as important and as a fundamental a process as developing the course syllabus before one attempts to teach the class.

X. REFERENCES

1. Phillips, V., Earn a Master’s Virtually, Internet World, 9, 67-70, 1996.
2. Dede, C.J., The Evolution of Distance Learning: Technology-mediated Interactive Learning, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 247-264, 1990.
3. Hiltz, S.R., Teaching in a Virtual Classroom: A Virtual Classroom on EIES: Final Evaluation Report, Vol. 2 ( ERIC ED 315 039), 1988.
4. Provenzo, E.F., Jr., Beyond the Gutenberg Galaxy. New York: Teachers College Press, 1986.
5. Harasim, L., and online education: A New Domain. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.) Mindweave: Communication, Computers, and Distance Education, New York: Pergamon Press, 50-62, 1989.
6. McGrath, J.E., Time Matters in Groups. In J. Galegher, R.E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.). Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlebaum, 23-61, 1990.
7. McGuire, T.W., Kiesler, S, & Siegel, S., Group and Computer-mediated Discussion Effects in Risk Decision-making, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930, 1987.
8. Ahern, T.C., Peck, K., & Laycock, M., The Effects of Teacher Discourse in Computer-mediated Discussion, Journal of Educational Computing Research, (3) 8, 255-273, 1992.
9. Lea, M., CMC, De-individuation, and Group Decision-making, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301, 1991.
10. Walther, J., Computer-mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Interaction, Communication Research, 23, 3-33,1996.
11. Kraemer, K.L., & Pinsonneault, A., Technology and Groups: Assessment of the Empirical Research. In J. Galegher, R.E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlebaum, 375-405, 1990.
12. Perrault, H., & Moses, D., The Impact of Groupware on the Decision-making Process. In Southwest Administration Services Association Proceedings, Nagadoches, TX: SASA, 146-155, 1992.
13. Trevino, L.K., Lengel, R.H., Bodensteiner, W., & Gerloff, E., Managerial Media Choice: The Interactive Influences of Cognitive Style and Message Equivocality. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA, 1987.
14. Lengel, R.H., Managerial Information Processing and Communication-Media Source Selection Behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1983.
15. Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H., Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Information Processing and Organizational Design, In Cummings, L.L., and Saw, B.M. (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984.
16. Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., & Trevino, L.K., Message Equivocality, Media Selection and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355-366, 1987.
17. D’Ambra, & Rice, R., Multimethod Approaches for the Study of Computer-mediated Communication, Equivocality and Media Selection, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 37(4), 231-239, 1994.
18. Hackman, M.Z., & Walker, K., Instructional Communication in the Televised Classroom, Communication Education, 39, 1990.
19. Kelleher, T., Amount of Invested Mental Effort and Learning from Media: a Conceptual Review. Paper presented at the 1996 annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Communication, 1996.
20. Feenberg, A., Computer Conferencing and the Humanities, Instructional Science, 16, 169-186 1987.
21. Krendl, K.A., & Lieberman, D.A., Computers and Learning: A Review of Recent Research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, (4)4 367-389, 1988.
22. Faigley, L., Subverting the Electronic Network: Teaching Writing Using Networked Computers. In D.A. Daiker & M. Morenberg, (Eds.). In The Writing Teacher as Researcher: Essays in the Theory and Practice of Class-based Research, Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 290-311, 1990.
23. Ahern, T.C., & Repman, J., The Effects of Technology on Online Education, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 537-552, 1994.
24. Sproull. L., & Kiesler, S., Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1991.
25. Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S., Computers, Networks and Work, Scientific American: The Computer in the 21st Century (Special Issue) (6)1, 128-139, 1995.
26. Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S., Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication, Management Science, 32, 1492-1512, 1986.
27. Trevino, L.K., Lengel, R.H., & Daft, R.L., Media Symbolism, Media Richness and Media Choice in Organizations: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective, Communication Research, 14 553-574, 1987.
28. Weick, K.E., The Social Psychology of Organizing. (2nd Ed.) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.