Choosing communication
portfolios to accomplish tasks:
The effects of individual differences
Presenter: Yun-Ting, Wong
Adviser: Ming-Puu ,Chen
Date: Oct.13, 2009
Lee, C. S., Goh, D. H-L., Chua, A. Y. K., L, B.(2009). Choosing
communication portfolios to accomplish tasks: The effects of
individual differences. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1167-1176.
Introduction(1/3)
• With the emergence of new technologies, educational
institutions around the world are increasingly relying on
information and communication technologies (ICTs) to
promote active learning and collaboration among students
(Martins & Kellermanns, 2004; Padilla-Melendez, Garrido-Moreno, & AguilaObra, 2008).
• Evidence from recent organization studies on ICT use also
support the notion that completing a task often requires a mix
of ICTs (e.g. Boczkowski & Orlikowski, 2004; Lee, Watson-Manheim, &
Ramaprasad, 2007; Watson-Manheim &Belanger, 2007).
• Using multiple ICTs may provide redundancy and reinforce
message clarity to reduce any threats of poor communication
(Lee et al., 2007).
Introduction(2/3)
• Specifically, past studies are mostly concerned about providing
explanations on whether the selection of a single ICT is contingent
upon factors such as richness of the technology, fit between tasks
and technology, influence of individual differences or social
influence (e.g. Daft & Lengel, 1984; Fulk, Steinfield,Schmitz, & Power, 1987;
Rice, 1993; Straub & Karahanna, 1998; Trevino, Bodensteiner, Gerloff, & Muir,
1990).
• Research focus has ignored issues such as combining ICTs and
factors influencing the usage of multiple ICTs. Hence, the objective
of this study is to examine the choice of ICT combinations used by
students to accomplish tasks.
• In recent years, some education researchers have noted that the
role of individual differences in the use of ICT is increasingly
important due to greater demands for personalized learning
(Waite, Wheeler, & Bromfield, 2007).
Introduction(3/3)
• There is a natural tendency for individuals to constantly prefer one
sensory input such as visual, verbal, or tactile over another under some
circumstances (Sadowski & Stanney, 1999). Since people have substantial
differences in their sensitivity and ability to process stimuli (Ramaprasad
& Rai, 1996)
• The influences of the communication partners such as the
availability of recipients and shared understandings of the
communication partners have found to have significant influences
on ICT selection
(e.g. Cramton, 2001; Straub & Karahanna,1998; Trevino et al., 2000)
• For these reasons,our study focused on the effects of individuals’
learning abilities and individuals’ perceptions of their
communication partners on the choice of communication
portfolio used to accomplish task.
Method(1/3)
• Sample:
185 participants
(1) the course must include a semester-long project assessment component
that contributes to a significant percentage of the total course assessment
component
(2) students are required to work in groups of at least three for their project,
(3) the course must allow students from different disciplines to register
Method(2/3)
• The task:
All respondents had to perform a similar task is an important
feature of our research design, and the task selected for this
study had to be independent of the project or course content
to reduce potential confounding effects.
• Communication portfolios(22 types)
• Learning styles:used the established VARK psychometric model
-The instrument is able to determine the score for each of the learning style
(visual,aural, read/write, and kinesthetic)
Method(3/3)
• Perceptions of their communication partners:
(1)perceived availability of the communication partners
-The scale ranged from (1) ‘‘Very low” to (5) ‘‘Very high” with higher scores
reflecting higher difficulty
(2) perceived lack of shared understanding among communication
partners:
-The scale ranged from (1) ‘‘Very low” to (5) ‘‘Very high” with higher
scores reflecting higher difficulty.
Result(1/2)
• Logistic regression results found that perceived availability in the
perception factor and the aural dimension of the individual’s
learning style were significant in differentiating between the
choice of the simple communication portfolio versus the complex
communication portfolio.
• Specifically the Wald test in our results indicated that perceived
availability and the aural dimension were significant factors.
• Higher perceived availability was associated with the choice of
the complex communication portfolio and lower perceived
availability was associated with the choice of the simple
communication portfolio.
Result(2/2)
Discussion
• Didn’t find any significant difference in perceived lack of shared
understanding among the communication partners and the
read/write dimension of an individual’s learning style.
• Email usage was included in both simple and complex
communication portfolios, and email is a good tool to provide
contextual details (Te’eni, 2001).
• Students who prefer to gain information by reading and writing
printed words (read/write dimension), one would expect that
they would prefer the simple communication portfolio.(could be
different)
• However, should be exercised when interpreting these findings
because the nature of this study may reduce the generalizability
of its findings to other tasks, economic and cultural environments.
Conclusions
(1)Both simple and complex communication portfolios are
employed in learning tasks.
(2) Students who prefer learning by hearing were inclined to select
the complex communication portfolio to accomplish their task
(3) Students ’ perceived unavailability of their communication
partners would likely cause them to choose the simple
communication portfolio to accomplish tasks in school.
• Educators should provide an environment that encourages the
use of multiple ICTs that matches the needs and perceptions of
students and their collaborators.