Ina Blau and Avner CaspiThe Open University

E-Learning via audio conferencing- is it as efficient as f2f learning?

Medium, method and learning:

•Medium will never influence learning (Clark, 1994)

• Media and instructional methods are inextricably interconnected

(Kozma, 1994)

Is that really so?!

From businesses e-communication to e-learning

1. Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Daft, Lengel & Treviño, 1987)

lean communication medium

From businesses e-communication to e-learning

2. Media Naturalness Hypothesis (Kock, 2005)

communication ambiguity, cognitive effort =>

“virtual” medium efficiency = natural medium efficiency

Learning satisfaction

Media Naturalness Hypothesis:more natural medium = more “exiting” communication

(physiological arousal )

Disinhibition effect of visual anonymity

visual anonymity => fear of criticism

=> participation, answering questions

Field and laboratory research combination

• Research purpose: to study student behavior and learning in audio conferencing vs. f2f

√ Field research focused on student behavior

• Laboratory research focused on learning

Laboratory research purposes

To compare offline and online learning in: 1. Achievement and learning perception2. Learning satisfaction3. Participation and answering teacher’s questions

Research hypothesizes:

• Achievement and learning perception: no differences

• Learning satisfaction: lower online

• Participation and answering questions: higher online

Media Naturalness

Visual Anonymity

Method

• 42 undergraduates randomly allocated to f2f vs. audio conferencing conditions

• Learning 20 minute interactive lessons from the same teacher in triads

• Achievement measured by pretest - posttest, learning perception and satisfaction by questionnaire, participation and answering by quantitative content analysis

Results: 1. Learning efficiency

As hypothesized, we found no significant differences in achievement and learning perception

2 .Learning satisfaction

5.34.2

4.73.8

54.3

5.34.3

5.34.4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Students-tutor interaction enjoyment

Peers interaction enjoyment

General learning satisfaction

Interest

Concentration

"Pereferial" learning aspects' differences

Face-to-face Audio conferencing

3 .Participation and answering

4062

1321

142 179

6782

75

98

26

33

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Group answering

Each student's answering

Total lesson participation

Tutor's participation

Group students' participation

Each student's participation

Mean participation and answering questions

Face-to-face Audio conferencing

Findings summary

• Audio conferencing as effective as f2f learning• Lower learning satisfaction in audio conferencing

• Higher participation and answering questions in audio conferencing

Media Naturalness

Visual Anonymity

Two different learning aspects :

• Cognitive aspect: no significant difference

• Socio-emotional aspect: lower learning satisfaction online, higher participation and answering questions online

Theoretical contributions: • Media Richness Theory Media Naturalness Hypothesis

• Media per se may influence learning

Practical contributions: • Effective learning tool• Promoting participation and

answering questions

References:• Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.

Educational Technology Research and Development 42 (2), 21-29.• Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness:

A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In: B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

• Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., & Treviño, L.K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355-368.

• Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Toward a theory of media synchronicity. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

• Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48 (2), 117-130.

• Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 7-19.