Individual Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication for Web-Based Learning

線上學習中電腦媒介溝通之個別差異

10.6120/JoEMLS.200806_45(4).0230.RS.CE

林麗娟(Lih-Juan ChanLin)

電腦為媒介之溝通 ； 網路為本互動 ； 網路為本討論 ； 個別差異 ； 高等教育 ； Computer-mediated communication ； Web-based interaction ； Web-based discussion ； Computer-mediated discussion ； Cognitive styles ； Individual differences

教育資料與圖書館學

45卷4期（2008 / 06 / 01）

505 - 524

英文

The learning process in online learning environment involves interactions among students, interaction between instructor and students, and collaborations in learning that result from these interactions. Students’ involvement in online interaction might relate to individual differences. The relationship between individual differences and students’ learning and actions in online interaction needs to be explored. In this study, a web-based learning course ”Computer Ergonomics” was employed to collect students' online interaction data. Learning tasks and a project assignment were embedded in the course as a way to foster self-directed learning. The main focus of the study were to examine 1. how individual differences related to students' actions in online discussion and their reactions toward learning, and 2. whether students with different levels of involvement in online discussion differed in their learning outcomes. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used in the research to analyze students' verbal responses in the discussion forum. Students' responses were categorized and counted for further analysis. Various indications, including gender, cognitive style, and use of study strategies were used as variables for analysis of response types among students. In addition to discussion data, students' learning portfolios, project assignments and work sheets were also gathered for further analysis. The results of the study indicate that some of the variables correlated significantly with students' action and socialization in online discussion and their learning reactions. Students' with different levels of involvement performed differently (p＜0.0001).

The learning process in online learning environment involves interactions among students, interaction between instructor and students, and collaborations in learning that result from these interactions. Students’ involvement in online interaction might relate to individual differences. The relationship between individual differences and students’ learning and actions in online interaction needs to be explored. In this study, a web-based learning course ”Computer Ergonomics” was employed to collect students' online interaction data. Learning tasks and a project assignment were embedded in the course as a way to foster self-directed learning. The main focus of the study were to examine 1. how individual differences related to students' actions in online discussion and their reactions toward learning, and 2. whether students with different levels of involvement in online discussion differed in their learning outcomes. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used in the research to analyze students' verbal responses in the discussion forum. Students' responses were categorized and counted for further analysis. Various indications, including gender, cognitive style, and use of study strategies were used as variables for analysis of response types among students. In addition to discussion data, students' learning portfolios, project assignments and work sheets were also gathered for further analysis. The results of the study indicate that some of the variables correlated significantly with students' action and socialization in online discussion and their learning reactions. Students' with different levels of involvement performed differently (p＜0.0001).

1. Beck, S.(2007).Teasing among college men and women.Communication Studies,58(2),157-172.
2. Burgstahler, S.(2007).Who needs an accessible classroom?.Academe,93(3),37-41.
3. Carson, C. H.(2006).The relationship between hypermedia producers` preferred learning styles and the motivational aspects of their productions.Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,47(2),106-126.
4. Chen, S. Y.,Macredie, R. D.(2002).Cognitive styles and hypermedia navigation: Development of a learning model.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(1),3-15.
5. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt,D. C. Berliner,R. C. Calfee (Eds.)(1996).Handbook of educational psychology.New York:MacMillan.
6. Contreras, C. L. M.(2004).Predicting computer self-confidence from demographic and personality variables and computer use.Quarterly Review of Distance Education,5(3),173-181.
7. Fishman, B. J.(1999).Characteristics of students related to computer-mediated communications activity.Journal of Research on Computing in Education,32(1),73-97.
8. Freeman, V. S.,Tijerina, S.(2000).Delivery methods, learning styles, and outcomes of physician assistant students.Physician Assistant,24(7),43-47.
9. Frias-Martinez, E.,Chen, S. Y.,Liu, X.(2007).Automatic cognitive style identification of digital library users for personalization.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(2),237-251.
10. Herring, S. C.,J. Holmes,M. Meyerhoff (Eds.)(2003).The handbook of language and gender.Malden, MA:Blackwell.
11. Hirumi, A.(2002).A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning interactions.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,3(2),141-160.
12. Hoskins, S.,van Hooff, J. C.(2005).Motivation and ability: Which students use online learning and what influence does it have on their achievement?.British Journal of Educational Technology,36(2),177-192.
13. Jenkins, S.,Buboltz, W.,Wilkinson, L.,Beatty, S.,C. Crawford (Eds.)(2001).Matching distance education with cognitive styles in various level of higher education.Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2001,Chesapeake, VA:
14. Jeong, A.,Davidson-Shivers, G. V.(2006).The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation.Research & Development,54(6),543-567.
15. Kahtz, A. W.,Kling, G. J.(1999).Fielddependent and field-independent conceptualizations of various instructional methods with an emphasis on CAI: A qualitative analysis.Educational Psychology,19(4),413-428.
16. Kostovich, C. T.,Poradzisz, M.,Wood, K.,O`Brien, K. L.(2007).Learning style preference and student aptitude for concept maps.Journal of Nursing Education,46(5),225-232.
17. Ladner, B.,Beagle, D.,Steele, J. R.,Steele, L.(2004).Rethinking online instruction: From content transmission to cognitive immersion.Reference & User Services Quarterly,43(4),337-345.
18. Lee, J.,Orwig, G.,Gunter, G.,Witta, L.,C. Crawford (Eds.)(2006).The effect of cognitive styles on a visually-oriented task in online learning environments.Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2006,Chesapeake, VA:
19. Lim, D. H.,Morris, M. L.,Yoon, S.(2006).Combined Effect of instructional and learner variables on course outcomes within an online learning environment.Journal of Interactive Online Learning,5(3),255-269.
20. Lin, L.,Cranton, P.,Bridglall, R.(2005).Psychology type and asynchronous written dialogue in adult learning.Teachers College Record,107(8),1788-1818.
21. Luk, S. C.(1998).The relationship between cognitive style and academic achievement.British Journal of Educational Technology,29(2),137-147.
22. Mimirinis, M.,Bhattacharya, M.(2007).Design of virtual learning environments for deep learning.Journal of Interactive Learning Research,18(1),55-64.
23. Muilenburg, L.,Berge, Z. L.(2001).Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study.The American Journal of Distance Education,15(2),7-24.
24. Mupinga, D. M.,Nora, R. T.,Yaw, D. C.(2006).The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students.College Teaching,54(1),185-189.
25. Northrup, P.(2001).A framework for designing interactivity in web-based instruction.Educational Technology,41(2),31-39.
26. Ramprogus, K.(1988).Learning how to learn in nursing.Nurse Education Today,8,59-67.
27. Rovai, P.A.,Baker, D. J.(2005).Gender differences in online learning.Quarterly Review of Distance Education,6(1),14-27.
28. Roy, K.(2006).The impact of learning styles on interactivity in asynchronous e-learning.Performance Improvement,45(10),21-27.
29. Sadler-Smith, E.,Smith, P. J.(2004).Strategies for accommodating individuals` styles and preferences in flexible learning programmes.British Journal of Educational Technology,35(4),395-412.
30. Salend, S. J.(2005).Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.
31. Stewart, B. L.,Norwood, M.,Ezell, S.,Waight, C.(2006).Case study: Collaborative creation of an on-line degree program.Innovations in Education and Teaching International,43(3),197-210.
32. von Prummer, C.,U. Bernath,A. Sziics (Eds.)(2004).Supporting the learner in distance education and e-learning.Oldenburg, Denmark:BIS-Verlag.
33. Waight, C.,Willing, P.,Wentling, T.,T. M. Egan,S. A. Lynham (Eds.)(2002).Recurrent themes in e-learning: A meta-analysis of major e-learning reports.Proceedings from the academy of human resource development conference,Honolulu, Hawaii:
34. Wehrwein, E. A.,Lujan, H. L.,DiCarlo, S. E.(2007).Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students.Advances in Physiology Education,31(2),153-157.
35. Weinstein, C. E.(1987).Learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI).Clearwater, FL:H & H.
36. Journal of Interactive Online Learning
37. Williamson, M. F.,Watson, R. L.(2007).Learning styles research: Understanding how teaching should be impacted by the way learners learn. (Part III: Understanding how learners` personality styles impact learning).Christian Education Journal,4(1),62-77.
38. Wilson, B. M.,Pollock, P. H.,Hamann, K.(2006).Partial online instruction and gender-based differences in learning: A quasi-experimental study of American government.Political Science & Politics,39(2),335-339.
39. Witkin, H. W.(1962).Psychological differentiation: Studies of development.New York:Wiley.