Elsevier

Computers & Education

Volume 53, Issue 4, December 2009, Pages 1167-1176
Computers & Education

Choosing communication portfolios to accomplish tasks: The effects of individual differences

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.024Get rights and content

Abstract

The myriad of information communication technologies (ICTs) available today has changed the way students choose and use them. Specifically, individuals are increasingly relying on a mix of ICTs for communication to accomplish tasks. Yet, past studies on ICT use has largely assumed that people use a single ICT per task. We attempt to address this gap by focusing on the influence of individual differences on the choice of communication portfolio (a mix of ICTs) to accomplish learning tasks in school-based settings. Specifically, we focus on two dimensions of individual differences: learning styles and individuals’ perceptions. Results suggest that individual differences do have effects on the choice of communication portfolios to accomplish tasks. In particular, we found that students who preferred to learn by hearing tended to choose the complex communication portfolio to accomplish their tasks. Interestingly, our results also indicate that students preferred to use the simple communication portfolio when communication partners were perceived to be unavailable.

Introduction

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 and Kellermanns, 2004, Padilla-Melendez et al., 2008). Indeed, the availability of a myriad of ICTs is likely to change the way students accomplish tasks in school. Specifically, some scholars have observed that individuals have the tendency to rely on a mix of ICTs for communication (Nardi and O’Day, 1999, Nardi and Whittaker, 2002) and they do not use one ICT isolated from other ICTs (Stephens, 2007). Other studies note that switching from one technology to another is likely to derive a more optimal performance than using one ICT alone (Dennis & Kinney, 1998). Additionally, 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 and Orlikowski, 2004, Lee et al., 2007, Watson-Manheim and Belanger, 2007). Taken together, it seems that using multiple ICTs may provide redundancy and reinforce message clarity to reduce any threats of poor communication (Lee et al., 2007). For these reasons, we contend that with multiple ICTs available for usage, students too are likely to rely on a mix of ICTs to accomplish their tasks than just relying on one particular ICT.

Past research on ICT use has largely assumed that people use a single ICT per task (Stephens, 2007). 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 and Lengel, 1984, Fulk et al., 1987, Rice, 1993, Straub and Karahanna, 1998, Trevino et al., 1990). Studies into the impact of ICT in education have examined the influence of affective components (e.g. Cooper & Brna, 2002), the effects on materials presentation (e.g. Riding & Grimley, 1999) and the impacts on learning (Burley, 1998). While these studies are of substantial value, their 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. To examine the choice of ICT combinations, we adapt the concept of communication portfolio from Lee et al. (2007), which refers to a single ICT or a set of ICTs used to manage a particular communication session. 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). Here, we focus on the impact of individual differences on the choice of communication portfolios used by students to accomplish tasks. Except for a handful of studies (e.g. Trevino et al., 1990), the influence of individual differences on ICT use has not been widely examined in the literature. We focus on two aspects of individual differences in this study: individuals’ learning abilities or styles and individuals’ perception of their communication partners and the reasons for focusing on these dimensions are discussed in the following paragraph.

Some research has shown 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), it is likely that these individuals’ preferences for different sensory dimensions (e.g. visual and verbal) are related to their learning ability (Riding & Rayner, 1998), which in turn influences how they choose ICTs to accomplish a task. Hence, we contend that students’ learning abilities or styles are likely to influence how ICTs are used and combined to accomplish tasks. Further, it has been widely accepted that an individual’s perception plays an important role during communication (Broadbent, 1958, Lee et al., 2007). In particular, multiple studies have indicated that individuals’ choice of ICT use are often influenced by their perceptions of the capabilities afforded by the ICT (e.g. Carlson and Zmud, 1999, Trevino et al., 2000). At the same time, the influences of the communication partners such as the availability of recipients and shared understandings of the communication partners have also been widely examined in the literature and have found to have significant influences on ICT selection (e.g. Cramton, 2001, Straub and Karahanna, 1998, Trevino et al., 2000). Hence, in this study we propose that individuals’ perceptions of their communication partners are likely to influence the choice of communication portfolio used to accomplish a task. Specifically, communicators’ perceptions of the recipients’ availability and the lack of shared understanding among communication partners are likely to influence how they choose and combine ICTs for usage. Put differently, we contend that students are likely to use different ICTs when they perceive that their communication partners are unavailable for meetings or when there is a lack of shared understanding among the communication partners. 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.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. We first provide a review of related literature, focusing on the interplay between communication portfolios, learning styles and perceptions of communication partners. Next, the methodology employed by the present study is described. We then present our findings obtained through two statistical techniques, cluster analysis and binary logistic regression. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings, as well as opportunities for future work.

Section snippets

Choice of communication portfolios to accomplish tasks

Recent organization studies on ICT use have observed that ICT usage to accomplish various tasks are firmly entrenched in the workplace (Boczkowski and Orlikowski, 2004, Lee et al., 2007, Stephens, 2007, Watson-Manheim and Belanger, 2007). More importantly, these studies have established the fact that organization members are choosing to use single as well as multiple ICTs in accomplishing their tasks. The choice to use multiple ICTs is occurring more frequently now than in the past because of a

Sample

A survey instrument was developed and administered to undergraduate and graduate students at a large university in Singapore. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Four courses from the university were selected for the study. The selection criteria were (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,

Validity and reliability testing

Prior to statistical testing of our hypotheses, principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to test the validity of the perceived availability and perceived differences in shared understanding constructs. Two factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 explaining a total of 69% of the variance. As shown in Table 4, all the items loaded above 0.6 on the appropriate factor and there were no cross-loadings. The reliability constructs were assessed using Cronbach’s

Discussion

To reiterate, our research question in this paper focuses on analyzing whether students’ choice of communication portfolios depends on individual differences. To examine individual differences, we focused on an individual’s learning styles and perceptions of his/her communication partners. Our cluster analyses found two categories of communication portfolios: simple and complex. The simple communication portfolio consisted of usage of email and SMS while the complex communication portfolio

Conclusions

This study contributes to our understanding and highlights the important roles played by individual differences on the choice of communication portfolios used to accomplish tasks in school. To our knowledge, no other studies have examined how students use and choose ICT combinations in an environment where multiple ICTs are available for selection. Using the concept of communication portfolio, three main conclusions can be derived. First, both simple and complex communication portfolios are

References (68)

  • D.E. Broadbent

    Perception and communication

    (1958)
  • J.R. Carlson et al.

    Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions

    Academy of Management Journal

    (1999)
  • P.Y.K. Chau et al.

    Factors affecting adopting of open systems: An exploratory study

    Management Information Systems Quarterly

    (1997)
  • H.H. Clark et al.

    Grounding in communication

  • B. Cooper et al.

    Supporting high quality interaction and motivation in the classroom using ICT; the social and emotional learning and engagement in the NIMIS project

    Education, Communication and Information

    (2002)
  • M. Cox et al.

    ICT and pedagogy: A review of research literature

    (2003)
  • D. Cramton

    The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration

    Organization Science

    (2001)
  • R.L. Daft et al.

    Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design

  • A.R. Dennis et al.

    Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality

    Information Systems Research

    (1998)
  • M.H. Dickey et al.

    Do you know what I know? A shared understandings perspective on text-based communication

    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

    (2006)
  • B.S. Everitt

    Unresolved problems in cluster analysis

    Biometrics

    (1979)
  • B.S. Everitt

    Cluster analysis

    (1993)
  • R.M. Felder

    Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education

    Journal of College Science Teaching

    (1993)
  • Fleming, N., & Baume, D. (2006). Learning styles again: VARKing up the right tree! Educational Developments, SEDA Ltd...
  • N. Fleming et al.

    Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection

    To Improve the Academy

    (1992)
  • J. Fulk et al.

    A social influence model of technology use

  • J. Fulk et al.

    A social information processing model of media use in organizations

    Communication Research

    (1987)
  • D. Gerwin et al.

    Withdrawal of team autonomy during concurrent engineering

    Management Science

    (1997)
  • Goh, D. H., Theng, Y. L., Lee, C. K., & Choy, M. S. (2004). VSPad: Harnessing learning styles among mobile learners....
  • D.L. Goodhue et al.

    Task-technology fit and individual performance

    Management Information Systems Quarterly

    (1995)
  • Grandhi, S. A., Jones, Q., Chivakula, K., & Patten, K. (2003). Media switching and media integration: An examination of...
  • J.F. Hair et al.

    Multivariate data analysis

    (1998)
  • P. Hinds et al.

    Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams

  • D. Hosmer et al.

    Applied logistic regression

    (2000)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text