1. 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.

2. 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, & Aguila- Obra, 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).

3. 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).

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Result(2/2)

10. 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.

11. 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.