SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2017 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3

Students’ Media Preferences in Online Learning

Michiko KOBAYASHI
Pages
4–15
Publication Date
2017-07-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The paper presents the results and discusses their implications of the study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examined students’ preferred media in online learning and its relationship with learner characteristics and online technology self-efficacy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:One hundred six college students in a mid-size U.S. university responded to a survey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The paper presents the results and discusses their implications of the study.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Media preferences · online technology self-efficacy · online interaction

Abstract

This study examined students’ preferred media in online learning and its relationship with learner characteristics and online technology self-efficacy. One hundred six college students in a mid-size U.S. university responded to a survey. The frequency analysis showed that students did not necessarily favor rich media over lean media in online learning. They preferred recorded online slide presentations with audio to Internet-based live video lectures in two-way video and audio interactions. Online discussion boards and chat groups were less favored than other types of media. As expected, online technology self-efficacy was correlated with a type of media requiring a relatively higher level of technology skills. The paper presents the results and discusses their implications of the study.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOBAYASHI, M. (2017). Students’ Media Preferences in Online Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3, 4–15. https://ajindex.com/articles/139874

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Alkharusi, H. M. (2013). The impact of students’ perceptions of assessment tasks on selfefficacy and perception of task value: A path analysis. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41(10), 1681-1692.
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191. Beaver, T., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. E. (2010). "Hold the Phone!": Cell phone use and partner reaction among university students. College Student Journal, 44(3), 629-632.
  3. Blayney, P., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2015). Using cognitive load theory to tailor instruction to levels of accounting students' expertise. Journal osf Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 199-210.
  4. Brown, S.A. (2012). Seeing Web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50–57.
  5. Caspi, A., & Gorsky, P. (2005). Instructional media choice: Factors affecting the preferences of distance education coordinators. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 169. Chen, B., & Denoyelles, A. (2013). Exploring students' mobile learning practices in higher education. Educause Review Online. Retrieved from http://www. educause. edu/ero/article/exploring-students-mobile-learning-practices-higher-education. Cole, A. W. (2016). Testing the impact of student preference for face-to-face communication on online course satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 1-19.
  6. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational behaviors (pp. 191-233). Greenwich: JAI Press.
  7. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science, 32(5), 554-571.
  8. Daft, R. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information support systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355- 366. Eastin, M.S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). doi: 10.1111/j.10836101.2000.tb00110.x Frey, A., Yankelov, P., &Faul, A. (2003). Student perceptions of Web-assisted teaching strategies. Journal of Social Work Education, 39, 443-457.
  9. Gougeon, T. D. (November, 1998). Gender Sensitive Instruction: A Distance Education Issue. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Adult