BAŞKENT UNIVERSITY
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
2014, 1(2), 74-90
Preference of Communication Modality in
Blended Learning Environment
Karma Öğrenme Ortamlarında İletişim Yöntemi Tercihi
Halil Ersoy a * & M.Yaşar Özden b
a Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey
b Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul, Turkey
Abstract
In conventional education, online communication technologies can enrich learning environments by extending activities
beyond the limitations of time and space and by providing peer-to-peer interactions. As connection bandwidth and
capabilities of computer-like devices increase, much more information-rich communication facilities are replacing old
text-based messaging dialogs. In addition to textual modality, today auditory and visual communication channels are
supplementing communication with their special advantages. However, using only audio and visuals all the time in online
communication is not the best way. This study investigated the use of three online synchronous communication
modalities (textual, auditory and visual) in a blended learning environment to obtain strengths of each for learners. As a
qualitative inquiry methodology, a case study with action research paradigm was conducted in a blended learning
environment. An online communication tool was developed and used for a semester in a programming language course
with fifty-one 2nd year undergraduate students. At the end of the semester, all students were given a Likert-type
perception questionnaire. According to scores, three students from each part (top, middle and bottom in ranking) were
interviewed. In depth analysis of results with the light of related literature provided with evidences to infer for special
strengths of each modality.
Keywords: Blended learning, online communication, communication modality, learner preference.
Öz
Çevrimiçi iletişim teknolojileri öğrenme etkinliklerini zaman ve mekân sınırlarının ötesine taşıyarak ve bire bir etkileşim
sağlayarak geleneksel eğitimi zenginleştirebilirler. Bilgisayar benzeri cihazların ve bilgisayar ağlarının her geçen gün
artan kapasiteleri çevrimiçi iletişimde eski metin tabanlı mesajlaşmanın ötesinde daha yoğun bilgi ve veri transferini
olanaklı sağlamaktadır. Metin tabanlı iletişim yöntemine ilave olarak kullanılmaya başlanan sesli ve görüntülü iletişim
kanalları kendilerine has avantajlar içermektedir. Ancak iletişimde sesi ve görüntüyü her zaman kullanmak en iyi yol
olmayabilir. Bu araştırma, harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamında üç çevrimiçi iletişim yönteminin (yazılı, sesli ve görüntülü)
öğrenciye yönelik güçlü yanlarını görebilmek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bir harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamında, nitel araştırma
metodolojilerinden biri olan eylem araştırması deseninde durum çalışması yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla bir çevrimiçi iletişim
aracı geliştirilmiş ve lisans öğrenimlerinin ikinci yılında öğrenim gören toplam 51 öğrenci ile bir dönem boyunca
kullanım izlenmiştir. Dönem sonunda tüm öğrencilere algı anketi ve bu anket sonucunda farklı puanlara sahip 9
öğrenciyle de bire bir görüşme yapılmıştır. Elde edilen buldular analiz edildiğinde yazılı, sesli ve görüntülü yöntemlerin
öğrenciye göre güçlü yanları sıralanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda tercihleri etkileyen faktörler olarak iletişimin içeriği,
amacı, iletişim kurulan kişiye yönelik tutum ve iletişim için gerekli teknik altyapı belirlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Harmanlanmış öğrenme, çevrimiçi iletişim, iletişim yöntemi, öğrenen tercihi.
© 2014Başkent University Journal of Education, Başkent University Press. All rights reserved.
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Halil Ersoy, Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technologies, Başkent
University, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail address: hersoy@baskent.edu.tr / Tel: +90-312-2466666/2248
Preference of Communication Modality in Blended Learning Environment
75
1. Introduction
Computer networks provide various types of synchronous communication opportunities in addition to
simply sending messages like e-mail. Over the high-bandwidth connections; scripts, images, sound and
vision are transmitted to someone else around the world in a second. Similarly, via numerous software and
tools, instructors and students can access to each other and to resources over distances. E-mail, discussion
lists, chat software and other instances of online communication are becoming regular components of an
instruction in extent that many conventional instructional environments are re-designed and called as blended
learning environments where face to face instruction is combined with any type of computer mediated
communication (Graham, 2006; Graham, 2013). In that blend, instructors and students communicate with
each other online by computers over Internet in addition to the face to face courses.
The simple and common communication pattern, or modality, is textual (e-mail and instant messaging),
but today’s high-speed bandwidth allows participants talk and see each other alive. Instructional
environments are, on the other hand, very divers and miscellaneous so that such technologies need to be
elaborated empirically within their own specific boundaries. Availability of online communication tools and
modalities - textual, auditory and visual- do not guarantee the successful interactions in instructional
environments routinely. This study investigates synchronous computer mediated communication modalities
at blended learning environment with respect to students’ point of view. The main question is how and why
students prefer or neglect to use certain modalities in the blended learning environment.
1.1. Computer Mediated Communication
Computer mediated communication (CMC) is a type of interaction among people in various forms
implemented via computers or computer networks as the medium of communication (Romiszowski, 1997).
Electronic mails, forums, discussion lists, chat and video conferencing are the sample tools and techniques of
CMC applications. The main advantage of CMC is that it allows people to communicate at any time and at
anywhere. If participants want to see, say or send something to each other, they have many options via
computer-like device over Internet.
The answer of how that communication opportunities can and should take place in instructional fields has
investigated by the paradigm of constructivism because it advises collaborative learning and social
interactions through which individuals construct their own knowledge (Miller & Miller, 1997; Leflore, 1997).
Constructivist theory claims that learning is a knowledge construction process through active learning and
collaboration. Interactions with the content and with others (instructors and students) in the learning
environment are two promises of CMC valued by constructivists (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004).
On the other hand, how learner interacts with these tools and with the content of communication is
explained by cognitive studies in human learning, especially by human information processing model. This
model explains how human memory acquires, transforms, encapsulates, synthesizes, stresses and uses
information obtained from our sensory registers. (Moore, Burton & Myers, 2004). Multiple-channel
communication (Broadbent, cited in Moore et al, 2004), cue-summation (Severin, cited in Moore et al, 2004)
and dual coding (Paivio, cited in Moore et al, 2004) theories, based on information-processing approach,
expose how individuals perceive the messages and depict limits of human mind in these perception
processes.
1.2. Synchronicity and Characteristics of Computer Mediated Communication
The literature on online communication tools and/or techniques has come up with certain characteristics
to describe a particular tool: Social presence (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004), transactional distance
(Moore, 1997), interaction (Moore, 1989). With those characteristics, stakeholders are able to elaborate and
estimate outcomes from use of particular communication systems. For example social presence is high (Ko,
2012; Han, 2013) and transactional distance is low in video conference system because participants both see
and hear others with their body movement during dialogs. On the other hand communicating via e-mail may
cause participants feel alone more than via video conferencing which means a high transactional distance.
Similarly, interaction is described as high when a certain communication medium allows immediate feedback
to be sent; or as low if the medium is one of asynchronous communication tools.
Synchronicity is another characteristic of CMC that describes the timing in sending and receiving
messages in any medium. If both participants should involve in communication at the same time, like
76
Halil Ersoy & M.Yaşar Özden
telephone conversations, then the medium is called synchronous. On the contrary, if participants may send
and receive messages any time they want, like in e-mail, then it is called asynchronous communication
(Romiszowski & Mason, 1996). While video conferencing, instant messaging, telephone conversations are
the examples of the synchronous communication tools; e-mail, discussion lists and forums are asynchronous
instances.
1.3. Blended Learning
Computer mediated communication (CMC) can create an environment for collaborative learning, which
is an instructional method where students work together as groups to accomplish shared goals (Johnson &
Johnson, 2004). For successful collaboration, CMC tools and strategies may provide time and location
independent communication facilities both for learners and instructors. Especially in distance education
environments, CMC may be an only way of communicating. On the other hand, face to face instructional
environments can also get benefit from CMC tools by extending learning environment and acitivites beyond
the classroom walls and school time. Combination of CMC tools and online learning strategies with regular
face to face learning environments is defined as a blended learning (Graham, 2006; Graham, 2013). While
the term “blended” describes a combination of online and face to face instruction, it does not impose certain
portions for this combination (Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim, and Abrami, 2014). Rather than using
as many as possible tools because of their availability or fashion, the successful blends are based on
educational and sociological science (Chew, Jones, and Turne, 2008; Gedik, Kiraz and Ozden, 2013).
Therefore empirical studies about blended learning in diverse cases are needed.
1.4. Communication Modalities and Video Conferencing
As parallel with the enhancements in communication technology, participants have gained a chance of
sending and receiving “information-rich” messages. While e-mail messages are composed of mainly text
(and sometimes pictures), today video conferencing applications provide alive vision and sound of the
participants. If you have an Internet enabled device, it has become a regular and trivial process to use chat
software with visual and audio channels. Textual, auditory and/or visual channels are called communication
modes or modalities. In textual modality, participants write and read texts like in emails or in chat
applications. Auditory modality let participants speak and listen to each other similar to telephone
conversations. Visual modality provides visual content like in video conferencing environments.
Today, people are capable of combining those modalities in a CMC dialog, which can be called as video
conferencing. Once it was difficult and expensive type of communication, today there are plenty of
commercial or freeware software or Internet services like Skype®, Google Hangout®, Adobe Connect®,
Openmeetings®, and Anymeeting®. With an Internet enabled device, users can easily send instant textual
messages, talk simultaneously and/or see each other alive.
2. Problem
At first, video conferencing gained attention mainly in distance education field where social presence
(Akyol, Garrison and Ozden, 2009), transactional distance and interaction gaps could be compensated by
those new ways of communication. On the other hand, as constructivist learning assumptions imply,
traditional (face to face) learning environments can and should extend learning process beyond classromm
walls and hours (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). At that point, online communication tools, especially video
conferencing, can provide communication platform both for learners and instructors to engage in learning
process outside schools and time-independently. However, what kind of communication modality learners
need during a certain learning process is not always the one that provides richest content. For instance
McGrath and Hollingshead (1993) generated a task-oriented communication grid where they emphasized
different kind of modalities for different type of tasks. In their grid, there are certain types of tasks like
generating ideas where textual messaging is better than visual modality. Therefore, though its availability,
communication modalities should be analyzed from different perspectives in different contexts. The
perceptions of the learners toward those modalities in certain context may also affect the efficiency.
This study is aimed to investigate the perception of textual, auditory and visual modalities from the
learners’ point of view and to obtain affective factors based on learners’ preferences in modalities in blended
learning environment.
Preference of Communication Modality in Blended Learning Environment
77
3. Method
As a qualitative inquiry methodology, a case study with action research paradigm was designed and
implemented for this study. In order to obtain real perceptions of learners, a video conferencing tool (named
as ITL Live Meeting) has been developed by the researchers and utilized for a semester in an undergraduate
course for a semester. As action research paradigm implies (Mills, 2000), the instructor played an active role
in design and implementation of the research study with the new tool. The case context, as described in detail
below, had unique properties such that the students and researchers had an adequate computer literacy lack of
which might affect the use of tool. Also the tool was developed for the study since their commercial
alternatives required purchasing and extra special software behind the scenes.
3.1. Context
As case studies focus on a specific context, the thick and explicit description of the aspects of the context
is essential part of the research study for trustworthiness and credibility. The aspects in this study are the
course, the communication tool and the instructor.
3.2. The Course
The course is a programming language course having two-hour regular face to face instruction in a
classroom and two-hour laboratory works each week. It is a second programming language course given at
second year spring semester at four-year undergraduate program of Computer Education and Instructional
Technologies department at Middle East Technical Univerisity. The language of the course was English as all
other courses at the university.
The course content included syntax, algorithm, language specific development techniques and user
interface design for 14-week semester. The course was supported by a learning management system (a web
site) where the students could reach to course resources, announcements and assignments, submit their
assignments and get feedback from the instructor, and lastly discuss in a forum. The instructor could see
reports about site usage for any time period. Moreover, the instructor recorded himself in classrooms during
lecturing and added those videos into the web site to provide compensating content for those who missed
lessons. In this form, the course environment can be described as blended learning.
3.2.1. The Students
There were 51 undergraduate students in the study. Except one foreign student, all others were Turkish
students who had learnt English as a foreign language either in preparation school for a year or during their
previous college education. The foreign student had also Turkish language courses at each year but her
English was much better, as she explained in interview. The department of computer education and
instructional technologies includes both pedagogical and computer related technical courses. The students
were more experienced in computer applications and spent more time in computer laboratories relative to
other education faculty students.
3.2.2. The Tool
In a research laboratory in the department, (called Instructional Technology Laboratory, ITL) the video
conferencing tool was developed and named as ITL Live Meeting. By the tool, any two or more people can
send textual messages, use audio and video channels separately or together to communicate. It requires a
login name and password provided by the researchers at the study. On the other hand the tool is instructorcontrolled such that the instructor should open (enable) dialog session through which the students can join
and send messages in any modality. Therefore students cannot communicate with each other without the
instructor. This feature let the instructor control the conversations against irrelevant topics and interruptions
during video conversations.
Halil Ersoy & M.Yaşar Özden
78
Figure 1 Screenshot of ITL Live Meeting Video Conferencing Tool
3.2.3. The Instructor
The instructor had been giving programming courses for 5 years at the time study was conducted. He had
both programming and computer-hardware knowledge to give those courses at undergraduate level. His
research area was about use of web-based technologies, especially computer mediated communication. At
first glance, his background and active role in design, development and implementation of the tool and study
seem to be threat for validity and reliability, but he tried to minimize and eliminate a researcher bias in
implementation and analysis parts by providing thick description of the context (course, tool, himself,
participants), expert consultancy in design and development of the tool, peer-reviewing in data analysis and
utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data for triangulation.
3.3. Implementation and Data Collection
After the development of the tool in several months, the study was implemented throughout a semester.
At the beginning of the semester, the students were introduced to the tool by the instructor (the researcher)
and were invited to use it during laboratory sections when they were assigned with coding exercises in front
of computers. They told that during the laboratory hours, each of them could use the video conferencing tool
to communicate with the instructor, who was not there physically but ready in his office. In laboratory
sections, a research assistant, who did not have content-knowledge but could support them about laboratory
equipment and was responsible for attendance, had stayed with students. Once they got online, they waited
the instructor to open a dialog session. Then the instructor let them to work their programming tasks and to
ask questions to him in any modality. The students were either active participants by asking own questions or
passive observers of other talking students via the tool. In passive span, they could see all textual messages;
hear auditory conversations or watch talking participants.
When a student initiated a dialog over the tool, in most cases, the instructor responded in a modality that
was used in request. However, in some instances he used video modality to express a topic requiring in depth
understanding within a short period of time or present a content that interested all students at that time.
All conversations, on the other hand, open to all participants who whether requested support intentionally
or not. The tool shared the messages, sound and/or visual content with all participants, but limited only two
participants to send audio and video content at a time. Otherwise, like in face to face environment, it would
be difficult or impossible to listen and understand more than one person. However, text messages were all
shared and allowed since they stayed in interface as long as application run so that it was easy for participants
to trace and re-read.
Participants were let use their native language, Turkish, and also English if they wanted. Most of the
conversations were in Turkish, but a foreign student used English both in written and oral dialogs.
3.4. Questionnaire
Preference of Communication Modality in Blended Learning Environment
79
At the end of the semester two data collection instruments were used: Perception questionnaire about
synchronous communication and interview on perception about Live Meeting and communication over it.
The first questionnaire is composed of two parts, first one includes 12 Likert type items and second part has 8
semantic differential items with one open ended item. The first part with 12 items were developed by Kies,
Willigers and Rosson (1997) and then revised by Grant and Cheon (2007) with adequate reliability
coefficient where Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.782 and 0.715 in this study. The second part with differential
items was created by Spencer and Hiltz (2003). After a revision and expert opinion, some adjectives were
replaced with their synonyms. The Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated as 0.802. All 51 students were invited
and 31 of them completed the survey. The items and responses are given at Table 1 below.
Table 1
Perception Questionnaire Items about Synchronous Communication
Part I: Likert-type Items
1. The video quality was acceptable
2. The video size was adequate
3. The video was good as being live in the same classroom
4. The audio quality was acceptable
5. The audio was good as being live in the same classroom
6. Communication via Live Meeting-Student encouraged me to think critically about the subject matter
7. Live Meeting did not obstruct my communication with the instructor
8. I thought communicating via Live Meeting was just as effective as face-to-face communication
9. I was able to interrupt and ask question easily
10. Adding video into communication would improve the communication
11. Adding audio into communication would improve the communication
12. I would be willing to take a course which utilizes a communication tool such as Live Meeting
Part II: Semantic Differential Items
I found communication with Live Meeting was...
13.
Useless
14.
Informative
15.
Complex
16.
Supportive
Helpful
Confusing
Primitive
Unhelpful
I found Live Meeting was…
17.
Useless
18.
Unappealing
19.
Secure
20.
Comforting
Helpful
Attractive
Insecure
Disturbing
Open-ended Item
Additional Comments about Live Meeting?
For the first part, subjects were expected to select an integer number (from 1 to 5 where 1 stands for
“strongly disagree” and 5 for strongly agree). Mean scores for each item and for each participant calculated.
Higher mean score for a participant accounted for higher positive perception about the tool. The answers of
last open-ended item were analyzed by content-analysis method.
Halil Ersoy & M.Yaşar Özden
80
In second part they were given 5 dots between the two counter adjectives and expected to select a dot
reflecting their decision (dots was numbered as 1 to 5). Mean score for each counter-adjective pair was
calculated.
3.5. Interview
After the survey analysis, the subjects were sorted by their overall score from first part, then 3 students
from each top, middle and bottom part of the list were invited into interviews to achieve maximum variation.
Among nine, one rejected to participate then another one with the closest score was invited and participated.
The interview was in semi-structured form and conducted by each participant separately after a week
semester ended. Their consent was requested and obtained before interviews about sound-recording during
the interview sections. The interview protocol was created with nine directional and one open-ended question
given in Table 2.
Table 2
Interview protocol
1. Frequency of use of any online communication tools in daily life
2.
Experiences with those communication tools in any course before
3.
Experiences with those communication tools in the course under investigation
4.
How LM* be introduced
5.
How and when to use LM at the course
6.
Liked features of the LM
7.
Disliked features of the LM
8.
Recommendations on LM
9.
Differences between face to face communication and online communication over LM
10. Any comments about communication with LM
*(LM stands for Live Meeting)
In data analysis, the recordings first transcribed into text and then analyzed by segmenting, coding and
developing categories (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). For the first 5 questions in interview protocol,
frequency tables about various descriptive results were created. Rest of the questions was more related with
features of the tool and the communication such that the techniques mentioned above were used and
categories were created.
4. Results
4.1. Questionnaire Results
For the Likert-type questionnaire, which was about perceptions about synchronous communication via the
tool, 33 out of 51 students responded the items. After analyzing the descriptive results (distribution and
frequencies) of responses, distribution diagram was created as in Figure 2.
Preference of Communication Modality in Blended Learning Environment
81
Figure 2 Distribution of Responses for Likert-type Questions (n=33)
According to the distribution data above, it can be said that the subjects agree with the items in favor of
the tool and online communication in the study. The students were seemed to perceive video and audio
quality good and satisfactory. The video width and height were 320 and 240 pixel that was a common ratio
used over Internet. Video image quality was also set to 248 Kbps by the researchers so that the subjects with
slow connections could watch the video stream smoothly.
While students seemed to believe that video and audio channels (video and audio) could improve the
communication (the 10th and 11th items with 78.8% and 81.8% agreement respectively), adding video into
communication seemed to be more valuable than audio (60.6% and 48.5% agreement relatively).
In the 6th item, majority of the students (63.6%) reflected that communicating via LM was encouraging in
terms of critical thinking. Even though more than half of them (54.5%, 69.7% and 63.7% at 7 th, 9th and 12th
items) indicated that they feel comfortable with the communication in the study, they did not totally agree
that online communication in the study was as effective as face to face communication (only 42.7%
agreement at the 8th item).
The results of the second part of questionnaire are given in Figure 3. Items from 13 to 16 queried
students’ perceptions about “online communication with LM”. The scores close to 1 and 2 were attributed for
aggreement with the first adjective, 4 and 5 were accounted for aggreement with the second adjective in the
results. Scores close to 3 were interpreted as undecided.
Figure 3 Mean Scores for Semantic Differential Items
Halil Ersoy & M.Yaşar Özden
82
The distribution results indicate that students perceived the communication as helpful (mean is 4.09),
informative (2.15), moderately primitive (3.42), and lastly supportive (1.97). The LM tool was perceived as
helpful (mean is 3.97), attractive (3.88), sort of secure (2.52) and comforting (2.24).
The last item was in open-ended question asking any additional comments on communicating with LM.
Out of 33 students, only one wrote that:
Even though it has been used at laboratory hours, it is an effective communication tool.
Even we have used the right of asking questions with the laboratory assistant. I think the
purpose of it could not been realized well although its name is very effective one.
To summarize the 20-item perception questionnaire results it can be said that the students seemed to
perceive the tool effective in functionality and felt comfortable during usage, but they would not replace
online communication with face to face one at all.
4.2. Interview Results
The first five questions in the interview was descriptive items investigating participants’ past experiences
with online communication tools like forum, chat, email and video conference. The results for those
questions are frequencies of specific tool usage and given at tables below.
Table 3
Responses for Question #1
Question #1: How frequently do you use online communication tools? (n=9)
Tools
Email
Forum
Chat
Chat with web camera
Video Conference
Frequently
9
2
7
3
-
Rarely
5
2
1
2
Never
1
7
No Answer
1
5
-
Table 4
Responses for Question #2
Question #2: Have you ever used any of these tools in your courses for instructional purposes and how?
Tool
Frequency
E-mail
4
Forum
5
Chat
5
Video Conference
0
None
2
The experiences, mentioned at question 2 above, come from either instructional activities existing in a
course design or students’ individual needs like using chat applications during group projects.
Table 5
Responses for Question #3
Question #3: At the course, which online communication tools have you used?
Tool
Frequency
Description (Frequency)
Email
5
o Writing extra messages in addition to reading announcements via e-mails (5)
Forum
9
o Both read and write (1)
o Only read (5)
o Aware but not read (3)
Chat
(Video conference)
9
o I have used (5)
o I could not use (4)
Preference of Communication Modality in Blended Learning Environment
83
In question #3, four participants who said they could not use video conferencing facility (i.e. Live
Meeting) explained the reasons as follows:
“There was a connection problem.”
“It was available but I did not use it.”
“Support from research assistants at laboratory activities was more dominant.”
“We used Microsoft MSN® free commercial software) during the projects.”
Table 6
Responses for Question #4
Question 4: How has Live Meeting been introduced to you? Was that introduction useful for you in terms
of how to install and why to use it? Why?
Adequacy of the introduction about how to install
Adequate
9
Not Adequate
-
8
1
Adequacy of the introduction about why to use
As seen in results of the question #4 above, only one participant argued that “it was difficult to understand
without a demonstration”.
Table 7
Responses for Question #5 with five sub questions
Question #5: When and how did you use Live Meeting during the semester?
Sub Question 5.1: When and where did you use Live Meeting?
During application hours at computer laboratory
At home at night
Sub Question 5.2: Why did you use Live Meeting?
To ask questions and get answers about current topic at that moment
To see others questions
Sub Question 5.3: Have you ever watched the instructor alive?
Yes
No
Sub Question 5.4: Have you ever broadcasted/shared your video?
Yes
Frequency
9
1
8
1
8
1
1
No, but I would
3
No and I would not
2
No, no comment
3
Sub Question 5.5: Difficulties during the use of LM
Losing connection during communicating (need to connect again)
4
Unable to connect at all times
1
Audio and video delay during video conference between participants
1
Audio delay during watching instructor video
2
Poor quality of speakers at the computer
1
In sub question #5.4, only 1 participant said that he or she could both watch and publish his or her view
through camera. Other three said that they had not had necessary equipment (camera and headphone).
Halil Ersoy & M.Yaşar Özden
84
Another two admitted that they would not have preferred to broadcast their own view even they had
necessary equipment. In last sub question (#5.5), participants expressed the difficulties in using LM as given
table 9.
In 6th question, students were expected to present features of the LM that they had liked. As given in table
10 below, several features were expressed under two groups: Benefits from synchronous communication and
benefits from various communication channels. In the same question, participants also expressed their
concerns about the communication and tool. They said that their participation would depend on the identity
of communication partner. Their decision about using video channel would change according to whom they
were communicating. In fact one said that he or she felt uncomfortable in front of the camera so he or she
would never engage in video channel.
Table 8
Responses for Question #6
Question #6: Liked Features of Live Meeting
Categories
Benefits from Synchronous Communication
Benefits from Communication Channels
Other Concerns
Specific Features
o Immediate feedback
o Engaging other tasks simultaneously
o Increased retention
o Reduced perceived distance in video conference
o Increased retention and motivation in video conference
o Permanent appearance of text messages
o Accent in speech in audio
o Easy to express ideas by talking
o Easy to convey ideas by mimics in video conference
o Effect of Communication Partners
o Being uncomfortable in front of camera
In 7th question, as opposite with the previous one, most disliked features were asked. The participants
indicated several disliked features as given in table 11 below under two groups: Technical problems and
design problems.
Table 9
Responses for Question #7
Question 7: Disliked Features of LM
Categories
Specific Features
Technical Problems
Design Problems
o
o
o
o
o
o
Time delay at audio/video transmission
Connection problems in joining the dialog session
Difficult to trace questions and answers at the same time
Difficult to understand the sender of messages at textual messaging
Being distracted by watching another student
Formal and academic mood of conversations
In question #8, the students were asked for their recommendations to improve the Live Meeting tool.
Under three groups, they expressed suggestions as given in table 10 below.
Preference of Communication Modality in Blended Learning Environment
85
Table 10
Responses for Question #8
Question 8: Recommendation for Improving Live Meeting tool
Category
Recommendations
Changes in Communication Pattern
o Allow students to start a dialog session without the
instructor authorization
o Allow private dialogues with the instructor to make
message tracing easier and to get answers quickly
Changes in Interface Design
o More attractive alert for new messages
o Emotional icons and images at textual messaging
o Different text colors and fonts at textual messaging
to differentiate instructor’s messages
o Being similar to other chat software
Extra Features
o Desktop or application sharing
o File sharing
o Saving textual messages and audio/video dialogues
As a last question, the participants were inquired to compare the online communication via Live Meeting
with face to face at the classroom. It is expected that after expressing pros and cons of online communication
in previous questions, students can make a preference of communication way one over another. After the first
interview session with the first subject, the question was modified as: “If there would be three different
courses, one over Live Meeting, one at classroom, and one blending both Live Meeting and classroom; which
one would you like, and why?” The preferences and factors for each were are given below in Table 11.
Table 11
Responses for Question #9
Question 9: Reasons and effective factors in preferences of communication via Live Meeting and face to
face communication at classroom
Preference
Reasons
Face to face only
o Need for social interaction
o Easy to recognize emotional states and feelings
o Easy to manage dialogues
o Sharing ideas from ongoing dialogues
o Direct support from the instructor
Live Meeting only
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Effect of new technology
Motivation from instructor existance alive
Feeling uncomfortable in classroom
Easy to manage dialogues
Accessing archived dialogues
Appropriate course content
Communicating in foreign language
Blending both
o
o
Task related communication needs
Need to feel the existence of an instructor
Effective Factors in preferences
o
o
o
Attitudes toward instructor
Abilities of instructor
Attitudes toward course
86
Halil Ersoy & M.Yaşar Özden
In the last group above, the participants said that their preference would change according to their attitude
toward the instructor, to online abilities of the instructor and to attitudes toward the course. They said they
would be willing to take online courses if they liked the instructor and the course. Moreover they stressed
that the abilities of the instructor in online environment could affect their preference.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
To answer the research question, (how and why students prefer or neglect to use certain modalities in the
blended learning environment), the results of both instruments (questionnaire and interviews) were analyzed
and elaborated. As results of the questionnaire, it can be said that the tool (Live Meeting) fulfilled the
synchronous communication needs of the students comfortably. In terms of video and audio quality, the
students found the existing capacities acceptable. The size (320x240 pixels in width and height) and image
quality (248 Kb per second and 29.9 frame per second) of the Live Meeting seemed to be satisfactory for
such communication. At this point, it is important to mention that the instructor and students saw only the
face and head of the speaker during the video conferences. In this case, the size and quality of the video were
quite acceptable. In terms of video quality, the findings were in line with the research study of Kies, Williges
and Rosson (1997). They had found that the size of 320x240 pixels and frame rate of 6 fps (30 fps is
recommended) was the minimum acceptable quality measure.
5.1. Textual Modality
In terms of communication channels, diverse affective factors emerged from findings for each modality.
Strengths of textual modality, as results of students’ interview data, are grouped under four.
5.1.1. Permanency of the Text Messages on Screen
Words and other symbols stay at screen in textual messaging in opposed to sound or vision so that there is
much more time span for sensation and comprehension. This extra time span before responding may have
participants feel more comfortable (Falloon, 2011). Similarly a participant can delay reading and responding
the message for a second to maintain concentration on current activity.
5.1.2. Textual Content of the Programming Language Course
The content of the communication in the case was programming language topics which required sending
codes in dialogs. As even one letter or punctuation in coding is important, transmitting these messages in
texual modality is the least risky way. Audio and visual modalities are vulnerable to losing or missing some
characters. Moreover, permanency of text messages about programming codes lets participants reach and
read them more than once.
5.1.3. Availability of Time Span in Reading and Writing for Non-Native Speakers
For non-native speakers, reading and writing is more comfortable than listening and talking alive. Not
only the content-specific terminology but also regular part of the dialog in foreign language may create a
pressure and cause to avoid communication at all. As one subject stated, non-native speakers prefer textual
modality, where the risk of misunderstanding is lower than in audio and video modality. Berge and Collins
(1993) pointed out similarly that time independency in online communication allows participants allocate
extra time for reflection before posting messages. This extra time may help non-native speakers understand
dialogs and participate them.
5.1.4. Easiness in Archiving Text Messages
Even the primary purpose in online communication is immediate support in this study; the content of
dialog seemed to be valuable in later times. Archiving textual messages is very easy either by communication
software or by participants themselves. Coping and pasting scripts into any other application let you keep
them forever. Managing is also easy since saving very long scripts in textual modality needs very small
amount of digital storage space. For example, you can send one hundred page of text scripts to yourself as a
Preference of Communication Modality in Blended Learning Environment
87
email but a 10-minute sound or video file require much more storage capacity that you may not send it by
email. Moreover, while textual content can be opened by plenty of ways even in an-old fashioned computer,
sound and video files necessitate special software and relatively better hardware.
5.2. Auditory Modality
Auditory modality refers communication only over audio channel like telephone conversations. Both
students and the instructor in the study had a chance to close camera vision but continue with sound. After
the data analysis phase, following advantages emerged:
5.2.1. Immediate Response
Since the recognition capacity and retention of auditory information are superior to visual information
(Gelder & Vroomen (1997; Penney, 1989), participants spend less time in talking than typing and reading.
Especially if main purpose of the initiated dialog is to get help or to ask a question about ongoing task,
immediacy is important property of a communication channel. Students said that communication with talking
was easy and took less time by accent in speeches.
5.2.2. Bidirectional Conversations
Beside high speed in perceiving sound, existence of only two participants in audio modality rather than
many people in textual modality let a person save time in deciding the targets of the messages. All incoming
messages are obviously targeted to listener and vice versa so that no extra effort and time to associate
messages with their senders are needed. In interviews, students complained about difficulty in tracing text
messages and their senders.
5.2.3. Engaging in a Visual Task and Audio Dialog at the Same Time
Dual coding theory (Paivio, 1991) advocates that, people process verbal and nonverbal information
separately, thus presenting verbal and nonverbal information simultaneously supports remembering. On the
contrary, providing more than one verbal or more than one nonverbal presentation at the same time causes
confliction. Since audio modality let visual information to be processed independently, participants can
continue working on tasks in front of computers while talking and listening.
5.2.4. Accent in Speech
Accent in speech provides extra information for listener about the message. Certain words in a sentence
may be stressed explicitly in order to take listener’s attention on them. Similarly the same word can be a
question or an answer with proper accent which means less mental load for listener.
5.2.5. Easy To Express Feelings By Audio
Beside accent in speech mentioned above, people can feel comfortable in talking since participants’
emotions can also be anticipated. Tone in talking, silence and some voices like laughing, crying, etc., provide
extra information to listener. Even though there are some symbols used to convey feelings in textual
communication like :) , :P , :D, etc., they are incapable of conveying whole mood.
5.2.6. Accessing Dialog Archives
The tool in the study was not archiving the audio and video dialog. Some subjects recommended such
option both for audio and video conversations. Technically, sound can be recorded easily and then accessed
by anyone through Internet.
5.3. Visual Modality
Halil Ersoy & M.Yaşar Özden
88
In visual modality, both vision and audio channels were used simultaneously in the study. For that reason
some of strengthens of visual modality came out similar to those of auditory modality. In following section,
advantages of vision in those live conversations are listed:
5.3.1. Extra Information by Visual Clues
Like face to face communication, talking to someone while looking him or her gives extra information in
addition to the message. The emotional state or attitudes of the participants become visible by looking at their
mimics, accent, body language and an environment they are talking in (Huang and E.-Ling, 2012).
5.3.2. High Social Presence
Similarity of visual modality with face to face communication makes students feel high social presence in
online communication. As students stated in interviews, visual modality decreases feeling of being far away
and loneliness which is implicitly increases the motivation.
5.3.3. Ability to Archive and Access Later
The online meetings over auditory or visual modalities were not being archived in this study and students
recommended such facilities for themselves in interviews. Information in visual channel can be archived
either by a participant or by the tool automatically. After archiving, participants can watch those movies
again and again, which let a student to focus on only certain part of the communication and to revise again
and again.
5.4. Conclusion
After the particular advantages of each modality, the study let to conclude with following concerns for
future implications:
Content of the communication may make certain modality more effective.
For example, the conversations in the study were mainly included textual information (programming
codes) so that some students explicitly stated that they could have ignored the visual and auditory channels
since it is easier to understand when reading a code than listening. Further online communication
implications should take the instructional content into account and provide appropriate modalities.
Purpose of the communication may affect the preference of modality.
In study, the purpose of some students in communication was to get support about ongoing coding task.
Auditory modality allowed them to communicate without interrupting their work. In those cases, only audio
channel was acceptable since it was possible to listen and to type at the same time. Similarly, if the purpose
was sending codes to someone without any lose, textual modality was used. Moreover, seeing the instructor
was told to be motivating. As a result, purpose of the communication should be considered in online
communication.
Attitude toward the instructor or other participant can affect the students in preferring communication
channel.
In interviews, a couple of students said that they would not want to see and to share their visual
appearance with an instructor or with a student if they did not like him or her in general. Audio and visual
modalities can share extra information about the sender unconsciously (vision of face, clothes, hair style,
vision of room or office, etc.). Participants’ attitudes toward each other may affect the idea of sharing that
kind of personal information and may cause avoiding audio or visual modality. Practitioners should think
about that attitudes and should not enforce and expect using certain modality.
Technical requirements should be met for quality audio and visual communication.
Preference of Communication Modality in Blended Learning Environment
89
Communication quality in visual and audio channels is more vulnerable than textual channel since further
channels require extra hardware (camera, speaker and microphone), proper environment in terms of light and
sound isolation, and lastly higher and robust connection speed. Stakeholders should define technical
requirements for online communication and/or design online communication matching existing infrastructure
and equipment.
As last words, this study shows that increase in the capabilities of online communication does not
guarantee that learners will prefer and use new technologies (Epp, Green, Rahman, and Weaver, 2010). Like
this study, more context-sensitive studies with diverse parameters should be conducted.
6. References
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D., & Ozden, M. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring
the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 10(6), 65-83. Retrieved June 25, 2014 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/ article/view/765/1436
Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R., Tamim, R., & Abrami, P. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of
Blended Learning and Technology Use in Higher Education: From The General to The Applied. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122.
Berge, Z. & Collins, M. (1993). Computer conferencing and online education. The Arachnet Electronic
Journal of Virtual Culture, 1(3). Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://serials.infomotions.com/aejvc/aejvcv1n03-berge-computer.txt
Ko, C. (2012). A case study of language learners’ social presence in synchronous CMC. Recall, 24(2),
66-84.
Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of
instruction. In D.H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and
Technology (pp. 170-198). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Epp, E., Green, K., Rahman, A., & Weaver, G. (2010). Analysis of Student–Instructor Interaction
Patterns in Real-Time, Scientific Online Discourse. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 19(1), 4957.
Falloon, G. (2011). Making the Connection: Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance and Its
Relevance to the Use of a Virtual Classroom in Postgraduate Online Teacher Education. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education (International Society For Technology In Education), 43(3), 187-209.
Gedik, N., Kiraz, E. & Ozden, M. Y. (2013). Design of a Blended Learning Environment:
Considerations and Implementation Issues. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29 (1), 119.
Gelder, B., & Vroomen, J. (1997). Modality effects in immediate recall of verbal and non-verbal
information. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 97–110.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C.
J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp.
3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Graham, C.R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M.J. Moore (Ed.),
Handbook of distance educatio, 3rd ed. (pp. 333–350) New York: Routledge.
Grant, M.M., & Cheon, J. (2007) The Value of Using Synchronous Conferencing for Instruction and
Students. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 211-226.
Gunawardena, C.N. & McIsaac, M.S. (2004). Distance Education. In D.H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook
of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd Ed., pp. 355-395). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Han, H. (2013). Do Nonverbal Emotional Cues Matter? Effects of Video Casting in Synchronous
Virtual Classrooms. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 253-264.
Huang, X., & E.-Ling, H. (2012). Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication in an Online
Environment: Faculty Experiences and Perceptions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 15-30.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed
Approaches. (2nd Ed) Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, (2nd Ed. pp. 785–811). Mahwah
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
90
Halil Ersoy & M.Yaşar Özden
Kies, J. K, Williges, R C., & Rosson, M.B., (1997) Evaluating Desktop Video Conferencing for
Distance Learning. Computers & Education, 28(2), 79-91
Leflore, D. (1997). Theory Supporting Design Guidelines for Web-Based Instruction. In B. Abbey.
(Ed). Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education. (pp. 102 – 117). London: Idea Group
Publishing.
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Putting the group back in group support systems: Some
theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L. M. Jessup & J.
S. Valacich (Eds.), Group Support Systems: New Perspectives (pp. 78-96). New York: Macmillan.
Miller, S. M. & Miller, K. L. (1997). Theoretical and Practical Considerations in the Design of WebBased Instruction. In B. Abbey. (Ed). Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education. (pp. 156
– 177). London: Idea Group Publishing.
Mills, G.E. (2000). Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. New Jersey: Merrill-Prince
Hall.
Moore, D. M., (1997). Theory of Transactional Distance. In D. Keegan, (Ed.) Theoretical Principles of
Distance Education. (pp 22-38). New York: Routledge.
Moore, D. M., Burton, J. K., & Myers, R. J. (2004). Multiple channel communication: The theoretical
and research foundations of multimedia. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology, (2nd Ed. pp. 979-1005). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education,3(2),1-6.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology,
45(3), 255–287.
Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and
Cognition, 17(4), 398–422.
Romiszowski, A. & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D. Jonassen (Ed),
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. (pp. 438-456). Ney York: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
Romiszowski, A. & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D. Jonassen (Ed),
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. (2nd ed., pp. 397-431). Mahwah NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Romiszowski, A. J. (1997). Web-Based Distance Learning and Teaching: Revolutionary Invention or
Reaction to Necessity? In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction. (pp. 5-18). Englewood Cliffs. NJ:
Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Spencer, D., & Hiltz, R. (2003). A field study of use of synchronous chat in online courses. Proceedings
of the 36nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. USA. Retrieved May 24, 2014 from
http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/HICSS36/HICSSpapers/CLTSL03.pdf