Abstract
By the proliferation of online courses, the social dimension of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is becoming more important than before. Research shows that communicative behavior adaptation to the computer medium is a critical issue in CSCL social relationship development. Two dominant theories in the CSCL field, social information processing theory and adaptive structuration theory, argue that individuals do not simply receive the technology passively but they adapt their behavior to increase benefits from the technology. This paper develops an instrument in order to operationalize the notion of individual’s communicative behavior adaptability in CSCL. Through an exploratory factor analysis performed on a small sample of post graduate students of an online degree in an Australian university, three factors have been unveiled: (1) individual perception of self-representation, (2) individual perception of compatibility, and (3) individual perception of the use of computer technology. Identification of these factors is expected to facilitate understanding of individuals’ social behaviors in CSCL environment, which in turn will guide the design of CSCL systems. In addition, the paper examines the relationships between the extracted factors and four environmental factors: learner’s characteristics, course characteristics, instructor characteristics, and technology characteristics. The results show that none of these characteristics strongly affect perception of self-representation or perception of the use of computer technology. On the other hand, a strong relationship was found between perception of compatibility and learner’s and course characteristics. The reliability as well as validity of the study is examined and findings are discussed. These findings will provide further insights into the design process of CSCL systems.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 298–312.
Bogdan, C., & Pargman, T. C. (2002). Reconsidering support for the members of specialized online communities. The 34th Congress of the Nordic Ergonomics Society, NES (pp. 121–126). Linkopings Universitet.
Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer supported groups. Communication Education, 48, 109–126.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20, 143–166.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14, 189–217.
Daradoumis, T., Martinez-Mones, A., & Xhafa, F. (2006). A layered framework for evaluating on-line collaborative learning interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 622–635.
Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2007). Students experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 496–514.
Duran, R. L. (1983). Communicative adaptability: a measure of social communicative competence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 320–326.
Dutton, J., & Dutton, M. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 1–20.
Duran, R. L., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Toward the development and validation of a measure of cognitive communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 43(3), 259–275.
Fabrigar, L. R., MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
Farnham, S., Zaner, M., & Cheng, L. (2001). Supporting sociability in a shared browser. Tokyo: Interact Conference.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 6, 91–109.
Goodhue, D., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2006). PLS, small sample size, and statistical power in MIS research. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Hyatt Regency, Kauai.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 532–560.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of E-learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 18, 5–29.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., J.Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & L.Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis, New Jersey, Pearson Education Inc.
Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35, 237–250.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.
Kollock, P. (1996). Design principles for online communities. Harvard Conference on the Internet and Society.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & van Buuren, H. (2007). Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176–192.
Lee, E. J. (2007). Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: the role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 385–403.
Lim, J., & Liu, Y. (2006). The role of cultural diversity and leadership in computer-supported collaborative learning: a content analysis. Information and Software Technology, 48, 142–153.
Lin, C. A. (2003). An interactive communication technology adaption model. Communication Theory, 13(4), 345–364.
Luppicini, R. (2006). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35(2), 141–185.
McMahon, J., Gardner, J., Gray, C., & Mulhern, G. (1999). Barriers to student computer usage: staff and student perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 302–311.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perception of adopting and information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
Muilenburga, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: a factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48.
Norman, D. A. (2007). The design of future things. New York: Basic Books.
Raaij, E. M. V., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50, 838–852.
Riva, G. (2002). The sociocognitive psychology of computer-mediated communication: the present and future of technology-based interactions. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 581–598.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free.
Schepers, J., de Jong, A., Wetzels, M., & de Ruyter, K. (2008). Psychological safety and social support in groupware adoption: a multi-level assessment in education. Computers & Education, 51(2), 757–775.
Shelley, J. O. (1998). Factors that affect the adoption and use of electronic mail by K-12 foreign language educators. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(2), 269–285.
Sherblom, J. (1998). Direction, function, and signature in electronic mail. The Journal of Business Communication, 25(4), 39–54.
Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2006). Social practices of computer-supported collaborative learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 409–412.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 380–427.
Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: a review and case study. Computers & Education, 34, 119–140.
Tu, C.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. April: International Journal of E-Learning.
Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.
Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In C. A. Lin & D. Atkin (Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses. Cresskill: Hampton.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50–88.
Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & David, W. P. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interactions: a meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 460–487.
White, C. H., & Burgoon, J. K. (2001). Adaptation and communicative design: patterns of interaction in truthful and deceptive conversation. Human Communication Research, 27, 9–37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abedin, B., Daneshgar, F. & D’Ambra, J. Students’ communicative behavior adaptability in CSCL environments. Educ Inf Technol 16, 227–244 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9116-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9116-x