Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

What Do You Get from Turning on Your Video? Effects of Videoconferencing Affordances on Remote Class Experience During COVID-19

Published: 11 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

The outbreak of COVID-19 forced schools to swiftly transition from in-person classes to online or remote offerings, making educators and learners alike rely on online videoconferencing platforms. Platforms like Zoom offer audio-visual channels of communication and include features that are designed to approximate the classroom experience. However, it is not clear how students' learning experiences are affected by affordances of the videoconferencing platforms or what underlying factors explain the differential effects of these affordances on class experiences of engagement, interaction, and satisfaction. In order to find out, we conducted two online survey studies: Study 1 (N = 176) investigated the effects of three types of videoconferencing affordances (i.e., modality, interactivity, and agency affordances) on class experience during the first two months after the transition to online learning. Results showed that usage of the three kinds of affordances was positively correlated with students' class engagement, interaction, and satisfaction. Perceived anonymity, nonverbal cues, and comfort level were found to be key mediators. In addition, students' usage of video cameras in class was influenced by their classmates. Study 2 (N = 256) tested the proposed relationships at a later stage of the pandemic and found similar results, thus serving as a constructive replication. This paper focuses on reporting the results of Study 1 since it captures the timely reactions from students when they first went online, and the second study plays a supplementary role in verifying Study 1 and thereby extending its external validity. Together, the two studies provide insights for instructors on how to leverage different videoconferencing affordances to enhance the virtual learning experience. Design implications for digital tools in online education are also discussed.

References

[1]
Muhammad Adnan and Kainat Anwar. 2020. Online Learning amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Students' Perspectives. Online Submission, Vol. 2, 1 (2020), 45--51.
[2]
Secc il Tümen Akyildiz. 2020. College Students' Views on the Pandemic Distance Education: A Focus Group. (2020).
[3]
Majed Alharthi. 2020. Students' Attitudes toward the Use of Technology in Online Courses. International Journal of Technology in Education, Vol. 3, 1 (2020), 14--23.
[4]
Michael Allen, Joan Sargeant, Karen Mann, Michael Fleming, and John Premi. 2003. Videoconferencing for practice-based small-group continuing medical education: Feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and cost. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, Vol. 23, 1 (2003), 38--47.
[5]
Stephanie A Andel, Triparna de Vreede, Paul E Spector, Balaji Padmanabhan, Vivek K Singh, and Gert-Jan De Vreede. 2020. Do social features help in video-centric online learning platforms? A social presence perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 113 (2020), 106505.
[6]
M Saidun Anwar, Choirudin Choirudin, Eka Fitria Ningsih, Triana Dewi, and Andino Maseleno. 2019. Developing an interactive mathematics multimedia learning based on ispring presenter in increasing students' interest in learning mathematics. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, Vol. 10, 1 (2019), 135--150.
[7]
Steven R Aragon. 2003. Creating social presence in online environments. New directions for adult and continuing education, Vol. 2003, 100 (2003), 57--68.
[8]
Albert Bandura and David C McClelland. 1977. Social learning theory. Vol. 1. Englewood cliffs Prentice Hall.
[9]
Michele L Barr. 2017. Encouraging college student active engagement in learning: Student response methods and anonymity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 33, 6 (2017), 621--632.
[10]
Tanya Beran, Michelle Drefs, Alyshah Kaba, Noof Al Baz, and Nouf Al Harbi. 2015. Conformity of responses among graduate students in an online environment. The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 25 (2015), 63--69.
[11]
Nina Bergdahl and Jalal Nouri. 2020. Covid-19 and crisis-prompted distance education in Sweden. Technology, Knowledge and Learning (2020), 1--17.
[12]
Peter Blatchford and Anthony Russell. 2020. Rethinking Class Size: The complex story of impact on teaching and learning. UCL Press.
[13]
Ricardo Böheim, Tim Urdan, Maximilian Knogler, and Tina Seidel. 2020. Student hand-raising as an indicator of behavioral engagement and its role in classroom learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 62 (2020), 101894.
[14]
Michael W Browne and Robert Cudeck. 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological methods & research, Vol. 21, 2 (1992), 230--258.
[15]
Avner Caspi and Ina Blau. 2008. Do Media Richness and Visual Anonymity Influence Learning? A Comparative Study Using Skype?. In University of Haifa.[in Hebrew.
[16]
Tanya L Chartrand and John A Bargh. 1999. The chameleon effect: the perception--behavior link and social interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 76, 6 (1999), 893.
[17]
Tanya L Chartrand, Clara Michelle Cheng, and Valerie E Jefferis. 2002. You're just a chameleon: The automatic nature and social significance of mimicry. Natura automatyzmow (Nature of Automaticity) (2002), 19--24.
[18]
Andrea Chester and Gillian Gwynne. 1998. Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 4, 2 (1998), JCMC424.
[19]
Robert B Cialdini and Noah J Goldstein. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., Vol. 55 (2004), 591--621.
[20]
Cathlin V Clark-Gordon, Nicholas D Bowman, Alan K Goodboy, and Alyssa Wright. 2019. Anonymity and online self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Communication Reports, Vol. 32, 2 (2019), 98--111.
[21]
Nicole L Davis, Mimi Gough, and Lorraine L Taylor. 2019. Online teaching: advantages, obstacles and tools for getting it right. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, Vol. 19, 3 (2019), 256--263.
[22]
Shivangi Dhawan. 2020. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 49, 1 (2020), 5--22.
[23]
Juli K Dixon, Lisa A Egendoerfer, and Taylar Clements. 2009. Do they really need to raise their hands? Challenging a traditional social norm in a second grade mathematics classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 25, 8 (2009), 1067--1076.
[24]
Marcia D Dixson. 2015. Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, Vol. 19, 4 (2015), n4.
[25]
Norman Don. 1988. The design of everyday things.
[26]
Alice H Eagly and Carole Chrvala. 1986. Sex differences in conformity: Status and gender role interpretations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 10, 3 (1986), 203--220.
[27]
Andrew J Flanagin, Vanessa Tiyaamornwong, Joan O'Connor, and David R Seibold. 2002. Computer-mediated group work: The interaction of sex and anonymity. Communication Research, Vol. 29, 1 (2002), 66--93.
[28]
Claes Fornell and David F Larcker. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.
[29]
Mark Freeman and Anne Bamford. 2004. Student choice of anonymity for learner identity in online learning discussion forums. International Journal on E-learning, Vol. 3, 3 (2004), 45--53.
[30]
Mark Freeman, Paul Blayney, and Paul Ginns. 2006. Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 22, 4 (2006).
[31]
Linda S Futch, Aimee deNoyelles, Kelvin Thompson, and Wendy Howard. 2016. " Comfort" as a Critical Success Factor in Blended Learning Courses. Online Learning, Vol. 20, 3 (2016), 140--158.
[32]
James J Gibson. 1977. The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA, Vol. 1, 2 (1977), 67--82.
[33]
Donald Gillies. 2008. Student perspectives on videoconferencing in teacher education at a distance. Distance Education, Vol. 29, 1 (2008), 107--118.
[34]
Charlotte N Gunawardena and Frank J Zittle. 1997. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American journal of distance education, Vol. 11, 3 (1997), 8--26.
[35]
Selim Gunuc and Abdullah Kuzu. 2015. Student engagement scale: development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 40, 4 (2015), 587--610.
[36]
Janine Hacker, Jan vom Brocke, Joshua Handali, Markus Otto, and Johannes Schneider. 2020. Virtually in this together--how web-conferencing systems enabled a new virtual togetherness during the COVID-19 crisis. European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 29, 5 (2020), 563--584.
[37]
Heeyoung Han. 2013. Do nonverbal emotional cues matter? Effects of video casting in synchronous virtual classrooms. American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 27, 4 (2013), 253--264.
[38]
Andrew F Hayes. 2017. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
[39]
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, Yasemin Bertiz, and Selahattin Alan. 2020. Investigation of views of students and teachers on distance education practices during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), Vol. 4, 4 (2020), 267--282.
[40]
JungJoo Kim. 2011. Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 42, 5 (2011), 763--777.
[41]
Saso Koceski and Natasa Koceska. 2013. Challenges of videoconferencing distance education-a student perspective. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, Vol. 5, 2 (2013), 274.
[42]
Tony Lawson, Chris Comber, Jenny Gage, and Adrian Cullum-Hanshaw. 2010. Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, pedagogy and education, Vol. 19, 3 (2010), 295--314.
[43]
Eunbae Lee, Joseph A Pate, and Deanna Cozart. 2015. Autonomy support for online students. TechTrends, Vol. 59, 4 (2015), 54--61.
[44]
Jonathan RA Maier and Georges M Fadel. 2009. Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 20, 1 (2009), 13--27.
[45]
Albert Mehrabian et al. 1971. Silent messages. Vol. 8. Wadsworth Belmont, CA.
[46]
Timothy P Mottet. 2000. Interactive television instructors' perceptions of students' nonverbal responsiveness and their influence on distance teaching. Communication Education, Vol. 49, 2 (2000), 146--164.
[47]
Abdelmajid Naceur and Ulrich Schiefele. 2005. Motivation and learning-The role of interest in construction of representation of text and long-term retention: Inter-and intraindividual analyses. European journal of psychology of education, Vol. 20, 2 (2005), 155--170.
[48]
Hong Ngo and Ariana Eichelberger. 2019. College students' attitudes toward ICT use for English learning. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, Vol. 15, 1 (2019).
[49]
Oladotun Opeoluwa Olagbaju and Stanley Uzoamaka Nnorom. 2019. Effects of Class Size and Peer Influence on Senior Secondary Students' Achievement. quest (2019).
[50]
Manuela Paechter and Brigitte Maier. 2010. Online or face-to-face? Students' experiences and preferences in e-learning. The internet and higher education, Vol. 13, 4 (2010), 292--297.
[51]
ChongWoo Park and Dong-gook Kim. 2020. Exploring the Roles of Social Presence and Gender Difference in Online Learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 18, 2 (2020), 291--312.
[52]
Eun Kyung Park and S Shyam Sundar. 2015. Can synchronicity and visual modality enhance social presence in mobile messaging? Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 45 (2015), 121--128.
[53]
So Yeon Park and Mark E Whiting. 2020. Beyond zooming there: Understanding nonverbal interaction online. In The New Future of Work Symposium.
[54]
Alfred P Rovai and Jason D Baker. 2005. Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community, perceived learning, and interpersonal interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol. 6, 1 (2005), 31.
[55]
Abdullah Saykili. 2018. Distance education: Definitions, generations, key concepts and future directions. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, Vol. 5, 1 (2018), 2--17.
[56]
Ulrich Schiefele. 1999. Interest and learning from text. Scientific studies of reading, Vol. 3, 3 (1999), 257--279.
[57]
Craig R Scott. 2004. Benefits and drawbacks of anonymous online communication: Legal challenges and communicative recommendations. Free speech yearbook, Vol. 41, 1 (2004), 127--141.
[58]
Nataliya Serdyukova and Peter Serdyukov. 2013. Student Autonomy in Online Learning. In CSEDU. 229--233.
[59]
Ali Sher. 2009. Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Vol. 8, 2 (2009).
[60]
Annette C Sherry, Catherine P Fulford, and Shuqiang Zhang. 1998. Assessing distance learners' satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure. American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 12, 3 (1998), 4--28.
[61]
Michele Smith and Zane L Berge. 2009. Social learning theory in Second Life. UMBC Faculty Collection (2009).
[62]
Elena Soltovets, Oksana Chigisheva, and Denis Dubover. 2019. Foreign language e-course as informal learning tool for digital literacy development. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Pol'itica y Valores, Vol. 6, 3 (2019).
[63]
Liyan Song and Scot W McNary. 2011. Understanding Students' Online Interaction: Analysis of Discussion Board Postings. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Vol. 10, 1 (2011).
[64]
Liyan Song, Ernise S Singleton, Janette R Hill, and Myung Hwa Koh. 2004. Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The internet and higher education, Vol. 7, 1 (2004), 59--70.
[65]
S Shyam Sundar. 2008. Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In Mediated interpersonal communication. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 58--74.
[66]
S Shyam Sundar, Haiyan Jia, T Franklin Waddell, and Yan Huang. 2015. Toward a theory of interactive media effects (TIME): Four models for explaining how interface features affect user psychology. (2015).
[67]
Elson Szeto and Annie YN Cheng. 2016. Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: what effects are there on students' social presence experience? Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 24, 3 (2016), 487--503.
[68]
Lena Waizenegger, Brad McKenna, Wenjie Cai, and Taino Bendz. 2020. An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 29, 4 (2020), 429--442.
[69]
Scott L Walker and Barry J Fraser. 2005. Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, Vol. 8, 3 (2005), 289--308.
[70]
Joseph B Walther. 2011. Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. The handbook of interpersonal communication, Vol. 4 (2011), 443--479.
[71]
Joseph B Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, Artemio Ramirez, Judee K Burgoon, and Jorge Pe na. 2015. Interpersonal and hyperpersonal dimensions of computer-mediated communication. The handbook of the psychology of communication technology, Vol. 1 (2015), 22.
[72]
Senuri Wijenayake, Niels van Berkel, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jorge Goncalves. 2019. Measuring the effects of gender on online social conformity. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--24.
[73]
Senuri Wijenayake, Niels van Berkel, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jorge Goncalves. 2020. Impact of contextual and personal determinants on online social conformity. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 108 (2020), 106302.
[74]
David A Wilkerson. 2016. Lurking behavior in online psychosocial discussion forums: theoretical perspectives and implications for practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, Vol. 34, 3 (2016), 256--266.
[75]
Brenda Cantwell Wilson and Sharon Shrock. 2001. Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: a study of twelve factors. Acm sigcse bulletin, Vol. 33, 1 (2001), 184--188.
[76]
Nan Yang. 2020. Stage 2: Exploration on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in Large Class Teaching. In eLearning for Quality Teaching in Higher Education. Springer, 81--101.
[77]
Seonghye Yoon, Seyoung Kim, and Minjeng Kang. 2020. Predictive power of grit, professor support for autonomy and learning engagement on perceived achievement within the context of a flipped classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 21, 3 (2020), 233--247.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Adaptive, Sociable and Ready for Anything: Undergraduate Students Are Resilient When Faced with Technological ChangeProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36536898:CSCW1(1-32)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
  • (2023)Zoom Affordances and Identity: A Case StudySocial Media + Society10.1177/205630512211461769:1(205630512211461)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2023

Index Terms

  1. What Do You Get from Turning on Your Video? Effects of Videoconferencing Affordances on Remote Class Experience During COVID-19

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 6, Issue CSCW2
      CSCW
      November 2022
      8205 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3571154
      Issue’s Table of Contents
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 11 November 2022
      Published in PACMHCI Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. COVID-19
      2. affordance
      3. online learning
      4. usage
      5. videoconferencing

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)96
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
      Reflects downloads up to 01 Sep 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Adaptive, Sociable and Ready for Anything: Undergraduate Students Are Resilient When Faced with Technological ChangeProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36536898:CSCW1(1-32)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
      • (2023)Zoom Affordances and Identity: A Case StudySocial Media + Society10.1177/205630512211461769:1(205630512211461)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2023

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      Full Access

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media