Choosing communication portfolios to accomplish tasks: The effects of individual differences

  • Authors:

  • Chei Sian Lee;Dion Hoe-Lian Goh;Alton Y. K. Chua;Brendan Luyt

  • Affiliations:

  • Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, 31 Nanyang Link, SCI Building, Singapore 637718, Singapore;Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, 31 Nanyang Link, SCI Building, Singapore 637718, Singapore;Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, 31 Nanyang Link, SCI Building, Singapore 637718, Singapore;Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, 31 Nanyang Link, SCI Building, Singapore 637718, Singapore

  • Venue:
  • Computers & Education
  • Year:
  • 2009

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The myriad of information communication technologies (ICTs) available today has changed the way students choose and use them. Specifically, individuals are increasingly relying on a mix of ICTs for communication to accomplish tasks. Yet, past studies on ICT use has largely assumed that people use a single ICT per task. We attempt to address this gap by focusing on the influence of individual differences on the choice of communication portfolio (a mix of ICTs) to accomplish learning tasks in school-based settings. Specifically, we focus on two dimensions of individual differences: learning styles and individuals' perceptions. Results suggest that individual differences do have effects on the choice of communication portfolios to accomplish tasks. In particular, we found that students who preferred to learn by hearing tended to choose the complex communication portfolio to accomplish their tasks. Interestingly, our results also indicate that students preferred to use the simple communication portfolio when communication partners were perceived to be unavailable.