References

1. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 8397.
2. Allison, R.D., & Scott, D.C. (1998). Faculty compensation and obligation: The necessity of a new approach triggered by technology integration. New Directions for Community Colleges, 101, 69-78.
3. Barak, A., & English, N. (2002). Prospects and limitations of psychological testing on the Internet. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19, 65–89.
4. Carlson, J.R., & Zmud, R.W (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 171-195.
5. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
6. Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H.(1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior (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, 554-571.
8. Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H. & Trevino, L.K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information support 190
9. El-Shinnawy, M., & Markus, M.L. (1997). The poverty of Media Richness Theory: Explaining people’s choice of electronic mail vs. Voice mail. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 443-467.
10. Foulger, D.A. (1990). Medium as process: The structure, use, and practice of computer conferencing on IBM’s IBMPC computer conferencing facility.
11. Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17, 407-446.
12. Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2001). Wired meetings: Technological mediation of organizational gatherings. In F.M. Jablin and L.L. Putnam (Eds.) The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods, (pp. 624-663). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Garner, W.R. (1962). Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York, NY: Wiley.
14. Garrison D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
15. Ingram, A.L., Hathorn, L.G., Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the Internet. Computers and Education, 35(1), 21-35.
16. Irmer, B., & Bordia, P. (2003). Multiple determinants of media choice: The role of symbolic cues and contextual constraints. International Journal on ELearning, 2(3), 51-58.
17. King, R.C., & Xia, W.D. (1997). Media appropriateness: Effects of experience on communication media choice. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 877-910.
18. Kozma, R. (1994). A reply: Media and methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 11-14.
19. Kraut, R.E., Rice, R.E., Cool, C., & Fish, R.S. (1998). Varieties of social influence: The role of utility and norms in the success of a new communication medium. Organization Science, 9(4), 437-453.
20. Mielke, K. (1968). Questioning the questions of ETV research. Educational Broadcasting Review, 2, 6-15.
21. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York, McGraw-Hill.
22. Novek, E.M. (1999, May). Do professors dream of electronic students? Faculty
23. Russell, T.L. (1999). The “no significant difference phenomenon.” Raleigh, N.C.: Office of Instructional Telecommunications. Retrieved May 2, 2005 from: http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/nosignificantdifference/
24. Seppälä, P., & Alamäki, H. (2003). Mobile learning in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 3(19), 330-335.
25. Smith, C.D., Whiteley, H.E., & Smith, S. (1999). Using email for teaching Computers& Education, 33(1), 15-25.
26. Steel, J., & Hudson, A. (2001). Educational technology in learning and teaching: The perceptions and experiences of teaching staff. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 103-111.
27. Steinfeild, C.W. (1986). Computer mediated communication in an organizational setting: Explaining task-related and socioemotional uses. In M.L. McGlaughlin (Ed.) Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 777-804). Beverly Hills,
28. Trevino, L.K., Webster, J., & Stein, E.W. (2000). Making connections: Complementary influences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science, 11(2), 163-182.
29. Mennecke, B.E., Valacich, J.S., & Wheeler, B.C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(6), 507-529.
30. Webster, J., & Trevino, L.K. (1995). Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: Two policy-capturing studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1544-1572.

Cited By

• How Do Medium Naturalness and Personality Traits Shape Academic Achievement and Perceived Learning? An Experimental Study of Face-to-Face and Synchronous E-Learning

  Ina Blau, Orli Weiser & Yoram Eshet-Alkalai

  Research in Learning Technology Vol. 25, No. 1 (2017)

• Media Richness and Social Norms in the Choice to Attend Lectures or to Watch them Online

  John N. Bassili, University of Toronto Scarborough, Canada

  Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Vol. 17, No. 4 (October 2008) pp. 453–475

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.