Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2014.10.2.018

Reticence and Communication Preferences in the Classroom: Comparing "E-mail" and "Face-to-face" Interactions  

Ha, Jae-Sik (Dept. of Communication University of Illinois at Springfield)
Shin, Dong-Hee (Department of Interaction Science Sungkyunkwan University)
Lee, Chung Gun (Department of Applied Health Science, Indiana University at Bloomington)
Publication Information
International Journal of Contents / v.10, no.2, 2014 , pp. 18-27 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study examines underlying factors that influence undergraduate students' willingness to enhance communication with their instructor by comparing the frequency of e-mail and face-to-face interaction between students and instructors. Data was collected through a survey of 322 undergraduate journalism students at a large Midwestern university. The findings showed that the more passive students were in expressing their opinion during the class, the less likely they were to send e-mails to their instructor (Coef. = -0.180, p < .01) or to communicate with their instructor face-to-face (Coef. = -0.262, p < .01). The findings also showed that the more students described their personality as "shy," the less likely they were to e-mail their instructor (Coef. = -0.157, p < .05) or communicate with their instructor face-to-face (Coef. = -0.210, p < .01). It is noteworthy that the degrees of both passivity and shyness had a more negative effect on the probability of face-to-face interaction than they did on email interaction. In summary, email usage follows similar broader patterns of social interaction, rather than introducing a different trend in communication. This finding implies that the importance of e-mail should not be exaggerated as a communication tool for reticent students.
Keywords
Personality; Communication Skills; Internet; E-mail; Classroom;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 M. M. Martin, S. A. Myers, and T. P. Mottet, "Students' motives for communicating with their instructors," Communication Education, vol. 48, no. 2, 1999, pp. 155-164.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 R. L. Duran, L. Kelly, and J. A. Keaten, "College faculty use and perceptions of electronic mail to communicate with students," Communication Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 2, 2005, pp. 159-176.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 L. M. Flaherty, K. J. Pearce, and R. B. Rubin, "Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives," Communication Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 3, 1998, pp. 250-268.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 B. Haworth, "An analysis of the determinants of student email use," Journal of Education for Business, vol. 75, no. 1, 1999, pp. 55-59.   DOI
5 L. Kelly, R. L. Duran, and J. J. Zolten, "The effect of reticence on college students' use of electronic mail to communicate with faculty," Communication Education, vol. 50, 2001, pp. 170-176.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 L. Kelly, J. A. Keaten, and D. L. Palmer, "The impact of reticence on use of computer-mediated communication," Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL, November 2003.
7 L. Kelly, J. A. Keaten, and C. Finch, "Reticent and non-reticent college students' preferred communication channels for interacting with faculty," Communication Research Reports, vol. 21, no. 2, 2004, pp. 197-209.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 L. Kelly and J. A. Keaten, "Development of the affect for communication channels scale," Journal of Communication, vol. 57, no. 2, 2007, pp. 349-365.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 L. Kelly, J. A. Keaten, M. Hazel, and J. A. Williams, "Effects of reticence and affect for communication channels on usage of instant messaging and self-perceived competence," Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL, 2007.
10 G. Black, "A comparison of traditional, online, and hybrid methods of course delivery," Journal of Business Administration, vol. 1, no. 1, Retrieved Dec. 3, 2009, http://www.atu.edu/business/jbao/Spring2002/black.pdf
11 F. Williams, A. F. Phillips, and P. Lum, "Gratifications associated with new communication technologies," Media gratifications research: Current perspectives, 1985, pp. 241-254.
12 R. E. Rice, "Media appropriateness," Human communication research, vol. 19, no. 4, 1993, pp. 451-484.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 J. R. Bourne, E. McMaster, J. Rieger, and J. O. Campbell, "Paradigms for on-line learning: A case study in the design and implementation of an asynchronous learning networks (ALN) course," Proc. the 27th Annual Conference Frontiers in Education Conference, vol. 1, 1997, pp. 245-255.
14 D. Cowles, "Consumer perceptions of interactive media," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 33, no. 1, 1989, pp. 83-89.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 P. V. D'Souza, "E-mail's role in the learning process: A case study," Journal of Research on Computing in Education, vol. 25, 1992, pp.254-254.   DOI
16 B. O'Sullivan, "What you don't know won't hurt me," Human Communication Research, vol. 26, no. 3, 2000, pp. 403-431.
17 Z. Papacharissi and A. M. Rubin, "Predictors of Internet use," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 44, no. 2, 2000, pp. 175-196.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 L. D. Roberts, L. M. Smith, and C. M. Pollock, "U ra lot bolder on the net: shyness and Internet use," Shyness: Development, consolidation and change, 2000, pp. 121-138.
19 T. E. Ruggiero, "Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century," Mass communication & society, vol. 3, no. 1, 2000, pp. 3-37.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 D. H. Shin, "Understanding e-book users: Uses and gratification expectancy model," New Media & Society, vol. 13, no. 2, 2011, pp. 260-278.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 W. G. Stritzke, A. Nguyen, and K. Durkin, "Shyness and computer-mediated communication: A self-presentational theory perspective," Media Psychology, vol. 6, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1-22.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 J. Waldeck, P. Kearney, and T. Plax, "Teacher e-mail message strategies and students' willingness to communicate online," Journal of Applied Communication Research, vol. 29, no. 1, 2001, pp. 54-70.   DOI
23 J. T. Klapper, "Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed," Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, 1963, pp. 515-527.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 R. Kraut, S. Kiesler, B. Boneva, J. Cummings, V. Helgeson, and A. Crawford, "Internet paradox revisited," Journal of social issues, vol. 58, no. 1, 2002, pp. 49-74.   DOI   ScienceOn