THE INFLUENCE OF DISTINCT TYPES OF MEDIA INTERACTION AND GENDER ON THE PRODUCTIVITY OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF MEANINGFUL WORDS

Agustinus Rudi Winarto(1*),

(1) Sanata Dharma University, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This analysis seeks to discover how the richness of meaningful words is affected by the diversity of media and gender. The two separated forms of media in computer-mediated communication, which are real names (CMR) and anonym (CMA), are connected to the production of meaningful interaction in problem-solving exchanges among pupils. Furthermore, computer-based communication has added a layer of invisibility which has caused an increase in daring word usage in conversations using computers. To assess this issue, the research will look into criminal puzzles discussed in clubs, to determine if there is any impact from the various types of media and gender variation. The research used empirical analysis methods to review the effect of different media and sex on the number of meaningful words produced by 30 participants, 20 female and 10 male. Through analysis of conversations in the conversation room, a two-way ANOVA test was administered to figure out the impact of media and gender on the number of meaningful words. The investigation presented that there was no meaningful impact of media diversity and gender on the number of words produced by students in the investigation. The data suggested that any changes in media or gender had no notable effect on productivity.


Keywords


computer-mediated, gender variation, media diversity

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.

Adelskold, G., Alklett, K., Axelsson, R., & Blomgren, G. (1999). Problem-based distance learning of energy issues via computer network. Distance Education, 20(1), 129-143.

Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Proctor, R. F. (2010). Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication. New York: Oxford University Press.

Adrianson,L & Hjelmquist,E. (1991). Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Behaviour & Information Technology, 10(4), 281-296.

Adrianson,L & Hjelmquist,E. (1999). Group processes in solving two problems: face to face and computer-mediated communication. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(3), 179 -198.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Alkan, C. (2005). Educational technology. Ankara: Anõ Press

Allmendinger, K. (2010). Social presence in synchronous virtual learning situation: The role of nonverbal signals displayed by avatars. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1). 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9117-8

Akyuz, H. I., & Kurt, M. (2010). Effect of teacher’s coaching in online discussion forum on student’s perceived self-efficacy for the educational software development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 9(2010). 633-637.

American Psychological Association (6th ed.). (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychogical Association. Washington DC: Author.

Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 105 165-180.

Archer, J. (1992). Childhood gender roles: Social context and organization. In: H. McGurk, (Ed.), Childhood social development:Contemporary perspectives (pp. 31–61). Hove: Erlbaum

Azwar, S. (2010). Metode penelitian. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Balliet, D. (2010). Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A Meta- Analytic Review. The Journal of Conflict Resolution ,54(1). 39-57.

Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). “Troubles talk”: Effects of gender and gendertyping. Sex Roles, 48, 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022411623948

Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives (Vol. 1). Creskill, NJ: Hampton

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S.J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Statusorganizing processes. In A. Inkeles, N. J. Smelser, &R. H. Turner (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (pp. 479-508). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews

Bruckman, A. S. (1993). Gender swapping on the Internet. Proceedings of INET '93. Reston, VA: The Internet Society.

Carli, L.L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,56(4). 565-576.

Carr, T., Cox, L., Eden, N., Hanslo, M., 2004. From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00381.x.

Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B.Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: APA.

Colley, A. M., Gale, M. T., & Harris, T. A. (1994). Effects of gender role identity and experience on computer attitude components. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(2), 129-137.

Collins, C, & Collins, S. (1996). The internet as a tool. Retrieved Nov 22, 2016, from ERIC database (ED398 883).

Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M., and Valacich, J.S.(1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluativon idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6). 689 – 703.

Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320-334.

Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88-100.

Creswell, J W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Boston: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed). California: SAGE Publication.

Cubukcu, H., & Kutlu,O. (2012). Computer-mediated communication: An observation on gender in chat rooms. Akdeniz Language Studies Conference, 70, pp.724-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.116

Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In: Cummings, L.L. & Staw,B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior 6. Homewood, IL: JAI Press.

Denis, A R., Fuller, R M., & Valacich, J S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3). 575-600.

Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Connolly, T., & Wynne, B.E. (1996). Process structuring in electronic brainstorming. Information Systems Research, 7(2). 268-277.

Di Blasio, P., & Milani, L. (2008). Computer-mediated communication and persuasion: Peripheral vs.central route to opinion shift. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2008), 798-815.

Di Leo, J. R. (2008). Anonymity, dialogue, and the academy. Symplokē, 16(1/2). 61- 73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40550807

Ding, N., Bosker, R.J., & Harskamp, E.G. (2011). Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer- supported collaborative learning. Computer Education, 562, 325–336.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Aely, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v2i1.36

Fischer, A.H., 2011. Gendered social interactions in face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Face-to-face communication over the Internet, 53–78.

George, G. & Sleeth, R. G. (2000). Leadership in computer-mediated communication : Implication and research directions. Journal of Bussiness and Psychology,15(2), 287-310.

. George, J.F, Easton, G.K., Nunamaker Jr, J.F., & Northcraft, G.B. (1990). A study of collaborative group work with and without computer-based support. Information Systems Research, 1(4).394-415.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goertler, S. (2009). Using computer-mediated communication (CMC) in language teaching. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 42(1), 74–84.

Gorriz, C. M., & Medina, C. (2002). Engaging girls with computers through software games. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 43(1), 42–49.

Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33.

Gray, J. (1992). Men are from mars, women are from venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in a relationship. New York: HarperCollins.

Gritsenko, V. (2015). Interaction on online forums and group communication: A case study of an IT support community. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 236(2016). 14-24.

Grusec, J E. (1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28(5),776-786.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3). 8-26.

Halpern, D.F., Benbow, C.P., Geary, D.C., Gur, R.C., Hyde, J.S., & Gernsbacher, M.A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychol. Sci.Public Interest, 81, 1–5.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Sadler, B. (2002). Developing self- regulated writers. Theory into Practice, 41, 110-115.

Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality.

New York: Basic Books

Hiltz,S. R & Johnson, K. (1990). User satisfaction with computer-mediated communication systems. Management Science, 36(6). 739-764.

Ho,S S. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face- to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35(2). 190-207.

Hogg, M A. & Vaughan, G M. (6th ed). (2011). Social psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Jeong, A. & Davidson-Shivers, G. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6). 543-568.

Kahai, S. S & Cooper, R. B. (1999). The effect of computer-mediated communication on agreement and acceptance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(1). 165-188.

Karayan, S., & Crowe, J. (1997). Student perspectives of electronic discussion groups. THE Journal: Technological Horizons in Education, 5. 319-332.

Kolouri, T., Lauria, S., & Macredie, R. D. (2016). The influence of visual feedback and gender dynamics on performance,perception and communication strategies in CSCW. International Journal Human-Computer Studies 97(2017). 162-181.

Krauss,R M. (2002). The psychology of verbal communication. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 4th.

Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In E. T. Higgins, & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (pp. 655-701). New York: Guilford.

Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and womans place. New York: Harper & Row.

Lamerichs, J, & Te Molder, Hedwig F.M. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: From a cognitive to a discursive model. New Media & Society, 5(4), 451-473.

Leaper. C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children's discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62, 797-811.

Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K A. (2008). Theories of human communication 9th. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

Liu, E Z-F., Cheng, S S., Chen, S. Y., & Chen, B-I. (2012). The impact of q&a forums’ level of elaboration on students’ learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64(2012), 604-608.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Mahmud, M M. (2014). Communication aptitude and academic succes. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences,134(2014), 125-133.

Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mason, E. S. (1994). Gender differences in job satisfaction. The Joumal of Social Psychology, 135, 143-151.

Merchant, K. (2012). How men and women differ: Gender differences in communication style, influence tactics and leadership styles. CMC Senior Theses Paper, 513.

Miyazoe,T & Anderson, T. (2011). Anonymity in blended learning: Who would you like to be? Journal of Educational Technology & Society,14(2). 175- 187.

Myers, D. G. (2010). Psychology (9th Ed.). New York: Worth Publisher.

Naidu, S. (1997). Collaborative reflective practice: And instructional design architecture for the Internet. Distance Education, 18, 259-271.

Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R., & George, J.F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40-61.

Olaniran, B.A. (1994). Group performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication media. Management Communication Quarterly,7(3), 256-

281.

Pallof, R M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paris, S G., & Paris, A H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self- regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,36(2), 89-101.

Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32.

Persico, D., & Pozzi, F. (2010). The three T’s of the structure of online collaborative activities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2010). 2610-2615.

Pinnsonnneault, A., & Heppel, N. (1997). Anonymity in group support systems research: A new conceptualization, measure and contingency framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(3), 89-108.

Pohl, M., & Michaelson, G. (1997). “I don’t think that’s an interesting dialogue”: Computer-Mediated Communication and Gender. Women, Work and Computerization : Spinning a Web from Past to Future, 87-97.

D. Oechtering, V. & Peterson, U. (Eds). Proceedings of the 6 th International IFIP Conference. Bonn: Springer.

Rahman, S.,Yasin, R. M.,Yasin, SFM., & Nordin, N. M. (2011). Examining psychological aspects in online discussion. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(2011), 316-312.

Ramdhani, N., & Afiati, N. (2009). The digital generation and quality of communication: Does media and the topic discussion determine the quality of communication upon the digital generation? Yogyakarta: Faculty of Psychology GMU.

Rains, S. A. (2007). The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in computer-mediated group communication: A test of two competing hypotheses. Communication Research, 34(1), 100-125.

Rosengreen, K. S. (1985). An observational study of preschool children’s computing activity. Paper presented at Perspective on Young Child and the Computer, Austin.

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351-371.

Schneider, D., (2005). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press.

Shadish, W R., Cook, T D., & Campbell, Donald T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi- experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Shang, H. F. (2007). An exploratory study of e-mail application on FL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 79–96.

Sia, C. L., Tan, B C. Y. & Wei, K. K. (2002). Group polarization and computer- mediated communication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13(1). 70-90.

Sierpe, E. (2001). Gender and participation in computer-mediated lis education topical discussion: An examination of JESSE, the Library/Information Science Education Forum. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42(4).339 -347.

Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer- mediated communication. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Statham, A. (1987). The gender model revisited: Differences in the management styles of men and women. Sex Roles, 16, 409-429.

Stowers, G.N. (1995). Getting Left behind? Gender Differences in Computer Conferencing. Public Productivity & Management Review,19(2). 143- 159.

Sun, X., 2008. Why gender matters in CMC: Gender differences in remote trust and performance with initial social activities Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

Surrey, J. L. (1983). The relational self in women: Clinical implications. In J. V Jordan, J. L. Surrey, & A. G. Kaplan (Speakers), Women and empathy: Implications for psychological development and psychotherapy. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies.

Sutton,R. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research.

Review of Educational Research,61(4). 475-503.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

Thorne, B, & Henley, N. (1975). Difference and dominance: An overview of language, gender, and society. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (5-42). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Underhill, C & Olmsted, M G. (2003). An experimental comparison of computer- mediated communication and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4). 506-512.

Uzun,L. (2012). The Internet and computer-mediated artefacts for foreign language learning and practice, and intercultural communication: MOODLE, Second Life, and others. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46(2012), 3296- 3300.

Vrasidas, C, & Mclsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36.

Wei, Chun-W., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 529-545.

Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connoly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(4),1124 -1151.

Wilson, V E. & Lu, Y. (2008). Communication goals and online persuasion: An empirical examination. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2008), 2554-2577.

Wojahn, P.G. (1994). Computer-mediated communications: The great equalizer between men and women. Technical Communications, 41,747-752.

Wood, J. T (1996). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture (2nd Ed.). Belmont, CA; Wadsworth.

Yeh, Y. C. (2010). Analyzing online behaviors, roles, and learning communities via online discussions. Educational Technology & Society,13(1), 140–151.

Yu, H., Miao, C., Tao, X., Shen, Z., Cai, Y., Li, B., & Mio, Y. (2012). Teachable agents in virtual learning environments: A case study. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.

Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (2015). Educational learning theories. Retrieve from http://oer.galileo.usg.edu/education-textbooks.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v7i2.5904

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Agustinus Rudi Winarto

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Indexed and abstracted in:

 


IJIET Sinta 2 Certificate (S2 = Level 2)

We would like to inform you that IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching):has been nationally accredited Sinta 2 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia based on the decree  No. Surat Keputusan 158/E/KPT/2021. Validity for 5 years: Vol 5 No 2, 2021 until Vol 10 No 1, 2026.


 


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

IJIET DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet

p-ISSN: 2548-8422 (since 5 January 2017); e-ISSN: 2548-8430 (since 5 January 2017)

 

Flag Counter


IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching) is published twice a year, namely in January and July, by the Institute for Research and Community Services of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.