Media richness, social presence, group cohesion and content of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication

Abstract

Even though investigations of knowledge construction within CMC have been conducted (e.g. Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson, 1997; Schellens & Valcke, 2004), no research has compared F2F communication and CMC in terms of the ability to solve complex tasks and to develop group cohesion. Group cohesion has been found to be vital for group cooperation and performance. Eight self-formed groups of 5 student participants each volunteered to participate in this study. Each group was required to solve two standardised, complex tasks in the same order. Student groups were randomly assigned to one of four medium combinations with two groups per combination. The combinations were: F2F communication for both tasks, CMC for both tasks, F2F communication for the first task and CMC for the second task, and CMC for the first task and F2F communication for the second task. Measures of knowledge construction were taken using the IAM (Gunawardena et al., 1997), group cohesion (assessed before and after the tasks) using the GAS (Evans & Jarvis, 1986), and a self-developed scale to assess satisfaction with the process and the outcome. The results showed that CMC groups produced significantly fewer contributions, and took a longer time to complete tasks, but there was no significant difference between the two mediums in terms of knowledge construction. The medium combination of F2F communication followed by CMC, achieved the least time to completion; the second most effective medium for knowledge construction, the greatest satisfaction with respect to group processes and the decision in the first task, and achieved a significantly higher level of post-manipulation group cohesion.