Avatars and Online Communication

Research

“Avatars, or visual, on-screen representations of users, are a common element of online environments that facilitate or allow social interaction. Past research has found that avatars in immersive virtual environments can contribute to a sense of emotional involvement”. There have been great research studies exploring the idea that avatars can contribute to feelings of emotional connectedness in interactions online.

Findings

I’ve actually done a test with avatars in the workplace using a tool that helped two teams that worked remotely interact with each other. I added a few items that had an avatar associated, and quickly realized that these were the items that received either the most responses; or they were viewed more. I believe that the use of avatars truly helped people feel more engaged to the post or the item. Because they can see directly who they are speaking to or interacting with, they are more compelled to provide insight as well. My article actually shows that avatars actually generate emotional involvement in online communication, and that users exhibited strong preferences for avatars than those without.

Results

In asynchronous communication, there is consistent evidene that avatars will generate the sense of emotional involvement. Rather, the actual representation of a human being behind some of these blog posts or software tools gives readers a stronger sense that they are in fact communicated with a person, which leads them to help or respond. Additionally, the use of avatars improves the effectiveness of a site, such as online learning. Even though I don’t have an avatar up, I do feel like I am communicated more effectively with someone and I can put a face to a name.

Reference:

CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. April 1, 2011. 

Age vs. Technology

In their article, The Marriage of Technology and Leadership, Business Source Complete states that  “Through the years, many people protested changes in communication technology” ("The marriage of," 2009).    In earlier times, opinions such as “Why do we need the telegraph? Communication should be face-to-face or via letter” and a little later, “What's wrong with the telegraph? Who needs a telephone? There goes privacy and productivity” have been common complaints in business settings where a multi-generational workforce is employed ("The marriage of," 2009).  Younger generations who have grown up with the latest innovations in communication naturally gravitate towards the tools they are most comfortable using.  As businesses strive to keep up with the most current and efficient technologies, older generation employees are often hesitant to accept these changes and tend to avoid incorporating these new tools into their workspaces.

New Technologies

Social networking websites and technologies such as Facebook and Twitter, initially considered only as means of entertainment, are increasingly becoming workplace communication tools as “new millennials,” or people 30 years old and under become a more prominent presence in the workforce.  These new technologies can allow easy access to a wide, possibly previously untapped customer base.  Often, senior staff members are not as comfortable with these methods of communication and don’t fully understand the applications available via the new systems.  Older-generation managers may not understand the inherent benefits in exploiting these systems to generate customer leads and facilitate customer contact.  For example, a 22-year-old marketing assistant might send out promotional “tweets” via Twitter to promote a new product or service while a 40-year-old marketing manager might plan a marketing campaign designed around more traditional tools such as direct mail or published advertisements. 

New Integration

When businesses integrate new technologies into their own communication and marketing plans, the younger set of employees already accustomed to utilizing the most current technologies easily step into the role of communicating via these means.  Many older employees tend to be resistant to this upheaval and feel that the additions are unwarranted and counterproductive.  A 50-year-old “baby boomer” generation manager might glance into a millennial employee’s office and become irritated at seeing the employee working on a Facebook page due to the assumption that the employee is wasting company time on personal networking.  This type of conflict is an issue that can limit the productivity of the younger workforce in organizations that aren’t completely up to speed with the current technological times ("Online all the," 2010). 

New Opportunity

As millennials in the workforce continue to age, more and more of the younger generation are poised to step up into management-type positions.  Business Source Complete stated that “Children who grew up with the Internet are now only about 15 to 20 years old. They will enter the workforce en masse in the next two to seven years.”  Many of these young employees will go on to become managers and, eventually, top-level executives of their organizations.  This progression can be expected to bring about evolution of communication technology into work settings organically as social networking technologies become increasingly integrated into office environments by a workforce of employees comfortable with navigating the systems.

Resources
 

The marriage of technology and leadership. (2009). Training, 46(4), 16., Retrieved from http://dml.regis.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=39660035&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 

Online all the time? Resolving technology-related workplace conflicts. (2010). Negotiation, 13(10), 4-5. 

http://dml.regis.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=65065485&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 

 

Marcie J & Nick M

Is online learning as effective as the classroom?

Is online learning as effective as the classroom?

At the center of the debate regarding distance learning is the efficacy of online learning in comparison to in-class learning.  While this debate goes on, educators are working hard to develop new systems that hurdle the challenges of online learning in an attempt to evolve the experience, participation and efficacy.  While educators are working hard to create an effective online learning environment, student enrollment in online programs is on the rise.  The debate on the efficacy of online course may remain a hot topic amongst educational institutions but the real variable in the online education market is the student.  Online education may not be a fit for all students but those who choose to enroll in online courses must be motivated and disciplined to engage.  According to Allison Rossett, author and professor of educational technology at San Diego State University, “While flopping into a seat every Thursday night for two hours doesn’t take much commitment, online participants must allow the content, instructor, peers, and requirements to permeate their lives” (Rossett, 2005, p.15).  Online programs that have been successful largely depend on the instructors, online design and cost. I would argue that the most important reason is the students and their ability to make it work.

Are students are the determining factor?

The answer to this will largely depend on the continuous improvements and evolving advancements in the online educational market, but more importantly will be determined by the student base comfortable with technology.  In an article by Nathan Bos and N. Sadat Shami, they discuss the challenges of designing online courses.  “One of the first and foremost challenges for online learning environments is keeping the energy and focus of the class from dissipating over time. When face-to-face, skilled instructors have many techniques for capturing and holding attention and directing engagement” (Bos, Shami, 2006, p.495).  Online educational systems have come a long way with technology in a short time.  I have nearly completed my degree with all online courses, and I must admit that I struggled in the beginning.  However, I very quickly acclimated and have the motivation to engage and make the learning process effective.  Having spent time in the classroom and online, I cannot fully understand how educational institutions can debate efficacy.  My experience indicates that I have to work harder online and I certainly feel that my online educational experience is every bit as effective as the learning I have experienced in the classroom. 

Where is online education going?

Online education is on the rise!  Adult learners have embraced distance learning as a way to earn their college degrees while working and meeting their family obligations.  Younger students still tend to take the traditional in class route but are now starting to mix in online courses.  Advancements in the online programs and in technology will certainly help increase enrollment.  The idea that the efficacy of an online education is less than that of a traditional education seems to be “old school” thinking and needs to change with the times just as everything else must change.  Embrace the online experience, it is only going to continue to grow and become more prominent in the landscape of higher education!

References

Bonk, Curtis. (2006). The Future of Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: The Survey Says...Educause Review Online.  Retrieved in November 20, 2013 from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/future-online-teaching-and-learning-higher-education-survey-says%E2%80%A6

Taylor, P. and Maor, D. (2000). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the Constructivist online learning environment survey. In: 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000, Perth, W.A..  Retrieved November 21, 2013 from: http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/8750/

Rossett, Allison. (2005). Moving Online. ERIC Institute of Education Sciences.  Vol. 59 Issue 2, p14-15. 2p

Bos, Nathan, Shami, N. Sadat. (2006). Adapting a Face-to-Face Role- Playing Simulation for Online Play. Educational Technology Research and Development, v54 n5 p493-521 Oct 2006. 29 pp.

 

JVigil