There is no response time delay in synchronous communication because it happens in real time, unlike MIM quasi-synchronous communication where there is often some short delay. This is different from synchronous communication (e.g., phone calls, video chats), which requires the transmitter and receiver to be present at the same time and/or space at a mutually agreed schedule. In other words, whether and when to participate in the communication is up to the message receiver after they get notified about message arrival. When a new message arrives, a push notification will pop up and prompts users to engage in communication either instantaneously or with a short time lag. MIM presents a unique “quasi-synchronous” communication because although posted messages are available synchronously to participants, the message production process (typing) is available only to the sender the recipient does not have direct access to real-time message production by the sender (Garcia & Jacobs, 1999). Typical MIM apps offer various functions including group chats, audio/video chats, file sharing, real-time location sharing, and exchange of nonverbal graphics such as emoji and stickers. A recent study showed that MIM has surpassed voice calls, emails, face-to-face communication, and social network sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and become the most popular means of daily communication (Pew Research Center, 2019). As of July 2020, WhatsApp was the most popular MIM app with 2 billion monthly active users, followed by Facebook Messenger (1.3 billion) and WeChat (1.2 billion) (Statista, 2021). With the wide penetration of smartphones and mobile broadband access, mobile instant messaging (MIM) is becoming an essential means of communication worldwide (Dhir et al., 2020).
We conclude by providing suggestions for future instructional practice and research directions. In particular, MIM seemed to facilitate interactive idea exchange and thus contributing to more “creating” activities. Cognitively, the MIM group was more engaged than the AOD group. However, MIM appeared to help students with improved intimacy and interpersonal relationships. Emotionally, no statistically significant difference was found in students’ affective evaluation of course interaction and satisfaction between the two groups. The results showed that the MIM group was more behaviorally engaged in discussion activities, producing more messages, more words, and higher rates of participation, task completion, and interaction.
Specifically, we examined engagement from the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions. Understanding which communication mode can better promote student online engagement is particularly important during the current widespread use of online learning. We address the gap by comparing the effects of using MIM and asynchronous online discussion (AOD) on student online engagement, using a quasi-experimental study involving a historical cohort control group. However, it remains poorly understood to what extent and in what aspect MIM can facilitate student engagement. MIM apps typically come with a myriad of features that educators may leverage to increase student learning. Mobile instant messaging (MIM) has become the most popular means for young people to communicate.
0 kommentar(er)
