This qualitative study investigated the motivations and factors college students consider when selecting a medium for interpersonal communication in an academic setting. A convenience sample of college students was interviewed, and transcripts underwent reflexive thematic analysis. Participants reported fulfilling several needs through one-to-one communication with a consultant at the university’s writing center: informative/cognitive (to receive guidance), social/emotional (to feel encouraged or to socialize), and flexibility/convenience (to avoid commuting or to save time). Perceptions of media’s effectiveness were based on the medium’s richness, as face-to-face and videoconferencing apps afford clearer communication for complex discussions. Factors of media selectivity were also uncovered.
AyyadK (2011) Internet usage vs traditional media usage among university students in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research4(1): 41–61.
2.
BaeM (2018) Understanding the effect of the discrepancy between sought and obtained gratification on social networking site users’ satisfaction and continuance intention. Computers in Human Behavior79: 137–153.
3.
BaekKHoltonAHarpD, et al. (2011) The links that bind: Uncovering novel motivations for linking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior27: 2243–2248.
4.
BrauneVClarkeV (2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage.
5.
BrennenBS (2022) Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies. 3rd edn. Routledge.
6.
BuckCSpallinoJNolanE (2021) “I believe this is what you were trying to get across here”: The effectiveness of asynchronous eTutoring comments. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal18(2): 33–49.
7.
ChaoSHJiangJHsuCH, et al. (2020) Technology-enhanced learning for graduate students: Exploring the correlation of media richness and creativity of computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. Applied Sciences10: 1–18.
8.
DaftRLLengelRH (1984) Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In: StawBMCummingsLL (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 6. JAI Press, pp.191–233.
9.
DaftRLLengelRH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science32(5): 554–571.
10.
DelaneyJJohnsonANJohnsonTD, et al. (2010) Students’ Perceptions of Effective Teaching in Higher Education. Distance Education and Learning Technologies.
11.
DiebelPLGowLR (2009) A comparative study of traditional instruction and distance education formats: Student characteristics and preferences. NACTA Journal53(2): 8–14.
12.
DilsatPU (2021) Factors affecting study habits in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anatolian Journal of Education6(2): 109–124.
13.
FlahertyLMPearceKJRubinRB (1998) Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly46: 250–268.
14.
FlorenthalB (2015) Applying uses and gratifications theory to students’ LinkedIn usage. Young Consumers16(1): 17–35.
15.
GallegoMDBuenoSNoyesJ (2016) Second life adoption in education: A motivational model based on uses and gratifications theory. Computers & Education100: 81–93.
16.
HaYWKimJLibaque-SaenzCF, et al. (2015) Use and gratifications of mobile SNSs: Facebook and KakaoTalk in Korea. Telematics and Informatics32: 425–438.
17.
IshiiKLyonsMMCarrSA (2019) Revisiting media richness theory for today and future. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies1(2): 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.138
18.
IfinedoP (2016) Applying uses and gratifications theory and social influence processes to understand students’ pervasive adoption of social networking sites: Perspectives from the Americas. International Journal of Information Management36: 192–206.
19.
KarimiLKhodabandelouREhsaniM, et al. (2014) Applying the uses and gratifications theory to compare higher education students’ motivation for using social networking sites: Experiences from Iran, Malaysia, United Kingdom, and South Africa. Contemporary Educational Technology5(1): 53–72.
20.
KatzEBlumlerJGGurevitchM (1974) Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In: BlumlerJGKatzE (eds) The Uses and Gratifications of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage, pp.19–34.
21.
KatzEGurevitchMHaasH (1973) On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review38: 164–181.
22.
LanYFHungCLHsuHJ (2011) Effects of guided writing strategies on students’ writing attitudes based on media richness theory. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology10(4): 148–164.
23.
Magsamen-ConradKDowdJAbuljadailM, et al. (2015) Life-span differences in the uses and gratifications of tablets: Implications for older adults. Computers in Human Behavior52: 96–106.
24.
MorrealeSStaleyCStavrosituC, et al. (2015) First-year college students’ attitudes toward communication technologies and their perceptions of communication competence in the 21st century. Communication Education64(1): 978799.
25.
MusaASAzmiMNIsmailNS (2015) Exploring the uses and gratifications theory in the use of social media among the students of mass communication in Nigeria. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education17(2): 83–95.
26.
PapacharissiZRubinAM (2000) Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media44(2): 175–196.
27.
ParkNKeeKFValenzuelaS (2009) Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyber Psychology & Behavior12(6): 729–733.
28.
PintoMSPoornanandamDS (2017) The internet usage among students: A uses and gratifications perspective. Media Watch8(3): 423–437.
29.
RosengrenKE (1974) Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined. In: BlumlerJGKatzE (eds) The Uses of Mass Communication. Sage, pp. 269–286.
30.
RyanLZimmerelliL (2016) The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors, 6th edn. Macmillan.
31.
SaundersMNTownsendK (2016) Reporting and justifying the number of interview participants in organization and workplace research. British Journal of Management27: 836–852.
32.
ShepherdMMMartzWB (2006) Media richness theory and the distance education environment. The Journal of Computer Information Systems47: 114–122.
33.
SturgisILambYR (2022) Pivot! Teaching communications online during COVID-19. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator77(1): 123–139.
34.
SwansonJARenesSLStrangeAT (2018) The communication preferences of collegiate students. In: 15th international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in digital age (CELDA 2018). New York, NY: Springer.
35.
TichavskyLPHuntANDriscollA, et al. (2015) “It’s just nice having a real teacher”: Student perceptions of online versus face-to-face instruction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning9(2): 1–8.
36.
WaltherJB (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated communication: A relational perspective. Communication Research19(1): 52–90.
37.
WetzlALieskeP (2020) The benefits and limitations of online peer feedback: Instructors’ perceptions of a regional campus online writing lab. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal18(1): 34–50.
38.
WisniewskiCRegidorMCChasonL, et al. (2020) Questioning assumptions about online tutoring: A mixed-method study of face-to-face and synchronous online writing center tutorials. The Writing Center Journal38(1–2): 261–294.
39.
WolfeJGriffinJA (2012) Comparing technologies for online writing conferences: Effects of medium on conversation. The Writing Center Journal32(1): 60–92.
