0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

comfortable with the technology involved in DE courses than older students (Parnell & Carraher, 2003), so there may be a tendency for younger studentstobemoresatisfiedwiththedistantendof a teleconferenced course. However, the increased numbers of older students in the modern student body—students who are more likely to hold jobs, attend part-time, and need flexible course solutions—implies that there will be increasing numbersofstudentswhocanbeexpectedtobeless comfortablewithDEtechnologywhileatthesame timerequiringmoreflexibilityincourseofferings and delivery modalities (Kirschner, 2005).

In spite of their expected lower degrees of technical proficiency, older students should then prefer the flexibility provided by DE course offerings even if they are not as comfortable with the technology (Parnell & Carraher, 2003). The increasing scheduling challenges faced by the increasingly older student demographic (Brewer, 2004; Kirschner, 2005) means that older students are more likely to appreciate DE courses, as compared to younger students.

social differences

In videoconference formats, social cues are strongly represented, in comparison to strictly computer-mediated instruction formats (Alavi et al., 1997; Brewer, 2004). It is likely that highly technical courses will require more social interaction (Abler & Wells, 2005), since it has been shown that increased social presence aids in the successful delivery of complex and highly technical course content (He et al., 2004; Stafford, 2005). Hence, we can expect that students with high social motivations for DE course participation will have significantly better perceptions of the course and course delivery technology than students in the local section of an introductory technology course.

theoretical expectations

In sum, the literature available on student responses to teleconferenced DE courses suggests four specific outcomes that might be predicted:

1.There will be a preference among students for the local section of teleconferenced DE course sections on information technology. Teleconference origin sections aregenerally richer and more interactive than distant receiving sections.

2.Younger students are likely to be more technically oriented, and this should result in greater appreciation of DE technology. It would be reasonable to expect younger students to have positive perceptions of teleconferenced courses.

3.Older students have more complicated lives than younger students. Teleconferenced courses should be perceived as more useful to this group of students.

4.Students with high social orientation will likely respond better to teleconferenced course deliveries than students with low social orientation.

These expectations were examined in a format that consisted of two sections of introductory information systems classes. One section was located at a private university in the Southwest, the other a major Southern university. Instructors in each course, at the geographically separated sites, transmitted teleconferenced lectures from one class to the other in order to assess differential student responses to the technology.

Method

The student volunteers in both courses were awarded bonus points for their participation. Data for initial analysis was collected at a time when the Southern campus was operating as the origi-

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

nation section and the Southwestern campus was serving as the distant site. A total of 63 students participated across both sections, with 48 at the distant site and 15 at the origination site, including 21 females and 42 males. Among the two broad age groupings of college students discussed by Kirschner (2005), 51 were in the 18-24 age grouping and 12 were 25-34. The distribution of ages was analyzed and is reported in Table 2. One note of concern in this study is the large number of traditional college-age students in the distant section, and the possibility that data provided by this large subgroup may overwhelm the remaining data. To prevent that effect, the hypotheses not specifically related to age were analyzed by comparing only the responses within each age group. Future research should carefully control the size of each population in order to create more generalizable results.

Data was analyzed in SPSS, using analysis of variance techniques. Results indicated that the theoretical expectations of reactions to local and distant sections of a teleconferenced course were generally confirmed.

Results

A number of the measures could be employed to describedifferentialgratificationsforateleconferenced DE course. Expressed satisfaction with the teleconference is an overall indication of student reactions to the teleconferencing technology. An expressed belief that the learning goals of the course had been met is also indicative of course satisfaction, and the perceptions of usefulness for various sections of the teleconferenced course

Table 2. Age distribution between DE sections (count)

DE Section	18-24	25-34
Local Section	7	8
Distant Section	44	4

could also indicate a relative level of appreciation for each particularly delivery mode and course section. Students were given a 47 item questionnaire that had them rate various measures relating to use, usefulness, and satisfaction with regard to technology in general and teleconferencing in particular.

The first expectation examined here is that studentswillgenerallybemoresatisfiedwiththe local section of a teleconference course. Though significant differences were expected between the distant and local sections on the measure of satisfaction with the teleconferenced course (agree/disagree, 7 point Likert format), an even more interesting result was noted as a result of further analysis due to the potential interaction of the age variable. To avoid this interaction, the data for each age group was analyzed separately using analysis of variance. As shown in Table 3, students in the traditional college age group (18-24) had a preference for the local section, but students in the nontraditional group (25-34) showed no differences across both sections.

Meansanalysisindicatedhigheraverageagreement with the satisfaction measure among the 18-24 year old students in the local section than inthedistantsection,butnosignificantdifference among the 25-34 year old students.

The second expectation investigated is that younger students in both sections would consider themselves more technologically oriented, but as shown in Table 4, this proved not to be the case. In fact, the 25-34 age group in both sections of the

DE course reported significantly stronger levels of self-perceived technical competency than did the 18-24 year-olds from both sections.

We expected that older students would find teleconferenced courses more useful, and that more social students would also find teleconference courses more useful. These approaches explore antecedents of course appreciation as well as the social presence advantages of teleconferencing. Commonly-used measures of perceived usefulness are widely available to investigate

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

Table 3. Course satisfaction between DE sections (mean/sd)

DE Section	Satisfaction with Teleconference	Learning Goals Met
Local Section	5.88 (1.219)	5.29 (1.047)
Distant Section	2.42 (1.541)	2.31 (1.518)
	F 1, 61 = 76.795, p < .0001	F 1, 61 = 51.451, p < .0001

Table 4. Technical mastery by age (mean/sd)

Age Grouping	Technical Mastery
18-24	10.059 (3.414)
25-34	15.000 (2.216)
	F 1, 61 = 22.719, p < .0001
	Overall mean = 11.000 (3.755)

usefulness perceptions of a course, and Stafford’s

(2005) social gratification scales have also been used to demonstrate social gratifications for the DE course. Using the social gratification scale, comprised of four-7 point Likert format scales anchored by “chatting,” “friends,” “interaction,” and “people,” a sample mean of 12.9 (σ = 7.5) was used to create a dichotomous mean-split classification for purposes of testing.

As shown in Table 5, older students tend to express more satisfaction with a teleconferenced course, in general. They found the course more useful, were more satisfied with the course, and were more assured that their learning goals had been met in the course than younger students.

The social orientation of students was calculated based on the way students reported that they used the internet to interact with others, and based on this calculation, students were assigned into either the high or low social orientation group. As shown in Table 6, also as expected,

moresocialstudentsweremoresatisfiedwith the course, were more assured their learning goals had been met, and found the course generally more useful. Teleconference technology provides greatersocialpresence,andthisisinherentlymore appealing to the more socially oriented student.

discussion

There are several forces currently shaping higher education. Advanced technology has enabled IP teleconferencing, which provides more options for high-quality delivery of instruction to more students in more locations, all at reduced costs. At the same time, the ranks of nontraditional students are increasing and the traditional student population is in decline, resulting in a much more diverse student body to be served with the available technological advances. Understanding the differential responses and motivations of these differing constituencies is an important challenge in modern DE, and the results discussed here are one step in that direction.

This research lends support to theoretical expectations concerning technology-mediated DE systems. First, it demonstrated that traditional college age students prefer the local section of a teleconferenced DE course, while nontraditional students do not share this preference. By contrast, older nontraditional students rate teleconferenced DE courses higher for satisfaction and practical usefulness dimensions than do younger students. Lastly, the social presence advantages expected from teleconferencing approaches to DE appeal quite a bit more to socially-oriented students than they do to students with a low social orientation, as measured by teleconference satisfaction measures.

What was not expected, but may provide interestingimplications for course design in periods of diverse enrollment, is the finding that older, nontraditional students (who could reasonably be expected to derive relatively greater benefits from teleconferenced courses) are also probably

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

Table 5. Course appreciation by age (mean/sd)

Age	Perceived	Learning	Satisfaction with
Grouping	Usefulness	Goals Met	Teleconference
18-24	14.608 (4.355)	2.47 (1.617)	2.73 (1.801)
25-34	17.750 (5.446)	5.42 (1.084)	5.75 (1.712)
	F 1, 61 = 4.591,	F 1, 61 = 35.810, p <	F 1, 61 = 27.883,
	p = .036	.0001	p < .0001
	Overall mean = 15.2	Overall mean = 3.0	Overall mean = 3.3
	(4.7)	(1.9)	(2.1)

Table 6. Course satisfaction between DE sections (mean/sd)

	Social	Perceived Usefulness	Learning Goals Met	Satisfaction with
	Orientation			Teleconference
	Low	12.921 (3.773)	1.92 (1.148)	2.11 (1.203)
	High	18.680 (3.783)	4.72 (1.595)	5.12 (1.965)
		F 1, 61 = 35.057,	F 1, 61 = 65.628,	F 1, 61 = 57.175,
		p < .0001	p < .0001	p < .0001
		Overall mean = 15.2	Overall mean = 3.0	Overall mean = 3.3
		(4.7)	(1.9)	(2.1)

morecomfortablewiththeuseofteleconferencing technology,basedontheirhigherreporteddegrees of self-perceived technical competency. This is a tentative finding, and, due to the small sample size in this study, should be further evaluated.

This may suggest a preliminary specification for course design that promotes the enrollment of traditional students and students with low social orientation on the origination section of teleconferenced courses, while also suggesting that nontraditional students are the better targets to whom remote locations of a teleconference should be promoted.

Granted, this evidence also demonstrates a general preference by all students for the local section of a teleconferenced course.Yet, itappears that nontraditional students may be in a better position to make use of and, in fact, appreciate the delivery of lectures to remote sites via teleconferencing. Even so, it is useful to know which student groups are more or less likely to respond positively to modern DE offerings.

futuRe diRections

Anunexpected,butserendipitous,findingofthis series of studies was that the group that could likely derive the greatest benefits from Internetenabled DE (i.e., older, nontraditional students) also may be more comfortable with the use of that technology, based on their higher reported degrees of self-perceived technical competency. This is an outcome that deserves further exploration, particularly in light of the midcareer and transitional segments of the baby-boom generation in education.

An implication of this research for further exploration involves the arrangement whereby courses containing significant technological content could be held in a traditional lecture or seminar on a main campus, with traditional students and students with low social orientation on the transmitting end, and with distant classrooms supplemented by Internet-enabled teleconferencing at one or more remote locations which are convenient for nontraditional students.

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

This chapter also provided results of an investigationofstudentgratificationsforteleconferencing in the classroom. One opportunity for further study would be to research the student preferences between the remote section of an Internet-enabled teleconference and the more standard computermediated course. In so doing, the costs of the two methods would be more similar, and thus these could reasonably be expected to be alternatives that an administrator might consider. Perhaps more importantly, the variances attributable to technology would be more equally distributed between these two alternatives, and a true estimation of the value of interactivity, as provided by the Internet, might be understood.

conclusion

TeleconferencingforDEisbothpopularandefficacious. Although students are not as interested in the modality as universities are, in view of potent operationalcostbenefitstoitsuse,thereareclear motivationalbenefitstousingliveteleconferencing to enhance DE offerings and to boost student motivations to engage in DE courses. Of late, a new generation of teleconferencing technology is coming to market and finding leading edge use in the corporate boardroom (Dunlap, 2007), and both higher resolution video and more interactive services can be expected to be come a standard part of teleconferencing set-ups in the near future. This can only have beneficial outcomes for the continued use of teleconferencing as a DE alternative in large enrollment courses, as discussed here.

Teleconferencing has already been integrated with other Web-based course support technologies and the approach of the high-tech adjunct, but continued investigation of the synergies between live transmission of lectures to remote points coupled with Web-based course support should lead to ongoing increases in efficiency and effectiveness for DE offerings. As the nature

of work changes and as demographic changes in the population make themselves felt at the higher education level, universities and colleges will continue to find teleconferencing technologies a flexibleandcapablemodalityforcoursedelivery in new and innovative formats designed to meet the new and more demanding needs of modern students. Though students will likely continue to have preferences for live in-person instructor-led course sessions from a quality perspective, it can be seen that substituting teleconferenced contact with instructors continues to provide important socialsupportandorientationbenefitstostudents who are unable or unwilling to meet live class session in person.

As students continue to gain technical skills, it is likely that their reaction to and appreciation of technologically-mediated instruction modalities such as teleconferencing will grow. As this transpires, educators will find additional opportunities to expand course coverage and delivery options through the use of teleconferencing technologies.

RefeRences

Abler, R. T., & Wells, I. G. (2005). Distributed engineering education: Evolution of the telecollaboration stations for individualized distance learning. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(3), 490-496.

Abraham, T. (2002). Evaluating the virtual management information systems classroom.

Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(2), 125-133.

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 159-174.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology-mediated learning – a call for greater depth and breadth of research.

Information Systems Research, 12, 1-10.

0

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

Alavi, M., Marakas, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparativestudyofdistributedlearningenvironmentsonlearningoutcomes.InformationSystems Research, 13(4), 404-417.

Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C., & Valacich, J. S. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Quarterly, 19, 293-312.

Alavi, M., Yoo, Y., & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1310-1333.

Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication,

54(3), 403-420.

Allen, G. K., Wedman, J. F., & Folk, L. C. (2001).

Lookingbeyondthevalley:Afiveyearcasestudy of course innovation. Innovative Higher Education, 26(2), 103-119.

Berger, K. A., & Topol, M. T. (2001). Technology to enhance learning: Use of a Web site platform in traditional classes and distance learning. Marketing Education Review, 11(3), 15-26.

Brewer,P.D.(2004).Anexaminationofalternative instructional methods. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 46(2), 92-104.

Casini, M., & Vincino, A. (2003). The automatic control telelab: A user-friendly interface for distance learning. IEEE Transactions on Education,

46, 252-257.

Chang, S. (2004). High tech vs. high touch in distanceeducation.InternationalJournalofDistance Education Technologies, 2(2), i-iii.

Cutler, N. E., & Danowski, J. A. (1980). Process gratification in aging cohorts. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 269-77.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior 6 (pp. 191-233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press.

Dunlap, T. (2007). IBM, Cisco team up on chat, video platform. Retrieved March 2007, from http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200703/ ij_03_07_07a.html

Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2001). New horizons in distance education: The online learnercentered marketing class. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 25-34.

Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1998). Adding value intheinformationage:Usesandgratificationsof sites on the World Wide Web. Journal of Business Research, 41, 187-194.

Evans, J. R. (1986). Creative thinking and innovative education in the decision sciences. Decision Sciences, 17(2), 250-163.

Evans, J. R. (2001). The emerging role of the Internet in marketing education: From traditional teaching to technology-based education. Marketing Education Review, 11, 1-14.

Flowers, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2000). Information technology use and cognitive outcomesinthefirstyearofcollege.The Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 637-667.

Ginsberg, R. B., & Foster, K. R. (1998). The wired classroom. IEEE Spectrum, 35(8), 44-51.

Gloster, C., Jr., & Doss, C. (2000). A distance education course in computer engineering at NC State University. Computers in Education Journal, 10, 22-26.

Hamer, L. O. (2001). Distance learning technolo- giesasfacilitatorsoflearningandlearning-related student activities. Marketing Education Review,

11, 55-67.

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

Hara,N.(1998,October14-17).Students’perspec- tives in a Web-based distance education course. In Proceedings of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association. Retrieved February, 2007, from http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~nhara/paper/ mwera98.htm

He, A., Zhang, G., & Cheng, Z. (2004). A design of real-time and interactive distance education.

International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 2(2), 1-12.

Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about day-time serial listeners? In P. Lazarsfeld & F. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1942-1943. New York: Duel, Sloan and Pearce.

Hill,J.R.,&Hannafin,M.J.(2001).Teachingand learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-basedlearning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37-52.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing inhypermediacomputer-mediatedenvironments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 50-68.

Huang, H., & Lu, C. (2003). Java-based distance learning environment for electronic instruments.

IEEE Transactions on Education, 46(1), 88-94.

Johnson, J. D. (2000). Levels of success in implementing information technologies. Innovative Higher Education, 25(1), 59-75.

Karakaya, F., Ainscough, T. L., & Chopoorian, J. (2001). The effects of class size and learning style on student performance in a multimediabased marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(2), 84-90.

Katz, E. (1950). Mass communication research and the study of popular culture: An editorial note on a possible future for this journal. Studies in Public Communication, 2, 1-6.

Kirschner, A. ( 2005). Alma mater in the time of TiVo. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52.

Retrieved March, 2007, from http://chronicle. com/weekly/v52/i16/16b00601.htm

Klapper, J. T. (1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 515-527.

Lemak, D. L., Montgomery, J. C., & Reed, R. (2003). Instructor effectiveness in distance education: The case of technology and transactional distance. In Proceedings of the 2003 Academy of Management Conference.

Lemak,D.L.,Shin,S.J.,Reed,R.,&Montgomery, J. C. (2005). Technology, transactional distance and instructor effectiveness: An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 150.

Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activityandgratifications:Aconceptualclarification and exploration. Communication Research,

1, 51-78.

Lin, N. (1977). Communication effects: Review and commentary. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Lincoln, D. J. (2001). Marketing educator Internet adoptionin1998versus2000:Significantprogress and remaining obstacles. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(2), 103-116.

Miller, J. W., Martineau, L. P., & Clark, R. C. (2000). Technology infusion and higher education: Changing teaching and learning. Innovative Higher Education, 24, 227-241.

Muniz, A. M., Jr., Billingsley, W., & Brill, T. (2002). The GoReader launch: Developing marketing strategy for an innovative education technology. Journal of Interactive Marketing,

16(1), 67-88.

Newcomer, J., & Stafford, T. F. (2001). Teaching simultaneously in dual classrooms: Tips for when you’re asked to use videoconferencing as an in-

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

structional tool. In Proceedings of the Southwest Academy of Management, SWFAD, Houston.

Parnell, J. A., & Carraher, S. (2003). The management education by Internet readiness (MEBIR) scale: Developing a scale to assess personal readiness for Internet-mediated management education. Journal of Management Education,

27(4), 431-446.

Rehg,J.A.(1999).DevelopingWeb-basedcourses using an online development guide and templates.

Computers in Education Journal, 9, 51-55.

Rovai, A. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 1042-1629.

Seepanski, J. M., & von Wahlde, B. (1998). Megasystem collaboration: Cross-continent consortial cooperation.Information Technology and Libraries, 17(1), 30-35.

Stafford, T. F. (2000). Internet as metamedium: Emerging uses of the World Wide Web – a tutorial. In H.M. Chung (Ed.), Proceedings of the Association for Information Systems Conference, AIS, Long Beach, CA.

Stafford, T. F. (2005). Understanding motivations for Internet use in distance education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(2), 301-306.

Stafford, T. F., & Simon, J. C. (2002). High-tech adjuncts: Using technology-mediated virtual partnerships to facilitate the delivery of information systems course content. In Proceedings of the 2002 Decision Sciences Institute Conference, DSI, Atlanta.

Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L.

(2004). Determining uses and gratifications for the Internet. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 259-288.

Stiefelhagen, R., Chen, X., & Yang, J. (2005). Capturing interactions in meetings with omnidirectional cameras. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 3(3), 34-47.

Stöttinger, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2002). Information and communication technologies in tertiary education: A ‘customer’ perspective.

Marketing Education Review, 12, 63-72.

Uiterwijk, J., Seoane, D., Mitchell, L., & Welch, J. (1998). The virtual classroom. InfoWorld, 20(47), 64-70.

Wilkes,R.B.,Simon,J.C.,&Brooks,L.D.(2006). A comparison of faculty and undergraduate students’ perceptions of online degree programs.

Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), 131-140.

Young, M. R. (2001). Windowed, wired and webbed: Now what? Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 45-54.

additional Reading

The work of Alavi is an excellent starting point for researchers interested in the foundations of behavioral research on the use of teleconferenced learningineducationsettings.Suggestedreadings from this stream of distance education research include:

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 159-174.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology-mediated learning – a call for greater depth and breadth of research.

Information Systems Research, 12, 1-10.

Alavi, M., Marakas, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparativestudyofdistributedlearningenvironmentsonlearningoutcomes.InformationSystems Research, 13(4), 404-417.

Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C., & Valacich, J. S. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Quarterly, 19, 293-312.

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

Alavi, M., Yoo, Y., & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1310-1333.

For those interested in technology usage motivations related to student use of distance learning technology, see Stafford’s uses and gratifications perspective on distance education technology use is useful reading:

Stafford, T. F. (2005). Understanding motivations for Internet use in distance education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(2), 301-306.

Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L.

(2004). Determining uses and gratifications for the Internet. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 259-288.

For those interested in assessment of distance education technologies and practices, the work of Abraham, as well as that of Alavi et al., are instructive for evaluative purposes:

Abraham, T. (2002). Evaluating the virtual management information systems classroom.

Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(2), 125-133.

Alavi, M., Marakas, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparativestudyofdistributedlearningenvironmentsonlearningoutcomes.InformationSystems Research, 13(4), 404-417.

Exploring Student Motivations for IP Teleconferencing in Distance Education

aPPendix: inteRnet uses and gRatifications scales

Resources

Search Eng

Searching

Surfing

Technolog

Web Sites

Education

Informatio

Knowledge

Learning

Research

Chatting

Friends

Interactions

People

.75 (24.73)
.64 (19.81)
.73 (23.58)	ȟ1

	.54 (16.08)	Internet Process
		Motivations
	.61 (18.96)
	.67 (21.28)	ĭ2 1

.72 (33.06)

.52 (16.11)
.76 (26.06)	ȟ2

	.88 (31.79)	INTERNET
		CONTENT

MOTIVATIONS

.80 (27.90)

.74 (23.87)	ĭ3 2
	.34 (10.03)
.57 (15.06)

.72 (16.05)

.92 (20.34)

.70 (17.52)

Ȥ2 (79) = 242.82 (p = .000) GFI = .97, AGFI = .95

RMSR = .11, SRMSR NFI = .96, CFI = .97

ȟ3

Internet Social Motivations

= .043

ĭ3 1

.38 (10.80)