Talk:Channel expansion theory

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amsensenbrenner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VenoraW. Peer reviewers: June42.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana's Peer Review

1.First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The lead section is very succinct and nicely introduces the reader to the theory. It also ties the theory to a bigger picture of “communication media perceptions” so the reader can understand the theory within a much broader context.

2.What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

- A lead section that is easy to understand

Even though the introduction of the lead section is good, I suggest outlining what is to come through summarizing key elements of the theory. For example, summarize ways the theory could be applied as well as the follow-up criticism. Something else to take into consideration is outlining the most important aspects of the theory in the introduction to set up the reader’s though process.

- A clear structure

This is the most important thing that you should focus on- there are three big sections for this theory and very little subheadings to frame key elements of the theory. As I stated above, under “theory” there should be subheadings such as “media use experience” or another term that creates an umbrella of thought. Same thing goes for the application and criticism section. You might want to think about broadening the “application” section and including “recent research” into the theory (if application again).

Something else to take into consideration when organizing the article- the background/ history of the theory and people who and ideologies that have contributed to its development. If applicable, are there any assumptions one should take into consideration when applying or understanding this theory? I would highly recommend creating a new section underneath “application” titled “new media” given that this theory is predicting users perceptions to new communication media.

- Balanced coverage/ Neutral Content

This is most evident in the sources that are used in this article- which are (sadly) only 8. Research, research and research because that number should be up to at least 30 to get balanced coverage.

- Reliable sources

See above

3.What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I would prioritize including more content and use this new content to organize and structure the article by adding headings and subheadings to formulate a clear thought-process for the reader. 4.Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

This article is not developed enough to see if something applies to my assigned theory. Amsensenbrenner (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Yifan. I added two sources to the section of "application". And I think you can further enrich this section by adding some subsections illustrating different fields of application other than organization. Also, it will really help if you add some pictures to the page to help understand and pleasant the readers.Yvette72 (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's Peer Review

This page has a lot of content and when I was looking at it I first thought that the paragraphs are too big and I think that they could be condensed. An example is on the application section, the first paragraph. The paragraph could be condensed and more direct.

There are multiple passages that say that the communication will depend on the user’s knowledge of the media that they chose to use. And I'm not sure if it is necessary to have more than one of the same information. Maybe if there are a few examples of how this theory explains how people use Instagram or Twitter nowadays would be a good thing to add. Since social media is a big part of our society. When I think about this theory I think about how the millennials use social media and how it differs from my grandparent’s era.

I found this source and I really liked the image on page 154 and since there is no image on the Wiki page I thought it would be interesting to add some.

I also thought some more critics could be added since they only mentioned the email. Maybe if you add the social media section I’m sure that there are a couple of critiques’ on this subject. Vk1993 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

References

^ Carlson, John R., and Robert W. Zmud. “Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions.” The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, 1999, pp. 153–170. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/257090.

Feedback

Hello Adriana/Yifan,

I have seen your comments and will take your suggestions into consideration when I start making changes to the page. Also, I found the links worth it, but I could not find the image that was suggested for use to expand the theoryT2pitchy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

CCT peer edit 2019

This page has a legible leading section and a relatively complete frame structure, but some works still need to be done for improvement. Firstly, Wikipedia links should be added where the keywords appear firstly, so it will be better to add some links of Social presence theory (shows in the text as “Social presence theorist” in Background), Technology acceptance model, Media naturalness theory or something else, helping readers to get additional information quickly. Besides, the Background section usually covers some information the theory built up upon, so adds a few sentences to summarize the relationship between SPT and MRT while moving TAM which is an extension of CET to the next section will be better. Secondly, the four experiences (channel, topic, context, partner) that play important roles in shaping individuals perception of media richness are mentioned many times without further explanation, which is a good point to enrich the content of CET, because I think the proportion of interpretation directly related to this theory is too small. If the content of itself has not been clarified at first, too much explanation of the related theories will confuse the novices, not to mention understand their complicated relationship. Thirdly, shortening the long difficult sentence or split it up into several short sentences will make the content more concise and understandable. For example, the sentence “In 2011,......approaches studied”in the Related theories and the sentence “Additionally,......communication channel” in the Organizational context in Application section should be adjusted. In addition, two different research methods seem to be mentioned in this sentence, why not add a new section to explain the research strategies of CET independently, which can expand the content of this page as well.June42 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review 2019

Hi there,

The Wikipedia page for “Channel expansion theory” is well-organized with seven clear key headings at first glance. It is well presented and includes relevant resources, such as the Related theories the Application section. I do think there are some problems that you could put under your consideration. 1. The definition(first) paragraph seems articulate but it is hard for readers who are not in academia since the word and sentence that the editor used is kind of professional. Readers may have to do a “second look” to fully understand it. I think providing some practical examples of channels would be helpful. 2. The “Related theories” section seems a little bit choppy for me. It is the longest part of the whole page but it does not include any subheadings. I think you could add a short definition about each related terms, for example, media richness theory as the pre-editor mentioned(if you want to keep that part), as well as the subheading. 3. It would be more comprehensive if you could add some image. Inni44 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Carlson, John R., and Robert W. Zmud. “Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions.” The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, 1999, pp. 153–170. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/257090.

[1]