Johnson2000

Students' Use of Computer-Mediated
Communication in a Distance Education Course
Miriam McNown Johnson
University ofSouthCarolina
Marie Thielke Huff
Western Carolina University
Objectives: Theauthors wereinterestedinhowandwhystudents usecomputer-mediatedcommu-
nication (CMC). Method: Electronic messages sentby 76 socialworkstudents enrolled ina dis-
tanceeducationcoursewereexamined. Responsestoasurveywithregardtotheusefulnessofthese
technologies werealsoanalyzed. Results: Students attending atdistantsitesweremorelikelythan
on-campus students tousebothe-mailandthecourse listserv. Students usedthetechnology more
oftenfor practical reasons thanfor academic enrichment. At the end of the term theyreported
increased competence in usingCMCandexpressedpositiveopinions aboutthesetechnological
supports. Conclusions: CMCpresentsapartialremedyfortherealandperceivedisolation ofstu-
dentstakingclassesat distantsites. It doesnot,however, automatically augmentlearning.
Distance education, defined as education or training courses delivered to
off-campus sites via audio, video, or computertechnologies, is being increas-
ingly used in institutes of higher learning. Based on the results of a 1995
national survey, the National Center for Education Statistics (Department of
Education, 1997) reports that there were an estimated 753,640 students for-
mally enrolled in distance education courses in the 1994-1995 academic
year. A third of higher education institutions reported offering some type of
distance education courses, and another quarter planned to offer distance
education within the next 3 years. The majority (81%) of institutions used
distance education primarily for undergraduate students, whereas 34% used
it for graduate students. A Department of Education survey (1997) indicates
that distance education courses were delivered via two-way interactive video
Authors' Note: Correspondence may be addressed to Miriam Johnson, College of Social Work.
302 DeSaussure, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208; e-mail: miriam.
johnson@sc.edu. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Information Technol-
ogies for Social Work Education and Practice Conference in Charleston, South Carolina on
August 22,1998.
Researchon SocialWorkPractice,Vol. 10No.4. July 2000 519-532
C 2000SagePublications. Inc.
519

520 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACfICE
by 57% of the institutions surveyed, whereas 52% of schools used one-way
prerecorded video.
The use of distance learning has also grown within schools of social work.
Siegel, Jennings, Conklin, and Flynn (1998) report that 16% of schools sur-
veyed use some type of distance learning. According to the Siegel et al. study,
the courses offered most frequently through distance education in schools of
social work were human behavior and the social environment, social welfare
history and policy, and research courses.
With an expansion in the use of this teaching modality, educators are
searching for ways to reduce students' feelings of isolation by increasing
interaction among students and between students and instructors (Huff,
1998). Both students and faculty seem to prefer being able to interactdirectly
with each other and reportedly miss this convenience in distance education
classes (Dillion, 1989; Fast, 1995).
Lack of interaction among students and between students and instructors
can negatively affect student learning. The literature supports the value of
learner-learner and learner-instructor interactions and the importance of
these interactions to students in the traditional classroom (Brookfield, 1987,
1987; Knowles, 1990; Meyers & Jones, 1993). Other studies support the pos-
itive effect of interaction in the distance education setting (McGiven, 1994;
Shale & Garrison, 1990; Wagner, 1993). Moore (1989) states that
learner-learner interaction may be the most challenging type of interaction to
implement in distance education. Moore contends that this type of interaction
is a valuable element of student learning, and that the ability to work in
groups is a necessary skill in modern society.
Whereas students in traditional settings can easily interact with their
instructors and peers, these same types of interactions must be carefully
planned and structured by teachers of distance education (Parker, 1997). The
use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) such as electronic mail
(e-mail) and a class listserv in distance education courses are two ways to
increase student interactions, making the students active participants in their
own learning.
E-mail uses computer text-processing and communication tools to pro-
vide a high-speed information exchange service. The e-mail software on a
computer system enables one computer user to communicate with another
user or group of users by moving text from one computer mailbox to another.
E-mail does not require users to be logged on to the computer system at the
same time; communication is asynchronous, or nonsimultaneous. Individ-
uals may post (send) messages at any time and, on logging on, the intended
receivers are advised that a message is waiting. E-mail requires minimal
computer literacy.

Johnson, Huff I COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 521
D'souza (1992) lists the following potential educational applications of
e-mail:
(a) replyingto queries and requestsfrom studentswith regardto course con-
tent;(b)providingadviceandguidance; (c)helpingstudentstosolveproblems
in understanding the subject matter of a course; (d) servingas a mediumof
transmission forsendinginhomework andreturningtestresults;(e)discussing
projects and work with a tutor; (t) bringing studentstogetherin accordance
withtheirinterestsandneeds;and(g)encouraging teamprojectsandsettingup
self-helpgroups.(p. 23)
Flynn (1987) suggests that e-mail is particularly beneficial
inalearningenvironment populatedbypersonsonthemovewhohaveavariety
of competingcommitments. Studentstodayoftencommutelargedistancesfor
educationand trainingon a part-timebasisor whileholdingdowna full-time
job. Traditionalmethodsanchoredin the classroomare insufficient. (p. 18)
What he is describing, of course, is the typical student enrolled in a distance
education class.
A listserv is defined as an e-mail program that allows multiple computer
users to connect onto a single system and have on-line discussions. Students
first subscribe to the listserv via their e-mail system. When they type a mes-
sage into a computer and send it to the listserv, the message is distributed
automatically to all of the subscribers. Students can log on at convenient
times and places (typically home, work, or school computer lab) and receive
all previously posted messages. They can choose to ignore or read each mes-
sage and can choose to reply by sending a message to all subscribers or by
responding only to individual members at their e-mail addresses.
CMC has been used as an aid for distance education (Mason & Kaye,
1989; Romiszowki & de Haas, 1989) to foster a sense of community among
students, encourage group interaction, and extend discussion beyond class
time (Folaron, 1995; Karayan & Crowe, 1997; Latting, 1994); to facilitate or
enhance student-instructor contact (D'souza, 1991, 1992; Latting, 1994);
and to simulate a policy debate (Flynn, 1987). Most instructors report suc-
cessful experiences, with some notable exceptions (e.g., see Latting, 1994).
New technologies such as those described above offer numerous opportu-
nities for students and educators. Sliwa (1994) suggests that instructors
should resist the temptation to embrace all available technology without
question. Educators are encouraged to accept only those strategies that
improve the quality of learning and to carefully evaluate any technological
tools they choose to use in the classroom. The successful diffusion of an

522 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
innovation throughout a social system begs the question of whether it has
desirable effects (Rogers, 1983). Studies are hindered by the fact that most
researchers interested in the topic share a pro-innovation bias, that there is a
tendency for diffusion research to side with the change agencies that promote
innovations rather than with the audience ofpotential adopters, that conven-
tional attitude surveys fail to measure outcomes, and that often consequences
are confounded with other effects (Rogers, 1983). The emphasis must remain
on effective teaching and learning rather than solely on the technology itself.
In accordance with this, the objectives of this study were to analyze the stu-
dents' actual use of e-mail and the class listserv in addition to eliciting their
perceptions of the effectiveness of those technologies for distance education
classes.
METHODS
Students
The study was conducted in a graduate-level social work program in a
large public university in the southeastern United States. The study popula-
tion consisted of 76 first-year, part-time students enrolled in distance educa-
tion courses in the 1997-1998 academic year. Thirty of the students experi-
enced live instruction, attending class in the studio on campus. The other 46
attended at 12 other sites throughout the state.
Instructional Methods
Students at the distant sites could see the instructor on television monitors
and could hear her and the students present in the studio. They could call in to
the studio with questions and comments via an 800 number, but the instructor
and on-site students could not see them. All classes met during an evening for
two hours a week for 15 weeks, plus three additional Saturdays. Distant stu-
dents were required to be present on campus for those 3 Saturdays for the
course introduction, the midterm exam, and the final exam.
Almost all of the students took two distance education courses in the fall
semester and two in the spring. One of the fall semester courses, Social Wel-
fare Policy, was taught by the second author ofthis study. She used a listserv
in her course and also assigned e-mailjournal partners to facilitate interaction
between students. One of the spring semester courses, Human Behavior, was
taught by the first author. She used a class listserv to post her lecture outline
and study questions every week. Ten percent of the semester grade for this

Johnson.HuffI COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 523
course was based on class attendance and participation. Students could
enhance their participation scores either by speaking up during class and/or
by sending messages to the class listserv. The instructor offered no guidelines
on what constituted an unacceptably low level ofparticipation. Both ofthese
instructors provided students with information on how to reach them by
phone as well as bye-mail. Neither of the instructors for the other two
required courses expected the students to use CMC as part of their class
requirements.
Research Design
The authors were interested in how their students used e-mail and the
listserv within the context ofthe classes and their opinions about these CMC
techniques. They analyzed the content of the e-mail and listserv messages
generated by students during the spring semester as well as the results of a
survey administered to students at the end ofthe spring semester. The follow-
ing research questions were addressed:
Were there differences betweenthe distant and campus students in the level of
theiruse of CMC?
For what purposes did the students use the class listserv and e-mail in these
courses?
Whatwerethe students' opinionsof theircompetencies withregardto theircom-
puterskillsat thebeginningof theirstudiesandaftertwo semestersof experi-
ence with CMC? Werethere differences betweenthe on-campusand distant
studentgroups?
Whatwerethestudents'opinionsaboutthistechnology withinthecontextofthese
foundation-year courses?
Outcome Measures
The authors compiled all CMC related to the spring semester course that
were received by the instructor. (E-mail transmissions exchanged directly
between students were not available for analysis.) The transmissions were
sorted by source (e-mail or listserv) and sender (university system, distant
student, or campus student) and tallied to answer the first question.
To answer the second question. the texts of the transmissions were down-
loaded and printed in a single document totaling more than 650 pages. The
transmissions were then coded for message content. After the first author
completed the process, one fourth (97) of the messages were randomly
selected and then independently coded by the second author. resulting in an
interrater agreement rate of 90.7%.

524 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACflCE
To answer the remaining two questions, the authors developed a survey
instrument based on their research questions and on student comments
shared earlier in the semester via the class listserv. Surveys were mailed to
students, along with prescribed routine course evaluation forms, via the
postal service a week before the end of the course. Students were asked to
bring the completed instruments with them to the final class meeting on cam-
pus and put them in boxes at the back of the lecture hall so that their anonym-
ity was preserved.
RESULTS
Description of Participants
As noted previously, there were 30 students attending on campus and 46 at
distant sites. The majority were White (n =46, 60.5%) and female (n =65,
85.5%). Almost all were part-time students who held full-time jobs. Based on
analysis of responses to the survey, there were no significant differences
between the groups with respect to ethnicity, 'l (4) =5.96,p> .05, gender, X
2
(I) =2.49, P> .05, work schedule (full- or part-time), Fischer's exact test, p >
.05, or student enrollment status (full- or part-time), Fischer's exact test, p >
.05. Students attending on campus had a mean age of 33.80 years (SD =9),
whereas students attending at distant sites had a mean age of 33.71 (SD =
10.45); a t test indicated this was not a significant difference.
Content Analysis of CMC
Sources of transmissions. Of the 442 course-related transmissions
received between January and June, 45 were from the system (with regard to
messages sent successfully, message delivery failures, and regular monitor-
ing reports), 27 were sent by the university's listserv coordinator (who pro-
vided Iistserv instructions and/or suggested solutions to problems experi-
enced by the instructor or students), and one was an e-mail from a third party
with regard to a student who had been involved in a car accident. The remain-
ing 369 transmissions were generated by students. Of those transmissions,
274 (74%) came via individual e-mail to the instructor, and 95 (26%) were
shared with the instructor and classmates via the listserv. Only 58 (15.7%) of
the 369 transmissions came from campus students, even though 39% of the
students enrolled in the course attended class on campus. The average num-
ber ofmessages received from distant students and campus students was 6.5

Johnson.HuffI COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 525
and 2.0, respectively. This difference was statistically significant, t (74) =
3.34,p =.001); theproportion ofvariance explained (PVE) was.13,reflecting
a mediumeffect-size (Lipsey, 1990). Seventeen studentssent no transmis-
sions at all; 16of thosestudents attendedclass on campus. Another 11 stu-
dentssent only 1messageeach.Of the total 369studenttransmissions, 264
(71.5%of the total) weresent by only 10students, all of whomviewed the
classfromdistantsites.Thehighestnumberoftransmissions received froma
singlestudentwas 37.
Topics. Themanifestcontentofthestudents' messages wascodedinto 14
topic categories as follows: logistics or housekeeping (e.g., requests for
information about the class meetings, pleas for extensions on due dates),
questionsabout the assignments (e.g., selecting a topic for the term paper,
APAstyle),actualassignments (papers) sentviae-mail,requestsforindivid-
ualexamresultsandgradereports, problems withthelistserv, problems with
e-mail, acknowledgment of messages or information received, comments
related to class content,requests to classmates for assistance, information
sharing(aboutcourse-related eventsinthe newsor outsideresources), com-
mentsaboutthatoutsideinformation, comments withregardtothelistservin
responseto a request for input from the researchers, unsolicited comments
andevaluative feedback offeredto thecourseinstructorand guestlecturers,
andduplicatetransmissions. Because 17of thetransmissions containedtwo
or three clearlydistincttopics,the total numberof studentmessages coded
was 388.
Details of the results of the content analysisare shown in Table 1. The
mostcommonmessagetopicwasgrades,withallof thosemessagescoming
via e-mail.The most commonlistservmessagewasabout outsideinforma-
tion or resources.
Survey Results
The researchers developed the survey instrument basedon theirresearch
questions and on student comments shared earlier in the semester via the
classlistserv. Surveysweremailedto students, alongwithprescribedcourse
evaluation forms,viathepostalservicea weekbeforethe end of the course.
Studentswere asked to bringcompleted instruments with them to the final
class meetingon campus.
A total of 40 surveys were returned (response rate of 52.6%). Eleven
(37%) were completed by on-campus students, and 29 (64%) were com-
pletedby distantstudents. Thedemographic statistics werealmostidentical
for distantstudentsand campusstudentswhoreturned the survey.

TABLE 1: Topics of Students' Computer-Mediated Communications by Source
Messages
All E-mail Listserv
TopicCode n % n % n %
Class logistics 66 17.0 50 17.0 16 16.6
Questions about assignments 31 7.9 27 9.2 4 4.2
Assignment attached 35 9.0 35 11.9 0 0.0
Requests for grades 79 20.0 79 27.0 0 0.0
Problems with Iislserv 26 6.7 22 7.5 4 4.2
Problems with e-mail 5 1.3 4 1.4 1 1.0
Acknowledgment of messages received 42 10.8 35 11.9 7 7.3
Comments related to class content 10 2.6 6 2.0 4 4.2
Requests to classmates for assistance 10 2.6 0 0.0 10 10.4
Sharing of outside resources 25 6.4 1 0.3 24 25.0
Comments about outside information 11 2.8 0 0.0 11 11.5
Feedback with regard to the Iistserv 15 3.9 6 2.0 9 9.4
Feedback to the lnstructor(s) 16 4.1 16 5.5 0 0.0
Duplicate messages 17 4.4 12 4.1 5 5.2
Totals 388 292 96
Accessibility. Twelve students (16%) reported that they did not have a
computer at home, whereas 24 students (32%) stated that they did not have
computer access at work. Twenty-nine students did not have a student account
on the university computer system. A total of 8 students (11%) reported that
they did not have a computer either at home or at school, and six of these did
not have a computer account at the university.Several students also commented
on the problem ofaccessibility in theirresponses to the open-ended questions
on the survey. Whereas the instructors have no way of knowing how many
students who did not return the survey lacked access to a computer, the class
roster maintained by the instructor showed that 18 students (23.6%) did not
have an e-mail address recorded as of the end of the spring semester.
Self-perceived competence. Survey respondents were asked to rate their
competence in the use of computer skills at two points, the beginning of the
fall term and the end of the spring term (see Table 2). A Wilcoxon Matched
Pairs Signed Ranks test indicated that the increases in self-ratings of compe-
tence in the use ofboth e-mail and listserv technology were significantfor the
class as a whole (p < .001). One cannot calculate a PVE for the Wilcoxon. A
Mann Whitney U test showed that whereas distant student respondents rated
themselves considerably higher than campus students on their skill with the

Johnson. Huff I COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 527
TABLE 2: Students' Self·Perceived Computer Competence
Beginning of Fall Term End of Spring Term
StudentGroup n M SO M SO
Campus 11
Use of e-mail 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.2
Use of Iistserv 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.4
Distant 29
Use of e-mail 2.0 1.2 2.9 0.7
Use of Iistserv 1.1 1.3 2.7 0.9
NOTE: Students responded using a 5-point scale: 0 = none, 1 = novice, 2 = OK, 3 =
skilled.4 =expert.
listserv at the end of the term, using an alpha level of .05, the difference was
not statistically significant (p =.06).
Student perceptions with regard to usefulness ofthe technology. In gen-
eral, the students expressed positive opinions about the use ofe-mail and the
listserv in the two courses. Their opinions were measured on a 5-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 =strongly agree to 5 =strongly disagree.
The strongest positive responses with regard to e-mail were assigned to state-
ments about being able to receive feedback or grades (M =1.32, SD =0.64)
and believing that these technologies made the instructor more accessible
(M =1.34, SD =0.54). Students also agreed that e-mail was a good way to
communicate with classmates (M =1.73,SD =1.28).Most of the students did
not agree that they experienced a lot of technological problems in using
e-mail (M=4.23.SD =1.14).
Students also felt that the class listserv was useful. The majority agreed
that having the study questions presented on the listserv was helpful (M =
1.28, SD =0.45), as well as the lecture outlines (M =1.35, SD =0.88). Most of
them agreed that class listservs should be used more widely in distance edu-
cation (M =1.57, SD =1.10), in all courses (M =1.66, SD =1.06), and as a
means for regular communication between the college administration and
students (M =1.56,SD =1.05). They also agreed that the listserv helped them
feel more connected to the instructor (M =1.68, SD =0.91). Most students
disagreed with the statement that using the listserv was frustrating (M =4.23,
SD= 1.14) or not worth the effort it took (M = 4.16, SD = 1.2).
Although their responses were not quite as strong as for the previous state-
ments, the majority of students also agreed that being on the listserv helped
them feel connected to their classmates (M = 1.82, SD = 0.85), encouraged

528 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
them to assist each other (M=1.80,SD =0.80), and encouraged their partici-
pation in discussions beyond class time (M =1.74, SD =0.75). They also
agreed that using the listserv increased their comfort level with the use of
technology (M =2.09, SD =1.07).Overall, students felt the listserv enhanced
their learning experiences in class (M = 1.77, SD = 0.88) and gave them an
advantage over students who were not on the listserv (M = 1.76,SD = 0.90).
Consistent with the finding of other studies of CMC in social work educa-
tion (e.g., Folaron, 1995; Latting, 1994), problems reported by students
included information overload, access problems, a division within the class
between the haves and the have nots, and insurmountable technological chal-
lenges. Technology problems and lack of computer accessibility were the
most common negative comments. For example, one student wrote, "It took
many tries to get on the listserv and it was inconvenient for me. I don't agree
that e-mail should be required. Older students don't all have computers. It
causes unnecessary stress and frustration." The vast majority of comments,
however, was very positive. One distant student wrote,
[Thelistserv] isoneofthegreatest advantages thatdistance edstudents have. It
keeps usinformed, allows atimetostudy, assist eachother, askquestions, and
justtofeelaspartof theoverall class. It maybefrustrating atthebeginning of
thesemester getting subscribed andsoforth, butitismore thanworth thetrou-
ble.Thegooddefinitely outweighs thebad.
Another said,
I lovehaving access to thelistserv ande-mail. It makes communication with
youmucheasier. It alsohelps togettheoutlines beforeclass. Ifeel Ihaveanad-
vantage overtheothertwostudents atmysitebecause theyhavebeenunable to
access thelistserv anddo notgetallof thepertinent information. I sharewith
themasmuchasIcan! Itisinteresting toreadallofthecommunication among
the otherstudents. I don't have much timeto chat with them, but I do enjoy
reading theircommunications.
And a third wrote,
I doenjoyhaving thelistserv withallof thebenefits of interacting withfellow
classmates andtheinstructor. Thisservice helps those ofusatdistance edsites
feellikeweareapartoftheclass. Therearetimes when youfeelverydetached
from thelargergroup inthedistance education program. I amso thankful for
thelistserv.

Johnson. Huff I COMPUTER·MEDIATED COMMUNICAnON 529
Another concluded, "Thank you for taking the time to communicate with us
through listserv. I hope you pass the word around to all of the other professors
so they will use it for their classes."
DISCUSSION AND APPLICATIONS TO SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
The authors of this study personally found the listserv to be helpful in
exchanging information (e.g., expectations, lecture outlines, and information
about assignments) with students, thus preserving more of the in-class time
for instruction and learning. Negative consequences included the high vol-
ume of incoming electronic transmissions related to the course and time
spent trying to help students who had repeated difficulties in using e-mail or
the class listserv. As with all technology, not all students had equal access,
knowledge, or skills, and there were multiple software and server glitches
that needed to be addressed. The authors found that the availability ofcompe-
tent support staff was crucial to the successful use of these teaching tools.
Analysis of the sources of course-related electronic transmissions
revealed that students attending at distant sites were significantly more likely
than campus students to use e-mail and the class listserv. This finding sug-
gests that this technology is particularly appealing to those students who do
not have regular face-to-face contact with their instructor. In other words, it
was used to remedy some ofthe inherent shortcomings of distance education
rather than to augment learning. Students used the technology most often for
practical reasons such as dealing with logistics, requesting grade reports, or
clarifying expectations related to assignments. In a classroom setting, these
issues might be handled by the instructor before or after class or during a
break. The students seldom used the listserv for extended discussions of
course content or related topics; in fact, these purposes comprised less than
6% of all messages sent. (This might have been different had there been spe-
cific assignments in the course requiring use ofe-mail or the listserv.) More
than 8% of student-initiated messages were about problems they were expe-
riencing with the technology.
Limitations ofthe study include the usual restrictions that apply to educa-
tional research: preexisting, nonequivalent groups with no opportunity for
random assignment; the use of a convenience sample in defining the study
population; overreliance on self-reported data; and the potential for bias on

the part of both respondents and researchers. In addition, the effectiveness of
the instructional use ofCMC may have been limited due to the relative lack of
technological expertise and experience on the part of the spring semester
instructor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The authors recommend that social work educators employ CMC to
enhance student-instructor and student-to-student contact, particularly in
distance education courses. Guided practice along with simple, written direc-
tions on the use of e-mail and the listserv should be included in a general ori-
entation session and/or at the first class meeting if at all possible. During the
first several weeks of class, extra time and emotional support should be pro-
vided to students who experience technological difficulties. Romiszowski
and de Haas (1989) suggest developing a congenial climate by leaving a per-
sonal welcome message for each student; reinforcing early attempts at partic-
ipation; referencing students' responses in instructorcomments; and sending
additional feedback in (private) e-mail messages (p. 9). Facilitating direct
contact between students and the listserv coordinator (technician) may free
the instructor from time-consuming and nonproductive exchanges with
regard to the intricacies and frequent technical malfunctions of CMC.
Instructors should develop specific expectations or course requirements
related to CMC if they want students to use e-mail and/or a listserv to supple-
ment other modes of learning.
Given the wide availability and growing familiarity with e-mail and
listservs, CMC presents an opportunity for effective and efficient contact
with distance education students individually and as a class group. Neverthe-
less, educators should not assume that the use of any type of technology will
automatically enhance the learning environment (Sliwa, 1994). Moore and
Knight (1993) assert that "hardware alone" does not lead to good distance
education. Academics must remember that the central issue should be
whether instructional goals can be achieved through distance education
rather than focusing only on available technology (Conklin & Osterndorf,
1995; Thyer, Polk, & Gaudin, 1997). Educators have an obligation to review
empirical evidence of effectiveness and to emphasize sound standards of
teaching and learning when deciding which technology is the most appropri-
ate to use. Distinguishing between technological and pedagogical issues is
essential.

Johnson,HuffI COMPUTER·MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
REFERENCES
531
Brookfield, S. (1987).Developing criticalthinkers (1sted.).SanFrancisco: Jessey-Bass.
Conklin,J., & Osterndorf, W. (1995). Distance learningin continuing socialworkeducation:
Promiseof the year2000.Journal of Continuing SocialWork Education, 6(3), 13-17.
Department ofEducation. (1997). National Surveyof Distance Education [Online]. Available:
www.nces.ed.gov/pubs98/distancelindex.html.
Dillion,C. (1989). Facultyrewards and instructional telecommunications: A view from the
telecourse facility. American Journal ofDistance Education, 3(2), 35-43.
D'souza,P.V. (1991).The useofelectronicmailas an instructional aid:Anexploratory study.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18, 106-110.
D'souza, P.V. (1992). Electronic mail in academic settings: A multipurpose communication
tool.Educational Technology, 32(3),22-25.
Fast,M.(1995,April). Interaction intechnology: Mediated, muliisite.foreign language instruc-
tion.PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmerican Educational Research Associa-
tion,SanFrancisco,CA.
Flynn,J. P.(1987).Simulating policyprocesses throughelectronicmail.Computers in Human
Services, 2 (112), 13-26.
Folaron,G. (1995). Enhancing learningwith e-mail.Journal of Teaching in SocialWork, 12
(112),3-18.
Huff,M. T.(1998). A comparison ofcriticalthinking in an interactive television socialwork
course. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of SouthCarolina,Columbia.
Karayan, S. & Crowe,J. (1997).Studentperceptions of electronicdiscussion groups.T.H.E.
Journal: Technological Horizons in Education, 24 (9),69-71.
Knowles, M.(1990).Theadultlearner: A neglected species(4thed.). Houston: Gulf.
Latting,J.K. (1994).Diffusionofcomputer-mediated communication inagraduatesocialwork
class:Lessonsfrom"theclassfromhell." Computers inHuman Services, 10(3),21-45.
Lipsey, M.W.(1990).Designsensitivity: Statisticalpowerfor experimental research. Newbury
Park,CA:Sage.
Mason,R. & Kaye,A.(Eds.)(1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers & distance edu-
cation.NewYork: Pergamon.
McGiven, J. (1994).Designing thelearningenvironment to meetthe needsof distantstudents.
Journal of Technology and Learning, 27(2),52-57.
Meyers, C.,& Jones,T.(1993).Promoting activelearning: Strategiesfor thecollege classroom
(1st ed.), SanFrancisco: Jessey-Bass.
Moore,M.(1989).Threetypesof interaction. American Journal ofDistance Education, 3(2),
1-6.
Moore,M.,& Knight, P.(1993).Isteachinglikeflying?Atotalsystemsviewofdistanceeduca-
tion.American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1),1-10.
Parker, A. (1997). A distance education how-to manual: Recommendations from the field
[Online]. Available: www.webcom.comljournallparker.html.
Rogers, E. M.(1983).Diffusion of innovations (3rded.).NewYork: Free Press.
Romiszowki, A.J.,& deHaas.J.A.(1989).Computer-mediated communicationforinstruction:
Usinge-mailas a seminar. Educational Technology, 29, (10),7-14.
Shale, D., & Garrison, R. (1990). Education and communication. In R. Garrison& D. Shale
(Eds.),Education at a distance (pp.23-39). Malabar, Florida: Krieger.

Siegel, E., Jennings, 1., Conklin, J., & Flynn, S. A. (1998). Distance learning in social work edu-
cation: Results and implications of a national survey. Journal ofSocial Work Education, 34,
71-80.
Sliwa, S. (1994). Re-engineering the learning process with information technology. Academe,
80,8-12.
Thyer, B. A.• Polk, G., & Gaudin, J. G. (1997). Distance learning in social work education: A
preliminary evaluation. Journal ofSocial Work Education, 33, 363-367.
Thyer, B. A., Artelt, T., Markwood, M. K.,& Dozier, C. D. (1998). Evaluating distance learning
in social work education: A replication study. Journal of Social Work Education, 34,
291-295.
Wagner, E. (1993). Variables affecting distance educational program success. Educational Tech-
nology, 33, (4), 28-32.

Johnson2000

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Johnson2000 (20)

More from April Gealene Alera (17)

Recently uploaded (20)

Johnson2000