Onlinelearningand Cmc

On-Line Learning and CMC 1

Running head: ON-LINE LEARNING AND CMC

On-Line Learning and Computer-Mediated-Communication: A Literature Review

Jeanne M. Winstead

EDPS 533

Purdue University


In 1998, I experienced a radical life-style change. I took up residence on the World-

Wide-Web. Actually I had already been an Internet user for several years, mostly using email in

my job at the University. I had also just begun to use the World-Wide-Web (mostly for

convenience in tasks such as shopping and research). But I had not really connected. All that

changed in January of 1998 when a television series called Prey with an interesting twist on the

theory of evolution aired on ABC. The show totally captivated me. My local writers’ group had

just started writing a piece of round-robin fiction, and I based my contribution on the premise of

this show. So I started writing along with the series week to week. I also started searching the

Web for reviews of the series and eventually found a fan site hosted by an artistic and technically

able young woman named Tiffany from Massachusetts. She had set up a WebBBS electronic

bulletin board, a free PERL CGI script written by Darryl Burgdorf available on the web. It was

very, very interactive, attracting fans of the show from all over the US and Canada, and even

some of the members of the show’s creative team. The discussions were stimulating and fun. I

discovered that the computer was something that could transform affective areas of my life. It

could let me outside of the boundaries of Lafayette to meet intelligent and interesting people

with shared interests that I would never have met otherwise, and it could add a more personal

dimension to broadcast media story-telling. I found the on-line experience exhilarating and

powerful. We moved from discussing the show to organizing to save the show when ABC placed

Prey on hiatus in April of 1998. In the years that followed, new fans joined us from around the

world as Prey aired in thirty-four countries. Many have attained rather amazing outcomes from

this on-line involvement, including enhanced computer/multi-media skills and knowledge of

setting up web sites. We have also gained personal and social/relational skills as we forged an


on-line international collaborative community that persists yet today at

http://preyforus.hypermart.net/cgi-bin/webbbs433/preyforus.

Around the same time as I was “homesteading my stake on the electronic frontier”

(Rheingold, 1993), I also started working on a Master’s degree in Educational Technology

through Purdue’s School of Education. Knowing how the Prey on-line experience has

transformed people, I became very interested in how Computer-Mediated-Communication

(henceforth referred to as CMC) might be used in learning environments to motivate and engage

students in the learning process.

I read approximately twenty quantitative and qualitative research articles relating directly

or indirectly to CMC and motivation. These articles came from various areas of psychology,

education, communication, computer systems, and anthropology. They yielded a wealth of

information, contradiction, and questions too vast to address in the scope of this six to ten page

paper. There are many ways to classify and organize the research that was done – comparisons of

media modes: CMC versus Face to Face communication (henceforth referred to as FtF or F2F)

(Bordia, 1997; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999; Olaniran, 1994; Wilson et al., 1998), synchronous

CMC (Beauvois, 1995; Ruberg et al., 1996) or asynchronous CMC studies (Morris & Naughton,

1999; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999; Wilson et al., 1998; Wilson, 2000 ), in-class CMC (Beauvois,

1995; Olaniran, 1994; Ruberg et al., 1996) or distance/outside of class CMC studies (Everett &

Ahern, 1994; Marsh, 1997; Morris & Naughton, 1999; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999; Wilson,

2000; Wilson et al., 1998; Wolffe & McMullen, 1996;), and studies from several educational

disciplines that involve different learning tasks such as English composition, communication,

software engineering, and foreign languages (Beauvois, 1995; Everett & Ahern, 1994; Gallini &

Helman, 1995; Marsh, 1997; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999; Ruberg et al., 1996, Wilson, 2000;


Wilson et al., 1998; Wolffe & McMullen, 1996). Several themes about the strengths and

weaknesses of CMC emerged, one key claim being that despite the supposed convenience of

CMC, collaborative learning on-line actually takes longer than FtF (Bordia, 1997; Olaniran,

1994), a fact of which both instructors and students need to be aware in their planning (Kindred,

2000). Another claim is that properties of CMC such as anonymity and lack of social cues

change the classroom or learning community from being teacher-centered to being student-

discourse centered and facilitate knowledge construction (Baron, 1998; Beauvois, 1995; Marsh,

1997; Wolffe & McMullen, 1996). Practitioners should be aware that “grading” on-line

discussions may introduce an inhibitor or distraction to CMC users (Ruberg et al., 1996). A

disadvantage of CMC (related to the time issue mentioned above) was information overload

(Ruberg et al., 1996). However this is a two-sided coin. On the one hand, students reported that

interacting with their peers on-line enabled them to get valued information previously not

accessible that enhanced their understanding of class content (Ruberg, 1996). On the other hand,

students complained of the time-consuming nature of reading so many posts, and others

complained of not liking to type (Ocker, 1999; Ruberg et al., 1996). This suggests to me that on-

line communication is a new skill to be learned. Many people report that they avoid reading long

messages (Baym, 1995; Marvin, 1995). In fact in many on-line communities, communication is

an art and a skill that people aspire to ‘virtuoso’ levels of performance (Bechar, 1995; Marvin,

1995). Teachers and students should adapt their communication style to the on-line medium and

“chunk” their communication more. In addition to communication skills, on-line bonding and

community-building skills are needed and their existence in many on-line communities is proof

that they can be achieved. Rafaeli reports that “Although more opinionated, interactive messages

have a higher propensity to agree. Interactive messages are significantly more humorous, and


more likely to contain self-disclosure. Interactive messages are more than twice as likely to

contain first person plural pronouns in reference to members of the list, indicating that

interactivity is associated with a sense of involvement and belonging. Interactive groups are

more likely to sustain their memberships, and yield other desired outcomes such as symmetry in

contributions, creativity, productivity, agreement, humor, and sense of belonging” (Rafaeli &

Sudweeks, 1997, online). These are all motivating factors in CMC.

In both quantitative and qualitative studies, two research contexts seemed to predominate.

These were either (1) field studies or experimental studies of CMC incorporated into actual

classrooms or on-line courses (Beauvois, 1995; Everett & Ahern, 1994; Gallini & Helman, 1995;

Kindred, 2000; Marsh, 1997; Morris & Naughton. 1999; Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999; Olaniran,

1994; Ruberg et al., 1996, Wilson, 2000; Wilson et al., 1998; Wolffe & McMullen, 1996) and

(2) field studies or experimental studies mined from the wealth of texts available from on-line

newsgroups, list serves, and CompuServe special interest groups (henceforth referred to as SIGS)

(Aycock, 1995; Baym, 1995; Bechar, 1995; Mabry, 1997; Marvin, 1995; Rafaeli & Sudweeks,

1997; Rafaeli et al., 1994).

Of the first context, research sometimes yielded conclusions that did not seem to reflect

lived experience. For example one theme that emerged in the education literature is that CMC

does not sustain social interaction (Bordia, 1997) – and that CMC does not support the social

component enough to facilitate completion of some educational tasks (Wilson et al., 1998). Yet

we know from the huge amount of communication both social and collaborative that takes place

on the Web at any given moment, that CMC is a very social and binding activity. Several

researchers and one reviewer admitted problems with the generalizability of their research

context (Bordia, 1997; Ocker, 1999; Olaniran, 1994; Wilson, 2000; Wilson et al., 1998). In fact


Wilson (2000) cites the need of future research to determine what constitutes a generalizable

context in experimental studies. In studies that involve one or two classrooms or a particular

course, it is sometimes difficult to separate effects resulting from the actual experimental design

or course design and other factors from effects of the particular communication media in use

(Bordia, 1997).

Also in many studies I read, the populations were very small, or they consisted primarily

of students. While one would think that students are indeed the target population in the theme of

this review, many educators’ concerns are for the marketability and transferability of skills to the

working population (Bordia, 1997). Educators want to use CMC both to educate about course

content and to give students needed CMC skills for the job market. In fact one business

education researcher admits that some of the limitations and problems with CMC pointed to in

his research have been solved in the business world (Wilson et al., 1998). So a new research

question arises – if people can successfully use CMC to complete tasks in the work force, why

can’t they successfully use it to complete similar tasks in the educational environment?

Another problem with the studies I have observed is that many populations consisted of

the more traditional student, who lived on or close to campus. In fact the traditional student –

someone whose life is centered around their educational pursuits – is a disappearing breed

(Ocker, 1999). Many students juggle full time jobs, families, and commute long distances. For

these students the on-line accessibility to course materials, instructors, and fellow students is a

welcome convenience and a motivating factor in CMC that simply was not mentioned in several

of the study populations that I read about.

In the second research context I observed in my readings, the vast public archives of list

serves, newsgroups, Internet Relay chat (henceforth referred to as IRC), Multiple-User Domains/


Object Oriented Gaming Environments (henceforth referred to as MOOS) and SIGS, the

populations sampling frames are much larger. And while these populations may not generalize to

student populations, one can bet that many students are included within these populations! Also

the motivation to use CMC is inherent in these on-line groups. For that reason, perhaps valuable

information about the attraction and the appeal of CMC, as well as studying “the glue” that holds

on-line communities together (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997), could yield helpful information for

educators seeking to incorporate CMC into their curriculum. The most notable quantitative

research project that I came across in this context was Projecth which randomly sampled

communication texts of thousands of on-line groups, operationalized many dependent and

independent variables, and came up with a code book and a database for the research community

which at least establishes a baseline for further studies and longitudinal follow-ups (Rafaeli, et

al., 1994).

An overwhelming theme of both quantitative and qualitative studies that I read involved

the importance of taking the CMC context into consideration in designing research.

• “… the participant’s engagement with the topic is as important as the medium … The

computer medium is only one of many influences on on-line groups. Social processes

in computer-mediated groups, including performance and humor, are deeply rooted in

specifics, including topics of discussion and purposes. Future work on CMC must

attend to the detailed contexts in which a given group’s behavior is grounded.”

(Baym, 1998, online).

• “Successful use of CMC activities requires a classroom social environment that

encourages peer interaction – equally important is the selection of engaging tasks that

are structured enough to diminish confusion but still allow spontaneity and


experimentation (Ruberg, 1996, p. 266) … These findings suggest what is true for the

traditional classroom may also be true of CMC. The social situation, not the medium

of communication, is the strongest determinant of verbal behavior” (Ruberg, 1996, p.

247).

• “Findings of the experimental literature such as increased uninhibited behavior have

been challenged by field researchers who claim that behavior in CMC is highly

context dependent (Bordia, 1997, p. 114 ).

These statements suggest to practitioners that herein lies the challenge of using CMC in

an educational setting – you need students who are passionate about your topic – or who are

passionate about CMC – or you need to find out what your students are passionate about.

These readings have suggested several directions of future research to me, either

explicitly or implicitly. One difference between FtF and CMC groups is in the nature of time

itself. CMC groups are more “time-independent” (Ruberg, 1996). However “stretching

interactions over this unreal time medium changes the course of interactions in ways not fully

understood. To compensate for unpredictable response times, participants may learn to carry on

two threads of conversation simultaneously” (Ruberg, 1996, p. 257). This area needs more study

and may suggest design or selection of CMC tools more appropriate to particular tasks. For

instance Darryl Burgdorf’s WebBBS script, which is an asynchronous CMC tool, allows a

person to get instant email notification if someone has replied to their post.

This leads into another potential area of research. Some studies I read used synchronous

tools while other studies used asynchronous tools. With synchronous tools, students complained

about the screen flashing by too fast and the jumbled threads being confusing (Ruberg, 1996).

Researchers and practitioners often divided students into smaller groups to increase CMC


efficiency in these environments. Also students reported coming up with their own strategies,

such as choosing to follow a particular thread and ignoring the others. (Beauvois, 1995).

Asynchronous tools on the other hand have more of a time lag. Rather than comparing CMC to

FtF, perhaps studies should compare the use of asynchronous and synchronous CMC. Another

study could compare various features within asynchronous CMC tools. For instance Darryl

Burgdorf’s webBBS script is very popular with users because it can emulate other tools they are

familiar with and clearly provides a visual representation of a thread so that it is easier to follow.

WebBBS provides digest emails of daily posts as well as sending instant email notification when

someone’s post is responded. It also offers users configurability for viewing posts over slow

bandwidths and for printing.

Here is another research question suggested by these articles: do CMC discussions

encourage quieter students to take a more active role in FtF discussions? In fact do skills attained

from CMC carry over to FtF?

Many of these studies were done with purchased proprietary and specialized LAN CMC

products that may no longer be in use with the advent of the web. Perhaps these studies should

be repeated in web CMC environments. For instance in one study, students complained about

having to learn a new software tool in order to do CMC coursework (Ruberg, 1996). Nowadays

there is an easy answer to that problem – just let students do CMC through their web browsers,

an environment many are probably already familiar with! In another study where student

software engineering teams had to write COBOL programs, the researcher cited the difficulties

of using CMC tools to develop and debug software (Wilson et al., 1998). Nowadays most

software development is done on the web and for the web with programming languages like

Visual Basic, Java, and PERL. Students can use the web to access shared project information. In


other words, the tools have changed and it is possibly easier and even desirable to do such

teamwork on-line.

Additionally, web CMC tools such as Darryl’s webBBS script yield more information to

researchers interested in mining the vast archives of various on-line groups. For instance Darryl’s

most recent script not only identifies which thread a message belongs to and where in that thread

it belongs, but also provides a more information than just the text, such as time and date of each

post and how many people have read it.

In conclusion, I suspect that just as there are various cultures and languages around the

world, cyber-citizens will encounter various CMC communities in cyber-space – playful,

argumentative, democratic, censured – and may find some of these quite alien on first encounter

while others may make them feel quite ‘at home.’ But as Baron suggests in her historical

analysis of the evolution of writing, CMC in one form or another is here to stay (1998). It will be

as pervasive as electricity, telephones, cars, and indoor plumbing. Another point worth

considering is what Beauvois (1995) has stated about positive student comments in regard to

CMC in her foreign language class study: “These students’ words may be telling us more about

what is wrong with the regular classroom than what is right with the electronic medium” (p.184).


Aycock, Alan (1995). “Technologies of the Self:” Foucault and Internet Discourse, Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 1. Available: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue2/aycock.html

(March 14, 2001).

Baron, N. (1998). Writing in the Age of Email: The Impact of Ideology versus Technology,

Visible Language, 32, 35-53.

Baym, N. K. (1995). The Performance of Humor in Computer-Mediated Communication,

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1. Available:

http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue2/baym.html (March 14, 2001).

Beauvois, M. H. (1995). E-Talk: Attitudes and Motivation in Computer-Assisted Classroom

Discussion, Computers and the Humanities, 28, 177-190.

Bechar, H. (1995). From <Bonehead> To <cLoNehEAd>: Nicknames, Play, and Identity on

Internet Relay Chat, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1. Available:

http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue2/bechar.html (March 14, 2001).

Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the

Experimental Literature, The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 99-120.

Everett, D. R & Ahern, T. C. (1994). Computer-Mediated Communication as a Teaching Tool: A

Case Study, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 336-357.

Hughes, B. & Walters, J. (1995). Children, MUDS, and Learning (Paper).

http://www.pc.maricopa.edu/community/pueblo/writings/AERA-paper-1995.html [1998, Sep

30]:AERA.

Kindred, J. (2000). Thinking About the Online Classroom: Evaluating the “Ideal” Versus the

“Real,” The American Communication Journal, 3. Available:

http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/rogue4/kindred.html (April 27, 2001).


Mabry, E. A. (1997). Framing Flames: The structure of argumentative messages on the net,


http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue4/mabry.html (March 14, 2001).

Marsh, D. (1997). Computer Conferencing: Taking the loneliness out of independent learning,

Language Learning Journal, 15, 21-25.

Marvin, L. (1995). Spoof, Spam, Lurk and Lag: the Aesthetics of Text-based Virtual Realities.


http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue2/marvin.html (March 14, 2001).

Morris, D. & Naughton, J. (1999). The Future’s Digital, Isn’t It? Some Experience and Forecasts

Based on the Open University’s Technology Foundation Course, Systems Research and

Behavioral Science, 16, 147-155.

Ocker, R. J. & Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous Computer-mediated Communication

versus Face-to-face Collaboration: Results on Student Learning, Quality and Satisfaction, Group

Decision and Negotiation, 8, 427-440.

Olaniran, B. A. (1994). Group Performance in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face

Communication Media, Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 256-281.

Rafaeli, S. & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked Interactivity, Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 2. Available: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html (March

14, 2001).

Rafaeli, S., Sudweeks, F., Konstan, J., & Mabry, E. (1994). Projecth Overview: A Quantitative

Study Of Computer-Mediated Communication (Tech. Rep.). Sydney, Australia: University of

Sydney, Key Centre of Design Computing. Available:

http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~fay/netplay/techreport.html (March 14, 2001).


Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Ruberg, L. F., Moore, D. M., & Taylor, C. D. (1996). Student Participation, Interaction, and

Regulation in a Computer-Mediated Communication Environment: A Qualitative Study, Journal

of Educational Computing Research, 14, 243-268.

Sturtevant, E. G., Padak, N. D., & Sturtevant, L. E. (1998). “der nansy I miss you”—A

Beginning Writer Connects and Communicates Through Electronic Mail, The Ohio Reading

Teacher, XXXII, 12-21.

Wilson, E.V. (2000). Student characteristics and computer-mediated communication, Computers

& Education, 34, 67-76.

Wilson, E.V., Morrison, J. P., & Napier, A. M. (1998). Perceived Effectiveness of Computer-

Mediated Communications and Face-to-Face Communications in Student Software Development

Teams, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38, 2-7.

Wolffe, R. J. & McMullen, D. W. (1996). The Constructivist Connection: Linking Theory, Best

Practice, and Technology, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 12. 25-28.

Onlinelearningand Cmc

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Onlinelearningand Cmc (20)

More from Jeanne Winstead (8)

Recently uploaded (20)

Onlinelearningand Cmc