The purpose of this paper is to supplement the round table discussion regarding the use of computer-mediated communication in the classroom. Computer-mediated communication is defined, current research is presented and pragmatic issues of computer-mediated communication in the classroom are addressed. Benefits and disadvantages of the new technology are discussed and participants are encouraged to share perspectives and insights regarding the implications for extending the boundaries of the classroom through computer-mediated communication.
The purpose of the Interconnect '94 conference is to "bring together
instructors and trainers from various backgrounds to discuss the challenges
facing teachers today. Educational reform, rapid technological change,
. . . and new concepts of classroom management all impact today's classroom.
Given my obvious bias as a communication scholar to investigate the impact
of these new technologies on instructional communication, I am overwhelmed
with the increased awareness and concern that has been demonstrated as
of late by educators across disciplines. Rodriquez and Robina (1992) have
justified the need for scholars within the discipline of communication
to study computer-mediated communication when they argue, "Communication
science studies the relationship between messages and people. More and
more of these messages are being transmitted by computer networks; and
more and more people are finding themselves caught up in the global network
of networks" (p. 1). The obvious question to educators outside of the communication
discipline is how computer-mediated communication can impact their classrooms.
This paper will provide answers to this question by defining computer-mediated
communication (CMC), presenting current research trends regarding CMC and
illustrating benefits as well as disadvantages of employing the CMC to
extend the boundaries of our classrooms.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been defined as "synchronous or asynchronous electronic mail and computer conferencing, by which senders encode in text messages that are relayed from senders' computers to receivers (Walther, 1992, p. 52). CMC has also been described as "any communication patterns mediated through the computer" (Metz, 1992, p. 3). Walther and Burgoon (1992) argue that, "for many of us, CMC is no longer a novelty but a communication channel through which much of our business and social interaction takes place, and this transformation is expected to continue" (p. 51). They note, "CMC produces much different affective and relational patterns than do other types of communication, due to the reduction and types of cues available to participants" (p. 51).
So What? What are the aspects of CMC that we as educators need to know in order to incorporate CMC into our classrooms? First of all, understand that CMC is essentially a medium of written discourse. In order to participate, one must have a minimum working knowledge of computer modems and communication software and know the step-by-step process of engaging in interpersonal computer-mediated communication (see Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989; Lane, 1993). An elementary understanding of the Internet is also recommended (see Krol, 1993; Marine, et al., 1993; Dryli, 1993; Dern, 1992; Field, 1993; Kehoe, 1992; Kantor, 1994; Ray, 1993; ). Initially, this is no small task. It is surprising, however, how receptive students are to the use of CMC in the classroom. While there are several goals (information gathering, entertainment, relationship maintenance, etc.) which educators may seek to accomplish when having their students engage in CMC, this paper will, for illustration purposes, presuppose the goal of communicating within this context is social interaction and the development of interpersonal relationships (computer friendships).
Learning the "language" or "culture" of on-line interaction is necessary for communication to occur in a computer-mediated context. Smeltzer (1992) provides an excellent analysis of the relationship of message structure and message intent in computer-mediated communication and notes, "although originally meant for the transfer of data between computers . . . [CMC] has evolved into several distinct formats to meet specific human-to-human communication needs" (p. 51)
Without the minimal knowledge about CMC, communication within the context
is impossible. Simply possessing the knowledge, however, does not provide
students with sufficient skills to be successful with the CMC culture.
They must not only know, but know how.
Much like the stranger (just entering a new culture with only a basic knowledge and understanding of the verbal language) needs to practice using the language and experience what "works" and what "doesn't work," students who wish to attain computer-mediated communicative competence must experience the behavior and learn by doing. The behavior might resemble the following scenario.
The power to the computer is on, communication software has been installed properly on the hard drive, the modem is fully functional and the user is ready to "connect" to the Internet. The goal is social interaction and the development of interpersonal relationships. Upon dialing the local Internet access number the user sees the prompt:
OU Modem Pool *TESTING* You May Be Disconnected Abruptly
In spite of her/his knowledge, the student may not know what to DO if
he/she are disconnected abruptly. Only through experience and repetitive
encounters can s/he "learn" the skills necessary to be able to adapt and
successfully communicate. A lack of knowledge and experience may cause
what Chesebro and Bonsall (1989) refer to as "resistance to computers--computerphobia"
(p. 218). Interestingly enough, even though a student may have acquired
the knowledge and the skills and perhaps even learned the appropriate behavior,
s/he is still missing the final dimension which explains successful computer-mediated
communication--the affective component. Why do people communicate with
the modem as the medium? What are the attitudes and feelings about the
knowledge and behaviors necessary in order to engage in "competent" computer-mediated
communication?
Walther (1993) argues that "the lack of nonverbal cues in CMC has caused several researchers to suggest that social cognitive processes may differ between CMC and face-to-face (FtF) interaction" (p. 381). Rice and Love (1987) explain "the one basic assumption about computer-mediated communications is that they transmit less of the natural richness and interaction of interpersonal communication than face-to-face interaction" (p. 87). They explain that to some researchers, "CMC, because of its lack of audio or video cues, will be perceived as impersonal and lacking in sociability and normative reinforcement, so there will be less socioemotional (SE) content exchanged. However, there is reason to believe that CMC allows users to participate more "equally." Rice and Love (1987) note, "the lack of nonverbal cues about physical appearance, authority, status, and turn-taking allows users to participate more equally and with more extreme affect on CMC systems than in many face-to-face interactions" (p. 89).
In a study conducted by Scharlott and Christ (1994) computer-mediated communication was found to "help users overcome relationship-initiation barriers rooted in sex role, shyness, and appearance inhibitions" (p. 1).They reported,
Computer-mediated communication can be beneficial in helping some individuals meet and form relationships, especially those who have had difficulty doing so because of sex role, shyness or appearance inhibitions. Others who might find the use of [CMC] advantageous include people who, because of physical handicaps, find it difficult to meet in face-to-face situations . . . who appreciate the anonymity and security CMC can provide. (p. 10)
Walther (1993) argues, "theories and evidence regarding CMC and impression development are contradictory and confusing. Experimental/laboratory conferencing research generally found depersonalizing effects of CMC, while field studies found more interpersonally positive results" (p. 385). The potential of CMC to serve as an avenue for relationship initiation provides one of the primary motivators for students to participate. When students communicate in a computer-mediated context, they "feel" more equal and they are less inhibited. It appears that the affective component (motivation) would assist those communicatively apprehensive students in accomplishing their goal of social interaction and the development of interpersonal relationships. Hence, successful computer-mediated communication is achieved by students only through the interdependency of the cognitive (having the knowledge of the language and culture of CMC), the behavioral (being able to use that knowledge to engage in CMC), and the affective information (being motivated to want to achieve communicative goals) which students internalize in regards to the communication.
With a basic understanding of the theories involving computer-mediated communication, it is necessary to turn our attention to the pragmatic issues concerning the use of computer-mediated communication in the classroom.
I recently participated in a computer-mediated communication seminar course at the University of Oklahoma. The course was predominantly conducted "on-line." At the end of the course I was asked to synthesize several of the ideas expressed by students in the course regarding computer-mediated communication. My synthesis included three major sections: (1) Operational Definitions of CMC, (2) a synopsis of the advantages and disadvantages of CMC (both synchronous and synchronous), and (3) personal opinions regarding CMC in the classroom.
Following is a transcript of the electronic communiqué I distributed
to students using CMC:
Greetings Gang!
After engaging in CMC with you over the past several days I have been requested to sit down and plunk out a synthesis of arguments that have been made thus far concerning
Computer-Mediated Communication. This synthesis also includes my personal
opinions (which you may or may not be interested in reading). *grin*
The following definitions for CMC have been proposed by members of the class:
I began by offering Joe Walther's operational definition of CMC:
Synchronous or asynchronous electronic mail and computer conferencing by which senders encode text messages that are relayed from senders computers to receivers (1992, p. 52).
Terry suggested an organizational perspective when he offered the following definition:
The exchange of messages through computers within (and across boundaries of) a system of interrelated networks and/or individuals working to accomplish common tasks and goals.
Charles Jeffries suggested that CMC be defined as,
All communication facilitated by the use of the computer, including communication with individuals or groups of individuals, or communication with systems such as databases that do not require individual monitoring.
Charles suggests that CMC also include the use of word processors to create memos.
Finally, Hamid Baharestani defined CMC as,
A form of telecommunication which transmits information across geographically
different locations.
An overwhelming number of advantages have been posted regarding the advantages
of engaging in CMC. The following list of advantages and disadvantages
have been compiled from specific posts from Terry Cunconan, Jim Albertson,
Cathy Pierson, Kris Montis, Mark Turner, Hamid Baharestani, Jeneice Couch,
Allison Hystad, Hsiu-yan Wu, Phillip Moss, Margaret Cox, Julie Ligon, Leslie
Henderson, and Margaret Frazier. While we may not agree on every point,
the primary advantages of computer-mediated communication would appear
to include: enhances flow of information (collaboration through
communication over distance); allows for intellectual exploration;
provides the capability to store, process and transmit messages;
breaks down barriers to communication (status differences/geographical
boundaries); eliminates stereotypical classifications as
well as preconceived barriers related to individual/personal bias; provides
a certain amount of anonymity; enhances existing interaction
patterns; creates new interaction patterns; provides
for a constant flow of ideas; allows timely sharing
of ideas; supports open discussion and exploration;
provides accessibility to information and subsequent sharing
of the same; enhances the sharing of multiple ideas and viewpoints
simultaneously with a large group of people; provides a forum for
experimenting; allows for the neutral mediation of communication
(messages); establishes a safe environment with less
risk to communicators (people feel less inhibited about communicating their
ideas/opinions/feelings about certain issues); fosters more participation
and contribution from people who would otherwise feel intimidated
(introverts); convenient; flexible; emotions are communicated
more descriptively (emotions must be articulated in print); fosters
independent learning (learn/communicate at your own pace); allows
participants to communicate with experts (learn from the best);
allows participants to learn from others without feeling like an
idiot ; facilitates thoughtful scholarly discourse;
allows for fun, exciting and challenging communication (curiosity
is aroused by interaction).
Many of the disadvantages of CMC appear to relate to the participants rather than to the medium itself. For example: inhibitions related to computer/technology use; long learning curve to understand network and glean resources (navigation problems); frustration and stress due to sensory and data overload (one of our classmates referred to it as terrorizing); ineffective--time consuming (lack of self-discipline to manage time/messages); problems with perceived leadership roles and perceived climate; asynchronous CMC lacks spontaneous responses to comments; attitudes that CMC is just a glorified high-tech method of old-fashioned correspondence school ; problems with access to the technology; hampers individuals ability to work; having to sift through all of the gobbledygook ; lack of agreement on what it is and how it is to be studied/employed.
However, there are several disadvantages of communicating messages which
are mediated by the computer that are the result of the medium itself.
Among them: the lack of socio-emotional and nonverbal cues (often
referred to as cues filtered out ); confidentiality issues;
trust issues (how true and valid are the messages); creation
of barriers due to the technology (the culture, rules, netiquette
--example emoticons ;) );anonymity can cause abuse/misuse of the
technology (sexual harassment/flaming/etc.); the lack of
true human contact (see Kevin Dupre - June 27, 1994).
Realizing that my personal bias to study CMC from an interactive, synchronous, developmental and longitudinal perspective colors the way I choose to define and describe computer-mediated communication. I believe that CMC is first and foremost a specific type of communication. The emphasis should not be on the computer but rather on the communication. How is communication (source-receiver-channel-message) which is mediated by the computer
unique/different from other forms of human communication? I agree with Hamid's definition but I believe that CMC is more than the transmission of information--it is, like all communication, about the sharing of meaning. I believe that Charles definition is much too specific and literal-- albeit interesting. However, when he includes do not require individual monitoring I believe he is taking out the human element (I could be perceiving the definition incorrectly though). I understand Terry s definition but have difficulty understanding how the participants on the network, engaging in computer-mediated communication can have common tasks/goals--unless the goals and tasks are all directed towards the sharing of meaning. Terry's perspective
is wonderful if the interest is to study how members of organizations communicate with each other as well as externally, but fails to address issues of individual or interpersonal use. (At least from my perspective. The definition that CMC is any communication patterns mediated through the computer is much too broad and allows (IMHO) for too many interpretations. Realize that the definition I favor is not mine *grin* -- Joe Walther has been actively researching CMC for the past six years (from a communication perspective).
I guess the distinction that I make about CMC is that it is MORE than Networking--which can be simply defined as the ability of computers to share data...it is COMMUNICATION between real people that allows US to share meaning. Computers and technology are great! ---But computers and technology are simply tools--tools which can be mis-handled---(I guess I m back to Jim Albertson's analogy about the Hammer---it really does apply--when all we have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). *steps off of soapbox and grins apologetically to members of the class*
I believe that the greatest strength of CMC is the ability of the medium (computer) to store, process and transmit messages to and from human beings. It allows for relatively inexpensive access to friends/students/family around the globe. Its biggest weakness is not so much the medium--the computer will NEVER replace human interaction (I applaud Kevin's comments regarding the need for human touch and interaction and Cathy's comment that In the end...it is the human interaction to technological change that will make the difference) but in the way CMC is perceived and misunderstood (a dating service--or worse, a place for stalkers and child molesters)--It is nothing more or less than the telegraph or telephone or the postal service---each of these mediums have their advantages and disadvantages (some people would rather write letters than use the telephone--not me of course *grin*). CMC is much slower than FtoF communication in terms of logistics (typing) but much faster in allowing messages to reach hundreds of people simultaneously.
I read an interesting statistic in this month's issue of PC Computing : The last estimate is that over 150,000 people are connecting to the Internet every month .....WOW!! It won' t be long before we are conversing with someone from rural Oklahoma.....remember how the telephone started---as a passing fad *grin*
Sorry about the length of this post......but I wanted to share my opinions. If you ve read this far...thanks. Now I d like to hear from you. What do you think?
o / o ,
Derek R. Lane
("#v ---v#" University
of Oklahoma
/'> <`\
Department of Communication
Norman, Oklahoma
DRLANE@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
After investigating a sampling of the current research, several potential
benefits and disadvantages of engaging in computer-mediated communication,
and some of my personal opinions regarding the implications for CMC, I
would strongly encourage any participants to share their perspectives and
insights regarding the implications for extending the boundaries of the
classroom through computer-mediated communication.
Applegate, J. L. & Leichty, G. B. (1984). Managing interpersonal relationships: Social cognitive and strategic determinants of competence. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach. (pp. 33-56). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chesebro, J. W. & Bonsall, D. G. (1989). Computer- mediated communication: Human relationships in a computerized world. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
Cody, M. J. & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). The situation as a construct in interpersonal communication research. In M. L. McLaughlin & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp,. 263-312). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Cooley, R. E. & Roach, D. A. (1984). A conceptual framework. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 11-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Craig, R. T. (1986). Goals in discourse. In D. G. Ellis & W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse (pp. 257-273).
Dern, D. P. (1992, April). Applying the internet. Byte, 111-118.
Duran, R. L. (1991). Intelligence, cognition, and communication competence. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Dyrli, O. E. (1993, October). The internet: Bringing global resources to the classroom. Technology and Learning, 50-58.
Field, C. E. (1993, July). Internet: Connecting to a universe of information. InCider/A+, 36-40.
Halone, K. K. (1993). The "definition of the situation" and its influence on human communication: A cognitive perspective. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Conference, Miami, FL.
Hesse, B., Werner, C., & Altman, I. (1988). Temporal aspects of computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 147-165.
Hugenberg, L. W. ( 1994, May). SCA issues call for seminar series in new orleans. Spectra, Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.) Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Baltimore: Penguin.
Kantor, A. (1994, March). Making on-line services work for you. PC Magazine, 111-158.
Kehoe, B. (1992). Zen and the Art of the Internet. Des Plaines, IL: Prentice-Hall.
Kellermann, K. (1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic. Communication Monographs, 59, 288-300.
Krol, Ed. (1992). The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog. Cambridge, MA: O'Reilly & Associates.
Lane, D. R. (1993). Accessing cultures via computer networks: Seizing the reins of destiny. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Department of Speech Communication and Theatre Arts, Kearney.
Marine, A., Kirkpatrick, S., Neou, V., & Ward, C. (1993). Internet: Getting Started. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall.
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A research and pedagogical perspective. Communication Education, 31, 1-7.
Metz, J. M. (1992, November). Computer mediated- communication: Perceptions of a new context. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association annual conference, Chicago, IL.
Network Information Systems Center. (1993). Internet Domain Survey. Menlo Park, CA.
Parks, M. R. (1985). Interpersonal communication and the quest for personal competence. In
M. L. Knapp, & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 171-201). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pavill, C. (1989). Accounting for the process of communicative competence evaluation: A comparison of predictive models. Communication Research, 16, 405-433.
Pavitt, C., & Haight, L. (1986). Implicit theories of communicative competence: Situation and competence level differences in judgements of prototype and target. Communication Monographs, 53, 221-235.
Ray, G. (1993, March). "Internet wires users to the world." Computerworld, 22, 59.
Reid, E. M. (1991). Electropolis: Communication and community on internet relay chat. Unpublished thesis, University of Melbourne.
Rice, R. E. & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer- mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108.
Roberts, M. (1992, May). "A Political Perspective on the Internet and NREN." Computers in Libraries, 12, 58-61.
Rodriquez, G. & Robina S. (1992). Communications, computers and networks. Communication Research Trends, 13, 1-32.
Roloff, M. E. & Kellermann, K. (1984). Judgements of interpersonal competency: How you know, what you know and who you know. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 152-174). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rose, M. T. (1992). The Internet Message. Des Plaines, IL: Prentice-Hall.
Rubin, R. B. (1983). Conclusions. In R. B. Rubin (Ed.), Improving speaking and listening skills (pp. 95-99). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Rubin, R. B. (1985). The validity of the communication competency assessment instrument. Communication Monographs, 52, 173-185.
Scharlott, B. W. & Christ, W. G. (1994). Overcoming relationship-initiation barriers: The impact of a computer-dating system on sex role, shyness, and appearance inhibition. Unpublished manuscript, Northern Kentucky University.
Smeltzer, D. K. (1992, June). Computer-mediated communication: An analysis of the relationship of message structure and message intent. Educational Technology, 51-54.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication Competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C. H. Tardy (Ed.), Handbook for the study of human communication (pp. 67-105). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1991). Assessment options for interpersonal competence. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression-development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.
Wiemann, J. M. & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communication competence. Review of Education Research, 50, 185-199.
Wiemann, J. M. & Bradac, J. (1989). Metatheoretical issues in the study of communicative competence: Structural and functional approaches. In B. Dervin & J. Voigt (Eds), Progress in communication sciences Vol. IX (pp. 261-284). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Zimmerman, D. P. (1987). A psychosocial comparison
of computer-mediated and face-to-face language use among severely disturbed
adolescents. Adolescence, 22, 827-840.
