Andrew Tolmie & James Boyle (2000)
Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching : a review and case study.
Computers and Education 34, 119-140
IRE, anonymity, CMC facilitative factors, roles, modelling, knowledge construction, transactive, activity theory
Face to face
IRE ( Initiation-response-evaluation) sequence
CMC
P120
Berkenhotter (1997) – quote, no page number given. “Forum serves as an open space for a plethora of conversational topics introduced by students ….. (and) brought forth many voices and many student issues, feelings and agendas that would never have surfaced in classroom talk’
Transactive discussion and knowledge construction
Socio-cognitive conflict theories of Piaget (1932) and Doise & Mugny(1984), Henri,1995). P120 ‘ Central to these is the argument that when peers engaged in an activity disagree over some decision, their equal status means no one viewpoint is accorded intrinsically greater merit (KRO the equality claim might be challenged) . As a result, each participant has to make explicit the basis for their ideas so that their respective qualities can be assessed. This dialogue, of the kind Berkowitz & Gibbs (1983) call ‘transactive ‘ discussion ( i.e. articulation, critique and defence of ideas), exposes inadequate understanding and creates pressure for conceptual growth. According to Piaget and Doise this growth occurs via recombination of the best elements of existing ideas’ Critically asynchronous CMC ‘ can support both reflection before responding (McNeill, 1992; Steeples etal, 1994; Nalley, 1995; Light et al, 1997, Wilson & Whitelock, 1998a) and on task recombination of ideas by providing the text of messages in renewable and manipulable form ( McConnell, 1988, Harasim, 1989, Henri,1995).
P121
However ‘ despite the apparent potential, the practice often falls short’ . McAteer et al, 1007 ‘ skewed participation rates seem to be the norm across educational and corporate contexts’ (Rapaport, 1991) ‘ even when participation is reasonable there is little evidence of transactive discussion’
Identification of the factors associated with successful CMC as identified from a review of the literature.
P121 onwards
| Factor | Notes |
| Group size | |
| Prior knowledge of other participants | |
| Students’ previous experience | |
| Task clarity | Can sometimes be enabled by the moderator |
| Need for the system – student perception of | e.g. such as in distance education |
| Type of system | Note although systems have become more generic since the 90s |
| Prior experience of CMC | |
| Ownership of the task | Some authors claim that some agreed division of labour is important Issroff & Eisenstadt (1997) signs that students are more active online as they negotiate rules for themselves |
What processes underlie these factors?
Possible explanations
1. Knowledge of others (KRO ? a way of addressing anonymity) – modelling others (KRO ?TOM)
P124 Steeples et al(1994) ‘argue that f-f meetings help because they reduce the anonymity of subsequent exchanges’ quoting from Akerman(1997) ‘people who prefer to know who else is present in shared space, and they use this awareness to guide their work’
Akerman M (1997) Communication and collaboration from a CSCW perspective. Contributions to XMCA Discussion List xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
‘One way they can do this is by modelling others concerns, in order to anticipate their needs, how these will inform what they say, and how they will react to messages aimed at them. Such models are argued to be the basis of fully effective communication ( Krauss & Fussell, 1990: Morgan & Schwalbe,1990; Happe, 1993), and one means of building them up is via personal knowledge of those being communicated with.
This explanation can be extended to the influence of other factors. With regard to the group size, for instance, if participants lack a model of each other at the outset it will require less effort to build one up in a small group, even without f-f- meeting. Similarly communicative experience will provide users with a model of the general needs and behaviours of those engaged in particular tasks. This explains why the impact of this factor depends, as noted above, on common past experience, otherwise different models will be drawn on, and participants’ expectations of each other will fail to correspond. Understanding of the immediate task would provide a localised model of the needs of others in the absence of communicative experience. The influence of task negotiation would follow from, but go beyond this, in that it would allow this model to be actively constructed rather than tacitly agreed.’
( KRO - to summarise , success depends on the individual communicative model used and the way in which it contributes to the mutual anticipation of communicative needs.
for each individual member
· small groups means fewer individual models to construct
· past experience provides a general model for communicating in such circumstances but individual past experience needs to have commonalities for this to work effectively
· clarity about task provides a specific model for this communicative experience)
Tolmie et al see this a way in which the ambiguity of communication that lacks NVC might be addressed. i.e. p124 ‘ if communicators hold good models of each other, this might ameliorate cluelessness, since intentions could be worked out, and supporting information about the significance of communications would be less critical’
Evaluation of ‘knowledge(model) of others as an explanation
Doesn’t account for other factors, e.g. need for CMC, task clarity
An account based on activity theory (Leont’ev, 1978, 1981: see also Cole, 1996 and Lewis 1997, for a summary in relation to CMC usage)
Clarity about the task gives the participants a shared purpose which may then p125 ‘ determine whether and how CMC is used’ so that knowledge of each other facilitates a better shared understanding of the task.
Activity theory
‘Situates behaviour within social contexts, via three levels of description: activity system, action and operation.’
‘The activity system is the basic unit of analysis of group and individual behaviour, and comprises a subject ( the group or individual) using tools (including writing, speech) to pursue and object(a global intention or purpose). Tools and objects are not invented from scratch when an activity system comes into being. Cultures store up defined objects and presecribed methods of using particular tools to achieve these, and members of a culture are inducted into knowledge of these objects and methods. When individuals interact, they use shared knowledge provided by their culture to reconstruct the activity system pertinent to their intended object. ‘ ‘Part of this understanding focuses on actions directed at specific goals, which subjects take to move towards the overall object. Actions are usually conscious, but comprise relatively iunconscious operations, through which they are carried out’. ‘ It is the perceived activity which organises actions, and gives them meaning’
However, activity systems evolve. P125 ‘ Cultural transmission is not perfect, and systems are reconstructed by individuals who differ at least slightly in their understanding of that system’s object, and the actions required to achieve it. ‘ Engestrom(1987) activity system may contain various viewpoints, which serve both as resource and a source of conflict. Conflict is overcome by reconciling these viewpoints into new ( and potentially more adaptive) formulations …….. but this can only occur…… within a certain range of convenience and within a shared framework. If differences are too great, the activity is unlikely to get off the ground; if they are small, agreement is tacitly assumed ’ KRO – need some tension for creating something new but not too much.
‘This view puts shared perception of the task at the core of any mechanism for constructing the communications of others and anticipating their needs.’
KRO – not just a shared task but a shared perception of the task.
This account can explain the influence of many/all the identified factors including actual CMC usage.
How to study these ideas?
P127 ‘ need an integrated range of measures, covering both CMC use and other actions and interactions, including negotiations about the activity and what it is intended to achieve’ ‘only way that the hypothesised use of shared purpose can be examined’
Therefore unrelated snapshots no appropriate. Experimental manipulation will be unpredictable if the shared purpose is determined by what makes sense to students themsleves’ Moreover’ establishing a meaningful activity requires it to take place in the real world’
The alternative ‘ naturalistic experiments, in which spontaneous variations in shared purpose are capitalised on to compare outcomes’ Raises the question of how to avoid confirmatory bias.
Case study example: M.Sc. Educational Psychology students
2 groups of 6
FC v3.5 doesn’t mention how functionality provided.
Task Conduct a literature review and write a seminar paper on a set theme, making use of the conference as appropriate.
5 weeks with 2 groups working consecutively. First group presenting their paper at a f-to-f session on week after the second group had been set their task.
Also encouraged to prepare a poster for a professional meeting.
Note
P128 ‘ this group was identified as having all the characteristics of group size, familiarity with each other, communicative experience, and task-related expertise that would predict successful implementation. In addition, care was taken to ensure that at least one clear task was set, that ownership of this task and perception of need for the system were fostered’
Face to face meeting so that CD could describe potential benefits.
Analysis
1. Online interactions
P130
‘online interaction was examined in terms of:
(a) the frequency and timing of the messages
message frequency never high; activity tended to be coinincident with the message task
(b) the relative contribution of individuals
only 5/12 could be classified as regular users. 4/6 (G1) active pre seminar, 2?3(G2) preseminar. A pattern that contrasts with the participation observed in the f-f seminar.
(c) message function and length.
Categorised as follows (i) connection and hardware/software issues (ii) seminar related (iii) tutor contact and advice (iv) peer contact and advice (v) social exchange (vi) project work (vii) conference preparation Viii) course administration (ix) professional issues
Analysis confirmed the impact of the seminar task. P132 ‘ Moreover, whilst G2 made fewer online contributions, the characteristics of their seminar-related messages were similar to G1. In other words, email served the same type of function for both groups, if not to the same extent.’
P132 - notes that system/technical difficulties contributed to amount of email traffic.
2. Student logs
G1: 4/6 returned.
P132 ‘devoted the largest proportion of work to independent activity such as accessing information and preparing draft sections of the seminar paper. F-to-f communication took place at points of negotiation, most typically at the outset, whilst email was used more for exchanging of drafts, and updating on progress’
G2: 2/6 returned
Total time spent on seminar task was similar to G1, but proportionatly much less time spent on email ….. and more on f-f and fax communication’
Previous email experience was similar in the two group and the time spent on the seminar task was approximately the same therefore the different use of CMC may be a reflection of G2 experiencing more technical problems.
Notable results
Owner ship ‘when the group themselves wanted to achieve something using CMC, they made it happen’
It is groups that decide on actions KRO? – live chat in CMC
P135 ‘G1 ‘exhibited a transformation of an existing activity system but G2 failed to achieve this because it depended on the reliability of the system, as well as the affordances.
Conclusion
Methodologically p136 ‘ it is important (KRO-for researchers) to be open to any activity which is consistent with task progress and this may not be predictable’ need to use a variety of methods p136 ‘ and these must include detail about context including offline activity’
Does this approach address the questions about confirmatory bias?
1. sufficient information was collected to be able to check ‘ sense making’ of this approach
2. CMC as a resource for the task did not work perfectly and it worked differently for each group. Therefore the case study permitted the exploration of whether the outcome for each group was explicable within the same framework.
