Learning in Computer Conferenced Contexts: The Learners' Perspective |
VOL. 9, No. 1, 19-43
Reported here is a study about how adult students learn in an environment that enables group communication only by text-based messaging, that is, computer conferencing (CC). Four questions guided the study: How do students say they learned? What, in their opinion, are the salient features of CC? What, if any, are the effects of those features on their learning? And Do the students' descriptions of how they learned relate to learning strategies as found in cognitive psychology literature? The results were developed from qualitative data collected from in-depth interviews with 21 M.Ed. students and the instructors for the two courses involved. The key categories of learning strategies identified were choice, expression, peer interaction, and organization of information. The salient features were interconnected to the perceived strengths and weaknesses of CC, and all appear to indicate that CC poses as many challenges as it does opportunities for its use in higher education. The results of the study suggest that the taxonomy from cognitive psychology that was used for this study should be expanded to include strategies that focus on the management of the inter-personal and logistical elements of the CC context. Suggestions for improved practice are offered.
Lorsque la communication de groupe dépend uniquement de messageries textuelles, à savoir les ordinoconférences, comment les étudiants adultes apprennent-ils? Le présent article fait état des résultats d'une enquête orientée par quatre questions: 1) Comment les étudiants affirment-ils avoir appris? 2) Que perçoivent-ils comme étant les traits saillants des ordinoconféren-ces? 3) Ces traits ont-ils une incidence sur leur apprentissage? et 4) Les modes d'apprentissage identifiés sont-ils conformes aux stratégies décrites par la psychologie cognitive? Au cours d'entrevues en profondeur, on a recueilli des données qualitatives auprès de 21 étudiants à la maîtrise en éducation et auprès des enseignants des deux cours en cause. Les princi-pales stratégies identifiées ont été le choix, l'expression, l'interaction avec les pairs et l'organisation des informations. Les traits saillants étaient reliés aux forces et aux faiblesses perçues de tels environnements, et tout porte à croire qu'au niveau des études supérieures, les ordinoconférences sont porteuses d'autant de défis que de promesses. Les résultats semblent in-diquer que la taxonomie utilisée, tirée de la psychologie cognitive, devrait inclure aussi des stratégies orientées par la gestion des éléments interper-sonnels et logistiques propres aux ordinoconférences. L'article présente aussi des suggestions d'ordre pratique.
Every culture must negotiate with technology, whether it does so intelligently or not. A bargain is struck in which technology giveth and technology taketh away. The wise know this well, and are rarely impressed by dramatic technological changes.... (Postman, 1992, p. 5)
Postman’s reflections are very apt for the current stage of distance education. As we think critically about our practice (Evans & Nation, 1993), examine our language (Haughey, 1991), experiment with the new technologies (Bates, 1990; Burge & Roberts 1993; Mason, 1993, 1994), study our learners (Coats, 1994; Gibson, 1990; Morgan, 1992; Olgren, 1991), and reflect upon management issues (Paul, 1990), we ought also to research what happens “on the ground.” That is to say, we need to study the conditions, events, and consequences as experienced by learners and ourselves as practitioners. When such enquiry uses the naturalistic paradigm, with its qualitative methods to generate rich descriptions of various phenomena (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), we may increase our understanding of people’s experience with one important area of distance education, that is, the use of communications technologies. We have considerable expertise in using the information delivery technologies of paper text and illustration, video-and audiotape, but there are now several dialogue technologies (for analyzing and synthesizing information) that need qualitative and critical studies using learners’ perspectives.
The dialogue technologies are defined here as those configurations of software, hardware, and interpersonal dynamics and activities that enable non-contiguous communication. These activities happen either in delayed time, as in computer conferencing (CC), or in real time with varying degrees of reduced visual acuity, as in audioconferencing (AC), compressed video. This problem is particularly acute for CC because it has become so popular with many educators and learners. The study reported here addresses this task of understanding the learners’ experience. It describes learners’ per-ceptions and strategies of learning in a CC context and how the perceived features of CC acted as strengths and weaknesses for their learning.
Two terms need defining-computer conferencing and learning strategies.
Computer conferencing is a form of delayed-time text-based messaging using special software. Mason (1990) sets it into the broader context:
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is the set of possibilities which exist when computers and telecommunications networks are used as tools in the communications process: to compose, store, deliver and process communication. Such systems rely on a basic configuration of a main-frame computer with appropriate software, connected via telephone and data networks to users with terminals or micro-computers.
CMC covers a range of different facilities:
The applications of CC in higher education are now extensive. They ... provide students with opportunities for convenient course-related or social interaction with peers ... enable collaborative group work by distance students ... facilitate interaction with an instructor ... decrease turnaround time for instructor feedback ... allow students access to on-line resources, for example, databases, library catalogues, and course registration ... and enable students to upload and download assignments and take on-line quizzes and tests.... (Wells, 1992, p. 2)
Learning strategies are the executive actions taken by students to collect, encode, and retrieve information so that it becomes personally meaningful knowledge. Formal definitions of learning strategies abound (Schmeck, 1988; Weinstein, Goetz, & Alexander, 1988; Wittrock, 1992).
The authors of the taxonomy of strategies used for this study define learning strategies as:
The information processing methods that people use to control their learning which can involve processes of attending/perceiving, encoding and retrieval... the way one uses one’ s head when learning. (Tessmer & Jonassen, 1988, p. 34).
Tessmer and Jonassen use two major categories of strategy-primary and support-that promote four functions in learning-internally processing information, interacting with learning resources (human and material), maintaining a productive mental state, and monitoring general progress. The primary category of strategies are for cognitive processing functions: the strategies focus on activities to recall, integrate, organize, and elaborate information, and the (often-listed) active study skills and reading for making notes from and reading printed materials. The secondary strategies are for metacognitive functions: managing one’s state of mind and assessing the methods used for learning.
Three factors prompted the study. The first factor is the current scarcity of qualitative studies on CC. Without such studies we cannot develop new and relevant concepts and hypotheses for consequent exploration. CC has, understandably, attracted much print with claims of varying validity being made for its use (Harasim, 1990a; Kaye, 1992). CC does address geo-graphical and psychological isolation and can develop the range of inter-action among students and between a student and her/his tutor or adviser or librarian. CC can be “an optional extra” to a distance mode course reliant upon paper mail between learner and tutor. CC brings a time flexibility for communicating that audioconferencing cannot. In CC, the students and tutor can communicate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and messages can be stored in a permanent data file for later reference. It has been conjectured (Mason & Kaye, 1990, pp. 25-26) that students may have an additional benefit if CC is used by educators as “ a tool in maturing [their] learning styles and developing independent learning strategies.” Distance educators are exploring the strengths and weaknesses of CC, especially its time convenience, freedom from scheduled travel, faster feedback, on-going dialogue, and group orientation (Kaye, 1992; Lauzon, 1992; Mason, 1993; Mason & Kaye, 1989). Kaye (1990) provides a useful summary:
The second factor that prompted the study stemmed from my reactions to the claims made by early adopters of CC in higher education. The claims ranged from cautious optimism to hyperbole. How should one interpret such a range? In arguing that CC represents the “first progress in the evolution of media” since the development of the printing press, Levinson (1990) expects a >... Renaissanc of letters.... If, as David Riesman said, print was the “gunpowder of the human mind”... we may be in for an unleashing of mental energies on an atomic-fusion level as a result of electronic creation and dissemination of text. (pp. 9-10)
In an early book about CC in education, Harasim (1990a, p. 43) pointed to five characteristics of CC that for her justify its elevation into a new domain of learning. Those characteristics are many-to-many communication, place independence, time independence, text-based, and computer-mediated interaction.
The introduction of CC into higher education, judging by some of the early claims, seemed to be construed as a shift of ecological proportions. That kind of change is significant, especially in terms of how one critic of technology defined ecology:
Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean “ecological” in the same sense as the word is used by environ-mental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none. This is how the ecology of media works as well. (Postman, 1992, p. 18)
Would the introduction of CC into higher education drastically reconstitute the conditions of learning? Or would it be less ecological in effect and more an extension of functions we already carry out? How might its impact be defined-amplificative (i.e., increase speed, efficiency, or volume) or transformative (i.e., qualitatively change the way we conduct business or complete tasks) (Kiesler, 1992). Postman’s (1992) assessment of computer technology in general is rather bleak:
...it has not yet come close to the printing press in its power to generate radical and substantive social, political and religious thought. If the press was as David Riesman called it, “the gunpowder of the mind,” the computer, in its capacity to smooth over unsatisfactory institutions and ideas, is the talcum powder of the mind. (p. 116)
How might applications of CC in distance education act in terms of “mental energies”?: as talc, gunpowder, or atomic fusion?.
Cautious and balanced reflections are now more evident in the literature. One example is the Higgins’s (1992) study of synchronicity within a comparison of asynchronous and synchronous messages as they affected cognitive activity, subjective reactions, learning outcomes, and cooperative activity. Higgins’s findings should draw greater attention to synchronous (real-time) behaviour in CC, as distinct from asynchronous (delayed time) behaviour. Another example are the reports from McConnell (1990), who indicated that in addition to the expected enthusiasms about CC, some students felt that they had wasted time and experienced undue formality in communicating with peers. Selfe and Meyer (1991) listed the academic advantages of CC as chiefly inclusionary-it may enable access or minimize the impact of cues about status, age, gender, and so forth that inhibit communication or encourage broader and deeper discussion. A fourth example is Harasim’s (1990b) discussion on active learning and knowledge- construction in CC. She explained that while CC may promote a rich generation of ideas, it is not yet able to promote the important converging processes of linking and structuring ideas because it lacks the software to organize messages into orderly sequences and conceptual hierarchies (pp. 57-58). Recent writing on facilitation techniques for CC indicate an optimism tempered with the realism of actual experience (Davie, 1988; Eastmond, 1992; Eastmond & Ziegahn, in press; Hiltz, 1988). Higgins (1992), Hiltz (1986), Marantz & England (1992) and Winklemans (1988) have referred to the need to investigate cognitive tasks and the interpersonal interactions that occur during learning. However, none of these writers refers overtly to learning strategies as they are understood in taxonomies from cognitive psychology or adult learning.
The third factor prompting the study centred on apparent limitations in the use of existing knowledge. Not one but several literature bases are relevant to the study of CC in distance education; they include distance learning, CC applications in distance education, adult learning, cognitive psychology, gender studies, social psychology, and adult development. The CC literature revealed, at the time of the study, no published research that linked learning strategies from cognitive psychology to the experience of learning in CC modes. Only after this study was completed did a similar one emerge (Eastmond, 1993). What literature did exist presented descriptions of institutional applications, reports of research into instructor and moderator activity and message analysis, and discussions of its potential- all with thoughtful insights, but also mostly from the educator’s viewpoint (Wells, 1992) and not focusing upon the complex cognitive issues, as Higgins (1992) argued:
Many studies [in CC] cover issues of social psychology and deal with socio-emotional factors,[(there is] nothing that addresses the cognitive foundations needed to help establish a theoretical and practical model for computer supported cooperative learning. (p. 15)
The CC literature shows signs of what I call centripetal citation, that is, referring somewhat inwardly to peers’ ideas and case studies. More helpful would be centrifugal citation, that is, reaching out to cite from a wider range of related disciplines or related case studies that are examples of the application of other technologies such as audio- or videoconferencing. The cognitive psychology literature on learning strategies presented some epistemological problems for the study. The research has been carried out under relatively controlled experimental conditions; the subjects are usually young and full -time college students or children; it has emphasized the teacher’s manipulations of learning environments and processes; it appears to see the student in isolation from peer influence or benefit; and has “virtually ignored ...individual differences and qualitative change among the students themselves” (Richardson, 1987, p. 4).
The work to date on student learning in distance learning shows small use of qualitative studies (Morgan, 1990), despite the research done by Morgan and colleagues at The Open University (UK) (Morgan, 1992) on perceptions of learning and orientations to study. Cookson’s summary (1989) is still apt:
Few studies actually deal with the dynamics of students’ acquisition of new knowledge, skills or sensitivity. (p. 23) ...Y et to be examined in detail is the nature of the adult learning process. (p. 31)
A full description of the procedures is available elsewhere (Burge, 1993), but several aspects should be explained here. Since CC is so new, and we lack adequate conceptual frameworks, a qualitative approach was used in this study.
We undertake qualitative inquiry not so much from our recognition that we do not know all the answers to our problems but rather from an appreciation of the fact that we do not know all the questions. (Edson, 1988, p. 45)
A qualitative approach has to be context-specific, occur in a way that reduces the intrusiveness of the researcher, focus on the wholeness of a phenomenon and the experience as lived by the persons involved (i.e., not on looking for an absolute truth), develop rich descriptions, not prescrip-tions, and work toward an interpretation of that description (Eisner, 1991; Ely et al., 1991; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Criteria for a sound qualitative study have been discussed in some detail (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Eisner, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). The criteria generally centre on four canons. of sound research-truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality. Researchers use various criteria to apply each canon according to her/his own research values. Lincoln and Guba, for example, use the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability respectively to explicate each canon. Their specific criteria for trustworthiness include participant-checked, rich, thick, and accurate descriptions of the phenom-enon and its context (to meet the credibility criteria), triangulation of data by the use of multiple sources of data or different methods of analysis or the demonstration of theoretical frameworks used to guide data gathering and analysis (for transferability), explanations of the conditions of the phenomenon and how they change, explanations of the evolving research design (for dependability), evidence that the researcher gained acceptance by the participants, controlled for personal and conceptual bias in data collection and analysis, and generally provided an audit trail of procedures (for confirmability). Eisner (1991) uses three criteria for soundness: coher-ence, consensus, and instrumental utility (pp. 53-60). Part of coherence is structural corroboration, or triangulation, through the use of multiple data sources. Another form of corroboration is multiplicative (Eisner, 1991, p. 56) whereby the research results find agreement or consensus with other research results. The utility of a study lies in its comprehensiveness, in how “things fall into place” from the complexities of the research setting. Usefulness lies also in the provision of descriptive, representative “maps” of the territory and guides to what may be expected in future travels into that or similar territory. In this study various conditions were designed or became evident to ensure soundness of results; they included the initial use of an established theoretical framework to establish early questions (and later analysis), the later use of additional theories to assist in under-standing the findings, a check of the findings with external readers expe-rienced with CC, the provision of audit trails, the use of message tran-scripts as an additional data source to the main one of interviews, the declaration of my values and concerns as the researcher, the repetition of information gathered during 44 in-depth interviews (21 students interviewed twice; each instructor interviewed once), and the saturation of categories during data analysis.
The lack of any prior studies to guide interview question development led to the use of Tessmer and Jonassen’s (1988) taxonomy of learning strategies to help generate the first set of interview questions. The first round of in-depth interviews focused on learning in general, graduate level learning in particular, aspects of learning in the CC mode (planning goals, strategies and skills, making sense of information), external aspects of this learning process (required peer and instructor behaviour), affective issues (e.g., worst experiences), perceived features of CC, strengths and weaknesses of CC for learning, and metaphorical representations of their experience. Some questions were designed to act as consistency checks, but they were placed far enough apart to avoid the appearance of repetition. Naturally, some of the questions “wilted” in the “heat” of the actual inter-views, and the responses were not used. Eisner’s (1991) advice helped explain the apparent poverty of some responses when the question was perceived to be too abstract: it “is usually better to focus the interviewees’ attention on things they have done [in order to]...explain something” (pp. 183-184).
Immediately after the first set of interviews, the transcripts were analyzed to identify emerging areas of relevance and to record researcher questions to guide the formulation of questions for the second set of inter-views. Print-outs of all CC class discussions were read as additional data to guide the analysis of interview data. That reading also prompted more questions and analytic memos for designing questions for the second round of interviews. Seven areas emerged from the interview transcripts: asynchronicity (delayed-time messaging), management of information load, reflective thinking, personal interactions, visual classroom comparisons, and strengths and weaknesses of CC for learning. Analysis of qualitative data is not for faint-hearts or for anyone wanting quick results: Often the first analyses create a place where reality hits, where doubts, fears, and avoidances begin, where the theory and philosophy of qualita-tive research are put to a reality test. (Ely et al., 1991, p. 86)
The procedures for the first level coding of the transcripts from the first round of interviews followed Strauss’s (1987) basic work processes in qualitative analysis (pp. 17-20). These processes include developing “generative questions” to help in proposing relationships and comparisons between ideas, coding that is not so elaborate that it bears little relevance to the practical world, but that is “conceptually dense” enough to promote complex linkages, checking the developing theory during further proc-esses of data collection and analysis, integrating the “dimensions, distinc-tions, categories, linkages” among the data, writing theoretical memos to track developing concepts and linkages, and moving creatively between data collection, coding, asking generative questions, and memo writing. Data reduction and analysis (typically) involved much time and some headaches around categorization. For example, in the third reading of the transcripts of the first interviews, I generated in vivo code categories (using interviewees’ words) and noted them in the left margins of each transcript. I then deliberately left the coding, not just because of some doubts about how the large number of in vivo codes could be converted into constructed codes (my choice of code categories) of some theoretical density, but also because some distance was needed from the mass of detail. That detail “cooked” while I continued to jot down memos and generative questions about possible conceptual linkages and theoretical issues. During this proc-ess, 170 questions were generated; they required their own coding and constant comparison (Grove, 1988) in order to develop dense enough cat-egories to work up into questions for the second round. As with the earlier draft coding of the transcripts, I went looking for features in the landscape and “regularities-things that happen frequently with groups of people” (Goetz & Le Compte, 1984, p. 191). Finally, I condensed the draft in vivo codes into 12 categories for exploration in the second round of interviews. Finally, 11 categories grouped the responses of the 58 useful questions. Data in each of the 11 categories were then re-examined. Transcript ex-tracts that illustrated each category were re-coded to gain greater concep-tual density. The approach here involved coding for key abstract and con-crete concepts and making distinctions between them and among their subconcepts (Strauss, 1987, pp. 28-33). Wolcott’s (1992) admonition to “get rid of as much as possible, as soon as possible” was also a difficult task (p. 44). Indeed it proved initially to be cognitively impossible and affectively unnerving!
The two instructors and 21 of the 23 students agreed to be interviewed at the beginning of the course and after completion of their final assign-ment. Eight of the 12 interviewees in one course were new to CC; they spent time during the first month learning the PARTI software. Three stu-dents, all experienced in CC, were enrolled in both courses. Eight students were taking their first CC mode course, seven were taking their second, and four their third CC mode course. One student had already taken four CC courses, while the last had taken six.
Geographically, two thirds of the intervie wees (14) lived in Central Ontario, five others lived further away in Ontario, with one in New Bruns-wick and one in Nova Scotia. The students appeared to be in the 35-55 age range, but exact ages were not accessible. All were part-time M.Ed. students; most of them were teachers.
The two courses (each 13 weeks long) were different in content but similar in levels of learning. For one course, the content centred on re-search into educational computer conferencing. The course structure was divided into substantive and advisory conference branches, but the in-structor maintained time limits on contributions for each of the substantive conferences. Students, therefore, had a limited official time to participate on a topic (approximately 1 week). The other course explored models of evaluation of adult education. Here the substantive conference branches were open throughout the 12-week course. One course contained 28 branches or sub-conferences, most of which were content grouped: 1,797 notes. The other course contained 39 branches and 1,629 notes, most of which were set up as the course progressed. Both courses contained the (now) rela-tively standard group of sub-conferences that cover library use, social chat, technical help, and introductions. Each instructor controlled the informa-tion quantity in the conferences by keeping private, one-to-one messaging among students to a minimum, by logging on regularly, and by using a special signature strategy. For one instructor, that strategy was the delega-tion of conference moderation to pairs of students. For the other, it was the provision of boundaries-”a conceptual map”-to contain student mes-sages that the instructor summarized at regular intervals.
The instructors, who were both experienced in CC, handled the par-allel discussions in different ways. One took ideas that overlapped from one conference to another and linked them in order to show some integra-tion. The other believed that dividing the course content discussions into thirteen simultaneous conferences not only legitimized the social kinds of talk (in, for example, a “Coffee House” conference) but also allowed the academic content to emerge in uncluttered, focused formats. The final grades given by both instructors were similar to grades given in face-to-face sections of the same course or in other courses taught by these instructors. Students in each course had to complete three assign-ments for their grade, with one assignment being a major integrative and reflective piece.
The levels of learning in each course were similar: they focused on application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. Both courses used PARTICIPATE computer conferencing software. This program enabled the students to write personal and private messages to each other as well as contribute messages into the designated group conferences. Messaging could occur at the sender’s convenience over a 24- hour period, seven days a week. Very limited capacity existed for real time messaging, and then messages had to be very short. Students were expected to place messages in the appropriate conference, and this organizational function was usually maintained by design or through the moderator’s corrective interventions.
The key findings are grouped into four categories: process requirements, in terms of generic learning skills, peer and instructor behaviour, features, strengths, and weaknesses of CC for learning. The context for the findings is a group of learners who generally took a fairly pragmatic approach to their studies but who were clear about how they knew they had learned something (e.g., “explain,” “rephrase,” “makes sense to me...putting it into a framework”).
The process requirements for learning in a CC context were elicited by questions that sought generic, not instructor-specific, responses. Three areas were explored-learning skills, behaviour by peers, and behaviour by instructor. The learning skills identified were of three types: operational skills-software operation, reading, writing, decision making, filtering and synthesizing ideas, group interaction; information processing skills-choos-ing a focus for attending to messages, handling the parallel nature of branch discussions (several topics being discussed at the same time); and stress management skills-developing a personal system to manage all the mes-sages (including finding the common threads in discussion) and process information quickly to keep up with the flow of incoming messages. One unsolicited metaphor captured the essence of managing the complex infor-mation environment:
It’s a difference between a single rope and a loom in a sense...you have got to be able to sort of switch from one line to the other and then keep those lines from being tangled. (G:I.2.4)
Four types of peer behaviour were required. The first was participation- giving alternative perspectives, showing the application of an idea, risking to publish tentative thoughts, and attending to the experience of others. Four interviewees identified the benefits of participation in terms of diversity of perspectives and confirmation of personal activity: The ones that are voluble in text with good arguments are fascinating. It’s similar to reading a good book. (H:I.2.6)
The second peer behaviour was response: giving constructive feed-back, answering questions, not being repetitive, being responsible gener-ally in small group work, complimenting peers, and engaging in the con-tent of the messages. The third peer behaviour type was provision of affective feedback: use of a person’s name, helping people belong, being patient, complimenting others, and providing a climate that is “sustaining and confirming”:
I feel [in learning to use the CC software] the same as a six year old learning to tie laces...so you couldn’t ever be too encouraging. (DN:I.2.6) Acknowledge what the others have said before you take off on a new thought...I guess along the same lines, it’ s support: you know [that] you’re still part of the functioning group. (F:I.2.6)
The fourth behaviour required from peers was short, focused messaging:
Not [to] feel [that] you have to say absolutely everything that comes into your head to comment on... (J:I.2.6.) .... don’ t sit there and jabber (F:I.2.6). In CC... you can ignore dominant people that you consider to be useless. (QN:II.18).
Two key instructor behaviours were required. The first behaviour was discussion management: providing some kind of structure, pacing and fo-cusing the class discussions, providing time for thinking and cognitive space for creativity and some self-direction, and reducing negative condi-tions, such as censure of others’ remarks or unhelpful controls or interfer-ence. Suggested ways to focus the discussions included reminders of the messaging protocols, having fewer, not more branches to reduce ideas fragmentation, directing the discussion down new paths, and keeping to assignment deadlines. The second instructor behaviour was contribution: giving fast and relevant technical help, sending timely and individualized content-related messages and feedback, with, if possible, summaries of discussion and guidance about resources, and offering affective support (welcome, encourage, show empathy, role model support-giving). The three features of CC cited by five or more interviewees were time (how it was created and affected by asynchronization and as it helped reflective thinking), the opportunity to read discussion printouts, and the management of information.
Interviewees talked a lot about asynchronicity in relation to being in or “out of sync.” Seven said they felt “in sync” with class discussions often or almost always; nine (five being novices) said they felt out of sync often. How did they become out of sync? Various reasons were given, with the three most often mentioned being absence (they chose not to log on regu-larly), unexpected external-to-course events (such as family or school, which demanded their attention and time), and affect-related conditions (e.g., lack of “emotional energy”; “no congenial atmosphere created”; “not feeling comfortable”). Other reasons less frequently identified were the perceived irrelevance of the topic, technological difficulties, cognitive confusions, delays in logging on to deal with messages, unrealistic attempts to keep up with everything, dysfunctionally divergent peers, poor message threading, and a focus on one’s project to the exclusion of anything else.
Asynchronicity was seen to provide two advantages. Choice, by far the most often cited advantage, was available in the time flexibility for logging on, the location of one’s work station, the content area, the organization of messages, and the freedom to reflect before composing a response to peers or instructor. Mentioned much less often was the advantage of feeling better able to manage the messaging:
It gave me a chance to juggle several conversations at once: it stretched out time for me (TN:II.6) ....allowed me to get the most out of pr ocess-ing what was going on in the course. (QN:II.6)
These advantages, however, were not seen as unconditional. Several people referred in passing to the trap of getting behind with the class flow, but one interviewee was particularly articulate. He did not see his behaviour as asynchronous because he believed that the apparent freedom of asynchronicity was, in effect, balanced by the limit of discussion topic relevance; there were times of opportunity to contribute, but these did not last for long.
I said [to classmates] a number of times-it’s asynchronous, but it’s not atemporal; you can’t be out of step with [class discussion] ... even though the medium is advertised as being asynchronous. It doesn’t mean that time is not important. There is a time factor, a window within which you have to be involved. (P:II:6)
The disadvantages of asynchronicity were felt to be of several types: the pressure to log on frequently to keep up with class discussions, the feeling of information overload, and the sometimes self-imposed exclusion from discussions.
Overload just kills the whole thing because you’re no longer in the conversation-the conversation has already taken three turns since you last spoke (R:II.6). Every time you log in, your expectations decrease a bit-if it takes six or seven times before you get a response, by that time you kind of forgot the comments that you made. (NN:II.6)
Certain peer behaviours, which affected almost half of the interview-ees at some time or another in various dysfunctional ways, were seen as another resultant disadvantage of asynchronicity. What I named the “loss of contributive energy” was a result of some interviewees feeling disap-pointed in their peers; another was their disinclination to send messages to peers when peers had failed to send timely or relevant messages. Other cognition-related disadvantages of asynchronicity were listed as difficulty in synthesizing ideas, repetition of ideas (“while I was making up my message, other people had written the same thing” [S:II.7]), and the fear of missing some idea of value:
There’s a certain discomfort with realizing that there are all these dif-ferent conferences and people are plugging into them at different rates- there’s a bit of a terror there that, oops, I’m going to miss out on some-thing. So I think it takes a fair while to be comfortable with that. (LN:II.6)
Interviewees talked about reflective thinking in terms of doing more of it in CC than they had done in visual classrooms and said that it helped them craft better responses (or even a response at all). For some inter-viewees, reflective thinking helped them connect with their peers’ think-ing; for others, it helped them connect with themselves:
It allows your mind to engage in conversation with another mind some-where else, and that also encourages your mind to engage in conversation with itself (G:II.17). I would hope it [learning] was greatly enhanced. Learning is a cognitive restructuring, reflection is part of that. I was able to learn better: I thought about it.... In a face-to-face class I’d let it go. (P:II.17)
The second most often mentioned feature of CC after time availability was transcript availability, but most interviewees said they rarely went back to any printouts to read earlier class discussions. Other features of CC (men-tioned by four or fewer interviewees) were the “connectedness” with peers, the text-based aspect of CC, its novelty, and the pressure to manage information:
A huge river flowing ... it’ s like riding the rapids, you’ve got to get in a boat and you’ve gotta keep going-you have to keep that boat moving along the river of information, because if you ever stop you’re going to go down. (G:I.3.1)
The strengths identified most often were categorized into time conven-ience, reflection, operations, and peer interaction. Twelve people claimed time convenience as a strength because they could work at the computer when they felt most ready. The operational strengths were seen as CC matching preferred learning styles, the availability of choices for and in-dependence of action, the transcript, and the opportunity to locate the computer in a physically comfortable place. The strengths of peer interac-tions came from the giving of help or from thorough and critical feedback, the human contact, and the different perspectives because of people’s range of experience.
The weaknesses of CC identified most often were categorized into peer interaction, information quantity, discussion fragmentation, and time prob-lems. Regarding peers, specific weaknesses related to the absence of visual and aural cues
I don’t have these warm bodies around ...that I ...can look at the person’s eyes and see if they really mean what they’re saying, (F:II.27),
or the difficulties of working collaboratively, such as the absence of im-mediate feedback to guide further thinking or responses. Difficulties in handling the quantity of information were reflected in responses such as the following:
Researcher: Do you mean that it’s as if everyone is talking in different phone boxes and none of them are connected?
U: (Laughs) That’s right!! (U:II.12a) Every time I logged on it was like “Here comes the wave.” You know, I could see myself trying to build the castle before the water comes. (R:II.14c)
Almost half the interviewees regarded their class discussion as “some-what” fragmented and five considered them “a little” fragmented. Two key coping strategies were suggested. The first strategy focused on filtering out unwanted information-”selective neglect” (QN:II.14c) and keeping what appeared to be useful information-judicious selection (my term). The second coping strategy was to download the online information into their own files for possible later browsing.
Other coping strategies focused on keeping up to date with the dis-cussion, downloading messages into personal files, keywording ideas in messages, producing a paper transcript, and scanning the messages on-screen in one concentrated period of attention.
Time, when identified as a weakness of CC, was seen to affect infor-mation processing and management. Delays were experienced in getting responses to messages, the need to process information quickly, and the desire of some interviewees for real-time interaction with peers and with their instructor.
The cognitive strategies used in these CC contexts were identified as ac-quiring information, making choices, messaging, expressing insights or new information, interacting with peers (getting different perspectives and connecting with their thinking), organizing information (keeping up, filter-ing, sorting and linking ideas, staying focused, finding common threads in messages, putting new ideas into a framework), handling parallel discus-sions, and using personal experience in the analysis of ideas. The key affective strategies were identified as establishing and maintaining self-confidence, self-direction, preparedness and commitment, and interacting with peers.
Interviewees talked fairly easily about their actions and feelings. Feeling in control was a motivating drive for how they acquired information, selected what was relevant, organized it, linked it to immediate life tasks and existing knowledge schemata, and felt the outcome as an insight or as new information to be expressed or applied in a real-life context. Active and constructive thinking, more than absorption of transmitted knowledge, governed the cognitive activity described by interviewees.
Interviewees’ drives toward being in control appeared to be strong. To accommodate that drive, they reported conscious use of the strategies of acquiring information, making decisions and choices, organizing and process-ing information, and expressing their thinking-in-progress and their think-ing- concluded. Certain attitudes were necessary: self-confidence and com-mitment to success, preparedness and self-direction. To what extent the interviewees understood the impacts of affective states on cognition is another question entirely, and no data from this study can directly answer the question.
The need to connect with peers and instructor in CC cannot be attrib-uted solely to CC. Interviewees’ use of CC and the software limits created problems in connecting with others and in keeping in synchrony with the flow of class discussions. The people with whom connections were sought were valued by their peers because they encouraged persistence, gave new directions, confirmed behaviours, celebrated new learnings, and gave con-structive feedback.
To accommodate their needs for control and relationship, interviewees needed certain key conditions: a climate that was resource-rich, psycho-logically and ergonomically comfortable, cognitively challenging and ac-cessible; a freedom to move around cognitively within some kind of con-ceptual structure, but within limits imposed by the flow of class discus-sions; and contributions from peers and instructor that provided diverse perspectives within limits that were needed to control the quantity of infor-mation.
Several aspects of the findings warrant further investigation. They are control and inclusion needs, affective needs, stressors, and comparison of CC learn-ing strategies with the Tessmer and Jonassen (1988) taxonomy.
The identified strategies and conditions for learning appear to show strong links with the interpersonal needs of control and inclusion as iden-tified by Schutz (1966). Inclusion is the process of association with others and of wanting to attract attention and maintain a distinct identity. Control is about decision making: about the use of power, influence, and authority; about taking control or accepting control. Interviewees talked about their associations with peers, their decision making and their sense of self-competence. The pace and load of reading messages and the decision-making were such that each person had to take some action over the control issue. If the general result was positive, then the interviewee would likely maintain a commitment to inclusion with peers and with the focus of discussion (the cognitive synchronicity), all of which reinforce self-competence. If the control issue was not resolved positively, the student might then deal with inclusion and power needs in ways that were not reinforcing of self-competence nor particularly helpful for the self-compe-tence of peers. Such ways could include not contributing but just reading (lurking), not even reading (ignoring), and making occasional contributions (loitering with some intent), or self-oriented contributions (meeting ego needs), or even self-aggrandizing contributions (dominance).
The affective elements of learning in a CC-context appear to be much more complex than has been indicated so far in the literature on CC in higher education. Discussion to date has mostly referred to “flaming”-the bursts of anger or other emotion-laden and dysfunctional expressions-or to “lurking”-a pejorative descriptor for those who silently stalk the cor-ridors of CC sub-conferences. The results of this study show that affect operates in complex ways to produce issues around connection with others, self-competence, and stress management. While affiliation operates as an intrapersonal drive, it also operates in interpersonal activity. McGrath (1990) argues that CC calls for “social contracts” and “operational algorithms”: The deliberate creation of the very kinds of social norms that apparently arise spontaneously in natural face-to-face groups, and that are very pow-erful and effective devices for regulating face-to-face communication in those groups. (p. 55)
McGrath’s (1990) other concerns about two effects of the loss of affective cues and conditions in CC are echoed in this study. The effects are reduced attention to the developmental stages of a group and the impact on the cyclical nature of human interaction, which biologists call entrain-ment. For want of that term entrainment earlier, I had named the process cognitive synchronicity-the “rhythmic, periodic or oscillatory forms of activity” (p.39). A future study of students using a CC context could focus on the entrainment phenomenon as it affects cognition; how it is manifested and how it relates to any evidence of the psychological stages of group development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).
The CC advantages of contributive convenience, that is, no travelling to classes and opportunities to send messages at will, seem to be offset to a certain extent by the perceived pressures of time tyrannies, information loads, and cognitive gridlocks (when discussions get confusing or show several threads at apparent cross-purposes). This study found that a stu-dent may feel reduced effectiveness and pressure from a number of stressors that originate in students’ interactions with the context and in students’ abilities to use a variety of learning strategies. The seven stressors iden-tified were having to use cognition and affect management skills simulta-neously; manage loads of information; decide why, when, and how to con-tribute; not getting timely or useful peer messages; feeling out of sync with class discussions; fearing loss of valuable ideas; and having to decide quickly whether to stay in cognitive synchronicity with the focus of class discus-sion. One way to map the impact of the stressors may lie with McClusky’s Power-Load-Margin theory (Main, 1979; McClusky, 1970). The theory explains how the ratio of power to load may create a negative or positive margin for coping with load. Power to cope with load originates from internal resources, for example, personal knowledge and skills from life experience, self-esteem, and a repertoire of learning strategies, and external resources, for example, health, social networks, and so forth. Load originates in the demands of intrinsic and extrinsic drives to action, the external demands of adult life role responsibilities, the perceived attributes of the learning tasks, and the conditions of the learning context. If the adult is to remain psychologically healthy and have the energy, time, and space to learn, the ratio of load to power has to be such that a positive margin exists for investment in and maintenance of the work of learning. With the CC interviewees, the constant presence of such a margin could not be assumed. There were times when a negative margin existed because of perceptions of increased load.
Load may come from a variety of sources and act in different ways. Novices, for example, have to learn both software and course content at the same time at the beginning of the course. The seven stressors listed earlier constitute a load. Other sources of load may be linked with existing re-search on reading. The somewhat fragmented nature of the messaging experienced by many interviewees reduces predictability in the discussion (Kirby, 1988, p. 254). Even good readers may suffer reduced processing ability if the capacity in their working memory is used up in coping with the fragmentation of ideas in messages. And Biggs’s (1988) research would appear to reinforce the suggestion that under these conditions, a student’s ability for information processing at the “deep” level is reduced. Biggs (1988) points out that the generation of thematic meaning from text (deep processing) happens at the highest levels of analysis and can be carried out only after successful completion of the lower levels such as generation of meaning from ideas (p. 237). If those ideas are presented in rather frag-mented forms, then an extra cognitive processing load is expected. There will be times during a CC course when a negative margin creates a need for a temporary withdrawal or the use of exceptional measures to control information quantity.
One specific definition of cognitive load refers not to the quantity of information but to those tasks that are ultimately dysfunctional but that have to be carried out in order to prepare the student for the important tasks of cognition. One example of such a task is “if students unnecessarily are required to mentally integrate disparate sources of mutually referring infor-mation such as separate text and diagrams” (Chandler & Sweller, 1991, p.293). The results of the Chandler and Sweller study of the load involved in the omposition of messages for permanent and public display have similarities with a smaller study conducted with some Open University (UK) students (Grint, 1992). Grint reported that writing messages involved four aspects-composing the text, analyzing its content, rendering that content “absolutely unambiguous,” and making “explicit as much as pos-sible” (p. 165). Chandler & Sweller’s (1991) definition of cognitive load may, therefore, have to be modified for CC to account for the quantity and fragmentation of incoming information to process within time limits and the feelings of pressure to produce grammatically correct and substantive messages. A changed definition of cognitive load for CC might also refer to attempts to develop conditions to enable the creative “volatility of con-versation” (Grint, 1992, p. 163) without producing prattle or what one Open University student has called “chewing gum for the eyes” (Grint, 1992, p.160).
The interviewees appeared to have carried out almost all of the learning strategies in the Tessmer and Jonassen (1988) taxonomy. But it is impossible to say with what actual success in terms of cognitive “deep processing” of information and the elaboration of conceptual networks in long-term memory. The only group of strategies not broadly matched were the metacognitive ones-those that Tessmer and Jonassen (1988) list as helping students to consciously monitor and evaluate their learning activi-ties (as distinct from producing learning outcomes) and to choose tactics appropriate for particular learning tasks.
Based on the behaviours required of peers in this study, they appear to be important for several of the Tessmer and Jonassen (1988) information processing strategies. When peers provide different perspectives on knowl-edge from their own experience, their contributions may help a learner to elaborate upon the meaning of a concept or its application. When peers give specific feedback (e.g., examples or paraphrases), it may help a learner to integrate new information with old knowledge or have their new learnings confirmed. When peers generate implications or inferences, provide cogni-tive “hooks,” or trigger transformations of other’s knowledge into personal insights, they promote knowledge organization and elaboration. The Tessmer and Jonassen (1988) taxonomy might, therefore, benefit from the addition of a new group of strategies, named “Meta-Context Management.” The meta-context is the set of interpersonal dynamics and the individual student’s sense of purpose and presence in those dynamics. This type of context was recognized in a recent taxonomy of adult learn-ing- to-learn strategies (Collett, 1990). Key strategies for handling those dynamics in CC environments depend on a learner knowing when to be fully involved in class discussions so that cognition is enhanced and when to withdraw gracefully but temporarily so that guilt or isolation is reduced while the student re-groups to consolidate control or explore a tangential topic. Strategies for involvement would include community building, ne-gotiating personal and group goals, establishing behavioural norms and standards for message threading, claiming attention, exercising choice, giving support, resolving conflicts, and expressing thinking-in-progress, insights, and conclusions. Strategies for temporary but graceful withdraw-als from class discussion would include giving notice of that intent, letting go of messages or transferring them to an archive, doing intensive reflective thinking. Strategies for re-entry into the class discussion would in-clude accurately analyzing the state of cognitive synchronicity of that discussion and deciding about a focused contribution.
Five topics are chosen for discussion here: information management, synchronicity, waiting time, message load, and ideas linking. A CC course leader would be wise to structure the course into topic-specific sub-confer-ences and encourage students to contribute cogent and focused messages to the appropriate sub-conference. Students could be required to log on fre-quently and accept responsibility for sending messages regularly, that is, not to lurk on the sidelines and just read others’ messages. While clarity and precision in the expression of ideas or questions or summaries should always be a goal, it should not be pursued to the point where students experience cognitive paralysis or dysfunctional delays in responses from peers. If the course leader provides some kind of summary or synthesis, particularly in the early stages of a course, that action could then be taken over by students-to help their own cognition and to promote useful forms of messaging. If procedures and norms for small group activities are estab-lished, the frustration inherent in waiting for responses from tardy peers could be reduced. It may be useful to establish a separate sub-conference just to collect and celebrate insights as they occur, without messages being restricted to being immediately relevant to the particular focus of class discussion. Such a collection might also help the cognitive processes of elaboration of ideas and broadening of perspectives.
The course leader would also be advised to role model the behaviours needed to maintain contributive energy and cognitive synchronicity and to allow participants to withdraw publicly for a short period without feeling guilty or penalized. The leader might well, at the beginning of the course, openly discuss the potential benefits and problems of the text-only medium and encourage students to actively check on what and how they are learn-ing, that is, carry out meta-cognitive learning strategies. Such a discussion should help students legitimize any anxieties and identify the learning strat-egies they think would be useful. At the very least, the moderator should set up one sub-conference for the exchange of technical help (with permis-sion to express frustrations!), one for socialization, and one for discussions with library staff.
Course leaders who want to control their time spent on-line would be wise to explain their on-line schedule and their method of messaging. Such attention to shared responsibility might help to promote equity in sharing the load of information anagement and course productivity. Finally, at this early stage of qualitative research into learning in CC environments, course leaders could use course feedback instruments de-signed to gather suggestions for improved practice. This data gathering should help academic researchers prepare formal research studies.
The interviewees have shown how they negotiated with CC technology and struck bargains, in Postman’s words, about what the technology gave and what it took away. Now similar studies are needed to assess the transfer-ability of the results and to develop our understanding of how learners behave strategically in CC contexts and perceive their tasks. A second tier of studies could focus on the relationships between learning strategies and particular aspects of CC such as peer dynamics, writing as part of the learning process, and the pacing and sequencing of discussions. “The wise are...rarely impressed by dramatic technological changes” (Postman, 1992, p. 5), but they may be interested in knowing how learners manage those changes.
Bates, A.W. (Ed.). (1990). Media and technology in European distance education. Proceedings of the EADTU Workshop on Media, Methods and Technology. Milton Kenes: The Open University for the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities.
Biggs, J. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 185-228). New York: Plenum Press.
Burge, E.J. (1993). Students’ perceptions of learning in computer conferencing: A qualitative analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Burge, E.J., & Roberts, J.M. (1993). Classrooms with a difference: A practical guide to the use of conferencing technologies. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Distance Learning Office.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruc-tion. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
Coats, M. (1994). Women’s education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
Collett, D. J. (1990). Learning-to-learn needs for adult basic education. In R.M. Smith & Associates (Eds.), Learning to learn across the lifespan (pp. 247-266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cookson, P. S. (1989). Research on learners and learning in distance education: A review. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 22-34.
Davie, L.E. (1988). The facilitation of adult learning through computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 55-69.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eastmond, D.E. (1992). Effective facilitation of computer conferences. Continuing Higher Education Review, 56(1 & 2), 23-24.
Eastmond, D.E. (1993). Alone but together: Adult distance study by computer conferencing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Eastmond, D.E., & Ziegahn, L. (in press). Instructional design for the online class-room. In Z. Berge & M. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communications and the online classroom. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Edson, C.H. (1988). Our past and present: Historical inquiry in education. In R.H. Sherman & R.B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp. 44-58). Lewes, UK: The Falmer Press.
Eisner, E.W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
Ely, M., Anzui, M., Friedman, I., Garner, D., & Strenmet, A. (1991). Doing quali-tative research: Circles within circles. London: The Falmer Press.
Evans, T., & Nation D. (Eds.) (1993). Rerforming open and distance education. London: Kogan Page.
Gibson, C.C. (1990). Learners and learning: A discussion of selected research. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Contemporary issues in American distance education (pp. 121-135). Riverside, NJ: Pergamon Press.
Goetz, J.P., & Le Compte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.
Grint, K. (1992). Sniffers, lurkers, actor networkers: Computer mediated commu-nications as a technical fix. In J. Beynon & H. Mackay (Eds.), Technological literacy and the curriculum (pp. 148-170). London: Falmer Press.
Grove, R. W. (1988). An analysis of the constant comparative method. Interna-tional Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1(3), 273-279.
Harasim, L.M. (1990a). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger.
Harasim, L.M. (1990b). Online education: An environmental collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspec-tives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.
Haughey, M. (1991). Confronting the pedagogical issues. Open Learning, 6(3), 14-23.
Higgins, R.N. (1992). Computer-mediated cooperative learning: Synchronous and asynchronous communication between students learning nursing diagnosis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Hiltz, S.R. (1986). The “virtual classroom”: Using computer-mediated communi-cation for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104.
Hiltz, S.R. (1988). Teaching in a virtual classroom: Volume 2 of a virtual class-room on EIES: Final evaluation report (Research Report 26). Newark, NJ: Center for Computerized Conferencing and Communications, New Jersey Institute of Technology. ED.315039.
Kaye, A.R. (Ed.). (1992). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kaye, T. (1990). Building the foundations for an electronic campus. In A.W. Bates (Ed.), Media and technology in European distance education (pp. 227-234). Milton Keynes: The Open University for the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities.
Kiesler, S. (1992). Talking, teaching and learning in network groups. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 147-165). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kirby, J.R. (1988). Style, strategy , and skill in reading. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 229-274). New York: Plenum Press.
Lauzon, A.C. (1992). Integrating computer -based instruction with computer conferencing: An evaluation of a model for designing online education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 32-46.
Levinson, P. (1990). Computer conferencing in the context of the evolution of media. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new envi-ronment (pp. 3-14). New York: Praeger.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Main, R. (1979). The power-load-margin formula of Howard Y. McClusky as the basis for a model of training. Adult Education, 30(1), 19-33.
Marantz, B., & England, R. (1992). Closing the distance: A CMC learning contract tutorial. DEOSNEWS, 2(4).
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Mason, R. (1990). Computer conferencing in distance education. In A.W. Bates (Ed.), Media and technology in European distance education (pp. 221-226). Milton Keynes: The Open University for the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities.
Mason, R. (Ed.). (1993). Computer conferencing: The last word. Victoria, B.C.: Beach Holme.
Mason, R. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London: Kogan Page.
Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (Eds.). (1989). Mindweave: Computers, communications and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon.
Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (1990). Toward a new paradigm for distance education. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 15-38). New York: Praeger.
McClusky, H.Y. (1970). An approach to a differential psychology of the adult potential. In S.M. Grabowksi (Ed.), Adult learning and instruction (pp. 80-95). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Education and Adult Education Association of the U.S.A
McConnell, D. (1990). Case study: The educational use of computer-conferencing. Educational & Training Technology International, 27(2), 190-208.
McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher & R. E. Kraut (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 23-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morgan, A. (1992). Improving your students’ learning. London: Kogan Page.
Morgan, A.R. (1990). Whatever happened to the silent revolution? Research, theory and practice in distance education. In T. Evans (Ed.), Research in distance education 1 (pp. 9-20). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Olgren, C. (1991). Learning strategies and knowledge outcomes: The quality of learning in an independent study course. In Designing for learner access: Chal-lenges and practices for distance education. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 79-84). Madison, Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison.
Paul, R. H. (1990). Open learning and open management. Leadership and integrity in distance education. London: Kogan Page.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Knopf.
Richardson, J.E.T . (1987). Research in education and cognitive psychology. In J.E.T .Richardson et al. (Eds.), Student learning: Research in education and cognitive psychology (pp. 3-12). Milton Keynes: S.R.H.E./Open University Press.
Schutz, W.C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
Schmeck, R.R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.
Selfe, C.R., & Meyer , P.R. (1991). Testing claims for online conferences. Written Communication, 8(2), 163-192.
Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tessmer, M., & Jonassen, D. (1988). Learning strategies: A new instructional tech-nology. World yearbook of education, 1988 (pp. 29-47). London: Kogan Page.
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427.
Weinstein, C.E., Goetz, E.T ., & Alexander, P.A. (1988). Learning and study strat-egies: Issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Wells, R. (1992). Computer-mediated communication for distance education: An international review of design, teaching and institutional issues. ACSDE Re-search Monography No. 6. University Park, PA: The American Center for the Study of Distance Education, Penn State University.
Winkelmans, T. (1988). Educational computer conferencing: An application of analysis methodologies to a structured small group activity. Unpublished mas-ter’s thesis, University of Toronto.
Wittrock, M.C. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and comprehension. In M.C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 699-705). New York: Macmillan.
Wolcott, H.F . (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 3-52). San Diego: Academic Press.
Elizabeth J. Burge is an Associate Professor in the Department of Adult and Vocational Education, Faculty of Education, University of New Brunswick at the Fredericton campus.