Equity of Access to Computer-mediated Distance Education |
VOL. 10, No. 2, 17-32
A survey of graduate students (N=62) enrolled in computer-mediated conferencing (CMC) courses and a follow-up analysis of help seekers (N=49) who used a dedicated hotline found that many students had encountered computer communication difficulties. Students varied in their ability to solve these problems and in their attitudes toward them. The students in greatest need were concentrated in courses that addressed topics unrelated to computer applications, a population that is likely to grow as CMC increases as a mode of distance education delivery. Support from the hotline enabled most high-need students to continue in their courses, which made possible equal admission, a minimum standard of equity of access. But research conducted in face-to-face settings suggests that those with lower computer communication skills are likely to participate to a lesser degree than the computer literate and to exercise less influence in the creation of collaborative products.
Cet article présente les résultats d'un sondage effectué auprès d'étudiants de deuxième cycle (N=62) inscrits à des cours offerts par téléconférence informatisée et d'une analyse du suivi auprès d'élèves ayant eu recours à une assistance téléphonique (N=49). Selon ce sondage, beaucoup d'étudiants ont eu des difficultés de communication par ordinateur. L'attitude des étudiants face aux problèmes, et leur capacité de résoudre ces derniers variaient d'une personne à l'autre. Les étudiants ayant le plus besoin d'aide étaient pour la plupart inscrits à des cours non pas reliés à l'informatique. Le nombre d'étudiants de cette catégorie risque d'augmenter avec l'utilisation de plus en plus grande de téléconférences informatisées dans le cadre de cours d'éducation à distance. La plupart des étudiants éprouvant de sérieuses difficultés ont été en mesure de poursuivre leur cours grâce à l'assistance téléphonique qui assurait un accès minimum équitable. Cependant, certaines recherches effectuées dans des contextes face-à-face indiquent que les étudiants possédant peu de compétences en communication informatique ont moins tendance à participer que les étudiants ayant un bagage informatique, et jouent un rôle moindre dans la réalisation de projets de collaboration.
Computer-mediated conferencing (hereafter CMC) has become the method of choice for distance education in many universities and colleges. At Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), for example, the proportion of distance education courses offered through CMC has increased from 15% of the program in 1991-92 to 52% in 1995-96, with the largest part of the change attributable to a sharp reduction in the number of faculty sent from the university to distant sites for face-to-face delivery. In this article we will review a rationale for the shift to CMC forms of course delivery, identify an obstacle to the growth of these programs, and report two studies that investigated the frequency and type of technical difficulties experienced by students in accessing CMC instruction.
Although the rationales for developing CMC modes of distance education are diverse, two arguments are inevitably made.
CMC courses increase learner control by increasing student participation in classroom interactions. In typical CMC courses, students account for 85-90% of classroom communications, in contrast to the 20-40% reported in face-to-face courses (Wells, 1993). Students report that there is more interaction in CMC courses-among students (Harasim, 1987; Hiltz, 1994) and between individual students and faculty (Phillips, Santoro, & Kuehn, 1988)-important considerations because perceived frequency of communication is associated with course satisfaction (Fulford & Zhang, 1993). CMC instructors who structure their courses to maximize student-student communication (e.g., Davie & Wells, 1991) report that collaborative production of assignments enhances learning and learner control. The maintenance of a permanent record of proceedings enables learners to manipulate the sequence of messages to suit the reader’s not the author’s intentions (Feenberg, 1987). The asynchronous quality of CMC enables students to have access to materials at whatever time of the day or night they are ready to learn (Harasim, 1987), not when the class is scheduled to begin. The time delay gives students the opportunity to consult other sources in formulating their responses. Reliance upon written texts to communicate ideas deepens student processing of course concepts and heightens learner reflectiveness (Harrington & Hathaway, 1994).
CMC delivery promotes equal opportunity to learn in two ways. First, CMC provides equal physical access, enabling students who cannot get to on-campus courses (because of geographical location, physical disability, employment barriers, or family commitments) to obtain specialized training (Davie & Palmer, 1985; Hiltz, 1986). Second, CMC encourages equal participation of students by reducing the influence of dominant individuals (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). Status differences are diminished when there are no social identifiers (race, gender, age, career prestige) or nonverbal behaviours that signal rank. Since status differences have been consistently linked to differential participation and achievement in peer-mediated instructional treatments delivered in face-to-face mode (e.g., Cohen, 1994), the levelling effect of CMC is likely to enhance the learning of students who might be otherwise disadvantaged.
Our concern is with the second rationale, although we will return to the first in the general discussion. It could be argued that CMC does not so much promote equity of access as replace existing inequities with another: student differences in computer literacy. From this perspective, students with less developed computer communication skills will be less likely to gain access to CMC courses.
Although no systematic needs assessments have been reported, the CMC literature contains references to the technical challenges of participating in CMC courses. A few reports of training programs are available but Wells’s (1993) review suggests that their value is limited by ambiguity in the outcomes addressed and murkiness about proficiency levels reached. The lack of adequate training materials has been a concern (e.g., Davie & Palmer, 1985), particularly since the documentation for moving within conferencing systems often “presume[s] considerable technical knowledge and a hacker mentality on the part of the user” (Phillips et al., 1988). Several universities, for example, the Open University of the U.K., operate help desks (e.g., Butcher & Greenberg, 1992). Yet Phillips et al. (1988) found that a help desk for junior and senior undergraduates was used so little that it was closed, suggesting that problems with access to CMC courses may be minimal.
The lack of attention to technical difficulties in previous research might be related to the characteristics of students enrolled in CMC courses during the first wave of implementation. The initial courses attracted computer literate students who were as much interested in the technology of delivery as in the content of the courses (which often dealt with computer-oriented topics anyway). In contrast, Foell (1989) observed that in a course with a high proportion of novice users, students had difficulty in such basic operations as creating and uploading files. As CMC becomes a routine mode of distance education delivery, access problems created by lack of computer communication skills may increase, even as modems and software become more user-friendly.
Our first study was guided by the general question: Are students enrolled in CMC courses encountering hardware or software difficulties in gaining access to instructional materials and activities? Based on our perception that CMC courses were drawing from a deeper student pool than in the past, we anticipated that they would be.
In the fall of 1994, a survey was designed to identify access problems. The survey was conducted at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, which had been offering graduate courses in education (in Computer Applications, Curriculum, Adult Education, and Educational Administration) since the mid-1980s. There were no restrictions on the number of courses that students could take through distance methods, but there were on-campus requirements for doctoral programs, and the residency for master’s degree had only recently been withdrawn. At the time the survey was conducted OISE had recently switched from a VAX to a UNIX platform, adapting the previously used conferencing software (PARTICIPATE) to fit it.
The survey was distributed by CMC instructors through the conferencing system to graduate students in the seven CMC courses offered in the fall of 1994. Responses were received from 25 of 123 students (20%). Since the student response rate was so low, a hard copy of the survey was mailed to all students listed on pre-enrolment forms. This mailing increased the response rate to 44%. A random sample of nonrespondents (one student from each of the fall courses) was interviewed by telephone to determine why they did not respond to and complete the survey. The interviews were conducted in the evening; if no answer was received, a replacement was randomly selected from the same course. The interviews increased the total response rate to 50% (N=62). The telephone survey indicated that nonrespondents were more likely to have serious problems in computer conferencing, but the specific concerns they identified were very similar to those of respondents.
More than a third of the students (37%) dialled the university computer directly. The remainder used DataPac or local networks. Most students (60%) were enrolled in their first computer course. Students were using a bewildering array of communication packages. Only two were frequently identified: Procomm (N=l4 students, 5 faculty) and Kermit (N=12). The remaining 20 communication packages were each named by five students or less; 14 had only one or two users.
The self-administered questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions focussing on communication software used, problems encountered, support services accessed, suggestions for change, and a few demographic items (see Appendix). Responses could be made by e-mail, mail, telephone, or FAX.
About 20% of the students reported having no difficulty in connecting to the university computer. The remaining 80% did. Some were short-term problems that were resolved quickly or slowly, others were continuing petty annoyances, while the residue were persistent difficulties impeding students’ access to their courses. Students varied enormously in their resources for dealing with the problems. Some were computer literate or had spouses or colleagues with sophisticated skills; others had limited skills or interest in technology and were very much on their own. The severity of the problems was mediated by student expectations. One student began a list of quite serious problems with the comment “nothing out of the ordinary.” Another was outraged that “OISE staff . . . are about 5 years behind on their internet connectivity. I would expect them to be 6 months ahead of the pack, not lagging.” Some students believed that the university had an obligation to solve all connection problems, whereas others felt guilty that they were not able to overcome obstacles on their own.
About a third of the students mentioned short-term problems that were resolved, usually fairly easily, but in some instances only after considerable effort. Many respondents were extremely upset about the difficulties they encountered. Students reported not having essential information about the system before the course began. For example, some were unfamiliar with billing procedures (“I was shut out of the whole thing because I hadn’t paid my VAX account, which I didn’t know anything about and couldn’t get in to read e-mail to find out I had a problem”) or were not aware of the hardware changes. Some did not receive materials before the start of the course (“OISE certainly wants the course fees on time but the supply of materials is at the students’ risk”), were unaware that manuals existed or experienced problems in getting the manuals, or had difficulties specific to the conferencing software (“could not join my topic; it kept saying ’you are not authorized to perform that function’ “). Other resolvable problems had to do with student equipment. These included an inability to use Kermit, which was resolved by selecting another communication software package; configuration problems for unusual equipment (“there is no Kermit for Amiga users”); inaccurate modem settings, which were corrected once students learned the appropriate baud rate and modem emulation setting; and a few cases in which the call-waiting function on their home telephone sabotaged the connection to the hub. Such problems were handled relatively easily by the computer literate, but they were formidable obstacles for naive users who needed “a step-by-step booklet.”
Other students reported continuing connection problems that were never resolved. Whether these problems were viewed as petty annoy-ances or as substantial obstacles again depended on student expectations. The most frequently cited concern was busy lines (to the university hub or to a local network) that prevented access. Slow text processing was a common problem, especially on DataPac, and some students reported screen freezing. On-line interference, particularly during busy times and with multi-party home phone lines, was bothersome. A large proportion (but not all) of these problems were related to DataPac or to the networks students were using (especially the Electronic Village, a network for teachers). Students in communities near the university were able to reduce these problems by dialling the hub directly. The farther the student lived from the campus, the less attractive this solution became because of the long distance charges (“dialled direct, but the first month’s phone bill of $500.00 stopped that approach”).
Only a quarter of the students reported no difficulties in using conferencing software. For most of the remaining students the problems were serious and persistent. Underlying the practical difficulties was a fundamental lack of conceptual understanding that inhibited users from finding their own solutions: “Did not understand all of the conferencing systems and how they linked to each other so I was performing transactions by rote. If and when I made a mistake, I could not logically figure out the problem or the answer.”
Many of the problems focused on nonexistent, inadequate, or obsolete documentation about the systems (“instructions need to be very explicitly written down in a step-by-step manner for novices like me”). Some students compared the university software unfavourably to software at their own institution: “My e-mail system at work is very friendly, logical, and easy to use. I learned it in a very short period of time this September. In a longer period of time I have not learned to use the OISE system and it has not felt friendly or logical.”
Students reported being unable to send personal messages (“they are always returned to me as user unknown”) or receive them (“I don’t know how to get my personal notes forwarded to me by other students”) and being unable to abort messages (“it bypassed the Save? message and saved anyway”). Some students resolved their problems, usually through trial and error and careful reading of the manual. Not all of the solutions were effective. A student who could not send lengthy messages dealt with the problem by sending one page at a time. Another user described a lengthy procedure as “real Stone Age.” A few students indicated they had given up trying to send messages through the conference and were now FAXing their responses to the instructor. A few others reported easily resolvable but frustrating problems, such as being unable to sign on to the conference because their instructor had not invited them into the course. Feedback on the university e-mail system was similar.
The problems that students experienced in using the conferencing software were not consistently associated with particular communication packages that students had. Students with the same package could be successful or unsuccessful depending on their skills in dealing with compatibility problems (such as terminal emulation).
The most striking finding of the survey was that 40% of the students reported that they typed on-line almost all the time. In most instances, they did so because they were unable to upload or download files. Students living near the university did not see any problem in typing exclusively on-line; they did not relate this practice to the slowness of the system or to receiving a busy signal when they attempted to connect. Other students, especially those distant from the university who were using DataPac or paying long distance charges, were concerned about their inability to upload and download and expressed a keen desire to learn how to do it. Students who did upload and download regularly were computer literate. They were able to give detailed and precise descriptions of how they communicated with the hub. Most used on-line typing as well as up/ downloading, but they limited on-line typing to very short messages because of the keyboard delay.
Relatively few problems were reported with downloading, even among novice users. There were many more problems encountered in uploading. Some reported that they needed to edit their uploads. For example, “all of my quotation marks or brackets . . . appear as different characters”; “if I use a dash in my writing, the computer makes a number of buzzes and omits a number of lines”; “problems with text wrap”; “it suspends about one line before my material ends so I usually have to add a sentence on-line.” Some students used the on-line editor to correct their uploaded texts, which was perceived by some to be a cumbersome addendum to their upload procedure. Others reported being unable to correct their text (“when on-line messages are sent to the class, they only see the lines with all of my mistakes”). One student eventually learned how to upload but was unsatisfied with the solution: “I had to put in hard returns after every line to make anything work. . . . This solution seems outdated. Why should we ’unwrap’ our computers to make them work like typewriters just to be able to work with this system?”
Even users who had mastered uploading and downloading reported they had difficulty learning the procedures. They were critical of the lack of documentation: “It is not intuitive. One always has to ask the instructor about the commands that have to be invoked. There must be a better way of informing students who are just starting out.”
Two sources of help were especially valuable to students. Over 60% received assistance from their instructors, and in virtually all instances students were pleased with their instructors’ support (“my instructors have done everything to make the course run as smoothly as possible”). Over 40% of the students received help from other students. For some, particularly those enrolled in courses that set up a mutual help service, it was their main source of information. Such a service was also useful in “establishing good class rapport, bonding, breaking down barriers of a student feeling inadequate, etc.”
Other sources of help were less well used or were found to be less helpful. The written materials were cited as useful by 38% of the students (“well done and easy to understand. . . . I always go to these sources first when I have problems”). Some students indicated they were not aware of these documents or found out about them too late (“it would be nice to know it existed at the beginning of the course instead of the end”). There were many negative comments about the documentation (see above). The difficulties in writing documents for users who varied greatly in competence was evident, with some expressing concern that the texts were too elementary (“I don’t think OISE should be in the business of teaching people how to use a computer”), whereas others found them insufficiently detailed (“a step-by-step simplistic version of the basics of conferencing is necessary”).
The half-day training sessions and mini-courses offered by the university in how to connect to the hub and use the conferencing software were not accessible to students living away from the university (although some travelled long distances to attend them). Many did not know they existed. Those who attended found them to be worthwhile, but they were far too short to address the needs that students subsequently encountered. In addition, students found the software functioned very differently when it was accessed from a distant site than it did when it was used in the University training lab.
The university operated an advice desk, mainly for statistical consulting, that CMC students could use. It was appreciated by 10 students, but almost as many reported negative experiences with it. The number one complaint was that students were unable to get a response. “I placed in excess of 15 long distance calls to the so-called advice desk. There was never a real person on the other end and not once were phone calls returned despite the message indicating that they would be. Similarly, while in Toronto several times, I have yet to find anyone in the so-called advice and assistance offices even though there are posted hours.” Some students recognized that lack of resources impeded the ability of the advice desk to respond. “I understood completely why they were rude because they just had too many questions all at once.” Lack of budget for long distance calls was also a problem. “They are not allowed to make long distance calls, and so when they call you they have their kitchen timer going, and you have to resolve your problem in 30 seconds or less.” Consultation by phone was problematic in other ways; students struggled to describe their problems (“it [is] difficult to ask the right questions over the phone”), and they could not respond immediately to the advice because most had only one telephone line into their homes. Several students commented about the lack of Macintosh knowledge at the advice desk. Other university support staff were helpful, but few students knew how to contact them.
Students benefitted from local resources, including spouses and other family members (“my son-in-law, a true technobrat”), colleagues at work (including specialized computer personnel at universities and colleges), and reading materials.
The last part of the survey invited students to add additional comments. The students responded in three ways. Some reiterated their earlier concerns; some expressed support for computer conferencing; others offered specific suggestions. Students from distant locations were very concerned that the university recognize how much they appreciated distance education courses. For them there are no other options. They wanted the University to offer more CMC courses.
The survey revealed most students were encountering technical problems in participating in CMC courses. Learners varied in their responses to problems, not only in terms of capacity to resolve them but also in expectations and attitudes. Negative feelings (uncertainty, rage, and guilt) ran through many of the questionnaires. Technical challenges consumed substantial chunks of psychic energy of some students and encroached on their learning time. Even though less skilled students had access to instruction, the methods they used (such as using on-line typing exclusively to send messages) were inefficient and overloaded the conferencing system. CMC instructors and other interested faculty took a number of steps to improve the support provided to CMC students by refocusing the training sessions, revising documentation, communicating expectations earlier, and removing software bugs. The most important step was to create an evening/weekend hotline dedicated to CMC student needs.
The purpose of study 2 was to find out whether the needs of students with poor computer communication skills could be met through a CMC coach. The coach was a mature doctoral student who had taken many CMC courses after an extensive career in adult and teacher education. In previous courses he had served as a mentor to novice users. The coach was given a total budget for his time (paid at an hourly rate) and expenses (installation of an additional telephone at his home, long distance charges, etc.). Information about the service and how to contact it was included in the materials for each CMC course.
The coach kept case files for each student who contacted the service (December 1994-April 1995). The files identified the course in which the student was enrolled, the number of contacts, the reason for the contact, the outcome of the interaction, and whether the student dropped out of the course.
Virtually all hotline contacts were made in the first six weeks of the program. The service was used by 49 students (almost half of those registered in spring courses), who made 155 phone calls and sent 31 e-mail messages. The maximum number of exchanges between the coach and a single student was 13. There was a perfect correlation between the topic of the course and whether students sought help from the coach. All the help seekers were enrolled in courses that addressed topics unrelated to computers in education. None of the students in the courses with computer application topics contacted the coach.
The students who sought help were novices or near novices who had weak computer communication skills. Although a satisfying solution was found for most technical problems, six students who sought help ultimately failed to complete their CMC course. In every case, the instructors believed that technical difficulties played a minor role in the decision to drop out. Much more important were family responsibilities and changes in job assignments. The most frequently encountered access problems were:
Some students were uncertain how they could obtain the conferencing software manual, even though the course information package described how to get it. A few reported they did not get the manual early enough, in part because they did not read the information package until the day before the course began. Difficulty in understanding the language and reasoning of the manual stimulated calls to the coach.
Since the conferencing software was unforgiving about the text it received, students’ inability to generate ASCII files with line breaks occasioned most of the early failures in uploading, regardless of the transfer mechanism. Most help seekers were not aware of the options in the SAVE AS commands in Word and WordPerfect, which must be used to generate such text (although the SAVE AS command provides no absolute guarantee of success), and those using the DOS platform did not know how to create ASCII files in EDIT. They also did not know how to solve line length problems by reducing margin lengths or using a larger font size.
The number of options for moving text and the complexity of the language about these options confused neophytes. Mix-ups occurred among the command words used in different protocols, and students struggled to find a procedure that worked with their equipment.
Students who were unaware of file management on the local computer, regardless of platform, routinely “lost” files intended for uploading. Or, if they were successful with a download, they could not ascertain the location of the downloaded file. Many were unaware that they could search for their file through the word processor or modem directory. Students did not realize that they needed to create a space for course related materials on their local computers.
Help seekers had difficulty in managing the INBOX, understanding the options available in the the READ command, and being able to WRITE successfully in the SCRATCHPAD. “Where did my message go? How can I get it back?” were questions answered in manual and in on-line help, but students who contacted the coach had so little knowledge that they were unable to find the information they needed. Course participation could be impeded by even minor problems, for example, not knowing that line breaks had to be entered when entering text directly into the conference. Most users expected that the line-wrap feature was available and adjusted when they discovered its absence. The coach’s clients were not able to solve this problem themselves.
Help seekers did not understand how they could use the hub computer for remote file management, they found the rationale for having more than one password to be unclear, and they were confused when commands from one program could not be used in another. Least well understood were commands for reviewing and removing personal files.
Navigating the Internet Generally and TELNET SpecificallyThe probability of successful file transfers decreased with the complexity of the interconnections. Students who had to pass through multiple head-ends, perhaps even satellite links, had enormous difficulty uploading. Head-ends devoted to the security of the computer environment often made communication from the periphery to the hub a chancy business. In two cases, clearing the road for interconnect required special help from the computer department staff at the local institutions. The coach was frequently asked: “What is my INTERNET address?”
Analysis of the coach’s records indicated that there were two distinct groups enrolled in CMC courses: (a) a core group of self-directed students, who were able to access CMC instruction through print materials, consultation with computer literate instructors, and their own resources; and (b) a high need group with few skills, who sought help on even the most basic issues. Study 2 found that the dedicated hotline enabled most members of the high need group to complete their courses.
CMC diminishes inequities based on physical, geographic, occupational, or family constraints. But our findings suggest that the equity of access rationale for offering CMC courses is incomplete. We found a substantial number of students encountering access problems that they were not able to resolve on their own. Furthermore, it is this portion of the student population, those interested in course topics not directly related to computer applications,that is likely to grow as the institutionalization of CMC as a mode of distance education delivery increases.
We also found that a dedicated hotline, staffed by a capable consultant, was able to solve most of the technical problems encountered by novices and near novices. Few help seekers dropped out, and the reasons they gave to their instructors on leaving were unrelated to problems in communicating through CMC. The cost of providing the hotline was $87 per student served, $42 per student enrolled [costs in US$]. These data are based on a single term. It is possible these costs could decrease over time. Since use of the service was concentrated in the first six weeks of the term, it might be a one-time cost that could be amortized over future courses for most students. Yet it is possible that the costs could increase if the service attracted a greater proportion of computer communication novices or if computer literate instructors began to refer all queries to the hotline rather than coaching students themselves. The financial data are specific to the software and hardware used in the university in which the study was conducted and may not generalize to other institutions.
The finding that students’ technical problems could be relieved by setting up a dedicated hotline suggests that the equity of access issue could be viewed as a simple cost/benefit question: How much is the university willing to pay to provide access to distance education programs to students with weak computer communication skills? Institutional values will define the cut off point. Universities with a mandate to serve geographically distant populations will presumably develop a policy that is more inclusive. But access means more than admission. At the outset of the article we described a rationale for CMC delivery based on the argument that it provides better instruction by increasing student participation in classroom interactions. Observation of face-to-face courses, primarily involving younger learners, challenges this assumption in the case of less able students. If there are variations in task-relevant abilities, there will be discrepancies in participation. Lower ability students participate in student-student interactions less frequently than higher ability students. Cohen and Lotan (1995) found that 60% of the variance in status problems (which they defined as a correlation of .40 or higher of ability with participation rate) was attributable to variations in reading scores of children in grades 2-6.
Dale (1993) observed that older students who were perceived to have weak task-relevant skills were marginalized by their peers in a coauthoring activity. King (1993) found that when low-ability students were assigned leadership positions, their roles were usurped by more able group members, and the contributions of lower performers to group decisions were limited to minor procedural suggestions. The dominance of cooperative group work by more capable students is particularly strong when the goal is to produce a single group product (Matthews, 1992). In these circumstances, students who feel their offerings are of little value respond by withdrawing from the task (Karau & Williams, 1993). Lower-ability student passivity and upper-ability dominance in small groups have also been reported by Good, McCaslin, and Reys (1992) and by Mulryan (1992, 1995). There is also evidence that higher ability students pressure the less able to complete tasks quickly (Mulryan, 1995; Ross & Cousins, 1995), to the detriment of their learning.
Although CMC has a lower band width (e.g., nonverbal behaviours are not communicated) which reduces status differences, deficiencies in computer communication skills are readily apparent to classmates (e.g., when messages are delayed, incomplete, or distorted). Given the consistency of the findings from face-to-face studies, we can hypothesize that students encountering technical difficulties will participate less, have less influence on their peers, and may feel rushed in their communications. Even with the support of a hotline to gain admission, students may not be able to participate equally. We need to expand our definition of equity of access to embrace equality of participation in learning processes, while not forgetting that equality in admission opportunity is an essential precondition.
These observations suggest several directions for future research. First, we need to investigate the frequency and severity of technical problems encountered in CMC programs operating in other contexts (with different hardware, conferencing software, and student populations). Second, we need to test the hypothesis that if a CMC course attracts students who vary in computer communication skills, then less capable learners will have lower levels of participation and influence. Third, if the hypothesis is confirmed, we need to develop status-equalling treatments for our CMC courses.
Previous research (reviewed in Cohen, 1994; Cohen & Lotan, 1995) suggests that the most fruitful strategies are likely to be (a) multiple ability strategies (in which the instructor persuades students that the tasks they will be undertaking require multiple abilities not possessed by a single class member), and (b) assigning competence to low status individuals (e.g., by publicly praising low-status learners who demonstrate skills other than computer communication competency that are relevant to the assigned task). One final reflection on our findings. The support provided by the university, be it a dedicated hotline or status equalizing treatments, may be insufficient to enable some students to benefit from CMC forms of distance delivery. Despite the attractions of CMC, and the authors are true believers, it should not supplant other forms of distance education. There is a continuing need for other forms of delivery (audio, video, correspondence), even if CMC is the method of choice for most distance learners.
1. How many computer conferencing courses have you taken, including this one?
2. What communication package (e.g., PROCOMM, KERMIT) do you use to connect to OISE?
3. Do you dial direct, go through DATAPAC or via the Internet?
4. Where are you located?
5. Please describe any problems you have encountered in connecting to OISE. How were these problems resolved?
6. Please describe any problems you have encountered in using the conferencing software (e.g., PARTI, PINE) at OISE. How were these problems resolved?
7. How do you get and send information from the conferencing system (e.g., typing on-line or uploading/downloading files)? Outline the method you use and describe any problems you have encountered in using it.
8. Did you seek or receive help on technical issues from
9. Is there anything else you think we should know about your computer conferencing experience at OISE?
10. Is there a number at which you could be reached during office hours?
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto Trent Valley Centre
Box 719, 150 O’Carroll Avenue
Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7A1
Butcher, P., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Educational computing at the Open University: The second decade. Education and Computing, 8(3), 201-215.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
Cohen, E., & Lotan, R. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the hetero-geneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99-120.
Dale, H. (1993). Conflict and engagement: Collaborative writing in one ninth-grade classroom. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Davie, L., & Palmer, P. (1985). Computer-teleconferencing for advanced distance education. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 10(2), 56-66.
Davie, L., & Wells, R. (1991). Empowering the learner through computer-mediated communication. Alberta Journal of Distance Education, 5(1), 15-23.
Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 16(2), 169-186.
Foell, N. (1989). Using computers to provide distance learning, the new technology. Annual meeting of the American Vocational Educational Research Association, Orlando, FL.
Fulford, C., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
Good, T., McCaslin, M., & Reys, B. (1992). Investigating work groups to promote problem solving in mathematics. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated gradu-ate courses. Canadian Journal for Education Communication, 16(2), 117-135.
Harrington, H., & Hathaway, R. (1994). Computer conferencing, critical reflection, and teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 543-554.
Hiltz, S. (1994). Collaborative learning: The virtual classroom approach. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 17(10), 59-65.
Hiltz, S. (1986). The “virtual classroom”: Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-106.
Karau, S., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.
King, L. (1993). High and low achievers’ perceptions and cooperative learning in two small groups. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 399-416.
Matthews, M. (1992). Gifted students talk about cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 48-50.
Mulryan, C. (1995). Fifth and sixth graders’ involvement and participation in co-operative small groups in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 9(4), 297-310.
Mulryan, C. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 261-273.
Phillips, G., Santoro, G., & Kuehn, S. (1988). The use of computer-mediated communication in training students in group problem-solving and decision-making techniques. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 38-51.
Ross, J., & Cousins, J. B. (1995). Giving and receiving explanations in cooperative learning groups. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41(1), 104-122.
Wells, R. (1993). Computer-mediated communication for distance education: An international review of design, teaching, and institutional issues. University Park, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
John A. Ross is Professor of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning and field centre head at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. At the time the research was conducted he was Coordinator of Distance Education.
Carol Crane (now retired) was a field centre liaison officer at OISE.
Don Robertson is the CMC coach who provides technical support for students enrolled in CMC courses at OISE/UT.