Vol. 16 : No. 4< >
Editor’s Note: This is a thoughtful in-depth study of interactivity in online learning. It attempts to link theory to practice and use successful practice to generate theory and valid research data. The investigators studied models of online learning and observed that online interactions are parallel and face-to-face interactions are serial. They attest to the value of collaborative online learning and propose the concept of a “privacy zone.”
Elements of Group Interaction in a Real-Time Synchronous Online Learning-By-Doing Classroom Without F2F Participation
Mia Lobel, Michael Neubauer, Randy Swedburg
Individuals interacting as a community of learners were observed constructing transformative knowledge in an interactive, real-time eClassroom designed and implemented for teaching a university level course at the Applied Human Sciences Department, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. The three academic credits eCourse, eAHSC/230 ‘INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION AND RELATIONSHIPS,’ was taught without face-to-face interactions, and by using the Department’s ‘learning-by-doing’ pedagogy in the Fall/2001. Interactive Diagrams of a typical one-hour segment show a dynamic community engaged in inquiry based learning and reflective practice. It was observed that online real-time, instantaneous interactions are ‘parallel’ in nature, as opposed to ‘face-to-face’ interactions that are seen as ‘serial’. ‘Parallel’ communication enhanced the perceived worth of the group to be many times the sum of the worth of its individuals. It is this synergy that made collaborative learning attractive to and effective for the participants. A new paradigm called “Perceived Anonymity of Self to Other” is proposed. Related to this phenomenon, the concept of ‘privacy zone’ is introduced. The implications for human development training, in academia, in the helping professions, and in organizational or professional development are considered.
The scope of definitions and models available to describe Distance Education accurately reflects the rapid growth and change occurring in the field. Steiner (1995) discusses two categories of distance education delivery systems, synchronous and asynchronous. She identifies synchronous instruction as requiring the simultaneous participation of all students and instructors and describes interaction in “real time” as an advantage of synchronous instruction. Steiner (1995) identifies an element of Distance Education to be “the separation of teacher and learner during at least a majority of each instructional process” (¶ 3). Synchronous interactions based instructional delivery may not constrain the participants to be physically present at the same location, but it does impose on participants a set time schedule.
The ‘Models of Distance Education, A Conceptual Planning Tool,’ developed by University of Maryland University College for the University System of Maryland Institute for Distance Education (USM, 1997) explores the application of various pedagogies to distance learning environments and offers a more inclusive overview:
The term distance education represents a variety of educational models that have in common the physical separation of the faculty member and some or all of the students. As with all types of education, the various distance education models are built around the central components of the instructional process: presentation of content; interaction with faculty, peers, and resources; practical application; and assessment. Each distance education model uses technologies in various ways to address some or all of these components. The various distance education models differ not only in the types of technologies that are used, but also in the locus of control over the pace and place of instruction. In some models, the faculty and institution have primary control, as is the case in a traditional classroom environment. In others, the control rests with the student (¶ 1).
These disparate definitions reflect the rapid evolution of Distance Education. The opportunities are open ended and no discipline or pedagogy need be excluded from being delivered online. Specifically, the teaching and training of human interactions and communications skills, by using the ‘learning-by-doing’ pedagogy necessitates real-time interaction and community building. Teaching practice-based human relations skills by engaging only in asynchronous interactions would be akin to creating a ‘Granfalloon’ defined by Vonnegut Jr (1974) as “ a proud and meaningless association of human beings, e.g. The Veterans of Future Wars” (pg 1).
The three Models of Distance Education examined by the University of Maryland are, in terms of characteristics: faculty role, student experience, supporting technology and opportunities for interaction. The “Model A –Distributed Classroom” addresses some of the requirements for experientially transmitting interpersonal communication skills: “class sessions involve synchronous communication; students and faculty are required to be in a particular place at a particular time (once a week at a minimum); the nature of the experience mimics that of the classroom for both the instructor and the student” (USM, 1997, ¶ 1) In this model, there is the opportunity for student to student interactions and student to instructor interaction and the faculty do not change their role significantly from the traditional classroom, although presentations will have to adapt to the technology used.
As the salience of group interaction to learning becomes more evident in the Distance Education experience, Threlkeld & Brzoska (1994) hypothesize that many distant learners require support and guidance in the form of some combination of student-instructor and student-student interaction to maximize their distance learning experiences. Research on the need for interaction has produced some important guidelines for instructors organizing courses for distant learners (Willis, 1993):
Learners value timely feedback regarding course assignments, exams, and projects (Egan, et al., 1991). Learners benefit significantly from their involvement in small learning groups. These groups provide support and encouragement along with extra feedback on course assignments. Most importantly, the groups foster the feeling that if help is needed it is readily available. Learners are more motivated if they are in frequent contact with the instructor. More structured contact might be utilized as a motivational tool (Coldeway, et al., 1980) (¶ 7).
Willis, (1993) cautions that in the distance education classroom, “some students may adopt the “TV” attitude, expecting the course to be entertaining, not educational (Reed and Woodruff, 1995)” and suggest addressing “this attitude through well planned and focused presentations with emphasis on teacher-student interaction” (¶ 14). Kerka, (1996) contends that the available technology does support constructivist approaches to learning, “which are based on the belief that individuals construct their own understanding of the world as they acquire knowledge and reflect on experiences. Dede (1996) describes how carefully designed online learning can assist the construction of knowledge by showing learners the links among pieces of information and supporting individual learning style” (¶ 8).
Two conflicting visions of Distance Education are summarized by Park (1996):
On one side are those who view on-line relationships as shallow, impersonal, and often hostile. They assert that only the illusion of community can be created in cyberspace (e.g., Beninger, 1987; Berry, 1993; Heim, 1992; Stoll, 1995). On the other side are those who argue that computer-mediated communication liberates interpersonal relations from the confines of physical locality and thus creates opportunities for new, but genuine, personal relationships and communities (e.g., Pool, 1983; Rheingold, 1993) (¶ 3).
As the role of interaction in learning communities is obviated, Cook (1995) addresses the issue of computer learning environments’ inability to duplicate the community of the classroom, by proposing that a sense of community in traditional classrooms may itself be a false assumption, but if community is defined as shared interests, not geographic space, electronic communities are feasible. Wiesenberg and Hutton (1995) conclude that building a learning community is of critical importance to the creation of a successful virtual classroom. Dede (1996) agrees "to succeed, distributed learning must balance virtual and direct interaction in sustaining communion among people" (p. 199) and adds "access to data does not automatically expand students' knowledge; the availability of information does not intrinsically create an internal framework of ideas" (p. 199). To help learners make effective use of distance learning methods, skilled group facilitation is essential. The shared leadership model (Dimock, 1985) distributes responsibility to individual members to fulfill the functions necessary for maintaining social relationships and for accomplishing the task.
Sherry (2000) cites Chism (1998, pp. 7-8) on the uses of online conversation, which include: building group coherence among students to increase productivity; sharing information and responsibility for constructing knowledge; processing ideas and sharing expertise; refining communication and "Process" skills such as critical and creative thinking; and providing ongoing feedback to and from students.
According to Sherry (2000)
This shift in theoretical focus from knowledge ‘in the head’ to knowledge being situated in an association between the individual intellect and the environment is reminiscent of Allen and Otto (1996) who note that if cognitions are fundamentally situated, then research that fails to take into account the social aspects of a learning task can be criticized as not being ecologically valid. It is also consonant with the view that, in general, learning is inherently a social, dialogical process in which learners benefit most from being part of knowledge-building communities both in class and outside of school (Jonassen, 1995) (¶ 6).
An understanding of group development theories is an essential design and delivery tool to be used for facilitating a productive team building and maintaining.
Groups by their very nature will have a common task to accomplish in order to feel productive. The quality of the facilitative maintenance provided determines how members feel about the work, about each other and about themselves. Collis, Andernach, & Diepen (1997) recognize the importance of facilitated online interaction for community building and highlight the following problematic ‘Maintenance’ (as defined by Dimock, 1985) areas observed when group work is part of the course activity:
· maintaining course cohesion and momentum as students become immersed in their respective projects;
· motivating and structuring collaboration;
· motivating and structuring communication;
· maintaining a "group memory" (a sharable platform of common experiences and understandings);
· organizing and executing self- and inter-group evaluation; and
· relating group activities and product outcomes to conceptual aspects of the course, study materials, and individual assessment in examinations.
It addition Sherry (1996) reports:
As active participants in the learning process, students affect the manner in which they deal with the material to be learned. Learners must have a sense of ownership of the learning goals (Savery & Duffy, 1995). They must be both willing and able to receive instructional messages. Salomon's study (as cited in Saettler, 1990), found that the mental effort which a learner will invest in a learning task depends on his own perception of two factors:
· the relevance of both the medium and the message which it contains
· the ability to make something meaningful out of the material presented (¶ 28)
Finally, the following information relating to online interactivity is found on the University of Alberta’s Academic Technologies for Learning website (U of A, 1999):
1. Interactivity differentiates a course from independent, self-directed study
2. Interactivity maintains the community of discourse
3. Interactivity helps define and re-construct the body of knowledge.
4. Feedback is crucial to the development of community and critical thinking
5. Interaction serves to stimulate and motivate (¶ 2)
The researchers cited above acknowledge that
In the humanities significant knowledge is socially constructed through discourse and introduction to these disciplines involves coming to understand and participate in certain traditions of academic discourse. Discourse is defined as a particular way of using language and other symbolic forms communicatively, or, in ways that produce meaning and understanding. Students become participants in a discourse by entering into the relevant process of textual analysis, interpretation and judgment, and by learning to think, speak and write within the academic considerations that apply (Chalmers, 1993) (cited in U of A, 1999).
Sherry, (1996) reports:
Scardamalia and Bereiter's (1994) CSILE Project relies on distribution of knowledge among students. Knowledge building is accomplished through student-initiated interactions and reflections, in real-time in class, and in delayed-time using an electronic bulletin board system (BBS). Pea's (1994) distributed multimedia learning environments involve a dialectical opposition between the symbol-processing and constructivist viewpoints, to enable students to construct and transform knowledge through progressive discourse (¶ 50).
This paper describes how real-time facilitated group interactivity was integrated with a learning environment design. The experience proved conducive to the successful delivery of an online, synchronous, ‘interpersonal communications and relations’ university course for credit, using the Department’s preferred Experiential pedagogy, without any ‘face-to-face’ interaction. It appears that people are people no matter where they are and how they communicate. While the medium is the message and it qualifies communication, from a group developmental perspective the dynamics unfolded as predicted by the theorists Schutz (1988) and Gibb (1964). Strong membership identifications developed, control issues were productively resolved and friendship ties were formed (Schutz, 1988). The trust formation, data flow, goal formation and realization, along with the interdependence generated in the group was commensurate with prior experience in ‘face-to-face’ groups (Gibb, 1964).
It was observed that online real-time, instantaneous interactions are ‘parallel’ in nature, as opposed to ‘face-to-face’ interactions that are seen as ‘serial’. This type of communication enhanced the perceived worth of the group to be many times the sum of the worth of its individuals and it is this synergy that made collaborative learning attractive and effective to the participants. A new paradigm called “Perceived Anonymity of Self to Other” was proposed. Related to this phenomenon, the concept of ‘privacy zone’ was introduced. The implications for human development training in academia, in the helping professions, and in organizational or professional development were presented.
AHSC 230, ‘Interpersonal Communications and Relationships’ is a multiple-section, introductory, pre-requisite course in the Applied Human Science Department of Concordia University. The course is designed to provide knowledge and skill in building and maintaining interpersonal relationships characterized by mutual understanding and respect. Students can expect to enhance their understanding of effective communication behavior and improve their abilities to attend to verbal and non-verbal communication from others, exchange constructive feedback, engage in effective problem-solving, address and deal constructively with conflict, and communicate across such differences as gender, class and race. Conceptual perspectives highlight the contextual influences in relationship dynamics and the role of affect in interpersonal communication. The course also examines ethical and value considerations.
The target audience for the typical AHSC/230 course is undergraduate students, ranging in age between 20 and 70; the prototype student is a mature person, in the work force, seeking retraining in the “human services” field.
The distance learning, experiential eAHSC/230 eCourse was designed in this vein. The eClassroom design and the course materials presented were delivered to twenty students in the fall semester of 2001. The course time was distributed into 2 four-hour weekend sessions, followed by 9 consecutive three-hour weekly sessions, taught from 7 to 10 p.m. EST Wednesday evenings between September 8, and November 7, 2001.
The medium — a synchronous, online eClassroom available over the Internet and designed specifically for the experiential ‘learning-by-doing’ pedagogy of the Department — uses a real-time, interactive HTML formatted text, image, and animation messaging system. The eClassroom, consisting of a main room and four breakout rooms for small-eGroup experiential eActivities and eDiscussions, was passworded, monitored and archived. Most students logged into the eClassroom from their homes. Text and image based lecture materials were posted to the eClassroom in real-time, and the ‘learning-by-doing’ eGroup activities offered, in this medium, facilitated learning through practice and discussions.
One principle instructor and three eGroup co-facilitators staffed the eClassroom. The ratio of students to co-facilitator was seven to one. Students wrote weekly eJournals, an asynchronous component of the eCourse, which were emailed weekly to their eGroup co-facilitator and principle instructor for evaluation and comments on learning progress. All eClassroom activities and interactions took place online, in real-time. There were no face-to-face interactions whatsoever between the students and the instructors during the three months of this eCourse.
The mandate of the eCourse, which is theory based and practitioner oriented, was to eTrain students in interpersonal communications competence skills. The content focused on two major components of interpersonal skills training. One objective was to increase students' self-awareness as communicators. To this end, issues in trust, perception, values clarification, diversity, as well as individuals' learning and conflict management styles were explored. The second goal was to identify interpersonal limitations through feedback, and to practice Active Listening skills and behavioral changes, both in the eClass and in ‘face-to-face’ interactions.
The eClassroom and the program design afforded a new paradigm for a successful online synchronous, real-time Distance Learning experience, conducive to the practice of identified skills and knowledge. There is much room for future discussion on the effectiveness of the evaluation methods, aspects that helped and hindered the process, and what would be done differently.
The theory of Experiential Learning emerged from the paradigm shift in the field of Psychology during the 1960's and 70's. The far more complex non-reductionist paradigm referred to as ‘humanist theories’ replaced the prevalent reductionist view of human behavior, as represented by the ‘black box’ approach of the Pavlovian view of human learning. “Cognitive theorists, such as Bloom, dealt with the hierarchical nature of knowledge in the cognitive domain, while humanists, such as Maslow, concentrated on the affective domain and how ‘learners attempt to take control of their own life processes” (Kelly, 1997)
Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984) defines an explicit learning process in which experiences are transformed into knowledge through model building and model testing. The Learning Style Inventory developed from Kolb’s (cited in Johnson, 1981) theory is an instrument which identifies the strengths and limitations of individual’s learning styles and clearly illustrates the inherent wealth of all the necessary and diverse perspectives and skills members bring to an interactive, person-centered experience.
Experiential Learning Theory
Kelly (1997) summarizes the development of experiential learning theory:
In the early 1980's, Mezirow, Freire and others stressed that the heart of all learning lies in the way we process experience, in particular, our critical reflection of experience. They spoke of learning as a cycle that begins with experience, continues with reflection and later leads to action, which itself becomes a concrete experience for reflection (Rogers, 1996). Kolb further refined the concept of reflection by dividing it into two separate learning activities, perceiving and processing. (Algonquin, 1996) He thus added another stage, called Abstract Conceptualization. Whereas in the Critical Reflection stage we ask questions about the experience in terms of previous experiences, in the Abstract Conceptualization stage, we try to find the answers. We make generalizations, draw conclusions and form hypotheses about the experience. The Action phase, in light of his interpretation, then becomes a phase of Active Experimentation, where we try the hypotheses out. (Rogers, 1996, p. 100) (¶ 6).
In summary, Experiential Learning may be defined as learning in which students are doing something — not just thinking about something. The experiential learning cycle integrates: 1) concrete experiences, 2) reflective observations about the experiences, 3) generalizations about experiences and observations (abstract conceptualizations), and 4) active experimentations with the abstract concepts (Claxton and Murrell, 1987). It is important to note again, that the Experiential Learning Theory, as well as the Learning Style Inventory developed by Kolb (1984), are both the subject matter and the teaching method used for the eCourse presented here. As Figure 1 illustrates, this method appears to maximize learners’ retention rate.
Figure 1 Learning Retention Rate.
Group Development Theory
A group is defined as 2+ individuals with a common purpose. Groups are seen as entities that form, develop towards maturity, and die. Theories of group development are guidelines to be used to observe, discuss, diagnose, predict and point group facilitators towards the interventions necessary for members to co-create a full and productive group experience.
Group observational and diagnostic skills are a departmental prerequisite for instructing this course. The motto of the teaching team was “Trust the Process.” It was assumed the organic developmental flow observed and described by group development theorists Schutz (1988) and Gibb (1964), with effective facilitation, will unfold online as it would ‘face-to-face,’ if the learning environment was real-time, spacious, user friendly, dynamic and allowed for interaction, collaboration, and the purposeful construction of meaning.
The course material distributed into 10 independent Learning Management Modules was designed and delivered based on the framework discussed by the theorists. According to Schutz (1988), at the inception of a group, the predominant issues members grapple with revolve around membership, on an In/Out Inclusion continuum. Individuals’ prominence needs must be resolved for the group to move to its second phase of development where Control issues dealing with power, influence, conflict, decision making and productivity on a Top/Bottom continuum become the primary preoccupation of the members. If these control issues are resolved to members’ satisfaction, the group will move into its next phase of Openness where the preoccupation is about how lovable members feel and how they negotiate intimacy, or more precisely ‘into-me-see’. At this stage of development, members’ attention shifts to open expressions of feelings, as individuals situate themselves vis-à-vis each other on the Close/Far continuum. A mature group knows what it is doing and it likes itself.
The task of the course is based on self-reflection and the practice of communication skills; i.e. Active Listening (Rogers, 1951, 1969), and the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model (Johnson, 1981). It is designed to bring into awareness individuals’ behavior in conflict situations, it was hypothesized that these topics along with skilled facilitation would likely lead to an increased interpersonal data flow in the eClassroom, which in turn would contribute to higher levels of trust. Increased acceptance would lead to higher group cohesion, which would then crystallize into a sense of shared ownership in common consensual goals, referred to as realization. It was hypothesized that these conditions would move the participants towards a more efficient and involved collaboration to build a community of learners that feels in control of itself and has a high tolerance for ambiguity due to the high levels of acceptance of self and others (Gibb, 1964; Friedlander, 1970).
The eClassroom Design
Functional Issues in the eClassroom
An experiential eClassroom environment must enable students to take responsibility for co-creating their emotional and social safety by increasing awareness and appropriately sharing thoughts, feelings, and reactions to self and others. Appropriate self-disclosure and feedback are fundamental elements of the interpersonal learning process (Luft, 1969; Seashore & Seashore, 1992).
Instructional authority is expected by the students and challenged at times, to verify that it indeed exists (Schutz, 1988). The preferred facilitative techniques used by instructors, to contain learning disruptions in the eClass, is a front-line tool designed to enhance the safe and creative learning environment in any team aware of group dynamics theory and diagnostic guidelines (Dimock & Devine, 1997). The role of the group facilitator is to carry out a set of functions or activities before, during and after a session to help the group achieve its own objectives.
Many studies discuss asynchronous and some synchronous group interactions on the Internet that used a wide variety of features. It appears none use the full variety of features made available in the eClassroom designed for this course that facilitate the creation of an authentic social presence for the individual. Other studies conclusively demonstrate that online groups: a) tend to promote ‘disinhibition’ compared to face-to-face groups, and b) allow for greater equality of participation among group members than normally found in face-to-face groups (Sempsey, 1988). The safe environment of a password-protected chat room as a venue for group therapy was briefly studied (Barak & Wander-Schwartz, 2000); however, the non-textual elements of social interaction were not reported.
Parks (1996) cites reports that “illustrate how people overcome the technical limitations of CMC. In addition to the well-known use of keyboard characters, or "smileys," to imitate facial expressions and paralinguistic features of conversation (e.g., typing ":-)" to indicate a smile), users frequently express emotion and metacommunicative intent by embedding words in text (Wilkins, 1991)” (¶ 8).
The eClassroom’s intuitive features greatly decreased the learning curve and enabled participants to log in, interact and create a social presence without the inherent frustrations of having to ‘figure out’ the application. Students quickly and successfully resolved their membership issues. This was facilitated by the creation of three color-teams within the large group, which served to increase intra and inter group identification and interaction. The small color breakout groups afforded more individual time and increased feedback between the student and the co-facilitator and between students. As shown in Figure 2, by the sixth session small group members greet each other in the main room, often to the exclusion of the rest of the students.
Figure 2. Member of small groups greeting each other in the main room to the exclusion of the rest of the group.
Twenty of the twenty-three students registered chose to implicate themselves into the group and into the task at hand, get involved in building team cohesion, take interpersonal risks and successfully complete the course. The Conflict Resolution Module which was timed to address the interpersonal control issues predicted by the framework of the group development theories used in the course design, was an appropriate intervention that led to honest expressions of feelings and a heightened sense of group solidarity. Students understood and embraced the objectives of the eCourse, and expressed satisfaction while meeting them.
Unlike in a ‘face-to-face’ group, where one is physically present and to that extent immediately included into the group, in the eClass there is no such ‘anchor’. On the other hand, in online interactions individuals are ‘disencumbered’ of ‘physicality’ that enables them to maintain a perception of a ‘privacy zone’, experienced as a sense of home safety. It is hypothesized that in this ‘privacy zone’ individuals tend to find more ‘space’ to introspect, feel more ‘permission’ to speak from ‘the zone’ and do so with greater clarity, transparency and depth.
In a ‘face-to-face’ interaction, interpersonal communication is ‘serial’. It is considered impolite and distracting for two people, never mind twenty, to opine all at once. In the real-time synchronous online environment, communication is ‘parallel’. Twenty students can, and did post within the same minute, generating enormous amounts of free flowing relevant personal reflections, reactions and comments to weave a solid web of interpersonal communication lines. Since the eClass topic and the learning process depended on appropriate self-disclosure and feedback, member acceptance grew rapidly, the group goals were understood and supported by all, the tasks were accomplished, and students reported high levels of satisfaction with the outcome.
It is a fundamental requirement of the experiential, online Distance Learning environment to address the same face-to-face learning requirements in the more challenging experiential eClassroom. It is important to identify potentially new learning evaluation methods within the construct of the experiential eClassroom since it may well afford certain elements required for a safe and creative learning environment, which could not, in fact, be achievable in a ‘face-to-face’ classroom.
In the Fall/2002, there is a plan to implement a matched study by teaching identically formulated classes, one in a ‘face-to-face’ classroom, and one in the eClassroom. The same curriculum, the same content and activities, the same pedagogy, the same principle instructor and co-facilitators, and the same length of class and time frames will be used in this ‘matched’ experiment.
Functional Design of the eClassroom
Hewitt, Scardamalia, & Webb (1997) examine implications for designing computer learning-environments from their framework of ‘situated learning theory,’ which sees knowledge from a systemic perspective:
Situated learning theory suggests that learning is a process of improving one's participation in systems of activity, particularly social systems. If we accept this perspective, then we must recognize that it is educationally crucial for the learner to both have an awareness of group practices, and how the learner can productively engage in those practices. But although this is the essence of learning from the situative point of view, few (if any) computer environments provide overt support for these kinds of operations (¶ 14).
The eClassroom design and the pedagogical approach provided the overt support mentioned by these authors. In the eClass metaphor all the participants, instructors, and students were eExplorers, researchers who aimed to build knowledge through sustained, interactive collaborative investigation. The eExplorers were ready for the ‘depaysement’, described by Turkle (1996), and saw themselves ‘decountrified’, expecting to be changed by the experience. It is as if “One leaves one’s own culture to face something unfamiliar, and upon returning home it has become strange and can be seen with fresh eye (p.218).
The software for the eClassroom creates HTML formatted real-time messages. The Input Form for these messages is shown in Figure 3, and examples of the results are shown in Figures 2, 10, 11, and 12. Rules were established for the students. For example the teachers have the ability to speak privately with the students during eClass time using Private Messages (PM) (Figure 3, Item 2). The students can return the PM to the teaching staff, but cannot PM/whisper to other students.
During peak periods of eClassroom interactions with twenty-one students, three co-facilitators, and one principal instructor, fifteen to twenty posts per minute is not unusual. All the data included in the post was logged for future reference: ISP identification, eClassroom password, time of day, post number, all text, and all HTML formatting used to generate the post.
The students and teaching staff receive the data from the server by clicking the "Get/Send" button. Each time an individual clicks the "Get/Send" button when there is no text in the input box, the server receives the signal and refreshes that individuals screen with the latest set of posts received since the last time the individual clicked their "Get/Send" button. The request for refreshing is also logged by the software, and it is not unusual for hundreds of requests to be processed per minute.
Figure 3. The Input Form. 1) Get/Send Button. 2) A pull down menu for Private Messages to students and staff. 3) When retrieving posts, a number in this field; i.e. 25 will refresh the screen with 25 of the previous posts. 4) Input Data Field for the author’s text and URL’s to graphics. 5) The name of the student or staff member. 6) Input field for the URL to a graphic which is posted each time data is posted in the Input Data Field. 7) The font size and color for the name in item 5, and for the text in item 4. 8) Links to the breakout rooms.
Emoticons can be added to the text to create expressive comments in the posts (Figure 4), and any GIF graphic with a URL can be placed in-line with the text by the author to create energetic, emotional, and alive posting comments. The use of this type of graphical emoting has become a new lexicon within the experiential, online, Distance Learning environment, and the subject of the definition of social presence in the online classroom (Tu, 2000).
Figure 4. Examples of emoticons that can be used in the eClassroom.
Graphical data is presented by the teacher using URLs to instructional materials uploaded to the classroom website (Figure 5). They can be either text or graphics, animated or not, and can be posted by the teacher in either the data input field or the picture URL field (Figure 3, Items 4 and 6) When posted from the picture URL field the graphical data is re-posted each time new text is added to the input data field. This allows for a means of re-emphasizing what is being taught, creating an instructional narrative for the students. Since all the posts are archived, a full reading of the three- hour class will include the lecture, the discussion, questions and answers, the activities, and all comments by the principle instructor and co-facilitators. The archives are a unique feature of the eClassroom. They proved to be very useful for students to review the interactions and reflect on their participation, and an invaluable adjunct for those who missed a session.
Figure 5. Instructional Material. Feedback formula used in the discussion of Session 3.
A versatile feature of the eClassroom is a whiteboard used in the design of collaborative activities. Learning Management Module 6 successfully used this feature.
In the ‘face-to-face’ classroom it is easy to quantify attendance by simple roll calls, but this measure does not produce the same results in the synchronous eClassroom. As a result, a new definition of ‘attendance’ emerges. This definition includes attending as ‘being there’ and attending as in ‘paying attention’. The software of the eClassroom records these ‘attending behaviors’ for each participant. This feature allows instructors to determine when students are not active at their keyboards and take appropriate action to re-include them in the ongoing process. Interpreting the level of attending by students in light of their Personal Learning Styles (Kolb, 1984) to determine the significance and general efficacy of this design feature is the subject of another paper.
The median number of times the “Get/Send” button was clicked in the eClassroom during the three hour class session was 3,750, five times the number of posts. These may be valid behavioral measures of ‘attending’, specifically when the “Get/Send” button is clicked, without posting, and of “participating” when a post is sent with the click of the “Get/Send.” These new objective measures are not achievable in face-to-face classrooms, where subjectivity is the norm of measure.
Recognizing that more is not better, comparing the quality of data flow in ‘face-to-face’ and in eClassroom interactions is one of the goals of the upcoming matched study that will be conducted in Fall/2002.
Assessment of learning outcome is one of the most prolific multifaceted issues in the education field and ultimately one of the most important. Ever since people have been contemplating such matters, they have generated more questions than answers: What is learning? How does it occur? How can it be evaluated? There appears to be no literature assessing learning in an interactive real-time synchronous environment, where intra and interpersonal relationship is the focus and skill building is the desired outcome.
Student self-assessment, in keeping with specific guidelines, is a source of learning for students and a rich source of feedback data for instructors. The criteria and process used and what will be done differently will need to be described before the Fall/2002 semester. The final grades were consistent with the Department’s average.
During the eCourse, students completed 10 learning eJournals, which they emailed in for feedback from the principle instructor and eGroup co-facilitators (an asynchronous feature of the program design.) Process questions, designed to elicit introspection and action to identify which interpersonal communication strength would be useful to change which corresponding limitation, were supplied but not enforced. A cursory analysis of eJournal contents indicates learning has taken place, and bears a striking resemblance to journals written in the “face-to-face” sections. In Fall/2002 a matched study and measure for comparison will be implemented. This is one of the main topics for future discussion, design and study.
Discussion of Results
As the randomly selected one hour Interaction Diagram (Figure 6) illustrates, the eClassroom design afforded 331 real-time interactions with an average of 22 words per message. Such data flow would not be useful at all during ‘serial’, ‘face-to-face’ interactions, let alone while the instructor is introducing new material. There was no indication that students found it difficult to receive, assess and respond to the information generated by the observed ‘parallel communication’ interactions.
The median number of posts in the main room was 750 per three-hour class, with an average of 30 posts per student. At peak periods, the posting rate was 20 posts per minute. In his case study on ‘Participation and Critical Thinking in Online University Distance Education,’ Bullen (1998) reports similar statistical results in an asynchronous course:
On average, the 13 completing students posted 15.92 messages during the 14 weeks of the course for a weekly average of just over one message (1.14) per student. Compared with the findings of other researchers this is a low-to-moderate participation level. Studies by Harasim (1993a), for example, found student participation levels ranging from an average of 5 messages per student per week to a high of 10, in 12 different undergraduate and graduate courses (p. 7).
Figure 6 Interaction Diagram for Session 3 during the lecturette and discussion.
Bullen (1998) discusses students in an asynchronous environment who experienced the individual messages exchanged at the bulletin board level and not as a real discussion: while they “all expressed a desire for some form of real-time communication...the real time component was seen as a way of getting more immediate feedback from the instructor...” (p.10).
In Learning Management Module #3 described by the interaction diagram shown in Figure 6, the messages addressed to the group as a whole and messages addressed to individuals were studied in terms of the stages of Inclusion, Control and Openness as described by Schutz (1988). The data is shown in Figure 7. In this early session of the eCourse, at the beginning of class, during the Inclusion period 67% of students’ messages went to the larger group indicating students were greeting and seeking inclusion more with the class as a whole. Later in the session this percentage changed significantly. During the lecturette students addressed their remarks equally to individuals and to the class as a whole, illustrating a democratic spread of interaction. This describes students constructing knowledge directly with each other as well as in a community context. After a period of ‘processing’ the lecturette in their small color-groups students appear to have returned to the classroom with new information to impart to the group in general, since 77% of their messages were addressed to the large community. This indicates that some new knowledge was constructed during the small group ‘process’ discussion and was deemed important enough to share with the rest of the group.
Figure 7. Student Messages either to the group or to individuals within the group.
Implications of Serial and Parallel Communication
The basic building blocks of community are the individual members interacting. In the eClassroom, unlike in ‘face-to-face’ classrooms, these interactions are easily quantified. As has already been noted, there were 331 lines of interactions with posted messages that averaged 22 words (Figure 6.) in one hour. This high interaction is a result of the ‘parallel’ communications pattern.
The percentage of the group members who are actually participating in the discussions is just as important as the rate of interaction and the nature of the communications themselves. This ‘parallel nature’ of the interactions was quantified in terms of how many different individuals interacted within a five minute time period. As can be seen in Figure 8, during the one-hour randomly chosen session in the eClassroom this number was often over fifteen different people, which means seventy percent of the students were actively participating in the discussion. This manifestation of ‘democratic relationships’ has been noted in other eClassrooms (Hudson, J.M. & Bruckman, A. (2002). It is theorized that if this is the norm for the eClassroom, then from Gibb’s (1964) perspective of group development theory, trust formation and data flow are measurably more dynamic in the eClassroom than in the equivalent ‘face-to-face’ interaction.
Figure 8 Individuals interacting in ‘parallel communication’.
When the rate of individuals interacting in the eClassroom was evaluated, it was observed that there were on average over five messages posted per minute during this same five-minute time slot, with peak rates exceeding fifteen posts per minute. In Figure 9, the moving average of the rate of interaction during this one hour is graphed. It is interesting to note the rate of interaction falls during the first half of the lecturette, but that during the second half of the lecturette, the interaction rate rises. Where else can the students talk, while the professor is lecturing? It should be noted that the professor, does not need to interact with the students much more than one post per minute to facilitate the discussion that exhibits high rates of individual interaction.
In organizational and group development, the facilitator uses the self as an instrument. In a synchronous environment, the expert facilitator has been represented as a Collaboration Agent responsible to introduce feedback into various knowledge intensive tasks (Jondahl & Morch, 2002). Expert facilitators have been modeled in small face-to-face problem solving groups to determine the principles that can be used in online interactions (Hmelo-Silver, 2002). The five-to-one ratio of group interaction to facilitator messaging shown in Figure 9 is another example of the model that can be applied to the important issue of scalability in the eClassroom.
Once facilitation and interaction are quantifiable, the issue of scalability can be addressed. Future eCourses will involve experimenting with even higher rates of facilitation to determine what, if any, are the limits of individual interaction with respect to the benchmark already set. The goal is to establish optimization rules for these quantifiable elements of interaction, which would lead to the means by which one can scale the eClassroom, and by extension, online communities, to even larger applications and to greater depth.
Figure 9 Facilitation and Interaction rates during Session 3 lecturette and discussion.
Random examples of student comments during the ‘lecturette’ (Figures 10 and 11), illustrate the content and nature of typical eClassroom interactions after a concept was presented. A word analysis of expressions of feelings, as they relate to group development phases and the learning styles identified by Kolb (1964) are topics of future studies.
Figure 10 Sample messages to illustrate the quality of interaction.
Figure 11 Sample messages to illustrate the quality of interaction.
Theory of a New Paradigm as Experienced in the eClassroom
An eClass session activity was designed where the students were allowed to re-log onto the eClassroom with anonymous names, and discuss a topic. Anonymity was in this case complete, although all ISP numbers were recorded by the eClassroom and made available only to the instructor. The usual rules of netiquette were followed, and students’ feelings and reactions were added to the real-time synchronous discussion, with the rule that no student could comment on, other than paraphrase, what another student offered. After about a hundred and fifty posts, the students were sent to their respective breakout eGroups for further discussion, but this time without the anonymity feature.
The experiential purpose of this activity was for the students to observe the difference between “real anonymity,” or how they felt about being in the synchronous online classroom, and, of course, the concept of self-disclosure the course content of this third Learning Management Module. But what we learned was something striking by its newness and first blush of incongruity (Figure 12).
Figure 12 “double-anonysizing”.
There was not much anonymity in this posting, but the perception was explicitly one of being anonymous even with the student’s name, a picture of himself, and a customized graphic he had made to identify himself with the Green Team. This is something quite new and exciting in the classroom. This is believed to be a new paradigm in interactive real-time Distance Education and will be called: The Perceived Anonymity of Self to Others.
The eyes have it. Participants in ‘face-to-face’ interactions have the eyes of the authority and their peers upon them, and they in turn watch for all the social cues they will use in formulating their ‘smart’ answers, their ‘cool’ responses, their ‘expected’ reactions to non-verbal cues, and their ‘imagined’ responses to intuitive feelings about the rest of the constellation of individuals involved in the interaction. This “noise” in the communication process may, in fact, inhibit interpersonal trust and therefore learning, by mitigating participants’ willingness to self-disclose in the ‘face-to-face’ experiential learning process.
Walther (1992) adopts the social information processing perspective and believes that Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) can be as “deeply relational” as face-to-face interactions given sufficient time and information exchange. He attributes this to the strong desire humans have for affiliation and interpersonal connection. Chester & Gwynne (1998) report:
More recently Walther (1996) has argued that CMC provides not only for the interpersonal but the hyperpersonal: a more intimate and socially desirable exchange than face-to-face interactions. According to Walther, the hyperpersonal nature of CMC is enhanced when long term future interaction is anticipated and when no face-to-face relationship exists, so that users construct impressions and present themselves ‘without the interference of environmental reality’ (p.33).
Preliminary impressions are supported by Walther’s (1996) assertion that the de-individuating features of CMC (visual anonymity, physical isolation and selective self-preservation), if paired with high group salience, lead to decreased perception of individual differences, increased adherence to group norms and more positive impression formation.
It is suggested that, as a result of a learning environment with bandwidth limiting the ‘face-to-face’ classroom social cues, students perceive less risk and more opportunity to self disclose, and as a result, engage in a larger ‘windowed’ opening to the self. This exciting new discovery will require further analysis.
The “Privacy Zone”
Kerka (1996) suggests:
Carefully designed Internet courses can enhance interactivity between instructors and learners and among learners, which is a serious limitation of some DL formats. Equity is often mentioned as a benefit of online learning; the relative anonymity of computer communication has the potential to give voice to those reluctant to speak in face-to-face situations and to allow learner contributions to be judged on their own merit, unaffected by "any obvious visual cultural markers'" (Bates 1995, p. 209). The medium also supports self-directed learning—computer conferencing requires learner motivation, self-discipline, and responsibility (¶ 5).
A difference noted from prior experience with ‘face-to-face’ group interaction relates to individuals’ ‘privacy zones’ and the impact this has on learning and group development. This ‘privacy zone’ may be conceptualized as the subjective experience of personal safety from ‘noisy eyes’ that seems to increase individuals’ perceived permission to engage in idiosyncratic behaviors. For example, one student reported logging into the eClassroom from her kitchen, another from a hotel room, while another was in a bathrobe. Contrast this with the perception of a ‘privacy zone’ twenty individuals may experience sitting in a tight circle with no desks.
This ‘privacy zone’ is extended and naturally maintained in online interactions, as compared to ‘face-to-face’ environments, and it is related to, but different from the ‘Perceived Anonymity of Self to Others’ discussed above. Since the perception of safety is an important variable for learning/change, it is hypothesized that an individual’s learning experience would be modified by their perception of the extent and reliability of their ‘privacy zone’. The safer one feels the more one is predisposed to genuinely communicate personal information and be open to change. (Gibb, 1964) Unlike in ‘face-to-face’ groups, in a synchronous online environment participants can connect from ‘the inside out’ and reveal themselves in new unencumbered and transparent ways to form trusting learning relationships, yet maintain a sense of privacy, in the familiar safety of their homes. It is hypothesized that this perception has enhanced the scope, depth, authenticity and usefulness of the personal information generated during the eCourse. This hypothesis will be tested in a ‘matched’ study during the Fall/2002.
Experiential pedagogy is based on the belief that learning is a life-long process, stimulated by active participation, a respect for the individual's past experiences, critical reflection and dialogue. This framework facilitates the design of interpersonal interaction training programs intended to develop communities of learners who learn in more effective ways and build motivation for learning in their own organizations. The development of facilitated learning communities is characterized by a shared vision, systems thinking, collaborative learning and teamwork. It is suggested that this process, if properly facilitated, will unfold, albeit altered, regardless of the specific task, skills, geographical location, and the communication media used. “Good distance teaching practices are fundamentally identical to good traditional teaching practices and "those factors which influence good instruction may be generally universal across different environments and populations” (Wilkes & Burnham, 1991).
Rosseel (1999) confirms the eClass experience:
Web-based training is learning that presents dynamic content in an environment allowing self-directed and self-paced instruction. Web-based training has several key characteristics. It has the ability to deliver diverse media and is fully capable of evaluation and adaptation. It is platform independent. Training resources can extend beyond the basic course content to include Internet resources and proprietary databases and resources. Communication between learners and facilitators can be seamlessly integrated into the web-based course environment via online discussion software tools. Content can be easily updated to reflect the changing interests of the facilitators and learners(¶ 8).
The features of the web based eClassroom, the content of the Learning Management Modules, the pedagogy employed, the program design and evaluation methods delivered as an ‘academic event’, may also serve to train individuals in ‘people skills’ no matter where or why they gather. The Learning Management Modules are designed to strengthen leadership and enhance the professional performance of individuals serving in public and private sector entities, including learning institutions, social services, organizations and corporations.
An Instructional Teaching Manual for the ten Learning Management Modules will be used to train Trainers to deliver the same content, and facilitate individual, group and organizational learning and change within the same paradigm. Human capacity development and organizational development depend on solid needs assessment and strategic planning and evaluation. Some areas where online experiential training capability is possible and beneficial include self awareness, communication skills, conflict management, dealing with diversity and change, decision making, process management, employee retention, increasing team efficiency, stress management, coaching and counseling employees, career development, human resource management and basic customer service.
The eClassroom design discussed in this paper with the principle instructor and three co-facilitators has an estimated capacity to eTrain four hundred and fifty people per week. From what is known today, this scales linearly with the teaching team. The assumptions are: a) one co-facilitator can work effectively in this type of pedagogy with ten students, and can facilitate a Learning Management Module in three two-hour session per day five days per week and b) one principle instructor can manage three co-facilitators with thirty students.
As the controversy about the nature, necessity and feasibility of online interactivity, be it synchronous or asynchronous, is unfolding there is little discussion about what specific knowledge can or cannot be constructed in an online learning environment. What are the subjects that can be effectively transmitted asynchronously? Which topics and pedagogies demand real-time group interaction? What are, in fact, the restrictions?
There is virtually no data describing how existing successful pedagogies, which are predicated on real-time interactive immediacy and skill practice, could be adapted to online learning environments. Much discussion and exploration is needed concerning the delivery of human relations skills online, when the pedagogy is based on group interaction, specifically active experiencing, concrete observation, abstract conceptualization and active practice and the content design is predicated on theories of group development, and observational and facilitation skills which necessitate participation and interaction.
Throughout this paper topics are referred to as requiring further exploration: all the data to be analyzed, all the issues waiting to be discussed, all the reports to be written and all the studies we are eager to share with the distance learning community. There will be facets of the experience that may not be conveyed without Active Experimentation. For example, imagine entering a classroom at midnight and finding students present there discussing the course material!
Group members’ interactions rates have been examined. Interaction diagrams tracking participation in terms of ‘who spoke to whom’ were presented. Attendance was redefined and quantified. The general content of students’ messages was illustrated. Serial and parallel communication patterns were discussed. A new paradigm of “Perceived Anonymity of Self to Others’ was formulated. The concept of a “privacy zone” was explored. Much qualitative and quantitative analysis remains.
Thanks to all the students, and particularly those who signed releases for us to use their real names in this paper. Thanks to Susan Dinan, Judith Grad, and Kim Ward, our co-facilitators, without whom this pilot program could not have been completed. This eClass was supported by a grant from the Concordia Teaching and Learning Services, Faculty Teaching Development Grants for 2001-2002.
Barak, A., & Wander-Schwartz, M. (2000). Empirical evaluation of brief group therapy conducted in an internet chat room. Journal of Virtual Reality, January 2000 (retrieved January 15, 2002: http://www.brandeis.edu/pubs/jove/HTML/v5/cherapy3.htm).
Bullen, M. (2000). Education in a borderless world. Presentation to the International Seminar on E-Education and E-Training in the New Century (ISET 2000) Universiti Tun Abdul Razak (UNITAR), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia September 19, 2000 (retrieved January 15, 2002: http://www2.cstudies.ubc.ca/~bullen/iset.html).
Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 1-32 (retrieved January, 15, 2002: http://www2.cstudies.ubc.ca/~bullen/iset.html).
Chester, A., & Gwynne, G. (1998). Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 4 (2).
CDLP, extracted from "Distance Education at a Glance" developed by University of Idaho, Engineering Outreach staff. (retrieved February 17, 2002: http://www.cdlponline.org/dlinfo/cdlp1/distance/reseffective.html)
Collis, B., Andernach, T., & Diepen, N. Van (1997). Web environments for group-based project work in higher education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3 (2/3), 109-130.
Cook, D. L. (1995). Community and computer-generated learning environments. New directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 67 (Fall 1995): 33-39
Dede, C. (1996). Emerging technologies in distance education for business. Journal of Education for Business, 71, no. 4 (March-April 1996): 197-204.
Dimock, H. (1985). How to observe your group. Center for Human Resource Development Monograph Series for People working with People,’2nd Ed., p1-46.
Dimock, H & Devine, I. (1997). The Dimock series on groups. Ontario, Canada: Captus Press.
Friedlander, F. (1970). The primacy of trust as a facilitator of further group accomplishment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6, 387-400.
Gibb, J. R. (1964). Climate for trust formation. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, & K. Benne (Eds.), T-group Theory and Laboratory Method. New York: Wiley.
Hewitt, J., Scardamalia, M. & Webb, J. (1997). Situative design issues for interactive learning environments: The problem of group coherence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Association, Chicago, March 24, 1997. (Retrieved January 15, 2002: http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca/abstracts/situ_design)
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2002). Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. January 7-11, 2002. Bouldar, Colorado, USA. p 199.
Hudson, J.M. & Bruckman, A. (2002). Disinhibition in a CSCL environment. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. January 7-11, 2002. Bouldar, Colorado, USA. pg 620.
Johnson, D.W. (1981). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
S. Jondahl, S. & Morch, A. (2002). Simulated pedagogical agents in a virtual learning environment. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. January 7-11, 2002. Bouldar, Colorado, USA. p 531.
Kelly, C. (1997). David Kolb, The theory of experiential learning and ESL. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 9. (retrieved January 15, 2002: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Experiential)
Kerka, S. (1996). Distance learning, the internet, and the World Wide Web. (Retrieved February 17, 2002: http://www.cssjournal.com/kerka.html).
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Luft, J. (1969). Of human interaction. Palo Alto, CA: National Press.
Parks, M., and Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 1, No.4 (Retrieved February 17, 2002: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue4/parks.html)
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus, OH.: Charles Merrill.
Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rosseel, T. (1999). Distance education: A new frontier for the OLMS , Association of Research Libraries, 202. (Retrieved February 17, 2002: http://www.arl.org/newsltr/202/disted.html (by Trish Rosseel, Visiting Program Officer)
Schutz, W. (1988). Profound simplicity, 3rd ed., Muir Beach, California: WSA.
Seashore, C.N., Seashore, E. W., & Weinberg, G. M. (1992). What did you say?: The art of giving and receiving feedback. North Attleborough, MA: Douglas Charles Press.
Sempsey, J. (1998). The therapeutic potentials of text-based virtual reality. Journal of Virtual Reality, July 1998. (Retrieved January 15, 2002: http://www.brandeis.edu/pubs/jove/HTML/v3/sempsey.html)
Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (4), 337-365. (Retrieved February 17, 2002: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~lsherry/pubs/issues.html)
Sherry, L. (2000). The nature and purpose of online conversations: A brief synthesis of current research. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6 (1), 19-52. (Retrieved February 17, 2002: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~lsherry/pubs/dialogue.htm)
Steiner, V. (1995). What is distance education? DLRN Research Associate, 10/10/95. (Retrieved February 1, 2002: http://www.dlrn.org/library/dl/whatis.html)
Threlkeld, R., & Brzoska, K. (1994). Research in distance educations. In B. Willis (Ed.), Distance education: Strategies and tools, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educations Technology Publications, Inc.
Tu, C.H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27-37.
Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. London: Wedenfield & Nicholson.
U of A. (1999). ( Retrieved February 17, 2000: http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/articles/disted/interact_options.cfm)
USM, (1997). Models of distance education, a conceptual planning tool. (Retrieved February 3, 2002: http://www.umuc.edu/ide/modlmenu.html#overview)
Vonnegut Jr., K. (1974). Wampeters, foma & granfaloons. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co. Inc.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23 (1), 3-43.
Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19 (1), 52-90.
Wiesenberg, F. & Hutton, S. (1995). Teaching a graduate program using computer mediated conferencing software. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, Kansas City, MO, November 1995.
Wilkes, C.W., & Burnham, B.R. (1991). Adult learner motivations and electronics distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(1), 43-50.
Willis, B (Ed.), (1993). Distance education: Strategies and tools, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educations Technology Publications, Inc. (Retrieved February 17, 2002: http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/distglan.html)
About the Authors
Mia Lobel has been instrumental in developing innovative programs since 1973 when she co-founded the Women’s Information and Referral Services of Montreal. A mother of three, in 1985 she received an M.Ed. in Educational and Counseling Psychology, from McGill University. Since then, she has been a Part-Time Faculty member at the Department of Applied Human Sciences/Concordia University and a Psychotherapist in private practice. Ms Lobel has developed experiential modules to teach communication skills, conflict management, team building, and diversity for face-to-face and online academic and organizational learning groups.
Mia Lobel can be contacted at the Westmount Psychology Center, 4211 Ste Catherine West, Westmount, QC H3Z 1P6. email@example.com 514-935-6268 x223.
Michael Neubauer, MSEE, is an Engineering Physicist at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, California. He has consulted on a number of technical projects internationally. He has twenty years of management experience in technical disciplines and systems administration. His technical interests are in numerical analysis of complex multi-dimensional problems.
Michael Neubauer can be contacted at 5 des Erables, Katevale, QC J0B 1W0. firstname.lastname@example.org 819-847-0076.
Dr. R. B. Swedburg is a professor and chair of the department of Applied Human Sciences at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec. His major research interests are in the areas of lifelong learning, successful aging and lifestyle. These are areas where he has received many research grants, published frequently and is a speaker locally, nationally and internationally. His teaching has covered many areas, most recently leisure education, older adulthood and lifelong learning. In 2001 Dr. Swedburg received the Concordia University Alumnae Award for teaching excellence. Fellow and Director, Concordia University Centre for Mature Students; Senior Fellow, American Leisure Academy; Past President of the American Association for Leisure and Recreation; Fellow, North American Society for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance; and, Vice-President, Institute Development, Elderhostel Canada are all titles Dr. Swedburg holds or has held.
Dr. Swedburg can be contacted as follows: RB Swedburg, EdD, Chair, Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Ouest, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 Tel 514-848-3331 / 514-848-2277 Fax 514-848-4200 email@example.com.