computer mediated communication for learning and teaching

COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION FOR LEARNING
AND TEACHING: AN ANALYSIS
Herb Thompson
The American University in Cairo
Cairo, Egypt
herbt@aucegypt.edu
Abstract
By giving us greater control over information, we, as teachers and learners, can be released from many
of the daily mundane tasks in order to pursue more complex tasks, by using the computer as an analytical
and synthetic medium. Yet, ironically, this leads many of us to see computer technology as a threat. Many
of us who have spent our lives with face-to-face education have a similar view towards the computer, as
did my grandmother to the telephone. She wouldn't speak to anyone she couldn't see. In this paper we
examine the relationship between computer-mediated-communication (c-m-c) and teaching/learning. We
identify the strengths and weaknesses of asynchronous c-m-c, reflect on the relationships of students
learning via computer mediation, and conclude with pedagogical insights as to the value of electronic,
asynchronous communication.
Keywords
Educational technology, tertiary education, computer mediation, asynchronous communication, pedagogy
1. INTRODUCTION
Representational formats of the previous 5,000 years have been digitalised. By giving us greater control
over information, we can be released to pursue more complex tasks, using the computer as an analytical
and synthetic medium [24]. Yet, ironically, these phenomena lead many of us to see computer technology
as a threat. Many of us who have spent our lives with face-to-face education have a similar view towards
the computer, as did my grandmother to the telephone. She wouldn't speak to anyone she couldn't see.
Ahern and El-Hindi provided us with an important analytical case study of computer-mediated discussion
from the perspective of teacher/facilitators when they argued [1], “implementing a change from the
traditional classroom to one that values collaborative discourse in not simple”. Admittedly, there are those
who take an extremely optimistic view seeing the end of classroom pedagogy and the professoriate, as
aspiring students sit at home logging on and gathering whatever information that is required to suit their
own learning purposes [5] [18]. This, as might be expected is strongly challenged by a strongly asserted
pessimistic view providing a view of the online Big Mac Degree providing second rate information to
isolated students who are ill-prepared to either use it or understand it [25].
In this paper a guarded optimistic view is taken that recognises the usefulness but accepts the caveats of
computer-mediation in teaching/learning. The sections to follow begin with the consideration of computer
technology and teaching/learning. We then proceed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of computermediated-communication
as outlined in the literature. This is followed by reflections on participation,
finishing with a summary that reviews the pedagogical insights gained from teaching/learning with
computers and the value of electronic, asynchronous communication. The definition of computermediated-learning
used herein, provided by Edwards and Clear [10], refers to “any form of interpersonal
communication that uses some form of technology to transmit, store, annotate, or present information,
created by one or more participants”.
2. COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHING/LEARNING
Much of the published literature has focused on the benefits of the computer for instructional
applications. These include quick and remote access to information and instruction, convenience,

adaptability to change, speed of communication, the ability to reach large audiences, instant feedback,
facilitation of group work, and cost savings [15] [28]. On the other hand, a significant literature,
particularly amongst academic psychologists questions the expense and purpose of developing computerbased
learning. Some question whether the potential increment in student learning is worth the time and
trouble involved. Many authors have anecdotally discussed some of the shortcomings and obstacles of
embracing the Internet in higher education settings. Such problems include lack of privacy issues, poor or
limited interactions, technological difficulties (e.g., server failure, overloaded circuits, "dead" links),
software limitations, increased time commitment (of faculty), limited faculty knowledge, training and
support, technological rather than content focus, isolation, and archival/retrieval concerns [9] [17] [33].
Does computer technology simply allow us to achieve old goals more efficiently? Or can (should) it be
used in a self-conscious manner to construct a social environment with a new morphology of
interpersonal communication? The historically conditioned forms of activity mediated through computers
must be studied for the qualitatively distinctive forms of interaction that these artefacts afford and the
social arrangements that they help to constitute. One needs to consider the ‘effects’ of interacting in this
medium in the entire system of social relations of which they are a part [31]. All of which begs the
question: What are the strengths and weaknesses of computer-mediated-communication?
3. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF COMPUTER-MEDIATED-
COMMUNICATION
3.1 Strengths
• The ability to think, study, participate and initiate conversation without the restrictions of time or
place [4] [23].
• The ability for reflection and thoughtful, asynchronous negotiation of meaning between members of
a large group [7] [21]. This potential for collaboration is what connects computer-mediatedcommunication
to constructivist pedagogy [20].
• Conversations may be archived for future reference including the ability to re-visit the full context of
a topic [23].
• The potential exists for greater equality of participation within the group given the reduction in
recognisable, economic, social, and racial or gender distinction [11].
3.2 Weaknesses
• The ubiquitous complaint about lack of face-to-face contact, resulting in the loss of phatic functions
that provide reassurance to both the speaker and listener [12].
• Most of the messages are instructive rather than constructive or collaborative. This is probably not a
weakness so much as a hurdle that must be leaped by all in the interest of "community".
• Although electronic fora efficiently link those in need of information with those that have it [8], the
lack of sustained high-quality participation in fora discussion has been examined and seen to be a
regularised phenomenon [34]. The "experience" [7], buttressed by personal involvement, is that there
is no "rational" [13] [23] reason for someone to participate when they can "free ride" and enjoy the
contributions of others, unless they have some altruistic concern about the survival of the forum. The
relevant prediction is that message contributions will be generally undersupplied in all fora [29].
Therefore, both intuitively and experientially, “lurking” should come as no surprise.
4. FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Reflection, although removed from the immediacy of the experience, leads one to thinking about other
issues of immediate concern, that may be considered neither a strength nor weakness of the
communicative mode.
• While phatic mistakes are often made in face-to-face communication, one must take particular
care not to offend other participants online, given the lack of symbolic or semiotic attributes
(facial expressions, gestures, etc.) in computer-mediated-communication.
• From a ‘constructivist’ perspective, the exchange of text-based messages seemingly encourages
'active' [16] and 'self-directed' [23] learning since interaction is dependent on participants
accessing the network frequently to follow conferences, read and comment on messages by
others, and compose and submit their own contributions to conferences. Yet, even online there
appears to be a carry-over from the classroom environment where all the students are facing
forward towards the “sage on the stage”.
• Techno-frustration must be confronted. “Newcomers” easily become frustrated and fearful when
the technology or administration isn't just right. Those who have used computers develop a
stronger sense of fatalism or a greater degree of patience, as well as the ability to think laterally
about the technological problems that arise. But the numerous statements made by students
suggesting sheer exasperation and a need for reassurance must be acknowledged.
• Mark Twain pithily identified the underlying constituent of ego involvement in discourse when
he said: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it
and remove all doubt." In any case, “lurking”, a subject that has been well documented in the
literature, is a continual frustration for an online facilitator. Even when the entire course depends
on participation, both to make it work, and in terms of assessment, "lurking" remains.
• Is the classroom experience one in which students are maximising their individual propensities
for learning; or is the classroom a group-based, collaborative experience for mutual and
collective dialogue and interaction?
• Clearly, interactive discussion is effective in assisting the learning process [6]. But it is vital not
to be too active or "dominant" in conversational participation [13]. Herring, et. al [19] argue that
men attempt to dominate computer-mediated interaction in much the same way they dominate
F2F interaction: by “talking” more, taking authoritative stances in public discourse and
intimidating women into accommodation or silence.
• The claim is regularly made in the literature that virtual interaction equalises communication
based on the assumption that status and gender cues are de-contextualized by the hypertext
medium [14]. This does not appear to be entirely the case as shown in the research of Herring,
et.al [19] into the defined features of men’s and women’s language on the basis of specific
rhetorical styles ‘conventionally’ associated with each gender.
• As Senge puts it, the success of any discussion depends “on the way a topic is developed
systematically “which leads to the collective nature of thought” [32]. For a discussion to be
effective, each member of the group must be able to establish common ground in the discussion.
5. SUMMARY
Computer technology unarguably increases access to education. Computer-mediated-communication is
not meant to replace face-to-face communication. But like it or not it already has, and increasingly will,
displace it. Although trite, it remains necessary to reiterate that no technological medium, on its own
account, is likely to improve education in a significant way if only used to deliver information. The key to
promoting improved learning with computer technology depends on how effectively the medium is
exploited in the teaching and learning situation [35]. Whether or not computer-mediated discussions are
richer and more thoughtful depends more on knowledgeable social facilitation with respect to goals and
process, than it depends on the technology [30] [22]. Academics are not removed from the educational

process by computer technology. Their role simply shifts away from being deliverers of information to
being guides and creators of learning experiences [26], transforming both the classroom and education
experience.
The major characteristics of computer-mediated-communication and learning are the time and place
independence, hyperlinking, and interactivity among various combinations of individuals [2] [36].
According to Papert [27] the computer is particularly compatible with the way students now prefer to
learn. The very 'interactivity' of discussion suggests that by providing relative anonymity and reduced
personal identification, computer-mediated-communication may be more 'humanising' [37].
Indicatively, the process of knowing requires significant effort on the part of both teachers and learners.
The real issue is how to integrate the personal qualities of great teaching with the technological
advantages of learning by computer [3]. Online education offers more than convenience. For all the
mythology of the classroom, many students show up and snooze rather than learn. The computer forces
students to focus and to be active participants in learning rather than empty vessels into which academics
try to pour their knowledge. It's very easy to attend a face-to-face class physically, yet not really be there
mentally. However, without the necessary reflection, overzealous adoption of computer technology will
not of itself strengthen the teaching/learning process.
References
[1] Ahern, T. & El-Hindi, A.E., Improving the instructional congruency of a computer-mediated smallgroup
discussion: A case study in design and delivery, Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
32(3), 2000., pp. 385-596
[2] Althaus, S.L., Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with
on-line discussions, Communication Education, 46, 1997, pp. 158-174
[3] Applebome, P., Distance Learning: Education.com, The New York Times on the Web.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/technology/99/04/biztech/articles/04onli.html, 4 April, 1999, Accessed 5
-4-99
[4] Brent, E., Computers in the undergraduate classroom Social Science Computer Review 17(2), 1999,
pp. 162-175
[5] Brown, J., Growing up Digital, Change, March/April, 2000, pp. 11-20. PDF version at
http://www.aahe.org/change/digital.pdf Accessed: 20-5-05
[6] Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., The Social Life of Information, Chapter 5, Boston: Harvard Business
School , 2000
[7] Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K.L., Segur, R. and Kodali, S., Design Considerations for Computer
Conferences, Research in Computing in Education, 30(2), 1997, pp. 177-201
[8] Connolly, T., and Thorn, B.K., Discretionary databases: Theory, data, and implications, In Fulk, J.
and Steinfield, C. (eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology, Newbury Park, California:
Sage, 1990, pp. 219-233
[9] Daly, J.E., Hypertext links to learning: Roadblocks and obstacles along the information super
highway, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 26, 1997/98, pp. 309-314
[10] Edwards, M.A. & Clear, F., Supporting the Collaborative Learning of Practical Skills with
Computer-Mediated Communications Technology, Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 2001
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_1_2001/edwards.html, Accessed: 22-2-01.
[11] Eurich-Fulcer, R. and Schofield, J.W., Wide-area networking in K-12 education: Issues shaping
implementation and use, Computers and Education, 24(3), 1995, pp. 211-220.
[12] Feenberg, A., The written world: On the theory and practice of computer conferencing, in Mason, R.
and Kaye, A. (eds.), Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education, Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1989, pp. 22-39
[13] Friedman, Eric D., Haefele, L., Keating, K.M., Mullen, M., Patrick, M., Plotkin, D. & Strenski, E.,
An Electronic Discussion List in an Undergraduate Writing Course, Computers and Education, 24(3),
1995, pp. 191-201.
[14] Graddol, D. & Swann, J., Gender Voices, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1989
[15] Hantula, D.A., The virtual industrial/organizational psychology class: Learning and teaching in
cyberspace in three iterations, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 1998, pp. 205-
216.

[16] Harasim, L.M. (ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment, New York, Praeger,
1990
[17] Hardy, J.V., Teacher attitudes toward and knowledge of computer technology, Computers in the
Schools, 14, 1998, pp. 119-136.
[18] Herman, L. and Mandell. A., The Given and the Made: Authenticity and Nature in Virtual
Education, First Monday, 5(10), October, 2000,
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/herman/index.html Accessed: 8-10-00
[19] Herring, S., Johnson, D.A. & DiBenedetto, T., This Discussion is Going Too Far!, In Hall, K. and
Bucholtz, M. (eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, New York,
Routledge., 1995, pp. 66-96
[20] Jonassen, D., Mayes, T. and McAleese, R., A Manifesto for a Constructivist Approach to
Technology in Higher Education, In Duffy, T., Jonassen, D., and J. Lowyck (eds.), Designing
constructivist learning environments. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 1997,
Accessed: 20-1-98.
[21] Lewis, D.C., Treves, J.A. & Shaindlin, A.B., Making sense of academic cyberspace: Case study
of and electronic classroom, College Teaching, 45(3), 1997, pp. 96-100.
[22] McAteer, E., Tolmie, A., Duffy, C. & Corbett, J., Computer-mediated communication as learning
resource, Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 13, 1997, pp. 219-227.
[23] Mason, R., Computer conferencing: A contribution to self-directed learning, British Journal of
Educational Technology, 19(1), 1998, pp. 28-41.
[24] Murray, J. H., Hamlet on the Holodeck, London, The Free Press, 1997
[25] Noble, D.F., Digital Diploma Mills: The automation of higher education, First Monday 3(1) January,
1998 http://firstmonday.org/issues3_1/noble/ Accessed: 12-9-98.
[26] Owen, T., Wired writing: The writers in electronic residence program, In Mason, R. (ed.), Computer
conferencing: The last word, Victoria, BC: Beach Holme, 1993, pp. 125-147
[27] Papert, S., The Children’s Machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer, New York: Basic
Books, 1993
[28] Pychyl, TA., Clarke, D., & Abarbanel, T., Computer-mediated group projects: Facilitating
collaborative learning with the World Wide Web, Teaching of Psychology, 26, 1999, pp. 138-141
[29] Rojo, A. and Ragsdale, R. G., A Process Perspective on Participation in Scholarly Electronic
Forums, Science Communication 18(4), June, 1997, pp. 320-341.
[30] Salomon, G., On the Nature of Pedagogic Computer Tools: The Case of the Writing Partner, In
Lajoie, S.P. and Derry, S.J., Computers as Cognitive Tools, Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1993, pp. 179-196
[31] Scott, T., Cole, M. & Engel, M., Computers and Education: A Cultural Constructivist Perspective,
Review of Research in Education, Washington, D.C., American Educational Research Association, 18,
1992, pp. 191-251.
[32] Senge, P M., The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization, New York,
Doubleday, 1990
[33] Sherman, R.C., Using the World Wide Web to teach everyday applications of social psychology,
Teaching of Psychology, 25, 1998, pp. 212-216.
[34] Stephen, T. and Harrison, T.M., Comserve: Moving the Communication Discipline Online, Journal
of the American Society for Information Science 45, 1994, pp. 765-770.
[35] Ward, M. & Newlands, D., Use of the Web in Undergraduate Teaching, Computers and Education,
31, 1998, pp.171-184.
[36] Warschauer, M., Computer mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice, The Modern
Language Journal, 81(4), 1997, pp. 470-480
[37] Weir, S., The computer in schools: machine as humaniser, Harvard Education Review, 59, 1989, pp.
61-73.