McComb, 'AUGMENTING A GROUP DISCUSSION COURSE WITH COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION IN A SMALL COLLEGE SETTING', Interpersonal Computing and Technology v1n03 (July 1993) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/ipct/ipct-v1n03-mccomb-augmenting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ####### ######## ######## ########### ### ### ## ### ## # ### # Interpersonal Computing and ### ### ## ### ## ### Technology: ### ### ## ### ### An Electronic Journal for ### ######## ### ### the 21st Century ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ## ### ISSN: 1064-4326 ### ### ### ## ### July, 1993 ####### ### ######## ### Volume 1, Number 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Center for Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC Additional support provided by the Center for Academic Computing, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 This article is archived as MCCOMB IPCTV1N3 on LISTSERV@GUVM ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUGMENTING A GROUP DISCUSSION COURSE WITH COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION IN A SMALL COLLEGE SETTING Mary McComb, Assistant Professor of Communication Arts Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York INTRODUCTION In this case study, I will report on how students and I used computer-mediated communication (CMC) in a group discussion course at a small college. First I will describe the course and its objectives, including details on how CMC augmented the classroom and office-hour communication among the professor and student groups. Next I will review the advantages of using CMC to augment instructional communication, drawing on pertinent literature, as well as my own experience as both teacher and former student in CMC-augmented courses. Finally, I will report on students' responses to a survey about their attitudes about CMC in the group discussion course. Course Description The course, Group Discussion Skills (GDS), was for junior or senior students. It was offered as a Special Topics course and was also an IBM Showcase project--to demonstrate how Marist College is using the IBM mainframe for instruction. Course design was similar to that of a Pennsylvania State University group discussion course in which I was involved for seven semesters as a graduate teaching assistant. That course has been previously described (Phillips, 1989; Santoro & Phillips, 1989; Santoro, Phillips, & Kuehn, 1988). One of the reasons for augmenting the Penn State course was to make it possible for instructors to teach more students per semester for the much-in- demand group communication course. That rationale does not apply to Marist, with a total enrollment of about 4200 and maximum class sizes in the Communication Arts program of about 30 students. Marist has a tradition of intense student-teacher contact. Faculty are required, for example, to schedule eight office hours a week, and Marist students use those office hours. Marist students seem to value face-to-face contact with faculty, so I wondered whether they would resist CMC. One of my concerns in augmenting classroom communication with CMC was that students might think it extraneous. Would they would even take advantage of this novel communication channel? Course objectives included teaching students a procedure for group problem-solving, called "Standard Agenda", as well as communication skills for leadership, conflict resolution, cross- gender communication, and general participation in problem- solving groups. (See Phillips, 1989, for a theoretical basis for this type of course design.) The course was designed as a corporate simulation, with students assigned to their working groups for the entire semester. Working in semester-long groups allows students to experience the maturation and growth that take place in long-term groups, and duplicates real-life situations in which work group members must communicate with colleagues over time. For their final project, groups were charged with completing a professionally-written proposal, an action plan to educate people to be discerning media audience members. Interim group assignments took students through the Standard Agenda phases, allowing me to ascertain that they were understanding and following the procedure. I didn't grade these assignments; rather I commented on what needed to be fixed, and asked them to revise the work until it was evident that they had fulfilled the requirements of that particular Standard Agenda phase. An outside evaluator and I graded the final group projects. I awarded two A's, one B, and one C. The outside evaluator awarded one A (we agreed on the top project), one B, and two C's. As instructor, I acted as a supervisor, consultant, coach, and, finally, evaluator. In class sessions, I briefed the students on the goals and necessary action for each Standard Agenda phase, and offered practical, skills-based instruction in effective group communication behaviors in the areas of leadership, conflict management, and cross-gender communication. Formal classes met according to need, but fairly infrequently-- 17 class periods out of a possible 28 in a 15-week semester. Ten class periods were left open for groups to work together. During these group work sessions, I was available in my office for consultation. I coached students through the process when they requested my help, either in class, during office hours, or via electronic mail. I also guided them in comments on their interim assignments. More consultation was provided as we monitored group communication patterns through the use of SYMLOG, a method of evaluating group interaction developed by Robert Bales and colleagues (Bales, 1970; Bales & Cohen, 1979). SYMLOG helped students to diagnose and solve problems within their groups. (For a thorough description of SYMLOG use in group discussion courses, see Kelly, Kuehn, & McComb, 1989.) This pattern of meeting infrequently in classroom meetings, groups working independently, and consulting with the instructor on as as-needed basis, attempted to duplicate, within an academic setting, the activities of a real-life work group. In most small group courses, groups meet under the instructor's eyes, at designated times and places. However, in this course, groups were in charge of when and where they met, an arrangement that more closely resembles group work in an organization, in which the supervisor would not hover over the group, but would expect it to function autonomously. Like a supervisor, I tracked group progress by asking for and evaluating their work, requiring regular progress reports, and meeting with the groups occasionally for SYMLOG evaluations or when they requested consultations. I expected the groups to contact me when they needed clarification or assistance. CMC was the medium that enabled students to work independently, yet keep in touch with me and with each other. CMC AUGMENTATION Marist assigns each incoming student a mainframe computer account. Although all Marist students must take a required Introduction to Computers course, not all the students had done so prior to my course, so I held a simple training session at the semester's beginning. Only two students from each of the four groups, however, were required to use the computer system. They were designated the group's official "Communicators" and were responsible for computer liaison between their group and myself. Nineteen students actually used the computer during the course; only five never logged on. Each student could send and receive private electronic mail, (email) and had a private online "file cabinet" to store mail and other course materials, and had a simple online text editor. Each student also had access to a read-only online file library containing course documents--syllabus, assignment outlines, lecture outlines, grading criteria, bibliographies, and other material--that would otherwise have been provided as handouts. Finally, all students were able to read and post to a private class "bulletin board" on which I posted schedule or requirement changes and other important class announcements. The computer system was used for the following interactions in the course: 1. Students submitted their group assignments to me. I inserted my comments in capital letters under the pertinent text in their work, asked them to resubmit until the work was "good enough" to continue, and send the assignments back. 2. Students or groups sent questions or concerns to me or to other students as private mail. 3. I sent instructions, questions, directions, guidance, etc. to groups or individuals as private mail. 4. Groups sent me weekly group process reports as private email. I responded to problem areas or issued praise in return mail. 5. Students wrote and edited their assignments online using the text editor. 6. Some groups wrote their assignments on a word processor, uploaded them and sent them to me. 7. I posted class announcements on the bulletin board. 8. Students posted messages (although not too many) on the bulletin board. 9. I made course materials that would otherwise have been handouts available on the library disk. 10. Through Internet, students had access to other resources, such as Comserve discussion groups, as well as an outside grader for the final project. ADVANTAGES OF CMC A brief review of literature on CMC-augmented instruction indicates that its advantages are a result of three characteristics: a) asynchronicity, b) efficient information access, and c) increased social distance. In the following discussion, I will talk about the benefits of CMC that accrue from these characteristics. Asynchronicity This characteristic means that people don't have to be logged onto the computer system at the same time in order to communicate. Asynchronicity frees students and teachers from time and distance limitations. It also allows either reflective or spontaneous interaction (Harasim, 1986, p. 66). GDS students, for instance, could send me a question during a late-night meeting. The next morning when I logged on, I could respond to their note, which they could then read next time their official communicator checked the mail. The benefits that emerge from asynchronicity include convenience, more contact among class participants, more control of communication for students, and the necessity to communicate in writing. Convenience CMC as an adjunct to classroom instruction allows both students and teachers more convenient communication. Course participants don't have to wait until class, office hours, or to connect via a telephone call to communicate with each other. This timeliness means that students can get questions answered quickly (Kuehn, 1988), and that communication can be continuous (Phillips & Santoro, 1989). Stranded at home in a snowstorm this winter, I was still able to communicate via CMC with my students 15 miles away. Another convenient factor of CMC is the ability to communicate directly with a particular sub-group or audience within a larger class. Instructors can respond to students' particular questions and needs, without taking up class time to work on a problem affecting only one group (Phillips & Santoro, 1989, p. 160). Most email systems make it possible for users to pre-set "bulk" mailing lists. For instance, I had mailing lists set up for each group. By typing "mail Bruin" I could then compose a note that, when sent, would automatically reach the six Bruin group members. I also had a pre-set list of all group communicators. By typing "mail allcoms" my note would reach all eight communicators. CMC's convenience can make more contact possible among course participants, as I will discuss next. More Interaction Another benefit of freedom from spatio-temporal limitations is more interaction and more flexibility in communication among class members and thus potentially more exchange of ideas, increased participation and variety of interchange. To faculty teaching some 200 undergraduates in the Penn State group communication course, the main advantage of the move to CMC-facilitated instruction was increased student-teacher contact (Phillips, Santoro, & Kuehn, 1988). In one semester, the senior instructor received and responded to 3,169 messages. In a subsequent semester of the same course, he handled more than 5,500 separate transactions. Students handled an average of 35 transactions each, with group communicators handling an average of 400 each (Phillips & Santoro, 1988). A Canadian continuing education course also had similar high rates of participation. During the 12-week course, there were 3,312 conference items and about 4,475 personal notes. This averaged to about 85 conference submissions and 120 personal notes per person (Harasim, 1986, p. 62). In the 24-student GDS course I read and responded to 59 student notes (not including my comments on each group's 15 weekly reports) and sent 17 additional messages to groups or individuals. I posted 36 messages on the class bulletin board. Only one student posted a message. I also engaged in synchronous "TELL" communication, (single line messages, interactively exchanged), when students and I were logged on at the same time, although I did not tally the number of these conversations, nor did I tally the number of face-to-face conversations I had with individuals or groups. Increased Control Another advantage of CMC is that it turns more of the control over the instructional communication over to students. The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1983) uses the term "banking education" to describe traditional instruction in which the "all- wise" professor pours knowledge into the empty vaults in the students' heads. The instructor distributing materials to the waiting students, or lecturing them, or calling on them in class discussions are instances of the active instructor-passive student dichotomy. CMC, however, allows students to initiate communication with the instructor without waiting for permission to talk. Students can read or print online materials that they feel they need, instead of having to wait until class to get materials. If they lose the documents, they can simply print another or consult copy online. Both the frequency and immediacy of communication, as well as the option for the students, to initiate contact--aspects that give the students more control over the educational transaction (Garrison & Baynton, 1987)--exist in the CMC environment. On the other hand, instructors lose some control. You can encourage a response in the classroom, but when you make a query on email you can't force an answer. Having class materials on the mainframe encourages student initiative and responsibility. With online handouts, students must be responsible for getting their own materials, instead of waiting passively for the instructor to hand them out. Mainframe communication can also encourage students to seek consultation or help more assertively. In a classroom, a good instructor will monitor students' nonverbal behaviors. If she sees grumbling or scowling faces, for instance, she can tease out the questions, concerns, or problems. Again, the instructor is doing most of the work here. With part of the instructional dialogue taking place on the computer, students must take initiative to write the instructor with their problems or concerns. Communication in Writing A final benefit of asynchronicity is the need to communicate in writing. The limitation to written communication encourages a clearer and more organized articulation of ideas, which fosters critical thinking habits. The permanence of retrievability of CMC communications may also encourage careful critical thought. According to Hernandez, Mockus, Granes, Charum, & Castro (1987) The responsibility involved in writing is... much more serious than that involved in the spoken word. What is heard from the living voice can be modified by passing from one hearer to the other, be adapted to situations, be forgotten. The written word remains. (p. 68) In spoken communication, the hearer can immediately interrupt for clarification when the speaker's meaning is unclear or confusing, or the speaker will see from the hearer's facial expression that he is confused, and then can clear up the confusion. Spoken ideas need not be perfectly articulated because of this opportunity for instant feedback. But a reader's questions or misunderstandings cannot be cleared up as he or she happens upon them. So a writer must make ideas, questions, direction of thought, bases for claims, and so forth, completely explicit. Writers using CMC must work for explicitness and clarity. Writing forces them to think their ideas through in order that they be understood, thus the necessity to write sharpens one's critical thinking abilities. But CMC also gives participants time to compose their thoughts carefully. The time for reflection and the distance of the written interaction allow the slow thinker or shy person opportunity to interact just as much as the quicker or bolder person, who can, however, still interact at his or her own pace without having to wait for permission. CMC "can provide the experience of learning from each other to students who would be too shy or lacking in self-confidence to make a presentation in front of a face-to-face group or are simply unprepared at the time to speak off the cuff..." (Mason, 1988, p. 38). A participant in a Canadian CMC class reported, "the nature of conferencing allows an individual to finish her thoughts without fear of being interrupted by a keen, more outgoing colleague. I feel this is a great equalizing force in a group" (Harasim, 1986, p. 66). EFFICIENT INFORMATION ACCESS The second set of benefits from CMC results from easily accessible online information. Course materials can be provided online; messages sent and received can be automatically filed away for future reference; the Internet allows access to a wealth of information. Online Course Materials Using CMC, instructors can put materials online which would otherwise need to be photocopied, collated, stapled, and distributed. This eliminates last-minute rushes to printers or to the campus copy center. I don't have to wait until class time to make resources available to the students but can post handouts at any time. Also solved is the problem of students losing handouts. They simply print out another one. Automatic "Paper Trail" Most email systems allow users to automatically save copies of messages sent and received. For instance, I save all correspondence for each group in what our computer system calls a notebook. These "paper" trails make it easy for me to track a group's problem areas, or refer to how other groups and I handled problems. File and mail management systems allow easy callup of all correspondence and assignments for a particular semester, invaluable when grading time comes around. Online storage also aids face-to-face meeting with groups. Sitting around a computer, teachers and students can easily refer to the assignment they are discussing (Kuehn, 1988). Students can also compare their assignments with those of other student groups (Phillips & Santoro, 1989). Access to the Internet Finally, through campus mainframes that are connected to the Internet, students and faculty have access to information from literally the entire world. Negotiating the Internet isn't necessarily straightforward, but more and more documentation and instruction is available on using the Internet to gather information and communicate with others worldwide. In GDS, I communicated with an outside evaluator on the Internet; he sent his grading criteria online to me and I posted it for my students. I forwarded the students' final projects online for him to grade; he sent his rankings back. In a senior thesis course at Marist that also uses the computer system, some groups have subscribed to COMSERVE hotlines as part of their fact- finding effort. Increased Social Distance The final set of benefits that accrue from CMC are a result of the increased social distance of this communication medium. CMC lacks visual and auditory cues, an absence that some users regard as an inadequacy (Hiltz, 1978, p. 160), that can result in a "sense of depersonalization" (Hiltz, 1986, p. 96). "Social interaction online does not seem 'natural' at first" (Hiltz, 1986, p. 100). But Feenberg (1987) reports that CMC users often feel they gain a more immediate access to each other's thought processes, undistracted by the status signaling and social games that are played simultaneously with speech in face-to-face encounters.... ordinary individuals possess the 'literary' capability necessary to project their personalities in written texts. The loss of the interlocutor's bodily presence does not signify impersonality, but freedom from undesirable social constraints. (p. 174) Students who might be too shy to speak to the instructor or other students face to face might find it easier to communicate online. Phillips & Santoro (1989) report students could argue and disagree without involving excessive emotions or personalities. Shy students were at no disadvantage. They had opportunities to enter discussions which would have intimidated them had they been conducted face to face. Even though the groups met regularly, individuals could make their comments on the system and have them automatically included on the agenda without having to fight their way into the discussion"(p. 160). In an essay on student help-seeking in computer conferences, Karabenick (1987) speculates that students would find it easier to ask help via CMC than in person, because of CMC's greater interpersonal distance. Phillips & Santoro (1989) did find that "students could ask questions without publicly embarrassing themselves" (p. 159-60). In this brief review, I've discussed the advantages of CMC- augmented instruction. Asynchronicity provides more convenience for participants, the potential for more contact, more control for students, and the necessity to communicate in writing. Computer systems' storage and communication capabilities means easy access to course materials, "paper trails" of assignments and messages, and contact with information resources worldwide through the Internet. Finally, CMC's increased social distance might encourage shy people to communicate and ask questions without embarrassment, as well as encourage discussion of ideas rather than personalities. GDS SURVEY I wanted to find out how students felt about using CMC in the GDS course. I limited the survey to the advantages that result from the characteristic of asynchronicity--convenience, control, and written communication. Specifically, I wanted to identify a) what advantages in communication they identified in the CMC-augmented class versus a regular class, and b) whether they regarded CMC as making the class more rewarding than non- CMC-augmented classes. I also wanted to compare differences in responses between the 19 students in the class who used CMC and the five students who didn't use the computer system. All 24 students completed a survey on course evaluation day. I instructed students not to write their names on the surveys. The forced-choice survey also had adequate space for students to explain their answers. Below I report: a) student perceptions about how CMC improved communication with the instructor and with other groups, compared to non-CMC-augmented classes, b) student reports on whether their groups ever avoided communicating with me using CMC, and c) comparisons between CMC users and non-users about the bulletin board, career utility of learning CMC, and rewards of CMC. RESULTS Table 1 presents students' attitudes on CMC advantages in terms of communication with the instructor. _________________________________________________________________ Table 1 Students' attitudes on CMC advantages for group communication with the instructor, compared to other classes. Item Students (n = 24) % Instructor answered our notes quickly 21 88 Group could initiate communication with instructor 21 88 Group could communicate with instructor without waiting for class or office hours 21 88 More detailed comments on assignments from instructor 20 83 Able to turn in assignments or reports at any time 20 83 Communication with instructor could occur at any time 19 79 Quicker turnaround time on assignments 19 79 More frequent communication with instructor 17 71 Seeing our instructor's thoughts in writing helped us understand her thoughts 13 54 Having to express our ideas in writing helped clarify our thoughts 11 46 None of the above 0 Other 3 1 - less paper used, 2 - made me more familiar with computer, 3 - made me feel more comfortable in approaching teacher for help on questions or problems with assignments _________________________________________________________________ Nineteen students explained their answers either in the space provided or elsewhere on the survey form. These comments did not fall neatly into easily recognizable categories. Students would write about more than one advantage, or mention advantages in other sections of the survey. I sorted the comments in terms of their "gist," the advantages that their comment reflected most clearly and directly. Five students commented on several advantages. One student said, This way of communicating was beneficial to all of us because we could get quick responses to ?'s w/out having to play "phone tag." We also followed the instructor's advice/criticism/comments to help us get our assignments done quickly. Another said, Through the computer, the group was able to type in questions at any time. This was especially useful when we were all in a group meeting & we all had various questions. We were able to ask the questions as a group as opposed to separately. It saved time. In addition, we were able to get our assignments back quicker & able to do rewrites on the original copy instead of having to rewrite the whole assignment. A third remarked, We could talk to the instructor as often as we needed to and at any given time. Our answers always came within hours. Her responses were more helpful because she gave examples and detailed notes in the actual assignment. Convenience played a big role. Convenience, time factors, and improved access to the instructors were advantages most often written about. For example, It was nice if we had a problem we could send it over the computer and in turn we would get a very rapid response. Communication over the computer saves a lot of time! Nine comments stressed improved access to the instructor. For example, It's convenient because professors are not always in their office and I found that our professor answered EMAIL quicker than phone mail. And, I felt that using the computers gave our group better access to the professor. Four students commented on the usefulness of having comments in writing. For example, Having communication access with the computer allowed for a more understandable way of expressing our thoughts & ideas as well as interpreting the instructor's. And: Having Mary's comments written out whenever she saw a problem was quite advantageous for us & showed us exactly where we went wrong or if we were exactly right. Two students appreciated the ability to communicate either as individuals or as a group. For example, Our group could communicate with the instructor at any time without the hassle of dealing with office hours. An individual group member or the whole group could communicate with the instructor in a detailed, convenient fashion. I did not survey the students about advantages from increased access to resources or social distance. However, students did recognize social distance as a characteristic of CMC. Two students emphasized the need for face-to-face communication in addition to the computer. For example, Communication was higher but the actual 1-1 talking cleared up confusion more. One student did say, however, that CMC "made me feel more comfortable in approaching teacher for help on questions or problems with assignments." I was also curious if CMC ever inhibited students' communication with me. So one survey question asked, "Were there any times that your group hesitated to contact your instructor over the computer system?" Table 2 presents the results. ________________________________________________________________ Table 2 Student hesitation to contact instructor via CMC Were there any times that your group hesitated to contact your instructor over the computer system? 5 YES 19 NO Reasons Students (n=24) who checked item Preferred talking to her by phone or in person 3 Were not sure she would answer our note 0 Hard to put our question or concerns in writing--easier to talk than write 2 When we had questions, we weren't near a computer terminal 0 We thought she would disapprove if we asked questions or were confused--that our group's reputation would fall in her eyes 2 Other 1 ("needed immediate attention and couldn't wait for a computer response---knew she was in the office") _________________________________________________________________ Explanations included, "group decided it might be quicker to call our professor"; "usually wanted to 'figure out our problems' alone." Comments in this section again indicated that social distance was a concern for two students: One said, I found that a face to face meeting was more beneficial than one over the computer. Another said, We used the computer very often because it was more efficient. It was better than running around looking for Professor McComb. The only time we did not use the computer is if we had a major problem and felt it would be more effective to talk to her in person. Although course design did not require that each student log on to the computer, I had noticed that most students were doing so. I wanted to know if students perceived any advantages for student/student communication in the class. Table 3 presents students' attitudes about CMC advantages for communicating with fellow group members. _______________________________________________________________ Table 3 Students' attitudes on CMC advantages for group communication with fellow group members, compared to other classes. Item Students (N=24) % who checked item Able to edit pieces of assignments together 18 75 Communication with group members could occur at any time 16 67 Able to work faster 14 58 Group could initiate communication with each other 11 46 Seeing group members' thoughts in writing helped us understand their ideas 8 3 More frequent communication with group members 7 3 Having to express our ideas in writing helped clarify our thoughts 5 2 Group members answered our notes quickly 3 1.25 None of the above 2 .08 Other 0 0 _________________________________________________________________ As Table 2 indicates, fewer students were convinced of CMC's advantages for student to student communication than were convinced of improved student-instructor communication. Perhaps this was because only 19 out of the 24 students used the computer. Four students complained about non-users. For example, The use of computer was beneficial to see if computer will become a part of the classroom of the future. The only problem is a lot of people are not computer literate-leaving the burden to us "computer geeks" to do assignments. Another said, Only 2 or 3 of us were regularly checking our E-mail, so it was not used to its full potential. Typical comments from those who recognized benefits to group work included: For those who used the computer - it improved communication. -Notes could be sent whenever. - Asgs were emailed in if they could not attend a meeting. And, Each group member would work on a section individually and then the whole group's work would be put together. This was more convenient and less time consuming. Also, members could communicate with one another at anytime, which was also convenient. Finally, If we were supposed to meet in the computer center and one of us couldn't make it or we moved to the library it was easy to just send a quick note on mail to another member. This was more reliable than using a phone. I wanted to know if there were any differences in attitudes about the class between computer users and computer non-users. Table 4 presents differences in attitudes between computer users and non users. ________________________________________________________________ Table 4 Differences in attitudes between computer users and non-computer users Item Computer Non-computer Users Users (n=19) (n=5) Computer bulletin board 18(95%) 3(60%) helped group keep informed of class announcements and other information, compared to other classes Learning to use computer electronic 17(89%) 1(20%) mail will benefit you in your career Would be inclined to take other 16(84%) 1(20%) classes taught in a similar manner Group use of the computer in this 12(63%) 0 class has made the experience more rewarding ______________________________________________________________ It is clear that computer users were more enthusiastic about CMC than the non-users. One CMC user said that the class was rewarding Because it wasn't only a communication class-- it was a class learning about using a tool to communicate with others. Another said, it helped me communicate using the computer - which supposedly is the wave of the future! One student said rewards arose because the computer "gave us a sense of accomplishment outside the assignment." The computer was also rewarding, said one student, because "it made it more of a professional atmosphere and gave us the feeling of greater success." Another said, "it was more challenging to learn this method of class work and communication." One student found it rewarding to "help each other learn skills needed." Computer nonusers were less enthusiastic about the computer aspect of the course. Only one of five nonusers felt that using electronic mail would help them in their careers. One of five nonusers expressed interest in taking a similar course. And none of the nonusers and 12 of the nineteen users felt that the computer made the class more rewarding than non CMC courses. DISCUSSION This short survey focused on advantages that come from CMC's asynchronicity--convenience, opportunity for more contact among instructors and students, more control over communication, and the necessity to communicate in writing. Students recognized how quick, convenient communication at times of their choosing could be advantageous for interaction with the instructor, and, in some cases, for interaction among students. Fewer students recognized the usefulness of communicating in writing as an aid to expression and clarification of thoughts. Students were less convinced of CMC's advantages for student-student communication. These results might reflect that fact that course design did not require that each student log onto the computer system. Groups varied in their members' use of the computer. Some students who did use the computer expressed dissatisfaction with student underutilization of the computer system. There were only two negative comments about the computer system. One student disliked the lack of an automatic word wrap on the online text editor. Although he checked six advantages of using CMC, another non-user, "very uncomfortable" with the computer, qualified his answer by commenting, "I think the computer system would have been more helpful or 'user-friendly' if it was modern...these mainframes are completely obsolete." Another non-user checked six advantages of using the computer to communicate with the instructor, but in a final comment downplayed the computer system's part in the course's success: The class as a whole was very interesting. The computer aspect was difficult to handle at first, but once the initial fear was overcome, it proved to be somewhat beneficial. However, I don't feel that the computer system was a large deciding factor in the course's success. Another said that the final project alone was what made the course rewarding. The survey did not attempt to question students on the advantages of social distance or access to resources. However, students did address the issue of social distance. Some pointed out the need for face-to-face interaction in addition to CMC, especially for major problems. One did say that CMC made it easier to contact the instructor with questions. Future surveys should explore the social distance characteristic of CMC, as well as its potential for improving access to resources. Suggestions for CMC Use Survey responses reflect that CMC's advantages accrue only for instructors and students who log on regularly. The quick responses that students value so highly occur only if the instructor answers mail regularly. I did not keep a record of my exact time online, but I logged on at least once Mondays through Thursdays (but usually two or three times), and at least once from Friday through Sunday (barring weekends away). CMC is not convenient for students unless instructors log on outside their office hours. Survey comments also remind instructors that they must write their online comments and notes clearly, for them to be useful to students. Instructors using CMC also need to be aware that learning- disabled students might experience few or no advantages from CMC. A learning disabled student in the GDS course reminded me that some learning disabled students find it difficult to read or type online. This student told me that she could read my assignment remarks if I doublespaced them, which I did in corresponding to them. Instructors who use CMC to augment their courses must be aware of the needs of learning disabled students, especially if CMC usage is required in a course. Faculty who want to use CMC should work with whatever campus facility exists for learning disabled students, to see if staff there might assist learning disabled students to read or write email messages, as they currently help such students to edit and proofread term papers, or provide facilities for untimed exams. Although five students complained about group members not taking advantage of the computer, I am hesitant to require that all students log on. In a course of this type, CMC is not used for lengthy discussion of ideas. Those dialogues, take place in the classroom, in office visits, and, I hope, in student groups. CMC is mainly used, with some exceptions, to pass information from group to instructor and back. So, it is not necessary that each individual log on. Nonusers seemed satisfied with their group communicators' liaison as they passed on computer bulletin board information to the group (see Table 4). One of my course objectives was for students to use initiative in seeking out and using available resources for problem-solving. So I left it up to the groups to discover and explore the potential of CMC for their group process. They seemed to do so. With four groups, only eight students (two per group) were required to learn CMC. Yet 19 students used it. This figure indicates that groups educated themselves about this important resource. CONCLUSION CMC definitely has advantages for the instructor. Instructors can be available to students whenever they log onto the computer as well as in class and office hours. Marking assignments online goes quickly and avoids unwieldy piles of paper and potentialLY lost assignments. Faculty can mark assignments whenever they have computer access--day or night-- without carrying stacks of work between school and home. They can easily review a group's progress by browsing through their assignments or mail files. CMC provides instructors an online "desk," for notes, handouts, and other materials, making it possible to reduce desktop clutter. Instructors and students can access these materials from home or school. Faculty can avoid delays at the copy center, or crisis rushes to the program photocopier. Online archives make updating next semester's courses easy. It's also easy to send materials to other colleagues online, for their suggestions or comments. And Internet makes a world of resources available. Instructors can provide students materials from such services as Comserve, or train students to browse the Internet themselves. I felt rewarded to see that my students recognized many of CMC's advantages. My concerns that students at a small campus would not appreciate or use CMC were unfounded. CMC has benefits other than making larger class enrollments possible--one of the original justifications used at Penn State for incorporating CMC into a popular group discussion class. Thus it can make sense to use CMC at a small college, or in a small class. Although I did not keep counts, I noticed that more Marist students and groups did visit me in my office compared to students in the similar Penn State class. I attribute this to Marist's size, its tradition of student-teacher contact, and the location of my office in the Communication Arts building, where most communication classes are held. I also hold more office hours than I did at Penn State. Yet, despite my availability for face-to-face communication, the survey results indicated that students liked the convenience of augmenting their communication with me by using email. CMC was not an "extra" complicating factor for my students, but an added useful dimension to the course. REFERENCES Bales, R.F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bales, R.F., & Cohen, S.P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: The Free Press. Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 16, 169-186. Freire, P. (1983). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum. Garrison, D.R., & Baynton, M. (1987). Beyond independence in distance education: The concept of control. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(3), 3-15 Harasim, L. (1986). Computer learning networks: Educational applications of computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 59-70. Hernandez, C.A., Mockus, A., Granes, J., Charum, J., & Castro, M.C. (1987). Lenguaje, voluntad del saber y calidad de la educacion [Language, the will to know, and quality of education]. Educacion y Cultura, 12, 60-70. Hiltz, S.R. (1978). The computer conference. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 157-163. Hiltz, S.R. (1986). The 'virtual classroom": Using computer- mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104. Karabenick, S.A. (1987, June). Computer conferencing: Its impact on academic help-seeking. Paper presented at the Second Symposium on Computer Conferencing and Allied Technologies, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Kelly, L., Kuehn, S.A., & McComb, M.E. (1989). Evaluating how individual performance affects group outcomes. In G.M. Phillips (Ed.), Teaching how to work in groups(pp. 66-83). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kuehn, S.A. (1988, April). Discovering all the available means for computer assisted instruction: Adapting available university facilities for the small to medium-sized course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association. Mason, R. (1988). Computer conferencing and the university community. Open Learning, 3(2), 37-40. Phillips, G.M. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching how to work in groups. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Phillips, G.M., & Santoro, G.M. (1988, July). Solving a problem-solving problem via CMC. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Discussion papers, The American Symposium on Research in Distance Education. Symposium conducted at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Phillips, G.M., & Santoro, G.M. (1989). Teaching group communication via computer-mediated communication. Communication Education, 38, 151-161. Phillips, G.M., Santoro, G.M., & Kuehn, S.A. (1988). The use of computer-mediated communication in training students in group problem-solving and decision-making techniques. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 38-51. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE: Mary McComb is Assistant Professor of Communication Arts at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York. Her Ph.D. in Speech Communication and M.Ed. in Adult Education - Distance Education are from The Pennsylvania State University. She has taught small group discussion, computer literacy, and senior thesis courses augmented by computer-mediated communication, and is developing an introductory film course using CMC to extend classroom discussion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century Copyright 1993 Georgetown University. Copyright of individual articles in this publication is retained by the individual authors. Copyright of the compilation as a whole is held by Georgetown University. It is asked that any republication of this article state that the article was first published in IPCT-J. Contributions to IPCT-J can be submitted by electronic mail in APA style to: Gerald Phillips, Editor IPCT-J GMP3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU