Computer-Mediated Communication To Facilitate Seminar Participation and Active Thinking: A Case Study
***** SHEDLETSKY *********** EJC/REC Vol. 3, No. 2, 1993 ***
COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION TO FACILITATE SEMINAR
PARTICIPATION AND ACTIVE THINKING: A CASE STUDY
Leonard J. Shedletsky
University of Southern Maine
Abstract. This paper describes how the author
made use of computer-mediated communication (CMC)
in a senior seminar on Theories of Communication.
CMC was made part of the course to attempt to
encourage participation from students in the
seminar and to encourage active thinking. A
questionnaire was used to gather student responses
to the CMC component of the course. The data from
two seminars are presented and tentative
conclusions are drawn about the usefulness of CMC
to augment seminar participation and active
thinking.
From the history of prior technology we can glean
four points useful in thinking about the potential
consequences of new communication technology.
First, the full possibilities of a new technology
are hard to foresee. . . . Second, unanticipated
consequences usually have less to do with
efficiency effects and more to do with changing
interpersonal interactions, ideas about what is
important, work procedures, and social
organization. These changes may profoundly alter
how each of us works and even the work we do.
Third, these second-level effects often emerge
somewhat slowly as people renegotiate changed
patterns of behavior and thinking. Fourth,
second-level effects are not caused by
technologies operating autonomously on a passive
organization or a society. Instead they are
constructed as technology interacts with, shapes,
and is shaped by the social and policy
environment. Although as humans we decide our own
cultural responses to technology, an initial
technological change can set the direction of a
deviation-amplifying spiral. We can affect
technology design and policy and therefore
influence the second-level effects as well (pp.
7-8).
(Sproull & Kiesler, 1991)
The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of
computer-mediated communication (CMC) to augment seminar
participation and active thinking in a college seminar. It
asks whether or not CMC enhances discussion; does CMC get
students to think about the course materials? The course
studied was the Theories of Communication course, a senior
level seminar designed for fifteen or so students. The
course was taught in the traditional manner, with face-to-
face meetings once a week. CMC was used in an attempt to
enhance the level of discussion, to facilitate active
involvement, rather than as a substitute for class meetings.
The sorts of questions that need to be answered are as
follows:
Can the students learn to use CMC during a course
devoted to other things?
Will the students actually use CMC?
If they do use CMC, will its use enhance
discussion and facilitate active participation in
the course?
Will students enjoy using CMC?
This is not intended as a scientific study.[1] It is
intended as a case study based on my experience in using the
computer to promote student participation in the seminar.
Ideally, this report of my experience with CMC should be of
use to others teaching the Theories of Communication course
(or other seminars), where CMC may be employed to facilitate
student involvement and learning.
Why CMC?
There were many reasons why I wanted to explore CMC for
the purpose of facilitating discussion and active thinking.
A primary reason for using CMC was the hope that it would
get students actively involved in talking about the
theories. I wanted them to debate about the substance of
each theory, about its merits and demerits, about its
usefulness. I wanted students to connect the potentially
"dry" theories to the stuff of their lives. Since the
textbook, Littlejohn's _Theories of Human Communication_,
(1989), had so much to offer, and we had a limited amount of
time in the classroom, it was my hope that the dynamics of
the electronic meeting place would foster involvement of
all, reduce anxiety in stating opinions and asking
questions, and extend the meeting time. In addition, I
wanted to discourage the group from delegating the job of
critiquing to the teacher.
A perusal of the literature on electronic meetings
suggests that these are not at all unreasonable objectives.
For instance, in their summary of electronic group dynamics,
Sproull and Kiesler (1991) present an impressive array of
studies that point to the conclusion that the patterns of
participation and the quality of decisions in electronic
discussions may be superior to face-to-face meetings. For
instance, in electronic meetings, researchers find greater
equality of participation than in face-to-face meetings.
Participants are more likely to disagree when communicating
via computer compared to face-to-face meetings (Weisband,
1989). Research suggests that participants in electronic
meetings rely less upon the status of the members and more
upon the validity of their arguments in making decisions
(Huff & King, 1988).
While research findings encourage the use of electronic
meetings to augment face-to-face meetings, there is little
data available on just how well CMC serves the objectives of
enhancing discussion and active involvement in the
undergraduate seminar. Much of the extant research is
addressed to questions of computer-supported collaborative
work, especially writing, and the use of CMC for distance
education (Wells, 1991). This study explores CMC's ability
to augment face-to-face meetings.
Some Background
The reason for wanting to enhance discussion in the
Theories of Communication course is that undergraduates seem
to have particular difficulty with theory. They often do
not understand the nature of theory, what it is, what it's
for, its value, nor are they typically able to apply
criteria to the critical assessment of theory.
Consequently, they tend to feel uncomfortable when theory is
offered for discussion. They refrain from critiquing
theory.
In the student companion text to the Littlejohn
theories textbook, just this concern with the
undergraduate's understanding of theory is anticipated.
Littlejohn and Gray (1992) write to the student:
So you can begin communication theory with one of
two attitudes. You can either have fun with it
and use it as a way to develop your mind, or you
can dread and endure it and miss an opportunity
for self development. We are saddened by the
college graduate who misses the most important
opportunity the baccalaureate provided--the
pleasure of ideas. (p. 3)
In Littlejohn, Rogers, and Gray's (1992) Faculty Desk
Reference, to accompany the textbook, the instructor is told
this:
There are many advantages to using discussion in
the communication theory course. First, it is an
opportunity for students to ask questions about
difficult material and to have other class members
offer answers. This technique challenges the
brightest students and makes use of their
resources. Students sometimes have a constructive
perspective or see an angle on another student's
question that the instructor does not see. At the
same time, however, the way in which the
instructor responds to student questions and
comments can be an effective modeling technique.
Professors must be willing to think out loud in
front of students, and discussion provides the
perfect opportunity to do this. Second,
discussion offers students an opportunity to work
with concepts actively and to develop such
cognitive skills as analysis, criticism,
comparison, extrapolation, and generalization.
Third, discussion is a way, within the confines of
the class experience, to have students transfer
their learning to fresh contexts. Fourth,
discussion is a valuable method for assessing
class progress in achieving course objectives.
(p. 8)
I agree. And that is why I want to explore the use of
CMC to enhance discussion.
Since I chose to use the Littlejohn textbook for the
course, a book that is known for being challenging, I was
concerned about how the students would do in understanding
the book and in discussing it. I wanted to create an
atmosphere in which discussion of the textbook was open and
lively. Based on my experience with undergraduates, I
wanted to address the problem of closely connecting the
theories with the students' experience outside of the
classroom. I needed to be concerned with the relationship
between theory and practice. How could I get students to
carry theory outside of the class, to look for connections,
to discuss and debate theory?
I wanted to stick with a book that promised to be
challenging and of high quality and of a philosophical bent.
But I also felt that I needed to be conscious of the
possible pitfall--that students might see theory as removed,
abstract, something to do until reality came along, i.e.,
non-practical. The nagging question remained: How do I
engage active thinking, critical thinking about the
theoretical issues of communication? How do I get students
to carry theory out of the classroom with them and get them
to bring the results of that extra-classroom encounter back
into the seminar? How do I relate issues of theory to what
matters to students?
I am aware that one approach to connecting theory and
practice is to have students apply theory to actual
instances. But that is not what I wanted for my students.
I did not what to teach them that scientific theory is
intended for making practical decisions (Kerlinger, 1979,
pp. 279-281). I believe that there are serious problems
with this approach. What I was striving for was for
students to discuss and critique the theories.
Getting CMC Going
I was happy to discover just how easy it was to get CMC
going, as far as gaining institutional support. Our
university's person in charge of running the computer center
was extremely helpful. He listened to my idea, which
apparently had not been used by any other faculty member at
our campus of over ten-thousand students. He was intrigued
and wanted to learn more about CMC. He provided me with
handouts on electronic mail and the mainframe's word
processing system. There were no other manuals needed. Our
friendly expert generated id's for my students and was
willing to come to two sessions of my classes to introduce
electronic mail to my students. At the university's
computer classroom, each student can sit at a terminal and
observe on their own screen just what the instructor is
demonstrating. By the end of the two and one-half hour
session, every student was logging on and off, and knew how
to receive and send electronic mail. They knew how to save
their mail (both what they received and sent), and they knew
how to view what they had saved in the mainframe's word
processing system.
Following that one-time session, they were set loose to
use CMC. They were simply told to use CMC to discuss the
weekly readings; to offer questions for thought to help
prepare us for their student lead classroom discussion of a
particular theory; to use CMC to chat. They were required
to save their course correspondence, both sent and received,
and to hand that in as a journal at the end of the semester.
The students were repeatedly reminded by me that anyone who
was experiencing difficulty with CMC should let me know and
I would meet with them and clear it up. As it turned out, a
handful of students took me up on this offer. We met on
weekends or after class and in all cases within an hour
their confusion was cleared up.
Surprise
To my great surprise, the students did not embrace CMC
with open arms, blind faith, and true devotion to me as
their savior. It took a number of weeks for this
realization to sink in with me. They needed time to adjust
to the fall semester, to their newly acquired ability to
send mail, to the Littlejohn text. Moreover, I couldn't be
certain that they were not sending e-mail to one another.
So, in the seminar that met once a week, it was not
until the fourth meeting that I asked point blank, why
haven't you been using e-mail? Are you sending messages to
one another? What I heard struck me as poor excuses. For
instance, some said that now that they were about to
graduate, they didn't think that learning how to use the
computer would be useful--it's too late; they should have
been shown how to use the computer when they were freshmen.
One student said that he always forgets to bring his list of
id's from our seminar when he goes to the computer center,
and that it is hard to find out which terminals are linked
to the mainframe. Several said that it is hard to find time
to go to a terminal.
It was time for a pep talk. After explaining to them
that they are about to graduate into a world where use of
computers is apt to increase, not terminate, and after some
more gentle instruction and encouragement, we moved on.
Soon afterwood, messages began to flow more frequently.
Still, not everyone joined in, and this, in spite of the
fact that 20% of the grade was allotted to the CMC journal.
I consider this lesson #1: real care is required in getting
the student (new to CMC) started on CMC. A study of the use
of CMC in large undergraduate (approximately 50 - 200
students) classes was carried out at Indiana University
(Hansen, Brown, Chong, Kubota, Totten, and Hubard, 1991).
In large part, the Indiana University project was to explore
the use of CMC to facilitate discussion. While results
varied between classes and according to the exact use of
CMC, the overall findings (simplified) suggest considerable
student resistance to using CMC and to debating. The
results of the Indiana University project, although based on
large size classes, are in line with my experience in a
seminar of sixteen students and one of nine students.
What Did the Students Think of CMC? Some Inferences
A few weeks before the end of the semester, I asked the
students in each of the two sections to respond to a brief,
ten item questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed
simply to get at the students' use and perception of CMC.
Results are as follows:
1. Did you ever use electronic mail before this course?
Yes No
Section 1 (N=14) 2 12
Section 2 (N=5) 0 5
Inference:
Students unfamiliar with electronic mail can learn to use
CMC, even in a course that is quite demanding in other ways.
2. Was the instruction in electronic mail sufficient to get
you going in using electronic mail?
Yes No
Section 1 (N=14) 9 5
Section 2 (N=5) 3 2
Inference:
Although the students were all able to use electronic mail
in the end, their responses to question #2 suggest that
additional attention must be given to instruction in
electronic mail. Two suggestions come to mind: First, after
students have had an opportunity to try out what they learn
from the first electronic mail demonstration, a second
meeting would serve to reinforce learning and cover trouble
spots. Second, handouts designed for step by step reference
to commands would help.
3. Approximately how often did you use electronic mail this
semester?
Section 1 (N=14) Section 2 (N=5)
1. less than once a week 3 1
2. once a week 8 4
3. 3 times a week 3 0
4. daily 0 0
Inference:
Most students reported using CMC about once a week. This
was with little to no required logons. To increase use of
CMC, the instructor could mandate a certain number of logons
or integrate assignments with the use of CMC.
4. What did you use electronic mail for?
(if respondents marked more than one choice, they were all
included in the tabulation)
Section 1 (N=14) Section 2 (N=5)
1. social talk 7 2
2. discussion of text 12 4
3. classroom talk 6 3
4. details about when
assignments are due, etc. 4 1
5. other 2 1
Following are two examples of how students used CMC:
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| |
|Box 1.1 A Sample of Student Use of CMC |
| |
| Subject: chap.4 informative vs communicative |
| |
| Message-Id: |
| |
| From: IP15076@PORTLAND (David Weare) |
| |
| To: LENNY@PORTLAND (Lenny Shedletsky) |
| |
| Date: Thu, 26 Sep 91 11:29:52 EDT |
| |
| |
| I'm going to think on paper here. It could be |
| confusing at first. Intention is the key word. Do I |
| deliberately, in an act of volition, intentionally |
| convey meaning? Sometimes. Ekman and Friesen refer |
| to those nonverbal behaviors that intentionaly convey |
| meaning as 'communicative'. They use this term |
| 'communicative' in a specific, limited way, and in |
| relation to other terms such as 'usage' and |
| 'interactive'. It is not to be confused with the |
| dictionary meaning of the word. Nor should we confuse |
| it with any definition arrived at through group |
| discussion. 'Communicative' as Ekman and Friesen coin |
| the term and <> as we commonly use it |
| are quite different. Ekman and Friesen should have |
| choosen a word other than /communicative/ to label the |
| acts they were studying. Their choice creates |
| confusion. What Ekman calls a 'communicative act' |
| is (meaning + intention). What Ekman calls an |
| 'informative act' is (meaning - intention) or just |
| plain (meaning). I don't understand Lenny's |
| 'initial reaction' to reading p.65. I think he is |
| using an idea similar to the following. "3.328 If a |
| sign is useless, it is meaningless. That is the point |
| of Occam's maxim. (If everything behaves as if a |
| sign had meaning, then it does have meaning.)" |
| Wittgenstein's Tractatus... |
| |
| I believe the three acts discussed on p. 65 are quite |
| distinct. A 'non-random idea' can be induced by all |
| three distinct acts. Intention is not Hypothetical |
| but part of the definition of Ekman's 'communicative |
| act'. Have I misunderstood you Lenny? Please |
| forward, at your discretion, to my classmates. |
| |
| +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ |
| |
| Subject: help |
| |
| In-Reply-To: debate is on the horizon |
| |
| References: |
| |
| Message-Id: |
| |
| From: IP15068@PORTLAND |
| |
| To: LENNY@PORTLAND (Lenny) |
| |
| Date: Thu, 26 Sep 91 14:36:00 EDT |
| |
| I'm trying to create a names file but i keep getting a |
| green light when I try to type in the userid. can you |
| give me information on this? |
| |
| +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
5. Who did you write to?
(If more than one choice was made by the respondent, then
that is what was entered in scoring)
Section 1 (N=14) Section 2 (N=5)
1. your self 2 0
2. specific classmates 11 5
3. all the seminar members 7 1
4. the instructor 12 4
5. people outside of our
seminar 1 0
6. Did any one thing about electronic mail work
well for you?
Yes No
Section 1 (N=14) 8 6
Section 2 (N=5) 4 1
What was it?
**computer experience
**a way to get to know other students
**maintaining a journal
**stimulated conversation about the issues--got me
thinking--it helped me write my first paper and gave me
direction for my 2nd paper
**availability of networks to contact other than within USM
**Comserve PhilCom (this refers to an interest group,
Philosophy of Communication)
**it was easy to express my opinions without anyone
shooting down my opinions or ideas. I felt free to
express
**hotlines, ideas, thoughts
7. Was electronic mail more of a pain than a help?
Yes No
Section 1 (N=14) 4 10
Section 2 (N=5) not enough responses
How so?
**Sometimes at the beginning. Probably because I am still
learning tricks with computers and my skills need more
polishing.
**I did not want to take the time to use it. My schedule
was already too full of other assignments.
**It was very interesting. My access to the computer
center wasn't as often as I would've liked--wish people
at the center were familiar with electronic mail.
**It took me quite a few times to actually understand how
to use it, so I missed out on a lot of mail sending.
**It could have been more helpful to me if I was on campus
or lived in Portland. The fact that I live 1/2 hour away
does make it a pain.
**Getting the time to sit down and do it was difficult.
**At first it was, now I realize how much of a valuable
tool it was.
**Because it was such a struggle to get into the computer
and different commands, I spent too much frustration on
that instead of spending time on actually sending mail
and answering mail. If I had another class with you and
you used the electronic mail, then it would be a help.
**Should be introduced with COM 102 (Introduction to
Communication)
**My schedule made it extremely difficult to make trips to
the computer lab.
**Just getting down there to work with it.
**It was a help to those with _no_ knowledge of computers
Inference:
Overwhelmingly, the students voted in favor of CMC.
The complaints they did offer would likely be solved with
some additional instruction in its use early in the course.
8. Did using electronic mail facilitate seminar
participation and/or thinking in this course?
Yes No
Section 1 (N=14) 9 4
Section 2 (N=5) 4 1
How so?
**As the course progressed e-mail was beginning to be a
help, less of a hindrance.
**It spurred "electronic" conversation about interesting
issues that were brought out in discussions.
**It generated a lot of class discussion about topics in
class and encouraged participation.
**A little bit in that sometimes I saw another perspective
on things.
**It was more of a forum for questions after presentations.
**Answering individual questions via e-mail gave everyone
equal opportunity to participate.
**Questions were discussed.
**It helped me to reflect on other issues that might not be
related to class talk.
**I was able to ask questions outside of class. This
allowed me to think through things more thoroughly.
**Occasionally found some of the topics discussed rather
confusing; some points of view were even more confusing.
**Especially questions from X.
Inference:
For the most part, students felt that CMC aided discussion
and thinking. Again, problems with it are linked to the
beginning of the semester. Overall, student responses
strongly reinforce the idea that CMC does indeed augment
discussion and active thinking.
9. Could you think of a way that electronic mail could be
used to further facilitate seminar participation and
thinking about text issues, discussion issues?
**Sure, have the university issue everyone their own home
PC so you could use e-mail anytime!
**Present writing assignments.
**If you ask (mail) a question and have everyone write back
a response--use it as a way to test.
**Make sure the mainframe was connected to Portland Hall (a
dorm).
**Beyond required assignments, no.
**Specific assignments about text passages--discussion,
comment, interpretation.
**If it had been used more by everyone it would have been
an excellent tool.
**More grade weight.
**Easier access.
**If we all had terminals more available to us and more
people participated more often.
**It would be better if everyone had better access to a
computer. All of the computers in Masterton (the
microlab) now have the program so that has made it easier
to get in the system.
**Maybe mandatory answers on certain philosophical type
questions to be discussed in class--or exchanged between
students via e-mail.
**If everyone had one at home like Lenny.
**Give specific assignments through mail. The professor
may teach the class more about e-mail connected to other
universities.
10. Open ended: Your impressions, thoughts, on our
experiment with electrronic mail
**Our experiment with electronic mail started out as just
that. For me the biggest obstacle to e-mail was me. As
I got more comfortable with the system it became clear to
me that this definitely is the wave of the future. . . .
Once I started writing and talking with the computer as
my friend, I found that the words seemed to pop out at
me. Being comfortable with e-mail makes a world of
difference. Keep up with the experiment.
**E-mail would be great for a business situation. It is
nice to know how to use e-mail. I just wish I had more
time to experiment with it.
**It was fun. It's great exposure to what people are
thinking about, issues that wouldn't come up in "regular"
conversation.
**I thought electronic mail was a positive experience and I
hope to use it more in the future. Thanks!
**It was interesting.
**At first it was a pain. The more I was exposed to it,
the more I found it useful. Better access would
facilitate more use.
**I like it. I have no sympathy for those who didn't use
it, didn't have time, and so on.
**After I got used to it, I liked it and used it more and
more, but then it was the end of the semester. I can see
it being very useful.
**Introduce e-mail in COM 102 (Introduction to
Communication) for all majors.
**At first it was a pain, but after you begin to use it, it
actually began to be fun.
**I think the e-mail is a fantastic idea and could help in
class, but . . . The time factor for some is a serious
issue--and because there are so many commuters, it is
difficult to get to the lab.
**I had a great time with electronic mail, and I think that
forcing me to get involved will prove beneficial in the
long run. I met a lot of people, and am very glad I had
the experience.
**Very interesting. Wish I had been introduced to a
computer much sooner via a communication class.
Some Tentative Conclusions
It is obvious that this "experiment" in the use of CMC
and the data gathered make for a preliminary and tentative
bit of learning for all concerned. What I do think we can
carry away from this "experiment" are some rough
conclusions. What does encourage some belief in the
conclusions that I have come to from this experience is the
discovery that the research literature bears out the
conclusions reached here. For instance, Wells (1991) in her
review of the research literature on CMC, reports that "CMC
is particularly well-suited for courses involving
discussion, group interactions and projects, and conceptual
rather than hands-on training. . . . . CMC must be integral
to the course or it will be under-utilized. . . . .
Completion is facilitated when students are not allowed to
self-pace" (p. 21).
With regard to access to computers, Wells reports:
"Ready access to a computer is virtually a prerequisite for
successful performance in CMC. . . . . low usage was
reported for students who had to use computers at local
study centers, compared to other groups who had computers in
their homes (p. 27). . . . . One of the most robust findings
in the literature is that tacking CMC on to existing
materials may negatively impact usage rates. . . . .
strictly voluntary usage meant low usage. . . . . Despite a
small number of case studies, it is clear that CMC will be
used only when participants are required to do so. . . . .
Motivation may be encouraged by requiring a mandatory number
of logons per week, a minimum number of messages, and so on.
. . . Usage may also be encouraged by insuring that
important information (such as quiz questions and answers or
instructor responses to questions) is only accessible
through the computer. . . . Students almost unanimously
blamed lack of time as the reason they tended to lurk rather
than make substantive contributions. However, Mason (1989)
notes that this 'constant refrain begins to sound like noise
generated to cover a more basic cause--the lack of a clear
model on which to base their conception of how to
participate' (p. 137)" (Wells, pp.36 -37).
What follows is a statement of some of the "findings"
in this study that seem to sit up and ask to be noticed.
Using electronic mail the way it was done here [with
minimal student training in its use, with 20% of the grade
tied to it, with no real mandatory assignments (other than a
journal of e-mail correspondence to be handed in), over a
one-semester period of time, without students having
computers with modems in their homes, with students who have
never used a mainframe computer before] is likely to produce
a fair share of resistance. These same students will leave
the course thanking you for the experience. The instructor
will need to decide whether or not it is worth the anxiety
generated by the resistance, and whether or not it is worth
the hand-holding that is required to walk students through
it.
Much like what one reads in the research literature,
ACCESS to computer terminals is central. In addition, the
students seem to agree with one another that mandatory
assignments (apparently in addition to handing in a journal)
would increase student use of CMC.
Interestingly, in spite of the resistance to its use,
most of the students seemed to like the experience and most
thought that it facilitated seminar participation and
thinking. That is central to this "experiment," i.e., that
most thought that CMC did facilitate the course.
I count the "experiment" a success, but then I am
biased in this conclusion. Students rated the course and
the instructor highly. Class discussions flowed easily and
seemed to be enjoyable and productive. Students thought
that e-mail aided class discussions. Even students from
outside the course have approached me to find out if the
course will soon be taught again and, especially, if
electronic mail will be a part of the course; they've
indicated that they have heard very good things about the
CMC part of the course.
I believe that if you want to try a similar
"experiment" in your class, that this report should get you
off to a headstart. When I do it over again (and I intend
to), the one change I am definitely going to make is to give
more specific assignments to be carried out with CMC. For
instance, the first computer assignment will be to write a
brief autobiographical sketch, introducing one's self to the
class, and to send that to everyone within the first week or
two.
Note
[1] Wells, in her 1991 review of the literature on compu-
ter-mediated communications for distance education,
tells us that it is rare to find experimental studies
on CMC. She reports: "Indeed, various endeavors in
distance education seem to be inspired by an 'everyday
rationality and . . . embryonic conceptualization of
distance learning' (Marland and Store, 1982, p. 72). .
. . In fact, much of the literature on distance
education and CMC consists of either case studies or
conclusions/recommendations that may or may not be
accompanied by empirical evidence" (Wells, 1991, p. 3)
References
Hansen, E., Brown, B., Chong, S., Kubota, K., Totten, N., &
Hubbard, L. "Computer Conferencing for Collaborative
Learning in Large College Classes," Division of
Development and Special Projects, Indiana University.
Huff, C., & King, R. (1988). An experiment in electronic
collaboration. In J. D. Goodchilds (Chair),
Interacting by computer: Effects on small group style
and structure. Symposium conducted at the meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Atlanta.
Kerlinger, F. (1979). Behavioral research: A conceptual
approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Littlejohn, S. (1989). Theories of human communication.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Littlejohn, S., & Gray, R. Learning and Using Communication
theories: A student guide to accompany Theories of
Human Communication (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Littlejohn, S., Rogers, R., & Gray, R. (1992). Theories of
human communication: Faculty desk reference (4th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of
working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Weisband, S. (1989). Discussion, advocacy and computer-
mediated communication effects in group decision
making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie
Mellon University.
Wells, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communications for
distance education and training: Literature review and
international resources. (Report No. ARI Research
Product 91-06). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1993
Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.
 CIOS Support Staffsupport@cios.org
Branch to CIOS home page
|
