Previous research in computer-mediated communication in both the classroom and the workplace has found that patterns of interaction may differ between individuals communicating face-to-face versus communicating via a computer network. This present study, using a case study methodology, sought to analyze and compare the language of groups of business writing students as they communicated both face-to-face and on a real-time computer network. The study found that during network meetings, participation was more equal, responses tended to be more substantive and text specific, and students were more willing to offer direction than during face-to-face meetings. In addition, students reported a more positive evaluation of their network sessions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, Nancyet al.“What Experienced Collaborators Say about Collaborative Writing.”JBTC1.2 (1987): 70-90.
2.
Batson, Trent
. “The ENFI Project: A Networked Classroom Approach to Writing Instruction.”Academic Computing Feb. 1988: 32-33, 55-56.
3.
Batson, Trent
. “Teaching in Networked Classrooms.”Computers in English and the Language Arts. Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe, Dawn Rodrigues, and William R. Oates. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1989. 247-255.
4.
Black, Steven D.
, James A. Levin, and Hugh Mehan. “Real and Non-Real Time Interaction: Unraveling Multiple Threads of Discourse.”Discourse Processes6.1 (1983): 59-75.
5.
Bruffee, Kenneth A.“Collaborative Learning and the `Conversation of Mankind.' ”College English46 (1984): 635-652.
6.
Chafe, Wallace
. “The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of a Narrative.”The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of a Narrative Production. Ed. Wallace Chafe. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1980. 9-50.
7.
Cooper, Marilyn
, and Cynthia Selfe. “Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse.”College English; 52 (1990): 847-869.
8.
Couture, Barbara
, and Jone Rymer Goldstein. Cases for Technical and Professional Writing. Boston: Little, Brown, 1985.
9.
Couture, Barbara
, and Jone Rymer. “Interactive Writing on the Job: Definitions and Implications of Collaboration.”Writing in the Business Professions. Ed. Myra Kogen. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; Association for Business Communication, 1989. 73-93.
10.
Duin, Ann Hill
. “Terms and Tools: A Theory and Research-Based Approach to Collaborative Writing.”Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication53.2 (1990): 45-50.
11.
Eldred, Janet M.“Computers, Composition Pedagogy, and the Social View.”Critical Perspectives on Computers and Composition Instruction. Ed. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. New York: Teachers College Press, 1989. 201-218.
12.
Faigley, Lester
, and Thomas P. Miller. “What We Learn from Writing on the Job.”College English44 (1982): 557-569.
13.
Forman, Janis
. “Novices Work on Group Reports: Problems in Group Writing and in Computer-Supported Group Writing.”JBTC5.1 (1991): 48-75.
14.
George, Diana
. “Working with Peer Groups in the Composition Classroom.”College Composition and Communication35 (1984): 320-326.
15.
Gere, Anne R.
, and Robert Abbott. “Talking about Writing: The Language of Writing Groups.”Research in the Teaching of English19.3 (1985): 362-381.
16.
Gere, Anne R.
, and R. S. Stevens. “The Language of Writing Groups: How Oral Response Shapes Revision.”The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and Revision. Ed. Sarah W. Freedman. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985. 85-105.
17.
Hartman, Karenet al.“Patterns of Social Interaction and Learning to Write: Some Effects of Network Technologies.”Written Communication8.1 (1991): 79-113.
18.
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne
. Online Scientific Communities: A Case Study of the Office of the Future. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1984.
19.
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne
. “The `Virtual Classroom': Using Computer-Mediated Communication for University Teaching.”Journal of Communication36 (1986): 162-175.
20.
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne
, and Murray Turoff. The Network Nation: Human Communication Via Computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
21.
Kiesler, Sara
, Jane Siegel, and Timothy W. McGuire. “Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication.”American Psychologist39 (1984): 1123-1134.
22.
Loban, Walter
. Language Development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1976.
23.
Mabrito, Mark
. “Electronic Mail as a Vehicle for Peer Response: Conversations of High- and Low-Apprehensive Writers.”Written Communication8.4 (1991): 509-532.
24.
Peyton, Joy Kreeft
. “Technological Innovation Meets Institution: Birth of Creativity or Murder of a Great Idea?”Computers and Composition7.2 (1990): 15-32.
Rice, Ronald E.
, and Gail Love. “Electronic Emotion: Socio-Emotional Content in a Computer-Mediated Communication Network.”Communication Research14 (1987): 85-105.
27.
Schriner, Delores K.
, and William C. Rice. “Computer Conferencing and Collaborative Learning: A Discourse Community at Work.”College Composition and Communication40 (1989): 472-478.
Sirc, Geoffrey
. “Learning to Write on a LAN.”T.H.E. Journal15.8 (1988): 100-104.
30.
Spitzer, Michael
. “Writing Style in Computer Conferences.”IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication29.1 (1986): 19-22.
31.
Sproull, Lee
, and Sara Kiesler. “Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Settings.”Management Science32 (1986): 1492-1512.
32.
Trimbur, John
. “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning.”College English51 (1989): 602-616.
33.
Trowbridge, David
. “An Investigation of Groups Working at the Computer.”Applications of Cognitive Psychology: Problem Solving, Education, and Computing. Ed. Dale Berger, Kathy Pezdek, and William Banks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987. 47-58.
34.
Yin, Robert
. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.
