Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) courses are attracting students with weak computer communication skills. This study examined what happened to these students when they enrolled in a CMC course that required high levels of peer interaction. It was anticipated that students with weaker skills would miss important instructional events, have lower levels of task-relevant contributions, have less influence on group products, and engage in less demanding learning activities. But lack of technical skill had a marginal effect on participation, much less than prior knowledge of course content. The generalizability of this good news is limited by several contextual factors that supported participation of students with weak communication skills: student maturity, provision of a CMC coach, the ethos emerging from the structure and content of the course, and the low skill threshold required for participation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GarrisonD., Quality and Access in Distance Education: Theoretical Considerations, in Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, KeeganD. (ed.), Routledge, London, pp. 9–21, 1993.
2.
HarasimL., Teaching and Learning On-Line: Issues in Computer-Mediated Graduate Courses, Canadian Journal for Education Communication, 16:2, 1987.
3.
HiltzS., Collaborative Learning: The Virtual Classroom Approach, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 17:10, pp. 59–65, 1994.
4.
PhillipsG.SantoroG.KuehnS., The Use of Computer-Mediated Communication in Training Students in Group Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Techniques, American Journal of Distance Education, 2:1, pp. 38–51, 1988.
5.
WellsR., Computer-Mediated Communication for Distance Education: An International Review of Design, Teaching, and Institutional Issues, American Center for the Study of Distance Education, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1993.
6.
FoellN., Using Computers to Provide Distance Learning, The New Technology, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Vocational Educational Research Association, Orlando, Florida, 1989.
7.
AndersonJ.LeeA., Literacy Teachers Learning a New Literacy: A Study of the Use of Electronic Mail in a Reading Education Class, Reading Research and Instruction, 34:3, pp. 222–238, 1995.
8.
AndersonJ., Acquisition of Cognitive Skill, Psychological Review, 89, pp. 369–406, 1982.
9.
BanduraA., Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1986.
10.
SchunkD., Goal and Self-Evaluative Influences during Children's Mathematical Skill Acquisition, paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1995.
11.
RyderM.WilsonB., From Local to Virtual Learning Environments: Making the Connection, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1995.
12.
CohenE.LotanR., Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom, American Educational Research Journal, 32:1, pp. 99–120, 1995.
13.
GoodT.McCaslinM.ReysB., Investigating Work Groups to Promote Problem Solving in Mathematics, in Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 3, BrophyJ. (ed.), JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut, 1992.
14.
MulryanC., Student Passivity during Cooperative Small Groups in Mathematics, Journal of Educational Research, 85:5, pp. 261–273, 1992.
15.
RossJ. A.CousinsJ. B., Giving and Receiving Explanations in Cooperative Learning Groups, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41:1, pp. 103–121, 1995.
16.
MulryanC., Fifth and Sixth Graders' Involvement and Participation in Cooperative Small Groups in Mathematics, Elementary School Journal, 95:4, pp. 297–310, 1995.
17.
AndersonC., Engagement in Explanation and Design in Middle School Science, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1994.
18.
KingA., High and Low Achievers' Perceptions and Cooperative Learning in Two Small Groups, Elementary School Journal, 93:4, pp. 399–416, 1993.
19.
McCrearyE.Van DuranJ., Educational Applications of Computer Conferencing, Canadian Journal of Educational Communications, 16:2, pp. 107–115, 1987.
20.
SlavinR., Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd Edition), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995.
21.
ClarkeJ., Pieces of the Puzzle: The Jigsaw Methods, in Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods, SharanS. (ed.), Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 34–50, 1994.
22.
SharanY.SharanS., Expanding Cooperative Learning through Group Investigation, Teachers College Press, New York, 1993.
23.
GibbsJ., Tribes: A Process for Social Development and Cooperative Learning, Center Source Publications, Santa Rosa, California, 1994.
24.
MuhrT., ATLAS/ti: Computer Aided Text Interpretation and Theory Building. Release 1.1E, Scientific Software Development, Berlin, 1995.
25.
WoodruffE., Investigating Collaborative Maieutics: An Examination of the Effects of Face-to-Face and Computer Networked Communication Mediums on Peer-Assisted Knowledge-Building, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, 1995.
26.
GallS. Nelson-LeGlor-ScheibS., Academic Help-Seeking and Peer Relations in School, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, pp. 187–193, 1986.
27.
RossJ. A.CraneC. A.RobertsonD., Equity of Access to Computer-Mediated Distance Education, Journal of Distance Education, in press.
28.
ButcherP.GreenbergJ., Educational Computing at the Open University: The Second Decade, Education and Computing, 8:3, pp. 201–215, 1992.
29.
DavieL.PalmerP., Computer-Teleconferencing for Advanced Distance Education, Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 10:2, pp. 56–66, 1985.
30.
GallS. Nelson-LeGumeranR., Children's Perceptions of Helpers and Helper Motivation, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, pp. 1–12, 1984.
31.
AndrewsT., The Development and Application of a Framework for the Evaluation of Distance Education at the Secondary Level, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, 1996.
