Using ComputerMediated Communication in LargeGroup Settings

1
Using Computer-Mediated Communication in
Large-Group Settings

• Jeremy Sarachan
• St. John Fisher College
• Computer Ethics ConferenceNovember 6, 2004

2
Introduction

• A proposal for adding elements ofactive learning
  and interactivity to the traditional one-way
  lecture environment.
• The proposal utilizes computer-mediated
  communication.

3
Ethical Foundation

• Utilitarian Approach
• Greatest goodfor the largest number of people
• Greatest net good
• We must pursue all avenuesof improving
  education.

4
Good uses of technology

• Must actively make policy decisions and
  incorporate existing technologies that can add to
  the good.

5
Lecture-Based Learning

• Students receive a significant amount of
  information efficiently in a short time.
• However, students may fail to apply analytical
  thoughtto the content of the lecture.

6
Active Learning

• Provide students time to create their own
  knowledge through the formation of questions,
  discussions, and class activities
• Address different learning styles by providing
  opportunities to listen, read, create and view
  visuals, or engage in physical activity

7
Combining Methods

• There is strong evidence to suggest that
  learners learn best when constructing their own
  knowledge. However, there is also a right time
  to clearly guide learners or simply give them a
  critical piece of information to help them move
  forward.-Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, and Tinker
  (2000)

8
Educational Technology

• Overhead Displays/Powerpoint
• E-Mail
• Blackboard
• BLOGs
• Distance Learning

9
Using CMC in Large Groups

• CMC allows professors to add active learning to
  an otherwise one-way communication activity
  (which does already include listening, viewing
  visual material, and writing notes)
• With CMC, lectures may vary from theone-way
  communication structure
• Students more likely to become engaged when given
  time to discuss and question the material

10
The Proposal

• Combines lecture and recitation sections in one
  class session.An alternative to the broadcast
  style of lectures
• Students ask questionsduring the lecture
  answered byteaching assistants
  viacomputer-mediated communication
• Lecture time alternates withchat room
  discussions held withmany small groups of
  students.

11
The Proposal, part 2

• Most suited to large lectures(150-200
  students)
• Students receive help immediately in the
  lecture-only environment.
• Subsequent lecture information is not
  misunderstood/misinterpreted
• With discussion, students mustthink about
  subject/issuesas they hear it for the first time

12
Hardware Solutions

• Access to communication technology required
• Only dumb terminals needed
• Alternatively, wireless connections allow
  students to use laptops or PDAs
• Students only require text-based interface.Cell
  phones may be a reasonable option.
• Ubiquitous computing video screens in eyeglasses

13
http//www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/Images/Pe
ople/wearfolk-sam-big.jpg
14
Rationale for Proposal ICMC vs. Recitation
Sections

• CMC is more immediate
• CMC avoids lag in understanding of material
• CMC allows active learning to occur on the spot

15
Rationale for Proposal II

• Students multitaskwriting papers and instant
  messagingwatching television and completing
  homework
• Cell phones, PDAs, computersalready a
  distraction

16
Etiquette

• Students using CMC during class lecturesIs
  RUDE?Or is it?
• Must classroom behavior be so different than real
  life?
• Can attention be refocused?

17
Societal Norms

• If wearable computing becomes the normor
  continual reliance on highly portable computers
  becomes commonplacehow can this technology be
  kept out of the classroom?
• Institute dress codesor develop productive uses
  for CMC.
• Why wait until habit creates negative uses for
  the technology?

18
Existing Examples of Hybrid Education

• Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
• Associated Colleges of the SouthsVirtual
  Classics department.

19
Disadvantages I

• Student access to technology
• Asking questions distract from lecture

• Access becomes more commonplace and affordable
• Being confusedmay be worseTapscott and the
  Net generation

20
Disadvantages II

• Noise of typing
• Inappropriate use of technology

• Become background noise (like writing and
  flipping pages) reduce whispering
• Students may daydream or complete other
  assignments now. This proposal may prevent
  negative use of technology.

21
Disadvantages III

• Undesirable communication, either off-topic or
  inappropriate language, may occur

• Students may use screen names, but their identity
  is known to the professor.Inappropriate behavior
  results in lower grade or exile from the online
  environment.

22
Disadvantages IV

• Students may perceive online communication to be
  inferior to face-to-face communication (as found
  in recitation section)

• Students still attending live lecture. A study
  by Olaniran et al. suggests that students
  generate and share more ideas online, despite
  perception of a greater lack of effectiveness

23
Advantages I

• Students have questions answered during large
  lectures, where it would be otherwise impractical
• Discussions held during classes will add an
  element of active learning to the lecture

24
Advantages II

• Professors could save a record of the questions
  asked and discussions held in the chat rooms1)
  Teaching assistants could be closely monitored2)
  Widespread questions/sources of confusion could
  be addressed in lecture

25
Advantages III

• Shy students would more actively participate and
  ask questions.A study by Kelly, Duran, and
  Zolten (2001) suggest that reticent students feel
  safer communicating via e-mail. Turkle (1995)
  also suggests that CMC is less intimidating for
  shy people.

26
Advantages IV

• CMC could eliminate a quiet class, as students
  in small groups online would be expected to
  participate, and a record of this participation
  would exist

27
Advantages V

• Brainstorming sessions(with the results received
  by the professor) would allow many students to
  contribute simultaneously

28
Advantages VI

• Additionally, on-the-spot surveys and experiments
  (as appropriate for a social science class) could
  be conducted
• Minimally, ask the audience questions could be
  used to find out opinions and provide quick
  checks of comprehension

29
Other questions

• Do students with greater comfort with technology
  have an advantage?
• Do teaching assistants have an extra burden if a
  recitation section is also offered?
• Does a particular professor have a lecture style
  that would be awkwardly interruptedby CMC
  breaks?

30
Professor and Student Acceptance

• Professors should be willingto try new
  technologies
• Students must see benefit, and understand
  consequences of inappropriate behavior

31
Experimentation

• Technology is not always by default the best
  solution.
• Even with tutorials, simulations, e-mail,
  discussion boards, distance learning, innovation
  is always possible

32
The greater good

• To find the greater good, technology must be
  embraced, not limited
• Endless possibilities for improvement.

33
References

• Barnes, Susan B. (2003) Computer-Mediated
  Communication Human-to-Human Communication
  Across the Internet. Boston, MA Pearson
  Education.
• Biocca, Frank. (1997). The Cyborg's Dilemma
  Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments.
  Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
  Online, 3(2). Available http//www.ascusc.org/j
  cmc/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html
• Birnie, S. A. and Horvath, P. (2002).
  Psychological Predictors of Internet Social
  Communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated
  Communication Online, 7(4). Available
  http//www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue4/horvath.htm
  l

34

• Brunner, Cornelia, and William Tally. (1999). The
  New Media Literacy Handbook. New York
  Doubleday.
• Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., Tinker,
  R. (2000). Facilitating online learning
  Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI
  Atwood.
• Conrad, R.M., Donaldson, J.A. (2004). Engaging
  the Online Learner Activities and Resources for
  Creative Instruction. San Francisco, CA
  Jossey-Bass.
• Hospers, John. (2003). The Best Action is the
  One With the Best Consequences. In M. David
  Ermann and Michele S. Shauf (Eds.), Computer,
  Ethics and Society. New York Oxford University
  Press.

35

• Johnson, D.G. (2001). Ethics On-Line. In R.A.
  Spinello H.T. Tavani (Eds.), Readings in
  Cyberethics. Sudbury, MA Jones and Bartlett
  Publishers.
• Kelly, L., Duran, R..L., Zolten, J. J. (2001).
  The effect of reticence on college students use
  of electronic mail to communicate with faculty.
  Communication Education, 50 (2), 170-176.
• MIT Media Lab. (2003). Wearable Computing at the
  MIT Media Lab. Online Available
  http//www.media.mit.edu/wearables/index.html
• Mitra, Ananda and Rae Lynn Schwartz. (2001).
  From Cyber Space to Cybernetic Space Rethinking
  the Relationship between Real and Virtual Spaces.
  Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
  Online, 7(1). Available http//www.ascusc.org/
  jcmc/vol7/issue1/mitra.html
• Moor, J.H. (2001) Reason, Relativity, and
  Responsibility in Computer Ethics. In R.A.
  Spinello H.T. Tavani (Eds.), Readings in
  Cyberethics. Sudbury, MA Jones and Bartlett
  Publishers

36

• Olaniran, B.A., Grant, T.S., Sorenson, R.L.
  (1996, July). Experimental and experiential
  approaches to teaching face-to-face and
  computer-mediated group discussion.
  Communication Education, 45, pp. 244-259.
• Ozmon, H.A. Craver, S.M. (2003) Philosophical
  Foundations of Education. Seventh Edition. Upper
  Saddle River, NJ Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms Chidlren,
  Computers, and Powerful Ideas.New York, MY
  BasicBooks.
• Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C Dwyer, D. C.
  (1997). Teaching With Technology Creating
  Student-Centered Classrooms. New York, NY
  Teachers College Press.
• Stein, Bob. (1999). Ethics and First Principles
  for the Art of the Digital Age. In Peter
  Lunenfeld (Ed.), The Digital Dialectic New
  Essays on New Media. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.

37

• Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital The
  Rise of the Net Generation. New York, NY
  McGraw-Hill Books.
• Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen Identity
  in the Age of the Internet. New York, NY
  Touchtone.
• Weigel, V.B. (2002). Deep Learning for a Digital
  Age Technologys Untapped Potential to Enrich
  Higher Education. San Francisco, CA.
  Jossey-Bass
• Young, J. (2002). Hybrid' Teaching Seeks to End
  the Divide Between Traditional and Online
  Instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 22
  March, 2002. Retrieved October 30, 2004 from
  http//chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i28/28a03301.h
  tm