Advertisement

Interactional and structural characteristics of communication and social interactions during computer-mediated communication

  • William J. Gibbs
  • Roman S. Bernas
Article

Abstract

THIS STUDY used precepts of social network theory to examine the interactional and structural characteristics of communication in peer-mentoring conferences. Twelve discussion conferences were set up to support students during a teaching practicum experience. The conferences were governed by students with minimal instructor involvement. It was reasoned that because the conferences were established as a support network discussions would exhibit epistolary forms of communication indicative of students aligning with and supporting others. Epistolary discourse types were found. However, discussants posted a high proportion of expository statements or statements characterized by an intention to inform rather than support or engage with others. As dialogue progressed though, epistolary communication emerged.

The study also found that enabling students to govern their own conferences can be useful and a viable means for them to support one another within a learning context. The conference density of connectedness among discussants reported in the study was small. It is suggested that as density increases and the number of connections grow, managing information will likely become challenging and thus the services of a moderator may be useful to engender effective communication.

Keywords

computer-mediated communication online discussions online discourse discussion forums online support 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001) Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Retrieve June 4, 2007, from: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/ jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.aspGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkowitz, S.D. (1982).An introduction to structural analysis. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  3. Boissevain, J. (1974).Friends of friends. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, D., Lee, H-Y, Ramage, D., & Donath, J. (2002). Developing legible visualizations for online social spaces.Proceedings of HICSS-35: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1060–1069). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brilhart, J.K, & Galanes, G.J. (1992).Effective group discussion (7th ed.). Madison, WI: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, F.B., & Brown, Y. (1994). Distance education around the world. In B. Willis (Ed.),Distance education strategies and tools (pp. 3–39). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning.Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  8. Donath, J., Karahalios, K., & Viegas, F. (1999). Visualizing conversation.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http:// jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/donath.htmlGoogle Scholar
  9. Driscoll, M.P. (2000).Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Fahy, P., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript.The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieve June 2, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/36Google Scholar
  11. Fahy, P. (2002). Epistolary and Expository Interaction Patterns in a Computer Conference Transcript.Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
  12. Fahy, P.J. (2003). Indicators of support in online interaction.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1). Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http:// www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/129Google Scholar
  13. Fahy, P J. (2005). Two methods for assessing critical thinking in computer-mediated communications (CMC) transcripts.International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(3). Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_05/article02.htmGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrison, R, Anderson, T, & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbs, W.J., Simpson, L.J., & Bernas, R.S. (in press). An analysis of temporal norms in online discussions.International Journal of Instructional Media.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbs, W.J. (2006). Visualizing interaction patterns in online discussions and indices of cognitive presence.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 18(1), 30–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanneman, R.A., & Riddle, M. (2005).Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside (published in digital form). Retrieve July 1, 2007, from http://faculty.ucr.edu/≈hanneman/Google Scholar
  18. Herring, S.C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S.C. Herring (Ed.),Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81–106). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Herring, S.C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol4/issue4/herring.htmlGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads.Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference, C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Dec. 12–15, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (pp. 232–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Hickson, M., Stacks, D.W., & Moore, N.J. (2004).Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications (4th ed.). Los Angles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Jeong, A. (2005).Methods and tools for the computational analysis of group interaction and argumentation in asynchronous online group discussions. Paper presented at the Learning and Technology Symposium at New York University, New York, NY. Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http://dev22448-01.sp01.fsu.edu/Research/ Proposals/LearnTechSymposium/Methods Tools Analyzing Interaction_Jeong2005.pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G.V., (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaboration argumentation.ETR & D, 54(1), 543–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Juler, P. (1990). Promoting interaction: Maintaining independence: Swallowing the mixture.Open Learning, 5(2), 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalman, Y.M., & Rafaeli, S. (2005). Email chronemics: Unobtrusive profiling on response time.Proceedings of HICSS-38: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 108b). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998, Spring). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction.Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  27. Korenman, J., & Wyatt, N. (1996). Group dynamic in an e-mail forum. In S.C. Herring (Ed.),Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 225–242). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Lawlor, C. (2004).Gender interaction in computer mediated conferencing: Participation, purposive differences, and list effects. Unpublished master's thesis, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada. Retrieve June 1, 2007, from http:// library.athabascau.ca/thesis/lawlor.pdfGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin, J., Kim, H., & Riel, M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L. Harasim (Ed.),Online education (pp. 185–213) NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  30. Maurino, P. (2007). Online asynchronous threaded discussion: Good enough to advance students through the proximal zone of activity theory?Tech Trends, 51(2), pp. 46–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pawan, F., Paulus, T., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers.Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119–140.Google Scholar
  32. Ridley, C., & Avery, A. (1979).Social network influence on the dyadic relationship. In R. Burgess & T. Huston, (Eds.),Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 223–246). NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.Google Scholar
  34. Ryan, K., & Cooper, J.M. (2004).Those who can, teach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  35. Savicki, V., Lingenfelter, D., & Kelley, M. (1996). Gender language style in group composition in Internet discussion groups.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(3). Retrieve May 30, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue3/savicki.htmlGoogle Scholar
  36. Simon, H.A. (1996).The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Yates, S.Y. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S.C. Herring (Ed.),Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29–46). Philadelphia, Penn-sylvania: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. Proceedings ofSelected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (18th, Indianapolis, IN, pp. 821–844).Google Scholar
  39. Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions.Instructional Science, 34(6), 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu, E. (1998). Learning and mentoring: Electronic discussions in a distance learning course. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.),Electronic co collaborators: Learnercentered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 233–259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Gibbs
    • 1
  • Roman S. Bernas
    • 2
  1. 1.Journalism and Multimedia ArtsDuquesne UniversityPittsburgh
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyEastern Illinois UniversityCharleston

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options