Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 493–513 | Cite as

An instructional paradigm for the teaching of computer-mediated communication

  • Craig D. Howard
Article

Abstract

This article outlines an instructional paradigm that guides the design of interventions that build skills in computer-mediated communication (CMC). It is applicable to learning at multiple levels of communicative proficiency and aims to heighten awareness, the understanding of the impact of media configurations, the role of cultures and social contexts in mediated communication, and forward research in the service of instructional designs for CMC. This paradigm broadens the scope of Hymes’ (Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972) theory of communicative competence, which is often applied to foreign language learning contexts, to include online interaction. The paradigm addresses the nuances of mediated communication through recognition of the situations and modes that intersect in online spaces. The paradigm is designed for learning situations that provide time and access to mediated environments where learners develop values for communication skill through practical experiences and structured reflection. This approach to creating instruction has at its core certain values, including risk-taking by participating in unfamiliar contexts, appreciating mediated-communication configurations as unique modalities, and placing CMC skills development within larger sets of pedagogical goals. This instructional paradigm does not assume that verbal fluency, grammatical competence, skill in either writing or speaking, nor membership in any age group translates directly to skill in CMC. The methods presented here have been selected because they build tolerance and appreciation for divergent viewpoints. The methods are (1) building interest by having learners select specific media situations, (2) facilitating collaboration by constructing safe spaces, (3) directly teaching CMC reading skills, (4) using examples and matched non-examples, (5) investigating CMC principles in real world examples through structured discussions, (6) showing the process of different communications’ development, and (7) using roles in discussion designs.

Keywords

Instructional design theory CMC Instruction Educational paradigm Instructional theory Communication Instructional design Digital natives 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to my colleague Alistair Van Moere PhD for his insights and collaboration during the testing and development of early instructional designs targeting the development of CMC skills, to Charles M. Reigeluth PhD who provided feedback on an early version of this paradigm, to Susan C. Herring PhD whose teaching dramatically influenced the development of the curricular areas incorporated into this paradigm, and to Andrew F. Barrett who provided key technical help at crucial moments in the development of this manuscript.

References

  1. Abdul-Mageed, M. M. (2009). Epistemic modality in computer-mediated discourse: The case of Wikipedia’s academic core. Paper presented at the third annual linguistics conference at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  2. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Instructional effects on critical thinking: Performance on ill-defined issues. Learning and Instruction, 19, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to email: How written english evolved and where it’s heading. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 231–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 269–292). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Bijker, W. E. (2001). Social construction of technology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 23, pp. 15522–15527). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1–8. Retrieved December, 2010 from http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/index.
  11. Boling, E., Smith, K., Easterling, W., Hardré, P., Howard, C., Korkmaz, N., et al. (2010). Design judgment as a component of design character: Some focused views from the field. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), no pages/online. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/socialstudies/article1.cfm.
  14. Burkhalter, B. (1999). Reading race online: Discovering racial identity in usenet discussions. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 63–69). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chadwick, S., & Ralston, E. (2010). Perspective-taking in structured and unstructured online discussions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  17. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 289–298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.Google Scholar
  20. de Siqueira, A., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Temporal patterns in student-advisor instant messaging exchanges: Individual variation and accommodation. Proceedings of the forty-second Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  21. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act in line with assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39(6), 770–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dibbell, J. (1993). A rape in cyberspace. The Village Voice, pp. 36–42.Google Scholar
  23. Donner, J. (2007). The rules of beeping: Exchanging messages via intentional “missed calls” on mobile phones. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), Retrieved August 1, 2010 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue11/donner.html.
  24. Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20, 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Emigh, W., & Herring, S. C. (2005). Collaborative authoring on the Web: A genre analysis of online encyclopedias. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos.Google Scholar
  26. Flavell, J. H., Botkin, P. T., Fry, C. L., Wright, J. W., & Jarvis, P. E. (1968). The development of role-taking and communication skills in children. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  27. Fanselow, J. F. (1987). Breaking rules: Generating and exploring alternatives in language teaching. White Plains: Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Gagnè, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and the theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  29. Gibson, J. T. (2009). Discussion approach to instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 99–116). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hara, N. (2000). Students’ distress with a Web-based distance education course: An ethnographic study of participants’ experiences. Information, Communication & Society, 3(4), 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instrucitonal Science, 28, 115–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrived November 7, 2010 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html.
  34. Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer mediated discourse. Language @ Internet, 1, Retrieved September 6, 2007 from http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2761.
  35. Hosack, B. (2010). VideoANT: Extending online video annotation beyond content delivery. Tech Trends, 54(3), 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howard, C. D. (2003). Overcoming online obstacles: Macro-factors in online enhanced course design. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 15(1), 293–312.Google Scholar
  37. Howard, C. D. (2009). Part of speech tagged asynchronous CMC: Comparing native, non-native, and newspaper English. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences: Illinois working papers, 2009, 110–126.Google Scholar
  38. Howard, C. D. (2010). Obstacles to the credibility of online learning. eLearn Magazine, 112(1). Retrieved September 27, 2010 from http://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1730789.
  39. Howard, C. D., Barrett, A. F., & Frick, T. W. (2010). Anonymity to promote peer feedback: Pre-service teachers’ comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. The Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Howard, C. D., & Myers, R. (2010). Creating video-annotated discussions: An asychronous alternative. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), Retrieved November 1, 2010 from http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/index.
  41. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  42. Jarvela, S., & Hakkinen, P. (2000). Level of web-based discussion: Theory of perspective-taking as a tool for analyzing interaction. Paper presented at the fourth international conference of the learning sciences, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  43. Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36–53.Google Scholar
  44. Keller, J. M., & Kopp, T. W. (1987). An application of the ARCS model of motivational design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models (pp. 289–320). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  45. Kelly, A., & Lesh, R. (2006). Design research in mathematics science & technology education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Kling, R. (1994). Reading “all About” computerization: How genre conventions shape non-fiction social analysis. The Information Society, 10(3), 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Könings, K., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Participatory instructional redesign by students and teachers in secondary education: effects on perceptions of instruction. Instructional Science, 1(26), doi:  10.1007/s11251-010-9152-3.
  48. Korenman, J., & Wyatt, N. (1996). Group dynamics in an email forum. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 225–242). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  49. Koschmann, T. (2000). Toward a diologic theory of learning: Bakhtin’s contribution to understanding learning in settings of collaboration. unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  50. Lewis, C., Watson, M., & Schnaps, E. (1999). Recapturing education’s full mission: Educating for social, ethical and intellectual development. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 511–535). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. (2001). Managing impression formation in computer-mediated communication. Educause Quarterly, 50(1), 50–54.Google Scholar
  52. Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35, 141–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects. Penguin: London.Google Scholar
  54. Merrill, M. D., Barclay, M., & Van Schaak, A. (2008). Prescriptive principles for instructional design. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrieenboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Meyer, E. T. (2006). Socio-technical interaction networks: A discussion of the strengths, weaknesses and future of Kling’s STIN model. In J. Berleur, M. I. Numinen, & J. Impagliazzo (Eds.), Social informatics: An information society for all. In remembrance of Rob Kling (Vol. 223, pp. 37–48). Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller, J. (2004). Social languages and schooling: The uptake of sociocultural perspectives in school. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 113–146). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  57. Nakamura, L. (2002). Head-hunting on the Internet: Identity tourism, avatars, and racial passing in textual and graphic chat spaces. Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the internet (pp. 31–60). NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2010). The digital literacy debate: An investigation of digital propensity, information and communication technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 531–555. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9151-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paulus, T. M. (2005). Collaborative and cooperative approaches to online group work: The impact of task type. Distance Education, 26(1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Paulus, T. M. (2009). Online but off-topic: Negotiating common ground in small learning groups. Instructional Science, 37, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perkins, D. N., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 91–114). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 425–454). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Reigeluth, C. M. (2009). Instructional theory for education in the information age. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 387–400). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 511–535). (Vol. II, pp. 161-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2004). Instructional designers’ observations about identity, communities of practice, and change agency. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 69–100.Google Scholar
  67. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  68. Skovholt, K., & Svennevig, J. (2006). Email copies in workplace interaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), article 3.Google Scholar
  69. Tannen, D. (2011). How social media make cross-generational discourse like cross-cultural communication. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Applied Linguistics. Washington: Discourse: Language and New Media (GURT).Google Scholar
  70. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  71. Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3). Retrived August 1, 2011 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/thurlow.html.
  72. Utz, S. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one’s profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 314–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van Moere, A., & Howard, C. D. (2002). Introducing Email exchange in a freshman curriculum. Working Papers of the Research Institute of Language Studies and Language Education, 12(1), 41–57.Google Scholar
  75. Wallace, P. M. (1999). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  77. Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations