Character of the Communication
Interaction, spontaneity, pace, coherence, permanence, medium, register, topic threading.
Guidance issues here relate particularly to interactions among participants within CMC environments. Problems can arise because of the rhetorical positions some participants may be seen as taking (whether intentional or not), or might adopt, when contributing or responding to the contributions of others. The style of the on-line argument or debate may seem unattractive to the wider group, discouraging participation.
Such a problem is not, of course, unique to CMC. Face-to-face group discussion can also suffer casualties, as individuals feel disenfranchised, offended or out-paced. Experienced teachers will recognise tensions of this kind to an extent you may find that you can deal with them through familiar intervention strategies. However, this assumes commitment to the duties of learner management, rather than learning support. Nominated learners can be encouraged to moderate instead. Yet though this is a creative approach which can benefit both learner and learning group, the responsibilities are considerable and do call upon significant social skill.
Our focus here, of course, is on communicative barriers which are particular to the CMC environment, barriers which might be associated with the design features of learning tasks demands and the tools through which they might be met. Identifying these barriers may help you to anticipate problems, as well as swiftly defuse difficulties that develop.
Interaction
Asynchronicity is a source of various tensions. A core problem is that contributions do not elicit the continuity of (implied as well as explicit) feedback that occurs in spoken conversation. It is impossible for contributors to adjust what they are saying by taking account of perceived immediate impact: this simply is not available to the writer at the time of writing. Making your students aware of this issue can help, although actual experience is the most effective basis for understanding.
Spontaneity
A related issue is the ease with which impulsive contributions can be made. Writers can have no way of sensing the mood that might prevail for individual readers at their time of reading. Thus it is easy to write in a manner that seems correct at the moment of composition but fails badly when it is encountered "cold" at some later point. Again, such interactive obstacles become recognised with experience, but it may help to set up and support opportunities whereby participants can reflect together on the complex dynamics of CMC, perhaps using a record of some illustrative past exchange as a basis for discussion.
Pace
Asynchronicity can also mean that the pace of debate is slow and uneven. It becomes easy to procrastinate, both for information input or when composing suitably considered replies. Participants may become disheartened if contributions do not elicit quick responses, yet if you act simply to fill such gaps, there is unlikely to be any impact on the core problem. Moreover, you yourself may become the dominant voice. The problem might be less urgent if the group is large (although that itself may bring other challenges). The ideal solution would be that the context and purpose for the conference is sufficiently compelling that students feel a genuine urge to maintain a lively pace of engagement.
Coherence
Slowness of pace may also lead to a loss of coherence as the discussion inevitably becomes disjointed and fragmented. Individuals (whether officially moderators or not) can valuably act as 'commentators' in this situation, perhaps offering contributions that are summaries and syntheses of recent discussion, or expanding on contributed information or setting questions.
Permanence
The permanence of contributions, once made to the conference, can also be a barrier to coherence and the flow of interaction. To an extent permanence amplifies some of the difficulties mentioned above - if, for example, an impulsive contribution is judged by others as ill-considered, then its permanence may serve to exaggerate its significance. However much its author may attempt to recover the situation, the original 'offence' remains accessible. This can serve to inhibit others, as well as the initial correspondent. Allowing editing permissions for revision of messages by senders could be a solution, though other problems (including threats to coherence) could come with that.
Text as medium
The text-based nature of CMC can colour the character, and the dynamic of conference interaction. In spoken exchange, there is limited opportunity to preview, edit or adapt contributions. Whilst there is an editorial process at work in normal conversation, it is accomplished far more interactively on the basis of perceived feedback or direct prompting from others. In CMC, however, each individual contribution can be fine-tuned and reviewed before it is judged ready for dispatch to the debate. The technology of word processing itself readily affords such painstaking editorial adjustment.
Register
For some task goals, for example collaborative production of documents, or deliberate sharing and explanation of concepts or plans, this can be a good thing, leading to contributions of high calibre welcomed by all. On the other hand, it can lead to a mode of discussion that can feel very formal. Some participants may feel intimidated by other people's self-conscious scholarship or literacy; others may accept what is said as 'received wisdom', rather than arguing for its development. Whether formality is seen as something to be cultivated or curtailed depends on the task demands of the particular activity and the overall aims of the course itself. Encouragement and active participation from the tutor, with a relaxed and improvisational style as the norm during development and appropriate examples for 'product' style should help.
Topics and threads
Finally, 'topicalisation' is another feature of CMC resource design that can influence the flow and character of interaction. Most CMC software encourages the construction of topic threads, by use of the 'subject heading' facility, within a discussion forum. The ability to 'sort' contributions on that basis, as well as the permanence of the record, will tend to emphasise this mode. While spoken debate can be moulded in this way, such firm structuring is not usually a feature of conversation, even within collaborative learning environments. When using CMC, you and your learners need to be aware of the possible constraints that a strong topicalisation might impose upon your learning activity. You might consider the strategy of cross referencing, or indexing across topics where the discussion might be getting unhelpfully 'channelled'. When (as can often be the case) the archive of a conference can be preserved for access as a learning resource in its own right, you could think of providing alternative access routes through the material.
Voices of Experience
A selection of 'Voices of Experience' - comments from learners and teachers - relating to this area are recorded in text format here (opens in a new window).
You can also access the sections for Character of the Communication within each subject area case study, which include similar commentary, from the links below:
3: Applied Psychology and Computing
4: Psychology and Information Technologies
Alternatively you can access each subject area case study in its entirety from the list on the left-hand navigation bar.
