adult education: improving my cmc

8/14/2019 Adult Education: Improving My CMC

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/adult-education-improving-my-cmc 1/25

Adult Communication Management in InterPersonal Relationships Assignment Dianne Allen p.1

Improving My Interactions in CMC

IMPROVING MY INTERACTIONS IN COMPUTER MEDIATED

COMMUNICATIONS

Dianne Allen, 2003

Contents

IMPROVING MY INTERACTIONS IN COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATIONS .... 1 Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Title: ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introductory Remarks: ................................................................................................................ 2 What is the present nature of my interactions in CMC? ............................................................. 3

Summary of Prior Experience ................................................................................................. 3 Review of Experience: ............................................................................................................ 4

How do I currently understand communication? .................................................................... 5

What does the current literature suggest is the nature of presence, and presence in CMC? ....... 7 Literature description of the nature of adult communication management ............................ 7 Literature of 'presence' in adult communication management ................................................ 8 Heron and 'presence' for facilitation ....................................................................................... 9 The nature of a community of practice ................................................................................. 10 'Presence' in CMC – How I understand the current literature ............................................... 12

Converging on Guidelines to Improve My Practice ................................................................. 16 Bibliography: ............................................................................................................................ 18 Annotated Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 20





Abstract

This paper explores personal experience (1984-2003) with Computer Mediated Communications

(CMC) in the light of studies in Adult Communication Management, elements of 'presence' in

CMC, Wenger's concept of 'community of practice' and Heron's concept of 'presence - beingthere'. The self-study, to consider 'How do I improve ...' , draws out suggestions for improving

presence in a CMC context related to: extending social presence, attentiveness by way of

immediacy, and quality by way of authenticity. Developing any virtual community of practice

appears to be a long term endeavour where encouraging the interactivity of others will be a key

task for any community moderator.

Title:

How do I improve1

my interactions in Computer Mediated Communications to contribute

to the development of a community of practice?

Introductory Remarks:

I am a professional practitioner, living outside the metropolitan area, and convinced that

professional development is something that is both my responsibility, and needs the inputs of

peers. With this in mind I have been exploring involvement in computer mediated

communications (CMC) as a possible base for the development of a community of practice((Wenger 1998) concept) – a group of peers providing peer support for the development of

practice. The following study explores an aspect of engagement in CMC – that of „presence‟ -

and considers how I might use a more developed understanding of presence to improve my

CMC. I look firstly at describing my experience and converged understanding of issues in CMC

as a base for community of practice activities. I also document my presently understood „mental

model‟ of communication. Next, I attend to the documented findings of other practitioners as

represented by the literature, moving from the broad study of adult communication management

issues into the specific study of presence in CMC. As I am looking at how to improve my

contributions, I also note on the way: Heron‟s view about presence in the role of facilitation of

group interactions and learning (Heron 1999) and Wenger‟s concept of community of practice.

Finally I undertake some analysis of my current practice. This practice, in keeping with the

most widely available, independent operator level of personal computer technology, is primarily

text-based. I endeavour to look my practice at its intentional and unintentional levels, seeking to

identify ways in which I may make informed changes to that practice.





What is the present nature of my interactions in CMC?

In considering „How do I improve …?‟, I understand the first step to be one of self-awareness

and self-assessment (Whetten and Cameron 1995). What am I doing now? What is good about

that, what is not so good about that? How am I thinking about what I am doing? It is taking a

benchmark of current practice. Current practice is informed by the nature and extent of prior

practice experience, so: I summarise, in list form, my apprehended experience in CMC, and my

involvement in trying to contribute to a community of practice. Experience needs to be

reflected on to learn from (Boud, Keogh et al. 1985; Boud, Cohen et al. 1993), so: I present my

current converging of issues from that experience, identifying the aspects of practice that I might

want to focus on, in order to consider change in, and intentional activity to improve, my practice.

Action (or practice) is also informed by thinking, or mental models (Argyris and Schon 1974;

Heron 1999). Mental models are of two varieties – espoused and theories in use (Argyris and

Schon 1974; Argyris 1993). I present my current understanding of communication in order to

start the process of considering how that understanding is (theory-in-use), or is not (espoused

theory), expressed my practice of CMC.

Summary of Prior Experience

My involvement in CMC at this stage is of nearly twenty years standing2. Within that time there

has been some five years of relatively intensive and diverse activity, endeavouring to operate in

and/or develop a community of practice. Some of the milestones and variant modes include:

First usages of PC:

1984 learning to use a PC

word processing; - professional usage –

legible text for multiple copies,

for hardcopy records to support in-time, face-to-face staff sessions,

procedures, memos council reports

newsletters with visuals – time taken to control it – to do what I wanted to do

other software – spreadsheets and graphs -> visuals of numeric data, trends

letters to correspondents overseas – multiple correspondents, basically one-way communication to keepthem in touch with Australian news and Christian issues input

the „family/friends‟ annual newsletter

1 The question form „How do I improve …‟ is from Jack Whitehead‟s process for Living Educational Theory. The

„set‟ of questions is: 1. How do I improve my practice? 2. How do I help you improve your learning? 3. How do I

live my values more fully in my practice? http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/ 2 In my first round of drafting I started this at the five years mark. As I review my drafting I elaborate, and qualify.

In this instance the qualification is the realization that my engagement in CMC is longer than the just recent. This

highlights again for me how we take for granted, overlook, the time taken to develop a literacy, in this casecomputer mediated literacy. Extending this thought is the point that my learning of communication, unmediated ormediated is 57 years added to the learning handed down to me by the teaching of others building, hopefully, on the

wisdom of the ages.





SCC council wide system - ?1996 or before then, common files; then the groupwise operation

Starting to engage more significantly in CMC with peers outside of a face-to-face working context

Email one-on-one: 1998 to present

Maillists in plain text for professional concerns, 1999 to present: ARLIST, ACTLIST, ARMNET,

MONTESSORI

Maillists associated with structured coursework, 2000-2001:

UTS Research Perspectives, UTS Research Method and Design, 2000; AREOL, 2000-2001;

Tapped In 2000 to present, chat with MOO/MUVE, arranged chat seminar sessions for teachers

GEN (Global Educators‟ Network) 2000, threaded discussion, multiple concurrent discussions, time-limitedtopical discussions, web-based

Administration of peer student maillists with UTS, 2001 to present: CAE-IG; UDR-IG

Web-based portals associated with structured coursework, 2001 to present:

UoW WebCT for Advanced Qualitative Research Methods, 2001;

UTS Blackboard Understanding Learning in Higher and Professional Education, 2002;

UTS Blackboard Adult Communication Management, 2003;

UoW WebCT EDUT-422 Reflective Practice, 2003

Reply-to-all email communications in a professional setting CultureShift 2001-present

Web-based interface – Community Zero 2002 Tapped In 2 2003 to present

Review of Experience:

From this experience I have the following converged view of CMC and my engagement in it:

Obviously I have to take some initiative to engage, or I wouldn‟t be involved in communicating in this way atall, but compared to others I am not the initiator of the context of interaction or the substance and style of the

interaction

I respond to a formal request to engage

Responses to my introductory engagements have led to some ongoing responsive interactions which have been

useful, but which have not developed into a significant, sustained, longstanding mutual engagement Reviewing these engagements indicates that there has been a significant difference in the focus of our

interests with substance

There is a significant impact from personal trajectories – work commitments, or family commitments

intrude and the interaction breaks down, or loses its intensity for a season

The review poses the following questions:

Am I usually the respondent?; When others don‟t initiate, or when others stop responding, does thecommunication fall to the ground?; Out of how many more than 3 responsive interchanges have I

failed to respond and it has been my silence that has closed?; How often have I followed up a silence?;How often have I initiated a new round of communications?

What happens in non-CMC that develops a responsive, significant, sustained, longstanding mutual

engagement?

I tend to „watch‟ the activities of others and engage when I think I have something to contribute

ARLIST and summarizing and apparently closing down discussion A real interaction develops around real/authentic/need to know questions and the peer exchange to provide

answers

There is a natural difference between „course‟ material discussion and practice discussions

Course Discussions:

Access to technology is still a problem for „course‟ involvement

Reliability of technology is still a problem, with the concomitant issue – access to support when thereis a technical failure

Early enthusiasm, later drop-off (cf (Swann 1997-1999))

The imposter syndrome (Brookfield 1991)

The carrot of assessment -> strategic – only enough to get assessment

Time

Dilemma of diversity (cf (Swann 1997-1999)) „Lurking‟ – essentially no different from in-class face-to-face behavior; listening can be an active

learning process/strategy; being there physically does not guarantee capacity to engage with the





cognitive; in on-line environment it becomes obvious/explicit (and as such can challenge the tutor‟s

experience/perception of their own competence/ course effectiveness) (cf (Swann 1997-1999))

Practice discussions

Academic orientation

Impact of phase of development (cf (Swann 1997-1999))

Dilemma of diversity (cf (Swann 1997-1999))

Online one-to-many process and Online one-to-one process (effectively invisible) dilemma Time, as a factor and comparisons with face-to-face interactions and time

By comparison with the spoken and synchronous interactions, face-to-face, the CMC seems to need moretime eg physically constructing the text to send (typing speed; permanency of record and need then to

attend to what is said and how)

We do not appreciate what we take for granted – investment in training of course presenter, and theircommunication skills in the face-to-face context, and adequate and appropriate resources for face-to-face; -what equivalent investment is needed to prepare for the more limited CMC; - what is involved in learning

to interact at the face-to-face spoken level skillfully and what might need to be an equivalent investment of

time and effort to learn to interact in the limited CMC environment (cf (Sawchuck 2002?))

Limitations of chat compared with threaded discussion text (cf (Swann 1997-1999))

Engaging, motivating aspect of immediacy of chat compared with threaded discussion text (cf (McConnell andHammond 1997; Walther 1999))

Significance of immediacy and short time lapses for responses and responsiveness (cf (Liu and Ginther 2001))

When I have (or have taken up a role with) a formal responsibility to initiate, I have initiated, but the level of that initiative does not include enough of the „social‟ for others to feel comfortable with engaging, and I haveactively relied on input of other personality styles to complement my inputs, and I have become more aware of

how significant this is

Teaching

Managing

Team discussions chairing

Public speaking

What of these expectations are realistic?; How do they compare to face-to-face interactions?; How do theycompare to other textually based mediated communications – letter writing; Christmas cards?

How do I currently understand communication?

As I think about it, I would analyse communication as something that happens along a spectrum

range:

Starting with all relevant components in place; with elements of sensory capacity gradually

withdrawn, and/or time constraint

Face-to-face, spoken, synchronous engagement with extended periods of time availableand a developed relationship, with access to the non-verbal and body language; repeated

instances of over a long time frame Face-to-face, spoken, synchronous engagement with extended periods of time available

and a developed relationship, with access to the non-verbal and body language

Face-to-face, spoken, synchronous engagement with a limited time frame at one or bothrespondents‟ disposal (the engagement chat at church)

Spoken synchronous engagement with an open period of time available and a developedrelationship – the phone conversation, access to nonverbal of the spoken: pace, tone,

emphasis; repeated instances over a long time frame

Spoken synchronous engagement with an open period of time available and a developed

relationship – the phone conversation, access to nonverbal of the spoken: pace, tone,

emphasis

Spoken synchronous engagement with limited time and developed relationship Spoken synchronous engagement with undeveloped relationship (and Bill and selling

videos from Melbourne and the development of that relationship)





Spoken synchronous engagement with undeveloped relationship and task orientation and

no expectation of future relationship

Written relationship, synchronous – chat

Written relationship, asynchronous – letter writing, handwriting, capacity of paper formto have other elements of emphasis, of expression

Written relationship, asynchronous computer mediated – other paper-based modes of expression limited by limitations of computer mediation – familiarity with software, with

other capacities of the medium and their relative development – diagram, web, pictorial,

synchronous audio, synchronous audio and video

Converging, using other categories, suggests that communication is the complex of:

Social – humans are relational beings, there is a compulsion /need to communicate with

some others at some stages to have that sense of value to make the effort of living

worthwhile

Reciprocity and development of mutuality of interactions – both want to; both prepared

to work at; both capable of initiating; both have sense of gain from; both have a sense of

equity of reciprocity

Meaning: effort in communication is for a purpose

Language or other symbolic interchange: culturally constructed understandings of

meaning

Visual: facial, bodily positioning and movement; textual can replace aural (experience of deaf, experience of the tyranny of distance); tactile can replace visual (experience of the

blind – Braille, and deaf and blind – Helen Keller)

Aural: text in a certain language, volume, pitch, tone, pacing, emphasis; visual symbolscan replace aural (experience of deaf – signing language)

Particular relevance to current life interests and needs (value; benefits equate to

investment of effort)

There are limitations to communication as each of these factors is cut out: visual, auditory,

language, meaning, particular relevance to current life interests and needs (value), reciprocity

and mutuality other/social.

Social of face-to-face, proxemics; socialized responsiveness; stranger friend difference

Non-verbal of face-to-face: proxemics and capacity to move closer, further away (the socially

acceptable squash without developed communication that occurs in a train); gesture of body

language – facial and non-facial; total of body and kinesthetics; tone, pace, emphasis etc of aural

available

Temporal – synchronous, asynchronousTemporal – the synchronous is unlimited, limited

Temporal – later re-engagements, frequency and depth

The level of communication tends to develop over time, with multiple interactions that provide

multiple kinds of feedback through ongoing responses and build commonality of perception

between the communicating parties. The development of level of communication can be either

positive or negative. It is part of a reinforcing system.





What does the current literature suggest is the nature of presence, and presence in CMC?

The overall focus of this „desktop‟ investigation is on the nature of presence as expressed and

expressible in textually based CMC, for the purposes of contributing to the building of a

community of practice. I always find it important, as well as useful, to place the particular into

its context – the more general, big picture. So the following excursion into the literature – the

documented findings of peer practitioners with similar concerns – goes from the broader view of

what is currently understood to be the nature of adult communication management and then

moves, by stages, to the understood nature of presence in CMC. Along the way I also note the

work of Heron as he contributes to my understanding of presence for facilitation of group

learning, and of Wenger for a clearer review of just what is meant by „community of practice‟ ,

since my focus, in „how do I improve …‟, will be directed at those two aspects of my intentional

practice.

Literature description of the nature of adult communication management

My understanding of communication, as informed by my most recent revisiting of the issue, and

attention to the literature, can be summarized as follows:

Communication is more than the simple analysis of sender-medium-receiver wouldsuggest. (Chandler 1994; Kaye 1994; Reynolds 1997)

Communication relies on interpretation for meaning (Chandler 1994; Hargie 1996;Griffin 2000).

Communication is an interactive system where meaning-making of sender engages the

meaning making of the receiver who gives feedback of a meaningful nature to the sender

so that there is an escalation of more and more meaning OR more and more

misunderstanding and a breakdown of communication (O'Connor and McDermott 1997;

Taylor 2000)

In any communication to which another responds there is selective attention that

determines engagement (Marton and Booth 1997; Bowden and Marton 1998). This may

mean that a lot of what is initiated proves to be redundant (Bateson 1972; Hargie 1996).

However, without previous interactions there is no predicting what might be relevant, so

redundancy has a purpose – providing multiple inputs from which a respondent can

choose what is then mutually relevant to interact with. In those multiple inputs there

may be a preference for the visual, the auditory, the social, the embodied, the language,

the meaning content. (Gardner 1993; Briggs Myers, McCauley et al. 1998)

In any communication there is content, context, and multiple processes (visual, auditory,gesture, tone, pace, text and its meaning, hearing, listening to engage with meaning

making) (Kaye 1994; Hargie 1996)





In much of communication the motivation, and selection of content, is “news” – from

Montessori communication is the end process of learning – learning produces something

which is for the learner „new‟ and that excites them to communicate that with another

(Lillard 1996)

There are elements of reciprocity/mutuality in receipt of message, in sending of message,in its content, in its context, in its affect – empathy (Kaye 1994; Hargie 1996)

For feeling/affect being the ground of activity (Heron‟s analysis) which then leads to the

imaginal – the presentation aspect where more and more of the body is mobilized in order

to convey the message – so we have presence, and we have presentation messages

(Rozelle, Druckman et al. 1997; Heron 1999)

We cannot not communicate – we are „relational‟ beings (Kaye 1994). We cannot notcommunicate. If we are there, with another, there are signals that another can interpret.

Silence and non-movement is interpreted to tell us that the other does not wish to

communicate! Movement is noticed and interpreted to indicate willingness or not to

engage in communication. Our attention to another‟s silence and movement is an

initiative in communication whether it leads to any development of communication is up

to the other party. There is active and inadvertent „ignoring‟ of the other that conveys

information about willingness to engage in communication.

In trying to establish and manage a relationship the aim of communication is to develop

to the appropriate level of intimacy so that the relationship can be developed for

continuity (Kaye 1994). Why do we keep on with a relationship? It depends on our

needs that are met by the other in relationship (Hargie 1996). All need somerelationship. We cannot develop every relationship to the same level. This leads us, in

considering the issue of community of practice to the question: What is the nature of

relationship that is necessary for/ appropriate to a „community of practice‟?

Literature of 'presence' in adult communication management

Focusing on „presence‟ as an aspect of adult communication and its management, I find that

most discussion of it falls into the area of non-verbal behaviour which we interpret to have

communicative meaning, impinging on the personal and interpersonal interaction (Rozelle,

Druckman et al. 1997). Rozelle seeks to identify it within the frame of skilled performance. If

that is the case, then it can be learned, it can be changed. The caveat is that, to the extent that

presence is part of holism and consistency (often covered by the use of the concepts of „style‟

and inherent characteristics, as has also been noted by Rozelle to be acknowledged in the

literature) change is not going to be quick or easy, and may require something like Mezirow‟s

meaning perspective transformation (Mezirow 1991).





Heron and 'presence' for facilitation3

As I read and understand Heron‟s work on the facilitation of group work, including collaborative

learning and inquiry, there are two approaches to „presence‟ (Heron 1999). There is the more

usual understanding – that which in its most developed form often goes by the term of personal

„charisma‟. The second comes from my understanding of Heron‟s analysis of the hierarchy of

psychological modes grounding action.

Heron speaks of the affect being the base of his hierarchy of psychological modes, the imaginal

the next level, the conceptual the third level, and the practical the apex. For Heron, the

effectiveness of an action depends on the quality of the affect in which it is grounded, the quality

of the imaginal by which it is able to be presented, and the quality of the conceptual by which itmay be understood and explained. The nature of an action, its quality, feeds back into the affect

by way of the feeling we have about it and through it: satisfaction, joy, efficacy, (or the reverse)

and the up-hierarchy and the cycling proceed. Within the imaginal level, intuition operates for

the individuating aspect, and imagery for the participating aspect. Within the usual designations

of imagery - pictures, graphics, story, myth, drama, metaphor, analogy, poetry – Heron includes

the range of perception, memory and imagination with the visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and

tactile. The combination of the usual designations with the perceptual generates imaginalinstances associated with role play, dramaturgy, caricature, cases, demonstrations. In these

latter instances the whole person is engaged in making some sort of living presentation of what

they understand to be operating in the instance they are trying to convey. This living

presentation capacity is part of the presence of a person, and is especially significant in the

practice of a facilitator.

A facilitator looking to improve their practice will be one who is seeking to develop and use their

personal charisma in the expression of their facilitative role, to enhance engagement with others,

and some of that will include the development of their capacities to convey information by way

of their presentation of the imaginal. Heron enunciates that the active charisma is an expression

3 I note that in this section I „hang on to‟ Heron‟s terms, some of which are relatively obscure to me: „psychological

modes‟, „affect‟, „imaginal‟, „up-hierarchy‟. I am still trying to understand these concepts as Heron seeks tocommunicate them to me. I would note that my capacity to learn from another‟s written text, when cut off from

live interactivity and feedback, is limited by my tendency to take their words for their categories and use them as I

understand them, for the things that I would categorise that way. This is one source of socio- linguistic distortionMezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

, and misunderstanding. It also tends to make this writing look and „feel‟ relatively unprocessed. I

concede that it is not yet my conceptualizing and my own language. I have more work to do on it. I present it in





of the affective in „presence‟. In his pattern of hierarchies, one channel in which affect is

expressed is voice (presentation), the next level is language (conceptual), to achieve purpose

(practical).

Heron‟s analysis of facilitation of learning also enunciates the need for the aware operation of

facilitative activities like planning, meaning, confronting, feeling, structuring and valuing,

through three levels of expression of power: hierarchy; cooperation; autonomy. A facilitator‟s

presence and concomitant presentation will either enhance or limit their effectiveness in these

various activities. The most frequent mode of diminished learning operations is the exercise of

unaware presence and its power constructs in the hierarchical mode. However, unaware

presence and presentational competence is also disempowering in the cooperative and

autonomous levels of operation, and perhaps is more disempowering since it tends to generate

dissonance of action and the espoused intentions of „cooperation‟ or „autonomy‟.

The nature of a community of practice

The concept of „community of practice‟ is associated with Wenger and the issue of situated

learning, and learning from lived experience (Wenger 1998). As a concept, it honours the

informal learning pole compared with formalized learning of educational institutions, and the

social pole as distinct from the individual pole4. As a concept it has a certain standing and

currency5. Within Wenger‟s frame of social studies, he sees learning as a social activity, where

social participation is a process of learning and knowing. In Wenger‟s conceptualizing, learning

has four components: learning associated with community, with identity, with meaning, with

this form in order to honour Heron‟s language – give him his voice - but also to keep the fact of the further work thatI need to do with the concepts, before me.

4 For this bipolar analysis of learning, especially for continuing professional development, see Baskett, H. K. M. andV. Marsick, Eds. (1992). Professionals' Ways of Knowing: New Findings on How to Improve Professional

Education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Number 55. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.. Their six bipolar dimensions are: Individual/Collective; Rational/Intuitive; Cognitive/Emotional;

Routine/NonRoutine; Formal/Informal; Scientific/Constructed5 I would note that like other concepts: „reflective practice‟ Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New

York, Basic Books.

, and „the learning organisation‟ Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon (1978). Organisational Learning: A Theory of

Action Perspective. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon (1996). Organisational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, Mass.,Addison-Wesley.

, a concept like „community of practice‟ tends to get hijacked and overloaded. The concepts have a ring of

relatability, and truth-telling, for those in the field. But we read these terms with the meaning that we have of thewords that make up the terms. Their meaning is then our understanding rather than what the authors tried tocommunicate. Eventually, their usage becomes so broad as to be meaningless, becoming almost „all things to all

men‟.





practice. These three components have particular forms: with community it is learning as

belonging; with identity it is learning as becoming; with meaning – learning as experience; with

practice – learning as doing. Given this definition, Wenger points out that we all are members

of a whole host of communities of practice: at home, in the workplace, at an educational

institution, in our leisure pursuits. We are also members of several different communities of

practice concurrently, and we move in and out of different communities of practice

consecutively. Wenger‟s concept has been taken and used to particularly apply for situations

where there is common ground of professional interests for a group of professionals, and to

describe peer learning in that context (for example EDUCAUSE

http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/VirtualCommunities.asp).

However, as I reconsider Wenger‟s concept in the light of the literature of communication, and

as I review the context in which Wenger sought ethnographic confirmation and description for

his own experience, I am reminded that the context of any communication is significant (Kaye

1994), and from time to time, if we are not to get caught up in conclusions that lack ecological

validity, the detail and specifics of that context needs to be foregrounded. Wenger‟s

ethnographic description of an instance of „community of practice‟ developed from the

investigation of a complex that is an established workplace, with a range of interlocking roles,

and specialties of different skills bases, and this I believe has implications for its application

elsewhere.

As I foreground that context, I am prompted to ask: What is the nature of the community of

practice that I wish to engage with? What is the nature of the improvement of the contribution

that I wish to make? Compared with the actual community of practice that illustrates Wenger‟s

conceptualizing, and some commentators‟ focus on task -orientation (cf (Walther 1999)), the

projections of the potential efficacy of a community of practice may well be just that:

projections. What actually happens in those high-performing Dionysian organizations – in the

long run? Is the experience that in time most organisations tend toward less efficiency (in task

terms) an expression that for humans, task alone is not enough? That to actually operate

efficiently, into the long term, an organization needs to have structures and processes that

balance task with internal personal comfortableness?





'Presence' in CMC – How I understand the current literature

Lombard and Ditton’s Literature Survey

A significant contribution to my understanding of „presence‟, and in CMC, comes from Lombard

and Ditton‟s analysis in At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence (Lombard and Ditton

1997). While at first blush the article deals with aspects of CMC which are not my particular

concern, the apparent unrelatedness, by stimulating difference with my focus, has given me

pause to think about the fundamentals of the presence I wish to improve in my CMC (Marton

and Booth 1997; Marton and Trigwell 2000). The intent of Lombard and Ditton in their

analysis is to help the field scope the issues of presence in CMC in preparation for further

investigation, and clearly it does this and particularly for any future empirico-analytic

approaches to such inquiry. The following summarizes the thrust of their analysis6:

The first task Lombard and Ditton undertake is to review the concept of „presence‟ for

technologically mediated communication as it is used in the literature. They note six main

conceptualizations: presence as social richness, presence as realism, presence as transportation,

presence as immersion, presence as social actor within medium, and presence as medium as

social actor. They then gather from these conceptualizations a definition of presence that they

wish to focus on - „ presence: the perceptual illusion of nonmediation‟. They indicate that, by

this definition, presence is something experienced by a person and so it cannot exist „unless a

person is using a medium‟. Further, in this definition, presence „is a property of a person‟, and,

as with all communication which is basically an interactive activity, presence „results from an

interaction amongst the formal and content characteristics of a medium and characteristics of

the media user ‟.

With this focus in place, Lombard and Ditton‟s analysis now surveys the literature for

indications of the current understanding of what causes this kind of presence, expressed firstly as

an invisible medium, and then secondly as a transformed medium. Within these two categories

their analysis gathers together aspects of form variables, content variables, and media user

6 While the summary following looks like a listing from the headings and subheadings, and could have been simplydeveloped by a transcribing process, it actually constitutes an appreciation of learning to read that has developed

recently in my processes of learning to write for academic purposes. Normally I read „from go to woe‟. And this

is what I did with the first read of this article. At my second or third round of reading, I started to use the article asa stimulus to my thinking. Then before I got too far into the detail I appreciated that I needed to have a „big picture‟of the whole analysis. This alerted me to the use of the written structure – sections, subsections and elements

highlighting – as a tool in presenting the analysis, and especially indicating the categories used in the convergence





variables. For the issue of causes of presence as invisible medium the „form variables‟ are

identified as: numbers and consistency of sensory outputs, visual display characteristics (image

quality, image size, image size and viewing distance – proportion of visual field, motion and

color, dimensionality, camera techniques), aural presentation characteristics, stimuli for other

senses, interactivity, obtrusiveness of medium, live versus recorded or constructed experience,

number of people. The „content variables‟ are identified as: social realism, use of media

conventions, nature of task or activity. Under „media user variables‟ the analysis identifies:

willingness to suspend disbelief, knowledge of and prior experience with the medium, other user

variables. For the issue of causes of presence as transformed medium, the „form variables‟ are

identified as: interactivity, use of voice, medium size and shape; while the „content variables‟ are

identified as: social realism, use of media conventions, nature of task or activity; and the „media

user variables‟ are: knowledge of an prior experience with the medium, other user variables.

The next stage of Lombard and Ditton‟s analysis considers the effects of presence as an invisible

medium, at firstly a physiological and then a psychological level. The analysis then focuses

briefly on the effects of presence as a transformed medium at a psychological level. Presence as

an invisible medium is shown to have impacts on physiology by way of: arousal, vection and

simulation sickness, and other physiological effects associated with automatic responses to the

perception of movement and potential danger. Presence as an invisible medium is shown to

have various psychological impacts: enjoyment, involvement, task performance, skills training,

desensitization, persuasion, memory and social adjustment, parasocial interaction and

relationships.

From their analysis, I converge three main implications for improving presence in CMC: (1) the

level of authenticity in the communication – presence is enhanced by the closeness of the

perceptual cues given by the medium to the user‟s normal/unmediated experience of the world;

(2) presence is part of the personal – so presence in CMC will be enhanced by the authenticity of

the personal expressed by the parties to the interaction; (3) presence is interactive, as indeed

communication is interactive – so unless there is interaction there is no effective presence, no

effective communication, and the quality of the interactivity will determine the sense of

presence, the quality of the communication.

process. This awareness of structuring has helped me discern the process and frame of the analysis and its

subsequent reporting.





While Lombard and Ditton‟s analysis is firmly placed in the empirico-analytic research

perspective, my personal meaning perspective is more oriented to the social constructivist view

of the world. Consequently, I find that I respond to this survey by becoming more explicit about

my understanding of the perceptual, and reality and illusion, and noting that my understanding is

such that there is a permeability of boundaries between the perceptual and the experience of

reality and illusion. This permeability is most noticeable in our human tendency for the exercise

of imagination and anthropomorphism, which, full fledged, tends to attribute the qualities of

social entity to phenomena that are not inherently living and human and social. It is this

tendency which allows presence to be attributed in distanced and mediated communicative

processes. It is this tendency that makes possible any, all communications that are not face to

face, synchronous and colocational. It is this tendency that has developed in us, over time,

mechanisms to break the bounds of location and time and generate, in literature and other

aesthetics pursuits, in love-letters and other emblems of our affections, means of being taken out

of ourselves, our place, our times, into the presence of the experience of others in other places,

times and psychological and/or spiritual circumstances. This adaptability can be mobilized in

the interests of developing community of practice, if there is the intent to do so.

My response to Lombard and Ditton‟s perspective also means that I am not convinced that the

kind of investigations that they suggest are needed, are likely to lead to improved effectiveness

of presence in CMC (cf (Argyris 1993) view on the contradictions of rigorous research within

the human change field). I doubt that effort in that kind of investigation is likely to produce

better results than those already obtained by the artists, dramatists and designers who use their

current „trial-and-error, lore, and “seat of the pants” exploration‟ practices as they engage with

these issues. It is my view that their practice of aesthetic appreciation of the visual, aural, social,

perceptual, psychological and the spiritual, operating in multiple, concurrent evaluations, of the

complex that is human interaction/ communication is delivering effective CMC with high levels

of „presence‟. (This, at least, is how I read and understand Schon‟s analysis of the practice of

design that is implicit in any mindful, intentional activity (Schon 1983).)

Other Adult Learning Oriented CMC Literature

It is my perception that the current literature of presence in CMC does not provide a great deal of

guidance for the task of improving my practice. As Lombard and Ditton point out the study of

presence in CMC is currently in its infancy. Consequently some writers provide lists of

techniques to manage impressions (Liu and Ginther 2001). Many of the early studies relate to





applications in higher education contexts (McConnell and Hammond 1997; Swann 1997-1999;

Leh 2001; Schweizer, Paechter et al. 2001). The application of indicators of efficacy from these

studies may well be flawed by the way such activity is locked in with formal assessment

regimes. There are some studies that deal with applications in the workplace (Walther 1999;

Sawchuck 2002?). The applications studied in both higher education and the workplace are

notable for their brevity – most studies included in my survey cover interactions for specific foci,

and of not much more than a month‟s duration (McConnell and Hammond 1997; Swann 1997-

1999; Schweizer, Paechter et al. 2001; Sawchuck 2002?). This is understandable given some of

the relative newness of the field. But it means that extrapolating from present findings to

something like an ongoing community of practice may be risky.

Walther, in a review of the research literature, focuses on the extent to which visual cues are

important, and in what way important in relation to the objectives of the communication. In this

review he has helpfully pointed out that some studies associated with workplace applications are

projective research – what players in the field, particularly managers, project will be the case -

while others are observational, and that the findings of the observational studies do not support

the projections (Walther 1999). Further, in this review he seeks to explore some of the issues of

social presence theory and the implications of reduced channels of information in CMC

compared to face-to-face interactions. His critique canvases the capacity of humans to adapt, to

make the most of any limitations. In that context, he sees limited value in trying to enhance the

technology to include the visuals needed to enable the personal elements of social presence to be

available in synchronous communications. Indeed, he points out some of the ways in which the

personal information associated with social presence can inhibit interactivity, by generating

intrusive, irrelevant and culturally normed attributions. He also notes how in any

communication we actively strive to achieve the elements of privacy and controlled disclosure

(cf also Luft's concept of the Johari window (Luft 1984)).

Other highlights from the literature which inform my current inquiry include:

The level of online presence required and the commitment of time associated

(McConnell and Hammond 1997; Swann 1997-1999; Walther 1999; Sawchuck

2002?)

Proper appreciation of the complexity of communication associated with the limited

channels and the effort required to deal with those limitations (Walther 1999;

Sawchuck 2002?)





The communication issues of CMC are as much affected by the 'cultural' of all

communicative activities7

as they are by the technology - so improving

communications is a liveware problem (McConnell and Hammond 1997; Walther

1999; Sawchuck 2002?)

There are gains to be had from working on social presence in CMC (Walther 1999;

Liu and Ginther 2001; Schweizer, Paechter et al. 2001; Sawchuck 2002?)

One of the significant aspects of social presence is the nature of the immediacy of the

interactivity which indicates mutual attention and engagement with the

communication, or the absence of that reciprocity (Walther 1999)

There needs to be more work done on determining which channels carry what

information most effectively, and especially when the multi-channelled and

interactive aspect of face-to-face communication is trying to be replicated (Walther

1999; Sawchuck 2002?)

The quality of any CMC in the informal learning context is related to its relevance

and actionability in practice (Sawchuck 2002?)

Facilitating learning in any CMC in the informal learning context will need to take

these aspects into account - and it would be best that one does not expect it to be easy,

or quickly achieved (McConnell and Hammond 1997; Swann 1997-1999; Walther

1999; Sawchuck 2002?)

Converging on Guidelines to Improve My Practice

I have indicated where the literature matches with, or informs, my experience of CMC in the

referencing associated with the review of my experience earlier in this report.

I have noted that Heron informs me that presence, which comes fundamentally from the nature

of the wholeness of the development of my affect, expresses itself most noticeably in the

presentational aspects of practical action.

I have noted that the interaction of Wenger's concept of community of practice, and the current

literature of presence in CMC, has given me pause to reconsider what is community of practice

7 Note: that when I use 'communicative activity' I have in mind the essence of what is called the Habermasian view,

and which I associate more understandably with Argyris' conditions or Model II inquiry and learning - conditionsfor gathering valid information, for undertaken decisions that are guided by each individual's freedom to exerciseinformed choice, and the commitment to keep on striving for and holding self and others accountable for valid

information and the freedom to exercise informed choice, based on diverse and individually held values.





for professional development using the potentialities of CMC. As a result it appears that my

current expectations of such a process in such a context may need to be adjusted.

I have noted that the literature of presence in CMC suggests that presence, especially of the

personal, for social and other communicative activity, is significant, but that it is achievable by

textual means when the usual channels available in face-to-face interactivity are limited.

Given the information available from this study, I am encouraged to continue providing spaces

and facilities for the personal and the social in CMC associated with course work, where the

technology provides for that, as well as suggesting to the participants how they might use such

facilities. (Eg in the Blackboard presentation of UTS-013343 I would suggest two additional

Discussion Forums: one for Introductions and personal interests in undertaking this study; one

for the coffee shop kind of chat; and, if possible, I would recommend exploring the capacity to

post one's identification photo from the enrolment process, as an accessible file.)

I find myself challenged again to consider the implications of my natural style of presentation

with its „introvert‟ and „task -oriented‟ components and how that impacts unhelpfully on my

CMC. This is especially significant for initial impressions and their management. I also need

to attend to the ongoing encouragement of others‟ interactivity if I want to contribute to the

development of a CMC forum that is aimed at sharing for professional development purposes in

the long haul. I need to recognise that others need more social presence interactions. In

making any changes in these areas I need to attend to the findings that authenticity is a

significant aspect of generating effective presence. One area of change, by way of attentiveness,

which doesn't impact adversely on authenticity, is that of attending to immediacy of interactivity.

I need to watch out that time and other constraints don't close engagement unnecessarily.

Giving short responses, indicating attention but inability to engage at the moment, may helpmanage this aspect of CMC.

(I append my Annotated Bibliographic work in the interests of sharing learning.)





Bibliography:

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San

Francisco, Jossey Bass.

Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon (1978). Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass.,

Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon (1996). Organisational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, Mass.,

Addison-Wesley.

Baskett, H. K. M. and V. Marsick, Eds. (1992). Professionals' Ways of Knowing: New Findings on How to ImproveProfessional Education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Number 55. San Francisco,

Jossey-Bass.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Aylesbury, Bucks., International Textbook Co.

Boud, D., R. Cohen, et al., Eds. (1993). Using Experience for Learning. London, SRHE and Open University.

Boud, D., R. Keogh, et al., Eds. (1985). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London, Kogan Page.

Bowden, J. and F. Marton (1998). What does it take to learn? The university of learning: beyond quality and

competence in Higher Education. J. Bowden and F. Marton. London, Kogan Page: 23-45.

Briggs Myers, I., M. H. McCauley, et al. (1998). MBTI(R) Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(R). Palo Alto, Calif., Consulting Pyschologists Press.

Brookfield, S. (1991). Grounding Teaching in Learning. Facilitating Adult Learning: a Transactional Process. M. W.Galbraith. Malabar, Fla., Krieger.

Chandler, D. (1994). The transmission model of communication, The Media and Communications Studies Site.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. London, HarperCollins.

Griffin, E. (2000). Constructivism of Jesse Delia. A first look at communication theory. Boston Burr Ridge, Illinois,

McGraw-Hill: pp.101-121.

Hargie, O. D. W. (1996). Interpersonal communication: a theoretical framework. A handbook of communication

skills. O. D. W. Hargie. New York, Routledge: p.29-63.

Heron, J. (1999). The Complete Facilitator's Handbook. London, Kogan Page.

Kaye, M. (1994). Communication Management. Sydney, Prentice Hall of Australia.

Leh, A. S. C. (2001). “Computer -Mediated Communication and Social Presence in a Distance Learning

Environment.” International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 7(2), 109-128. [Online].

Available: http://www.aace.org/dl/index.cfm/fuseaction/View/paperID/6413.

Lillard, P. P. (1996). Montessori today: a comprehensive approach to education from birth to adulthood. New York,Schocken.

Liu, Y. and D. Ginther (2001). “Managing Impression Formation in Computer -Mediated Communication.”

Educause Quarterly(2): 50-54.

Lombard, M. and T. Ditton (1997). “At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence.” Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 3(2).

Luft, J. (1984). Group Processes: an introduction to group dynamics. Mountain View, Calif., Mayfield.





Marton, F. and S. Booth (1997). Learning to Experience. Learning to Experience. Mahway, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates: 137-165.

Marton, F. and K. Trigwell (2000). “Variatio est mater studorium.” Higher Education Research and Development

19(3): 381-395.

McConnell, D. and M. Hammond (1997). Just in Time Open Learning: Issues and Possibilities.University of Sheffield

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

O'Connor, J. and I. McDermott (1997). The art of systems thinking: essential skills for creativity and problemsolving. London, Boston, Thorsons.

Reynolds, K. (1997). What is the transmission model of interpersonal communication and what is wrong with it?,

The Media and Communications Studies Site.

Rozelle, R. M., D. Druckman, et al. (1997). Non-verbal behaviour as communication. The handbook of communciation skills. O. D. W. Hargie. London, Routledge: pp.67-102.

Sawchuck, P. H. (2002?). Informal Learning Practices within Union-Based Telelearning.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York, Basic Books.

Schweizer, K., M. Paechter, et al. (2001). “A Field Study on Distance Education and Communication: Experiences

of a Virtual Tutor.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 6(2).

Swann, C. (1997-1999). Lurking with eclectic electrons: or constructing a networked culture for design research?Taylor, D. (2000). The principles of systems. Sydney, Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney:

pp.1-4.

Walther, J. B. (1999). Visual Cues and Computer-Mediated Communication: Don't Look Before You Leap.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress.

Whetten, D. A. and K. S. Cameron (1995). Developing Management Skills. New York, HarperCollins.





Annotated Bibliography i

Aspect: Content:

Lombard, M. and T. Ditton (1997). “At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence.” Journal of

Computer Mediated Communication 3(2).http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/ Description: Review of literature, with a view to defining „presence‟ for CMC, and helping progress

further research;

Saves me having to check the field in the same way – I am taking their analysis on

authority

„Research of „presence‟ in CMC is in its infancy‟

CMC in this article is broader than my text-based community of practice interests

Breadth of CMC analysis is a possible stimulus for thinking, to engage (25/6), to

stimulate mobilisable information from other studies, other knowledge – Bateson‟s

mind – that reminds me of … [Bateson, 1979 #144] OverviewInteraction:

Empirico-analytic perspective begs the comment: I think I can drive the proverbial busthrough the definition: words, and definitions, and understood and constructed meaning

issuesSignificant matches

with my field

knowledge

Trial-and-error, lore, “seat of pants” – assumptions unpacking – nature of inquiry being

conducted; inquiry in the practice context – current thesis work for me - [Bateson, 1972

#706], [Schon, 1983 #11]

Cues /context information for learning, for communication [Bateson, 1972 #706]

Bipolar constructs – personal constructs Kelly [Mezirow, 1990 #585]

Issue of „perception‟ – phenomenographic literature; issue of realism vs illusion –

metaphysical literature, and research perspective literature; current physiological

understandings; perception and constructivism and social and cultural inputsCommunication is interactive; presence (in communication) is interactive

Issue of first generation CMCers and 2/3/4 generation CMCers – what do we have to

never know to be able to operate with a different mode

For the learning of some practices the visceral and kinesthetic is VITAL

Presence and persuasion and charisma

Social Presence - Short & Christie; no Daft; no WaltherSignificant matches

with my experience:Where are you questions – telephone, Tapped In – the phatic about being available for

communication and/or conversation and feedback about continuing engagement

with/attention to/ comprehension of what is trying to be communicated

What is needed to be able to focus/attend – minimizing perceptual inputs (closing eyes

at an orchestral concert to e able to hear)Issue of anthropomorphism; imagination; tendency to conceptualise „other‟ as a „social

entity‟

Visual display – how much I like to be able see on a page to build understanding

Various perceptual particularities – field of vision, noise being natural

Interactivity/immediacy issues in TappedIn and adjusting expectations

Response times and attributions associated – TappedIn experience with a personally

sensitive discussionSignificant „new‟material for me:

Tendency to conceptualise „other‟ in social entity terms -> transforms „other‟ in social

constructivismReflective : Throughout this review I was tending to test experience of distanced, personal

communication issues – the letter; what we have been learning about „presence‟ in/byliterary forms





Aspect: Content:Convergence

applied to my

inquiry question:

The key points coming through to me are:

level of match with authenticity significant for „presence‟;

presence is part of the personal;

communication/presence is interactive

The other theme that came through was the nature of perception – and it being„illusory‟ or „distanced‟ or „non-immersed‟: the world is out-there; we bring/receive it

in-here by perceptual processes. The outputs of the perceptual processes are in-here

phenomena, not the out-there phenomena and to that extent they are by definition

„illusions‟.

So „presence‟ in nonmediated context is as illusory as presence in CMC, just a slightly

different kind of illusion. We seem to use our experience of nonmediated presence to

anthropomorphise other experiences as human presence, since we need to have human

interaction, the relational being aspect.

The inside interpretation of signals is also culturally constructed – by language, by

significant others teaching language and teaching how to interpret physiological

complexes

Aspect: Content:

McConnell, D. and M. Hammond (1997). Just in Time Open Learning: Issues and Possibilities.

University of Sheffield

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000140.htmDescription: Report on higher education project

Tutor needing a more continuous online presenceOverview: Matches with my understanding on a number of dimensions; nothing outstandingly newField: Heron‟s view of education – self-direction and self-assessment – autonomy of learner

CMC task/nature: Common project [Swann, 1997-1999 #788]

Participants‟ knowledge [Sawchuck, 2002? #790]

Action learning/ research frame [Heron, 1996 #683][Schon, 1983 #11][Argyris,1993 #7]

View about construction of knowledge being a social activity – various

Tutor‟s role as resource, helping; contributing to discussion Convergence

applied to my

inquiry question:

Level of online presence needed – cf observation of Jo McKenzie and commitment

Am I prepared to be that committed?

Liu, Y. and D. Ginther (2001). “Managing Impression Formation in Computer -Mediated

Communication.” Educause Quarterly(2): 50-54.

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0135.pdf Description: List of technique suggestions

Higher education focus; distance education contextOverview: Normative stuff; useful if I agree with it; dubious value otherwise; and that raises – >

only what I agree with is useful!!!Field: Walther‟s hyperpersonal reference

Short & Christie‟s social presenceConvergence

applied to my

inquiry question:

"effective learning involves both intellectual and social-emotional aspects" p.50

"especially the formation of initial impressions" p.50

"research indicates that the medium of communication may significantly influence the

attributions that students make ..." p.51"lack of non-verbal cues constrains communication" p.51

[issue of language and academic discourse, preparation, practice, etc]





Aspect: Content:

Reiteration of The old practice makes perfect aspect – not a quick fix

Practice changes focused on research findings – what about Argyris‟ critique of/for

actionable knowledge

Swann, C. (1997-1999). Lurking with eclectic electrons: or constructing a networked culture for

design research?http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/ead/work/swann.pdf Description Report on higher education application; distance learning context/focus

Design education

Short term project

Assessed common task focusOverview Matches with some of my frame – Heron and Schon and design; nothing outstandingly

newField Heron‟s hierarchies of facilitation

Facilitation/ moderation of CMC discussionConvergence

applied to myinquiry question:

Easier said than done

Useful reference to moderator site

6 phases of email list development – similar to all social group formation/development

– no guarantee of success, not a quick fix either

being thrust into autonomous mode when not prepared for it p.8

"the planning and and monitoring of the tasks will be a formidable undertaking judging

by the experience gained from the above pilot [which was only of two weeks duration]"

p.8

Aspect: Content:

Bubas, G. (2001). Computer Mediated Communication Theories and Phenomena: Factors thatInfluence Collaboration over the Internet. 3rd CARNet Users Conference, Zagreb.

http://www.carnet.hr/cuc/cuc2001/PDF/session_b/b1.pdf Description Conference powerpoint slides (context cues CARNet!)

Useful summary of issues – social presence (Short et al); media richness (Daft et al);

uses and gratification; model of competence in CMC; impression management;

hyperpersonal communication (Walther); behavioral disinhibition; risky CMC

Higher education focus

Task focusOverview Useful summary of field, quickly accessed!Field Walther‟s hyperpersonal communication

Short & Christie‟s social presence Daft‟s Media richness

Model of competence: attentiveness, interaction management, expressiveness,

composure – compare KayeConvergence

applied to my

inquiry question:

Useful quickly accessible summary, helped me integrate other readings

Leh, A. S. C. (2001). “Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Presence in a Distance

Learning Environment.” International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 7(2), 109-

128. [Online]. Available: http://www.aace.org/dl/index.cfm/fuseaction/View/paperID/6413.Description Report on inquiry in higher education context; distance learning context

10 weeks

email interactions, surveys, interviewsOverview CMC has benefits in distance education

Sawchuck, P. H. (2002?). Informal Learning Practices within Union-Based Telelearning.





Aspect: Content:

http://unionlearning.athabascau.ca/uniontelelearn/nall_final.htm Description: Report of inquiry into online learning experience for union leaders

Survey, interaction analysis and interviews

One particular workshop

OverviewInteraction: Useful practice focus antidote to the formal learning contextSignificant matches

with my field

knowledge

Significant matches

with my experience:

Analysis of CPE issues matches with some of B&M [Baskett, 1992 #124]

TappedIn experience; Contribution of peers

My meta- aspect – using CMC to learn with helped in learning of skills needed to

conduct CMC – the generic reading, writing, computer literacy

Deeper respect for complexity of communication we take for granted – this also poses

problem for the selective/immersion exposure issue

Contribution of negotiation and DR literature Garfinkel

Personal and authentic

Mobilisable knowledge issue

Actionable knowledge relevance issueDiversity of field – compare lit with lit of L&D

Congruence of valuesSignificant „new‟material for me:

Experience of „text‟ for practitioners in their practice (I-preference issue as well)

Definition of distinction between repeatable/ retrievable knowledge useful and oral and

written tradition – back to Toulmin [Toulmin, 1976 #246]

Role of audience in context cue giving; Visual and photo for TappedIn experience

“phatic” aspects of communication feedback; One-off and ongoing issue for C-O-P

Role of narrative in helping mental distancing for critical thinking and for positive

meaning

Practice and communication and actionable knowledge and Montessori communication

imperativeConvergence

applied to my

inquiry question:

Reminder that the other, than CM, of context and cultural aspects of community and

adult learning and peer knowledge construction, etc are more significant to quality of

interaction than CM

CM‟s contribution is, when easy to access, and not creating difficulties of technical

nature, in providing the portal that overcomes synchronous and co-location constraints

Aspect: Content:

Walther, J. B. (1999). Visual Cues and Computer-Mediated Communication: Don't Look Before

You Leap.

http://www.rpi.edu/~walthj/ica99.html Description: Review of literature

Focus on role of visual cues in CMC

Difference between projective studies and observational studiesOverview

Interaction:Useful antidote to the face-to-face superiority issue

Walther‟s theses stimulated hypo-theses from meSignificant matches

with my field

knowledge

Affect value overriding cognitive evidence [or maybe the cognitive is flawed – ex-

empirico-analytic perspective [Hoshmand, 1994 #200]]

Levels of learning [Bateson, 1972 #706]

Ecological validity issue in some studies [Frey, 1994 #203]

Mustness of communication – MontessoriDaft media richness theorySignificant matches

with my experience:Tapped In and pictures and self-disclosure





Aspect: Content:

Tapped In and /who function – to monitor who is paying attention – getting paying

attention feedback Significant „new‟material for me:

Way of analyzing literature – projective research vs observational research

In absence of cues, users exploit/adapt to make the most of what‟s there, in some cases

to counter the negativeCompetition of cues, use of alternative channels for different tasks

“phatic”

Referential and contextual efficiencies of visual for instructions, etcConvergence

applied to my

inquiry question:

Alternative view to visual equivalence of face-to-face needed in CMC

Reminder of ability to adapt, to work at expressing personal presence in text

Visual of CMC face-to-face competes with visual needed for text; in Face-to-face text

is conveyed by aural channel

Capacity to adapt communication to limitations and make most effectiveness of

limitations can serve a useful purpose in CMC for task orientationSchweizer, K., M. Paechter, et al. (2001). “A Field Study on Distance Education and Communication: Experiences of a Virtual

Tutor.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 6(2).http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/ Description: Report of empirical inquiry of CMC in higher education context

Testing apparently clear hypotheses using statistical methods

Only one part of possible report

One semester in length

Fairly homogenous group – German, males, 19-24, military institutionOverview

Interaction:Useful example of writing and reporting in a limited way

Had me querying the methodology – not enough description to be sure that I

understood what was being investigated and how, and therefore what credence I would

afford itSignificant matches

with my field

knowledgeWalther referenceSocial presence theory – Short, Christie

Convergence

applied to my

inquiry question:

Nothing significantly different from others

Query: what about previous experience – challenging the e-a perspective

University, C. Q. and T. Roberts (2002). Online Collaborative Learning in Higher Education.

http://musgrave.cqu.edu.au/clp/clpsite/offline_articles_A-K.htm Description: Bibliography of Collaborative Online Learning in Higher EducationOverview

Interaction:Useful site for ongoing reference interaction

Convergence

applied to my

inquiry question:

Valuable for keeping a watching brief of developments in the field

Aspect: Content:

Kaye, M. (1994). Communication management. Sydney, Prentice HallDescription: Comprehensive overview of the field, gathering material from diverse sources;

development of model from intrapersonal, to interpersonal, to system, and raising

competence at relevant levels and interactive

Application to organizational management issues is valuable

Summaries and focus questions of typical text availableOverview

Interaction:Useful basic introductory but comprehensive treatment

Communicating as accessible scholarship!!

Convergenceapplied to my

inquiry question:

p.17 Human communication is fundamentally a social activity

Human communication is also a matter of how people construe images of

adult education: improving my cmc

Documents