This is a short paper I wrote on computer mediated communication (CMC) while I was a doctoral student at Penn State:

In order to understand the role of communication in an online classroom it is essential to first explore an underlying theory that guides learning in this environment, which is constructivism.  Constructivism, which is the process of knowledge construction (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) helps guide learning that is taking place in these communication environments.  The constructivist learning environment has played an important role in the formation of strategies used in the online learning environment, specifically for modes of discussion.  Learning Communities are formed in most online learning environments that utilize student-student discussion, which can be in the shape of a class, group, or team to function together and learn from one another to build knowledge or to solve a problem.  These communities of learning are based on the constructivist paradigm.  The goal in most of these environments is to construct knowledge and solve problems, which in constructivism, is termed problem-based learning.  In problem based learning, learners are given a problem to solve and discuss it within their community to arrive at a solution (Hmelo et al., 2000).

In the constructivist environment, the teacher plays the role of a facilitator to guide student learning.  In the CMC environment, where student-student and student-facilitator communication is used, the facilitator’s goal is to guide students towards their goals using strategies such as scaffolding to aid student learning.  In order to successfully utilize these strategies, we must understand the students’ perceptions of them.  This will help steer our students towards greater achievement, satisfaction, and motivation while providing the most efficient strategies which enhance their learning.

The ability to use synchronous and asynchronous CMC has become a fundamental means to communicate in the classroom, workplace, and populace.  In an online classroom setting, computer-mediated communication is used by classes, groups, and teams to discuss projects, learn from one another, and to develop online communities.

However, a significant portion of the literature on synchronous and asynchronous CMC can be associated with text.  The literature is geared towards the text based environment because other forms of CMC technology are just beginning to become feasible methods of communication in online learning.  Only in the last several years has it become possible to use methods other than text in the online CMC environment, which is due to factors such as smaller file sizes, faster internet connection speeds, and software that is user-friendly.  What does all of this literature on text based CMC reveal?  Most of the literature on the CMC environment promotes the use of asynchronous over synchronous communication as a more effective learning tool, finds that synchronous communication provides better social communication, and shows that students enjoy both formats.

This is reiterated in the literature by Mabrito (2006) who examined a class of 16 undergraduate students using both asynchronous and synchronous text chat in WebCT, which is a course management system and communication tool.  The students were divided up into four groups and were given a project to complete using each form of communication.  The messages in each form of CMC were recorded, examined, and coded, which produced an inter-rater reliability of 87%.  The mean number of messages in the synchronous environment was 720 per group compared to 523 in the asynchronous, which concludes that students preferred to communicate in the synchronous environment.  Although there were more messages in the synchronous environment, the important finding in this study was that students did not seem to go into much depth in the synchronous environment like they did in the asynchronous.  This study also examined student perceptions toward each communication method and discovered that although students found the asynchronous method to be more productive, they preferred synchronous communication because they could communicate more easily.  Levin & Robbins (2006) found similar results when they examined synchronous and asynchronous communication using an undergraduate class of 36 students.  They observed the students communicate in six text-based online discussions throughout the semester using Blackboard’s forum and chat software.  A survey was used to gather data and was given at the beginning and end of the course.  The results of the pre-class survey showed that 31 out of 36 participants had used some form of online communication and that only 3 out of 36 students thought they would prefer synchronous communication to learn. At the conclusion of the course 17 of the students were found to prefer synchronous communication. Two significant findings in this study were 1) a good portion of students came to class with some online communication experience and 2) both forms of communication were enjoyed by the undergraduate population.  Since students seem to like both forms, can we assume that they are interchangeable or should they be used for different things?  Im & Lee (2004) explored this question when they conducted a study which compared both synchronous and asynchronous text-based communication in an online class of 40 undergraduate students.  The discussions were recorded, analyzed, and coded, which produced an inter-rater reliability of 84%.  Computer-mediated communication in the course was not required but it was still used.  There were 2,820 asynchronous postings and 336 synchronous postings.  The analysis revealed that synchronous communication was used for social interactions and asynchronous communication was used for formal discussions that related to class. The authors recommended that using asynchronous communication in an online classroom environment is much more appropriate when communication is not required.  Thus, it appears that both forms of communication are valuable for different purposes.  This distinction between synchronous and asynchronous communication is reiterated further in the literature.

Spencer (2002) conducted a study which focused on student perception in asynchronous, synchronous, and face-to-face communication environments.  Transcripts were taken from 29 undergraduate classes and 113 student surveys were collected to explore students’ perception of communication.  Spencer divided the transcriptions into four groups which consisted of 1) asynchronous communication only 2) face-to-face and asynchronous 3) asynchronous and one synchronous session and 4) asynchronous and multiple synchronous sessions.  Spencer found that students thought they learned more in the face-to-face class with asynchronous learning and that they seemed to enjoy the synchronous chat format the most even though they used it more for social discussions. Therefore, it appears that Spencer (2002) and Im & Lee (2004) agree that most synchronous communication is better suited for social interaction.  Spencer’s (2002) study also revealed that students preferred a combination of asynchronous and face-to-face communication methods.  However, this finding is debated in the literature as demonstrated by Jonassen & Kwan (2001) and Olaniran et al. (1996).

Jonassen & Kwan (2001) conducted a study that involved 18 undergraduate engineering students to examine the effects of asynchronous and face-to-face communication on ill-structured and well-structured problems.  Students were divided into six groups of three and given four problems to solve throughout the course, two ill-structured and two well-structured. Each group used asynchronous text based CMC or face-to-face communication to solve each type of problem.  A questionnaire was given to each student to evaluate the results of the study. Transcriptions of group communication were analyzed and coded which produced an inter-rater reliability of 89%.  They discovered that students preferred the asynchronous method of communication because they found it to be more beneficial.  The authors attributed this finding to the fact that students found the asynchronous environment to be more flexible and a better place for reflection.  Olaniran et al. (1996) disagreed with Jonassen and Kwan (2001) in their study which compared asynchronous and face-to-face communication. One hundred and fourteen undergraduate communication majors were assigned to one of three groups to participate in two experiments, one using text based asynchronous methods, the other using face-to-face methods, and then given a survey.  The study revealed that students liked the face-to-face version better and found it to be more effective, satisfying, and easier.  The authors suggested that future research focus on students’ perceptions towards CMC and face-to-face learning. This is important because it demonstrates that researchers have identified a need for research on students’ perceptions of the CMC environment which is the focus of the qualitative question in this paper.

Hiltz, Johnson, and Turoff (1986) uncovered similar results when they compared face-to-face and text based synchronous communication. Their study utilized 40 undergraduate students who were divided into eight groups.  Each group was given two problems, a complex ranking task and the qualitative human relations task, and then was asked to solve one using synchronous and one using face-to-face communication.  Communication was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed which produced an inter-rater reliability of 90%.  The authors discovered that students found the face-to-face communication to be less formal and more relaxing, which is similar to the findings of Olaniran et al. (1996).  They also noted that almost 30% more communication took place in the face-to-face version.  An important finding uncovered in this study was that both groups produced answers of the same quality.  This is an important discovery because it shows that achievement can be the same in multiple forms of communication.  Most of literature exhibits similar findings. For example Shaw & Chen (2006) carried out an empirical study which measured student achievement between face-to-face, online synchronous, and online asynchronous CMC environments and found no significant difference in 96 college students.

It has been emphasized in this review on online communication that there are many conflicting studies on students’ preferences.  These inconsistencies in the literature can mostly be explained by the timeframe around the research.  Studies conducted 10 years ago on online communication may differ significantly from studies conducted today because the technology and the students using this technology have drastically changed.  The undergraduate students of today are from a new generation which has grown up using the internet and different forms of online communication whereas learners 10 years ago did not.  This could have significant impacts on older research and warrants further inquiry.

However, what has been revealed in the literature is that successful outcomes can be achieved using face-to-face, online text based asynchronous, or online text based synchronous forms of communication.  As long as there are new strategies, tools, and media available in CMC, future research will be needed to ensure that these expectations are met or exceeded (Dennen, 2005).

References:

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster McMillan.

Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to Learn About Complex Systems.  The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.

Mabrito, M. (2006). A Study of Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Collaboration in an Online Business Writing Class. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93-107.

Levin, B. B., & Robbins, H. H. (2006.) Comparative Analysis of Preservice Teachers’ Reflective Thinking in Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Online Case Discussions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3).

Im, Y., & Lee, O. (2004). Pedagogical Implications of Online Discussion for Preservice Teacher Training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2).

Spencer, D. H. (2002). A Field Study of Use of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication in Asynchronous Learning Networks. Unpublished Dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, NJ.

Jonassen, D. H., & Kwan, H. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face- to-face group problem solving.  Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1).

Olaniran, B. A., Savage, G. T., & Sorenson, R. L. (1996). Experimental and Experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Communication education,45.

HILTZ, R. S., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in Group Decision Making: “Communication Process and Outcome in Face-to-Face Versus Computerized Conferences”.  Human Communication Research, 13(2).