Kaleidoscope: An SCO Journal of Graduate Student Research

Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 2002, pp. 50-58

 

 

A Content Analysis of CMC in Instruction:

Student and Teacher Uses of an Instructional Listserve

 

Tony L. Arduini

 

_____

 

Tony Arduini received a Ph. D. from the Department of Speech Communication at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale

 in August of 2000. He currently teaches speech communication and performance studies at the University of Dubuque.

He has a range of research interests including: theories of embodiment, instructional communication, communication and

critical theory, and interpersonal communication.

_____

 

 

Author’s note:

This article is the result of an independent study course on content analysis, which I took with Dr. Daradirek “Gee” Ekachai. The statistics suggest many interesting implications of using computer-mediated communication (CMC), including its ability to permit communication by some students who are inhibited in traditional classrooms and the decentralization of authority in CMC. While I hoped the study would permit some generalizable findings about the use of listserves, I could only report descriptive statistics about this listserve. I feel a little embarrassed now about reporting my efforts at inferential statistical tests that simply couldn’t be done with the data and the number of variables I was working with. I also see the article as a bit “skeletal,” reporting about categories, which could have been explained a bit more. Additional measures, such as qualitative interviewing, could have also helped in describing the experience of this class and their use of CMC.

Still, this study reinforced my belief that the medium is at least part of the message, to paraphrase McLuhan. My work since this study has continued to be the concern about the role of communication channels (e-mail and others) in educational processes, using both qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a fuller picture of students’ experiences.

My thanks go out to the following people for their guidance, willingness to share knowledge, and support, without which this and other work would not have been possible: Dr. Gee Ekachai, Dr. Mary Hinchcliff-Pelias, Dr. Ronald Pelias, Dr. Bryan Crow, and Dr. Richard Lanigan.

_____

 

 

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is gaining in popularity as a means for communicating in instructional settings. Some uses for CMC include teachers delivering assignments, students returning assignments, and teachers responding to assignments via e-mail. Also, listserves (computer systems that allows e-mail messages sent to a central address to be distributed to a group subscribing to the list) are used as an additional channel for discussion by teachers and students. Besides these specifically designed activities, students and teachers also exchange e-mail as a way of communicating about day-to-day concerns, such as a student missing a class meeting or requesting a meeting. This paper proposes to examine the uses that teachers and students have for this new medium.

 

                Because of the growth of CMC in instructional settings, research is needed to understand how it functions in this setting. Some authors have moved immediately to judge the value of using CMC in instruction (Donovan, 1995; Olaniran, et al, 1996), but I believe that CMC needs descriptive research to understand it. Kuehn (1994) states that little research has been done on computer use in instructional settings from a communication perspective. For this reason, I feel developing an understanding of how CMC is used in instruction is an important first step in the process of learning how to use CMC effectively in instruction.

 

Research Questions

 

Kuehn (1994) suggests that content analysis is a promising method for examining CMC since data in the form of text is readily available. Kuehn sees two uses for content analysis. First, it can be used to describe communication phenomena. Second, it can be used to test hypotheses. This paper uses content analysis in this first way (above) by describing the uses students and teachers have for CMC. Hacker, et al (1996) have researched a similar phenomenon, looking at the various ways that individuals used a listserve run by political parties in the 1992 presidential campaign. Specifically, this study plans to look at the ways students and one teacher in an intercultural communication course use an instructional discussion list. Three research questions will be examined:

 

                RQ1:      What uses do participants have for an instructional

                                discussion list?

 

                RQ2:      Are there differences between students’ and teachers’ uses of an instructional discussion list?

 

                RQ3:      Is there a gender difference in the use of an

                                instructional discussion list?

 

                The goal of this study is to find a reliable set of categories for the uses of CMC in instruction, which may then be applied in future research on teachers’ and students’ uses of both CMC and face-to-face communication. Gender differences and differences between students’ and teachers’ uses may also be important and are included here on a tentative basis.

 

Research Method for RQ1

This study uses a convenience sample, consisting of all messages (N=221) that were sent to a discussion list for an intercultural communication class in 1996. Students were graduate and undergraduate speech communication students at a Midwestern university. Additional participants, besides the students and teacher, who were affiliated with the speech communication department, were also contributors to the list, contributing 21 of 221 messages. Though this is a convenience sample, the class included male (N=8) and female (N=11) students and members of a variety of ethnic groups, so there is no reason to see this group as different from any other group. The instructor was female, and since she is the only representative of teachers, gender as an intervening variable may need to be considered in examining the messages representing teachers’ use of the discussion list. 

 

                The unit of measure for this study is the individual message. The researcher read each message, looking for the overall use or purpose of each message. The message portion of any posting consists only of the writer’s contribution to the discussion, as seen in the body of the message. Quoted material and information on the subject line of the message was not considered part of the message, though this information may be used as context to help interpret the message. In any whole message, many assertions may be made, but this study looks for the main or central purpose of a whole message. Mutually exclusive categories were developed, including a description of the uses or purposes of messages for each category. These categories are based in part on Hacker, et al’s (1996) categories for messages on listserves devoted to political parties. Additional categories are needed, however, since the educational context of this listserve is a different setting for this kind of communication.

 

Research Method for RQ2 and RQ3

 

Future research will examine the different uses students and teachers have for both face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. This study can suggest preliminary answers to the question of whether teachers and students use CMC differently, and also suggest whether gender affects the use of CMC in an instructional context.

 

                The data from coding above will be the basis for two more measures. A cross-tabulation table, separating messages into teacher, student, and other groupings and by category, will be constructed. Also, a chi-square test will be performed to see if there is a significant difference between teacher and student uses of the listserve. Lastly, a cross-tabulation and chi-square test will be performed to see if there is a significant difference between men’s and women’s use of the listserve.

 

Results for RQ1

 

Fifteen categories were developed to describe how participants use this instructional listserve. A list of categories follows:

 

1)       Seeking information -- Writer explicitly asks the whole group for information about a topic relating to the subject of the class or class procedures and activities.

 

2)       Asserting opinion -- Writer is stating an opinion, with or without support.

 

3)       Humor -- any attempt at humor, including ironic humor.

4)       Posting information -- Writer offers information based on writer’s knowledge or, for a teacher particularly, pertaining to completing class assignments or activities.

 

5)       Information redistribution -- Writer’s message consists of information that the writer acknowledges is from a source other than the writer.

 

6)       Opinion seeking -- Writer requests anyone in the group to offer opinions or perceptions to the group.

 

7)       Flaming -- Writer directly attacks another group member’s person.

 

8)       Metacommunication about list behavior-- Writer comments about communication that has occurred on the listserve.

 

9)       Metacommunication about classroom behavior -- Writer comments about communication that has occurred in class meetings.

 

10)    Personal fact -- Writer describes his/her personal experience or personal qualities.

 

11)    Humor reposting -- Writer’s message consists of humor that the writer acknowledges is from a source other than the writer.

 

12)    Social greeting -- Writer greets one group member or the whole group, including thanking others.

 

13)    Social command about list behavior -- Writer asks particular group member(s) to include or exclude topics or information in future postings.

 

14)    Social command about classroom behavior -- Writer asks particular group member(s) to behave in a particular manner in the classroom.

 

15)    Other -- Writer’s message is brief and ambiguous, so placing the message in one of the categories above is not possible.

 

The above list of categories indicates the range of uses for the listserve. Also, note that metacommunication and social command purposes are separated in messages that pertain to the computer-mediated interactions and the classroom interactions.

 

                The following frequency table indicates the total numbers of messages for each category of use.

 

 

The most common use for the listserve is to assert opinions (43.4%). The second most common use is to share personal facts with the group (10.9%). The third most common use is to redistribute information (8.6%).

 

Results for RQ2

 

The following are tables dividing messages into role categories (teacher, student, and other participants). The percent of total messages is below the frequency counts:

 

 

 

 

The most common use for the listserve by students is for asserting opinions (34.01%) and the second most common use is to offer personal facts (8.6%). For the teacher, the most common use of the listserve is to redistribute information and the second most common use is metacommunication about classroom behavior.

 

Results for RQ3

 

The following table indicates frequencies for men and women who participated in the list for each category of use.

 

 

 

The most common use of this listserve for women is to assert opinions (22.17%), and the second most common use for women is to state personal facts (6.79%). For men, the most common use is also asserting opinions (21.27%) and metacommunication about list behavior (5.43%).

 

                For both research questions two and three, the large number of categories made chi-square comparisons unreliable and so they are not reported here.

 

Discussion

 

Many observations of how participants use the list are consistent with regular classroom patterns. The teacher does most information distribution. This makes sense if we consider the teacher the information provider and the content expert in the classroom. The overall goal of the list is to provide a way to extend classroom discussion, and expression of personal fact and asserting opinions is consistent with their roles as discussants either in the classroom or via computer mediated communication.

 

                These results also indicate several ways that CMC differs from traditional classroom communication. Teacher and student roles can be different on a listserve since the teacher is not the physical center of attention. High numbers of messages by students that assert opinions, offer personal facts, and negotiate how group members should behave indicate a de-centering of influence on the list compared to face-to-face classroom communication. Particularly dramatic is the difference in number of messages asserting opinion for students and teachers.

 

                Another significant finding is the similar number of messages that assert opinion for both men and women. While American culture typically provides more opportunity for men to express opinions, the results indicate that women expressed opinions slightly more often than men.

 

                A third significant finding is that this new channel for communication offered another channel for negotiating group norms and also created another “group” constituted by the discourse on the list and the need for negotiation therein. The list is a discussion forum so the most frequent uses conform to that purpose. Asserting opinions, offering personal facts, and presenting information for discussion all fit the purpose of the list. Many messages, however, were designed to negotiate communication behavior on the list itself and in face-to-face class meetings. In other words, a significant use of this list was as a channel for metacommunication about face-to-face communication; however, the new channel also required more negotiation about behavior within the new channel as well.

 

Conclusion

 

Computer-mediated communication will continue to be a significant part of education, if only because the workplace has become computerized and students need familiarity with CMC to prepare them for it. This study will be one small part of a larger project of understanding how students and teachers use CMC and how students and teachers can eventually maximize the effectiveness of their use of CMC.

_____

 

 

References

 

Donovan, D. C. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the basic speech course. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3 (3), 32-53.

 

Hacker, K. L., et al (1996). Uses of computer-mediated political communication in the 1992 presidential campaign: A content analysis of the Bush, Clinton, and Perot computer lists.

                Communication Research Reports, 13, 138-146.

 

Kuehn, S. A. (1994). Computer-mediated communication in instructional settings: A research agenda. Communication Education, 43, 171-183.

 

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, 244-259.

 

 

Copyright © 2002 Kaleidoscope/Speech Communication Association/Department of Speech Communication, SIUC.

All rights reserved.