Computer Conferencing and Instruction

Julie Bertch, RSCC
LynnAnn Wojciechowicz, SMCC
Co-Chairs

K.C. Hundere, GCC
Don Shehi, DIST/ITS
Group Support

These people participated in the discussions and 
investigations of the committee:

Jerry Baxter, PVCC
Sharon Blanton, SCC
David Bonnici, MCC
Frank Gonzalez, MCC
Billie Hughes, PC
Michael Kamolz, EMCC
Pat Medeiros, SCC
Linda Perham, DIST
Karen Schwalm, GCC
Emma Walters, SCC
Chris Zagar, DIST

Introduction

The committee met on a monthly basis, inviting faculty and staff who expressed an interest in the topic as well as those we thought could provide helpful or useful input into the planned discussions and explorations. While our membership was therefore never static, we were gratified that we were able to interact with so many people with such varied needs and plans for computer conferencing.

Activities

Our first project was to survey recent literature on computer conferencing to see what was "new" - and we found some interesting specific applications. Most of these were focused on the use of computer conferencing to extend and expand the interactive possibilities of the classroom.
We then looked at what people are presently doing with computer conferencing at our colleges. We examined the uses of Electronic Forum (EF), which we believe has become the standard (the only, in most cases) vehicle for local computer conferencing.
Our next effort involved the use of BITNET and INTERNET. We explored these networks from these two perspectives:
- Possibilities for student use. Presently, few faculty are using INTERNET. However, we believe opportunities for other innovative uses exist. For example, some foreign language classes have begun to use the Internet to provide students with opportunities to use the language they are studying with native speakers. Also, some classes have provided access to national and global electronic databases. One class has used the Internet to deliver instruction abroad.
- Possibilities for faculty/staff use. Many Maricopa people are regular subscribers to listservs and have become active participants in national discussions. For the most part, these are people whose jobs or teaching responsibilities already provided them the skills, access, and opportunity to use the system.

In order to feel qualified to speak on the possibilities for the expanded electronic system, the committee believed it would be important to study the access and procedures with a "hands-on" approach. The response to the work was predictable. We discovered that it takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of serendipity to learn about - and learn how to use - the Internet system. However, we agree that as a means to improve instruction and provide better, more relevant education for our students, we should develop ways for them to access information with full text resources and to communicate on a national and international level. Internet has become of primary importance.

Recommendations

Local

After having a discussion of the needs for computer conferencing and after studying the capabilities of the EF system, the committee has concluded that EF 2.0 is the most appropriate platform for MCCCD. Therefore we support and recommend the use of EF for these purposes:

Improvement of instruction. We believe continued District/college faculty development efforts are necessary to recruit more instructors to learn how to use the system and to consider innovative possibilities for improving instruction in the future.
Improvement of faculty/staff communication. EF could serve as a simple, easy-to-use, and always-available vehicle for department, committee, or project discussions. The system meets all the requirements of effective groups; minimal encouragement and training should be necessary.

National and International

After extensive discussion of the future instructional needs of faculty and students, the committee recommends a serious focus of time and resources on outside networks that will take us beyond the colleges, we recommend:

Further access for students. We now have limited access to WAIS, World Wide Web, and Gopher through EF. We recommend that students be encouraged to explore these databases for research.
We should encourage all interested electronic participants to expand their skills and knowledge by participating in the discussions on these networks. To promote such use beyond those who are initially inclined toward such effort, we propose District or college information sessions and user groups. Without such encouragement, we believe that the majority of faculty will not find the time nor the motivation to become involved.

Considerations

We fully understand that the present system would be hard- pressed to accommodate a sudden increase in the number of students, faculty, and staff accessing and using Internet. Therefore, we recommend a focused and cautious approach, led by specific college projects that help faculty develop goals and methods and involve students in course-based activities on the system. Given this kind of thoughtful planning, we believe that many classes could benefit through world-wide participation without exceeding our capabilities.

Bibliography

from Lynn Ann Wojciechowicz and Julie Bertch

Adams, D., Carlson, H., and Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning and educational media: Collaborating with technology and each other. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

Ambron, S., and Pennington, R., eds. (1988). Toward a seamless society: Networking in education. Learning Tomorrow Series. Cupertino, CA: Apple Education Advisory Council.

Badagliacco, J. M. (1990). Gender and race differences in computing attitudes and experience. Social Science Computer Review 8 (1), 42-63.

Batson, T. (1989). A selective national survey of enfi real-time conferencing in the composition classroom. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, March, 1989. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 303 827).

Beil, D. (1989). Teacher's guide to using computer networks for written interaction: classroom activities for collaborative learning with networked computers. (Published at the initiative of the ENFI Consortium). Washington, DC: Realtime Learning Systems.

Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper and Row.

Brothen, T.F. (1987). Using active learning in large classes. In S.F. Schomberg (ed.) Strategies for Active Teaching and Learning In University Classrooms: A Handbook of Teaching Strategies, 40 - 46. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 276 356).

Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers. Computers and the Humanities 24, 49- 65.

Chapman, D.W., & Pascarella, E. T. (1983). Predictors of academic and social intergration of college students. Research in Higher Education 19(3), 295-322.

Collison, M. N. K. (1990). Many colleges begin to pay attention to the time their students spend outside the classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education (March 28), A37.

Coombs, N. R. (1988). Extending the campus through microcomputers. Collegiate Microcomputer 6(3), 236-238.

Cooper M. M. & Selfe C. L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English 52 (8), 847-869.

Cross, K. P. (1988). In search of zippers. AAHE Bulletin 40(10), 3-7. Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science 16, 169-186.

Feenberg, A. (1989). The future of teaching in the planetary classroom. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Pacific Region Association for Higher Education.

Gerrard, L. (1989). Computers and basic writers: A critical view. In G. E. Hawisher and C. L. Selfe (Eds.). Critical Perspectives on Computers and Composition Instruction(187-200). New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.

Harasim, L.M., ed. (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger.

Harasim, L.M. (1990). Computer-mediated communication and collaborative learning. Keynote address to the Conference on Collaborative Learning in Higher Education, Oct. 12, Bloomington, Indiana. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 335 984).

Harris, J., George, D., Hult, C., & Killingsworth, J. M. (1989). Computers in the composition curriculum: Looking ahead. WPA: Writing Program Administration 13 (1-2), 35- 43.

Harte, D. V. (1987). The search for 21st century mindware. AACJC JOURNAL. 51-53.

Hellerstein, L. (1986). Electronics messaging and conferencing with an emphasis on social use: An exploratory study. Amherst, MA.: University of Massachusetts, Department of Communication. For presentation ICA Conference, Chicago, May, 1986. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 277 062).

Hiltz, S. R. (1988). Collaborate learning in a virtual classroom: Highlights of findings. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305 895).

Holland, R. M., Jr. (1989). Anonymous journal in literature survey courses. Teaching English in the Two-Year College 16 (4), 236-241.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer- mediated communications. American Psychologist, 1123-11234.

King, B. (1982). Using writing in the mathematics class: Theory and practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning: Teaching Writing in All Disciplines (12), 39-44.

Kinkead, J. (November 1988). Wired: Computer networks in the english classroom. English Journal, 39-41.

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J. & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Light, R. J. (1990). Harvard assessment seminars: Explorations with students and faculty about teaching, learning, and student life. (First Report). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Mageau, T. (1990). Teaching and learning online. Electronic Learning. 26-30.

Marcus, S. (1987). Getting-on-line computers and writing instruction. AACJC Journal. 38-39.

Mason. R. (1988). The use of computer mediated communication for distance education at the open university. British Open University: Milton Keynes, U.K.

Mason, R., and Kaye, T., eds. (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

McMillen,L. (1986). Science and math professors are assigning writing drills to focus students' thinking [Excerises include keeping private journal and explaining concepts various audiences]. Chronicle of Higher Education 31 (Jan. 22, 1986): 19-21.

Moran, C. (February 1992). REVIEW: Computers and English: What do we make of each other? College English 54 (2), 193-198.

Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A structural model. Research in Higher Education 26(1), 31-59.

Nora, A., Attinasi, L. C., Matonak, A. (1990). Testing qualitative indicators of precollege factors in Tinto's attrition model: A community college student population. Review of Higher Education 13(3), 337-356.

Parrish, B. (1989). Journal keeping in college basic writing courses. Journal of College Reading and Learning 22(1), 8-13.

Pascarella, E. T. (1991). How college affects students: Finding and insights. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schriner, D. K. and Rice, W. K. (1989). Computer conferencing and collaborative learning: A discourse community at work. College Composition and Communication 40, 472-478.

Selfe, C. L. (1989). The humanization of computers: Forget technology, remember literacy. English Journal, 69- 71.

Selfe, C. L. and Arbabi F. (1986). Writing to learn engineering student journals. In A. Young and T. Fulwiler (Eds.). Writing Across the Disciplines: Research Into Practice, Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook. 184- 191.

Selfe, C. L. and Eilola, J. D. (1989). The tie that binds: Building discourse communities and group cohesion through computer-based conferences. Collegiate Microcomputer 6, 339-348.

Spitzer, M. (1989). Computer conferencing: An emerging technology. In G. E. Hawisher and C. L. Selfe (Eds.). Critical Perspectives on Computers and Composition Instruction. New York: Teachers College Press, 187-200.

Stage, F. K. (1989). Motivation, academic and social intergration, and the dropout. American Education Research Journal 26(3), 385-402.

Thiesmeyer, J. (1989). Should we do what we can? In G.E. Hawisher and C. L. Selfe (Eds.). Critical Perspective on Computers and Composition Instruction. New York: Teachers College Pres, 75-93.

Thompson, D. (1988). Electronic bulletin boards: A timeless place for collaborative writing projects. Computers and Composition 7 (3), 43-53.

Thompson, D. P. (1990). Application report: Network capabilities and academic realities: Implementing interactive networking in a community college environment. Journal of Computer-based Instruction 17(1), 17-22.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Education Research, 45(1), 89-125.

Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different. Change, 22(4), 11-30.

Valeri-Gold, M. and Deming, M. P. (1991). Computers and basic writers: A research update. Journal of Developmental Education, Volume 14, Number 3, 10-14.

VanOrden, N. (1987). Critical-thinking writing assignments in general chemistry. Journal Of Chemical Education 64 (6), 506-507.

Whitney, R. Teaching critical thinking with computers conferencing. The Instructional Computing Update. 33-35.

Index

Ocotillo Report '93

back