Approved-By:  "EDTECH Moderator" <21765EDT@MSU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edtech
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:18:36 EDT
From:         Gleason Sackman <sackman@plains.NoDak.edu>
Subject:      current research in CMC (1 of 3) (fwd)

Forwarded message:

>
> > From: RORPAYNE@THINK2.LakeheadU.Ca
> > Subject:      current research in CMC - report
> > To: Multiple recipients of list DEOS-L <DEOS-L@psuvm.bitnet>
> >
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >            EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION:
> >                    A FIELD STUDY OF RECENT RESEARCH
> >
> >                           Susan L Cole
> >                             Mary Beam
> >                             Lynda Karn
> >                        Adrian Hoad-Reddick
> >
> >                Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
> >
> >                 submitted to: Rob Higgins and Bob McLean
> >
> >                              3551S92
> >
> >                            April 3, 1992.
> >
> > INTRODUCTION
> >
> > Margaret Riel has noted that "the number and size of national
> > and international projects available to schools has increased
> > dramatically in the last few years. Advocates of these
> > invisible communities claim that students can acquire content
> > knowledge and develop academic skills from well structured
> > educational exchanges via electronic networks, but frustration
> > and failure accompanying poorly designed communication
> > systems, new and undefined social roles, and unstructured
> > educational activities leaves others sceptical of these
> > claims. A careful review of the research on networking
> > successes, as well as failures, can help in the constructive
> > definition of this new learning environment." (Riel, 1991-
> > 1992, p.5)
> >
> > In this paper, we will report on an investigation using
> > electronic mail, listservers, computer mediated conferences
> > and conference material to contact researchers in the field
> > of educational computer-mediated communication (CMC) to
> > discover and assess new directions in research. Our focus will
> > be on the research processes and methodologies used rather
> > than reporting on particular findings of the contacts and
> > authors.
> >
> > A great deal of current literature centres on anecdotal
> > reports of experiences. However, as activities involving
> > educational CMC mature, it is hoped that more emphasis is
> > being devoted to applying the principles of qualitative
> > analysis to support discoveries about the qualities of and
> > responses to the medium. It is our intention to investigate
> > some research which is presently being effected to see if
> > there are shifts in emphasis and methodologies. Although
> > not all of the following criteria will be applied to every
> > investigation, the following will serve as a guideline.
> >
> >
> >
> > CRITERIA
> >
> > This field study is chiefly concerned with substantive
> > contributions to knowledge building within the educational CMC
> > discipline.  We review the studies using research criteria, not
> > applications criteria, seeking processes, methodologies and
> > perspectives inherent in current or recent research.  The authors
> > of this study are cognizant of the influences that impinge on the
> > broad intent of our field study.  We are guided by the research
> > questions, our research instruments, the concepts and categories
> > employed by authors in previously related studies (to a lesser
> > degree) and by the data themselves.  That is, our focus is
> > derived from the questions we asked (see Appendix C) and the
> > nature and form of the studies received.
> >
> > In determining what components of the materials or projects
> > reviewed are valuable to the research process and what components
> > are insufficient, we have considered Gowin's Vee as our common
> > heuristic. Our discussion is structured by Robin Mason's three
> > paradigms for evaluating applications of computer conferencing.
> > Although not all of the following criteria are applied to every
> > investigation, they do counsel our study:
> >
> > BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SUPPORT FROM THE SOURCES
> >
> > Is there evidence that the research is derived from prior
> > knowledge claims, principles and theories?
> >
> > Are the theoretical and conceptual sources for the research
> > explicit?
> >
> > What are the knowledge claims employed in the investigation and
> > their applicability to present literature? Is there merit in the
> > hypothesis or investigation in light of prior knowledge?
> >
> > METHODOLOGY
> >
> > What is the nature of the records of events or objects?
> >
> > Are the data provided by the researchers?
> >
> > Are the data logical and comprehensive, and generated in a manner
> > appropriate to the circumstances?
> >
> > How are the data coded?  Are qualitative and/or quantitative
> > methods employed?  Are those methods computer-based?  Is data
> > reduction comprehensive and logical?  Is data collation valid and
> > warranted by the data?
> >
> > Do conclusions flow from the data and methodologies?
> >
> > What knowledge claims may be derived from the study?
> >
> > Is the presentation sequential, well documented and supported?
> > Who are the participants in the study?  Are they a logical group
> > to investigate or are they involved in an artificial situation?
> >
> >
> > RESEARCH DISCUSSION
> >
> > The following discussion has been organized according to the
> > three paradigms outlined by Mason in her upcoming chapter on
> > methodologies for evaluating applications of computer
> > conferencing:
> >
> > "Postpositivism: an experimental, quantitative core buttressed
> > by critique from varied analysis, theoretical perspectives, and
> > value frameworks, combining the use of survey and observational
> > data, with regression and cluster analyses.
> >
> > Interpretivism: based on the social constructions of meaning
> > being inherently time and place dependent; therefore, relies
> > heavily on qualitative methods, especially interviews and
> > observations and acknowledges and legitimates the value-laden
> > nature of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gleason Sackman, Coordinator               Internet: sackman@plains.nodak.edu
Technical Operations                       Bitnet:   sackman@plains.bitnet
SENDIT Project                             701-237-8109
NDSU Computer Center                       Fargo, ND  58105
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU