JCMC 4 (2) December 1998
Message Board

Collab-U

CMC Play

E-Commerce

Symposium

Net Law

InfoSpaces

Usenet

NetStudy

VEs

VOs

O-Journ



Online Teaching:
Encouraging Collaboration through Anonymity

Andrea Chester and Gillian Gwynne
Department of Psychology and Intellectual Disability Studies
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology


Table of Contents

Abstract

This paper describes our experience as tertiary teachers (and learners) in cyberspace. A brief evaluation of the literature on computer-mediated communication (CMC) is presented, together with a review of the major theoretical positions explaining online interaction. The filtered-cues and social information processing perspectives are compared in the light of more recent formulations of the hyperpersonal. With a desire to facilitate and critically evaluate a hyperpersonal learning context or online learning community, we developed a range of strategies including the use of aliases. The subject is described together with our observations of the benefits and disadvantages of pseudonymity for education.

Introduction

In her book Life on the Screen, Sherry Turkle (1996) describes the concept of depaysement. Appropriated from anthropology, depaysement, meaning literally to "decountrify" oneself, is defined as the experience of (re)seeing. "One leaves one's own culture to face something unfamiliar, and upon returning home it has become strange - and can be seen with fresh eyes". (p.218) Cyberspace is rich with opportunities for depaysement: we can experiment with how it feels to be the opposite sex or sexless, we can change our ethnicity or the color of our skin, we can develop relationships with people we would never meet face-to-face, all of which enable us to experience a different perspective from which to (re)view the self and real life constructs. This potential of cyberspace is at the heart of our teaching online. Our aim is to help students, through their work in cyberspace, experience the challenging shift in perspective that is depaysement; our aim is to encourage them (re)see the familiar and develop a critical appreciation of the potential of technologies.

Teaching in cyberspace has also given us a chance to (re)view the familiar in our educational practice, thereby using our life online to inform our face-to-face teaching. Several writers have already begun to note that debates about technologies are leading to a (re)viewing of pedagogy (Atkins, 1991; Spender, 1995). Our paper therefore adds to this small, but growing body of (re)vision. Our focus is the use of the alias in online education. In a medium associated with anonymity, we explore the impact of enforced pseudonymity, that is the use of an alias, on teaching and learning.

Encouraging Collaborative Learning: Theoretical Foundations

An increasing body of work on computer-mediated communication (CMC) has grown out of our own discipline, social psychology. This literature was our starting point when we first began developing our online subject.

Early work on CMC, based on what was known as the filtered-cues position, described the medium as one bereft of social context cues (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). These cues define the social nature of the situation and the status of those present and include aspects of the physical environment, body language, and paralinguistic characteristics. With such cues largely filtered out, CMC has been described as a lean medium that is relatively anonymous.

Although much of this early work took place in the organizational context, some research from educational settings supports the filtered-cues perspective. The benefits of online anonymity for teaching and learning have included increased equity (Collins & Berge, 1995; McComb, 1994; Ruberg & Taylor, 1995) and higher participation rates (Hartman, Neuwirth, Kiesler, Cochran, Palmquist, & Zubrow, 1995). Without the cues that can sometimes stifle contributions, otherwise quiet students might find a voice. Howard Rheingold (1994) enthuses about the potential of this anonymity, commenting that people find "virtual communities treat them as they always wanted to be treated - as thinkers and transmitters of ideas and feeling beings". (p.26) Given that one of our main aims in teaching is to help students explore their potential as "thinkers and transmitters of ideas", CMC offers considerable possibilities.

As well as describing the advantages of anonymity outlined above, the filtered-cues position was also used to explain the presence of disinhibited behavior online (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). Without the usual non-verbal cues and well established etiquette that exist in face-to-face exchanges, users are less likely to feel constrained by convention. With the applicability of face-to-face norms in question and the repercussions of violating such norms less immediate, CMC has been associated not only with higher levels of self-disclosure, but also antisocial behavior, including flaming. The very features permitting greater equality allow the expression of negative emotion as Howard Rheingold (1994) explains:

The same lack of social feedback that lowers inhibitions enough to promote self-disclosure among groups of people can also lower inhibitions enough for individuals to disrupt those groups and sometimes tear the delicate fabric of trust that has been carefully woven over months of conversation among disembodied strangers. (p. 185)

Such behavior is the antithesis of the mutual respect that we aim to foster in our teaching. Yet the filtered-cues position interprets antisocial behavior as an inevitable consequence of the anonymity of interactions online. Is all teaching in cyberspace doomed to outbursts of aggression?

Joseph Walther (1992, 1993, 1995) began to question the assumptions and research findings associated with the filtered-cues position in the early 1990s, developing what he called the social information processing perspective. According to Walther (1992) CMC can be as deeply relational as face-to-face interactions; all that is required is sufficient time and message exchange. Walther’s hypothesis was supported by research with face-to-face groups that reported significantly less interpersonal interaction when time was limited (for example, Kelly & McGrath, 1985) as well as a meta-analysis of the CMC studies (Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994).

The relational element of CMC is a product, Walther has argued, of our strong desire for affiliation. As essentially social beings we are driven by a need for association and connection. Although the narrow bandwidth may deny users non-verbal cues, they adapt to the medium and use textual cues to form impressions of others (Lea & Spears, 1992). When relationships are developed, and there is an expectation of future interaction, antisocial behavior is less likely. It is not surprising therefore to find that flaming is more prevalent on large lists where it is easier to remain anonymous rather than in private email (Thompson & Ahn, 1992, cited in Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994).

More recently Walther (1996) has argued that CMC provides not only for the interpersonal but the hyperpersonal: a more intimate and socially desirable exchange than face-to-face interactions. According to Walther, the hyperpersonal nature of CMC is enhanced when long-term future interaction is anticipated and when no face-to-face relationship exists, so that users construct impressions and present themselves "without the interference of environmental reality" (p.33). Drawing on the social identity-deindividuation (SIDE) theory developed by Lea and Spears (1991), Walther proposed that the de-individuating features of CMC (visual anonymity, physical isolation, and selective self-presentation), if paired with high group salience, lead to decreased perceptions of individual differences, increased adherence to group norms, and more positive impression formation. In addition, the hyperpersonal is enhanced in asynchronous CMC where there is a greater opportunity for ‘planned discourse’ or reflection and thoughtful composition (Walther, 1996).

Research Aims and Questions

Our aim was to help our students explore the potential of CMC in a context that would promote collaborative learning. Our pilot design therefore bears some resemblance to Walther’s description of the hyperpersonal: text-only interactions were used, maintaining visual anonymity; students were asked not to meet face-to-face; asynchronous as well as synchronous communication was provided; students were reliant on each other for the completion of assessment tasks, therefore increasing group salience; interaction was required for a sustained period (13 weeks); and task-orientations were balanced with social spaces. Our first aim was to examine the emergence of an online learning community, exploring students' levels of participation.

In addition to the features noted above, we also introduced the use of aliases for the students. We hoped the use of pseudonyms would have a number of advantages. In contrast to the complete anonymity described by the filtered-cues position, the use of pseudonyms creates a context of "managed ambiguity" (Jaffe, Lee, Huang, & Oshagan, 1995), permitting relationship, while offering an opportunity to actively conceal or reveal elements of real-life identity. This process that Walther (1996) describes as self-selection allows traits such as race, gender, and age to be "revealed through performance rather than appearance" (p.20).

Without visual cues to signify the user’s race, we hoped that cross-cultural interaction might increase. This aim was important given that our university has a high proportion of Asian students, many of whom are international students. For a number of reasons, including cultural differences in educational expectations, as well as language confidence, Asian students are sometimes quiet in class (Ballard, 1991). This lack of interaction may disadvantage all students who may fail to appreciate a range of perspectives. We wondered if pseudonymity, described by Day and Batson (1995, p.42) as "a freedom to experiment with one’s usual voice," might provide students with an opportunity for more active interaction.

Personal Identity and Community in Cyberspace

The subject we developed, called Personal Identity and Community in Cyberspace, is one of 71 subjects offered in a compulsory liberal arts program at RMIT University. All students are required to complete three subjects from the program during their undergraduate studies, regardless of their course. Students in any one class may therefore come from any discipline and be completing any year of their study.

The aim of the subject was to explore, theoretically and experientially, the meanings of identity and community in cyberspace. For example, how might our sense of who we are be constrained in interactions where the physical body does not exist? How might it be more fully realised? What are the implications of the ease of identity play in the virtual context for real life interactions? Without conventional geographic and ethnic markers, are new kinds of communities beginning to emerge? How do these new communities inform their real life counterparts? Our aim was to immerse our students in the technology; to have the process of the subject, that is researching and interacting in cyberspace, become the content through a practice of critical self-reflexivity.

Methodology

This paper examines data gathered from the initial intake of 20 students, 5 female and 15 male. Of these students, 20% were Asian. No information was provided to the students regarding the composition of the group, beyond a list of aliases.

All interactions between these students, and with us, took place online. In order to explore the frustrations and delights of online communication, students were specifically requested not to meet or talk on the phone during the semester. In most cases students admitted they had obeyed this request. The only exception to this online rule was a face-to-face meeting conducted at the end of the subject. Students submitted weekly journals, discussed key themes in the subject in regular conferences, as well as worked on and submitted a group project online. In addition, there were places, both synchronous and asynchronous, to socialise.

The asynchronous textual interactions provided qualitative and quantitative data for analysis. Counts of the number of contributions together with simplified content analyses were carried out. The content of students’ private email and the asynchronous chat site were not recorded. Questionnaires completed, both prior to and at the end of the subject, supplied quantitative data in relation to computer knowledge and experience. Students were also asked to compare their behavior in this subject with another comparable subject on a range of dimensions including disinhibited behavior and perception of group salience. Given the small sample size, the analyses presented are predominantly descriptive in nature and findings are necessarily tentative.

The students' first task in the subject was to write a journal entry about their choice of alias. This was their first opportunity for self-reflexive analysis. In writing about the name they had chosen they were invited to think about the process of creating an identity. Although some students reported that they didn't give much consideration to the alias they chose, as the semester progressed, they were challenged to see that names they adopted nonetheless provided powerful cues for the impressions other students formed.

Several of the aliases were animalistic and predatory: Tiger and Cougar. Some were culturally-related such as Coconut (chosen by an Asian student as reminiscent of his home country). Few students chose aliases to reveal their sex, but those who did were just as likely to be female, eg. Banshee Witch, as male eg. Fox Mulder. None of the students selected a cross-gender alias.

Lessons from Experience I: The Delights of Pseudonymity

As predicted the online environment allowed students to find a strong and confident voice. Some students commented in their journals that they were more confident and contributed more online. Two-thirds of the students rated their participation in the subject as greater than in face-to-face classes. One Asian student, for example, remarked on the difference between his behavior online and in face-to-face classes. In class, he noted that he rarely spoke unless explicitly called on by the teacher, however "online I write heaps". An exchange towards the end of the face-to-face meeting highlighted the process that may have facilitated this confidence, particularly among the Asian students. One student asked the group whether we had noticed that he and his Asian colleagues had been very quiet throughout the face-to-face session, while online they had been among the most vocal. When pushed further, he explained that online there was no pressure to adhere to the scripts normally governing classroom behavior. That students might move so easily out of firmly held scripts surprised us, but was congruent with our general finding of greater informality online.

Balanced against this advantage was the stress for some students of communicating using only the written word. Although the asynchronous nature of all the assessable work certainly permitted "planned discourse", one Asian student, who fell behind in his work, noted the difficulty of communicating in a completely text-based medium: "It is ... hard for someone to exchange their opinion or information through the word ... especially for someone that do not have good english background ... but, I can do very well in chinese". While the issue of written expression arises for many of these students in face-to-face classes, written work is generally balanced with oral papers and group participation.

We also observed that interactions across cultural groups seemed to take place more easily online. While cultural markers were often evident in expression in email messages, in the more casual real-time talk, where abbreviations and misspellings are frequent, they were less obvious. In the final questionnaire as well as in journal entries, students talked about forming relationships across cultural boundaries, when in real life they felt more comfortable within their own cultural group.

The benefit of getting to know each other online without meeting face-to-face was commented upon favourably by many students. One female student summarised many students' reactions in the following comment in her journal:

I think that we should be grateful for having the opportunity to meet each other (online) and talk to them for a few months before meeting each other ... When you meet someone in real life too many things get in the way for you to be able to talk to someone properly.

Reiterating these thoughts and reflecting on the process of depaysement offered by cyberspace, another female student sent the following reflection following a meeting with one of the male students in real life: "I would not have gone near him ... the physical perception put me right off ... then I thought wait on a sec, if I get on so well online maybe I should give him a chance. As it turned out, it was worth it".

One journal entry asked students to reflect on the impressions they had formed of others in the group, to articulate these, and explain on what sort of information they were based. Students’ comments suggested, that in general, as predicted by the SIDE model, positive impressions were formed, or at least these were the ones they chose to share. Most also relied on the kinds of cues that seemed to be critical to face-to-face interaction such as sex, age, and race. Content analysis of these impressions revealed that those with more experience online were less likely to include physical characteristics and more likely to reflect on personality qualities, suggesting that the longer we spend online the less important face-to-face markers become. This observation raises interesting questions for depaysement: as time online increases do we begin to pay less attention to physical markers in real life, thus significantly altering the process of impression formation?

Previous experience with educational newsgroups as well as existing research (eg. Gregor & Cuskelly, 1994) led us to expect a certain informality in online communication. We were not prepared, however, for the level of playfulness among the students. A lot of this play took place between the characters the students created through their aliases. For example, Just Another Wolf opened many of his messages with "Grrday" or "Howlo" and sent his journals as text wrapped around elaborate ASCII figures of a wolf. Tiger and Cougar joked about eating Rabbit for dinner. The students were also playful - flirtatious and cheeky - with us. This playfulness was particularly obvious in the social spaces such as the Personal Identity Pub. Many students reported a strong sense of community in the subject, but those students who contributed most to these social places, particularly the synchronous chat, were those who were most likely to describe themselves as committed to the group as a community, supporting the time-related nature of interpersonal relationships predicted by the social information processing model. In general students reported higher participation rates and greater involvement in the class as a community than for face-to-face classes; at the extreme end, one student reported logging on for up to 5 hours each day.

Day and Batson (1995) caution against categorizing online play as frivolity and they challenge teachers to develop appropriate practices for the "different psychological environment" that is created by CMC. We were, at least initially, guilty of dismissing this play as off-topic, experiencing a tension between the need to allow students time to interact socially and our desire to get through the syllabus. At times we felt as if the students were enjoying themselves, but we wondered how much they were learning. We were fortunate, however, in that the process of character play was integral to the subject; deconstruction of this play therefore became part of the subject.

Lessons from Experience II: The Dangers of Pseudonymity

Given the strong sense of community that developed, it was not surprising that commitment to the subject was high, evidenced in the amount of work completed and the relative lack of antisocial behavior. Even the students who took on the socio-emotional roles in the group, encouraging other students to contribute, engaged in playful insults, suggesting that a norm of teasing, playful provocation had been established.

On a more serious level, early in the semester one of the female aliases was stolen and used to flame another (male) student. Several students registered their disappointment, most notably the student whose alias was used, and some discussion of the role of trust ensued. Students called on the person responsible to own up, but no one did. The incident was a significant one in the history of the class and it formed the basis for one of the group projects. The incident raises interesting questions about whether it may have resulted from disinhibition or the very behavior we were attempting to explore in the subject: identity play. If so much is negotiable and self-selected online, where is the boundary between legitimate and illegitimate identity experimentation? This question raises further issues about the relationship between real life identity and the persona. Preliminary data collected during this study suggested a complex relationship between on and offline identity.

Although half the students reported greater aggression online compared to face-to-face classes, all other negative disinhibited behavior was confined to one student, the Hashmann. Hash adopted the persona of a rapper with black American slang. Hash’s ‘accent’ was particularly interesting, partly because it was consistently maintained and also because we have very few black Amercian students on campus and Hash, as we discovered at the face-to-face meeting, was not one of them. Although other students exaggerated their abilities or personality traits online, Hashmann was the only one to explicitly experiment with his ethnic identity.

From his first post Hashmann was aggressive. He swore, wrote in capitals, and flamed other students who made moderate and sensible suggestions. He disagreed with most comments made, including our own, and was sexist. Hashmann was distinguished not only by his online aggression, but the persistence of his virtual personae. Other students had well developed persona, but moved consciously out of character at times. Hashmann, however, never moved out of character even in his personal interactions with us. He seemed to delight in his enigma, stating that we did not know who he was and therefore could not presume to understand his motivations.

Observing Hash in the face-to-face meeting provided us with possible reasons for his online behavior. He arrived over an hour late. He communicated an attitude of disinterest without being particularly disruptive. It is possible that Hash was always rather disinterested in the subject. In a face-to-face class a disinterested studenta can make their presence felt; indeed their nonverbal behavior can be particularly compelling. Online, however, silence is not easily interpreted. These musings on Hashmann's motivation remains purely speculative, for his questionnaire, when collected, was blank.

The Process of Depaysement

Our experiences in cyberspace have fed into our face-to-face teaching and have been instructive in shaping our plans for the future. The use of aliases offered a rich source of information for both us and the students. In our subject the process of pseudonymity was an integral part of the content of the subject; however, our findings suggest that the use of the alias might be valuable even when self-reflexive analysis is not an explicit component of the curriculum. Although many students did end up revealing important characteristics of their real life identity, with two-thirds reporting that they disclosed more about themselves than they would in a face-to-face class, the pseudonymity of the alias provided a choice about when and how that information would be revealed.

Future research might take up the nature of this choice in more detail, examining, for example, the paradoxical relationship between pseudonymity and the hyperpersonal. The effect of gender and cultural neutrality on impression formation and learning could also be explored. When might it be educationally advantageous to disclose cultural background and when might it be counter-productive? The process of promoting group salience might also be profitably examined. In the present study group assignments and discussions were used to encourage the development of a learning community; however, as differences in perception of group salience emerged, factors other than the amount of time allocated to group tasks clearly play a role. Is level of self-disclosure, for example, correlated with group salience? Finally, the relationship between group salience and cross-cultural communication remains an important one for future research, with the SIDE model providing a potentially useful framework for predicting relationships between group salience, perceived commonalities between members and interaction across cultural boundaries.

Teaching in cyberspace has provided us with an opportunity for depaysement, challenging us to (re)view our face-to-face practice. As a result of our experiences we have (re)considered the implicit norms that we and our students internalise. We are (re)seeing the role of creativity and the hyperpersonal in teaching and learning, and (re)appreciating the value of play, and the importance of the "learning community". The process of depaysement can be an uncomfortable one, as the strategies from our face-to-face teaching are often tried and comfortable. Pushing beyond these takes energy and commitment, but as Day and Batson (1995) argue, "holding on to the traditional makes it harder to see the opportunities" (p.37). We can not assume that the skills and pedagogy of face-to-face teaching will be appropriate in cyberspace. We have to be open to change and open to the lessons, both in their delights and their dangers, that teaching online can offer.

References

Atkins, R. (1991). Distance education: New technologies and opportunities for developing distance education in New South Wales. New South Wales Education Department.

Ballard, B. (1991). Helping students from non-English speaking backgrounds to learn effectively. (Occasional Paper No. 9.1). Victoria: RMIT.

Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (1995). Introduction: Computer-mediated communications and the online classroom in higher education. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Vol. 2. Higher education (pp.1-10). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Day, A., & Batson, T. (1995). The networked-based writing classroom: The ENFI idea. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Vol. 2. Higher education (pp.25-46). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Gregor, S. D., & Cuskelly, E. F. (1994). Computer mediated communication in distance education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 168-181.

Hartman, K., Neuwirth, C. M., Kiesler, S., Cochran, C., Palmquist, M., & Zubrow D. (1995). Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of network technologies. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Vol. 2. Higher education (pp. 47-78). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Jaffe, J. M., Lee, Y., Huang, L., & Oshagan, H. (1995). Gender, pseudonyms, and CMC: Masking identities and baring souls. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~jmjaffe/genderpseudocmc/.

Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 395-407.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T., W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39 (10), 1123-1134.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-341.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 283-310.

McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43 (2), 159-170.

Rheingold, H. (1994). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerised world. London: Secker & Warburg.

Ruberg, L. F., & Taylor, C. D. (1995). Student responses to network resources: Formative evaluation of two classes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.

Spender, D. (19995). Nattering on the net: Women, power and cyberspace. Melbourne: Spinifex.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32 (11), 1492-1512.

Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. London: Wedenfeld & Nicolson.

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19 (1), 52-90.

Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.

Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organizational Science, 6, 186-203.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23 (1), 3-43.

Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effect in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21 (4), 460-487.

About the Authors

Andrea Chester and Gillian Gwynne have taught together for several years in the Department of Psychology and Intellectual Disability Studies. They received an RMIT LearnT grant to develop and evaluate the subject described in this paper.
Address: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology and Intellectual Disability Studies, City Campus, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, 3001 Australia.