JCMC 4 (3) March 1999

Message Board

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• References
• About the Authors

Abstract

This paper raises four research questions about the relationships between expectations about the faculty use of e-mail and the level of e-mail usage among faculty. The study uses a survey design to test expectations about technology on several attitude measures. We report that positive expectations about the functionality of technology are related to higher incidence of e-mail use. Furthermore, the results suggest higher existing levels of computer use in general, and that positive anticipation of future use is also related to higher levels of e-mail use in particular. These findings are then used to develop profiles of users and non-users. The results indicate that younger faculty with greater exposure to computers tend to be more frequent users of e-mail than older faculty whose customary communication styles do not include the use of e-mail. Finally it is suggested that expectations about the "promise of technology" are related to the actual use of technology.

Introduction

The use of Computer Based Communication Technologies (CBCTs) has gained prominence in the teaching environment as schools and colleges are actively developing programs to utilize CBCT at all levels of instruction. This is a collaborative process where educational institutions and technology providers are working together to offer greater opportunities for the use of CBCTs in teaching (see, e.g., Hearn, 1997; Oblinger and Rush, 1997; Sargeant, 1997). Such joint ventures have resulted in the establishment of education-technology partnerships for the development of technology infrastructures that can be utilized to integrate CBCTs into the existing pedagogical style and culture of an educational institution. One common element is the introduction of the use of electronic mail (e-mail) as a communication tool. This paper explores the differences in the technology-specific attitudes and expectations between low- and high-level users of e-mail among the faculty.

At the onset, it needs to be clarified that the construct of "use" as discussed here is different from "acceptance." The literature addresses the confusion between use and acceptance, indicating that these are sometimes equated (e.g., Kerr and Hiltz, 1982; Komsky, 1991). In this case usage is constructed as an objective measure of acceptance, as pointed out by Komsky (1986). This distinction is critical since attitudes are the focus of this paper, and use as an objective measure of acceptance is related to different attitudinal and perceptual constructs (Komsky, 1988).

Research on e-mail use in teaching has primarily concentrated on contexts of e-mail use, such as at the K-12 level (e.g., Civale, 1991; Dyrli, 1995; Goldman and Newman, 1992; Harris, 1995; Hensel, 1996; Newman, 1989; Oates, 1987; Upitis, 1990), four-year college level (e.g., Barbalich, 1995; Beauvois, 1995; Bruhn, 1995; Bull, et. al., 1989; Chen, 1994; Gilbert, 1995; King, 1994; Komsky, 1991; Lincoln, 1992; McCormick and McCormick, 1992; Murray, 1988; Olaniran, 1994; Poling, 1994; Rice, 1996; Suozzo, 1995; Vine, 1988; Wilkins and Nantz, 1995), graduate school level (e.g., Stebelman, 1994; Yeoman, 1995) or for faculty training (Bruhn, 1995; Haley-James, 1993; Hart, 1993; Hatton, 1995; Lincoln, 1992; Merseth, 1991; Mueller, 1992; Upitis, 1990; Wilkins and Nantz, 1995). Researchers have also focused on the context of e-mail use among specific populations such as faculty and students to communicate with each other, for students to communicate with one another, and for faculty to communicate with their colleagues (e.g., Beauvois, 1995; Bull, et. al., 1989; Civale, 1991; Cohen, 1994; Dyrli, 1995; Forrest, 1995; Goldman & Newman, 1992; Harris, 1995; Hart, 1993; Hartman, et. al., 1991; Hensel, 1996; Hunter, 1990; Johnson & Bayless, 1993; King, 1994; Markee, 1994; McGinnis, 1996; Muffo & Conner, 1987; Newman, 1989; Noden & Moss, 1993; Olia & Martin, 1994; Poling, 1994; Rice, 1996; Vine, 1988; Watkins, 1994; Yeoman, 1995). Each of these conditions results in different kinds of use with distinct subject matters being discussed by the sundry users.

In conducting such investigations, much of the existing research on e-mail and education makes an implicit assumption that teachers, students and other members of educational institutions indeed use e-mail for their teaching, learning and administrative activities. It is also assumed that since CBCTs are becoming increasingly available to members of educational institutions, there is little reason to doubt the universality of e-mail use. However, we argue that this assumption of universal use needs to be verified on a case by case basis, particularly because the widespread computerization of universities is providing the e-mail option to a heterogeneous group of faculty and students. This larger group could include people with minimal computer skills or a specific predisposition toward computers, and they could represent groups who have not volunteered to be included in courses where the use of computers plays a significant pedagogic role. Here the distinction between use and acceptance becomes especially critical. While it might have been accepted that e-mail is part of the emerging pedagogic system, the actual use of e-mail is perhaps lagging behind.

It should be noted too that, despite its increasing proliferation, universal and ubiquitous access to electronic mail remains a technological innovation for many universities. As such, investigating the use of electronic mail may be illuminated through the diffusion of innovation paradigm (Rogers, 1995). In this paradigm, Rogers (1995) presents five different attributes innovations possess. While these attributes are conceptually independent, Rogers (1995) argued that they are interrelated empirically. The five attributes are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability.

Relative advantage is the degree to which individuals perceive that an innovation is better than what preceded it. Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the needs, values, and experiences of the people who are intending to adopt it. Complexity is the degree to which people perceive an innovation is difficult to comprehend and/or use. Trialability is the degree to which innovations are able to be experimented with on a limited basis. Finally, observability is the degree to which others are able to see the effects of an innovation. These attributes of an innovation are weighed when potential adopters consider an innovation. This becomes particularly critical when the adoption is expected to occur in a universal way with every member having equal access to the innovation; yet this process, as Rogers has noted, is not free of obstacles and so it is important to investigate how a specific innovation such as electronic mail can diffuse with specific modalities and impacts within a given environment. This paper first attempts to discover the extent of faculty use of e-mail for communicating with students within the environment of a small Southeastern private liberal arts institution where the barriers to CBCT usage have been largely removed through a collaboration with a major information technology provider.

In many cases, although not stated explicitly, the issue of innovation diffusion gets collapsed within the assumption of universal use. The assumptions about the diffusion of innovations and universal use permeate most of the discussions about the effects of the use of CBCTs. The effects research has first focused on different kinds of CBCT messages, resulting in the argument that: CBCT produces varying degrees of social presence, thus resulting in different effects (see, e.g., Culnan and Markus, 1987; Hiltz, et. al., 1986; Steinfeld, 1986; Walther and Burgoon, 1992). The issue of social context was further explored by researchers to consider the ways in which the absence of these cues had an effect on the way e-mail interpersonal communication operated. One significant finding suggested that the absence of social context could lead to a disappearance of communication apprehension and a dissolution of traditional barriers of communication based on power differentials (see, e.g., Sproul and Kiesler, 1991a and 1991b). These findings and theoretical positions were solidified into a "cues filtered out" perspective to consider the results of the lack of traditional face-to-face cues in e-mail communication. The continuing work of Walther explored other related factors that can implicate the dynamics of e-mail interpersonal communication. In its most recent version, Walther (1996) has proposed the "hyperpersonal" element of e-mail communication to address the differences between CBCT work groups and face-to-face work groups. Others, such as Poole et. al. (1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1985), Contractor and Seibold (1993), and Fulk (1993) have explored the ways in which CBCTs can be improved and applied in a variety of settings from group decision making to networked teaching.

While the researchers were attempting to explore the effects of CBCT on human communication, there was also an explosion in the availability of CBCTs. Different e-mail packages now provide increasing power to "manage" one's e-mail communication, use e-mail along with other CBCT resources such as the World Wide Web, or use e-mail to communicate simultaneously with a group of people tackling a common problem. Traditional group decision making technologies have now been refined into tools for collaborative learning and decision making where people on the network can effortlessly connect with each other, share documents, and engage in on-line group discussions. The notion of "effort" is related to the technological ease suggesting that the technology is now available to connect easily with each other. The increasing availability of the technologies, and the need to introduce these technologies, into various organizations, including the university, has also led to a growth in collaboration between technology providers and universities. Such collaborations are removing traditional barriers of access as students, faculty, administrators, and staff are provided with increasing CBCT resources to remain connected with each other.

However, this wide-scale adaptation also calls into question some of the issues that were assumed to be "obvious" in most of the past research. Perhaps the most important of these is the assumption that the people who were observed using e-mail or other CBCTs were considered to be "voluntary users." However, most of the studies cited here were conducted in the context of groups who were "required" to use CBCTs, and the studies explored the issues that emerge when subjects begin to use CBCTs under conditions where they are required or obliged to use e-mail. This contradiction between voluntary and required use becomes far more problematic in the context of wide-scale application of information technologies. Indeed, in the case of the current study, it would be incorrect to presume that all the members of the population are voluntary users. The most that can be assumed is that all the members of the population have equal access to the technology and there are minimal technological barriers to its use. Specifically, all the members of the faculty on campus - the population addressed in this study - had access to e-mail at the time the study was conducted. Independent of the fact that every user has access to e-mail, the voluntary user is perhaps more likely to use e-mail because he or she would want to use the technology. On the other hand, a user receiving an e-mail may feel required to use e-mail and respond even if the receiver would not have voluntarily initiated the e-mail transaction. In the case of student-teacher e-mail interactions, the distinction between voluntary and required use is even more critical because a student may not volunteer to use e-mail but can feel obliged to respond, or required to respond, if the teacher chooses to utilize e-mail as a pedagogic tool. Use can therefore be related to the desire and obligation to use and not just access.

Jackson (1997) indirectly refers to this distinction between voluntary and required use in his review of CBCTs claiming that access alone does not predict use, but the question of usefulness of the technology plays a critical role in the decision to use CBCTs. The concept of utility is also related to perceptions of technology. It has increasingly been recognized that attitudes toward the "purpose" of technology can be an important factor in the decision to use a tool (Beauvois, 1995; Chen, 1994; Fulk et. al., 1995; Hartman, et. al., 1991; King, 1994; Lincoln, 1992; McGinnis, 1996; Olia & Martin, 1994; Vine, 1988).

One set of attitudes that can impact the use of technology is the notion of "expectation," and ways in which a desire to use or not use a technological tool is related to expectations associated with that tool:

These expectations fall into the category of social elements of the use of technology that can influence the material elements of technology use.

Jackson makes these claims on the basis of an extensive review of the existing research on CBCT, and then develops a framework to categorize the research into broad areas of emphasis based both on the social and material elements of CBCT. Our purpose is to elaborate on the notion of expectations by hypothesizing that people with different expectations for technology would have different levels of technology use. However, the notion of expectation itself is differentiated into several components to reflect the social elements that can implicate the use of technology.

Following Jackson, we argue that the first component of expectation is related to what can be called the functionality of technology. Functionality refers to the "ability of an artifact to be used to accomplish a social task" (Jackson, 1997, p.255). It is likely that low- and high-level users could exhibit differences in expectations about the ability of technology to improve the current pedagogical process. If indeed a technology is considered functional it is then necessary to assess whether the faculty perceive themselves using the technology. In other words, the faculty may accept the functionality of technology, but might not anticipate their personal use of it. Thus it is important to be able to assess the faculty's personal expectations about their use of technology. Another component of expectation addresses the functionality of the specific technology - e-mail - in affecting the quality and context of communication between teachers and students. It can be argued that low- and high-level users could have different expectations about the role and effectiveness of e-mail as a communication tool. Finally, yet another component of expectation identified for this study concerns the context of technology use. Context is important since factors like the perceptions of1. the external image of a university, its culture, tradition and climate can all shape expectations for technology use. This argument is based on the assumption that technology and context are closely related, and technology is always used within a specific environment or context, making it important to understand the way in which anticipation about the relationship between technology and context can implicate the use of technology. It can be argued that low- and high-level users could have different thresholds of anticipation with respect to the effects of technology on the university culture.

In many ways, the approach related to expectations also combines conceptually many of the attributes Rogers (1995) explicates. For example, it could be argued that expectations about the faculty member's anticipated use of technology in teaching (one of the factors considered here) would be driven by individuals' perceptions of compatibility, complexity, and trialability. Few scholars, however, have yet to consider differential expectations about the functionality of technology, electronic mail specifically. The current work attempts to fill this void by focusing on adopters' expectations of technology and their eventual use of that technology.

In addition to exploring the expectations of the functionality of technology, the diffusion of innovations model as presented by Rogers (1995) addresses when individuals will become adopters of a particular intervention. The current investigation focuses on technology use after individuals have been supplied with an innovation, in this case electronic mail. Thus, individuals have already adopted the technology. Their degree of usage depends, it is argued here, upon their expectations of the functionality of that technology. Based on the four components of expectation, it is now possible to present four specific research questions that address these expectations:

Methods

The data used in this study comes from the first year of a five-year longitudinal study that began when the university implemented the computerization initiative that provided new students and all members of the faculty with a standardized laptop computer. The overall goal of the study is to assess the effects of the implementation on different university constituencies. The study includes annual surveys of all enrolled students, incoming first-year students, alumni, and faculty.

The faculty survey was distributed by campus mail to all full- and part-time faculty of the university. Two mailings of the questionnaire were conducted, separated by a period of three weeks. Return envelopes were provided and the questionnaires were returned by campus mail. The study was done at the end of the first academic year of implementation (Spring, 1996). At the time of the administration of the survey the faculty had the opportunity to use their new computers for one academic year, and one hundred first-year pilot students had used the new laptops for a year. However, all of the students at the university had access to personal e-mail at several computer laboratories on campus. Thus at the time of completing the faculty survey, all the faculty and a small number of first-year students had the opportunity to experience the benefits and burdens of the computerization process. The remaining students also had access to computers and the campus network.

Description of the Sample

The questionnaire was sent to all faculty members. A response rate of 50% produced a total of 154 responses from the faculty. The respondents consisted of 71% men and 29% women, with 49% of the faculty claiming, "anthropology, business and accounting, communication, economics, education, history, politics, psychology and sociology" as their major academic discipline. Of the remaining 51%, nearly half belonged to the arts (e.g., art, classical languages, religion, romance languages and theater) and the rest claimed the sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, and physics) as their major discipline. In terms of length of employment, 17% claimed that they had taught for less than three years at the university, 9% claimed to have been teaching at the university for four to six years, 23% for 6 to 10 years, and 51% for more than 10 years. Nearly 86% of the respondents were either tenured or on a tenure track while 14% were assistant professors; 31% were associate professors and 43% were full professors.

Instrumentation

Several focus group discussions were conducted with faculty members to construct the survey questionnaire. The issues addressed in the questionnaire included general attitudes toward the use of computers in instruction and research, attitudes toward the computerization initiative at the university, factors that could determine the success or failure of the initiative, different kinds of instructional uses of computers, and general demographic questions. The specific research questions raised in this paper were addressed by analyzing a series of attitude items that focused on the four areas of expectations. All the attitude questions were asked on a four-point scale with a fifth "Don't Know" response option. These items were then summed to produce the four expectation scales. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on all 12 items specifying, a priori, a four-factor solution (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Internal consistency was achieved, as was parallelism, although to a lesser extent. The factor loadings for this analysis can be seen in Table 1. As also shown in Table 1, the summed items were of moderate reliability with alpha scores ranging from 0.92 to 0.74. The e-mail usage question consisted of three different items focusing on the use of e-mail with students, colleagues on campus, and colleagues off campus.

As shown in Table 1, the different scales addressed the four research questions. The first summed attitude scale tested the perceived expectations about the functionality of technology in instruction; the second summed attitude scale addressed the second research question concerning the expectations about the faculty's anticipated use of technology in teaching; the third summed attitude scale addressed the third research question about the faculty's expectations about the functionality of e-mail in instruction, and the fourth summed attitude scale addressed the expectations about the impact of technology on the culture of the university. Finally, a usage scale was computed based on the usage item related to e-mail use with on- and off-campus colleagues. The alpha coefficient for the usage scale was 0.77.

 The research questions were answered by dividing the respondents into two groups based on high (responses 3 or 4) and low (responses 1 or 2) scores on the four expectation scales and then computing the differences in mean usage of e-mail with students. Statistical tests of significance were conducted with the use of independent sample t-tests assuming equality of variance of the two groups.

Results

First, the extent of e-mail use by faculty to communicate with students for teaching-related activities was estimated. The mean response to this item was 2.0 (SD = 1.2) on a four-point scale where "1" represented no use and "4" represented frequent use, with 56.3% of the faculty respondents indicating that they have never used e-mail to communicate with students about teaching-related activities, 9.3% indicating that they use e-mail with students infrequently, 15.2% indicating frequent use of e-mail with students, and 19.2% indicating that they very frequently use e-mail with students. These findings support the assumption that not all faculty members use e-mail with students even though both the faculty members and the students have easy access to e-mail. As shown in Table 2, this trend is also reflected in the frequency of e-mail use with on- and off-campus colleagues.

These results lead to the research questions, the first of which focused on the differences in use of e-mail to communicate with students between faculty members who had high and low expectations about the functionality of technology in instruction. There were significant differences in the use of e-mail with students, with faculty with a positive expectation reporting a mean use of 2.1 (SD = 1.0) and faculty with a negative expectation reporting a mean use of 1.6 (SD = 1.3). These means were significantly different at the 0.05 level (p,149=0.023). Similar results were obtained in answering the second research question that focused on the differences in e-mail use between faculty members with high and low expectations about their anticipated use of technology in instruction. Significant differences were found: those with low expectations reported a mean use of 1.7 (SD = 1.1) and those with high expectations reported a mean use of 2.3 (SD = 1.3). These means were significantly different at the 0.05 level (p,147=0.003). In the case of the third research question, similar significant differences were also observed with respect to the faculty's expectations about the functionality of e-mail in instruction. Those with low expectation reported a mean use of 1.2 (SD =0.5) and those with high expectation reported a mean use of 2.3 (SD = 1.3). These means were significantly different at the 0.05 level (p,146=0.000). Finally, no significant differences were observed with respect to the last research question. Faculty groups who expected that technology would have a positive impact on the culture of the university, as well as those who did not expect a positive impact reported similar mean usage that were not significantly different from each other (Table 3).

Finally, there was also a significant difference in the faculty's use of e-mail with students based on the faculty's use of e-mail with on- and off-campus colleagues. The faculty members who never used e-mail with colleagues reported a student e-mail usage of 1.3 (SD = 0.8), while those who have used e-mail with colleagues reported a mean student e-mail usage of 2.8 (SD = 1.2). The difference in mean usage was statistically significant at the 0.05 level (p,148=0.000). These differences suggest that faculty's use of e-mail with students is related both to their attitudes toward technology as well as their overall usage of e-mail technology.

These relationships were further tested by the computation of Pearson's bivariate correlation coefficients for the variables of e-mail usage with students, the expectation scales and the overall usage scales. The results support the findings from the tests of significance. The highest correlation was observed between the usage of e-mail with on- and off-campus colleagues and the use of e-mail with students (r=0.65). Similarly high levels of correlation were observed between the expectations of the functionality of e-mail and the use of e-mail with students (r=0.43). The other scales showed moderate to low correlation with usage of e-mail with students, with expectations of the functionality of technology having a coefficient of 0.17, expectations about the anticipated use of technology having a coefficient of 0.29, and the expectations about the impact of technology on the university's culture having a coefficient of 0.11. These findings correspond with the results from the tests of difference.

Discussion

Expectations

The results from the current study suggest that the use of e-mail is not necessarily universal, particularly when considered within the context of campus-wide implementation of CBCTs. This finding is consistent with some of the past research where attempts have been made to determine the factors that can influence different levels of use (see, e.g., Komsky, 1991).

Indeed, it is the perceived expectations about the functionality of technology that is related to the use of technology. In this case, the expectations about the functionality of technology with respect to instruction are moderately related to the extent of use of e-mail technology for the specific purpose of communicating with students. Based on the diffusion of innovation research, these findings are consistent with the way in which a new technology can be expected to enter a specific environment. The faculty members who perceive that technology will positively impact the general process of instruction tend to be more frequent users of e-mail for communicating with students. This suggests that, in the language of diffusion of innovation, faculties are driven by individuals' perceptions of compatibility, complexity, and trialability of the technology innovation. Furthermore, the expectations of the functionality of e-mail for communicating with students are related to the use of e-mail with students for teaching activities. Both of these findings are consistent with some of the work on media richness. Fulk (1995), for instance, proposed a model for electronic mail usage where the anticipated utility of electronic mail in an engineering firm was partly determined by the anticipated usefulness, or functionality, of the technology. Finally, the expectations about the anticipated use of technology in general are related to the actual use of e-mail for communicating with students for teaching activities.

These three expectations are also related to each other. There is a moderate correlation between the expectations of functionality of technology in general and the functionality of e-mail specifically (r=0.44), just as there is a moderate correlation between the expectations of the functionality of e-mail and the expectations about the anticipated use of technology (r=0.54). Thus there is evidence to suggest that faculty have specific interrelated expectations about the functionality of technology in teaching and their anticipated use of technology. These expectations are all related to the actual use of technology.

Faculty who perceive that technology plays a positive functional role in improving the instructional process are also the ones who feel that e-mail can function as an effective and appropriate communication tool for interacting with students. As the results indicate, such perceived positive attributes and expectations are related to the extent of e-mail usage. Faculty members who have a more positive opinion about the "promise" of technology tend to use it more. From this perspective, the use of e-mail is related to the way in which the technology is perceived, and not on its availability or material efficiencies of speed, ease of use, etc. These results illustrate that use is related to a very fundamental perception about what technology promises, and how the faculty perceives the ability of technology to deliver on its promise. Needless to say, the expectations about technology's promise are also related to the specific aspects of academic life that technology is most expected to enhance.

In summary, those who are not hopeful about how they perceive "the promise of technology" tend to use it less. Technology as a material artifact is expected to serve a series of functions in its particular application. As discovered in the focus group discussions with faculty and students, both groups anticipated that the computerization at the university would have certain specific effects. To be sure, some sections of the population were far more skeptical about the expectations, and it is precisely the nature of such expectations that appear to be related to the extent of use of the technology. As demonstrated in the results of this study, these expectations reflect a variety of components of technology and the expectations are, in turn, related to each other.

Usage

The results also suggest that heavier users of technology tend to use the computer for a variety of applications. This is consistent with earlier findings about the use of computers among students and faculty (Hartman, et. al., 1991; Newman, 1989) as well as the fundamental predictions based on the way in which new innovations tend to penetrate a system. Like other earlier studies in various contexts of diffusion, this study also demonstrated that faculty who would use the computer for e-mail with colleagues would use e-mail with students as well. Similarly, non-users tend not to use e-mail with either colleagues or students. There is certainly an element of customary work pattern that is related to computer use, where the usage level is related to the existing "habit" of computer use. If faculty members use computers for exchanging e-mail with colleagues, there is a likelihood that they would also use computers for interacting with students. In many ways, the notion of "habit" is not very different from the idea of compatibility in the diffusion of innovation language, and results suggest that when an innovation such as universal e-mail access is perceived as being consistent with the needs, values, and experiences of the people, those people tend to adopt it.

The significance of this finding lies in being able to promote the use of computers to communicate with students. This encouragement can take several shapes. Earlier it was suggested that forced compliance would be a way to encourage use (see, e.g., Kerr and Hiltz, 1982). However, other studies seem to reject that assumption, as Komsky (1991) suggests that requiring people to participate in an established electronic mail system "will not be the most important determinant of usage." It is perhaps easier to demonstrate the value of e-mail in communicating with peers, and if that can be encouraged and facilitated for the faculty, there is a likelihood that the users would also apply the technology to communicating with students. No doubt, usage is related to attitudes and expectations, but if e-mail is perceived as the accepted and customary form of communication it is likely that faculty will use the technology to communicate with students.

User and Non-User Profiles

Finally, these results suggest that there are a set of attitudinal and behavioral criteria that are related to usage trends, particularly with respect to faculty use of e-mail to communicate with students. Use of computers is certainly not guaranteed, and institutions adopting wide-scale computerization can expect to have non-users of the CMC technology. This begs the question: who are potential users of electronic mail CMC technology? This question can be approached by developing tentative profiles of faculty users and non-users of e-mail for communicating with students. Such profiles have been developed in the past on the basis of specific experiments with small target groups (Hunter, 1990; Johnson & Bayless, 1993; Komsky, 1991; Lincoln, 1992; Olia & Martin, 1994; Olaniran, 1994; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994; Poling, 1994; Watkins, 1994; Whitaker & Hill, 1996). In this case, however, the group is larger and more diverse. The descriptors of the user and non-user groups are composed of a series of attitudes and demographic attributes. The attitudes include the general attitude toward the use of computers, the specific feelings about the computerization initiative at the university, and the attitudes toward the application of computers in teaching. The demographic attributes include age, gender, and position in the university, as well as computer-related attributes such as self-reported computer skill level and experience with computers. The profiles are thus based on a set of attitudinal items and some demographic and technographic characteristics.

The users of electronic mail are significantly different (p<0.05) from the non-users on a set of demographic characteristics. First, the users are made up of faculty who are relatively new at the university and hold junior ranks. Further, the users also report that they had first used computers earlier in their academic career than the non-users of electronic mail. The users also report a higher self-evaluation of their computer skills, suggesting that they feel that they are more competent users of computers. The users were, however, not distinguishable by gender or discipline. These findings indicate that the user is generally younger and can be of either gender. Moreover, the users can be from any of the disciplines represented at the university, but the users tend to consider themselves more proficient with the use of computers and this can perhaps be attributed to the fact that they began to use computers earlier in their careers than the non-users.

The non-user, on the other hand, is more of a "veteran" of the university. The non-users have been within the university system for a period of time, and they appear to be more tied to a non-computerized pedagogical system. The non-users are also less confident about their own ability to use a computer, perhaps because they were exposed to computers at a later point in their academic careers.

These differences between the user and non-user are accentuated in the differing attitudes toward the use of computers in education and the computerization process at the university. The users, in general, were more positively predisposed towards the use of computers. They reported greater comfort with, and less apprehension about computer use, as well as a desire to use computers in their teaching. The non-users were, on the other hand, more apprehensive about the use of computers and less comfortable with them. The non-users also did not place a great deal of importance on the computerization initiative at the university. They were more cautious about the role of computers and did not necessarily feel that computers would bring any significant improvements to the quality of the university. For instance, the non-users were less positive than users about statements such as "computers enhance the academic climate" at the university, "scholars need to be computer literate in my field," and "adequate computing capability is necessary to attract new students." In reporting lower mean scores on these items the non-users distinguish themselves from the users with respect to the non-user's expectations about the computerization process.

The users, on the other hand, present a more "hopeful" perspective on the computerization at the university and the introduction of computers in education. Users report significantly higher means on items such as "the computer has increased my effectiveness," just as the users also report that computers are effective for communicating with their faculty colleagues.

Finally, the non-users reported a significantly lower usage score on most of the usage categories confirming the assumption that non-users of electronic mail tend to be non-users of other computer applications as well.

What emerge are two preliminary profiles of the users and non-users of electronic mail with students. The younger faculty members who have been exposed to computers early in their academic career tend to be users of electronic mail for communicating with students. The older faculty members, with less exposure to computers, have lower confidence with computers and are less likely to use electronic mail with students. Similarly, faculty members who have a positive predisposition toward the introduction of computers in education would be more willing to communicate with students using electronic mail as compared to faculty who are less hopeful about the promise of technology. Finally, faculty members who are in the habit of using computers for other tasks are also more likely to use electronic mail to communicate with students (see Table 4).

Conclusion

The results from this study illustrate that the availability of technology does not necessarily suggest its use. The potential user must see a clear advantage to the use of the technology to use it. In the case of communication technologies, these results suggest that these advantages are related to the communication functionality of the technology. This finding adds another dimension to the possible reasons for use or non-use of technology. The results supplement findings that, for instance, confirm the importance of determining factors such as communication apprehension (see, e.g., Scott and Rockwell, 1997), computer anxiety (see, e.g., Cambre and Cook, 1985), or writing apprehension (see, e.g., Mabrito, 1991; Reinsch, 1985). While varying levels of communication apprehension, writing apprehension and computer anxiety can have an impact on the desire to use CMC, these results suggest that attitudes toward the functionality of technology can also play an important role.

The results also indicate that faculty use of e-mail with students is related to the use of other technologies and certain components of the demographic attributes of the population. Given the significance of the differences between usage patterns and demographic attributes, it is thus possible to develop preliminary profiles of the user and the non-user. Such profiles can have great utility in assessing the potential user and non-user. Particularly when higher education is challenged with the need to incorporate CBCTs within its pedagogic style, it is certainly useful to consider such profiles. This would allow managers of higher education to anticipate the locus of support from the users of technology. Moreover, by examining the profiles, particularly with respect to usage patterns and attitudes, it could be possible to develop plans of action that can encourage the non-users to become more active users of CBCTs.

Finally, this study is methodologically different from most of the other research because of the survey design adopted in the study. Instead of creating an "artificial" experimental condition to assess the impact of a particular technology, this study used an approach where it was possible to assess the conditions of a particular academic environment within which significant improvements in computer availability were about to happen. This provided a more "natural" environment where the spectrum of use could be observed without having to assume that all the participants of the study are users. Indeed, the fact that a significant portion of the faculty claim not to use e-mail challenges the emerging assumptions of the technology-education partnership where availability is considered an incentive for use. It is implicitly assumed that since the technology is being made available it will be used, as Oblinger and Rush suggest:

The advent of the learning revolution is facilitated by the availability of a reliable and ubiquitous network infrastructure as well as access to computers, at any place and any time (Oblinger and Rush, 1997, p. 16).

However, the results from this study suggest that while availability of technology might make it easier for the existing users to continue using the technology, it might not be enough to convert traditional non-users to users. That change could call for more far-reaching alterations in attitudes toward the functionality of computers.

References

Barbalich, A. (Ed.). (1995). The right tools for the right jobs. Currents, 21, 25.

Beauvois, M.H. (1995). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28, 177-190.

Bruhn, M.J. (1995). E-mail's conversational value. Business Communication Quarterly, 58, 43-44.

Bull, G., Harris, J., Lloyd, J., & Short, J. (1989). The electronic academical village. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 27-31.

Cambre, M.A., & Cook, D.L. (1985). Computer anxiety: Definitions, measurement and correlates. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 37-54.

Chen, G. (1994). The effect of e-mail debate as a teaching tool: A pilot study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, November 19-22, 1994.

Civale, C.M., Jr. (1991). Connecting library and classroom environments via networking. Media and Methods. 27, 32-34.

Cohen, L. (1994). Augmenting instruction in business communication courses with the Internet. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 57, 31-35.

Contractor, N.S., & Seibold, D.R. (1993). Theoretical frameworks for the study of structuring processes in group decision support systems: Adaptive structuration theory and self-organizing systems theory. Human Communication Research, 19, 528-563.

Culnan, M.J., & Markus, M.L. (1987). Information technologies. In F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts, & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park: Sage.

Dyrli, O.E. (1995). Teacher-initiated telecommunications projects. Technology & Learning, 15, 20,22,24-26.

Forrest, C. (1995). Talking in the library: Channels of communication for library staff. Georgia Librarian, 32, 50-52.

Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 921-950.

Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Ryu, D. (1995). Cognitive elements in the social construction of communication technology. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 259-88.

Gilbert, L. (1995). Gains and losses. Currents, 21, 16.

Goldman, S.V., & Newman, D. (1992). Electronic interactions: How students and teachers organize schooling. Interactive Learning Environments, 2, 31-44.

Haley-James, S. (1993). Entries from a new e-mail user's notebook. Computers and Composition, 10, 5-10.

Harris, J. (1995). Educational telecomputing projects: Interpersonal exchanges. Computing Teacher, 22, 60-64.

Hart, J. (1993). Computer communications for advisors. NACADA Journal, 13, 27-33.

Hartman, K., Neuwirth, C.M., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Cochran, C., Palmquist, M., & Zubrow, D. (1991). Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of network technologies. Written Communication, 8, 79-113.

Hatton, D. (1995). "Womyn and the "L": A study of the relationship between communication apprehension, gender, and bulletin boards. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX, November 18-21, 1995.

Hearn, T.K. (1997). Tradition and change in quest of excellence. In D.G. Oblinger & S.C. Rush (Eds.), The learning revolution: The challenge of information technology in the academy (pp. 155-162). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Hensel, J. (1996). I was attacked online. Communication: Journalism Education Today, 29, 23-24.

Hiltz, S.R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication processes and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.

Hunter, B. (1990). Computer-meditated communications support for teacher collaborations: Researching new contexts for both teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 30, 46-49.

Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-320.

Jackson, M.H. (1997). The meaning of "communication technology": The technology-context scheme. Communication Yearbook 19 (pp. 229-267). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Johnson, B.S., & Bayless, M.L. (1993). Using e-mail in business communication classes. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 56, 37-39.

Kerr, E.B., & Hiltz, S.R. (1982). Computer-mediated communication systems. New York: Academic Press.

King, K.M. (1994). Leading classroom discussions: Using computers for a new approach. Teaching Sociology, 22, 174-82.

Komsky, S.H. (1986). The implementation environment for office automation: Canonical analysis of contextual factors affecting acceptance. Paper presented to the Western Speech Communication Association, Tucson, AZ.

Komsky, S.H. (1988). A canonical analysis of acceptance of electronic mail as a medium of communication in a university. Paper presented to the Human Communication Technology Interest Group of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

Komsky, S.H. (1991). A profile of users of electronic mail in a university: Frequent versus occasional users. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 310-40.

Lincoln, Y.S. (1992). Virtual community and invisible colleges: Alterations in faculty scholarly networks and professional self-image. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Minneapolis, MN, October 28-November 1, 1992.

Mabrito, M. (1991). Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response: Conversations of high- and low-apprehensive writers. Written Communication, 8, 509-32.

Markee, N. (1994). Using electronic mail to manage the implementation of educational innovations. System, 22, 379-89.

McCormick, N.B., & McCormick, J.W. (1992). Computer friends and foes: Content of undergraduates' electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 379-405.

McGinnis, J.R. (1996). Promoting an electronic community with the use of communication technology in a graduate elementary science methods class. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8, 39-63.

Merseth, K.K. (1991). Supporting beginning teachers with computer networks. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 140-147.

Mueller, F. (1992). Telecommunications: A tool for developing writing and communication skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 8-11.

Muffo, J., & Conner, M. (1987). Unexpected outcomes of computer usage in higher education. Cause/Effect, 11, 6-11, 17.

Murray, D.E. (1988). Computer-mediated communication: Implications for ESP. English for Special Purposes, 7, 3-18.

Newman, J.M. (1989). Online: From far away. Language Arts, 66, 791-97.

Noden, H., & Moss, B. (1993). Virtual schools: Reading and writing. Reading Teacher, 47, 166-68.

Oates, R.H. (1987). Computer-mediated communication for high school classroom. Quill and Scroll, 61, 8-19.

Oblinger, D.G., & Rush, S.G. (1997). The learning revolution. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Olaniran, B.A. (1994). Group performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 256-81.

Olia, F.N., & Martin, D.S. (1994). Ethics and electronic mail: A study at Gallaudet University. TechTrends, 39, 19-21.

Orlikowski, W.J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-74.

Poling, D.J. (1994). E-mail as an effective teaching supplement. Educational Technology, 34, 53-55.

Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1987). Group decision making and group decision support systems (MISRC Working Paper Series 88-02). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, MIS Research Center.

Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C.W. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technologies (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park: Sage.

Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 19, 5-49.

Poole, M.S., Holmes, M., Watson, R., & DeSanctis, G. (1993). Group decision support systems and group communication: A comparison of decision making in computer-supported and nonsupported groups. Communication Research, 20, 176-213.

Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Group decision making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.

Reinsch, N.L., Jr. (1985). Technology aversion (with implications for education and training). Office Systems Research Journal, 4, 9-20.

Rice, C.D. (1996). Bring intercultural encounters in to classrooms: IECC electronic mailing lists. T.H.E. Journal, 23, 60-63.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press (4^th Edition).

Sargeant, D. (1997). Moving toward a mobile teaching and learning environment: Using notebook computers. In D.G. Oblinger & S.C. Rush (Eds.), The learning revolution: The challenge of information technology in the academy (pp. 74-91). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Scott, C.R., & Rockwell, S.C. (1997). The effect of communication, writing, and technology apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies. Communication Education, 46, 44-62.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991a). Computers, networks and work. Scientific American, 265, 116-123.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991b). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Stebelman, S. (1994). Teaching electronic communication skills to graduate students. Computers and the Humanities, 28, 129-31.

Steinfeld, C.W. (1986). Computer-mediated communication in an organizational setting: Explaining task-related and socioemotional uses. In M.L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 777-804). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Suozzo, A. (1995). Dialogue and immediacy in cultural instruction: The e-mail option. French Review, 69, 78-87.

Upitis, R. (1990). Real and contrived uses of electronic mail in elementary schools. Computers and Education, 15, 233-43.

Vine, R. (1988). Electronic communications: University of Calgary libraries. Canadian Library Journal, 45, 271-73.

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

Walther, J.B., & Burgoon, J.K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.

Watkins, B.T. (1994). Breaking down barriers. Chronicle of Higher Education, 40, A25, 39.

Whitaker, E., & Hill, E. (1996). Teacher talk on e-mail. Action in Teacher Education, 17, 79-82.

Wilkins, M.L., & Nantz, K. (1995). Faculty use of electronic communication before and after a LAN installation: A three-year analysis. Journal of End User Computing, 7, 4-11.

Yeoman, E. (1995). "Sam's Cafe": A case study of computer conferencing as a medium for collective journal writing. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24, 209-25.

About the Authors

Ananda Mitra is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Wake Forest University. He has conducted research in the area of technology assessment and the effects of technology adaptation in various environments. His research has focused on the cultural, social and pedagogic effects produced by the increasing use of technology in the communication process.
Address: Department of Communication, Wake Forest University, Box 7347, Reynolda Station, Winston-Salem, NC 27109

Michael David Hazen is Professor of Communication and Chair of the Department of Communication at Wake Forest University. In addition, he is Coordinator of the Longitudinal Computer Study Project at Wake Forest, which is assessing the impact of widespread computerization in higher education. His research has focused on the impact of media technologies, on cross-cultural comparisons of human communication systems in Japan, Russia, and the US, and on the interface between messages and cognitive systems.
Address: Department of Communication, Wake Forest University, Box 7347, Reynolda Station, Winston-Salem, NC 27109

Betty H. La France currently is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Wake Forest University. Her research interests include social influence and health communication.
Address: Department of Communication, Wake Forest University, Box 7347, Reynolda Station, Winston-Salem, NC 27109

Randall G. Rogan is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Wake Forest University. He has conducted research and analyses of the communicative dynamics of crisis negotiation incidents for the past nine years. His most recent publications include the edited book Dynamic Processes of Crisis Negotiation: Theory, Research, and Practice, along with articles that have appeared in Human Communication Research, Applied Communication Research, Communication Reports, The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, and The Police Chief.
Address: Department of Communication, Wake Forest University, Box 7347, Reynolda Station, Winston-Salem, NC 27109