JCMC 7 (4) July 2002
Message Board
Collab-U  CMC Play  E-Commerce Symposium Net Law  InfoSpaces Usenet
  NetStudy VEs VOs O-Journ HigherEd Conversation Cyberspace Web Commerce
Vol. 6 No. 1  Vol. 6 No. 2  Vol. 6 No. 3  Vol. 6 No. 4  Vol. 7 No. 1  Vol. 7 No. 2  Vol. 7 No. 3  Vol. 7 No. 4

Written Interaction: A Key Component in Online Learning

Judith C. Lapadat
University of Northern British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

Contemporary educators who view learning as interactive, discursive, and situated have argued that well-designed online conferencing environments may be particularly suited to provide the socio-cognitive support for learning seen as fundamental to constructivist pedagogies. In order to assess the relationships between online course design, participants' interactions, and learning, a first step is to examine closely and describe the nature of online class participants' interactions within synchronous and asynchronous conferences. In this article, I address the role of interactive writing as an integral element in the conceptual development that takes place in such online courses. I argue that the interactive textual environment of asynchronous online conferences is particularly facilitative of both social and cognitive construction of meaning because the nature of online interactive writing itself bootstraps the construction of meaning.

Introduction

As we move into the new millennium, online learning has become part of the educational landscape (Frank, 2000; Harasim, 1993; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995). At the same time, pedagogies across the range of educational settings are changing to reflect understandings gained through the last half century of educational research into the nature of teaching and learning, the social and cultural contexts of classrooms, and the nature of knowledge and how it is valued. The broad theoretical shift is towards constructivism, with central precepts that learning is interactive, discursive, and situated. That is, conceptual development occurs through processes such as problem-solving, discussion, and practical experience, mediated through social interactions within particular settings and for specific purposes (Gee & Green, 1998; Lapadat, 2000a, 2000b; Roschelle & Pea, 1999). A number of researchers have pointed to the potential of online courses to foster pedagogies and learning environments designed according to constructivist principles (Harasim, 1990; Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998; McComb, 1994; Murphy & Collins, 1997; Stacey, 1999; Weatherley, 2000; Whittle, Morgan & Maltby, 2000). Yet, in this rapidly changing field, exemplars of online courses designed according to constructivist principles, and research into their effectiveness, are relatively scarce (Blanton, Moorman, & Trathen, 1998; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). In particular, there is a need to describe the nature of online class participants' interaction within synchronous and asynchronous conferences, and how it relates to their learning.

To date, most research on conferencing within computer-mediated learning environments has focused on higher education settings, especially as applied to distance education, rather than on elementary and secondary classrooms. Several of these studies have described interaction patterns in synchronous (Bump, 1990; Murphy & Collins, 1997; Schallert, Dodson, Benton, Reed, Amador, Lissi, Coward, & Fleeman, 1999) and asynchronous conferences (Davis & Brewer, 1997; Enomoto & Tabata, 2000; Levin, Kim, & Riel, 1990; Selfe & Meyer, 1991). Other studies have examined how course participants establish identity, social presence, and community online (Davis & Brewer, 1997; Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker, 2000; Lapadat, 2001; Meyer, 2000; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999; Rovai, 2001); assessed the coherence of online discussions (Herring, 1999; Lapadat, 2001; Schallert, Lissi, Reed, Dodson, Benton, & Hopkins, 1996); and tracked the nature and depth of learning (Andrusyszyn & Davie, 1997; Henry & Worthington, 1999; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998; Lapadat, in press; Lockyer, 2000; Stacey, 1999; Whittle et al., 2000).

Some key findings have emerged from this body of research. When surveyed, university/college students in online courses or in traditional face-to-face (F2F) courses that include an adjunct online component generally have described the online environment as valuable for their learning (Ciba & Rakestraw, 1998; Morss & Fleming, 1998). Also, for the most part, the claim that interactive online courses democratize participation has been widely upheld (Schallert et al., 1999). Conferencing supports more equitable participation, both in the sense that the instructor is less likely to dominate the "airtime" than in F2F classroom discussion, and also in that all class members have equal access to the floor (Bump, 1990; Harasim, 1990; Hiltz, 1986). As asynchronous discussions are not limited by "real time," each speaker can contribute as much as he/she wishes to the discussion. These benefits of computer-mediated communication (CMC) via conferences have been well-summarized by Harasim (1993).

Murphy and Collins (1997) speculated that synchronous conferencing may pose challenges for participants who speak English as a second language (ESL) and for poor typists. However, Jones, Lou, Yeung, Leung, Lai, Man, and Woo (2001) found that at least some Hong Kong ESL users of ICQ (a chat and instant messaging software) reported that they were more comfortable typing in English than speaking English. Also, in a study with Canadian university students, Hancock and Dunham (2001) found that typing ability did not relate to dyads' levels of success in a barrier game simulation that involved solving tangrams, nor to the types of communication coordination strategies that participants employed.

Some researchers have reported gender differences in online interactions. Selfe and Meyer (1991) found, in the asynchronous conference they studied, that traditional gender and power imbalances persisted in the online discourse; men and higher status participants contributed more and longer messages, initiated more new topics, and were more likely to disagree with others. Rovai (2001), in a study of the formation of classroom community in a graduate asynchronous forum course, found no gender differences in number of postings, but found differences in online "voice," with women using more connected patterns (referencing self and other participants, offering encouragement) and men using more independent patterns (negative, critical and assertive remarks). In Rovai's study, the female participants also demonstrated a higher degree of perceived classroom community than the males.

Several researchers have found that the social aspects of the online learning environment are very important (Meyer, 2000). The virtual classroom, especially when participants are at a distance and previously unknown to each other, creates an anonymity that is liberating, but that also can be disconcerting or alienating. Class members can try out alternative points of view, or even identities, from the security of their side of the computer screen; only their words are visible. On the other hand, people want to know that somebody is "out there" (Feenberg, 1989), and they strive to project a sense of self and to build community online. In CMC classrooms that are satisfying to participants and in which collaborative learning thrives, researchers have found that participants establish communication conventions and participant structures that promote interactivity, provide a safe environment, allow for diverse perspectives as well as shared aims, and maintain a task focus (Andrusyszyn & Davie, 1997; Haythornthwaite, et al., 2000; Levin, et al., 1990; Meyer, 2000; Murphy & Collins, 1997; Rourke, et al., 1999; Stacey, 1999). In such online courses, these communicative strategies also function to establish coherence in the online discussion. On the whole, participants in CMC classrooms evaluate the experience as positive, look forward to conferencing, say that they spend a great deal of time preparing for and participating in asynchronous discussions, and describe the experience as helpful to their learning.

Although still preliminary in nature, such findings both corroborate the application of constructivist pedagogical principles, and guide recommendations for instructional design of online courses (Feenberg, 1989; Harasim, 1993; Harasim, et al., 1995; Meyer, 2000). Rovai (2001) suggests that the instructor has a responsibility to shape a course structure and online community that capitalizes on this medium's capacity to support collaborative learning. Harasim et al. emphasize the importance of online course design, commenting that this includes "the different types of structures created to hold and shape the interaction among participants as well as the sequencing of these different forms of interaction" (1995, p. 144). Whittle and her colleagues (2000) call for instructional designs in which the curriculum objectives, instructional activities, and means of assessment are aligned in online courses, and which utilize threaded discussions in asynchronous conferences as the central course medium.

In order to guide instructional design, however, the relationships between online course design, interaction in computer-mediated conferences, and learning need further examination. For example, more research is needed to determine whether text-based interactive online courses are especially facilitative of collaboration as claimed by the original designers of online conferences (Harasim, 1990), and whether they lead to social and/or cognitive construction of meaning, as proponents suggest, and what design elements are essential in order to achieve these positive social and academic outcomes. In the remainder of this paper, I explore the idea that interactive, text-based webcourse designs have unique learning benefits. In particular, I develop the argument that interactive writing is an integral element that promotes conceptual development in such online courses.

Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Conferences

Most of the research on CMC conferences in instructional contexts has focused on asynchronous conferencing. In asynchronous conferences, participants may log onto the course website at any time of the day or night, read the messages that others have posted to topics in the conference, and post their own messages to topics. Depending on how the conference is designed, they optionally may read messages in the chronological order in which they have been posted, or as organized according to a priori topics (subconferences), or by following threads that emerge as a result of participants' replying to topics initiated by others (Turoff, Hiltz, Bieber, Fjermestad, & Rana, 1999).

Additionally, they may choose not to read particular messages, or to proceed through in an idiosyncratic sequence. Thus, the adjacency constraint of spoken conversation is overcome, but with the possible consequence of decreased conversational coherence (Herring, 1999). Typically, it is not visible to participants whether other classmates are logged on at the same time, nor which of the messages the others have opened (read). Presence is apparent only via the textual trace that a participant leaves by posting a message, which is labeled with the contributor's name, electronic address, and subject header; then date- and time-stamped, and added to the chronological record. The asynchronous conference, then, consists of a chronological compilation of written messages that course participants have composed, along with the capacity to add incoming messages on a dynamic basis, and to enable users to sort, and, in some cases, also to search (but see Turoff et al., 1999), the messages in various ways. These three characteristics of storage, dynamic additivity, and flexible sorting/searching (structuring and sequencing) endow participants' textual contributions with an interactivity and continuity that have the "feel" of conversation. Yet, because the asynchronous medium relieves the conversationalists of the constraints of communicating in real time, there are some interesting consequences for the kinds of thinking, writing, and discursive interaction that take place in these types of courses, which I will address in detail in the sections to follow.

Synchronous conferences, familiar to the recreational Internet user as "chat rooms," "chat lines," and instant messaging systems (Jones et al., 2001, Jones 2002; Rintel, Mulholland & Pittam, 2001), also have been used in various ways in online courses (Bump, 1990; Keller, 2000; Morgan, 2000; Murphy & Collins, 1997; Schallert et al., 1999). For example, some university instructors have employed a networked classroom in which class members, who are present in the room together, interact via synchronous conferencing as an adjunct to F2F seminars. Others have used synchronous conferences with students at a distance as an adjunct to videoconferencing or asynchronous conferencing, or as one component in multiple media distance courses.

In synchronous conferences, participants are all online at once and communicate with each other by reading and typing text in real time. It is the textual equivalent of a teleconference. However, the use of written text rather than spoken language has interesting consequences for the quality of the conversation. In addition, the demands of interacting in real time influence the nature of the written text. And, unlike asynchronous conferences, built-in facilities signal participants' presence via automatic textual messages produced by the server (e.g., in LINGUAMOO: "Nancy arrives from the auditorium"), via optional commands, and, in some systems, through font styles and graphic images. This too has implications for the conversational interaction.

Because synchronous course conferences take place in real time, there is a great need for speed - both in reading the messages others send, and in composing and sending one's own messages. As typing is slower than speaking, participants look for ways to speed up their writing in order to be able to take part in the conversation. Characteristically, participants send messages that are brief (two lines or less); informal with respect to the conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation; and that employ short-cuts (e.g., the acronym "btw" for "by the way"). The pressure to be brief and rapid tends to elicit messages that lack depth. Ambiguity also is increased, due to the brevity of the messages, the decreased premium on using standard conventions of writing, the prevalence of typographical errors, and the participants' use of idiosyncratic or unfamiliar short-cuts. In addition, the textual signals of presence, including statements about participants' presence or absence (e.g., "Steve disconnects;" "The housekeeper arrives to remove Steve") and paralinguistic messages participants may choose to send textually (e.g., "Ann smiles and waves") or via emoticons are mixed linearly into the stream of content messages. Rintel et al. (2001) describe the structure of Internet Relay Chat openings in public (recreational) chat rooms and argue that the ambiguity of turn coordination in the opening conversational moves may disrupt relationship development. In combination, such factors may tend to shift the conversational emphasis toward superficial social elements and away from substantive content or reflection.

In synchronous conferences, multiple participants are typing and sending messages simultaneously to the group at large or selectively to specific individuals who are present, and these messages appear linearly on recipients' screens according to the sequence in which they are received. Unlike asynchronous conferences, there is no sorting of the messages according to topic or thread - only the sender is indicated (by name or pseudonym, and sometimes also by a distinctive text font or color). Multiple conversational topics co-occur simultaneously between subsets of participants, and fragments of these different sub-conversations are interleaved in chronological rather than topical sequence (Herring, 1999). Participants may drift between topics. Many topics fail (i.e., are not taken up), or trail off, or are moved to private (person-to-person or email) sessions.

To summarize, synchronous conferences are characterized by the use of brief, rapid messages that are often superficial, socially oriented, and ambiguous, and that appear in a linear chronological rather than topical sequence. For these reasons, a printed transcript of a synchronous conference may appear fractured and incoherent to a conference non-participant. Nevertheless, participants say that synchronous conferences "feel" like conversation, and that they quickly adjust to tracking and making sense of the simultaneous conversational threads. Users are developing strategies to cope with the constraints of synchronous conferencing, such as incorporating the name of the person to whom they are responding, by using salutations differently depending on whether the addressee is known or not, or by chunking long, complex thoughts into brief components and using ellipses (. . . ) to signal that the rest of the message is forthcoming (Herring, 1999; Murphy & Collins, 1997; Rintel et al., 2001). Keller (2000) reports that, as an instructor, she facilitates effective online chats in her course by providing study questions to students prior to the scheduled conference time and encouraging them to pre-draft messages; by preparing remarks and questions in advance that she then inserts into the online conversation to guide the discussion; and by posting chat transcripts after the conference and encouraging students to read them and reflect on them.

Synchronous conferences have the advantages of open access to the floor, interactivity, immediacy, and retention of a written record (Schallert et al., 1999). However, they suffer the same constraints of linearity and real-time capacity limits as the medium of spoken discussion, which is further exacerbated by the brevity and ambiguity consequent of the slowness of typing, and potential discursive incoherence due to the multiple simultaneous conversational threads. But, as Jones et al. (2001) point out, researchers of CMC may be using a too narrow a conception of, or an incorrect metaphor for synchronous chat and its role. Jones reports that ICQ is a ubiquitous part of the social lives of his undergraduate students in Hong Kong; they describe "playing ICQ" as they would play a video game, and using it to establish social presence and maintain connectivity. Thus, conceptualizing online chat as a content-oriented communication tool separate from its contexts of use may be at odds with how students actually perceive it or use it. In a subsequent paper, Jones (2002) calls for researchers to reconsider their text-oriented approaches to analyzing and evaluating synchronous interactions. His critique has implications for designers of online courses with respect to the purposes that synchronous tools might best serve.

Thinking by Writing in Asynchronous Conferences

In contrast, not being constrained by linearity or real time, asynchronous conferences have quite different effects on participants' course-related thinking and their discursive interaction online. Asynchronous conferences are dependent on written text as the communication medium, but, unlike the written interaction in synchronous conferences which is more rapid and speech-like, the writing in asynchronous conferences conforms more to the conventions of formal written language (Lapadat, 2000c). Hence, individuals must use their literate knowledge to participate. Furthermore, the process of participating in asynchronous online conferences enhances literate forms of higher order thinking in specific ways. Participants read, actively choosing nonlinear pathways through online texts or hypertexts, thus constructing their learning experience by choosing what they will read, and in what sequence (Henry & Worthington, 1999). Bangert-Drowns (1997) says, "literate thinkers build personal knowledge through explorations of meanings in transactions with texts" (p. 2), and suggests that "electronic literatures [have] special capacities to stimulate, foster, and support literate thinking" (p. 3). Unlike synchronous messages, which typically are brief, informal, and superficial, the messages that constitute the texts to be acted upon in well-structured asynchronous webcourse conferences are content-laden (Lapadat, in press) and lexically dense (Yates, 1996). The potential for conceptual growth is facilitated by the learning-focused textual environment of asynchronous conferencing, not only because of immersion in reading meaningful text, but because conference participants express themselves in writing (Harasim, 1993). Lemke says, "it is the explicit meaning-constructing skills of writing alone that enable us to be truly literate" (1989, p. 296). The nature and qualities of online interactive writing itself bootstrap the construction of meaning.

The act of writing in online conferences may foster higher order thinking for reasons that have to do with the relationships between writing and cognition. Olson has argued that "writing enables us to say and think things that we could not, or at least have not, said and thought without writing" (1995, p. 288). For example, written language is decontextualized, or de-coupled from the layers of information typically available in the physical context (i.e., surrounding environment and events) or through paralinguistic channels (i.e., tone of voice, gesture, and so forth) (Lapadat, 1995; Olson, 1994). Therefore, discursive participants need to assess others' knowledge status, and selectively provide explicit contextual and background information to frame their contributions. This requires perspective-taking as well as metalinguistic thinking - thinking about language, how their words will be taken, and how to use them to accomplish their purposes.

Writing is a more formal medium than spoken conversation. That is to say, the structural conventions of standard English (e.g., grammar and vocabulary choices), as well as stylistic academic conventions (e.g., begin with a topic sentence, define terminology, mark transitions, acknowledge sources, and so forth), are more fully realized in the written discourse of asynchronous interaction than in the spoken discourse of F2F seminars. This is so even though asynchronous messages are more conversational in tone than the highly formalized writing one finds in a term paper, for example, and even though the spoken discussion in F2F classes is more formal and literate than spoken language is in other conversational contexts (Lapadat, 2000c; also see Chang & Wells, 1988; Yates, 1996). However, written composition typically is a much slower process than composing remarks for spoken discussion, both because the formal conventions for writing are complex and interwoven, and also because composition time is not arbitrarily abbreviated by the time limitation constraints of real-time conversation (Yates, 1996). The result is that online participants can and do take time to think, to polish what they say, and to edit. Participants in asynchronous conferences produce less in total quantity (e.g., number of words), but their contributions to the discussion tend to be carefully crafted, adapted to the audience, dense with meaning, coherent, and complete. 1

To illustrate the above points, I provide a F2F and an online example of a typical discussion turn, both produced by the same graduate student. The first example is from the transcript of a F2F graduate seminar discussion involving ten students, taught by this author. The course topic was language development across the lifespan, and in this seminar session, students were discussing adult language and literacy development with reference to their own experiences of enrolling in graduate school.
Instructor: Lisa Summers do you want to jump in at any point here?

Lisa: Um, okay, um I was just thinking, in my experience, I went back to university in my late thirties which is only about eleven years ago to get my degree and uh [sigh] it was it was a big change. I mean I'd been living sort of the life of the other, you know, for all my life rebellion and living on an Indian reserve and everything and feeling like the other all the time, and now I get to speak the language of the establishment. So it's quite a change, and I just jumped right in there, and I know different people like Freire and different educators, uh, critical theory type educators really speak my language......

That's about it. [group laughter]
The next example is from a discussion-based online course on the topic of classroom discourse, which utilized asynchronous conferencing, and was taught by the author the subsequent semester (full description in Lapadat, 2001). The topic of the week was the nature of language in secondary and post-secondary classrooms. The thread that this example is taken from was concerned with responding to another student's online presentation about barriers to communication.
Lisa: I feel that culture influences the building of communication barriers in many ways from the more obvious such as ethnocentric attitudes that exclude other cultures either out of fear, or beacuse the 'other' couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say, to the more subtle such as the longer answer time required by some First Nations students. Rupert Ross has some interesting thoughts on cultural barriers to communication. In Dancing with a Ghost: Exploring Indian reality, (1992), he talks about how the First Nations and the European world views collide in the Canadian legal system. In one Ontario First Nations culture, you never contradict someone who has a different view of a situation that you do. All things could be possible, so you don't deny any possibilities. Can you imagine the frustration of the crown counsel or the defense lawyer, when an eye witness to a crime allows that it could have happened another way, or it could have been another person? A 'credible' witness in our system has to say, "This is the way it happened " and not allow for other versions. If it is against your cultural values to speak and think this way, you don't 'fit' in our legal system. Think about this in relation to a teacher who has all the 'right' answers and doesn't allow for other views. How would students from the Ontario First Nations culture 'fit' in this classroom? 2
In both of these examples, the graduate student speaks about language and culture, and specifically about mainstream perceptions about 'the other,' with reference to her own experience. Yet the qualitative characteristics of the written contribution differ in significant ways, as I have discussed above, from the spoken one.

The ability to craft meaningful contributions to the online discussion is enhanced by the permanent transcript of the conference that is automatically created. Participants can, at their leisure, look back at the record and selectively read and re-reread sections. This design characteristic supports reflection. Sense-making is also facilitated because an individual can plan his/her own path through the material, and re-visit chosen portions (Harasim, 1993). Participants can copy and paste segments of the discussion into their own draft messages, thus building on ideas that are generated and elaborated throughout the whole course. Again, this has the consequence of enhancing semantic cohesion across contributions and topics, and therefore potentially increasing discursive and conceptual coherence (Harasim, 1993; Lapadat, 2001). Although F2F participants also recall topics and issues from past seminars, spoken language is fleeting and ephemeral; thus general ideas may be recalled but the details and specific wordings are lost.

Expressing oneself via a written medium holds the promise of writing one's way into understanding. As an individual tries to formulate an idea in writing, he/she constructs or clarifies a personal meaning along with the written text. This capacity of writing to act both as a window on cognition and as a tool for thinking is well-known to writers, educators, and counselors (Harasim et al., 1995). Writers describe how the story "writes itself" or the poem "emerges." Teachers at all levels capitalize on written assignments as a means to facilitate conceptual development. Counselors promote journaling as a route to self-insight.

Oral discussion typically is incorporated in constructivist classrooms (Gee & Green, 1998; Lapadat, 2000d; Schallert et al., 1999). One reason is that discussion promotes critical thinking. As participants struggle to express and defend their points of view, they tend to use higher order thinking processes such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In asynchronous online discussion, higher order thinking processes are similarly employed (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998; Rourke, et al., 1999; Whittle et al., 2000), but further enhanced by the use of a written medium (Harasim, 1993).

Interactive Writing in Asynchronous Conferences

The type of writing that occurs in computer-mediated asynchronous conferences is special in that it is interactive (Ferrara, Brunner, & Whittemore, 1991). In considering this aspect, we can compare asynchronous messaging with speech, with synchronous conferencing, and with non-interactive forms of writing.

Both synchronous and asynchronous conferencing, like conversational speech but unlike most forms of academic writing, are reciprocal (Ferrara et al., 1991). An important characteristic of online interactivity is open access to the floor, leading to multi-directional conversations, which contrasts with the teacher-dominated, unidirectional discourse of traditional classrooms (Harasim, 1999; Hiltz, 1986; Schallert et al., 1999; Stacey, 1999). In asynchronous conferences, real-time linearity and capacity constraints are relieved, easing the pressures of bidding for and trying to hold the floor. As all participants can say as much as they wish on their own time, there is a greater possibility of incorporating all participants' perspectives and taking topics to completion. In contrast, oral class discussions are linear, permitting only one speaker to hold the floor at a time. There can be rapid speaker and topic shifts, which may result in not bringing topics to completion. There is a premium on pragmatic language skills, which may exclude those who are less skilled at classroom discourse, from a different culture, or shy (Schallert et al., 1999). As the spoken medium is both informal and ephemeral, there is less session-to-session cohesion than in asynchronous conferences, but more "felt" coherence than in synchronous conferences (Schallert et al, 1996).

Synchronous conferences have many of the same characteristics as spoken interaction, although open access (like in asynchronous conferences) permits multiple voices to be heard. The real-time textual aspects of synchronous conferences impose particular conversational constraints, as I have discussed above, which suits them less well than asynchronous environments to collaborative forms of higher order thinking. For example, in synchronous conferencing, there is a greater emphasis on the social elements of the interaction than there is in asynchronous conferencing, whereas in asynchronous conferencing, the focus is more on the substantive or conceptual aspects, and less on "small talk".

An important element in this online interactivity is that there is a real audience. In comparison, much school-based writing is not written for a specified audience other than, perhaps, the instructor. Research on writing instruction emphasizes the importance of audience; one learns best by telling or teaching others, and responding to their feedback (Rose & McClafferty, 2001). Writers' Workshop classrooms exemplify this perspective. When writing for an audience, the aim is to bring them to understand your points or ideas. The writer might share meaning by constructing an argument or telling a story to illustrate a point, or to convince or persuade. He or she might toss out exploratory thoughts and look for feedback, or for others to build on or refute those ideas. Also, the writer might reflect on others' remarks and weave them into his/her own perspective. Thus, an audience of peers, who are predisposed to read what one writes and also to respond, characteristics built in via the design of the online asynchronous conference and course structure, creates a joint focus on academic topics of mutual interest, and thus a crucible for the social construction of meaning. In this way, this CMC environment may particularly foster Chang and Wells' (1988) collaborative talk, with learning benefits for participants. Rose and McClafferty's describe the "the ideal scholarly community [as one] where colleagues thoughtfully respond to each other's work, and there is a press toward greater articulation and understanding" (p. 30).

The fact that participants in asynchronous conferences are writing for a real audience of their peers motivates them to express their perspectives clearly. First, with a real audience whose opinion matters, there is a purpose in communicating. Second, one does not like to lose face by voicing perspectives that are poorly thought-out. As Rose and McClafferty (2001) remark, "Writing is one of the primary sites where scholarly identity is formed and displayed" (p. 30).That these contributions will be recorded in the permanent course transcripts also ups the ante to express oneself well. Finally, the standards by which we judge writing are different than those by which we judge spoken language. Even though some of the conventions are relaxed in the conferencing environment as compared with formal academic writing, nevertheless, readers judge positively those written contributions that are "highly literate" in tone. Asynchronous conferences create a high premium on good writing, and as participants strive to put their thoughts into writing clearly, they will take their time, reflect, consider their audience's perspectives, and use critical and higher order thinking skills.

The interactivity of asynchronous conferences means that others do respond; they argue against points, add to evolving ideas, answer questions, and offer alternative perspectives. In contrast with old models of learning, especially in distance education, in which independent learners were expected to work their way through packages of course materials in solitude, conferencing establishes a community of peers, and a true opportunity for cognitive scaffolding, collaborative thinking, and social construction of meaning (Rovai, 2001; Whittle et al., 2000). Many of these same benefits are found in F2F discussion-based classrooms or seminars. However, in asynchronous conferences, the collaboration occurs in writing, and thus is further supported by the formal, literate, and permanent aspects of the medium.

This learning environment, therefore, appears to be particularly well-suited to joint construction of meaning. Through individual written contributions that stimulate and respond to others' remarks, a public text, or plurivocal record of inquiry, is created (Bangert-Drowns, 1997). That is, not one conformist or homogenized viewpoint emerges, but, rather, multiple strands weave together intertextually in a collaboratively constructed and unique fabric. Furthermore, the process is dynamic. Each individual contributes to and then selectively takes from the text to further his/her own thinking, thus both socially and cognitively constructing meaning. In the environment of asynchronous conferencing, participants negotiate meanings in the public space and experience individual conceptual changes (Lapadat, 1995, 2000c, in press; Whittle et al., 2000).

Implications for Online Course Design

In considering the implications for online course design, it is clear that certain elements of good course design that have been tested across F2F constructivist learning environments continue to be important in online environments. These include aspects such as incorporating challenging and engaging content, providing a task structure that promotes problem-solving and collaboration within the classroom or online community (Stacey, 1999; Whittle et al, 2000), and being aware of and taking steps to moderate the instructor's privileged position of power (Harasim et al., 1995; Schallert et al., 1999).

With these in place, two key characteristics that seem to play a central role in the instructional effectiveness of these constructivist online courses are that they are interactive, and text-based. Therefore, in a constructivist design, the conferencing component of online courses is essential to provide the opportunity for written interaction. So, although it is easy to repackage lecture style courses or distance independent study courses in an online format, and although online technology makes many appealing "bells and whistles" available, like management tools, audiovisuals, and links to other sites, it is important not to lose sight of the value of the unique potential of the online environment to enable interactive writing. Such interactive online writing provides the benefits of writing oneself into understanding, as well as a social milieu that elicits thoughtful contributions, and provides timely, contextually-appropriate feedback. Thus complex ideas are generated and meanings are negotiated.

Despite the unique capacity of online conferencing to facilitate both joint social construction of meaning and individual construction of meaning, positive outcomes will not be automatic simply by including a forum in the course design. For example, the demands on participants in asynchronous conferences are high. As a consequence of the interaction not taking place in real time, the time commitment is open-ended. Furthermore, there is a premium on higher order thinking and literate writing, which require hard work (Weatherley & Ellis, 2000). Finally, there are social costs in the online community if one fails to contribute meaningfully (Haythornthwaite et al., 2000). Students may contribute at a low level of engagement (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998), or try to opt out in the face of these demands (Weatherley & Ellis), possibilities that both the course designer and instructor must anticipate and forestall.

Asynchronous conferences need to be designed effectively to achieve their potential as a learning environment. First, it is essential that the online course as a whole and the conference within the course have a clear purpose. The topics of the conference need to be substantive, meaningful, and important to the participants. Participants need to be able to build on what they already know and care about in their journey towards developing new understandings related to the course focus. Merely summarizing the words of "experts" online is unlikely to elicit deep commitment to participate or social construction of meaning.

Second, the instructor should make the expectations for the conference clear. For example, conference participation is more likely to yield the benefits described above if it is a requirement of the course, and if participants are informed about the quantity and quality of contributions that are expected of them. For example, if students are told that they will receive higher participation marks for contributions that make connections and reveal deep insights, they are more like to emphasize connections across topics, and to employ the higher order thinking skills that yield deep insights (Lapadat, 2000c; Rovai, 2001).

Third, it is essential to create a safe and supportive environment for the risk-taking entailed in expressing one's perspectives to the group at large and opening oneself to conceptual change. The online conference becomes more safe by attending to social elements of the interaction (Haythornthwaite et al., 2000; Klinger, 2001). Haythornthwaite and her colleagues point out that students especially need extra support and explicit opportunities to contribute to group interactions in the early phases of an online course. These authors note that synchronous conferencing is a valuable adjunct to asynchronous conferencing as it provides a common meeting ground which helps build community. Lapadat (2000c) describes personalizing the environment by beginning the course with self-introductions, and by using personal anecdotes in the instructor's contributions. Lapadat (2001) and Rovai (2001) both discuss the importance of providing explicit guidelines about the level of supportiveness and collegiality expected in online contributions. For example, the instructor can explicitly state, and then actively model that he/she values different perspectives. Another strategy is to provide both public and privates spaces for communication, so that students can have one-to-one conversations with the instructor or with other students privately, or group discussions with other students in a "café" that the instructor does not enter (Harasim et al., 1995).

Another way to ameliorate the risks of participating and to emphasize the benefits is by intentionally foregrounding higher order thinking. The instructor can pose challenging open-ended questions, model higher order thinking in his/her contributions, and acknowledge and extend remarks that other participants have made (Keller, 2000; Lapadat, 2001). Either the course instructor or student moderators can take the role of weaving conference themes into topic summaries (Feenberg, 1989; Harasim, 1993). Learning itself is intrinsically rewarding.

The design and balance of the course components depend on the course aims, philosophy, and audience. For example, if an online course is constructivist and discursive in orientation, emphasizing collaboration and individual conceptual change, then asynchronous conferencing functions well as the central core of the course (Harasim et al. 1995; Whittle et al, 2000). Synchronous conferencing is a suitable adjunct for interactive discussions about task assignments or group formation, for brainstorming and exploratory discussions, for rapid problem-solving of administrative issues, for prepared question and answer sessions, and for facilitating group process (Haythornthwaite et al., 2000; Keller, 2000; Schallert et al., 1999). Information-oriented web pages form an important support to asynchronous and synchronous conferences much in the way that course hand-outs supplement discussion-based F2F seminars. E-mail is a resource for one-to-one interactions, and, via e-lists, for making announcements to the whole class. How the course designer and/or instructor utilizes these various tools in an online course ultimately depends on his or her pedagogical purpose.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have argued that the interactive textual environment of asynchronous online conferences is particularly facilitative of both social and cognitive construction of meaning. This may partly be due to the ways in which online environments foster supportive online communities (Davis & Brewer, 1997; Harasim et al., 1995). But, even more crucial, is that the nature of online interactive writing itself, in an appropriately designed conference, supports meaning-making. Online written contributions have some of the characteristics of spoken language, in that they are interactive, relatively informal, personalized, and audience-aware, with synchronous messages being more speech-like and asynchronous messages being more formal and conventional. Yet, written contributions also are like traditional genres of written language in that messages employ a concise, formal medium that yields a permanent record. As writing composition typically demands higher order thinking processes, there is great potential for conceptual change. Also, participants writing for an online audience need to provide contextual information explicitly, and they are able to look-back or to incorporate others' contributions into what they are writing; thus meanings are socially negotiated, and cohere across the discourse. The nature and quality of writing in interactive online conferences is central to their effectiveness as a learning environment, with important implications for how we design webcourses.

Acknowledgments

This article is based on a paper presented at the British Columbia Ministry of Education Sponsored Education Research Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada, February, 2001.

Footnotes

1. Note that not all aspects of F2F discussion take place in the moment. Conscientious students often prepare in advance for F2F class discussions by reflecting on assigned readings or topical materials, and then jotting notes on points they wish to make in the ensuing discussion. In essence, they prepare for their spoken contributions by drafting the ideas in writing first.

2. Spelling and punctuation are faithful to the original. Pseudonyms are used.

References

Andrusyszyn, M., & Davie, L. (1997). Facilitating reflection through interactive journal writing in an online graduate course: A qualitative study. Journal of Distance Education, XII(1/2), 103-126.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1997, March). Literate thinking with electronic literature: Suggestions from theory, research and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Blanton, W. E., Moorman, G., & Trathen, W. (1998). Telecommunications and teacher education: A social constructivist review. Review of Research in Education, 23, 235-275.

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

Chang, G. L., & Wells, G. (1988). The literate potential of collaborative talk. In M. MacLure, T. Phillips, & A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Oracy matters (pp. 95-109). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Ciba, D., & Rakestraw, T. (1998). Student feedback on the use of Internet-based tools in traditional teaching situations. Paper presented at the NAWEB 98 virtual conference. Retrieved April 8, 2002, from http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/1998/ciba/ciba.html.

Davis, B. H., & Brewer, J. P. (1997). Electronic discourse: Linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Enomoto, E. & Tabata, L. (2000, November). Creating virtual communities through distance education technologies. Paper presented at the Teaching Online in Higher Education 2000 virtual conference. Retrieved November 9, 2000 from http://as1.ipfw.edu/2000tohe/papers/Enomoto/index.htm.

Feenberg, A. (1989). The written world: On the theory and practice of computer conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers & distance education (pp. 22-39). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8(1), 8-34.

Frank, T. (2000, October). Universities compete for a presence online. University Affairs (pp. 10-14). Ottawa, ON: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research In Education, 23, 119-169.

Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes, 31(1), 91-110.

Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.

Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using computer conferences as a group learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3, 119-130.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved February 14, 2001 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html.

Henry, A., & Worthington, V. (1999, April). Literacy in the 21st century: Might hypertext support literate activity? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC.

Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved March 1, 2001, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/herring.html.

Hiltz, S. R. (1986). The “virtual classroom”: Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104.

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.

Jones, R., Lou, J., Yeung, L., Leung, V., Lai, I., Man, C., & Woo, B. (2001, November). Beyond the screen: A participatory study of computer mediated communication among Hong Kong youth. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Available online at: http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~enrodney/Research/ICQPaper.doc.

Jones, R. H. (2002, March). The problem of context in computer mediated communication. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, DC.

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interaction, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.

Keller, P. (2000, November). Helping students use higher level thinking skills during chat sessions. Paper presented at the Teaching Online in Higher Education 2000 virtual conference. Retrieved November 9, 2000, from http://as1.ipfw.edu/2000tohe/papers/keller.htm.

Klinger, S. (2001, February). “Are they talking yet?” Online discourse as political action. Paper presented at the British Columbia Ministry of Education Sponsored Education Research Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Lapadat, J. C. (1995). Learning language and learning literacy: Construction of meaning through discourse. Smith Research Center, Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication Skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 947).

Lapadat, J. C. (2000a). Teacher research on classroom discourse in northern Canadian communities. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 3(2). Retrieved November 3, 2000 from  http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ctd/networks/journal/Vol%203(2).2000sept/guesteditorial.html.

Lapadat, J. C. (2000b, November). Tracking conceptual change: An indicator of learning online. Paper presented at the Teaching Online in Higher Education 2000 virtual conference. Retrieved November 9, 2000, from http://as1.ipfw.edu/2000tohe/papers/lapadat.htm.

Lapadat, J. C. (2000c). Teaching online: Breaking new ground in collaborative thinking. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 443 420).

Lapadat, J. C. (2000d). Construction of science knowledge: Scaffolding conceptual change through discourse. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(2), 1-14.

Lapadat, J. C. (2001). Online interaction: A discourse analysis of a graduate level webcourse. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Santa Barbara, CA.

Lapadat, J. C. (in press). Teachers in an online seminar talking about talk: Classroom discourse and school change. Language and Education: An International Journal.

Lemke, J. L. (1989). Social semiotics: A new model for literacy education. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Classrooms and literacy (pp. 289-309). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Levin, J. A., Kim, H., & Riel, M. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 185-213). New York: Praeger.

Lockyer, L. (2000, November). Effective on-line learning experiences for health education. Paper presented at the Teaching Online in Higher Education 2000 virtual conference. Retrieved November 9, 2000, from http://as1.ipfw.edu/2000tohe/papers/lockyer/lockyer.htm.

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

Meyer, J. D. (2000, November). Quality of life in the school of the global village. Paper presented at the Teaching Online in Higher Education 2000 virtual conference. Retrieved November 9, 2000, from http://as1.ipfw.edu/2000tohe/papers/meyer.htm.

Morgan, M. C. (2000, November). Students guiding online discussions: A social argument framework. Paper presented at the Teaching Online in Higher Education 2000 virtual conference. Retrieved November 9, 2000, from http://as1.ipfw.edu/2000tohe/papers/morgan.htm.

Morss, D. A., & Fleming, P. A. (1998). WebCT in the classroom: A student view. Paper presented at the NAWEB 98 virtual conference. Retrieved April 8, 2002, from http://naweb.unb.ca/98/proceedings/morss/.

Murphy, K. L., & Collins, M. P. (1997). Development of communication conventions in instructional electronic chats. Journal of Distance Education, XII(1/2), 177-200.

Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, D. R. (1995). Conceptualizing the written word: An intellectual autobiography. Written Communication, 12, 277-297.

Rintel, E. S., Mulholland, J., & Pittam, J. (2001). First things first: Internet relay chat openings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved April 26, 2002, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue3/rintel.html.

Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22-25, 43.

Rose, M., & McClafferty, K. A. (2001). A call for the teaching of writing in graduate education. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 27-33.

Ross, R. (1992). Dancing with a ghost: Exploring Indian reality. Markham, ON: Reed Books Canada.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.

Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: a case study. Education Technology Research and Development, 49(4). Retrieved April 26, 2002, from https://www.aect.org/Intranet/Publications/etrd/4904.html.

Schallert, D. L., Dodson, M. M., Benton, R. E., Reed, J. H., Amador, N. A., Lissi, M. R., Coward, F. L., & Fleeman, B. F. (1999, April). Conversations that Lead to Learning in a Computer Age: Tracking how Individuals make Sense of Socially Shared Classroom Conversations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC.

Schallert, D. L., Lissi, M. R., Reed, J. H., Dodson, M. M., Benton, R. E., & Hopkins, L. F. (1996). How coherence is socially constructed in oral and written classroom discussions of reading assignments. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice (pp. 471-483). Chicago, IL: The National Reading Conference.

Selfe, C. L., & Meyer, P. R. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication, 8, 163-192.

Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-33.

Turoff, M., Hiltz, S. R., Bieber, M., Fjermestad, J. & Rana, A. (1999). Collaborative discourse structures in computer mediated group communications. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved February 14, 2001 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/turoff.html.

Weatherley, R., & Ellis, A. (2000). Online learning: What do teachers need to know about communicating online? Paper presented at the NAWEB 2000 virtual conference. Retrieved April 8, 2002, from http://naweb.unb.ca/2k/papers/weatherley-ellis.htm.

Whittle, J., Morgan, M., & Maltby, J. (2000). Higher learning online: Using constructivist principles to design effective asynchronous discussion. Paper presented at the NAWEB 2000 virtual conference. Retrieved April 8, 2002, from http://naweb.unb.ca/2k/papers/whittle.htm.

Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

About the Author

Judith C. Lapadat is Associate Professor of Education at the University of Northern British Columbia. She has been involved with developing and implementing technology in education for nearly 20 years, and in the past 5 years, has turned her focus to designing, teaching in, and researching university online learning environments. She has a number of recent publications on online learning environments, language and literacy development, discourse in virtual and face-to-face classrooms, language learning disabilities, and the role of transcription in qualitative analysis, in journals such as the Journal of Classroom Interaction; International Journal of Social Research Methodology; Language and Education; Qualitative Inquiry; and the Journal of College Reading and Learning.
Address: College of Arts, Social and Health Sciences, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, Canada, V2N 4Z9. Phone: (250) 960-5921   Fax: (250) 960-5851.

©Copyright 2002 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication