An Epistemological Framework for Analyzing Student Interactions in Computer-Medicated Communication Environments.

As applications of computer-mediated communication (CMC) become more accepted for teaching, educators will need to understand the strengths and constraints of the diverse media that can support or impede learning and communication. The case study in this article examines communication patterns and learning processes of students who used two forms of mediated communication to discuss class topics: an asynchronous electronic bulletin board (BBS) and a synchronous text chat environment, Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Most of the discussions in the BBS environment were well structured and developed. However, very few students had what can be considered genuine interactions with peers. The postings on the BBS resembled private arguments and analyses about an issue posted to a public bulletin board. In contrast, the IRC discussions showed more collaboration, social interaction, and conflict. However, students spent more time socializing than focusing on the task at hand. Results suggest that the BBS may be a useful too l for promoting critical thinking skills and reflective thought, although strategies need to be designed to increase students' interactions. Environments such as chat, used for specific discussion tasks, may be a good forum for idea-generation and immediate feedback, but do not encourage reflective thought

New technological innovations always force one to evaluate how they may influence learning environments. Since their advent, computer technologies have been adapted not only to reinforce existing learning theories, but also to promote new approaches to learning. In recent years, educational research has focused on the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC)--human-to-human communication using computers and networks--for promoting a more collaborative or interactive approach to learning and providing environments that foster higher-order thinking skills.

The following case study analyzes the nature of participation, interaction, and meaning construction of students enrolled in an elective college course in Social Design of Communication Systems, which used two different CMC tools for communication and learning. On a regular basis, a web-based BBS was used to discuss class topics during the week. This CMC tool provided asynchronous communication (participants did not need to be online simultaneously to communicate with one another). The other CMC tool used was IRC, a synchronous, simultaneous computer conferencing tool that required all participants to be online at the same time. This CMC tool was used occasionally during class time. We were interested in examining how these communication tools could help understand and support the epistemological development of college students.

CMC in the Educational Context

CMC can augment classroom activities by providing spaces in which students can discuss their ideas with peers. Research has demonstrated that CMC in the teaching-learning process creates more flexible communication patterns (Berge & Collins, 1996; Heller & Kearsley, 1996; Ruberg, Moore, & Taylor, 1996). CMC allows students to interact with their instructors and peers in a time that is convenient for them (Berge & Collins, 1996; Heller & Kearsley, 1996; Ruberg, Moore & Taylor, 1996) and may increase student responsibility and self-discipline (Berge & Collins, 1996, Hsi & Hoadley, 1997). CMC can also equalize participation by masking social cues and cultural differences (Berge & Collins, 1996; Hsi & Hoadley, 1997). CMC also provides students with an opportunity to see different perspectives which may foster new meaning construction (Heller & Kearsley, 1996; Ruberg et al., 1996). The need to articulate one's arguments in CMC forces participants to put their thoughts into writing in a way that others can underst and (Koshmann, Kelson, Feltovich, & Barrows, 1996; Valacich, Dennis, & Connolly, 1994). This helps promote self-reflective dialogue as well as dialogue with others who read, react, and reply to the ideas posted by others, creating a forum for the creation of knowledge (Gay, Sturgill, Martin, & Huttenlocher, 1999; PenaPerez, 2000). Finally, the introduction of CMC in the educational process helps in preparing students for the workforce by providing them a broad range of experiences in using communication technology, working collaboratively, thinking critically, and improving writing skills (Fabos & Young, 1999).

However, CMC in course instruction can also create difficulties for some students (Berge & Collins, 1996; Heller & Kearsley, 1996; Kelly, Futoran & McGrath, 1990; McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994; Ruberg et al., 1996). For those students in need of more structure and guidance, the increase in responsibility can be problematic (Berge & Collins, 1996). The lack of social cues in CMC environments enables some students to become antagonistic toward others. In addition, CMC, especially in asynchronous mode, may disrupt the natural flow of conversation, removing the discourse from its logical context (Kelly, et al., 1990; McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994). This can make the communication process not only inefficient, but can also lead to misinterpretations of meaning.

Improved learning outcomes through the use of CMC are contingent on variables such as task, teaching style, course design, and student characteristics (Gay et al., 1999; Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993; Koshmann, 1996; Kozma, 1993, Mason, 1990). CMC needs to be carefully integrated into the overall course activities (Gay et al., 1999; Pena-Perez, 2000) since its design can affect social variables such as gender equity and peer respect (Hsi & Hoadley, 1997) as well as students' perceptions about the learning outcomes (Pena-Perez, 2000). The medium per se does not guarantee increased participation and interaction among students (Gay et al, 1999).

According to Gay and her colleagues (1999), it is very difficult to generalize about the role of different communication technologies in fostering student's participation and learning due to the individual characteristics of the learners and learning modes. Therefore, it is important to consider the needs of the students to create learning environments that help students develop more sophisticated critical thinking skills. King and Kitchener (1994) explain that an individual's ability to think critically is the result of a developmental sequence. Depending on the epistemological stage of development, learners have different meaning perspectives about sources and certainty of knowledge that justify their decisions and evaluations of knowledge claims. These meaning perspectives are influenced both by age and education (King & Kitchener, 1994). Students who are at a stage in which they believe knowledge is certain and held by authorities need a forum in which they can explore their own ideas and those of their peers in order to understand that they are participants in the construction of knowledge. Once students have reached this stage, they then need to recognize that ideas should be supported by evidence and shaped through "a process of reasonable inquiry" (p.31). To support students in this transition, educators must expose them to numerous perspectives and challenge them to evaluate and develop sound arguments.

CMC Content Analysis

Before 1990, few studies had focused on the analysis of CMC conference transcripts "as the key methodology for establishing the educational value of this medium" (Mason, 1991). In 1990, Levin, Kim, and Riel developed a number of sequential techniques for analyzing the interchange of electronic text messages. Among them, the "message act analysis," was developed as a first attempt to began identifying "the functions that each message is to accomplish" (p. 200). By using this technique the researchers coded CMC messages according to whether they referenced explicitly (using the "reply" or "answer" command or addressing another message) or less explicitly (supplying an answer to a question asked on a previous messages) to another message. The information gathered through this technique enables a researcher to create a message map that describes multiple threads of interwoven discussion. Although this study evaluated the participation and patterns of interaction rather than the social and cognitive processes of students engaged in electronic discussions, the techniques developed by the researchers provide the framework for further analysis of the content of the messages.

Henri (1991) developed a theoretical framework for analyzing the content of electronic messages. She described five dimensions on which CMC can be evaluated: (a) participative; (b) social; (c) interactive; (d) cognitive; and (e) metacognitive. More recently, Henri and Rigault (1996) have developed tools for describing: a) the contextual elements of the messages; and b) quantitative data about participants' performance regarding language, cognitive functions, interactions, and knowledge transmission. According to Henri and Rigault (1996), their results "show that it is very possible to bring to light the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by the learners" (p. 73).

Based on Garrison's (1991, 1992) stages of critical thinking and Henri's (1991) dimensions, Newman, Webb, and Cochrane (1995) used content analysis to evaluate the quality and type of learning taking place in three college level seminars conducted both face-to-face and through computer conferencing. The authors developed a set of paired indicators (positive and negative indicators of critical thinking) to evaluate critical thinking processes in the social context of online as well as face-to-face seminars. Transcripts from both kinds of seminars were analyzed by marking each statement that indicated either deep (+) or surface (-) critical thinking (see Newman et al., 1995, for description of critical thinking indicators). From these statements, they totaled the frequencies for each indicator and calculated the ratios of the depth of critical thinking by the total of positive and negative statements to a -1 to +1 scale. The results based on a small-scale experiment showed that students in CMC-based seminars h ad more positive critical thinking statemerits. Even when students said less in the CMC seminars than in the face-to-face seminars, students in CMC seminars more often used outside material and experiences in their discussions, were better at linking ideas together, and made important statements about the topic under discussion. Although their sample, was very small this content analysis technique provides a framework to study different aspects of critical thinking in group learning.

Zhu (1996), using a constructivist framework approach, analyzed knowledge construction in a 16-week graduate distance learning course using asynchronous computer conferencing among other distance learning technologies such as video conferencing and videos. Zhu performed a quantitative analysis of all the data collected from the online conference discussions plus a more exhaustive qualitative analysis on two randomly selected weeks, in which messages were coded into participation categories and participants' role. The researcher developed a coding scheme consisting of participant categories (contributor, wanderer, seeker, and mentor), types of interaction based on Hatano and Inagaki's (1991) theory of group interaction (vertical and horizontal), and notes-meaning categories (question, answer, reflection, comments, discussion, information sharing, scaffolding, and answer).

Zhu's study results showed high levels of participation with over 73% of the students participating in the weekly discussions. Specific analysis of the two randomly selected weeks showed that almost all students were contributors to the discussions and that instructors acted like mentors during the electronic discussions. Student contributions to the discussion during the selected weeks were categorized as discussion (41%), comment (23%), reflection (6.2%), information sharing (5%), and scaffolding (9%). Few information-seeking questions were found and the predominant type of interaction was horizontal. Zhu's analysis also showed diversity in the discussion. As Zhu stated, even when "each note was discussing the same topic, each perspective was quite idiosyncratic and based on the individual's understanding and experiences" (p. 837). The results of this study show that CMC supports the social construction of knowledge.

The studies by Henri Newman et al. (1995) and Zhu (1996) provide a valuable framework for the study of CMC discussions. However, most of the category systems were developed prior to the analysis of the data, and in some cases (Newman, Johnson, Cochrane, & Webb, 1996) the coding system did not provide descriptors to help identify in the content of the messages similar indicators of critical thinking. Their category systems, as well as Henri (1991) and Henri & Rigault (1996) that is further explained in the analysis procedures, provided a valuable framework for the construction of the initial category system that guided the study.

FOCUS QUESTIONS

This study focused on the epistemological growth and knowledge construction of students using different computer conferencing software. The intention was to develop a descriptive scheme or category system of students' interactions in online discussions and to analyze the quality of learning taking place in these environments. With the appropriate course design, CMC may not only encourage collaborative learning but also may help to engage students in a process of self-reflection (by organizing the thoughts and ideas to be communicated), providing students with the opportunity to explain, elaborate, or defend their positions and analyze and reflect on other students' points of view. Because it is important to understand the kinds of interactions that take place in different CMC environments and how students construct knowledge from these interactions, this study addressed the following research questions:

What kinds of interactions take place in a semi-structured, asynchronous CMC environment?

1. What kinds of interactions take place in a task-oriented, synchronous environment?

2. What is the epistemological character of interactions that take place in a semi-structured, asynchronous CMC environment?

3. What is the epistemological character of interactions that take place in a task-oriented, synchronous environment?

METHOD

Setting and Subjects

The data from this study were collected over a 14-week semester from an elective course at Cornell University, designed for advanced undergraduate and graduate students. The students enrolled in this class meet as a group on a weekly basis with the professor and teaching assistant. The focus of the course was on research and design issues relevant to the social uses of new communication technologies. This course took a constructivist approach to learning, in which students learned not only about different CMC environments through readings and lectures, but were required to use them during the semester and develop, by the end of the course, CMC prototypes. Electronic discussions were used in this course first, to give students experience using CMC environments, and second, to overcome time constraints that did not allow all students to participate in face-to-face discussions during class meetings.

There were 24 students enrolled in the course. Six were graduate students at the Masters and Ph.D. levels majoring in different fields such as education, communication and business. The other 18 members of the class were Communication, undergraduate students, 16 of them in their senior year and two in their junior year.

CMC Environments and Tasks

During the semester, students used different CMC tools for class discussions, brainstorming, and group activities, either out of class or during class time. Among them, students used an asynchronous BBS on a regular basis and a synchronous IRC for a lab exercise in which groups had to work together to develop an argument to defend their position about a certain topic. These tools were accessed through the class web site, which served as the central resource for students.

The BBS was the most used feature of the course web site throughout the semester. WWWBoard 2.0, an Internet-based bulletin board system designed for asynchronous communication, provided a forum for students to discuss readings and class experiences during the week. The BBS consisted of a main web page where all the messages posted were listed by topic and date of posting with the latest messages on top, showing the discussion thread for each topic as an outline or table of contents. Figure 1 is a representation of the course BBS main page. Students were able to access all messages posted during the semester at any given time.

Because of its hyperlink capabilities, students could easily select messages to read and reply to. The BBS provided a semi-structured environment. Students were required to post a comment about the readings, lab activities, or class discussion, or respond to comments made by other class members each week. The BBS became active only after the first week of class, when instructions on how to access it and the expectations of class participation were given.

The chat session was conducted during one of the weekly course lab periods. Students met in the computer lab. The mediated discussion took place over an IRC system, which allowed simultaneous communication in a text-based environment. All students in groups were randomly assigned to one of four viewpoints in an activity about privacy, individual rights, and the Internet. Although in the same room, students did not know whom the other team members were. The assignment was to use class readings and news stories to build an argument for their designated point of view and present their argument to the class later that day. Upon entering the chat environment, the students chose pseudonyms for themselves, which made the discussion anonymous. A total of eight groups (24 students) participated in this activity.

Data Collection

Data about the two kinds of interactions were gathered from the electronic transcripts of the BBS (which included an outline of the thread of interactions and the transcripts of the messages), and the electronic transcripts of the chat session. These transcripts provided information about message posting and communication patterns, and thought processes about the topics being discussed.

Throughout the entire semester, the BBS messages were printed and organized, in chronological order. All postings in the BBS were used to examine participation rates and flow of interaction, but only one week (week 5) was selected for the content analysis. Although initially messages from several weeks were coded, week 5 was selected for a more in-depth analysis since it contained the highest number of postings. All but two of the students (n=24) contributed at least once during the semester, and most students posted messages fairly regularly. From the Chat session, we obtained the transcripts of eight groups of three to five students each (n=24). From the eight groups, the transcripts of one for the content analysis was randomly selected but all of the groups were used to examine participation rates and flow of interaction.

Analysis Procedures

All messages posted by each individual student on the BBS and all of the chat contributions sent under the different pseudonyms were tallied to determine participation rates. Also, to analyze group interactions, all threads of BBS postings and chat groups were analyzed according to the "message act analysis protocol" and the "message map" developed by Levin et al., (1990). The message act analysis helped identify whether the messages initiated a new topic, replied to a previous message, evaluated a previous message or were just independent messages. Clusters of messages were identified and represented using the "message map" which provided a visual representation of the sequence of messages displayed in the online discourse, and the interactivity of the discussions taking place. This graphical representation made visual each reference of one message to another as a link, which simplified the analysis of: (a) the thread of discussion, (b) topic initiators, and (c) posting statistics. These models were very us eful in the analysis, not only for identifying the interaction patterns between professor and students but also for visualizing and analyzing the sequence of interactions.

For the most part, content analysis of electronic discourse has been mainly quantitative and the category systems used to analyze the messages have emerged from criteria established a priori and usually based in categories used in the analysis on other types of tests (Merriam, 1998). Instead, we put together an initial set of indicators to guide our study based on previous research on epistemological development (King & Kitchener, 1994) and the category systems and content analysis of on-line communication used by Henri, 1991; Henri & Rigault, 1996; Newman et al. 1995; and Zhu, 1997. However, new categories and themes that emerged during the analysis from the data changed and shaped the original category system developed. First, all the messages in the BBS and chat sessions were read to develop an initial category system. Based on this initial category system, the content of the messages of a specific week in the BBS and of a single chat group discussion was analyzed and coded in different categories accordi ng to message type. Each of the three researchers read all the messages in a specific week on the BBS (week 5) and from a single chat group, contrasted the data with the defined categories, developed a final category system and coded the data. The basic unit of analysis was sentences within the messages. Therefore, one message could represent multiple categories depending on the thinking processes the participant showed in the text or a single category if only one was reflected in the text. Although a category system for both the BBS and the chat transcripts was developed, some categories were more frequent in one environment than in the other, as shown in the results.

Coding Scheme

The category system based on the analysis of the messages at two different levels was developed. The first level related to whether the messages were or were not interactive and the second level was based on the type of learning process taking place.

In the data analysis, two different levels of interactivity were found: monologue messages and interactive messages. Monologue messages refer to independent statements related to the subject under discussion that did not seem to answer or refer to a previous message, or lead to further discussion. Interactive messages refer to explicit or implicit interactions in which the participants referred to another message or person, responded or added a commentary to a previous message or posted question.

In analyzing the learning processes within the messages, 13 different categories of which 12 could be directly related to learning and one related to social interaction were found (see Table 1 for description of category scheme). One surprising result that came from developing the categories from the data was that messages that showed reflective analysis, subjective analysis, or were task-related were, for the most part, non-interactive, monologue messages. Messages discussing opinion, personal experiences or knowledge, topic evaluation or messages not related to the topic under study varied from very interactive to non-interactive; and those messages asking questions, answering questions, providing support, clarifying, building consensus, and social messages were completely interactive. The category system that was developed showed how the learning activity found in the transcripts of the messages interrelates with the levels of interactivity displayed by the participants (Table 1).

RESULTS

Due to differences in context, objectives and framework of the two electronic environments evaluated, we present the results found from each data set (the BBS and the chat discussions separately).

Bulletin Board Data

Participation. The total number of messages posted during the semester was 260, an average of 18.57 messages per week (Figure 2). The highest number of messages posted was 36. This increase in participation during week 5 may have been a consequence of the reminder, at the end of the fourth class, that posting weekly messages was a requirement of the course. This increase could also be due to an increase in students' familiarity with the BBS and posting their ideas; however, the decrease in message posting after this week does not seem to support this claim. The number of messages during the following weeks decreased slowly to reach a low of 11 messages in week 8 (beginning of spring break). During weeks 9 and 10, the numbers of messages increased again to 19 after a second reminder about the posting requirements. Both increases in participation (week 5 and 9) seem to be related to participation reminders.

It is worth noticing that during the 14 weeks, students contributed to the BBS a total of 247 times while the teaching assistant and the professor contributed only 11 and 2 messages respectively, most of which were either follow-up messages or clarifications. The average number of messages posted by each student was 10.2. On average, graduate students (m=19 messages) contributed more than undergraduate students (m=7.38 messages). The posting mean of undergraduate students, however, was strongly affected by two students who never posted a single message and a few others who posted very few messages during the semester, even when they knew that weekly posting in the BBS was a course requirement. The median number of postings for undergraduates was nine.

Particularly in the case of the undergraduates, communication rates were strongly influenced by prompts from teaching staff and postings from the teacher. Undergraduate postings increased right after participation reminders. In other words, many undergraduates evidently felt they still needed to be guided by authority figures, and generally were not comfortable taking a proactive role in course discussions. Graduate students seemed very comfortable initiating topics of conversation and commenting on the contributions of others. Two undergraduate and four graduate students participated online more than 15 times during the semester, sometimes posting more than one message during one week, although all students skipped at least one week of posting.

Another characteristic of the contributions made by students in the BBS environment was the length of the messages posted. Messages posted by students in the BBS were generally quite long. Almost all messages (92%) were longer than five lines, and many (38%) took up an entire screen. The asynchronicity of the BBS alleviated the temporal stresses that are characteristic of both synchronous CMC and face-to-face communication. Students posting to the BBS had the time to reflect and construct thorough arguments.

Flow of interactions. The flow of students' interactions in the BBS varied from comments posted without any feedback to complex maps (threads) of interactions over certain topics. Certain readings and class activities promoted more interactive discussion than others, such as topics related to privacy, gender, and trust in online communication.

Most online discussions were started by a student and usually had several follow-ups during the week. Only 17 out of 66 main messages prompted no further discussion. Most of the leading comments had at least one follow-up (49 out of 66). In addition, numerous comments instigated parallel discussions that took a wide variety of perspectives and addressed multiple dimensions of a single issue (Figure 3). During the semester 17 out of 24 students initiated discussion topics. Most of these students started at least two discussion topics and two students initiated more than five discussions.

Character of discussions. From an epistemological perspective, most of the discussions held in the BBS were of high quality, presenting different points of view and providing different frameworks for the ethical and social issues addressed in class and in the course readings. The content of the BBS discussion indicates that most students read and constructed their comments based on other students' messages. However, we were unable to find explicit collaboration between participants in the BBS discussions. Although the messages show a continuation and further development of ideas, in most instances they showed independent trends of thought about the topic being discussed.

It was not common for students to respond to other participants' questions or engage in a conversation-type of discussion. Few messages in the BBS discussions showed conflict (6% of the statements), brainstorming (4%), social interactions (4%), off-task messages (4%) or attempts to bring discussion back to topic (2%). Messages were usually task-related (89%). However, we found that students were deeply engaged in self-reflecting and rationalizing the ideas being discussed. Most of the messages showed sophisticated reflective practices such as self-questioning (20.3%), reasoning (19.5%), argumentation (19.5%), conclusion building (12%), and hypothesis building (12%). Although there was interaction in the BBS discussions, many of the messages (69 %) looked more like a monologue, a conversation with the self in which participants posed questions for consideration, and through analysis and argumentation reached their own conclusions about the issue. Thus, many of the messages posted on the BBS show what Vygotsky (1962) described as a deliberate analytical action and purposeful construction of meaning. Table 2 presents excerpts from the discussion by five students about the neutrality of technology and shows the most common characteristics found in transcripts of the BBS.

The messages in the BBS were quite formal. Participants seemed concerned with fulfilling the stated requirements of BBS participation, namely making articulated arguments and integrating information from the readings into their messages. Students directly discussed the readings or class activities over 50% of the time in their BBS postings. Contributions that did not deal with the readings explicitly often dealt with personal anecdotes related to the issues under discussion. For example, when the issue of using technology to monitor employee behavior was discussed, some students described their own experiences working in companies that used such techniques (student # 2. Table 2). Other messages that did not address the readings were those in which the students forwarded their own opinions regarding a particular issue without backing up their argument with evidence (i.e., student #4 in Table 2).

Chat Session Data

Student participation. The data analysis revealed more equal rates of participation in the chat environment than in the BBS environment, which tended to be dominated by a few students. The average number of contributions per student in the chat environment (all groups) was 48 messages. With only a few exceptions (one being a student who entered the group in mid-discussion, another being a non-native speaker), the rates within the groups were fairly balanced. Everyone had a chance to voice his/her ideas anonymously. Because the chat activity was conducted during class time and its objective was to prepare a presentation in which groups had to present their ideas to the class later that day, we expected the students to focus on the task and be motivated to participate.

While most students participated frequently, individual contributions were very brief. Messages in the chat environment were no longer than three lines long. Similar to face-to face discussions, the chat environment was more of a forum for suggesting ideas and responding quickly to the ideas of others. The brevity of these messages may have encouraged greater numbers of students to participate. Students did not have to spend a great deal of time reading the postings of others, and students who otherwise might feel intimidated by the idea of sharing long analyses with a large group might have felt less nervous about responding with short messages to a smaller group.

Flow of interaction. The thread of interactions in the chat environment was even more complex than that of the BBS. The chat groups showed more interactions among the participants of each chat group than in the BBS environment. Virtually every topic of discussion initiated by a group member elicited some kind of response, and many discussions were characterized by ongoing development and feedback--in the form of response, questioning, support, and contradiction--that lasted throughout the entire course of the activity.

However, due to the design of the chat environment, it was often difficult to follow the thread of conversation. The following messages posed by participants in the chat group illustrate this problem:

[less than]wanda[greater than] "I'm about 2 steps behind you guys, you'll have to excuse me" "You've gotta keep three streams of thought running simultaneously"

Participants could be typing and sending their messages without reading and acknowledging what the other group members were typing. At times there were three or more conversations going on simultaneously. Often, the chat groups would split apart into even smaller discussion groups whose messages would overlap and weave into and out of the conversations of others until one group member would rein everyone to focus on the task.

Character of discussion. Chat discussions demonstrated a great deal of collaboration, social interaction, and conflict. Based on the analysis of one chat group, 15% of the interactions among participants were social, 11% of the messages were consensus building, and 16% of the messages clarified and elaborated on arguments to defend their assigned position. Similar to face-to-face groups, chat participants spent the first part of the chat session introducing themselves and socializing rather than addressing the task at hand. Once the group members began the task of developing their argument, students asked questions that helped peers focus or clarify previous arguments (18% of the messages), and provided support for other participants' comments (6%). Conflict (17%) began to arise in the middle of the discussion, with students not only challenging others' ideas but playing devil's advocate as well. There were three times as many conflict messages as messages indicating agreement (6%). Only towards the end of th e discussion did students start to put arguments together and reach what we could call a very general conclusion. Table 3 shows different stages of the chat session as well as the categories identified. It is important to mention that 10% of the messages were coded as "mixed messages" due to the difficulty of classifying them into one single category.

For the most part, participants in the chat environment concentrated on brainstorming and only towards the end tried to reach a consensus. Reflective analysis was not as evident in this environment as it was on the BBS. The discussion in the chat environment was very informal (use of nicknames and slang) and the ideas expressed were often unclear and, in many cases, unfinished. Students in the chat activity often had difficulty remaining on-task. Only 3.3% of the chat discussions were focused on the given task. Though students discussed their designated perspectives and talked about how to prepare for the class presentation during the chat session, in terms of addressing the explicit requirements of the activity, namely to build an argument based on evidence provided by the readings and news stories, the chat session fared poorly. This does not mean the discussion was not lively or interesting, but the environment was clearly not conducive to building arguments based on concrete evidence. In general, the chat environment seemed to be a great tool for brainstorming but not for consensus building.

DISCUSSION

Hoadley and Enyedy (1999) discussing CSCL environments, explain that it is important to understand the ways in which different media "constrains and enables certain types of interactions" as well as "the process by which people are able to construct and negotiate meaning through interaction and collaborative activity" (p.1). In studying the patterns of interaction in two computer-mediated learning environments, some significant characteristics that may give educators useful information about how to select the right medium for meeting different learning objectives were found.

The use of CMC changed the dynamics of class participation. The interaction pattern typical of traditional educational settings--teacher initiates, student responds, teacher evaluates (IRE)--(Mehan, 1978; Scardamalia, 1996; Ruberg et al., 1996), was not the pattern of communication found in the discussions over the bulletin board. Although students initiated most of the discussions, we found that some students, mainly graduate students, dominated the BBS discussions. This finding partially contradicts previous research (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Harasim, 1991) that found that those with higher status or higher level of expertise, including the teacher, do not dominate CMC interchange. Even though the level of participation among students in this course varied, the majority of the students participated at least eight times during the semester. Although participation rates may have been influenced by the fact that it was a required activity, it is unlikely that students would have been able to discuss the cours e material during the face-to-face lecture period in as much detail as they were able to in their BBS messages.

Differences in participation rates on the BBS were probably due more to personal choice (whether or not to make time to post a message), than to typical face-to-face obstacles, such as interruptions by other participants, time constraints, inadequate access to course materials or fear of speaking in front of peers. However, some students may not have contributed regularly to the BBS because they were uncomfortable with posting their own opinions or did not have adequate access to the technology. Overall, those topics that were more familiar to students and which provided them with an opportunity to introduce their own opinions inspired more discussion than topics based on abstract concepts developed in the readings. This may be due also to the fact that students did not have to read the assigned readings in order to participate.

In general, this study suggested that asynchronous, online environments are useful for giving students their own forum for initiating discussion topics and constructing arguments m response to postings by their peers. However, the finding that undergraduates were less likely overall to participate in the discussion may indicate that educational support such as teacher feedback is important in order to keep participants' motivation high. Some students may still need guidance and a more structured environment. Previous research (Heller & Kearsley, 1996) indicated that the increase in responsibility and independence may prevent some students from meeting the learning objectives. Therefore, it may be important to provide communication alternatives that accommodate different learning styles and integrate online discussions into subsequent class activities (Ruberg et al., 1996).

The dynamism of the chat sessions encouraged equalization of participation. This may have been due, first to the fact that the activity was conducted during class time, while posting to the BBS had to be done on the students' own time; and second, to the anonymity of the students, making them feel more comfortable in voicing their ideas.

These patterns of participation indicate that an electronic BBS may provide a useful forum mainly for those students who are already motivated to contribute their ideas. On the other hand, a synchronous, task-oriented, group activity conducted during class time may encourage greater participation among all students, and therefore may be useful for brainstorming or simply getting more students involved in discussions about course topics. In addition, providing class time for making contributions to either of these environments may lead to more participation.

The thread of interaction in the BBS discussions varied from simple clusters where one student posted a message to which nobody replied, to complicated threads or clusters with several follow-up messages. Most messages prompted students to add more information and to share their own ideas, and in many cases there were several parallel discussions about a topic. As with participation, BBS interaction seemed very related to the topic under discussion. Themes related to ethics, social, and moral values about the use of computers instigated more discussion than those related to its technical aspects, which suggests that students are more willing to discuss issues where they can have an opinion. However, interaction was not always evident. Although students seemed to follow and build on a trend of discussion, in many cases messages looked more like monologues than dialogues with others. Regarding this, Henri (1991) explained that messages in online discussions are not always interactive, even when they are linked together, but this lack of interactivity does not suggest that students are not learning. Different modes of participation lead to different learning outcomes (Hoadley & Enyedy, 1999). In this regard, Hoadley and Enyedy (1999) explain that monologues represent one person's ordering and analysis of experiences, the individual's level of competence and accountability, and a significant intellectual challenge. On the other hand, in dialogical forms, meaning emerges from negotiating, debating, and interacting, showing that meaning is not objective but created through the negotiation and interaction of different participants. Because online discussions allow students to read and provide time to analyze other people's contributions, they help students in the thinking and analysis of their own ideas. However, students may have preferred monologues since they enabled students to participate without having to read and respond to other students' messages. Still, even when this may be true for some students, many of th e monologues showed evidence of critical reflexive thinking. Many monologues were quite long including self-questioning and argumentation of one's own ideas.

The synchronous chat proved to be a more informal environment for students, allowing them to engage in personal discussions, brainstorming, and social interactions. However, to follow the trend of discussion was more confusing both for students participating and afterward, for the researchers reviewing the transcripts of the sessions. While the interaction flow was continuous, there was a great deal of overlap. Students often had to ask each other for clarification of ideas, and they were sometimes unsure of which conversation thread a message referred to. This suggests that, while a simultaneous environment offers opportunities for real-time interactions and immediate feedback, the content and flow of the discussion can be confusing for participants while they are engaged in the activity, creating "messy" thinking without a structured protocol for the conversation.

The students seemed to feel equally comfortable posing questions to each other in both environments. About one out of every five chat and bulletin board messages was a question. The students evidently experienced more freedom in the chat environment to challenge the ideas of others, perhaps because their identities were hidden, or perhaps because the task was somewhat different. The bulletin board messages were independent contributions. If one student disagreed with another, she/he could simply ignore the comment. The chat activity, however, required that the group reach some degree of consensus about the presentation that they would give later that day. If they disagreed with someone, or felt someone else's argument was not well developed, it was important for them to challenge or contradict them to ensure the presentation would be coherent. These communication patters indicate that when the task and medium create a sense of interdependence, there will be a greater emphasis on the social nature of knowledg e construction. Independent tasks and media may cultivate supportive networks, but they may not be as challenging.

The lack of temporal stresses and the long-term commitment associated with the bulletin board allowed for reflective articulation of ideas, along with a much greater task focus. The reason for this may be that the BBS assignment was more demanding regarding participation and personal time than the chat exercise. Because the chat exercise was both a group and single-day activity, it is likely that students felt that their chat contributions would have a much smaller effect on their course grade than their bulletin board contributions, and were therefore more conscientious about the quality of their bulletin board postings. The chat group discussions were very active and dynamic, but students could easily move to off-task discussions, making it difficult for the group members to get back on task once they were discussing other interesting, noncourse related topics.

The chat session was fairly successful in providing a forum in which the students could express their own ideas. However, it did not provide the kind of environmental support that King and Kitchener (1994) believe is necessary to help students make the transition from a relativist perspective, in which students consider all opinions equal, to a more procedural/contextual perspective, in which students recognize the importance of building an argument based on supporting evidence. The bulletin board served this purpose more successfully, though there were still many postings in which students did not support their ideas with evidence.

From the analysis of the content in both environments we found that asynchronous discussion environments increased the opportunity for participants to develop sophisticated cognitive skills such as self-reflection, critical thinking and indepth analysis of the course content, supporting the purposeful construction of meaning. The need to articulate one's own argument in this type of text-based environment encourages students to engage in analytical and reflective action. This process helps students construct purposeful arguments and transmit them to an audience.

The chat environment proved to be a useful tool for encouraging students to brainstorm, which may be important in the first stages of group projects. Because of its informality, it allowed students to engage in social interactions, find shared interests, and begin to explore ideas, which could be developed further in later interactions. During the chat session, students elaborated on ideas and examples but rarely reached a consensus. It would be interesting to evaluate how already-formed groups behave in this environment.

While it is certainly useful for students to have places where they can express their views, it is important to understand which general stage of epistemological development students are in when creating activities and assignments to support their intellectual growth. Students' age and level of education in this course may have affected how they valued their own contributions as well as their classmates as a learning source. Tasks and media that encourage expressing those opinions without building a strong and valid argument may only reinforce the developmental stage they are already in rather than challenge them to reflect on their way of thinking. Activities and media that encourage idea generation might better support younger students who are still not confident in the value of their own ideas.

Our studies suggest that a CMC environment such as the BBS can be a useful tool for teachers who seek to promote critical thinking skills, reflective thought, and in-depth analysis of course content and peer contributions. Environments such as chat may be more useful for creating dynamic interactive learning environments for engaging in idea-generation and other activities in which equal participation, social support, and immediate feedback are more important than reaching consensus or building evidence-based arguments.

Further research is needed in evaluating how students interact and learn in different electronic environments. This was a preliminary study, which evaluated how students responded to both kinds of online activity with almost no intervention from the instructors and researchers. It will be interesting to evaluate how these environments encourage participation and sharing of ideas by including moderators to the online discussions, and using chat and BBS in already organized groups and to work on specific tasks. Also, the category system needs to be more fully developed and tested in order to provide educators with a useful tool to evaluate students' interaction and the learning that takes place in these environments.

References

Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1996). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives. In B. Collins (Ed.), Computer Mediated Communication (Vol. I, pp. 129-137). New Jersey: Hampton.

Fabos, B., & Young, M. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3) 217-259.

Garrison, R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model to develop critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10(4), 287-303.

Garrison, R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(3), 136-148.

Gay, G., Sturgill, A., Martin, W., & Huttenlocher, D. (1999, June). Document-centered peer collaborations: An exploration of the educational uses of networked communication technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4(3). M.McLaughlin & S. Rafaeli (Eds.). [Online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/

Harasim, L. (Ed.). (1990). Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger.

Hatano, E., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. Rensick, J. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331-349). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

Heller, H., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Using a computer BBS for graduate education: Issues and outcomes. In Z. Berge & M. Collins (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom. (Vol. III: Distance learning, pp. 129-137). NJ: Hamptom Press.

Henri, F. (1991). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (Vol. 90, pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Henri, F., & Rigault, C. (1996). Collaborative distance learning and computer conferencing. In T. Liao (Ed.), Advanced educational technology: Research issues and future potential (Vol. 145, pp. 4576). NY: Springer.

Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and technology, 6(1), 23-36.

Hoadley, C., & Enyedy, N (1999). Between information and communication: Middle spaces in computer media for learning. CSCL'99 Proceedings. [Online}. Available: http://kn.cilt.org/cscl99/A30/A30.htm

Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kelly, J, Futoran, G., & McGrath, J. (1990) Capacity and capability: Seven studies of entrainment of task performance rates. Small Group Research, 21(Aug), 283-314.

King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Koschmann. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1-23). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Mason, R. (1990). Conferencing for mass distance education. Paper presented at the Third Guelph Symposium on computer mediated communication, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.

Mason, R. (1991). Developing a learning community in distance education. Paper presented at the Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher Education and Human Resource Development. Proceedings from an International Symposium on Computer Conferencing, OH.

Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najaden papers. (pp. 105-116.). New York: Springer-Verlag.

McGrath, J., & Hollingshead, A. (1994) Groups interacting with technology: Ideas, evidence, issues and an agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 32-64.

Merriam, 5. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2nd edition ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Newman, D., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 3(2), 56-77.

Newman, D., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C., & Webb, B. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: Evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 4(1), 57-74.

Pena-Perez J (2000). Participation, interaction and meaning construction in a university-level course using a computer bulletin board as a supplement to regular class discussions. A case study. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Dept. of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Ruberg, L., Moore, D., & Taylor, D. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 243-268.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 249-267). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sproul, L., & Kiesler, 5. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Valacich, J., Dennis, A., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computerbased groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(Mar.), 448-467.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indiana, 821-842.

                       Category System Developed
                        From the Bulletin Board
                          and Chat Transcripts
CATEGORY                             DESCRIPTION
Monologue messages - Not
necessarily interactive
Reflective analysis (RA)             Self-questioning: Questions
                                     answered by the participant in
                                     the same message - questioning
                                     him/herself about the topic.
                                     Analysis-Reasoning: Decomposition
                                     of ideas, searching for causes
                                     and consequences, evaluating
                                     ideas, self-explanations, and
                                     self-arguments.
                                     Conclusion building: Reaching
                                     conclusions based on self-
                                     analysis of facts and ideas.
                                     Hypothesis building: Developing
                                     hypothesis based on the
                                     readings, own arguments and
                                     other participants' comments.
                                     Inferences.
                                     Use of analogies: using
                                     previous knowledge, comparison
                                     to similar situations in
                                     other areas.
                                     Surprise: Acknowledgement
                                     of finding something new,
                                     learning something new.
Subjective Analysis (SA)             Value-based: Messages showing
                                     strong personal beliefs.
                                     Non-objective analysis. Strong
                                     ethical and moral arguments
                                     toward the issue being addressed.
                                     Emotional responses: Expression
                                     of feelings detonated by the
                                     reading assignment.
Task Related (TR)                    Reading-related: Referring to,
                                     paraphrasing, summarizing or
                                     using ideas from the readings.
                                     Class-related: Referring to or
                                     summarizing issues discussed in
                                     class or using as example class
                                     activities and discussions.
                                     Focusing: Bringing online
                                     discussion back to focus
                                     when deviated.
Both interactive and non-
interactive
Assertion (A)                        Maintaining, providing arguments
                                     to defend their points of view.
Experiential (E)                     Using personal experiences and
                                     previous knowledge that relate
                                     to the topic being discussed.
Topic Evaluation (TE)                Analyzing text orientation, what
                                     is ignored
                                     or inciuded in the text, analyzing
                                     author's
                                     position.
Off Task (OT)                        Messages not related to the topic
                                     under
                                     discussion. Interactive messages -
                                     collaborative dialogue
Question (Q)                         Posing questions that need some
                                     sort of
                                     reply from the group:
                                     clarification,
                                     explanation, examples, etc.
Reply (R)                            Answering other participant's
                                     question
                                     either directly or indirectly.
                                     Example:
                                     "Responding to XXX question, I

                                     think..."
                                     or addressing the issue without
                                     making
                                     reference to the question being
                                     responded.
Support (S)                          Agreement: Agreeing with other
                                     people's ideas
                                     either explicitly "I agree with.."
                                     or
                                     indirectly "I would like to add"
                                     or I also
                                     think that..."
                                     Empathy: Sharing feelings with
                                     other participants'
                                     comments.
                                     Acknowledgment: Acknowledging
                                     other participants'
                                     ideas and comments.
                                     Feedback: addressing other
                                     people's comments,
                                     acknowledging their concerns.
Consensus                            Conflict: disagreements,
                                     argumentation, friction,
Building (CB)                        negotiation.
                                     Reaching agreement: building
                                     arguments collabora
                                     tively, generating group
                                     conclusions.
Clarification/elaboration (CE)       Brainstorming: Idea-generation,
                                     presenting different
                                     ideas and arguments. Providing
                                     examples, arguments
                                     and ideas to answer other
                                     participants' questions, or
                                     to explain own argument.
Social interaction (SI)              Greetings, jokes, expression of
                                     emotions based on
                                     other people's comments (laugh,
                                     surprise and
                                     discomfort), use of nicknames.
               Examples of Major Categories Found in the
                   Electronic Transcripts of the BBS
Categories shown                     Excerts from transcripts [*]
Student # 1
Initiated discussion                 Is technology good or bad for
                                     society? Horowitz
* Reflective analysis                somehow relates to last week topic
                                     about technology
(Self-questioning,                   and society... Technology can bea
                                     new way to
analysis-reasoning,                  pursue slavery... the Mr. Eden
                                     [of] the article
conclusion building)                 certainly found in technology a
                                     way to make profits
* Task-related                       by controlling and reducing the
                                     human dignity of his
(reading & class related)            employees... My conclusion about
                                     this article is that
                                     in this particular case, he
                                     transformed human beings
                                     into machines. ...I think it is in
                                     this sense that it
                                     [technology] can be use either to
                                     promote collabora
                                     tion, a more democratic
                                     environment...or the
                                     opposite, [it] can be a tool to
                                     benefit those who have
                                     the power... All technologies,
                                     including computers
                                     and information systems are tools
                                     that can be used
                                     to fulfill different
                                     objectives...[it] is us, people
                                     who
                                     decide which objectives the
                                     technology should
                                     accomplish.
Student # 2                          Technology is neutral until it is
                                     utilized. Once it is
* Reflective analysis                employed in the workplace, whether
                                     factory or
(Hypothesis building,                office, it becomes a tool for
                                     manipulation or democra-
use of analogies)                    tization.... I have worked for a
                                     software/hardware
* Experimental                       development company... Although
                                     more sophisticated
                                     than the sweat-shop model praised
                                     by Mr. Eden, the
                                     hierarchical structure was in many
                                     ways like that
                                     described in the Poltrock and
                                     Grudin article....I believe
                                     Poltrock and Grudin describe one
                                     type of approach to
                                     designing and developing user
                                     interfaces. Not all
                                     organizations operate in this
                                     way...thank goodness. I
                                     am curious what the percentages
                                     are though. If the
                                     majority of corporate and
                                     government organizations
                                     operate in this same fashion, it
                                     would explain why
                                     most software programs are not
                                     user friendly... The
                                     addage "an ounce of prevention is
                                     worth a pound of
                                     cure" somehow seems to apply.
Student # 3
* Task-related                       At first I was skeptical about
                                     Bowers viewpoint that
* Topic evaluation                   technology is not neutral,
                                     however, her excellent
* Assertion                          argument changed my mind. The
                                     examples of
                                     interactive programs which were
                                     presented
                                     show clearly why technology is not
                                     neutral.
                                     For instance, the program dealing
                                     with
                                     survival of the early American
                                     frontier
                                     is bound to be influenced by the
                                     historical
                                     biases of the program creator.
                                     However, Bowers has not caused me
                                     to believe
                                     that the use of computers in
                                     education is
                                     fruitless or harmful.... The
                                     interactive
                                     program still provided useful
                                     experience in
                                     decision making and in motivating
                                     students
                                     to learn. I think of the
                                     alternatives that
                                     the students with the interactive
                                     programs
                                     may have been subject to, for
                                     instance,
                                     sitting passively in a lecture
                                     class...
                                     Also, Bowers provided only three
                                     examples
                                     of interactive programs...there
                                     are
                                     educational applications where
                                     computer
                                     software is completely adequate
                                     and
                                     appropriate (i.e. math tutoring
                                     programs
                                     for older students).... The
                                     concept of how
                                     we "frame" our thinking by the use
                                     of
                                     particular words was very
                                     interesting
                                     and perhaps the most valuable
                                     point made
                                     in the reading...
Student # 4
*  Conclusion                        One of the reasons technology is
                                     not neutral
   building-with no                  (and I agree absolutely that most
                                     technologies
   arguments or explanation          can be used both good and bad) is
                                     that the
   of ideas                          technology itself has social
                                     meaning. ...Some
*  Off-task                          of the decisions people make about
                                     the
                                     technologies they use... are
                                     directly
                                     connected to the social meaning of
                                     the
                                     technology. Here's a glance at a
                                     Web
                                     page that somebody who really love
                                     java...made.
Student # 5                          I think that technology is
                                     unavailable,
*  Reflective analysis               so instead of asking whether it is
                                     good or bad,
   (analysis-reasoning,              maybe we should view it as having
                                     positive or
   conclusion building)              negative outcomes. Mr. Eden, that
*  Assertion                         [student #1] refers to, uses the
*  Consensus building                technology in a profitable manner,
   (conflict)                        but there are lots of other
                                     effects that
                                     technology brings to society. We
                                     are constantly
                                     creating and developing new
                                     machinery and
                                     technological advances that help
                                     us,
                                     say in the medical field or the
                                     hard sciences.
                                     There are always bad sides to
                                     every issue,
                                     so it's inevitable that technology
                                     will have
                                     some negative effects on society.
                                     This,
                                     however, should not be a falling
                                     effect from
                                     the positive effects that
                                     technology
                                     can have on society as well.
(*.)Excerpts were copied exactly from transcripts.
Only major misspellings were corrected and are
shown between [brackets].
               Examples of Major Categories Found on the
              Electronic Transcripts During a Chat Session
                      Chat transcripts (examples)
            Completely interactive (collaborative dialogue)
Thread of discussion at    [less than]jojo[greater than]
the beginning of the chat  Hello out there!
session                    [less than]moomoo[greater than] hi
                           [less than]jojo[greater than] hi
                           moomoo im jojo[greater than]
                           [less than]jojo[greater than] Hello,
                           helllooo.
Categories found           Wanda joins the group and after
Social interaction         greeting the other group members
                           she starts the conversation
                           [less than]wanda[greater than]
                           Let's Chat, talk to me!
                           Rudolph also joins the group...
                           [less than]rudolph[greater than]
                           hellooo?
                           [less than]wanda[greater than]
                           moomoo, great idea (sounds
                           familiar, haha) but can the
                           computer do this?
Thread of discussion at    [less than]jojo[greater than] We
the middle of the chat     could suggest following Linowes
session                    suggestions for the creation of
                           an individual
                           information privacy protection
                           (p 641)
                           [less than]moomoo[greater than]
                           Sacn - sure, uless [unless] the
                           messages are encrypoted.
Categories found           [less than]rudolph[greater than]
Clarification/elaboration  refresh me on p. 641 again jojo
(Brainstorming, providing  [less than]rudolph[greater than]
examples, arguments        wanda, it wouldn't even have to
and ideas)                 be an illegal affair (adultery)
Task-related (reading-     --it could be two teenagers trying
related)                   to date each other but want no one
Consensus building         else to know or something,
(conflict)                 [less than]wanda[greater than] I
                           don't remember the specifics from
                           the reading
                           [less than]rudolph[greater than]
                           jojo--a refresher course please?
                           [less than]wanda[greater than] rud.
                           point taken
Question                   [less than]jojo[greater than] Linowes
Support                    says that most countries have a
                           national policy on individual
                           information privacy protection,
                           Then he gives a couple of specific
                           examples about Canada and "most
                           European nations"
                           [less than]rudolph[greater than]
                           Okay, let's think of who we're
                           trying to convince here [less than]
                           jojo[greater than] for example
                           he says that other countries have
                           enacted laws restricting the use of
                           personal information without one's
                           personal knowledge or consent. If
                           we as big bro had to enforce such
                           laws we could prevbent I other people
                           from abusing information
                           [less than]wanda[greater than] We're
                           trying to convince the public that
                           we need to screen all of their
                           information for the better of society
                           [less than]moomoo[greater than] We're
                           trying to thnk of arguments to support
                           the idea that we should be able to use
                              electronic information to improve
                              law enforcement attempts to
                              protect our citizenry.
                              [less than]jojo[greater than]
                              wanda yes
                              [less than]rudolph[greater than]
                              okay wanda, so we should target
                              the public.
                              [less than]jojo[greater than]
                              moomoo yes
                              [less than]wanda[greater than]
                              definately.
                              [less than]moomoo[greater than]
                              So, possible places to intervene
                              are: 1 - when a crime is committed
                              on-line: 2 - when electronic
                              comunication is being used to
                              further crimial activity
                              [less than]moomoo[greater than]
                              What else?
By the end of the discussion  [less than]jojo[greater than]
                              to convince the class that with
                              new laws in place protecting
                              the dissamination of personal
                              information we can protect their
                              interests without weilding too
                              much power
Categories found Reaching a   [less than]rudolph[greater than]
conclusion Social             right on jojo!
                              [less than]moomoo[greater than]
                              Shall we meet agian face to face?
                              [less than]jojo[greater than]
                              See you all in RL!

[Graph omitted]

[Graph omitted]