DEOSNEWS Vol. 2  No. 4.
Copyright 1992 DEOS - The Distance Education Online Symposium
   
Editor: Morten Flate Paulsen, MFP101@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Review: Philip W. Pinder
   
DEOS was established with a grant from the Annenberg/CPB Project.
   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
EDITORIAL
   
The use of computer mediated communication (CMC) in distance education has
increased exponentially since the seminal experiments in the 1980's. The
field is nearly saturated with descriptive articles about premature CMC
courses. There is no longer a need for articles claiming that CMC can be
used successfully for distance education. The field should now concentrate
on finding efficient pedagogical methods for CMC courses. As an incentive,
this issue of DEOSNEWS states that a learning contract remains effective
through CMC delivery. Researchers and practitioners should now explore
other pedagogical techniques such as mentorships, in-basket exercises,
interviews, brainstorming techniques, nominal group techniques, and
committee hearings. DEOSNEWS would particularly like to solicit articles
about such pedagogical techniques used in CMC courses and this editor
invites the readers to share views and experiences regarding pedagogical
methods and CMC in DEOS-L. As a beginning, both authors of this issue have
agreed to respond to comments and questions about their article in DEOS-L.
   
   
   
                           CLOSING THE DISTANCE:
   
                     A CMC LEARNING CONTRACT TUTORIAL
   
                         Barbara Marantz, Ph.D.
                         Richard England, MS Ed.
   
   
That computer-mediated communication (CMC) can bring learners to knowledge
and knowledge to learners is evident. And that learners can work together
productively in computer conferences is also apparent. But less has been
written about how CMC affects the direct interaction between learner and
teacher, the concept assumed to be at the heart of one-to-one instruction.
Indeed, both distance education in general and CMC in particular have been
criticized for diluting the close collaboration between learner and teacher
that fosters a formative rather than summative relationship.
   
   
ADDING CMC TO ESC'S MENTOR APPROACH
   
    This concern was particularly true at Empire State College (ESC), a
division of the State University of New York (SUNY), serving adult lear-
ners. The college takes pride in its central philosophy -- that learning
should and can be individualized and is enhanced in direct, personal inter-
change between student and mentor. Thus, the learning contract is our
primary educational structure. Unlike a traditional preconceived "course,"
a learning contract is designed in partnership, taking off from the
student's articulated interest or goals to articulate specific objectives,
associated learning activities -- readings, essays, discussions, projects,
papers, and the like. Criteria for evaluation are also developed and agreed
to collaboratively. The learning contract is carried out through regular
face-to-face meetings in tutorial mode; thus activities and readings can be
adjusted to meet emergent questions and refocused interests as the study
progresses. Close face-to-face (FTF) interaction provides opportunity for
the mentor to "know" the student`s learning style, strengths and weaknesses
and, similarly, for the student to "know" the instructor, what's expected,
and how he/she is progressing.
    ESC's success with this approach is now well-documented; students and
mentors alike appreciate the immediacy and responsive feedback of tutorial
learning contracts. For that reason, when a distance-learning program was
instituted at the college several years ago it was greeted with some
trepidation; would "pre-designed" courses, mailed assignments, and "paper-
driven" resources lose what we had gained? As CMC became available,
scepticism deepened in some quarters. Would this "cold" medium" replace a
highly valued way of working with students? Wouldn't distance AND an
electronic medium join to destroy what we had worked so hard to create?
    But what really happens when a student and an instructor work online
together (especially if, at the start, they are telecommunication novices)?
Surprising things happened -- many that we neither anticipated nor recog-
nized initially as "value added." We would like to share our experience
with you while its flavor is still fresh in our minds. The commentaries
that follow were first shared between us (a student in Colorado and a
mentor/instructor in Connecticut), and then with our larger educational
community.
    Not only was none of the value of face-to-face contract mode lost, but
much more was added. Online together, we developed a learning contract,
"Telecommunication in Education: exploring the future," and carried the
study to completion using all capabilities of the medium -- email, BITNET
communication, database file transfer, a CAUCUS conference, and PHONE
"chat" -- in a way that enhanced learning for each of us. It involved close
reading, intensive discussions and critical argument, a broadly ranging
survey of users, and the development of three substantive papers. We found
that by maximizing CMC strengths and identifying potential shortcomings,
this electronic "distance" study achieved at least as much, and often more,
than what face-to-face tutorials provide by way of "close" collaboration
and meaningful mutual learning.
    Working on the college's mainframe computer and using VAX electronic
mail capability, KERMIT files transfers, CAUCUS (an asynchronous conferen-
cing mode), and PHONE (a real-time conferencing mode), we were able to
create, customize, and adapt the study and to carry out a rich ongoing
dialog along the way that left us both better educated. What follows is the
text of our separate "Final Assessments" of the study and the medium.
   
   
FROM THE STUDENT'S PERSPECTIVE
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
   
    Having just completed this Center for Distance Learning (CDL) study
through the Center for Distance Learning at ESC, it is perhaps understand-
able that I would now look back on the past six months to discover just
what happened from my perspective as a student. All of my previous work
with ESC had been within the Center for Distance Learning. My last two CDL
courses had been augmented with the availability of email and, having seen
that real change in distance delivery, I firmly intended to include the VAX
in my last course with the college. At other institutions I have partici-
pated in traditional classrooms, correspondence, seminars, workshops, video
and interactive video, and independent study. Yet, I was not prepared for
what a telecommunications/CAUCUS distance course would become.
   
   
INTRODUCTION BY EMAIL
   
    My two previous CDL courses first introduced me to the possibilities of
using the VAX in a course. I found that email placed me in touch with my
mentor and tutor in a way that neither written letters nor occasional phone
calls could approach. I found that I could ask and receive answers in a
timely manner for the first time with ESC. I further found that the email,
unlike the written letter, was not constrained by the limitations of the
course or confined within the parameters of the current assignments. For
the first time with ESC courses, I found I was able to somewhat know the
faculty, their views and opinions, in a sense not possible before.
    For some reason, perhaps inherent in computer-mediated communication,
email brought the college and faculty within range. It was now possible to
pose side questions, ask for clarifications and receive answers, and
discover the flavor of the course or discipline. The imposed informality of
email (typos and misstatements blamed on the system rather than the tutor
or student) allowed for a real exchange of thoughts and ideas. For the
first time I began to see faculty as a source of information rather than as
proctors or reviewers of assignment material.
    Because of delays with written letters delivered through the post, a
student often has to place a course on hold waiting for a reply, or
continue with the knowledge that assignment work might have to be redone,
or forgo asking questions. In previous courses, I often chose the latter
approach unless a question was truly vital. I accepted that many questions,
clarifications, or examinations of material were just not feasible within a
distance course.
    Having seen the possibilities within an email augmented course, I was
convinced I would not again enroll in any [distance] course where the tutor
was not online. The second email augmented course I took was selected
specifically because the tutor had VAX access. As with the first, that was
a real and meaningful improvement over previous distance courses. Those two
experiences, however, did little to prepare me for a course which would
make full use of the VAX's capabilities.
   
   
ON-LINE COURSE
   
    This latest course used email, the VAX Phone utility, a CAUCUS, files
that were up and down-loaded to the VAX and between accounts, and sources
available from BITNET. It was undoubtedly the most intense course I have
undertaken at ESC or at any other institution, and demonstrated to me the
possibility of true asynchronous learning. The course, as distance learn-
ing, cut across each hampering barrier that time and space might have
caused. CMC avoided those obstructions; they never became a concern, or
even a back- ground thought.
   
   
EMAIL
   
    We used email to introduce new or continuing trains of thought to be
explored in CAUCUS or on the PHONE utility, to announce upcoming require-
ments or "appointments" online, and to forward reference material. Email
became a formal "documentation" of more informal discussions and examin-
ations throughout the course. With email, the sender was assured that the
intended receiver got the information and that it was available (in account
folders) for more detailed review.
   
   
VAX PHONE
   
    Prior to, during, and even following the contract, I did not have, and
felt no need for telephone contact. In fact, use of the Phone utility
(college mainframe real-time conferencing), early on, allowed the tutor,
myself, and another student to converse simultaneously. Use of the PHONE
utility allowed for what would approximate a joint meeting or a seminar
setting. Ideas could be thrown out, discussed, modified, or rejected.
During the early weeks of the study it gave an opportunity to design and
refine the study's objectives. It allowed me, as a student, to become
involved with and responsible for my own educational experience. These
"sessions" were transcribed or summarized and placed on CAUCUS for refer-
ence. They also gave me the opportunity to "meet" and "get to know" both
the tutor and the other student. Never having met either, I honestly feel
as though I do have an understanding of them, their values, and their
views.
   
   
CAUCUS
   
    A CAUCUS was established which eventually grew to 36 items. Initially,
one item was used for announcements (or a bulletin board), one captured
summaries of PHONE meetings, and four others allowed for resources to be
suggested and listed and provided working areas for each student. Other
items were added to facilitate dissemination of information and for
discussions as the study continued (caucus is similar to VAX Notes).
    Unlike email (documentation), I found CAUCUS valuable for reactive
discussions of substantive issues. As discussions concluded on particular
topics, items were frozen or moved on to other areas. One limitation of
CAUCUS items is that they are difficult to use as a review tool. I did
"extract" items in whole for reviews later on, but within CAUCUS this is a
clumsy and awkward procedure. CAUCUS was extremely useful in managing
discussions or critical review of readings and assignments. It was effec-
tively used and at times became a "study group," at times a "classroom
setting," at times a tutor review, and at times a source for working out
directions.
    I discovered the message capability to be a VERY handy and useful tool
within CAUCUS. Unlike email or CAUCUS discussions, information or notes
which were passed via CAUCUS messaging allowed the sender to know if and
when messages had been received and read by the recipient.
   
   
KERMIT
   
    Although one text (Rozak's THE CULT OF INFORMATION) was used and
reviewed by all, primary material was gathered independently and presented
over the VAX. This was accomplished by "importing" text or written reflec-
tions from other services off the VAX, and uploading them via Kermit (ESC's
telecommunications software standard) to add to CAUCUS discussions.
Additionally, many of these "texts" were sent via email to insure all had a
handy "copy" which could be read or printed for detailed reflection.
    Two good examples of this were a report from NEA on educational
technology and a thesis from an Australian student. In each case the texts
were sent via email and discussed via CAUCUS. Assignments, critical
reviews, and a host of other information and text were all transferred to
the VAX, shared between VAX accounts, and discussed online in CAUCUS or via
email. Without electronic transfer the study would have been limited to a
preselected number of texts. Through this method, information and refer-
ences were introduced by the tutor and student throughout the run of the
study.
    Knowledge of and the ability to up/download and transfer files were a
must by the study's conclusion. It allowed input of current and varied
source information.
   
   
BITNET
   
    BITNET became an early source of information. the study subject is not
well documented in hard bound text, and BITNET, through databases (COM-
SERVE), discussion lists (EDUCOM and others) and newsletters (DEOS,
NETWEAVER, and others) was an accessible, up-to-date, and ready source.
BITNET email within discussion lists also served as a source for discussion
and study content.
    If anything, there was an overabundance of information available online
and information overload was a real danger. I am still sorting out some
files and information gained during the course of the study.
   
   
STUDENT'S SUMMARY
   
    The contract was intense, and at times overwhelming. With the aid of
the VAX activity it was constant and on-going from pre-study activities
(July 91) until its conclusion (Jan 92). It could best be described as a
breed of distance seminar-workshop with elements of independent study and
electronic classroom thrown in.
    If anything, the only difficult parts of the study for me were coming
to terms with LIMITING its range. With so much information available from
so many sources, and such a wide and diverse amount of discussion on
relevant areas, limiting discussions and focusing on assignments was
difficult when there seemed to be so much available to explore and learn.
    PHONE, CAUCUS, BITNET, and files transfer were learned along the way,
but there had been a summer of pre-study activity. These skills are all
necessary to make full use of the VAX capability to create and enhance a
learning environment. Students enrolling in such a study should be capable
of assuming an active role in their own education. In general, this is not
a passive activity.
    This type of study, within this medium, might benefit from team
teaching and several (4-8) students. The discussions were particularly
enlightening. I would highly encourage a similar experience to any student
within any institution. It can be extremely rewarding.
   
   
FROM THE TUTOR'S PERSPECTIVE
[BMARANTZ@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
   
    I have just completed my first effort (as an experienced mentor in
direct ESC independent study mode) to do a contract at a distance complete-
ly in telecommunication mode with a student I have never met directly.
Beyond my interest in the subject and the student, I wanted a first-hand
opportunity to experience and "play with" the medium's potential.
    I started the study at a "novice" level of technical know-how: I could
send and receive email messages; I could join and participate in on-going
CAUCUSes; I had never set up a CAUCUS; I had not, then, subscribed to nor
received BITNET materials directly nor contributed to any BITNET list; I
had little or no ability to upload and download files, to send and receive
files from my VAX account to or from others -- generally to "move stuff
around" in the system; and I had never used PHONE [a VAX real-time confe-
rencing utility].
    My preferred "mentoring style" can probably best be characterized as
direct, personal, collaborative, involved, and intense. Given my "druth-
ers," I choose to do individual or small group contracts rather than
large-group studies, although (perhaps because) I have considerable
experience in the more traditional "classroom group" mode. As I work, my
interest and my "pay off" derives from making connections with the student-
-as-person while I make new connections with the disciplinary content of
our study.
    In this case, the student was a sophisticated, outstandingly respon-
sible and highly motivated learner, technically competent with the medium
at a level far exceeding my own. For all of these reasons, I entered the
study with considerable interest, much trepidation and some scepticism.
Would this medium allow for what I know I need to keep me engaged and
feeling I am doing a responsible job -- ongoing contact, room and space for
timely discussion and feedback, opportunity to know the "texture" of the
student and the style of his learning, ability to adjust and adapt the
study to meet the student's needs and interests as those emerged? In all
respects, my answer is an unqualified YES.
   
Specifically:
   
     1)  I found the student and I could engage in rich and meaningful dis-
     course to design the contract initially:  beginning with a general
     "Would you be interested in ..." we were able to use email inter-
     change, along with several well-used PHONE "talks," to shape a study
     that emerged as an authentic collaborative effort taking both his
     interests and my academic expectations into account. We contributed
     equally to this endeavor in ways that matched the best I've known in
     the course of my more traditional "direct contact" [ESC mentoring]
     studies.
   
     2)   We were able to set up a CAUCUS "workplace" that permitted
     ongoing "work" to progress in ways unmatched in face-to-face [ESC
     mentoring] contracts:
   
          (a) We could deal with administrative issues -- schedules,
          "assignments" etc. via a Bulletin Board "item" always on call.
   
          (b) We could discuss substantive material from readings in
          sequence and in tandem, and return to those discussions for
          review or to share "second and third thoughts." -- and we were
          both always "there" [online].
   
          (c) As I learned to upload, download and transfer files, we could
          share, evaluate, use, or reject resource material as one or the
          other of us located it.
   
          (d) As I felt the need to add an informed perspective beyond and
          different from my own, I was able to invite and engage a col-
          league in our discussion in a way that would have been time
          consuming and cumbersome without the "quick access" provided by
          email and CAUCUS.
   
          (e) The full range of knowledge, scholarly discourse, and
          concrete applications available in the currency of the "elec-
          tronic world" of networks was at our fingertips at all times and
          provided scope and depth to the discourse unimaginable had we
          been limited to a pre-determined set of resources.
   
     3)  Perhaps most important, the study stayed "alive" moment-to-moment
     because we were not bound by what I've learned to call "snail-mail
     time." Thoughts and "written products" could be sent, shared, and
     responded to with amazing vitality; ideas emerged, grew, were re-
     shaped, and developed dynamically in a way that amazed and delighted
     me. One of my greatest frustrations in face-to-face studies has been
     losing the "currency" of discussion and feedback as papers are sent,
     responded to by mail, awaiting the two week interruption between
     appointments, or as questions occur after the student has left and are
     forgotten by the next appointment. Thus, it seemed to me that our
     interchange and mutual feedback was truly "formative," minimally
     hampered in working stages of the study by "summative statements."
   
     4)   As for "faculty development" -- I learned to use the medium under
     the impetus of the best possible motivation -- NEED -- and thus
     finished the study a much more technically competent "user." In using
     it, I learned about what was out there to be had as learning resources
     in a way I can't imagine having happened in any other mode.
   
     5)   My concerns about "losing the texture of the student" in the
     medium were clearly unfounded. The variety of communication modes
     possible -- email, CAUCUS responses, PHONE discussions, and file
     transfer -- provided ways to meet and work together and to communicate
     at many levels. I have found that each of these has its own character-
     istics and elicits its own style of communication. We could share
     ideas, feelings, plans, concrete experiences, disappointments,
     discouragement, gripes, worries, triumphs, empathic pats-on-the back
     and other small kindnesses as easily as we might have in face-to-face
     meetings -- and often did. Clearly, this is neither a "cold" nor
     "distant" medium.
   
     6)   A number of concerns did emerge as I worked:
   
          (a) This is a MORE, not less, time-consuming pedagogical medium
          [as compared with more standard ESC mentoring]. It demands
          constant and responsible attention and feed- back that I find it
          hard to imagine sustaining at the quality level possible in this
          individual and particular case. Working with a group of students,
          or without a computer and modem available on my desk at home and
          "alive" at all hours of the day and night would have been
          extraordinarily difficult. Thus, if quality is to be maintained,
          it is a mistake to assume that "large group distance" studies can
          be carried out less expensively or more efficiently than direct
          mentoring [as experienced in more standard ESC mentoring situ-
          ations].
   
          (b) Information "overload" can become a problem; there's so much
          out there, and it's so easily accessible once one learns how,
          that without tight reins it is an easy matter to get diverted and
          to lose track of study objectives and time boundaries. This holds
          not only for the tutor: the student also can find, share, and
          want to consider issues that come across his/her path, that are
          important and interesting; that are difficult to discount or
          ignore; and that can extend well beyond the original parameters
          of a 4-6 credit study!
   
          (c) Adequate file space on the VAX, for both students and
          instructors, is essential. Its lack adds a cost in time and money
          that can easily become a real deterrent. Without such space, hard
          copy printouts are expensive to produce, become cumbersome to
          store, use an inordinate amount of time to capture, are difficult
          to keep track of, and, if not kept, lose the value of having
          easily retrievable records on hand.
   
          (d) While the student and I did learn along the way, technical
          competence with electronic communication capabilities is an
          essential "up front" requirement.  In this case, the student was
          competent to begin with, and I was more than highly motivated to
          learn. However, for students working in a traditional 16 week
          study, time taken to develop technical "know-how" with the medium
          will surely diminish its value in use. If this medium is to be
          more generally used as a pedagogical tool, it would be essential
          to create and offer students opportunity (in credit bearing
          studies) to learn to use it, and to experience and evaluate its
          potential.
   
   
TUTOR'S SUMMARY
   
    This has been a remarkable experience; CMC is an amazing medium. I have
learned at least as much as the student did. I am convinced that telecom-
munications provide a viable and significant addition to our pedagogical
argumentum and look forward to knowing and using it better. I am grateful
to CDL and CLT [ESC's Center for Learning Technology] for having provided
me the opportunity to move into the 21st century; and I am grateful to the
student for having joined me and often having held my hand as I negotiated
this step in my journey.
   
   
CONCLUSION
   
    Our CMC learning contract convinced us that the close relationship
between tutor and student need not be lost in distance education. In fact,
in many ways, it was enhanced. While face-to-face tutorials will remain the
preferred mode for many instructors at ESC, we believe that distance
education augmented by CMC can offer students all the advantages of
face-to-face tutorials: the primary goals of mentoring can be achieved;
contact and responsive feedback is increased; flexibility is improved (we
were able to modify and adjust assignments easily along the way); the
student is empowered to direct and adjust activities and becomes a respon-
sible and active participant in the educational process. This is not a
passive learning experience for either student or instructor.
    We realize that many CMC distance programs do not use the ESC face-to--
face tutorial model: some are classroom lectures, some 'electrified'
correspondence courses, and some seminars conducted online. End results are
influenced by medium specifics (machine, capabilities, etc.) and on
beginning assumptions of the course design. Yet, we believe that more
extensive and varied use of the medium will guide development and success
of the full range of distance education models. That a learning contract
"tutorial" can and does remain effective through CMC delivery is clear to
us.
    In conclusion, then, modem-equipped personal computers linked through
an institution's mainframe challenge definitions, expectations, and demands
for "electronic" distance education. As more students arrive on campus with
notebook computers, and more instructors view the modem-equipped computer
as a learning/teaching tool rather than as a threat, institutions prepared
to facilitate their interaction will be at the forefront of a new kind of
"close" distance education.
   
------------------- End of DEOSNEWS Vol. 2  No. 4 ------------------------
   

Top of Page

The American Center for the Study of Distance Education (ACSDE)
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education
110 Rackley Building
University Park, PA 16802-3202
Phone (814) 863-3764  FAX (814) 865-5878
ACSDE@psu.edu
www.ed.psu.edu/ACSDE

©2001 The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education