backchannel research residency proposal 20090813 finalx

8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx

1/38

Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 1

Running head: EXAMINING PARALLEL SYNCHRONOUS CMC

Examining Parallel Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication (CMC)

Jennifer Maddrell

Old Dominion University

IDT 895 Research Residency

Dr. Gary Morrison

August 13, 2009


2/38


Introduction

Educators are facing a new form of virtual note passing in the form ofbackchannel or

parallel text-chat communication occurring simultaneously with the instructional presentation.

The parallel computer-mediated communication (CMC) is sparking debate among researchers

and practitioners regarding what interactions learners should engage in during live instructional

presentation (Fried, 2008). Learners backchannel interactions during lecture are viewed by

educators as either a bold step forward in instruction that offers a new opportunity to facilitate

increased content and human interaction or an unnecessary distraction to the learning task at

hand (Guess, 2008).

Parallel Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication

The newest synchronous CMC technologies used during instruction include options for

parallel voice, video, and text-based channels of communication as found in leading online

conferencing systems, including Elluminate Live and Adobe Connect (Schullo, Hilbelink,

Venable, & Barron, 2007). While audio and video communication tends to dominate the main

channel instructional presentation in the synchronous online conferencing environment, the text-

chat feature supports the spontaneous and unfacilitated parallel (backchannel, sidebar, or side-

talk) exchanges among participants.

While many studies have examined asynchronous CMC in distance education, far less

research has been conducted on learners experiences with synchronous CMC (Park & Bonk,

2007). In addition, no studies have examined the impact of parallel communication during

synchronous computer-mediated instructional presentation. Research based on cognitive load

theory suggests that the learners parallel communication may pose a negative disorienting

distraction and increase extraneous cognitive load. However, when considered in light of other


3/38


4/38


CLT, the instructional design of the learning environment should attempt to manage intrinsic

load, minimize extraneous load, and optimize germane load (Kester, Kirschner, & van

Merrinboer, 2006). Sweller and Chandler (1994) suggest that high cognitive load is directly

related to interactivity caused by either the nature of the to-be-learned material (intrinsic

cognitive load) or by the presentation (extraneous cognitive load). The to-be-learned material is

considered to have high interactivity if there are numerous elements which must be processed

simultaneously (van Merrinboer & Sweller, 2005). If the element interactivity is low (hence the

intrinsic cognitive load is low), then extraneous load may be less of a concern; but in complex

learning situations where the intrinsic element interactivity is high, it is necessary to carefully

manage the learning environment to avoid unnecessary instructional interactivity in order to

reduce extraneous cognitive load (Sweller & Chandler). Thus, a concern when using a

synchronous learning environment that includes parallel communications (e.g., text chat) is that

the environment my increase extraneous load by increasing communication through additional

channels.

Moreno and Mayer (2007) examined interactivity as a characteristic of the learning

environment in which the interactivity results in a variation in the instruction based on the

learners actions. They suggest interactivity can be considered a continuum ranging from no

interactivity to high interactivity. Moreno and Mayer note that the challenge for designers

working in interactive multimodal learning environments with ever increasing opportunities for

interactivity is to reduce extraneous cognitive load imposed by the interactivity while at the same

time using the interactivity to increase generative cognitive processing. Therefore, an important

question is whether the interactivity involved with backchannel interactions is extraneous load

within the learning environment or germane to the process of learning.


5/38


Instructional activities that encourage mental effort in schema construction and

automation are viewed as processes that optimize increase germane cognitive load (van

Merrinboer & Sweller, 2005). Advances in computer-mediated instructional technologies make

it possible to do more than direct teaching and to use the technology to assist learners as they

actively select, organize, and integrate new information (Winn, 2004). Some suggest that

synchronous computer-mediated discussion helps learners move from surface understanding to

more deep learning as they reflect and respond to questions from peers and the instructor

(Havard, Jianxia Du, & Olinzock, 2005). Moreno and Mayer (2007) view this process as a

difference between facilitating information acquisition and supporting knowledge construction.

As discussed below, research suggests that while backchannel interactions may be distraction to

the learning task at hand, the parallel CMC may optimize germane cognitive load by promoting

task engagement, supporting computer-mediated discourse, and fostering increased levels of

teaching, cognitive, and social presence thereby aiding the learners understanding of the

instructional content.

Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication

The set of available synchronous CMC tools in online conferencing systems, including

public and private text-chat, video and audio interfaces, web browsers, polling tools, application

sharing, and whiteboards, offer instructors and learners in distance education classrooms

expanded opportunities for interaction, communications, and content sharing (Shi & Morrow,

2006). Unfortunately, little research has been conducted on learner experiences in these online

conferencing environments. However, a parallel can be drawn between learners backchannel

interactions in a synchronous computer-mediate instructional presentation and a learners laptop

use within a face-to-face classroom lecture settings, as well as student passing notes in a


6/38


traditional class. In both instructional settings, the learner is faced with parallel channels of

communication.

While research on laptop use in the classroom lecture setting may provide one of the

closest bodies of research to synchronous online conferencing interactions, contradictory

research findings abound. In a recent review of in-class laptop studies, Fried (2008) describes a

significant body of research suggesting that laptop use in the classroom lecture setting is a

potential source of distraction and cognitive overload. Frieds own study on in-class laptop use

found that students laptop use during classroom lectures regularly included interactions other

than taking lecture notes and was negatively related to several measures of learning. However,

other studies suggest that computer use in the classroom can promote classroom interaction and

participation which, in turn, increases engagement, motivation, and active learner participation.

Barak, Lipson, and Lerman (2006) suggest from their research that while computer use by

students during live lecture can lead to distraction when students are engaged in non-directed

interactions (such as checking personal e-mail), facilitated computer use can assist in the

learners understanding of the subject material, support immediate feedback and help, promote

multiple interactions among learners and instructors, and offer learners the ability to share work,

ideas, and learner interpretations.

Task Engagement

Given the lack of direct research on synchronous CMC backchannel interactions, it is

unclear whether learners text-chatting in the backchannel are engaged in the presentation at hand

or whether they are communicating in other unrelated conversations. However, due to factors

such as increased anonymity, a sense of altered responsibility, and novel or unstructured

situations, research suggests that some participants in synchronous CMC find the physical


7/38


separation provides a freedom from distraction which allows them to become more self-

disclosing and engaged in the task at hand (Coleman, Paternite, & Sherman, 1999). These

findings suggest that the text-based backchannel may lead to greater learner task engagement.

Computer-Mediated Discourse

Research suggests that technology mediated discourse differs from face-to-face

communication and is generally characterized by longer turns, fewer interruptions, less overlaps,

and increased formality in switching among speakers (Marshall & Novick, 1995). Research also

indicates that electronic communication tends to decrease levels of communication as compared

to face-to-face communication which may be the result of reduced use of speech

acknowledgements, such as Uh-hmm, or typical social greetings (DeSanctis & Monge, 1998).

Their findings also suggest that participants engaging in mediated conversation may experience

difficulty in establishing meaning of information and managing feedback, but that attention to

maintaining mutual understanding across the group can help to ensure effective communication.

In addition, research in dialogue and communication suggests a joint role for learners as

co-narrators in the instructional presentation. A large body of research supports a collaborative

theory of conversation which focuses on the joint construction of conversation in which

interactive and collaborative aspects of the conversation help to support full understanding and to

achieve the overall expectations for the conversation (Marshall & Novick, 1995).

Bavelas, Coates, and Johnson (2000) explored the various conceptions of communication

models beginning with the classic Shannon and Weaver (1963) communication model which

focuses on a single channel from sender to receiver and suggests an autonomous view of

conversation in which the listener passively receives information delivered from the speaker. In

contrast to this view, Bavelas et al. note other conceptions and research which focus on dialogue


8/38


as a joint activity, including research which examines the reciprocal effect of listener responses.

In this view, communication is not just for information transmission, but also for co-construction

of the message in which dialogue evolves from the reciprocal influence between narrators and

listeners (Bavelas et al).

Based on dialogue analysis research it is feasible that the backchannel can provide

presenters with signals (or markers) from the learner to gauge their level of understanding which

would allow an adjustment to the presentation based on the cues from the learners. Research

suggests that speakers monitor their own speech and adjust their presentations based on their

assessments of the listeners level of understanding (Clark & Krych, 2004). These findings

suggest that dialogue includes two activities, including support for the primary presentation of

information and management of the dialogue itself. As such, dialogue exists in both a front (or

main) channel which includes the primary speaker and in a backchannel which includes the

speech and signals from others occurring at same time as primary speakers turn (Bangerter &

Clark, 2003). These listener backchannel responses, also referred to as project markers, play a

role in shaping the presentation by providing the speaker with markers to chart progress and by

signaling to the presenter that the listener is ready to transition with the presentation, including a)

acknowledgement tokens in which the listener acknowledges the presentation through utterances,

such as uh-huh, b) agreement tokens in which the listener agrees with the presenters position,

such as right, and c) consent tokens inwhich the listener approves of the presenters

comments, such as okay.

The learner responses in the backchannel may enhance and shape the main channel

message of the presentation while providing on-the-fly reflection which the instructor can

monitor to check for learners understanding and adjust the presentationbased on the learners


9/38


responses. If backchannel interactions are considered signals from the learner as listener, the

presenter could use the responses as project markers to gauge how to segment and sequence the

presentation. By monitoring the learners public backchannel conversations and by assessing

when the learners are ready to make transitions within the presentation, the presenter could use

the backchannel interactions to overcome some of the obstacles associated with commuter-

mediated discourse. However, monitoring the backchannel may increase the instructors

cognitive load and disrupt the flow of the instruction when the instructor stops speaking to read

the backchannel.

Community of Inquiry (CoI)

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) model was proposed as a conceptual framework for the

optimal use of CMC in distance education to facilitate critical inquiry and discourse within a

computer-mediated learning environment (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). In describing

the CoI, Garrison et al. suggest the framework builds on prior research and constructivist

approaches to learning and that by fostering cognitive, teaching, and social presence (described

below) within the learning environment, a deep and meaningful educational experience develops.

Over the past decade, the CoI framework has been a popular foundation for researchers

studying asynchronous CMC and interaction in distance education. A recent review of Google

Scholar lists over 1,300 citations to the original series of articles on the CoI framework written

during the late 1990s and early 2000s, including articles by Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and

Archer (2001), Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000); Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and

Archer (1999). However, the CoI framework and the body of surrounding research have recently

been criticized for a suggested lack of validation that the model leads to deep and meaningful

learning (Rourke & Kanuka, 2009). In a rebuttal to the criticism, others argue that the negative


10/38


perceptions about the CoI framework and existing research are misguided and a

misrepresentation of both the nature of the framework, as well as the purpose and conclusions of

previous studies (Akyol, Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, & Swan, 2009).

Akyol et al. argue that it is unreasonable to criticize the underlying value of the CoI as

educational inquiry process model (emphasizing the process of knowledge construction, critical

inquiry, and discourse) based on an absence of existing studies examining the influence of the

model on objective measures of learning outcomes. They further suggest that a range of studies

have examined the CoI in relation to students self-reports ofperceivedlearning and cite a recent

study within Akyols 2009 doctoral dissertation which suggests learners perceptions of

cognitive presence are associated with both perceived learning and learning outcomes (grades).

Cognitive presence. Cognitive presence is defined as the extent to which learners

construct meaning through both reflection and discourse and is suggested to be a vital element in

critical thinking (Garrison et al., 2000). Some social constructivists view CMC technologies as

vehicles to support student-to-student discourse to facilitate co-creation of meaning and

understanding (Paulus, 2007). Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (1997) suggest knowledge

construction via asynchronous CMC consisting of five phases, including (a) sharing and

comparing of information, (b) discovery and exploration of cognitive dissonance, (c) negotiation

of meaning and co-construction of knowledge, (d) testing and modification of proposed co-

construction, and (e) agreement and applications of newly constructed meaning. Yet, some

research suggests that learners in CMC supported classrooms rarely move beyond the sharing

and comparing of information (Paulus). Unfortunately, while research suggests that online

student-to-student interactions may lead to increased communication among learners, some feel


11/38


it is unclear whether the communication is associated with deep and meaningful learning

(Rourke & Kanuka, 2009).

Social presence. Social presence within the context of a computer-mediated classroom is

the degree to which learners feel connected while engaging in mediated communication (Swan &

Shih, 2005). Recent research on social presence in computer-mediated environments builds upon

the concept of social presence from the work of Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) in

technology-mediated communication. Social presence is often used as a theoretical framework in

the study of asynchronous computer-mediated communication (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, &

Keer, 2006). Research on social presence in asynchronous computer-mediated learning

environments has moved beyond an evaluation of the mediums effect on social presence to an

evaluation of how social presence can be cultivated through instructional methods to support

critical thinking and critical discourse within the computer-mediated environment (Garrison,

Anderson, & Archer, 2000).

Some argue that while social presence alone will not ensure the development of critical

discourse, it is difficult for such discourse to develop without it (Garrison & Martha Cleveland-

Innes, 2005). Others suggests social presence is related to student satisfaction (Garrison &

Arbaugh, 2007; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison,

& Archer, 1999; So & Brush, 2008). Research suggests that (a) interactivity impacts social

presence, (b) patterns of communication and perceptions of social presence change over time,

and (c) social presence can be impacted by the social context, the design of the instruction, and

the support of the instructor (Garrison & Arbaugh; Gunawardena; Gunawardena & Zittle; So &

Brush).


12/38


Pelowski, Frissell, Cabral, and Yu (2005) conducted a study to identify various

immediacy behaviors within synchronous CMC text-chat logs with the goal of better

understanding learners feelings of social presence and the impact on learning. The researchers

note that while a positive relationship has been found between perceptions of immediacy and

performance in face-to-face environments, little immediacy research within synchronous

computer-mediated instruction has been studied. Citing various research findings from

traditional face-to-face classrooms, Pelowski et al. note that immediacy behaviors, such as

calling others by name, smiling or engaging in eye content, have been shown to enhance

perceptions of closeness or immediacy to others. These findings suggest that the text-based

backchannel may lead to increased social presence. However, Pelowski, et al. found significant

variation in overall chat participation, as well as in immediacy behaviors. Acknowledgement,

salutations, and questions were observed in nearly all students at least once. Agreement or

disagreement was shown at least once by over 80% of the students. Humor, self-disclosure self-

discloser, and value statements appeared less frequently, but at least once by over 60% of

students.

Yet, while some studies suggest a positive relationship among online interactions and

students perceptions of both social presence and learning (Swan & Shih, 2005), Pelowski et al.

(2005) found no significant correlation between immediacy behaviors in the text-chat

environment and actual learner performance. Unfortunately, these findings may suggest that

while online interactions lead to increased learner perceptions (self-reports) of learning and

social presence, these perceptions may not be equivalent to actual learner performance (Rourke

& Kanuka, 2009).


13/38


Teaching presence.Within the CoI framework, teaching presence is defined as, the

design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing

personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes (Anderson et al., 2001,

p. 5). Teaching presence is described as a binding elementwhich influences the development of

both cognitive and social presence through the direction and leadership of the educational

experience and is comprised of three primary components, including (a) instructional design and

organization, (b) facilitation of discourse, and (c) direct instruction (Garrison et al., 2000).

Research in teaching presence suggests the critical importance and influence of instructional

strategies and facilitation techniques on the quality of discourse, as well as the success of the

educational experience (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).

CoI research methods. As noted, the CoI has been frequently used as a framework for the

study of computer-mediated learning environments. The initial studies involving the CoI have

been described as interpretivistin nature using transcript analysis as a means of exploring,

understanding, and describing learner interactions and discourse occurring within the learning

environment (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).

Rourke et al. (1999) presented a content analysis categorization for examining social

presence from the transcripts of an asynchronous computer-mediated environment which has

been used to examine social presence within online discussions in subsequent studies (Rourke &

Anderson, 2004). Based on defined categories and indicators of social presence, including (a)

emotional expression seen in affective responses, (b) open communication seen in interactive

responses, and (c) group cohesion seen in cohesive responses, Rourke et al. assigned messages in

asynchronous text-based transcripts to one of the three categories and measured the social

presence density by dividing the number of social presence indicators coded in the transcript by


14/38


the number of total words in the transcript. A similar calculation was done at the level of each

indicator. While no attempt was made in the study to draw conclusions from the resulting social

presence densities, subsequent research suggests a strong relationship between social presence

and perceived learning, as well as between activities that increase social presence and learner

satisfaction (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).

Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) offered a similar transcript analysis method to

assess cognitive presence in an asynchronous computer-mediated environment. A set of

descriptors, categories, and indicators for each of the four phases of the practical inquiry model

embedded in the CoI framework were developed, including (a) the triggering event in which an

issue or problem is identified through evocative discourse, (b) exploration in which students

explore the issue through critical reflection and inquisitive discourse, (c) integration in which

learners construct meaning from ideas formed during exploration within tentative discourse, and

(d) resolution in which learners apply the knowledge in committeddiscourse. A systematic

procedure was established for assigning segments of the asynchronous text-based transcript to

each of the four phases. The relative frequency of each of the four cognitive presence categories

was compared. As a percentage of total segments, 8% were coded as trigger messages, 42% as

exploration messages, 13% as integration messages, and only 4% as resolution messages. While

the researchers report significant challenges in establishing a replicable coding scheme, they

found the process of analyzing transcripts a promising approach for assessing the degree of

cognitive presence within an online course.

Similar to the transcript analysis methods describe above, Anderson et al. (2001)

developed a format to assess the existence of online teaching presence through content analysis

of asynchronous computer conferencing transcripts. Like the procedures described above,


15/38


content analysis included collecting samples from transcripts in different online courses and

devising rules for categorizing segments of the texts. Segments of the transcript were selected at

the message unit and categorized into one of the three teaching presence categories, including (a)

instructional design and organization, (b) facilitation of discourse, and (c) direct instruction.

Over 75% of all teacher messages included some form of direct instruction while instructional

design was observed the least frequently within between 22% and 33% of the messages.

Messages related to the facilitation of discourse varied widely across the observed courses with

between 43% and 75% of the teacher messages. While results from this study suggest significant

differences in the extent and type of teaching presence within a given online course, a growing

body of research suggest a positive relationship between teaching presence and students

perceptions of satisfaction and learning (Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).

As part of an effort to move beyond the initial descriptive studies of computer-mediated

discourse and interaction in a distance classroom, a team of researchers recently developed and

tested a 34 item five-point Likert type scale survey instrument to measure learners perceptions

of cognitive, social, and teaching presence within a computer-mediated learning environment

(Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, & Swan, 2008; Community of

Inquiry Survey | Community of Inquiry, n.d.). While others have also attempted to capture

learners perceptions ofthe CoI presences using a variety of survey instruments (Gunawardena,

1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; So & Brush, 2008; Swan & Shih, 2005; Tu, 2002), a primary

objective of creating a new survey instrument was to examine the relationships among perceived

cognitive, social, and teaching presences, as well as their relationships to learning outcomes

(Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Following a multi-institution study utilizing the original version of


16/38


the survey, Arbaugh et al. suggest that the CoI survey offers a valid measure of teaching, social

and cognitive presence.

In other research utilizing the 34 item CoI survey instrument with over 2,000 college

participants, Shea and Bidjerano (2009) added their support for the validity of the survey through

factor analysis. Their research findings also suggest that both social presence and teaching

presence are correlated with cognitive presence. Further, 70% of the variance in learners

perception of cognitive presence was linked to learners perceptions of the teachers ability to

foster teaching and social presence. In addition, social presence associated with online discussion

was strongly correlated with variance in cognitive presence. While lower levels of comfort with

online discussion was seen to be strongly correlated with lower levels of cognitive presence,

teaching presence did appear to have a moderating role. When the learners perceived the teacher

taking an active role in managing the online discussion, the learners reported higher levels of

cognitive presence.

Within a subsequent survey of over 5,000 college students, Shea and Bidjerano (in press)

modified the CoI survey items related to teaching presence in an effort to better assess the

instructors influence. From the responses to the modified 37 item survey instrument, the

researchers conducted a factor analysis which suggested that teaching presence, social presence,

and cognitive presence accounted for 69.19 % of the variance in the correlation matrix or

58.17%, 7.91%, and 3.11% respectively for each factor. Contrary to prior research conducted

using transcript analysis noted above, the majority of the over 5,000 students responding to the

survey reported achieving the highest levels of cognitive presence which the researchers

speculate points to a limitation in relying solely on the content analysis of discussion transcripts

to evaluate levels of cognitive presence and learning. Further, through cluster analysis of


17/38


respondents, the researchers suggest that membership within a particular teaching and social

presence cluster is strongly associated with the learners perceptions of cognitive presence.

Extending the findings reported earlier by Shea and Bidjerano (2009), learners with low

perceptions of both social presence and teaching presence were more likely to report low

cognitive presence, but for those with low perceptions of social presence and high perceptions of

teaching presence (or low perceptions of teaching presence and high perceptions of social

presence), the cognitive presence scores were higher which suggests a moderating influence of

both teaching presence and social presence on cognitive presence.

Purpose of Study

The primary task of this study is to assess where parallel computer-mediated backchannel

interactions during instructional presentation fall within the cognitive load equation. Based upon

prior research, it is possible that backchannel interactions increase extraneous cognitive load by

splitting learners attention between two competing channels of communication which could

result in decreased participation, as well as lower perceptions of satisfaction, learning, teaching

presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. However, it is also possible that the parallel

communication helps to facilitate the learning process by improving dialogue among participants

and improving learners perceptions of satisfaction, learning, teaching presence, social presence,

and cognitive presence. While the backchannel interactions may distract some learners and

interfere with their receipt of the instructional message, the backchannel interactions may offer

some learners more control over social distance and help to improve CMC effectiveness.

It is predicted that a positive correlation exists among learners perceptions oftheir (a)

experiences communicating within the synchronous computer-mediated environment, (b)

perceived satisfaction, (c) perceived learning, (d) participation level in the discussions, and (e)


18/38


teaching presence, (f) social presence, and (g) cognitive presence. However, it is further

predicted that perception levels will not be the same across learners. Learners who feel distracted

and overwhelmed by the parallel communication will have low perceptions of the computer-

mediated communication occurring within the environment and will have likewise lower levels

of perceived satisfaction, learning, personal participation, and teaching, social, and cognitive

presence. In contrast, some learners will be comfortable following and participating in the

parallel channels of synchronous CMC and will have high perceptions of the communication

occurring within the environment, as well as relatively higher levels of perceived satisfaction,

perceived learning, personal participation, teaching, social, and cognitive presence. It is also

predicted that certain learner characteristics, including past online course experience, computer

expertise, and proficiency with the web-conferencing interface positively influence the learners

perceptions of these variables. This study will focus on the following research questions:

1. What is the nature of the parallel text-chat communication?2. What aspects of the backchannel communication make the learners feel more (or less)

connected to communication in the main channel?

3. How can a parallel text-based channel be used to gauge and foster the learners presencewith the main channel communication?

4. Are text-based communications tied to identifiable points (e.g., new idea, elaboration,question answering, and clarification) in a lecture?

Method

Participants

Participants in this study will be graduate-level students enrolled in two fall 2009

distance education courses, including Foundations of Adult Education and Training with


19/38


approximately 30 students at Old Dominion University (ODU) in the United States and

Computers in the Classroom: Appropriate Curriculum and Instruction Related to Computer

Technologywith approximately 20 students at The University of Regina in Canada. As of

August 1, 2009, the instructors for both courses have confirmed their interest in participating in

the study, as shown in Appendix A. While the universities offer distance courses in a range of

formats, these courses are chosen as the live synchronous computer-mediated online sessions are

conducted using a web-based audio-visual conferencing system with a parallel text-chat

interface. However, while the conferencing system used in the course held in the United States

does not offer two-way audio among all participants, the system facilitating the course in Canada

does make two-way audio communication among all participants possible. In addition, some

students in the course at ODU will be at on-campus locations and will not have access to the

text-chat interface.

Procedure

A mixed methods research design approach is selected for this study to examine the

relationship among learners experiences and perceptions of their (a) communication within the

synchronous computer-mediated environment, (b) perceived satisfaction, (c) perceived learning,

(d) level of participation in the discussions, (e) teacher presence, (f) social presence, and (g)

cognitive presence. A collection of survey data early in the semester and near the end of the

semester and a subsequent quantitative analysis of the data will examine the relationships among

the noted variables. In addition, the nature of the actual text-chat communication among

students, including the level of text-chat participation and evidence of teaching, social, and

cognitive presence within the parallel text-chat channel will be explored through a quantitative

and qualitative content analysis of the text-chat transcripts of three synchronous web-conference


20/38


sessions held in early, mid, and later sessions of the fall 2009 semester. In addition, a brief

follow up interview will be conducted with a frequent text-chat participant and an infrequent text

chat participant to gain more detailed insight regarding their perceptions of teacher presence,

social presence, and cognitive presence in the class, as well as their experiences communicating

within the computer-mediated environment. The surveys, text-chat transcripts, and interviews

will be collected during the fall 2009 semester and will be analyzed in the three months that

follow.

Survey of Student Perceptions - Data Collection and Analysis

Survey data collection. The online survey instrument used in this study will based upon

the previously mentioned CoI survey utilized by Shea and Bidjerano (in press) to examine

learner perceptions of teaching, social, and cognitive presence within the CoI framework. As

shown in Appendix B, the adapted version which will be used in this study includes the same 37

survey items using a 5-point Likert-type scale and focuses on the learners perceptions of their

experiences within classes facilitated with synchronous CMC. The survey also includes general

information, including general learner characteristics and learners perceptions about the

synchronous computer-mediated communication, satisfaction with the course, and learning from

the course

Survey analysis. For each student, an average profile score for each category in the

survey shown in Appendix B will be calculated to produce a single score for each variable,

including the learners experiences and perceptions communicating within the synchronous

computer-mediated environment, perceived satisfaction, perceived learning, levels of

participation in the discussions, teacher presence, social presence, and cognitive presence.

Pearson bivariate correlation coefficients will be calculated to analyze the relationships among


21/38


these variables. In addition, partial correlations will be calculated to control for specific learner

characteristics, including past online course experience, computer expertise, and proficiency with

the web-conferencing interface to allow an analysis of the influence of these learner

characteristics. As noted, it is predicted that a positive correlation exists among learners

perceptions of communicating within the computer-mediated environment, satisfaction, learning,

levels of participation, cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. Further, past

online course experience, computer expertise and proficiency with the web-conferencing

interface will positively affect these relationships. To evaluate statistical significance, a standard

level of p < .05 will be used.

Text-chat Content Analysis

The text-chat data collection and analysis will examine the nature of theparticipants

conversation within the parallel text-chat. Who is speaking? In what respect is the conversation

on- or off-task with the conversation in the main audio and video channel? What are the

participants saying to each other? What are the indicators of teaching, cognitive, and social

presence within the text-chat communication?

Analysis of participant text-chat transcripts. To protect the anonymity of the participants,

student login names will be replaced with a coding indicator. For this analysis, the unit of

analysis will be the message unit defined in this study as a separate text-chat post which begins

at the start of each new text-chat entry and ends at each hard return. As such, the message unit

could include partial, complete, or multiple sentences. The text-chat analysis will begin with a

comparison of the number of message units made by each individual within the session. Each

separate text-chat post will be counted as a single message unit regardless of the content. A

Pearson bivariate correlation coefficient will be calculated using the learners social and


22/38


cognitive presence scores and the number of message units to analyze the relationship between

the learners perception ofsocial and cognitive presence and their actual text-chat participation.

A positive correlation among the variables is predicted. If learners are overwhelmed by parallel

communication channels, it is expected that they will be less likely to participate and cognitive

and social presence scores will be low. Conversely, if learners find the parallel communication

channel to support cognitive and social presence, it is expected that they will participate within

the text-chat at a high level and have high levels of perceived cognitive and social presence.

Analysis of on-task / off-task / help communication . Each message unit will be

categorized based on a judgment by the raters of whether the post is on-taskor off-taskwith the

subject of the communication in the main audio-visual channel. Requests and offers of

clarification or help, including help with the interface, will be separately categorized. It is

predicted that the majority of post of this group of graduate students in a facilitated discussion

will be on-task. However, the requests and offers of help may suggest that some learners are

struggling to keep up with the communication occurring within the discussion.

Analysis of CoI indicators. The text-chat content analysis will include an analysis of

cognitive, social, and teaching presence indicators within the text-chat transcripts for each

collected live session. The present study will utilize the CoI content analysis categorization

methods described previously to examine the nature of individual text-chat posts made by both

teachers and students, as described below.

To analyze evidence of cognitive presence within the text-chat, as outlined in Appendix

C and based upon the coding scheme and mythology established by Garrison, Anderson, and

Archer (2001), a set of descriptors and indicators for each of the four phases of the practical

inquiry model embedded in the CoI framework will be used to analyze each message unit,


23/38


including whether the post includes (a) the triggering event in which an issue or problem is

identified through evocative discourse, (b) exploration in which students explore the issue

through critical reflection and inquisitive discourse, (c) integration in which learners construct

meaning from ideas formed during exploration within tentative discourse, and (d) resolution in

which learners apply the knowledge in committeddiscourse. Any message unit within the text-

chat transcript that contains such an indicator will be assigned to one of the four phases. As such,

each message unit will either exhibit or not exhibit one or more of the indicators. The relative

frequency of each of the four cognitive presence categories for each text-chat transcript will be

compared.

To analyze evidence of social presence within the text-chat, the coding scheme and

methodology established by Rourke et al. (1999) will be used as outlined in Appendix C. Any

message unit displaying either an affective, interactive, or cohesive indicator will be coded as

such based on the respective social presence category. Each message unit will either exhibit or

not exhibit one or more of the indicators. This categorization approach supports a quantitative

analysis of the overall social presence density (or average frequency of use of the indicators)

calculated as the total number of social presence indicators coded from the transcript divided by

the total number of words in the whole class transcript. This density will be calculated for each

class. In addition, as used by Swan and Shih (2005), the social presence density within each class

will be compared across two groups based on the students social presence profile score. The

social presence density of the High Social Presence group, those students with social presence

profile scores at or above the mean score for the class, and the Low Social Presence group, those

with social presence profile scores below the mean score for the class, will be compared. This

analysis will provide information on the differences in communication between students in high


24/38


and low social presence groups. As suggested in research by Swan and Shih, it is predicted that

those learners with high social presence profile scores will have relatively higher social presence

density.

To analyze evidence of teaching presence within the text-chat, the coding scheme and

methodology established by Anderson et al. (2001) will be used. As outlined in Appendix C, any

message unit posted by the teacher displaying an instructional design, discourse facilitation, or

direct instruction will be coded as such based on the respective teaching presence category. Each

message unit from the teacher will either exhibit or not exhibit one or more of the indicators. The

relative frequency of each of the teaching presence categories for each text-chat transcript will be

compared. In addition, the percentage of postings containing each teaching presence category

will be calculated by dividing the total message units containing that category with the total

number of message units by the teacher. This analysis will provide insight into the nature of the

teachers text-chat communication and can be compared to the perceived teaching presence

scores captured in the learner surveys.

Follow-up Interviews

Finally, a brief follow up interview will be conducted with a frequent text-chat participant

and an infrequent text-chat participant to gain additional insight into the students perceptions of

teacher presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in the class, as well as their

experiences communicating within the computer-mediated environment. The interview questions

will be based on the questions in the online survey and will be conducted via telephone or Skype.


25/38


References

Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., et al.

(2009). A Response to the Review of the Community of Inquiry Framework. The Journal

of Distance Education, 23(2). Retrieved from

http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/630.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in

a computer conferencing context.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-

17.

Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., et al.

(2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the

Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and

Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.

Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science,

27(2), 195.

Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless Laptops as Means for Promoting Active

Learning In Large Lecture Halls.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

38(3), 245-263.

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators.Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941-952.

Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding.

Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 62-81.


26/38


Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R. C. (1999). A reexamination of deindividuation

in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15,

51-65.

Community of Inquiry Survey | Community of Inquiry. (n.d.). . Retrieved July 30, 2009, from

http://communitiesofinquiry.com/methodology.

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Keer, H. V. (2006). Content analysis schemes to

analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers &

Education, 46(1), 6-28.

DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1998). Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 0-0.

Fried, C. B. (2008). In-Class Laptop Use and Its Effects on Student Learning. Computers &

Education, 50(3), 906.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher

Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and

Computer Conferencing in Distance Education.American Journal of Distance Education,

15(1), 7-23.

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework:

Review, issues, and future directions.Internet & Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online

Learning: Interaction is Not Enough.American Journal of Distance Education , 19(3),

133.


27/38


Guess, A. (2008, April 18). Hey, You! Pay Attention! :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's

Source for News, Views and Jobs.Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from

http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/18/laptops.

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social Presence Theory and Implications for Interaction and

Collaborative Learning in Computer Conferences.International Journal of Educational

Telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a Global Online Debate

and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social

Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing.Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social Presence as a Predictor of Satisfaction within

a Computer-Mediated Conferencing Environment.American Journal of Distance

Education, 11(3), 8.

Havard, B., Jianxia Du, & Olinzock, A. (2005). DEEP LEARNING The Knowledge, Methods,

and Cognition Process in Instructor-led Online Discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 6(2), 125-135.

Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrinboer, J. J. (2006). Just-in-time information

presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 31(2), 167-185.

Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from

computer-based science simulations.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902-913.

Marshall, C. R., & Novick, D. G. (1995). Conversational effectiveness in multimedia

communications.Information Technology & People, 8(1), 54 - 79.


28/38


van Merrinboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning:

Recent Developments and Future Directions.Educational Psychology Review, 17(2),

147-177.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational

Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326.

Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential

learners perspectives in a blended graduate course.Journal of Interactive Online

Learning, 6(3), 245-264.

Paulus, T. M. (2007). CMC Modes for Learning Tasks at a Distance. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1322-1345.

Pelowski, S., Frissell, L., Cabral, K., & Yu, T. (2005). So Far But Yet So Close: Student Chat

Room Immediacy, Learning, and Performance in an Online Course. Journal of

Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 395-407.

Pociask, F. D., Morrison, G., & Association for Educational Communications and Technology,

W. (2004). The Effects of Split-Attention and Redundancy on Cognitive Load When

Learning Cognitive and Psychomotor Tasks. Association for Educational

Communications and Technology. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.aect.org.

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. D. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis.Educational

Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5-18.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T. D., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing Social Presence in

Asynchronous Text-Based Computer Conferencing.Journal of Distance Education,

14(2), 50-71.


29/38


Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in Communities of Inquiry: A Review of the

Literature. The Journal of Distance Education, 23(1). Retrieved from

http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474/816.

Schullo, S., Hilbelink, A., Venable, M., & Barron, A. (2007). Selecting a Virtual Classroom

System:

Elluminate Live vs. Macromedia Breeze (Adobe Acrobat Connect Professional).Journal

of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4). Retrieved March 22, 2009, from

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no4/hilbelink.htm.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster

"epistemic engagement" and "cognitive presence" in online education. Computers &

Education, 52(3), 543-553.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T.Cognitive Presence and Online Learner Engagement: A Cluster

Analysis of the Community of Inquiry Framework.Journal of Computing in Higher

Education.

Shi, S., & Morrow, B. V. (2006). E-Conferencing for Instruction: What Works? Educause

Quarterly, 29(4), 42.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Communications.

London: John Wiley.

So, H., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student Perceptions of Collaborative Learning, Social Presence

and Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment: Relationships and Critical Factors.

Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336.


30/38


Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the Nature and Development of Social Presence in Online

Course Discussions.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115 - 136.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition &

Instruction, 12(3), 185.

Tu, C. (2002). The Measurement of Social Presence in an Online Learning Environment.

International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34-45.

Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of

Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Vols. 1-2, pp. Chapter 4, pp.

79-112).


31/38

Appendix A 31

[Personal e-mail communication removed from this copy of the proposal]


32/38

Appendix B 32

Modified CoI Questionnaire

Note: This questionnaire is based on the CoI survey instrument used by Shea and Bidjerano (in

press).

Instructions:This questionnaire is designed to measure your perceptions on various aspects ofthis class. There is no right or wrong answer for each question. Your participation is entirely

voluntary and will in no way affect your grade in your course. We will use the information you

provide to add to our understanding of online learning from the student perspective. All your

answers will, of course, be kept confidential. You do not have to answer any questions you do

not want to answer. However, it is important for you to respond as accurately as possible by

checking the most appropriate response. It should take you about 10-15 minutes to complete the

survey.

We are conducting this research with Professor Gary Morrison of Old Dominion University. If

you have any questions concerning your rights as a research participant that have not beenanswered by the investigator or if you wish to report any concern about the study, you may

contact Dr. George Maihafer the current IRB chair at 757-683-4520 at Old Dominion University.

By clicking the submit button at the end of the survey you confirm that you have read and

understand this section and consent to participate in the survey.

When you have finished, be sure to use the "Submit Survey" button (located at the bottom of this

form). Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

Section 1: General Information

A. Name: ________________________________________B. Gender (Select): M FC. Please select the option which best describes your college affiliation and how you participate in the live

class sessions:

___ Old Dominion UniversityOn-site - Norfolk Campus

___ Old Dominion UniversityRemote SiteOther than Norfolk Campus

___ Old Dominion UniversityVideo-Stream to personal computer

___ University of Regina

D. What is your age?___ 25 or under

___ 26 - 35

___ 3645___ 4655

___ 56 or above

E. Estimate your level of overall computer expertise?


33/38

Appendix B 33

___ Expert

___ Above Average

___ Average

___ Below Average

___ Novice

F.

How many distance learning courses have you taken at any institution prior to this course? Please circlethe number.

0 1 2 3 4 5 More than 5

G. How proficient are you in using the conferencing interface used for live sessions in this class?___ Expert

___ Above Average

___ Average

___ Below Average

___ Novice

Please read each statement carefully and then indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement

H. Synchronous Computer-mediated CommunicationStrongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

*

h.1 The live conferencing format used in this

class facilitates effective whole class

discussion.

5 4 3 2 1

h.2 I was comfortable communicating with

others in the live class sessions.

5 4 3 2 1

h.3 I was able to follow along with the

conversation during live sessions.

5 4 3 2 1

h.4 I was an active participant in the livesessions.

5 4 3 2 1

h.5 The communication in the text-chat

enhanced the live discussion.

5 4 3 2 1

h.6 Based on my experience communicating in

the live sessions in this course, I would take

a course using the same live conferencing

format in the future.

5 4 3 2 1

I. Perceptions of this courseStrongly

Agree


Disagree

*

I.1 I am satisfied with this course. 5 4 3 2 1

I.2 I am learning a great deal in this course. 5 4 3 2 1


34/38

Appendix B 34

Section II: Community of Inquiry

Teaching Presence

Teaching Presence: Design & Organization Strongly

Agree


Disagree

*

1 The instructor clearly communicatedimportant course topics.

5 4 3 2 1

2 The instructor clearly communicated

important course goals.

5 4 3 2 1

3 The instructor provided clear instructions on

how to participate in course learning

activities.

5 4 3 2 1

4 The instructor clearly communicated

important due dates/time frames for learning

activities.

5 4 3 2 1

Teaching Presence: Facilitation Strongly

Agree


Disagree

*

5 The instructor was helpful in identifyingareas of agreement and disagreement on

course topics that help me to learn.

5 4 3 2 1

6 The instructor was helpful in guiding the

class towards understanding course topics in

a way that helped me clarify my thinking.

5 4 3 2 1

7 The instructor helped to keep courseparticipants engaged and participating in

productive dialogue.

5 4 3 2 1

8 The instructor clearly communicatedimportant due dates/time frames for learning

activities.

5 4 3 2 1

9 The instructor encouraged course

participants to explore new concepts in this

course.

5 4 3 2 1

10 Instructor actions reinforced the

development of a sense of community

among course participants.

5 4 3 2 1

Teaching Presence: Direct Instruction Strongly

Agree


Disagree

*

11 My instructor provided useful illustrationsthat helped make the course content more

understandable to me.

5 4 3 2 1

12 My instructor presented helpful examples

that allowed me to better understand the

content of the course.

5 4 3 2 1

13 My instructor provided explanations or 5 4 3 2 1


35/38

Appendix B 35

demonstrations to help me better understand

the content of the course.

14 My instructor provided feedback to the class

during the discussions or other activities to

help us learn.

5 4 3 2 1

15 My instructor asked for feedback on howthis course could be improved.

5 4 3 2 1

Social Presence

Social Presence: Affective Expression Strongly

Agree


Disagree

*

16 Getting to know other course participants

gave me a sense of belonging in the course.

5 4 3 2 1

17 I was able to form distinct impressions ofsome course participants.

5 4 3 2 1

18 Online or web-based communication is an

excellent medium for social interaction.

5 4 3 2 1

19 I was able to identify with the thoughts andfeelings of other students during the course.

5 4 3 2 1

Social Presence: Open Communication Strongly

Agree


Disagree

*

20 I felt comfortable conversing through theonline medium.

5 4 3 2 1

21 I felt comfortable participating in the course

discussions.

5 4 3 2 1

22 I felt comfortable interacting with other

course participants.

5 4 3 2 1

Social Presence: Group Cohesion Strongly

Agree


Disagree

*

23 I felt comfortable disagreeing with othercourse participants while still maintaining a

sense of trust.

5 4 3 2 1

24 I felt that my point of view was

acknowledged by other course participants.

5 4 3 2 1

25 Online discussions help me to develop a

sense of collaboration.

5 4 3 2 1

Cognitive Presence

Cognitive Presence: Triggering Event Strongly

Agree


Disagree

*

26 Problems posed increased my interest in

course issues.

5 4 3 2 1

27 Course activities pique my curiosity. 5 4 3 2 1

28 I felt motivated to explore content related

questions.

5 4 3 2 1

Cognitive Presence: Exploration Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly *


36/38

Appendix B 36

Agree Disagree

29 I utilized a variety of information sources to

explore problems posed in this course.

5 4 3 2 1

30 Brainstorming and finding relevant

information helped me resolve content

related questions.

5 4 3 2 1

31 Live** discussions were valuable in helpingme appreciate different perspectives. 5 4 3 2 1

Cognitive Presence: Integration StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

*

32 Combining new information helped me

answer questions raised in course activities.

5 4 3 2 1

33 Learning activities helped me construct

explanations/solutions.

5 4 3 2 1

34 Reflection on course content and discussions

helped me understand fundamental concepts

in this class.

5 4 3 2 1

Cognitive Presence: Resolution Strongly

Agree


Disagree

*

35 I can describe ways to test and apply theknowledge created in this course.

5 4 3 2 1

36 I have developed solutions to course

problems that can be applied in practice.

5 4 3 2 1

37 I can apply the knowledge created in thiscourse to my work or other non-class related

activities.

5 4 3 2 1

* An option I choose note to answer this question is also included for all survey items

** Changed from online to live from original.


37/38

Appendix C 37

Coding Scheme Cognitive Presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001)

Triggering Event

(Evocative)

Exploration

(Inquisitive)

Integration

(Tentative)

Resolution

(Committed)

Recognizing the

problem

Divergence Convergence

among groupmembers

Vicarious

application toreal world

Sense of puzzlement Information exchange Convergence

within message

Testing

solutions

Suggestions for

consideration

Connecting ideas

synthesis

Defending

solutions

Brainstorming Creating solutions

Leaps to conclusion

Coding Scheme for Teaching Presence (Anderson et al., 2001)

Design and Organization Direct Instruction Facilitating Discourse

Setting curriculum Present content / questions Identifying areas of

agreement or

disagreement

Designing methods Focus the discussion on

specific issues

Seeking to reach

consensus orunderstanding

Establishing time parameters Summarize the discussion Encouraging,

acknowledging, or

reinforcing student

contributions

Utilizing medium effectively Confirm understanding through

assessment and feedback

Setting climate for

learning

Establishing netiquette Diagnose misconceptions Drawing in participants,

prompting discussion

Inject knowledge from diverse

sources

Assessing the efficacy

of the process

Respond to technical concerns


38/38

Appendix C 38

Coding Scheme for Social Presence (Rourke et al., 1999)

Affective Interactive Cohesive

Expression of emotions Continuing a thread Vocatives: Addressing

participants by name

Use of humor Quoting from others messages Addresses or refers to

the group using

inclusive pronouns

Self-disclosure Referring explicitly to others

messages

Social greetings,

salutations

Asking questions

Complimenting, expressing,

appreciation

Expressing agreement

backchannel research residency proposal 20090813 finalx

Documents