A variety of contexts, issues, and methods are represented in studies of human communication. The context of any particular study is often based on situational characteristics of interaction such as the number of individuals involved, their relative proximity, their interactive and communicative roles, the purpose of the communication activity, the delay in feedback times, and the degree to which messages are adapted to specific individual concerns or the broader interests of an audience.
Trenholm (1986) draws on the work of Swanson and Delia (1976), and Miller (1978) to establish a continuum of contexts in relation @CiteMark(TrenholmS86a) @CiteMark(MillerGR78a) @CiteMark(SwansonDL76a) to the interaction characteristics outlined above. In Figure @Ref(figtren1) the continua of the characteristics and the situational contexts are demonstrated. The contexts range from interpersonal and small group at one end, to public and mass communication at the other. Research efforts in speech, journalism, social psychology, and organizational communication fit well within the scheme, and the chart provides an adequate model for classification of these fields. Unique and innovative scenarios, however, may not be so easy to place. For example, an educational CMC environment with a combination of synchronous and asynchronous features might have characteristics located as shown superimposed on the original diagram.
Figure 2-3: Continua of situational characteristics and contexts
for communication research
In a hypothetical arrangement such as this, "many persons" might include all the students in one distance education course, most of whom would be geographically dispersed. Feedback could be immediate in synchronous mode, or delayed in asynchronous mode, with formal and informal communication roles developing in either mode. Also, since messages may be read by all participants, even when they are directed to the concerns raised by only one individual, the audience adaptation characteristic may have to accommodate both specific and general considerations.
Trenholm also describes five basic problem areas that receive the most attention from communication researchers. First, there is the problem of communicator acceptability. This involves the attribution of motives and personal characteristics between and amongst communicators. The second problem area is signification which concerns issues relating to verbal and nonverbal sign systems, language, and the meaning of messages. The third problem area addresses social coordination and relational definition: rules and roles established through interpersonal and group interaction. The fourth problem area relates to communicative outcomes, both intended and unintended. Most often, attitude and behaviour change, influence, and persuasion are the outcomes of interest in these studies; however, cognitive outcomes are also investigated. Finally, the fifth problem area considers elements from each of the four previous problem areas in terms of stages and patterns of development in the evolution and growth of communication processes@Cite(TrenholmS86a).
The comparison of media, or modes within a particular medium, would be strained by any attempt to include measures on all the variables arising from this plethora of parameters. In the present study, the subjects had no choice as to whom they would communicate with, so communicator acceptability was not crucial. Nevertheless, partner attributions were measured subsequent to task completion. Signification, language, and meaning are important, but not reasonably tenable nor appropriate as criteria for the comparison of CMC modes under the conditions presented here. They deserve further attention, however, as the medium and the users become more sophisticated. It was also expected that evidence of cooperative social interaction would be most appropriately derived from the content of communications than other data. For this reason as well, measures of cognitive activity, as verbal elements in task-oriented communication, were used in the comparison. Whereas patterns of discourse development may be interesting, they were not included because the basic structural characteristics of synchronous and asynchronous CMC modes place obvious constraints on their respective evolution.
Much of the work by various authors covering communication in education focuses on a traditional classroom model that places teachers as senders of communications and students as receivers. This model excludes, of course, cooperative learning, which will be discussed in the next section. In this section, the differing views of several representative authors who hold to the more traditional models will be presented.
Hills (1986) begins by noting that, "the word `communication' comes from the Latin `communicare' meaning `to share', ..." and he states, "I see the act of teaching and of learning as an act of sharing" (p. 1)@CiteMark(HillsPJ86a). "Sharing" for Hills, however, is necessarily integrated with his other major theme:
Education can be seen as a communication process between society and the individual; and we need constantly to keep this in mind when looking at the relevance of our formal system of education. Education must be looked at constantly in order to determine how well it is communicating the standards of society and the store of man's knowledge. (p. 1)
The result of this combination goes only as far as the sharing of "the standards of society" and "the store of man's knowledge" by teacher/senders for the benefit of student/receivers. In this regard, Hills expresses his appreciation for the study of human communication, and its central importance in education. As a guide for educators, the remainder of his book provides an outline of communication theory in relation to teaching and learning.
Not to detract from the validity of Hills' orientation and approach, it is important to note that he misses the point concerning students as communicators. He devotes a chapter to this topic, but his main concern is that students be trained as "good communicators" for their future roles in society (p. 83). Again, there is no denying that good communication skills are important, but the more pertinent issue is the relationship between learning and communication. Another chapter provides information on group process, but the development of communication skills and interpersonal competencies still dominate (p. 34). In terms of knowledge, learning, and cognition, Hills adheres to the teacher-student paradigm and provides inadequate coverage of student-student interaction.
Barnes (1975) puts greater emphasis on communication by the student@CiteMark(BarnesD75a). In fact, in his effort to propose a curriculum design based on communication activities, he is forced to demonstrate that teacher input is often an inhibiting factor to student learning through communication. Barnes suggests that:
If we consider language solely as a communication system this could be taken to relegate the learner to a passive role as the recipient of socialization; if we consider language as a means of learning we regard the learner as an active participant in the making of meaning. (p. 31)
For students to use language as a means of learning, they must be allowed to talk without abrupt interruption or traditional admonition. To show the kinds of speech strategies students can utilize, Barnes uses several examples of recorded interaction taken from group discussions. Anticipating teacher reaction, however, he becomes apologetic, "In spite of the space given in earlier chapters to small-group talk it is not my purpose to recommend to teachers the widespread use of small-group discussions"@Cite(BarnesD75a ", p.130"). All Barnes wants, it seems, is for teachers to be more aware of the effects of their communication behaviour on the speech, language, and "making of meaning" behaviour of students and to enlist the students' own ability to learn by talking.
Salomon (1981) is also concerned about the effects of communication behaviour in educational settings. In adopting a cognitivist view of mental functioning he posits that mental schemata in the minds of individuals affect the way in which they interpret and reciprocally affect communication events.
... people's anticipatory schemata develop through prior maturation, learning, and experience. These cognitive structures influence the kind of information gathered from surroundings and affect interpretation and reactions to information. We have also seen that .... anticipatory schemata accommodate to the nature of the encountered events. Such a spiral process implies that change is a function of external events and people's anticipatory schemata. These schemata not only influence one's interpretations of events but ... can actually shape the events@Cite(SalomonG81a ", p. 75").
Essentially, Salomon is emphasizing the role of attribution in communication by incorporating the idea of anticipatory schemata. He outlines how communications can go into loops and spirals of miscommunication (which often are counter to the purposes of education) due to inflexible anticipatory schemata. Education, therefore, should be restructured to make explicit the problems of anticipatory schemata and attribution in communication so that vicious loops do not develop. Students should learn to use higher order "fulcrum" and "lever" schemata to extract themselves from loops. Fulcrum schemata are those that help individuals recognize that they are in a loop or spiral. Lever schemata are those that help individuals intentionally alter their existing attributions by providing specific alternatives. For example, a person engaged in a degenerative loop of circular argumentation might learn to jump out of the loop by adopting the view of his or her opponent (Salomon, p. 231). This would, in a rather coarse manner, allow the interlocutors to move the discussion along and perhaps discover more about the issue at hand.
There are at least two points that should be made concerning these views of Salomon. First, there is really nothing new about the concept of attribution in communication. What appears to be new in the work of Salomon is the reconstitution of attribution in terms of mental schemata (taken from the prevailing cognitive theories of learning). There is nothing new about fulcra or levers either. Skinner, referred to them as "self-observation" and "self-management" behaviours respectively (see, for example, Skinner, 1953, pp. 260-261).@CiteMark(SkinnerBF53a)
The second point is that Salomon fails to acknowledge the cooperative learning perspective. That is, the process of making certain higher order schemata explicit, or of providing stimuli that can increase the frequency of self-management behaviours, can be fostered by interaction with peers. Peers can model, prompt, and demonstrate alternate schemata; and they do it on the basis of equals so their own potential for negative loops and spirals is lower than those in the teacher-student authority attribution structure.
Specific attention to student-student interaction is the approach taken by instructors and researchers concerned with cooperative learning. The underlying theme in cooperative learning is based on the notion that cooperation is more human, more productive, less wasteful, and less obstructive than individualism and competition. Johnson (1981) observes that, "competition and individualistic learning dominate most [North] American classrooms, while cooperative learning experiences appear to be far more effective in promoting desired educational outcomes" (p. 5). Further, he notes:
It has been assumed by some that students' learning, socialization, and development are primarily dependent on their interaction with teachers; that peer relationships have little impact on the student and, therefore could be ignored; and minor peer influences that do exist in the classroom are an unhealthy and bothersome influence, discouraging academic achievement. (p. 5) @CiteMark(JohnsonDW81a)
In contrast, the benefits of cooperative learning are generally reported in two main areas: student achievement and student social relationships@Cite(SlavinRE85a ", p. 9"). A baseline increase in achievement has been shown in the majority of studies identified by Slavin (p. 10), while variability in the cooperative arrangements is associated with differing task-reward relationships. He concludes from an earlier work, "that individual accountability and group rewards are necessary if cooperative learning is to have positive achievement effects" (1985, p. 10).
Social relationships are also improved through cooperative learning. Slavin describes studies of inter-racial groups and mainstreaming of the academically handicapped (pp. 11-12). He generalizes his expectations in regard to such improvements as follows:
If we assign students to work together on a common task toward a common goal, where each individual can make a substantial contribution to the mutually desired goal, the students will learn to like and respect one another. (p. 11)
Other benefits, such as those relating to the cognitive aspects of learning, are revealed when the internal dynamics of cooperative learning are examined. "The processes that promote higher achievement ... among students may include the promotion of high-quality reasoning strategies, the constructive management of conflict over ideas and conclusions, increased time on task, [and] more elaborative information processing"@Cite( JohnsonDW85a ", p. 120").
In apparent response to Johnson's (1981) suggestion that increased heterogeneity (cognitive diversity in particular) among students will lead to more frequent controversy3, Nijhof and Kommers (1985) analyzed "communication exchange to investigate the effects of diversity of prior knowledge on the solution of open questions" (p. 127). They believed that the cognitive background of group members is very important to the structure of that group's communication, and the roles of individuals within the group.
Information exchange between individuals can be seen as and can be reconstructed in terms of interaction between the states of knowledge that are active in the minds of students. It can also be interpreted as the input information that triggers the prior knowledge of the participants. (p. 127)@CiteMark(NijhofW85a)
The theoretical background provided by Nijhof and Kommers (1985) helps clarify their interest in the socio-cognitive aspects of individuals in discussion groups. They cite the learning theories of Vygotsky with specific reference to his conception of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (p. 128). Vygotsky (1978) relates the concept from the perspective of developmental psychology:
It is the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. (p. 86) @CiteMark(VygotskyL78a)
More generally, the ZPD concept has become central to theories of the social construction of knowledge and the social origins of learning. King (1990) elaborates:
According to this view, an individual gains understanding by constructing new knowledge or transforming old knowledge into new, and this process is facilitated through peer interaction during which differing individual perceptions arise and are reconciled. (Differing perceptions can range from simply having more or less information about a topic to holding completely opposing and contradictory viewpoints.)...
Thus, these theories emphasize the cognitive advantages of peer interaction; and, in this view, cognitive discrepancies arising in a social context are seen as having greater cognitive benefit for an individual than the conflict of ideas that an individual might experience alone. (p. 666) @CiteMark(KingA90a)
In an effort to address the question as to whether this notion of the zone of proximal development might be applied across grade and age levels, Bayer (1989) is pursuing research regarding @CiteMark(BayerAS89a) collaborative apprenticeships for adults. She states that her "... early findings are congruent with an apprenticeship notion of the social origins of learning regardless of age of the learner" (p. 14).
In terms of educational practice, it seems that cooperative learning may be going into a phase of rebirth as an effective teaching strategy. Ajose and Joyner (1990) note that while @CiteMark(AjoseSA90a) small-group formations, as a classroom organizational style, have long been used by teachers, the infusion of cooperative learning strategies for positive interdependence, and high levels of interaction make for "... a potent teaching strategy with large and increasing numbers of adherents" (pp. 197-198).
As might be expected, along with the increased interest in cooperative learning there is also increased debate. In particular, Damon and Phelps (1988) draw attention to distinctions @CiteMark(DamonW88a) they feel are necessary in the various forms of peer education. They outline three main types: peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and peer collaboration. Their criteria for separating these three variations are based on levels of mutuality (i.e., mutual responsibility for and contribution to the tasks) and equality (i.e., equal in status, skills, and knowledge) among group members. Peer tutoring is low on equality and varied on mutuality because it incorporates " ... an instructional model that assumes that knowledge is passed down from person to person in a linear fashion rather than co-constructed by persons working in active collaboration with one another" (pp. 4-5).
Cooperative learning is high on equality, but varied in mutuality. The equality of members is based in each individual's responsibility to contribute, but the mutuality is limited by the fact that task subdivision requires participants to do much of their work individually. Damon and Phelps are particularly critical of the approach of R. E. Slavin who advocates extrinsic incentives for individual achievement within the group. They favour the method of Johnson and Johnson because it "... spurns the competitive element and encourages group planning of task-solving strategies" (p. 7).
Peer collaboration is high on both equality and mutuality because, in the dyad formation, both participants are equally unskilled in the task at hand and at all times they work jointly on the same problem. The task is not subdivided and there is no expert/novice relationship. Further - and Damon and Phelps are adamant on this point - this peer arrangement does not involve extrinsic incentives which "instead of conveying the inherent fascination of knowledge, or even the joys and satisfaction of intellectual achievement, ... communicate a cynical message about competition and material gain as the true sources of human effort" (1988, p. 13).
On the basis of these distinctions, Damon and Phelps feel it is a mistake "to think of peer-based instruction as a global category incorporating a range of compatible techniques" (p. 14). Certainly, in terms of the socio-emotive effects they present, certain techniques in peer education may or may not be appropriate. In practical and theoretical terms, however, such distinctions may not be well founded nor useful. This generalized area of theory, practice, and research would do well to remain under the common rubric of Cooperative Learning while accepting that there is a range of group formats and techniques that need to be tried and tested.
The foundational theories of the social construction of knowledge and Vygotsky's ZPD suggest that the fundamental feature for peer education is interpersonal cognitive facilitation (ICF) through interactive discussion. The term "cooperative" in cooperative learning helps convey the message of equality and mutuality necessary for the conduct of peer interaction better than other terms. As well, it helps connect the field of Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning (CSCL) with its counterpart Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (see, for example, Davies, 1989). @CiteMark(DaviesD89a)
Those involved with cooperative learning have not missed another growing innovation: educational computing. Johnson and Johnson (1986) @CiteMark(JohnsonDW86a) discuss the complementary strengths of cooperative learning and computer-assisted instruction (not including EdCMC). They cite their research involving cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning in conjunction with the use of educational computer programs featuring drill and practice, simulation and discovery, and word processing (pp. 16-17). Their data confirm the general effects of cooperative learning:
... computer-assisted cooperative learning promoted greater quantity and quality of daily achievement, more successful problem solving, and higher performance on factual recognition, application, and problem-solving test items than did computer-assisted competitive and individualistic learning (p. 15).
Another interesting finding was that the computer-assisted cooperative methods had an especially positive impact on female students in terms of their attitudes toward computers. Conversely, the competitive methods had an especially negative impact on their attitudes toward computers. Competitiveness also reduced the female students' confidence in their ability to work with computers@Cite(JohnsonDW86a ", p. 15").
Other studies of cooperative learning around educational computing technology have focussed on writing and composition at the junior level@Cite(HeapJL86a) and in college@Cite(SelfeCL86a). Group problem-solving has also been studied in conjunction with computer programming@Cite(WebbNM86a) and non-programming computer based tasks@Cite(KingA89a). In all instances, increased verbal interaction between and among group members had a positive impact on outcomes.
