04.5_Sherlbom (2010) the CMC Classroom

8/3/2019 04.5_Sherlbom (2010) the CMC Classroom

1/28

The computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC) classroom: achallenge of medium, presence,interaction, identity, and relationship

John C. Sherblom

There is a prevalence of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in education, and

a concern for its negative psychosocial consequences and lack of effectiveness as an

instructional tool. This essay identifies five variables in the CMC research literature and

shows their moderating effect on the psychosocial, instructional experience of the CMC

classroom. These influences are: the medium, the social presence, the amount of student

and instructor effort involved in classroom interaction, the students identity as a

member of the class, and the relationships developed among the instructor and students.The essay articulates ways in which a CMC classroom instructor can strategically address

the challenge of these influences to develop positive CMC classroom interactions,

relationships, and learning experiences.

There is a prevalence of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in education

(Thompson, 2008, p. 201). The use of instructional technologies to deliver course

content has been truly explosive (Turman & Schrodt, 2005, p. 110); and CMC is

increasingly present and important in classroom teaching (Romano, Lowry, &

Roberts, 2007). Colleges and universities are adopting the Internet as the new

medium for instruction (Bejerano, 2008). Yet, there is a concern that online

education lessens the opportunity for student connection with faculty and other

students, reduces academic and social integration into the learning process, and

results in alienation and isolation (Bejerano, 2008). Computer-mediated commu-

nication can create a time place displacement that decreases communication, erodes

social connections, and increases feelings of personal loneliness and depression

John C. Sherblom is a Professor of Communication and Journalism at the University of Maine. An earlier

version of this manuscript was presented to the 2009 Eastern Communication Association convention in

Philadelphia, PA. John C. Sherblom can be contacted at [email protected]

Communication Education

Vol. 59, No. 4, October 2010, pp. 497523


2/28

(Caplan 2003; Caplan & High, 2006). Online social interaction can exacerbate an

individuals psychosocial distress and result in negative personal and social

consequences, especially among individuals of high school and college age (Patterson

& Gojdycz, 2000; Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005).

Beyond these psychosocial concerns, there are those who argue that CMC has notbeen shown to be an effective instructional tool. Allen (2006) cites three reasons why

on-line instruction is often not compatible with student success (p. 122). Wood and

Fassett (2003) caution us to be vigilant in how we implement technology in the

classroom. Carrell and Menzel (2001) find no proof that the new technologies offer

anything to the educational process to warrant the time and expense that conversion

to these technologies requires (p. 238). Yamada (2009, ) expresses concern that the

relative absence of the instructor in the classroom may produce a reduction in the

learners consciousness of the necessity of study (p. 281). Thompson-Hayes,

Gibson, Scott, and Webb (2009) advise that CMCs relative lack of nonverbal cuesaffords the communicator less identity and meaning, and can lead to misunder-

standing. Thompson (2008) cautions educators to critically evaluate the use and

purpose of CMC. Boster, Meyer, Roberto, Inge, and Strom (2006) argue that even as

CMC is changing the landscape of elementary, secondary, and college classrooms

[there is] a dearth of strong evidence [that it] enhances educational performance (p.

46); and Lane and Shelton (2001) accuse communication scholars, researchers, and

educators of focusing on the positive aspects of CMC while brushing aside critical

instructional concerns in a rush to embrace the technology. Schwartzman (2006),

however, argues that:

blaming the technology conveniently shields critics from reflecting on their own

pedagogical practices or their reluctance to incorporate new technological resour-

ces. . . . [so their] traditional teaching methods and ways of interacting with students

remain unexamined, protected by blithe refusal to accommodate change. (p. 13)

Matei and Ball-Rokeach (2001) find that CMC complements and extends other forms of

social interaction, and that a propensity for online interaction is associated with

belonging to more social communities. Boase (2008) concludes that people draw heavily

on all types of media to connect with their personal networks (p. 490). Flanagin (2005)

demonstrates the social usefulness of CMC technologies; Knopf (2009) describes the

potential for CMC to increase communication abilities; and numerous researchers (e.g.,Campbell & Wright, 2002; Eichhorn, 2008; Mo, Malik, & Coulson, 2009; Norris, 2009;

Robinson & Turner, 2003) explore the strong personal relationships developed in social

support groups that communicate through CMC.

Rice and Markey (2009) summarize a recent review stating simply that

the psychological effects of CMC can sometimes be a positive . . . and can sometimes

be a negative experience (p. 35). Similarly, Lazzari (2009) concludes a review of the

instructional uses of CMC stating that: some scholars are skeptical, . . . other scholars

consider their experiments . . . a success (p. 28). Benoit, Benoit, Milyo, and Hansens

(2006) meta-analysis of 28 studies with 2,361 participants notes that the research

literature is split between studies claiming outcome differences in courses usingtechnology, and studies that find no significant differences. They conclude that CMC

498 J. C. Sherblom


3/28

instruction is not consistently more or less effective than traditional instruction, and

suggest that there must be moderating variables at work.

The present essay seeks to identify five of those moderating variables in the

psychosocial, instructional experience of the CMC classroom: the medium, the social

presence, the effort involved in classroom interaction, the students identity as amember of the class, and the relationship established with the instructor and other

students in the learning process. Each influence is developed through one of the

major theoretical perspectives on CMC*the media richness, social presence, social

information processing, social identity of deindividuation effects, and hyperpersonal

perspectives (Walther & Parks, 2002). These perspectives make different claims about

how people use CMC to accomplish their goals, are vague in their predictions, and

are not always compatible with each other; and as Walther (2009) points out: it is

often not difficult to explain almost any set of results in terms of any [of these]

explanatory perspective[s] (p. 749). However, it is not the purpose of this paper toresolve the differences and difficulties of these theoretical perspectives, but to use the

insights they provide to identify the multiple, interacting influences an instructor

should consider when using CMC in the classroom. The next few sections of this

paper will: briefly describe the influence identified by each perspective, connect those

influences with a set of communicator psychosocial-communication processes,

discuss recent innovations to the CMC medium that modify and expand the effect

of each influence, and describe the implications of these influences for the CMC

classroom.

Theoretical Perspectives on the Influences of CMC

The Medium and Media Richness

Media richness identifies the constraints of the medium on a communicators ability

to reduce message equivocality and interpersonal uncertainty. Media richness focuses

attention on the mediums ability to provide: (a) personal information, (b)

immediate feedback, (c) social cues, and (d) ease of language use (Turman &

Schrodt, 2005). Face-to-face communication provides the richest medium for the

conveyance of: (a) personal emotion, (b) synchronous feedback, (c) multiplesimultaneous verbal and nonverbal social cues, and (d) a variety of language and

inflection (Trevino, Daft, & Lengel, 1990). A rich medium, like face-to-face, provides

a better context for engaging in equivocal communication tasks such as decision

making, problem solving, and relational development. A leaner medium, like CMC,

that conveys more limited information, cues, feedback, and language is more

efficient for unequivocal communication, but less suited for equivocal ones (An &

Frick, 2006; Daft & Lengel, 1986; Lengel & Daft, 1988; McGrath & Hollingshead,

1994; Turman & Schrodt, 2005). So, the richness of the medium will affect the

decision making, problem solving, and relational communication that occurs in theCMC classroom.

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom 499


4/28

Social Presence

The social presence of the classroom is also important. Short, Williams, and Christie

(1976) defined social presence as the degree to which the communication medium

facilitates social-emotional communication and allows one to experience andunderstand the other person and interpersonal relationship. Yamada (2009) describes

social presence as the salience of psychological proximity, immediacy, intimacy, and

familiarity experienced with the other person, communication, and relationship.

CMC reduces, modifies, and eliminates many of the vocal and physical cues (Kuehn,

1994; Walther, Gay, & Hancock, 2005). This reduction in cues restricts the

communication of social information about the person, generates a more amorphous

impression, and reduces social presence (Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Short et al.,

1976; Yamada, 2009). This loss of social presence reduces learning (Lira, Ripoll, Peiro,

& Zornoza, 2008; Yamada, 2009).

Interaction Through Social Information Processing

The social information processing (SIP) perspective challenges the underlying

assumption of media richness and social presence about the resoluteness of the

mediums influence on human communication. The social information processing

perspective argues that human communicators are actively motivated social

information processors whose motivations are similar no matter what the commu-

nication medium (Westerman, Tamborini, & Bowman, 2007; Walther, 1992, 1994).

Motivated communicators adapt their information-gathering strategies to be effective

in the medium, by substituting explicit verbal cues for the unavailable nonverbal

ones, and interpreting the available contextual and stylistic cues to gain the necessary

information about the other communicators attitudes and emotions (Ramirez &

Zhang, 2007; Walther, 1993). The relative paucity of available vocal and physical cues

means that information gathering is slower and communicators require more time to

develop relationships (Ramirez, Zhang, McGrew, & Lin, 2007). However, with time

and somewhat different strategies communicators can express and acquire the social-

emotional information necessary to engage in conversation and relationships

(Walther, 1992; Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005). Active, participatory, classroom

interactions are possible, but require more time and effort on the part of the studentsand instructor.

Identity and Deindividuation

The social identity of deindividuation effects (SIDE) model argues that a skewing

in the available social cues and the relative visual anonymity affect CMC

interactions as well (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998). Because CMC reduces the

types of social cues available a communicators attention shifts to the available

impression-relevant ones that emerge in communication style, word choice,

paralinguistic decisions, and typographic tendencies. These cues become over-emphasized and because they are less idiosyncratically constructed, tend to

500 J. C. Sherblom


5/28

perpetuate stereotypic impressions and inferences about social status, class, gender,

race, and ethnicity (Garcia, Standlee, Bechkoff, & Cui, 2009; Hancock & Dunham,

2001; Lee, 2005, 2007). Visual anonymity further obscures the expression of

individuality (Flanagin, Tiyaamornwong, OConnor, & Seibold, 2002; Rains, 2007;

Wang, Walther, & Hancock, 2009). Through the combined influence of the reducedcues and visual anonymity a process of deindividuation occurs that propels users

to identify with a group identity. . . and promotes categorization of self and others

in terms of the group (Wang et al., 2009, p. 61). Group task and function affect

the salience of individual and group identities but, in general, as the group identity

becomes more salient an individual experiences less self-awareness, increased

conformity to group norms, and a sharper conceptual contrast between in-group

and out-group distinctions (Lee, E. 2004). A deindividuated communicator

perceives others more stereotypically, and complies more fully with group norms

(Kim, 2002; Postmes et al., 1998; Sassenberg & Boos, 2003; Spears, Lea,Corneliussen, Postmes, & Haar, 2002). Thus, the reduced variety of social cues,

overemphasis of textual cues, visual anonymity, and resulting deindividuation, can

stimulate less self-reflective communication and more stereotypically biased

interpretations of other CMC participants (Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Kim,

2002; Lee, E. 2004). These are important social influences on individual identity

and group process that should be considered in CMC classroom communication.

Hyperpersonal Relationships

Yet communicators are strategic in their communication. The hyperpersonal

perspective stresses the role of strategic message design, attributional processes,

and feedback in relationship formation, and social information processing (Ramirez

& Burgoon, 2004, p. 424). People are motivated to be liked and appreciated, and

adapt to the diminished nonverbal social cues in ways that enhance their

interpersonal goals (Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Common identity cues of gender,

physical appearance, and physical ability are not immediately apparent and CMC

participants strategically manipulate the remaining cues to optimize self-presentation

and facilitate a socially desirable relationship (Duthler, 2006). In addition,

asynchronous, and even nearly synchronous, CMC allows communicators time to

review and edit messages, develop a more considered response, and engage in

information management (Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008). Individuals can

reallocate cognitive resources otherwise used for processing nonverbal cues to plan,

compose, edit, and review message content; strategically constructing messages to

present a desirable self image (Duthler, 2006; Walther, 1996). This editing ability

produces a sense of control over the communication which reduces communication

inhibitions and facilitates self disclosure (Schouten, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2007;

Walther, 1996; Walther & Parks, 2002). The feedback loop of CMC intensifies the

interaction and encourages the disclosure of inner feelings at an earlier stage in therelationship.



6/28

Hence, a strategically edited, positively skewed, optimized self-presentation, that

takes advantage of the filtered nonverbal cues and lag in transmission time to plan,

organize, and edit messages can facilitate a reciprocally idealized hyperpersonal

perception of the communicator and relationship (Robinson & Turner, 2003;

Schouten et al., 2007; Walther, 1996). Relationships develop quickly, becomepersonal, and may surpass the degree of closeness expressed in face-to-face

encounters (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006; Henderson & Gilding, 2004;

Pena, Walther, & Hancock, 2007). This poses an opportunity for classroom

instruction. As supportive CMC relationships grow, students feel more comfortable,

become more honest, and engage in more personal self disclosure (Gibbs, Ellison, &

Heino, 2008; Vess, 2005). Instructors can take advantage of these types of influences

to build a sense of connection among students that bolsters participation,

collaborative learning, and community that ultimately enhances conventional

classroom-based techniques to generate more discussion, coordinate activitiesbetween classes, and extend communication beyond the allotted classroom time

(Kirkpatrick, 2005; Michinov, Michinov, & Toczek-Capelle, 2004).

Critique and Context

Each of these perspectives has been critiqued. Media richness is vague and does not

identify the relative effects of the personal, feedback, social cue, and language

characteristics (Walther & Parks, 2002). Social presence is imprecisely defined and

contextualized as a cluster of concepts (Biocca, Burgoon, Harms, & Stoner, 2001;

Lee, K.M., 2004) including: social presence to depict a perception of others beingthere (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003; Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001),

telepresence to describe the immediacy of the medium (Nowak & Biocca,

2003), copresence to define the mutual awareness facilitated by the medium (Nowak,

2001), and social copresence to characterize connectedness and emotional accessi-

bility (Beers-Fagersten, 2010). Walther (2009) critiques the SIP assertion that more

exchanges necessarily lead to greater impression depth and nicer relationships as, on

the one hand, too strong and, on the other, too naive. He asserts, however, that the

SIDE model and claim that CMC relationships are due to group identity ignores the

role of information accrual. The hyperpersonal model lacks explanatory integrity in

how its message design, attributional, and feedback components interact, which is

more influential, and when they work together or counter each others effect

(Walther, 2010). Orgad (2005) provides the most challenging critique arguing that

CMC is inadequately conceptualized within information seeking (social information

processing); anonymous, textually disembodied group (social identity of deindivi-

duation effects model); and self presentation (hyperpersonal) frameworks. CMC is

more than a conversation. It is a personal, authentic, socially meaningful activity,

embodied within a community. The basic insights of each perspective*that the

medium (media richness); social presence (social presence); time, effort, and

communication strategies required for interaction (SIP); dynamics of individualand group identity construction (SIDE); and strategic, mindful presentation of self

502 J. C. Sherblom


7/28

within expectations of relationship (hyperpersonal) are important influences*

remain intact. These influences, however, must be developed within a broader

conceptual framework (Orgad, 2005). The next section conceptualizes the broader

psychosocial framework of these influences on instruction and learning in the CMC

classroom.

Human CMC

A Medium for Uncertainty Reduction

Interpersonal uncertainty reduction is an important function of communication

(Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1985; Sherblom & Van

Rheenen, 1984; Sunnafrank, 1986); and characteristics of the CMC medium constrain

a communicators ability to carry out this function (Westerman, Van Der Heide,

Klein, & Walther, 2008). In face-to-face contexts communicators use active, passive,and interactive strategies, but these are not all equally available in CMC (Anderson &

Emmers-Sommer, 2006; Pratt, Wiseman, Cody, & Wendt, 1999; Tidwell & Walther,

2002). Passive strategies, like observation and social comparison, require public

settings. Active strategies, like asking others and creating situations, require

environmental conditions that may not be present. Computer-mediated commu-

nication participants, therefore, must rely primarily on interactive strategies like

asking questions and listening for self disclosures (Tamborini & Westerman, 2006;

Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005). Computer-mediated

communication users, however, can employ additional extractive strategies that are

not as immediately available in face-to-face environments (Ramirez, Walther,

Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002). These include reading electronic profiles and

performing electronic searches on a person while communicating with them.

Consequently, CMC uncertainty reduction strategies are altered, both restricted

and expanded, in ways that affect interpersonal impressions, communication, and

relationships.

Social Presence, Anxiety, and Apprehension

In addition to uncertainty reduction, communicator anxiety, and apprehension areimportant influences on CMC (Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007). Fifty-five

percent of Americans experience computer anxiety and do not feel adequately

prepared to use communication technologies (Scott & Timmerman, 2005).

Computer-mediated communication users report feeling depressed when they

encounter stressful situations online (LaRose, Eastin, & Gregg, 2001) and highly

anxious individuals become inhibited, reticent, and socially withdrawn (High &

Caplan, 2009).

Todays young adults have grown up in an environment rich with digital

communication technologies (Rainie, 2006). Yet even these so-called digital natives

find communication technologies difficult to learn and struggle without adequatedirection, tutorial, or instructor support (Dresner & Barak, 2009; Herold, 2009).



8/28

Anxiety and a negative attitude toward computer use are widespread among college

students (Rao, Shen, & Fritz, 2006) and a familiarity with the [technological] tools

does not necessarily mean that [students] possess the skills to use these tools in an

educational context (Dippold, 2009, p. 31). Students who have difficulty using

technology early in a course experience a frustration level, a tendency toward socialwithdrawal, and a general dissatisfaction with the course (Benoit et al., 2006).

Alternately, individuals who are socially anxious in face-to-face interactions are

often more at ease communicating through CMC (Rice & Markey, 2009). Caplan

(2007) describes a positive relationship between high social anxiety and the degree to

which people prefer CMC over face-to-face interaction. The idealizing*

hyperpersonal*potential of CMC reduces the effects of less attractive vocalizations

and physical cues (Walther, 1996). Socially anxious people benefit from these reduced

nonverbal cues because they appear less anxious to their conversational partners and

experience a potentially enhanced interpersonal interaction and relational socialpresence (High & Caplan, 2009). Individuals can present positive information while

hiding negative physical and behavioral cues, and often find the de-emphasis on

physical presence conducive to more genuine, free, and open communication

(Hancock & Dunham, 2001).

Likewise, communicators with high communication apprehension find it easier to

make a good impression (Scott & Timmerman, 2005) and report comparatively

greater openness and affability (Campbell & Neer, 2001). As a written medium with

a less immediate audience, CMC provides a context in which highly apprehensive

communicators can reduce the communication avoidance and withdrawal behaviors

they typically use in face-to-face contexts (Patterson & Gojdycz, 2000). The lack ofnonverbal cues reduces their nervousness and inhibition, and increases their social

interaction (Keaten & Kelly, 2008). Computer anxiety, social anxiety, and commu-

nication apprehension all affect a CMC participants experience of social presence.

Social Interaction, Experience, and Training

As people gain experience with CMC they learn to verbalize social information,

engage in social interaction, and achieve a sense of social presence and competence

(Jenks, 2009; Leiner & Quiring, 2008; Utz, 2000). A competent communicator must

be attentive, show interpersonal concern, manage the communication, and show

emotional expressiveness, confidence, composure, and comfortableness (Spitzberg,

2006). This is not easy to achieve (Cornelius & Boos, 2003). Even in a synchronous

CMC group the interaction coherence may be reduced without adequate

training. Speaker turn-taking patterns and listener roles that normally occur in

face-to-face communication are ignored. Messages addressed to the group and stated

opinions receive little feedback. Consequently fewer opinions are expressed. Group

decisions become less clearly articulated. Groups experience less task orientation, less

coherence, and less satisfaction with their decision-making process even when they

appear to achieve consensus. Cornelius and Boos recommend teaching participantsto: ask direct questions, give specific answers, make reference to a topic by repeating

504 J. C. Sherblom


9/28

key words, and respond to a person by name to enhance group coherence and

conversational flow. Walther and Bunz (2005) derive six rules from SIP principles to

increase group trust and productivity: get started right away, multitask*getting

organized and doing substantial work simultaneously, communicate frequently,

acknowledge that you have read messages, be explicit about what you are thinkingand doing, and meet deadlines. It is unclear whether these specific rules or a

commitment to having group rules is most important, but having explicit group rules

is an influence. Experience and training help motivated communicators express

opinions, share socioemotional information, and engage in effective CMC group

interaction (Ho & McLeod, 2008; Pena & Hancock, 2006).

Social Identity and Anonymity

Identity construction within these CMC interactions is complex (Wang, Walther, &

Hancock, 2009). Individuals can maintain relative anonymity more easily in CMCthan face-to-face (OSullivan & Flanagin, 2003). This anonymity can prolong

decision-making processes, and increase the potential for interpersonal deception

and antisocial communication (Rumbough, 2001; Williams, Caplan, & Xiong, 2007).

However, anonymity also reduces the observable social status differences of face-to-

face communication, promotes more egalitarian interaction, increases participation,

and stimulates greater idea generation (Ho & McLeod, 2008). Individuals who are

reluctant to speak in face-to-face discussions often feel more comfortable making

a contribution in a CMC group. Introverted individuals feel more at ease and in

control of their communication (Rice & Markey, 2009). Communicators feel lessinhibited, and freer to disagree, confront, and take exception to each others

expressed opinions (Dsilva, Maddox, & Collins, 1998). In addition, face-to-face

communication relies heavily on spoken language and nonverbal cues to establish

group leadership, define roles, and develop identities within a group, CMC depends

largely on written communication which allows greater editing and revision of ones

social identity, eliciting a different mode of identity construction (Ho & McLeod,

2008). An instructor needs to take these multiple influences of anonymity on identity

into account.

Identity in Social Relationship

Identities are created as intrinsically ambiguous rhetorical constructions, embodied

within the relationships of self to the medium and community (Bates, 2009; Boras,

2009). Identity schemas are enacted, interpreted, performed discursively, dynami-

cally negotiated, and redefined through collective interactions within the social and

psychological complexities of the individual and the community (Demetrious, 2008;

Tracy & Trethewey, 2005). Computer-mediated communication identities are

socially constructed through the multiple experiences, collectivities, and relation-

ships available within that medium (Walker, 2007). Social identification becomes

salient and spawns positive or negative consequences within the relationship normsof the virtual community (Utz, 2008). Strong, positive group relationships enhance



10/28

self-disclosure of information, group-related tasks, socioemotional sharing, and

morale-building (Michinov, Michinov, & Toczek-Capelle, 2004). Developing these

types of relationships in the CMC classroom allows students to explore new,

creative, meaningful, educational discourses in sophisticated ways (Blackledge &

Creese, 2009).

The New Face and Virtual Reality of CMC

The Medium and Media Richness Redefined

The medium of CMC is moving beyond the asynchronous, text-based communica-

tion of e-mail and blogs to include social networking and multiuser virtual

environments (Herring, 2004; Williams, 2007). Facebook, one of the most visited

online social network sites . . . with more than 7 million visitors a month, provides

an example (Acar, 2008, p. 65). Facebook enables users to create a network of friends

they wish to know personally or professionally. Second Life, a three-dimensional

virtual world with 15.5 million registered users and a virtual area equivalent to four

times the size of New York City, provides another example (Flowers, Gregson, &

Trigilio, 2009; Kingsley & Wankel, 2009). Second Life is an environment in which

participants can create symbolic visual representations of themselves through which

they interact with others in three-dimensional space using text messages, asynchro-

nous notices, and audio conversations (Gong & Nass, 2007; Martin, 2008). To reduce

interpersonal uncertainty Second Life participants can use not only the direct

questions and self-disclosure found in other types of CMC, but a broader range ofstrategies including unobtrusive observation, deception detection, and inferences

made from avatar characteristics or participant profiles (Nowak & Rauh, 2006;

Sherblom, Withers, & Leonard, 2009). These new forms of CMC provide

opportunities for classroom communication and learning.

Social Presence in Facebook and Second Life

Facebook users develop high levels of computer-mediated social presence through

narrative self-disclosure of personal stories, beliefs, and comments made in an

ongoing, evolving webpage (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007). Users experience

positive feelings of psychological well-being and interpersonal closeness. This is of

particular benefit to those who experience low self esteem (Ellison, Steinfield &

Lampe, 2007). Facebook use is associated with personal contentment, life satisfaction,

and greater faith in other people (Valenzula, Park, & Kee, 2009).

Second Life provides an embodied social presence and digital intimacy enriched

by the visual projection of oneself and others as avatars in the three-dimensional

virtual world (Campbell, 2009; Hess & Stewart, 2009). Participants use cues such as

physical appearance, use of space, and use of time, to experience a social spatial

presence that is not readily available in more traditional forms of CMC(Antonijevic, 2008).

506 J. C. Sherblom


11/28

Social Interaction*

Networked and Virtual

In Facebook social interaction occurs in a broad, diverse network of personal friends,

social relationships, and geographically distant acquaintances (Ellison, Steinfield &

Lampe, 2007). The size and attractiveness of this network affects impressions of apersons attractiveness and extraversion (Tong, Van der Heide, Langwell, &

Walther, 2008). A larger social network is associated with perceptions of popularity,

pleasantness, and confidence (Utz, 2010; Walther, Van der Heide, Kim, Westerman, &

Tong, 2008). Social judgments rely more heavily on other-generated information:

comments made by others and discussions carried on in front of an often much

larger, silent audience (Utz, 2010).

In Second Life participants interact, share interests, and feel intimate, even when

they share limited personal information (Kim, 2002; Schwartz, 2009). Although text

chat requires effort, with training and experience Second Life groups can develop

effective interactions and engage in social-emotional and task communication.Second Life is particularly useful for separating personal communication from group

task discussions, and for fostering a professional orientation toward group

participation and collaboration (Sherblom et al., 2009).

Persistent Networked Social Identities

Computer-mediated communication users are developing consistent, online social

identities across applications, replacing anonymity with a coherent online reputation

(Walther, 2010; Zywica & Danowski, 2008). Users integrate Facebook into their dailylives and routines, and upload large amounts of personal information (Debatin,

Lovejoy, Horn, Hughes, 2009). Their online identities become grounded in offline

realities, but not entirely defined by them (Grasmuck, Martin, & Zhao, 2009;

Hargittai, 2007). Family and friends contribute text and pictures to produce a

complex new identity within a relatively large network (Walther, Van der Heide,

Hamel, & Shulman, 2009). Online reputations develop as a combination of offline

realities, constructed identities, and impressions of that network (Walther, Van der

Heide, Hamel, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008).

Second Life provides an opportunity for an individual to construct an identity that

may not be possible in their physical world (Meadows, 2008; Taylor, 2009). Image

presentation and enhancement become negotiable in this virtual world (Messinger,

Ge, Stroulia, Lyons, & Smirnov, 2008) and Second Life identities often emphasize

how individuals wish to be seen (Boras, 2009; Williams, 2007). Yet, identities develop

through an ongoing interaction within a complex set of community practices,

representations, and boundaries (Monberg, 2005). The virtual community draws

users in, helps them forget their immediate physical surroundings and develop an

identity within the virtual community (Balakrishnan, Nikolic, & Zikic, 2007; Zheng,

2007). Second Life participants describe their online identities, even when they differ

from their offline lives, as representing an authentic self within that virtual world(Leonard, Withers, & Sherblom, 2010).



12/28

Relationships within Networked Communities

As online reputations become more consistent and enduring, CMC relationships

become more networked, geographically distanced, and transitory, often with weaker

ties and more specialized purposes (Rainie, 2007b). Facebook offers a networkedcommunity of friends that can be geographically distanced and share weaker ties,

but one that makes little distinction between an acquaintance and personal friend.

These friendships require less frequent maintenance, but provide some emotional

support, fulfill a social learning function, and meet an interpersonal need for

appreciation (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009). Second Life provides new opportunities

for developing social relationships in a virtual community in which a person can

communicate and participate in new types of activities (Chodos, Naeimi & Stroulia,

2009; Esteves, Fonseca, Morgado & Martins, 2009; Harrison, 2009; Tudor, 2007).

This virtual community facilitates active communication and provides a site for

educational exploration, collaborative learning, simulation activities, and theacquisition of knowledge, its application and synthesis (Boostrom, 2008; Carpenter,

2009; Hudson & Degast-Kennedy, 2009; Lee, 2009). These changing types of CMC

spaces provide opportunities and challenges for the CMC classroom.

Implications for the CMC Classroom

The Medium, Instructional Design, and Ease of Use

The use of CMC in the classroom requires attention to the medium, instructional

design, and developing productive patterns of communication among students(Light, Nesbitt, Light, & Burns, 2000). We must be vigilant in how we implement the

technology in the classroom (Wood & Fassett, 2003). User ability and anxiety,

software ease of use, and CMC usefulness all affect student motivation (Liu, 2010).

An initial lack of success with a CMC program will attenuate further efforts to use it

(So, 2009). However, skill using a CMC program increases student motivation and

use (Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007). Perceived ease of use is a more important

influence than functionality on the successful integration of CMC in classroom

instruction (Park, Lee, & Cheong, 2007). Benoit et al. (2006) report that as they

eliminated student frustration with the technology, increased coordination of theirweb-based course content, developed interactive features, and improved consistency

in delivery, student satisfaction increased, withdrawal rates dropped, and student

learning increased. To be successful, however, we need to ask questions about our

learning objectives and how use of a specific CMC medium achieves such objectives

(Carrell & Menzel, 2001). Appropriate use can increase student cooperation,

encourage discussion, and enhance creativity and originality (Jang, 2009).

Social Presence and Learning

Students are capable of developing social presence, even in an asynchronousdiscussion forum (So, 2009). That social presence affects student course involvement,

508 J. C. Sherblom


13/28

communication style, and learning (Campbell & Neer, 2001; Jarmon, 2009; Schwartz,

2009). However, it depends heavily on the design of the course activities and the

extent to which participants view each other as real, build trust, and share insights,

experiences, values, and beliefs (Yildiz, 2009, p. 47).

Social cues such as nodding, smiling, and gestures reduce psychological distanceand increase immediacy, mutuality, openness, and inclusiveness in ways that affect

the learning process (Sherblom, 1990; Witt, 2004; Yamada, 2009). When students

perceive others in a virtual world who look attentive, nod, smile, ask questions, or

engage in other positive nonverbal displays, an environment is created in which

students demonstrate more learning (Bailenson, Yee, Blascovich, & Guadagno, 2008).

Instructors play an active role in facilitating this, as students model their behavior.

An instructors immediacy influences student communication and willingness to

participate in the course (Umphrey, Wickersham & Sherblom, 2008); affects student

ratings of an instructors competence, trustworthiness, and caring (Schrodt & Witt,2006); and induces greater student learning and course satisfaction (Arbaugh, 2001).

Supportive communication by an instructor is followed by supportive student

participation in later CMC class sessions (Deutschmann & Panichi, 2009). The

optimal learning climate is one in which students perceive the teacher to be close,

available, open, and approachable as they supplement [the] classroom

[with] . . . technological innovations (Witt & Schrodt, 2006, p. 10).

New Models of Social Interaction and Classroom Learning

Greater interaction and involvement in the CMC classroom enhances studentmotivation and learning (Edwards, Edwards, Qing, & Wahl, 2007); and facilitates

student achievement, as demonstrated by grasp of course content (Daniels, 2002;

Yildiz, 2009). An interactive CMC classroom encourages student involvement,

comprehension, and collaborative learning (Daniels, 2002; Yildiz, 2009). Text-chat

helps students become more conscious and self-reflective in the learning process.

Computer-mediated communication voiced communication facilitates the negotia-

tion of meaning. Both can be integrated into course functions to draw attention to

learning objectives (Yamada & Akahori, 2007). Threaded CMC discussions increase

dialogic reasoning, critical thinking, and mutual understanding by explicitly

positioning one utterance next to another in a way that connects, articulates, and

reflects the meaning of the social interaction (Jeong, 2003). Newer communication

technologies like Second Life offer tools that facilitate multitasking, foster a

professional orientation toward group participation and brainstorming, assist in

clarifying the delivery of assignment expectations, shaping the relationship of

students to learning, and developing appropriate group projects (DeLucia, Francese,

Passero, & Tortora, 2009; Sherblom et al., 2009).

Students attune to instructor social interaction in ways that affect their willingness

to be open, speak out, and express opinions (Byron & Baldridge, 2007; Ellison,

Heino, & Gibbs, 2006; Ho & McLeod, 2008). Instructor interaction increases studentperceptions of instructor credibility and caring, course involvement, and satisfaction



14/28

(Stephens & Mottet, 2008). Student involvement builds commitment, motivation,

pride, and identity (Laverie & McDonald, 2007).

Social Identity in a Learning Community

Anonymity mediates identity and affects student participation (Spears, Lea,

Corneliussen, Postmes, & Ter Haar, 2002). Combining relative personal anonymity

with a highly interactive instructor reduces social distance and increases learning

(Yamada, 2009). Students adapt their relational messages to the normative pressure of

the learning community (Byron, 2008; Byron & Baldridge, 2007; Lee & Nass, 2002);

and their communication styles vary with those cultural expectations (Sherblom,

1988; Stephens, Houser, & Cowan, 2009). Culture provides a more important

influence on communication style and politeness than does social status, distance, or

gender (Bunz & Campbell, 2004; Park, 2008; Waldvogel, 2007). In a positive,

compassionate culture the amount of time participants spend communicatingthrough CMC increases and results in greater satisfaction and perceived personal

benefit (Wright, 1999, 2000, 2002). A supportive CMC culture fosters thoughtful

deliberation and course participation (Ho & McLeod, 2008).

Networked Relationships and Collaborative Learning

The networked conferencing model of CMC further enhances active student

participation and collaborative learning in ways that de-emphasize the instructor

as an authority figure and increase active student participation in the learning process

(Schrire, 2004, 2006). Students become more self directed and less dependent on top-down instruction (Rainie, 2007c). Learning becomes more interactive and partici-

patory as the networked feature of CMC promotes engagement, team building, and

collaborative problem solving (Gaimster, 2007; Rainie, 2007a). Students exploit lag

time to better compose their thoughts. They are more inclined to pursue original

sources in support of their positions, more likely to contribute to an ongoing

discussion and to continue the discussion thread. They show more cognitive effort,

express more elaborated comments, and engage in more vigorous debate (Vess,

2005). Many students feel better prepared and more familiar with the material and,

once they have publicly expressed their thoughts online (p. 361) are more willing todiscuss those thoughts in the face-to-face classroom (Vess, 2005).

Involving students in a virtual world learning experience encourages: (a) contact

with faculty, (b) active learning, (c) cooperation among students, (d) prompt

feedback, (e) time on task, (f) high learning expectations, (g) creativity, and (h)

diverse ways of learning (Robbins-Bell, 2008). Students can develop a sense of spatial

closeness and a comfortable intimacy in the teaching and learning process (Mon,

2009) and can reassess the teachers role, renegotiate the relationships among

students, and reconsider the educational process (Wood & Fassett, 2003). A virtual

classroom with the look and feel of a physical one can trigger implicit social

expectations about classroom behaviors, communication, norms of interaction,ritualized manners, conversational rules, and implicit meaning structures appropriate

510 J. C. Sherblom


15/28

to an educational environment (Nesson & Nesson, 2008). Even an instructor and

student who have never met in a real-life classroom share spatial and behavioral

norms learned through years of schooling that help organize the educational

experience with rules for where to sit, when to speak, and when it is appropriate to

enter and leave the classroom space. Use of these shared expectations helps enhance:the sense of personal responsibility for learning, communication with the instructor

and other students, peer group learning opportunities, and a sense of community

(Nesson & Nesson, 2008). In addition, online learning communities make it possible

for learners to transcend time and space (Waldeck, 2008, p. 456). Students can take

advantage of hypermedia links, interactivity, browsing, and simulated learning

opportunities to engage in exploration, self-reflection, collaboration, and advocacy

(Lim, 2009; Walker, 2009).

Summary and Implications

The medium, social presence, effort of classroom interaction, student identity as a

member of the class, and relationship established with the instructor and other

students are moderating influences on the psychosocial learning experience of the

CMC classroom. The CMC medium affects how communicators interact, form

identities, and develop relationships while: (a) coping with reduced social cues; (b)

making use of verbal cues, visual anonymity, and processing time; (c) paying

attention to verbal style, word choice, and paralinguistic selection; (d) being

influenced by group processes; and (e) strategically allocating cognitive resources

to develop their relationships. Human communicators actively construct their CMCthrough these processes and within the context of these influences (Montero-Fleta,

Montesinos-Lopez, Perez-Sabater, & Turney, 2009). The challenge for the CMC

classroom instructor is to choose the appropriate CMC medium (media richness),

develop social presence within it (social presence), devote the time, effort, and

communication strategies required for effective interaction (social information

processing), monitor and influence group identity processes (SIDE), and strategically

set high relationship expectations (hyperpersonal), to build a positive interactive

CMC classroom culture.

Actively Engage the Medium

Computer-mediated communication alters the interpersonal uncertainty reduction

strategies available (Tamborini & Westerman, 2006; Tidwell & Walther, 2002) and the

availability of those strategies changes with the particular medium (Sherblom et al.,

2009). In the classroom an instructor can reduce uncertainty by explicitly: identifying

the strategies that are available, integrating those strategies within the instructional

communication course design, and explicitly teaching students the skills necessary for

coping with the technological and communication challenges, so that students can

focus their efforts on developing effective interpersonal communication through themedium (Benoit et al., 2006; Jang, 2009; Wood & Fassett, 2003).



16/28

Develop Social Presence in the Classroom

Social presence is important, and affected by a mediums conveyance of nonverbal

social cues (Short et al., 1976; Yamada, 2009). In some cases, however, the lack of

nonverbal cues facilitates, rather than diminishes, a communicators effectiveness byreducing the level of social anxiety and communication apprehension (Patterson &

Gojdycz, 2000). Awareness of these influences can improve the use of CMC in the

learning process (Arbaugh, 2001; Yamada, 2009). Social presence can be increased

through instructor immediacy as expressed in the use of present-tense verbs, inclusive

pronouns, and verbal expressions of interest (Umphrey et al., 2008). Instructor

openness further reduces psychological distance and increases student participation,

learning, and course satisfaction (Witt & Schrodt, 2006). Newer CMC technologies

provide additional means for developing psychological closeness and digital intimacy

through the use of social networks and shared virtual space (Mazer et al., 2007).

Social Interaction Facilitates Collaborative Learning

Computer-mediated communication requires effort and presents a learning curve

(Zielke, Roome, & Krueger, 2009). Further CMC social interaction takes time and

effort to convert nonverbal cues into verbal ones and interpret the social information

available in contextual cues (Walther, 1992), but effective social interaction can be

facilitated through training and experience (Cornelius & Boos, 2003; Jenks, 2009).

Instruction in the use of a CMC medium within an educational context is particularly

important (Dippold, 2009; Dresner & Barak, 2009; Herold, 2009). With adequateinstruction students can learn to use CMC to engage in self-reflective thinking, self-

directed learning, and collaborative class participation (Nov & Rafaeli, 2009; Yildiz,

2009).

Create an Identity in a Learning Culture

Identity and deindividuation pose an educational opportunity as well as a challenge

(Hrastinski, 2008; Postmes et al., 1998). An astute educator can work with these

influences to facilitate a polite, inclusive CMC classroom culture that is less

hierarchically structured, facilitates more equal participation, and helps introvertedcommunicators feel at ease while engaging in discussion (Ho & McLeod, 2008; Rice &

Markey, 2009). Students can learn not only from the teacher, but from each other,

and through personal exploration and discovery (Chodos, Naeimi & Stroulia, 2009;

dos Santos, 2009; Esteves, Fonseca, Morgado, & Martins, 2009; Herold, 2009; Jarmon,

Lim, & Carpenter, 2009).

Networked Social Relationships Facilitate Dynamic Learning Processes

Developing a supportive CMC classroom culture is key (Vess, 2005; Waldvogel,

2007). An interactive networked learning community can provide a powerfulinstructional environment in which students present strategically idealized selves and

512 J. C. Sherblom


17/28

develop a strong sense of commitment to those selves (Levine, 2007; Walther, 1996).

Rhetorically constructed within a participatory, collaborative, learning community:

dynamic, interactive relationships can become more cognitively elaborated, exploit

lag time to better develop thoughts, and transcend traditional classroom cultures in

innovative teaching and learning capabilities (Jarmon et al., 2009).

Conclusion

Computer-mediated communication requires cognitive effort and adaptation (Kock,

2004). Instructor awareness and effective use of the influences of media richness,

social presence, social information processing, group pressure on social identity and

deindividuation, and the development of hyperpersonal relationships, can positively

affect student motivation and learning in the CMC classroom. However, instructors

must do more than be familiar with the technology. A knowledge of student cognitiveabilities, emotional traits, uncertainty, anxiety, apprehension, and experience with

technology are important as well (Sherry, 2004). Instructors should consider how

students learn best in online settings and design their instruction, classroom

practices, and course content to promote interactive, collaborative student learning

in ways that may be different from the face-to-face classroom environment (Worley &

Tesdell, 2009). Identifying appropriate educational goals, incorporating suitable

technology, training students to cope with technological and communication

challenges, engaging them in less-hierarchical-more-networked communication

relationships, and encouraging them with an interactive teaching style, can empower

students in the CMC classroom with a personal sense of responsibility and facilitate

greater cognitive effort, critical thinking, collaborative problem solving, and

participatory learning (Carrell & Menzel, 2001; Jarmon et al., 2009).

References

Acar, A. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of online social networking behavior: The case of

Facebook. Journal of Website Promotion, 3, 6283.

Allen, T. H. (2006). Is the rush to provide on-line instruction setting our students up for failure?

Communication Education, 55, 122126.

An, Y. J., & Frick, T. (2006). Student perceptions of asynchronous computer-mediated

communication in face-to-face courses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11,

article 5. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/an.html

Anderson, T. L., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online

romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57, 153172.

Antonijevic., S. (2008). From text to gesture online: A microethnographic analysis of nonverbal

communication in the Second Life virtual environment. Information Communication &

Society, 11, 221238.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning

in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 4254.

Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2008). Transformed social interaction in

mediated interpersonal communication. In E. A. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B. Barnes(Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 7799). New York: Routledge.

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/an.htmlhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/an.html


18/28

Balakrishnan, B., Nikolic, D., & Zikic, N. (2007, May). Where am I? Impact of display and content

variables on spatial presence and comprehension in virtual environments. Paper presented at

the International Communication Association Convention, San Francisco, CA.

Bates, M. C. (2009). Persistent rhetoric for persistent worlds: The mutability of the self in massively

multiplayer online role-playing games. Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 26, 102117.

Beers-Fagersten, K. (2010). Using discourse analysis to assess social co-presence in the videoconference environment. In Shedletsky, L., & Aitken, J. E. (Eds.), Cases on online discussion

and interaction: Experiences and outcomes. (pp. 175193) Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Bejerano, A. R. (2008). Raising the question #11 the genesis and evolution of online degree

programs: Who are they for and what have we lost along the way? Communication Education,

57, 408414.

Benoit, P. J., Benoit, W. L., Milyo, J., & Hansen, G. J. (2006). The effects of traditional vs. web-assisted

instruction on student learning and satisfaction. Columbia, MO: The Graduate School,

University of Missouri.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. L. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:

Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication

Research, 1, 99112.Biocca, F., Burgoon, J. K., Harms, C., & Stoner, M. (2001). Criteria and scope conditions for a

theory and measure of social presence. Retrieved from http://www.mindlab.org

Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of social

presence: Review and suggested criteria. Retrieved from http://www.mindlab.org .

Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2009). Meaning-making as dialogic process: Official and carnival lives

in the language classroom. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 8, 236253.

Boase, J. (2008). Personal networks and the personal communication system. Information

Communication & Society, 11, 490508.

Boostrom, R. (2008). The social construction of virtual reality and the stigmatized identity of the

newbie. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1, Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org/

Boras, S. D. (2009, February). Lost in translation: Regulation of the situated self in an age of digitaldiscourse. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Convention.

Phoenix, AZ.

Boster, F. J., Meyer, G. S., Roberto, A. J., Inge, C., & Strom, R. (2006). Some effects of video

streaming on educational achievement. Communication Education, 55, 4662.

Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. W. (2004). Politeness accommodation in electronic mail. Communication

Research Reports, 21, 1125.

Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of

emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33, 309327.

Byron, K., & Baldridge, D. C. (2007). E-mail recipients impressions of senders likability. Journal of

Business Communication, 44, 37160.

Campbell, C. (2009). Learning in a different life: Pre-service education students using an online

virtual world. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org.

Campbell, K., & Wright, K. B. (2002). On-line support groups: An investigation of relationships

among source credibility, dimensions of relational communication, and perceptions of

emotional support. Communication Research Reports, 19, 183193.

Campbell, S. W., & Neer, M. R. (2001). The relationship of communication apprehension and

interaction involvement to perceptions of computer-mediated communication. Commu-

nication Research Reports, 18, 391398.

Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction. Communication Research, 30, 625648.

Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic Internet use.

CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 234241.

Caplan, S. E., & High, A. C. (2006). Beyond excessive use: The interaction between cognitive and

behavioral symptoms of problematic internet use. Communication Research Reports, 23,265271.

514 J. C. Sherblom
http://www.mindlab.org/http://www.mindlab.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://www.mindlab.org/http://www.mindlab.org/


19/28

Carpenter, B. S., II. (2009). Virtual worlds as educational experience: Living and learning in

interesting times. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org.

Carrell, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy

between live and distance education classrooms. Communication Education, 50, 230240.

Chodos, D., Naeimi, P., & Stroulia, E. (2009). An integrated framework for simulation-based

training on video and in a virtual world. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved fromhttp://jvwresearch.org.

Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-

mediated communication by training. Communication Research, 30, 47177.

Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and

structural design. Management Science, 32, 554571.

Daniels, M. (2002). Teaching small group communication using first class software. Qualitative

Research Reports in Communication, 3238.

Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy:

Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu-

nication, 15, 83108.

DeLucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of a virtualcampus on Second Life: The case of Second DMI. Computers & Education, 52, 220233.

Demetrious, K. (2008). Secrecy and illusion: Second Life and the construction of unreality.

Australian Journal of Communication, 35, 113.

Deutschmann, M., & Panichi, L. (2009). Talking into empty space? Signaling involvement in a

virtual language classroom in Second Life. Language Awareness, 18, 310328.

Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced

German class. ReCall, 21, 1836.

dos Santos, R. P. (2009). Second Life physics: Virtual, real or surreal? Journal of Virtual Worlds

Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org.

Dresner, E., & Barak, S. (2009). Effects of visual spatial structure on textual conversational

multitasking. Communication Quarterly, 57, 104

115.Dsilva, M. U., Maddox, R., & Collins, B. (1998). Criticism on the internet: An analysis of participant

reactions. Communication Research Reports, 15, 180187.

Duthler, K. W. (2006). The politeness of requests made via email and voicemail: Support for the

hyperpersonal model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 500521.

Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Qing, Q., & Wahl, S. T. (2007). The influence of computer-mediated

word-of-mouth communication on student perceptions of instructors and attitudes toward

learning course content. Communication Education, 56, 255277.

Eichhorn, K. C. (2008). Soliciting and providing social support over the internet: An investigation

of online eating disorder support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14,

6778.

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation

processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

11, 415441.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebookfriends: Social capital

and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 12, 11431168.

Esteves, M., Fonseca, B., Morgado, L., & Martins, P. (2009). Using Second Life for problem based

learning in computer science programming. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved

from http://jvwresearch.org.

Flanagin, A. J. (2005). IM online: Instant messaging use among college students. Communication

Research Reports, 22, 175187.

Flanagin, A. J., Tiyaamornwong, V., OConnor, J., & Seibold, D. R. (2002). Computer-mediated

group work: The interaction of member sex and anonymity. Communication Research, 29,6693.

http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/


20/28

Flowers, A., Gregson, K., & Trigilio, J. (2009, April). Web interaction from 2D to 3D: New dimensions

in companystakeholder communications in Second Life. Paper presented at the Eastern

Communication Association Convention. Philadelphia, PA.

Gaimster, J. (2007). Reflections on interactions in virtual worlds and their implication for learning

art and design. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6, 187199.

Garcia, A. C., Standlee, A. I, Bechkoff, J., & Cui, Y. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the internet

and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38, 5284.

Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2008). Self-presentation in online personals.

Communication Research, 33, 152177.

Gong, L., & Nass, C. (2007). When a talking-face computer agent is half-human and half-

humanoid: Human identity and consistency preference. Human Communication Research,

33, 163193.

Grasmuck, S., Martin, J., & Zhao, S. (2009). Ethno-racial identity displays on Facebook. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 158188.

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as

social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 11301161.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yang, S., & Nishida, T. (1985). A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reductiontheory. Human Communication Research, 11, 407454.

Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated commu-

nication revisited. Communication Research, 28, 325347.

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 276297.

Harrison, R. (2009). Excavating Second Life: Cyber-Archaeologies, heritage and virtual commu-

nities. Journal of Material Culture, 14, 75106.

Henderson, S., & Gilding, M. (2004). Ive never clicked this much with anyone in my life: Trust

and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society, 6, 487506.

Herold, D. K. (2009). Virtual Education: Teaching media studies in Second Life. Journal of Virtual

Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.orgHerring, S. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated

communication. New Media & Society, 6, 2636.

Hess, A., & Stewart, K. (2009, February). Finding islands of community in a sea of commodification: A

rhetorical and ludologic analysis of the public and private character of Second Life. Paper

presented at the Western States Communication Association Convention, Phoenix, AZ.

High, A., & Caplan, S. (2009). Social anxiety and computer-mediated communication during initial

interactions: Implications for the hyperpersonal perspective. Computers in Human Behavior,

25, 475482.

Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-

to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35, 190207.

Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers &Education, 51, 17551765.

Hudson, K., & Degast-Kennedy, K. (2009). Canadian border simulation at Loyalist College. Journal

of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1). Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org

Jang, S. (2009). Exploration of secondary students creativity by integrating web-based technology

into an innovative science curriculum. Computer & Education, 52, 247255.

Jarmon, L. (2009). An ecology of embodied interaction: Pedagogy and homo virtualis. Journal of

Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1). Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org

Jarmon, L., Lim, K. Y. T., & Carpenter, II, B. S. (2009). Introduction: Pedagogy, education and

innovation in virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://

jvwresearch.org

Jenks, C. J. (2009). Getting acquainted in skypecasts: Aspects of social organization in online chatrooms. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 2646.

516 J. C. Sherblom
http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/


21/28

Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online

threaded discussions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17, 2543.

Keaten, J. A., & Kelly, L. (2008). Re: We really need to talk: Affect for communication channels,

competence, and fear of negative evaluation. Communication Quarterly, 56, 407426.

Kim, J. (2002, October). Interpersonal interaction in computer mediated communication (CMC):

Exploratory qualitative research based on critical review of existing theories. Paper presented at

the International Communication Association convention, Seoul, Korea.

Kingsley, J., & Wankel, C. (2009). Introduction. In C. Wankel & J. Kingsley (Eds.), Higher education

in virtual worlds: Teaching and learning in Second Life (pp. 19). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Kirkpatrick, G. (2005). Online chat facilities as pedagogic tools. Active Learning in Higher

Education, 6, 145159.

Knopf, C. M. (2009, April). When the going green gets tough: Environmental action, transgressions,

and online confessions. Paper presented at the Eastern Communication Association

Convention. Philadelphia, PA.

Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated

communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15, 327348.

Kuehn, S. A. (1994). Computer-mediated communication in instructional settings: A researchagenda. Communication Education, 43, 171183.

Lane, D. R., & Shelton, M. W. (2001). The centrality of communication education in classroom

computer-mediated-communication: Toward a practical and evaluative pedagogy. Commu-

nication Education, 50, 241255.

LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the Internet paradox: Social cognitive

explanations of Internet use and depression. Journal of Online Behavior, 1. Retrieved from

http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html

Laverie, D. A., & McDonald, R. E. (2007). Volunteer dedication: Understanding the role of identity

importance on participation frequency. Journal of Macromarketing, 27, 274288.

Lazzari, M. (2009). Creative use of podcasting in higher education and its effect on competitive

agency. Computers & Education, 52, 2734.Lee, E. (2004). Effects of visual representation on social influence in computer-mediated

communication. Human Communication Research, 30, 234259.

Lee, E. (2005). Effects of the influence agents sex and self-confidence on informational social

influence in computer-mediated communication: Quantitative versus verbal presentation.


Lee, E. (2007). Effects of gendered language on gender stereotyping in computer-mediated

communication: The moderating role of depersonalization and gender-role orientation.

Human Communication Research, 33, 515535.

Lee, E., & Nass, C. (2002). Experimental tests of normative group influence and representation

effects in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 28,

349381.Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 2750.

Lee, P. D. (2009). Using Second Life to teach operations management. Journal of Virtual Worlds

Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org

Leiner, D. J., & Quiring, O. (2008). What interactivity means to the user: Essential insights into

and a scale for perceived interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14,

127155.

Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1988). The selection of communication media as an executive skill.

Executive, 2, 225232.

Leonard, L. G., Withers, L. A., & Sherblom, J. C. (2010). The paradox of computer-mediated

communication and identity: Peril, promise and Second Life. In J. Park & E. Abel (Eds.),

Interpersonal relations and social patterns in communication technologies: Discourse norms,language structures and cultural variables. (pp. 1 17) Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.htmlhttp://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html


22/28

Levine, S. J. (2007). The online discussion board. New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education, 113, 6774.

Light, V., Nesbitt, E., Light, P., & Burns, J. R. (2000). Lets you and me have a little discussion:

Computer mediated communication in support of campus-based university courses. Studies

in Higher Education, 25, 8596.

Lim, K. (2009). The six learnings of second life: A framework for designing curricular interventions

in-world. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org

Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peiro, J. M., & Zornoza, A. M. (2008). The role of information and

communication technologies in the relationship between group effectiveness and group

potency. Small Group Research, 39, 728745.

Liu, X. (2010). Empirical testing of a theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: An

exploratory study of educational wikis. Communication Education, 59, 5269.

Martin, J. (2008). Consuming code: Use-value, exchange-value, and the role of virtual goods in

Second Life. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org

Matei, S., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2001). Real and virtual social ties. American Behavioral Scientist, 45,

552566.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I ll see you on facebook: The effects ofcomputer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and

classroom climate. Communication Education, 56, 117.

McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Meadows, M. S. (2008). I, avatar. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.

Messinger, P. R., Ge, X., Stroulia, E., Lyons, K., & Smirnov, K. (2008). On the relationship between

my avatar and myself. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1. Retrieved from http://

jvwresearch.org

Michinov, N., Michinov, E., & Toczek-Capelle, M. C. (2004). Social identity, group processes, and

performance in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Dynamics: Theory,

Research and Practice, 8, 2739.Mo, P. K. H., Malik, S. H., & Coulson, N. S. (2009). Gender differences in computer-mediated

communication: A systematic literature review of online health-related support groups.

Patient Education and Counseling, 75, 1624.

Mon, L. (2009). Questions and answers in a virtual world: Educators and librarians as information

providers in Second Life. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://

jvwresearch.org

Monberg, J. (2005). Trajectories of computer-mediated communication research. Southern

Communication Journal, 70, 181186.

Montero-Fleta, B., Montesinos-Lopez, A., Perez-Sabater, C., & Turney, E. (2009). Computer

mediated communication and informalization of discourse: The influence of culture and

subject matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 770779.Nesson, R., & Nesson, C. (2008). The case for education in virtual worlds. Space and Culture, 11,

273284.

Norris, J. (2009). The growth and direction of healthcare support groups in virtual worlds. Journal

of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org

Nov, O., & Rafaeli, S. (2009). Measuring the premium on common knowledge in computer-

mediated coordination problems. Computer in Human Behavior, 25, 171174.

Nowak, K. (2001). Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence and presence as

transportation. Paper presented at Presence, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from http://

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary? doi010.1.1.19.5482

Nowak, K., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users sense

of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence, 12,481494.

518 J. C. Sherblom
http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/


23/28

Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2006). The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of

anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Compu-

ter-Mediated Communication, 11, 153178.

Orgad, S. (2005). Storytelling online: Talking breast cancer on the internet. New York: Peter Lang.

OSullivan, P. B., & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Reconceptualizing flaming and other problematic

messages. New Media & Society, 5, 6994.Park, J. (2008). Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer mediated communication, part 2:

An application of the theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology, 59, 21992209.

Park, N., Lee, K. M., & Cheong, P. H. (2007). University instructor s acceptance of electronic

courseware: An application of the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 13, 163186.

Patterson, B. R., & Gojdycz, T. K. (2000). The relationship between computer-mediated

communication and communication related anxieties. Communication Research Reports,

7, 278287.

Pena, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online

multiplayer video games. Communication Research, 33, 92109.Pena, J., Walther, J. B., & Hancock, J. T. (2007). Effects of geographic distribution on dominance

perceptions in computer-mediated groups. Communication Research, 34, 313331.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries: SIDE effects of

computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689715.

Pratt, L., Wiseman, R. L., Cody, M. J., & Wendt, P. L. (1999). Interrogative strategies and

information exchange in computer-mediated communication. Communication Quarterly, 47,

4666.

Rainie, L. (2006, October). Digital natives: How todays youth are different from their digital

immigrant elders and what that means for libraries. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.

org

Rainie, L. (2007a, April). The new media ecology: How the marketplace of ideas and learning isdifferent for digital natives. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org

Rainie, L. (2007b, February, 1). The new digital ecology: The growth and impact of the internet (and

related technologies). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org

Rainie, L.(2007c, February, 18). Communities, learning and the internet. Retrieved from http://

www.pewinternet.org

Rains, S. A. (2007). The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in

computer-mediated group communication. Communication Research, 34, 100125.

Ramirez, A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2004). The effect of interactivity on initial interactions: The

influence of information valence and modality and information richness on computer-

mediated interaction. Communication Monographs, 71, 422447.

Ramirez, A., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information-seeking strategies,uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human


Ramirez, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on

relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287310.

Ramirez, A., Zhang, S., McGrew, C., & Lin, S. (2007). Relational communication in computer-

mediated interaction revisited: A comparison of participant-observer perspectives. Commu-

nication Monographs, 74, 492516.

Rao, S., Shen, Y., & Fritz, S. (2006). Gender and the uses and grati fications of the internet among

college students in China. Asian Communication Research, 9, 7384.

Rice, L., & Markey, P. M. (2009). The role of extraversion and neuroticism in in fluencing anxiety

following computer-mediated interactions. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 3539.Robbins-Bell, S. (2008). Higher education as virtual conversation. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 5.

http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://www.pewinternet.org/


24/28

Robinson, J. D., & Turner, J. (2003). Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal social support:

Cancer and older adults. Health Communication, 15, 227234.

Romano, N. C. Jr., Lowry, P. B., & Roberts, T. L. (2007). Technology-supported small group

interaction. Small Group Research, 38, 311.

Rumbough, T. (2001). The development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships through

computer-mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 18, 223229.Sassenberg, K., & Boos, M. (2003). Attitude change in computer-mediated communication: Effects

of anonymity and category norms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 405422.

Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Precursors and underlying processes of

adolescents online self-disclosure: Developing and testing an internet-attribute-perception

model. Media Psychology, 10, 292315.

Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional

Science, 32, 475502.

Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond

quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 4970.

Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students attributions of instructor credibility as a function of

students expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Commu-nication Education, 55, 120.

Schwartz, D. T. (2009). Second Life and classical music education: Developing iconography that

encourages human interaction. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://

jvwresearch.org

Schwartzman, R. (2006). Virtual group problem solving in the basic communication course:

Lessons for online learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33, 314.

Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E. (2005). Relating computer, communication, and computer-

mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the

workplace. Communication Research, 32, 683725.

Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age.

Communication Research, 32, 531

565.Sherblom, J. C. (1988). Direction, function, and signature in electronic mail. The Journal of Business

Communication, 25, 3953.

Sherblom, J. C. (1990). Organizational involvement expressed through pronoun use in computer

mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 7, 4550.

Sherblom, J. C., & Van Rheenen, D. D. (1984). Spoken language indices of uncertainty. Human


Sherblom, J. C., Withers, L. A., & Leonard, L. G. (2009, February). Interpersonal Uncertainty

Reduction in Second Life. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association

Convention, Phoenix, AZ.

Sherblom, J. C., Withers, L. A., & Leonard, L. G. (2009). Communication challenges and

opportunities for educators using Second Life. In C. Wankel & J. Kingsley (Eds.), Higher

education in virtual worlds: Teaching and learning in Second Life (pp. 2946). Bingley, UK:

Emerald.

Sherry, J. L. (2004). Flow and media enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14, 328347.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London:

John Wiley.

So, H. J. (2009). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning

and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 25, 43160.

Spears, R., Lea, M., Corneliussen, R. A., Postmes, T., & Ter Haar, W. (2002). Computer-mediated

communication as a channel for social resistance. Small Group Research, 33, 555574.

Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated

communication (CMC) Competence. Journal of Computermediated Communication, 11,629666.

520 J. C. Sherblom
http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/http://jvwresearch.org/


25/28

Stephens, K. K., & Mottet, T. P. (2008). Interactivity in a web conference training

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	allison-lee
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

04.5_Sherlbom (2010) the CMC Classroom

Documents