HISTORY OF CMC

History of CMC [Part 1]

This part focuses on the history of CMC vis a vis the Internet technology. The other part will trace the history of CMC stressing on the mobile phone technology.

As backgrounds to further discussions, some introduction to the history of computer mediated communication is useful. The connections in place for the most widely discussed computer network, the Internet were formed in the 1960s and early 19770s when the U.S. Department of Defense and several research Universities, via; DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Program Agency) linked computers. The resulting network, Arpanet, allowed for access to each site’s computers not only for communication but for research. The later role, though, took a back seat to the use of Arpanet as a means for researchers to share information by way of electronic mail. Initially such mailing was in the form we are accustomed to from using the post office; individual messages are sent from one person to another.

            However, it quickly became clear that messages often contained information to be shared by many users and thus mailing lists were created. These lists allowed one person to mail one message to a central point from which that message was ‘bounced’ or ‘reflected’ to others who subscribed to the list. Eventually lists became specialized to particular topics, and the terms “bulleting board” and “mailing list” came to have some interchangeability. Bulleting boards, though generally referred to computers one could reach by dialing through standard phone lines with a computer modem and linking with another computer. The effect of each, board and list, was similar in many ways, as both provided news and information to users and came to be subsumed under the category of a newsgroup:.

            Newsgroups gather the messages posted by users in a centralized fashion and permit interaction with posted messages by way of simple means of reply. Lengthy threads are created by individual messages that generate dozens even hundred, of replies. The largest manifestation of newsgroups is known as the Usenet, a massive repository of thousand of newsgroups accessible from most any computer with a connection to the Internet.

            Other computer Internet grew during the 1970s and various software and hardware protocols were developed that enabled them to connect to Arpanet, and it in turn, morphed into the Internet; thanks to the National Science Foundation’s appropriation of advanced computing.

            The Internet essentially serves as the main connecting point for many other networks. It has in a sense come to be a ‘backbone’ by which networks link up with each other. In mid 1990s, it was estimated that there were over 30,000 computer networks with over 1.5 million computers connected through the Internet, and the number of information ‘hosts’ on the Internet, or “the Net” grew at a monthly rate of 8% to 10% within the US and 150,000 new users were joining over 20,000,000 existing users each month (New York Times 1994; Oni, 2002). With the ever continuous adoption and diffusion of communication technologies across the world, there are global statistics of Internet usage [http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm] which point to the popular trend and support both early and contemporary assertions (Rafaeli, 1986; cited in Jaffe et al., 2005) that some CMC formats deserve the title “mass medium”.

            The Internet is a decentralized network, and its management occurs via the NSF. However, no one group manages it. Instead, a variety of groups, such as the Internet Societies and interNIC, circulate information, resolution and do research on the network’s needs.

Computer-Mediated Communication. What is?

INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

The safest means to define and describe computer-mediated communication (CMC) is to first locate the concept within the ambit of the ever growing technologies of communication. This I believe will assist us the more in understanding the term computer-mediated communication. By TECHNOLOGIES OF COMMUNICATION I refer to the the 2 technologies of the INTERNET and MOBILE PHONES.

           

The growing technologies we have discussed so far also include the Internet and its features (see Oni, 2002) and computer aided communication systems such as instant messaging, Internet Relay chat (IRC), verbal communication on the Global System for Mobile (GSM), wireless devices and personal digital assistant methodologies like peer-to-peer networks and pervasive computing are also changing the ways in which people organize and share information.

            With all these in mind, we can safely attempt a broad definition of computer- mediated communication as:

the process by which people create, exchange and perceive information using networked telecommunication system (or non-networked computers) that facilitate encoding, transmitting and decoding message (December, 1997).

According to Shaft, Martin and Gay (2001), CMC is human-to-human communication using networked computer environments to facilitate interaction. It is the use of computer systems and networks for the transfer, storage and retrieval of information among humans (Santoro, 1995; cited in Collentine and Collentine 1997:414). Hian, Chuan, Trevor and Deternber (2004) however give a short but useful definition of CMC as “communication carried out through the use of inter-worked personal computers.” It is an umbrella term for all kinds of interpersonal (private and public) communication carried out on the Internet by e-mail, instant messaging systems, mailing lists, newsgroups, web discussion boards, Internet Relay Chat, and web chat channels (cf. Herring 2001, 2004). The definition provided by Jaffe, Lee, Huang and Oshagan (1994) also opened another perspective with which we view CMC. They define CMC as the process of one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many discourse using a computer based channel. This definition has caused computer-mediated communication to be viewed as the first interpersonal mass medium.

            CMC is different from "mediated communication" (OF Radio and Television)  because the human-to-human interaction is interactive. For example, when one sends email or engages in an online chat (such as the one that forms the data for this research) immediate response to messages is facilitated. In this situation, the communication is interactive. One is both a sender and receiver of communication. Individuals involved in the computer-mediated interaction act simultaneously as source and receiver.

            Computer, connected via the Internet or a computer network, act as the channel of communication. Because the interaction is personal, the message can consist of anything the two people wish to discuss; sports, music, movies, politics, or even plans for a date, and because CMC is interactive, feedback, naturally occurs through the exchange of real time messages.

What is CMC? A working definition of CMC that, pragmatically and in light of the rapidly changing nature of communication technologies, does not specify forms, describes it as 

“the process by which people create, exchange, and perceive information using networked telecommunications systems that facilitate encoding, transmitting, and decoding messages” (December, 1996). 

This seems to encompass both the delivery mechanisms, derived from communication theory, and the importance of the interaction of people that the technologies and processes mediate (Naughton, 2000). It also provides for great flexibility in approaches to researching CMC, as “studies of cmc can view this process from a variety of interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives by focusing on some combination of people, technology, processes, or effects” (December, 1996). The social aspects of the communication, rather than the hardware or software, form the basis of the more recent definitions. Jonassen et al. (1995) focus on the facilitation of sophisticated interactions, both synchronous and asynchronous, by computer networks in their definition of CMC. One of the most overt examples of the move away from a technological focus in definitions describes it thus: “CMC, of course, is not just a tool; it is at once technology, medium, and engine of social relations. It not only structures social relations, it is the space within which the relations occur and the tool that individuals use to enter that space” (Jones, 1995). In our selection of research studies for the present review, we have been guided more by the social and organizational aspects of specific projects than by their use of specific varieties of CMC and the associated technologies.

Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication.

One of the main distinctions that has been made in CMC has been between synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (delayed time) communications. Synchronous, real-time communications, as between two people in a face-to-face discussion, or talking on the telephone, or as in a one-to-many form, such as a lecture, has its equivalent within CMC in chat rooms and similar environments. Much software exists to mediate this form of communication (e.g., IRC and various forms of instant messaging). These forms have had some use within educational contexts, but, in general, asynchronous forms seem to predominate, wherein there is a, potentially significant, time delay between sending a message and it being read. In offline communication, this latter form is similar to letter writing, or sending faxes, and online has its usual manifestations in email, discussion lists, and most forms of bulletin board and computer conference. For reasons that will become obvious as the reader proceeds, we do not plan to review synchronous and asynchronous applications of CMC in separate sections. Instead, we will refer to both of these categories as relevant in any or all of the sections of our review.

Highly Interactive Communication.

CMC provides for complex processes of interaction between participants. It combines the permanent nature of written communication (which in itself has implications for research processes) with the speed, and often the dynamism of spoken communications, for example via telephone. The possibilities for interaction and feedback are almost limitless, and are not constrained as they are in some of the “electronic page turning” forms of computer-aided instruction, wherein the interaction is limited to a selection among a small number of choices. It is only the creativity, imagination, and personal involvement of participants, that constrains the potential of online discussions. The potential for interaction in a CMC environment is both more flexible and potentially richer than in other forms of computer-based education. The textual aspects of CMC, and in particular of asynchronous CMC, support the possibility of greater reflection in the composition of CMC than is seen in many forms of oral discourse, with implications for levels of learning.We reflect these aspects of CMC in specific sections dealing with the dynamics of CMC processes in educational contexts.

Oral or Textual Communication

There is a substantial body of  work within the discussion of CMC practice and research on the nature of CMC, in particular whether it is akin to oral discourse or to written texts, or whether it is a different form completely (Kaye, 1991; Yates, 1994). CMC has been likened to speech, and to writing, and considered to be both and neither simultaneously. Some have criticized this oral/literate dichotomy, believing that it “obscures the uniqueness of electronic language by subsuming it under the category of writing.” (Poster, 1990). Discussion list archives, and the saving of interesting messages by individuals, which they may then reuse within later discussions, provide for new forms of group interaction, and suggest features unlike those seen in communities based on face-to-face interaction and the spoken word. Such a group can exist and “through an exchange of written texts has the peculiar ability to recall and inspect its entire past.” (Feenberg, 1989). This ability to recall and examine the exact form of a communication has profound significance for research conducted on or using CMC (McConnell, 1988). From a poststructuralist theoretical perspective, “the computer promises to redefine the relationship between author, reader and writing space.” Bolter (1989). For the reasons implied by the above, our review will place special emphasis on discourse analysis studies. Many of these have been performed by researchers especially interested in questions of language acquisition and use and are reported in journals and websites that are not part of the “mainstream” literature of educational technology.

Active or Passive Participation (Lurking).

In most discussion forums, a majority of subscribers do not contribute to the discussion list in any given time period. Of those who do contribute, most tend to make only a small number of contributions, while a small number of active subscribers provide a larger proportion of message contributions. One of the criticisms of many forms of CMC discussion is this tendency for a few members to dominate the discussions, or for the majority to lurk and not actively participate or contribute messages to the discussion forum. However, face-to-face discussions in educational contexts are often designed to be, or can become, monologues, with “silence filled by the teacher, or an exchange of unjustified opinions” (Newman et al., 1996). The fact that it is technologically possible for everyone to speak leads initially to the assumption that it is a good thing if they do, and to the measurement of a successful conference being related to the number of students who input messages. Most members of discussion forums are, most of the time, passive recipients of the messages, rather than active contributors to discussions; they are, de facto, lurkers. Lurking, that is, passive consumption of such electronic discussions, has been the subject of much discussion in CMC research. However, despite all that has been written, it remains under-theorized and under-researched. In most face-to-face group discussion environments, most participants lurk most of the time, and make occasional contributions. Indeed, most discussion forums, whether online or offline, would be impossible if all participants tried to actively contribute more frequently than they do. In addition, there is an assumption, one that has been insufficiently challenged in the research, of lurkers as passive recipients, rather than actively engaged in reading. Reading cannot be assumed to be passive. Much reading, whether online or offline, can encompass active engagement, thought, even reflection on what has been read. The fact that it does not elicit an overt contribution to the discussion forum should not, as has generally been the case in CMC research, be taken to assume lack of such engagement, or of learning.