This thesis focuses upon a series of empirical studies which examine communication and learning in online glocal communities within higher education in Sweden. A recurring theme in the theoretical framework deals with issues of languaging in virtual multimodal environments as well as the making of identity and negotiation of meaning in these settings; analyzing the activity, what people do, in contraposition to the study of how people talk about their activity. The studies arise from netnographic work during two online Italian for Beginners courses offered by a Swedish university. Microanalyses of the interactions occurring through multimodal video-conferencing software are amplified by the study of the courses’ organisation of space and time and have allowed for the identification of communicative strategies and interactional patterns in virtual learning sites when participants communicate in a language variety with which they have a limited experience. The findings from the four studies included in the thesis indicate that students who are part of institutional virtual higher educational settings make use of several resources in order to perform their identity positions inside the group as a way to enrich and nurture the process of communication and learning in this online glocal community. The sociocultural dialogical analyses also shed light on the ways in which participants gathering in discursive technological spaces benefit from the opportunity to go to class without commuting to the physical building of the institution providing the course. This identity position is, thus, both experienced by participants in interaction, and also afforded by the ‘spaceless’ nature of the online environment.

The rapid growth of the internet over the past decade has provided increasing opportunities for individuals to engage in computer-mediated social interaction in virtual environments. Despite this rapid growth there has been limited research into the way people use the Internet, and the effect Internet use has on their lives (Kraut, 1996). The overall aim in the research presented in this thesis was to explore how characteristics of the individual interact with characteristics of computer-mediated communication to enable socio-emotional communication and behaviour in social text-based virtual environments. Three studies are presented. Studies One and Two are qualitative studies of social interaction in two text-based, synchronous ('real time') virtual environments: MOOs (Multi User Dimensions, Object Oriented) and Internet Relay' Chat (IRC). Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) methodology was used to develop formal theories of social interaction within these environments. Stage models of virtual environment use were developed that described changes in social interaction over time. In MOOs, changes in social interaction over time reflected the process of coming to terms with what was initially viewed by users as an alternative reality. In IRC the central feature of social interaction that emerged was the perceived ease of communication. This was attributed to the effortlessness of meeting a wide range of potential communication partners in a social context where the communication itself was simplified to text only communication. The hypotheses developed from the qualitative research in Studies One and Two were tested in Study Three. This was a longitudinal study of new Internet users that examined the bi-directional effects of personality characteristics and computer-mediated communication on behaviour. Personality measures were poor predictors of time spent in ++ / both specific types of virtual environments and on-line in general. Based on the usage patterns across the three studies a decision pathway for the use of virtual environments was developed. A key finding across the studies was the potential for virtual environments to enhance psychological well-being for individuals who experience social discomfort in off-line settings. Limitations of the research were discussed and suggestions made for future research.

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Up till now, architects collaborating with other colleagues did so mostly face-to-face (FTF). They had to be in the same space (co-located) at the same time. Communi-cation was ‘spontaneous’ and ideas were represented, whether verbal or non-verbal, by talking and using ‘traditional drawing tools’. If they were geographically displaced, the interaction was then space affected as well as the probability of being time affected. In this case communication was usually mediated through the tele-phone, and graphically represented ideas were sent by Fax or posted documents. Recently, some architectural firms started using modems and Internet connections to exchange information, by transferring CAD drawings as well as design informa-tion, through e-mail and file transfer protocol (FTP). Discussing ideas in architecture, as a more abstract notion, is different from discuss-ing other more concrete arguments using video conferencing. It is more important to ‘see’ what is being discussed at hand than ‘watch’ the other person(s) involved in the discussion. In other words the data being conveyed might be of more impor-tance than the mode of communication. Taking into consideration recent developments in computer and communication technologies this thesis investigates different communication channels utilised in architectural collaboration through Computer Mediated Collaborative Design (CMCD) sessions as opposed to FTF sessions. This thesis investigates the possi-ble effects these different channels have on collaborative design in general and col-laborative design communication in particular. We argue that successful CMCD does not necessarily mean emulating close prox-imity environments. Excluding certain communication channels in a CMCD envi-ronment might affect the flow and quantity of synchronous collaborative communica-tion, but not necessarily the quality and content of mutually communicated and rep-resented design ideas. Therefore different communication channels might affect the type of communication and not necessarily the content of the communication. We propose that audio and video are not essential communication channels in CMCD environments. We posit that architects will collaborate and communicate design representations effectively although with some differences, since those two chan-nels might cause interruptions and successful collaborative sessions can take place without them. For this purpose we conducted twenty-four one-hour experiments involving final year architecture students all working to the same design brief. The experiments were divided into three categories, FTF, full computer mediated collaborative design sessions (CMCD-a; audio-video conferencing plus whiteboard as a shared drawing space) and limited computer mediated collaborative design sessions (CMCD-b; with Lambda MOO used as a chat medium plus whiteboard as a shared drawing space). The experiments were video and audio taped, transcribed and coded into a custom developed coding scheme. The results of the analysed coded data and observations of the videotapes provided evidence that there were noticeable differences between the three categories. There was more design communication and less communication control in the CMCD-b category compared to the FTF and CMCD-a categories. Verbal communi-cation became shorter and straight to the point in CMCD-b as opposed to spontane-ous non-stop chat in the other two categories. Moreover in CMCD-b the subjects were observed to be more reflective as well as choosing and re-examining their words to explain ideas to their partners. At times they were seen scrolling back through the text of the conversation in order to re-analyse or interpret the design ideas at hand. This was impossible in FTF and CMCD-a sessions, since the sub-jects were more spontaneous and audio representations were lost as soon as they were uttered. Also the video channel in the CMCD-a category was ignored and hardly used except for the first few minutes of the experiments, for a brief exchange of light humour on the appearance of each subject. The results obtained from analysing the experiments helped us conclude that differ-ent communication channels produce different collaborative environments. The three categories of communication for architectural collaboration explored in our ex-periments are indicative of the alternatives available to architects now. What is not clear to architects is why they would choose one category over another. We pro-pose that each category has its own strengths and difficulties for architectural col-laboration, and therefore should be selected on the basis of the type of communica-tion considered to be most effective for the stage and tasks of the design project.

This study examined the effects of communication mode, both face-to-face (FTF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC), and polling on cooperation in a commons dilemma. Sixty-seven six-person groups used FISH, a computer program that uses a fishing metaphor to simulate a commons dilemma. Next, groups had a 10-minute discussion period, either FTF or via CMC, in which they devised a strategy for the second FISH session. Groups were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: FTF, no-poll CMC, end-poll CMC, and two-poll CMC. The polls allowed members to determine others' intended behavior, thus enhancing perceived consensus. Finally, groups used the FISH program again. Results indicted that experimental condition influenced consensus, with end-poll CMC groups reaching consensus most often, followed by FTF, two-poll CMC, and no-poll CMC groups. However, groups did not differ across experimental condition on resource pool sustainability or group profit. FTF groups were more satisfied with group performance than no-poll CMC groups and two-poll CMC and FTF groups had similar levels of satisfaction. The strategy the group decided to implement in the second FISH session had a significant effect on group profit but not resource pool sustainability. Thus, the harvest strategy implemented by the group may have been a stronger predictor of performance than experimental condition.

none

This study examined the effects of communication mode, both face-to-face (FTF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC), and polling on cooperation in a commons dilemma. Sixty-seven six-person groups used FISH, a computer program that uses a fishing metaphor to simulate a commons dilemma. Next, groups had a 10-minute discussion period, either FTF or via CMC, in which they devised a strategy for the second FISH session. Groups were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: FTF, no-poll CMC, end-poll CMC, and two-poll CMC. The polls allowed members to determine others' intended behavior, thus enhancing perceived consensus. Finally, groups used the FISH program again. Results indicted that experimental condition influenced consensus, with end-poll CMC groups reaching consensus most often, followed by FTF, two-poll CMC, and no-poll CMC groups. However, groups did not differ across experimental condition on resource pool sustainability or group profit. FTF groups were more satisfied with group performance than no-poll CMC groups and two-poll CMC and FTF groups had similar levels of satisfaction. The strategy the group decided to implement in the second FISH session had a significant effect on group profit but not resource pool sustainability. Thus, the harvest strategy implemented by the group may have been a stronger predictor of performance than experimental condition.

Thesis (D.Tech.: Language Practice) - Dept. of Language and Translation, Durban University of Technology, 2007 / An in-depth investigation into the nature of composing was carried out to provide the theoretical basis for a computer mediated learning application, an interactive writing tutor computer program which might be customised by users to fit different educational contexts. The investigation was carried out within a critical realist perspective, from which viewpoint composing can be seen to have an external reality in common with other social phenomena. The intended outcome was to arrive at a description of writing which more closely approximated the reality so as to design more effective learning interactions, in particular, the writing tutor program itself

Current trends in information technology developments mean that computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems can be expected to become progressively more versatile, widespread and significant both for work and for education. All students and staff of the Department of Communication and Information Studies at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, have used CMC systematically for more than five years. This has made it possible to carry out detailed studies over time of the impact of CMC on academic users, and of the value they derive from it, with a particular focus on gender differences. Results are presented of a survey of student use, including levels and patterns of messaging as well as perceptions of, and attitudes towards CMC activities. Some results are compared with related surveys of UK distance learning students using CMC, and of computing use by students at a US local campus. Despite rapid changes in technological capabilities, there appears to be some stability of reactions to CMC. Students most highly valued course-oriented and administrative uses of CMC. When compared with face-to-face tutorials, CMC was rated negatively, though least so as a medium for intellectual exchange. However, students were positive about their present and future use of CMC, and became more positive over time. Some evidence was found to support concerns that females may be disadvantaged in the use of CMC. There was also, however, evidence of the related gender differences diminishing, disappearing, or reversing with experience and over time. It is suggested that CMC may best be regarded as a complementary rather than substitutionary medium in higher education

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Up till now, architects collaborating with other colleagues did so mostly face-to-face (FTF). They had to be in the same space (co-located) at the same time. Communi-cation was ‘spontaneous’ and ideas were represented, whether verbal or non-verbal, by talking and using ‘traditional drawing tools’. If they were geographically displaced, the interaction was then space affected as well as the probability of being time affected. In this case communication was usually mediated through the tele-phone, and graphically represented ideas were sent by Fax or posted documents. Recently, some architectural firms started using modems and Internet connections to exchange information, by transferring CAD drawings as well as design informa-tion, through e-mail and file transfer protocol (FTP). Discussing ideas in architecture, as a more abstract notion, is different from discuss-ing other more concrete arguments using video conferencing. It is more important to ‘see’ what is being discussed at hand than ‘watch’ the other person(s) involved in the discussion. In other words the data being conveyed might be of more impor-tance than the mode of communication. Taking into consideration recent developments in computer and communication technologies this thesis investigates different communication channels utilised in architectural collaboration through Computer Mediated Collaborative Design (CMCD) sessions as opposed to FTF sessions. This thesis investigates the possi-ble effects these different channels have on collaborative design in general and col-laborative design communication in particular. We argue that successful CMCD does not necessarily mean emulating close prox-imity environments. Excluding certain communication channels in a CMCD envi-ronment might affect the flow and quantity of synchronous collaborative communica-tion, but not necessarily the quality and content of mutually communicated and rep-resented design ideas. Therefore different communication channels might affect the type of communication and not necessarily the content of the communication. We propose that audio and video are not essential communication channels in CMCD environments. We posit that architects will collaborate and communicate design representations effectively although with some differences, since those two chan-nels might cause interruptions and successful collaborative sessions can take place without them. For this purpose we conducted twenty-four one-hour experiments involving final year architecture students all working to the same design brief. The experiments were divided into three categories, FTF, full computer mediated collaborative design sessions (CMCD-a; audio-video conferencing plus whiteboard as a shared drawing space) and limited computer mediated collaborative design sessions (CMCD-b; with Lambda MOO used as a chat medium plus whiteboard as a shared drawing space). The experiments were video and audio taped, transcribed and coded into a custom developed coding scheme. The results of the analysed coded data and observations of the videotapes provided evidence that there were noticeable differences between the three categories. There was more design communication and less communication control in the CMCD-b category compared to the FTF and CMCD-a categories. Verbal communi-cation became shorter and straight to the point in CMCD-b as opposed to spontane-ous non-stop chat in the other two categories. Moreover in CMCD-b the subjects were observed to be more reflective as well as choosing and re-examining their words to explain ideas to their partners. At times they were seen scrolling back through the text of the conversation in order to re-analyse or interpret the design ideas at hand. This was impossible in FTF and CMCD-a sessions, since the sub-jects were more spontaneous and audio representations were lost as soon as they were uttered. Also the video channel in the CMCD-a category was ignored and hardly used except for the first few minutes of the experiments, for a brief exchange of light humour on the appearance of each subject. The results obtained from analysing the experiments helped us conclude that differ-ent communication channels produce different collaborative environments. The three categories of communication for architectural collaboration explored in our ex-periments are indicative of the alternatives available to architects now. What is not clear to architects is why they would choose one category over another. We pro-pose that each category has its own strengths and difficulties for architectural col-laboration, and therefore should be selected on the basis of the type of communica-tion considered to be most effective for the stage and tasks of the design project.

Thesis (Ph. D.)(Information Science)--University of Pretoria, 2005. / Includes summary. Includes bibliographical references. Available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.