Check out this vintage footage regarding the "birth of the Internet"!!
The wide spread use of Computer Mediated Technology in education is a relatively recent development. Even though there is a “history” of CMC development that occurred last century, that timeline is only about forty years long.
Computers came into the realm of education in the mid eighties. Previous to that they were huge expensive machines reserved for Government and military applications. These interconnected computers were located at various universities and the network developed and grew throughout the Eighties. In 1991 The National Science Foundation gave permission for this “net” to be used Commercially. In 1995 it became its own entity of sorts (PBS).
During this pre-millennia development of computers, the Internet, and the various forms of CMC technology facilitated the reality of digital education as well. To get an idea of the thoughts and trends regarding this newly emerging phenomenon I reviewed a sample of scholarly journals from the eighties and nineties. The concerns and predictions contained in scholarly articles written during CMC’s early stages helps to put our current and future technological development in perspective.
In 1982 The School Library Journal reported That Computer technology was limited and slow to take hold in 16,000 high school districts. The statistics included in the article show the limited amount of technology available for CMC at the time. Within these districts there were only 52,000 computers. That is only about 3 computers per school. At the time educators were worried about choosing the wrong systems, programs, and hardware. The computers were priced at about one thousand dollars apiece and the software was half that (SLJ). This article seemed to convey a sense of apprehension and confusion regarding the potential of Computers and the benefits of CMC in the classroom.
In The European Journal of Education Carla Fasano wrote a very interesting and almost prophetic article in 1985. The observations that were made in the article regarding CMC in education were similar to the observations being made by every one at the time. CMC was slow to develop in the eighties it seems. When the article expanded to include the author’s assumptions about the future it was spot on. The author acknowledges that the state of “education and information technology” was too “primitive” at the time to be an effective combination. Fasano observed that once the hurdles of expense and lack of technical know-how were overcome CMC would be a wide spread reality that would forever change education and society (Fasano).
It seems that after the eighties and early nineties the Internet and computer mediated communication began to take hold on the educational system. By 1994 it was a common acknowledgement that integration of education and emerging technologies was essential for the good of everyone (Schure). It was also being predicted at that time that interconnected information networks would make traditional schools and colleges obsolete by the year 2000 (Schure). This obviously did not happen. But the landscape of education was altered. The article in T H E Journal by Alexander Schure explores this idea and other predictions regarding “new” televisions that would be able to record shows digitally. If only he patented the idea! These suppositions lead into the real purpose of the article, which was to discuss the development of on-line universities and education (Schure). Even though CMC took a decade to catch on by the mid nineties steps were being taken that would usher in a new age in education allowing people to participate in distance education and earn degrees on machines that didn’t exist thirty years prior.
Researching the development of CMC in education pre-2000 shows that there seems to have been a fast evolution of technology, ideas, and systems once things got going. If the growth of CMC in education continues at the rate it grew in the nineties there is no telling what innovations we will see.
References
PBS. (1999). Birth of the Internet. P. 1-2.
http://www.pbs.org/transistor/background1/events/arpanet.html
School Library Journal. (1982). Vol. 28. Issue 7. Page 80. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=8&hid=116&sid=bd544fc6-3cae-4efb-
Schure. A. (1994). Towards a New “Distance Learning” University. T H E Journal. Vol. 21 Issue 8. P. 32.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=116&sid=bd544fc6-3cae-
Fasano. C. (1985). Beyond Computers-Education. European Journal of Education. Vol. 20. Nos 2-3.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=116&sid=bd544fc6-3cae-
BREAKING NEWS
YouTube launched YouTube EDU this past week.
Now complete courses and seminars from over 100 universities and colleges are free and accessible to anyone with an internet connection!
Check it out here:
In a nation where we strive to prepare our Children for their future, we must take into great consideration that two thirds of the United States is online. These figures were given by Thurlow, Lengel and Tomic in their 2004 book; Computer-Mediated Communication: Social interaction and the Internet (p.87). While the benefits of Computer Mediated Communication, hereto referred to as CMC, are tri-fold in that they aid in the educational process, they enhance the educational process, and they prepare students for the future, I have found that the benefits of CMC in the context of education can exceed our pre-conceived notions.
First and foremost, CMC has benefited people with handicaps, such as deafness, in ways that were once unimaginable. Pandian explains in his introduction the reason for this great benefit; deaf students will more typically rely on technology in the workplace for communication than hearing people as well as the fact that teachers are left to find methods of communication for all the students in their classroom (2007). “Currently, around seventy-five percent of deaf and hard-of-hearing (hereafter referred to as "deaf") students are mainstreamed in public schools across the United States (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003).” Results of research studies were explained by Pandian showing that the group of deaf (undergraduate) students had more well-balanced participation, greater learning outcomes, and the students felt CMC was an “enjoyable method of communication in the classroom (Pandian, 2007).”
Addis discusses the use of CMC in order to quench anyone, in any age brackets, thirst for knowledge. In other words, CMC has made education easily obtainable and limitless; it has lifted the confines of libraries, which are bound by walls, and institutions, which are bound by income and accreditation. Any individuals with access to the Internet now have the ability to educate themselves on a whim. “Multimedia applications, connectivity, and interactivity make technology a variable (not a means) whose effects enrich the experience and its value (Addis, p. 731).” Addis further cites Rheingold (1992) in stating “the application of new technologies to edutainment in fact reinforces the convergence between education and entertainment (p. 731).” The use of technology transforms the message in two ways: first, because the message is contemporarily perceived by the individual with more than one sense (Kinney, 1995), and second because the applications of technology can give a new form to the content and can easily enrich it without making it too heavy and difficult to learn, thus combining education and entertainment.
Edutainment has become a key feature for enhancing the educational process. Part of the “edutainment” factor of CMC is the communities that are formed; Thurlow, Lengel and Tomic explain that when people when people “describe their CMC as ‘communal’” one of the variables is having “shared goals and/or producing and using shared commodities’ (p. 112).” These communities seem to emerge from social processes in four ways: “forms of expression (e.g. our talking about our communities), identity (e.g. our sense of shared group identity), relationship (e.g. our connections and interactions with others in the community) and norms (e.g. the rules and conventions we agree to live by together) (p.111, Thurlow, Lengel & Tomic)” “Studies of computer-assisted social networks have shown that the stronger the ties and the more multiplex the activities, the more like a community a network will be (p. 113);” for instance, the strength of the tie may be determined by the social positions, whether it is student to student or student to teacher, in addition to factors such as frequency of contact and diversity of information (Thurlow, Lengel & Tomic, 2004).
Another part of the edutainment factor is discussed by the U.S. Department of Education on their website. Students “can manipulate it on the computer through graphic displays or controlled experiments in ways never before possible (2003).” They use the example of a biology lesson; rather than simply reading about blood flow and circulatory systems, students can now watch the processes and experiment with the effects of different homeostatic imbalances they may want to see imposed.
Many of the features that enhance the educational process, such as the community network previously discussed, also aid students in preparing for the future. McComb discusses her pedagogical aims utilizing the educational philosophers, Freire and Dewey, arguments that students’ minds will not count in the affairs of society through traditional instructional means alone. “Their education must engage their experiences, concerns and voices (p.159).” She further explains that this active creativity and use of their voice gives them a mode for experience. Furthermore, McComb discusses the motivation of the students (initiative) as well as a shift in that students work along with the teachers to drive their quest for knowledge. You can simply see the positive aspects of CMC in education in the shift of terminology being used; dialogue rather than lecture, collaborative rather than research agenda. “If learning is not mere knowledge transmission from teacher to student and if learning is triggered by students’ own experiences, the implication is that learning is not limited to the classroom (p.163)”
In addition to enhancing the students learning, just as Thurlow, Lengel and Tomic discuss regarding enhancing ties, CMC can enhance the instructors’ role, as well. McComb acknowledges the benefits of CMC in education can be as simple as a “an efficient “message center” for course announcements and information channel for questions and concerns and a forum for discussion (p. 160).” McComb gives a litany of reasons she has found CMC enhances education in college education along with detailed explanations of each; extends learning beyond the classroom (increased availability, demonstrates caring, includes outside experts), CMC balances power (increases student responsibility and requires initiative, responsibilities in conferencing), CMC is efficient (access to resources, facilitates quick assignment turnaround, keeps course records, focused participation) ( McComb, p.163-169). McComb further adds that another benefit to CMC is that instructors can work at their own convenience as well as be “available to students beyond institutionalized times and places” because of CMC’s asynchronicity (p. 163).”
Barnes acknowledges the cause-and-effect relationship technology has on our society and discusses how Technological Determinists interpret those transformations in society at various levels, such as institutions (Barnes, p.328, 2003). The U.S. Department of Education states on their website they “now know--based on decades of use in schools, on findings of hundreds of research studies, and on the everyday experiences of educators, students, and their families--that, properly used, technology can enhance the achievement of all students, increase families' involvement in their children's schooling, improve teachers' skills and knowledge, and improve school administration and management.”
References:
Addis, M. (2005, July). COMMENTARY: New technologies and cultural consumption - edutainment is born!. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 729-736. Retrieved April 14, 2009, doi:10.1108/03090560510601734
Barnes, S. B. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: Human-to-human communication across the internet. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
McComb, M. (1994, April). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college sources. Communication Education, 43(2), 159. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
Pandian, M. (2007, August). Cooperative Learning Incorporating Computer-Mediated Communication: Participation, Perceptions, and Learning Outcomes in a Deaf Education Classroom. Language in India, 7(8), 2-2. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Social interaction and the internet. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.) U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from; http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/national/benefits.html
It is clear that education today is different from the days before computers. Whether or not things have changed for better or for worse is up for debate.
If one thing can be learned from evaluating CMC and education it is this; we cant know the future but it seems to be the case that education and computer technology will continue to develop together.
The words of California Institute of Technology professor John Pierce come to mind:
After growing wildly for years, the field of computing appears to be reaching its infancy. ~John Pierce
Barnes, S. (2003). Computer-Mediated Communication: Human-To-Human Communication Across the Internet. 327. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
