Communication Education Vol. 59, No. 4, October 2010, pp.

497523

The computer-mediated communication (CMC) classroom: a challenge 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 communication can create a timeplace 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 john@maine.edu
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2010 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2010.486440

498 J. C. Sherblom

(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 not been 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 cues affords the communicator less identity and meaning, and can lead to misunderstanding. 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 resources. . . . [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 using technology, and studies that find no significant differences. They conclude that CMC

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

499

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 a member 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 to resolve 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) multiple simultaneous 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 the CMC classroom.

500 J. C. Sherblom

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 and understand 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 communication 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 socialemotional 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 students and 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 overemphasized and because they are less idiosyncratically constructed, tend to

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

501

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 reduced cues 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 the relationship.

502 J. C. Sherblom

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, become personal, 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 activities between 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 being there (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 accessibility (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 deindividuation 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 individual and group identity construction (SIDE); and strategic, mindful presentation of self

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

503

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 communication 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 are important 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 adequate direction, tutorial, or instructor support (Dresner & Barak, 2009; Herold, 2009).

504 J. C. Sherblom

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 social withdrawal, 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 social presence (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 of nonverbal cues reduces their nervousness and inhibition, and increases their social interaction (Keaten & Kelly, 2008). Computer anxiety, social anxiety, and communication 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 participants to: ask direct questions, give specific answers, make reference to a topic by repeating

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

505

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 thinking and 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 CMC than 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-toface 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 less inhibited, 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, dynamically 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 relationships available within that medium (Walker, 2007). Social identification becomes salient and spawns positive or negative consequences within the relationship norms of the virtual community (Utz, 2008). Strong, positive group relationships enhance

506 J. C. Sherblom

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 communication 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, asynchronous 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 of strategies 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).

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

507

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 a persons 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 daily lives 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).

508 J. C. Sherblom

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 networked community 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 the acquisition 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 their web-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 asynchronous discussion forum (So, 2009). That social presence affects student course involvement,

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

509

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 distance and 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 student motivation 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 negotiation 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 student perceptions of instructor credibility and caring, course involvement, and satisfaction

510 J. C. Sherblom

(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 communicating through 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 topdown instruction (Rainie, 2007c). Learning becomes more interactive and participatory 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 to discuss 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

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

511

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 CMC through 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 the medium (Benoit et al., 2006; Jang, 2009; Wood & Fassett, 2003).

512 J. C. Sherblom

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 by reducing 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 adequate instruction students can learn to use CMC to engage in self-reflective thinking, selfdirected 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 introverted communicators 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 powerful instructional environment in which students present strategically idealized selves and

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

513

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 cognitive abilities, 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.

514 J. C. Sherblom

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 video conference 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: Ofcial 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 digital discourse. 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. Communication 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.

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

515

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 from http://jvwresearch.org. Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computermediated 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 rst 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 Communication, 15, 83108. DeLucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of a virtual campus 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, 104115. 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 inuence 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., Steineld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benets of facebook friends: 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.

516 J. C. Sherblom

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). Reections 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 halfhumanoid: 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 reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 11, 407454. Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated communication 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 communities. 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.org Herring, 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 commodication: 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 inuences on opinion expression in faceto-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 chat rooms. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 2646.

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

517

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 research agenda. 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. Communication 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 inuence in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 30, 234259. Lee, E. (2005). Effects of the inuence agents sex and self-condence on informational social inuence in computer-mediated communication: Quantitative versus verbal presentation. Communication Research, 32, 2958. 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 inuence 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. 117) Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

518 J. C. Sherblom

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). Ill see you on facebook: The effects of computer-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 inuence 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 computermediated coordination problems. Computer in Human Behavior, 25, 171174. Nowak, K. (2001). Dening and differentiating copresence, social presence and presence as transportation. Paper presented at Presence, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary? doi 0 10.1.1.19.5482 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.

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

519

Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2006). The inuence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Computer-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 aming 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 instructors acceptance of electronic courseware: An application of the technology acceptance model. Journal of ComputerMediated 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 is different 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 inuence in computer-mediated group communication. Communication Research, 34, 100125. Ramirez, A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2004). The effect of interactivity on initial interactions: The inuence of information valence and modality and information richness on computermediated 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 Communication Research, 28, 213228. Ramirez, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets ofine: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287310. Ramirez, A., Zhang, S., McGrew, C., & Lin, S. (2007). Relational communication in computermediated interaction revisited: A comparison of participant-observer perspectives. Communication Monographs, 74, 492516. Rao, S., Shen, Y., & Fritz, S. (2006). Gender and the uses and gratications 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 inuencing anxiety following computer-mediated interactions. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 3539. Robbins-Bell, S. (2008). Higher education as virtual conversation. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 5.

520 J. C. Sherblom

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. Communication 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 computermediated 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, 531565. 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 Communication Research, 11, 221230. 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.

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

521

Stephens, K. K., & Mottet, T. P. (2008). Interactivity in a web conference training context: Effects on trainers and trainees. Communication Education, 57, 88104. Stephens, K. K., Houser, M. L., & Cowan, R. L. (2009). R U able to meat me: The impact of students overly casual email messages to instructors. Communication Education, 58, 303 326. Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions. Human Communication Research, 13, 333. Tamborini, R., & Westerman, D. (2006, June). The effects of avatars on uncertainty reduction. Paper presented at the International Communication Association convention, Dresden, Germany. Taylor, P. G. (2009). Can we move beyond visual metaphors? Virtual world provocations and Second Life. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org Thompson, B. (2008). Characteristics of parentteacher e-mail communication. Communication Education, 57, 201223. Thompson-Hayes, M., Gibson, D., Scott, A., & Webb, L. (2009). Professorial collaborations via CMC: Interactional dialectics. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 208216. Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317348. Toma, C., Hancock, J., & Ellison, N. (2008). Separating fact from ction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating proles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 10231036. Tong, S. T., Van der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too much of a good thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 531549. Tracy, S. J., & Trethewey, (2005). Fracturing the real-self B-  fake-self dichotomy: Moving toward crystallized organizational discourses and identities. Communication Theory, 15, 168195. Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1990). Understanding managers media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspective. In J. Fulk & C. Steineld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 7194). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tudor, D. (2007, November). My avatar, myself: Remixed identity in an entrepreneurial altworld. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL. Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2005). The inuence of instructional technology use on students affect: Do course designs and biological sex make a difference? Communication Studies, 56, 109129. Umphrey, L. R., Wickersham, J. A., & Sherblom, J. C. (2008). Student perceptions of the instructors relational characteristics, the classroom communication experience, and the interaction involvement in face-to-face and video conference instruction. Communication Research Reports., 25, 102114. Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1. Retrieved from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/ utz.html Utz, S. (2008). Social identication with virtual communities. In E. A. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 252270). New York: Routledge. Utz, S. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How ones prole, number of friends, and type of friends inuence impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 314335. Valenzula, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 14, 875901. Vess, D. (2005). Asynchronous discussion and communication patterns in online and hybrid history courses. Communication Education, 54, 355364.

522 J. C. Sherblom

Waldeck, J. H. (2008). The development of an industry-specic online learning center: Consulting lessons learned. Communication Education, 57, 452463. Waldvogel, J. (2007). Greetings and closings in workplace email. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12, 456477. Walker, R. C. (2007). An alternative construction of identity: A study of place-based identity and its implications. American Communication Journal, 9, 117. Walker, V.L. (2009). 3D virtual learning in counselor education: Using Second Life in counselor skill development. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 5290. Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381398. Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473501. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 343. Walther, J. B. (2009). Theories, boundaries, and all of the above. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 748752. Walther, J. B. (2010). Computer-mediated communication. In C.R. Berger, M.E. Roloff, & D.R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), (2nd ed.), The handbook of communication science. (pp. 489505). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 828846. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues ltered out, cues ltered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp and J. A. Daly (Eds.), (3rd ed.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walther, J. B., Gay, G., & Hancock, J. T. (2005). How do communication and technology researchers study the internet? Journal of Communication, 632657. Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face afnity. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 24, 3665. Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C. L., & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Communication Research, 28, 105134. Walther, J. B., Van der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 36, 229253. Walther, J. B., Van der Heide, B., Kim, S., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 2849. Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., & Hancock, J. (2009). Social identication and interpersonal communication in computer-mediated communication: what you do versus who you are in virtual groups. Human Communication Research, 35, 5985. Westerman, D., Tamborini, R., & Bowman, N. D. (2007, November). The effects of avatars on impression formation in different contexts. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL. Westerman, D., Van Der Heide, B., Klein, K. A., & Walther, J. B. (2008). How do people really seek information about others?: Information seeking across internet and traditional communication channels. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 751767. Williams, D., Caplan, S., & Xiong, L. (2007). Can you hear me now? The impact of voice in an online gaming community. Human Communication Research, 33, 427449.

The Computer-Mediated Communication Classroom

523

Williams, M. (2007). Avatar watching: Participant observation in graphical online environments. Qualitative Research, 7, 524. Witt, P. L.(2004). An initial examination of observed verbal immediacy and participants opinions of communication effectiveness in online group interaction. Journal of Online Behavior, 2. Retrieved from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v2n1/witt.html Witt, P. L., & Schrodt, P. (2006). The inuence of instructional technology use and teacher immediacy on student affect for teacher and course. Communication Reports, 19, 115. Wood, A. F., & Fassett, D. L. (2003). Remote control: Identity, power, and technology in the communication classroom. Communication Education, 52, 286296. Worley, W. L., & Tesdell, L. S. (2009). Instructor time and effort in online and face-to-face teaching: Lessons learned. IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, 52, 138151. Wrench, J. S., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2007). The relationship between computer-mediatedcommunication competence, apprehension, self-efcacy, perceived condence, and social presence. Southern Communication Journal, 72, 355378. Wright, K. (1999). Computer-mediated support groups: An examination of relationships among social support, perceived stress, and coping strategies. Communication Quarterly, 47, 402414. Wright, K. (2000). Perceptions of on-line support providers: An examination of perceived homophily, source credibility, communication and social support within on-line support groups. Communication Quarterly, 48, 4459. Wright, K. (2002). Motives for communication within on-line support groups and antecedents for interpersonal use. Communication Research Reports, 19, 8998. Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52, 820833. Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 3765. Yildiz, S. (2009). Social presence in the web-based classroom: Implications for intercultural communication. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 4665. Zheng, N. (2007, May). Your world, your imagination: Community construction in online multiplayer game Second Life. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, San Francisco, CA. Zielke, M. A., & Roome, T. C., Krueger, A. B. (2009). A composite adult learning model for virtual world residents with disabilities: A case study of the virtual ability Second Life island. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2. Retrieved from http://jvwresearch.org Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook and ofine popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 134.

Copyright of Communication Education is the property of National Communication Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.