Computer mediated communication and collaborative learning in an undergraduate distance education environment

Deakin University has, over a number of years, committed resources to the development of communication technologies in all aspects of teaching and learning. In 1996, staff in the School of Economics decided to adopt the use of computer mediated communication (CMC) in both the teaching and assessment of the first year microeconomics and macroeconomics units to distance education students.

This paper reports on the use of CMC and collaborative learning among distance education students studying first year macroeconomics. Quantitative data is based on questionnaires completed by students over two semesters and qualitative analysis on the experience of both staff and students.

Evidence suggests a positive response by students to the use of CMC in the teaching of economics using a collaborative learning approach. This supports the findings of previous studies that students' learning experiences are improved through collaborative learning.

Introduction

Why develop collaborative learning?

Collaborative or group learning is premised upon a learner-centred model that treats the learner as an active participant who construes knowledge from a wide range of experiences, information sources and interaction with others (Harasim 1990, Laurillard 1993). Some agreement on common goals and the pooling of individual competencies for the benefit of the group as a whole is necessary for successful collaboration.

Common features identified in the literature (Kimber 1994) are student based or student centred activities, whereby students assist each other to find answers to areas of common inquiry and solve problems by data gathering, analysis and group discussion. This can be achieved through the use of group based assignments, research projects, case studies or class paper preparation and presentations. It is the instructor's role to structure and then monitor activities to develop collaborative learning. The instructor becomes a resource and a facilitator for the learning activities of the group.

Educational research identifies peer interaction among students as a critical variable in learning and cognitive development at all levels (Harasim 1990). Sociomotional variables such as motivation, anxiety and satisfaction are claimed to benefit from working with peers. Research also shows peer interaction assists learners in understanding new concepts and provides an opportunity to commit these concepts to memory (Cohen 1984). Kaye (1992) claims the strengths of collaborative learning through discussion and conversation include the sharing of different perspectives, the obligation to make explicit and communicate one's own knowledge and understandings to others and the motivational value of being a member of a healthy group. Some evaluation and/or cooperation of peer activities is a feature.

CMC and collaborative learning

Online education allows for both place-independent and time-independent learning and collaborations. Asynchronous communication allows users to participate at a time and at a pace convenient to them and appropriate to the application. Participants can respond immediately or they may elect to respond after taking time to reflect and compose a response thoughtfully. The quality of participation can be greatly improved online.

Kaye (1992) claims that although the para-linguistic cues of face-to-face or telephone communication are missing, the medium does offer greater communication richness than the more familiar forms of textual communication used by groups. The cumulative record of message contributions provide a greater potential for reflective and thoughtful analysis and review of earlier contributions than would participation in face-to-face seminars. The interaction develops written communication skills, enhances in-depth processing and recall of course material, and prepares students for examinations demanding written responses. However, the lack of control over turn-taking, and the frequent development of multiple threads of discussion within the same message space, can provide obstacles to effective collaboration.

Most advantages of computer conferencing have disadvantages bound up with them. However, the democratic and equalising tendency of computer conferencing has been noted in the literature. Mason (1994) claims access is the essence of the medium, not status. CMC and other technologies have the potential for blurring the traditional distinctions between the classroom-based and distance education provision as well as enriching the distance education experience. In addition to creating an active, collaborative environment, communities among users may develop which can be both personally and educationally enriching.

The Deakin Project

In 1996 it was decided to adopt the use of CMC in developing collaborative learning in both the teaching and assessment of the first year microeconomics and macroeconomics units to distance education students. Staff faced the challenge of adapting the undergraduate units to maximise the potential benefits of CMC and create a richer learning experience to address some of the difficulties students traditionally experience with first year economics. Each off-campus student was provided with the choice of learning using the traditional method, involving printed course notes, phone contact with staff and assessment via assignments (which are returned with comments) and a final exam; or learning using the FirstClass conferencing facility incorporating the above, but also providing the student with computer access to both other students and staff with part of the formal assessment incorporating the online collaborative environment.

FirstClass is a computer conference system from SoftArc Inc, providing a graphical user interface makes it easy to send and receive electronic mail, share files, and use electronic conferencing to exchange ideas and participate in online chats. FirstClass enables students to communicate both asynchronously and synchronously in a number of forms. For example there are distinct areas for functions such as social chatting, second hand book sales in addition to teaching areas for the various units studied.

This paper reports on the use of two teaching areas, the bulletin board for the first year macroeconomic unit and the tutorial group platforms. The bulletin board was an open forum accessible to all enrolled students and staff involved in the unit. This forum was used by staff to disseminate information relating to the unit content, assignments and assessments and for general questions from students to both staff and other students. The tutorial group platforms resembled on-campus tutorials in that access was restricted to the members of the tutorial group and the tutor assigned to the group.

The tutorial program

Five tutorial exercises were set, each consisting of six questions to be completed over a two week period. To promote collaborative learning, each student was instructed to take responsibility for one question and after researching the topic, post his/her answer on the group tutorial board. Comments and discussion were encouraged to promote interdependence and increase the level of support and motivation experienced by students. One member of the group was required to collate final answers and submit the group's exercise to the tutor. Group ownership of the exercise was encouraged by the fact that each member of the group shared the same mark for the exercise yet individual accountability was also present, since students ultimately held responsibility for the final format of their assigned question. The key elements identified in the literature as promoting collaborative learning, namely interdependence, individual accountability, interpersonal and group skills and group processing were encouraged.

The questions set in the exercises resembled as closely as possible the work being completed by on-campus students in tutorial groups. As all students complete the same final exam, equity in terms of the material completed was an objective.

The tutor's role was complementary to both the group and the individual student's work. The syndicate group became the focus of learning with the tutor, no longer at the centre of the learning process, initiating active group approaches to learning and assisting individuals in coming to terms with the theory. This decreased both the isolation and the response time many off-campus students experience when difficulties are encountered.

Evaluation

Methodology

A follow-up questionnaire, given to those who returned the first, was undertaken near the completion of the semester to determine any change in attitude and the degree of satisfaction with the course and its delivery. In the second year, only one questionnaire was administered to all off campus students, combining questions for background information and questions directly on the study program delivered.

Table 1 illustrates the number of students participating in each survey. In the 1996 survey, eighty-three of the 206 first questionnaires were returned giving a response rate of 40%. The second questionnaire, given to the 83 respondents, had a response rate of 33.7%, with only 21.4% of the respondents participating in the online program. In 1997, the response rate overall was slightly less, with one third of the respondents participating in the online program.

Interviews with staff involved in the unit and the Faculty CMC Coordinator were also undertaken. The material for this project is therefore drawn from student surveys, observation, staff interviews, and informal feedback through email, conferencing messages, and telephone conversations with students.

Limitations

Secondly, the number of students participating in the online program over both years was below expectations. This was a reflection of factors beyond the control of the economic staff such as technical difficulties faced by students including lack of access to and confidence with the technology.

In addition, measuring outcomes based on grades is limited as it fails to recognise the intrinsic values that may be gained from collaborative learning. Further a myriad of factors can influence student outcomes and controlling for each individual factor is not possible.

Survey results

Analysis of the usefulness of CMC, summarised in Table 2, highlighted the open access to the tutor/lecturer as the greatest potential benefit of the program. Prior to commencing the tutorial program in 1996, 61% of online respondents thought that easier access to staff and other students would be beneficial and improve their understanding of the material. At the end of the semester, 83% of respondents involved in the tutorial program claimed this a major benefit. Two-thirds of the respondents thought the feedback from group members and generally being part of a group was beneficial but only one third would argue strongly in favour of this aspect. Half the students were positive about the program overall, while about the same number focused on the extra work created.

	1996	1997
Access to Lecturer and Students	83%	87.5%
Group Membership	67%	62.5%
Program Overall	50%	75%

For those respondents engaged in CMC in the second year of the program, all felt part of a group and for approximately two-thirds, 62.5%, a social bond developed. For 87.5% easier access to staff and other students was important and helpful with their study, viewing the feedback received from the group as useful, although it did not necessarily mean that students kept up to date with their work. Three quarters of the respondents did not feel their workload had been increased, nor their flexibility reduced. The overall benefits of the program outweighed the costs for all participants.

For those respondents not adopting CMC in their mode of study in 1996, 40% felt it would be of great benefit in terms of contact with staff and students and also to facilitate their understanding of the economic content of the unit. Many however were undecided but only 7.3% indicated it would not be of any advantage. In the second year of the program, 94% of respondents not adopting CMC in their mode of study felt that access to a group of students would have been of assistance in their study but that this would have increased the workload for 81% and decreased the flexibility for 93%. Overall 81% of respondents not adopting CMC were satisfied studying as an off campus student, although almost one third did admit to not keeping up to date with their studies.

Qualitative aspects

Isolation

For those students connected electronically, access to staff and other students was perceived to be the greatest benefit.

I find writing out queries and receiving written answers preferable to phoning staff.

Four of us were chatting simultaneously last night, and as we reside in different parts of the state and interstate, this must say something positive about the benefits of CMC.

Access

The greatest problem students faced was the difficulty experienced in accessing the system particularly in the initial year. Of the respondents using the system, 25% saw this as the major disadvantage associated with the program.

....system great benefit to off-campus students but access sometimes impossible.

Too much time was taken up trying to log on to the system.

Flexibility

The need to keep up to date with the fortnightly tutorial exercises greatly reduced the flexibility many students expect from distance education. The off-campus mode of study may be a conscious selection to enable the student to work at his or her own pace and to work independently of others. On the other hand, some students lack the self discipline to work without the pressures of time and place. The asynchronous feature allows the learner more time to think about his/her contribution but by reducing the pressure to respond, it is easier for the student to drop out of the group. This did occur with some of the participants blaming difficulty in accessing the system while for others the combination of study, work and family commitments proved too much.

Cost

The uncertainty of the system particularly given the high costs involved in getting established was also an important consideration for many. In 1996, 29% claimed costs, either in terms of equipment or telephone charges, as the reason for non participation. The uncertainty of the possible benefits to be derived against the high costs was the deciding factor.

Group learning and group participation, whether online or face-to-face, are not automatic learning styles and while some groups worked very well and developed strong collaborative skills, others struggled. One participant in the tutorial program felt that the $65.00 she spent on telephone calls over the semester to access the system was not excessive but she was disappointed with the participation and contribution of the other members of the group.

Course content

The most challenging issue is adapting of course content and pedagogy to encompass the use of CMC and capitalise on the potential benefits of collaborative learning. This has to be treated as an evolutionary process which is not fully achievable in one or two semesters. Limitations with the text based nature of computer conferencing constrain many of the activities associated with economic learning but the problem is not likely to remain for long. In addition the text formatting is very time consuming when collating answers and needs to be made simpler to avoid students having to put in so much time in the future.

The system also allows for the provision of up to date material and for distance education students this is an exciting development. Previously, printed materials required a lead time of at least six months. Now current articles can be scanned and posted to a bulletin board for discussion or links to appropriate web addresses incorporated at any time.

Workload

The issue of the workload involved with catering for the varied needs of each group of students has also arisen for staff, particularly during the transition stage when not all distance students are online. This has increased the management and co-ordination role of the unit with, for example, groups of students having part of their assessment in different forms. As a consequence, equity has also become a consideration in the setting of varied assessment.

The positive aspect for staff is the easier access and interaction with a larger number of students. The asynchronous feature allows individual students to be given assistance without detracting from the group activity. This was particularly useful around assignment time when some students had more questions and needed more clarification than others. Assignment work was a separate task to the group work completed through CMC.

CMC also provides time flexibility for staff. Most staff told students at the beginning of the semester when they would log-on to the system and the response rate to queries that they could expect. However, the nature of the discourse does allow the teacher time for considered responses which has probably improved the quality of the response. The downside to this experienced by many staff is the lack of typing skills and the frustration at having to type every interaction with these students.

Staff have also experienced a loss of control to the extent that technological problems have interfered with course delivery and the submission of assessment yet these difficulties are beyond the staff member's control.

Professional development

The professional development provided by the university with respect to the introduction of CMC has been haphazard and staff in economics have met informally but frequently to discuss issues as they arise. For example, the handling of the problem of lurkers, the timing of intervention in group discussion, and the size and formation of groups have been debated. These problems have been greatly helped by the appointment of a CMC Coordinator for the Faculty who has been based on the Warrnambool campus. Staff have found the informal "corridor discussions" invaluable. Formal training has now been established in the Faculty and this should improve staff's understanding and appreciation of computer mediated communication and its application to the collaborative learning process.

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Bibliography

Biggs, J.B. and Moore, P.J. (1994). The Process of Learning. Prentice Hall, Sydney, Australia.

Candy, P.C., Crebert, G. and O'Leary, J. (1994). Developing Lifelong Learners through Undergraduate Education. Commissioned Report, National Board of Employment, Education and Training, No 28, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Cohen, E.G. (1984). Talking and working together: Status, interaction and learning. In Peterson P.L., Wilkinson L.C. & Hallinan M. (Eds), The Social Context of Instruction. Academic Press, New York.

Coombs, N. (1993). CMC: The Medium and the Message. Rochester Institute of Technology, Electronic Journal of Communication, Vol 3, No 2.

Goodwin, C., Graham, M., and Scarborough, H. (1999). Implementing computer mediated communication in an undergraduate course: A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln.htm, forthcoming.

Harasim, L.(1990). Online Education: An Environment for Collaboration and Intellectual Amplification. In Harasim, L.(ed.), Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. Praeger, New York.

Harasim, L. (1991). Teaching by Computer Conferencing. In Miller, A.J. (Ed), Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher Education and Human Resource Development. Proceedings from an International Symposium on Computer Conferencing at the Ohio State University, Colombus, Ohio, June.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Kaye, A.R. (1992). Learning Together Apart. In Kaye, A.R. (ed), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing. The Najaden Papers, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Kaye, A. (1989). Computer-Mediated Communication and Distance Education. In Mason, R. & Kaye, A. (ed), Mindweave: Computer-Mediated Communication and Distance Education. Pergamon, Oxford.

Kerr, E. and Hiltz, S.R. (1982). Computer-Mediated Communication Systems: Status and Evaluation. Academic Press, New York.

Kimber, D. (1996). Collaborative Learning in Management Education: Issues, benefits, problems and solutions: A literature review. ultiBASE.

Kiesler, S. (1992). Talking, Teaching and Learning in Network Groups: Lessons from Research. In Kaye, A.R. (ed), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing. The Najaden Papers, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. Routledge, London

Mason, R. (1994). Using Communications Media in Open and Flexible Learning. Open and Distance Learning Series, Kogan Page, London.

Mason, R. and Kaye, T. (1990). Towards a New Paradigm for Distance Education. In Harasim L.(ed.), Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. Praeger, New York.

Moore, M.G. (1991). Computer Conferencing in the Context of Theory and Practice of Distance Education. In Miller, A.J. (ed), Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher Education and Human resource Development. Proceedings from an International Symposium on Computer Conferencing at the Ohio State University, Colombus, Ohio, June.

Morris, R. and Hayes, C. (1997). Small Group Work: Are group assignments a legitimate form of assessment? In Pospisil, R. and Willcoxson, L. (Eds), Learning Through Teaching, p229-233. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1997. Perth: Murdoch University. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1997/morris.html

Soper, J.C. and Lynn, M.P. (1994). Should we mandate the teaching of economics? The Journal of Private Enterprise, 10(1, Summer), 65-77.

Torres, R.M., Budk,e W., Loyd, M., McCaslin N.L. and Miller, A.J. (1991). Examining Computer Conferencing as a Technique for Enhancing Personnel Development Activities. In Miller A.J. (ed), Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher Education and Human Resource Development. Proceedings from an International Symposium on Computer Conferencing at the Ohio State University, Colombus, Ohio, June.

Waggoner, M. (1992). A case study approach to evaluation of computer conferencing. In Kaye, A.R. (ed), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing. The Najaden Papers, Springer-Verlag, New York

Wells, R. (1993). Computer-Mediated Communication for Distance Education: An International Review of Design, Teaching, and Institutional Issues. Research Mongraphs No.6, American Center for the Study of Distance Education, College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University.

Watts, M. and Lynch, G.J. (1989). The Principles Course Revisited. American Economic Review: Proceedings, 79(May), 236-241.

Appendix A

1996 Background Questionnaire

Section A: All participants to answer

1.	Age	1 17-19	2 20-29	3 30-39	4 40-49	5 50+
2.	Sex	1 Male		2 Female

3.	Which one of these groups best describes the people living in your household.
	Single Couple (no children) Family (children under 15 years) Family (Children over 15 years) Couple (children not at home)	1 2 3 4 5
4.	Which of the following groups best describes your occupation
	Professional Management Support Trade Home Duties Full time student	1 2 3 4 5
5.	Which of the following groups best describes your location.
	Capital City Provincial City (more than 20,000 people) Country Town Rural Overseas	1 2 3 4 5
6.	Education prior to enrolling at Deakin University
	Secondary TAFE Other Post Secondary Diploma Undergraduate Degree	1 2 3 4 5
7.	Year of Enrolment at Deakin University
	1996 1995 1994 1993 Pre 1993	1 2 3 4 5
8.	How Many Subjects are you studying this semester?
		1 2 3 4
9.	How Many Subjects did you Study last Semester?
		1 2 3 4

10.	What were your Grades in Subject 1 last semester? Please list the number N=1,P=2,C=3,D=4,HD=5
11.	What were your Grades in Subject 2 last semester? Please list the number N=1,P=2,C=3,D=4,HD=5
12.	What were your Grades in Subject 3 last semester? Please list the number N=1,P=2,C=3,D=4,HD=5
13.	What were your Grades in Subject 4 last semester? Please list the number N=1,P=2,C=3,D=4,HD=5

Section B: Answer if your are using First Class conferencing in MEE102
(If you are not using First Class Conferencing in MEE 102 please go to Section C)

14.	What other subjects are you studying using the Conferencing System?
	MAA102 Accounting MMM 132 Management MSQ 171 Business Statistics None of the above	1 2 3 4
15.	Do you know anyone outside your group doing MEE102?
	Yes No	1 2
16.	How many times do you use a computer each week
	Never 1-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 times	1 2 3 4

17.	Rank the following statement "I have a working knowledge of the basic programs on my computer"
	1 Strongly Disagree	2 Disagree	3 Undecided	4 Agree	5 Strongly Agree

18.	In order to access Deakin Interchange have you:
	purchased your own computer and modem used a computer at work used a friend's computer other (please specify) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------	1 2 3 4
19.	If you purchased a computer what were your setting up expenses?
	Less than $1,000 $1000-1999 $2000-3999 $4000-5999 Greater than $5000	1 2 3 4 5
20.	Did you have problems accessing First Class for MEE 102?
	Yes No If YES briefly state why. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------	1 2 3 4
21.	If YES to Q.20 how much lapsed before the problem was sorted out.
	Less than 1 day 1-7 days More than 1 week Still not resolved	1 2 3 4

	Rank your answers to the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5
	1 Strongly Disagree	2 Disagree	3 Undecided	4 Agree	5 Strongly Agree
22.	I feel confident about using Interchange in my studies.
	1	2	3	4	5
23.	The Faculty requirement regarding the use of Interchange in the Bachelor of Commerce is reasonable.
	1	2	3	4	5
24.	Being able to contact other students via computer mediated communication will be a useful facility.
	1	2	3	4	5
25.	Interchange will give me greater access to the teaching staff in MEE102.
	1	2	3	4	5
26.	I have a general interest in economics.
	1	2	3	4	5
27.	Interchange will facilitate my understanding of the economic content of MEE102.
	1	2	3	4	5
28.	Some student assessment based on the use of Interchange is acceptable.
	1	2	3	4	5

Other comments

29.	Do you have access to a computer
	Yes No	1 2
	If NO go to Q.31
30.	How many times do you use a computer each week
	Never 1-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 times	1 2 3 4

	Rank your answers to the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5
	1 Strongly Disagree	2 Disagree	3 Undecided	4 Agree	5 Strongly Agree
31.	"I have a working knowledge of the basic programs on my computer"
	1	2	3	4	5
32.	The Faculty requirement regarding the use of Interchange in the Bachelor of Commerce is reasonable.
	1	2	3	4	5
33.	Being able to contact other students via computer mediated communication would be a useful facility.
	1	2	3	4	5
34.	First Class would give me greater access to the teaching staff in MEE 102.
	1	2	3	4	5
35.	I have a general interest in economics.
	1	2	3	4	5
36.	Interchange may have facilitated my understanding of the economic content of MEE 102.
	1	2	3	4	5
37.	Some student assessment based on the use of First Class is acceptable.
	1	2	3	4	5

38.

Why did you elect not to use Interchange in your study of MEE102?

------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER COMMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for participating

Questionnaire 2 1996: Online participants

Comments

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaire 2 1996: Non participants

Comments

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1997 Questionnaire for online participants

1.

Age

17-19 1

20-29 2

30-39 3

40-49 4

50+  5

Answer.....

2.

Sex

Male Female

1 2

Answer.....

3.	Which of the following groups best describes your occupation
	Professional Management Support Trade Home Duties Full time student	1 2 3 4 5	Answer.....
4.	Which of the following groups best describes your location.
	Capital City Provincial City (>20,000 people) Country Town Rural Overseas	1 2 3 4 5	Answer.....
5.	Education prior to enrolling at Deakin University
	Secondary TAFE Other Post Secondary Diploma Undergraduate Degree Other	1 2 3 4 5	Answer.....
6.	How many hours a week did you spend studying MEE102?
	Less than 5 hours 6-8 hours 9-10 hours More than 10 hours	1 2 3 4	Answer.....
7.	Did you value having contact with other students studying MEE 102?
	Yes No	1 2	Answer.....
8.	If Yes to Q7, was this contact with other students using (mark more than one if appropriate)
	Only Firstclass Email Telephone Personal	1 2 3 4	Answer.....

	Rank your answers to the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5
	1 Strongly Disagree	2 Disagree	3 Undecided	4 Agree	5 Strongly Agree
9.	I have a general interest in economics
	1	2	3	4	5
10.	I found the economic content of MEE 102 interesting.
	1	2	3	4	5
11.	My experience with MEE 102 would encourage me to undertake further studies in economics.
	1	2	3	4	5
12.	Access to teaching staff members was adequate
	1	2	3	4	5
13.	The feedback received from teaching staff enhanced my learning
	1	2	3	4	5
14.	I was satisfied studying MEE 102 as an off-campus student
	1	2	3	4	5
15.	I kept up to date with my studies
	1	2	3	4	5
16.	Access to a group of students studying MEE 102 was of assistance in my study
	1	2	3	4	5
17.	The fortnightly tutorial program unnecessarily increased the workload in this subject
	1	2	3	4	5
18.	The fortnightly tutorial program reduced the flexibility I expect from off-campus study
	1	2	3	4	5
19.	I felt part of my tutorial group
	1	2	3	4	5
20.	I developed a social bond with other members of my tutorial group
	1	2	3	4	5
21.	The feedback received from my tutorial group enhanced my learning
	1	2	3	4	5
22.	I found economics interesting after participating in the First Class tutorial program
	1	2	3	4	5
23.	The tutorial program in First Class had a positive impact on my ability to learn and understand economics.
	1	2	3	4	5
24.	The fortnightly tutorial program encouraged me to keep up to date with my study in MEE 102
	1	2	3	4	5
25.	The benefits gained from using First Class justified the costs incurred
	1	2	3	4	5

Further comments

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1997 Questionnaire for non-participants

Thank you for participating

Authors: Mary Graham and Helen Scarborough School of Economics, Deakin University PO Box 423, Warrnambool 3280 Australia grahamm@deakin.edu.au Please cite as: Graham, M. and Scarborough, H. (1999). Computer mediated communication and collaborative learning in an undergraduate distance education environment.Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 20-46. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15/graham.html