In spite of the Net's growth, most people remain on the sidelines, reading media reports but staying a cautious distance away from time-consuming forays into the medium. In higher education, many faculty and students have begun using electronic mail (e-mail), but are intimidated by the full menu of resources and tools available on the Internet. While there are pockets of technophiles who utilize Internet resources regularly, the larger community of students and faculty remains largely unaware of the full array of resources available to them.
One way to look at the growth of the Internet is as a new technology being adopted. Rogers (1995) has developed an influential model for the adoption and diffusion of innovations within organizations; theorists continue to emphasize that today's organizations must be willing and ready to undergo continual change (e.g., Senge, 1990). Seen in this way, a department head or office manager might develop a plan for implementing the technology, similar to the installation of a new computer or LAN.
The Internet differs, however, from many technological innovations in that it seems to be largely driven from the bottom--from the academic community and from individuals and small groups of grass-roots enthusiasts. Organizations find themselves responding to an unplanned cultural shift, rather than implementing a new technology from the top down. Moreover, academic units in higher education often lack the cohesion of a traditional business office. Professors are highly autonomous workers who spend more time interacting with students than with colleagues. Developing a consensus for technological change can be a serious challenge in such settings.
Consistent with this adoption/diffusion approach, the Internet can be seen as a tool to be utilized by existing organizations and individuals. Through the Internet, an individual may solve a problem, find an answer to a question, or communicate with another professional on a project. Another way of viewing the Internet, however, is as a second culture or community. The Internet exhibits all the key elements of a culture, including language, symbols, rituals, status, and other meaning-conveying forms (December, 1993; North, 1995). Individuals may "enter" this environment, become initiated into various sub-groups, and interact with other community members. At the group level, an entire company or department may introduce its members to the Internet culture.
This broader conception underscores the depth of change that the Internet poses to existing organizations. One cannot expect to simply "tack on" the Internet as a cosmetic addition to an existing structure; as a new and competing culture, the Internet is bound to threaten existing conventions and cultural practices.
The gap between the preexisting local community (typically an academic or business unit) and the virtual Internet community is worthy of study. How and why do individuals move toward the Internet culture? How does an entire group of people make the move? What factors are at play, and what can be done to facilitate the change?
This paper draws on our own efforts to bring our local academic culture in line with the Internet culture. Over the last 16 months, we have been using the Internet within our academic unit, the instructional technology (IT) program at the University of Colorado at Denver (UCD). We have been intrigued to observe the response of faculty and students as they gravitate toward the Net. An expected normal distribution occurs, ranging from anxiety, frustration, and resistance to utilitarian accommodation to excitement and immersion. In some, these differing responses reflect personal stages of growth over time. We hope the IT community can overcome initial fears and frustrations and move toward mature utilization of Internet resources much as they might acquire a second language through a semester abroad program. Our hopes, however, have not yet become reality.
IT Connections has been accessible on the World-Wide Web since the spring of 1994, when it appeared in the Educational Technology section of CERN's virtual library, Stanford's Connections to Cognitive and Psychological Sciences, the Curriculum and Instruction section of EINet Galaxy, and the Education section of John December's list.
The overall goals for student (and faculty) online access involve the ability to engage actively within local and virtual communities toward the social construction of public knowledge. Specifically, we want IT students and and faculty to utilize online resources in order to:
Our tactical approach was to eliminate any direct reference to such tools. Martin, who works as a software engineer in his daytime job, designed command scripts which enable users to perform complex UNIX operations with simple commands. The command, "connect", for example, will bring up IT Connections with the Lynx browser, a tool specifically designed for new users at the University of Kansas. Lynx supports a variety of Internet tools, all in a seamless hypertext environment. Hiding the technical details, Lynx allows users to focus on the object of their search. For local users, IT Connections serves as their window to Internet services in the field of Education. The single command "connect" allows the user direct access to IT Connections without requiring technical knowledge of the undergirding details. A similar command, "aid", invokes Lynx to bring up the Online Helpdesk.
Another tool, "makepage", was developed to allow new users to immerse themselves in online authoring without passing through the initiation rites of UNIX. The single command "makepage" creates for the user a public directory with an index template. It sets all the appropriate security permissions to allow public browsing of the new directory. The new user is not encumbered with these distracting cognitive tasks. After invoking the command, users can immediately begin editing an html template, customizing it to their own specifications as they begin to mold a personal homepage from a generic model.
Such conveniences do not come without a price. Users who wish to understand the technical details of UNIX and html are not directly rewarded with this approach. But the templates and shells provided by the tools have opened the door for many users whose interests are focused beyond the technology.
Undeterred by the resistance shown to the new tools, Martin joined faculty member Brent Wilson and a team of students to study the issue. The Internet Task Force was created in the fall of 1994, with the following broad objectives:
Constraints. The potential for individual expression is mitigated by a number of difficulties that can limit a person's participation:
Constraints. The new culture of the Internet poses new challenges:
Constraints accompanying this rapid growth include the following considerations:
Constraint. Non-linear browsing requires readers to make critical choices about which passage they will read next. Getting "lost in hyperspace" is a problem for new users. There are metacognitive demands associated with this feature of hypertext, making some users uncomfortable (Barnes, 1994).
Constraint. Lack of coordination between resource designers can lead to confusion for the user. Users are left to figure out the nuances of each interface and to account for contradictory responses and differences in operation.
Constraint. The manner which information is updated is uncontrolled and often sporadic. Information resources are volatile. What is here today is gone tomorrow. Hypertext nodes (URLs) and the hardware platforms that support them are constantly changing.
Constraint. Remote associations do not lend themselves to consistent availability, reliance, task management, and hand-holding. A close dependency in relationships can be more difficult to develop over distances.
In the spring of 1995, Brent's doctoral seminar went the next step and began using the Internet seriously as a research tool and as an object of study. The 13 class members were about evenly divided between students with an interest in technology and other students who took the course as a program requirement. So far (10 weeks into the semester), we have spent roughly a third of our classtime exploring the Internet, developing homepages, conducting searches, downloading files, and participating (electively) in listserv discussion groups.
A group interview with the 13 students was conducted 9 weeks into the semester. This group interview served as an important source of information concerning students' motives, attitudes, and perceptions of the Internet as a learning tool. The following questions were sent out on e-mail in anticipation of the interview, and guided our discussion.
Analysis of students' written responses are still in progress. We have organized group interview comments around several key factors that affect students' choices to use or avoid e-mail and the Internet.
A goal to use the technology can come from a class assignment or expectation, but also from students themselves. Carl described a personal learning goal he created: To create an electronic portfolio showcasing his work. A portfolio is a major requirement of the doctoral program; Carl decided to do his electronically. With this goal in mind, Carl's heavy participation on the Internet had a focus and purpose.
Ironically, the higher someone values the technology, the more extreme the phobia can become.
Many people have deeply ingrained feelings of incompetence regarding technology. These feelings of inadequacy, when reinforced by past experiences of failure, can lead to a condition of "learned helplessness" where the person quits trying and becomes entrenched in the avoidance of technology. Persisting avoidance behavior only widens the knowledge gap, leading to a vicious cycle of avoidance, growing incompetence, and feelings of inadequacy.
Several students in our interview reported a need for unpressed time to dabble, observe others, and become comfortable with the technology. Deb said, "It takes me awhile to process, then when I get it--[snaps finger]--I go for it." Kate's strategy is similar: "I soak myself in it for a long time, then I'll use it after I'm comfortable." Kate reported that, because her learning style is conceptual and highly visual, she is developing her own job aids to support her performance. Alta has a friend who lives close by, just across town. But she enjoys communicating back and forth with this friend via e-mail. It's a safe way to practice her new skill. "My daughter and son are both in college. I found out they were communicating over e-mail and it made me curious. If it had been an assignment, though, I would have thought differently about it."
Frank, for example, commented on the problem of information overload on the net. He sees the Internet as an open-ended tool, but "the World-Wide Web is a garage sale--There's so much junk out there! I have to be selective in how I spend my time and what resources I use."
Deb described some of the interpersonal dynamics involved in e-mail communications. She found it amazing that the co-worker in the next cubicle would send e-mail to send simple messages rather than just saying "Hey!" across the partition. She also described times when people would post messages laced with an emotional undercurrent, concerning job conditions or personal items. Deb gets a message like this and replies, "We need to talk." At that point, the communication returns to face-to-face.
Finding a good time to get online is a problem for Alta. "If you look at my times, you'll see that I'm on at 5:00 am. I can't get on during the day--the modem pool is overloaded. Sunday night is impossible." So she logs on before work, which leaves her little time to reflect and respond to mail, even when she is inclined to do so.
Jack had similar access problems. He lives outside the local dialing area, but eventually learned how to telnet from one computer to another. This made communication from home to the university economically feasible.
Frank agreed with Lynn. "I used the 'private' command to lock up my homepage until I'm ready to show it off. I'm spending time developing the text document. I want to make sure my stuff is substantive and cogent. I don't want the whole world thinking I'm a fool!"
This two-week period of electronic support uncovered an apparent gender difference in participation. Most of the male students (eight out of ten) tried out the tools that were offered, and most of the females (four out of six) did not. While the numbers are not large enough to draw any conclusions, we were curious to explore the issue.
In a private posting sent only to the women, we noted the discrepancy and asked them to share their thoughts. From most of the responses it was difficult to pinpoint significant causes. "I didn't have time." "I was preocupied with different issues." "I read the memo, then forgot about it." But one response was quite direct:
Quite honestly I feel as if Orwell's "1984" has arrived. I feel very disconcerted that my privacy is being invaded. The fact that a total, well almost total, stranger is sending me e-mail about what procedures I have or have not used is invasive.This student was troubled to find that someone could monitor her online activity. The significance of the issue to this woman is apparent from her response. On reflection, Deb's response was understandable. Although we discussed in class the issues of public and private settings and the fact that setting homepages to public allowed the whole world to watch us, we had not fully explored the implications. This student had grown accustomed to thinking that all online activities are private, just as e-mail is private. The sudden recognition that others could and would be observing her home page development came as a shock.
Martin responded and provided reassurance of his intentions:
I'm sorry you feel I have invaded your privacy. That was not my intention. I announced that I would be monitoring your progress, but perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit. If I haven't yet made it clear, the world has access to the information in your public directory. If you want to keep the "strangers" out, you can invoke the following commands...Because of the generally good relationship between Martin and class members, the student was quick to ease the tension:
Martin,While this exchange reflect a single woman's perspective, there is no doubt that other students may feel uncomfortable with the level of public inspection available on the Net. Instruction and support of homepage development needs to make these issues very clear to students. Certainly privacy on the Net is an area worthy of continued study.
Please do not take offense at what I said. I do understand the research use of this and I fully support it. I think that in general this whole issue is probably one that needs reflection and discussion. Let us continue on.
My name is Emily. I live in Minnesota. I have a dog, a lizard and a brother. I want to visit everywhere in the world. I like Adam's homepage. I don't like boys."
It isn't often that graduate students get to share the same learning experience that third graders encounter. The questions are similar. The wonderment is the same. We ask whether it will be useful -- a question third-graders don't typically think to ask. But in nearly every other aspect, we are discovering something totally new and different, just like our third grade colleagues.
Many teachers--especially math educators--are familiar with the Vygotskian expression, the "zone of proximal development" or ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZDP is the zone or range between what we are able to do independently and what we can do with support from knowledgable people around us. Vygotsky theorized that most learning happens within this zone.
Vygotsky observed that having the mere presence of co-learners can extend one's own abilities in the learning process. We can monitor our own progress by observing what others are doing. We derive validation, stimuli, perspective, and scaffolding by observing the performance of our peers.
Vygotsky was a humanist whose work emerged in Soviet Russia, ironically during the height of the Stalinist period. Like Piaget, Vygotsky's research technique was primarily observation. He observed how human beings behave in the process of learning. He observed that it is a human trait for learners to mimic others. "Human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which others grow into the intellectual life around them. Any higher mental function was external before it was internal. The path from object to learner and from learner to object passes through another person" (Vygotsky, 1978, p30).
Applying this concept to our homepage development, we can see value in providing an open environment for such a project. What each of us is doing (or not doing) allows others to gain perspective on their own development.
If one person has a very primitive start, looking at other "beginnings" provides validation that it is OK to start simple. Creative designs in our content we choose can enable others to think creatively about their own content. The techniques we apply can trigger ideas for others. Artisans develop their crafts as they compare their own creations with those in the surrounding domain.
Homepage design is a new form of human expression. There are no rules of content. There are no acknowledged experts. No universal standards of criticism. We can only learn from each other, and from our third-grade colleagues.
In our group interview with the doctoral seminar, we discussed the subject of public vs. private access to our work. Some people expressed that they would rather keep their homepage private until they have something worth while to present to the world. Others agreed with one woman who suggested to put a message, "Dear World, Please don't be too critical as I engage in this new learning experience."
Some of us find comfort in the knowledge that there are learners all over the world who are engaged in a similar experience. What our doctoral students are doing this semester is something thousands of learners are doing around the world, in grade schools, in universities, and in professional capacities. It doesn't take too much surfing to find homepages under construction. If we choose, we can extend our own ZPD to include the virtual community. Tens of thousands will be engaged in the process a few months hence. Some of them will benefit from the work we are now doing. The point is that the ZPD can extend well beyond our local environment.
But for many adults, the idea of presenting unfinished work to the public is disturbing. Some of our students expressed disdain over the poor quality of information they are finding as they surf the Internet. As doctoral students, they are compelled to withhold "publication" of their homepage until it is in a finished form. That decision is absolutely theirs, and we have responded with support tools to control file permissions with the simple commands "public", "private" and "class" (for local-only access).
As we observe the "virtual community", we see constant changes, revisions, and updates to online homepage documents. This is true even for the most established Web pages (e.g. CERN). The desire for "private" (under development) status may be a vestige of a previous publishing paradigm. As users become more familiar with the "under construction" status of most online resources, we suspect that they will be more willing to share their "in-process" work.
Virtual environments can significantly augment local learning environments. But any attempt to view the two as separate, disconnected entities leaves the virtual unreachable and the local out of touch. Once local learning communities become thoroughly attached to the net, we will begin to see the network inheriting some of the human affordances of continuity, stability, scaffolding, task management, and accommodation of personal style.
Our observations have heightened our awareness of the difficulty in bringing two cultures together. Users must surpass a number of barriers as they become initiates into the Internet culture. We found the technical barriers to be the easiest ones to solve. But there are many more that are rooted in culture, gender, lifestyles, learning styles, paradigms, and comfort zones. These cultural aspects of Internet use provide rich opportunities for further research, theory development, and guidance for practice.
Providing clear guidance for practitioners is a challenge as educators try to bridge the gap between local and virtual learning environments. Many of the problems we have discussed are new and in need of further study. Understanding the affordances, constraints, and factors affecting use should help educators get a better grasp of methods to bridge the gap. In this light, we offer the following recommendations to educators using the Internet:
Bagdekian, B. (1990). The media monopoly, 3rd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.
Barnes, S. (1994). Hypertext literacy. Interpersonal computing and technology. 2:4. gopher://guvm.ccf.georgetown.edu/S/LISTSERV/ipct-j/ipctv2n4/barnes.ipctv2n4/
Blurton, C. (1994). Using the Internet for teaching, learning, and research. In D. Halpern & Associates (Eds.), Changing college classrooms: New teaching and learning strategies for an increasingly complex world (pp. 191-212). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
December, J. (1993) Characteristics of an oral culture in discourses on the net. Paper presented at the twelfth annual Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition, University Park, Pennsylvania, July 8, 1993. http://www.rpi.edu/Internet/Guides/decemj/papers/orality-literacy.txt
Friere, P. (1993) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Fromm, E. (1965) Escape from freedom. New York: Avon.
Gibson, J.J. (1977) Notes on direct perception and indirect apprehension. In Edward Reed and Rebecca Jones (eds.) Reasons for realism: Selected Essays of James J. Gibson. pp. 289-293. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gurak, L. (1995). Cybercasting about cyberspace. Computer Mediated Magazine, 2:1. http://www.rpi.edu/~decemj/cmc/mag/1995/jan/gurak.html
Harasim, L. (1993) Global Networks: Computers and International Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press
Lemke, J. L. (1993). Hypermedia and higher education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century. ISSN: 1064-4326, vol. 1, no. 2. Archived as LEMKE IPCTV1N2 on LISTSERV@GUVM.
Mitchell, B., & Kapor, M. (1994). Digital communities: Urban planning and design in cyberspace. Lecture notes from a graduate seminar offered by the School of Architecture and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://alberti.mit.edu/arch/4.207/homepage.html
Norman, Donald A (1993) Things that make us smart: Defining human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
North, Tim (1995). Internet and usenet global computer networks: an investigation of their culture and its effect on new users in higher education. Masters Thesis: Curtin University http://foo.curtin.edu.au/thesis/default.html
Perkins, D. N. (1995). Preface: Minds in the 'hood. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications, in press.
Postman, N (1993). Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Ryder, M. (1994). Augmentation of the intellect: Network tools and environments for learning. Unpublished manuscript: University of Colorado at Denver http://www.cudenver.edu/~mryder/augment.html
Roszak, T. (1994). The cult of information: A neo-Luddite treatise on high-tech, artificial intelligence, and the true art of thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Sherry, L. (1996, October). Supporting a networked community of
learners. Tech Trends, 28-32.
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/education/edschool/TECH_TRENDS.html
Vygotsky, Lev (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[1] Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1995, SIG-ENET Session, Carl Reimann, chair.
We wish to thank Lorraine Sherry, Jim Teslow, Jere Paulemo, George Meuth, Julie McCahan, and Mary McKeever for their contributions to the Internet Task Force. We particularly want to thank members of the doctoral seminar who participated as co-researchers and "subjects" of the study. They include Curtis Farrell, Craig Cutts, Darla Fabry, Janell Sueltz, James Meurer, Karen Myers, Lee Ann Rawley, Philip Koneman, Robert Thompson, Steven Sanford, Marsha Celestae, and Olive Ann Slotta. Copies of this paper are available online at http://www.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aera95.html.
[2]Martin Ryder is a development engineer and former school teacher. He works for Storage Technology Corporation in Louisville Colorado.
[3]Brent Wilson is professor of Instructional Technology at the University of Colorado at Denver.
[4] Programs in instructional technology are housed within the Division of Technology and Special Services, which is within the Graduate School of Education. To complicate the matter, IT programs are undergoing a name change to "information and learning technologies" or ILT. For convenience, we refer to our program as the "IT department" in this paper.
[5] Lycos server at Carnagie Mellon Univ. included 2.2 million unique documents in its March 20, 1995 search catalog: http://lycos.cs.cmu.edu/lycos-docs.html